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

[SiouxRanger]

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Ok. Color me cynical (nod to our pal in the penalty box), but I find it painful, ironic and curious that the following is the very first “survivor endorsement” on the Coalition of Abused Attorneys for Payoff’s website. Honestly, I was shocked, but not surprised. (Forgive me if this Eagle Scout from Texas is you, but I felt it relevant to share here.) I, for one, would not have lead with this testimony, for a variety of reasons, optics being among them, Here it is:

“I am an Eagle Scout, I have sons who are Eagle Scouts, and I remain an active and dedicated volunteer in the Boy Scouts of America. My life, however, has been deeply and irrevocably impacted by the abuse perpetrated upon me beginning when I was 13 years old, and which continued until I was 18. I was a child, and while I primarily blame the predators involved, the BSA bears a significant measure of responsibility for my abuse, and should be held accountable.

Nevertheless, despite the long-term, repeated abuse I suffered at the hands of a PROFESSIONAL Scouter and an older youth member, I still believe the BSA remains the greatest organization in America for raising youth into responsible adults. Where there are lambs, there will always be wolves, and no level of vigilance on the part of the shepherd will thwart every wolf. Reflecting back, one reason I have maintained such an active presence in the BSA is to guard that no Scout under my watch ever has to experience abuse.

When I have the option, I will vote yes, in favor of resolution, certainly to gain an element of closure, but more so because I see a clear future for the BSA, in which it comes back better and safer than before, to benefit young people across the country and through the years.”

EAGLE SCOUT FROM TEXAS

https://scoutingabusesurvivors.com/survivors/

There are MILLIONS at stake.

How do we know that the "EAGLE SCOUT FROM TEXAS" is a human being?

 

Surely, no one would lie to earn $400 MILLION.

 

 

[johnsch322]

12 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

There are MILLIONS at stake.

How do we know that the "EAGLE SCOUT FROM TEXAS" is a human being?

 

Surely, no one would lie to earn $400 MILLION.

 

 

We do not, especially when his story is almost verbatim what the coalition is trying to sell.

[T2Eagle]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

We do not, especially when his story is almost verbatim what the coalition is trying to sell.

We need to be very very careful about questioning the veracity of someone putting themselves forward as a survivor.  We wouldn't tolerate anyone questioning the credibility of the posters who have come forward on these forums as survivors.  We shouldn't --- and won't --- accept it about others.  

There are tens of thousands of survivors, that certainly means there are just as many divergent and honestly held opinions on what the best course of action should be.

[ThenNow]

7 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

We need to be very very careful about questioning the veracity of someone putting themselves forward as a survivor.  We wouldn't tolerate anyone questioning the credibility of the posters who have come forward on these forums as survivors.  We shouldn't --- and won't --- accept it about others.  

There are tens of thousands of survivors, that certainly means there are just as many divergent and honestly held opinions on what the best course of action should be.

Thanks. Yes. I hope my post did not read as insinuating that I questioned his existence, experience of veracity. I tried to make that clear when I apologized, should he be on this forum. My only point was to highlight (what I see) as the glaring message being sent by using that testimony as the lead off hitter on the Coalition site. 

[1980Scouter]

Did anybody listen in on the hearing yesterday? I viewed the agenda and it did not seem like any earth changing things were scheduled. 

[RememberSchiff]

@ThenNow

We should not be copying the whole article of a commercial publication, rather just quote a few excerpts while noting source. Also, that article is now paywalled.

Judge Silverstein will "delay ruling on whether to shield mediation communications from discovery" while reviewing precedent and establishment of privilege.

https://www.law360.com/insurance-authority/property/articles/1432329/boy-scouts-judge-mulls-if-mediation-talks-shielded-in-ch-11

Edited October 20, 2021 by RememberSchiff

[MYCVAStory]

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

Judge Silverstein will "delay ruling on whether to shield mediation communications from discovery" while reviewing precedent and establishment of privilege.

