4 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Roman Catholic Church is not yet a participating chartered organization.

Right. Not yet. I add it as a footnote.   Partly a self-interested notation.

51 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Yes, I should have clarified.  The UMC & LDS are also protected (just like LCs).

Are you excluding from your assessment the Roman Catholic Church entities referenced in the March 17 term sheet?

Boy Scouts Abuse Settlement Attacked for Preventing Future Lawsuits

https://amp.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2022/04/07/661698.htm

3 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

whatever side you're on I think we all want this confirmation hearing portion to take as long as it needs to at this point.

"Needs to" being the fudge factor. Mr. Patterson's interpretive "needs to" dance and Ms. Wolff's will look very different when performed live on stage. I won't even mention certain pro se parties. This here block-o-issues is slated for three hours, 1.5 to each side. Say wha? 

Third Party Releases and Channeling Injunction (Including Definition of Abuse Claims, Jurisdiction and Authority, Substantial Contribution Arguments, Contribution of Insurance Rights to Trust, Direct Action Rights, and Due Process)

17 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I believe that is true.  However, the judge seemed clear the timeline was nice, but not anything she plans to hold to.  She is going to allow the sides to argue their point.  I do expect if she sees no value and it is beyond time limits, she may use them.  

Well, we have a wedding Friday so that overflow option will be walking down the aisle. Patterson, Kornfeld, Brady and Round 2 of Pachulski up after lunch. Far from over with the supporters. Mr. Pachulksi said he will take a long time on the STAC.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Sounds like we are already behind schedule (or soon will be).

Well behind. Pretty soon we will have chewed up the entire allocated block with just the supporters. If they take 4 hours, the objectors are entitled to equal time, righto? 

51 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

The original attorneys (I believe that Lauria was one of them) told the BSA that it would be only 90 days.   They indicated the same in front of a few thousand at the National Annual Meeting.  The attorneys and the BSA believed based upon history and the ineligible volunteer files that there would be 8,000 to may as high as 12,000 claims.   This whole process has been a nightmare for all involved.

These attorneys/firms, the leads having switched firms in the midst, have been on this case since 2019. Anyone have an estimate of the income stream of 2019-2020 vs 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and surely well into 2023? We used to call cases and deals like this "lawyers' full employment acts."

Conversely, when will we know the amount PSZJ will be contributing to the Settlement Trust? They've committed to return 10% of their overall fee and sticking it in the piggy bank, which pink piggy is not nearly as large as she should be.

2 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Agreed.  I had flashbacks to Wilmington where Survivors gathered when the TCC was being selected and she walked out, said "The BSA is sorry, we'll give Survivors 90 days to get their claims in, and wrap this up quickly."  NO BSA professionals spoke, NO understanding of how difficult it would be for Survivors to come forward, let alone do it in 90 days.

Yup. I was directly in front of her. She was ice cold. Sorry to say that in advance of the big wedding, but that was my sincere take. 

23 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

TONE DEAF comment of the day: Lauria's step-daughter is getting married so she isn't available Friday..."We've been waiting a long time for this."  UHHHHH....yeah....most of us have been waiting decades for our abuse to be addressed.  Unbelievable.

Add to it the girlish gleam in her eye and happy smile. Seriously? Also, this bride to be was not her stepdaughter when this case was initiated. Just sayin'. I'm very tempted to write a letter to the court. C'mon, man. My disgust is showing, again. At the very least she could have acknowledged the reality of survivors' attenuated quest for closure and made her announcement with a measure of apology. 

Closing out this week's edition of BSA TV's Series, "As the Bankruptcy Turns," I enjoy neither the cliffhanger nor the sinking feeling in my gut. One is not necessarily related to the other. The gut dive stands alone like the cheese, which continues to get more binding. 

12 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

the vast majority will likely see less money and the BSA may fail. 

Zero is definitely less than a little. 

Q2: Why does Tanc keep his computer/camera in a dresser drawer? If you're not watching, you don't get it. If you do, you know exactly what I mean. 

Q: How much training did it take Ms. Wolf to develop her talent for asking a 10 second question over the span of one minute or more, especially after her witness answered that very question two seconds prior. Good grief, Charlie Brown. It's like watching paint dry, and I'm taking about six layers of oil impasto. 

39 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Hoping I'm wrong.

