ThenNow

As I've said in detail several times prior to my above post. Remember the one about, "the documentation burden alone is going to be nearly insurmountable to some claimants" and the ever popular "fulcrum to flip to the Expedited Track"?

And why does the advertising copy and content of the video ads look so similar to that used by other firms? Benevolent sharing of material for the common good? I don’t think so.

As I just posted, I don’t have a clear line of sight on what the heck is going on here. At one point, it seemed like it would be straightforward. As the judge failed to rule and impose some order on the process, it seems like it devolved from there. Now, it feels like no one knows what to make of this, if they are completely candid. I will keep beating this drum, to what end or good I don’t know. The re-traumatization of this process for victims is so hard to accurately state and more so to understand if you’re not in our seat. Vulnerability. Someone else holding the advantage and seeming to take ours. Looming uncertainty. The high likelihood of more pain. Crushed expectations and very few who want to listen. Fewer who can understand. Decision makers busy decision making as we huddle in the corner of our tents. I hate that it can’t be voiced to a broader audience. It’s not just about the effectiveness of this or that path to some award, it’s about the horribly convoluted and confusing process. As I’ve said, I am fairly tuned in and I had no clue it would look like this 16 months after the announcement. My therapist is about ready to burn something down. She asked for Tim Kosnoff’s contact information, but I thought better of it. Hang in there, brother. I hear you and am praying for you. I hope that’s okay. If not, I’ll send good thoughts.

Just so my post isn’t misinterpreted, I wasn’t saying I’d like to see or support the rejection of the plan in favor of a state court shoot out and race for the cash. I was just sure Muttsy was locked and loaded to give his view of where the judge would tell us all to go. I couldn’t resist the lob. I’m coming to the conclusion that I have even less control than I thought I did a month, which wasn’t much. Since Deal 4.0 was announced, it’s also becoming clear that I have almost no idea how this is going to play out. I don’t like being out of control and vulnerable to so much uncertainty. I try to lighten it up with humor, however meager my attempts. “Nobody told me there’d be days like these. Strange days, indeed.”

In case you didn’t recognize that, it was a perfect soft lob to the center of the net. Well played. I think it ended up in John McEnroe’s mouth as he sat in the press booth screaming, “You cannot be serious!?!?”

Do you have a prediction on where that will be? Is it interminably hot with red guys wielding pitchforks?

I believe his question was a compound, including both the severity and the chart issues. He was asking if the Shades of Gray percentages dictate the best case scenario for us with the insurance companies, as well as the BSA. “Are we locked into...,” as in, “Is that all we can possibly get even if our claim is severe?”

I don’t think you’re in a club by yourself. I believe it is/was a widely held impression. That’s what I thought the day I read the BSA press release. That’s how it reads. Others can confirm. I’ve kinda given up reading this stuff cover to cover as soon as it lands. I come here for the Cliff Notes and rancid trunk jokes.

This is me, except no purely open or closed state, per the chart dealio. Gray 3 is Tier One abuse and Gray 1 and 2 lower tiers. This is all academic, however, because I will win my fraudulent concealment case and be sprinkled with open state fairy dust and receive the Never Surrender merit badge. And yes, I will design it myself and will not get BSA approval.

To me, the big question is what happens if it tanks? I’m not doing a better than/less than calculation at this point. I’m doing risk and pain tolerance assessment, which leads me to conclude it’s best to go on to Phase...what phase are we on, again? Let’s call it the CO & Insurance Mud Wrestling Phase, shall we? I don’t expect more to come other than grief and delay if this circles the proverbial.

Ah. I was in a remote area and the video kept dumping on me, so I missed that. Haven’t been able to go back and listen just yet. Thanks. That’s what I figured. “Objective” turns out to be a tad a subjective and anecdotal, but that’s dandy enough.

What objective factors went into creating the Gray area? Cleverly named, btw. Someone is going to have to be prepared to present a compelling case for these significant distinctions. And, the Trustee has the ability to force insurers to pay on awards according to these SoL bucking percentages by what mechanism and precedent? I’m still unclear. (My insurance exec wife is dubious.)

I wasn’t referring to the attorneys or costs to resolve or allocation of funds. I’m talking about victim claimants staring down another daunting process of extruding the details of our abuse, again, and dancing through the maze and jumping through the flaming hoops.

What an ungodly mess this is...

Ok. State specific. I’m just reacting to this quote and will need to click to the link later or tomorrow. (I appreciate that you already posted it once.) The first part of that paragraph is about delayed discovery of psychological injury, the other, fraudulent concealment. I’m not seeing the jump to the FC statement, but I will check it out in context.

There is at least one I know of for p-positive.

Self-interested curiosity here. If you were abused in Gray 1- Gray 3, how does the Trustee determine into which shade of Gray bucket thou shalt be dropped? What is the abuse Tier in the G1 is different that in G2 is different than that in G3? Is your conclusion of “almost impossible” based on case law and/or statute?

I was just speaking to why they may not be celebrating the Plan. The 3-Ds can also be Delay, Delay & Delay, PLC.

I want to be there for voir dire and jury selection. They will need to impanel law professors and insurance experts. That’ll be a great trial!

I’d start with, because they didn’t get their crack at whittling down claims and they wanted BSA and the LCs to take up more of the cash slack so they don’t eventually have to, however that comes to pass. Defend, defend, defend.

I sued Aetna and won a class action settlement for wrongful denial of specific claims. What is the cause of action here? What have they wrongfully refused to pay or denied? Where’s the there there? Is this subsequent to insurers saying, “Go suck eggs! I ain’t paying that!” once the Trustee makes value calculations and subsequent payment demands?

I bought a new BMW. Salesman talked real good. Transmission fell out 15 years later. (Actually, 10, but I had to stick with the schtick.)

Just trying to understand this part, while I’m waiting to understand the whole legal logistics of who’s on first and who’s on second. So, some handpicked claims will be released from the injunction to enter state court and pursue jury awards. If that ultimately provides the fulcrum leveraging recover for all other claimants, that’s fantastic. How do the test cases get selected? It would seem that any “test plaintiff” take home award should be capped to the $2.7 limit of a tier one claim. Anything above that should go to the Trust. No? Otherwise, the leverage plaintiffs could get awards of 3-5++ x the max Claims Matrix Value and that doesn’t seem right. Meesa cornfussled.

I don’t get it either. If the BSA and LCs are released, who’s the defendant? If the insurance company, they can’t be sued for non-payment of a non-liquidated claim against an insured that can’t be sued because they’re “immune” from a suit based on the underlying cause of action, which is now a non-cause of action, literally. Wouldn’t it be necessary for these test/leverage cases to occur before the channeling injunction gets set in concrete? I’m lost...

Updated: https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Boys-Scout-bankruptcy-plans-angers-some-welcomed-16290807.php And: https://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-359-92297_47203-563119--m_2011_2,00.html