Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[Eagle1970]

57 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

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.

Are there credible numbers as to Closed, Open and Grey cases?

[CynicalScouter]

38 minutes ago, SilverPalm said:

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?

Yes, generally, generally, VERY generally. But as anyone in legal settlement talks knows: it means nothing until it is finalized, signed, and approved by the judge (and even then, appeals happen).

There are numerous ways this can still derail:

1) BSA cut a deal with Hartford subject to approval by the judge for Hartford to pay out a certain amount. The TCC/FCR/Coalition has said they will never accept that deal. So BSA has to convince the judge to allow it to back out of the Hartford deal (by her not approving it). Hartford is going to argue that a deal's a deal and BSA cannot back out now. If the judge rules in Hartford's favor, the entire $850 million setlement is off and TCC/FCR/Coalition and BSA go back into negotiations/mediation.

2) Aside from the Hartford issue, the insurance companies can convince the judge (or an appellate court) this violates their rights in that it commits them to specific amounts with very little input

3) Some of the insurance companies have also argued that it isn't fair to give 82,500 votes to 82,500 people who CLAIM to be victims but may not be, therefore there should be determinations as to who is/is not a true victim before deciding who gets to vote

4) The victims or some may argue that this violates or interferes with their right to independently sue the LCs.

5) The U.S. Trustee, who is a DoJ appointee, may weigh in on behalf of DoJ and tell the judge the deal's unlawful for any or all of the above reasons. They already hinted at this in a prior filing, and it isn't unprecedented but it is rare. While the U.S. Trustee's position and views are not binding on the judge, judges will take their views very, very seriously.

6) The LCs have to come up with $500 million in cash and properties + $100 million in a promissory note. However, each Council gets to vote on how much they'll actually pay into the settlement. It is possible that there will not be enough LCs voting in support of this plan to get to those numbers.

7) This can go to a vote, and fail to get 2/3rds. In which case, the judge either lets this go back to Square One or orders a cramdown.

Etc.

So yes, there is a broad outline of a broad path towards a settlement. But there are at least 7 different ways (if not more) this can still wind up in a ditch.

Edited July 2, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

59 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

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

So much for submit a claim, be anonymous and get a check. I guess those ads were a bit misleading after all? The documentation burden alone is going to be nearly insurmountable for some claimants. What amounts to in one’s “possession”? This is a huge fulcrum to flip people into the Expedited track. I’m ready, but I don’t know how many others are or will be. Zowie.  

[CynicalScouter]

5 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Are there credible numbers as to Closed, Open and Grey cases?

Yes, BSA provided a list based on the dates and locations of the abuse for Open vs. Closed and using that plus figuring out what state the Council is in you can kinda figure out how many are Closed/Gray/Open but no one has published the exact math (e.g. 10,000 Gray 1, $12,345 are Gray 2, etc.)

[Eagle1970]

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

Yes, BSA provided a list based on the dates and locations of the abuse for Open vs. Closed and using that plus figuring out what state the Council is in you can kinda figure out how many are Closed/Gray/Open but no one has published the exact math (e.g. 10,000 Gray 1, $12,345 are Gray 2, etc.)

That is or will become significant.

[CynicalScouter]

4 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

That is or will become significant.

Right, I would suspect the 82,500 victims will be told "You are in a Grey 1 state" or "You are in an Open State" or be given that list of states and have to figure out for themselves "I am in a Gray 1 state."

That's why I still remain concerned this will never get 2/3rds vote because victims have been told for over a year about billions and tens of billions or hundreds of billions with the whole "subject to statutes of limitations" part left out.

Edited July 2, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

So much for submit a claim, be anonymous and get a check.

If a claimant opts for Expedited/$3500 that will be (almost) true. For everyone else, nope.

[Eagle1970]

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Right, I would suspect the 82,500 victims will be told "You are in a Grey 1 state" or "You are in an Open State" or be given that list of states and have to figure out for themselves "I am in a Gray 1 state."

That's why I still remain concerned this will never get 2/3rds vote because victims have been told for over a year about billions and tens of billions or hundreds of billions with the whole "subject to statutes of limitations" part left out.

