CynicalScouter

Kurtz has said "melting ice cube" or some version 3 times now. I have to step away, PLEASE someone note the dates please. Thanks.

Kurtz for BSA immediately comes back to "BSA is running out of money" we need to move fast. This is going to focus on scheduling.

Stang also indicated he is preparing a TCC disclosure statement that apparently WILL detail the types of details people have been asking for (What would a victim of this type of sexual abuse expect to receive if they live in this type of state)? And the first numbers are Tier 1 Sexual abuse: $57,000 in an "open" state; $34,600 in the "next lowest tier state" which I assume refers to some version of Gray 1/2/3

Yep. And Stang noted he read from a script. So much for not prepared to talk.

Stang: Tier 1 sexual abuse (I won't say what he said the type of abuse) in a open state = $57,000. $34,600 in the next lowest state (Gray 3?). "This is a race to the bottom."

Stang being allowed to respond to the Rothweiler attack. Judge lets Stang know she is aware that he and the TCC will disagree with what was just said. Stang "I had to take a really deep breath." Stang: Rothweiler said he was "on the TCC". No, he wasn't. Kennedy and the other victims were.

This is just wow. The Coalition is outright attaching the TCC. Rothweiler of Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck, P.C. (the third lawfirm that made up AIS) is trashing the TCC. Paraphrase: The TCC needs to focus on helping survivors, not putting up roadblocks. This the first time I've seen claimants attorneys trashing the TCC or each other. Zalkin at least was respectful in disagreeing when he did with the TCC on some points. But Rothweiler just outright trashed Stang and the TCC.

The Coalition is claiming its "survivors committee" should be listened to. The presumption is not the TCC. Fighting over the Coalition fees.

Except that as was brought up in court this morning, the COs did not have "tangential contact or involvement". They signed EVERY adult application. Since at least 1920, the COs and the Institutional Heads of the COs signed documents (the annual charters) that indicated the COs were taking responsibility for the scouting leaders. It was the COs and their IHs that signed every single adult leader application (or its earlier iteration). So the abuse took place on the COs watch. ThAT they were asleep at the switch or allowed the abuse to happen in the first place (again, we are NOT talking about reporting the abuse after the fact) is neither here nor there. They signed the charters. They own the mess. The biggest joke of BSA for the last 100 years has been the polite fiction that the COs were actually engaged in any kind of real oversight. The BSA deluded itself into thinking that was what was happening, but the reality is most COs were simply signing whatever paper was put in front of them. And now they are paying the price for their negligence. I've got no sympathy for organizations that simply signed off on people they barely even knew and then let those people loose on children.

There's been a lot of talk about "Master Mortgage" standards. That refers to a case about third-party releases. Note that second prong "In Master Mortgage, the court outlined the following five factors that bankruptcy courts should consider when evaluating the release of claims against a nondebtor third party without the consent or agreement of the party deemed to be bound by such release: (1) An identity of interest between the debtor and the third party, such that a suit against the nondebtor is, in essence, a suit against the debtor or will deplete assets of the estate; (2) Substantial contribution by the nondebtor of assets to the reorganization; (3) The essential nature of the injunction to the reorganization to the extent that, without the injunction, there is little likelihood of success; (4) An agreement by a substantial majority of creditors to support the injunction, specifically if the impacted class or classes “overwhelmingly” vote to accept the plan; and (5) Provision in the plan for payment of all or substantially all of the claims of the class or classes affected by the injunction." The BSA is a debtor, but if the LCs and COs want to be released, they will HAVE to show to the court that they made a "substantial contribution...of assets to the reorganization". How "substantial" is "substantial"? Well, that's why the TCC wants a) a true and accurate valuation of LC properties (which they think the LCs are low-balling) and b) aggregated claims values. If I had to guess, "substantial" could be valued one of two ways Total contribution to settlement. If the settlement trust is $100 million and a nondebtor third party chipped in $99.9 million, that's "substantial". But what about $25 million? $2.5 million? Total contribution to settlement as a percent of assets: And this is where I think the LDS and LCs are going to get plowed under. The LDS is settling for $250 million and there are reports they have $100 billion in assets. That 0.25% of assets. That's not "substantial", that's a rounding error. As for the LCs, the TCC has already staked its claim that $500 million is not "substantial" enough and they can afford to go to at least $1.5 billion

This was the motion Stang/TCC to hire a claims valuation expert. https://www.scouter.com/topic/32791-chapter-11-announced-part-6-plan-50tcc-plan-tbd/?do=findComment&comment=532650 https://www.scouter.com/topic/32791-chapter-11-announced-part-6-plan-50tcc-plan-tbd/?do=findComment&comment=532653 As noted: BSA is insisting, and continues to insist, that as a result of statutes of limitations and other factors the TOTAL claims values AGGREGATED are in the $2-7 billion range. The TCC is clearly going to want a much bigger number.

Stang: "We do think you are going to have to value the claims." The TCC wants to employ a valuation expert. The judge WILL be asked to value the claims by the TCC.

Quinn: There is nothing that makes the trustee's decisions binding. The insurance companies are free to go to a coverage court/state court and object to the trustee's determinations.

Stang now has his hands up.

One more note: Rosenthal (I think) wants the entire Trust Adjudication Process eliminated, but failing that, he wants a very clear statement from the judge that whatever number the settlement trustee comes up with is NOT a court judgement, is NOT binding (outside of BSA and the LC contributions), and has NO impact on the rights of insurance companies to defend themselves.

I know that the focus is on victims, and rightly so, but I think the judge is having a hard time with being fair to the insurance companies here as well. Why and how is it that the settlement trustee gets to, in effect, set aside statutes of limitations and create claims values that claimants can then take to state court OR direct to the insurers and demand payment. Several times lawyers pointed out that not only do bankruptcy courts not have that power as a statutory matter, but as a CONSTITUTIONAL matter as well. And why does BSA get to take its policies and shift to a settlement trustee without the permission of the insurance companies? Where is due process for the insurers? I know, I know, insurers are EVIL but they have a point. Be curious to see how the BSA/Coalition respond.

I need to step out, but judge is directing the FCR/Coalition/BSA to specifically address how any of this is fair, in particular the part where the plaintiffs lawyers get to pick the trustee and that the beneficiaries get to decide who and how they benefit ESPECIALLY when it comes to potential or possible third-party liability.

Plevin: the insurance policies require payment ONLY if a) a trial takes place that results in a judgment or b) a settlement agreed to by the insured AND the claimant AND the insurance company. This "trust adjudication procedures" don't cover either. This entire process denies insurance companies their rights under these policies and just turns them into "Check writing machines".

Tanc: Having Coalition fees set IN THE PLAN will taint the entire process. Pull it out of the plan and let the Coalition come back to the court after plan vote (or plan confirmation) to make their case.

Notable: Stang never raised is hand and is staying out of this. I don't think he is abdicating his responsibility, I think he's recognizing that this is the insurers show and the best thing to do is step back and let this play out.

Tanc: it is impossible to settle the case when the Coalition thinks it can set the settlement amounts and pick its own trustee. IF the judge rules this unfair process out or at least allows the strike claims (I presume the statute of limitations ones) then negotiations can happen.

She even predicated that it wasn't a fair question so she knew what she was asking wasn't going to get a yes/no, but I think her point was made: we all know that whatever happens, the insurance companies are going to appeal.

Tanc: The insurance policies were NOT written to allow the policy holder to just make settlements willy nilly or enter into agreements that shift policy holder rights WITHOUT THE INSURANCE COMPANY AGREEING. And the Trustee a) has too much power (he can set aside the statute of limitations) and b) Eric Green in particular simply a puppet for the Coalition who will give them whatever valuations they ask for.

Another point: the court ruled the insurance companies cannot do a GLOBAL or OMNIBUS objection to ALL claims or a group of claims. Tanc: Great. Then let the insurance companies conduct investigations of the individual claims and claimants so we can object individually. BSA/FCR/Coalition: No. Let them all vote, THEN you can investigate the claims.

Tanc: the proofs of claim in most of these simply declare the abuse happened. There is no way for the insurance companies to even TRY and get more information to see if they really did. That's not fair; the insurers have a right to depositions and other evidence gathering. "The proofs of claim are completely untested." THANKS! That makes it clearer. I did not know where Keen came from.