Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[Eagle1970]

12 hours ago, Rabid said:

Texas has no statute of limitations for sexual abuse of a minor. How is it that they are ‘Gray 3’?

Same with Missouri, the location of my abuse.  You can put the abuser in prison but not a dime for care of the victim.  

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

I found this interesting...

So, the way I read this, if any local council or organized BSA is sued by a claimant, the trust will be responsible to cover the costs and losses of the LC/BSA.

Interested to learn more.

BSA will be coming out of bankruptcy.  So BSA will not be the old BSA and not subject to previous debt / lawsuit claims.  So, I thought it would come from the trust.  But LCs are not going thru bankruptcy and (here's my confusion) ... only getting a settlement / protection for abuse?  I'm not even sure how that happens structurally.  LCs will be the same company as before, but they are "protected parties".  Somehow they share a protection from BSA's bankruptcy / settlement.  So the question is can previous abuse / cases somehow get around the protection?  Approach from a different view / different concept.  Or perhaps currently time-barred SOLs ... if the SOL is extended ... then can get past settlement protection because they were not part of the settlement.  

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, fred8033 said:

But LCs are not going thru bankruptcy and (here's my confusion) ... only getting a settlement / protection for abuse?  I'm not even sure how that happens structurally

That's exactly what the U.S. Trustee is asking: how is the LC release/releases even legal in the context of BSA's bankruptcy?

Though styled as a Channeling Injunction, the releases described in Section X.J.3 of the Plan are simply a specialized form of a non-consensual third-party release:  nondebtor  holders of Abuse Claims  will be permanently enjoined from pursuing tort claims  against nondebtor Protected Parties, even though their claims  are not property of the Debtors’ estate and are not claims  which the Debtors would have authority to assert or settle.  Furthermore, affected abuse victims  are given no opportunity to opt out of the Channeling Injunction. The circumstances  in which this Court has permitted involuntary third-party releases  are rare. (citations omitted by me). The  Disclosure  Statement should be amended to explain  why the Debtors believe this Court has the authority and jurisdiction to order the involuntary release  of the personal claims  of creditors—claims  the Debtors could not bring—against the Protected Parties   and their non-estate assets.

[Eagle1970]

I have just completed reading the entire document.  Though the dollar values are incredibly low, given the assets and deferred insurance settlements it makes some sense-until I reach the final page (State SoL factors).  It has been stated that perhaps 50,000 claimants are time-barred to some extent.  I always felt that SoL should not be a factor in settlement because it is simply unfair.  And yes, I understand the legality of the SoL's.  I get that a claimant in an open State would support it.  But it leaves me wondering: Why would a claimant or attorney representing a large number of claimants in closed or Grey jurisdictions agree to this?

[CynicalScouter]

One additional item worth noting here and that is the Proof of Claim vs. "Trust Claim Submission"

In short, and as was laid out last night in the TCC Zoom call, the Proof of Claim document was just the start. The Trust Disbursement Plan (TDP) calls for two tracks:

1) Expedited: Your Proof of Claim gets you $3500 but you waive any and all rights. That's it. Done. No questions asked.

2) Trust Claim Submissions: You need to submit a brand new document with lots more information and be subject to interviews.

"In order to properly make a Trust Claim Submission, each submitting Abuse Claimant must (i) complete under oath a questionnaire to be developed by the Settlement Trustee and submitted to the STAC and the Future Claimants’ Representative for approval; (ii) produce all records and documents in his or her possession, custody or control related to the Abuse Claim, including all documents pertaining to all settlements, awards, or contributions already received or that are expected to be received from a Protected Party or other sources; and (iii) execute an agreement to be provided or made available by the Settlement Trust with the questionnaire (1) to produce any further records and documents in his or her possession, custody or control related to the Abuse Claim reasonably requested by the Settlement Trustee, (2) consent to and agree to cooperate in any examinations requested by the Settlement Trustee (including by healthcare professionals selected by the Settlement Trustee) (a “Trustee Interview”); and (3) consent to and agree to cooperate in a written and/or oral examination under oath if requested to do so by the Settlement Trustee. The date on which an Abuse Claimant submits (i), (ii) and (iii) above to the Settlement Trust shall be the “Trust Claim Submission Date”. The Abuse Claimant’s breach or failure to comply with the terms of his or her agreement made in connection with his or her Trust Claim Submission shall be grounds for disallowance or significant reduction of his or her Abuse Claim. To complete the evaluation of each Abuse Claim submitted through a Trust Claim Submission (each a “Submitted Abuse Claim”), the Settlement Trustee also may, but is not required to, obtain additional evidence from the Abuse Claimant or from other parties pursuant to the Document Obligations and shall consider supplemental information timely provided by the Abuse Claimant, including information obtained pursuant to the Document Obligations. Non-material changes to the claims questionnaire may be made by the Settlement Trustee with the consent of the STAC and the Future Claimants’ Representative."

