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

[ThenNow]

8 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

TCC Letter is well done.  Succinct.

I was disappointed it didn’t say, “This Plan sucks,” in the banner nor was Dr. Kennedy’s footnote included, “And, by the way, this Plan sucks.” It was good, though. Just coulda used that little punch up, ya know?  

[Eagle1993]

19 hours ago, PACAN said:

Lots of info to try and digest.

Question though:  Are the amounts required from the councils locked in concrete?  Seems like that could blow up and be reopened.  

Thanks to those who continue to track this.

 

If the current plan is approved by enough claimants and the judge confirms it then it is locked in.  The earliest we can probably say it is locked in is end of January or early February next year.  
 

[vol_scouter]

21 hours ago, PACAN said:

Lots of info to try and digest.

Question though:  Are the amounts required from the councils locked in concrete?  Seems like that could blow up and be reopened.  

Thanks to those who continue to track this.

 

If a new RSA were to be proposed that requested a larger contribution from the councils, the Ad Hoc committee would have a meeting with representatives of all the councils where they would present analysis of the new RSA.  At that point, it could be rejected or taken to the individual local council executive committees.  If the executive committees pass it, then it goes to the full board for approval.  

There are minimal time requirements to call a executive committee meeting that are usually a few days.  Then minimal notification time requirements to call a full board meeting.  So the process will take a few weeks minimally.  
 

the local council results then go back to the Ad Hoc committee who reports back.  
 

The TCC demands are damaging for local councils, perhaps even fatal.  As a board member in my council, I would be inclined to vote against it whereas I was in favor of the current plan.  
 

Hopefully, this helps.  

[ThenNow]

56 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

If a new RSA were to be proposed that requested a larger contribution from the councils, the Ad Hoc committee would have a meeting with representatives of all the councils where they would present analysis of the new RSA.  At that point, it could be rejected or taken to the individual local council executive committees.  If the executive committees pass it, then it goes to the full board for approval.  

There are minimal time requirements to call a executive committee meeting that are usually a few days.  Then minimal notification time requirements to call a full board meeting.  So the process will take a few weeks minimally.  
 

In the ZoomZoomZoom (sorry, Mazda) era, why so long? Internal noticing requirements with LCs, etc.?

[johnsch322]

13 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

TCC Letter is well done.  Succinct.

Does anyone have or have seen any letter from a coalition lawyer giving an argument to vote on the plan?

[Eagle1993]

I was reading into the package again.

1) The Coalition is expecting a direct payment from BSA of $18M if the agreement goes into effect in March ($16M in February).  This is on top of the 30 - 40% they will get from their claimants.  I really hope the judge denies this.

2) There is a footnote.  The Coalition & FCR agree with the TCC that the BSA estimation of claims is wrong (page 433).  They just believe it isn't worth fighting anymore.

 

[Eagle1993]

Pretty major development in a different Judge Silverstein case.

She just tossed out 16,000 votes out of the talc injury bankruptcy as the law firm failed to do any diligence to determine if claimants who they submitted ballots for had been exposed to talc products produced by Imerys.

https://www.law360.com/delaware/articles/1430779/judge-tosses-16k-talc-claimant-votes-in-imerys-ch-11

This is where we may run into issues with the claim aggregators.  If discovery shows that claims are coming into question into certain lawfirms and those lawfirms do not confirm the claims are valid ... it could impact voting.

"In order for master ballots to work, great trust is placed in the plaintiffs bar," Judge Silverstein said.  "With respect to Bevan & Associates, the evidence shows that such trust was not well-placed."

Edit:

When I think of similarities to BSA ... it really goes to the validity of the mass tort claims.  Did those law firms do any sort of confirmation of the claim?  Are they simply racking up thousands of claims to put on an excel spreadsheet so they can collect large fees?  Silverstein has shown in one case she does not ignore evidence of law firms lack of due diligence, I would expect the same here.

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by Eagle1993

[johnsch322]

I posted the following on Facebook please feel free to copy and post on your own Facebook, Twitter or any social media you may use.  

 

If everyone could please do me a favor and share this file

BSA TCC Rejects BSA's proposed settlement plan.

https://www.pszjlaw.com/.../BSA%20TCC%20letter%20re...

As many of you may or not know the Boy Scouts of America are in Bankruptcy. They have proposed to give the Child Sexual Victims which are victims of their programs just pennies on the dollar for the value of the claims. While it may seem like a lot of money there are over 82,000 victims who have come forward. If you had been raped as a child, gone thru a life of mental torture under this plan you would only receive $57,000. Victims of Larry Nasser and USA Gymnastics received $1,000,000. The BSA Torts Claimant Committee (TCC) is made up of victims of Child Sexual Abuse while with the BSA by BSA volunteers, professionals and older scouts. Unfortunately this story has not gotten the press coverage that it deserves.

PSZJLAW.COM

www.pszjlaw.com

[Sentinel947]

10 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I posted the following on Facebook please feel free to copy and post on your own Facebook, Twitter or any social media you may use.  

 

If everyone could please do me a favor and share this file

BSA TCC Rejects BSA's proposed settlement plan.

https://www.pszjlaw.com/.../BSA%20TCC%20letter%20re...

