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

[Eagle1993]

On 1/10/2022 at 3:44 PM, Eagle1993 said:

I think the big date will be January 17th.  Perhaps Omni made some major errors that could swing the vote %.  I wonder if the judge will wait until January 17th, see the final voting report and then utilize a status hearing to provide tea leaves as to where this plan stands.  

To me, good call by the judge to hold a hearing right after the final vote tally.

Note that I don't believe this is good news for the current plan.  If there were no issues, the judge would likely have skipped the meeting and let confirmation to go ahead as planned.  

I do think this is good news for all sides that the judge will not let something fester without stepping in and providing some sort of guidance.

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Status hearing set.

Meh. Another week of twisting and turning like a Nashville Hot rotisserie chicken. 

[Muttsy]

4 hours ago, clbkbx said:

but believe $100K should be the average settlement for child rape survivors

My wife is the smartest person I know. And she has no diplomas to prove it. (I shall them certificates of stupidity.) 

. Regarding the Dr Bates amended expert opinion, she said wouldn’t that require a new vote? The Plan now reduces the base values I.e. the lies the BSA and Coalition pitched it, is now reduced by 75%.  Shouldn’t that have been in the Plan and disclosure statement BEFORE the vote, she asks. 
And here I thought she was merely a fabulous cook and lover. 

[johnsch322]

10 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

The Plan now reduces the base values I.e. the lies the BSA and Coalition pitched it, is now reduced by 75%.

It sure puts the "experts" credibility as an expert under question.  This is my expert opinion unless I decide to change my mind. Kaching goes the cash register.  How much is the BSA paying him?

[Eagle1993]

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

My wife is the smartest person I know. And she has no diplomas to prove it. (I shall them certificates of stupidity.) 

. Regarding the Dr Bates amended expert opinion, she said wouldn’t that require a new vote? The Plan now reduces the base values I.e. the lies the BSA and Coalition pitched it, is now reduced by 75%.  Shouldn’t that have been in the Plan and disclosure statement BEFORE the vote, she asks. 
And here I thought she was merely a fabulous cook and lover. 

When I read this I see it as having several audiences.  First is Judge LSS as a real attempt to keep the current plan/vote alive.  I don’t know how feasible that attempt is (it feels a bit like a Hail Mary at halftime of a football game).  It probably won’t work but doesn’t hurt.  

However, I also see this document as a negotiation tactic to set a starting point for the next round of negotiations.  It balances out comments from the TCC to ensure BSA’s position is known publicly.  
 

My main problem with the analysis is there has never been an organization that went to court to defend 80,000+ sex abuse cases.  To try and discount case after case because the victims are now older or the accused are volunteers would be difficult to argue with 84,000 claims.  At some point, a jury could say that there are major systemic issues that the organization should have been aware of and thus give BSA and related entities most of the fault and big payouts to survivors.  Bates cannot simply look at each individual cases anymore.  Now I grew up in the 80s/90s and understand those who argue many of these cases occurred in a different time and it was a societal problem, but the reality is a jury today would likely crush the organization with this many claims.  

There is a chance that next week the judge will say while the vote wasn’t a home run it was good enough and let’s go to confirmation.  Perhaps she is doubtful the trust can grow, believes Purdue ruling is garbage, and sees this plan as the only path for BSA survival.  

On the flip side, would she want to be the court that sets a low bar for allowing 40,000 non debtor releases over the objections of the TCC and DOJ?  Would she want to have this case kicked back to her due to issues found in appeal?

Someone mentioned tea leaves.  I think the tea leaves are her ignoring requests by the DOJ to restart voting due to plan changes and allowing the confirmation schedule to be delayed.  I’ve seen in the past where she ignored some major concern as she knew it didn’t matter based on how she was going to rule.  So, in this case, if she thinks this plan in its current form is doomed, keep the vote on schedule, ignore the DOJ objections (as it doesn’t matter) delay confirmation (as it doesn’t matter) and send the sides back. Just a guess…

[T2Eagle]

7 hours ago, ThenNow said:

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.  

