ThenNow

Do you have a case reference as an example? Any documentation on how these go down? Trial as in, corroborating witnesses, questioning the accused and the whole nine? I can't imagine the latter, since that is typically not part of vetting these tort claims, but in District Court...?

As people would say today, "I didn't spend $250M, just $150M! I saved $100M Yay me!" I told my kids, "If it ain't in the bank or an investment, you didn't save squat. Not spending does not = saving." Ha.

Was it a serious calculator with legit and accurate input fields, multipliers and all, or "you pick em" averages for claims, etc.? Of course, no one had any idea of the number of claims then. I'd be interested to see it run on some of the LCs now.

Therein lies the rub. They haven't "included" the LCs other than by reference and an, "I promise to ask them if they would contribute $X...pretty please?" No solid agreement from the LCs or COs, forget all the other gaping holes. This made everyone but the BSA and apparently the LCs and OCs uber unhappy. The trebuchets were thus uncorked. But, per many here, LCs have been repeatedly assured, "All is well. Don't worry your pretty heads. Back to the campfire, knots, j strokes, signaling and lashing. The adult table is full up." Now, the jig is up and the scramble is on.

NB: I am not saying it is what he's doing or thinking. I'm just trying to cipher out the angle. If he was my attorney, given my closed state status, I'd be screaming for him to "show me your work," as in a math exam. And, if he came back with the classic, "This is the right answer. I just did the calculations in my head...you'll have to trust me" or my fear was confirmed, I'd be on the horn to every national bankruptcy beat reporter screaming some more.

I know, but how is HIS pot the whole pot and what happens to his ethical duty? He's not the only player attorney with a goodly number of claims, lots of firms and guys I know have cases teed up in BIG $$ open states (as in already filed), and not all of the Coalition crew's claims are in open states, if even all valid. Effectively, you're saying he'll screw some (a lot) of his clients out of something to get the BIG YUGE something for others (and himself) in open state. That's the crux of my inquiry. "Yea, verily, or that guy (me) is so stupid?"

As the lead plaintiff, this is how she brought me to an eventual number, though I still pushed above their "last and final." She gave me her sense of the odds of getting less, combined with the legal fee burn rate estimate, and that's what ushered in the proverbial ceremonial pens. I think it's too many reticent parties and too much denial.

Of course. Asking for your analysis, since it makes no sense to me whatsoever and seems to flaunt his ethical responsibility. It seem like blind hatred at all cost, but he's too smart to go there...maybe?

Question not a joust (getting tired of that): Unless all or most of their 16,000-25,000+/- clients are in open states, how is liquidation in the best interest of his/their clients if the pension fund goes to first chair? Is his passion to "Hulk SMASH!!" overriding his duty to his clients? Is he just hot to get as many cases into state court as possible? Again, what about their closed state clients. Messa confused.

I don't think I said they were similar, just stated my puzzlement and the chasm between the two contexts and approaches. The defendant corporation most assuredly thought they should have been back at corporate counting their billions.

In my experience, which is vastly different than this context, it's mind boggling. The last time I was involved in a decent sized negotiation, which was on a class action case 2+ years ago, this is how it worked when the frustration stage hit: 1) We had flung pleadings, negotiated and made some progress, but not enough; 2) We were mandated to go to settlement conference with the judge's appointed mediator, committing up to two days; 3) Our side sat in the main courtroom and the other in a separate one; 4) We went back and forth all day, with the mediator relaying offer/coun

I was never a litigator nor a bankruptcy attorney, so someone else will be better to give technical thoughts. My general understanding is that bankruptcy judges are more moderators of the business process and noodge it along, as needed. She was going to allow limited discovery, but deferred because it would happen, to some degree, in the estimation. I have to believe she was nearly as surprised as the rest of the universe at the state of the proposed Plan. It revealed little progress and I doubt she realized just how little had been made. As to "legal pressure," I don't know. The estimati

How so?

I suppose. I would love to analyze the data to discover if there are discernible pockets where abuse did not occur (Troops, towns, etc.) and see what can be learned from the patterns that emerge, if any.

I believe the estimate is that a total of $150M in fees will be spent through July. $10M per month'ish. (Just saved $100M. Now, they have plenty of money and time to burn it. Jk.)

Appears to be: " By this Motion, the Movants respectfully ask that the reference be withdrawn so that estimation can proceed in the District Court, as we believe it must. Here, the estimation will bear the hallmarks of a “trial”: The parties will take fact discovery, offer experts, call witnesses, and try to judgment the aggregate value of the Abuse Claims. The District Court may well make case-dispositive legal rulings, and the estimation will culminate in a binding judgment setting a de facto cap on the value of Abuse Claims for distribution purposes. See supra at 8-9. Estimation o

Huh. Not a single one. Given the aggregate total, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. I kind of am, though.

Q: Are there any LCs that have zero claims?

As you have articulated multiple times, how does he propose to do that if BSA is unwilling? He seems to be speaking to some power in the judge's hand, which I understood isn't there. Just persist in refusing to approve revised Plans?

And, the assumption is the TK brings all of them because Andrew Van Arsdale is a key member of AIS? I know he (TK) was a founder, but is he still the controlling voice?

From whence cometh this ciphering? Officially, the Coalition has 16,000 clients. I'm asking, not poking. I don't know the answer...

If it hasn't happened in 18 similar sexual abuse bankruptcy cases, I doubt any judge will be sticking their neck into that chipper. Not with 83,000+ sexual abuse survivors standing in her courtroom.

Setting aside my vested personal interest, I don't get this at all from a pure deal making standpoint. I know lip service to a two-part mutual goal doesn't equate to commitment, but a deal seems there to be made.

Starting with the Zoom feedback in her courtroom, an attorney who left his mic hot during the 5 minute recess, the stack of "paperwork" dumped on her desk at the last minute yesterday and all the finger pointing, she was not in a playful mood.

This question is in the name of seeing everyone come to the table, not with any joy in the asking. Do you think other LCs will now follow suit with the CFL sale? I know it sucks, but it would make things a lot easier if reality spread quickly. Anyone else getting this kind of news?