[johnsch322]

1 minute ago, Eagle1970 said:

I have just completed reading the entire document.  Though the dollar values are incredibly low, given the assets and deferred insurance settlements it makes some sense-until I reach the final page (State SoL factors).  It has been stated that perhaps 50,000 claimants are time-barred to some extent.  I always felt that SoL should not be a factor in settlement because it is simply unfair.  And yes, I understand the legality of the SoL's.  I get that a claimant in an open State would support it.  But it leaves me wondering: Why would a claimant or attorney representing a large number of claimants in closed or Grey jurisdictions agree to this?

The short answer would be there really is no other viable option.  The states with no SOL's will still have those in place even if this does not pass and the judge can still do a cram down plan if that happens.  The Coalition who represents 60K claimants must know that at 30K of these will be affected yet they are endorsing the plan.  Depending on which state you are talking about there will be a value attached to a viable claim.

[CynicalScouter]

18 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

I always felt that SoL should not be a factor in settlement because it is simply unfair. 

It would be equally unfair to insurance companies, and I am sure a judge will agree, to tell insurance companies that all SoLs are suspended. BSA is at least willing to make some kind of payments, even if they are not legally required to do so. Insurance companies will likely dig in their heels.

18 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Why would a claimant or attorney representing a large number of claimants in closed or Grey jurisdictions agree to this?

Because the alternative is what? BSA originally wanted 1% of claim vale in closed states. That number is now up, but I guarantee you as I noted the insurance companies are going to fight that in court. If BSA wants to voluntarily give more than it is legally require to do so (in closed or "gray") states, fine. But no court is going to force-by-order the insurance companies to pay when they are not legally required to do so.

So the alternative to agreeing to this is nothing. No one gets a dime. BSA stays in bankruptcy or simply runs out of money.

During the Zoom call last night the TCC attorneys mentioned that the issue of SoLs left people "bloody". It was obvious that it was the hardest part of the negotiation. 100% valuation of claims that are OUTSIDE the SoLs is simply not going to happen.

There is no scenario here where victims in SoL states get 100% of value. But 1% was absurd. This is the best that can be gotten.

Edited July 2, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[MYCVAStory]

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

They would also need the trustee to allow them to sue BSA/LC. 

This is an important issue to understand.  If the agreement essentially said Anyone who wants to opt out can do so" it would produce an Oklahoma-style land rush on cases.  The effect of that would be to eliminate insurance proceeds from all but the cases that make it to judgement.  Essentially, the available proceeds will run out and leave victims with NO coverage.  The trust will now determine which cases are "slam dunks" and allow them to proceed.  THAT will place pressure on insurers.  They WILL come to the table to stop the bleeding.  As well, the trust will more than likely negotiate with those cases so that they will provide a percentage of any award back to the trust.  That's a win-win.

[MYCVAStory]

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

But LCs are not going thru bankruptcy and (here's my confusion) ... only getting a settlement / protection for abuse?  I'm not even sure how that happens structurally.  LCs will be the same company as before, but they are "protected parties".  Somehow they share a protection from BSA's bankruptcy / settlement.  So the question is can previous abuse / cases somehow get around the protection?  Approach from a different view / different concept.  Or perhaps currently time-barred SOLs ... if the SOL is extended ... then can get past settlement protection because they were not part of the settlement.  

