Jump to content

Eagle1993

Moderators
  • Content Count

    2824
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    104

Posts posted by Eagle1993

  1. 2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

    From Tim Kosnoff Twitter

    Kosnoff Law

    @SexAbuseAttys

    ·

    29m

    Happy New Year Friends and Followers. I have great news to share. Judging by the flurry of deposition notices filed by BSA last night to depose most of the firms urging clients to Reject and seeking evidence of the impact of the “Kosnoff Communications” on the vote,THEY LOST BIG 3

    1

    5

    Kosnoff Law

    @SexAbuseAttys

    ·

    29m

    Now BSA wants to invalidate your REJECT votes

    Based on some info I found, it sounds like lawyers likely have an idea where the vote is headed.  I'm not sure the BSA mass deposition requests mean the vote is headed to failing.  I expect both sides are preparing for both passing/failing votes.

    Remember, BSA needs overwhelming support.  So, they will fight to try and get as many reject votes thrown out.

    That said, if you listened to Kosnoff's deposition, it is clear there is a ton of focus on approval votes and coalition law firm's use of their own eBallot.  

    Finally, there is still the investigation into the vetting of claims.

    All of these will be used to try and go after the votes.  So, I'm not sure anything on the docket will indicate which way the vote count is going.

     

  2. 19 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    When I read follow on posts that came after this where only the merits of the brand and other brands are discussed but not one condemnation I wonder if this practice of taking alcohol on campouts by adults still occur.

    It is definitely not allowed and I have never seen it.  You can’t even take alcohol on a camp property even if it is a private family rental.  Smoking is not allowed around scouts either. 

  3. 33 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

    Could be argued (not by me) that COs are making substantial contribution because the insurance contribution is by the same insurance policy that covers the CO.  Effectively, that's the CO making a significant contribution thru their insurance coverage.  

    I think that could be argued for post 1975.  The question is what is the value of that insurance once these insurance settlements are coming through.  
     

    Now, prior to 1975 there was no insurance being provided. 

  4. On 12/27/2021 at 9:03 PM, 69RoadRunner said:

    I've had several events where I've struggled to get 2 adults, period. The moms don't come camping. There is zero chance I'd get any to do Philmont.

    Take a look at summer camps. What percentage of adult leaders there are women? It's very small.

    I've asked. I'm not in any way opposed, but I only have 1 that's ever come. Another stayed 1 night when we were desperate.

    We had more interest from women then men for our Philmont trip. We had 3 women go with two crews.  We also have several women go to our summer camps.  
     

    When I took over my pack, there were zero women adult leaders and only 24 scouts.  I reached out to moms and built up a core of women leaders and our pack expanded greatly. 
     

    I do agree in general men are more interested in camping; however, I have found plenty of women are as well.  You have to find them, talk with them directly and make an environment where they feel welcome and then more and more will join and help.

    It could be we just lucked into groups of women who like the outdoors… but I also think even having one or two active will encourage women who are on the fence to give it a try.

     

    • Upvote 3
  5. 15 hours ago, ThenNow said:

    For non-debtor releases, when they are allowed in certain courts, this article mentions 5 rules that must be met.

    (i) the identity of interests between the debtor and the third party, such that a suit against the non-debtor is akin to a suit against the debtor due to, for example, an indemnity obligation that may deplete the debtor’s assets;

    • This could be argued in both chartered orgs and local councils.  If chartered orgs are sued over scouting activities post bankruptcy, I would expect they would point to the indemnity obligation BSA has in protecting them.  I think the court would review the local council and chartered org agreements to determine if this rule applies.

    (ii) whether the non-debtor has contributed substantial assets to the reorganization; 

    • Outside LDS, I see very limited to no contributions to the reorganization.  I understand some will point to insurance, but that is held by BSA.  Chartered orgs did not contribute their own insurance policies.  I question how the judge would see this as being met by COs.
    • LCs ... I think one could argue they contributed a lot.  However, is it "substantial assets".  

