Chapter 11 Announced - Part 6 - Plan 5.0/TCC Plan TBD

[Eagle1993]

TCC Townhall Summary.  No major announcements.  No change to recommendation.  Vote, vote, vote.  More details below:

• Purdue Ruling ... could have major impact, still digesting
• Voting ... pushing everyone to vote.  They recommend reject, but want everyone to vote.  Votes can be submitted/changed until Dec 28.  
• If claimants are concerned about their vote, call or email Omni.  Best to email as Omni will reply back with how their vote is recorded.  That could then be used as evidence later if needed.
• Council dashboards ... this data is just a new format to show data that is already in the disclosure package and agreed upon by all parties.  The TCC believes they may be able to release their analysis of every council (which is based on data shared by councils that may not be public).  However, they cannot release this until the plan confirmation fight where this data may then be brought up in court.  So, for now, the dashboards are limited.
• Century offer ... TCC believes once again that this is far less than their total liability.  No change/impact to their recommendation.
• YPT ... BSA has started meetings with TCC about youth protection changes.  The conversations were good and promising.  Main issue is transparency.  We will have to see what comes out.
• BSA offer ... TCC has not been able to confirm the full details of the BSA/LC offer increase to protect all COs outside UMC/Catholic church.  That said, as I mentioned earlier, their estimates align fairly closely to my numbers in an earlier post.  They openly asked the BSA to meet with them to discuss and confirm if this is a correct understanding.
• TCC was upset by some statements during the Coalition townhall about fees.  Technically, the TCC is the 9 abuse survivors who are not paid.  They make the call on if the offer is acceptable or not. 

 

[vol_scouter]

To me, if the desire is to provide the most equitable compensation to the most claimants, then one must vote approval of the RSA.  This is because my understanding is that most claimants are statute of limitations barred.   The current plan would provide all of them some compensation.  If this goes to state courts, most of those claimants will get nothing unless there is a change in laws that may or may not happen.  So to provide the compensation to all claimants and not exclude most, one must vote to approve the RSA.

[yknot]

9 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

To me, if the desire is to provide the most equitable compensation to the most claimants, then one must vote approval of the RSA.  This is because my understanding is that most claimants are statute of limitations barred.   The current plan would provide all of them some compensation.  If this goes to state courts, most of those claimants will get nothing unless there is a change in laws that may or may not happen.  So to provide the compensation to all claimants and not exclude most, one must vote to approve the RSA.

It seems to me that above and beyond compensation or perhaps equal to it, many claimants also want to ensure that if BSA continues it will create a next order youth protection program. They don't want what happened to them happening to other children. I'm not seeing where the current plan addresses that other than a few bones and some promises? I wonder how much of a role that might play for claimants.  The TCC does seem to keep trying to keep that on the table. 

[johnsch322]

13 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

To me, if the desire is to provide the most equitable compensation to the most claimants, then one must vote approval of the RSA.  This is because my understanding is that most claimants are statute of limitations barred.   The current plan would provide all of them some compensation.  If this goes to state courts, most of those claimants will get nothing unless there is a change in laws that may or may not happen.  So to provide the compensation to all claimants and not exclude most, one must vote to approve the RSA.

This is not an accurate statement.  A NO vote does not necessarily mean that all legitimate claims (time barred or not) will not receive compensation.  It only means that the plan as constructed will be rejected by vote.  Afterwards a new plan most likely the TCC's will be put into play and the TCC is not against the grey state reductions.  In fact if it is rejected and LC's, CO's and Insurance kicks in more money than each individual claimant will get more.  That is if they are allowed to have liability releases within BSA's bankruptcy which is a big question mark after yesterday's Purdue ruling.

Your statement follows along the lines of what the Coalition keeps saying which is full of holes and not backed by facts.

5 minutes ago, yknot said:

The TCC does seem to keep trying to keep that on the table. 

TCC talked about working with BSA in last nights Town Hall.

[MattR]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

So, the question for the BSA case.  I wonder if there is any chance a plan is approved with DOJ/TCC rejecting the plan.  That seems like it would be ripe for appeal.  

Another question: why doesn't the doj declare the plan illegal now?

[johnsch322]

3 minutes ago, MattR said:

Another question: why doesn't the doj declare the plan illegal now?

I would not be surprised if that was a question and debate going on behind closed doors right now.  BSA may be asking themselves if they should just do a standalone bankruptcy. It would most likely save them some legal fees.  Especially if the plan was rejected on appeal.

