CynicalScouter

By the way: you know who did NOT file any objections to the BSA plan for soliciting and notifying victims? AIS. If Kosnoff, AVA, or anyone else had a problem they could have filed objections. The insurers did. The TCC did. AIS never did.

PS: if the notification and solicitation that BSA came up with was part of a conspiracy with Stang, why then did the TCC file objections to the BSA plan? https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/818172_601.pdf The TCC for one. OBJECTION OF THE TORT CLAIMANTS’ COMMITTEE TO (A) DEBTORS’ MOTION, PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 502(B)(9), BANKRUPTCY RULES 2002 AND 3003(C)(3), AND LOCAL RULES 2002-1(E), 3001-1, AND 3003-1, FOR AUTHORITY TO (I) ESTABLISH DEADLINES FOR FILING PROOFS OF CLAIM, (II) ESTABLISH THE FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE THEREOF, (III) APPROVE PROCEDURES FOR

You say she wasn’t adequately advised I’m sure she’d say that she was. There were no fewer than four different hearings regarding the solicitation document and process. The idea that the solicitation and notification process was simply a stipulated motion that the TCC and BSA entered into with no hearings no briefing and no objections isn’t true.

And as someone who has worked for law firms and worked as a court employee and sat as a civil case manger for tens of thousands of state court cases I assure you: that is standard practice in every state court in the US and happens in “Real courts” every day. if the parties agree to something as a stipulated order the judge will determine whether or not the order is consistent with rules and statutes in question. Only in the rarest circumstances will a judge not agree to a stipulated order that all parties have agreed to.

Let me clarify something: litigation whether it is civil or probate or bankruptcy is 90-95% outside of a courtroom. A judge does not get involved in the day by day elements of the litigation. For example if two parties in civil litigation are in talks to settle and exchanging letters and offers back and forth only the lawyers would know; the judge does not get cc’ed. In New York State courts for example it is standard practice NOT to even assign a judge to a civil case UNTIL the parities reach an impasse or need a judge’s order for something at which point one side files what is called a

@Muttsyposted this but I really think it needs to be reiterated here: BSA top officials KNEW they had a child sex abuse problem and hid it from even their own folks. Patrick Boyle's 1992 book Scouts Honor is essential reading to understand how it all came to this. It was the institutional instinct to conceal, minimize and deny. "By dealing with these cases as a series of unrelated events rather than as a pattern, the Boy Scouts of America was behaving just like Carl: minimizing, rationalizing, assuring itself it had no problem. "The Scouts believed their own image

I believe the overall point and certainly the points in the lawsuits filed are twofold and I’ll offer a third: 1) BSA National knew from very early on it had a child sexual abuse problem, thus the creation of what became the IV files as early as 1920 was an acknowledgement of the problem. 2) That when confronted with the sheer volume of instances of child sexual abuse, BSA opted to hide it, underplay it, and failed to take steps needed to weed it out. We can see for example in BSAs own internal reviews where even their own “safety” expert was not allowed access, leading him to say us

I officially have a fan as do others including @ThenNow

When the TCC hired him as their expert they asked the court’s permission and listed Pasich’s qualifications (his law firm is “The Firm” described below) “The Firm’s attorneys have handled numerous matters concerning insurance coverage for underlying lawsuits and claims alleging sexual abuse and misconduct. For instance, the Firm’s attorneys previously represented the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, helping the Archdiocese recover more than $500 million from insurers to fund settlements of clergy abuse claims. The Firm’s attorneys also represented or represent several other reli

I want to be clear: 1) I am utterly sorry that you and those like you suffered. I truly am. 2) As for myself, if I come off/came off as dispassionate I apologize. Part of the reason why bankruptcy is such a horrible place to deal with these issues is that bankruptcy, and has been said so many ways and even by Stang/the TCC attorneys, is that bankruptcy only cares about two things: How much and when. Pain. Suffering. Emotional distress. None of that really factors into bankruptcy proceedings. This entire process has been 99% focused on the law and legal squabbling. I would said 100% b

It isn't. I know, for a fact, that several Councils have said their contributions to the settlement trust are contingent on reaching an agreement with COs. A fact alluded to in a brief filed by the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils (emphasis added) https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/327b25bb-1d4e-4db6-a901-0b542f32f572_5756.pdf These Local Council contingency provisions were mentioned in a prior hearing (I think RSA) AND several of the letters issued by councils have said any contributions they make the settlement are contingent on a deal being reached

Except that this has nothing to do withe Local Councils. The decision is BSA National's. The negotiations was between the COs and BSA National's leadership and lawyers. Moreover, for all you know the Local Council(s) are on the side of the COs vs. BSA National.

