Eagle1993

On cross the insurance witness struggled a bit to explain how the TDPs or expedited payment negatively impacts them.  However, I think they make a decent case on the neutral path.  There is no limit.  Plus, in their contract, insurance companies should have assistance of the insured to investigate the incident.  That seems to be non existent in the neutral path plus there isn't much involvement of insurance.  

Now, they will get a bill and told take it or leave it.  The issue is that if they go to court then, then are concerned that the bill will be looked at as binding.

The Judge and DOJ had raised issues about the neutral path.  I think the insurance companies are raising some valid concerns regarding this path as well.  Now, I think it could be fixed (perhaps by lowering the fee AND allowing insurance companies to participate during the process).  We will see...

2 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

It is unfortunate that, while valid and necessary to go through all of these motions, they may lead to a substantial delay in payments to victims.  My entire career was insurance related, and every day of delay is more profit.  Many of us are already in our late 60's or 70's and may not live long enough to see this process to conclusion.

I expect many trusts are built upon future insurance settlements.  I would have thought this part was standard language.  I wouldn't be surprised if there is an update to the plan that clarifies insurance rights for non settling insurers.  I would be surprised in the insurance side leads to major delays, even though I do think insurance may be landing some good points today.

The big issue, where it could lead to major delays, is district court and the non debtor releases.  I think we will see the bankruptcy court approve the plan in April (unless something shocking comes up).  Then, we may know by June where district court lands on this case.  If they approve ... then I expect further appeals are likely moot and the plan will go forward.  If they reject ... well, I have no idea where this goes.

Just my guesses ... but April/June are probably key dates coming up.  Now, when payments will be made (other than those $3500 quick payouts) ... I have no idea.  That could take a while as they need to setup the TDP/neutral review process & collect payments from parties.  I think we are definitely closer to the end than the beginning.

Today's hearing has been pretty interesting.  Certain insurers are saying their policies REQUIRE the owner of the policy to help in the defense/review of the claim.  That allowed insurers to offer their insurance to BSA at a lower premium.  Now, the witness is saying, the debtors and claimants worked together and violated the contract terms of the insurance policies.

I think the issue is that in the plan TDPs and neutral there is no provided defense to help the insurers as required per their contract terms.

32 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I think Sean Higgins (Andrews-Thornton) was a terrible witness for them to put before the judge. He explained their vetting process, justification for e-signatures, ongoing contact and follow up with clients, the iterative process of gathering claim data leading to filing 100’s of POC amendments, and was very articulate. Showing his video testimony was a waste, at best, damaging to their case at the worst. Not well thought out IMNSHO. 

I agree.  I have no idea why certain insurers put that into the record.  Unless there is testimony coming up that can show he lied and casts significant doubt.  I haven't watched the entire hearing, but the moments I do ... I get the sense that the certain insurers have very weak arguments to stop this plan.  One of the best witnesses they interviewed was BSA's insurance expert.  At some points, he seemed to actually correct the insurer's lawyer on how policies are written.  He showed how they pushed back on the TCC & Coalition to include insurance company language.  I think it is clear to everyone that certain insurers simply want a delay and have no legal reason ... they are just afraid of how much they are going to have to pay the trust eventually.

I am much more sympathetic to Lujan, Guam Committee and Dumas. Lujan is a mess.  Perhaps that is because it is the middle of the night, but most of her questions are wandering and not targeted.  Occasionally, I think she starts hitting on some points but then wanders off of them.  Guam Committee is angry and spent most of yesterday on one witness ... and the bit I saw didn't seem to make many major points.

Dumas, to me, has been one of the best and most effective lawyers objecting to the plan.  She was able to get some BSA representatives (especially the local council ad hoc guy) on their toes.  She asked if any Pacific coast state councils had representatives on the Ad Hoc committee and he said "Arizona".  She asked if Arizona was on the Pacific coast and he said ... I'm from Georgia, everything West of me is West.  She asked about Oregon, Idaho, etc. cases that were missing from analysis.  I think she is making a good case that West coast councils did not pay enough for the settlement.  Now, I think that may not delay the plan, but may hit district court.  I wouldn't be surprised if she can prove West coast (especially Oregon) underpaid to get their releases.  That may not be her goal, but the effect of her strategy.

