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

[Eagle1993]

4 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

With all due appreciation to the host and moderators, I rarely even look at the other thread.  One is enough for me.  I'm not even sure I could find it.  May I suggest when items are moved you indicate so with a link?

That was a link.  Click on the picture and it will take you to the other thread.

 

[CynicalScouter]

At some point today we should see an amended version of the disclosure statement that the BSA and parties were supposed to have been working on all weekend long.

I HOPE it is "Red-lined" so we can see the exact changes made, but more likely it will simply be an amended version which means having to go line by line to see what changed.

[CynicalScouter]

TCC latest filing includes their official letter to be included in the solicitation urging that victims reject the plan.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ccb69c72-6cc4-49ce-9153-1f417e8943fb_6365.pdf

Key quotes (bold in original)

"The Official Tort Claimants Committee (TCC) in the chapter 11 bankruptcy of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) urges survivors to vote to reject BSA’s Plan. The Plan is grossly unfair to the 82,200 survivors who were sexually abused as children.

In the TCC’s opinion, survivors may receive less than 10 cents on the dollar under the
current BSA Plan."

That "10 cents on the dollar" thing is going to be huge.

"The key flaws in BSA’s Plan include:

• BSA’s Plan includes settlements with Local Councils that leave them with over a billion dollars of cash and property in excess of what their current need to fulfill the mission of Scouting.
• Under the terms of BSA’s Plan, Chartered Organizations do not pay a cent for broad releases for more than 40 years of sexual abuse claims (1976-2020). Instead, Chartered Organizations receive a release of their sexual abuse liability in exchange for a transfer of their interest in insurance policies purchased by the BSA and Local Councils.
• BSA’s Plan includes a settlement with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (TCJC) that is completely insufficient to pay for claims for which it has liability.  
• The Hartford Insurance Company (Hartford), the only settling insurer to date, is paying a small fraction of the coverage it is contractually obligated to provide."

Other key passage: what happens if plan gets rejected?

"If a sufficient number of survivors vote to reject BSA’s Plan, then the possible outcomes include (i) BSA’s case may be dismissed and survivors may be free to pursue claims against BSA, Local Councils, Chartered Organizations and other parties subject to applicable statutes of limitation; (ii) the Court may appoint a trustee for BSA; (iii) the TCC (or other parties) may submit an alternate plan to reorganize BSA; or the BSA may amend its Plan and seek to resolicit votes to accept or reject such amended plan."

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

BSA’s Plan includes settlements with Local Councils that leave them with over a billion dollars of cash and property in excess of what their current need to fulfill the mission of Scouting.

So, doing the math here. The LCs are contributing $500 million (plus the $100 million note, but I put that aside for a second).

The TCC has now come out with a specific number they expect from the LCs:  "over a billion dollars" more.

That would put the LC contributions that the TCC finds acceptable at least at $1.5 billion (again, I am putting the note aside a second)

$1.5 billion / 82,500 = $18,181.81

It means, ROUGHLY all councils will have to TRIPLE what they are putting in the pot.

That would, generally, move the AVERAGE LC contribution of assets from the 14-16% range to more than 42-48% range.

Edited September 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

In the TCC’s opinion, survivors may receive less than 10 cents on the dollar under the current BSA Plan.

The current BSA plan is around $1.88 billion.

"10 cents on the dollar" = $18.8 billion

[CynicalScouter]

10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

TCC latest filing includes their official letter to be included in the solicitation urging that victims reject the plan.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ccb69c72-6cc4-49ce-9153-1f417e8943fb_6365.pdf

I just read this a third time.

If they get this letter in, the plan's toast. The BSA and the Coalition are going to fight tooth and claw not to let it in, of course.

[ThenNow]

38 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

If they get this letter in, the plan's toast. The BSA and the Coalition are going to fight tooth and claw not to let it in, of course.

Thanks for this.

As has been said, they/we must be given this opportunity. I can’t see how the judge excludes an official statement from the Official Tort Claimants Committee representing all victim claimants. It’s also signed by our representatives, not merely their counsel. I don’t know the legal implications, but from a precedent standpoint, has a TCC ever been denied this right in a mass tort bankruptcy? That said, as one of our posters stated several times, he sends a client mailing stating in giant letters, “THIS IS NOT A TAX BILL.” The response? A perennial deluge of calls to see if it is a tax bill. Including the TCC statement and having it read may be two different fishes. I hope both occur and it’s in very simple English. It’s pretty darn good, now but maybe some tweaks. I know. I’m in the peanut gallery. I’ve found that creating added white space helps people transition between thoughts, especially when bullets are used. My point being it needs to be absolutely as accessible as possible. I’m proud of our TCC!!