They will be forced into their own bankruptcies. That is next

I also think there's an argument to be made that the FCR/TCC/Coalition has made a big stink about getting discovery from Chubb/Century starting in May but the Century/Hartford discovery motions have been pending since at least February. If she's going to hear the discovery demands of one side, its own fair to hear the discovery demands from the other.

It would be an amazingly hard sell to tell LCs that a) they have to pay $X in order to get coverage/clearance for THEIR liability in this and then, separately and after the fact b) come BACK to the LCs and say "Now, pay more for the COs". Moreover, I think the amounts that COs are going to have to put in is going to be really interesting. Let me come back to this chart a second. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/213bd53f-b44f-45c9-97fc-246bcb7ca06b_4108.pdf Unique and Timely Abuse Claim Count* by Top-20 Most Common Chartered Organizations

Maybe. It depends how truncated. For example Century and Hartford wanted 1,400 document requests/interrogatories and 100 depositions. If she gives them anything less than everything, they'll appeal. But if is severely truncated (140 and 10), then I can see the survivors' reps saying "sure, let's get this over with."

That's the toggle plan in a nutshell: BSA only.

Yet another reason to this Monday is going to be a knock down/drag out fight over discovery and the claims. Chubb Group Holdings Inc. (mislabeled on the Omni Docket as Chugg, but whatever) who was hit with one of the TCC/FCR/Coalition subpoenas (not just document request, and outright subpoena) has now filed its formal appearance in the case. This marks the FIRST time Chubb is officially participating (vs. Century). https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/62cdcec4-d7f4-435f-b4ba-cc6857864489_6125.pdf In addition, Chubb is seeking pro hac vice admission of two a

That's where the train is heading and the RSA and Plan 4.0 both contemplate a scenario where the COs are having to pay in. Plan 4.0 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7082572a-2eeb-4a35-bc9b-e515925846fd_5486.pdf talks about "Contributing Chartered Organizations" and "Contributing Chartered Organization Settlement Contribution". BSA is NOT and does NOT have the money to cover the tens of millions that the COs are on the hook for. All those years of COs not paying any attention to their units and CORs just signing the annual charter and paying no attention

For purposes of computing as part of Plan 2.0 it was place of occurrence of the abuse. My point wasn't "this is the right thing" only that "this is how BSA computed 58,000 time barred claims" and that number has been used/cited by other attorneys and parties including TCC/FCR/Coalition as part of the "Grey" plan.

I see, so your theory is that the 50,000+ claimants who are time barred are all going to go into state courts and argue 50,000+ versions of "fraudulent concealment" or "repressed memories" and that as a result of being flooded the insurance companies are going to pay them all out at 100% of abuse claim value?

No, I'm not. I believe what you are suggesting is that somehow either a) the judge can magically make the SoLs disappear or b) the judge will simply let BSA run out of money and die. Neither appear reasonable. So again, I ask: what is your end goal here in the bankruptcy? 100% of 82,500 victims get 100% of abuse claim values? BSA's demise? The BSA fails to reach any kind of Chapter 7 plan and exits bankruptcy with no plan at all? Some combo? I'm honestly asking because it isn't clear what your desired endstate is

Where the abuse occurred. Yes, I am aware that the attorneys for a few victims have argued that because BSA was headquartered in NY and NJ and charted in DC that their various lookback windows reopens ALL cases. However, even the legal press in NJ indicated when that lawsuit was filed it was "novel". That's sorta where the Grey plan winds up in terms of compensation. But in order to weigh votes, you'd have to parse out 82,500 votes. Right now they are all valued equally ($1). Trying to implement a weighing system would require giving votes in say Virginia 25 cents whereas Californ

Given the situation BSA is in and the possibility this will go on well in 2022, I would hazard a guess that even if claimants rejected a BSA/LC plan, or rather fail to get to 67%, that yes she'll order a cramdown for BSA only ("toggle plan") and let the chips fall where they may for the LCs and CO. Yes, I know that would be unprecedented, but so would having BSA simply run out of cash/money which if this goes on too long will be what happens. As I noted and their own internal projections showed: they are out of cash and having to resort to raiding Order of the Arrow and their endowment. P

Yep. And in the vast majority of these those cases (58,000) the statutes ran out long time ago. So you theory is what here? That the judge simply rejects any bankruptcy plan for BSA at all? And that all 58,000 will go running into state courts and sue BSA into the ground?