She did make it clear that she would be ruling quickly and as the discovery proceeds she would be available to make VERY quick decisions when the parties can't agree on what's privileged.

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, MYCVAStory said:

She did make it clear that she would be ruling quickly and as the discovery proceeds she would be available to make VERY quick decisions when the parties can't agree on what's privileged.

Does that mean she will act with alacrity? David Molton called and asked me. 

[MYCVAStory]

47 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Does that mean she will act with alacrity? David Molton called and asked me. 

Yes, but he does have a lot of wood to chop in this historic(ly) bad settlement he's promoting while he talks to his good friend Mr. Anker and apologizes for his webcam/laryngitis/late hour that he received the motions last night.

[Eagle1970]

15 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Whomever advised you advised "poorly."

Bankruptcy addresses legally enforceable claims.  It must. 

Why?

Good question.

So, Sears files bankruptcy October 2018.

Sears was founded in 1893.

A claimant from 1897, Grover Cleveland was president-remember him-files a claim in 2018 against Sears.  "I did not get my-whatever-from the Wish Book which I still have!

Well, the bankruptcy court is charged (has legal authority and legal responsibility) to collect the assets of the bankrupt, determine legally enforceable liabilities (bills and debts), and distribute the assets to those who have valid claims.

Folks whose claims are barred in any fashion are simply not entitled to any recovery whatsoever.

 

(And I remind folks, this is an analysis of the legal rules, and I am a rabid supporter of maximum compensation to survivors.  I am not a survivor.  My best friend is/was (now deceased) who struggled all his life with his abuse.)

SO, the $64,000 QUESTION is WHY did National include time-barred claimants in its bankruptcy?

Surely, National's attorneys understand that those folks have no legal claim.

"Jack, the Ruskies don't don't do *** without a plan."  --Admiral Painter, Hunt for Red October

 

National HAS a plan.

 

We only need to figure out National's plan.

 

And, I think that scheme is:

 

1.  If the Plan allows EVERYONE who has any claim, barred or not, to VOTE to approve the Plan.  Well, won't folks with NO legally enforceable claim vote YES, and thereby "stack the deck" against Survivors with legally enforceable claims?  Certainly.  Wouldn't everyone in Paraguay vote to approve the Plan if they were to get $3,500?  (Never having any connection whatsoever to National?)  National WANTS the Plan to be approved.  And the Survivors who hold the claims most damaging to National to be cut off at the knees.

So National's strategy, in my humble opinion, is that National is proposing a Plan which provides minimal,  inadequate (pathetic and insulting) compensation to Survivors with legally enforceable claims, and hope to carry that Plan through to approval by the Court by offering a bribe of $3,500 to those who would, in a proper bankruptcy proceeding, have NO VOTE.

In plain English, assume there are only 4 claimants with legally enforceable claims, and those claims were worth millions and that they'd likely recover 1/2 their claim from the bankruptcy if only their votes and claims were considered but N.ational's Plan only pays those mega- claimants $50,000.  Assume further that National's bankruptcy Plan not only allowed those 4 mega-claimants to vote, but also every Scout who ever earned First Class was allowed to vote, and that they'd get $3,500 IF they voted YES.  AND IF the Plan is approved by the First Class Scouts, National saves MILLIONS.

THAT, I think is National's Plan.

 

The PLAN is nothing less than a dereliction of duty by National.

 

Trustworthy.

 

There are windows opening and may be more as this case is publicized.  And then there is the whole issue of tolling the statutes.  The more we learn, the clearer it becomes BSA has concealed facts over and over.  Recently, a former employee stated that it is STILL not safe.  Had I, or my parents, even thought this was a significant risk back then, I would not have been at the camp and therefore would not have been molested.  So, it's just not black or white on Sol.