They are protected because they agreed to contribute.  Essentially they have "bought" their permanent injunction.  Some attorneys have said they will object to this and the US Trustee will weigh in but at the end of teh day Bankruptcy Judges lean toward being able to say "If the vast majority of the parties agree this is a good idea who am I to disagree?"  Then, the judge can kick it to a higher court if that's where anyone wants to go.  The insurers are already eyeing that.

[MYCVAStory]

23 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Why would a claimant or attorney representing a large number of claimants in closed or Grey jurisdictions agree to this?

Because if you have thousands of clients and they receive relatively small amounts each it adds up and becomes a large amount for you.  Welcome to the world of Mass Tort Attorneys.  Asbestos yesterday, BSA abuse today, Something else tomorrow.  All those infomercials urging victims to come forward work.  I hope that the thousands of clients who now have thousands of questions about their individual cases are now getting their calls and email returned.  The TCC's professionals represents that class and not individuals.  As they commented last night they will produce an FAQ soon but if a victim has an individual question they need to ask their individual attorney,  For some, given the number of clients, that might be difficult.

[MYCVAStory]

22 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

In short, and as was laid out last night in the TCC Zoom call, the Proof of Claim document was just the start. The Trust Disbursement Plan (TDP) calls for two tracks:

1) Expedited: Your Proof of Claim gets you $3500 but you waive any and all rights. That's it. Done. No questions asked.

2) Trust Claim Submissions: You need to submit a brand new document with lots more information and be subject to interviews.

Some will be happy to take the $3500 and move on.  That decision should be respected and unfortunately it might be $3500 more than they had a path to seeing before this.  Should it be more.  Of course.  But in relation to number two, every victim and party to this should demand that only validated claims receive awards.  The TCC has made it clear that a dollar given to a bogus claim is a dollar that can't be shared among those that are real.  That deserves review.  How that's done will be the work of the Trustee.  Victims should at least take some solace knowing that there are professionals that specialize in this.  Because primarily of the Catholic Church bankruptcy there are procedures for validating individual claims.  The Trust should be spelling this out.  Will it mean more work and more wounds opened?  Unfortunately yes.  But, it isn't realistic to expect a check in the mail simply by filling out a form.  This IS also one of those areas where some victims, maybe many, will say My attorney earned their money" when they are tasked with submitting documentation.  Do I want to deal with all of this and relive what happened?  Of course not.  But I accept that I owe it to every other victim to provide appropriate documentation to share in whatever money is available.  For some that will be easy.  For others VERY hard for a lot of reasons.  But, until we have a lie detector that's fool-proof there's little alternative.

[CynicalScouter]

5 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Essentially they have "bought" their permanent injunction.  Some attorneys have said they will object to this and the US Trustee will weigh in but at the end of teh day Bankruptcy Judges lean toward being able to say "If the vast majority of the parties agree this is a good idea who am I to disagree?"

And the counter will be that 99.9% of victims cannot deprive that 0.1% of victims from suing their LC.

Moreover, my argument would be, why do victims around the COUNTRY get to decide or have anything to do with whether I can or cannot sue my LC?

[SilverPalm]

Is the understanding, in general, that this plan will likely be accepted? If not, why all the hullabaloo from the media? What makes this different from the prior proposed plans if people are still going to vote against this one?

[MYCVAStory]

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

Moreover, my argument would be, why do victims around the COUNTRY get to decide or have anything to do with whether I can or cannot sue my LC?

 

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And the counter will be that 99.9% of victims cannot deprive that 0.1% of victims from suing their LC.

Moreover, my argument would be, why do victims around the COUNTRY get to decide or have anything to do with whether I can or cannot sue my LC?

Well....because bankruptcy law allows "non-debtor" entities to receive "non-consensual" releases from a class if in the eye of the court the relief provided (in this case by the LCs) is significant enough to get the debtor out of bankruptcy, and of course the class accepts it.    That's reason #72 why bankruptcy law was NEVER designed to address sexual assault issues.

[johnsch322]

I am sure once the BSA documents (enrollment forms etc.) to the lawyers and claimants there will be many calls from lawyers to claimants to settle for the $3500.  Lawyers will not want to spend time and resources for claims that they don't believe in.  The lawyers will get their $1150 to 1750 for those claims and call it a day.