CynicalScouter

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

There are MANY issues to be addressed during confirmation.  Each one could take days of hearings.  The judge can't meet every day (she has other hearings).  I can't over state this ... the confirmation will take a huge about of time ... so much so it could put BSA survival at risk.

I wish I had the transcript, but the attorney for BSA (male, not Lauria, forget his name, Mr. "Melting Ice Cube" for now) rattled off numbers that

1. BSA would be running out of cash in 1Q 2021 (I recollect March?)
2. COMPLETELY out by May 2021, meaning it would have NO cash to offer into a settlement by that point

He gave specific numbers/amounts. The broader point is this

1. I don't believe him anymore. Too many times crying wolf.
2. It is a truism that at some point BSA will be out of cash.
3. How long BSA can bleed out is at best TBD.

One final point on this and you nailed it:

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Even this assumes nothing shocking comes from the vote or discovery.  If something comes up there ... Chapter 7 or a BSA only plan.

Confirmation moves a LOT faster if the LCs, COs, LDS, and everyone else are tossed out of the boat and BSA fends for itself due to a vote to reject (or a vote not to accept/failure to get 67%). The insurers will still squawk about some things, but you eliminate several lines of challenges (the entire third-party-non-debtor-releases) if you make this BSA only.

28 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

They implied the TCC has "no" plan, but the Coalition does.

Yep. And as you said, this is now a "campaign". I've never seen this before in state civil courts. Maybe this happens in the mass torts (asbestos?) but I've not been privy to those.

And if it is a campaign, here is where the TCC needs to not wait for the exclusivity deadline to file something. They need to post to the court's docket now what that plan will be. Give victims a "vote to reject and this is what we have waiting to go out the door on January 4 (deadline for final voting tallies to be reported)." Or they can post to the TCC website "this is our plan".

BSA has now filed the latest amended version of Modified Plan 5.0/Plan 5.5 (I prefer to call it 5.5 and will continue to to do so) and associated documents

To repeat/reiterate the key dates

• Solicitation Date is October 15.
• Voting Deadline is December 14.
• PRELIMINARY Vote Reporting Deadline is December 21.
• FINAL Vote Reporting Deadline January 4.
• Confirmation Hearing January 24.

Which means realistically that right around Christmas we'll know if the plan has been rejected or not and by how much. It will also give BSA roughly 30 days to decide what it wants to do at the confirmation hearing if it loses that vote: ask the judge to cramdown Plan 5.5 anyway? BSA-only/toggle? Etc.

In the mean time, confirmation objections, briefing, and discovery will be ongoing. I expect there to be knock down drag out fights (here's my prediction: mediation privilege will come up early and often).

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

However, I think it really negatively impacts claimants inside the SOLs.

It does because they have to, in effect, share with people with absolutely no valid legal claim. If anyone wants to discuss whether this is RIGHT, JUST, or MORAL, I refer you to the other thread. If however we stick to the bankruptcy/legalese, as Zalkin and other lawyers with clients from open states have said: this is absolutely not within the confines of law to give those with no valid legal claim today access to the funds

36 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

"Unlike the Coalition, the TCC has no plan to compensate survivors and has not created a multi-billion-dollar compensation fund for survivors through its efforts to reach settlements with insurers and sponsoring organizations to build the most robust fund possible."

Because technically they don't. They put in the 6-7 points of their plan, but they have not written it down. I am sure that come October 18 and the end of exclusivity they will submit a plan, but by that point it will be too late to vote on.

52 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

All of us in this forum can already think of hundreds of examples of grey areas here where someone is tied to scouting but also has oversight at the CO outside a scouting relationship.  COs may find paying into a settlement offers them little protection in the end.

The next time I hear someone complain that YPT is too restrictive about how it applies to interactions outside of Scouting, I'm going to point to this mess.

The line is so blurry, BSA would be stupid NOT to have YPT treated broadly.

So I blanked but I know they were talking about coming back Friday, Monday, Wednesday, or some other day in the near future.

Lot of people racing to catch flights for the in person mediation.

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

He seemed clueless on how the entire process works.  

Stang nailed him on this as well. The claim that the TCC "only represented 6000 clients" (again that's not what the TCC does) and that he was a "member of the TCC" (no, 9 VICTIMS are the members of the TCC). Etc.