Agree, I really don't see why they can't make progress on those two non monetary facets.  I may have some  skepticism about the merits of the individual YP proposals: independent audits, universal background checks, more survivors on the board, etc., but as someone in the field running units, none of those things would be backbreakers, and we could learn to live with all of them.

The independence of the settlement trust seems really easy, after all, how much does BSA care who's distributing money that no longer belongs to them.

My best guess is that the bankruptcy specialist lawyers BSA is employing have no real knowledge and so no real interest in working hard at YP, while the desire to control the trust is probably instinctual rather than well thought out. 

[ThenNow]

12 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

This is my expert opinion unless I decide to change my mind.

In fairness, this is a Rebuttal Expert Report refuting the Claro suppositions, valuations and conclusions. He is re-examining the entire landscape based upon the data and exemplars presented in the expert report commissioned by the TCC. As with any rebuttal, the door was opened and he is walking through it, using any and all "facts, statements and evidence" to enhance the case of his client. To that end, I think he did a compelling, professional job. From my seat, he's clearly not an intellectual rube. (This is not a substantive comment, just putting the report in the proper light. An iterative process like this is a terrible context in which to have to vote on something. The plan had four major changes after I placed my vote.) 

Edited January 12, 2022 by ThenNow

[Eagle1993]

9 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

The independence of the settlement trust seems really easy, after all, how much does BSA care who's distributing money that no longer belongs to them.

 

I don't think BSA cares; however, here is what they put in the plan.   Why?  Green is well connected to BSA's law firm.  The Coalition is clearly the group trying to get the plan passed.

 

Quote

Settlement Trustee. There shall be one Settlement Trustee, who shall be appointed by the Bankruptcy Court in the Confirmation Order. The initial Settlement Trustee shall be Eric D. Green. 

Quote

The Settlement Trust Advisory Committee shall be established pursuant to the Settlement Trust Agreement. The initial STAC shall be composed of seven (7) members, five (5) of which shall be selected by the Coalition and two (2) of which shall be selected by the Tort Claimants’ Committee,

 

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The Settlement Trust Advisory Committee shall be established pursuant to the Settlement Trust Agreement. The initial STAC shall be composed of seven (7) members, five (5) of which shall be selected by the Coalition and two (2) of which shall be selected by the Tort Claimants’ Committee,

What sort of people are qualified to do this work? It's a straight up question. I'm ig'nrnt. Also, why in the world would I want someone else's attorney(s) or their handpicked folk advising a Settlement Trustee on how to pay me (or not)? Another honest question. As with this tight cadre of high-level bankruptcy attorneys and professionals, is there a short list of these peeps milling around in a Delaware hotel ballroom somewhere? If so, I'd rather look in the bar or select from the honorable staff members taking care of guests. This industry is a quagmire.

[Eagle1993]

22 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

In fairness, this is a Rebuttal Expert Report refuting the Claro suppositions, valuations and conclusions.

This is a very good point.  Will the TCC be allowed to release all of their data by council?  TCC has held that back, I think due to mediation privilege.  Also, is the detailed Claro assessment on the docket?  I haven't seen that either.  

I found it odd that BSA would publicly release this analysis.  I had a chance to read most of it last night and mentioned where I think it falls apart when they use prior settlements.  However, I do agree that it presents the insurance side of the equation. 

Perhaps making all of this public to non mediation parties may be fine.  Generally, I fully support transparency.  However, this back and forth doesn't look healthy and BSA lawyers seemed to go all in on this plan.  I was very hopeful last week but now am concerned they are planning on spending months in limbo land.  

BSA has already raised fees substantially, it is getting to the point where it will hurt recruiting.  It is likely any plan will drive the organization deeper into debt and take more money from councils.  I really hope White & Case know what they are doing.  I am still hopeful that we are just seeing a part of the back and forth as right now as from what I see,  I don't see these sides agreeing on what to order for lunch let alone a multibillion dollar settlement.

