ThenNow

Add Bay-Lakes to your reference list, as well, since that big reveal ended up here a couple days ago. I was also told that there is a Sept. date set at which time the entire list will be released. Any who can, please confirm, deny or slap me down.

Do you have particular names that are part of this conspiracy theory or is this just a general “they” and “them”? If you guys are going to go at it, please give me five minutes to make some popcorn. Be right back...

From what I understand, not a lot. They weren’t tapping it for anything like that amount. No cutting staff. They’re good.

See my post of Cynical’s post above. Sorry for the butchery. Cut and paste is too gracious a description for what I do.

I think there's two different confidentiality items here: 1) "We can't tell you the number" is one. THAT has been lifted but some councils are still pretending it is binding. The fact that so many councils have released their numbers proves that's a fib. 2) "We can't tell you because we are in negotiations to sell local properties" is another that may be in play. Look at the language here. In other words, the NUMBER is no longer confidential, but HOW the LC will pay may be if there's a deal being struck in the background

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I have learned what my LC is contributing and I am not happy about it. I understand this is a process and it is bankruptcy, not state court. As has been said, no one is going to be “happy” at the end, unless there is a Chapter 7. Then, Tim Kosnoff has a phat yacht party with a massive fireworks display, complete with flaming effigies. Back to the point, it hurts to see and feel such a relative incongruity between the injury and the “penalty.” I know for a fact that some LCs were surprised and pleased by the number they were given and easily found the money. They were prepared to go much more deeply into their cash and assets. From a messaging perspective, that was stupid to say, but now it’s out.

Um. I think you sliced well wide of the pin. Bay-Lakes Council takes its $2.9M from it’s interest and dividend portfolio and that is that. “Spit, spot,” as Mary Poppins would say. As to their contribution, not so painful. Others are having their entire contribution paid by donors. True. Others have donors standing in the wing to replenish the fund once the case is over. True. From a victim claimant’s standpoint, and that is what we were talking about here, that doesn’t seem to match the “crime.” (No one freak out. I’m using a phrase that is relevant and applicable to some of us.) Finally, we’re talking largely about perception, remember, though there is plenty to evidence this being pretty darn easy for some. For others, very painful. I get it. For most us? We stand in the “others” line. /s/ <Half A. Clue

Back to the weird movie. That doesn't feel so good on this end of the stick. How many guys would even know to watch for an announcement from their LC? Not many. The first they'll see is the disclosure. I'm not trying to tank the process, it just goes to how wonky it is trying to resolve mass torts in Chapter 11. "One of these things, is not like the other. One of these things, just doesn't belong..."

Reference my reaction to the announcement you shared about taking a $3M slice off the stock portfolio. For me, that was irritating, regardless the number of claims or Shade of Gray. For those 155 guys and especially the 5 with live claims, that has to be painful. My thinking, anyway.

Got it. (It's still a very weird movie...)

"Honey, we're going to have a huge tax bill this year. Watch my Facebook posts over the next few days for the amount. I promise, we shouldn't have to sell your car or wedding ring." As a relative outsider, this is a very weird movie. I shoulda checked the Rotten Tomatoes before I bought it.

Yeah, yeah. I know. But they be talking to the peeps who are footing the bill, in the moment and going forward. The honest thing is to say, "We are required to contribute $1.3B, but are still in the process of determining how to convert the Pollock, Klimt, deKoonig and Picasso into cash. Stay tuned." Something like that.

Do any of the Catholic experts have a list of the members of Catholic Mutual?

Um, didn't that sorta just happen?

Obviously, some LCs saw the ruling in the best possible light pointing to with a reasonably near-term resolution built on the lame duck RSA. Who's communicating that? Also, what's this continuing claim of a confidentiality muzzle when we all know it's been lifted? Inquiring minds want to know...

Have there been any murmurings from AIS or the Coalition of Disappointed Attorneys for Justifiable Bribery?

This is an interview with Kathryn Robb, Exec Director of CHILDUSA Advocacy. Aired in February, but worth the five minutes. https://www.yourerie.com/on-our-air/newsmaker/newsmaker-kathryn-robb/

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2021/08/23/628273.htm

Okay. I guess it's time to pull out my Hardon's "Modern Catholic Dictionary." I'm rusty, to the chagrin of my Franciscan, Jesuit and Sisters of St. Agnes teachers.

"Answer to," but that doesn't seem to in any way "draw up" the liability. I believe it stops and rests with each Diocese. That's why they are the ones being sued and moving into their own 11s. No? Maybe this strand in the thread is about who gets to open the mail. Call me when it's over.

Dang it. That impacts my revenue trickle. Now, I have to cancel the food truck and outdoor big screen. I've been making some serious coin airing these. Korean BBQ on Wheels will be upset, as will the neighbors. Tanc is a celebrity. We place bets on when his pen will burst as he chews on it.

THAT explains everything! BSA is circling the drain because it lost a wing. Man. I wish I had thought of that...

Counsel for the Methodist and Catholic Ad Hoc Committees made this point very forcefully. He was nearly incredulous that BSA would be putting out any presumptive numbers for a business model, while simultaneously leaving the COs out of the current RSA. In effect, he asked, “Have you even considered how your business plan pencils if we go away? Have you lost your mind, as well as your calculator? You need us and, well, we really don’t ‘need’ you if it comes right down to it.”

This one of area of the insurance matters my wife commented on. From her view, there may very well be a high threshold of premiums at least until they have a “wait and see what happens” period. She was dubious about it being easier *poof* after discharge.

Sorry. My cousin was a PD representing almost exclusively juveniles and it sure seems to be, as she described it. Of course, those made it into the judicial system. She’s now a judge magistrate and sees many of her “kids” cycle back. Not encouraging.