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

[Eagle1993]

11 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

On the monetary side.  

Those with strong cases and good attorneys within the SOL will fair ok.  They can get up to 5 times the previous TDPs calculated.  I don't understand how they fund this excess payment pool ... but I think it comes down to BSA experts estimate that there is already enough in the pool to cover these higher payments.

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Those with strong cases and good attorneys within the SOL will fair ok.  They can get up to 5 times the previous TDPs calculated.  I don't understand how they fund this excess payment pool ...

Yes. The hand that was strengthened is the one that was already strongest. That's not intended as a judgment, simply the truth as I see it represented in this document. 

[Eagle1970]

So is it safe to say few victims in closed or nearly closed states would see benefit from forking out $20k?  I don't have benefit of an attorney, so advice on this topic is welcomed.

[Eagle1993]

8 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

So is it safe to say few victims in closed or nearly closed states would see benefit from forking out $20k?  I don't have benefit of an attorney, so advice on this topic is welcomed.

I would think so.  

Quote

If the Neutral makes an Accepted Settlement Recommendation of $0 due to the statute of limitations or a finding of no liability, the survivor shall receive nothing from the Trust and shall remain barred from proceeding against any Protected Party on account of their claim. The Accepted Settlement Recommendation shall supersede the determination of the amount of the claim under the TDP, whether higher or lower

 

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

So is it safe to say few victims in closed or nearly closed states would see benefit from forking out $20k?  I don't have benefit of an attorney, so advice on this topic is welcomed.

This reads like a dumbed down litigation process. "Survivor must provide evidence" is a frequently used phrase. Evidence of liability, damages, the tie of the abuser to Scouting and, etc. Discovery is available. Evidence of damages must be shown and that evidence must be supported by an expert report, the cost of which is paid by the survivor claimant. To me, it seems most who are unrepresented will be hard pressed to pony up and wade into this. That's just my first impression. This entire process is far more rigorous than the filing of the POC, as is appropriate in some respects. Many will likely wilt in the face of it, especially those of us not represented by attorneys willing to put up $20,000.

[johnsch322]

I suppose I should let the dust settle a bit. It is probably a good thing I have Anderson and Associates as lawyers.  I am sure they will be contacting me and I would suppose that if they feel that the 20K is a good investment on their part they will front it.  Then again plan has to be confirmed first.

[Eagle1993]

Here is how the excess fund will be funded.  Basically from Responsible Insurers and Chartered Organizations.  BSA & LCs will help by allowing judgements to go after insurance (but will not provide more money).

Quote

The Trust (as assignee) shall be free to collect on the basis of the Accepted Settlement Recommendation, and associated costs of the Independent Review process, from any Responsible Insurer that refuses to pay all or a portion of the Accepted Settlement Recommendation for which it is responsible in such a manner as it sees fit, including by seeking coverage for one or more Accepted Settlement Recommendations on a consolidated basis and to enter into comprehensive settlements with any Responsible Insurer. To the extent allowed under applicable state law, the BSA and Local Councils shall reasonably cooperate with the Trustee in the foregoing (it being understood that the foregoing cooperation shall not require the expenditure of funds), including consenting to entry of a non-recourse judgment limited solely to the recovery of insurance proceeds from any Responsible Insurer to the extent doing so would not violate the terms of the applicable policy or applicable law. In addition, the Trustee may seek the cooperation of the applicable Chartered Organization.

 

[ThenNow]

15 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I suppose I should let the dust settle a bit. It is probably a good thing I have Anderson and Associates as lawyers.  I am sure they will be contacting me and I would suppose that if they feel that the 20K is a good investment on their part they will front it. 

Your path to a good recovery just got better. Now you have to take me on that fishing cruise.  

Edited February 10, 2022 by ThenNow

[johnsch322]

13 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Your path to a good recovery just got better. Now you have to take me on that fishing cruise.  

Will do 

[1980Scouter]

Are we sure LC got off not contributing one additional cent? That would seem weird as TCC was adamant that they can pay more into the fund.

[Eagle1993]

Just now, 1980Scouter said:

Are we sure LC got off not contributing one additional cent? That would seem weird as TCC was adamant that they can pay more into the fund.

It seems clear they did not contribute more.  However, that is because there is a path to allow all claimants to get 100% of what would have been expected to be received in court.

[Eagle1970]

In the end, the greatest factor in settlement value will be state law.  If you were abused in a state where survivors rights are prioritized, you may be in the tall corn.  If not, the state and this process have dealt a great injustice to victims. 

I'm aging and will get by fine without the money.  So, I am not bitter for myself, as the extent of my abuse was a very unpleasant one-week period at camp, perpetrated by a Boy Scout employee.  But I am bitter for those who endured extended and egregious abuse that occurred in a closed state.  As a result, they will receive a fraction of the settlement available to those with lesser abuse history in an open state.  And that, my friends, infuriates me.

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

This reads like a dumbed down litigation process.

