CynicalScouter

This is Document 5671 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a3c50bee-30c0-49f5-ae80-862a511fd66d_5671.pdf

Buchbinder reminding people that the statement Kosnoff files under 2019 be "verified" which means "under oath" or "under penalties of perjury". So, Kosnoff's on notice this is not something his can fib even a little bit

I had to step away, but I saw the first part where the judge was saying that while AIS may have been a dysfunctional organization, it was nevertheless an organization that could be subject to Rule 2019. It is still absolutely unclear what, where, and when there is any kind of understanding of AIS. And the Coalition/Molton: making the argument that the motion for today is focused ONLY on Kosnoff/AIS, NOT the other motion. Judge: Yes, this was focused on Kosnoff/AIS, not the Coalition. Judge: Mr. Kosnoff "has now involved himself in this case through AIS and through the letters filed in this court and is now subject to 2019." "We need to know who represents these parties." Wilks trying to clean this up. He's failing.

Ruggeri: They want to know how AIS was founded, they want the names of the creditors they represent. Etc. We want to see the engagement letters for the claimants. There must be documents. Their own claimants are confused who their lawyer is. Document 5671: I don't know who my lawyer is. Claimant is asking court to identify his lawyer for him. Kosnoff was tweeting as much as this morning. NOTE: I have to stop and do actual work, but I'll listen to people and try to brief this out later.

Lauria: RSA 2.0 discussion. Issues related to the COs have come to the fore about this whole process. Amendments give both sides ability to walk away if the CO agreement reached is not acceptable. Thanks to Coalition, state court counsel representing 70,000 out of 82,500 claims now onboard. Lauria wants RSA hearing motion on August 12/13 (the dates when the disclosure hearing is suppose to happen). Lauria wants to try and do BOTH the RSA and Disclosure on those two days. Admits that is aggressive. Unlikely to conclude both issues in 2 days, likely need overflow dates. Judge: Sure, August 12/13, but have to check about overflow days and schedule. Anker: Worried that RSA is a "gating" issue. If the Hartford settlement is in or out determines whether there is a disclosure statement to even discuss. BSA literally filed today to allow reopened deposition and discovery. Lauria: There is no reason to not agree to disclosure statement since some of it has nothing to do with the RSA (such as Local Council assets and contributions). The major elements of the deal (aside from Hartford) are going to be in the plan, regardless of the RSA, such as recovery charts, disclosures of insurance programs, assets, contributions, etc. Those will NOT change regardless of the RSA. There's progress that can be made, even if the RSA fails. Let's schedule the disclosure statement hearing to have the non-Hartford materials discussed first and settled and save Hartford for last. Objection deadlines is August 2, that is enough time. Anker: Lauria said "scheduled I am today proposing". That's the point. This is new. That resets or should reset the objection deadlines. RSA is gating, BSA admitted it. There has been no disclosure deposition or discovery. Fairness calls for RSA first, THEN disclosure statement later if RSA approved (he doesn't think it will be approved). Buchbinder: Today is 114th anniversary of founding of scouting. Let's pause and reflect on that. Schiavoni: BSA said RSA was a gating issue. Hard to see how you severe the RSA from the reorg plan. The RSA ties the debtor to positions on a host of issues on claims. The disclosure statement objections and the RSA objections are key and overlapping. Facing a moving target. This is a waste of time and money. Judge: I'm frankly skeptical that we'll be through RSA hearing in 2 days to discuss disclosure statement. I understand BSA's position. My calendar has been shuffled more than once for BSA to get out of bankruptcy early. I am skeptical that even if there is time on August 12/13 we'll get far on disclosure statement. I'll have to find time for that hearing. In terms of deadline, I did not suspend the deadlines on disclosure statement objections. Judge will later today what time can be carved out of disclosure statement hearing and new objection deadlines. Anker, given Hartford's unique position, can file whatever you want. Doubt that BSA will object to Anker's filing addressing multiple issues/objecting to RSA. Kurtz: Discovery on RSA update. Went back and reviewed documents that were previously redacted. Plan to be done by end of weekend. Objectors will be allowed to depose ALL witnesses (including Mosby) again. Will put forth scheduling order. Schiavoni: BSA plans to produce documents on Sunday night? There are the judge's rulings. Judge: Yes, meet and confer. Abbott: First item on agenda is Rule 2019 for Kosnoff/AIS/Coalition (FYI Kosnoff is present on Zoom) Ruggeri: Motion more important than ever. Included in RSA 2.0 is a list of the scheduled attorneys that IDs the lawfirms and guess what? Kosnoff isn't there. And the number of claimants listed are attributed to Eisenberg's firm, NOT Kosnoff. What is going on? We know Kosnoff does NOT represent these people, but he claims it. And he's tweets insult other counsel. We need to know: who really represents these 17000?

