CynicalScouter

My concern here is what is LEGAL. Unjust and immoral aside, a federal bankruptcy judge cannot wave a magic wand and suddenly resurrect 58,000 time barred claims. Not even the TCC, FCR, or Coalition are arguing that's possible. So, can you cite to a single case where a bankruptcy judge resurrected thousands of claims beyond state statutes of limitations? And relatedly, and honestly, what is your particular end goal here? If it is 100% pay out on all 82,500 claims (as it appears to be) how and where exactly do you think the court will get that $104+ billion (at least) from an

I can find no basis in law that would allow a bankruptcy judge to, in effect, set aside the statutes of limitations in all of these states ("accident of geography") to the tune of 58,000 cases in one fell swoop. If you can provide one, by all means please do. As for the "unavailability of insurance": you cannot get blood out of a stone. If BSA doesn't have the money and doesn't have the insurance coverage to pay out all 82,500 claims at 100% of value (TCC charitably estimated at $104 billion), how exactly it you think the bankruptcy judge can make that suddenly appear? Ordering the

Here's a link to the case. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914ac6dadd7b0493473d2d0 Please folks note that this is unique to Illinois' fraudulent concealment statute (735 ILCS 5/13-215) which is among the most open in the nation. When the National Conference of State Legislatures, for example, examined this it noted that a host of states such as Mississippi do NOT allow fraudulent concealment to reopen or toll statutes of limitations OR interpret their statutes such that "The standards for proving fraudulent concealment of a claim are so high as to be impracticable."

That number is derived from the BSA analysis of cases and has been cited by various parties in various briefs throughout the process. It was attached as an exhibit to the Second Amended plan. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/213bd53f-b44f-45c9-97fc-246bcb7ca06b_4108.pdf The official numbers as used by BSA (and cited/referenced by the TCC/FCR/Coalition as well in the RSA, so they accept these as accurate) is All Unique & Timely Abuse Claims = 82,458 All Not-Barred, Unique & Timely Abuse Claims = 24,308 Therefore the math works as

That case is not going to suddenly reopen 50,000 claims.

Oh I understand him completely. 1) BSA is utterly beyond redemption. 2) Even if BSA was worthy of redemption, the amount of abuse is such that there's no way it can be saved. I believe as he once put it there's too much abuse and not enough money. 3) Local councils are fruit of the poisoned tree that is BSA OR branches off that tree. 4) Therefore, Silverstein should immediately do the following as to BSA and the LCs. a) Declare all LC assets as part of the BSA "estate" (estate in the bankruptcy sense, not the probate/dead person sense). b) Appoint a trustee to tak

It may be compassionate, but it has no basis in reality or law. The bankruptcy court cannot suddenly make valid a claim that, under state law, is invalid. If you claim is time-barred under state law, the bankruptcy court isn't suddenly going to make it so. That's why the "Gray" system was put in place to address those instances where it may or may not be possible, statutes of limitation notwithstanding, to press a civil case. And even then it is of questionable legality.

Yes, after the voting takes place. Why should someone with no valid legal claim (time barred) get the same vote as someone with no time bar? what is the legal argument for that? How is that fairness? etc.

The problem is “right thing” depends on perspective. One “right” argument is just let them sort it out later. Another “right” argument is vet now and limit voting and recovery to valid voters, which means 50,000 time barred claimants get thrown out.

And if I am the attorney for victims with valid claims worried my clients are going to get outvoted by invalid claims, I’d might just say “too bad, vet now, however long it takes” Every dollar to an invalid claim is one dollar out of the pocket of my client with the valid claim. Moreover those invalid claims dilute my clients vote (word used was “swamps” their votes). This is the problem with law. It usually is not good vs bad or evil. That is easy. Hard is two people sides both with valid and justified issues and the judge has to select which comes closer to justice.

Yeah, I worked for a firm once that had to do what was once called a "Chinese wall" although that term is no longer considered appropriate. Firewall works. In short, they'd file both or sit it out. Option 1 is attorneys for claimants in states where there is no time bar would file in opposition to the effort to allow those with claims to file. Attorneys for claimants in states with a time bar oppose. The two attorney groups would literally not be allowed to interact with each other on the case anymore. That might be really easier if the attorneys are in completely different states. T

I understand. However, many if not a majority of the 14,000 claimants (through their attorneys) with non-time-barred claims disagree. And from the perspective of those attorneys, their job is the maximize the amount their clients get. Every dollar that goes to a victim without a valid claim (due to time-barred/statute of limitations) is one less dollar their client gets. The day is coming, and arguably already is here with some of the briefs, where there will be a reckoning between attorneys for claimants in time-barred states vs. attorneys for claimants in non-time-barred.

