CynicalScouter

Half-right. She approved the deposition of the claim aggregators ONLY at this point.

Judge entered an order August 18 regarding BSA's exclusivity time. In short, by statute, BSA can have up to 18 months from filing of the bankruptcy to be the exclusive entity that can propose a reorganization plan. Technically, the last extension expired in May, but there a "Delaware bridge" which gives an automatic extension when requested. The judge's order confirmed that the BSA's time runs out August 18 and that their time to exclusively solicit votes for a plan ends October 18. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/474026c0-2a8b-4a8d-b7bb-db3e57711f8d_6076.pdf What this means is that starting tomorrow, TCC/FCR/Coalition or any party can file their own reorganization plan for BSA and starting October 19, with the court's permission, send it out for a vote. HOWEVER and this is the HOWEVER under the RSA the TCC/FCR/Coalition have agreed NOT to do that for now. But that begs the question: is the RSA operative and binding or are the TCC/FCR/Coalition simply abiding by it as a courtesy while mediation/negotiation is ongoing.

So then what is your solution? To say “Adults may not have 1-on-1 contact with a scout EXCEPT” what? Or do you not want 18 year olds considered adults? Rather than throwing insults about National, what is your solution? If they are idiots and you are so smart, offer a solution. Not petty insults.

Paywalled WSJ News Exclusive | Boy Scouts Are Close to New Deal With Insurer Hartford on Sex-Abuse Claims

That’s why I later posted after I had time to think about it it might be BSA/Coalition/Hartford vs. TCC/FCR(?)

This voting element is critical. Oh, so critical. If it can be shown that he aggregators were inducing fraudulent claims (not just invalid) or misusing attorney signatures to mass-generate claims, the judge herself is saying that "could be relevant to voting." What does that mean? It means that any claims that came in via those aggregators (read: the Coalition) are going to potentially have to be examined before they cast a vote. That means this takes months upon months. Mid-2022.

Right, but she kept mentioning that she did NOT think you could do an Omnibus Objection to claims even like that. At least that is how I took it to mean. Your interpretation may be accurate as well.

FYI: If/when it turns out the aggregators were cranking out bad/false claims and misusing signatures (and the declaration from the call/claims center worker really makes it appear some of these claims centers were just making things up) the law firms are next. And the insurers have already listed what attorneys they plan to depose. Check out the list. Kosnoff's already tweet he is just WAITING for the insurers to send him a deposition request. Attorney Firm Adam W. Krause Krause & Kinsman David H. Stern Ask LLP Joshua B. Schwartz Abused in Scouting Stewart Eisenberg Abused in Scouting Sean T. Higgins Andrews & Thornton Deborah Levy Junell & Associates Timothy Kosnoff Abused in Scouting Steven Babin Jr. Babin Law, LLC Rochelle Guiton D. Miller & Associates Paul J. Napoli Napoli Law Joseph J. Cappelli Marc Bern & Partners James Harris Paglialunga & Harris, PS Michael S. Werner Slater, Slater & Schulman Andrea McGinnis Bailey Cowan Heckaman Jonathan Schulman Slater, Slater & Schulman

But as the judge noted: even the statistician said that here data could NOT be used to generalize whether any given claim was/was not valid. She was a good statistician: even if I prove 75% of all apples sampled from a bag are rotten, that does NOT mean or prove the NEXT apple you pull from the bag is 100% sure to be rotten. You have to pull it and find out.

That was the judge's point as well: even if it was discovered some arbitrary percent of claims was invalid or fraudulent, how can you have an OMNIBUS motion to reject all 82,500 claims? The way I'd phrase it was this: if of those 1400 claims you found 1% invalid or fraudulent, does that mean all 82,500 are suspect? What if of those 1400, 10% were? 20%? 100%? How does ANY of this impact whether ANY claim selected at random is/is not valid?