2 hours ago, Zebra132 said:

I did not find the insurers witnesses to be very likeable - or was it just me?

The one who said the majority of the claims were likely fraudulent?  Seemed like a weak witness as he didn't provide a lot of evidence.  Just opinion based on limited knowledge/review.  If the majority are fraudulent then you need to provide a lot more evidence.  

I don't see their witnesses impact the outcome yet.  In terms of fraud... Judge can simply say the trust can deal with it.  The other witnesses were lawyers from law firms who have a lot of clients.  Neither of their depositions seemed socking to me.  

I don't think certain insurers have much of a case to stop plan approval.  While they speak a lot, they seem to have the weakest case.   Guam and a few other claimant lawyers have been more effective.  Probably not enough to stop plan approval but may be enough to cause headaches in district court especially if DOJ objects.

BSA has rested their case today.  Now objectors are starting.  Certain insurers played video of several witnesses and they start tomorrow morning with more.  

20 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

We'll see next week the beginnings of how ugly the DOJ is going to make this.

I think he will object and probably follow a similar path as the Purdue Pharma US Trustee.  The DOJ does not agree with allowing bankruptcy courts the power to grant releases to non-debtors with non-consenting claimants.  

My understanding is that there are a couple of paths the bankruptcy can go post plan approval by Judge Silverstein (assuming she approves).  

Note that Professor Jacoby recently tweeted a summary of where cases can go post bankruptcy plan approval.  

Prof. Jacoby on Twitter: "Here is a thread on appeals from bankruptcy court decisions. Cannot say it is by popular demand - more by demand by a popular person! @alahav 1/x" / Twitter

In this thread, she states that lawyers will go to District Court.  Then, it will depend on the pace of district court on how long it could take to get to appeals (if district approves).  It could take years and at that point, the appeals court decision could be moot.

Sounds like Whitman would testify about non debtor releases. The Roman Catholic Church had objected to his testimony but then dropped their objection after the settlement.   So now BSA wants to bring him to testify.   However, Guam had their own objection and BSA had mentioned they were done with Whitman.  That was a back and forth with some heater language from Guam.  As mentioned, the judge said she is going to read the transcript and wasn't sure how she would rule.  BSA will wrap up Monday.  Then we will see the objector witnesses.   After that, closing arguments.  Hopefully we have a decision in 2 weeks.  

I think this plan will get approved however who knows what happens in district court.  

32 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

🎶 I used to be a CFL staffer, as you can plainly see, but if I weren’t a staffer, I’d grow up and have a family. 🎵

Bear Paw Scout camp hired CFL’s commissary director for this summer. It has had maybe 20% patrol cooking these last 3 years. It is ramping it up this summer after CFL shutting down.

 

Our Troop spent decades at Lefeber which was a patrol cooking camp.  We then went to Long Lake one year and the scouts hated it. Last 4 years we went to CFL and loved what they did there.  Now, we are headed to Bear Paw.  Hopefully it works out and keeps Patrol Cooking a permanent fixture. 

I wasn't able to attend after part way through the survivor working group representative.  Reading through Prof. Jacoby's updates...

- Survivor working group was 15 members was a diverse group representing various races, ethnicities and sexual orientations. 

- FCR rep was up next, who believes 11,000 more claims will come in the future from current minors or those with claimants with repressed memories.  He believes the trust will need to operate for decades.  Objecting claimant lawyers indicated that this is a reason that claimants will not be compensated in full in addition to other concerns.

I lost connection as I'm in the Rocky Mountains right now, but it sounds like he was on the survivors working group and was going through some of the negotiations.  

A claimant started the hearing today and gave a very emotional testimony about his time in scouting and impact on his life.  It brought the trial back to what this is about, compensating abuse victims.  He also mentioned finding fellow survivors on a scouter forum.  I'm glad I was able to log in to hear his testimony.  

FYI ... it is still going on if you want to log on.

I missed most of today, but Judge is asking why plan supporters are crossing Bates (BSA witness).  In 8 years on the bench, she has never had hearings where proponents have cross examined other proponent witnesses to undercut their testimony.  Never.  She said plan proponents must be very careful what evidence they put in front of her as she will have to then consider it during plan confirmation.  One BSA lawyer said this is ironic and she agreed.  

The judge looked very concerned about the direction this is headed.  She had Bates leave before asking the TCC & FCR why they were going to cross examine him.  Interesting...

To be clear, I do not believe the Catholic Church or any of their entities are protected.  What happened is that the Ad Hoc Catholic Committee settled. They removed their objections and I believe they are protected like all COs for abuse post 1976.  However, they are not protected prior to 1976.   

Judge is watching this closely.  Sometimes you can see her not watching as intentionally.  Now asking if the concern that if councils were not included they would go bankrupt.  I have to drop but .... interesting.  

The council ad hoc leader is on and is getting butchered by one Gilion Dumas.  This looks bad.  Basically, she is brining up the calculation of BSA council payouts and going hard after the West Coast & Northwest.  California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana.  This is probably the worst cross I have see in terms of witness answers.  

Watched just a bit, but I agree you can see the pain in his heart.  I thought he had a great answer to "Is this a fair plan."  He paused a long while ... and said no amount could ever compensate so it isn't fair to the victims.  He went on to say while legally the Methodist Church had 3 years to pay, when the greater group of Methodist's learned that it would delay payments to survivors they decided to work hard and take out loans to pay early.  The vast majority of their payment will come within the first year.

It is hard to judge an individual over a hearing, but he seems to be a kind and thoughtful man.

Bishop Schol up now.

Three Harbors Council just announced that Indian Mound Scout Reservation is being sold to fund the bankruptcy.  It was established in 1917 ....

What I found interesting in terms of the expert witness summary of what impacts membership.  He talked about controversies and COs.  He didn't talk about volunteers at all.    

Going through P&L ... BSA did better in 2021 than plan.  #1 aspect of financials is membership

In 2021, we saw over 210,000 new scouts, but 2021 saw retention drop to 62% driven by Cub Scouts of only 50%

Overall, plan assumes worse rates than historic in recruiting & retention.  

Hearing this morning is focused on BSA's business plan and its feasibility.  Going into details of BSA financials right now.

AH ... Clarity.

Roman Catholic Church is not a participating CO.  They are simply no longer an objecting one.

Just now, yknot said:

How is that even possible ? 

On or as soon as reasonably practicable after the Effective Date, and subject to the Bankruptcy Court granting a motion filed pursuant to sections 363(b), 1129(a)(4) and 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rule 9019, or otherwise applicable bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy law, Reorganized BSA shall reimburse the RCAHC amounts they have paid to its counsel, ArentFox Schiff LLP and Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (the “RCAHC Professionals”) for, reasonable, documented, and contractual professional advisory fees and expenses incurred by the RCAHC Professionals (the “RCAHC Restructuring Expenses”); provided, however, that, without limiting the foregoing, the RCAHC Restructuring Expenses shall be in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1,500,000, any award of such fees shall be payable by Reorganized BSA over the course of the twenty four (24) month period following the Effective Date of the Plan in four equal installments with the first installment due six (6) months following the Effective Date of the Plan. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Plan, the RCAHC Restructuring Expenses shall be subject to the terms of Article II.A.2 of the Plan, with the following modifications: (x) RCAHC Professionals shall comply with the procedures and processes set forth in Article II.A.2 by filing final fee application(s), which, for attorneys or law firms who are RCAHC Professionals, shall include time entry detail, which may be redacted for privilege; and (y) payment or reimbursement of RCAHC Restructuring Expenses shall be subject to the review and procedure of the Fee Examiner.

Just now, johnsch322 said:

Bribe?

Strong term, but US Trustee alluded to that.

US Trustee not happy ... stated that basically as long as someone gets a check they settle.