Chapter 11 Announced - Part 10 - Post Confirmation Hearing/Judges Ruling

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

... This could lay the groundwork for all sides to quickly address those issues in the plan and get to a plan approval.  

I wanted to jump on this statement, but grammatically thinking about it ... I'm ok.  All sides could quickly address the issues, say three plus months.  That's quick in this process.  "Quickly" modifies "address those issues".   ... When they start updating (July / August)?  Not sure.  How quick an update moves thru other hurdles?  

I wanted to jump on applying it to "get to a plan approval."   ... There is no quick to reach a next decision.  ... Negotiating doors are re-opened.  ... Parties will want a better.  A different deal.  ...  Many law firms looking to somehow re-coup their investments. 

Simply updating who represents who will take time.  ...  Add negotiating and agreeing on procedures to negotiate an update would take a month (July).   ... Multiple parties posturing during multiple negotiation sessions.  New vote?  New hearings on updated plan?  At least a month for judge to review / write a new decision in holiday season (Nov / Dec)? 

January plus.  Six plus months at least if this pending decision is not some type of conclusion.  

Edited June 10, 2022 by fred8033

[RememberSchiff]

Some questions:

For Chapter 11 reorganization plan confirmation doesn't the judge also have to believe the plan will not lead to Chapter 7?

And if this reorganization plan is not confirmed or confirmed but overturned, at what point with more expenses than income in the following months will the BSA become less valuable as an operating entity than in liquidation (Chapter 7)?

[MYCVAStory]

On 6/10/2022 at 5:00 PM, RememberSchiff said:

For Chapter 11 reorganization plan confirmation doesn't the judge also have to believe the plan will not lead to Chapter 7?

No.  That's the debtor's problem.  While the Judge has expressed support for "continuing the mission" of the BSA it's ultimately up to the debtor to propose a plan IT feels will work.  Inherent in that is the agreement of the other parties that the BSA will survive at least long enough to pay any amounts owed.

[MYCVAStory]

On 6/8/2022 at 9:04 PM, Tron said:

So with all of these losses/projected losses what happens 10-20-30 years down the road when research and books like this start getting published? 

Catholic Priests Falsely Accused: The Facts, The Fraud, The Stories

This author has staked out a space highly defensive of the church so there must be some perspective.  For example, here's a comment from: https://beyondthesestonewalls.com/blog/gordon-macrae/catholic-media-join-sex-abuse-pile-david-f-pierre-jr

As I have written in the past, “credible” could mean as little as that the abuse was geographically possible, that it can be shown that the accuser was merely at a parish at the same time as an accused cleric. The “credible” bar is a very low one indeed.What do we truly know about the McCarrick scandal? We know he had a beach house. We know that he often invited priests and seminarians there. We know that McCarrick often shared a bed with a guest. We know a lot of clergy were uncomfortable with it.People ask, “Why didn’t people say anything?” Well, here’s an idea: Maybe there was no abuse. Maybe the whole beach house thing was gay, creepy, and wildly inappropriate, but no one ever felt that the interactions rose to the level of “abuse.” Has anyone ever thought of that?Yes, gay seminarians and priests should not be sharing a beach house. But was anyone really surprised by this public revelation?

Uh-huh...."Why didn't people say anything?  How long have Survivors been hearing that? 

[MYCVAStory]

On 6/9/2022 at 11:01 AM, clbkbx said:

The rough estimate I made was that it is in the neighborhood of 30% funded (as compared to liabilities) with no additional contributions. As @MYCVAStory noted in a response, there are known changes (my estimate: 10% to administer the fund) and suspected changes (how many people will follow through, fraud, etc.). Re: how many claims will be paid, this analysis estimated about 43,000. 

Has anyone else made an estimate? 

The expense to run any Trust is an important issue.  It's also a  function of the size of the trust.  There's economy of scale so the larger the trust balance the smaller the percentage to go to expenses (but quite possibly much more in total).  A good target is 5-7% but start-up expenses are often large.  THIS was why the TCC was fighting the "trust governance" issue so hard with the first plan.  If a small group of attorneys, say a "coalition" if you will, then there are few checks and balances on everything from professional fees to claim administration.  If there's a trust then Survivors MUST demand transparency and assurance that THEIR money is being spent appropriately. 

