CynicalScouter Posted September 21, 2021 Author Share Posted September 21, 2021 (edited) The BSA's math doesn't add up. I think this is Stang's point. If I merge the data from Fifth Amended Plan pages 148-149 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/010161cd-594e-4b9e-8c88-a7402b49cf4d_6212.pdf And Exhibit F of the Fifth Amended Plan https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/3fa71e64-3562-4885-99ea-d71178ab2f0f_6224.pdf Tier Type of Abuse Base Matrix Value Maximum Matrix Value Unique and Timely Abuse Claim Count by Allegation Base * Unique and Timely Maximum * Unique And Timely 1 REDACTED $600,000 $2,700,000 24,539 $14,723,400,000 $66,255,300,000 2 REDACTED $450,000 $2,025,000 18,856 $8,485,200,000 $38,183,400,000 3 REDACTED $300,000 $1,350,000 13,022 $3,906,600,000 $17,579,700,000 4 REDACTED $150,000 $675,000 17,138 $2,570,700,000 $11,568,150,000 5 REDACTED $75,000 $337,500 1879 $140,925,000 $634,162,500 6 REDACTED $3,500 $8,500 1294 $4,529,000 $10,999,000 Unknown/Unconfirmed 3817 Missing 1664 $29,831,354,000 $134,231,711,500 That means White & Case is assuming discounting all those claims down to get to $2.7-7.1 billion. Down from $29-$134 billion. That's just insane. No victim is going to go into a situation being told they are entitled to $600,000 - $2.7 million but vote for this plan to get you maybe 1-3% of that. Edited September 21, 2021 by CynicalScouter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 21, 2021 Author Share Posted September 21, 2021 48 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 think I head earlier that the LDS funds were being guaranteed for only LDS claims. Not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: The BSA's math doesn't add up. I think this is Stang's point. If I merge the data from Fifth Amended Plan pages 148-149 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/010161cd-594e-4b9e-8c88-a7402b49cf4d_6212.pdf And Exhibit F of the Fifth Amended Plan https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/3fa71e64-3562-4885-99ea-d71178ab2f0f_6224.pdf Tier Type of Abuse Base Matrix Value Maximum Matrix Value Unique and Timely Abuse Claim Count by Allegation Base * Unique and Timely Maximum * Unique And Timely 1 REDACTED $600,000 $2,700,000 24,539 $14,723,400,000 $66,255,300,000 2 REDACTED $450,000 $2,025,000 18,856 $8,485,200,000 $38,183,400,000 3 REDACTED $300,000 $1,350,000 13,022 $3,906,600,000 $17,579,700,000 4 REDACTED $150,000 $675,000 17,138 $2,570,700,000 $11,568,150,000 5 REDACTED $75,000 $337,500 1879 $140,925,000 $634,162,500 6 REDACTED $3,500 $8,500 1294 $4,529,000 $10,999,000 Unknown/Unconfirmed 3817 Missing 1664 $29,831,354,000 $134,231,711,500 That means White & Case is assuming discounting all those claims down to get to $2.7-7.1 billion. Down from $29-$134 billion. That's just insane. No victim is going to go into a situation being told they are entitled to $600,000 - $2.7 million but vote for this plan to get you maybe 1-3% of that. What you are missing is: SOL ... many of these claims are probably really $0 since they are outside SOL False claims ... BSA must be assuming some are false That said ... even then I expect the math doesn't add up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 21, 2021 Author Share Posted September 21, 2021 (edited) Zalkin is using an exact claimant to explain why this entire process is garbage using an Orange County Council claimant in 1977 and a Hartford insurance plan with no aggregate limits. I believe he is changing the names to protect the victim/claimant. This is very LC focused, and his point is that the LC is getting away with something. $44 million assets and his victim. Zalkin is confident he can get settlement for millions and a jury trial for $7-10 million against Orange County Council. It is reasonable for him to ask and BSA to explain: why is $44 million in assets only resulting in $13 million contribution? Why so little? 277 cases against the council, how much are those claims worth? Zalkin is absolutely demonstrating that this entire process where the LCs walk way for what amounts to pennies is insane. He wants the aggregate values of all claims against the councils by individual council. And he's furious about the Hartford settlement. Edited September 21, 2021 by CynicalScouter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 21, 2021 Author Share Posted September 21, 2021 10 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: What you are missing is: SOL ... many of these claims are probably really $0 since they are outside SOL False claims ... BSA must be assuming some are false That said ... even then I expect the math doesn't add up. But EVEN WITH those, I don't see how you reduce $30-$134 billion to only $2.1-$7 billion. And even if it is that low, why would a victim accept it when they were assured hundreds of thousands if not millions. Zalkin just said: he's thinking he can settle for millions NOW against Orange County Council and Hartford. Why on earth would he take this deal? