Chapter 11 Announced - Part 8 - TCC Term Sheet & Plan Confirmation

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

For those of you who are confused about how survivors feel about paying out of the settlement pot, please read the following:

 

2bb5e1b8-2ed8-427f-afab-a5c44f8d373a_9128.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

Also how we feel about lawyers who can only tell us how hard they work!!

Bam. An equal opportunity skinning on live Court TV. It is simply inexcusable they would think it perfectly terrific and endearing to say that sort of [blankety blank] with all of us watching and listening. Makes me pretty cranky pants. 

[DJ72]

On 3/4/2022 at 11:45 AM, Eagledad said:

The BSA vision is building character. That’s what the organization preaches, and that is what they teach. 

Barry

Attacking a survivor that didn’t have the same experience as you. Wow!  His 1000 posts are much more telling about the BSA than your rant. Leadership is much more effective when one walks the talk. Preaching is just talk if the leader fails to act in a manor reflective of the sermon.  Well over 80,000 souls were lost to  the actions of culpable, negligent and criminal BSA leaders and youth at BSA camps and properties. Just consider yourself lucky you didn’t have the same experience as OP or myself. 

[MattR]

The child usa report sub topic was split off to

Please note that this thread is supposed to be about things directly related to the bankruptcy case, as in whether the judge is aware of it.

Thanks for your patience.

[ThenNow]

If you want to understand the view of holdout firms representing abuse claimants in open states with financially sound defendants (who now support the plan), read this. On the side, I think Sir Thomas Patterson is one of the smartest attorneys on this case. That is my opinion from watching him and reading his filings. Is he the only Rhodes Scholar among them? Dunno. I'm bettin', but what do I know...

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/195daa83-e7db-494d-9c7c-05d2c09c293f_9156.pdf

PS - I still want someone to better explain the IR process, specifically as to the exclusive ability of the limited, "most severe" and "high-value claims" to access the excess insurance layers. 

4. The centerpiece of the Plan modifications is the Independent Review Option for the holders of high-value Abuse Claims that will enable liquidate their claims (through a Settlement Recommendation) based on an accurate assessment of the tort system value of their claims without artificially capping the individual’s Abuse Claim on the basis of categorical matrix values and pre- established aggravating and mitigating scaling factors. Independent Review is specifically designed for holders of Abuse Claims whose claims are supported by, and collectible from, excess layers of non-settled insurance. Non-settling insurers are invited, but not required, to participate in Independent Review. The Settlement Trust is then empowered to make demand upon and collect accepted Settlement Recommendations from responsible Non-Settling Insurers in accordance with otherwise applicable law. Survivors who elect Independent Review will have distribution rights for amounts of their claim awards in excess of $1 million to be paid from an Excess Award Fund comprised of the proceeds from excess insurer settlements.

5. The Independent Review Option thus solves two problems with the Prior Plan in a single stroke. It provides a fair and efficient administrative process for liquidating and distributing recoveries to the highest value Abuse Claims in a manner that is commensurate with the tort system value of those claims, and it provides an efficient mechanism for the Settlement Trust, on behalf of survivors more broadly, to thereafter liquidate rights against Non-Settling Insurers, consistent with otherwise applicable law. By capping the vast majority of Abuse Claims at dollar amounts well below the threshold for triggering excess coverage, the Prior Plan effectively insulated the excess insurers, making settlement less likely. Under the current Plan, Independent Review provides a mechanism for establishing the high-value claims that would otherwise have been established in the tort system and that will reach into the excess insurance coverage layer.

Edited March 7, 2022 by ThenNow

[NJScout1980]

On 3/5/2022 at 5:06 PM, DJ72 said:

Attacking a survivor that didn’t have the same experience as you. Wow!  His 1000 posts are much more telling about the BSA than your rant. Leadership is much more effective when one walks the talk. Preaching is just talk if the leader fails to act in a manor reflective of the sermon.  Well over 80,000 souls were lost to  the actions of culpable, negligent and criminal BSA leaders and youth at BSA camps and properties. Just consider yourself lucky you didn’t have the same experience as OP or myself. 

