Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[MYCVAStory]

4 hours ago, Muttsy said:

n his defense, I saw and heard things that sounded very much like the RSA/4.0 framework was a done deal. 

The Trust Distribution aspects were affirmed by Lucas and Stang with certitude. Lots of talk about the 3500 dollar benefits and how quickly those men could get the cash to pay their bills  The body language was telling as was the gratuitous comments by Chambers and Kennedy.  Paraphrasing …Money isn’t everything, ya know, and wait until you see the non-monetary conditions and safeguards that will be put in place.

 

Were you sitting with Kosnoff and watching the same Town Hall?!  PLEASE, either wait for the transcript or re-watch it at https://www.dropbox.com/s/7i01h4syy3vtgpb/BSA Town Hall 9-9-21.mp4?dl=0  and provide us with the actual words that bring you to this conclusion.  FYI, NO ONE named "Chambers" was part of this meeting.  The TCC has NOT said that anything is being accepted as stands and has stated that it will continue to fight as best as it can.  They could have said "this is a done deal" but there wasn't a whiff of that.  As far as the non-monetery, they brought up the IV files and reiterated that they are committed to having them become public.  As far as the $3500, they have also made clear that this may be an option for those who want out but NO ONE would be required to take it.  We're all entitled to our opinion but you were really watching a different meeting.

 

[MYCVAStory]

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

We never got to the point of seeing the ballot statement, but I wonder if this talk of "more than one plan" means that the ballot will read one of two ways:

1. Vote for either Global Plan (BSA/LC or BSA/LC/CO), Toggle Plan (BSA Only), or neither.
2. Vote for yes/no for Global Plan. WARNING: A no vote will result in the Toggle Plan being implemented resulting in less payouts to claimants.

Or...remember that the TCC can motion to have its own plan considered.  Considering that the BSA panicked and got itself involved with a BAD Hartford deal that no one likes, and now hasn't figured out how to get out of it without an administrative fee penalty, the TCC may be eyeing its own plan that meets the best interest test in the eyes of the court.

 

[CynicalScouter]

15 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Or...remember that the TCC can motion to have its own plan considered.  Considering that the BSA panicked and got itself involved with a BAD Hartford deal that no one likes, and now hasn't figured out how to get out of it without an administrative fee penalty, the TCC may be eyeing its own plan that meets the best interest test in the eyes of the court.

True, yes, thank you.

So, again I am not as conversant in bankruptcy law, but I guess it is possible to have two competing ballots/plans to go creditors/claimants.

So, I guess the ballot would be

1) BSA Plan

2) TCC Plan

3) No on them both

or perhaps only

1) BSA Plan

2) TCC Plan

Edited September 11, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[DavidLeeLambert]

So these actually hit the docket before the Town Hall, but the Debtors have filed two more motions asking for approval of non-abuse litigation settlements...

Romero Settlement Agreement

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/cf68ebd7-41b0-42a5-99db-2d6986b00ccc_6155.pdf

Knight Settlement Agreement

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/73c61cbd-1db3-4158-a1b7-1a5f7cd21eaf_6154.pdf

The Knight case was discussed on this forum when the lawsuit was first filed, and I believe it was mentioned in one of the bankruptcy threads but I'm having trouble finding that reference.  A Scout was camping at a Council  camp in Georgia, and a tree fell on his tent while he was in it; he died. The proposed settlement is for $7.1 million, against the March 2018-March 2019 policy year; $1 million from a base policy with Old Republic with no aggregate limit, and the remaining $6.1 million from an excess policy with Old Republic with a $9 million aggregate limit. For that year, there were 18 Direct Abuse Claims that meet certain criteria, and only $248 thousand left to the limit on that particular excess policy (assuming the Lehr settlement is also approved, see below); but the motion says there is approximately $200 million left in other excess policies that would apply to that year.

The Romero case is from an accident in February 2016,  where a Boy Scout was struck in the eye by an arrow while attending a "Mountain Man Rendezvous" in Nevada. The proposed settlement is for $2.5 million, against the March 2015-March 2016 policy year. That year had the same structure of two Old Republic policies with additional layers above, and approximately $7,144,000 of the Old Republic excess policy in that year would remain. For that year, there were 22 Direct Abuse Claims that meet certain criteria.

