Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by ThenNow

  1. On 7/2/2021 at 11:18 AM, CynicalScouter said:

    shall consider supplemental information timely provided by the Abuse Claimant,

    I’ve been advised that claimants will have the same discovery rights and powers as a plaintiff. Can anyone confirm or deny? 

    Also related to the Trust Claim Submission(s), in what order will claims be assessed or will this be a team of people (committee) charged with wrangling various batches/buckets of claims to move them down the conveyor belt toward the actual Trustee? If by some order, is that first in first reviewed? Still trying to get my head around the sheer logistics and process of this monstrosity. I suppose there is real possibility of a good number of guys taking an Expedited trip to the bank, making things somewhat more manageable. I shake my head reading that last bit. It’s not going to be “manageable” any way you cut it. 

  2. 5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    So, the question becomes are victims now going to vote against a plan that is "only" $850 million (with insurance TBD) in a fit of anger and confusion that they are being short changed? Or will the message get through that $850 million is really the best/most that can be gotten out of the BSA and LCs and that the next fight against the insurance companies is where the "real" money is?

    As MYCVAStory said well, this crew is far more engaged (hyper-engaged?) than the average claimant. I often wonder what those out yonder are thinking and being told. For me, I’m on to the insurance phase. I don’t think this is getting “bigger and better,” certainly not anytime soon, if ever. Will a “burn it down” endgame serve most claimants in state court? No way. Just consider the 58,000 closed or shades of Gray staters. I’m not saying I no longer care about the LC and BSA piece, I have simply resigned myself to “this is what it is.” As I’ve said repeatedly, I know and trust key players on the TCC and they have done a thankless, yeoman's job on this. If more was to be gotten under the time and competing interests constraints, they would not support the deal. I know others are far less trusting, but I cannot afford to wallow or cast aspersions when I really do not know what, precisely, is going on within the cone of silence. I’m trying to hold the moment loosely, see what comes of the bluster and meanwhile sharpen my knives and pull out my old flint knapping kit to reinforce the stock in my quiver. 

    • Upvote 2
  3. 3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Ok, to be clear: that would be case by case. Over 50,000 times. Could it happen? Sure. But is it likely for 90-99% of claimants? No.

    Yes. Good of you to make that critical distinction. I don’t want to create the wrong impression for anyone. Those cases that have tried to apply a global, “BSA has IVF and failed to disclose and protect all of these plaintiffs,” have not been successful, as far as I know. I’m sure you’re aware of these. Am I correct?

  4. 3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

    There is no scenario here where victims in SoL states get 100% of value. But 1% was absurd. This is the best that can be gotten.

    As I’ve said, I disagree. There is a clear path if one knocks out of the park a tolling argument based on fraudulent concealment or other. Yes, I know it is a difficult and exacting proof, but I will make a very serious, studied and tenacious run at it. I don’t intend to fail.

    • Upvote 1
  5. 2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

    If a claimant opts for Expedited/$3500 that will be (almost) true. For everyone else, nope.

    Precisely. “Don’t want to be sifted like wheat? I’m showing you the money. It ain’t much, but this is it or come to papa and stand before the judgement seat.”

  6. 59 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Trust Claim Submissions: You need to submit a brand new document with lots more information and be subject to interviews.

    So much for submit a claim, be anonymous and get a check. I guess those ads were a bit misleading after all? The documentation burden alone is going to be nearly insurmountable for some claimants. What amounts to in one’s “possession”? This is a huge fulcrum to flip people into the Expedited track. I’m ready, but I don’t know how many others are or will be. Zowie.  

  7. 17 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Tier    Scaling Factor
    Open    1.0
    Gray 1    .50-.70
    Gray 2    .30-.45
    Gray 3    .10-.25
    Closed    .01-.10

    So, a CSA claimant who suffered abuse in a Gray 1, Gray 2 and Gray 3 state has a potential multiplier of 1.4. Sweet. I’m in the money. Put me in a new tier above Open, please. 

    • Haha 1
    • Upvote 1
  8. 4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    at this point does it matter in the sense that the Settlement Trustee will be focused on a) determining validity of claims and b) value of claims and therefore c) the only entities that will have to worry about his determinations are the victims, the insurance companies, and possibly the COs?

    In other words, his determinations will have zero bearing on BSA. They're out of the settlement process at that point.

    Perhaps not to the BSA. It matters greatly to me and us. Anywho, I’m heating up the frying pan for the bigger fish flopping around in the bottom of my canoe. 

  9. 6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Sorry, I thought you meant light as in "no previous experience in handing child sexual abuse claims and cases." I know that was a concern some people had: that whoever is involved forward has some background in child sexual abuse. This guy...isn't that.

    I’m just babbling as I wait for the breaking news at 11. My anxiety is showing. Pay me no mind for the next few...