I am going to sit in on today's Zoom if I can. While the thrust of the hearing is suppose to be the Rule 2019 motion, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the RSA 2.0 deal will be brought up. One more point: The Coalition/Brown Rudnick this morning just applied to have another one of its attorneys admitted to the court pro hac vice (i.e. for this case only) so that may come up first thing. Gerard T. Cicero pro hac vice https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/6c24908b-1e2e-49f2-89e3-ba500803aeca_5816.pdf

If I had to guess it is going to be to convert to facilities use agreements with the councils serving as COs

Kosnoff has got to be reading this forum. He's claiming these 16,869 attributed to Eisenberg etc. are HIS 17,000 clients/AIS' or...something. That's why the math didn't work: because Kosnoff's claiming those 16,869.

Just saw on Reddit. Michigan Bishop tells Methodist Churches to stop rechartering scouting units: BSA is "leaving their Chartered Organizations out on a limb by themselves." BSA-ltr-to-Local-Churches-7.20.21[1].pdf

Right, the RSA accounts for that. Whatever deal gets cooked up with the COs, either side (BSA/LCs on one, TCC/FCR/Coalition on the other) can walk away from the RSA if they don't like it.

So, I'm trying to parse out what got amended and the key seems to be 6 items. Item 1 (I.A.) simply resets the deadline for the judge to approve the RSA until August 27. Fine. Items 2 & 3 (I.B. and I.C.) deal with whatever agreement is struck with the COs and gives both sides the power to terminate the RSA if they don't like what they see. Here's the TCC/Coalition/FCR's version. Item 4 changes Reimbursement, but I don't see how. Item 5 changes some language about insurance rights. Was: Now Item 6 DST Note Mechanics Was Now So, I don't get it. This doesn't look like massive changes. The Coalition still gets its sweetheart payouts ahead of everyone else. Etc.

Ok, I know the general rule is no posting pictures unless they are relevant, but I'm posting the JPEGs listing all attorneys and the number of claims that are now party to RSA 2.0 (hereinafter the Zombie RSA). I just cannot see how Kosnoff can claim he represents 17,000 people. The only thing, and this is a guess, is that this is counting number of CLAIMS and not number of CLAIMANTS? Or the lawfirms listed are over-inflating their numbers? I just don't get it.

He didn't. And I think that's the question of the Rule 2019 motion tomorrow: How many people does Kosnoff REALLY represent? The math is just not adding up here.

1) The amendments change several items. 2) BSA was trying to line up all these claimant counsel and ran out of time?

That plan was. This is Plan 2.0.

The point I think is that number reached the 2/3rds needed (82,500*2/3=55,000) in order to approve this plan.

