CynicalScouter Posted August 30, 2021 Share Posted August 30, 2021 (edited) Paywalled WSJ News Exclusive | Boy Scouts Are Close to New Deal With Insurer Hartford on Sex-Abuse Claims Quote The Boy Scouts of America are nearing a revised deal with Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. for the insurer to compensate survivors of childhood sexual abuse and ease the youth group’s exit from bankruptcy, people familiar with the matter said. Hartford’s contribution could approach $800 million under the possible deal, though negotiations continue and there is no guarantee of a final agreement, these people said. The settlement would clear Hartford of any further obligation under policies it wrote for the Boy Scouts... Edited August 30, 2021 by CynicalScouter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muttsy Posted August 30, 2021 Share Posted August 30, 2021 Can CerebralScouter, er, CynicAlScouter remind us if BSA exclusivity has expired? Stang said something a while back along the lines that he has a BSA only plan he wants to file. Does anyone know if that’s in the works? The way he alluded to it it sounded like maybe Toggle Plus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilwell_1919 Posted August 30, 2021 Share Posted August 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: Paywalled WSJ News Exclusive | Boy Scouts Are Close to New Deal With Insurer Hartford on Sex-Abuse Claims Perhaps too early for speculation? I really do really like that the judge approved deposition of the claim aggregators and law firms. I hope they get to the bottom of "whatever transpired"... with hopes there can be some path forward that doesn't drag this thing out for years on end. I won't agree that Tim K. is some sort of oracle. NTM... history marks the measures of how a winner won each battle during the war (if we can call this the start of a long path towards victory). I hope, for the sake of the claimants he represents, that he hasn't been throwing stones while living in a glass house. Given that his name is all over the original AIS paperwork (*read contracts), if he is legitimately no longer part of the AIS coalition... does that negate the contract AIS has with the claimants? If they are null and void, what happens to those claimants? Definitely a few questions that should be asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted August 30, 2021 Share Posted August 30, 2021 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Muttsy said: Can CerebralScouter, er, CynicAlScouter remind us if BSA exclusivity has expired? Stang said something a while back along the lines that he has a BSA only plan he wants to file. Does anyone know if that’s in the works? The way he alluded to it it sounded like maybe Toggle Plus. Judge entered an order August 18 regarding BSA's exclusivity time. In short, by statute, BSA can have up to 18 months from filing of the bankruptcy to be the exclusive entity that can propose a reorganization plan. Technically, the last extension expired in May, but there a "Delaware bridge" which gives an automatic extension when requested. The judge's order confirmed that the BSA's time runs out August 18 and that their time to exclusively solicit votes for a plan ends October 18. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/474026c0-2a8b-4a8d-b7bb-db3e57711f8d_6076.pdf What this means is that starting tomorrow, TCC/FCR/Coalition or any party can file their own reorganization plan for BSA and starting October 19, with the court's permission, send it out for a vote. HOWEVER and this is the HOWEVER under the RSA the TCC/FCR/Coalition have agreed NOT to do that for now. But that begs the question: is the RSA operative and binding or are the TCC/FCR/Coalition simply abiding by it as a courtesy while mediation/negotiation is ongoing. Edited August 30, 2021 by CynicalScouter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted August 30, 2021 Share Posted August 30, 2021 9 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said: I really do really like that the judge approved deposition of the claim aggregators and law firms. Half-right. She approved the deposition of the claim aggregators ONLY at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilwell_1919 Posted August 30, 2021 Share Posted August 30, 2021 10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: Half-right. She approved the deposition of the claim aggregators ONLY at this point. My mistake, I thought they had included the law firms. My ultimate sentiment is that I hope they are able to get to the bottom of anything improper or fraudulent so the claimants, BSA, and everyone else can move forward with the best possible outcome possible. Whatever that may be. I know Tim K. has emphatically stated that he wants BSA to go away. But... that shows very little concern for the scouts that are actively in the program and who are thriving (in at least my neck of the woods). Reminds of me of the proverbial questions, "should the son be punished for the sins of the father". No... no he should not be. Just like the current scouts and scouters should not be punished for the sins of former BSA leadership and evil adults that destroyed the lives of innocent children. If there is an amicable way forward... I am in favor for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted August 30, 2021 Share Posted August 30, 2021 10 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said: if he is legitimately no longer part of the AIS coalition... does that negate the contract AIS has with the claimants Depends. Here's the problem; it is NOT clear who represent about 15,103 claimants. Kosnoff claims he does. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f26f9981-f41d-42bd-adbd-d7996d12f44f_5924.pdf Quote Kosnoff Law represents 15,103 Abuse Victims. Of that group, 3,054 are also members of the Coalition. So Kosnoff's claiming to represent 15,103. BUT read the AIS Rule 2019 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/47fa66fb-180b-411f-80c4-59e56cd1d63d_5923.pdf Quote The Law Firms represent 15,103 Abuse Victims. Of that group, 3,054 are also members of the Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice (the “Coalition”). In other words: 1) Kosnoff is claiming those 15,103 are his clients. 2) The AIS filing is claiming those 15,103 are clients held jointly by the three firms (Kosnoff Law, PLLC; AVA Law Group, Inc. and Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck, P.C.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilwell_1919 Posted August 30, 2021 Share Posted August 30, 2021 35 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: Depends. Here's the problem; it is NOT clear who represent about 15,103 claimants. Kosnoff claims he does. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f26f9981-f41d-42bd-adbd-d7996d12f44f_5924.pdf So Kosnoff's claiming to represent 15,103. BUT read the AIS Rule 2019 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/47fa66fb-180b-411f-80c4-59e56cd1d63d_5923.pdf In other words: 1) Kosnoff is claiming those 15,103 are his clients. 2) The AIS filing is claiming those 15,103 are clients held jointly by the three firms (Kosnoff Law, PLLC; AVA Law Group, Inc. and Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck, P.C.) Yeah, it's definitely a mess. Maybe if they find fraud with the claims aggregators that will sway the judge to order discovery/deposition of the law firms? Again, if the goal is to weed out the fictitious claims and find an amicable way forward with the rest of the parties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted August 30, 2021 Share Posted August 30, 2021 2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said: Paywalled WSJ News Exclusive | Boy Scouts Are Close to New Deal With Insurer Hartford on Sex-Abuse Claims With permission. Boy Scouts Are Close to New Deal With Insurer Hartford on Sex-Abuse Claims.pdf 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted August 30, 2021 Share Posted August 30, 2021 1 minute ago, ThenNow said: With permission. Boy Scouts Are Close to New Deal With Insurer Hartford on Sex-Abuse Claims.pdf 989.18 kB · 0 downloads Here's my problem with the article, and it is a major one. In three different places the article says that support from "a majority" is required. It's more than that. It's 2/3rds. And that is what makes this calculus so much harder. Again, all other things being equal, that means a MINORITY (27,500 out of 82,500) can scuttle this plan absent a cramdown which is just a horror show in its own right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted August 31, 2021 Share Posted August 31, 2021 10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: Here's my problem with the article, and it is a major one. Yes. That problem is inherent. My red flag the clear implication that the Coalition is selling out for the new Hartford deal, as MYCVAStory (and I less substantively) noted as an underlying fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted August 31, 2021 Share Posted August 31, 2021 1 minute ago, ThenNow said: Yes. That problem is inherent. My red flag the clear implication that the Coalition is selling out for the new Hartford deal, as MYCVAStory (and I less substantively) noted as an underlying fear. 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%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted August 31, 2021 Share Posted August 31, 2021 (edited) 13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: But even if the coalition does in fact sell out they don’t control the votes I know. We’re on two different levels of the mall trying to find each other. I get lost in a store, much less the mall. I’m talking about the breakdown of the small ‘c’ coalition of the TCC/FCR and big ‘c’ Coalition and all that can means to the next phases and processes, in addition to the vote. We have to get there, first, and together has been what’s kept things on track to this point. The Hartford deal created that little ‘c’s opposition camaraderie and the new Hartford deal may tear it apart. Oh, and getting their fees denied paved the way for the cave. Edited August 31, 2021 by ThenNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muttsy Posted August 31, 2021 Share Posted August 31, 2021 If Hartford settlement 2.0 is still tethered to a Century 1.3B contribution, she has no basis to approve a Plan Disclosure Statement. Is it 800M, 500M, 300M? If so, it never goes out for a vote. By the time the carriers’ lawyers get finished with the Coslition mass torters’ aggregators, the Coalition will have less street cred than it has now which has been thoroughly crushed by the court. I’m surprised the C hasn’t imploded by now. I want to see TCC step up and show us the money. Show us their super duper plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muttsy Posted August 31, 2021 Share Posted August 31, 2021 2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said: Kosnoff Law represents 15,103 Abuse Victims. Of that group, 3,054 are also members of the Coalition. All three firms jointly represent 15,103 clients. They are all correct. Their clients will vote their own ballots after receiving the perspectives of the three law firms that represent them. The question is who will make the most sense to their collective clients about the pros and cons of a plan that it is presented to them. That’s what happens in joint representation. Presidents have advisors and cabinet secretaries who strongly sometimes violently disagree with each other. They make their respective cases to the President and he decides. Same thing here. Not mysterious. Client decides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts