Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[MYCVAStory]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

But even if the coalition does in fact sell out they don’t control the votes it’s still possible to have a situation whereby Based on coalition lawyer advocacy you get a 51% majority or even a 60% majority but still failed to get the 2/3.

that would be an absolute horror show and I mentioned it back in May. 67% is the threshold what happens if it comes in at 65% does the judge order a cram down and just skip the 2%?

what if it were 60% or 55%?

NO judge in a bankruptcy has ever forced a cramdown on victims.  Now, if it gets to a point or two from 2/3 then perhaps but not much more than that.  As well, sexual abuse bankruptcy decisions have seen 90% agreement as a standard from judges because they want that much agreement.  The judge is realistic and won't have that high a standard but cramming down a decision when half a group disagrees would be unprecedented.  That might also be the reason why she is so interested in how claims were generated and whether they should turn into votes.

[CynicalScouter]

22 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

All three firms jointly represent 15,103 clients. They are all correct.

That is not what Kosnoff’s Rule 2029 says. It says HIS firm does.

[Muttsy]

Did you read the joint AIS 2019? It couldn’t be clearer. His firm DOES represent those clients. So do AVA and Eisenberg.  Jointly. 

[MYCVAStory]

30 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Did you read the joint AIS 2019? It couldn’t be clearer. His firm DOES represent those clients. So do AVA and Eisenberg.  Jointly.

Yeah, that's clear. Does that make 1/3 or 2/3 of the attorneys representing a client are also Coalition members?  How many of those clients replied to the Coalition's solicitation that the COALITION represents them and produced the coalition's 18,000 affirmative signatures?

[Muttsy]

I think it’s been said the coalition has about 5000 claimants total of various firms who signed consents to be represented as a whole not as individuals by Brown Rudnick.
 

The judge said earlier that attorneys would not be allowed to vote their clients’ ballots without express written authority. Is anybody here a Coalition member? If so, were you asked to sign a proxy to have your lawyer vote your ballot? 
 

i don’t understand why these Coalition lawyers statements to the media that they represent 70 000 men means they control their votes. I don’t think they actually have much if any client control. It’s misleading and the brainless MSM report it has real. 

[ThenNow]

16 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Here are the aggregators being deposed.

• Verus Claims Services LLC (“Verus”)
• Consumer Attorney Marketing Group (“CAMG”)
• Archer Systems (“Archer”)
• Stratos Legal (“Stratos”)

Have any of these folks landed in the judicial crosshairs prior to this lovely scenario? If so, to what end? What has been alleged by the insurers and their experts doesn’t speak highly of their methods or morals. Hoping to read ahead in this 10-part dramedy screenplay. Thanks.

Edited August 31, 2021 by ThenNow

[DavidLeeLambert]

16 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

[7] A seventh group made up of all the above 6 subgroups

Minor quibble: the 7th group was a uniform sampling across all claims NOT in the earlier groups. See the Neumann declaration, D.I.1972 attachment 6 page 3 (page 77 of the PDF):

"We then sorted the Abuse Claims by this random number. [...] We then limited the remaining claims on the randomly sorted list to those that were not coded into any of the six sub-categories and selected the first 200 claims from that group."

17 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

If the insurers had tried to randomly sample 1,400 out of ALL 82,500 claims, then maybe.

Did she say something that hinted that, or is that just your guess?

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

Did she say something that hinted that, or is that just your guess?

Something hinted at

The judge quoted the statistician Martin that Martin testified she COULD get sample with a margin of error of 4-7%.

If your population (of claims) = 82,500, selecting 1,400 leads to a margin of error of 3% at the 95% Confidence level.

If your population (of claims) = 82,500, selecting 1,400 leads to a margin of error of 4% at the 99% Confidence level.

So, assuming random sampling and all other standard sampling caveats apply, 1,400 could get to that 4-7% alluded to.

[MattR]

Sorry to butt in, I'm 7 pages behind but, please read this before you reply to anything.

we're splitting this thread in 2. This thread will remain as a discussion about the legal aspects of ch 11. Everything else will go to a new thread:

 

it's better explained there. 

I doubt if the moderators have the energy to sift through 50 pages and split this but we might try and split out the last day or so.

[CynicalScouter]

19 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

This is interesting.  Are there numbers available for these subgroups?  How large could the group be who indicate "No Impact Alleged" or "No Physical Abuse"?  Certainly I understand emotional abuse, but what kind of claim can be made for No Impact?

Yes, but they were redacted pursuant to the courts various confidentiality orders.

See page 78

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870498_1972.pdf

I am going to be as careful, oh so careful, as I can be here about "No Impact Alleged" and "No Physical Abuse" and I am hesitant to even go this far but I think it is a legit question worth answering. No Impact Alleged/No Physical Abuse COULD mean one of a few things.

As a point of reference, this was the Sexual Abuse Proof of Claim form. See in particular PART 5: IMPACT OF SEXUAL ABUSE https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/CMSVol2/pub_47373/849007_SA_POC_4.pdf

1) Part 5 (impact) was left blank and claimants failed to fill it out because it was too traumatizing.

2) Part 5 (impact) was left blank and claimants failed to fill it out because the victim determined for himself it had no impact among those listed and opted not to complete the "Other" section.

3) The victim determined for himself it had no impact at all or was not physical. Keep in mind that some of the listed types of sexual abuse include not-invasive, non-physical acts and that are lumped as "Sexual Abuse-No Touching" and that would only be paid out anywhere from $3500-$8500 (BSA Plan 4.0/RSA). I do NOT want to get into graphic descriptions of what that does/does NOT include. Let's leave it at that.