As many of you may or not know the Boy Scouts of America are in Bankruptcy. They have proposed to give the Child Sexual Victims which are victims of their programs just pennies on the dollar for the value of the claims. While it may seem like a lot of money there are over 82,000 victims who have come forward. If you had been raped as a child, gone thru a life of mental torture under this plan you would only receive $57,000. Victims of Larry Nasser and USA Gymnastics received $1,000,000. The BSA Torts Claimant Committee (TCC) is made up of victims of Child Sexual Abuse while with the BSA by BSA volunteers, professionals and older scouts. Unfortunately this story has not gotten the press coverage that it deserves.

PSZJLAW.COM

www.pszjlaw.com

As @CynicalScouterhas pointed out, there's no way each of the 87k are getting 1 million each. The BSA doesn't have the assets and ability to pay that MSU has. In my opinion, the victims should reject this plan, I would if I was a victim. The BSA and partners can be made to cough up more than the current plan but to expect anything close to the MSU settlement is wishful thinking, even if the BSA and the councils liquidate entirely.

 

 

[johnsch322]

10 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

As @CynicalScouterhas pointed out, there's no way each of the 87k are getting 1 million each. The BSA doesn't have the assets and ability to pay that MSU has. In my opinion, the victims should reject this plan, I would if I was a victim. The BSA and partners can be made to cough up more than the current plan but to expect anything close to the MSU settlement is wishful thinking, even if the BSA and the councils liquidate entirely.

 

 

My intent is to get the word out there to reject.  Facebook and other social media was used to gather claimants and I am hoping that maybe some of the same who might not otherwise see the letter from TCC will read it.  I only used the MSU as a reference.

[Sentinel947]

11 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

My intent is to get the word out there to reject.  Facebook and other social media was used to gather claimants and I am hoping that maybe some of the same who might not otherwise see the letter from TCC will read it.  I only used the MSU as a reference.

I get it. Just understand that the typical claimant is not as informed as you. They'll see that 1 million per and think that's what they can get. It's setting them up to be disappointed. 

[johnsch322]

3 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

I get it. Just understand that the typical claimant is not as informed as you. They'll see that 1 million per and think that's what they can get. It's setting them up to be disappointed. 

As was fair and equitable in the beginning.  All I am saying is if MSU settlement is 1M why settle for 57K.  What is on the table is definitely more dissappointing.

Edited October 14, 2021 by johnsch322

[ThenNow]

31 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

Just understand that the typical claimant is not as informed as you. They'll see that 1 million per and think that's what they can get. It's setting them up to be disappointed. 

I don’t think there’s much deeper to fall into the pit of despair. If rejected and the $57,000 becomes $65,000 or $80,000 or whatever, we will manage that type of disappointment. No offense, but the colossal bait and switch occurred many months ago. This is simply one BSA child sexual abuse claimant encouraging his fellow to reject the Plan, get the TCC into the mix (for real) and shoot for a better outcome. We are survivors (and BSA tort claimants). We have decades of experience managing disappointment. An increased settlement from what’s on the table will not be too hard to handle.

Edited October 14, 2021 by ThenNow

[Sentinel947]

28 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

As was fair and equitable in the beginning.  All I am saying is if MSU settlement is 1M why settle for 57K.  What is on the table is definitely more dissappointing.

 

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

I don’t think there’s much deeper to fall into the pit of despair. If rejected and the $57,000 becomes $80,000, we will manage that type of disappointment. No offense, but the colossal bait and switch occurred many months ago. This is simply one BSA child sexual abuse claimant encouraging his fellow to reject the Plan, get the TCC into the mix (for real) and shoot for a better outcome. We are survivors (and BSA tort claimants). We have decades of experience managing disappointment. An increased settlement from what’s on the table will not be too hard to handle.

The current offer is low. The councils haven't chipped as much as what they probably can, Hartford got a sweet deal. National likely has more assets it can part with. The victims should vote down the plan on that basis. 

The MSU settlement has little bearing on the BSA settlements. They are two distinctly different cases, with different facts, assets and ability to pay. 

The BSA is shrinking, and the longer the bankruptcy goes on, the more bad press is out, it's assets will likely continue to dwindle, leaving less for the victims to recover. MSU is a thriving and growing publicly funded university. 

I want to see victims get the most compensation possible, while the BSA survives and becomes a safer and more transparent program. I worry about scenarios where either the BSA's unwillingness to make deeper significant sacrifices or victims not recognizing a realistic return causes a worst case outcome for both: the BSA effectively collapses and the victims get less than they could've if they take a deal. We're not there yet, so the victims would be smart to continue pushing for more. 

There's a point in this bankruptcy case where the victims can maximize their returns that hasn't been hit yet, but telling folks it'll be like the MSU settlement when it mathematically cannot makes the victims more likely to reject a deal when "the best deal possible" is on the table. 

I don't have any issue with you telling other victims to reject the current plan, but I think there's a danger to over optimistic numbers than just disappointment.

 

[SiouxRanger]

7 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I was disappointed it didn’t say, “This Plan sucks,” in the banner nor was Dr. Kennedy’s footnote included, “And, by the way, this Plan sucks.” It was good, though. Just coulda used that little punch up, ya know?  

Just have to say, with today's marvelous word processors, that can be said in

72 point font!