First, it will be 21 days under the proposed order. I suspect that this is just the start. The entire claims process and aggregators are going to be put under a microscope. I note that while she REJECTED deposing the law firms that were involved in this mess, she's clearing the aggregators now. If fraud gets found, the law firms (including the Coalition) are next under the microscope. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870566_1975.pdf "Good" news is that it may mean a host of outright fraudulent claims (and I mean fraudulent, not just invalid) will be tossed. Bad news is that it will a) besmirch the legit claims and b) take months. Here are the aggregators being deposed. Verus Claims Services LLC (“Verus”) Consumer Attorney Marketing Group (“CAMG”) Archer Systems (“Archer”) Stratos Legal (“Stratos”)

Let me try and parse this out. Hartford and Century wanted to seek discovery/documents form 1400 claimants and depose 100 of them. In order to select those 1400, they were going to select from 6 subgroups 200 claims randomly selected from those alleging abuse 1971-1975 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating No Scouting Affiliation 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating No Abuse Identification 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating No Physical Abuse Alleged 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating they Sought Counseling 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating No Impact Alleged A seventh group made up of all the above 6 subgroups Why those 6 subgroups were selected is COMPLETELY unclear. The statistician (Martin) simply said that those were the groups Hartford and Century wanted examined. The judge ruled that there was NO basis to think these 6 subpopulations are in any way helpful in evaluating anything or generalizing anything. If the insurers had tried to randomly sample 1,400 out of ALL 82,500 claims, then maybe. But cherry picking subpopulations? Nope. Motion denied.

Judge: I will ask parties to bring up any outstanding discovery to chambers AND how to promptly get to discovery regarding confirmation. It is not too early to give that thought. That's all I have. Anything else? One more matter: Mr. Beckty (sp?) There was a notice of withdrawl Docket 5891 as counsel for that claimant. Counsel does NOT get to withdraw without permission of this court. This needs to be addressed. It may relate to docket 5894 "Notice to the court of abandonment". I don't read that as consent by a client, I read it as claimant not happy with counsels responsiveness.

Judge Where we are on discovery and how plan related discovery is going to proceed and how. As for this discovery, I am not going to ask Century/Chubb to produce AT THIS TIME. It is unteethered to any dispute in front of me and it does seem to be motivated by just wanting to know what Century and Chubb have for mediation discussions. This brings me to old discovery issues. Hartford/Century: discovery regarding Rule 2004 motions back in February related to proofs of claim. I was waiting to see where we were going to end up and what was going to be relevant. I am still not necessarily positive I don't know what plan will be in front. 1) Rule 2004 request of discovery of indivdual claimants. Real relevant testimony/declaration of NERA Economic Consulting (Dr. Martin) to get sample sizes and how she selected the samples. She is a statician, NOT a sexual abuse subject matter expert and she made that clear. At that time, and now, I am denying it. It does NOT indicate it will indicate relevant data. I have no evidence on why certain subpopulations were selected and not others. I am skpetical you can file OMNIBUS objections to ALL claims based on a statistical sample of SOME claims. If it is about aggregate abuse claims and values of those claims, then maybe you could do that, maybe. Also McKnight declaration, formerly of NERA, and he suggested that (Docket 3859-1) such an estimation wasn't valid when BSA tried to doing for only .5%. Judge has NO basis to think these 6 subpopulations are in any way helpful in evaluating anything or generalizing anything. Motion denied. 2) Deposition of lawfirms and aggregators. Permitted. Aggregators will be deposed. There is evidence that raises concerns about how these claims were generated. And the recent declaration of Kosnoff adds to that concern. So, discovery and depositions of aggregators will move forward. I think that discovery COULD be relevant to voting and we need to get that underway regardless of the plan in front of me. Motion granted.

I know. But what I am saying is BSA leadership may NOT have been stupid. Hear me out. If the BSA cuts a deal with Hartford AND can get the Coalition on board, maybe they believe that the Coalition will deliver the votes for the plan.

