CynicalScouter

No clue what is going on and the judge mentioned that maybe the BSA needs to footnote what "barred" and "unique" mean, etc.

No kidding, I mean 80% of the things coming up in this hearing are things we've already hashed out here in these forums. I'm not saying we've gotten ANSWERS, but we've already talked about almost all of this.

Stang is really, really hammering the LCs about how much the LCs are giving in terms of a) how much per victim and b) how much the LCs contributions are as compared to LC assets. The judge wants "illustrative examples" included. $2.4-$7 billion is what BSA wants to have printed/produced. That's it.

Stang has major objections to the LC contributions (or lack thereof). The problem with the LC disclosure is that survivor with a claim against say the Greater NY Council cannot figure out how much the LC has and how much they are giving without going through 3 tables. (This by the way is what I tried to do with my computations.) There is also the complaint of book value vs. fair market value. What is restricted or unrestricted? The TCC has provided each council what that TCC thinks each LC needs and the numbers are much different. "This [the BSA disclosure] doesn't cut it".

It's the Master Ballot system. There are three related questions: 1) Are there agreements by claimants and attorneys that the attorneys have been hired to represent their interests? 2) Are there agreements by claimants to allow attorneys to vote on their behalf? 3) Are these documents one in the same? Courts have said they want very, very specific language that the attorney is authorized to vote. The rule is Rule 3018(c) “[w]here the voting process is managed almost entirely by proxy, it is reasonable to require a valid power of attorney for each ballot to ensure claimants are properly informed about the plan and that their votes are valid.” -Combustion Engineering, 391 F.3d at 245 n.66. Century Insurance will likely throw an objection to the Master Ballot system. They have in the past in Catholic sexual abuse cases https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1194&context=bankruptcy

If the claimant gives permission in writing that they allow their attorney to vote on their behalf.

Judge: Two hours into this hearing. We need to start working on disclosure statement issues. Sensitive to timing of the filing of the documents and the time frame attorneys have had to review the documents. But, we need to start on the many objections already filed to find out what is remaining to 4th plan and then work on the objections to 5th plan. People have clearly read the documents. More information is not always best, we need salient information. I don't think adding more information is going to be the end of the information gathering. So we need to get to discovery. Motion to delay 2 weeks denied.

Stang: February 1, 2021 vs. June 1, 2021: $80 million increase in Local Council assets thanks to stock market.

Stang: the only reason TCC agreed to RSA was RSA would have under its terms veto-right over any settlements. The moment that ended, settlements (Hartford 2.0, LDS) happened. So yes, TCC agreed to RSA, but that veto-right was the key reason.

Stang: The BSA ice cube may be melting, but the Local Councils are GROWING. This is a reference to the fact that many councils have MORE money than they did thanks to endowments growing due to the stock market.

Stang: "The debtor doesn't deserve anything. The victims deserve adequate information." This in response to Lauria saying BSA "deserves" to have the disclosure heard.

Lawyer for Methodist/Catholics: There is no resolution and my clients do NOT support. It was never an agreement that was reached with COs (other than LDS). We need more time.

Bob Brady for FCR keeps saying the plan has "significant survivor support". No, there is significant LAWYER support. That does not automatically = survivor support.

Attorney for Ad Hoc Committee of LCs: cash flow issues starting "next year". Remember: BSA has been claiming cash flow issues will happen last summer, July, August, etc. It is all "we are about to run out of cash, we got to get this done."

The last time Finn didn't sign a mediator's report, there was a note as to why "Due to a previously scheduled conflict, Mr. Paul A. Finn was unable to attend today’s mediation sessions." https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/5f6aab30-8bb9-4ec6-870b-f4acfbf4e412_5284.pdf The fact that Finn did NOT have that footnote put in speaks volumes.

Lauria is being very aggressive here and as she is talking, at least 4 more lawyers put their Zoom hands up, including the attorney for the Methodists/Catholics. EDIT: Now 5, Stang wants to be heard again as well. 6: US Trustee. She just lit up all these people and basically called them all liars. They are going to come in after Lauria and be furious. 1 will support (attorney for Ad Hoc Committee of LCs) Lauria's argument is basically the objectors (TCC, etc.) will never be satisfied, so let's get on with it.

