Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[ThenNow]

11 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Those are good points but they are factors that have been known all along when this so called expert gave his first analysis. So what changed?  

What changed since 12.5.21 is the Claro Report, which (to my knowledge) we only have by inference via this rebuttal. Absent the Claro Report, I can't see this new one being issued. I may be naïve in that perception, though. Claro apparently created an opportunity to present this updated comparative analysis. But, then again, what do I know...?

Okay. The vote also happened, which I shouldn't have been so dense as to omit in my first reply.

Edited January 12, 2022 by ThenNow

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

1) Valuation ... is BSA correct in their valuation?  

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

I fail to understand how all thru this settlement procedure claims were worth $XXXX according to the BSA and now they say claims are worth only $XXX.  Can someone please explain this to me. 

Valuation is not a fixed $$$$ amount.  You can't price tag this type of victimization.  Rather, the question is how big is the pot of money.  Then, what portion each victim gets.

 

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

And miraculously it fits right into how much is in the settlement offer.

That's exactly the point.     Valuation is based on the pot of money.   Valuation = (pot of dollars) / (victim total) * (victimization scaling factor) * (admin/fees scaling factor)    If $3B pot of money and 84,000 victims and a 0.6 factor for admin/fees, victims would (on average) be around $21,500.  

Edited January 12, 2022 by fred8033

[Eagle1993]

10 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Valuation is not a fixed $$$$ amount.  You can't price tag this type of victimization.  Rather, the question is how big is the pot of money.  Then, what portion each victim gets.

 

This is exactly what BSA was doing up until yesterday.  BSA has now changed tactics.  They are arguing that there is now enough money to pay everyone in full.  Why does that matter?  They are saying there is no need to look at chartered organizations, local council finances or insurance companies as the settlement trust is already set to the value that pays 100% of claims in full.

So, they are attempting to price tag this type of victimization and the price tag they place on it is about $36K per claim.  I have a hard time seeing this path as a winning one.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Eagle1993

[johnsch322]

50 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Valuation is not a fixed $$$$ amount.  You can't price tag this type of victimization.  Rather, the question is how big is the pot of money.  Then, what portion each victim gets.

 

That's exactly the point.     Valuation is based on the pot of money.   Valuation = (pot of dollars) / (victim total) * (victimization scaling factor) * (admin/fees scaling factor)    If $3B pot of money and 84,000 victims and a 0.6 factor for admin/fees, victims would (on average) be around $21,500.  

In the settlement offer that I voted on the valuation of my claim was 2.7 million. That what the plan that was voted on. Now the voting is done the BSA is saying it is worth less. That is BS. I think the white man is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. 

[Eagle1993]

What I find interesting is that TCC, long ago, argued that they should go to district court to calculate damages and determine what claimants are owed.  BSA pushed back hard, said there wasn't time, there is no need (as this is bankruptcy so they wouldn't have enough anyway), etc.  I AM SHOCKED that BSA is now apparently claiming the opposite.

I don't have experience here ... but if I were the TCC I would say this is now a critical decision that must be decided in district court.  BSA may have exposed their flank.

This reminds me once when I responded to a European regulator with a 30 page document, going point by point where they were wrong.  They response... ok great, we can go to court, I can come back and audit you again in an area where you are weak or you can agree to my initial points.  We ended up agreeing on the auditor's initial points.

If BSA makes this a fight of claims valuation, TCC may say thank you, lets debate this in court.  I thought BSA was better off saying we don't have enough to pay.

[skeptic]

It is becoming more and more clear to me that in reality, probably always has been, this case has less to do with the survivors than it has to do with money to the legal scavengers.  Meanwhile, it is difficult to imagine the resurgence of emotional turmoil for those that are the fodder for the lawyers.  

And, we who still  harbor hope that somehow we can simply refocus the program on those that so need it today, find ourselves frustrated and in a seeming endless limbo.  

It is simply sad that the very tenets of Scouting, the ones that have turned out millions of good citizens and strong adults is somehow not recognized for its overwhelmingly positive impact on a society begging for direction.  That compass point symbol still carries significance for the overall betterment of our country and society.  The past cannot be repaired.  But the future can be redirected and refocussed on societal growth and movement from ego and greed.  

 

 

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

In the settlement offer that I voted on the valuation of my claim was 2.7 million. That what the plan that was voted on.

This is what I don't get in the "before" and "after" Reports snapshots, regardless the numbers. The Claims Valuation Matrix was said to be based on the data I've highlighted. So, the Claro and Rebuttal Reports have redefined or uncovered new data? Was ist das? I realized it states, "allowed," but baselines are nonetheless used, supposedly derived from the data noted.

The Base Matrix value column for each tier represents the default Allowed Claim Amount for an Allowed Abuse Claim assigned to a given tier, in each case based on historical abuse settlements and litigation outcomes which included release for all BSA-related parties, including the BSA and all other putative Protected Parties to such actions, prior to application of the Scaling Factors described in Article VIII.D (the “Base Matrix Value”). The maximum Claims Matrix value column for each tier represents the maximum Allowed Claim Amount for an Allowed Abuse Claim assigned to a given tier after Claims Matrix review and application of the Scaling Factors described in Article VIII.C (the “Maximum Matrix Value”). The ultimate distribution(s) to the holder of an Allowed Abuse Claim that has received a Final Determination may vary upward (in the case of a larger-than- expected Settlement Trust corpus) or downward (in the case of a smaller-than-expected Settlement Trust corpus) from the holder’s Allowed Claim Amount based on the payment percentages determined by the Settlement Trustee.