As a survivor I have to say that aside from the abuse my experience in scouting was positive. My abuse happened at the LC level and not my troop.  The council leaders are total pieces of $h!t who cared for nothing except their reputation.  My scoutmaster and all the leadership of my troop lived up to the standards they preached.  They taught me leadership and character, and to always live the life I expect others to live. Through the many mistakes I made as a youth they taught me to accept the consequences of my decisions and guided me on how to make better ones in the future.  
 

My scoutmaster made me the man I am today.  To paint the entire organization with a broad brush is unfair to the many leaders who had a positive impact on many youth.  If he were alive today he would be proud of me standing up for what is right and just, and would be devastated and angry at the LC for what they allowed to happen to me.  He would be the first to scream from the rafters demanding justice for the victims.

I don’t want to see scouting end. I want to see YP improved and I want the ENTIRE leadership to be forced to live by the scout standards they preach! 
 

Each of us had different experiences, each of us have lived different lives.  Regardless of the type of abuse we faced, each of us have been affected in many different ways; some greater than others.  Whatever decisions you make, whatever attitude you have; who am I to judge you?  No one, survivor or non-survivor alike, has any right to judge another. 
 

I hope we all find peace and closure. I highly doubt all will, but please know many are here to help.  We’re all in this together. 

[ThenNow]

Anudder half mill. [*drip*drip*drip*]

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/dbcf37f0-5d86-4b6c-9ef0-bdfda2a24b42_9170.pdf

[fred8033]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

... I still want someone to better explain the IR process, specifically as to the exclusive ability of the limited, "most severe" and "high-value claims" to access the excess insurance layers. ...

Me too ... need explanation ... 

• Is the victim really giving up rights to sue those not in the settlement?  It almost sounds like  a poison pill to further action against non-settlers.  Pay $20k.  Lose first $1m of award.  
• Settlement Trust empowered to demand/collect from non-settlers?  
• So if jury awards $2m ... and assuming victim has their own lawyer (30% - 40% cut) helping fund the $20k needed ... and victim only gets that awarded above $1m ... then the victim ends up with how much ?   Is it possible the victim would only get a small fraction of the award?  
• IR smells like a big negative reworded to be a feature.

I also just want an interpretation of the document title.  "... THIRD MODIFIED FIFTH AMENDED PLAN" ... so is it the 5th amended of the 3rd modified ... or the 3rd modified of the 5th amended of the ???   

 

 

Edited March 7, 2022 by fred8033

[fred8033]

55 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Anudder half mill. [*drip*drip*drip*]

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/dbcf37f0-5d86-4b6c-9ef0-bdfda2a24b42_9170.pdf

Look at page ii.   

• First three bills had zero withheld. 
• Forth bill was a transition and had 20% withheld. 
• All subsequent bills averaged twice the original average.

Withholding payment actually increased the bills.  

This is what I'd expect.  ... What?  You're withholding part of my invoice?  Fine.  I'll increase my hourly rate and/or bill more hours.

Edited March 7, 2022 by fred8033

[skeptic]

25 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Look at page ii.   

• First three bills had zero withheld. 
• Forth bill was a transition and had 20% withheld. 
• All subsequent bills averaged twice the original average.

Withholding payment actually increased the bills.  

This is what I'd expect.  ... What?  You're withholding part of my invoice?  Fine.  I'll increase my hourly rate and/or bill more hours.

Any others joining me in watching the flock of hooked beaked circlers?

 

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

need explanation

I still want to know who created this supposedly narrow gate and how they are defining "most severe" and "high value." What one may see as (physically) onerous may not have the highest level of economic damages or the same statutory framework for maximizing/limiting non-economic and punitive. People like me who crashed mid-career in their 40's and had significant loss of income, etc., might not have had the "most severe" abuse, whatever the [blank] that means. Honestly, I don't know. I am NOT categorizing abuse because I hate the very thought of it. This type of injury (tort) is personal and case-specific. Some people experience terrible things and don't lose careers, go into a psyche hospital, or adopt multiple maladaptive, self-harming surviving mechanisms. We really deserve to know exactly the framework they have created here. "They" being the state court counsel who crafted and negotiated the IR. Am I being self-centered and/or myopic?