14 minutes ago, elitts said:

Well, there's some problematic wording.  Let's ignore scouts for a second.. How the hell does Newsom think school is going to work?  He planning to double the staff in schools by having 2 adults in every classroom?

Reading the actual language of the bill is better than the news article. Once again, the reporters screwed up the nuance

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB506

"Youth service organizations" need only develop policies for two adults "to the greatest extent possible"

Quote

A youth service organization shall develop and implement child abuse prevention policies and procedures, including, but not limited to...Policies requiring, to the greatest extent possible, the presence of at least two mandated reporters whenever administrators, employees, or volunteers are in contact with, or supervising, children.

That is a loophole you can drive a bus through.

No one turned off Zoom. Judge still heard talking.

One attorney said the judge "Neutered the Coalition right at the end there" with the fees issue.

Coalition fees will be decided SEPARATELY by motion. It will NOT be part of the Plan.

The judge said: if the Coalition fees are a "condition precedent", people better waive it.

So the Coalition now has to agree to pull their fees out of the Plan or the Plan won't go out the door.

They can file a motion for fees later.

Coalition lawyer - Issue of moving to separate class: will the $3500 electors be separated out? There's an attack being made to pull them out

Judge - You can have all the concerns you want, but people who are advising their clients should do so on the facts as of this date. It is not unusual to have a range and not know your specific recoveries. If parties start putting information out there, it will snowball, and people will vote on misinformation. I cannot control that. If people want an opt-in, then that would be the plan. We don't want to be at confirmation and want certain information and we don't have it, because then the plan may not be confirmed. So, I am not revisiting this issue. If the parties want to add an opt-out, and everyone seems to want it, then do it.

We are going back to the $3500 ballot election issue. Again.

I guess the concern is this:

If a victim opts for the $3500 NOW, and down the road the settlement trust gets $15 BILLION, are they now "locked in" to that $3500 or can then opt BACK into the settlement trust?

Stang's been clear: this $3500 election is NOT forever. It is not locking someone in.

The Coalition: "victims will not take the $3500" and the victims fear if they do, their votes won't be counted.

Judge: I don't know where people get the idea that $3500 voters will NOT be counted. "That is a misimpression. If people want to sell it that way, that's on them." But I also think given the relief asked by the debtors, that it is important to know in connection at least with channeling injunction and releases how many want this.

3 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Guess this should be here.  Have reached out to Council as to how we do this?  I should be covered anyway as a retired educator; but not sure how that gets linked.  May be an opportunity for the Fingerprinting merit badge?

According to the law https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB506

Quote

An administrator, employee, or regular volunteer of a youth service organization shall undergo a background check pursuant to Section 11105.3 of the Penal Code to identify and exclude any persons with a history of child abuse.

Section 11105.3 of the Penal Code reads as follows https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=11105.3

So, I would expect that there will be implementing regulations issued by the CA Department of Justice. For example, if the person was "cleared" under 11105.3 how long is that valid for? A year? A month?

What if a teacher (just giving an example here) clears the background check in 2019. Is that sufficient for registering as a Cubmaster in 2022?

Judge wants note right on the front on ballot: "This ballot being used for multiple things" and then listing those  things (she thinks 3 things).

1. Yes/No on plan
2. Electing for $3500
3. Approving releases

31 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

For the sake of discussion, if 50% of the claimants took the $3500 and out, could the remaining claimants potentially receive greater compensation because so many settled out for that minimal amount or via future insurance settlements?  Given the Grey 3 in the State of my abuse, it becomes a borderline call even considering the tier assigned to my abuse.  

Keep in mind what that chart shows. It shows an OPINION that makes several major assumptions

• Perhaps your case had aggravating factors. If so, your claim may be HIGHER than the number posted.
• Perhaps your case had mitigating factors. If so, your claim may be LOWER than the number posted.
• Perhaps your case had a mix of both. If so, who knows where your claim could land as part of the settlement trustee process.

In short, these are "illustrative" examples. You won't know what you are getting until you go through the process.

Trying to schedule yet another hearing.

