Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[ThenNow]

24 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Well, let's take a look. It looks like they can get $3 million by selling their stocks/long-term investments.

UR. R. LT. DC. (“Don’t Care”) Loaded. 5 victims could sue them tomorrow and some time-barred may win on other grounds, like fraudulent concealment. They’re out cheap in my book.

Edited August 19, 2021 by ThenNow

[RandomScouter]

Just now, ThenNow said:

UR. R. LT. DC. (“Don’t Care”)

Apparently I'm not as savvy as you when it comes to all these abbreviations.

Would you be so kind as to translate?

Thank you!

[CynicalScouter]

15 minutes ago, RandomScouter said:

I remember a story of a council taking out a $150,000 loan to help cover "lights on" expenses.  I think asking them to contribute $3 million (regardless of open/closed/gray status or number of claims) would break the bank.

Right, that's why the amount councils are being asked is balanced against their ability to function. In other words, no council is being asked for more than it has in existence, nor is it being asked to give to the point it dissolves (although exactly WHERE that line is can be murky).

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, RandomScouter said:

Apparently I'm not as savvy as you when it comes to all these abbreviations.

That’s because I make my own! Sorry. Unrestricted. Restricted. Long-term. Don’t care what the designation...they’re loaded.

[CynicalScouter]

6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

UR. R. LT. DC. (“Don’t Care”) Loaded. 5 victims could sue them tomorrow and some time-barred may win on other grounds, like fraudulent concealment. They’re out cheap in my book.

So, let's look at that

Bay-Lakes had 155 claims, of which only 5 are not time-barred.

MOST of Bay-Lakes is in Wisconsin, although it includes the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

Both states are "Gray 3" states, meaning that under the TCC/FCR/Coalition/BSA approved plan (which again may be up in smoke after today) means they'd only be paid out 10-25% of the full value of their claims due to the statute of limitations.

 

[ThenNow]

14 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Bay-Lakes had 155 claims, of which only 5 are not time-barred

I know. That’s what I said. And same about their Shade of Gray. Again, 5 guys, not counting all other valid among the 150. Say an average of $500,000 settlement value (not jury award) for each of the 5. $2.5M for them, which they more than deserve. The $500,000 balance is spilt 150 ways for a whopper of $3,333.33 per man. YeeHaw, y’all. I know there’s other money, of course, but that feels absurd to me. This is exactly what I expected to see and exactly how I expected to feel. Chip off a lean $3 mill from the stock portfolio, Jeeves, and bring me another single malt and a cigar. Velvet slippers while you’re at it. 

PS - This doesn’t press them in the least. What they did and didn’t do isn’t costing them nearly enough, IMNSHO. 

Edited August 20, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Bay-Lakes had 155 claims, of which only 5 are not time-barred.

So, I am going to tread very, very lightly here but I want to make a point.

Under the RSA plan, everyone was and is aware, each type of abuse was given a minimum and maximum value. Certain types of abuse would be paid out higher than others.

The math works out like this (and I am NOT listing the abuse types here, I am simply calling them A, B, C).

Abuse Type	Count	Base Value	Maximum	Base Totals	Maximum Totals
A	39	$600,000	$2,700,000	$23,400,000	$105,300,000
B	37	$450,000	$2,025,000	$16,650,000	$74,925,000
C	32	$300,000	$1,350,000	$9,600,000	$43,200,000
D	39	$150,000	$675,000	$5,850,000	$26,325,000
E	2	$75,000	$337,500	$150,000	$675,000
F	1	$75,000	$337,500	$75,000	$337,500
Unknown/Unconfirmed	4	??	??
Missing	1	??	??
TOTALS				$55,725,000	$250,762,500

 Which means, prior to adjustments, this Council was looking at between $56-$251 million in liability.

Now, adjust that for being "Grey 3" (10-25%)

	Base Totals	Maximum Totals
	$55,725,000	$250,762,500
10%	$5,572,500	$25,076,250
25%	$13,931,250	$62,690,625

 

What this means is that, when adjusted, the Council was looking at around $5.5-62 million. Insurance would cover some of it, but that's where the numbers are.

 

[ThenNow]

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

What this means is that, when adjusted, the Council was looking at around $5.5-62 million. Insurance would cover some of it, but that's where the numbers are.

Thanks. Pin the tail on abuse victim and let’s say it’s $15M. $3M makes me angry. Logic is sitting on the stoop eating a Tootsie Pop watching the world go by while the rest of me is scrawling bad words on the sidewalk with red chalk. 

[vol_scouter]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

What this means is that, when adjusted, the Council was looking at around $5.5-62 million. Insurance would cover some of it, but that's where the numbers are.

 

This is not complete because the BSA will have contributed $850 M that would go to the same claimants.  So that the total would be higher.  The number that ThenNow and others will see as not adequate goes back to calculations that you and others have made before showing that the BSA and local councils simply do not have enough money to make the compensation what is desired.  

