ThenNow

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

FCR is challenging the LC rep for the lowest scores on cross. His counsel has said, "Um. Er. Um." in every objection. Not pretty.

I wonder what the media will have to say about this. Sheesh. I would not want to attempt an overview or summary. His attorney looks like he has some undisclosed internal malady. 

FCR is challenging the LC rep for the lowest scores on cross. His counsel has said, "Um. Er. Um." in every objection. Not pretty.

Listening to Charlie under both direct and cross, let's just say hope does not spring eternal as such might apply to my eventual award (or lack thereof). 

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Bishop Schol up now.

Many details of the structure of the UMC, the priority of taking emotional and spiritual care of survivors, the processes for decision making, the directive to back away from CO status, the difficulty of the mediation sessions, the eventual settlement and scramble to get sign-on across the congregations, the retraction of the directive, their goal to pay their portion within the first year, their effort to see all COs gain releases and etc. Critical to me, he wept as he expressed true sorry over what happened to us. And, not just once, but several times. Me too. He ended direct questioning with a statement to the effect, "And to the survivors, you are the heroes. Thank you for brining this to our attention."

8 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Strong term, but US Trustee alluded to that.

I think more than alluded. "As long as they get a check, they settle." 

Jessica Lauria: Updated Mediator's Report. BSA and RCC Ad Hoc Committee have struck a deal. They withdraw their objections. Agree to support BSA through 2036. Forming a CO advisory group...I just found it on the docket.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/cfa95f81-22b0-409a-862d-6eb07e166523_9387.pdf

20 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

I wish someone would have asked Dr. Kennedy about this Plan paragraph. Who else could this apply to except TCC members? Smells very fishy. 

 

Section 4.1(c)

(c) Among the Trust Assets are funds contributed from Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP (the “PSZJ Contribution”). The Trustee shall have discretion to use such part of the PSZJ Contribution as the Trustee may determine to distribute to holders of Abuse Claims in recognition of their positive contributions made prior to, during or after the Chapter 11 Cases benefiting survivors of childhood sexual abuse and preventing abuse.

tccquestions@pszjlaw.com

9 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

Even with a strong case for tolling the SOL via fraudulent concealment or delayed discovery, survivors abused in Grey states max out at the top end of their scaled bracket, i.e. Grey 3 @ .25.

TDP reference language, please? 

59 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Intermediate appellate panel. 2-1.  Appeal to NC Supreme Court. Only instance I can think of where an appellate court ruled that a revival statute violated the state constitution. SCOTUS has ruled in other contexts that civil statutes of limitations are matters of "legislative grace" i.e. what the legislature giveth it can take away. No federal constitutional right in a statute of limitation defense. 

Just updating the testimony and stating his argument, since our court reported was off duty. That's it.

9 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Certain insurers going after SOLs, showing case after case being dismissed depending on SOL.  Also showing Kansas dismissing revival due to constitutional issues.  Lawyer claiming this is the only case they are aware of where claims outside SOLs are included.

Basically, looking to prepare to show that cases outside SOLs do not have valid claims. (my guess)  Note I'm not a lawyer or judging this opinion, just highlighting what was discussed in trial.

Also, Jacobs noted that NC's "reviver" was found unconstitutional. To wit, open (window) state claims could later be un-opened by virtue of the laws being unconstitutional. As in, openness might be in flux.

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

I expect much of the hearing will be laying foundations for appeal.  JLSS will approve this plan.  I expect most know that.

Yup. I was speaking to the substance of your post for those who may not naturally tie that timber hitch. 

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

Apparently, someone was on video taking cellphone pictures today of the hearing.  

Ninja hit. Logged on, took photos of the participants during the brief recess and logged off.

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

it is almost as if AIG is laying out a case that BSA is attempting to dump most of the cost on insurers, sandbag their current financial situation and then post bankruptcy, show major cost savings and big donors to quickly recover (while insurance bares the brunt of the cost).  AIG also spent a lot of time indicating the Coalition essential wrote the TDPs.  

Foundation for appeal is being laid.

19 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Confirmation hearing starts today, 10AM Eastern Time

aaa8a70d-a7ec-4442-b5fc-9854abbf2a35_9262.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

 

Let the games begin!