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

I found it odd that BSA would publicly release this analysis.  I had a chance to read most of it last night and mentioned where I think it falls apart when they use prior settlements.  However, I do agree that it presents the insurance side of the equation. 

In his absence, I am becoming more cynical. Prior to this report, I had not seen anyone pound so hard on the comparative negligence angle. If one thought too long about it, one may be inclined to the see this as a set up for the separation of third-party non-debtors (to whatever degree and by whatever name).

BSA: "This is our responsibility and we will pay it in full. The rest of it? Well, see those groups over there? It was really their fault, just look at the historical data! I guess you'll have to go get the rest from them." 

Edited January 12, 2022 by ThenNow

[RememberSchiff]

I doubt Prof Eric Green will officially become the Settlement Trustee.

https://mediatbankry.com/2021/12/14/mediation-privilege-for-a-proposed-but-not-actual-mediator-in-re-boy-scouts/

Edited January 12, 2022 by RememberSchiff
spelling

[ThenNow]

Boy Scouts Says Abuse Claims Likely to Be Paid in Full, With Lowered Liability Estimates

The Boy Scouts of America said it now expected it will likely be able to pay in full on the sex-abuse claims that drove it to bankruptcy based on new and lower estimates of how much it owes abuse victims.

The youth group on Tuesday said it now projected the total value of claims eligible for payouts to be roughly $3 billion, the midpoint in a range of $2.4 billion to $3.6 billion...The youth group, which has apologized to the victims, says new calculations showed its liability wasn’t nearly as bad as it thought.

####

Richard Pachulski, a lawyer for a committee representing abuse victims, told WSJ Pro Bankruptcy on Tuesday that the Boy Scouts’s statement that claims would be paid in full under its plan is “grossly misleading.”

The group’s calculations were based on a “flawed analysis that significantly undervalues claims,” he said.

If the group is so confident survivors will be paid in full then it should provide a guarantee of that to them and be released from liability only if all claims are fully paid, Mr. Pachulski said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-says-abuse-claims-likely-to-be-paid-in-full-with-lowered-liability-estimates-11641952637?page=1

Edited January 13, 2022 by ThenNow

[T2Eagle]

16 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Boy Scouts Says Abuse Claims Likely to Be Paid in Full, With Lowered Liability Estimates

The Boy Scouts of America said it now expected it will likely be able to pay in full on the sex-abuse claims that drove it to bankruptcy based on new and lower estimates of how much it owes abuse victims.

The youth group on Tuesday said it now projected the total value of claims eligible for payouts to be roughly $3 billion, the midpoint in a range of $2.4 billion to $3.6 billion...The youth group, which has apologized to the victims, says new calculations showed its liability wasn’t nearly as bad as it thought.

####

Richard Pachulski, a lawyer for a committee representing abuse victims, told WSJ Pro Bankruptcy on Tuesday that the Boy Scouts’s statement that claims would be paid in full under its plan is “grossly misleading.”

The group’s calculations were based on a “flawed analysis that significantly undervalues claims,” he said.

If the group is so confident survivors will be paid in full then it should provide a guarantee of that to them and be released from liability only if all claims are fully paid, Mr. Pachulski said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-says-abuse-claims-likely-to-be-paid-in-full-with-lowered-liability-estimates-11641952637?page=1

I can't get past the pay wall.  Is the story getting it's source from court filings, or did a spokesperson actually make a separate statement claiming its own initial analysis was wrong?

If it's the latter it is both distasteful and dumb.

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, T2Eagle said:

I can't get past the pay wall.  Is the story getting it's source from court filings, or did a spokesperson actually make a separate statement claiming its own initial analysis was wrong?

I'm forbidden to post full articles, so my apologies. All BSA statements were per the filing, but plan opponents were quoted for the story. Puchulski and Amala.

Jason Amala, another lawyer representing survivors, said the group’s claim on Tuesday that victims will be paid in full is “absurd,” adding that “There’s not enough money to make it work.”