2 minutes ago, skeptic said:

at least in my view, the impossibility to arrive at consistent and non subjective responses

Your opinion is incorrect. It isn't impossible. Courts have been doing it for 7 centuries.

Just now, Eagle1970 said:

So the vast majority is likely in 1-2.  Thanks for this.  I am working from memory.

We don't know because we don't have the state data. A Tier 1 claim in a Closed state? $3500 makes sense. In an Open state? No.

9 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Based on this chart, it would appear that one could quantify the number of claims that would/should take the $3500. 

Claims below $3500 BY TIER

• Tier 6 claims in all states (Closed, Gray 3, Gray 2, Gray 1, Open)
• Tier 5 claims in Closed, Gray 3 and Gray 2 states.
• Tier 4 claims in Closed and Gray 3 states.
• Tier 3 claims in Closed states.
• Tier 2 claims in Closed states.
• Tier 1 claims in Closed States.

Claims below $3500 BY STATE

• Victims in all closed states
• Victims in Gray 3 states with Tier 4, 5, or 6 claims
• Victims in Gray 2 states with Tier 5 or 6 claims
• Victims in Gray 1 states with Tier 6 claims
• Victims in Open states with Tier 6 claims

2 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

If someone has access to claims by Tier, it would be interesting to know that number. 

We have it by tier. We do NOT have it by tier AND state, so we can't tell.

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

BSA & LDS are not aligned .... it seems like BSA believes this is scouting only.  LDS seems to think every person cannot sue for non scouting if they took the scouting claim.  This is BIG.  LDS seems to think otherwise.... uh oh.

1. My ward leader abused me
2. My ward leader WHO WAS MY SCOUTMASTER abused me OUTSIDE of a scouting event.
3. My ward leader WHO WAS MY SCOUTMASTER abused me DURING a scouting event.

What gets covered here?

1 minute ago, skeptic said:

This just showed up in a FB page:  https://legalnewsline.com/stories/608422718-judge-orders-deeper-probe-into-where-thousands-of-boy-scouts-sex-abuse-claims-came-from?fbclid=IwAR0IGy-lFMOEhEhEOOE0bFHLnKPZA9hrvRfj_f3SeCrgR1vwpV4d4VYH54A

Since I do not follow these threads constantly, I may just have missed comment on it.  But, on the other hand, I am intrigued by the note of skepticism indicated.

The judge is allowing discovery on HOW the claims were processed. That does NOT mean all claims where invalid. I know I've posted all the subpoenas so far on this.

7 minutes ago, swilliams said:

Question about how the lawsuits are listed.  If a council shows "John Does 1-10", does that mean there are ten lawsuits filed under that claim number?  If a second listing shows "Corp. 1-100"?

No, 1 lawsuit, multiple plaintiffs, multiple defendants. Let me explain.

I know Scoutmaster Smith abused me, BUT I think or have reason to believe adults in my scout unit also helped cover it up. I don't know their names yet. So I am putting in a placeholder here ("John Doe DEFENDANT 1-100") so I can later amend the lawsuit to add a specific name.

John Doe 1-10 PLAINTIFFS is 10 different people ALL alleging the same person(s) abused them. I guess they can be separated out (Settle with John Doe 4, but not John Doe 7) but for now they are suing TOGETHER.

11 minutes ago, skeptic said:

it seems an impossible task to actually put value on pain, either physcial or emotional, or psychological (though that would be emotional really). 

And as I've pointed out to you at least once if not twice: courts in the Anglo-American court systems have been doing this for 700+ years.

And let me put this to bed once and for all: some of the acts of sexual abuse being discussed here have absolutely NO physical harm to the victim. If you were to take the victim and conduct a full physical assessment of him after the abuse took place, there would be no PHYSICAL sign of ANY harm. And yet by any definition they have been sexually abused. I'm not going into details here, but if you want to get specific, I am referring to Tier 2-6 type sexual abuse here.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/8ad0771c-f79e-40c9-ae6c-4e145ccac9f9_6418.pdf

Under your theory, these boys (now men) were not "harmed" and their pain cannot be "valued" because why? Because there was no physical harm?

Again, this boys (now men) were harmed. Courts have for 700 years allowed for an valued such claims.

Drop it, please.