Eagle1993

Here is the Kosnoff order.  It was about the live tweeting when the TCC was deposing BSA counsel.  It sounds like Kosnoff probably shouldn't have been on that call, but the bigger issue was that he was tweeting protected info.  Note that 7 days after deposition, the material could be released if not determined confidential (or other privileged, etc.).  

They stopped the deposition to get Kosnoff to stop the live tweeting.  

e0809104-fbda-40e1-9c69-7c79ef65e400_8480.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

Just now, ThenNow said:

"Stand-down." If that doesn't just sum this up this entire drama in two little, single syllable words I don't know what does. 

Stand-down: "a relaxation of status of a military unit or force from an alert or operational posture." 

I may have just imagined the word "Stand-down" but it was pretty similar.  I think Kosnoff gets a bit emotionally involved and I understand that ... but you have to follow the rule of law.  I think he is in some serious trouble now and this is just a distraction to the bankruptcy.  

So .... we march to the Feb 22 date.  If this ends up in plan failure, what a waste of money.  It will just emphasize that bankruptcy reform is absolutely needed.  My only hope is that the depositions, discovery, hearings, etc. will get use to rulings that can then be used to get agreement on a plan that could pass.  However, there must be a lower cost and faster path to get to plans.  

Ok ... that is it for today.  Kosnoff told his clients to stand down.

So ... perhaps a hint.  Feb 22 is going forward.  Don't know if that means she is ok with 74% or not.

Very odd ... several of Kosnoff's clients want to speak but judge said they should talk to their lawyer.  She would allow time right now.

Feb 22 is going forward.

JLSS said the order is consistent with the order she was prepared to enter today.  She is troubled by what she read in the submissions.  In both the letter today from depositions.  She considers that Kosnoff has appeared in this case as he attended a deposition.  Mr. Kosnoff should not have been at the deposition.  He isn't listed as a participating party.  Not sure why he was attending at all.

This seems to be about the Twitter comments about BSA deposition.  He was tweeting about some aspects of what BSA lawyers were stating.

JLSS checked rules in Washington state and they are same as Delaware.  She said there was a case in Delaware, in 1994 case, what to do with Attny misconduct at depositions.

She is content to form of order and go from there with respect to actual complaint.  The complaint was filed under seal and some part of it could be public (make a redacted version) to put on the docket.

I would say the 1st ruling isn't really a win for the Coalition.  It does kick the can down the road.  The insurance lawyer said they are concerned as they found POC signed by both lawyers & claimants and they differed where the one signed by the law firm had more severe abuse ... they are questioning the validity of the claims.  Coalition lawfirm lawyer pushed back and while she doesn't have anything specific to rule on now, it seemed clear that there will be discovery allowed in this area.

2nd agenda is about Kosnoff... there is agreement with his lawyer on the form of order with Century.  His lawyer will send to JLSS and then look to JLSS to sign and issue today.  JLSS said to email it to chambers.  She was very concerned by what she read.  She is clearly upset about something Kosnoff did.

First matter ... Judge ruled to allow discovery to go forward.  Then after discovery, if insurance still has issues with the various lawfirms, come forward with what is with held.

Reminder ... hearing today, 2:30 PM ET.

410a5a25-20e3-48ed-b3d1-19a0d129b9e1_8391.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

Well, now we have Century going after Kosnoff.  

01823e91-93d1-4930-acb7-9f3d3456a987_1.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

Boy Scouts of America: Documents List (omniagentsolutions.com)

It looks like they are going for a restraining order against Kosnoff...

Quote

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Filed by Century Indemnity Company, Chubb Group Holdings Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 1/24/2022 at 02:00 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #2, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 1/24/2022. (Stamoulis, Stamatios)

Kosnoff was on twitter today, tweeting about the BSA deposition.  That may not be allowed.

He also plans to file a request to dismiss the Bankruptcy case.

Finally, he had a few unflattering things to say about the TCC ... but I expect the hearing is about the deposition chatter, not the TCC stuff.