    (iii) whether the release is essential to reorganization; 

     

    • This could be argued either way.  It would be beneficial to the reorg.  Is it essential?  I think for LCs, it is more essential.  Chartered orgs less.

    iv) whether the impacted classes of claims have overwhelmingly accepted the plan in question

    • TBD.  What is overwhelmingly?  In the past >90% has been expected.  Also, is it by non-debtor?  For example, what if votes of LDS claimants were <90%?  One would think LDS couldn't be released.  What if votes for one LC were less than 90%?  Again, not sure they could be released.  I think this is where vote by LC/CO will be critical, not just overall voting.  If we only see 66% approval overall, this likely means non-debtors are out.

    (v) whether the bankruptcy court has made a record of specific factual findings to support such releases.

    • I expect the above 4 will come up in court during confirmation and perhaps that is when factual findings could be made to support/deny releases.

     

    So, just my guess, but my reading of the rules ... even when allowed .. put the Chartered Org releases at high risk.  Local councils are probably closer to earning their release.  Voting will be critical.  However, the judge could just go with Purdue and kick them out all together.

    • Thanks 1
  6. 42 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

    BSA made promises to both local councils and COs to protect them. That was one of the pitches to prospective COs for starting new units back in the day. COs felt they were protected from such lawsuits because they were told they would be, and now they are finding out otherwise. Ditto for the councils.

     

    I would agree; however, state courts can decide this for COs.  Note that Kosnoff has had a case dismissed against the BSA and local councils as, in the court's words, Chartered Organizations are responsible for units.  So, he was to sue the chartered orgs; however, in that case, the Chartered Orgs were defunct, so no one was left to sue.

    So, BSA/Local councils ... in court ... stated that chartered orgs were ultimately responsible for units (and the court agreed in that case).  Now, if chartered orgs state they cannot be held liable ... who should be held liable?

  7. 34 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

     

    If I were those firms, I would’ve held them as long as possible. Extra time and new deals were the play to garner more yes votes.

    Here is an interesting example from an AIS claimant.

    a2b61c74-2f4c-406e-8faf-d84d603035d9_8027.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

    They started with a no vote using eBallot, on Dec 8th.  Changed to yes on December 20th after he was told by KR's firm he would receive $0 if he voted no (I don't think that is true).  The firm then told him he would receive >$3500 if he voted yes even after all fees.  

    Now, the abuser was his father ... so I wonder how BSA is liable at all.  Since his father was also his Scoutmaster?  Is this even a valid claim?

    Then there is this confused individual.

    ce8a444b-1aa4-4905-9e63-b99bafbc83b8_8021.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

    Vote is yes, no to $3500 and he opts out of the release as he is suing his chartered organization.  Um, sorry, right now if you vote yes you lose that right.  

    This is going to be a MESS.  Just reading these letters, these men are completely confused.  Where are their law firms clearly explaining the impact of voting yes/no?  These letters could be used by those against the plan to show even yes votes were not fully informed by their law firms.  Note that I am sure some no votes are probably just as confused.

    If law firms make 40%, the least they should do is clearly inform their claimant as to the impact of their vote.  

     

    • Upvote 1
  8. 5 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    We shall see in due time. 

    That said, I think Zalkin is preparing a major line of attack against yes votes from the Coalition.  Kosnoff’s deposition focused on their questionable tactics and their custom eBallot.  Silverstein has disqualified yea votes in the past, she may again. 
     

     

    7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

    JLSS wants BSA to survive

    100% agree.  I think if she sees 95% yes votes she will jump on this plan. If she doesn’t, then she may be aggressive in the other direction. 

  9. 3 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

    Just wondering if anyone believes that the vote will overwhelmingly pass....

    Other than the $3500 issue, I have not heard much to indicate any forward momentum.

    No, but there was this big vote dump. All of these 100+ voted yes.
    https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a2bf89a1-0b09-4300-8a8b-78a14ef26e63_7988.pdf

    If this is any indication of master ballots, you might see thousands of yes votes pour in from these law firms. 

    • Upvote 1
  10. 1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

    Interesting. My take was different. She referenced her own Opinion in Millenium which became the law of the 3rd Circuit when it was affirmed. Do you recall her comment that her decision was based on Constitutional Due Process grounds. Judge McMahon’s Opinion was based on the bankruptcy statute. She deliberately declined to reach the Constitutional question. Silverstein’s remark sounded like she was distinguishing her Opinion from the Purdue opinion, meaning Millenium is not controlling authority in the 3rd Circuit. My sense is that she is going to follow Purdue/Sackler because it is legally correct,  it is powerful; it is persuasive. She may also be sick and tired of all these Ch 11’s finagling their way in to Wilmington for the sole purpose of availing themselves of that jurisdiction where third party releases are handed out like candy. Their use was SUPPOSED to be rare. This could relieve congestion in her court and put restructuring specialists like Lauria out of business along with the mass tort lawyers’ gravy train. 

    I’m not a lawyer but my read based on articles and some good analysis from various legal feeds. 

    Even though it is a different circuit, if McMahon is correct in terms of Bankruptcy law, it would seem to be applicable.  Don’t forget another judge (Novak 4th circuit) is questioning non debtor releases in district courts.  We may be seeing district courts across the board enforce bankruptcy courts to stay in their lane.  

    Silverstein really wants to know where the claimants are in terms of this plan.  If this plan sees >95% yes, then I expect she will want to find a way forward. She will need to find a legal argument to include LCs and COs.  I could imagine her excluding COs while still keeping in LCs. 
     

    If the vote goes south, the following must be decided:

    1) Can non debtor releases be included in the plan

    2) Are LCs separate from National or should their assets merge based on legal arrangements 

    3) Is the JP Morgan secured debt legitimate or are high adventure bases not secured.  If the debt is questionable then JP Morgan may need to take a hit.

    4) Depending on above, how should votes be counted be LC, CO, etc.

    • Upvote 1
  11. Voting is hours away from closing out.  (If you are a voting entity ... get your votes in!).

    So, there is an updated schedule likely to be approved very soon.  I found it interesting that in this case, the Debtors (BSA) and the TCC agreed to this update but the Coalition wasn't listed. 

    52ca7b40-5212-4b83-ba83-bde81e2d737e_7973.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

    • 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

    Note that in other cases, there have been big changes between the preliminary voting report & final report.  There shouldn't be ... but this was mentioned in court that it has been seen in the past.  

    I really think January 4 is the key date here. 

    • Option 1 - Claimants massively approve this deal (95%+ yes votes).  Based on what I have seen from other cases, I would expect this to go forward.  Yes, there will be a confirmation battle.  BSA, LCs, COs and insurance may kick in a few hundred million more combined to try to get TCC and remaining lawfirms on board.  There may be tweaks but overall, I think the judge will try and make this plan work.  Purdue is a big question, but that is a different circuit and not yet through all appeals so she may ignore it for now.
    • Option 2 - Claimants approve, but not overwhelmingly (66% - 90%).  The BSA, FCR, UMC/LDS, Coalition and insurance companies will fight hard to get the plan confirmed.  TCC, Zalkin, Catholic Church and remaining insurance fights against the plan.  Months of fighting & negotiations.  Chaos.
    • Option 3 - Claimants reject the plan (<66%).  The Coalition will blame TCC/Kosnoff's email.  Perhaps a bit of fighting, but BSA will admit defeat.

     

    I hope in all options, the judge keeps these hearings going.  There are a TON of questions that must be answered and ruled on by the judge.  Before a new plan takes shape (assuming Option 2/3) she needs to make rulings to help frame the plan (and future voting).

     

    • Upvote 1
  12. 1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

    One word. “YIKES!” Okay. Two words. “POW!!” (Nod to the Batman.)

    It seems clear that Patterson (I believe representing Zalkin) dug deep into the Coalition confusion and especially the eBallot and voting.  I expect this could come up again when reviewing voting results from coalition law firms. 
     

    Century  (Tanc) asked a ton of wide ranging questions.   I still have an hour left but so far, most of the interest was in the signing/vetting of claims.  He also identified a case where Kosnoff lost where a judge indicated that charted orgs have the primary liability not BSA.  
     

    We are less than 24 hours until voting closes out.  If I were to bet, I don’t expect this plan will receive enough yea votes.  We may actually see more than 66%, but given the non debtors involved I think the judge will need to see 95% or more.  
     

    I think we get official info next year.