[vol_scouter]

6 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

This is not an accurate statement.  A NO vote does not necessarily mean that all legitimate claims (time barred or not) will not receive compensation.  It only means that the plan as constructed will be rejected by vote.  Afterwards a new plan most likely the TCC's will be put into play and the TCC is not against the grey state reductions.  In fact if it is rejected and LC's, CO's and Insurance kicks in more money than each individual claimant will get more.  That is if they are allowed to have liability releases within BSA's bankruptcy which is a big question mark after yesterday's Purdue ruling.

Your statement follows along the lines of what the Coalition keeps saying which is full of holes and not backed by facts.

TCC talked about working with BSA in last nights Town Hall.

The fallacy in your view is that the local councils will accept the TCC proposal.  As they have inferred a doubling or tripling of the contributions will not be accepted in my opinion as a local council executive board for over 25 years.  The TCC is not being realistic or reasonable.  Obviously none of us have crystal balls but if this fails, the statute of limitations barred claimants risk getting nothing.  

[MYCVAStory]

1 minute ago, vol_scouter said:

Obviously none of us have crystal balls but if this fails, the statute of limitations barred claimants risk getting nothing.

For many, the current settlement isn't much better.  Many just might want a fresh swing at going to their Stetehouses with new ammunition to change their statutes.

[johnsch322]

2 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Obviously none of us have crystal balls but if this fails, the statute of limitations barred claimants risk getting nothing.  

If this became a BSA National only Chapter 7 then all claimants will still get their share from BSA National.  It would be less but not nothing.  On the other hand, many local councils will find themselves in bankruptcy themselves and as more states allow claims to filed more LC's over time will face bankruptcy.

[DayNoomp72]

49 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

For many, the current settlement isn't much better.  Many just might want a fresh swing at going to their Stetehouses with new ammunition to change their statutes.

I’m new. Can you explain what you mean?

47 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

BSA National only Chapter 7 then all claimants will still get their share from BSA National.  It would be less but not nothing. 

What about the pension fund? Doesn’t it get preference or whatever the term is? 

[clbkbx]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

The fallacy in your view is that the local councils will accept the TCC proposal.  As they have inferred a doubling or tripling of the contributions will not be accepted in my opinion as a local council executive board for over 25 years.  The TCC is not being realistic or reasonable.  Obviously none of us have crystal balls but if this fails, the statute of limitations barred claimants risk getting nothing.  

Understanding that you think the LCs will not pay more... the current plan addresses more than just those entities. Accepting this plan means agreeing that LCs, insurance companies, COs, BSA all have their best and final offer (for money and YPT), which is surely not the case. 

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, DayNoomp72 said:

What about the pension fund? Doesn’t it get preference or whatever the term is? 

If BSA national goes bankruptcy alone claimants will share in whatever in whatever BSA national puts into the settlement.

[Eagle1993]

1 hour ago, MattR said:

Another question: why doesn't the doj declare the plan illegal now?

The DOJ is objecting to the plan.  They haven't withdrawn the objection they have had since an earlier version of the plan ... as none of the versions address their concern.  Note this objection was filed May 10, 2021.

They object to the 3rd party releases.  Yes, the judge can still approve the plan with the DOJ objection, it is a major issue.

I found this comment interesting:

Quote

See also In re Aegean Marine Petroleum Network, Inc., 599 B.R. 717, 726-27 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (noting that “…third party releases are not a merit badge that somebody gets in return for making a positive contribution to a restructuring. They are not a participation trophy, and they are not a gold star for doing a good job. Doing positive things in a restructuring case— even important things— is not enough”).

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/241d24f2-4d85-482f-a433-da28b3f8ce3e_3581.pdf

 

[DayNoomp72]

5 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

If BSA national goes bankruptcy alone claimants will share in whatever in whatever BSA national puts into the settlement.

Ok. I still don’t get that bc I hear about pensions going before any other creditors. Will all the attorneys fees there paying all the time start cutting into that amount before too long? 

[Eagle1993]

2 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

The fallacy in your view is that the local councils will accept the TCC proposal.  As they have inferred a doubling or tripling of the contributions will not be accepted in my opinion as a local council executive board for over 25 years.  The TCC is not being realistic or reasonable.  Obviously none of us have crystal balls but if this fails, the statute of limitations barred claimants risk getting nothing.  

The issue is the elimination of all liability will require payment of near bankruptcy levels for each LC.  If they are not willing to do that, I question if any court is willing to accept the plan.  

My other question ...would a LC by LC release be an option?  Those LCs that contribute enough could get releases (and those funds would be directed to claimants from those councils).  To me, the NY LCs are likely going to go immediately to bankruptcy, so perhaps they would be more willing to settle now.

1 hour ago, DayNoomp72 said:

I’m new. Can you explain what you mean?

What about the pension fund? Doesn’t it get preference or whatever the term is? 

Welcome to Scouter.com!