It sounds like BSA lawyers testified today that they were aware of the coalition's eBallot, reviewed it and approved its use.   It also sounds like they do plan to go after master ballots.  So, expect a fight ... from both sides about ballots.

Some guesses...

BSA may fight power of attorney documentation to get claimants votes thrown from master ballots.

TCC and others may argue eBallot was not approved by the court, caused confusion, may have not been secure, etc., and therefore, any ballot submitted through the eBallot should be tossed.

I think these fights back and forth may be helpful to avoid issues in the next vote, but I would be shocked if any of this was used to kill or approve the deal.  JLSS has tossed votes in the past, but that was about invalid claims, not about POA or eBallots, etc.  I would be a bit surprised she would toss votes based on either of these arguments.

Just a reminder of the current schedule.  

If this plan continues to go forward, I'll be interested in seeing the plan objections that come in by Feb 4.  

• Dec 29       Deadline to serve discovery on voting, settlements
• Jan 4           Preliminary voting report
• Jan 5          Rebuttal expert reports due
• Jan 7           Deadline to serve responses/objections to voting/settlement discovery
• Jan 14         Document production regarding voting/settlement due
• Jan 17         Final voting report deadline
• Jan 28         Deposition of expert witness & fact witnesses due
• Jan 31         Deadline to identify trial witnesses
• Feb 4          Plan objection deadline
• Feb 10         Deadline to exchange depositions designations and file motions
• Feb 14        Confirmation brief/plan reply deadline
• Feb 15        Deadline to exchange deposition couter-designations
• Feb 17        Deadline to submit joint pretial order, witness/exhibit lists, options to motions, etc
• Feb 18        Final pretrial conference
• Feb 22        Confirmation hearing

Hearing agenda set.

410a5a25-20e3-48ed-b3d1-19a0d129b9e1_8391.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

No status conference listed.  So, the ideas of weather, Covid, etc. are out the door.  Why is the status conference not proceeding?

My understanding ... TCC requested conference, 1 law firm joined them, BSA objected and then the judge set the hearing for a status update.  Then ... a few days later, the judge cancelled that hearing.

It seems like the only explanation is that the TCC agreed to cancel the hearing (or at least didn't object).  The TCC hasn't had a townhall (I think they cancelled one), the Coalition townhall said TCC & BSA are in mediation.  

Perhaps, just perhaps, they are making good progress and we may see a new RSA with the TCC on board.  (The last RSA the TCC as on board, but only if the insurance settlement was excluded).  

Who knows, but a perhaps a glint of optimism (at least for those who are looking for this to close with BSA surviving).

15 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

No one should ever take my word on matters involving ciphering, but does this mean the BSA Settlement Trust 'should' be in the neighborhood of $38B plus another $.5B for good measure? Hm. Yes, I'm dreaming, but it's a good dream for a change.

I wonder if the Bates analysis would have to reconsider.  In addition, the Dr. at U of Mich worked from 1966 to 2003 ... so most of the victims are older right now (and male).  It seems like Bates discounted older victims.

Now, the one aspect where U of Michigan may be more liable is that he was a repeat abuser.  Many of the BSA abusers were only identified once (Bates indicated repeat abusers are where the bigger payouts occur).  

I'm sure this settlement will be utilized in the BSA mediation/negotiations when calculating value of the claims.  Insurance companies will likely be the ones going back to see if they can write a bigger check.

2 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

 

In July-August, 2020 the Judge included the "Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice" as part of the Mediation Party.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/842768_1161.pdf

Could the Judge also remove the "Coalition" from the Mediation Party? 

May not be a bad idea.  That could shake things up a bit.  I don't think she has been happy with the coalition (asking for payments from BSA, fights between Kosnoff/KR, etc.)  She sees that the voting percent didn't hit high enough and now this mess.

Perhaps use it as a threat for now.

New hearing set

January 24, 2022 at 2:30 p.m. (Eastern Time)

Microsoft Word - Boy Scouts - Motion to Clarify Scope of Discovery - Notice of Hearing 4863-1975-2202 v.1 (omniagentsolutions.com)

Right now it is about the coalition law firms who are not complying with the judge's ruling about discovery (per insurance companies).