Likewise, for multiple reasons:

1. I am ready to stop poking myself in the eye, banging my head on the table and punching stuff.

2. If BSA does not exit and formal BSA is dismantled, small 's' scouting will not die. Without an overall umbrella and COs like UMC who have signed on to enhanced YO measures, we go back to kids in the woods with adults. Now, however, there are no formal oversight bodies (BSA, COs and YPC), practices, protocols or reporting procedures. I don't think the vast majority of people countenance this reality one teeny tiny bit.

3. Tens of thousands of BSA survivors will walk away with nothing but 2+ years of bloody torment.

18 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

I believe the proof of claim process was flawed.  Had it required personal completion and real signatures with much more detail, many weak or even fraudulent claims would have never been filed.  Now they have to do what they can on the back end, after law firms have substantial money invested. 

Agreed. I recall seeing the filings and argument over e-signatures and ballot. I was stunned. I remember reading my POC over and over and over, then staring at that signature line with the preceding warning about the penalties of perjury. Stunned, confused and aghast, frankly. Is it typical? I don't know. 300-1200+ cut and paste electronic signatures in short order, as in seconds removed from review of the POC and close to the Bar Date? Nope.

17 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Not just the Judge but also the BSA and the insurers. All of the California cases will be filed by the end of the year and if the bankruptcy does not go thru all of them will be scheduled for trial and all by jury. If it is a cramdown then the insurers, LC's and CO's will start facing massive legal bills and then the subsequent awards. 

See answer 2, above.

4 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I still think she approves; however, the neutral path and some council contributions are the areas that seem weak points if the judge raises concerns. 

Agreed. She didn't like the IRO upon first hearing, wondering why everyone didn't have access to it. Mr. B loves the $20,000 price tag. Not.

1 minute ago, Zebra132 said:

Is there court today? I'm not getting anything when I log in

 

I believe we're now on to next week, based on everyone's calendars. 

15 hours ago, BadChannel70 said:

I don't know if this Independent Review/Neutral will survive but it's a lot more comprehensive than the TDP.

I think not. Jason Amala (of the Pfau/Zalkin cohort) badly damaged the prospect of accessing the upside recovery during his testimony, as well.

As to the expert damages report, I find firms who charge $2500+ if you have good documentation to hand them. But, no one will do it for me as a pro se plaintiff/claimant. Tell me they only work for attorneys. What am I, chopped liver? (Don't answer that.)

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

I just don't see this working, but who knows, I'm not a lawyer.

Raise your right hand and repeat after me. The insurers are looking for good counsel and have gotten a judge to waive the education and bar exam requirements. You're in! Sidle up to the bar, my friend. 

Who, pray tell, is selecting these witnesses? Trial by committee appears to be a recipe for all manner of stroganoff, some of which with spoiled sour cream, others with cardboard noodles. Wowzers. Witness prep and doors blown open on direct is miserable lawyering. These are painful to watch. "Hurts so good," though. (That will be my single JCM reference. Promise!)

9 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.  Who can know it?

He who searches all things, including the heart.

16 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Says they come from the "Boy Scouts Defense Fund."  Document presented showing that yes, the insurers are paying her.  "Yes, but they still come from the defense fund?!" 

BSA National just called. They want immediate access to this "Defense Fund" and asked who's been holding out on them. 

Schullman. Yikes. Exposing all that may be wrong, problematic and questionable with the intake, vetting and signature processes with some firms. Ack. JLSS taking many notes with as sour look on her face.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Plus, in their contract, insurance companies should have assistance of the insured to investigate the incident.  That seems to be non existent in the neutral path plus there isn't much involvement of insurance.  

A further argument is/was expanded in one of the Certain Insurers' filed objections. I can't imaging it doesn't come up again. There is a provision for BSA/the Trustee to help claimants obtain information they would otherwise have to scrap for through discovery. It's in the discovery protocols. This, specifically, runs squarely afoul of the duty to join their insurers in defending against claims. That's the argument.

11 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

The other witnesses were lawyers from law firms who have a lot of clients.  Neither of their depositions seemed socking to me.  

I think Sean Higgins (Andrews-Thornton) was a terrible witness for them to put before the judge. He explained their vetting process, justification for e-signatures, ongoing contact and follow up with clients, the iterative process of gathering claim data leading to filing 100’s of POC amendments, and was very articulate. Showing his video testimony was a waste, at best, damaging to their case at the worst. Not well thought out IMNSHO. 

BSA YP consultant, Praesidium Partners, on now. Aaron Lundberg, CEO testifying.