ThenNow

Numb and Numb-er?

85.72% Accept. 1816711345_DI9275SupplementalNownes-WhitakerDeclaration.pdf

Let's see if you hear from your attorney. It is the best source of information and the least problematic for you and others here who can offer an opinion. Has your attorney been responsive in the past? By what method did you contact Omni?

I asked Omni and they said they'll have the final report the 10th. She also said she's not reading 3000+/- exhibits (with untold sub-exhibits), only documents specifically referenced during the trial. She was very displeased overall. She had a 20+/- second pause at one point, looking up into her brain apparently trying to determine what to say. I would love to know what things were passing through her mind. Did I say she was very displeased? I think he refrained since he's said the same general thing three times, always adding, "This is a case about abuse survivors!" I think his solution is to continue his objection and suggest the judge Purdue it. Well, the middle Purdue and not the latest Purdue.

Yes, that's a simple summary of the requirements, but they keep talking about it being limited, designed for the high-dollar claims that are the most severe and horrific, and not a lot of claimants will pursue it. Clearly, as described in the Zalkin/Pfau brief, this is intended for the well-vetted, open state claims that were or could be prepped to go into the tort system. "Abuse claim is in statute." Those 3 elements that make up the narrow definition, I believe. I just want someone to say that. Continuing to say "most severe...most horrific" and high-dollar claims is just a shroud. I get it, but it's not transparent.

I still want to know who created this supposedly narrow gate and how they are defining "most severe" and "high value." What one may see as (physically) onerous may not have the highest level of economic damages or the same statutory framework for maximizing/limiting non-economic and punitive. People like me who crashed mid-career in their 40's and had significant loss of income, etc., might not have had the "most severe" abuse, whatever the [blank] that means. Honestly, I don't know. I am NOT categorizing abuse because I hate the very thought of it. This type of injury (tort) is personal and case-specific. Some people experience terrible things and don't lose careers, go into a psyche hospital, or adopt multiple maladaptive, self-harming surviving mechanisms. We really deserve to know exactly the framework they have created here. "They" being the state court counsel who crafted and negotiated the IR. Am I being self-centered and/or myopic? Third mod to Plan 5.0, I believe.

Anudder half mill. [*drip*drip*drip*] https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/dbcf37f0-5d86-4b6c-9ef0-bdfda2a24b42_9170.pdf

If you want to understand the view of holdout firms representing abuse claimants in open states with financially sound defendants (who now support the plan), read this. On the side, I think Sir Thomas Patterson is one of the smartest attorneys on this case. That is my opinion from watching him and reading his filings. Is he the only Rhodes Scholar among them? Dunno. I'm bettin', but what do I know... https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/195daa83-e7db-494d-9c7c-05d2c09c293f_9156.pdf PS - I still want someone to better explain the IR process, specifically as to the exclusive ability of the limited, "most severe" and "high-value claims" to access the excess insurance layers. 4. The centerpiece of the Plan modifications is the Independent Review Option for the holders of high-value Abuse Claims that will enable liquidate their claims (through a Settlement Recommendation) based on an accurate assessment of the tort system value of their claims without artificially capping the individual’s Abuse Claim on the basis of categorical matrix values and pre- established aggravating and mitigating scaling factors. Independent Review is specifically designed for holders of Abuse Claims whose claims are supported by, and collectible from, excess layers of non-settled insurance. Non-settling insurers are invited, but not required, to participate in Independent Review. The Settlement Trust is then empowered to make demand upon and collect accepted Settlement Recommendations from responsible Non-Settling Insurers in accordance with otherwise applicable law. Survivors who elect Independent Review will have distribution rights for amounts of their claim awards in excess of $1 million to be paid from an Excess Award Fund comprised of the proceeds from excess insurer settlements. 5. The Independent Review Option thus solves two problems with the Prior Plan in a single stroke. It provides a fair and efficient administrative process for liquidating and distributing recoveries to the highest value Abuse Claims in a manner that is commensurate with the tort system value of those claims, and it provides an efficient mechanism for the Settlement Trust, on behalf of survivors more broadly, to thereafter liquidate rights against Non-Settling Insurers, consistent with otherwise applicable law. By capping the vast majority of Abuse Claims at dollar amounts well below the threshold for triggering excess coverage, the Prior Plan effectively insulated the excess insurers, making settlement less likely. Under the current Plan, Independent Review provides a mechanism for establishing the high-value claims that would otherwise have been established in the tort system and that will reach into the excess insurance coverage layer.

Precisely, and on a frequency the average mortal cannot detect. I’m messin…

Ok. We all have to admit this is a funny word. Experts like to coin stuff when they don't like what else is available to them, Cronbach or no Cronbach. I'm teasing, but use it in a sentence this week and see the reaction you get (unless you work in quantitative analysis, mathematics or the like).

Bam. An equal opportunity skinning on live Court TV. It is simply inexcusable they would think it perfectly terrific and endearing to say that sort of [blankety blank] with all of us watching and listening. Makes me pretty cranky pants.

