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

[Eagle1993]

33 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

That was fast, fast, fast.

Judge orders TCC motion to delay the September 21 hearing on the disclosure statement to be heard on....September 21.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/b69a209a-5fd6-4e7a-974e-a3355fd445ce_6229.pdf

This is a bit odd as during the hearing on Sept 21 she will decide if she should delay the hearing scheduled Sept 21?  

[ThenNow]

43 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Right, but she ruled I believe "without prejudice" meaning, they could try again. Doesn't mean it will WORK any better the second time around of course...

Yes, but/and the esteemed Mr. B said it was not only out of place and time, but out of proven proportion to the actual, realized “substantial contribution.” As in, come back to us when we KNOW what you achieved not what you speculate and can convince BSA you’re worth. “Show me the money and the goods before we show you the money, honey.”

[Eagle1993]

2 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

This plan would likely doom the BSA.  It will embroil the LC's in lawsuits resulting in bankruptcies.  This will make any membership growth impossible as the councils will rapidly have to decrease staff to meet the legal costs.  Losing membership will doom the BSA and the LC's over a few years.  This is disastrous.

BSA proposed an nearly identical plan earlier.  It was their toggle plan and they claimed they could survive.  It was their backup incase the claimant voted down the current plan.  I think many LCs would be fine due to current SOL laws, those at high risk could settle directly with TCC.

[CynicalScouter]

5 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

This is disastrous

It was always, always, always a hard legal sell as to why the LCs (who are neither debtors nor creditors in the BSA bankruptcy) should be able to use BSA's bankruptcy to solve or resolve claims against the LCs. That has been one of the longest running objections and one of the main ones lodged by the U.S. Trustee.

If the LCs want to be protected from past claims, they should be filing their own bankruptcies, not trying to climb aboard BSA's.

Why should a victim have his claims against the LCs voided/prohibited from going into state court if the LCs are not the ones in their own bankruptcies? How is that due process? Etc.

Disastrous? Maybe. But it was always a hard case to make why the LCs should get their claims released as part of this process.

 

Edited September 15, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

BSA proposed an nearly identical plan earlier.  It was their toggle plan and they claimed they could survive.  It was their backup incase the claimant voted down the current plan.  I think many LCs would be fine due to current SOL laws, those at high risk could settle directly with TCC.

Exactly. The LCs would be on their own, but then again, legally, they are on their own NOW. All BSA's trying to do is use the BSA bankruptcy to leverage a "global" settlement.

That said, a BSA only bankruptcy means dozens of LCs go into bankruptcy the next day, but some walk away without having to pay a dime.

[johnsch322]

TCC press release and I agree!!

https://www.pszjlaw.com/newsroom-news-boy-scouts-claimants-reject-settlements.html

[CynicalScouter]

7 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

This is a bit odd as during the hearing on Sept 21 she will decide if she should delay the hearing scheduled Sept 21?  

First order of business is deciding if we should move on to the second order of business. I've seen it with orders to show cause. If she agrees that it is too soon, then that's it for the day. Lawyers HATE, HATE, HATE IT because it means they have to argue a) we are NOT ready to go to the second order of business but b) nevertheless prep as much/as fast as they can.

[CynicalScouter]

5 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

TCC press release and I agree!!

https://www.pszjlaw.com/newsroom-news-boy-scouts-claimants-reject-settlements.html

 

Major points

1. TCC will not "sell out" the victims (implying FCR/Coalition/everyone else is)
2. LDS is getting of absurdly cheap ($3,000 per claim on average)
3. Hartford is getting of absurdly cheap
4. This is less and less about victims and more and more about getting BSA out of bankruptcy no matter what
5. $10,000-$12,000 on average is absurd for abuse that includes (and I am not going to detail what it includes but it is at the link)

Edited September 15, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

FYI: worth I think at this point revisiting what the TCC was thinking were fair values for the abuse vs. BSA.

BSA's view was and is that total abuse values should be in the $4-7 billion range based on statutes of limitations and other factors. That remains in Plan 5.0.

The TCC's position was they were valued at AT MINIMUM $102,716,619,500 (prior to adjusting for statute of limitations and other factors that would increase or decrease the value of the claims).

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/884771_2506.pdf

Now here is where I think the TCC is in a MUCH better position than when it filed this in April.

