Jump to content

CynicalScouter

Members
  • Content Count

    2052
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    48

CynicalScouter last won the day on July 27

CynicalScouter had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

908 Excellent

About CynicalScouter

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2019 profile views
  1. They argued two things: to keep confidential the list of abuse survivors and the professional engagement letters and instruments purporting to evidence the Coalition’s authority to act on behalf of its members. The thinking was listing all clients on a court website would expose/revictimize victims (they did agree to name 6 victims who were serving at the Coalition's advisory board). Moreover, they worried the insurance companies would start to investigate some of these claimants. Ok, said everyone else. But there's ways to work around the confidentiality issue, and there sure as heck no
  2. Few possibilities: 1) Kosnoff is not as all powerful as he lets on and Eisenberg and AVA are really driving the bus. 2) Kosnoff is just obstinate and would rather be dragged kicking and screaming to do anything he doesn't want to do. That's why my guess in that the Rule 2019 disclosure will be minimally informative (if even that much) and result in a motion to compel further disclosure. As a reminder to all: the Coalition did the same thing. Their initial Rule 2019 statement was sparse (at best) and it wasn't until months of litigation and hearing before the judge that the Coali
  3. So, what would a Rule 2019 look like? Well the Coalition had to be forced by the court to file a full (with some redactions) versions last year. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/853761_1429.pdf It should lay out, in detail, the legal and financial arrangements between Kosnoff (or his law firm), AVA Law, Einseberg's law firm, etc. It should also spell out the financial interests in the case and while not by name (victims names will be filed under seal) identify which lawyers are representing which claimants. While a prudent person would perhaps lay o
  4. So, the big takeaways are The RSA is set for August 12/13. The disclosure statement hearing is getting pushed back to some date to be determined. Remember several things here. If the RSA blows up/gets rejected by the judge the odds of a disclosure statement drop to zero. The TCC/FCR/Coalition have said they'll never agree to a plan with the Hartford settlement. BSA is on record saying the RSA was a "gating" issue, meaning its acceptance or rejection sets the stage for any disclosure statement. From disclosure statement hearing through a vote and a confirmation hearing is at le
  5. This is Document 5671 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a3c50bee-30c0-49f5-ae80-862a511fd66d_5671.pdf
  6. Buchbinder reminding people that the statement Kosnoff files under 2019 be "verified" which means "under oath" or "under penalties of perjury". So, Kosnoff's on notice this is not something his can fib even a little bit
  7. I had to step away, but I saw the first part where the judge was saying that while AIS may have been a dysfunctional organization, it was nevertheless an organization that could be subject to Rule 2019. It is still absolutely unclear what, where, and when there is any kind of understanding of AIS. And the Coalition/Molton: making the argument that the motion for today is focused ONLY on Kosnoff/AIS, NOT the other motion. Judge: Yes, this was focused on Kosnoff/AIS, not the Coalition. Judge: Mr. Kosnoff "has now involved himself in this case through AIS and through the lette
  8. Ruggeri: They want to know how AIS was founded, they want the names of the creditors they represent. Etc. We want to see the engagement letters for the claimants. There must be documents. Their own claimants are confused who their lawyer is. Document 5671: I don't know who my lawyer is. Claimant is asking court to identify his lawyer for him. Kosnoff was tweeting as much as this morning. NOTE: I have to stop and do actual work, but I'll listen to people and try to brief this out later.
  9. Lauria: RSA 2.0 discussion. Issues related to the COs have come to the fore about this whole process. Amendments give both sides ability to walk away if the CO agreement reached is not acceptable. Thanks to Coalition, state court counsel representing 70,000 out of 82,500 claims now onboard. Lauria wants RSA hearing motion on August 12/13 (the dates when the disclosure hearing is suppose to happen). Lauria wants to try and do BOTH the RSA and Disclosure on those two days. Admits that is aggressive. Unlikely to conclude both issues in 2 days, likely need overflow dates. Judge: Sur
  10. I am going to sit in on today's Zoom if I can. While the thrust of the hearing is suppose to be the Rule 2019 motion, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the RSA 2.0 deal will be brought up. One more point: The Coalition/Brown Rudnick this morning just applied to have another one of its attorneys admitted to the court pro hac vice (i.e. for this case only) so that may come up first thing. Gerard T. Cicero pro hac vice https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/6c24908b-1e2e-49f2-89e3-ba500803aeca_5816.pdf
  11. If I had to guess it is going to be to convert to facilities use agreements with the councils serving as COs
  12. Kosnoff has got to be reading this forum. He's claiming these 16,869 attributed to Eisenberg etc. are HIS 17,000 clients/AIS' or...something. That's why the math didn't work: because Kosnoff's claiming those 16,869.
  13. Just saw on Reddit. Michigan Bishop tells Methodist Churches to stop rechartering scouting units: BSA is "leaving their Chartered Organizations out on a limb by themselves." BSA-ltr-to-Local-Churches-7.20.21[1].pdf
  14. Right, the RSA accounts for that. Whatever deal gets cooked up with the COs, either side (BSA/LCs on one, TCC/FCR/Coalition on the other) can walk away from the RSA if they don't like it.
  15. So, I'm trying to parse out what got amended and the key seems to be 6 items. Item 1 (I.A.) simply resets the deadline for the judge to approve the RSA until August 27. Fine. Items 2 & 3 (I.B. and I.C.) deal with whatever agreement is struck with the COs and gives both sides the power to terminate the RSA if they don't like what they see. Here's the TCC/Coalition/FCR's version. Item 4 changes Reimbursement, but I don't see how. Item 5 changes some language about insurance rights. Was: Now Item 6 DST Note Mechanics Was Now So
×
×
  • Create New...