Chapter 11 Announced - Part 7 - Plan 5.0 - Voting/Confirmation

[Eagle1993]

15 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/latest-vote-tally-boy-scouts-27-bln-abuse-settlement-falls-short-goal-2022-01-18/

Hmmmm..

Survivors can change their votes until a Feb. 22 hearing on the deal before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein in Delaware, who must sign off on the deal.
 

Really?  I thought the judge was clear.  She already saw a mess with claimants changing votes post deadline. 

[Eagle1993]

Apparently during the Coalition townhall, it was brought up that BSA & TCC are in active mediation.  So, perhaps, the status hearing was cancelled to allow mediation to find a solution.  Let's hope they are making some good progress.

[1980Scouter]

I really think a BSA only bankruptcy with LC's given the option of being included at a much higher contribution or to opt out and take their chances has the best chance of passing LC's vote.

That way the LC controls their own destiny.

[Eagle1993]

57 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

I really think a BSA only bankruptcy with LC's given the option of being included at a much higher contribution or to opt out and take their chances has the best chance of passing LC's vote.

That way the LC controls their own destiny.

I expect this is likely being discussed and I wouldn't be surprised if this is part of the deal.  However, it adds complexity to the insurance payouts (they will likely need to know which LCs are in/out before closing their offer) and I expect there will be great debate on how to calculate the required "buy in" amount for each LC.  

One benefit is actually for the Ad Hoc committee.  Right now, let's say the Ad Hoc committee is asked to increase the offer by $400M.  They then have to spread that out to the 250+ councils and ask each one for approval.  That is a tough discussion as if even a few councils bulk, the deal is dead.  The win is that the Ad Hoc committee can go back and say this is your number ... are you in or out.  

Now, if this is the path, then I think the LC contributions would have to be limited to those who have claims against that council.  Otherwise, some claimants would get payments from councils + be able to sue their own council.

[clbkbx]

On 1/11/2022 at 4:13 PM, Eagle1993 said:

Also, when they were 60% liable .. many times COs were the other liable party but they never included that value in the settlement. 

Having had the chance to revisit the Bates report, it seems that third parties in the bankruptcy case were often another liable party and their share is not included in the analysis. Below are some excerpts to support this (emphasis mine). 
 

I think it would fair to say, the Bates report indicates: the BSA-only share is less than 10% of the total value of the claims and that share is about $3B. (Unsaid is that the BSA’s expert thinks the total value of claims is over $30B.)
 

From that, the lawyers take all the amounts in the current plan and say: see, all BSA claims will be paid in full. 
 

But as structured, the other main entities (TCJC, LCs, COs) that would/could pay any of the remaining 90% of the value of the claims will receive a release of liability. 
 

#26 “The appropriate evaluation of the reasonableness of the Settlement Trust is whether the Settlement Trust pays Abuse Claims, fairly and equitably, reasonable amounts relative to the harm to the survivor, the responsibility of the BSA, accounting for state laws apropos of each Abuse Claim.”

#28 “The Trust simulation modelling exercise indicates that if the average level of the BSA responsibility share scalars of the Trust is about 10 percent for Abuse Claims for Single Survivor Cases and the net of aggravating and mitigating scalars for repeat abuser Abuse Claim is 125 percent, then the Trust will spend about $3.4 billion paying claims at values consistent with simulated BSA-entities responsibility shares needed to match the historical filing and settlement pattern.”

#30 “For these reasons, I believe that the average BSA responsibility share for Abuse Claims is more likely less than 10% than greater than 10%.”

#79  “As the Claro verdict study group reveals, the institutional share of responsibility is a critical factor determining the value of a sexual abuse claim against an institution.”

In Sections III and V, there are discussions of the TCJC and LC responsibilities but is not incorporated into the BSA-only calculation  

Lastly, the Bates report, also at #30, indicates that in reference to whether settlements should be lower: “… there are over 27,000 Abuse Claims unrestricted by statute of limitations that could have filed a lawsuit but did not. ” I’m guessing this is disingenuous as many SOL laws only recently changed. It also adds “[t]hese survivors are typically high school graduates in their mid-fifties, half of whom are unemployed or retired.” That is surprising if true. 

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, clbkbx said:

It also adds “[t]hese survivors are typically high school graduates in their mid-fifties, half of whom are unemployed or retired.” That is surprising if true. 

This does not surprise me at all given the long term effects of Child Sexual Abuse on ones psyche. Drug abuse, issues with authority, and problems with relationships do not make a CSA survivor the ideal worker.

[clbkbx]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

This does not surprise me at all given the long term effects of Child Sexual Abuse on ones psyche.

A good reminder that CSA affects people differently. 

[Eagle1993]

New hearing set

January 24, 2022 at 2:30 p.m. (Eastern Time)

Microsoft Word - Boy Scouts - Motion to Clarify Scope of Discovery - Notice of Hearing 4863-1975-2202 v.1 (omniagentsolutions.com)

Right now it is about the coalition law firms who are not complying with the judge's ruling about discovery (per insurance companies).

[fred8033]

11 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

New hearing set

January 24, 2022 at 2:30 p.m. (Eastern Time)

Microsoft Word - Boy Scouts - Motion to Clarify Scope of Discovery - Notice of Hearing 4863-1975-2202 v.1 (omniagentsolutions.com)

Right now it is about the coalition law firms who are not complying with the judge's ruling about discovery (per insurance companies).

Amazing how weeks and months pass so easily.

[RememberSchiff]

21 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

A bit of insight from Prof. Jacoby's twitter feed:

She doesn't expect this to be the last word on this vote ... expect both sides to fight to get votes removed.

Steep battle expected to get this plan approved.  (Based on prior tweets issues include voting results, requested releases)

And now a group of insurance companies have asked the courts time to deal with a bunch of coalition law firms stonewalling them.  

Microsoft Word - Boy Scouts - Motion to Clarify Scope of Law Firm Discovery 4869-9614-2346 v.1 (omniagentsolutions.com)

Basically, the law firms objected to this discovery due to privilege.  The judge overruled their objection.  Now the law firms are refusing to answer the questions.  

 

19 hours ago, MattR said:

What practical power does she have to "encourage" them?

In July-August, 2020 the Judge included the "Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice" as part of the Mediation Party.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/842768_1161.pdf

Could the Judge also remove the "Coalition" from the Mediation Party? 

Edited January 19, 2022 by RememberSchiff

[Eagle1993]

2 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

 

In July-August, 2020 the Judge included the "Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice" as part of the Mediation Party.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/842768_1161.pdf

Could the Judge also remove the "Coalition" from the Mediation Party? 

May not be a bad idea.  That could shake things up a bit.  I don't think she has been happy with the coalition (asking for payments from BSA, fights between Kosnoff/KR, etc.)  She sees that the voting percent didn't hit high enough and now this mess.

Perhaps use it as a threat for now.

[ThenNow]

29 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Amazing how weeks and months pass so easily.

What’s the daily burn rate these days?

3 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Could the Judge also remove the "Coalition" from the Mediation Party? 

Not my bailiwick, but if she can ditch a mediator with a flick of her wand, it would seem so. Right? In the event that happens, the “substantial contribution” argument by which they advanced the request (demand?) for payment of BrownRudnick’s fees would almost certainly go bye bye. Substantial contributor and obstructionist perch on the opposite ends of the teeter totter, me thinks.

[Muttsy]

2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Could the Judge also remove the "Coalition" from the Mediation Party? 

Yes she could. Moreover she should. The Coalition has tainted the entire process, is not a good-faith actor and its odious continuing presence on this stage dooms any chance of a consensual resolution.

Edited January 19, 2022 by RememberSchiff
removed objectionable comparison

[fred8033]

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

What’s the daily burn rate these days?

$100m spent in 2021 (guestimate).   Divide by 365.   Approx $300k per day.

[ThenNow]

9 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

$100m spent in 2021 (guestimate).   Divide by 365.   Approx $300k per day.

Wee. Nigh onto my per diem back in the Wild West working world of 80's expense accounts. YeeHaw. I knew attorneys who billed clients for fresh (new) French cuff shirts while traveling. Nary an eye blink. (This is related and relevant to the topic because it is unpacking potential costs and fees associated with the case. True fact, as a good friend used to say.)