Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[MYCVAStory]

3 hours 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 $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.

Well....hate to throw cold water but...

1.  It was a deal pending a approval of a larger plan AND the court regardless would needed to agree that it met the best interest test.  The lowball offer by the Hartford and the BSA's attempt to show that it was part of "their" deal to all survivor made that unlikely from the jump.

2.  The judge will say "Go deal with that later."

3.  That's how bankruptcy works.  People enter a class and get a vote.  And....the reason bankruptcy isn't the place for sexual abuse. 

4.  Bankruptcy law allows for this exact channeling.

5.  While the Trustee certainly has an opinion the judge often considers it but doesn't pay much attention if the major parties and claimants are ok with the agreement. 

6.  Then it's likely that a specific LC might not receive the injunction or their "share" will be made up elsewhere or they will have their own promissory note.  Certainly if enough LCs disagree this could be derailed but there's every indication that the Execs of these LCs are supportive of keeping their jobs in the future.

7.  Could happen but remember that attorneys by right have the ability to approve or disapprove the agreement and sign for their clients unless advised otherwise.  The TCC has said that it will publish an FAQ AND continue town halls to educate so that victims may make their best decision.

Again, hate to throw cold water but while there are paths that could cause this to derail some are far less likely than others.  We all need to remember too that those on this forum are VERY engaged and far from the "typical" claimant.  The next month or two shall be interesting.

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, Eagle1970 said:

But talk about concealment....

Here's the problem with fraudulent concealment and in federal court it's called FRCP 9b

Quote

(b) Fraud or Mistake; Conditions of Mind. In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind may be alleged generally.

So you have to state with PARTICULARITY the circumstances in which BSA fraudulently concealed information regarding your PARTICULAR abuse (or the PARTICULAR person who abused you). BUT that knowledge can be ALLEGED "generally" if you can show a particular BSA individual's mind.

Clear as mud? That's why this is so hard. Simply saying "BSA knew it had problems IN GENERAL with sexual abuse IN GENERAL or even sexual abuse at camps IN GENERAL" is probably not going to be enough.

"John Smith, the Scout Executive for the XYZ Council, knew that the abuse had taken place and burned every record of the abuse" or "burned every record of this particular abuser"? Yep.

[CynicalScouter]

5 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Again, hate to throw cold water but while there are paths that could cause this to derail some are far less likely than others. 

I agree. I am not trying to say that the plan is a lock, or not a lock, only that there are a lot of ways this can still go wrong and the media of a "settlement" should have read "potential settlement" at best.

[Eagle1970]

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

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.  

Now that this has successfully invaded my life yet again, I'll be more than willing to lay out all of the details.  Put it out there, get it done, and do my very best to cover it up with mud, once again.  I really don't expect any claim to be handled without some investigation.  But anyone who joined the club for some quick $$$ or got drawn in by the TV commercials without a strong case may consider the $3500 nuisance payment- especially when coupled with requirements to furnish details and  sit for an interview.  All of that perjury stuff could get a person thinking.  For me, however, it is cathartic.  Finally I get to say F this guy.  And if I don't see a penny, that alone will help me.

[yknot]

34 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Now that this has successfully invaded my life yet again, I'll be more than willing to lay out all of the details.  Put it out there, get it done, and do my very best to cover it up with mud, once again.  I really don't expect any claim to be handled without some investigation.  But anyone who joined the club for some quick $$$ or got drawn in by the TV commercials without a strong case may consider the $3500 nuisance payment- especially when coupled with requirements to furnish details and  sit for an interview.  All of that perjury stuff could get a person thinking.  For me, however, it is cathartic.  Finally I get to say F this guy.  And if I don't see a penny, that alone will help me.

I wish someone would make a documentary about this.

