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 PROVIDING NOTICE OF BAR DATE AND OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO ABUSE VICTIMS, AND (IV) APPROVE CONFIDENTIALITY PROCEDURES FOR ABUSE VICTIMS [DKT. NO. 18] AND (B) SUPPLEMENT TO BAR DATE MOTION [DKT. NO. 557] https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/818172_601.pdf

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 Request for Judicial Intervention. https://nycourts.gov/forms/rji/UCS-840-fillable.pdf So when she said that she only knew about 5% of what was going on in the case THAT is what she meant. She is not reading the hours and hours of mediation hearing transcripts or the back and forth of emails and discovery requests, etc.

@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. They believed their own publicity," says Mike Rothschild, a California attorney who represented an abused Scout.34 No one, therefore, reported the cases to the BSA's health and safety committee, which routinely got reports on injuries and deaths at Scout functions. When Scouts got hurt or killed while boating, the committee developed rules to make boating safer. During America's Bicentennial cel­ ebrations, the committee studied whether the gunpowder used by troops in some ceremonial muskets was dangerous. But Dr. Walter Menninger, a psychiatrist who headed the Menninger Foundation in Kansas and who chaired the committee, says he did not believe sex abuse was a problem in Scouting because no one had informed him of any cases. Thus uninformed, Menninger sat in a 1987 deposition for lawsuit filed by an abused Scout and declared, "There is a greater threat to Scouts of drowning and loss of life from accidents than there is from sexual abuse by a Scoutmaster." In fact, BSA reports show that sex abuse is more common in Scouting than deaths or serious injuries. From 1971 through 1990, an average of 13 Scouts died during Scout activities each year, and 30 suffered serious injuries, defined by the Scouts as life-threatening or requiring hospitalization of at least 24 hours." For each of those years, however, the BSA banned an average of 67 adults suspected of abusing Scouts." The number of their victims is higher although there is no exact figure. Even without knowing this, Menninger's committee tried to grapple with sex abuse. Committee members wanted to educate Scouts about abuse or teach leaders how to respond when a boy said he'd been abused. Here they ran into a roadblock: religion. Religion is a cornerstone of Scouting. Reverence to God is in the Scout Law, and about half of the sponsors of Scout units are religious organizations, mostly churches.. The BSA could ill afford to offend them. Menninger, noting the "exquisitely sensitive nature of the relationship" between the corporation and sponsors, explains the dilemma: "There are a number of sponsoring organizations, particularly the LDS Church, the Mormon Church, that have made it quite clear they want the Scouting, outing, advancement programs as part of their youth program, but they want issues of moral, sexual aspects to be strictly part of the church's teaching."Churches, Menninger says, "have a substantial percentage of registration [of Scouts1and become a much more potent factor." As a result, the BSA "focused away from some of these specific sexual areas."

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 user oath more scouts had downed than been sexually abused which top BSA officials knew was a lie. 3) BSA relied far too heavily for far too long on the fiction that COs were exercising any kind of oversight of those units. So, it wasn’t “BSA had no safety plans in place.” They did. They were just lousy and horrible.

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 religious and non-profit organizations, including the California Pacific Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, Muscoy United Methodist Church, Trinity United Methodist Church, and the USA Northeast Province of the Society of Jesus, in obtaining insurance coverage for historical sexual abuse and misconduct claims. The Firm’s attorneys also have extensive experience representing corporations and individuals in the pursuit of insurance coverage for assault, battery, invasion of privacy, false imprisonment, and a wide range of other claims alleging bodily injury and emotional distress.” https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/821821_729.pdf

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% but I do think the people like the TCC members and in particular Dr. Kennedy have tried to address the court to focus/refocus on the victims. And I know the judge has mentioned them before. I will offer this, something a judge said in a hearing years ago that stuck with me to a person who lost their loved one to violence. "I am sorry that you won't get catharsis here." What he meant was the courts are lousy places to find closure or emotional release or satisfaction or peace. Does it happen? Sure, I've seen it, but that's the exception. As a (different) judge told me: no one outside of adoption proceedings wants to be in a courtroom. The law's not intended to fix anything. It's meant to offer the next best thing that governmental authority has to offer: money on the civil side and incarceration on the criminal. It doesn't fix the problem it either patches it up (money) or removes the problem from society for awhile (incarceration). But that's all it does. Again, I am truly sorry for what happened to you and all the victims in this.

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 with the COs. So no, it isn't a joke. Several LCs are actively pushing BSA National behind the scenes on this issue.

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 Chartered Organization Group Unique & Timely Abuse Claim Count** METHODIST CHURCH 3,760 BAPTIST CHURCH 3,157 CATHOLIC CHURCH 3,131 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS 2,430 PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 1,611 LUTHERAN CHURCH 1,416 ARMED FORCES*** 607 EPISCOPAL CHURCH 557 AMERICAN LEGION 477 YMCA 435 VFW 369 SALVATION ARMY 242 ELKS LODGE 222 LIONS CLUB 199 BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS 195 KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS 157 BOYS CLUB 129 KIWANIS CLUB 108 ROTARY CLUB 88 MOOSE LODGE 75 OTHER 20,985 UNKNOWN 36,496 MISSING 5,740 Total 82,586 The Methodists are looking at 3760 claims. We do NOT have data on how many are time-barred, but let's assume it is the same rate as for ALL claims of around 30%. That means they are looking at 1128 non-time-barred claims. Let's just look at the total claims here a second, time-barred or not. Let's take the Grand Canyon Council average payment (since they are an open state): $14,085 per claim. That's probably going to be the high end for the Methodists since not ALL claims are in open state. It could be HIGHER (since the Methodist Church as an institution has more assets than Grand Canyon) or lower (if the individual churches are being sued/claimed against). So, with those caveats aside: 3760 claims * $14,085 = $52,959,600. If I were the Methodists, I would be absolutely flipping out right about now. And in fact many are. But let's cut that in half. Again, not all open states AND the total average each victim will get from LCs is about half what Grand Canyon is paying (600,000,000/82,586 = $7265) 3760 claims * $7265 = $27,316,400 That's over $27 million just to get out from under this mess AND for the "privilege" of having a facilities use agreement?

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 attorneys on its behalf, both from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. I would expect a) Century AND Chubb jointly and separately are going to fight the TCC/FCR/Coalition tooth and claw AND that b) Century plans to really fighting to get its discovery/claims reviews. Remember: if Century (and Hartford who joined the motion) gets the discovery they are looking for, it will set the case back at LEAST two months (44 days just to get and process the document and interrogatory discovery for 1400 claims PLUS scheduling 100 depositions) and more likely 3-5 months.

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 whatsoever are coming back to haunt them. And whether or not they toss out every unit they have NOW (or even allow facilities use agreements) it does nothing to remove the liability already incurred and the debts that will have to be paid. Check out the Methodist thread and read the letters from the Bishops. They are absolutely livid that BSA is telling them a) they were never covered and b) even in years they WERE covered by BSA's policies the policy limitations are way, way below what the value of the victims claims are going to be.

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 California voters get the $1. I can easily see that becoming a nightmare as claimants fight their valuation/vote weighing for years.

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. Past a certain point, there won't be any BSA left to sue. And the judge has really telegraphed that she won't let that happen. If that's your desired end goal as a victim of child sexual abuse, I'm not going to argue that. You are entitled to whatever wishes you want, I'm not going to judge. But if your desire is 100% of 82,500 claimants being compensated 100%, that's simply never, ever going to happen.

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?