Eagle1993 Posted February 10, 2022 Author Share Posted February 10, 2022 Just now, Eagle1970 said: 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. The way I read it ... you can pay $20,000, the neutral party could rule you get $0 ... and then you walk away with $0 (not even the $3,500 quick pay or the TDP). High risk, high reward. So, either take: $3500 no questions asked TDP ... some questions asked, but highly discounted Neutral ... push your chips in. $20K up front. But can get up to 5x TDP. My Guess 35% will take the $3500 60% will take TDP 5% will take neutral (heavy number of these will be the 2000 - present claimants) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1970 Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: My Guess 35% will take the $3500 60% will take TDP 5% will take neutral (heavy number of these will be the 2000 - present claimants) Should this plan prevail, we will need good information to evaluate TDP. I have decent documentation so will likely go that route. But, the final matrix should allow a claimant to evaluate their outcome with some degree of accuracy. Your guesstimates are probably close, though some are going to have to see what the questionnaire involves, since it is under oath. If it's not very detailed, more may go that route. If they require a lot of information (as they should), I can see more taking the $3500. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted February 10, 2022 Share Posted February 10, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, Eagle1993 said: The way I read it ... you can pay $20,000, the neutral party could rule you get $0 ... and then you walk away with $0 (not even the $3,500 quick pay or the TDP). High risk, high reward. I'm going to whine out loud. This creates a terrible dilemma for someone like me. Maybe I'm an island with a very low population, as in one. This is simply a pay to play state court bench review interjecting the will of an imaginary jury. I have a binder of information I already submitted under oath. I need to prove fraudulent concealment or I spend big coin just for the privilege of sitting at the high rollers table. I was ready to make my case, but not play craps or black jack. If the Neutral doesn't bite, I'm turned out as an emotional and financial pauper, as far as this process is concerned. 20k lighter and shown the door. Thanks for playing. Is there any precedent for this in other mass tort Chapter 11 cases? The pitting of survivor vs survivor has deepened. My opinion in this moment. It could soften. I'm going to go all Inception and plant a thought deep in my subconscious: "Something is better than nothing. Something is better than nothing..." or is it? I guess $20,000 is a cheap trial. I never expected to be required to actually pay cash money to have my case considered in order to maximize the value of my abuse. Now, I get to vex over this decision for the next umpteen months. Good grief. Did anyone else besides the mediation parties and the state court attorneys see this coming? Meh. Ok. That's all. Edited February 10, 2022 by ThenNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980Scouter Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 Do not forget the DOJ objection. This is the real issue to watch. If it is allowed, game over. Start over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vol_scouter Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 45 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said: Do not forget the DOJ objection. This is the real issue to watch. If it is allowed, game over. Start over. Surely this objection initially raised nearly two years ago will not halt this deal. Surely the judge would not allow it to go on this long while the BSA spent >$150 M. She should have made that ruling a year or more ago if it would not allow the non-debtor releases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted February 11, 2022 Author Share Posted February 11, 2022 2 minutes ago, vol_scouter said: Surely this objection initially raised nearly two years ago will not halt this deal. Surely the judge would not allow it to go on this long while the BSA spent >$150 M. She should have made that ruling a year or more ago if it would not allow the non-debtor releases. DOJ did create a new objection that was very long, but I tend to agree. If the judge didn't like where this was headed, she should have stopped it at the RSA. I see a bigger risk in district court. That said, she did mention concerns in certain areas of the RSA. I wouldn't be surprised if she changes some language in certain sections and tightens up the releases. However, I bet she lets the COs & LCs go through. This judge has been allowing nondebtors go through and I believe she was one of the first that did it after a Supreme Court ruling that put them at risk. Now ... the big issue could be district & appeals courts. I could absolutely see a situation where bankruptcy court approves but the district court rejects the plan. I really hope that doesn't happen. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobertCalifornia Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 I thought the Hartford and Century contributions would increase substantially. They are sickeningly low. What is the accuracy of this BSA calculator now? https://www.bsarestructuring.org/estimated-potential-payment-calculator/ Seems like there may have been an additional calculator at a law firm website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxRanger Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 13 hours ago, Eagle1993 said: Contributing Chartered Organization Settlement Contribution shall no longer result in the Other Chartered Organizations becoming Contributing Chartered Organizations under the Plan. The $15 million cash component of the Supplemental LC Contribution and the $25 million increase in the DST Note shall both be reallocated and become the consideration given for the extension of the preliminary injunction. The $100 million Settlement Growth Payment from the BSA and Local Councils shall facilitate the protections to certain Chartered Organizations under the Plan but shall not be reduced or credited. This is English? "Tom gets 6 marbles, Al, and his brother Art, if the wind is from the Northwest, on the third Tuesday of July, get 5 marbles going to the brother who has the best of three Rock-Paper-Scissors match..., otherwise, those marbles go to..." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxRanger Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 2 hours ago, vol_scouter said: Surely this objection initially raised nearly two years ago will not halt this deal. It depends entirely on whether this objection has been subject to a hearing on the merits. If no hearing on the merits of the objection for 2 years, it is still live. Passage of time does not weaken legal arguments or the significance of legal truths. If it did, our Constitution may well have been supplanted by a limited warranty from Montgomery Wards. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxRanger Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 1 hour ago, RobertCalifornia said: I thought the Hartford and Century contributions would increase substantially. They are sickeningly low. Yep. A third to a tenth of their actual liability? My guess as to the range of their exposure. Save your company $3.2 billion, get a designated parking space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 7 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said: This is English? "Tom gets 6 marbles, Al, and his brother Art, if the wind is from the Northwest, on the third Tuesday of July, get 5 marbles going to the brother who has the best of three Rock-Paper-Scissors match..., otherwise, those marbles go to..." “Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxRanger Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 11 hours ago, 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. I figured the LC contributions would need to double. Maybe a bad bet on my part. The LC contribution is pathetic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxRanger Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 7 minutes ago, ThenNow said: “Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?” Exactly. "Lunch at school is great!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vol_scouter Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 7 hours ago, SiouxRanger said: It depends entirely on whether this objection has been subject to a hearing on the merits. If no hearing on the merits of the objection for 2 years, it is still live. Passage of time does not weaken legal arguments or the significance of legal truths. If it did, our Constitution may well have been supplanted by a limited warranty from Montgomery Wards. There was no doubt in my mind that the objection is still applicable. My point is that non-debtor releases were a major component of the BSA plan from the beginning. If the judge felt that the DOJ concerns were valid and nullify the majority of the plan, then she should have ruled in that manner some long time ago. Had she done that the BSA would have submitted a plan for the BSA alone a year or more ago that would have included money that will now be paid to attorneys. So my reasoning is that she will not find the DOJ objections valid or she would have already done so. I realize that she has the right and power to rule however she feels is the correct manner. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted February 11, 2022 Share Posted February 11, 2022 (edited) Pretty good news piece and a better one. https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2022-02-10/bsa-reaches-deal-with-official-abuse-claimants-committee https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2022-02-10/boy-scouts-reach-bankruptcy-deal-with-attorneys-for-sexual-abuse-survivors Edited February 11, 2022 by ThenNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts