ThenNow

56 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I posted a comment and was lambasted for it in a very cruel way.  It was 100% inappropriate. 

I’m sorry and hope I didn’t do something (again). I appreciate your opinions, tenacity and that you used the word “lambasted.” A much neglected but wonderful and very old part of the English language. Well done, you. 

51 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Is that a red flag?  Large national case with representation that can't or won't represent on at the state level?  It sort of makes sense.  Trying to focus on the larger national case even if they don't have resources to litigate state by state. 

This is my sense of it. I won’t go so far as to call it an understanding. I think the implication is they are not child sexual abuse attorneys willing to go the distance with their clients. In the end and in the main, this is a personal injury/mass tort case. Many of the attorneys who are representing abuse claimants are, in fact, PI attorney. BUT, many do not have experience representing survivors of child sexual abuse. What that says to me (and only me) is, “Yee haw!! All aboard!! Bandwagons ho!!” If you pursue all manner of other tort cases in state court, why are you not representing your client here and there? My thinking, because this is a case to which you can hitch your buggy and go along for the ride under inertia power. When it arrives, you jump off and go to the bank. Then, (JOKE ALERT!!) the saloon. Again, this is my sniffer and not my lame brain. 

PS - Remember, some of them apparently have ample resources to pursue individual PI cases on state level. Here, they received investment dollars so they could represent muchos individuals. See what I mean?

7 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

What will it take to get a plan passed and survive as an organization?

Ask the TCC, DOJ, churches and all other hold outs. It will take an open checkbook for more money from LC and insurance companies for s

This is my question exactly, which is multipart:

1) Dollars and who’s gonna cough them up and onto the table;

2) YP improvement requirements; 

3) LSS’s threshold percentage required for approval;

4) LSS’s risk tolerance in the face of a possible post-approval Purdue smackdown; and

5) Who holds the votes that can be moved, whether through disqualification or satisfaction of demands. (Nod to Eagle1993 who I know said several of these items better than I.)

As to votes that can be garnered, how many actual votes are held by the objecting firms? For those whose clients are predominantly in open states and voted master ballots, do they have any intention to settle with anyone other than BSA? From all I hear, I don’t think so. If that is the case, those votes won’t budge and become immaterial in the discussion. Am I wrong about that? I was wrong once. Maybe I’m wrong about that. Hm. Anyway, if they are intransigent, what’s left to gather and stick in the accept column? Dunno? Can the balance who might be convinced move the needle by 2% or 22%. That’s the range in question reflecting back to #2 above, yes? Per VolunteerScouter, who I believe speaks on good information, the BRG LC dashboard numbers are DOA. He could be wrong, though his opinion read as immutable. I should not speculate, assume or react in ignorance. I may get the penalty box. Perhaps he’ll chime in. 

Last two questions. Does anyone know in which states and LCs the 275+/- filed cases and the 1200 threatened were lodged? What about the firms who brought or were bringing them? I wish I knew where and who. Depending on their influence on the workings of mediation, it could be of note.

PS - Knowing there are very mixed feelings about TK, I’ll nevertheless add one comment. He noted in his deposition that not many of the claimants’ bankruptcy attorneys are long-time CSA counsel. It has also been noted a good number of them did not agree to represent their clients in state court, should it get to that point. Who’s who in mediation and influential consultation I have nary a clue.

1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I have a vague recollection one is a retired attorney. Not this one of course. He was summarily rejected. 

In response to a question during a TCC town hall meeting about a month or two ago, Doug Kennedy referenced a video of one of the earliest TCC town hall meetings where he gave a brief biography of all of the TCC members. 

The rejected attorney was correct. Below is a link to the TCC’s TH transcript of 1.14.21. Worth reading from the top to get the JH and DK intros. All the brief bios follow in short order. 

https://www.pszjlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/BSA Town Hall Transcript 01-14-2021.pdf

16 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

have never heard that any of the nine are Lawyers.

I have a vague recollection one is a retired attorney. Not this one of course. He was summarily rejected. 

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

just a waste of money and time. 

Sounds like par for the course from my seat.

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

It would be much better to restart negotiations then try and see a few percentage points swing in a failing outcome.

Perhaps, but how many times has “better” been attempted so far? I think I just need my hunt and peck typing fingers.

7 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

We should know by late tonight or tomorrow.

I’m going with the end of the day, remembering Omni is on PT. Taking bets. And, btw, MYCVA. Don’t try to go all in with that stinky dang beret, yet again. 

3 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Did you hear that roaring silence emanating from NY and Philadelphia? It’s what losing sounds like. 
 

Hello darkness my old friend, I’ve come to to you again…

Yes. The words of the prophet are screaming in the form of no noticed Coalition update notice, ja? Who knows. I speak in ignorance waiting to catch the subway. (Please don’t say I’m being incoherent and/or obtuse. Suffer me this one.)

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Omni said they needed every minute possible ... so I don't expect anything until late today ... but we could be surprised.

A news guy just told me “very soon.” Both words are, of course, relative and subjective.

