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

[Eagle1993]

54 minutes ago, ThenNow 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.

 

100% agree with this statement.  

 

36 minutes 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?

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

The court filing states (and bold is in the filing):

Quote

 

V. Survivors of Abuse Will Be Paid in Full Under the Debtors’ Plan. 7.

Unfortunately for survivors, the TCC has failed to inform them of the real facts underlying this Plan, including the fact that Class 8 will likely be paid in full. 

 

Great!  In fact, if BSA's law firm is so confident, perhaps they would insure the trust that if the trust ends up running out of $, Bates White will guarantee making up the difference!  Or, if that doesn't work, I'm sure an insurance company would take a small payment to provide the insurance given how many degrees Dr. Bates has, I'm sure his analysis is spot on!  I think they would get 100% of the vote, TCC on board, BSA, LCs and COs out of this mess!

I go back to my prior comments ... I think this was a dumb move to make this public.  This is a document you negotiate with.  This is not something you want to get started where all survivors now expect to be fully compensated.  We are now seeing the results of this bad move hit the media and BSA will have to figure out how to tell abuse survivors they think $38K, on average, if full payment.  Good luck with that narrative. 

BSA was much better off stating that no one has enough money to compensate abuse survivors. 

I'll just add this to the giant pile of dumb that comes out of the national side of this organization.  I would like them publicly to state if they agree with their own court filing ... that survivors will be paid in full!

[ThenNow]

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/boy-scouts-slams-victim-committee-for-opposing-2-7-billion-deal

[Eagle1993]

 

Just now, ThenNow said:

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/boy-scouts-slams-victim-committee-for-opposing-2-7-billion-deal

I'm actually ok with BSA being aggressive publicly against the TCC.   I think it is a fair debate if the current plan could be the best one overall for all survivors.

 

BSA's mistake is now having to defend saying they will fully pay all abuse survivors.  In the disclosure statement, they didn't make that claim.  I think that allowed BSA to say ... this is the best plan for you and we could never fully pay off all of the victims.  It allowed some flexibility and to appropriately set expectations.  However, now, in a court filing, they state " Survivors of Abuse Will Be Paid in Full Under the Debtors’ Plan."

Q: Mr. Mosby ... do you think $7,000 is full payment for a child who was raped at a scout camp multiple times?   

A: Well, you know, um, it was by a volunteer ... so it doesn't count.  It was really the parents fault for trusting us.  Anyways, Friends of Troop 100 is really the one responsible. 

I wish BSA could go backwards and remove that document from the docket.  What's done is done.  I think they probably need to make a statement that they can never fully compensate victims and perhaps portions of the analysis could have been better worded.

[ThenNow]

28 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think they probably need to make a statement that they can never fully compensate victims and perhaps portions of the analysis could have been better worded.

Some of my earliest comments here were about the lure of hearing BSA was going to "equitably compensate" all survivors of abuse in Scouting. It's all clear to me now. We started at $6100 being the "equitable" amount. Now, we're at $38,000 as the "paid in full" number. Now I get it. We're getting 5x more than is equitable compensation! Wee. Makes perfect sense. Brilliant PR strategy. Bring on the Drum Award! (Who's monitoring the microphone over there?)

[RememberSchiff]

54 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

BSA's mistake is now having to defend saying they will fully pay all abuse survivors.  In the disclosure statement, they didn't make that claim.  I think that allowed BSA to say ... this is the best plan for you and we could never fully pay off all of the victims.  It allowed some flexibility and to appropriately set expectations.  However, now, in a court filing, they state " Survivors of Abuse Will Be Paid in Full Under the Debtors’ Plan."

page 4 of docket 8234. This docket also includes the Bates Rebuttal Report in Appendix A.

"In light of Dr. Bates’s opinion that

(i) the value of the Direct Abuse Claims has a midpoint of $3.0 billion,

(ii) the size of the contributions already being made to the Settlement Trust (over $2.69 billion), and

(iii) the expected value of non-settling insurance rights and non-settling chartered organization claims,

the Debtors anticipate payment in full to holders of allowed claims in Class 8 in accordance with the Trust Distribution Procedures. It belies common sense that the TCC is continuing to attack a Plan with a preliminary accepting vote of 73% in a class that will be paid in full."

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/87262082-a853-42e8-8cca-b7e120c2836c_8234.pdf

Edited January 13, 2022 by RememberSchiff

[Muttsy]

On 1/11/2022 at 9:47 AM, Eagle1993 said:

So, perhaps she is just being cautious until the final vote.  Just a hunch....

