ThenNow

How does that work for some of us who have already lost/invested/said bye-bye to 100’s of thousands in real spendable dollars, as per my post up yonder?

I too realize assets are limited, though the insurers (at least) have mucho more that is not being tapped. (I know this ain’t the gov’ment who gets to print money, but “C’mon, man!”) My not quite weekly therapy for the twenty years since the ground opened up and swallowed me put about $120,000 on the red side of the ledger. That’s just for a reference point. I know I’ve posted all manner of numbers in the past, but it seemed relevant to the current tea party chatter. If I added meds, residential and outpatient treatment, various depression treatments (including ECT), hospitalizations, surgeries and procedures for deteriorated joints, heart and gut issues (thank you, hyper allostatic load), U of Chicago efforts to address peri-anal fistulae and...that number is pushing or exceeding brother John’s. And really don’t get me started on lost wages and the like. PS - I no longer have any delusional thinking about this award feeling like or being equitable compensation or just recompense or reasonable reimbursement or anything of the sort. I am not saying that to make any of you angry, I’ve just resolved it in my head and heart. If I happen to hit the LC or CO state court lottery, bully for me. Someone remind me of the well-established lottery odds, if you would please. I recall a yarn about a shark getting struck by lightning while it’s trying to bite me as I ride down Main Street USA on a moped eating a hot fudge Sunday wearing MCVA’s stinky red beret that he traded for my OA lodge pocket flap patch. Is that about right?

Yes. SoL and SOL. Precisely. Prob’ly, as some of my northern kin say.

Not unlike LCs and COs, no? I mean as to the declaring Chapter 11 part, not the being “Slackers” part, for the record. Yessir. Was just sayin...

I don’t necessarily disagree with this list. I will speak totally out of turn and lay odds that I’m right in this speculation. I don’t think most survivor claimants in this case, based on how I read many of the factors, have YP at number two and know little to nothing about non-debtor third party releases or a Purdue-like negation on appeal. Just being honest. (Someone do a poll on how many claimants even care if BSA survives. How many upvotes? Wanna poll attorneys, too? Ha.) I wish the third party release issue had featured more prominently in media scrutiny many months ago. Survivors should have been afforded the courtesy to be aware of the looming threat. I think for most guys there are two issues: (1) maximum financial recompense; and (2) getting this over and done with once and for all. YP “changes” are a fairly esoteric concept when you have no idea what’s being done now or not. As SoLs are currently configured throughout the states, some 55,000+/- claimants will get nothing from COs in the so-called tort system. Looking back over the last 21 months, BSA should never have tried to include them. I hate to say that, because I had some hope of a global settlement, aka, “get me the he## off this brutal carnival ride!” If COs fall out, as may be necessary, I’m stuck suing my mom’s lifelong church. That is an awful prospect I may be unable to countenance. And, no. I do not feel at all well about all of this today. I’m close to barfing all over the people next to me on this ride. Q: Since Purdue had a passel of Attorneys General banging for the deal to be overturned, along with some 2600+/- claimants, what if the deal had been a unanimous vote? Is that the only vaccine, er immunization, against such a challenge being successful? With that I say, “Ralph!! Alas, I’ve got the BSA Chapter 11 carnival flu.

I would love to hear the explanation for this and see a line by line comparison of the elements that now constitute abuse. From the jump, the word “pornography” is missing, while it is specifically in the the POC definition of abuse. I didn’t look in the previous iteration of the Plan to see if it’s there. Anyone?

There are a lot of things jumbled up in these sentences. I am completely unqualified to unpack them, but that never stopped me before. There are at least three different things going on here: 1) Coverage Exposure. Yes, the polices are myriad, but they have been reviewed and the coverage exposure assessed, or so I’m told. That number is in the hundred + $B range. That is about the amount of “cover” purchased through all the policies over all the years. (My recollection is there is a 40 or so page list of the policies involved here.) Coverage “exposure” is not “liability.” Exposure is the max number you could be hit with in the worst case scenario of determined liability. (See, #3.); 2) Estimation of Value. The TCC sought an “estimation” of the value of claims many months ago. That was a midstream effort to peg only that element - value of the claims - but it would have put a stake in the ground around which to negotiate settlements. Insurers fought that and won. In their minds, an estimation would smell too much like a determination of liability. (See, #3.). The TCC was looking to get all the data on past BSA child sexual abuse settlements to factor into that estimation, along with all the other independently available data on how much the cases are “worth.” However, neither “worth” nor “value” are liability either; and 3) Financial Liability. Actual “liability” - in this context, what someone owes - is determined by a process that produces a dollar figure, be it settlement, judgement or award. (There could be non-monetary elements, but forget about that for the purpose of this ramble.) That said, in almost all settlements the “liable” party denies liability, but coughs up money to get away from the liability which they just denied. There. All clear on the murky horizon, yes?