57 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

I really think a BSA only bankruptcy with LC's given the option of being included at a much higher contribution or to opt out and take their chances has the best chance of passing LC's vote.

That way the LC controls their own destiny.

I expect this is likely being discussed and I wouldn't be surprised if this is part of the deal.  However, it adds complexity to the insurance payouts (they will likely need to know which LCs are in/out before closing their offer) and I expect there will be great debate on how to calculate the required "buy in" amount for each LC.  

One benefit is actually for the Ad Hoc committee.  Right now, let's say the Ad Hoc committee is asked to increase the offer by $400M.  They then have to spread that out to the 250+ councils and ask each one for approval.  That is a tough discussion as if even a few councils bulk, the deal is dead.  The win is that the Ad Hoc committee can go back and say this is your number ... are you in or out.  

Now, if this is the path, then I think the LC contributions would have to be limited to those who have claims against that council.  Otherwise, some claimants would get payments from councils + be able to sue their own council.

Apparently during the Coalition townhall, it was brought up that BSA & TCC are in active mediation.  So, perhaps, the status hearing was cancelled to allow mediation to find a solution.  Let's hope they are making some good progress.

15 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/latest-vote-tally-boy-scouts-27-bln-abuse-settlement-falls-short-goal-2022-01-18/

Hmmmm..

Survivors can change their votes until a Feb. 22 hearing on the deal before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein in Delaware, who must sign off on the deal.
 

Really?  I thought the judge was clear.  She already saw a mess with claimants changing votes post deadline. 

11 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Now why would they do that?😠

I don't think I am cut out to be a judge.  It feels like she is herding cats.  It seemed clear what she approved and now it seems like she is being ignored.   If I were here, I would be angry about this ... but perhaps that is just how law is practiced.

A bit of insight from Prof. Jacoby's twitter feed:

She doesn't expect this to be the last word on this vote ... expect both sides to fight to get votes removed.

Steep battle expected to get this plan approved.  (Based on prior tweets issues include voting results, requested releases)

And now a group of insurance companies have asked the courts time to deal with a bunch of coalition law firms stonewalling them.  

Microsoft Word - Boy Scouts - Motion to Clarify Scope of Law Firm Discovery 4869-9614-2346 v.1 (omniagentsolutions.com)

Basically, the law firms objected to this discovery due to privilege.  The judge overruled their objection.  Now the law firms are refusing to answer the questions.  

4 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Would someone clarify the meaning of the "opt out" and "$3500"?  If the $3500 box was checked, are those basically settled out thereby reducing the number of claimants?  Or would they take $3500 and remain in play somehow?  

Opt Out - That is a question for sex abuse claimants for non abuse claims.  So, if you check "opt out" that means you can sue all of the protected parties (BSA, Coalition, COs, insurance companies, Omni, TCC, etc.) for non abuse claims.  

$3500 - Do they simply want the $3500, no questions asked, no ability to claim more (in terms of direct abuse)

Two separate and independent questions.  Note that the opt out was very confusing.  I think many may be confused as I've seen letters where they "opt out" so they can sue their CO ... but they voted Accept.  That means they can only sue their CO for non abuse claims.

1 hour ago, Jameson76 said:

Had a newer scout that was lugging the 5D Maglight around.  I asked him why he didn't get a headlamp or pocket flashlight.  His answer was one could not hit a bear over the head with pocket flashlight.  

I could not argue with such sound logic

Many moons ago I was in Ely Minnesota and one of our scouts kept going on about how he planned to "punch a bear in its face".  Apart from questioning why he was so angry at an animal he never met (and if punching a bear aligns to the Oath and Law), we all had doubts.  Sure enough, we saw a bear across a parking lot on one of the days we were in the bunk house area.  Our SM looked for the scout who claimed he was going to punch the bear and saw him running full speed back to his bed.  I don't know if the bear realized how close he came to be punched in the face.