Now, to be fair, let me offer the counterpoint to the insurers wanting to vet/depose. There are various, but the Coalition objections are: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/872981_2048.pdf 1) Now is not the time, wait for plan confirmation 2) Also, the time may not even be confirmation, wait for post-confirmation and let the settlement trust sort this out. ("To the extent that fraudulent claims exist, they can be vetted in accordance with trust distribution procedures post-confirmation. The Insurers offer no justification as to why this must occur pre-con

Ah, but here's the thing. The disclosure statement contemplates weeding out the false and invalid AFTER all those claimants vote for the plan. The insurance companies are arguing along with some abuse victims lawyers that the invalid claims (time barred) have no business voting in the first place and that by allowing them to do so they are swamping/diluting the valid-voters. Vet first and let those with valid claims vote later. What the other parties are saying is that the Proof of Claim is prima facie evidence of a valid claim and is enough to get the 82,500 to vote their 82,50

But even before that is the issue of voting. If it can be shown that 1% of claims are invalid or fraudulent (more likely just invalid) then proceed. But as @Eagle1993so ably showed: there's going to be a percentage threshold where the number of invalid claims are so overwhelming that it would swamp the valid claims/voters. The attorneys for some victims have already said they think that has already happened NOW: 50,000+ claims are invalid due to time barred therefore let's not even waste time with this and declare those 50,000 off the table. The insurance carriers at least want

For those wondering what the insurance companies want to ask those 1,400 claimants if they get the chance, it is on page 32. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870498_1972.pdf Recognize that I post these questions because they do NOT name specific sexual abuse and I agree with the mods we do NOT want that here. However, if the mods need/want to alter and edit I am 100% fine with that. INTERROGATORIES 1. Describe each occasion on which you were sexually abused in connection with Scouting and/or for which You contend BSA, any local council of BSA or any s

One victim I know the instance: he was abused by two people. He filed twice because he thought that was what he was supposed to do. Also it is possible that some of these claims were PER OCCURRENCE.

There's two (and a half) levels here and gets into the difference between false and invalid. I am NOT a lawyer so @ThenNowtell me if I err here. 1) Prima facie: Is there enough evidence to even GENERALLY support the claim at all such that the BSA or the judge or the settlement trustee has enough evidence to proceed? This would get a lot of "invalid" claims. Remember: due process works both ways. If the victim wants to have his claim accepted, there has to be a minimum of evidence. NORMALLY the Proof of Claim meets that prima facie case, but the insurers have indicated based on the am

Hartford and Century hired a statistician to come up with a "Sample Claimants" of claims. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870498_1972.pdf

And the answers are: 1. Nope. 2. Zero. Well, sorta. Remember the original claims number was at or near 90,000. One of the reasons: some victims filed multiple claims. So, there was at least a partial vetting, but that's it.

It was listed as a hearing on a pro hac vice motion filed a year ago. Either Omni glitched or the judge just had a hearing on the motion which lasted .5 seconds since no one objects to these things.

One more tidbit here: Hartford as early as February hired a private investigator firm to do research on 100 claimants already and claims to have found, well, let me just post it. Page 66 is an affidavit by the private investigator. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870498_1972.pdf The insurers are going to do everything they can to paint ENOUGH of the 82500 claimants are fraudsters in order to stall this out for years.

I know you are OK with it, but there are a lot of victims as you know who a) were told they would be 100% confidential and anonymous forever b) that they'd never have to do anything other than file that Proof of Claim and c) would certainly never have to be cross-examined about any of this. I honest wonder if 1,400 notices for document discovery go out, how many would be responded to. If 100 deposition notices go out, how many would be declined/dropped/refused.

Here's the other factor: it isn't just the insurers. Many of the other abuse victims and their lawyers have insisted on this/something close to this. They want SOME degree of vetting of these claims. Here's the concern: 1,400 document discovery and 100 depositions. If so much as 1 claim is shown to be outright fraudulent (I don't mean mistakenly saying the person was abused at camp in July 1981 when camp records show the scout were there in June 1981) I mean just flat out "I want the money/I was never even a scout" fraudulent the insurance companies will use it to besmirch all the claiman

I should note that BOTH discovery motions call for MONTHS of discovery. Item #2 alone will take at least 44 days just to get the first stage done (30 days to demand document discovery + 14 days to decide on which 100 claimants to depose). The 100 depositions could then take months.