Or we get into another fight. BSA got the Coalition to sign off but not the TCC. So BSA/Coalition/Hartford vs. TCC/FCR (?)

I cannot believe that BSA would cut a Hartford Deal 2.0 without having the TCC/Coalition/FCR sign off on it first. Then again, maybe I can believe they'd be that stupid. EDIT: Or we get into another fight. BSA/Coalition/Hartford vs. TCC/FCR (?)

Before I step away: the judge is I think going to rule that the claimants are going to have to vote on a plan NOT KNOWING what the potential insurance policies are or are not worth since Century/Chubb are not seeking releases they don't have to say how much they have to offer.

Century attorney Shamah: This is all insurance arguments, not bankruptcy. You are right on judge. This has NOTHING to do with what is before you. ALL of this is pure conjecture. No RSA is approved and ordered. All of this in the future. And Hartford plan that the BSA has repudiated. In terms of bankruptcy context, there are 3 bankruptcy related arugments. 1) Hartford settlement, which is in flux and about how much Hartford pays in a hypothetical. I don't see how Century on discovery applies. 2) Estimation motion, which was abandoned? 3) Main argument: plan confirmation. They can't put toothpaste in tube. They signed the RSA. They signed onto the Plan. They cannot now claim they need this in order to approve the plan or support the plan. They signed the RSA knowing DARN WELL there was questions about Century/INA deal in 1996/1997 transaction. They cannot say "we need this data now" after they already signed a deal WITHOUT THAT DATA. That plan has WARNINGS about insurance and claimant recovery. Claimants can vote with the warnings and take their risks/chances. This entire process is about getting mediation leverage, and that's all this is. It is NOT a permissible use of discovery to dig up dirt for mediation. Chubb counsel: 1996 transactions is my focus. Chubb is 5-steps-removed from Century. These discovery requests deal with insurance liability requests. NONE of that is a bankruptcy issue. NONE of that has anything to do with before the court right now. Nevertheless Chubb produced 8 boxes of documents about Chubb and Century about their financial statuses. Coverage obligations are disputed, we do NOT agree what Century is going to have to pay or if there are or are not per-person or per-occurance limits, etc. NONE of those issues will be adjudicated in this court. Even more remote is the question of whether there is a Chubb backstop. NONE of this are bankruptcy related, this is for another court to deal with insurance issues. We don't understand why this request is even happening. We gave tons of financial data. As for the restructuring in 1996, we categorically disagree that anything that happened in 1996 was fraudulent. This was all approved by 8 regulators. (I need to step away)

This is the fig leaf for TCC/Coalition/FCR to hide under: $650 million Hartford wasn't good enough, we got another $150 million, that's good enough to move ahead with the RSA/Plan 4.0

Judge: TCC has not provided a legal basis for claiming access to this data. NOTHING in the latest plan or the RSA gives a release to Century, or Chubb, etc. So, there is no need for this data NOW. TCC Attorney: the RSA is not going to be the operative document in its current state. For claimants to determine insurance libility, they need this data. Lucas for TCC: Can I add comments? Judge: NO. Only one attorney per party. (This was a massive screwup: it is clear the first TCC lawyer screwed this entire argument for them. Lucas tried to come in and clear up and the judge just scoffed). Goodman for Coalition: I not an insurance lawyer, I am a bankruptcy attorney. This is crtical for a bankrutpcy. This is a plan confirmation issue. The information we are seeking is relevant no matter how this all ends. BSA will almost certainly file another plan that is accepted by the claimants and their votes. We will see litigation over the releases. The question will be if the suriviors are if they are receiving a substaintal benefit. Are the Century policies worth billions, or nothing? The second path is that BSA will get its plan rejected, so go for toggle plan. The dissenting creditors will also need to know what. Either way, we NEED to value of the INA policies. Judge: The value of the policies, unless they are settled, how does it matter for the best interests of creditors test? Goodman: You need to know value of ALL BSA assets, including the INA policies and their values. Survivors may ONLY get 1-3% where other creditors were getting 75-90%. That will be a test of discrimination. We'll never know unless we get that INA data. We don't even know what BALLPARK Century and Chubb are in. Goodman: One last point: we did NOT have this issue with ANY other insurance company. Century has said it does NOT have the ability to pay (quoting Stang). So, Century has brought this issue front and center.

