Chapter 11 announced - Part 14 - Plan Effective

[SNEScouter]

On 2/22/2024 at 9:59 PM, MYCVAStory said:

The Stay only applied to Trust operations.  The plan is still under appeal and scheduled for an April 9 hearing before the Circuit court of appeals.  No one expects the Circuit to rule before SCOTUS does since any ruling would quickly be reversed if SCOTUS disagrees in Purdue.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has asked for briefing, due March 8, addressing "addressing whether the Court should hold this case C.A.V. pending the issuance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, No. 23-124. "  To me, this seems to make sense.  We'll have a Purdue ruling by the 4th of July.  At this point, the court and parties are better off knowing the Purdue ruling before charging ahead with oral argument and decision.

IMO, the BSA plan will get affirmed regardless of the Purdue outcome, but for different reasons.  If third-party releases are acceptable, then the plan gets affirmed easily.  If third-party release are rejected, the court will still affirm based on equitable mootness.  But the BSA plan is here to stay either way.

[PaleRider]

On 2/28/2024 at 4:33 PM, SNEScouter said:

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has asked for briefing, due March 8, addressing "addressing whether the Court should hold this case C.A.V. pending the issuance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, No. 23-124. "  To me, this seems to make sense.  We'll have a Purdue ruling by the 4th of July.  At this point, the court and parties are better off knowing the Purdue ruling before charging ahead with oral argument and decision.

IMO, the BSA plan will get affirmed regardless of the Purdue outcome, but for different reasons.  If third-party releases are acceptable, then the plan gets affirmed easily.  If third-party release are rejected, the court will still affirm based on equitable mootness.  But the BSA plan is here to stay either way.

What is CAV

[SiouxRanger]

17 minutes ago, PaleRider said:

What is CAV

Curia advisari vult or c.a.v., a Latin legal term meaning "the court wishes to be advised"

In this situation, I think it means that the court is considering awaiting the Supreme Court ruling in Purdue Pharma, and thereby "be advised."

 

[RememberSchiff]

Note, Newcomer @Bzzyposted this in another topic:

 

 

[Bzzy]

I am new here, and I read this discussion from the start. There are a few very important points that have not been made clearly, so I will attempt below, as they are.  These are isolated points, and make sweeping generalizations, so there are many edge conditions and exceptions I will not address, as I do not want to write a book.  I attempt to present "fact", but others may have divergent views of these same "facts".  I'll not argue.

1) The BSA reincorporated in DE specifically for purposes of bankruptcy because DE permits non-consensual 3rd party releases in bankruptcy while Texas does not.  So, BSA worked to limit the amount that they would pay victims from the start.  To me, this move alone destroyed any credibility BSA might ever have as being any different from any other corporation, as it put its own welfare above the Scouts and parents who trusted it.  (Not speaking for anyone else, but I'd be happy to tell BSA where they can stick their merit badges and service pins, and I'd suggest that they close the pins on the backs of the service pins before they do it!)  BSA has no assets in DE, and the entire process was sham plainly intended to game the system, "forum shop", and choose laws of their liking. In this regard it is verified that BSA is not your friend, not anyone's friend.

2) The reason behind (1) above is that claims from those attacked before the 1980s would be paid by insurance policies with no "aggregate limits".  So, even if the limit per claim is $100K, there would be no limit to the maximum total number of claims that the insurance company would have to pay out on BSA's behalf.  So, the BSA had to come up with something that would allow their insurance companies to "settle for a fraction of total liabilities", and avoid jury trials.  In some cases, the mechanism here was to negotiate a "buy back" of a policy for a fixed payment, and allow the insurance company to cap its liabilities, when the policy said that there was no aggregate limit, and no limit to the total liability.  This is not in the best interest of any attacked Scout, but note well that while "Statutes of Limitation" are strictly applied to limit amounts paid to victims, no mention is made that the older victims were covered by much higher "per-occurrence" limit policies with no "aggregate limit", which should have a multiplier effect on the amount paid.  So, bottom line, older Scouts are clearly and plainly "subsidizing" the more recently-attacked Scouts, who were covered under lower per-occurrence" and "aggregate" limits, as the fixed amounts are being allocated without regard to what insurance was in place.  Is this "fair"?  No, it is just picking and choosing between "winners" and "losers" when there are no winners here except the insurance companies, who are clearly not your friend, either.

