CynicalScouter

Right. That is, in effect, advocating for parties to engage in ex parte communications with the court, especially where the party is represented by counsel who is asking them to do it. That whole process always seemed off (read: unethical) to me for that reason.

Following up on this: The Insurance companies are now demanding Green's company (Resolutions, LLC) produce any and all documents related to their interactions with the FCR (in particular), the BSA, TCC, and Coalition. They issued a subpoena yesterday. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/726423f6-16d4-45ab-b601-74f958a938fa_5866.pdf

Right. I'm not sure that any of that hypothetical (the SM that lies about their identity, etc.) has been alleged in any of the cases I am aware of. The negligence claim ultimately boils down to this: BSA, the Local Council, and the CO (or some combination) let groups of young boys alone with these leaders which BSA, the LC, and the CO put into positions of authority or agreed to supervise or both and the young boys were abused by these leaders in part because BSA, the LC and/or the CO failed to even provide a modicum or cursory supervision or examination. And in the case of BSA 6. Once BSA knew, for decades, it had a systematic problem with child sexual abuse it did nothing, did not do enough, or actively engaged in efforts to cover it up, such as the famous/infamous program safety review researcher (Menninger) was not told about the existence of the IV files at all.

https://oa-bsa.org/magellan https://www.facebook.com/oabsa/photos/a.109020151775/10158000559046776/

We can debate whether that is a fair or right or just thing (i.e. that as soon as a jury hears about a child being sexually abused, they'll go after anyone and everyone involved out of a sense of outrage and sympathy). I will however note two things: 1) BSA doesn't always lose in these cases, but it loses enough that if you multiply out over thousands of cases filed that BSA saw the writing on the wall: it would be in court for the next decade and have hundreds of millions if not billions in judgments against it. At least this way victims who are first-to-the-courthouse-door don't "win" ahead of those who get there later. 2) There's also a degree of "actual legal statutes" that doesn't always jibe because of the fact that we have common law torts like Duty tof Care (for a minor at least) there IS no statute, or wasn't at the time of the offense. Therefore, the judge will give the jury an instruction on negligence, duty of care, etc. that relies on case law and not necessarily a statute. And that is yes, why we have juries.

Media coverage of this Boy Scouts’ Victims Push for More Insurance Info from Chubb (subscription required)

It's my understanding that yes, that was something like it: that in a time of crisis Churchill stepped up and led and that in BSA's time of crisis this is the leadership to get out of it, etc. Notice how for the most part almost all of it was shelved.

As for the above Rule 2019, if I had to guess given how obstinante Kosnoff has been, he'll file something for the Rule 2019 but there will be nothing for AIS because they will stick to the claim that "AIS doesn't exist". That's my guess.

So Century has filed a proposed order to put into writing the judge's verbal decision to force Kosnoff/Kosnoff Law AND AIS to file a Rule 2019 statement. Century wants the following info by August 9. Names of victims and their contact info are to be filed under seal EXCEPT that the insurance companies + the U.S. Trustee get to see https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a1b194aa-a67b-4f48-8c0a-6892690cffa5_5852.pdf 2. On or before August 9, 2021, Abused in Scouting and Kosnoff Law PLLC shall each file a verified statement setting forth the information required by subdivision (c) of Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, including without limitation: A. Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2019(c)(1), the facts and circumstances concerning Abused in Scouting and Kosnoff Law PLLC’s representation of claimants in these cases as follows: (i) with respect to Abused in Scouting, the documents reflecting the formation and governance of Abused in Scouting or, to the extent that there are no such documents, the facts and circumstances concerning its formation, including the name of each entity or person at whose instance Abused in Scouting was formed or on whose behalf Abused in Scouting has agreed to act in these chapter 11 cases; and (ii) with respect to Kosnoff Law PLLC, its employment with respect to these chapter 11 cases including the names of each creditor at whose instance the employment of Kosnoff Law PLLC has been arranged; B. Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2019(c)(2) and (3), and to the extent not provided under Paragraph 2(A), a list of the names and addresses of all creditors represented by Abused in Scouting and Kosnoff Law PLLC; C. Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2019(c)(4), a complete copy of the form of agreement, agreements or any other instrument authorizing Abused in Scouting and/or Kosnoff Law PLLC to act on behalf of creditors in this case; D. All other information and disclosures required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2019.

