Eagle1970 Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 Just now, ThenNow said: I also think it important for those who may have significant disappointment in the future to being tempering hope with a pragmatic, left brain takeover. That actually made me laugh! I'm already down to zero dollars (roughly). So consider it tempered. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said: I can't even imagine a valid claimant voting for approval, unless they are desperate for a couple of dollars. Why would this win approval. Why would attorneys support it. I simply don't get it. Because of the alternatives. Vote against, and then what? BSA stays in bankruptcy limbo forever, bleeding money out. The victims never see a dime and eventually BSA does go into some kind of Chapter 7 liquidation. BSA exits bankruptcy with no deal and is immediately subject to over 900 lawsuits. Then it is a race for the courthouse door: victims in lookback window states get first dibs on whatever BSA assets are left and insurance company claims. The litigation goes on for another decade. Victims in non-lookback states get absolutely nothing. I think this is what TCC meant when it talked about trying to avoid years and years of litigation. Edited July 1, 2021 by CynicalScouter 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 (edited) 13 minutes ago, ThenNow said: Oops! I meant to comment on the Plus-Size person of the opposite of male gender having not yet exercised her vocal cords. Agreed. However, I am now in step-up therapy driven by the case. In my case, that means a tailored IOP. My treatment has elevated to twice per week with my primary (abuse and trauma) therapist and one day a week with her staff "intercessional" therapist. The latter basically makes sure I don't fall apart after two weekly sessions of trauma work. There's a point at which it is crushing not to have resolved. Twiddling while legislatures make sausage may be a bit too much for many. Edited July 1, 2021 by ThenNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted July 1, 2021 Author Share Posted July 1, 2021 10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: Because of the alternatives. Vote against, and then what? BSA stays in bankruptcy limbo forever, bleeding money out. The victims never see a dime and eventually BSA does go into some kind of Chapter 7 liquidation. BSA exits bankruptcy with no deal and is immediately subject to over 900 lawsuits. Then it is a race for the courthouse door: victims in lookback window states get first dibs on whatever BSA assets are left and insurance company claims. The litigation goes on for another decade. Victims in non-lookback states get absolutely nothing. I think this is what TCC meant when it talked about trying to avoid years and years of litigation. 3. Require changes to how the payouts will be calculated. Lower the peak for some, increase the baseline for others. I tend to agree that this will be the max $ out of the BSA, but I could see an argument that if you want the majority to vote for it, and most are looking at 1% of their claim being paid out, they may reject the deal. So, it could be claimant lawyers arguing with TCC over the Trust payout calculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 15 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said: being That should be "begin." Moving too fast, yet again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 In the end, this all boils down to the SOL lookback windows. The bankruptcy court is not empowered to make otherwise time-barred claims suddenly valued at 100% and the insurance companies are not charities who are going to just forgo the statutes of limitations and start writing billions in checks. The BSA plan is to value those 58,000+ claims at 1% of value. That might get bumped up a bit (2%? 3%?) but on a $1 million claim that's still only $20,000-$30,000 and that is BEFORE litigation/lawyer fees. This was what I had expressed worry about in the past: people were told (by some of the scuzzier TV ads last fall and the TCC's $102 billion number) that there was $100 billion in the mix. That's not happening, at least for 70% of claimants in non-lookback states. That's why I kept asking: if the "best deal" a deal that can get 2/3rds? I am not a victim, but if I was told/promised a $100 billion pot of money and suddenly that gets dropped for my particular case to mere thousands, what then? Would I simply vote no out of pain and suffering? I think the odds of a cramdown just jumped up, frankly, because the victims have expectations that are just not at all possible for BSA to achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1970 Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 10 minutes ago, ThenNow said: Agreed. However, I am now in step-up therapy driven by the case. In my case, that means a tailored IOP. My treatment has elevated to twice per week with my primary (abuse and trauma) therapist and one day a week with her staff "intercessional" therapist. The latter basically makes sure I don't fall apart after two weekly sessions of trauma work. There's a point at which it is crushing not to have resolved. Twiddling while legislatures make sausage may be a bit too much for many. I just learned that the legislator who spearheaded the SoL revision in my State was not re-elected in 2020 and nothing has been filed since. A reasonable conclusion is that it will not happen anytime soon, and it is not in the interest of my well-being to live the ups and downs of this, every day. I can understand there not being some huge windfall. But compensating for therapy and direct expenses should be a given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: 3. Require changes to how the payouts will be calculated. Lower the peak for some, increase the baseline for others. So, time-barred claimants get 2%? 3%? I'm still struggling to see how 58,000 very disappointed people who were given visions of millions and billions are ever going to accept thousands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 2 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said: But compensating for therapy and direct expenses should be a given. I did finally get a response from the BSA counseling reimbursement division, people, administrator or whatever. They said it is, "all subject to negotiation and settlement terms, at this time." I've not been able to confirm that with anyone on the claimants side, however. I know some non-claimants here think it wrong to get "money" in settlement and get "free" go forward counseling, but I don't think they contemplated the 58,000+ closed state abuse survivors' potential fate. Well, I hope they didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: Lower the peak for some, increase the baseline for others. Want to see a bevy of apoplectic claimant attorneys who represent a pile of open staters? Do that. I can picture the conference room when that is proposed. Boy howdy. Yee haw. Sign me up for the midnight showing of that film. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1970 Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 1 minute ago, ThenNow said: I did finally get a response from the BSA counseling reimbursement division, people, administrator or whatever. They said it is, "all subject to negotiation and settlement terms, at this time." I've not been able to confirm that with anyone on the claimants side, however. I know some non-claimants here think it wrong to get "money" in settlement and get "free" go forward counseling, but I don't think they contemplated the 58,000+ closed state abuse survivors' potential fate. Well, I hope they didn't. I will gladly give up my pittance so therapy reimbursement, medication and other direct expenses are paid first. In any event, whatever "money" is available for settlement may be insufficient for reimbursement for counseling alone. If the BSA really cares, the trust would address this on a primary basis-before paying cash settlements. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 4 minutes ago, ThenNow said: They said it is, "all subject to negotiation and settlement terms, at this time." I've not been able to confirm that with anyone on the claimants side, however. The words "therapy" and "counseling" appear nowhere in either the latest Reorg plan or the disclosure statement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1970 Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 Is "time-barred" an absolute? I have heard of instances where memories were repressed and other theories. Looking at my State statute, it sure looks like time-barred is time-barred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 Just now, Eagle1970 said: If the BSA really cares, the trust would address this on a primary basis-before paying cash settlements. That's not how bankruptcy works. The idea in a bankruptcy is that ALL claims and ALL costs of the BSA are wrapped up and done and that there is no future payments coming. Something like counseling (which can go on for years/decades) is not going to be part of the bankruptcy. What COULD happen is that a separate agreement or something is reached. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 Just now, Eagle1970 said: Is "time-barred" an absolute? I have heard of instances where memories were repressed and other theories. Looking at my State statute, it sure looks like time-barred is time-barred. Currently, the only defense with traction that I can find is tolling of the SoL based on fraudulent concealment. From my lawyer's brain perspective, the whole thing is fascinating. It's a longstanding theory that is being successfully applied to the BSA CSA cases. Just now, CynicalScouter said: What COULD happen is that a separate agreement or something is reached. A "counseling reimbursement trust" is what was mentioned to me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts