ThenNow

13 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

provided, however,the Settlement Trustee will weigh the strength of any relevant evidence submitted by the Abuse Claimant to determine whether the statute of limitations could be tolled under applicable law based on a Protected Party’s conduct, and may apply a higher Scaling Factor if such evidence demonstrates to the Settlement Trustee that tolling would be appropriate under applicable state law; 

If the statute was tolled, it is a live claim and it should be in the “open state” bucket. This is some Great and Powerful Oz legal fudging. A fight over tolling, based on fraudulent concealment for example, is no small matter to determine without a full hearing. 

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

if the objector produces “evidence which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that is essential to the claim’s legal sufficiency. . .

So, what the heck qualifies as “evidence” and “if believed” by whom? The Trustee? Is the assumption that it means a defect like they abuser wasn’t in the Unit, there’s no such camp in Arkansas, you weren’t in Scouting in 1981 and just joined in 1983, we have a guy from your unit who says X didn’t happen, because I was there...? All of the above? The first are relatively doable for a claimant. The last, not so much. Do those terms need to be written into the Settlement Trust provisions? 

4 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

  If you filed a claim against BSA as part of the bankruptcy and it comes time for the trustee to decide how much the insurance companies will pay, the insurance companies MAY let me repeat this MAY demand testimony and cross-examination of the claimant.

Per the Trust provisions in the last iteration, here are the basics, from memory. I’m at a wee cabin. This is what I recall:

1) All claimants must complete and sign a new form (TBD) under oath;

2) They can examine any claimant under oath;

3) They can require any “addition documentation.”I say “any” because I believe it was open ended and not defined or narrowed; and

4) They may call and examine other witnesses, including medical providers and psych counselors. 

1 hour ago, SilverPalm said:

If survivors are satisfied with the transaction, viewing it as payment for services rendered, who am I to argue?

Yes. The debate about the equity and morality of contingent fees is for another day and thread, perhaps. Frankly, it’s one I want to have as well. I personally agree it has gotten out of control in society and the legal community. My personal opinion. Also, as I’ve said, I believe the high percentages in a bankruptcy case don’t seem justifiable. The workload and expenses simply don’t run parallel with bringing a full-fledged civil case. Again, this my view and I’d love to talk more about it and tort reform. I appreciate hearing everyone’s view, so long as it doesn’t devolve into attacks.

For most claimants in this case it’s simply the price of admission. Want VIP passes to see the Stones? The ticket price is X? Go on safari? Pony up Y. Want to submit a claim in this Chapter 11 if you have no sense of what to do or where to go and/or want the firepower? Sign on the dotted line and agree to the contingent fee of 33%++. If it’s an eyes wide open engagement agreement, it’s perfectly fine and acceptable. The macro discussion is another matter.

On 6/23/2021 at 1:27 PM, Muttsy said:

Some are involved in other mass tort cases where they ended up taking 75% of the pot as compensation to the trustee and his lawyers. 

I don't think was posted yet. Per the Amended Plan and Disclosure Statement, Pages 173-4:

13. Settlement Trust Expenses The Settlement Trust shall pay all Settlement Trust Expenses from the Settlement Trust Assets. The Settlement Trust shall bear sole responsibility with respect to the payment of the Settlement Trust Expenses. Additionally, the Settlement Trust shall promptly pay all reasonable and documented Settlement Trust Expenses incurred by any Protected Party for any and all liabilities, costs or expenses as a result of taking action on behalf of or at the direction of the Settlement Trust.

16. Compensation of Settlement Trustee and Retention of Professionals The Settlement Trustee shall be entitled to compensation as provided for in the Settlement Trust Agreement. The Settlement Trustee may retain and reasonably compensate, without Bankruptcy Court approval, counsel and other professionals as reasonably necessary to assist in their duties as Settlement Trustee, subject to the terms of the Settlement Trust Agreement. All fees and expenses incurred in connection with the foregoing shall be payable from the Settlement Trust as provided for in the Settlement Trust Agreement.

Many, many pages ago when I was talking about how the boys in our Troop felt about our SM, I said something to the effect that we utterly revered him. A couple folks who replied outright mocked me. I am doing more research for my case and pulled this from a 2018 BSA CSA case. (https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Boy-Scouts-ORDER.pdf.)

Take a peek if you're curious, especially those who ridiculed my characterization of our esteem for him and why it further complicated my response to the abuse, failure to report and overall confusion. I find this pretty powerful stuff and descriptive of how he was elevated to us and by the organization. Can't wait to use this before the Trustee. (Slightly edited to avoid annoying citations and footnotes.)

1 hour ago, Bronco1821 said:

But my question is will Chartered Organizations only be responsible for cases where they were involved or will they put money into the pot for everyone?

I’m sure it has to be an exposure/risk calculus just like the LCs. Cases that implicate them, closed/open state, how many live/recent claims not time-barred, and, etc. Terribly complex to figure out. When I looked through the CO list and saw all the duplicate or similar names. Lots to sift through and arrange and label in neat little stacks. 

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

I very, very much get the impression that some people in this forum simply wouldn't be happy with any outcome that involves BSA, the LCs, and/or the COs paying one dime and that any costs over that 10 cent piece is "unreasonable" or "unfair".

Want to really blow some minds? Calculate the interest on an award for a 50 year old injury. I know it’s not paid, but...big numbers.

17 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Back to my preponderance and discovery musings. How does the typical Great and Powerful Oz adjudicate such a thing as our multitudinous diverse and complex cases? What methods of discovery, examination…subpoena powers, etc.? Those other cases had pretty clear claimant “creditors.” Not so much in this quagmire. 

Let’s settle down, class. Don’t everyone raise their hand at one time. No talking over each other. I don’t want to say any names...help? Also, while I’m peeing into the wind, does the Man Behind the Curtain have a goal of helping us maximize our award or slap us down as much as possible? 

13 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

This is probably more than you had asked for and may not even be helpful to you but believe me writing these words is helpful to me.

Nope. Exactly what I hoped to hear. And me, as well. Well done. P-perfect!

6 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

My lawyer/lawyers help me prepare my claim and thru their questioning I am sure it is much stronger just because of that. 

This unabashedly and unashamedly self-serving (may help other pro se claimants), but how so? Not asking for details, of course, but in what areas did they help you flesh out your POC? I can imagine and it has caused me some anxiety, but not yet enough to terminate my relationship with current counsel.  

9 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Again for me, the lawyers getting a large percentage ( I hope it's not the 40% someone posted, but even 35% which I am told is the average is too high IMHO) is also upsetting. I would rather 85-90% of the fund go the victims instead of 65-60%

It is and some higher, I hear tell. Problem being, no attorneys? No cases. No cases? No Chapter 11. No Chapter 11? No Settlement Trust. “You can’t have one. You can’t have one. You can’t have one without the o-ther.” (I want all who sang along to raise their hand in shared humiliation.)

10 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

BSA will be allowed to live on but mine and possibly 100's of thousands of lives were destroyed by BSA policies of cover up and hide.

Honestly, I think this is the most misunderstood, overlooked and perhaps ignored part of this (and any CSA) case. We were abused, which is a catastrophic psychological and sometimes physical trauma. Use significant brain trauma as an analogy of severity. As with some traumatic brain injuries, the soul/psyche and the relationships and impacts they have on the body never fully heal. In the Proof of Claim, we were asked to list impacts. It listed prompts of the ways our lives may have been damaged as a result of the abuse. We were asked to list medications, therapists, treatments, social problems, sexual problems, legal trouble, career problems, addiction issues, and, etc. For me, this was the longest section. The abuse was the abuse. Terrible. Awful. Dark. Evil. Yes. Ok. Ok. We all get it. BUT, understanding what the last 50 years has been like is the part I think some who play the “You guys are abusing the current and future Scouts, and are trying to destroy Scouting” walk right by on your way to the lawyer and victim bashing party.

BSA will emerge with a self-imposed limp. We entered with a limp, if we were VERY lucky. Psychologically, some of us used crutches and wheelchairs. Some came in on gurneys, pushed by family members and noble attorneys. Some are long buried, not all gone by natural causes. Others ran to the gates, God bless ‘em. Today’s “King for a Day” decree would be that all the “haters” (or any who would be brave and empathetic enough to do it) would be visited by the Ghost of BSA Abuse Past. You would glimpse, not experience, the trauma and walk with one of us through the decades that have followed. I truly don’t think most people understand the loss of “our lives” this has been for us. Some things you take for granted, we were denied. I can barely look at some photos of my boys at certain ages because I see their young, innocence faces and I know I failed them in that moment. I attached pages of medical and treatment bills to my POC and it was daunting and heartbreaking to see them. I read every one. Treatment reports. Intake questionnaires. Diagnoses and program reports. Ugh. My wife endured so much. I see and reported the business losses. While I was in the psych hospital and then a national treatment center’s “Professionals In Crisis” program, one business went south. My big career opportunity of a lifetime, down the crapper. I have scars on my body inflicted by yours truly. Outward signs or inner torment. I spent a lifetime battling addiction, a classic maladaptive coping strategy. I wish you could understand. BSA will emerge to pursue its mission.. We may get some money. There will be no emergence. No great corporate sigh of relief. No monkey off our back. No live to fight another day. This is not and never was about healing or vengeance for that matter. Both are in God’s hands. This is recompense to child victims and BSA offered it. BSA offered it because it happened on their watch and, effectively, by their hand. 

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

They appealed all the way to the Oregon Supreme Court to try and avoid releasing that information.

Amen. BSA’s candor and willingness to step up and care for sexual abuse victims in Scouting has an odd smell to it. As in:

1) spending reportedly 100’s of thousands of bucks on lobbying to defeat Child Victims Act legislation;

2) failing to do any injury-type annual reporting on CSA in Scouting;

3) until forced, refusing to disclose the IVF, even to their own experts who were studying dangers in Scouting;

4) not getting truly serious with YPT compliance until CSA cases were crashing over the ramparts;

5) being unwilling to share past CSA settlements with the TCC; and

6) generally dragging anchor on this case.

I say again, there would be no wave of attorneys if there had been no abuse. No abuse = no victims, 1 or 82,000. Lawyers need clients to aim at a target. The BSA painted that target and walked around with it on their back for years. Now, some are yelping because the arrows are hitting the mark. 

On 6/23/2021 at 4:14 PM, skeptic said:

(deleted) Sorry, but I am simply tired of the BS of somehow thinking money can cure everything.  As I have noted before, our entire legal system in this country is a convoluted cesspool of greed and mostly uncaring legal predators.  Just my opinion, and I understand you suffered considerable based on what you have shred.  Not to be crude, but if someone said here is a billion dollars, now leave it alone, would that somehow cure you?  I doubt it, but you, and others with similar stories would have simply had a hand in causing harm to others through the unfeeling system of vengeance.  Again, just my perspective, and it applies not just to this unfortunate case.  Vengeance at the expense of others who had no hand in the original crime is wrong, almost as wrong as the original crimes.  Good luck, but enough with the denial that somehow it is okay to destroy BSA or to line the pockets of the vulture lawyers.  None of you will ever be healed, and I have no real solution, other than trying to make the systems work to protect others going forward and bringing predators to justice when the actual perpetrators are still around to be punished.  Again, just the way it seems to me.

Sorry, but you’ve not read much that’s been posted on this topic and this single post churns up and belches out most of the accusatory batch and takes further pot shots. This talk of “cure, vengeance, heal, destroy”…has been used before and said again and said some more. It’s self delusion. You’re  not listening, but to your own spin, anger and “perspective.” No one, that I’ve read, said or suggested any of the things you allege and rename to suit this argument. I begged for this to stop waaaay back when and I thought this was curtailed, both by self restraint and moderator intervention. I join the several substantive rebuttals to your post. 

4 hours ago, Muttsy said:

The settlement trustee is all powerful. 

Back to my preponderance and discovery musings. How does the typical Great and Powerful Oz adjudicate such a thing as our multitudinous diverse and complex cases? What methods of discovery, examination…subpoena powers, etc.? Those other cases had pretty clear claimant “creditors.” Not so much in this quagmire. 

4 hours ago, Muttsy said:

These are very dangerous waters we are entering. 

[gulp]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

In the legal filings they are called the "Base Matrix Value" or "Maximum Matrix Value".

Related, and I sure I asked this before among my interminable obsession with probing, does anyone have any clue the pool of candidates for Settlement Trustee? Like Future Claimant Representatives and Tort Claimants’ counsel, it has to be aa fairly small universe. I know the TCC, Coalition and FCR will select that person, but curious if there is any narrowing to be done in this vacuum I am occupying. 

40 minutes ago, skeptic said:

For some reason, this statement really annoys me.  "The Value?"

In what way? We’re creditors and most have a defined amount on their invoices. We don’t, it must be gauged by comp’s and past BSA settlements/award and recent settlements/judgements on similar sexual abuse cases. BSA and the insurers refused a mutual estimation, so there you go. 

Or, do you mean that it’s wrong to say someone’s injury, pain, suffering and financial other impacts can be reduced to a “valuation”?

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

The principal test is that there must be actual and demonstrable benefit to the estate and creditors.

Not more than I wanted and I’m sure others appreciate your wisdom, as I do. 

As to the section quoted, do we get to see their petition for fees and expenses? I assume it contains their winning argument for why their contribution met the standard in the code and rings the “actual and demonstrable benefit” bell. 

9 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

The code actually allows for reimbursement of fees if substantial contribution to achieving a settlement by a party can be demonstrated in the eyes of the court. 

All well and good, given the code and absence of any objection, but that just seems absurd to me. They’re going to make a great deal of money on this case, they are not the aggrieved and allowing for a portion of attorneys’ fees is usually for the prevailing party. I understand that it’s allowed and everyone seems to concur, but I still don’t get it. Is it more of a, “Thanks for not continuing to make this so difficult and comprising before BSA went bust” gift? Meesa cornfuzzled.

5 hours ago, Muttsy said:

Does this section mean what I think it means. Did BSA buy the Coalition’s votes for 10 million dollars?

“Coalition restructuring expenses?? This appears very deceptive. The Coalition was supposedly paying Brown Rudnick. Looks like all the survivors are. What does the TCC have to say about this?

I’m not able to make it out, especially the footnotes. I see the line item, which I guess it the only point I need to get. Very curious...

5 hours ago, MattR said:

The Vietnam Memorial, Holocaust memorials and just local war memorials mean as much to those that survived as relatives to those that didn't. Again, I'm not trying to, as you've said, poke. I'm just explaining my thoughts.

100%. I think we just crossed wires. The string between our bean cans seems to have frayed or you forgot to empty the beans on your end.

4 hours ago, MattR said:

I thought you said people have committed suicide related to this.

I did. Is there a question? If you mean could they be memorialized, only to the degree that they are known - certainly most are not - and only if their families would want it, which is unlikely. If someone has committed suicide in the depths of a grave depression or addiction, without ever having spoken about their abuse, they are wholly unknown and invisible on this radar screen. Most cases would fall in that category. Mine certainly would have. 

3 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Is that in the current negotiated agreement?

No clue. That’s my, “King for a day decree.” Well, for today anyway.