Nixed.

I’m horribly rusty, but I played a land use attorney on TV in a former life and that would be my bet. With all the talk of asset sales, reversionary interests, and etc., I would've advised putting a stake in the ground and sounding out the situation before it happened to land on a client’s head. I wonder when it was granted, if for consideration (one time or ongoing) and if the grant of easement itself contains certain terms of termination.

Posted this elsewhere, but for gee whiz, here it is again. The topic was circling around ridiculous lawsuits that damage defendants, though there is no reasonable basis to bring suit, and plaintiff’s attorneys have no reason not to bring them. I first thought of sanctions and demanding plaintiffs of such suits pay all costs and fees of the defendant. As I say below, I know not even a thimble full about this. As my dad would tell me, “You don’t know enough about that to blow your nose.” I always thought that odd. I have only begun to study this in the last couple days, though I am somewhat familiar with the craziness in Cook County, IL. I know how I think/feel going into it, but we shall see. Per a Reuters article, I will read Prof. Chamblee Burch’s book, Mass Tort Deals: Backroom Bargaining in Multidistrict Litigation. If inclined, you can check out the site link below, which has a link to a study, and there’s a link to a dated essay. I often like to read older stuff then track it forward. I’m interested in the other attorney’s thoughts, as well as anyone else. As for me, all I know is I’m not entirely comfortable with what we have on our hands courtesy of the mass tort bar. I won’t judge until I know more. Than I will rule promptly, because that’s what judges do. They rule. https://www.atra.org/2021/12/07/nations-worst-judicial-hellholes-expand-liability-allow-frivolous-lawsuits/ Haven’t started this yet and there are many others. I know nothing about sanctions and/or reform efforts to curb frivolous lawsuits, but I’ll be interest to check it all out. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=dlj

I have only begun to study this in the last couple days, though I have familiarity with the craziness in Cook County, IL. I know how I think/feel going into it, but we shall see. Per a Reuters article, I will read Prof. Chamblee Burch’s Mass Tort Deals: Backroom Bargaining in Multidistrict Litigation. If inclined, you can check out the site link below, which has a link to a study, and one dated essay. I often like to read older stuff then track it forward. I’m interested in the other attorney’s thoughts, as well as anyone else. I know what we have on out hands doesn’t seem so dandy... https://www.atra.org/2021/12/07/nations-worst-judicial-hellholes-expand-liability-allow-frivolous-lawsuits/ Haven’t started this yet and there are many others. The link doesn’t seem to work, but you can see the title.

By far my favorite excerpt from any pleading in a very long time. It can be found at page 3, paragraph 4 and footnote 3. I can’t make this stuff up, but man I love my job as a beat writer. (Not beat poet, for the record, though I can do that, as well. Soul patch is long gone, but I chase rabbits.) Check this out and be prepared to laugh: “If clients request an e-ballot, AVA refers them to Einseberg Rothschild.” (If only I could vote a laugh on my own post. Would someone see to that, please?)

I can’t get to the OmniAgent docket at the moment. Take it up with the little money-shoveling man, er, person.

I think the docket entries are on the 20th monthly billing cycle from the professionals who submit their invoices for approval. So, yes, the dollars are going out. I’m sure someone else has a handle on this. I just tried to get on the Omni site and the little construction worker is still shoveling money out of the virtual street. I think it’s cleanup after the most recent bags of money were hauled out of the vault.

As Eagle1993 noted, in fairness, we need to recall the layers of complexity as we’re not dealing with a single monolithic entity, regardless how large. The 250+ LCs, 1000’s of COs and their major affiliated entities, time frame, innumerable properties, desire for non-party releases, 50 states + territories, pages and pages of insurance policies, and claim valuation variables make this a simultaneous code brown in a nursery of 500 babies with only two diapers and one nanny. Also, the way the article bundled the discussion, it appeared the contingent fees were being rolled up into the estate fees conversation. That was not clear and I think it bears clarifying. I won’t be the one to do it, however. My abacus is done busted. Anyone want to help a brother out? I’m tired...