Independent Review Option begins at pdf page 23. The reviewer is called the "Neutral." (Sounds like a creepy and ominous  SciFi character.) If the Trustee won't accept the award determined by the Neutral, assuming such, the claimant can sue in state court and bring back the settlement or award for payment, with various conditions. This is part of the dealio, as it concerns the Neutral and his/her neutral review. (Did I use the correct pronouns?) It sounds like loads of fun. How many of the 5000 pro se claimants will be doing this? Odds?

Requirements for Obtaining a Neutral Settlement Recommendation.

(1)  Sexual Abuse Survivor Proof of Claim signed and dated by the survivor, with completion of all applicable fields, including the substantive narrative of the sexual abuse and damages (to be completed at the time of submission to the Neutral or after the completion of discovery). 

(2)  Payment to the Trust of an administrative fee in the amount of $10,000 at the time of the election for Independent Review and a further additional administrative fee in the amount of $10,000 immediately prior to the Neutral’s review. Any claimant that elects not to proceed with the Neutral’s review after the opportunity to pursue discovery shall not be required to pay the second $10,000 and shall not be precluded from pursuing their claim under the TDP (as if no election to pursue an Independent Review had been made). 

(3)  Confirmation that the survivor was in a Scouting unit by: (a) claimant’s name on a roster; (b) evidence that the survivor was in a Scouting unit or attended a Scouting-related event where the sexual abuse occurred (a non-exclusive list of ways of satisfying the showing are: a photograph, a membership card, or document that reflects the survivor’s rank in a Scouting unit); or (c) a sworn statement by a third party witness (who will agree to a deposition by the Neutral, if requested) that the survivor was in a Scouting unit or attended a Scouting-related event where the sexual abuse occurred. 

(4)  Survivor must provide evidence that the perpetrator was in a Scouting unit, worked or volunteered with a Scouting unit, worked or volunteered with a Local Council, Chartered Organization or the BSA, or worked or volunteered at a Scouting-related event where the sexual abuse occurred (a non-exclusive list of ways of satisfying the showing are: the perpetrator’s name being on a Scouting roster, a photograph of the perpetrator, or a sworn statement by a third party witness who will agree to a deposition if requested by the Neutral). 

(5)  Survivor must provide evidence that the claim is timely under the applicable statute of limitations, including satisfying any recognized exception to the relevant statute of limitation under the applicable state law. 

(6)  Survivor provides evidence that one or more of the BSA, Local Council or Chartered Organization was negligent or is otherwise liable on account of an Abuse Claim, and evidence regarding the survivor’s damages (such as medical and counseling records and/or a sworn statement from a family member, significant other, or relative who, in each case, will agree to a deposition by the Neutral) or benchmark judgments or settlements relevant to the damages claimed. Damages must be supported by an expert report (the cost of which shall be paid by the survivor). 

(7)  Survivor shall be entitled to discovery consistent with the Plan Term Sheet and forthcoming Document Sharing Appendix. 

(8)  Survivor shall be subject to up to a single sworn six-hour interview, mental health examination or supplemental signed and dated interrogatory responses at the discretion of the Neutral or upon the reasonable request of a Responsible Insurer. 

(9)  In making her determination, the Neutral will consider and apply any defense that would otherwise be available in the tort system. 

[Eagle1970]

6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

How many of the 5000 pro se claimants will be doing this? Odds?

 

I'm going to be generous and say about 3, and I won't be one. 

Having just finished reading the text, it looks to me that the purpose is to steer only the strongest cases into independent review, thereby settling the vast majority through the main channel.  Actually, just the $20k will accomplish that.  Most survivors won't want to part with $20k with risk and I would have to believe that law firms are a bit reluctant to extend a lot of $20k checks since many outcomes may be 40% of $3500, which won't cover even the basics.

[Eagle1993]

@ThenNow This makes a lot of sense as one would likely need all of that to pursue a state court case anyway.  Like you said, this is like a mini state court case with a judge in charge.  

I think in general, the group most negatively impacted are those who's abuse occurred in a closed state that is likely to open in the future.  Their claims against the LC and covered Chartered Orgs are being wiped out even those groups are not in bankruptcy.

At this point, I think this plan is probably the best path forward for almost everyone.  Major changes to YPT.  Major changes to release of records.  Path to get compensation based on today's laws.  It clarifies abuse and mixed cases.  Primary downside .. unable to gain compensation in the future if the SOL laws change.

I think TCC sees the writing on the wall.  If they continued to object, it was more likely to have non debtors excluded ... leaving National BSA's small fund + a mess in terms of insurance coverage.  So, get as much as you can and support the plan. 

That said, I believe you have to follow the law and I struggle to see how non debtors can be included.  I think I see where the US Trustee is coming from.  They see the flaws.  They see the issue in terms of the constitution and bankruptcy law.  They know the end result will be bad for everyone involved ... but they also know you need to follow the law.

I think it is 50/50 if this plan gets confirmed.  It probably depends on who objects to the plan.  Either JLSS or district could wipe out the non debtor releases.   If that happens, I see a National only bankruptcy with almost nothing in the trust except some insurance policies that are messy.  LC and COs will be sued left and right, many going bankrupt.  A few will get a ton of money, but most will end up with a $50 Visa credit card.