Edited August 31, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[elitts]

On 8/29/2021 at 5:12 PM, Muttsy said:

Who says it has to be nation-wide? If people from closed states have no right to compensation, then they can’t be creditors. Their claim is worth zero, right? So then why do you need a discharge order that applies to them? 
 

If down the road more states pass windows and claims mount, you go back in to another Ch 11. Happened all the time in asbestos. 

Yeah, that's not quite how it worked in the asbestos claims.  Bankruptcy is a federal action and the bankruptcies for that were nationwide just like this one; and any claims as of the discharge were wiped away, regardless of SOL.  Those companies that went back for second or third bankruptcies did it because new claims, resulting from illnesses that began after the discharge would start accumulating.
 

On 8/29/2021 at 5:38 PM, Eagle1970 said:

I respect that and I'm sure disclosure is better, as my story is from long ago.  But sadly it is going to need to be like on the pack of cigarettes before it is fully realized.

On 8/29/2021 at 8:37 PM, johnsch322 said:

But a disclosure in a handbook would be after the fact of signing up.  How about a disclosure when signing up that had to be signed by the parent? And one every year after?

Anyone who isn't aware that child abuse is a risk anywhere at this point is never going to learn no matter how prolific you make the warnings.  The belief that "It won't happen to my kid" is the only way parents make it through the day and unfortunately there are some people whose minds simply can't plan for the worst while hoping for the best, so they ignore risks completely.

On 8/29/2021 at 9:15 PM, yknot said:

This isn't full disclosure nor is it a real waiver. It says nothing about the unique risks involved in scouting nor does it mention anything about scouting's past experiences with child sexual abuse. If you take a drug, it outlines side effects. If you enage in a physical activity, it spells out physical injury or death. If you buy a ticket to certain entertainment venues, it will warn that bright flashing lights can precipitate seizures.

What you are describing isn't a disclosure statement, it's effectively self-flagellation.  I can't help feeling like your fixation on the BSA having "advertised itself as a bastion of morality" is bleeding through here.  To use your own analogy, yes, a drug label includes the risks and side effects.  However, that certainly doesn't mean that say, Roche pharmaceuticals includes a detailed explanation of the horrific injuries and lawsuit history of Accutane when it sells a prescription of it.

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, elitts said:

Yeah, that's not quite how it worked in the asbestos claims.  Bankruptcy is a federal action and the bankruptcies for that were nationwide just like this one; and any claims as of the discharge were wiped away, regardless of SOL.  Those companies that went back for second or third bankruptcies did it because new claims, resulting from illnesses that began after the discharge would start accumulating.

Exactly. There's no such thing as "This bankruptcy only good for claims in the following states". It is ALL claims and debts owed as of the bar claim date (and some incurred during the pendency of the bankruptcy such as general operating expenses) nationwide.

I agree that this makes the situation involving the legal status of SoLs problematic. A person in State X for example, may have no claim TODAY against BSA due to the SoL but by next August WILL under a new state law that lifts the SoL in State X.

From a purely legal standpoint, that is what makes this even more of a challenge as I believe the US Trustee pointed out.

Now, the BSA 3.0 plan and RSA/BSA Plan 4.0 handled this issue in very, very different ways.

BSA Plan 3.0 said that if in the future a SoL was lifted, that the victim/claimant could come back to the Settlement Trustee and try to get more money.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/75cad6f2-cc34-4b0c-896f-0d26815b1189_5368.pdf

Quote

provided, further, any Direct Abuse Claim that is substantially reduced pursuant to this mitigating Scaling Factor that becomes the subject of statute of limitations revival legislation may be re-determined in the sole discretion of the Settlement Trustee.

But that became a problem: what happens if the SoL window reopens 10 years from now and the Settlement has 100% paid out?

RSA/BSA Plan 4.0 offered an alternative: you have 12 months to get your legislature to pass a SoL window reopen. It was called Claim Determination Deferral

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7082572a-2eeb-4a35-bc9b-e515925846fd_5486.pdf

Quote

H. Claim Determination Deferral. For a period of up to twelve (12) months from the Effective Date, and by an election exercised at the time of the Trust Claim Submission, Direct Abuse Claimants whose Direct Abuse Claims may be substantially reduced by the Scaling Factor described below in Article VIII.E.(iii) (statute of limitations defense) may elect to defer the determination of their Proposed Allowed Claim Amounts to see if statute of limitations revival legislation occurs, provided, however, that this claim determination deferral window shall close for all Direct Abuse Claims twelve (12) months from the Effective Date at which time such Submitted Abuse Claims shall be determined based on then applicable Scaling Factors.

So, to make it easy, if the effective date of the BSA Bankruptcy discharge is September 1, 2021,  you have until August 31, 2022 to file for a claim deferral. If at any time between September 1, 2021 and August 31, 2022 your state legislature enacts a SoL look back window, your claim would shift from Closed or Gray 1/2/3 to Open.

[CynicalScouter]

16 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

The judge is realistic and won't have that high a standard but cramming down a decision when half a group disagrees would be unprecedented. 

But, conversely, what about a pan when half a group AGREES? 50%+1?

The other factor as the judge noted in her ruling from the bench yesterday is she will want to figure out how those mass aggregate claims COULD impact voting.

Edited August 31, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagle1993]

Ok, I moved some of the non legal discussion to the other thread.  

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by Eagle1993

[Gilwell_1919]

So here is a question. If, during discovery/deposition of the claims aggregators, they identify fraudulent claims... does anyone have any speculation as to what might happen next? The same question for AIS, which clearly has lawyers/law firms tied to it... what might happen if it comes out that fraudulent claims were filed? Are those claims just tossed out... or would it give the insurers the ammunition they need to be more aggressive with their demands/motions?