This is the global deal BSA has been begging for. Lawyers representing over 70,185 claims have now agreed to RSA 2.0. It is listed as Schedule 3 in RSA 2.0 document. FIRM CLAIMS Slater Slater Schulman LLP 14170 ASK LLP 3277 Andrews & Thornton, AAL, ALC 3009 Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck, P.C. 16869 Junell & Associates PLLC 2918 Reich & Binstock LLP 336 Krause & Kinsman Law Firm 5981 Bailey Cowan Heckaman PLLC 1026 Jason J. Joy & Associates, PLLC 690 Motley Rice LLC 343 Weller Green Toups & Terrell LLP 974 Colter Legal PLLC 162 Christina Pendleton & Associates, PLLC 309 Forman Law Offices, P.A. 125 Danziger & De Llano LLP 173 Swenson & Shelley 175 Cohen Hirsch LP (formerly Brooke F. Cohen Law, Hirsch Law Firm) 64 Damon J. Baldone PLC 471 Cutter Law, P.C. 358 Linville Johnson & Pahlke Law Group 71 Porter & Malouf P.A. 86 The Moody Law Firm 677 Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Procter P.A. 44 Marc J Bern & Partners LLP 5893 Napoli Shkolnik PLLC 1300 Freese & Goss, PLLC 458 Hair Shunnarah Trial Attorneys 47 D. Miller and Associates, PLLC 3008 Hilliard Martinez Gonzales LLP 289 Oldham & Smith, PL 24 Mary Alexander and Associates, P.C. 74 McDonald Worley, P.C. 140 TorHoerman Law, LLC 125 Gibbs Law Group 179 Paluch Law, LLC 139 Hurley McKenna and Mertz, P.C. 4000 Davis Bethune Jones 1054 Philadelphia Lawyers Group 135 Babin Law, LLC 1012

This looks like the global deal they've been wanting. This covers almost ALL claimants (67,000 out of 82,500).

RSA 1.0 is dead. Behold: RSA 2.0 was just filed! Reading through it now. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ebb2c5f5-b7ba-4976-827b-ced854f51e1e_5813.pdf 1) This version adds State Court Counsel representing at least 67000 claimants 2) 30 days for judge to confirm (August 27) or it lapses again. 3) There's a new item added: if either side disagrees with the way in which the COs are the dealt with in the reorg plan, either side can walk and the RSA is void. This looks like the global deal they've been wanting. This covers almost ALL claimants (67,000 out of 82,500).

Final note: even though the RSA is dead, more and more attorneys for victims are continuing the file objections to it in case it comes back. I count at least 18 filed objections or joinders to the main objection with as I said 1000+ claimants. This plan is dead folks.

Talk about bouncing the rubble here. More attorneys are filing objections to the (now dead) RSA/joining in on the main objection filed. My count indicates that attorneys representing at least 1000 claimants have now filed against the RSA. Why? This was the main objection https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/85fba864-aa4d-42f2-b58f-b811b917c9e4_5682.pdf Of all these, I'll just focus on two: C and D and I'll take D first. In short, under D, there is no way a Settlement Trustee should have the unfettered power of a trial judge to decide the value of sexual abuse injuries and whether the claimant has met the burden of proof AND there is no way a Bankruptcy Judge has the authority to create such a system where they just (in effect) hand over a black robe and say "good luck." As for C, the argument is that this entire system: the RSA, the Reorg plan, everything that is premised on the idea of BSA (and LCs?) pay now, stick it to the insurance companies later is just illegal as all get out. It is also note that at least as to California claims, such a scheme is patently afoul of state insurance laws and case law. In short, any attempt to move this plan will not only violate rights California claimants have under CA's laws but won't work in the the states either.

They are listed and hyperlinked in the Notice as Item #3. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f95e4e86-78ce-4d19-be88-7cb86c87df68_5810.pdf

Have to say I am surprised that the media has not run this story yet. Even the bankruptcy focused media has been from what I can see silent.

Nice. This is just epic level trolling. The insurance companies have now filed a supplement to their Rule 2019 motion that consists of nothing but Kosnoff's tweets mocking the judge and indicating that he (Kosnoff) is the one truly in charge of the 17000 clients. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/861e377e-a772-42e9-8779-1b90257e5fab_5804.pdf

Wrong board.