41 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

The more I have learned about the claims harvesting in this event, the more I hope they lose their butts on this as a "business venture".

41 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

The process is very flawed imo.

For good or for ill (more often than not mine), I have a low threshold and hair trigger on my injustice reflex. It has often gotten me into trouble defending people in sometimes no-win situations. Occasionally, I win regardless. This goes all the way back to objecting to physically abusive parents to neighborhood bullies who picked on my brothers to developers who force out and displace at risk populations to COVID Era politicians and businesses who abuse the unsuspecting up to and including a giant insurer who took advantage of me and others similarly situated. I just hate it. Along those lines, often having too much time on my hands, I have been studying and pondering opportunism, defined as follows:

“Opportunism is the practice of taking advantage of circumstances – with little regard for principles or with what the consequences are for others.”

This situation has so many avenues and parties that wreak of opportunism it makes me sad, angry and disgusted. (I wonder how many times I’ve used that last word on this forum. Hm. I resisted saying “nauseated.”) While there are many parties who are well-meaning and truly concerned for things/people they love, there are many others in this Carnival slicing away seeking multiple pounds of flesh. They epitomize opportunism of the first order. The backs they are skinning have already suffered enough. I realize I am powerless to get at them, but I hope and pray someone or something does. I know that might cross purposes with my faith and beliefs, but if I can’t battle them...

So, when does the ball drop, anyway? Is Ryan Seacrest on standby?

43 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

<75% and the plan is dead.   The judge should kick the coalition out as a mediation partner and restart mediation.  BSA & TCC should meet to discuss plan structure that could get their buy in.

Or, no one regards the number, whatever it is, as definitive and MAD commences with all parties attempting to “change” the vote tally by undermining the other. If the preliminary count is under the magic threshold, can’t BSA simply say, “the election was stolen,” proceed as if it “won” and do everything possible to make it so? Unless it’s a truly dispositive vote, this is the path I see. 

12 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

If the BSA hits the 75% needed

On what precedent is this number based? I just haven’t seen it pegged so specifically before. 

13 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

the discovery barrage

This seems to be a strong indicator of the lay of the land (vote), no? Seems that way to me. 

As always, thanks for all your good info and insights!

11 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Typically settlements seem to hit at least 2-3M for each case...

Data source(s)? Is that an overall settlement number for suits vs BSA, LC and CO? Single entity...? Love to have you unwrap that tidy parcel you put under the tree.

51 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I just saw Daniel Boone council had 20 lawsuits filed against it for CSA.  From prior discussions, each CSA lawsuit costs about $500K in legal fees ... so they are likely looking at $10M (roughly) in legal fees.  I took a look at the Daniel Boone's settlement ... they only offered $656K.  They have net unrestricted assets of $7.8M.  It seems like some councils are playing with fire.  Just the legal fees from 2 cases likely exceeds their settlement offer.  If this plan fails, I believe some councils may have wished they offered more.  Daniel Boone is one that I question right now.

I saw that and come to a similar conclusion. Assessing my own LC, there are 6 live claims (including mine) that could easily settle out over their current offer, not including fees. If they all go to trial, well past the number. As a non-litigator who is devoid of other than a basic recollection of the laws of evidence, making a multimillion dollar offer to “resolve” child sexual abuse claims via someone else’s bankruptcy proceeding doesn’t look great, even if inadmissible. From a public perception perspective alone, since all of the numbers are public, it could serve as leverage. I’m sure SiouxCity can enlighten on the law. As to simple optics, pretty no bueno. Wonder if that/this scenario has been contemplated and factored into decisions to this point. Thus concludes my ignorant ramble on this topic. 

10 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

My guess is that the vote comes in the range of 70-85% accept.  Why?  Because that likely the worst case scenario for all involved and given BSA's luck, I expect that is what we will see.  What is this the worst case?  Because it is enough to pass a BSA only plan; however, not enough for the judge to likely accept non debtors.  BSA will believe they are close enough.  Anti plan advocates will believe that close doesn't count.  With no clear "winner" of the vote, we will be stuck in limbo for months. 

Same. Yup. Yup. Yup. 

Btw, did you mean limbo, purgatory or the hybrid place of waiting and torture? Limbatory, I like to call it.  

13 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

I have heard nothing about the vote except there is hope that the plan is going to pass.

In some ways, I’m not sure the tally we will see tomorrow will mean whatever it appears to mean. I put the odds at zero that it will be overwhelming in either direction. The numbers are just not there. There are two motivated factions, each with a devoted constituency they likely “turned out,” as they say. Given the assumption of a failed dispositive result, this is what I think.

