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

[CynicalScouter]

16 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Is there anyone on this forum that could give me a rational objective reason to vote anything but NO on the current proposal?

I cannot, but let me offer three questions that, depending on your circumstances, may factor.

1) How much longer do you want this to go on for? A failed BSA bankruptcy stretches this out even longer, but that may be fine for you. But it also means dwelling on this longer. More mental pain and anguish. Or, maybe not. Etc.

2) How much more do you think you will get? If this is in your view the best you think you are going to get, then that might tends towards a Yes. If you think there is a chance of getting more out of BSA, the LCs, Hartford, or the LDS Church (if applicable) then that leans towards a no.

3) How much more do you THINK you will get and at what TIME COST? This is that rational objective thing. Mix the two together. It gets into game theory (remember you are only 1/82,500)

If I told you today that a NO vote would lead to payouts taking an extra 1 week but you get another $1,000? 1 month? 1 year? What if I change the amount to $10,000? $100,000?

What if I told you the time and the amount, but that you will be thinking about this and having to, in some respects, focus on parts of your life you'd just as soon forget? The cost, if you will.

Again, I cannot answer, I'm not a victim. I would never, ever be so arrogant as to even suggest a course of action. All I would say is that to my eyes from the outside these seem to be the major "objective" (that's not a precise word here but I'll use it) factors.

 

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[johnsch322]

9 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Easy. You’re desperate to buy that pair of Ferragamos and matching croc belt.  

They would look good with my members only jacket LOL

[johnsch322]

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I cannot, but let me offer three questions that, depending on your circumstances, may factor.

1) How much longer do you want this to go on for? A failed BSA bankruptcy stretches this out even longer, but that may be fine for you. But it also means dwelling on this longer. More mental pain and anguish. Or, maybe not. Etc.

2) How much more do you think you will get? If this is in your view the best you think you are going to get, then that might tends towards a Yes. If you think there is a chance of getting more out of BSA, the LCs, Hartford, or the LDS Church (if applicable) then that leans towards a no.

3) How much more do you THINK you will get and at what TIME COST? This is that rational objective thing. Mix the two together. It gets into game theory (remember you are only 1/82,500)

If I told you today that a NO vote would lead to payouts taking an extra 1 week but you get another $1,000? 1 month? 1 year? What if I change the amount to $10,000? $100,000?

What if I told you the time and the amount, but that you will be thinking about this and having to, in some respects, focus on parts of your life you'd just as soon forget? The cost, if you will.

Again, I cannot answer, I'm not a victim. I would never, ever be so arrogant as to even suggest a course of action. All I would say is that to my eyes from the outside these seem to be the major "objective" (that's not a precise word here but I'll use it) factors.

 

 

1 Even though I am 67 I feel as if I have plenty of time left. I feel much better about what happened to me now that I have been able to be public about it. 
2 I can’t say how much more exactly I can get but I will say that I don’t believe by voting no I will get less. 
3 If my no vote helped result in a defeat and only the BSA national was part of the exit my next step will be state court. I am tier one, aggravating factors and in an SOL state. 

[ThenNow]

6 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

They would look good with my members only jacket LOL

Mine from 1982 was stolen out of my college apartment while I was visiting my family. The place was basically ransacked. A day after I returned, I saw a guy wearing it while strolling down the main drag around the corner from where I lived. As God is my witness. I confronted him and he ran. Hard to give chase in a press of college students and he was quick, as well he needed to be.

[johnsch322]

26 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

My fear is that the answer to your question is for a lot of people "I haven't been paying attention but have a Coalition attorney I have never heard from who wants a payday sooner rather than later to pay his/her bills so they are telling me to vote yes and I'll get my pennies sooner."

My fear exactly. 

[Eagle1993]

Per Maria Chutchian (Reuters Bankruptcy reporter) Judge Silverstein said that individual claimants will have the opportunity to raise any concerns they have about the plan during a January trial if they would like.

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

Tim Kosnoff is looking for survivors looking to talk to national media. Read his Twitter account. 

I don’t Twitter, Tweet or twiddly deet. What’s he sayin?

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

Per Maria Chutchian (Reuters Bankruptcy reporter) Judge Silverstein said that individual claimants will have the opportunity to raise any concerns they have about the plan during a January trial if they would like.