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

3rd modified of the 5th amended of the

Third mod to Plan 5.0, I believe. 

Edited March 7, 2022 by ThenNow

[clbkbx]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

supposedly narrow gate

I've discussed this further with my attorney and it seems it may not be as "narrow" as it was originally meant to be. Here is the TCC summary of the IR requirements: 

[BadChannel70]

TCC made a video going over the 3 settlement options: 

1. $3,500 expedited payout

2. TDP (with scaling and mitigating factors)

3. Independent Review (IR)

The video is timestamped so you can go right to the section you need but I encourage you to watch it all. 

My interpretation of the IR is that it will only be made available to survivors in open states that can meet the criteria for the IR; See Timestamp 35:20 for requirements. Burden is shifted to survivors to provide a lot more detailed data than TDP. 

Another thing that is not mentioned is the IR valuation is subject to approval from the main trustee. I'd hate to go through IR, receive a decent valuation only to have it reduced by the Trustee.

I also think 20% of an IR settlement flows back into the Trust. So, if you have an attorney on contingency plus this potential 20%, a survivor is looking at receiving only 40%. But this needs to be verified; I may be wrong here.

Trust Distribution and Independent Review Process - YouTube

If a survivor wins a favorable valuation from IR, up to $1 million will come from the main trust fund subject to the initial payment percentage that will be established by the Trust (maybe future payments if Trust receives more funds).

The proceeds above $1 million will have to come from the non-settling excess insurers and COs. This will hopefully be accomplished via negotiation, settlement and/or litigation. It's taken us 2 years to get this far. I don't relish the idea of waiting another 1-2+ years while the IR and insurer/CO duke it out. 

But this is all for naught until Justice Silverstein issues her ruling. 

 

Edited March 7, 2022 by BadChannel70

[ThenNow]

24 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

I've discussed this further with my attorney and it seems it may not be as "narrow" as it was originally meant to be. Here is the TCC summary of the IR requirements: 

Yes, that's a simple summary of the requirements, but they keep talking about it being limited, designed for the high-dollar claims that are the most severe and horrific, and not a lot of claimants will pursue it. Clearly, as described in the Zalkin/Pfau brief, this is intended for the well-vetted, open state claims that were or could be prepped to go into the tort system. "Abuse claim is in statute."  Those 3 elements that make up the narrow definition, I believe. I just want someone to say that. Continuing to say "most severe...most horrific" and high-dollar claims is just a shroud. I get it, but it's not transparent. 

[fred8033]

5 hours ago, BadChannel70 said:

Trust Distribution and Independent Review Process - YouTube

If a survivor wins a favorable valuation from IR, up to $1 million will come from the main trust fund subject to the initial payment percentage that will be established by the Trust (maybe future payments if Trust receives more funds).

The proceeds above $1 million will have to come from the non-settling excess insurers and COs. This will hopefully be accomplished via negotiation, settlement and/or litigation. It's taken us 2 years to get this far. I don't relish the idea of waiting another 1-2+ years while the IR and insurer/CO duke it out. 

But this is all for naught until Justice Silverstein issues her ruling. 

Ahhh ... I think I get it now.  This is about moving rights to sue from the victim to the trust.  If the case is well proven in an open state, the victim can give their legal rights to sue to the trust and the trust then pays the victim.  The trust then goes after the non-settled insurers.  

[MYCVAStory]

12 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Ahhh ... I think I get it now.  This is about moving rights to sue from the victim to the trust.  If the case is well proven in an open state, the victim can give their legal rights to sue to the trust and the trust then pays the victim.  The trust then goes after the non-settled insurers.  

Well, it arms the Trust with the ability to apply pressure to non-settling insurers, especially the excess insurers by basically saying "See, you're going to get beaten up if these go to court."  Another issue this addresses is Survivors "competing" against Survivors for limited funds in the trust.  If all "high-dollar" awards, those in excess of 2.7 mil come out of the existing trust then it will deplete available assets dispraportianately.