As far as total claims, this will be interesting.  In many "mass tort" cases claimants just sort of disappear.  They are non-responsive and don't follow-through.  But, many experts I've spoken too say that it's different with sexual abuse.  Fewer claimants try to make bogus claims and follow-through is higher.  Time will tell.  The Bates report threw out the 43,000 claimant figure but it is VERY important to remember two things.  One, it was not his original figure.  The original was much higher.  Two, THIS number was produced after the first failed vote I believe to provide "Trust fully funded" headlines.  It's easy to fund a trust when you just decreased the denominator! 

I don't like making guesses unless I have enough data to make an educated one.  Or, I'll admit that it's a wild-a$$ guess.  This is sort of the latter for me.  I'd think about starting with the close to 60K people who voted, and then increase that number because there's a financial motivation to participate.  Final number?  Beats me but I'd be surprised if it's 43,000.   Remember too....it also comes down to validation. 

[MYCVAStory]

On 6/9/2022 at 3:40 PM, PaleRider said:

I just got off the phone with my lawyer and he said he caught wind that the judge will not be making a decision untill the end of June.

ANY suggestions of when a ruling will come down is a guess.  Period.  It might be the end of Jun it might be tomorrow.  It also might be scheduled and we all hear her read it and it might get posted to the docket without her verbalizing it.  It also might be a part of a hearing where she essentially says "I'm good with this but I'd like to give some parties 48-72 hours to see if they can resolve that."   I'm struck by the irony that after decades Survivors find themselves waiting, again.  But, there will be more of that.  If a trust is established then expedited checks will go out with relative speed; relative to two years of bankruptcy proceedings that is.  For those filing a yet-to-be-developed award form and submitting documentation the wait will be MUCH longer AFTER a Trust becomes operational.  Then....there will also be litigation against non-settling insurers....and the insurance industry is masterful at delay since it's all about time value of money.  Let's hope in the meantime more Survivors don't fall prey to the "structured settlement" lenders that prey on people that need their money now.

[vol_scouter]

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

No.  That's the debtor's problem.  While the Judge has expressed support for "continuing the mission" of the BSA it's ultimately up to the debtor to propose a plan IT feels will work.  Inherent in that is the agreement of the other parties that the BSA will survive at least long enough to pay any amounts owed.

Actually, the BSA must submit a business plan that shows that it can survive the next five years.  The plan must be based upon reasonable and likely projections.  So the BSA could claim to have modest growth in the next five years since that would be a reasonable possibility but dramatic growth cannot be supported because there is no evidence that is likely to occur.  The business plan must show that the BSA can meet all financial obligations for the next five years so it is more than making payments to the trust fund.  The BSA presented a business plan that I assume the judge can accept or reject.  

The longer this proceeding goes on, the less likely it is that the BSA can emerge Chapter 11.

[MYCVAStory]

33 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Actually, the BSA must submit a business plan that shows that it can survive the next five years.  The plan must be based upon reasonable and likely projections. 

Yes, it has.  But with no parties in opposition objecting to that, and they haven't, the judge isn't going to become a financial analyst.

 

[fred8033]

3 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

...  The business plan must show that the BSA can meet all financial obligations for the next five years so it is (#1) more than making payments to the trust fund.  The BSA presented a business plan that I assume the judge can accept or reject.  

(#2) The longer this proceeding goes on, the less likely it is that the BSA can emerge Chapter 11.

Dumb questions ...

#1  Payments to the trust fund ...  Perhaps I missed something.  To get out of bankruptcy, BSA must put money into a bankruptcy related trust fund.  Once out of bankruptcy (aka for the next five years), I did not think there were further payments into a bankruptcy related trust fund.  Is that true?  Would the new post-bankruptcy BSA still have debt to be paid to a bankruptcy related trust fund?  

#2  proceedings duration ...  give BSA can show a viable business plan ... and given there is no dispute to that future business plan and ability to continue ... then how can the cost of the bankruptcy proceedings be the cause to fail emerging from chapter 11 ?  It seems that the money that would go into the settlement trust would be (and has already been) the money to fund the bankruptcy proceedings.   Obviously I'm not a lawyer.  It just seems that the money that can pay past debts has already been identified.  That money should go into the trust to close out the legal proceedings and pay debts.  It is just perverted that the bankruptcy legal proceedings themselves would be the cause of a business to fail. 

[Eagle1970]

14 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

I don't like making guesses unless I have enough data to make an educated one.  Or, I'll admit that it's a wild-a$$ guess.  This is sort of the latter for me.  I'd think about starting with the close to 60K people who voted, and then increase that number because there's a financial motivation to participate.  Final number?  Beats me but I'd be surprised if it's 43,000.   Remember too....it also comes down to validation. 

So many variables.  60k sounds reasonable.  And give or take 10k, you can probably take it to the bank.  But how many take the $3500?  If the additional verification process and questionnaire are detailed, I would guess that many will.  If 20,000 take it, that only takes $70m from the trust, with minimal administrative costs.  However, most are represented, and I can't see a lot of law firms going for the $3500. 

We also know very little about the scaling factors, other than SOL.  With my own abuse claim, I can make a case for 1.0 to 2.0.  I will take a wild guess and say it is funded at about 20%.  Maybe future insurance settlements will prove that to be too low.

[MYCVAStory]

8 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

We also know very little about the scaling factors, other than SOL. 

SORRY FOR THE LENGTH BUT..... 

Actually, the scaling factors are in the Trust Distribution Procedures.  From: ARTICLE VIII CLAIMS MATRIX AND SCALING FACTORS the portion found below the abuse matrix is:

B. Scaling Factors. After the Settlement Trustee has assigned an Allowed Abuse Claim to one of the six tiers in the Claims Matrix, the Settlement Trustee will utilize the Scaling Factors described below to determine the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for each Allowed Abuse Claim. The Scaling Factors are based on evidence regarding the BSA’s and other putative Protected Parties’ historical abuse settlements, litigation outcomes, and other evidence supporting the Scaling Factors. Each Allowed Abuse Claim will be evaluated for each factor by the Settlement Trustee through his or her review of the evidence obtained through the relevant Proof of Claim, Trust Claim Submission and any related or follow-up materials, interviews or examinations, as well as materials obtained by the Settlement Trust or the Direct Abuse Claimant through the Document Obligations. These scaling factors can increase or decrease the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for an Allowed Abuse Claim depending on the severity of the facts underlying the Claim. By default, the value of each scaling factor is one (1), meaning that in the absence of the application of the scaling factor, the Base Matrix Value assigned to a Claim is not affected by that factor. In contrast, if the Settlement Trustee determines that a particular scaling factor as applied to a given Allowed Abuse Claim is 1.5, the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for the Allowed Abuse Claim will be increased by 50%, the result of multiplying the Base Matrix Value of the Allowed Abuse Claim by 1.5. The combined effect of all scaling factors is determined by multiplying the scaling factors together then multiplying the result by the Base Matrix Value of the Allowed Abuse Claim. See Article VIII.F for illustrative example.
C. Aggravating Scaling Factors. The Settlement Trustee may assign upward Scaling Factors to each Allowed Abuse Claim based on the following categories:
(i) Nature of Abuse and Circumstances. To account for particularly severe Abuse or aggravating circumstances, the Settlement Trustee may assign an upward Scaling Factor of up to 1.5 to each Allowed Abuse Claim. The hypothetical base case scenario for this scaling factor would involve a single incident of Abuse with a single perpetrator with such perpetrator having accessed the victim as an employee or volunteer within BSA-sponsored scouting. The hypothetical base case is incorporated into the Base Matrix Value in the Claims Matrix’ tiers and would not receive an increase on account of this factor. By way of example, aggravating factors that can give rise to a higher scaling factor include the following factors:
a. Extended duration and/or frequency of the Abuse;
b. Exploitation of the Abuse Claimant for child pornography;

c. Coercion or threat or use of force or violence, stalking; and
d. Multiple perpetrators involved in sexual misconduct.
(ii) Abuser Profile. To account for the alleged abuser’s profile, the Settlement Trustee may assign an upward Scaling Factor of up to 2.0 to an Allowed Abuse Claim. This factor is to be evaluated relative to a hypothetical base case scenario involving a perpetrator as to whom there is no other known allegations of Abuse. The hypothetical base case is incorporated into the Base Matrix Value in the Claims Matrix’ tiers and would not receive an increase on account of this factor. An upward Scaling Factor may be applied for this category as follows (the Settlement Trustee may only apply the scaling factor of the single highest applicable category listed below):
a. 1.25 if the abuser was accused by at least one (1) other alleged victim of Abuse;
b. 1.5 if the abuser was accused by five (5) or more other alleged victims of Abuse;
c. 2.0 if the abuser was accused by ten (10) or more other alleged victims of Abuse; and
d. 1.25 to 2.0 if there is evidence that the Protected Party knew or should have known (i) the abuser had previously committed or may commit Abuse and failed to take reasonable steps to protect the survivor from that danger, or (ii) of the prior Abuse or the foreseeability of the risk of Abuse and failed to take reasonable steps to protect the survivor from that danger.
(iii) Impact of the Abuse. To account for the impact of the alleged Abuse on the Abuse Claimant’s mental health, physical health, inter-personal relationships, vocational capacity or success, academic capacity or success, and whether the alleged Abuse at issue resulted in legal difficulties for the Abuse Claimant, the Settlement Trustee may assign an upward Scaling Factor of up to 1.5. This factor is to be evaluated relative to a hypothetical base case scenario of a victim of Abuse who suffered the typical level of Abuse-related distress within the tier to which the Allowed Abuse Claim was assigned. The hypothetical base case is incorporated into the Base Matrix Values in the Claims Matrix’ tiers and would not receive an increase on account of this factor. The Settlement Trustee will consider, along with any and all other relevant factors, whether the Abuse at issue manifested or otherwise led the Abuse Claimant to experience or engage in behaviors resulting from:
a. Mental Health Issues: This includes anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, addiction, embarrassment, fear, flashbacks, nightmares, sleep issues, sleep disturbances, exaggerated startle response, boundary issues, self-destructive behaviors, guilt, grief, homophobia, hostility, humiliation, anger, isolation, hollowness, regret, shame, isolation, sexual addiction, sexual problems, sexual identity
Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 8813 Filed 02/15/22 Page 170 of 459
18
confusion, low self-esteem or self-image, bitterness, suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and hospitalization or receipt of treatment for any of the foregoing.
b. Physical Health Issues: This includes physical manifestations of emotional distress, gastrointestinal issues, headaches, high blood pressure, physical manifestations of anxiety, erectile dysfunction, heart palpitations, sexually-transmitted diseases, physical damage caused by acts of Abuse, reproductive damage, self-cutting, other self-injurious behavior, and hospitalization or receipt of treatment for any of the foregoing.
c. Interpersonal Relationships: This includes problems with authority figures, hypervigilance, sexual problems, marital difficulties, problems with intimacy, lack of trust, isolation, betrayal, impaired relations, secrecy, social discreditation and isolation, damage to family relationships, and fear of children or parenting.
d. Vocational Capacity: This includes under- and un-employment, difficulty with authority figures, difficulty changing and maintaining employment, feelings of unworthiness, or guilt related to financial success.
e. Academic Capacity: This includes school behavior problems.
f. Legal Difficulties: This includes criminal difficulties, bankruptcy, and fraud.
E. Mitigating Scaling Factors. The Settlement Trustee may assign a mitigating Scaling Factor in the range of 0 to 1.0 except as specifically provided below to each Allowed Abuse Claim to eliminate or decrease the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for such Claim. Each mitigating factor is to be evaluated relative to a hypothetical base case scenario of a timely asserted Abuse Claim with supporting evidence that demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, Abuse by a perpetrator that accessed the victim as an employee, agent or volunteer of a Protected Party, as a registered Scout or as a participant in Scouting within BSA-sponsored Scouting. If statute of limitations revival legislation occurs in a particular jurisdiction, the Settlement Trustee may modify the applicable Scaling Factor (as described below) relevant thereto on a go-forward basis and determine Proposed Allowed Claim Amounts for Abuse Claims in such jurisdiction thereafter based on such modified Scaling Factor. Included in the hypothetical base case scenario is that the applicable period under a statute of limitations or repose for timely asserting such Abuse Claim against any potentially responsible party will not have passed. The hypothetical base case is incorporated into the Base Matrix Values in the Claims Matrix tiers and would not receive a decrease on account of these factors. Such factors may include the following:
(i) Absence of Protected Party Relationship or Presence of a Responsible Party that Is Not a Protected Party.
a. Familial Relationship. A Protected Party’s responsibility for a perpetrator may be factually or legally attenuated or mitigated where the perpetrator also had a familial relationship with the Abuse Claimant. Familial Abuse—
Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 8813 Filed 02/15/22 Page 171 of 459
19
even if the perpetrator was an employee, agent or volunteer of a Protected Party, and the Abuse occurred in connection with BSA-related Scouting—should result in a significant reduction of the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount.
b. Other Non-Scouting Relationship. A Protected Party’s responsibility for a perpetrator may be factually or legally attenuated or mitigated where the perpetrator also maintained a non-familial relationship with the Abuse Claimant through a separate affiliation, such as a school, or a religious organization, even if the perpetrator was an employee, agent or volunteer of a Protected Party, or the Abuse occurred in settings where a Protected Party did not have the ability or responsibility to exercise control. Factors to consider include how close the relationship was between the perpetrator and the victim outside of their Scouting-related relationship, whether Abuse occurred and the extent of such Abuse outside of their Scouting relationship, and applicable law related to apportionment of liability. In such event, the Settlement Trustee shall determine and apply a mitigating Scaling Factor that accounts for such other relationship and the related Abuse. By way of example, if the Settlement Trustee determines after evaluation of an Allowed Abuse Claim and application of all of the other Scaling Factors that the perpetrator, who was an employee, agent or volunteer of a Protected Party for BSA-related Scouting, also was the primary teacher (at a non-Protected Party entity or institution) of the Abuse Claimant outside of BSA-related Scouting, and if numerous incidents of Abuse occurred outside of Scouting before one incident of BSA-related Scouting Abuse occurred, the Settlement Trustee shall apply a mitigating Scaling Factor as a material reduction of the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount.
c. Other Responsible Non-Protected Party. The Abuse Claimant may have a cause of action under applicable law for a portion of his or her Direct Abuse Claim against a responsible entity, such as a Chartered Organization, that is not a Protected Party. By way of example, if the Settlement Trustee determines after evaluation of a Submitted Abuse Claim that (i) a Chartered Organization that is not a Protected Party is responsible under applicable law for a portion of the liability and (ii) a Protected Party(ies) are not also liable for the same portion of the liability) (taking into account the relevant jurisdiction’s prevailing law on apportionment of damages), the Settlement Trustee shall apply a final Scaling Factor to account for such non-Protected Party’s portion of the liability.
(ii) Other Settlements, Awards, Contributions, or Limitations. The Settlement Trustee may consider any further limitations on the Abuse Claimant’s recovery in the tort system. The Settlement Trustee also should consider the amounts of any settlements or awards already received by the Abuse Claimant from other, non-Protected Party sources as well as agreed and reasonably likely to be received contributions from other, non-Protected Party sources that are related to the Abuse. By way of example, the Settlement Trustee should assign an appropriate Scaling
Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 8813 Filed 02/15/22 Page 172 of 459
20
Factor to Allowed Abuse Claims capped by charitable immunity under the laws of the jurisdiction where the Abuse occurred. Notwithstanding the foregoing, where an Abuse Claimant has obtained a recovery based on the independent liability of a third party for separate instances of Abuse that occurred without connection to Scouting activities, or on the Non-Scouting portion of a Mixed Claim, no mitigating factor or reduction in value will be applied based on that recovery.
(iii) Statute of Limitations or Repose. If the evidence provided by the Abuse Claimant or otherwise obtained by the Settlement Trustee results in the Settlement Trustee concluding that the subject Direct Abuse Claim could be dismissed or denied in the tort system as to all Protected Parties against whom the Direct Abuse Claim was timely submitted (as set forth in Articles IV.A) due to the passage of a statute of limitations or a statute of repose, the Settlement Trustee shall apply an appropriate Scaling Factor based on the ranges set forth in Schedule 1 hereof; provided, however, the Settlement Trustee will weigh the strength of any relevant evidence submitted by the Abuse Claimant to determine whether the statute of limitations could be tolled or deemed timely under applicable law, and may apply a higher Scaling Factor if such evidence demonstrates to the Settlement Trustee that tolling or a finding of timeliness would be appropriate under applicable state law.
(iv) Absence of a Putative Defendant. If the Direct Abuse Claim could be diminished because such claim was not timely submitted against BSA or another Protected Party (as set forth in Articles IV.A) (a “Missing Party”), such that in a suit in the tort system, such Direct Abuse Claim would be burdened by an “empty chair” defense due to the absence of a Missing Party(ies), the Settlement Trustee shall apply a mitigating Scaling Factor to account for a Missing Party’s absence. By way of example, where a timely submitted Direct Abuse Claim was not timely submitted against BSA (i.e., the Abuse Claimant failed to timely file a Chapter 11 POC) but was only timely submitted against the Local Council and/or another Protected Party (as set forth in Articles IV.A(ii) and (iii)), such absence of the BSA due to BSA’s discharge would be the basis for such a substantial reduction. Any Direct Abuse Claim that is reduced due to the absence of the BSA under this mitigating Scaling Factor shall only be payable, as reduced, from Settlement Trust Assets contributed by the applicable Local Council or Chartered Organization, pro rata with all other Direct Abuse entitled to share in the Settlement Trust Assets contributed by such Local Council or Chartered Organization.
F. Allowed Abuse Claim Calculus. After the Settlement Trustee assigns an Allowed Abuse Claim to a Claims Matrix tier and determines the appropriate Scaling Factors that apply to the Claim, the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for the Allowed Abuse Claim is the product of the Base Matrix Value of the Claim and the Scaling Factors applied to the Claim. In no event can an Allowed Abuse Claim’s Proposed Allowed Claim Amount (or Allowed Claim Amount) exceed the Maximum Matrix Value for the Claim’s assigned Claims Matrix tier. By way of example, if an Allowed Abuse Claim is determined by the Settlement Trustee to be a tier 1 claim (Base Matrix Value of $600,000) with a Scaling Factor of 1.5 for the nature and circumstances of the abuse, and a mitigating Scaling Factor of 0.75, and no other Scaling Factors, the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for the Allowed Abuse Claim would be $675,000, calculated as $600,000 x 1.5 x 0.75 = Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 8813 Filed 02/15/22 Page 173 of 459
21
$675,000. As a further example, if, in addition to the above Scaling Factors, the same Allowed Abuse Claim had an additional aggravating Scaling Factor of 2.0 on account of the abuser’s profile, the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for the Allowed Abuse Claim would be $1,350,000 (calculated as $600,000 x 1.5 x .75 x 2.0).

[Eagle1970]

13 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

SORRY FOR THE LENGTH BUT..... 

Actually, the scaling factors are in the Trust Distribution Procedures.  From: ARTICLE VIII CLAIMS MATRIX AND SCALING FACTORS the portion found below the abuse matrix is:

ated as $600,000 x 1.5 x .75 x 2.0).

Indeed, that is detailed in the TDP, which I have read several times.  What I meant to relate is that we don't know much about how the scaling factors will be applied and how much abuse will fit into each category.  There are wide ranges for each of the aggravating factors, as well as the SOL factors and we don't know what that will all look like in the final distribution.  Granted, we know how many claims are in each SOL range, but we don't know, for instance, if a Grey 3 claimant will receive .10 or .25 factors within the scale. 

Again, the possible factor for my abuse could be anywhere from 1.0 to 2.0 and theoretically could be even lower or higher.  I would have been more comfortable with this if there were no ranges for the individual factors, especially pro se.  It begs the question as to whether an attorney might be able to obtain higher factors, with their ability to cite case law on SOL tolling and such.

How these factors are applied could be a huge factor in any individual case or the settlement as a whole.

[SiouxRanger]

On 6/9/2022 at 3:40 PM, PaleRider said:

that the judge will not be making a decision untill the end of June.

Any particular year?

(By legal convention, construction contract completion dates are specified as "Julember, no year stated.)

[Tron]

On 6/10/2022 at 3:54 PM, ThenNow said:

Is that in bankruptcy court? From what I've learned and observed being present and accounted for at nearly all of the hearings, it's quite a different animal.

In every court that I've seen. When they reject they like to be vague because they never know what additional information that might come back.

[Tron]

23 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

So many variables.  60k sounds reasonable.  And give or take 10k, you can probably take it to the bank.  But how many take the $3500?  If the additional verification process and questionnaire are detailed, I would guess that many will.  If 20,000 take it, that only takes $70m from the trust, with minimal administrative costs.  However, most are represented, and I can't see a lot of law firms going for the $3500. 

We also know very little about the scaling factors, other than SOL.  With my own abuse claim, I can make a case for 1.0 to 2.0.  I will take a wild guess and say it is funded at about 20%.  Maybe future insurance settlements will prove that to be too low.

This boggles me a bit; I know there is the "not wanting to relive the trauma" aspect of giving a detailed verification; however, if many are suspected to just take the $3500 why is the majority of this thread, the case, and the debate about the money instead of all of the other factors of the settlement?