Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[Eagle1993]

10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Does it in any way affect how much BSA is going to be able to offer here? Let's say that you are able to somehow get every SoL lifted/erased after months if not years of litigation. Does that in any way change that fact that a) BSA is running out of money (we can debate when it will run out, but it will eventually) NOW and/or b) somehow magically conjure up more for BSA to contribute to a victims settlement fund?

I think it could.  LCs, as a whole, are contributing $600M.  That is 1/3 of their net unrestricted assets.   We are already seeing LCs planning on possibly selling what they claimed as restricted assets to fund the $600M.  I expect if all LCs had look back windows, their payout would be much closer to 2/3 or 3/4 of their net unrestricted assets … probably another $600M or so.  
 

I would hate to see that, but there are many LCs claiming no camp sales will be required for them to fund the settlement… so their seem to have assets they are not forced to sell right now. 
 

I think the question is … are claimants better off rejecting this deal and fighting for a larger LC contribution or accepting what has been offered.  If most claimants are only seeing <$10K total do they think there isn’t much to lose by rejecting the deal?  We will see…

Edited July 6, 2021 by Eagle1993

[ThenNow]

9 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

From the TCC Townhall, the factors appear to have been the professional judgements of the attorneys who were part of the mediation.

Stang discusses it at 29:20-31:30 in this Townhall Video

Ah. I was in a remote area and the video kept dumping on me, so I missed that. Haven’t been able to go back and listen just yet.

Thanks. That’s what I figured. “Objective” turns out to be a tad a subjective and anecdotal, but that’s dandy enough.

[ThenNow]

51 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

are claimants better off rejecting this deal and fighting for a larger LC contribution or accepting what has been offered.  If most claimants are only seeing <$10K total do they think there isn’t much to lose by rejecting the deal?  We will see…

To me, the big question is what happens if it tanks? I’m not doing a better than/less than calculation at this point. I’m doing risk and pain tolerance assessment, which leads me to conclude it’s best to go on to Phase...what phase are we on, again? Let’s call it the CO & Insurance Mud Wrestling Phase, shall we? I don’t expect more to come other than grief and delay if this circles the proverbial. 

[Muttsy]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Because I think for several reasons:

1. Does it in any way affect how much BSA is going to be able to offer here? Let's say that you are able to somehow get every SoL lifted/erased after months if not years of litigation. Does that in any way change that fact that a) BSA is running out of money (we can debate when it will run out, but it will eventually) NOW and/or b) somehow magically conjure up more for BSA to contribute to a victims settlement fund?
2. Even if you can get the SoL lifted for claims against BSA, that doesn't translate into claims against an LC. A claim against BSA National may be able to be shoehorned into DC or NJ, but that would NOT apply to any claims against a local council since the local council was HQed and operated in some other state. A Wisconsin council is not subject to DC law or claims arising out of DC or NJ statutes.
3. Even if you could again somehow shoehorn in BSA National AND somehow assert a DC statute of limitations window applies to, say, a Wisconsin Council (and every other council, including those based overseas like Transatlantic) see item 1(b): does that fact in any way somehow magically conjure up more for BSA to contribute to a victims settlement fund? Or LCs?

Yes it does. It substantially ratchets up the carriers’ exposure. I agree with your points about BSA’s ability or the counsels but it forces the carriers to weigh the risk it works. Right now the carriers are zeroing out claimants from what it considers closed states. 
 

In litigation or any business negotiation, isn’t always about leverage? Increasing yours and decreasing the other side of the negotiation even if just a little?

[ThenNow]

7 hours ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

Where it gets tricky is when the most-serious abuse is in a closed state, but the claimant also reports less-serious abuse in an open state. For example, suppose a Scout was registered in a troop near his home in Utah (closed). The troop took a trip to the Four Corners monument, and he was abused, at the lowest level of severity, while standing in either the Arizona corner or the Colorado corner (both open), but doesn't remember which. Then after he returned home, at the next near-home troop meeting, he was abused again, at the highest level of severity.  Should he get the highest-tier base score multiplied by the "Closed" modifier? Or the lower-tier base score multiplied by the "Open" modifier?

This is me, except no purely open or closed state, per the chart dealio.  Gray 3 is Tier One abuse and Gray 1 and 2 lower tiers. This is all academic, however, because I will win my fraudulent concealment case and be sprinkled with open state fairy dust and receive the Never Surrender merit badge. And yes, I will design it myself and will not get BSA approval. 

[Eagle1970]

4 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

To me, the big question is what happens if it tanks? I’m not doing a better than/less than calculation at this point. I’m doing risk and pain tolerance assessment, which leads me to conclude it’s best to go on to Phase...what phase are we on, again? Let’s call it the CO & Insurance Mud Wrestling Phase, shall we? I don’t expect more to come other than grief and delay if this circles the proverbial. 

I understand law is law and State Law is State Law.  My abuse occurred 30 miles from the border of my current State of residence.  Abuse was in Grey 3 and adjacent State of residence is Grey 1.  I just had this understanding through the process that somehow BSA was going to compensate on severity, rather than technicality.

So, the Grey scale applies to BSA settlement.  Are we locked into the same Grey factors for potential future insurance settlements from that trust?

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

I just had this understanding through the process that somehow BSA was going to compensate on severity, rather than technicality.

I don’t think you’re in a club by yourself. I believe it is/was a widely held impression. That’s what I thought the day I read the BSA press release.

4 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Are we locked into the same Grey factors for potential future insurance settlements from that trust?

That’s how it reads. Others can confirm. I’ve kinda given up reading  this stuff cover to cover as soon as it lands. I come here for the Cliff Notes and rancid trunk jokes. 

[CynicalScouter]

22 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Yes it does. It substantially ratchets up the carriers’ exposure. I agree with your points about BSA’s ability or the counsels but it forces the carriers to weigh the risk it works

I didn't ask about insurance carriers. I asked about BSA and, separately, the BSA and LCs.

Nothing about these SoL machinations is going to change the fact that, past a certain point (and arguably we are there with BSA or getting there) there is no more money to be had. BSA's already having to take out a loan to put money towards the settlement.

And is a bankruptcy judge really going to drag this out for another 1-2 years litigating whether a DC or NJ statute allows a South Dakota (closed state) council to be sued, watching as what little BSA has (in general and in particular to pay into any settlement) dwindles to $0?

[CynicalScouter]

15 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

somehow BSA was going to compensate on severity, rather than technicality.

And this was part of the negotiation, because the argument cuts the other way: why should an abuse victim in a closed state get money to which he has no legal claim under his state laws? Etc.

15 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

So, the Grey scale applies to BSA settlement.  Are we locked into the same Grey factors for potential future insurance settlements from that trust?

This is the area of mass confusion and the reason why this is tricky. The Insurance Companies are going to say absolutely not no. And Kosnoff is claiming that the NO it doesn't cover insurance carriers.

But those advocating sure do seem to think that they can somehow bind the insurance companies to pay out under the this plan somehow down the road. And is sure does read as if the Settlement Trustee can value claims and therefore enter judgments.

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Muttsy]

This deal is riddled with so many holes I just don’t see how it can float. I agree that bankruptcy judges are biased in favor of debtors and this one particularly so for BSA. 
My brother in law is a former judge. He once told me that judges only care about two things. One is not getting the presiding judge mad at you for not moving your cases along. The second is not getting reversed by the appeals court. 
 

She could well dismiss the bankruptcy case and tell everyone to go elsewhere. 

[ThenNow]

17 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The Insurance Companies are going to say absolutely not no. And Kosnoff is claiming that the NO it doesn't cover insurance carriers.

I believe his question was a compound, including both the severity and the chart issues. He was asking if the Shades of Gray percentages dictate the best case scenario for us with the insurance companies, as well as the BSA. “Are we locked into...,” as in, “Is that all we can possibly get even if our claim is severe?”

Edited July 7, 2021 by ThenNow

[MYCVAStory]

9 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

My Council is not the only one that was told that in order to participate in the settlement/bankruptcy tals they had to sign a NDA. Moreover, I know for a fact and this is in the court record that anything coming out of the mediation talks is covered by a mediation NDA as well.

PLEASE do not accept that.  The TCC SPECIFICALLY said that their analysis was not part of mediation and did not share the dashboards as part of it.  The TCC spoke directly to the LCs outside of mediation via Zoom and information seen as confidential was designated by the individual LC.  Each LC is in control of their dashboard and can disclose what it wants.  If the LC believes that the TCC dashboard is incorrect then now is the time to make that case.  If all it wants to do is hide behind some sort of NDA or mediation confidentiality that doesn't exist then perhaps the LC doesn't understand their "right" to release data or it has its own reasons for not doing so.  So, the question to ask first is "Do you have something in writing from National or another entity that says that our LC's dashboard falls under mediation confidentiality because the TCC said previously that it didn't."  Gotta say, it's always interesting when an entity cries poor, but then hesitates to prove it.

 

[ThenNow]

15 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

She could well dismiss the bankruptcy case and tell everyone to go elsewhere. 

Do you have a prediction on where that will be? Is it interminably hot with red guys wielding pitchforks? 

[Muttsy]

Yes I do. It’s called state court and the guys and gals with pitch forks are called trial lawyers and yes it’s hot because the HVAC in those decrepit courthouses are always bad. Lowest government contract bidder thing…you know how it works. 
 

The people sweating however are the insurance carriers. One bad verdict in a place like LA County or Philly. 9000 more cases coming up behind. That’s when the DDD xxxx stuff stops quick. 

Edited July 7, 2021 by Muttsy

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Yes I do. It’s called state court and the guys and gals with pitch forks are called trial lawyers and yes it’s hot because the HVAC in those decrepit courthouses are always bad. Lowest government contract bidder thing…you know how it works. 
 

The people sweating however are the insurance carriers. One bad verdict in a place like LA County or Philly. 9000 more cases coming up behind. That’s when the DDD xxxx stuff stops quick. 

In case you didn’t recognize that, it was a perfect soft lob to the center of the net. Well played. I think it ended up in John McEnroe’s mouth as he sat in the press booth screaming, “You cannot be serious!?!?”