Lehr Settlement Agreement

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ee370ded-4028-485a-8e3c-6efe453bac3b_2719.pdf

The Lehr incident was also during the 2018-19 policy year. An adult leader was injured on July 3, 2018, while attempting the "Leap of Faith" at Summit Bechtel Reserve.  The settlement is for $3 million (in addition to dental costs of less than $31 thousand already incurred and paid).

BSA filed the Lehr settlement near the end of April, and the Coalition objected to it. However, on Friday the Coalition withdrew its objection.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a780f211-e51d-4a5d-a9bf-7dd70476bd3f_6193.pdf

[CynicalScouter]

Kosnoff predicting the upcoming hearings will be struck. I have to say I agree, for the reasons mentioned above: there is only a minimal chance BSA is really going to seke to move forward with Plan 4.0, at this point a plan 5.0 is all but a given.

As such, BSA has to put that plan on the docket, and we are less than 8 days from a potential hearing on the disclosure statement for such a Plan 5.0. Even if they dropped Plan 5.0 now, today (Monday September 13) as I type, they are NOT giving parties the 20 days of review they are entitled to under normal rules, therefore BSA would have to convince the judge to reduce the review deadline. They'll argue, no doubt, that Plan 5.0 is similar enough to Plan 3.0 and 4.0 that all parties have been on notice for months about most of the issues involved. The insurers (and others) will complain there is too much new material in Plan 5.0 to be reviewed in anything less than the 20 days they are normally entitled to.

 

Edited September 13, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

The Lehr incident was also during the 2018-19 policy year. An adult leader was injured on July 3, 2018, while attempting the "Leap of Faith" at Summit Bechtel Reserve.  The settlement is for $3 million (in addition to dental costs of less than $31 thousand already incurred and paid).

What was the nature and extent of the injury?  Do people sign waivers prior to such adventures? Did s/he? Anyone else injured on this Indiana Jones reenactment? As in, prior knowledge and reporting/disclosure?  

Edited September 13, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

17 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

What was the nature and extent of the injury?  Do people sign waivers prior to such adventures? Did s/he? 

Settlement: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ee370ded-4028-485a-8e3c-6efe453bac3b_2719.pdf

Lehr's Claim: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/pocvol1/Springfield/Claim Scan/Claims/20-10342/7079001394.pdf

"13. Mr. Lehr was wearing a harness provided to him by an agent, servant, or employee
of the Boy Scouts.

14. When it was Mr. Lehr's turn to participate he was escorted by Noah Clay through
a gate and was told to stand under the TruBlue system where he was supposed to be connected via the harness he was wearing. Noah Clay never connected, clipped, or otherwise secured Mr. Lehr to the TruBlue system or its safety lines before "Hacksaw” counted down “3, 2, 1” and then commanded Mr. Lehr run and jump off the tower.

15. As a result of not being properly secured Mr. Lehr plummeted over 40ft. to the gravel covered ground below. As a direct result of the fall he suffered catastrophic injuries including a left diaphragmatic hernia (involving herniation of the entire spleen, pancreatic tail, splenic flexure, a portion of the colon, and gastric fundus up through the diaphragm and into the chest cavity requiring surgery), a displaced fracture of the right parasymphyseal pubis with dorsal displacement of the posterior cortex into the right obturator internus muscle, left fifth and sixth rib fractures, a left sacral fracture, two (2) teeth were knocked out, a left shoulder rotator cuff tear with subacromial impingement requiring surgery, lacerations, bruising to the groin/abdomen/ face/ chest/elbow, and a traumatic brain injury.

16. After Mr. Lehr's fall the West Virginia Division of Labor, pursuant to the West Virginia Amusement Zipline and Canopy Tour Responsibility Act, conducted an investigation into
the cause of the fall. The investigation resulted in a Cease and Desist Order being issued because of the multiple violations of the Act. Those violations included the failure of the Boy Scouts to properly train employees, along with failures to construct, install, maintain and operate the “Leap of Faith” in accordance with ACCT Challenge Course Standards."

 

 

Edited September 13, 2021 by CynicalScouter
Reformatting

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Those violations included the failure of the Boy Scouts to properly train employees, along with failures to construct, install, maintain and operate the “Leap of Faith” in accordance with ACCT Challenge Course Standards."

Ah. So terribly sorry for that man. Awful.