 

[CynicalScouter]

The insurance companies now want to take the deposition of Mosby and are making document and other demands of BSA

Document and other discovery demands: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/72760396-90dc-4a4a-9619-eeef9695bbcc_5477.pdf

Mosby deposition July 8: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/173b3c9c-e3f9-4dfb-b0f3-8c59e4a0ba50_5480.pdf

They also want to depose Andrew R. Evans (Bates White, the folks who came up with BSA's abuse matrix and abuse consultant) and Brian Whittman (BSA's restructuring advisor)

[Eagle1993]

Some law firms coming out against the plan. 

Kosnoff Tweeted it is DOA, claimants will reject it.  

I don’t think it really means it is dead, but they are looking for a lot more info in the coming documents.   I think this just shows that we may not be 100% closed on a deal yet.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/07/02/boy-scouts-settlement-abuse-victims/

[100thEagleScout]

Just now, Eagle1993 said:

Kosnoff Tweeted it is DOA, claimants will reject it.

Seems like AIS is constantly in a civil war with itself.  ER is pro-Coalition and the plan, Kosnoff is pro-AIS and the state court option.

 

I’d personally say Kosnoff’s position is likely the one survivors would benefit more from.

[ThenNow]

46 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/07/02/boy-scouts-settlement-abuse-victims/

Is this available for free viewing? 

[CynicalScouter]

6 hours ago, 100thEagleScout said:

I’d personally say Kosnoff’s position is likely the one survivors would benefit more from.

It really boils down to the statutes of limitations. For the 50,000 victims in a closed state, this is possibly the best possible deal they are going to get unless they are prepared to individually hire lawyers and spend years in the state court systems trying to argue that the SoLs are tolled for fraudulent concealment or some other reason.

[CynicalScouter]

6 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I don’t think it really means it is dead, but they are looking for a lot more info in the coming documents.   I think this just shows that we may not be 100% closed on a deal yet.  

There seems to be two different claims here

1. For LCs COLLECTIVELY, 600 million is chump change/not "substantial" enough.
2. There's no way of telling how much EACH INDIVIDUAL Council is coughing up to determine if that particular council is making a "substantial" payment.

I think the first is wrongheaded: there's no way for example one council should be on the hook for some other council's costs.

The second I think he has a point but it is going to be 250 or so answers. For example, you have some smaller councils whose TOTAL assets (restricted and unrestricted) isn't even $1 million. How "substantial" does this have to be?

Also recall that Kosnoff's main thrust has always been he wants BSA dead and gone at the end of this, therefore his understanding of "substantial" is probably going to be different than that of others.

 

[Eagle94-A1]

My understanding was that each council was given a dollar amount based upon not only unrestricted AND limited restriction assets but also number of abuse cases against it. I do not know if SOL also plays a part of that.

I say limited restrictions as well because I have been informed that 1 or 2 of the 4 council  camps in my council will need to be sold. All have limited restrictions on them. 

[mrjohns2]

4 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

For example, you have some smaller councils whose TOTAL assets (restricted and unrestricted) isn't even $1 million. How "substantial" does this have to be?

I think this points to the core issue with any plan or offer and local and national: there just isn’t a ton of money/assets to go around. Not a lot even if totally liquidated, but obviously a lot less if orgs are allowed to continue. Thus the need for bankruptcy in the first place and the root of the low payment figures per case. 

[johnsch322]

33 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

I think this points to the core issue with any plan or offer and local and national: there just isn’t a ton of money/assets to go around. Not a lot even if totally liquidated, but obviously a lot less if orgs are allowed to continue. Thus the need for bankruptcy in the first place and the root of the low payment figures per case. 

Not sure what you are trying to say. Could you clarify please?

[CynicalScouter]

2 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

My understanding was that each council was given a dollar amount based upon not only unrestricted AND limited restriction assets but also number of abuse cases against it. I do not know if SOL also plays a part of that.

My Key-3 confirmed that in a town hall in January and that the SoLs played a role (for example I live in a closed state).

There was a formula BUT that number was based on what the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils was telling Councils they needed to pay back when it was only 100-200 million. We are now up to $600 million. I am sure that formula is now very, very different. I also confirmed LCs have until next week (my Council is voting on the 7th but the deadline for all councils is the 9th) to vote to approve or reject their contributions.