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

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think their priorities should be:

1. Risk of overturn in appeals process (no reason to have a plan approved that is rejected later)
2. Youth protection changes
3. Protection of local council camps (a bit different than #2 above)
4. Maximizing claimant % approval (I understand claimants will place this higher on the list)
5. Protect high adventure bases
6. Speed to confirmation
7. Provide protection for charter organizations (I just don't see how they protect COs in bankruptcy without risking appeal court losses)

I don’t necessarily disagree with this list. I will speak totally out of turn and lay odds that I’m right in this speculation.

I don’t think most survivor claimants in this case, based on how I read many of the factors, have YP at number two and know little to nothing about non-debtor third party releases or a Purdue-like negation on appeal. Just being honest. (Someone do a poll on how many claimants even care if BSA survives. How many upvotes? Wanna poll attorneys, too? Ha.) I wish the third party release issue had featured more prominently in media scrutiny many months ago. Survivors should have been afforded the courtesy to be aware of the looming threat. I think for most guys there are two issues: (1) maximum financial recompense; and (2) getting this over and done with once and for all. YP “changes” are a fairly esoteric concept when you have no idea what’s being done now or not.

As SoLs are currently configured throughout the states, some 55,000+/- claimants will get nothing from COs in the so-called tort system. Looking back over the last 21 months, BSA should never have tried to include them. I hate to say that, because I had some hope of a global settlement, aka, “get me the he## off this brutal carnival ride!” If COs fall out, as may be necessary, I’m stuck suing my mom’s lifelong church. That is an awful prospect I may be unable to countenance. And, no. I do not feel at all well about all of this today. I’m close to barfing all over the people next to me on this ride.  

Q: Since Purdue had a passel of Attorneys General banging for the deal to be overturned, along with some 2600+/- claimants, what if the deal had been a unanimous vote? Is that the only vaccine, er immunization, against such a challenge being successful?

With that I say, “Ralph!! Alas, I’ve got the BSA Chapter 11 carnival flu. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by ThenNow

[Eagle1993]

14 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Q: Since Purdue had a passel of Attorneys General banging for the deal to be overturned, along with some 2600+/- claimants, what if the deal had been a unanimous vote? Is that the only vaccine, er immunization, against such a challenge being successful?

I'm not sure that it would matter, but someone who read the 142 pages of the overturn ruling could comment better.  Let's assume 100%.  The issue is the Slackers who didn't declare bankruptcy.  So, why should someone in a year or two be prohibited from suing them if the individual was not part of the bankruptcy case.  If the Slackers want to personally benefit from protections granted in bankruptcy, then they should declare bankruptcy.

18 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I will speak totally out of turn and lay odds that I’m right in this speculation.

I don't disagree most claimants will look at $ and speed.  YPT is probably down the list.  The reason I think BSA should have it higher has more to do with their recovery post-bankruptcy.  They need everyone on board saying the organization is safe as they exit.  

This was a list in terms of BSA priorities, not a claimant view.

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The issue is the Slackers who didn't declare bankruptcy. 

Not unlike LCs and COs, no? I mean as to the declaring Chapter 11 part, not the being “Slackers” part, for the record.

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

This was a list in terms of BSA priorities, not a claimant view.

Yessir. Was just sayin...

Edited December 20, 2021 by ThenNow

[Eagle1993]

19 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Not unlike LCs and COs, no? I mean as to the declaring Chapter 11 part, not the being “Slackers” part, for the record.

21 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Exactly. 

Another topic going around the lawyer/legal professor Twitter universe is how BSA's LC contributions are structured.  Specifically, a Georgetown Legal Professor is questioning how LC funds are being comingled.  He is saying this is actually a case that isn't messy and they (BSA) should easily be able to divert funds from a LC to their specific claimants.  

The professor is also questioning the insurance settlements.  The insurance, as written, has a per incident cap (many times $1M) but no aggregate cap.  However, now through their settlement they have an aggregate cap which will require claimants to take much less than the incident camp.  He states that the insurers have enough money to pay out the per incident cap.  He is questioning how claimants who approve the plan could bind the claimants who reject the plan with respect to insurance coverage.