We are in for something that could end up looking like a MAD warfare scenario. There will be an all out assault on claimant votes both accept and reject. Both sides will try to invalidate the other’s respective tally by all means available and at any cost. TCC, Kosnoff, AIG, Patterson (Zalkin/Pfau), et al., with be seeking to upend “accept” votes. Coalition and its allies will try to undermine the “rejects” (used advisedly). The Kosnoff/TCC letter, e-ballot, time-barred and $3500 off-ramp claims, attorney e-signatures, aggregator methods, Coalition efforts to dog clients into changing votes and 30’000+/- claims lacking basic identifiers - LC, CO, abuser, year(s), etc. - will all be “painted” targets awaiting guided missile lock.  I think it’s about to get ugly, not to mention the Purdue Kraken stirring beneath the dark waters. Well, what do I know, other than this is a terrible mess. Ack. Oh, yeah. Happy New Year.

15 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Lets stay on topic,  Chapter 11 Voting and Confirmation. Thanks, RS

So, the “YP & 18-20 Year Olds” topic runs through multiple posts on Iron City rot gut, the need for ASMs to choose better mentors for the selection of camp alcohol, the disdain for IPA and Crap, er, Craft beers, nationwide alcohol distribution, the ease of quitting drinking, and all manner regarding women who like or don’t like camping, and I get dinged (again) for an inside joke. Got it. Back to bankruptcy, voting and confirmation. I won’t say what I wanted to say...   

PS (and this is not what I refer to in the last sentence) - Some of us happened to be abused by our SM after booze (including domestic beer and rot gut) were used to groom us. Some of us were abused at Summer Camp in such circumstances. Some of us took 35 years to “quit drinking.” I won’t go on at this point. 

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Correct.

Gotcha. Your post seemed to say the opposite, but I move fast and use the Evelyn Woodhead Sped Riddin’ method. (Nod to Messrs. Marin & Chong.)

Counter argument being 55,000+/- guys get very little, if anything, in state court per the currently configured SoLs. Take out the third party contributions and what is their average award in a BSA only plan? Dunno, but minimal. Not advocating for or agin, but I understand both perspectives. Personally, I almost certainly do better on the toggle toboggan with a handful of open claims against my LC and likely fewer implicating the CO. Huge headache and nausea inducing, at best. I have Limitrex and a cast iron stomach. Many others do not. Gauging by my olfactory intake, any and all options smell relatively putrid at this point. Something about Limburger cheese and body oder emanating from the whole “steaming pile of cowpucky.” (Nods to TK’s recent Tweetage and Tall Tales & Legends, respectively.)

9 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

BSA made promises

Those three words are the most succinct summary of what ails us that I have seen over the last 1 year, 10 months and 11 days. Bam! 

“Chaotic.” I’ve not used that word to describe the Carnival, but it works. (Before I get in trouble with Mr. Schiff, this is an excerpt.)

https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/purdue-nra-boy-scouts-bankruptcies-that-defined-2021-2021-12-27/

“Despite making progress toward a deal to settle decades worth of sex abuse claims from former scouts, BSA’s bankruptcy proceedings were chaotic in 2021. Insurers questioned the validity of certain abuse claims. Attorneys for separate factions of survivors clashed. Allegations of problems with the system for survivors to vote on the deal persisted. An attorney's letter opposing BSA's proposed settlement was sent to thousands of survivors who weren’t supposed to receive it, causing more confusion among some who were already unsure about the deal. And throughout it all, many survivors have maintained that the proposed payouts are insultingly low. The organization is now waiting to see whether survivors will vote to accept the plan. Meanwhile, BSA's lawyers have warned that the longer this case lasts, the more money will be drained from the organization itself.”

7 hours ago, fred8033 said:

I weight the article based on it's source.  A law firm.  

I’m not looking for the conclusion or opinion in these pieces as much as information and analysis. Yes, the law firm has financial motive, but they also muck around in this world every day and need to know all sides of the argument. At any given moment, one member of the firm may be arguing one side and another the other. I sprinkle salt on everything. (I woulda coulda never gotten hired by IBM. Some of the old guys know what I mean.) I read. I listen. I try to really hear what everyone is saying to understand the rationale, politics, law, best interest of all and feasibility of application in the real, broken world. I don’t think it’s simple nor do I think it’s black and white.

7 hours ago, fred8033 said:

NRPA allows for larger awards and maybe faster results (debate-able).  At the same time, it slams the rights of both victims and non-debtors to have their time in court.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. The NRPA proposes to ditch the non-debtor releases, preserve litigation rights and give them and “victims” their day in court. No?

10 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I also would like to know if this was a coalition lawyer. 

No. DiCello, Levitt, Gutzler. No child sexual abuse experience stated on the site. Mass tort and PI. One case for the signatory of the master ballot was the “Propecia causes permanent sexual dysfunction” matter. Wait. Ah, er, um. Hold on a sec. I need to go throw out a bottle of something currently residing under my sink. Brb... 

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

No, but there was this big vote dump. All of these 100+ voted yes.

I would like to have heard or now see the attorney’s argument given to the clients. My reason is not to question the viability of anyone voting to approve. That is their choice. I want to see if it is so convincing and unequivocal as to compel every single one of their clients. Not a single dissenter. Or, perhaps, was there very little communication and the attorneys merely said, “Trust us. We got your back”?

Kept the phone out of the drink. Also interesting. 

https://www.theday.com/article/20211225/OP01/211229706