Yes, but once the large firms advise their clients this is as good as it gets, I expect them to approve it.  I'm in a Grey 3.  The removal of the SoL almost made it in 2019.  It might have passed in 2020, except for a global pandemic.  

[Eagle1970]

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yes, generally, generally, VERY generally. But as anyone in legal settlement talks knows: it means nothing until it is finalized, signed, and approved by the judge (and even then, appeals happen).

There are numerous ways this can still derail:

1) BSA cut a deal with Hartford subject to approval by the judge for Hartford to pay out a certain amount. The TCC/FCR/Coalition has said they will never accept that deal. So BSA has to convince the judge to allow it to back out of the Hartford deal (by her not approving it). Hartford is going to argue that a deal's a deal and BSA cannot back out now. If the judge rules in Hartford's favor, the entire deal is off and TCC/FCR/Coalition and BSA go back into negotiations/mediation.

2) Aside from the Hartford issue, the insurance companies can convince the judge (or an appellate court) this violates their rights in that it commits them to specific amounts with very little input

3) Some of the insurance companies have also argued that it isn't fair to give 82,500 votes to 82,500 people who CLAIM to be victims but may not be, therefore there should be determinations as to who is/is not a true victim before deciding who gets to vote

4) The victims or some may argue that this violates or interferes with their right to independently sue the LCs.

5) The U.S. Trustee, who is a DoJ appointee, may weigh in on behalf of DoJ and tell the judge the deal's unlawful for any or all of the above reasons. They already hinted at this in a prior filing, and it isn't unprecedented but it is rare. While the U.S. Trustee's position and views are not binding on the judge, judges will take their views very, very seriously.

6) The LCs have to come up with $500 million in cash and properties + $100 million in a promissory note. However, each Council gets to vote on how much they'll actually pay into the settlement. It is possible that there will not be enough LCs voting in support of this plan to get to those numbers.

Etc.

So yes, there is a broad outline of a broad path towards a settlement. But there are at least 6 different ways (if not more) this can still wind up in a ditch.

Knowing how complicated things get with ONE victim, 82K is a big number.

[CynicalScouter]

BSA objects to the insurance companies efforts to delay the July hearing and they include email exchanges with the insurance companies showing that BSA's lawyers tried to and did give an extension to file objections, but the insurance companies are just trying to delay/stall.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/42ae4a68-fe18-4539-a3d7-2ea55e1a76bd_5472.pdf

Edited July 2, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

If a claimant opts for Expedited/$3500 that will be (almost) true. For everyone else, nope.

Precisely. “Don’t want to be sifted like wheat? I’m showing you the money. It ain’t much, but this is it or come to papa and stand before the judgement seat.”

[ThenNow]

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

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.

As I’ve said, I disagree. There is a clear path if one knocks out of the park a tolling argument based on fraudulent concealment or other. Yes, I know it is a difficult and exacting proof, but I will make a very serious, studied and tenacious run at it. I don’t intend to fail.

[CynicalScouter]

7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

There is a clear path if one knocks out of the park a tolling argument based on fraudulent concealment or other

Ok, to be clear: that would be case by case. Over 50,000 times. Could it happen? Sure. But is it likely for 90-99% of claimants? No.

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Ok, to be clear: that would be case by case. Over 50,000 times. Could it happen? Sure. But is it likely for 90-99% of claimants? No.

Yes. Good of you to make that critical distinction. I don’t want to create the wrong impression for anyone. Those cases that have tried to apply a global, “BSA has IVF and failed to disclose and protect all of these plaintiffs,” have not been successful, as far as I know. I’m sure you’re aware of these. Am I correct?

[Eagle1970]

35 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

As I’ve said, I disagree. There is a clear path if one knocks out of the park a tolling argument based on fraudulent concealment or other. Yes, I know it is a difficult and exacting proof, but I will make a very serious, studied and tenacious run at it. I don’t intend to fail.

I would have never been a scout.  My parents would not have let me be a scout.  I did not allow my children to be scouts, past Cubs, and told them exactly why.

Had I been aware that BSA summer camp was a lion's den for molesters, I would not have gone.

I'm not an attorney and apparently cannot afford to have one.  But talk about concealment....