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

[Eagle1970]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

By Tier, but redacted to remove descriptions/abuse categories.

So the vast majority is likely in 1-2.  Thanks for this.  I am working from memory.

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, Eagle1970 said:

So the vast majority is likely in 1-2.  Thanks for this.  I am working from memory.

We don't know because we don't have the state data. A Tier 1 claim in a Closed state? $3500 makes sense. In an Open state? No.

[Eagle1970]

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

Claims below $3500 BY TIER

• Tier 6 claims in all states (Closed, Gray 3, Gray 2, Gray 1, Open)
• Tier 5 claims in Closed, Gray 3 and Gray 2 states.
• Tier 4 claims in Closed and Gray 3 states.
• Tier 3 claims in Closed states.
• Tier 2 claims in Closed states.
• Tier 1 claims in Closed States.

Claims below $3500 BY STATE

• Victims in all closed states
• Victims in Gray 3 states with Tier 4, 5, or 6 claims
• Victims in Gray 2 states with Tier 5 or 6 claims
• Victims in Gray 1 states with Tier 6 claims
• Victims in Open states with Tier 6 claims

 

 

Ok.  Got it.  So the only way to complete the equation is knowing the number in each tier by State.  Thanks.

[Eagle1970]

For the sake of discussion, if 50% of the claimants took the $3500 and out, could the remaining claimants potentially receive greater compensation because so many settled out for that minimal amount or via future insurance settlements?  Given the Grey 3 in the State of my abuse, it becomes a borderline call even considering the tier assigned to my abuse.  

[Eagle1993]

16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

1. My ward leader abused me
2. My ward leader WHO WAS MY SCOUTMASTER abused me OUTSIDE of a scouting event.
3. My ward leader WHO WAS MY SCOUTMASTER abused me DURING a scouting event.

What gets covered here?

Judge was clear ... 1 & 2 are not protected in the settlement, 3 would be covered.  I'm not 100% sure LDS agrees. 

[ThenNow]

16 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

BSA has X amount of assets that it can release and survive.  That should happen and soon.  Let the trust resolve the paychecks.

Insurance question on which my wife made an over the shoulder comment then raised her hands in that patented "good luck" gesture. BSA emerges a new baby with pink skin and cooing smile. However, they are the principal insured holding the insurance policies and that insured entity has evaporated. Are we saying they can unequivocally substitute in the Settlement Trust as the new owner/insured prior to exiting? Does that really mean the insurers will leave them alone during the coverage battles and claims estimations? They bought the policies and I don't understand how they get "released." Is that purported by well-established precedent? 

Edited September 29, 2021 by ThenNow

[skeptic]

34 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And as I've pointed out to you at least once if not twice: courts in the Anglo-American court systems have been doing this for 700+ years.

And let me put this to bed once and for all: some of the acts of sexual abuse being discussed here have absolutely NO physical harm to the victim. If you were to take the victim and conduct a full physical assessment of him after the abuse took place, there would be no PHYSICAL sign of ANY harm. And yet by any definition they have been sexually abused. I'm not going into details here, but if you want to get specific, I am referring to Tier 2-6 type sexual abuse here.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/8ad0771c-f79e-40c9-ae6c-4e145ccac9f9_6418.pdf

Under your theory, these boys (now men) were not "harmed" and their pain cannot be "valued" because why? Because there was no physical harm?

Again, this boys (now men) were harmed. Courts have for 700 years allowed for an valued such claims.

Drop it, please.

 

There is no way to make you stop putting words into my typing.  I never said or even suggested there was no harm, no matter how far back you choose to go.  I said I do not see how there is any real way to assign value to the damage for monetary means, and that even if there was, it will not cure the overall interrelated pain.  No matter what actual meaning I have intimated, I have never stated no physical harm was done, or suggested the psychological harm is not real.  Accept that I do not see the "how" factor.  Just because something has been on record for centuries does not change, at least in my view, the impossibility to arrive at consistent and non subjective responses.  And you beating my opinion with the dead horse does not make any difference.

[CynicalScouter]

2 minutes ago, skeptic said:

at least in my view, the impossibility to arrive at consistent and non subjective responses

Your opinion is incorrect. It isn't impossible. Courts have been doing it for 7 centuries.

[skeptic]

33 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The judge is allowing discovery on HOW the claims were processed. That does NOT mean all claims where invalid. I know I've posted all the subpoenas so far on this.

Will be interesting to see the results.  

 

[CynicalScouter]

Trying to schedule yet another hearing.

[elitts]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Insurance question on which my wife made an over the shoulder comment then raised her hands in that patented "good luck" gesture. BSA emerges a new baby with pink skin and cooing smile. However, they are the principal insured holding the insurance policies and that insured entity has evaporated. Are we saying they can unequivocally substitute in the Settlement Trust as the new owner/insured prior to exiting? Does that really mean the insurers will leave them alone during the coverage battles and claims estimations? They bought the policies and I don't understand how they get "released." Is that purported by well-established precedent? 

Usually the debtor organization remains in existence as a zombie more or less while the "new" organization moves on.  My understanding is that it functions much like an estate.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Your opinion is incorrect. It isn't impossible. Courts have been doing it for 7 centuries.

Well.. They've been putting values on injuries for centuries.  I don't think you could really argue that all those valuations have been objectively determined and consistent.

Edited September 29, 2021 by elitts

[ThenNow]

10 minutes ago, elitts said:

Usually the debtor organization remains in existence as a zombie more or less while the "new" organization moves on.  My understanding is that it functions much like an estate.

Thanks. How do they stay out of the fray, living or mostly dead? (Another nod to "Princes Bride.") Insurers already say BSA valuing claims is against their own interest. Now, they just won't have to pay any further on those liabilities after they pony up their pittance and get bitten by the Chapter 11 walking dead? For the record, you said "zombie," not me.  

Edited September 29, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

31 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

For the sake of discussion, if 50% of the claimants took the $3500 and out, could the remaining claimants potentially receive greater compensation because so many settled out for that minimal amount or via future insurance settlements?  Given the Grey 3 in the State of my abuse, it becomes a borderline call even considering the tier assigned to my abuse.  

Keep in mind what that chart shows. It shows an OPINION that makes several major assumptions

• Perhaps your case had aggravating factors. If so, your claim may be HIGHER than the number posted.
• Perhaps your case had mitigating factors. If so, your claim may be LOWER than the number posted.
• Perhaps your case had a mix of both. If so, who knows where your claim could land as part of the settlement trustee process.

In short, these are "illustrative" examples. You won't know what you are getting until you go through the process.

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[BadChannel70]

45 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Judge was clear ... 1 & 2 are not protected in the settlement, 3 would be covered.  I'm not 100% sure LDS agrees. 

I want to add the TDP has a section that mitigates/reduces a survivor's claim value if the survivor had a relationship with their perpetrator outside of scouting. I don't see how LDS or any CO could get away with combining 1, 2 & 3 in the BSA settlement and then get a discount on top of it. 

Edited September 29, 2021 by BadChannel70

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

1. My ward leader abused me
2. My ward leader WHO WAS MY SCOUTMASTER abused me OUTSIDE of a scouting event.
3. My ward leader WHO WAS MY SCOUTMASTER abused me DURING a scouting event.

What gets covered here?

46 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Judge was clear ... 1 & 2 are not protected in the settlement, 3 would be covered.  I'm not 100% sure LDS agrees. 

If 1 & 2 are not covered, why would LDS enter into the agreement.  These are major holes in the liability protection that make a person question it's worth.