Attorney for TCC We are here for data on policies with NO aggregate limits, meaning they are uncapped. If we assume the values in the TDP are accurate, and IF we are assuming that AND assuming a very conservative estimate, and IF we treat this every benefit of every doubt to Century/INA, there' a liability policies may have to pay out 16,000 claims valued at $6B-22B with total liability and actual pay outs of $4.4B-$11B. Century's been pleading poverty so we asked: how much can Century pay? What is Century's reserve? What agreements are there between INA/Chubb/Century? We know that Chubb has been funding Century and we know that from Chubb's financials. We are simply asking: how much can you pay? Century's response is: we'll meet and confer. So we asked for docs. And Century just dropped off 6 boxes, most of which we knew. The rest was useless. We don't know what Century's reserves are. We don't know what is reserved for BSA. We don't know anything. So we want to know. Chubb or Century: show what you are capable of paying. We have NO idea what is available. So you cannot evaluate a plan that Century can pay AND what the Chubb backstop is. Century's claiming it cannot pay, but Chubb's had a banner year. Show us the documents of what it CAN pay. Not what it is PREPARED to pay. Judge: what theory is this request based on? What is the basis that you can ask? What rule does that come from? What theory? I understand why you WANT it, but what law or rule says you are entitled? Attorney: Estate evaluation. How much is the plan worth? There was a lawsuit between BSA and Century. We are trying to help figure out how much Century. You want us to believe you can't pay much, so prove it. We are looking at this from a practical and legal perspective. These policies are designed to protect claimants. In some states, some claimants can make DIRECT assertions/claims against Century. But if we don't get this information, we'll keep objecting to the plan. Judge: not true. under the RSA, the TCC already AGREED to this, even WITHOUT the Century data. So it is not true you will keep objection: TCC is on record that it will accept a plan WITHOUT this data from Century. Attorney: Maybe the RSA never takes effect. Maybe the plan never takes effect. But if the RSA does stand, you are right, Century goes off into the settlement trust. (NOTE: The judge just cruched the TCC. The TCC just agreed to an RSA that did NOT include Century and Chubb's data, and so they cannot now say we'll object to a plan without that data.) Judge: What is the LEGAL basis for this? Not practical, LEGAL basis for this? Attorney: We are simply asking for financials. Chubb made $3.5B in net profit. If Century is really poor, prove it so the TCC can not make unrealistic demands. We don't want to make a dand for $8B if they don't have it or access to it/Chubb backstop. NOT to gain mediation advantage. Judge: What is the legal consequence of that 1997 INA deal? That's what parties will have to risk or decide if there is a risk. That's a legal issue this court won't decide.

Debtor/BSA allowed to start even though the fight is technically TCC/Coalition vs. Century. Lauria addressing court: status update. Thank you for prompt ruling on RSA. We have not asked for order entering the RSA with the two rejections. Hartford is asserting that it has an administrative claim if the RSA is officially entered/put in effect. We are evaluating what to do next. We'll get back in next couple of days. We have NOT come back to court for an official order to enter the RSA. Had productive mediation. Cautiously optimistic. Now going to start the fights. Will discuss in next post.

The docket info can be found at https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/documents?clientid=CsgAAncz%2b6Yclmvv9%2fq5CGybTGevZSjdVimQq9zQutqmTPHesk4PZDyfOOLxIiIwZjXomPlMZCo%3d>).&tagid=1153

Offered with a grain of salt: Hartford is upping its offer to $800 million