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

[Eagle1993]

One very interesting point that may have been missed.  The FCR stated that with the LDS contribution, there is now a "framework" for CO contributions.  I wonder if the FCR is agreeing to the plan as they think eventually many COs will come in with offers at similar multipliers as the LDS.   Shortly after this, the lawyer for the Catholic/Methodist committee denied there is a framework or even a CO agreement.  Them emphasized that there is an LDS agreement and no other CO has agreed.  They lawyer was asking to delay the hearing to buy more time (but as you know that was denied).

The Coalition & FCR seemed to be really emphasizing that more deals are coming and the pot of money will grow large.  The TCC seems to be questioning if that is really true, given the LC, LDS and Hartford deals haven't really grown that pot of money nearly as fast as some thought ... and the number of players with large sums to negotiate with are dwindling.

[CynicalScouter]

There was talk about providing illustrative examples I wonder if something like this would work:

”A victim was subject to [ABUSE TYPE REDACTED] in 1977

he would normally be entitled to somewhere between $600,000 and $2,700,000 for this abuse. HOWEVER the abuse took place in Alabama which has a closed statute of limitations therefore he would only get perhaps $60,000 - $270,000. Moreover because his council is only contributing $x,xxx and there are YY other victims in the council, the actual amount that this particular victim would expect to receive is $15,000 plus any funds recovered by insurance companies at some later date.”

[johnsch322]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

There was talk about providing illustrative examples I wonder if something like this would work:

”A victim was subject to [ABUSE TYPE REDACTED] in 1977

he would normally be entitled to somewhere between $600,000 and $2,700,000 for this abuse. HOWEVER the abuse took place in Alabama which has a closed statute of limitations therefore he would only get perhaps $60,000 - $270,000. Moreover because his council is only contributing $x,xxx and there are YY other victims in the council, the actual amount that this particular victim would expect to receive is $15,000 plus any funds recovered by insurance companies at some later date.”

Will the amount that is received be dependent on the amount contributed by LC and number of claimants from the LC? I don’t believe that I have seen a definitive answer to this question. 

[CynicalScouter]

9 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Get BSA out of the equation and take aim at the others in state court where the balance of leverage shifts.

Only if you’re in a state with no or a relaxed statute of limitations.

in 24 states the Legislature is never ever going to lift that statute (due to state constitutional provisions that ban such look backs ).

in the rest, maybe you get a victim or even a few dozen to sue the LC. Then the LC simply goes into its own Ch 11.

Again, there is no scenario here where all victims across 50 states get 100% of claim values.

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, johnsch322 said:

Will the amount that is received be dependent on the amount contributed by LC and number of claimants from the LC? I don’t believe that I have seen a definitive answer to this question. 

That Is another question not answered.

I know they specified that the LDS contribution will got to only LDS claimants, but that is all.

[CynicalScouter]

Modified:

”A victim was subject to [ABUSE TYPE REDACTED] in 1977. He would normally be entitled to somewhere between $600,000 and $2,700,000 for this abuse. HOWEVER the abuse took place in Alabama which has a closed statute of limitations therefore he would only get perhaps $60,000 - $270,000. Moreover because BSA and all local councils are only contributing $x,xxx and there are YY other victims the actual amount that this particular victim would expect to receive is $15,000 plus any funds recovered by insurance companies at some later date.”

[johnsch322]

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

That Is another question not answered.

I know they specified that the LDS contribution will got to only LDS claimants, but that is all.

That by itself should be enough to vote no.  Why should I share my LC’s contribution with someone who is getting money from the LDS pot that I can’t share in. 

Edited September 21, 2021 by johnsch322

[vol_scouter]

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Modified:

 

”A victim was subject to [ABUSE TYPE REDACTED] in 1977. He would normally be entitled to somewhere between $600,000 and $2,700,000 for this abuse. HOWEVER the abuse took place in Alabama which has a closed statute of limitations therefore he would only get perhaps $60,000 - $270,000. Moreover because BSA and all local councils are only contributing $x,xxx and there are YY other victims the actual amount that this particular victim would expect to receive is $15,000 plus any funds recovered by insurance companies at some later date.”

For the councils, if the contribution from the local council is only to be applied to those claimants who accuse them ever contribute if they are in a statute of limitations closed state?  My understanding is that the BSA and the local councils would pay into a general fund that a trustee would use to pay the claimants.  

[Eagle1993]

1 minute ago, vol_scouter said:

For the councils, if the contribution from the local council is only to be applied to those claimants who accuse them ever contribute if they are in a statute of limitations closed state?  My understanding is that the BSA and the local councils would pay into a general fund that a trustee would use to pay the claimants.  

Even the LDS issue is going to be debated.  I don't think we know for sure.  Right now, it is all 1 big pot per the plan ... unless CynicalScouter found something different in the plan.

 

 

[CynicalScouter]

5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Even the LDS issue is going to be debated.  I don't think we know for sure.  Right now, it is all 1 big pot per the plan ... unless CynicalScouter found something different in the plan.

 

 

I have no idea and no idea where to even find it

[Eagle1993]

One debate right now... insurance company is stating that they have a big deductible per claim.  Given that BSA is saying average claims are $6K or something, then insurance should have to pay NOTHING.  The insurance companies are saying the disclosure is not clear as claimants may think there is substantial insurance when there will be none.

Now, if you believe the other numbers ($600K - $2M) then there could be insurance coverage; however, BSA is not being consistent in disclosure. 

[ThenNow]

37 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

That by itself should be enough to vote no.  Why should I share my LC’s contribution with someone who is getting money from the LDS pot that I can’t share in.

This a bloody mess. (I use "bloody" as used in the Commonwealth.)

[CynicalScouter]

34 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

For the councils, if the contribution from the local council is only to be applied to those claimants who accuse them ever contribute if they are in a statute of limitations closed state?  My understanding is that the BSA and the local councils would pay into a general fund that a trustee would use to pay the claimants.  

I don't know. Is it:

BSA + LC = big pot of money? That would seem that the larger councils would be supplementing/carrying smaller councils.

BSA + LC = big pot of money + 251 smaller pots?

[johnsch322]

6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

This a bloody mess. (I use "bloody" as used in the Commonwealth.)

I’m knackered of all of this. 

[vol_scouter]

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I don't know. Is it:

BSA + LC = big pot of money? That would seem that the larger councils would be supplementing/carrying smaller councils.

BSA + LC = big pot of money + 251 smaller pots?

That would mean that local council of any size in a sol time barred state would contribute some amount of money that would not be paid to anyone because of the SOL.  Of course, there could be lawsuits in that state that is not time barred (i.e. relatively recent) but my understanding is that most are time barred.  

So many issues.