CynicalScouter

Throughout the entire process, I have not gotten one single thing from my Council other than the Townhall Zoom in January. There is no way any LC is sending out updates about a status conference that many/most didn't even know happened. All I do know is that the Ad Hoc Local Council Committee does send communications to the Council Key-3 (that I was able to get confirmed by my Key-3) who are then told not to share the info in that email with anyone.

Yes, BSA's play games with victims: oh we just have to rush this plan through because we are running out of cash...but maybe not.

If he is forced to disclose? Sure. But the question would be whether or not that would delay proceedings. It may or may not.

What the insurance companies want from Kosnoff and the Coalition (the Rule 2019 motion). 2. Abused in Scouting and Kosnoff Law PLLC must separately produce the following information pursuant to Rule 2019: A. A list of the names and addresses of all creditors (including creditors for whom the filing counsel is acting as co-counsel) represented by Abused in Scouting and Kosnoff Law PLLC. The list should indicate whether each creditor has opted in to be part of the Coalition B. A complete copy of each form of agreements authorizing Abused in Scouting and Kosnoff Law PLLC/Tim Ko

So, big take aways: 1) The COs are pissed, no other way to put it, they are pissed that they are getting thrown under the bus. The fact that the Ad Hoc Local Committee and BSA went out of their way to try to mend fences right there in the middle of the hearing tells you how big a deal this is. 2) Kosnoff and AIS and Coalition are now going under the microscope. The Rule 2019 motion, if approved, would require them to disclose all their creditors and what the exact precise relationship(s) are see page 26-27 of this https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/872699_2030.

Linder for BSA: There is opposition to the RSA motion on the timeline and the disclosure timeline. Response to Anker/Hartford, sounds like Hartford already has its brief written. We don't think Hartford needs to be an adversary proceeding. Judge: Debtor wants me to make in RSA a finding that Hartford wants discovery on. This isn't a purely legal issue. So, what about need to take discovery? Linder: Discovery is needed, but it can be done quickly and narrowly. More Linder: Insurance companies were at the mediation in a meaningful way. No one was shut out of the mediation. Ju

Sitting in on Zoom status conference: Parties in opposition continued: LDS Goldberg for LDS: Join to adjourn hearings. The RSA leaves out the COs. The LDS is one of the COs. There are over 41,000 COs. Top 20 COs include Methodist Church, Catholic Church, LDS, etc. The plan does not have the support of ANY COs and NONE have gotten advance notice. Only a few COs have been mediation parties. "Highly prejudicial" to COs. COs will never recover anything on indemnity claims or if they did it would be years down the road. The plan also strips CO property rights. It prohibits COs from insura

Sitting in on Zoom status conference: Parties in opposition: Hartford, Balkin (sp?)/Balkin lawfirm on behalf of various victims and lawfirms of victims Hartford: Is important to get BSA out of bankruptcy. Important for legitimate claimants. Also important for parties with substantial rights (insurers) to have due process. Filing substantial response that is going to oppose RSA. BSA wants declaratory relief and that requires adversary proceeding. Putting that aside, BSA is seeking a victim value and determination. "We will recite facts." BSA is going back on their word. BSA told us an

Sitting in on Zoom status conference: Parties in support first. So far (in order), BSA, Ad Hoc Committee of Local Counsels, Coalition, TCC, FCR, UCC. "Significant progress" "Major agreement" "Timeline" important "Expeditiously" "Get compensation to victims faster" TCC did not say much but made "two primary points" There's an agreement among all primary constituencies We need to get the plan confirmation process rolling FCR: "Resist calls for further delay" Parties in opposition next.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/boy-scouts-failing-after-losing-focus-on-boys-trail-life-ceo.html “It’s not the pandemic or social trends away from the outdoors that is hurting the Boy Scouts,” Hancock, who heads the leading alternate scouting program founded in 2014 after controversial changes at BSA, said in a statement shared with The Christian Post Tuesday. “When an organization with a remarkable past that provided us with Presidents and astronauts and generals and civic leaders for over 100 years decides to abandon its laser focus on boys and its commitment to the core stre

PBS: Understanding the Boy Scouts’ sexual assault settlement and whether it’s adequate John Yang: Have you talked to any of the survivors that you have been — you represent? And what is their reaction to what they're hearing about this? Kenneth Rothweiler: Yes, I talk to survivors every day. And I always get their opinion as to how they're feeling and how they perceive the whole bankruptcy going. I wouldn't say they're overjoyed, but they feel satisfied because the Boy Scouts have acknowledged what they have done.