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 21, 2021 Author Share Posted September 21, 2021 Stang says he is sending the BRG council-by-council aggregate claims value to BSA in chart form now. And he's promising discovery requests about how on earth the Hartford and LDS deals were cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 21, 2021 Author Share Posted September 21, 2021 There is talk about this issue of where the money goes, what they are calling "pooling". Talk about source "Weighing" where, for example, MOST of the contributions from LC will go to pay off those claims coming from that particular LC. BSA wants that all shoved off until confirmation but note this which certain seems to lend itself to the "big pot of money, but with weighting". Quote f. Source Affected Weighting Notwithstanding the Initial Payment Percentage and the Supplemental Payment Percentages applied hereunder, a portion of Non-BSA Sourced Assets shall be allocated (after deducting an estimated pro rata share of Settlement Trust expenses and direct expenses related to the collection of Non-BSA Sourced Assets) only among the Allowed Abuse Claims that (1) could have been satisfied from that source absent the Plan’s Discharge and Channeling Injunction and (2) are held by Direct Abuse Claimants that execute a conditional release, the form of which is attached as Exhibit B to the Trust Distribution Procedures, releasing all claims against all Chartered Organizations if the Settlement Trust enters into a global settlement making such Chartered Organization a Protected Party. The Settlement Trustee shall establish separate payment percentages in accordance with the Settlement Trust Agreement to effectuate the distribution of any Non-BSA Sourced Assets. For the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the establishment of the indicated portion of any increased payment percentage under Article IX.F of the Trust Distribution Procedures and the Settlement Trust Agreement that allocates Non-BSA Sourced Assets to holders of certain eligible Allowed Abuse Claims, the maximum payment that an Abuse Claimant can recover from the Settlement Trust before all other Allowed Abuse Claims are paid in full is the Final Determination Allowed Abuse Claim Amount for his or her Claim. Everything BSA is saying at this point is "wait for confirmation, let's just get to the vote". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 21, 2021 Author Share Posted September 21, 2021 (edited) For those who insist that the BSA can just declare all LC assets belong to BSA and then liquidate, BSA brings up a point that was brought up before: there are a LOT of state laws that would prevent that from happening. This is in the context of the liquidation issue Edited September 21, 2021 by CynicalScouter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1970 Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 Wouldn't it be sadly ironic if we all turned down the $3500 and THAT turned out to be a better deal? 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 21, 2021 Author Share Posted September 21, 2021 Stang is saying if the BSA refuses to renew the LC charters, all assets convert to BSA. However, as I and others pointed out, the LCs have not all adopted that language and will fight tooth and claw to keep those assets. Stang wants to wait on this until confirmation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 21, 2021 Author Share Posted September 21, 2021 Silverstein just referred to the "Purdue issue" and "Purdue analysis". Wheee!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 57 minutes ago, johnsch322 said: I’m knackered of all of this. Well done, you. I'm definitely at 6's and 7's. Last one. Promise. We need to amuse ourselves lest we weep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 1 hour ago, 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. Normally? Where does that figure come from? What is normal, and how did it pop up? There is no normal, only greed and lawyer hype. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 42 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: But EVEN WITH those, I don't see how you reduce $30-$134 billion to only $2.1-$7 billion. And even if it is that low, why would a victim accept it when they were assured hundreds of thousands if not millions. Zalkin just said: he's thinking he can settle for millions NOW against Orange County Council and Hartford. Why on earth would he take this deal? Of course some are false. If you think they are not, then you do not live in our warped world and legal system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsch322 Posted September 21, 2021 Share Posted September 21, 2021 6 minutes ago, skeptic said: Normally? Where does that figure come from? What is normal, and how did it pop up? There is no normal, only greed and lawyer hype. Not sure how that pertains to my post. Please explain. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts