Eagle1993 Posted January 11, 2022 Author Share Posted January 11, 2022 8 minutes ago, johnsch322 said: I think the biggest stink will come from the e-ballots. All the feedback from the survivors that received them said it was a disaster. The official Omni eballot or coalition's? What is odd to me is that the coalition created an eballot but yet all of their votes are direct? It just seems odd. Probably a good question is if the coalition discussed use of master vs eballot with BSA at all. If the coalition collected votes through their own eBallot then submitted them as individual ballots ... that is no different than a master ballot as both are coming from the law firm, not directly from claimants. Note that this is fine and acceptable, but if BSA or TCC questions master ballots they should also question firms that submitted direct ballots for their claimants. I agree that there could be legitimate questions about the master ballots from anti plan firms. Why am I not shocked that voting once again comes up as a mess when discussing the BSA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 (edited) 46 minutes ago, johnsch322 said: I read that and to me it appears once again the BSA wants to tarnish the TCC and downplay the amount of award that a survivor deserves. I do wish everyone on both sides could dispense with, "Mom! She's touching me...no I didn't! He stole my juice box...!" How did the value of the claims magically shrink to near the amount of the current kitty? 36 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: BSA went hard after master ballots. I think it will be interesting when Omni responses to discovery about what they listed as master vs direct ballots. I wonder if the direct ballots all came directly from individuals ... or did coalition law firms send them directly as individual ballots to try and allow BSA to reject master ballots? To me, a direct ballot was one where an individual either mailed directly or went to Omni's site and filled out the form directly. If a lawfirm was involved in either (by a lawyer filling out the ballot or sending an individual ballot on behalf of a claimant) ... then there is no difference with a master ballot. It looks like BSA is going to try and disqualify reject votes by disqualifying some of the master ballots. Honestly, I plainly and simply want honesty. Let's find out definitively and see who did what right and/or wrong and let the tree shake out what gives way to gravity. Let's have a fair fight. Lord may we please have integrity in the vote? To loosely quote Mr. Buchbinder, "This is about survivors and not bondholders." Don't tell me you're for me and s/he is not. Show me. Pretend I'm from Missouri. Clients aggregated without proper vetting? Let's see it. Signatures affixed unethically in any context? Bring it on. Master ballots were or were not wrongly used or implemented? By all means send forth the evidence. Does e-ballot stand for egregiously errant? Pull back the curtain. Please. I'm tired of pin the tail on the Donkey Kong and Wack-A-Mole. Sick. Tired. Nauseated. Disgusted. Edited January 11, 2022 by ThenNow 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsch322 Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: Reading BSA's statement about what they think child rape settlements should be is just sad. They will pay out millions to someone who shattered their spine, but believe $100K should be the average settlement for child rape survivors. This document isn't about what they believe the CAN pay ... but what they should have to pay regardless of their ability to pay. I will defend BSA when debating their ability to pay ... but to come out with a report that essentially states ... even outside bankruptcy ... the median settlement amount for a child rape survivor should be $100K is just shocking. Understand this is a bankruptcy, but it is a pretty dark document when you read that rebuttal report. I am not a victim, but if I were I would never vote yes on any plan after reading what Charles E Bates just wrote on behalf of the BSA. And that is why I would recommend everyone to understand the lifelong effects of being a child sexual abuse survivor entails. If research is done then most people might understand mine and multiple others position on the current settlement offer. A good place to start would be this topic: It goes right to the heart of why the BSA is in bankruptcy and that is because of the lifelong effects of the trauma of sexual abuse. If it did not have such an impact on ones life then yes 100K might be appropriate. Edited January 11, 2022 by RememberSchiff Moderator RS added link to that topic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsch322 Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 4 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: The official Omni eballot or coalition's? The coalitions 5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: What is odd to me is that the coalition created an eballot but yet all of their votes are direct? Good question and I am sure it will be brought up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 16 minutes ago, ThenNow said: I do wish everyone on both sides could dispense with, "Mom! She's touching me...no I didn't! He stole my juice box...!" Sorry to quote ThenNow. (Wait. I am ThenNow.) I was referring to the parties and not usns on this thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clbkbx Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 43 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: but believe $100K should be the average settlement for child rape survivors Is the Bates analysis using discounted BSA settlements when they were determined to not be fully liable (see #18) but then not taking into account that there are third party releases contemplated? E.g., "In the third case, the BSA was held 60 percent liable for its failure to not prevent a repeat abuser from abusing several children, with the local council being assigned 15 percent liability share and the Mormon Church Entities being assigned a 25 percent liability share." Every one of these entities is part of the bankruptcy, but (as I understand it) only the 60% is included in the analysis. Hope someone here can read this report better than me, but it sure seems like they are taking the benefit both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 From the filing currently under discussion, with thoughts to follow. (Emphasis added.) "13. As a result of ongoing mediation efforts, the size of the Settlement Trust now stands at more than $2.69 billion. The Debtors and other parties in interest are continuing to mediate on a daily basis, with additional in-person mediation scheduled for this week to reach settlements with parties preliminarily voting against the Plan and to continue to grow the size of the Settlement Trust. The TCC and certain of its aligned state court counsel will attend, and the Debtors sincerely hope they will pivot from blindly attacking the Plan to a constructive dialogue that supports all survivors. 