As I suspected. Those findings of fault are eerily similar to a certain unmentionable suffered by many us. Well, except in our cases it had happened before, before and before some more. We made our own leaps of faith with catastrophic results. Come over here little boy. Jump head first into Scouting, but don't look now. Here comes El Cacuy. What was constructed and negligently maintained and operated is clearly is different, still maybe not so much so. Mr. Lehr's scenario is truly, truly tragic. Ours? Hm. $3M. A fair number. 

Apologies if this is out of place. I'm out of practice and have waned in my love of table tennis. 

Edited September 13, 2021 by ThenNow

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

What was the nature and extent of the injury?  Do people sign waivers prior to such adventures? Did s/he? Anyone else injured on this Indiana Jones reenactment? As in, prior knowledge and reporting/disclosure?  

Welcome back!!

[ThenNow]

22 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Welcome back!!

If I'm allowed a personal note, I was tending to the wedding of the last of the kiddos and rattling my saber in another venue. Yet again, my rights, person and dignity have been trampled upon. Thankfully, this instance provides a much less elusive 'target' and I have a fairly clear path to redress. The turgid pace of this party required I find something else with which to amuse myself. All inclusive present company excepted, of course. We are neither turgid nor lacking in amusement. 

Edited September 13, 2021 by ThenNow
Clarification

[CynicalScouter]

  

7 minutes ago, grizzly702 said:

So this just came out. 

https://www.sharecast.com/news/market_reports/press-release-the-hartford-announces-new-agreement-in-principle-with-boy-scouts-of-america-and-majority-of-claimants--8090440.html

Press Release: The Hartford Announces New Agreement-In-Principle With Boy Scouts Of America And Majority Of Claimants

$787 million.

Here is the MSN/Reuters link

 Hartford Financial to pay $787 million in Boy Scouts sex abuse insurance settlements http://a.msn.com/01/en-us/AAOrmyK?ocid=se

$650 million becomes $787 million. But is it again tied to Century?

Also this

Quote

which now includes the BSA, its local councils and the representatives of a majority of the sexual abuse claimants....In addition, the representatives for the claimants joining this agreement-in-principle will support a plan of reorganization which incorporates the settlement

sure sounds like it is a Plan 5.0 or RSA with Hartford onboard and the Coalition (at least)

and this

Quote

The parties to the agreement-in-principle expect to receive court approval of the settlement in late 2021.

sure sounds like we are about to see Plan 5.0 filed any minute now and the September 21 hearing going full speed ahead. Just based on the math, they would HAVE to put Plan 5.0 out for a vote no later than October 1 in order to be done by December 31 (and even THAT is an ambitious timetable).

[CynicalScouter]

Kosnoff says TCC will oppose. 
So it will be TCC vs. Coalition, BSA, Hartford, LCs, and LDS.

 

[CynicalScouter]

Mediators report issued. 44 pages. Everyone but the TCC is on board. This is the first time I've seen the TCC and FCR not on the same page.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e95bfbc9-daaa-4042-b7fe-78da60f430a2_6210.pdf

"With  the  assistance  of  the  Mediators,  the  Debtors,  the  Future  Claimants’  Representative
(the  “FCR”),  the  Coalition  of  Abused  Scouts  for  Justice  (the  “Coalition”),  and  the  Ad  Hoc
Committee of Local Councils (collectively, the “Parties”) have agreed in principle on settlement
terms that will result in an additional $1.037 billion of cash contributions to the Settlement Trust,
in  addition  to  the  contributions  of  up  to  approximately  $820  million  that  will  be  made  by  the
Debtors and Local Councils.  Specifically, the Parties have agreed on the terms of: (1) a settlement
with Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, First State Insurance Company, Twin City Fire
Insurance  Company  and  Navigators  Specialty  Insurance  Company  (collectively  “Hartford”),  a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Hartford Term Sheet”); and (2) a settlement
with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a Utah corporation sole (“TCJC”), a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit B (the “TCJC Term Sheet”)."

Edited September 15, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagle1993]

36 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Kosnoff says TCC will oppose. 
So it will be TCC vs. Coalition, BSA, Hartford, LCs, and LDS.

 

I would take this as a sign that Kosnoff could support something short of dissolving BSA.  The issue with the coalition is that I am sure they don’t control 100% of the votes of their claimants.  If TCC objects along with other attorneys it could fail when it goes to vote.  BSA really needs the TCC onboard.  This will be a disaster if a plan goes to vote and that vote fails.  

[CynicalScouter]

Alleged statement from Grand Canyon Council: Plan 5.0 will include all COs.