The threat that was always hanging over the heads of BSA and LCs was that these 82,500 claim would turn into thousands or tens of thousands of law suits.

In that filing, the TCC noted that New York claimants amounted to 5,100 claims. "Pay up" the thinking went "or we bury you in suits."

Here's the thing. The New York window has now closed. And we didn't see 5,100 claims turn into 5,100 lawsuits.

Only a "mere" 1370+: 31 in NY Federal courts, 1343 in state court.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/cb5441eb-c31d-4917-979b-f9bfc64b4833_189.pdf

The threat of "pay or we will bury you in civil litigation" is now greater than it was.

IMHO.

[SiouxRanger]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Exactly. The LCs would be on their own, but then again, legally, they are on their own NOW. All BSA's trying to do is use the BSA bankruptcy to leverage a "global" settlement.

That said, a BSA only bankruptcy means dozens of LCs go into bankruptcy the next day, but some walk away without having to pay a dime.

So, an LC goes it alone.

No suits are filed, so it "wins."

Or, It gets hit by lawsuits in state court and after the usual preliminaries, decides to file bankruptcy.  Its territory gets absorbed by another council, and Scouting continues.  If the camp(s) and office lost are camp(s) and offices that should/could/ought be lost anyway-not much of a downside.  The SE retires or is moved to replace a retiring SE, the DE's remain to serve the council's former territory...

[SiouxRanger]

8 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Outside of a mass resignation, the NEB isn't going anywhere.

And the "senior" management have convinced themselves that "Well the abuse happened prior to MY tenure, therefore we are fine".

I have no doubt that you are right on both counts.

The "bloated NEB" is likely right in line with BSA's "pay to play" for the distinction of being named to the NEB.

In my council, no decisions of any consequence are ever presented to the Council Executive Board-at least in my day on theExecutive Board.  And decades later, a senior professional with true talent asked me to go on the Executive Board to counteract the large number of Executive Board members who had no idea what was going on and lend direction and power to the Executive Board.  I declined having 4 years of Executive Board participation and another 20± observing and always keeping a finger on the pulse.  The Executive Board model, in my council is simply hopelessly ineffective. (I tend to spell out the "alphabet shorthand" so that folks who are not conversant, forum guests, can follow along more readily.)

[ThenNow]

https://www.stltoday.com/news/national/committee-wants-to-file-own-plan-in-boy-scouts-bankruptcy/article_2ef9d8a1-3a73-5f43-a61c-1196cf37382d.html

I may have missed this. If already posted, chastise or delete. You pick. 

[Eagle1970]

Does this plan have the same scaling factors for the location of the abuse?  If so, where can I reference it?  I don't see the referenced Schedule 1. 

[CynicalScouter]

26 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Does this plan have the same scaling factors for the location of the abuse?  If so, where can I reference it?  I don't see the referenced Schedule 1. 

Nope. If your claim is outside the statute of limitation you get nothing

“Statute of Limitations or Repose. The statute of limitations, statute of repose, and the choice of law determination applicable to an Abuse Claim against the Settlement Trust shall be determined by reference to the tort system where such Abuse Claim was pending on the Petition Date (so long as the Protected Party was subject to personal jurisdiction in that location), or where such Abuse Claim could have been timely and properly filed as asserted by the Abuse Claimant under applicable law.”

 

and

”Statute ofLimitations orRepose. Iftheevidence provided by the Abuse Claimant or otherwise obtained by the Settlement Trustee results in the Settlement Trustee concluding that the subject Direct Abuse Claim could be dismissed or denied in the tort system as to all Protected Parties against whom the Direct Abuse Claim was timely submitted (as set forth in Articles IV.A) due to the passage of a statute of limitations or a statute of repose, the Settlement Trustee shall apply an appropriate Scaling Factor based on the ranges set forth in Schedule 1 hereof; provided, however, the Settlement Trustee will weigh the strength of any relevant evidence submitted by the Abuse Claimant to determine whether the statute of limitations could be tolled under applicable law, and may apply a higher Scaling Factor if such evidence demonstrates to the Settlement Trustee that tolling would be appropriate under applicable state law.“

 

EDIT: it seems there should be some scaling factors maybe they’re missing or another document?

Edited September 16, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagle1970]

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Nope. If your claim is outside the statute of limitation you get nothing

 

Given that only a small portion of the claims are in open states, I don't quite understand why this plan would be floated.  Who would vote for it?