    That detail doesn’t make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

  10. 5 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

    He’s very close to BSA’s lawyers. He’s done a LOT of mediations for Sidley and Austin which are Lauria and Andolina’s prior firm. Green was rejected by the TCC as a mediation team member for that reason and others. He is said to have a god complex. Lawyers who had dealings with him were not complimentary. A vocal lawyer on the Coalition advocated hard for him a year ago. 

    What? Say it ain’t so. This is purely the BSA’s man and not someone agreed to by the other parties? That don’t sound so good. Someone got some splainin’ to do.

  11. 3 hours ago, Muttsy said:

    There is literally hundreds of billions of dollars in insurance. Chubb alone showed 175B in assets on its 2020 Annual financial statement. 

    Two questions for the wizards in our midst. The eventual Plan and Disclosure Statement will attach the “comprehensive” list of insurance policies. Does anyone know if they will provide any segmentation data for the applicable fields (CO, LC, additional insured, co-insured, years of coverage...)? And, will we plebes have access to those policies or will they be hidden behind The Great and Powerful’s curtain, shrouded in smoke and guarded by a blustering hologram?

  12. 17 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    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;

    Still don't get this fudge factor. "Higher Scaling Factor" than 1% or the applicable Upscaling Claim Value (factors), as they're called? Specifically, Consideration of Aggravating Factors, Abuser Profile and Impact of the Abuse. If a valid case for tolling is accepted by the Trustee and s/he does NOT kick the claim into open state status, that would be mind boggling and contrary to law.

  13. Just now, Eagle1970 said:

    Is "time-barred" an absolute?  I have heard of instances where memories were repressed and other theories.  Looking at my State statute, it sure looks like time-barred is time-barred.

    Currently, the only defense with traction that I can find is tolling of the SoL based on fraudulent concealment. From my lawyer's brain perspective, the whole thing is fascinating. It's a longstanding theory that is being successfully applied to the BSA CSA cases.

    Just now, CynicalScouter said:

    What COULD happen is that a separate agreement or something is reached.

    A "counseling reimbursement trust" is what was mentioned to me.

    • Upvote 2
  14. 5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Lower the peak for some, increase the baseline for others. 

    Want to see a bevy of apoplectic claimant attorneys who represent a pile of open staters? Do that. I can picture the conference room when that is proposed. Boy howdy. Yee haw. Sign me up for the midnight showing of that film.

    • Upvote 1
  15. 2 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

    But compensating for therapy and direct expenses should be a given.

    I did finally get a response from the BSA counseling reimbursement division, people, administrator or whatever. They said it is, "all subject to negotiation and settlement terms, at this time." I've not been able to confirm that with anyone on the claimants side, however. I know some non-claimants here think it wrong to get "money" in settlement and get "free" go forward counseling, but I don't think they contemplated the 58,000+ closed state abuse survivors' potential fate. Well, I hope they didn't. 

  16. 13 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

    Oops! I meant to comment on the Plus-Size person of the opposite of male gender having not yet exercised her vocal cords.

    Agreed. However, I am now in step-up therapy driven by the case. In my case, that means a tailored IOP. My treatment has elevated to twice per week with my primary (abuse and trauma) therapist and one day a week with her staff "intercessional" therapist. The latter basically makes sure I don't fall apart after two weekly sessions of trauma work. There's a point at which it is crushing not to have resolved. Twiddling while legislatures make sausage may be a bit too much for many. 

  17. 12 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    I don't want to be overly optimistic but it is never over until the fat lady sings and she hasn't started to warm up yet.  

    I also think it important for those who may have significant disappointment in the future to being tempering hope with a pragmatic, left brain takeover. 

  18. 13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    they also said consistent with maintaining scouting. There was never a scenario where BSA was going to be able to come up with billions of dollars here because it did not have billions of dollars to offer in the first place.

    I've said this before and wish it could be heard by the broader public. I believe many of you here have and acknowledge it, to one degree or another. Other than the guys who were geared up and ready to litigate in open states, I don't think many of us sat down and did an available assets analysis and distribution calculus when we read the invite to file a claim. It is a simple matter of fact to say, "there was never going to be a scenario...", but facts and feelings are in play. More so feelings I think. In the minds and hearts of many BSA CSA survivors, we heard a promise. In it was a nod, at long last, and a committment to provide "equitable" payment. It drew us out into the open. Now, here some of us stand, basically naked with our hands out. Oops. "Please, sir. May I have some more?" "Um. Sorry. No equitable compensation for you." I don't think most men ran a decision tree analysis or insurance defense scenarios when they felt a spark of hope for recompense and affirmation of their pain. Yes, maybe it was all there to see and black and white, but it's hard to read through buckets of tears. It may just be me...

    • Upvote 1
  • Create New...