Jump to content

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


CynicalScouter

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Agreed as to all and, further, why did she let him go on like that? I was certain she was going check him at five different times. And then, she made a point to remind TCC counsel they were short on time? That was was a a double double, “Say what?! Say what?!”

Sounds like the Judge did lose control of her courtroom.

Lots of things are going on in this courtroom that are very strange.  A word or two of negative feedback from the Judge after an attorney has had their say could do wonders to reign in further argument (and pleadings) along the same lines.  With so much at stake, maybe not.  No matter the outcome at trial level, attorneys MUST get their pleadings and argument into the Court Record to preserve it for use on appeal.

Just because a Judge listens patiently, does not mean that the Judge accepts what they are hearing.

At some point, all of the motion hearings will come to an end and the Judge will start to make rulings.  And there could be a number of them in rapid succession, and have significant impact.

Any error that arguably changes the outcome is "reversible error."  And, perhaps a basis that an appeals court reverses the trial court's ruling(s) and sends the case back to the bankruptcy (trial level) court, to pick up the bankruptcy process where the appellate court indicates reversible error was made.

That National thought its Ch 11 would be wound up by the end of August (was it?) is ludicrous.  National will be lucky to see this done by August 2022.

"I love it when a plan comes together." -Hannibal, The A Team

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

“Oh but we will be out of money by then”

and the “melting ice cube”

etc.

I said this once before so, for those who recall, please forgive the echo. I heard with my own two ears an LC talking about major donors holding off on giving until the settlement trust is funding and BSA emerges post-pupation. Stated reason? "I don't want to just give more money to the _____ity _____ lawyers." I know. I know. They're drawing down on reserves and what not, but I can distinctly hear Obi-Wan saying, "These aren't the droids you're looking for." 

Edited by ThenNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I heard with my own two ears an LC talking about major donors holding off on giving until the settlement trust is funding and BSA emerges post-pupation. Stated reason? "I don't want to just give more money to the _____ity _____ lawyers."

I have heard the same locally: no Friends of Scouting or other donations until there is 100% certainty it won't go to a settlement

That said, BSA has been pleading poverty so long it is getting tiresome. Now, it may be true that they thought they'd run out of cash by August and were able to tap into "restricted" funds. For example, and I've had this confirmed, the "restricted" Order of the Arrow funds have at this point been completely raided. This gets into the issue of co-mingling, but that's another story. But trying to ram and jam a bad deal?

As the US Trustee said: maybe if BSA is that strapped for cash (in that case, too poor to pay $3 million to make sure ALL victims get mailed packets) they need to be in Chapter 7, not Chapter 11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

As the US Trustee said: maybe if BSA is that strapped for cash (in that case, too poor to pay $3 million to make sure ALL victims get mailed packets) they need to be in Chapter 7, not Chapter 11.

I don't know what anyone else thinks, but Mr. B. is among my favorites in this dramomedy shot through with intense tragic and farcical undertones. I'd pick him to play Samuel Clemens (over Hal Holbrook) any day and twice on Sundays. He has Clemens pith and misanthropic air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on Stang's two comments yesterday about how much victims could expect under the existing plan, I am trying to extrapolate.

Stang said in an open state Tier 1 abuse (he used the exact term, I am not) was $57,000 and that in the "next level state" was $34,600. Assume that means a Gray 1 state.

We know from the RSA that the old scaling factors were

  • Open    1.0
  • Gray 1    .50-.70
  • Gray 2    .30-.45
  • Gray 3    .10-.25
  • Closed    .01-.10

If $57,000 represents 100% value (open state) what is 34,600? around 60%, the midpoint of Gray 1.

And $57,000 is 9.5% of the minimum base value for Tier 1 abuse.

Therefore, let's extrapolate.

EDIT: There were changes to the base mins, adjusting.

 

Base Min

Base Max

9.5% of Base Min

Open

Gray 1 Midpoint

Gray 2 Midpoint

Gray 3 Midpoint

Closed Midpoint

 

 

 

 

100.0%

60.0%

37.5%

17.5%

5.5%

Tier 1

$600,000

$2,700,000

$57,000.00

$57,000.00

$34,200.00

$21,375.00

$9,975.00

$3,135.00

Tier 2

$450,000

$2,025,000

$42,750.00

$42,750.00

$25,650.00

$16,031.25

$7,481.25

$2,351.25

Tier 3

$300,000

$1,350,000

$28,500.00

$28,500.00

$17,100.00

$10,687.50

$4,987.50

$1,567.50

Tier 4

$150,000

$675,000

$14,250.00

$14,250.00

$8,550.00

$5,343.75

$2,493.75

$783.75

Tier 5

$75,000

$337,500

$7,125.00

$7,125.00

$4,275.00

$2,671.88

$1,246.88

$391.88

Tier 6

$3,500

$8,500

$332.50

$332.50

$199.50

$124.69

$58.19

$18.29

 

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

His "let's remember today is the anniversary of the founding of BSA" comment at one of the hearings was as you recall not well received.

I spoke with someone in the know about that. Their interpretation of his intent was very different than how I took it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...