Mysterious, right? And that is no shadow of darkness on any claimant committee’s counsel. This where the web is tightly woven. So, across the spectrum of legal counsel in this case (not including in-house and out-house counsel for the insurers), including those billing the Debtors’ estate, we have at a minimum: 1) Contingent fee state court plaintiff’s counsel who headed the charge in open and window states pre-filing; 2) Debtor’s bankruptcy counsel, and there are several iterations - billed to the estate, at a max hourly of $1700 per; 3) PSZJ, lead counsel for the TCC - billed to the estate with 10% to the Settlement Trust; 4) Pasich, TCC insurance counsel - billed to the estate; 5) All the contingent fee claimant’s counsel that came post-filing; 6) Coalition and AIS counsel - I lost track of how many layers - and, as noted, the Coalition wants their attorneys’ fees paid by the estate. Yes. The contingent fee attorneys have attorneys who also have attorneys and the groups they formed have attorneys or something like that. Seriously, I want a flow chart. When this became apparent to me, I knew (for sure) the wheels had come off and/or I have multiple screws loose. Probably all of the above. I have not included all of the other asset assessment, accounting and analysis firms billing the estate. Also, in case I wasn’t clear, multiple of the AIS and Coalition attorneys have their own counsel who have been and will be pretty busy for a spell. I’m sure I missed things, but I can’t think about this any more...

Link to the hearing? Omni’s site is “Under Construction.” A graphic of a little man with a shovel is on the homepage and he seems to be working on piling up a YUGE number of $100 bills. It’s odd. Never mind. I just overheard a brief debrief that indicated the hearing about which I heard, and asked, was brief and concluded.

Little Charlie Dickens would be proud, if not aghast, at his fortunetelling abilities. (Nod to Bleak House.)

They actually used, “anonymous,” which was a flat out lie and they (should) know that.

Yup and the article even mentioned it.

To say this has become obscene strains the word’s ability to convey its meaning. From the Latin it is, effectively, “abominable.” The theory is our word comes from the combination of “in front of” and “filth.” To top it off, it turns out my attorney read the article, too. He just emailed me. Wants to up the baseline hourly to $8 and demands I agree to lift the cap. I can’t win. There was an e-signature button, but I was afraid to press it for fear if I did my already-cast ballot would turn to a “Yes” vote. Life is goofy. And scary. And expensive.

Glad I read this article before eating breakfast...

Coalition. Events. 11.30 Update @ 34:00. https://scoutingabusesurvivors.com/events/

Ruh Roh, Raggy...

I have several contexts to compare. Three are decades dated, and two within the last 15 years. I’m also not sure if all or any are currently relevant. I’ll stick with our sons’ and my experiences. I had multiple groups and activities that were coed and many that were not. Scouts stands out as the most “male-centric” and sequestered of all, including sports and being an altar boy (server). In the coed situations, all the elements of boy/girl tensions and attractions dramatically changed the dynamics, even in theater, band and choir. It was hormonal and culturally unavoidable. If the sports had cheerleaders, again the same tensions. In Scouts, putting the abuse and perversions of our Troop leaders aside, we had none of that, unless there were family visits or fully public events. I can’t even imagine the “sc-outing” experience if it had been coed. As to my sons, the same holds. Most notable, our youngest went to an all boys boarding school with a “sister school” located not too far away. If you camera-isolated the boys in the coed group and separately, you could almost always see the difference. Granted, some boys were oblivious, consistent and so focused on their tasks/performance you’d never know. The boys only environment It made for a very intense, productive and security-nurturing experience for him. He would not be who he is today without it. My nickel’s worth. As to the mature guys coming to the fore, I think that can certainly be true. I couldn’t have cared less and only would’ve been more inclined to push my way in to impress. I supposed that’s a different type of behavior alteration. As a dad of both boys and girls, the physical and cognitive developmental differences - in terms of onset and maturation - were stark. I also factor in the impact on shy, reserved and introverted boys. The presence of girls can cause what look like trauma responses in them, mostly freight or freeze, occasionally flight. This stands (stood?) as a barrier to some boys ever being “able” or ready to make the inch or leap toward leadership. Dunno. More nickels, I guess...