ThenNow

This may help explain restrictions, at least a bit. I don't understand the history and structure of the entity created to hold the property or the deal with the note. It goes to the argument for and against it being restricted and assume it is at the center of the push/pull between the BSA and TCC. On the creation of the entity and note, I'm wondering if both were a strategic mechanism to distance the BSA from imposing the restriction on their own, through a legal structure that looks like the "donor" imposed the restriction. Again, I am shooting in the dark... Generally, funds are

This may seem odd for an attorney to say, but I can count on one hand (hyperbole) the number of docket notices I've seen that don't contain at least one "Monthly Application for Fee Application and Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses." It's staggering. If I recall correctly, several are in the $1500 per hour range. (I am retired and never saw that kind of money, whatever that may mean or not.)

I immediately noted that the word "all" has been deleted from the reiteration of the first prong of the two-part goal: "Our Scouting Movement—the national organization and local councils alike—has a moral responsibility to compensate victims of past abuse and to continue Scouting’s mission. We understand the gravity of meeting these imperatives, and we are taking the necessary steps to get there."

I know. Truth hurts, right? I errantly left off the plural 's' on guy. We can't be the only ones...

Yeah. That's a clearer and better defined way to say it, but what I was trying to say by "defer and let the fight happen down the road."

Although not overtly stated, the Ad Hoc Committee statement seems to indicate they believe it demonstrates real "progress is being made" and all their hard work is paying off. I guess they go behind Door #4 where Carol Merrill is standing. (A familiar reference for the other old guy.)

That is correct. The Coalition and Abused In Scouting attorneys, with others chiming in, argued there is no precedent for the court to grant this kind of motion. Insurers countered with, "unless there are unusual/extraordinary circumstances," which they and others believe to be the case. (I tend to agree, given the exponential curve in the number of claims and all the shady business that drove it.) The judge has not been thrilled with them, having "defied" her admonition against, "seeing 100's of claims signed by an attorney." Many of them did that and more. It's possible, just like on h

I don't necessarily, in fact literally, mean publicly. It would be beneficial even to have strategic input on things like the properties, for example. That said, in monitoring press from various local outlets, politicians, business and community leaders continue to be involved in and advocate for their constituent BSA entities. I haven't seen this wane in those specific markets. This may amount to a group of anomalies, but I assumed it was not. I have no idea if it is completely isolated and unique, I admit.

Day Late-Dollar Short is my very long middle name.

I wouldn't necessarily trust the "government" to do it correctly, but the BSA may have missed a perfect opportunity to help the internal crisis, as well as advance the cause of protecting children generally. I do understand why it didn't happen, including protecting the brand/reputation, participation, funding and all.

I'm on the outside looking in, but as an attorney, former high achieving Scout and abuse victim, I would long ago have added several solid men who were abused as Scouts to advise on the Youth Protection Program. If you're serious about rooting out fraud and data breaches - for an apples to oranges example - government agencies and private companies have hired expert fraudsters and hackers. I certainly wouldn't hire sexual predators, but many of us could add tremendous insight into how to craft and implement protection measures, not to mention speak to leaders about what this looks like in real

I don't know the detail or if there is anything substantive involved, but doesn't National present an annual report to Congress on the state of Scouting? (I've often wondered why/how the matter of the abuse has been avoided in that discussion, but that's another point.) Does Scouting have a champion or sponsor in Congress or someone with whom it has a liaison relationship? It seems like there are great options to explore and discuss, if there are such relationships. Scouting has man people in high places and I would think these discussions could be had. That said, I understand no one was wanti

I couldn't afford Philmont when I was in Scouting. It would be a joy to experience it before I croak.

To reinforce, what the insurers are hoping to do now is find pockets of invalidity, like duplicates, obvious fraud, complete lack of identifying information or 100's of claims signed by an attorney that look to have come off a copier, so they can lop off a chunk with a sickle right quick. The actual examination of claims to assess legitimacy and gauge severity, which feed into the metric of valuation, is the long process CynicalScouter mentions as belonging to the Settlement Trustee. Maybe that helps.

There will almost certainly be a phase of lump sum "walkaway money" offered to claimants who just want to get something and be done with it. I don't know how that will work or how values will be calculated, but believe it will be deployed here as it has been in other cases. This will allow a reduction in the numbers, but how much and to what effect on the overall process, who knows. Not me, for sure.

I know some are unable to access WSJ articles. If it is of any help, attached is a good one briefly summarizing some of the key points raised in the insurers' discovery motion mentioned above. Apologies if I am duplicating what someone else already provided. Coalition WSJ 1.25.2021 PDF.pdf

Which is wise. I feel iffy about questioning claims, too. Having managed a class action case on an unrelated matter, witnessing the meteoric rise in claims, the public presentations and representations by the "firms," and then reading how this all came to be, how can one not question? By the by, the case I refer to certified its class based on contacts made with potential members via historic records. The class was not built by gill-netting prospects through advertising or claims aggregators.

That is the case here. The link below will take you to the insurers' Rule 2004 Discovery Motion. You can scroll to page 7 on the docket file, page 1 of the motion, and begin reading from there. Of course, this is what the insurers "allege" and the respondent groups deny many elements, especially the negative characterization. Several great news stories were written related to this internal battle, as well. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870566_1975.pdf

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I truly wonder what is going on in the conversations within the claims mining entities who have thousands of claimant clients under their tent. When you have that many, they must be keeping a directed focus. It appears that for some of them, definitely the group headed by he who shall not be named, that focus is "burn it all down" and we'll sort through the rubble and ash for for the good stuff. Personally, I see that direction as against the interest of most claimants. The complexity and implications of converting to a liquidation, with its varied impacts on

Thank you. Sincerely. I do not want to discount any valid claims from others like me, but I deeply question the validity of that many claims flooding in, especially knowing how they were solicited. Having read the discovery motions, the banter and blather from the so-called Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice (which name is so presumptuous and pretentious it makes me ill) and he who shall not be named, I think the number will go down if the judge allows the vehicle to be inspected with the sniffer dogs. I don't know what the number should be. Ultimately, it will be larger than the

Initially, I thought about it related to the squeeze being put on you guys via reductions in revenue and all. I was hoping, I guess is the word, that it wasn't merely being felt at the street level. I retracted the question as somewhat irrelevant because COVID and otherwise declining revenue are intermingled with the impacts of the Chapter 11, so it's hard to tell which is having an impact on what and whom. Sounds like "hurt" is pretty much widely distributed, by whatever ripples are now in the pond from which rocks one can't say. When a company is going through crisis, laying off workers and

Toss in a select group of politicians and several technocratic “experts” and you might just have my vote.

Have there been salary and bonus freezes for the executives? Other perk and comp reductions? "Sacrifices at all levels," and whatnot. I guess that’s mostly irrelevant, given the magnitude and scale. Never mind...

As I've tried to be, I'm going to be very transparent. When I read the press coverage and looked at the Plan to confirm the $6000, I cried. If it had been $50,000 I would've felt very differently. I would've believed they were taking this seriously. Factor into that the non-commitment commitment of "asking for a voluntary contribution" from the LC's and you have a sucker punch to the gut (or front kick in the elsewheres). As in, "What they hell have the LC's been doing in mediation and negotiations all this time? They've been mucking around in the numbers, data, asset valuations and appraisals

It is an accurate statement that plaintiffs' attorneys will come out of this with goodly coin and may be the only winners. Yes, they have seen a case pull down $19M and change. Cha-ching. All other beans are small potatoes. I get it. As said above by the trixy odd number wizard, there are layers of players. I am not a plaintiff's attorney. I am my attorney. I am a claimant. I did not want this. No way this is sliced will I make off with the a big fat chunk of the pie. When I say, the it's "shameful," I am not looking at $500M, in the aggregate, and am not speaking as an attorney. I'm look