9305.pdf

28 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

we will find satisfaction

[famous Rolling Stones line goes here]

15 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

We disagree on whether the article is spot on.

At some point an organization (and I won't hold my breath that it will be a governmental agency) will need to do autopsies of these cases. Since the analysis is not being done during the process, for various stated reasons some of which I don't not comprehend, they just slide on through like snail snot. I used that because they are slow, but slick. How can this continue to happen relatively unchecked without both full disclosure of aggregator funding and advertising methods, and frontend vetting and validation of e-signatures? From what I see as a moral and objective standpoint, all expediency excuses aside, how is this the "right" way to do something. Any dilution of the claimant pool by nefarious means damages survivors all over again. Okay. No one ping-pong me for veering of topic, bitte.

9 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

I scream every time I see something about negotiating for "better" youth protection. [This has nothing to do with the points in your post, @johnsch322.] I may have mentioned this earlier but that (better youth protection) was the chat answer I received from Doug Kennedy of the TCC as the reason to vote for this plan. 

1. appropriate youth protection should have been implemented as soon as it was determined to not be sufficient. This is a BSA failure (and is presumably an on-going failure until a bankruptcy case is over).
2. that it is being negotiated as part of a bankruptcy stemming from too little youth protection is unbelievable. This is a BSA failure.
3. that the first plan was sent out with "lesser" and presumably not appropriate youth protection is unconscionable. This is a BSA, a TCC and a court failure. If it wasn't sufficient, it should not have been sent out.

The BSA is an entity that wants to survive and I can understand (but vehemently disagree with) their choices around money, settlements, debt, etc. But when that entity is youth-oriented and needs to negotiate with outside groups to make sure the youth are protected... disgusting. 

Starting from the end, are you saying it's wrong, foolish or pointless to negotiate changes to help keep youth safe? I get the disgusting and don't disagree. Let's assume BSA is headed toward emergence to continue its youth-serving mission. For the sake of staying in a straight line, let's not argue whether it does or does not do that well. All mitigating arguments and objections to the outcome being realized aside, isn't it better to use the moment to leverage enhanced youth protection than see BSA emerge without those significant improvements? Are you exclusively saying that because they had to be forced to change is repressible or do you believe no one should negotiate with those perceived as unrepentant, unredeemable or other "uns" we can insert? Not poking, just hoping to better understand. For me, the trauma of not seeing these changes put in place to protect kids outweighs whether it was a huge BSA failing. All said and done, I'm glad for the outcome. 

27 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

Does that make sense to others?

Yes.

15 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Everyone who was mediating on the side of survivors was hamstrung by the bad deal that BSA made with Hartford

Agreed. If we recall the way it went down, without any involvement of the TCC and triumphantly announced to the world as the second coming, it was clearly a (the?) major BSA gaffe that set the trajectory.  I believe that is when I went into my, "smells like desperation" and not "teen spirit" routine. 

11 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I only hope each person voting fully understands the situation and are being properly advised by their lawyers.  

"If wishes were fishes we'd eat for a lifetime." There is 0% chance this hope is realized. 

Also, 85% is not a good sign. 8000 holdout votes of 56,500 voting claimants is not insubstantial. 

18 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Yikes.  85% seems low.

As I recall, on top of the AG's and US Trustee, Purdue had roughly 2000 holdout tort claimants. Based on this report, we have 8000.

5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Perhaps all will work out in the end, but man, this is some ugly sausage making.  

I'm undergoing a remodel. It seems endless. Painfully so. One thing after another. Overruns. Redundancies. Do overs. Inflation. Supply chain. Bid adjustments. Delays upon delays. Unscrupulous people. Sound familiar? The electrician was installing lights yesterday. He is an affable, tatted up, big-bearded biker sorta fella. I like him. Yesterday, he overheard me muttering to myself after finding the latest dumb thing one of the other sub's did. He chimed in from the other room, "You're dancing in the hotdog factory, again. Get out of there and don't come back until they tell you it's finished." Word.

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

85.72% Accept.

10 hours ago, Muttsy said:

so….what does the day after plan denial look like and how will you feel about that result?

Numb and Numb-er?