3) Some pre-bankruptcy cases had been filed on behalf of victims who had unique compelling evidence, such as a newspaper report, an arrest, sometimes proof that their attacker was a repeat offender.  This was the basis for accusing the BSA of being negligent in not policing its ranks.  But in most cases, we victims were attacked once, fled from our attacker, and immediately left Scouting forever, unaware of any "repeat offender", and thinking that the BSA was neither aware, nor tolerant of perverts.  The 2019 admission that BSA knew of, and failed to aggressively police their ranks was heartbreaking, but it was the basis for most of the claims, and the reason so many Scouts "came out of the woodwork", as it was BSA's admission of guilt and liability.  Sadly, the lawyers representing those with these pre-bankruptcy cases controlled the bulk of the settlement negotiations, and they are not your friend either, and negotiated in the best interest of THEIR clients, not you.

4) But there were also ad campaigns to recruit attacked Scouts.  That was as slimy as it sounds.  Class-action (scumbag) lawyers borrowed money from "private equity" firms at usurious interest rates that would make a loanshark jealous, and used that "litigation financing" to carpet-bomb social media with ads.  While I can't imagine that any Scout would ever lie or mislead, and would never accuse any Scout, these attorneys may have "recruited" some folks who will not be found in any troop rosters, 'nuff said.   But these firms were representing many people, and wanted as quick a settlement as possible, as the interest on those loans was accumulating.  So, these attorneys in many cases are as much an "abuser of Scouts" as the original attackers.  But they "represent" Scouts, maybe you, and if so, you are stuck with them, as you signed an engagement agreement.  And they aren't even acting in the best interest of the Scouts they actually represent!  They will make far more than any attacked Scout will be paid, so they are just parasites.

5) The Sackler Perdue Pharma case, as some others have observed, is not likely to stop this train.  The rush to get a deal approved was a rush with full knowledge that the Sacklers were playing the same game as BSA.  The BSA amicus brief in the Perdue Pharma supreme court case argues "equitable mootness" which is the term for "we have an approved settlement, and we started paying money out, so you can't ask us to put the toothpaste back in the tube".  So, now you see why the "quick pay" $3.5K payments and the "Advance Payment Program" exist.  These token payments are not so much for the attacked Scouts as they are to pour cement on the bankruptcy to make the "equitable mootness" argument.  The entire trust is acting to preserve its own survival by rushing token payments to unrepresented Scouts, and those with claims that might be "weak" due to attacker-victim relationships outside scouting and so on.  So the TRUST isn't even acting in the best interests of anything but the "aggregate" group of Scouts, as they haven't leveled with anyone about any of this.  "Trustworthy?"  You decide.  Don't blame the trustee, she can only do what the settlement agreement orders her to do. Blame the "negotiators".

6) If the Trustee gets the additional $4 Billion she is demanding from the recalcitrant insurance companies she is suing, and we assume (a) 82K claims, of which 7K took quick-pay, so 75K claims still open. (b) 80% survive to get paid, or have an estate to follow through on collecting from the trust (most of us are OOOLD Scouts - membership peaked in 1972), then we have either an average of about $31K per attacked Scout if the Trustee loses her suit, and about $100K average per attacked Scout if she wins.   The "matrix" claims  that payments could be larger, but there is not enough money, nor will there ever be enough money to pay much more than the amounts listed as "base minimums".  Those using the "mediation" approach will lower the averages by being more adversarial than other attacked Scouts who can cannot afford the time, the money, or the trauma of a "individual hearing", so they have even found a way to pit one Scout against the other, and, mark my words, blame the "greedy attorneys" of those with the rock-solid cases for the lower "compensation" payments to the larger group.