I lot of questions remain...

[johnsch322]

A thought came to me about just and fair compensation and how ridiculous the current offer is and let me explain. 

Survivors at a minimum suffer from PTSD, depression and anxiety.  If the VA determined that you had these same conditions from a traumatic event (and the sexual abuse is considered (traumatic) you would be awarded a minimum of a 30% disability.  A 30% disability would get you tax free approximately $500 per month or $6000 per year.  In addition you would be entitled free medical and that could easily be seen as an additional $500 per month.  If you got your VA award at the age of 30 and you lived until the age of 83 (hypothetical of course) you would have an award of $600,00.  

I know that we are in a bankruptcy but with an average award under the current plan to be about $39,000 or less (depends on who does the math) that is a pitiful amount compared to $600,000.  If I receive $39,000 and had to pay no lawyers fees and my abuse happened at the age of 13 and I lived to be 83 I would have received it would come out to $557 dollars for every year that I suffered.

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

As SoLs are currently configured throughout the states, some 55,000+/- claimants will get nothing from COs in the so-called tort system.

I'm assuming your 55,000 is SOL based. 

I'm betting it's much higher if you factor in (as you alluded to), ...

• a familiar church (family, friends, etc)
• a insufficient pot of money to justify firms floating cost of contingent legal cases
• COs that just don't exist anymore
• victims that just are not that committed (headaches, insufficient incentive, rehashing the past)

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I'm assuming your 55,000 is SOL based. 

Yes. SoL and SOL. Precisely.

4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I'm betting it's much higher if you factor in (as you alluded to), ...

• a familiar church (family, friends, etc)
• a insufficient pot of money to justify firms floating cost of contingent legal cases
• COs that just don't exist anymore
• victims that just are not that committed (headaches, insufficient incentive, rehashing the past)

Prob’ly, as some of my northern kin say. 

[Eagle1993]

Purdue Pharma now officially being brought up on the Docket.  Note that there will likely be a new case to reference soon as another District Court blasted nonconsensual non debtor releases (calling them nonsense).  

00ea8d61-4406-4e26-8710-51a7af2d0ee0_7863.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

The TCC is asking the judge to not delay confirmation, other than allowing 1 more week for discovery.  ... Note that if the TCC thought this was headed to an approval, I bet they would want to delay confirmation hearings.  This may be a sign ...

The TCC is asking the judge to have a two step Confirmation.  The first step is to review the bankruptcy court's ability to issue protection to non debtors.  They reference various cases including Purdue Pharma.  Basically, the TCC would like to court to rule on this first as if the court decides they cannot issue 3rd party releases (either at all OR without major modifications) then there is no point to continue the confirmation hearing.

Quote

If the Court determines that it lacks the authority to approve the scope of the releases and grant the injunctive relief in the Plan, then the entire Plan fails. See, e.g., In re Purdue Pharma, L.P. Case No. 21-cv-7532 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2021). Accordingly, such determination is a “gatekeeping” issue to confirmation of the Plan. Ordering a bifurcated trial would allow the Court to determine this issue first.

 

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

I know that we are in a bankruptcy but with an average award under the current plan to be about $39,000 or less (depends on who does the math)

I too realize assets are limited, though the insurers (at least) have mucho more that is not being tapped. (I know this ain’t the gov’ment who gets to print money, but “C’mon, man!”) My not quite weekly therapy for the twenty years since the ground opened up and swallowed me put about $120,000 on the red side of the ledger. That’s just for a reference point. I know I’ve posted all manner of numbers in the past, but it seemed relevant to the current tea party chatter. If I added meds, residential and outpatient treatment, various depression treatments (including ECT), hospitalizations, surgeries and procedures for deteriorated joints, heart and gut issues (thank you, hyper allostatic load), U of Chicago efforts to address peri-anal fistulae and...that number is pushing or exceeding brother John’s. And really don’t get me started on lost wages and the like.