Thanks for the "most." I assumed that allows present company to be excepted? (There are at least three of us present and relatively accounted for.)

I would like the 411 on how and why that went down. Where’s Paul Harvey when you need him?

Define or quantify "seldom," please? I do think BSA is conspicuous by its absence on this list. We know they to some degree (I don't know what) requested "No Publicity" on cases. The most damning is the historical fact made popular by our much missed colleague, CynicalScouter. Keeping the existence of the IV Files from Dr. Menniger while he was supposed to be doing an organization-wide risk audit of the organization is very telling and problematic. That was in the 1980's if I recall correctly the date of his testimony. Agreed. This, we cannot afford or abide. We have to do better and I mean societally. Fear thrives in darkness. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" and knowledge requires disclosure by those in the know. 1000%. This process is distinct from the underlying issue, however.

I've not chimed in on this point for some time and have developed a new response. Let me try it out. Please don't freak out. I'm trying to illustrate what is being said and what I've said in the past in a different way. Many moons ago I used the phrase, "soul murder." Keep that in mind as you read on. Let's say you have a national organization with an acute dilemma. It has a "low" overall percentage incidence of a particular pediatric disease, but it is still widespread, i.e., many locations. This disease creates lifelong physiological and psychological impairments to the children afflicted by it. Permanent. Lifelong. Tragic. Sometimes fatal. Critically, you know the cause. (I prefer to use organization rather than a demographic, as would be typical with a disease. It still works here with 252 LCs, jeepers knows how many Packs and Units, and 40,000ish COs.) Okay. So, let's take brother John's case of 11 boys abused abused by the same two volunteers. There were probably more. I know for a fact five other boys were abused by my SM and I am quite confident there are another 5+ who are claimants here, more likely 10. That's in one small town, one Troop, over a 7-year span. Again, "low" percentage overall incidence, but local concentrations with exponential spikes imbedded by location. Remember this is lifelong and potentially fatal. Riddle me this: Would an organization with a mission to train up young (wo)men into exemplary citizens and leaders fail to tenaciously weed out the cause with the help of any and all experts? Would they alert the public, children and parents to be aware of the known factors that cause the dreaded disease? In this case, that includes context (kids alone with adults), grooming and the rest. C'mon man. Of course they would. If they did not, what would you call failing to warn any and all concerned about this threat of death for 82,000+ children regardless the timespan. Yup. Even if you became aware of 10 significant outbreaks within a 5 years period and knew the precipitating factors, wouldn't you pursue it aggressively and publicly? If you didn't...ack. Something got muddled up here, regardless the era and time. My take.

This has to be wrong. It’s Thursday. Please tell someone not to further tilt the axis of my universe. I’m far enough out of balance as it is!

I think I said something to this effect long ago at my point of entry into this Scouter.com universe. The whole thing feels like kids doing heart surgery with garden tools in a tree house at the rate of $1000 per hour per kid. All the neighborhood kids are lined up around the block to climb the rope ladder and get in on the action. (This assessment is not my logical brain speaking, rather the lizard part. I understand the complexity, it just feels utterly ridiculous and immoral.)

The problem of "future claimants"' plagues the resolution of mass tort bankruptcies.2 Mass tort injuries, such as those caused by asbestos exposure, can entail long and variable lag times between the exposure to a harmful product and the resultant harm? As a result, some claimants may be unaware of their injury at the time of a company's bankruptcy reorganization.' Moreover, the total number and magnitude of future claims is subject to great uncertainty Any resolution of mass tort claims in bankruptcy (or via the legislative creation of a mass tort trust fund)6 must ensure a "fair distribution" for these ill-defined future claimants-an exceedingly difficult task.' https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/4945/Protecting_Future_Claimants_in_Mass_Tort_Bankruptcies.pdf?sequence=2

First one to read and give a full report receives that old OA pocket patch I've been raving about. Enjoy all four hundred and twenty-four pages of it. DEBTORS’ (I) MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF CONFIRMATION OF THIRD MODIFIED FIFTH AMENDED CHAPTER 11 PLAN OF REORGANIZATION FOR BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA AND DELAWARE BSA, LLC AND (II) OMNIBUS REPLY TO PLAN CONFIRMATION OBJECTIONS 84842171_BSA-ConfirmationBrief-D.I.9114.pdf

From your post to JLSS ears. BUT, the payments must come from the people doing the billing and they can't turn around and pass it through to the Debtors' estate. Strike that. I want the Coalition to pay me, and a round for all my friends! C'mon boys (and gals)...!

This is going into my presentation to the Settlement Trustee or Neutral. We can adjust the figure for inflation.

At the center of this bankruptcy approach to mass tort resolution is the idea of the future claims representative (the "FCR"), a court-appointed agent named to represent then-nameless, faceless future victims of claimed tortious acts already committed by the corporate debtor. https://www.chapman.edu/law/_files/publications/CLR-3-frederick-tung.pdf

Hours. Total is before the holdback.

I think so. Yes?