  13. Kosnoff uploaded his full deposition.  I’m listening while working on my bathroom remodel. Interesting background on the formation of AIS and the Coalition.  The coalition apparently started with a plan to litigate the separation of LCs vs National (they were planning to argue that it was one big entity).   That switches when tort lawyers joined in whose goal was fast settlements.  Also, per Kosnoff, Rothweiler took out loans to pay for litigation, spent more than their line of credit then signed over some of their settlement proceeds to Wall Street.  Kosnoff indicated he was asked by these firms to sign on and he refused.  Only 30 mins in…
     

     

     

    • Confused 1
  14. 1 hour ago, skeptic said:

    Should we be surprised?  From the outset, there have been predators, from the legal system, preying on victims, including causing some, perhaps many, who have learned over time to deal with their personal demons to relive the pain and suffering at some level.  And mostly, this was more for money than real concern for victims.  JMO of course.  But, to me, it is part and parcel of the messed up legal system that preys on victims with hype and promises, not caring if it may cause renewed emotional trauma, or affect others that in reality have little or nothing to do with the original trauma.  Far too many "lawyers" that play the system, not for real justice, but simply with avarice, caring little if anything for the actualities of their action.

    I think there are multiple types of lawyers involved.  I have seen lawyers who seem to know their claimants well, understand their case, vetted their claim, kept them updated and are fighting for them in all aspects.  I respect those lawyers and have no issue with them.  Then there are lawyers who trolled the internet to build a large group of claimants, have no clue and likely don’t care about their claims and are simply trying to get a settlement so they can charge their large fees while doing minimal work for individual claimants.  I wish those lawyers never got involved in this case. 
     

    What is sad about bankruptcy is that each claim doesn’t get it’s time in court.  Some may be false.   Some may not be the fault of BSA at all.  Others the BSA is to blame or LCs or COs. Bankruptcy just lumps them together and says here is a check.   It would have been if this could have remained outside bankruptcy but unfortunately BSA didn’t have the money to defend the onslaught. 
     

    Hopefully we are closer to the end than the beginning for all involved.

    • Upvote 1
  15. 25 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    I have been reading statements from survivors that they are now getting calls from coalition lawyers telling them that they filled out their ballots incorrectly and need to vote again.  These claimants are saying that they know they voted correctly and they all say they voted no.  The coalition lawyers are urging them to revote thru the coaltions e-ballot. Other survivors are urging them to contact the court. Reviewing the votes is going to be a mess.

    If I were voting, I would cast my vote with Omni.  I would then check to see how my final vote was recorded.  If my lawyer switched my vote, I would complain to the court, complain to the bar and look for lawyers who sue other lawyers.   What is being alleged in these letters is just wrong.  

    • Upvote 2
  16. 55 minutes ago, elitts said:

    That's going to be a big "nothingburger" when it's all done.  Nessel is as politically motivated as an A.G. gets and while she may find someone she can eventually file charges against by twisting and warping the intent of the law, in the end the most we'll see is someone pleading to an inconsequential misdemeanor in order to save on legal fees.  At least as far as "investigating" the BSA, LCs and COs.  Though if she manages to dig out a few actual perpetrators, that would be awesome.

    I think the logic on SOL rule changes tends to revolve around "how far back can we realistically go and actually have cases we can prosecute beyond a reasonable doubt?"  The further back you go with memories, the harder it is to have witnesses with reliable memories.

    This is what she did in a similar case.  It was felony rape, sexual assaults, etc.

    https://www.michigan.gov/som/0,4669,7-192-47796-542878--,00.html

  17. 24 minutes ago, skeptic said:

    Almost all the separate congregations that are, and have been involved for decades likelfile as requested.  I know locally that every church with a unit or more was specifically asked to file the needed documents early on. 

     

    I believe it. 

    https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9156e828-9e46-448c-bdd0-ae41eab0683b_Chartered_Organization_Notice.pdf

    I found the charter org voting information here.  Charter organizations votes will be counted under the claim they filed ... it looks like most would be under Indirect Abuse Claims.

     

  18. 1 hour ago, DuctTape said:

    question... do other secured creditors "unrelated" to the survivors claims also vote on the bankruptcy provisions, or do these creditors vote on their separate piece? If the latter, how does the bankruptcy balance these since both parties are in effect in conflict?

    Based on my understanding - Each voting group is counted separately.  It is up to the plan to balance out these groups while also creating a 5 year plan that is viable.  
     

    Note that one topic that is coming up.  Should all direct abuse claims be lumped together, or should they be treated separately if they take the lump sum or are inside/outside SOL.

    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...