PS - I no longer have any delusional thinking about this award feeling like or being equitable compensation or just recompense or reasonable reimbursement or anything of the sort. I am not saying that to make any of you angry, I’ve just resolved it in my head and heart. If I happen to hit the LC or CO state court lottery, bully for me. Someone remind me of the well-established lottery odds, if you would please. I recall a yarn about a shark getting struck by lightning while it’s trying to bite me as I ride down Main Street USA on a moped eating a hot fudge Sunday wearing MCVA’s stinky red beret that he traded for my OA lodge pocket flap patch. Is that about right? 

Edited December 20, 2021 by ThenNow

[MattR]

Deciding "fair" sounds like deciding art, it depends on who you are and what your circumstances are. What would be fairer to everyone would be if the BSA had not been withering on the vine for the past 60 years. Without that there would be more money and more donations. If 20% of all available kids were in scouts then whether or not the BSA fails would not be an issue. So I'm not sure "greed" of those seeking money really has much to do with any bad news. Sure, the bankruptcy may be speeding any demise up, but I have no illusions as to the BSA's plan of increasing membership in a few years. It reminds me of the Soviet's five year plans. Goals are easily written. What has made scouting good are the volunteers. The money saved in coffers has less to do with the quality of the program. Sure, summer camps can be nicer with a lot of donations but it's the day to day people that make the program work and those are volunteers.

Anyway, while I have fond memories of what scouting has done for many scouts, I just can't see how the bankruptcy is really going to make a big difference in the long run. Camps are just being sold earlier, that's all.

[Eagle1970]

These old policies were written on an "occurrence" basis, meaning if it was a $1M policy limit, they could pay that limit to countless claimants under the policy term.  So if we have tens of thousands of victims who are not time-barred, that is tens to hundreds of billions in potential exposure.  So why would an insurer be settled out for $1B?  I always thought the contribution from insurers would be so much higher.  Can anyone break this down for me?

[johnsch322]

4 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

These old policies were written on an "occurrence" basis, meaning if it was a $1M policy limit, they could pay that limit to countless claimants under the policy term.  So if we have tens of thousands of victims who are not time-barred, that is tens to hundreds of billions in potential exposure.  So why would an insurer be settled out for $1B?  I always thought the contribution from insurers would be so much higher.  Can anyone break this down for me?

My belief is that the insurance company's are not under any pressure right now vs the BSA and the coalition who want to make a large dollar figure and announcements to try to get the settlement to pass.  Why offer $5B (hypothetical) when you may get away with $800M?

[gpurlee]

A few months ago, one of the posters here offered some great advice I thought. 

Type what you intend  to say. Set it aside for a few minutes and look at it again before you press "post". Does it really say what I intend for it to say? Does it come across as respectful to the readers?

We are in a challenging and painful environment. For some of the posters here, Scouting represents the start of a lifelong  nightmare which has been brought once again to the surface.

For others, Scouting has been a wonderful, life changing experience full of friendships and good memories. And an important part of their life feels under attack.

Both experiences and perspectives are valid for the individuals involved. 

One of the values of this forum is to bring together and to share very diverse experiences.  Even if my experience is very different from yours, we can recognize and acknowledge that another's experience is valid and important to them. And that we can learn from one another. 

And perhaps help someone else on their journey.

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by gpurlee

[grizzly702]

Just saw this- how does this change the landscape?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/key-part-of-law-helping-child-sex-abuse-victims-sue-is-unconstitutional-nc-court-rules/ar-AAS01Id?ocid=hplocalnews

[ThenNow]

51 minutes ago, grizzly702 said:

Just saw this- how does this change the landscape?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/key-part-of-law-helping-child-sex-abuse-victims-sue-is-unconstitutional-nc-court-rules/ar-AAS01Id?ocid=hplocalnews

Clear as mud just got muddier? The panel’s ruling is not yet available. I look forward to reading it. As the attorneys said in the article, this is headed to the NC Supremes. Once they rule, we’ll have a much better idea.

Edited December 21, 2021 by ThenNow