CynicalScouter

Judge will require paper to be mailed to everyone "Sounds horrible, but $3 million in this case isn't that much"

Yep. What a mess. That means that the California victim's vote is $1, the Alabama victim's worth 10 cents Another mess: 75% of votes approved the plan BUT during confirmation the values are adjusted down, so that less than 66% approve.

Right, why should a hypothetical California claimant (no statute of limitations) get outvoted by everyone else about his claim against Golden Empire Council? I guess I can see maybe about BSA, but not the LCs.

I said it before, I'll say it again: BSA could have been out of bankruptcy 3-6 months ago but for the desire to get the LCs and COs onboard.

It is one of these zoom registrations, I forget which The court prohibits providing direct Zoom links https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/62fd773a-1c0b-4533-ad29-f20527b5baac_6321.pdf https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/8295d93f-c841-4c5d-beb8-7edd6cad2b2c_6331.pdf

Judge reminded lawyers about ethics and attorney disciplinary rules. There's a really concern here the Coalition is going to vote against client directions and/or pressure clients unethically. Another question: will those who are taking the $3500 option sway the vote? She is anticipating challenges to the vote results already.

Here's an issue. What happens if the lawyers holding the physical ballots is officially in favor of the plan and their client says "no"? The lawyer is now conflicted. One of the attorneys noted that is what happened to her with PG&E. What happens if the client wants to officially object to the plan but the attorney supports it? Now the attorney is conflicted. No, survivors have to not only vote no, they have to hire ANOTHER lawyer.

Yes. It is using yesterday's Zoom info. Currently they are trying to figure out what sub-sub-section they are discussing because some lawyers use different systems. I. A. 1. vs. I. A. a. The bigger issues is how they votes are getting voted. There's a real problem with the "hub" system. In short, the "hub" system is 1) Ballots get mailed to lawyers (hundreds/thousands). 2) The lawyer will then be "instructed" by victims on how to vote. 3) How much communication must there be? Can the lawyer vote the ballot if the client directs the lawyer to do

Release to the public, or other mediation parties? The reason I ask is because Stang seemed to indicate he'd share them with Zalkin and others NOW (or last evening).

So let's game this out and I am going to use Greater Alabama Council as an example. 445 claims, 13 not time barred. Keep in mind: I am NOT going to detail the abuse types, this will be referred to as "Tier 1" "Tier 2" etc. We also do NOT know how many of the below are "unique and timely" or not, so bear with me. # of claims Base Matrix Valye Maximum Matrix Value Base * # Claims Maximum * # Claims Tier 1

https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/boy-scouts-plaintiffs-lawyers-call-breakdown-local-council-abuse-claims-2021-09-21/ "The Boy Scouts have disclosed how much each local council has agreed to pay, but Zalkin said his clients want to know the value of the claims local councils are facing that they would be releasing by voting in favor of the plan. The Boy Scouts say the disclosures about the local councils are sufficient and that valuations of claims against each local council would not produce “reliable” estimates. The dispute was put on the back burner after a lawyer f

I think that was Stang's point that he wandered in and out of at a few points: 1) BSA and the LCs (and for that matter LDS and the other COs) will never, ever be able to produce $100+ billion BY THEMSELVES (insurance is another issue) 2) So under bankruptcy rules they have to demonstrate a "substantial contribution" (that is I believe a term of law/term of art). That could be interpreted in one of two ways (bear in mind I am NOT familiar with bankruptcy, but state civil) FIRST that the entity accounted for a LARGE percentage of the final payouts. For example, BSA claims total cl

What does that look like in your eyes?

Thank you she mentioned this or alluded to it I had no idea it was that bad. wow

I also believe I heard something about a “hub system” which I guess means that claimants send their ballots to their lawyer who collects them and then sends to the court?

As she pointed out, some of this is "Facts" (and no "alternative facts") and some contested issues. For example I recall the issue of "occurrence". It may be a "fact" that Hartford in 1972 had a policy for BSA that had $500,000 cap per "occurrence" and no aggregate cap, but TCC and plaintiffs attorneys are going to say that each "occurrence" means each act of sexual abuse where Hartford is going to claim no, it means (in effect) per abuse victim. Not to mention the statute of limitations issues. So, there's "accurate" and then there is "contested". EDIT: It is "Accurate" t

And take years to sort through.

The judge is fighting, hard, and I mean HARD against having the disclosure statement include aggregate contributions / victim. So the math I and others have been doing (e.g. $250 million from LDS /2400 claims = average pf $104,000) the judge is saying has way too many assumptions regarding statute of limitations, types of abuse, etc. Therefore, she doesn't think that is helpful information since it has too many assumptions built in. This is the same argument that came up and was rejected (for now) with Hartford and LCs. So all the math I've been doing (contribution / claims = average

Schivoni has indicated he will be making a big issue about solicitation procedures about the fraudulent/aggregators. "We've made a robust record" which is telegraph for "We'll appeal". Kosnoff's Rule 2019 in particular is mentioned and how Kosoff indicated someone misused his name/signature. "There's no discussion or disclosure about these claims" He is pushing for lawyer depositions.

Plan for tomorrow: Go over the solicitation process and scheduling of the voting. Non-disclosure related items come first. There's a pro se party (this is I believe the Mones effort to withdraw as counsel?) BY FRIDAY: New/revised solicitation document. BSA claims it will only take 1-2 hours next week to go over the "minor" edits. Yeah. Minor. The CO issues are being delayed/tabled because there are ongoing discussions and, as someone noted, it makes no sense to argue now in public when they are working this out behind the scenes.

My experience has been decades in state civil (and a little) criminal courts. I've never, ever seen this much "kick the can down the road" but I'll take your word for "this is normal".

Yeah, I don't even want to think that far ahead, but this plan gets approved (vote approved, cram down, whatever), and is insta-appealed.

Just as a side note: I don't see how this finishes up in a week. There are so many sections of this disclosure statement that have to be re-written.

Zalkin indicated that in Catholic abuse cases, there was a chart listing insurance coverage, by year, by occurrence, aggregate caps, and number of claims. This at least gives victims a chance to figure out what they are or are not giving up. Yep. Again, as others have said, she's said it a few times, she isn't use to this. The bankruptcy system is NOT designed for this.

Not only the victims, the COs are utterly unaware of what they are or are not on the hook for after BSA leaves them in the dust.