As so often seems to happen in such circumstances, the claimants, local councils, CO's, insurors, and debtors will all be unhappy as well as the Scouts and Scouters adversely affected by the results.

[RandomScouter]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

What this means is that, when adjusted, the Council was looking at around $5.5-62 million. Insurance would cover some of it, but that's where the numbers are.

This also assumes that 100% of those claims would be found to be "valid."  It is possible that some claimants don't/won't/can't provide enough details to validate the claim; it is possible that some claimants are, well, lying*; it is possible that some of the proofs of claim will be thrown out because the lawyer's signature was photocopied...

*As horrible as it is to be an abuse survivor, it is unconscionable to be a False Abuse Victim, i.e. someone who pretends he was abused so he can collect money.  I believe that there are possibly/probably some claims (of the 82,000) that fall into this category; however, I doubt that is true in the vast majority of the cases.

If a claim is invalidated the third reason I mentioned, that doesn't mean the claimant is not a survivor who endured abuse and PTSD and all other manner of bad things as a result of the abuse.  To be honest, I feel doubly awful for anyone in this boat - going through  everything involved with filing, watching the bankruptcy drag on and on, and finally being told, "Sorry, Bud.  Your lawyer did some unethical stuff and now your claim is being tossed."

[Eagle1993]

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

UR. R. LT. DC. (“Don’t Care”) Loaded. 5 victims could sue them tomorrow and some time-barred may win on other grounds, like fraudulent concealment. They’re out cheap in my book.

Possibly yes.  I think any executive board would say yes to pay 10% of current assets to remove 100% of this liability.   One lawsuit that hits could cost double what they are paying to avoid 5 - 100+.
 

It will be interesting to see where this goes.  I expect some late nights to determine strategy.   Does the coalition hold?  Time will tell.  

[Eagle1970]

Lacking a background in law, I am still doing my best to follow the hearings and rulings.  Some aspects aren't clear to me, though.  For instance, does the rating system for Grey/Open States remain relevant if the TCC/FCR/Coalition/BSA approved plan fails?  This issue has really bothered me because the assurance of equitable compensation and confidentiality were primary factors in my choice to file a claim.  Had I known the zip code of my abuse would become the primary factor, I would have considered that carefully.

[MYCVAStory]

33 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

It will be interesting to see where this goes.  I expect some late nights to determine strategy.   Does the coalition hold?  Time will tell.  

Yes, and what time will also hold are recurring MONTHLY fees that will NOT be paid for the time being by anyone other than the attorneys that formed and stay a part of the coalition.  Every victim should be hopeful that those increasing balances don't impact the coalition's  supporting what's BEST for VICTIMS and there's no rush to settle for less money sooner so bills can be paid.

[CynicalScouter]

9 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

For instance, does the rating system for Grey/Open States remain relevant if the TCC/FCR/Coalition/BSA approved plan fails? 

Maybe?

BSA's ORIGINAL plan was that for victims in closed states/in cases where the statute of limitations had run out, they would get 1% of the value of their claim.

The Grey/Open State system was part of the RSA. That can now proceed IF the TCC/FCR/Coalition are willing to accept the Hartford deal.

Or they can walk away from the RSA and ask that the Grey plan still remain part of the final reorg plan that goes out for a vote.

Depends, depends, depends.

9 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

This issue has really bothered me because the assurance of equitable compensation and confidentiality were primary factors in my choice to file a claim

There's two factors here:

Equitable compensation is a major issue, but keep in mind that from BSA's perspective "equitable" was a two-way street. There's a finite amount of resources (money) here. Is if fair and equitable for someone with NO legal claim (due to statute of limitations) to be paid out? At least count, 80%+ of claimants are outside the statute of limitations. And by the way, that's not just BSA's point: there are attorneys representing thousands of victims who are IN the statute of limitations who are making the same argument.

Very soon, in fact it already has to an extent, you are going to have attorneys for the 14,000 or so victims with timely legal claims fighting AGAINST the attorneys representing the other abuse claimants outside the statute of limitations.

The Grey system was an attempt to get at "equitable". It's not great, but it is an attempt.

Confidentiality: This sadly I put 100% on the feet of some of the legal advertisements and lawfirms who were either deliberately trying to entice or sloppy with their language. No victim was ever going to be 100% confidential. Obviously, the attorney you are working with knows. And whether victims realized it or not, the court/judge will know (not that she's flipping through 82,500 names, but she could). Confidential here really means "restricted to the general public", not "no one will ever see my name". But that kind of distinction is murky. I took a research methods class once that spent an entire class period on the distinction between anonymous and confidential.

In short, I believe may people thought, or were led to believe, they were getting anonymity (NO ONE will EVER know my name. Not the judge, not the lawyers, no one.) and what they got was confidentiality.

Edited August 20, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

For discussion continuity, moved in timeline to

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by RememberSchiff
report filed that p.ost was missed during split