Bringing this back to the bankruptcy for a second: The Unsecured Creditors Committee for the Archdiocese of Guam's bankruptcy filed its objection to the BSA disclosure statement. In it, they ask that the court at least reach some of the aspects of confirmability now rather than wait for a vote of victims to approve/reject only to at confirmation veto the whole thing. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/bd4e3bde-0056-4944-a1b0-031ea56d53c7_5842.pdf

For what feels like the millionth time: the point isn't that BSA knew after the fact or that BSA did or did not report as to this particular Scoutmaster. The point is and I repeat myself but it is necessary. The reason BSA is being sued (and has lost numerous times in state courts prior to 2020) is that yes, the pedophile did it, but BSA was negligent in allowing it to happen. In short, and I mean very, very short: 1) Boy Scouts of America (BSA National, the Congressionally Chartered entity) created the Boy Scouts (or Cub Scouts, or whatever) program and chartered local councils to carry that program out. 2) Boy Scouts of America directly chartered each year the units in question. 3) Boy Scouts of America knew from early, early on it had a pedophile problem and created the Ineligible Volunteer Files. 4) Boy Scouts of America, the Local Council, and the CO still acted recklessly or negligently in allowing the abuser to access to the scout. Therefore Negligence/Duty of reasonable care - BSA had an obligation to look after these kids and not let them be harmed. Negligence in Supervision - the abusive leader was an "agent of [Boy Scouts] was under [Boy Scouts] direct supervision, and control" using BSA methods, uniforms, instruction, etc. Negligence in Retention - the abusive leader was not shoved out the door fast enough Negligence in Hiring - (yes a volunteer is "hired" for these purposes) Boy Scouts failed to do enough of a background check to detect the abuser's tendencies and nevertheless held the abusive leader out as a "competent and trustworthy scout leader, supervisor, servant, teacher, and counselor." Now, before people start screaming "That's not fair! That's not right!" keep in mind that these are the underlying arguments that have already been successfully used against BSA and LCs in the past.

USA Today opinion piece by victim: Abused boys, traumatized men: Bankruptcy plea exposes Boy Scouts as the cowards they are survivors of heinous crimes deserve to have their day in court, but the bankruptcy proceedings essentially shut down future lawsuits against the BSA. I still am trying to struggle to understand what victims have been told is BSA's actual holdings/assets and what "fairly" looks like. I've always expressed my concern that thanks to misunderstandings and/or outright misinformation that victims believe BSA has more money than they actually do and will reject any settlement because they have been convinced BSA has tens of billions. Again, and I hate to bang on about this, but let the numbers speak for themselves. $1.4 billion in BSA assets (when this started, likely much less now) / 82,500 victims = ~$17,000. That's full and complete liquidation of all BSA assets, NO payments to ANY other creditors (including the pension plan), etc. $4 billion in Local Council assets (number I saw tossed around at one point) / 82,500 victims = ~$48,000. That's full and complete liquidation of all LC assets, NO payments to ANY other creditors (including the pension plan). Which means even if somehow you completely liquidated BSA and LCs, disregarded statutes of limitations, paid out to no other creditors but the victims, etc. the "average" victim would get $65,000. I guess if I had a chance to ask a single question to the author of that piece, I'd ask: given the above, what would be "fair" compensation to the victims? That's not judgment. I cannot imagine the absolutely torture he went through and is going through. But I am trying to understand from they eyes of the victim(s) what "fair" looks like and set that against the above realities.

Timothy David Kosnoff is admitted to the practice of law and an active member of the Washington State Bar. https://www.mywsba.org/PersonifyEbusiness/LegalDirectory/LegalProfile.aspx?Usr_ID=000000016586 Whoever said he wasn't an attorney any longer was misinformed. What MAY have happened (pure speculation) is he was admitted to practice in Texas and let that lapse OR he let his Washington State Bar admission lapse and then became active again.