Yes, it’s called “wishful thinking.” 
If anything, the vote accept percentage drops further. The 3500 quickpay elections drop it down to 70%. 
 

As AC/DC put it: “Its a long way to the top if you want to rock and roll.”

 

[Muttsy]

Court hearing Tuesday sign up for zoom call. Click on blue link: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9a06c7bb-242f-488e-ad98-e5062b1db6d9_8300.pdf

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

We started at $6100 being the "equitable" amount. Now, we're at $38,000 as the "paid in full" number. Now I get it. We're getting 5x more than is equitable compensation! Wee. Makes perfect sense. Brilliant PR strategy.

Remember this?

The Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice, which is urging a yes vote, has said that most claimants will receive between $3,500 and $2.7 million...“Voting yes will promptly deliver a degree of justice and closure to survivors, and accountability for the Boy Scouts organization,” Rothweiler said in a statement.

https://www.oregonlive.com/nation/2021/10/boy-scout-sex-abuse-victims-begin-voting-on-bankruptcy-settlement-plan.html

Edited January 13, 2022 by ThenNow

[MattR]

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

BSA was much better off stating that no one has enough money to compensate abuse survivors. 

I was wondering where this change came from and all I can think of is that people who feel trapped in a corner don't have free will. What looks like grasping at straws may be a response to something else. Maybe, since the vote, a bunch of CO's no longer believe the BSA's promises. Losing a lot of CO's would cause even more problems. The only way to protect the CO's is to cover their portion and the only way to do that is to say all the money we have, or could possibly get, is enough.

[SiouxRanger]

And so, we are all left chasing all manner of smoke.

And like the Cheshire Cat-fading reality but really fading lies.

And at the end, the Survivors will be left with A Hatful Of Rain.

[Eagle1993]

5 minutes ago, MattR said:

I was wondering where this change came from and all I can think of is that people who feel trapped in a corner don't have free will.

I definitely that that is an option and it could be about COs.

My other thought is that BSA knows this plan is dead.  So, who do they blame? The TCC.

Lay out the case that the TCC is not fulfilling their role 

• Clearly 74% of claimants like this plan and the TCC is in the minority
• The TCC is just wasting the estates (trust's) money by fighting further
• The TCC sent that awful email
• The trust fully pays off survivors
• The TCC is obligated to represent all survivors and they are not

The, when the court says return to mediation, throw a fit and submit a request to the court to replace the TCC.

My guess ... this document is the 1st step the BSA will take to replace the TCC, or at minimum, the law firm they hired.  If BSA returns to mediation, they want someone else on the other side of the table.

[ThenNow]

This may sound asinine, but I feel like a child stuck in the middle of a nasty divorce and custody battle. There are some things I'd rather be hashed out in private, especially facts and/or accusations that are as yet substantiated. Unleashing the trebuchets of blame can cause lasting damage and deep in the moment confusion, resentment, fear, anger and self doubt. "What am I supposed to do? Who's telling the truth? Can't you just act like adults and pretend you care about me more than just winning and/or crushing the other? Can't your lawyers or the mediator get you to sit down and be reasonable?" I hate this, regardless who's correct or justified in their position. I do not care for the deep dark of mediation, but this disclosure seems inexplicable to me. I guess desperation and strategic positioning could be the driver, but it still feels awful.

Edited January 13, 2022 by ThenNow

[Eagle1993]

Another district court has sent a bankruptcy back due to non debtor releases.  Fourth Circuit.  Purdue is in the second district. 

Prof. Jacoby on Twitter: "Like in #PurduePharma, a VA district court has just invalidated third party releases in a retailer bankruptcy (Ann Taylor/Dress Barn/etc). Unlike in Purdue, district court sending case back to bankruptcy court. & tone of opinion is ... different too (see below)" / Twitter

Edited January 14, 2022 by Eagle1993

[Eagle1993]

7 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Another district court has sent a bankruptcy back due to non debtor releases.  Fourth Circuit.  Purdue is in the second district. 

Prof. Jacoby on Twitter: "Like in #PurduePharma, a VA district court has just invalidated third party releases in a retailer bankruptcy (Ann Taylor/Dress Barn/etc). Unlike in Purdue, district court sending case back to bankruptcy court. & tone of opinion is ... different too (see below)" / Twitter

Key take away from Prof. Jacoby

Quote

District court puts to rest argument that approving a plan that permanently releases claims somehow is exempted from the constitutional issues involving adjudication. (#Purdue tried this too).

 

[Eagle1993]