I'll refrain from expressing my personal opinions on any of this, except to note that I have never told anyone about what happened, and I never will.  I have done my best to try to "move on", but I get the impression that this entire circus is nothing but another attack, choking us with our sashes and kerchiefs to keep us quiet while they have their way with all of us, and once again these attackers are far bigger and stronger than any of us.

 

[Eagle1970]

Welcome Bzzy.  You may have just joined, but you have covered enough in this post to have been here all along.  Yes, so much of this is patently unfair.  I did some significant research and found that the Matrix is clearly inequitable.  In the state of my abuse, CSA cases are being allowed far past the SoL but are treated in the Matrix as discounted by 75-90%.  Tolling of the long expired SoL's on the basis of concealment and fraud are moving right along in civil court,  yet the drafters of the Trust slapped arbitrary limits by state.  This has indeed pitted scout against scout and has left me with likely minimal compensation, while a scout in another state may receive far more for far lesser abuse.  The harvesting of claims remains a huge concern and if they are not deeply investigated, that alone will result in substantial inequity.  Your points regarding the aggregate dollars from insurance companies are also valid.  But nothing in this Trust is worse than the outcome of a scout in one state receiving a theoretical $1 Million who suffered lesser abuse than a boy in another state who may receive a few thousand after greater abuse.  And if claims proceed with little or no proof, that will make a mockery of the whole process.  To me, the settlement is a mess.

[skeptic]

And this is a surprise?  It was written on the wall from the outset almost.  Human frailties and too much time were bound to run the train off the rails.  And when it is engineered by many questionable lawyers, impossible expectations, and media hype, it should have been obvious.  Sadly, the most injured will, as noted, possibly end up with little, while others, find a way to take advantage with little or no proof.  There is no equitable way to assure the best outcome, but that will not stop the scammers and carrion birds.

 

[Ojoman]

6 hours ago, Bzzy said:

No, it is just picking and choosing between "winners" and "losers" when there are no winners here except the insurance companies,

 

6 hours ago, Bzzy said:

BSA worked to limit the amount that they would pay victims from the start.  To me, this move alone destroyed any credibility BSA might ever have as being any different from any other corporation, as it put its own welfare above the Scouts and parents who trusted it. 

 

6 hours ago, Bzzy said:

But there were also ad campaigns to recruit attacked Scouts.  That was as slimy as it sounds.  Class-action (scumbag) lawyers borrowed money from "private equity" firms at usurious interest rates that would make a loanshark jealous, and used that "litigation financing" to carpet-bomb social media with ads.  While I can't imagine that any Scout would ever lie or mislead, and would never accuse any Scout, these attorneys may have "recruited" some folks who will not be found in any troop rosters, 'nuff said.   But these firms were representing many people, and wanted as quick a settlement as possible, as the interest on those loans was accumulating.  So, these attorneys in many cases are as much an "abuser of Scouts" as the original attackers. 

 

6 hours ago, Bzzy said:

And they aren't even acting in the best interest of the Scouts they actually represent!  They will make far more than any attacked Scout will be paid, so they are just parasites.

 

3 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

This has indeed pitted scout against scout and has left me with likely minimal compensation, while a scout in another state may receive far more for far lesser abuse.  The harvesting of claims remains a huge concern and if they are not deeply investigated, that alone will result in substantial inequity.  Your points regarding the aggregate dollars from insurance companies are also valid.  But nothing in this Trust is worse than the outcome of a scout in one state receiving a theoretical $1 Million who suffered lesser abuse than a boy in another state who may receive a few thousand after greater abuse.  And if claims proceed with little or no proof, that will make a mockery of the whole process.  To me, the settlement is a mess.

Sadly, I expect that this will drag on for several more years at the least. I wish all survivors receive just compensation but has been pointed out, there will be inequities. There are lawyers and firms that just saw $$$ signs and didn't care if claims were factual or directly related to BSA programs (while most are) but just wanted to sign up as many people as possible and increase their slice of the pie. Certainly the corporation BSA has to do what it can to limit the damage and try to remain viable. The program did and still does serve huge numbers of youth and adults. While the total number of cases remains a fraction of a percent of overall youth registered, even one incident in which a BSA official swept abuse under the rug is too much. We are hearing more and more about the exploitation of children and a week hardly passes that there is not some breaking story.  Predators must be held to account. The BSA made serious errors in judgement and that has come home to roost, as it should have. It is shocking that of the roughly $2.4 billion that a billion goes to the lawyers and firms. These types of actions should be done to help the victims, not line the pockets of people trusted to represent them. 

[fred8033]

21 hours ago, Bzzy said:

... this entire circus is nothing but another attack, choking us with our sashes and kerchiefs to keep us quiet while they have their way with all of us, and once again these attackers are far bigger and stronger than any of us.

Yeah.  There is nothing healing in this process.  Whether you believe BSA was at fault or you believe BSA was trying to do more than other organizations at the time, the fact is this process is damaging to many.  I really doubt lawsuits litigating incidents from 20+ years ago.  30+ years?  40+ years?  Society and laws and expectations have changed so so much.  

The only lives changed are in the law firms and the insurance companies.  

[clbkbx]

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

There is nothing healing in this process.

For you, maybe.

Some survivors (including myself) do find on balance that it is healing. It got me back to therapy and there will be some sort of finality.

How many people actually post in this thread regularly, 20? Are even half of those stating they were abused in BSA? It's just such a small representation of the number of victims.

I'm glad to see @Bzzyadding a voice and it's crushing to know this is not the case for everyone. That was me for a good portion of the bankruptcy process (mad at the underfunding, inequity of distribution, the lousy lawyers, the amount of time, etc.)

That some victims will find some peace through and around this process is a good thing. The Boy Scouts could have done this better and there would have been more positive outcomes.

 

[Bzzy]

17 hours ago, clbkbx said:

I'm glad to see @Bzzyadding a voice

It is extremely difficult to talk about any of it. If any of the other victims are like me in any way, it is something of which I am still ashamed.  Even now, I wonder if I might have done something different to avoid becoming a target. 

But mostly, I try not to let my memory do any more damage than has already been done.  Sometimes, I can go days without any thought of any of it.  You may call it "denial", I call it "survival".

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, Bzzy said:

It is extremely difficult to talk about any of it. If any of the other victims are like me in any way, it is something of which I am still ashamed.  Even now, I wonder if I might have done something different to avoid becoming a target. 

But mostly, I try not to let my memory do any more damage than has already been done.  Sometimes, I can go days without any thought of any of it.  You may call it "denial", I call it "survival".

It is difficult to talk about, until you do. A lot of us are exactly like you. We might be in different stages of dealing with our trauma, but we are all alike. Talking about what happened will help erase any shame you might have and help you realize that there was nothing you could have done. 

You are a survivor. What you survived was not only physical but mental trauma and just like seeing a doctor for physical trauma a mental health professional can help you with your mental trauma.

DM me if you wish,

[BadChannel70]

3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has taken case/oral arguments off calendar pending SCOTUS decision on Purdue Pharma:

[Eagle1970]

I have received a determination.  The claim was allowed.  But the amount allowed was under 5% of the maximum for the bracket and just over 10% of the minimum.  This is all due to legal technicalities of the state where I was abused.  I probably will appeal but can see where it's headed.  And I'm sure it will be years if I ever actually receive even that amount.  Not surprised.  If they only pay 10% of that amount based upon recovery, this will not even begin to have been worth it.  Just wanted to update others that determinations have begun.  

[Ojoman]

1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

If they only pay 10% of that amount based upon recovery, this will not even begin to have been worth it.

Unfortunate turn, be nice if the same thing happens to the lawyers and law firms...