[Eagle1970]

12 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

We need to be very very careful about questioning the veracity of someone putting themselves forward as a survivor.  We wouldn't tolerate anyone questioning the credibility of the posters who have come forward on these forums as survivors.  We shouldn't --- and won't --- accept it about others.  

There are tens of thousands of survivors, that certainly means there are just as many divergent and honestly held opinions on what the best course of action should be.

Yes, indeed.  I strongly disagree with almost every aspect of his position.  But differences of opinion are what makes the world go round.  If you have any question about that just look at the current political climate.  As long as he isn't disparaging those who see things in a different light, all I will say is that we, in fact, disagree.

[Eagle1993]

Note that I moved a few posts to the other thread to keep this one a bit leaner.

 

 

[Eagle1993]

On 10/18/2021 at 9:38 PM, MYCVAStory said:

I'm optimistic that this horrible settlement will go down in flames.  But, as someone connected to this said to me the other day, "we all live in our own echo chambers."  

This is very tough to predict.  As you say, those claimants who watch this closely will likely reject the plan.  I have a hard time believing there will be even 66% approval let alone the 75 - 90% needed.  The recent Talc bankruptcy had nearly everyone on board (TCC, FCR, debtors, bunch of lawfirms, etc.) and even then they barely got past the 75% mark.  

From what I can tell... BSA is claiming the Coalition represents 80% of the claimants (or about 65,600).  However, 15,000 of those are AIS.  Those claimants will be getting a letter from Tim Kosnoff that says vote no.  I have a hard time including them in the Coalition.  So, really, the Coalition is closer to 50,600 claimants.  

Lets say best case for the BSA/Coalition ... 90% of the 50,600 vote yes (and everyone votes).  That would be 45,540 yes votes.

Now, the rest will be getting letters from the TCC & their lawyer(s) saying vote No.  Lets say only 10% of those vote yes.  That would yield another 3,190 votes. 

Assuming everyone votes and the motivation to vote is the same (I don't buy that as I expect no votes are more motivated) the result is 48,730 yes votes and 33,770 no votes or or 59% approval.  My guess ... that is likely the ceiling for the yes votes at this time.  

I think that there is likely a range of 45 - 60% approval that wouldn't shock me.  I would be surprised if it <45% ... if that is the case, the Coalition should be removed as a mediation partner and trustee as they have no clue what their claimants want.  If >60% I would also be surprised, not shocked. However, I expect the current plan won't go forward unless the vote approaches 85 - 90%.  At that point, I think the TCC is the one to probably reassess and determine what remaining issues they would need to see to support the plan.

Regardless of the results of the vote, it will help the BSA, TCC and other parties narrow in on who needs to move more ... so every vote counts.  

 

[MYCVAStory]

20 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think that there is likely a range of 45 - 60% approval that wouldn't shock me.  I would be surprised if it <45% ... if that is the case, the Coalition should be removed as a mediation partner and trustee as they have no clue what their claimants want.  If >60% I would also be surprised, not shocked. However, I expect the current plan won't go forward unless the vote approaches 85 - 90%.  At that point, I think the TCC is the one to probably reassess and determine what remaining issues they would need to see to support the plan.

First, remember that there needs to be a 2/3 majority of VOTING claimants for the class to approve a plan.  The Coalition won't be removed as a mediation party if it fails but obviously their influence would be greatly decreased.  As well, the TCC's position as truly representing ALL Survivors is enhanced.  Remember too that the Judge is really concerned about the "quick pay" votes.  She is going to hear the argument that someone in a "bad" State taking the quick pay option should not have the ability to impact someone in a "good State" who has a claim ready to continue if a permanent injunction isn't granted.  So, there's a scenario where this plan passes BUT after removing the quick pay votes it falls under the threshold.  That might seem like a mess but it really provides a fuller picture of support, or not, and she may need that in order to make an informed decision.

[ThenNow]

17 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

That might seem like a mess

Uh huh. Mess-R-Us. Bring a bib and a splat mat.