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

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

Not sure if this post suggests this article, which is spot on by the way from my perspective, is reason for censue.  If so, I too would say not right, but in stronger verbiage.  Almost from the beginning some, shall we say questionable legal persons, those for whom I was smacked for my descriptions, have played fast and  loose with this.  The real victims, or now survivors, have been summarily used as pawns to instigate a "big payday" for grifters and those certain oily legal gurus, while the real victims/survivors have been left in the mud.  Again, just my view.  

First one needs to look at the authors disclosure :

[Full disclosure: our son was an Eagle Scout. He went through Cub Scouts, then Boy Scouts, in Maryland before finishing his Eagle Scout project (planning and executing a central plaza with flagpole at a school for disabled children in Gaithersburg) and in the process encountered over a dozen scout leaders. All were exemplary human beings. I never heard of any Scout abused in any way. 

He is most certainly biased especially when he states:

But since the bankruptcy, these 1700-odd claims (which already seemed like a lot to me) 

Everyone needs to remember that Child Sexual Abuse (especially males) victims never tell anyone about what happened to them and if they do it is later in life.

Second it was the BSA who entered the Bankruptcy voluntarily it must have been known to their lawyers what the ramifications of doing so could be.  

Third I refuse to be left in the mud.  I believe that by the time this is all over (several years from now) we will find satisfaction.  The initial value of the settlement was 1.1 Billion I believe and when it gets shot down by the appeals court how big will the settlement grow to?  All thanks to those ":oily legal gurus".

Edited March 11, 2022 by johnsch322

[ThenNow]

28 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

we will find satisfaction

[famous Rolling Stones line goes here]

[johnsch322]

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

[famous Rolling Stones line goes here]

I can't get no

[PaleRider]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

First one needs to look at the authors disclosure :

[Full disclosure: our son was an Eagle Scout. He went through Cub Scouts, then Boy Scouts, in Maryland before finishing his Eagle Scout project (planning and executing a central plaza with flagpole at a school for disabled children in Gaithersburg) and in the process encountered over a dozen scout leaders. All were exemplary human beings. I never heard of any Scout abused in any way. 

He is most certainly biased especially when he states:

But since the bankruptcy, these 1700-odd claims (which already seemed like a lot to me) 

Everyone needs to remember that Child Sexual Abuse (especially males) victims never tell anyone about what happened to them and if they do it is later in life.

Second it was the BSA who entered the Bankruptcy voluntarily it must have been known to their lawyers what the ramifications of doing so could be.  

Third I refuse to be left in the mud.  I believe that by the time this is all over (several years from now) we will find satisfaction.  The initial value of the settlement was 1.1 Billion I believe and when it gets shot down by the appeals court how big will the settlement grow to?  All thanks to those ":oily legal gurus".

What do you mean by 1700 odd claims.

Can you explain that please??

      Thanks

[clbkbx]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

How can this continue to happen relatively unchecked without both full disclosure of aggregator funding and advertising methods, and frontend vetting and validation of e-signatures?

Hi @ThenNow, I think it's because bankruptcy court is an imperfect venue for tort claims but companies prefer it as they pay pennies on the dollar against their liabilities. The insurers pay lip service to potential fraud but are also getting rid of their liabilities for a defined amount. The entities with the assets don't really care if there's fraud, that's not what they are trying to manage. The entities that are aggregating/advertising and not vetting/validating are trying to maximize the number of claimants under their umbrella. 

Collectively, they attempt to manage it by giving a modest payment off-ramp (expedited distribution) that can be used for real abuse cases but also should capture most (all?) of the fraudulent claims. To have a distribution from the TDP or IR processes, there are mechanisms to mitigate fraud.

Quote

Any dilution of the claimant pool by nefarious means damages survivors all over again.

I'm working this through because I think this is a great point. Let's say 10% of all claims are fraudulent (no idea if this is the case but it doesn't seem unreasonable and maybe biased high) and they all take the expedited distribution, that would be 1% of the $2.7B amount. Totally gross and unfair but: for a survivor, what's 1% when you're paying 33.3-40% to counsel? and for the debtor, what's 1% when you're paying billions less than your liabilities?