Edited January 12, 2022 by ThenNow

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

It is becoming more and more clear to me that in reality, probably always has been, this case has less to do with the survivors than it has to do with money to the legal scavengers.  Meanwhile, it is difficult to imagine the resurgence of emotional turmoil for those that are the fodder for the lawyers.  

And, we who still  harbor hope that somehow we can simply refocus the program on those that so need it today, find ourselves frustrated and in a seeming endless limbo.  

It is simply sad that the very tenets of Scouting, the ones that have turned out millions of good citizens and strong adults is somehow not recognized for its overwhelmingly positive impact on a society begging for direction.  That compass point symbol still carries significance for the overall betterment of our country and society.  The past cannot be repaired.  But the future can be redirected and refocussed on societal growth and movement from ego and greed.  

There was a great article December on the bankruptcy and it's costs.  Some great quotes in it.  

https://news.yahoo.com/big-winners-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-100024259.html

* UCLA law professor calling the whole bankruptcy system corrupt.
* BSA fees 40% projected compared to Enron's 3%.
* BSA administrative bankruptcy cost is over $200m.  Remaining funds is approx $200m also.

Edited January 12, 2022 by fred8033

[Eagle1993]

29 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

There was a great article December on the bankruptcy and it's costs.  Some great quotes in it.  

https://news.yahoo.com/big-winners-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-100024259.html

* UCLA law professor calling the whole bankruptcy system corrupt.
* BSA fees 40% projected compared to Enron's 3%.
* BSA administrative bankruptcy cost is over $200m.  Remaining funds is approx $200m also.

In some parts of the world, the only bankruptcy is essentially CH7.  You can't pay your bills, fine, appoint a trustee, sell off everything and pay your creditors.  

1) It probably makes you a bit more careful about taking on excess debt ... something I think US non profits and businesses seem to ignore.

2) Not much money to be made by lawyers. 

Watching this, I tend to think those other countries have it right.  

[johnsch322]

3 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

In the settlement offer that I voted on the valuation of my claim was 2.7 million. That what the plan that was voted on. Now the voting is done the BSA is saying it is worth less. That is BS. I think the white man is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. 

I want to make it clear that even if my valuation by the claims matrix was 2.7M I have not expected to receive that amount. I understand that this is a bankruptcy. But now for the BSA to put a lower valuation then they originally came up with feels like another violation of myself. It’s like let’s put salt in the wound. 

[Eagle1993]

Split off the discussion about rechartering.

 

[ThenNow]

Sex abuse claimants torn over Boy Scout bankruptcy plan

“If West Seneca resident Tracy Peterson had been sexually abused as a child in New York, his claim in federal bankruptcy court against the Boy Scouts of America could be worth upward of $1 million.

But because the abuse is alleged to have occurred in the early 1970s in Texas, where Peterson was born and raised, he said his lawyers are telling him he probably will be eligible for no more than $30,000, minus 40% in attorney fees...”

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/sex-abuse-claimants-torn-over-boy-scout-bankruptcy-plan/article_be11d1f4-7592-11ec-b256-5f4faec9e364.html

[johnsch322]

A message to my fellow survivors:

We are all getting bankruptcy fatigue and at times it will seem overwhelming but we are SURVIVORS and we will succeed.  The bankruptcy will at its own speed evolve and at the end we will all win.  We may never get the money we deserve but sure as hell remember the BSA will pay out more than it ever wanted to.

Stay strong.

[ThenNow]

(Reposting this here. Perhaps it was misplaced on the "All Legalese, All the Time" thread.)

 

Jan 19 (Reuters) 

“The University of Michigan said it would pay $490 million to 1,050 people to resolve claims of sexual assault against a former sports doctor, in a settlement spanning decades and involving mostly male athletes as victims.”

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/university-michigan-agrees-490-mln-sexual-abuse-settlement-ap-2022-01-19/

When you read the article, note the nature of the abuse in comparison to this context. Any and all sexual abuse is egregious, but this case involves mostly male athletes over the age of 18, a doctor and “unnecessary exams.” Horrid, but not child rape. A public vigil for the victims on campus. (WSJ)

No one should ever take my word on matters involving ciphering, but does this mean the BSA Settlement Trust 'should' be in the neighborhood of $38B plus another $.5B for good measure? Hm. Yes, I'm dreaming, but it's a good dream for a change.

[Eagle1993]

15 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

No one should ever take my word on matters involving ciphering, but does this mean the BSA Settlement Trust 'should' be in the neighborhood of $38B plus another $.5B for good measure? Hm. Yes, I'm dreaming, but it's a good dream for a change.

I wonder if the Bates analysis would have to reconsider.  In addition, the Dr. at U of Mich worked from 1966 to 2003 ... so most of the victims are older right now (and male).  It seems like Bates discounted older victims.

Now, the one aspect where U of Michigan may be more liable is that he was a repeat abuser.  Many of the BSA abusers were only identified once (Bates indicated repeat abusers are where the bigger payouts occur).  

I'm sure this settlement will be utilized in the BSA mediation/negotiations when calculating value of the claims.  Insurance companies will likely be the ones going back to see if they can write a bigger check.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Eagle1993