You are right. I'm sorry.

Not really. The idea is that in a bankruptcy ALL claims from EVERYWHERE are settled as to the debtor, regardless of what state the claim originated from. A bankruptcy court was not going to say "sure, this will settle claims in these states, but debts incurred in those states are not covered." This gets back to a larger point which is that using the bankruptcy process to try and settle a mass tort is insane. But this is a bankruptcy proceeding; you cannot custom cut a bankruptcy to only affect claims from certain states.

No, it is because as part of the bankruptcy BSA was required to notify ALL potential claimants that they needed to file a claim and the language the BSA ads used were approved by the court. The other ads pushed by lawyers/lawyers groups were much different.

As a reminder: there is a status conference set for today 2pm Eastern. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/8ebaef0b-e909-47d8-a8a7-4c748427ff3d_5483.pdf

The insurance companies have filed new docs regarding their previous efforts to have the July 20 hearing postponed to give them time to review things. And they want to know why Eric Green is the Settlement Trustee. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/76971764-d131-4c5b-85f7-310e833051dc_5512.pdf They are also indicating BSA will produce Mosby on July 9 but BSA is delaying others and are not allowing Ownby to be deposed. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/fa070d16-8b6a-48b8-a937-00b6edeae8a2_5514.pdf We also get to see the

The point is that we'll know in the next week or so exactly how much each cooperating council is paying into the Settlement. There's no need for me to ask my council today when I can just wait and find out then as well as finding out all the other councils.

And here's the other concern: the re-traumatization is not over. Any victim who thought (or were told) they would be able to just file the Proof of Claim last November and be paid out is sadly in for a rude awakening (unless they take the $3500 not-questions-asked payout). Even in the best case scenario, there will be a new document the victims have to fill out asking for even more details about the abuse and its impact. And the Settlement Trustee (or the people he hires) will conduct interviews and ask for more information. Etc.

Because the alternative is what, exactly? Under the plan, if you are in a closed state, you could get up to 10% of your claim's value. So, if it is $1 million, that means $100,000. The alternative is you get nothing because the plan fails. If you are in a closed state, that means you then have have to hire a lawyer and somehow fight in court to have the statute of limitations somehow waived (fraudulent concealment, whatever). Even if you can do it, that will be years from now.

Yep. It becomes a race for the courthouse door, first come, first paid. And if there's nothing left by the time your case gets to the court? Too bad.

And this was part of the negotiation, because the argument cuts the other way: why should an abuse victim in a closed state get money to which he has no legal claim under his state laws? Etc. This is the area of mass confusion and the reason why this is tricky. The Insurance Companies are going to say absolutely not no. And Kosnoff is claiming that the NO it doesn't cover insurance carriers. But those advocating sure do seem to think that they can somehow bind the insurance companies to pay out under the this plan somehow down the road. And is sure does read as if the Settlement T

I didn't ask about insurance carriers. I asked about BSA and, separately, the BSA and LCs. Nothing about these SoL machinations is going to change the fact that, past a certain point (and arguably we are there with BSA or getting there) there is no more money to be had. BSA's already having to take out a loan to put money towards the settlement. And is a bankruptcy judge really going to drag this out for another 1-2 years litigating whether a DC or NJ statute allows a South Dakota (closed state) council to be sued, watching as what little BSA has (in general and in particular to pay

Because I think for several reasons: Does it in any way affect how much BSA is going to be able to offer here? Let's say that you are able to somehow get every SoL lifted/erased after months if not years of litigation. Does that in any way change that fact that a) BSA is running out of money (we can debate when it will run out, but it will eventually) NOW and/or b) somehow magically conjure up more for BSA to contribute to a victims settlement fund? Even if you can get the SoL lifted for claims against BSA, that doesn't translate into claims against an LC. A claim against BSA Natio

This is what Greater Hudson Valley posted to FB. https://www.facebook.com/GHVBSA/posts/10158711920823375?comment_id=10158711940903375&reply_comment_id=10158712014783375

My Council is not the only one that was told that in order to participate in the settlement/bankruptcy tals they had to sign a NDA. Moreover, I know for a fact and this is in the court record that anything coming out of the mediation talks is covered by a mediation NDA as well. https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/2021/07/06/boy-scouts-properties-listed-sale-dutchess-putnam-and-rockland/5350976001/ "Greater Hudson Valley Council officials have said in a Facebook post that they were required to sign a nondisclosure agreement regarding the national organization's bankruptcy, so speci