The judge said pro se litigants showing up late in the game to file objections and demand discovery would be considered. And of course any claimant has the right to file an objection.

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

The judge said pro se litigants showing up late in the game to file objections and demand discovery would be considered. And of course any claimant has the right to file an objection.

The request line is now open. What do we want to know? JK (or not).

[MYCVAStory]

TCC has announced a Town Hall Thursday at 8 EST.

https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/82272826295 (no registration required)

or Phone number: 888- 788-0099 (Toll Free), Webinar ID: 822 7282 6295.

At this Town Hall, the TCC will discuss: (1) Solicitation Materials and Voting Ballots and (2) the TCC’s recommendation on how to vote

[Eagle1993]

Very interesting update during the TCC townhall regarding the vote:

Per bankruptcy code, 66% of each claimant class must approve the plan.  That means, 66% of the voters must approve the plan (not 66% of 82,000, but 66% of the votes).

Now the kicker...

BSA LCs & LDS are not in bankruptcy.  Therefore, the passing floor will actually be higher.  In some cases that is 75% and other cases it is 90%.  

So, the bare minimum is 66%; however, the court will likely need to see a much higher percent vote for the plan if LCs & LDS (non bankruptcy groups) are included.

This was a surprise to me. 

[Eagle1993]

Major points that I heard on the TCC townhall. .

1) LCs can pay a LOT more ... 3X current offer and still be fine financially.

2) BSA screwed up with Hartford.  Once this deal is rejected, that deal goes away.  Hartford risk is >>>>> more than what was committed.

3) This plan sucks

4) 18,000 claims are post YPT implementation.  The non financial aspect was watered down in this plan, that will change (focus is on oversight & IV files).

5) LDS offer is too low

6) BSA offer is ok, but only because they hid money all over the place, making it difficult to get to ... they can last much longer.

7)If plan is rejected, TCC will push to get their plan out for a vote.  

8 If both plans are rejected mediation (and mediation continues)

9) The trust structure currently could give a TON of money to the people who run it ... that needs to be changed. 

Edited October 8, 2021 by Eagle1993

[CynicalScouter]

38 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

BSA LCs & LDS are not in bankruptcy.  Therefore, the passing floor will actually be higher.  In some cases that is 75% and other cases it is 90%.  

I didn't know that either. There was mention of a statute that applied ONLY to asbestos cases of 75%+ but that was used as a frame of reference only.

So, BSA needs 66 2/3% to get out (or a cramdown). But the LCs and COs (and LDS is in the COs category) is going to be even higher.

Also mentioned was the failed Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis bankruptcy: two plans (victims plan and archdiocese plan) simultaneously submitted and rejected AND accepted (Stang misspoke), back to mediation they went.

Edited October 8, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

7 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

4) 18,000 claims are post YPT implementation.  The non financial aspect was watered down in this plan, that will change (focus is on oversight & IV files).

Right now that "Evaluating Entity" can only make suggestions. BSA is under NO obligation (except for limited data reporting) to do anything the Entity asks them to do. And the oversight committee has NO specific number of seats for victims; they could be outvoted and overwhelmed.

What I want to see is something like a monitor with enforcement powers, the ability to terminate BSA folks at will, etc. Similar to what some stronger police monitors have when police departments get put under consent decrees.

And YP that means something and isn't hidden. Do what USA Gymnastics has done: report data and yes, name names of scouters (in the case of USA Gymnastics it is coaches) that have been removed.

Right now I can pull up a list of List of Suspended and Restricted Persons. https://usagym.org/pages/aboutus/pages/suspended_members.html

BSA will be forced, I think, to do this for BSA folks thrown out of scouting.

[johnsch322]

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I didn't know that either. There was mention of a statute that applied ONLY to asbestos cases of 75%+ but that was used as a frame of reference only.

So, BSA needs 66 2/3% to get out (or a cramdown). But the LCs and COs (and LDS is in the COs category) is going to be even higher.

Also mentioned as the failed Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis bankruptcy: two plans (victims plan and archdiocese plan) simultaneously submitted and rejected, back to mediation they went.

With that being said I see an incredible hill to climb for a yes vote.