ThenNow

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

And here's the other concern: the re-traumatization is not over. Any victim who thought (or were told) they would be able to just file the Proof of Claim last November and be paid out is sadly in for a rude awakening (unless they take the $3500 not-questions-asked payout).

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"?  

4 hours ago, fred8033 said:

How does a two lawyer law firm like Slater, Slater Schulman get the dough to finance a TV campaign that enabled them to sign up 14,000 clients in three months???

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.

5 hours ago, Bronco1821 said:

I have spent tons more than that on counseling.... and basically trying to keep myself together.  I still don’t think this was helpful in any way or worth digging up the horrific memories.  I realize that money won’t make it all better but finally seeing some justice I thought would be helpful.  Now if I could just stop blaming myself.  Plus the thought of the insurance companies and my church being able to wiggle out of any responsibility makes me nauseous.

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.

7 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

It's just important to understand at this point the impact of letting anyone sue who they want.

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.”

3 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Yes I do. It’s called state court and the guys and gals with pitch forks are called trial lawyers and yes it’s hot because the HVAC in those decrepit courthouses are always bad. Lowest government contract bidder thing…you know how it works. 
 

The people sweating however are the insurance carriers. One bad verdict in a place like LA County or Philly. 9000 more cases coming up behind. That’s when the DDD xxxx stuff stops quick. 

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!?!?”

15 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

She could well dismiss the bankruptcy case and tell everyone to go elsewhere. 

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

17 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The Insurance Companies are going to say absolutely not no. And Kosnoff is claiming that the NO it doesn't cover insurance carriers.

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?”

3 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

I just had this understanding through the process that somehow BSA was going to compensate on severity, rather than technicality.

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.

4 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Are we locked into the same Grey factors for potential future insurance settlements from that trust?

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. 

7 hours ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

Where it gets tricky is when the most-serious abuse is in a closed state, but the claimant also reports less-serious abuse in an open state. For example, suppose a Scout was registered in a troop near his home in Utah (closed). The troop took a trip to the Four Corners monument, and he was abused, at the lowest level of severity, while standing in either the Arizona corner or the Colorado corner (both open), but doesn't remember which. Then after he returned home, at the next near-home troop meeting, he was abused again, at the highest level of severity.  Should he get the highest-tier base score multiplied by the "Closed" modifier? Or the lower-tier base score multiplied by the "Open" modifier?

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. 

51 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

are claimants better off rejecting this deal and fighting for a larger LC contribution or accepting what has been offered.  If most claimants are only seeing <$10K total do they think there isn’t much to lose by rejecting the deal?  We will see…

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. 

9 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

From the TCC Townhall, the factors appear to have been the professional judgements of the attorneys who were part of the mediation.

Stang discusses it at 29:20-31:30 in this Townhall Video

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.

16 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Gray 1    .50-.70
Gray 2    .30-.45
Gray 3    .10-.25

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.) 

7 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Absolutely ... not knocking lawyers but thinking about costs to resolve the mess. 

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.

50 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I'm just thinking like in any tort it is the place of occurrence. So, and I am really trying to be gentle here, if the abuse occurred in a Gray 1, then continued at summer camp in an Open state, then the instances would be parsed out.

The Settlement statements/detailed documents and interviews are likely going to get very, very specific about what happened where and when, not only for this reason, but among them.

What an ungodly mess this is...

49 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The court has declined to apply the discovery statute to cases of delayed realization of the connection between the abuse and the victim's psychological injury; however, the issue has not been presented in the context of extensive memory repression. The standards for proving fraudulent concealment of a claim are so high as to be impracticable.

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. 

9 minutes ago, qwazse said:

There must be cases where the infarctions occurred in one state while the troop hailed from a different state.

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

8 hours ago, Muttsy said:

Were you abused in any other states? Perhaps out of state travel to a camp or HA facility.

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?

4 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

So even in a "Gray 3" state like Mississippi in which trying to get out of the SoL on the basis of fraudulent concealment is almost impossible,

Is your conclusion of “almost impossible” based on case law and/or statute? 

2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

eventually pay because they are still liable and they know they are.

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

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Some kind of impleader?

1. Victim sues BSA (or the Trust). If BSA sued, BSA brings names Trust/Trustee as real party in interest (since BSA's bankruptcy settles all claims against it and transfers to Trust) and steps aside.
2. Trustee then impleads/third party complaints the insurance company and demands insurance company indemnify?

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! 

10 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

So the question I will ask is: if there is no way that the insurance company's can be sued then why aren't all the insurance company's endorsing the plan?

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. 

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

the Channeling Injunction shall not enjoin...the rights of the Settlement Trust and Reorganized BSA (to the extent permitted or required under the Plan) to prosecute any action against any Non-Settling Insurance Company based on or arising from Abuse Insurance Policies that are not the subject of an Insurance Settlement Agreement, subject to any Insurance Coverage Defenses.

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? 

6 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

 

I once bought a 15 year old BMW from a used car salesman. It kinda went like this. He talked good. The transmission fell out a week later. 

 

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.)

2 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Then, the trust allows some small number of "slam dunk" claims to go to court with much coordination. 

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. 

12 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

am sure that the insurance carrier would be able to defend in court and these would be jury trials. The slam dunks would be cases where the preponderance of evidence would be pretty overwhelming. It would be explained to the jury that the fact that BSA has BK’ed but that fact has no meaning to the facts. If found liable the court/jury would assign damages and whatever portion would be the insurance carriers would have to be paid by them. That is a bit of simplification but it would be a fair process. It is basically what would have happened if BSA did not enter bankruptcy. 

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