14. As always, the Debtors welcome any guidance the Court wishes to provide to the parties in this case. The Debtors believe the Plan is confirmable, and intend to continue to work at reaching further settlements and increasing support for the Plan, in accordance with their duty to the estates, survivors and all parties in interest." When I've been in negotiations, I've tried to suggest (and not always successfully) that parties quickly find ant points on which they agree. All of the discussion is about "grow(ing) the size of the Settlement Trust," but there is no acknowledgement of the two pachyderms dancing in the parlor. Namely, YP reform and independent Settlement Trust governance. Why are they unable to find any conciliation in these two important areas? I've heard precious little substance from anyone addressing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted January 11, 2022 Author Share Posted January 11, 2022 4 minutes ago, clbkbx said: Hope someone here can read this report better than me, but it sure seems like they are taking the benefit both ways. That is exactly what I saw; however, I wasn't able to read the whole document yet. Also, when they were 60% liable .. many times COs were the other liable party but they never included that value in the settlement. However, in this case, they are including CO coverage. So that is part of the reason I question the valuation they are using. Personally, I think they are much better off arguing that $2.9M is the most they can pay. Arguing $2.9M is full compensation for 82,500 victims of child sex abuse is a much, much harder pill to swallow and one that will likely make it tougher to get people on board a plan. 6 minutes ago, ThenNow said: independent Settlement Trust governance. They purchased the coalition support by offering them $10M + $900K/month plus running the settlement trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted January 11, 2022 Author Share Posted January 11, 2022 46 minutes ago, ThenNow said: I do wish everyone on both sides could dispense with, "Mom! She's touching me...no I didn't! He stole my juice box...!" I've seen this on both sides and it is annoying. These are high paid and experienced law firms, so I expect they believe it does have some impact, but I expect JSS is pretty good at ignoring those parts of the filings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted January 11, 2022 Author Share Posted January 11, 2022 10 minutes ago, ThenNow said: 14. As always, the Debtors welcome any guidance the Court wishes to provide to the parties in this case. To me, if JSS has major issues with the voting results, she needs to provide feedback next week. If she believes the voting result is sufficient to confirm, then I support her in letting the confirmation process go forward. She is far more experienced in this than any of us, she knows the law and she should be able to make a decision next week if the vote was sufficient. What I would not want to see is JSS making a ruling in March that the vote was not sufficient to confirm the plan. Now, if she is ok with the vote but has issues with the plan, that should come up during the confirmation hearings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 27 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: I think they are much better off arguing that $2.9M is the most they can pay. Arguing $2.9M is full compensation for 82,500 victims of child sex abuse is a much, much harder pill to swallow and one that will likely make it tougher to get people on board a plan. Yup. Hard pill indeed. I think it's commonly know as Ipecac. 29 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: They purchased the coalition support by offering them $10M + $900K/month plus running the settlement trust. Is there precedent for such? It's seems all manner of wonky. I can think of all sorts of unseemly analogies. 28 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: I've seen this on both sides and it is annoying. These are high paid and experienced law firms, so I expect they believe it does have some impact, but I expect JSS is pretty good at ignoring those parts of the filings. My point exactly, but I think it's just sophomoric. I have seen her roll her eyes. Patterson and Mr. Buchbinder set the high watermark for decorum, in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted January 11, 2022 Author Share Posted January 11, 2022 (edited) Just to clarify how big this document is .... BSA's law firm initially said that claims are worth up to $7.1B ... now BSA's law firm is saying <$3.6B. It is meant to counter the TCC's expert witness who is saying claims are worth $24 - $30B ... on the low end. There is a major disconnect on the value of the claims. If this is now becoming a bottom's up exercise (vs an ability to pay exercise) then I would think some non bankruptcy court may need to decide the answer. BSA has initially been focused on top down allocation ... this is the max National can pay. This is the max LCs can pay. Etc. This document has seemed to change their argument completely. Now they are saying ... this is the max claims are worth in total. Note that I know they had a spread in the past ... but the mean and upper end of that spread exceeded their ability to pay (even when including LC assets). Now it doesn't when including LC assets. Edited January 11, 2022 by Eagle1993 typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted January 11, 2022 Author Share Posted January 11, 2022 18 minutes ago, ThenNow said: Is there precedent for such? It's seems all manner of wonky. I can think of all sorts of unseemly analogies During the RSA hearing, this was one of the items the judge threw out as not acceptable. BSA put it back in anyways and said further arguments during the confirmation hearing. I would be shocked if it stayed in based on JSS's initial comments. For the BSA, I doubt they care if the Coalition is paid off in the end. It was the offer that was needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: During the RSA hearing, this was one of the items the judge threw out as not acceptable. BSA put it back in anyways and said further arguments during the confirmation hearing. I would be shocked if it stayed in based on JSS's initial comments. Yup. Mr. B didn't care for it none either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted January 11, 2022 Author Share Posted January 11, 2022 Status hearing set. 1 day after the final vote to be tallied. 9d224c6c-9bc1-4eec-98e9-c99d2f8ce961_8250.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts