ThenNow

As I understand it, this is a typical structure and can be anticipated. A friend in the know refers to the tiers/phases as "off ramps" along the way. Here's $1000 with no scrutiny. Yes? Bye, bye. No, thanks? Howzabout $2500 after some low level scrutiny seems to validate your claim? And so on.

If we know where we lived, that is a point of reference. If we have any recollection of where we met, that is a reference point, even if not the full identification of the building or CO. If we know of anyone else involved in the program, that is a reference point. If we can describe the patch from our camp, that is a reference point. Are there any such threads to pull that will take us to more detail? These are the type of things I hope men with legitimate claims will try very hard to tease out and add to their POC.

I am not interested in denying any of my fellows a crack at whatever peanuts we're afforded, but I want to see at least some worn, crumbled and faded receipts, as well. I know many survivors from various age groups and abuse contexts. I don't know any who couldn't give you that information, in one form or another. Zero evidence or corroborating points of reference is not a good sign of viability, in MY opinion only. The TCC isn't begging claimants to file amendments with missing details for their good health and amusement.

Insurance rights won't be "clear" until eyeballed from the rearview. We'll see on the LCs. It has to have some clarity coming out of the mediation. I go back to the previously well made point that the BSA managed to tick off both the TCC and the Coalition in stereo. Now, they have to contend with them in lockstep, effectively a bulwark against shenanigans.

As for this dingy captain, if there is not a TCC statement in the packet, as BSA previously signaled by saying only supporting comments are allowed, that would pretty much ensure my "No" vote.

Yup.

This goes directly back to the "Kosnoff has no influence" quip. I believe the vote on any possible deal will turn on how it is presented to the claimants by the TCC, Coalition and AIS. Let's be honest, the Committee and the attorneys are the filters and the hands that guide, which is appropriate. There are only a few thousand boneheads like me paddling our wee dingy in open water. Btw, when I say "TCC" I mean the committee of men, not necessarily their counsel. They represent us and the attorneys advise them. I trust those 9 guys to assess, dissect, analyze and communicate their thinking to us when the time comes. "There is wisdom in the multitude of counsel."

I don't believe they would have used the full plural or footnoted it as they did if Finn dissented.

Where did you see that or are you just inferring? My read is Finn was not a signatory solely because he had a conflict and is not in attendance. I don't think there is any indication of a lack of unanimity. "The Mediators support the Debtors’ request."

Yeah, Kosnoff is a giant in the BSA sexual abuse litigation world I think you’re being serious, not facetious. If the former, I agree. Ask some of his former clients. The proof of the puddin’ is in the eatin’. I don’t care for it when folks attempt to delegitimize someone’s work because they find her personality or character lacking. You can, in fact, “separate the policy from the man.”

Um, anyone here have 17,000 claimant clients? How about all of us combined? Let’s not minimize. Haters hate, but he’s still a play-ya.

It's my nature, but I don't have a great feeling after reading this.

Agreed. If we go in that direction at the objection of all claimant representatives, at some point I will be on the horn with every news outlet I can reach who will listen. I know a number of reporters who will. Her apparent lack of empathy boggles me. I believe she has a son. On one of the early hearings I seem to recall her mentioning her less than skilled use of the Zoom technology. Something to the effect of, "If you see someone come on screen and help me, that will be my son." Anyone else hear that? Can't she see that he could've been one of us?

I'll take once or twice, for starters.

Having been on all the hearings, this is near the top of my greatest disappointments. I'm not happy with BSA, LCs, COs and insurers. 100% accurate. But the judge? See doesn't seem to "get it." It being why BSA is in this mess. Not reading the letters and/or cherry-picking and highlighting that "several indicated they want the BSA to survive" is cowardly and not judge-like imho. It's neither balanced nor equitable. Hear us. BSA and the others have gone on AD NAUSEATING. If I had my way, there would be a full day of live testimony from survivors describing their experiences, including how the bankruptcy has and is effecting us. I would sign up in heartbeat and am more than willing to be vetted by anyone of the parties, provided I can't be excluded other than challenge for legitimate cause. BSA surviving is neither here nor there in my request and feeling. A fair and full hearing of all "sides" is all I want before this lunacy goes any further. PS - I know. I know. I'm wishing on a shooting star...

I agree with you on the explanation. On this specific point, however, there's more to it than that (as you know). Three lost fingers on the left hand of Andres Segovia are "worth" more than the same three fingers on the hand of right-handed painter. Unfortunate, but true. Valuations have to factor lost income over those 50 years, enormously impacting the valuation matrix. That said, creating a baseline is tricky, but doable, I think. One the BSA side, some relative values are at least partially hidden within those mysterious settlement records.

Well, more slight of hand at play. It started out with the mantra of "equitable compensation," which was repeated multiple times. It has since degraded. Equitable means fair and just, in the law. "Adequate" means, like my dad would say, "That oughta do. It's the best we're gonna get it, I think." Me thinks the two-pronged goal of the bankruptcy has whittled down to 1.25-pronged. You pick which which is which. February 18, 2020 "The BSA cares deeply about all victims of abuse and sincerely apologizes to anyone who was harmed during their time in Scouting. We are outraged that there have been times when individuals took advantage of our programs to harm innocent children,” said Roger Mosby, President and Chief Executive Officer. “While we know nothing can undo the tragic abuse that victims suffered, we believe the Chapter 11 process – with the proposed Trust structure – will provide equitable compensation to all victims while maintaining the BSA’s important mission.” https://www.bsarestructuring.org/press_release/boy-scouts-america-files-chapter-11-bankruptcy/

I strongly encourage all closed state survivor claimants to read and review this case and the others previously mentioned. If you're represented by counsel, ask your attorney(s) if they considered them. It may be worth the time and effort, as my dad used to say.

Agreed. I was just saying it's a "win" regardless the eventual deliverables.

I have no definitive answer, but if either are true this would constitute a horrendous miscarriage of this process. A classic end around in search of a slight of hand score. Regardless, I would be shocked and disgusted if the judge allowed a reduction in the required vote.

For my money, the 3 P's: Purely PR and Public Pressure. The press release on the MI investigation is itself powerful. Sure, I'd love all the substantive outcomes, but I've lived long enough not to hold my breath when something spurs a flutter of hope me bosom. Let's see what happens when 5, 10 or 15 states hop on the chuckwagon...

AG Bonta plays himself as "the peoples' attorney" and has been a legitimate activist. It would be reasonable to think he might do something like this.

100%. I believe the "combatants" are set in the arena, representing their respective constituencies and clients, and a barrage from outside the walls won't do much more than increase delay and run up fees. Edit: Bombing Chubb is on their dime, though. Flooding their attorney's inbox seems less than productive. Go directly to the court or his client, if at all. My OPINION only.

I've directly emailed some of the big cheese attorneys on this case. Replies came from their designated email opening, unimportant email responding, please make this person go away, step and fetch it associate.

You both confirmed my sense of it. Next question: Will the Coalition, AIS and state attorneys encourage their clients to flood the hotline? Ditto the TCC? She may have committed herself to getting overwhelmed, not unlike the BSA and this court.