So I'm not sure the unsavory parts will ever end with bankruptcy as the best (from the debtors' standpoint) option. The best that can be done is to manage it. 

[clbkbx]

4 minutes ago, PaleRider said:

1700 odd claims

The author the Forbes article writes "since the bankruptcy, these 1700-odd claims (which already seemed like a lot to me) exploded to over 100,000"

@johnsch322was highlighting the biases of the author. 

[ThenNow]

9305.pdf

[clbkbx]

7 hours ago, ThenNow said:

9305.pdf 1004.1 kB · 10 downloads

There's a lot of information in that pdf and the excel sheet here: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a3fa6777-ba03-42a0-a73b-5c9a90600938_2022-03-11_FINAL_REDACTED_Supplemental_LC_and_CO_Voting_Report.xlsx

Here is the breakdown by class of listed allegations for both the 56,536 counted votes and the 49,223 counted but did-not-elect-the-expedited-distribution: (fyi, I'm not writing out the types... if you can't figure them out, they are in the excel sheet).

Caveat: the data is a tiny bit messy... I think there is one more claim with a counted vote than was included in the 56,536 number and only briefly looking at the SOL column, about 4% of my open state council claims were shown as barred.

If there's any analysis someone would like done, I can try to figure it out. The columns I think are most interesting are: expedited distribution selection, abuse allegation, SOL (barred or not barred) and local council.

I'm going to try to assign open, grey, closed to the councils but that will take some time. I think it would inform the answer to the question of whether the open vs closed SOL condition affected voting choice. 

Edited March 12, 2022 by clbkbx
Removed information about expedited distribution until I can check it further.

[clbkbx]

How underfunded is the TDP? That's a question I have had and with the provided excel sheet, I tried to make an educated guess. This includes: all non-rejected claims and all claims with a council listed (i.e., if no LC was listed, it's not included)... this is somewhere around 43,000 claims. 

The basis is $3,500 for all who selected the expedited distribution and the base matrix value with no scaling factors except the mid-point of the different SOL scaling factors for all others. 

As you can see below, the total amount (with the major assumptions above) is about $9.5B and, of course, we all know the Trust amount of $2.7B (current, assuming no additional money from the non-settling entities). So, it seems reasonable to me that we should assume in the neighborhood of 1/3 of any claim can be paid from the Trust (really, less if we think there will be more than 43,000 paid claims). Maybe that will go up meaningfully if other entities settle, but pretty sure there's not another $6B out there. 

If anyone would like the excel sheet that I modified with states/SOL scaling factors, I can set up a dropbox link. Also, I'm open to feedback on the methodology. 

BTW, the SOL limitations closes off about $6B more in claims. 

[MYCVAStory]

44 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

As you can see below, the total amount (with the major assumptions above) is about $9.5B and, of course, we all know the Trust amount of $2.7B (current, assuming no additional money from the non-settling entities). So, it seems reasonable to me that we should assume in the neighborhood of 1/3 of any claim can be paid from the Trust (really, less if we think there will be more than 43,000 paid claims).

We can't be premature.   The settlement could look a lot different IF one is approved.  Regardless, yet to be determined is the expense related to operating the trust (more lawyers and claim review staff) AND the number of claimants that will be "non-responsive."  I know it's hard to believe but in every mass tort case there are those claimants who submit a claim and then just plain disappear.  Given the number who didn't vote in this case, and the fleet of attorneys trying to get them to, it's reasonable to assume that the number of Survivors receiving awards will be less than the number who submitted claims.   Keep your fingers crossed regardless.

[clbkbx]

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

The settlement could look a lot different IF one is approved.

For sure. I should have been more clear that it is a guess based on the current plan under consideration and using the voting tallies from the recent vote. Both of those major items can change.

[johnsch322]

Does anyone expect any big surprises coming up in the next week or so in the confirmation and if you do what do you think they are?

[Muttsy]

An early tell could be her rulings on Objectors evidentiary objections to Whitman and Griggs testimony in their recently filed declarations. 

[Eagle1993]

New topic created as confirmation hearing starting today.

SCOUTER Forum