Edited September 27, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

10 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I can’t see how the judge excludes an official statement from the Official Tort Claimants Committee representing all victim claimants.

No, but I can also see fighting the language maybe?

13 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Including the TCC statement and having it read may be two different fishes.

That's why I note they include "come to the TCC town halls" language.

[ThenNow]

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

No, but I can also see fighting the language maybe?

Agreed. This ain’t going in without a fight. Still like to understand precedent and implications if denied.

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

That's why I note they include "come to the TCC town halls" language.

Ja. Du hast einen guten punkt. (A good point.) Anyone know the attendance at the meetings? I’d like to see if there’re an uptick. 

Edited September 27, 2021 by ThenNow

[vol_scouter]

56 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

So, doing the math here. The LCs are contributing $500 million (plus the $100 million note, but I put that aside for a second).

The TCC has now come out with a specific number they expect from the LCs:  "over a billion dollars" more.

That would put the LC contributions that the TCC finds acceptable at least at $1.5 billion (again, I am putting the note aside a second)

$1.5 billion / 82,500 = $18,181.81

It means, ROUGHLY all councils will have to TRIPLE what they are putting in the pot.

That would, generally, move the AVERAGE LC contribution of assets from the 14-16% range to more than 42-48% range.

I do not know the likely effect on other councils but from what I know about my local council the effect of that would be to put the council on the brink.  Perhaps other councils are different but we raise the money every year to operate the council.  There is no two years in reserve right now.  The TCC does not understand council operations.  The unrestricted are being spent due to this chapter 11 and COVID.   
 

I predict that this will significantly harm or force into bankruptcy many councils.   The claimants may not care or may rejoice - if I had been harmed as a boy my feelings would likely be one of those.   As we evaluate all the various twists and turns, let us remember that what the TCC claims may not be correct.   

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

As we evaluate all the various twists and turns, let us remember that what the TCC claims may not be correct.   

In what respect and as to which “claims”?

[CynicalScouter]

8 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

I do not know the likely effect on other councils but from what I know about my local council the effect of that would be to put the council on the brink.  Perhaps other councils are different but we raise the money every year to operate the council.  There is no two years in reserve right now.

That is where this may differ. For example, some councils are so small/broke that doubling or tripling their contribution would effectively put them under. But you have a LOT of larger councils who are paying, in effect, peanuts.

Just look at the 10 largest councils by total assets (according to BSA numbers). Only Greater Cascade is over the national average of 14%. Greater Los Angeles is close. The others are coming in way under.

Local Council Name	Total Assets	% of Total Assets Towards Contribution
SAM HOUSTON AREA	179,837,619	4.43%
NORTHERN STAR	99,707,945	7.24%
GREATER ST. LOUIS AREA	96,778,145	8.25%
ATLANTA AREA	95,546,679	8.37%
CIRCLE TEN	92,482,329	8.64%
MICHIGAN CROSSROADS	67,087,721	11.90%
DENVER AREA	58,634,253	10.23%
CASCADE PACIFIC	56,027,991	17.85%
CROSSROADS OF AMERICA	55,507,464	7.79%
GREATER LOS ANGELES	55,232,268	14.48%

 

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

In what respect and as to which “claims”?

I think "claim" here is "how much LC assets there really are".

This gets back to the LC's pleading restricted-and-or-poverty vs. the TCC which clearly now believes the LCs (in the aggregate) can offer triple what they are offering.

But as I noted: some LCs that is undoubtedly true. Others, not so much.

Edited September 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

I think "claim" here is "how much LC assets there really are".

I assumed that, but he used the plural. What else you got, Sir Volunteer? If the asset assumptions are incorrect, bring on the comparative analyses and let’s get ready to rummmble. 

[CynicalScouter]

"Certain Excess Insurers" are submitting their proposed confirmation schedule based on what the judge (verbally) directed.

Rather than putting in specific dates (December 9, October 15, etc.) they laid out a formula (150 days after X, then Y).

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/dad63f9f-ccb6-42d5-8cd7-527a885bf7fb_6367.pdf

Based on their math, the earliest for a plan confirmation is 182 days after the disclosure hearing.

If the disclosure hearing is 9/28/2021, that means the earliest for a confirmation hearing is 3/29/2022.

And remember: BSA is NOW saying it's out of cash by that point (1Q 2022).