Jump to content

Chapter 11 announced - Part 14 - Plan Effective


MYCVAStory

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

So, what about the non-settling insurance companies that didn’t agree? How does that get resolved? Is that only upside? That is more money into the trust? Who lays the legal part of getting those to settle? 

Those insurance companies have a right to not settle and go to trial ... if they choose.  From what I understand, the trust would have the right to fund and represent all those covered by the trust.  Effectively, trust money could be used to advance the victim's claims.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today is my birthday... What a present.

While the process was terrible I'm not sure there was a better path to compensate victims. I hope the trust is able to ramp up quickly and find a way to provide some sort of closure to those abused. 

BSA exits in a much weaker state than it entered.  For it to survive, strong leadership and bold action is needed.  

In the end, I'm glad this forum was a spot where both victims and scouters were able to interact. I hope it helped on various levels. Most of all, I hope child abuser find less and less opportunities to harm children and perhaps this case will help.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

So, what about the non-settling insurance companies that didn’t agree? How does that get resolved? Is that only upside? That is more money into the trust? Who lays the legal part of getting those to settle? 

The Trust may now engage in settlement discussions AND litigation against the non-settlers.  There are years when Survivors have claims, and the covering insurers didn't settle, that the Trust will now allow to "go to court."  There's a formula in the settlement agreement discussing how that works if there is a positive outcome.  But, the Trust still acts as a gatekeeper so the best examples of "slam dunk" cases will move forward.  The STAC has a hand in that determination.  The strategy is that a handful of verdicts against an insurer will be good motivation for it to settle and stop the bleeding.  The Trust will employ insurance litigation experts with all of this.  Remember that there are not only primary insurers in a given year but also "excess" insurance.  It's complicated and will see insurers do what they do best.  Delay.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prof. Jacoby insights below:

"Impact: trust can be implemented. Even if 3d Circuit were to find flaw in plan upon further insurer or survivor appeal, almost impossible to unravel plan under 3d Circuit precedent."

In addition the hearing over the coalition fees occurred yesterday and it sounds like the court is not fully on board but not yet decided.  We will have to wait for a ruling.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Today is my birthday... What a present.

Happy birthday. Your presence here, your wisdom, knowledge, cool head and steady hand have been a gift to all. I appreciate you. I'm glad you like your present. We searched for a long time and, when we saw it, knew it was the perfect gift. We tried to wrap it but it was just too unwieldy and oddly shaped with lots of pointy edges. 😬

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

In addition the hearing over the coalition fees occurred yesterday and it sounds like the court is not fully on board but not yet decided.  We will have to wait for a ruling.

I reckon after blowing some ham-sized holes in the bottom of the Good Ship Lollypop she is rather disinclined to come aboard. Those in the know predict she either significantly cut back the number or let the vessel sink into the muck.

Edited by ThenNow
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

Take away most of the investment earnings and they are in trouble. 

I hope those councils in that position have been in talks. I know my council, before this round of inflation, thought they could cover from the endowment without changes in future spending due to endowment growth. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you bring up inflation, I'm going to get this off my chest:

Inflation has tremendously eroded the compensation survivors may receive.  My abuse occurred about 50 years ago.  Since then, the cumulative "reported" inflation is around 900%.  Given my state's current SoL, if I were to receive $50k, the real value is closer to $5k in late 1960's terms, even with government inflation figures.  And the 60's is when the damage occurred.

I know of a clear policy limits situation that recently settled for limits after 5 years of delays (jurisdiction, discovery, motions, summer vacations, COVID).  As the trial date approached and they were facing actual expenses, the insurer wrote the check.  Meanwhile,  the dollars they paid had lost 25% of value since the injury, so the policy limit, in effect, was reduced by that amount.  The insurer's bottom line benefitted accordingly.  And the injured party suffered accordingly.

Without any consideration for the time-value loss of the dollar, there can be no truth to the statement I keep seeing about survivor claims being fully paid.  And the same goes for the contributions of settling insurers.  While I understand the need to settle with willing insurers in order to establish some sort of trust, those insurers know good and well what a bargain they are getting.  Justice delayed = justice denied.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

survivor claims being fully paid.

This is such a poor and untrue choice of words. They should never use this. The better phrase would be something about an organized distribution of funds so that all get something. Not anywhere near fully paid, nor is the debt incurred ever gone. Yeah, they should stop saying that. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2023 at 10:23 AM, fred8033 said:

Complete wrap-up feels like it is years and years out. 

Yes. I’ve heard from insiders 3-4 years, always with an “ish” or +/- in the footnote. I doubt that’s tracking with the closing date for the Independent Review. Who knows. Not moi. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...