Yeah, I got a fan. My speculation here is along the lines of what is the the nature of that "runoff" agreement that the PA Commissioner agreed to and wants no one else to see. If it is in anyway capped, that could means one of two things: 1) The cap's unenforceable garbage. Sure, there may be (and let me say again may be) a cap on Century's runoff as part of the transfer to Chubb ("We'll buy you, but only if the debt's $1 billion (an illustrative number I am pulling out of thin air)" or something like that) and that was enough to get past the PA Commissioner's smell test, but it is going to collapse under the least amount of legal pressure given that Chubb can't have it both ways (keep the assets, dump the liabilities into a black hole). 2) The cap does exist, is enforceable, but is a nuclear bomb Chubb/Century doesn't want to let on to until after BSA's out of this. Remember the premise of Chubb/Century's lawyers (and indeed I suppose all lawyers advocating for their client) is you do NOT give up one more thing than you are legally obligated to do so. Think about it: right now if it came out Chubb/Century's total liabilities are capped at current assets of $1 billion (again, an illustrative number I am pulling out of thin air), then BSA's plan will never get past the creditors/victim's vote. The entire PREMISE of that vote, as laid out by the TCC in its "plain English" document it wants to send to voting/victims, amounts to "vote for BSA to get out of bankruptcy now, we'll get the big fish insurance companies later." What if there's no "there" there? If victims knew that there's no big pie in the sky called "insurance payouts" and that all they had was to tear whatever meat was on the bones of BSA and the LCs (with the COs maybe)? Now Kosnoff's liquidation plan moves from absurdist nihilism to the most logical course of action. No plan for reorg ever gets approved. This is speculative, but it is precisely why TCC/FCR/Coalition want those documents. It could be that the 1996 document in particular DO put Chubb's $100+ billion in assets COMPLETELY in jeopardy in which case stalling makes sense. Or it could be the insurance companies are simply going to stall because they are going to make this take as long as possible and not release anything until they get a court ordering them to do so. Or it could be they don't want to jinx/screw up the BSA bankruptcy because who knows what happens if this gets tossed back to state courts. With only speculation to run on, all things are equally plausible. Oh, and hi Mr. Kosnoff if you are reading.

Chubb/Century and Hartford are still refusing to turn over financial information, perhaps most critically the question of how much assets Century has and to what extent Chubb is liable for Century debts. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f71fbcdd-939f-4ded-b0b8-2569bdcffb06_5835.pdf In short and perhaps a tad oversimplified, there's a (real) possibility that the hoped for big insurance payouts may not happen. Chubb may (and let be stress, may) argue down the road that under the terms of the 1996 acquisition of Century that Chubb took on only Century's assets and debts as of that date. Meaning that if, say, the result is $4 billion in sexual abuse claims next year and Century has only $1 billion in assets in 2022, then the abuse victims get only $1 billion and can NOT access Chubb's ~$100+ billion in assets. The TCC/FCR/Coalition would like to get answers to that NOW, not after a vote or sometime down the road post-confirmation. Since this is a really, really big deal to any proposed settlement, the FCR/Coalition/TCC are demanding answers. Chubb/Century is basically told them to stick it: refusing to produce anything, then only handing in paper documents (when electronic documents were asked for to allow faster review and scanning) and then on top of that rather than delivering copies to all three (FCR/TCC/Coalition) they simply dropped off copies to the Coalition's law firm. And, just as BSA did before, the insurance companies are saying anything and everything is mediation privileged: if it was mentioned in the mediation, that means it cannot be revealed. Again, this is the TCC/FCR/Coalition version of events. But it gets at the bigger, broader point. The insurance companies are going to stall, stall, stall as long as they can and throw up every roadblock they can.

You did because it would have made some historical sense if you consider that Civics (1911-1946) became Citizenship (1947-1951) which splintered into Citizenship in the Community, Citizenship in the Nation and Citizenship in the World and Citizenship in the Home and World Brotherhood in 1951. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discontinued_merit_badges_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)

Sure. There's the Bankruptcy Code, the law enacted by Congress that deals with, well, bankruptcy. That's found U.S. Code Title 11 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11 There you'll find familiar names CHAPTER 7—LIQUIDATION (§§ 701 – 784) and CHAPTER 11—REORGANIZATION (§§ 1101 – 1195). So far, so good. Rules of practice and procedure of federal courts were until the Rule Enabling Act of 1934 also entirely in the hands of Congress. Since 1934 there's a shared arrangement: the courts (through the federal Judicial Conference) can adopt rules of practice and procedure, but Congress can come in and change them at will. (Side Note: My experience in the courts is in states, which most have a similar courts-can-make-rules-but-the-legislatures-can-screw-with-them system. Some lucky states have a constitutional provision which gives rulemaking power exclusively to the courts. They are the lucky ones). And so we get to Federal Rules, of which there are 5 main ones (Appellate, Civil, Criminal, Bankruptcy, and Evidence) https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules There are local rules as well for each court, but let's focus on the Big 5 and in particular here Bankruptcy. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frbp So, the Bankruptcy Code Congress enacted lays out the broad strokes, the Rules detail how things get done. Bankruptcy Code says I have to file a petition to start a voluntary bankruptcy (e.g. 11 U.S. Code § 301) Bankruptcy Rule spells how/what that petition looks like (Rules 1001-1005). Now, Rule 2019 has been the focus lately. It basically says ANYONE with ANY "Disclosable economic interest" in the case has to disclose certain pieces of information (Rule 2019(a) defines "disclosable economic interest"). https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frbp/rule_2019 Specifically 2019(b) and (c) spell it out what that disclosure statement has to have And guess what? A lot of ink and dead trees are used to squabble over those terms, so before you ask me what any of that means, be aware the answer is going to be "depends".

We've got a new hearing date for the disclosure statement: August 25, objections by August 16. The judge obviously had to move somethings around to get BSA on the docket that quick. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e76188ad-f1fe-4110-a82f-c2c4a25eb4db_5833.pdf This is my new Guestimated Timeline, based on the Fourth Amended Plan. Obviously there will be some shifts since some of these computed dates fall on Saturdays, but (again large and copious amounts of salt here, not just a grain) if BSA can move fast they can get out of bankruptcy by early November. I still suspect it will get pushed in 2022 based on what I would imagine is going to be a 2 day knock down drag out fight over all of this. And remember: we can get all the way to a vote and the judge can veto at the confirmation hearing. Event Days from Disclosure Hearing Guestimated Timeline Disclosure Statement Objection Deadline -9 Monday, August 16, 2021 Disclosure Statement Hearing 0 Wednesday, August 25, 2021 Voting Record Date 0 Wednesday, August 25, 2021 Deadline to Mail Solicitation Packages and Related Notices 8 Thursday, September 2, 2021 Rule 3018(a) Motion Deadline 24 Saturday, September 18, 2021 Deadline to File Plan Supplement 31 Saturday, September 25, 2021 Voting Resolution Event Deadline 45 Saturday, October 9, 2021 Voting Deadline 45 Saturday, October 9, 2021 Preliminary Voting Report Deadline 50 Thursday, October 14, 2021 Plan Objection Deadline 56 Wednesday, October 20, 2021 Final Voting Report Deadline 59 Saturday, October 23, 2021 Confirmation Brief/Reply Deadline 64 Thursday, October 28, 2021 Confirmation Hearing 69 Tuesday, November 2, 2021

I know you are not the first person to say this/repeat this, namely, that victims were told they would never have to tell their story except for that one time. Another version included that the victims would remain 100% anonymous to everyone. That obviously isn't true UNLESS (and here's the unless) UNLESS you agree to take the $3500 "expedited" payout which, under the latest plan being discussed, relies entirely on that claim document you submitted. If you want ANY more recovery than that, then yes, at some point or another you MAY and likely WILL have to tell your story in more detail. Whether that is by a lawyer for the insurance companies, or a psychologist or lawyer for the settlement trustee, or both, is TBD. This is NOT like some kind of typical class action for defective laptop batteries or body lotion where the settlement is for $10 in free body lotion or $50 towards a new laptop battery, few or no questions asked. This is literally billions upon billions of dollars. The problem is many of these claims aggregators were more familiar with the mass class action type things where in fact a bare, raw, proof of claim one time was all that was needed. The insurance companies, against whom there is going to be potentially billions in payouts, have rights too, including the right before they start signing billions in checks to ask questions, depose witnesses, etc. I'm not saying "pity the poor insurance companies" here, my sympathies always start with the victims. But no court, or settlement trustee, or such is simply going to tell a company based on a single proof of claim to start stroking checks beyond what is typically called "nuisance value": $10 coupon for body lotion, $50 for a new laptop battery, $3500 for the abuse claims. As for purging from this thread, why? No one knows who you are, not even perhaps the mods know your real name. And nothing is ever truly "purged" on the internet anyway.

Reuters take on yesterday's hearing https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/boy-scouts-victims-lawyer-group-must-disclose-makeup-judge-rules-2021-07-29/ Kosnoff says he's ready to disclose. And I again come back to my own theory: The Rule 2019 Kosnoff/Kosnoff Law/AIS is going file to be minimally informative if that much and we'll be right back before the judge in 1-2 months for another fight on this. I could be wrong, but given Kosnoff's track record and obstinance, I would bet against full and complete compliance with the judge's order the first time.

1) Yes RSA 1.0 is gone. RSA 2.0 is back and identical to 1.0 except the only major difference is that if either side dislikes whatever is brought forth as part of the plan to include COs either side can walk away. Oh and the deadline for the judge to agree is late August AND they got more lawfirms to agree, bringing the total number of claims represented by attorneys to over 70,000. 2) The grey tiers in RSA 1.0 are in RSA 2.0. Again 1.0 = 2.0 plus a few amendments. 3) How much and when is still TBD. Remember: the RSA is simply "This is what BSA, the LCs, the FCR, the TCC, and the Coalition lawyers have agreed to." We are still a long, long journey to anything approximating a conclusion. A) The RSA is a plan for a plan. It can still fall apart for 11 different reasons specified in the RSA itself including, and most especially, if the judge decides to enforce the Hartford agreement BSA previously agreed to. B) The insurance companies, the US Trustee, and a host of others including some victims lawyers are objecting to this whole thing for a litany of reasons. All it takes is the judge agreeing to 1 reason, and the RSA and/or the plan is scrapped. C) Even if we get a plan, 2/3rds of voting victims may not accept it. D) Even if we get a plan, the insurance companies can and will drag/stall for as long as they can. Etc.

They argued two things: to keep confidential the list of abuse survivors and the professional engagement letters and instruments purporting to evidence the Coalition’s authority to act on behalf of its members. The thinking was listing all clients on a court website would expose/revictimize victims (they did agree to name 6 victims who were serving at the Coalition's advisory board). Moreover, they worried the insurance companies would start to investigate some of these claimants. Ok, said everyone else. But there's ways to work around the confidentiality issue, and there sure as heck no reason NOT to disclose your professional services letters. The ultimate resolution was: 1) The list of all victims the Coalition was representing was filed under seal. The court can see them. Attorneys for the parties can see the list (subject to the seal order). No one else; if you go to that document you simply see 2) The professional services and engagement letters had to be filed. Since these were law firms agreeing to hire Blank Rome and work together amongst themselves, there's no victims names, no confidential info, but you can see who agreed to what and at what price, etc.

Few possibilities: 1) Kosnoff is not as all powerful as he lets on and Eisenberg and AVA are really driving the bus. 2) Kosnoff is just obstinate and would rather be dragged kicking and screaming to do anything he doesn't want to do. That's why my guess in that the Rule 2019 disclosure will be minimally informative (if even that much) and result in a motion to compel further disclosure. As a reminder to all: the Coalition did the same thing. Their initial Rule 2019 statement was sparse (at best) and it wasn't until months of litigation and hearing before the judge that the Coalition released more info. Coalition's Rule 2019 disclosure (July 2020) was a mere 3 pages https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/836358_1053.pdf It's Amended Disclosure (August 2020) was up to 4 pages https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/840142_1106.pdf That's when other parties (in particular the insurance companies) began filing demands for the Coalition to release more information. Even the U.S. Trustee and the TCC came in and said the Coalition had to do better than that. By October and a court hearing the Coalition filed its Second Amended Disclosure this time coming it at over 125 pages https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/853761_1429.pdf And the court accepted it https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/853836_1435.pdf

So, what would a Rule 2019 look like? Well the Coalition had to be forced by the court to file a full (with some redactions) versions last year. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/853761_1429.pdf It should lay out, in detail, the legal and financial arrangements between Kosnoff (or his law firm), AVA Law, Einseberg's law firm, etc. It should also spell out the financial interests in the case and while not by name (victims names will be filed under seal) identify which lawyers are representing which claimants. While a prudent person would perhaps lay of Twitter for awhile, I suspect Kosnoff will chime in on this shortly. If I had to guess, Kosnoff will file something completely inadequate and non-responsive (or barely responsive) as a Rule 2019 and we'll be right back to this on August 12.

So, the big takeaways are The RSA is set for August 12/13. The disclosure statement hearing is getting pushed back to some date to be determined. Remember several things here. If the RSA blows up/gets rejected by the judge the odds of a disclosure statement drop to zero. The TCC/FCR/Coalition have said they'll never agree to a plan with the Hartford settlement. BSA is on record saying the RSA was a "gating" issue, meaning its acceptance or rejection sets the stage for any disclosure statement. From disclosure statement hearing through a vote and a confirmation hearing is at least 45 days and more likely 60-90. If this goes on too much longer, BSA's not out of bankruptcy until 2022. BSA has squawked continuously about how it is running out of cash and needs to be out of bankruptcy ASAP. Rechartering happens in November/December. If this isn't resolved and quickly, Methodist churches are being told to not recharter units past 12/31/2021. The judge mentioned in the hearing she has already had to juggle her schedule numerous times for BSA and that she has a very full fall schedule. Kosnoff's going to be forced to disclose along with AIS (the non-entity entity) Rule 2019 information. Perhaps even more critically is the question of who, really, is counsel to those 17,000 claimants and what those claimants understand the relationship to be between them and these lawyers.