Zalkin brings up a great point: For LDS settlement, does that $250 million go to ALL claimants, or only claimants with claims against LDS? The plan and disclosure does not say either way. LDS had 2500 claims, that means will get either $100,000 per (on average 250,000,000/2500) or $3,000 if divided out over 82,500.

Stang points out something I missed: only 2 out of 3 mediators signed the latest report. Finn did not. Why?

Stang on Hartford deal: 24,000 claims means about $33,000 per victim. Stang on Coalition: Don't think there are 81.3% of victims approving this. There are lawyers representing 81.3% of people, but that's not the same. Stang on LDS: We have no idea what the disclosure is for them.

Lauria says that attorneys representing 81.3% of abuse claimants now approve the new Hartford plan. That does NOT mean 81.3% of abuse claimants approve it of course.

I will say this, Plan 5.0 keeps the RSA/Plan 4.0 element of having outside entity come in and come up with actual ideas. Page 87-89 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/010161cd-594e-4b9e-8c88-a7402b49cf4d_6212.pdf 1. The Debtors shall form a committee (the “Child Protection Committee”) of members from the BSA, Local Councils, the Tort Claimants’ Committee, and the Coalition (including survivors). The functions of the Child Protection Committee include the following: a. No later than six months after the Effective Date, the BSA will present to the Committee on the BSA’s current Youth Protection Program (the “Youth Protection Program”). The BSA will report to the Child Protection Committee regarding the Youth Protection Program and any changes thereto on an annual basis for a period of three years following the Effective Date. b. Following that presentation, the BSA and Child Protection Committee will work with an entity engaged by the BSA that is selected with the consultation of the Child Protection Committee that is not currently affiliated with the BSA to evaluate the Youth Protection Program (the “Evaluating Entity”). The Evaluating Entity will have expertise in the prevention of youth sexual abuse. (i) Any evaluation will be comprehensive in nature and include input from current BSA volunteers and professionals, survivors of sexual abuse while involved with Scouting, the members of the Child Protection Committee, and the Evaluating Entity. (ii) The Evaluating Entity will report to the Child Protection Committee assessing the current Youth Protection Program and make specific recommendations for reasonable improvements to the Youth Protection Program that may include mechanisms for the elimination of abuse and accurate and annual reporting regarding the results of the Youth Protection Program, including confirmed instances of sexual abuse that is made available to the public (the “Prospective Reporting”). (iii) The BSA will engage with the Evaluating Entity, and the Child Protection Committee, and will take appropriate steps as necessary to improve the Program. Changes to the Youth Protection Program will be reported on the BSA’s Youth Protection Program website and training will be reasonably adjusted to reflect changes.

My job is going to keep me unable to live review the proceedings but I'm listening in.

That was a separate filing is laid out here. Looks like October 4 - November 16 with the tally reported November 30 at the latest. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ce88d5fe-54e9-4b60-a100-584d8909acec_6215.pdf

BSA now filed its plan timeline for confirmation (assuming judge approves solicitation and voting procedures, etc.) https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/5d94547b-50b8-48c3-a633-0e84714985a6_6320.pdf Confirmation hearing December 9 Event Date Deadline to Serve Written Discovery September 27, 2021 Deadline to Serve Responses & Objections to Written Discovery October 1, 2021 Document Production Substantially Complete October 20, 2021 Deadline to Complete Fact Depositions November 4, 2021 Expert Reports Due November 8, 2021 Rebuttal Expert Reports Due November 17, 2021 Deadline to Complete Expert Depositions November 24, 2021 Deadline to Exchange Deposition Designations and File Motions in Limine December 1, 2021 Deadline to Exchange Deposition Counter-Designations December 3, 2021 Deadline to Submit Pretrial Order, Witness and Exhibit Lists, Oppositions to Motions in Limine, and for Objections to Deposition Counter-Designations December 6, 2021 Final Pretrial Conference [December 7], 20213 Confirmation Hearing December 9, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (Eastern Time)4

Just a heads up, and I don't want to get into the 437th debate about whether this was a good/bad decision on the part of BSA, but BSA banned dodgeball a few years ago. BSA now claims that they ALWAYS banned dodgeball, and yet there is a ton of evidence to the contrary from BSA's own documents and a subject debated in this forum since 2003. https://www.scouter.com/search/?q=dodgeball&updated_after=any&sortby=newest