MYCVAStory

I wonder. I wonder how many claimants called a toll-free number that turned out to be an "aggregating company", had big dollars waved in front of them, had their "lead" sold to a firm, received the bare minimum of service and will be satisfied with the monetary outcome. It's going to become real when a more accurate picture of the award percentage is known!

I was asked to pass the message below on to Survivors. It doesn't constitute an endorsement on my part. It's for information. That said, I do find it intriguing that an attorney, with no shortage of experience in the US Bankruptcy system, is calling BS on the way attorneys take 40% for essentially filling out a form. I Know, in a lot of cases they do more than that but how great would it be to see a change where those who need more pay more and those who need less pay less. You know....like any other service we purchase! It doesn't apply to my personal situation but given that a number of Survivors on this forum have expressed concerns about "the system" I'm passing it on. I hope anyone reaching out to this attorney will share their opinion of the discussion. Again, I'm not an attorney, I have no financial interest in this, and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn last night. I'm just passing it on. July 22, 2024 To Survivors who have filed claims in the Boy Scouts bankruptcy case: My name is Lawrence Friedman. I am a former Director of the US Trustee Program. Prior to my appointment to that position, I was a bankruptcy trustee in Detroit where I administered more than 10,000 bankruptcy cases under both Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. I discovered considerable fraud and abuse in the bankruptcy system, and I began writing and speaking about my findings, ultimately testifying multiple times before the US Senate Subcommittee on proposed reforms to the bankruptcy system. My inside view led to my appointment as the Director of the Program responsible for the oversight of the bankruptcy system. Within 90 days of my appointment, I was faced with the mega bankruptcies of Enron, WorldCom and Adelphia. I immediately championed a change in policy which mandated the appointment of examiners in each of these cases. Examiners bring transparency to the process, and examiners also act as a clearing house for information thus adding efficiencies to the administration of these cases. Since leaving the Department of Justice, I have been increasingly troubled by the use of the bankruptcy system to solve societal problems. My focus is on these mass tort cases where victim Survivors are being victimized again by bad actor tort lawyers. I believe that my team can bring these matters to the attention of the Court and effectively free up more than $70,000,000.00 in funds which these lawyers are claiming in fees and which rightfully should go to Survivors. The explosion of claims within these cases is particularly troubling. I have authored several editorials and white papers on this topic. That said, real change comes from action. I have been reviewing claims filed in the BSA case and I am appalled by the practices of some of the attorneys. Many used claim aggregators to solicit clients and filed claims in these cases using the standard bankruptcy proof of claim form. The claim form is available online and was designed to allow non-lawyers to fill it out. The form doesn’t even have to be correct because if it’s not the debtor will object to the claim, and you get an opportunity to fix it. Yet every law firm that solicited large numbers of claimants had the client sign a one-page retainer agreement that gives the lawyers a 40% contingency fee for doing nothing more than filing out this form. The lawyers want to pretend this is a typical contingency fee case when in fact all they did was simply fill out a form. Rather than collecting 40% of the money paid to victims, these lawyers should get a fee similar to petition preparers – non- lawyers who help people fill out forms to be filed in court – which would be more like $150.00. There are other serious problems with these retainer agreements such as whether they comply with state laws and state bar ethics rules. Just as in the mega corporate cases, transparency in these mass tort cases is critical to fairness. My firm wants to help Survivors get the attention and assistance they deserve. Any compensation we receive would be a small fraction of the 40% they are being overcharged now!" I am interested in chatting with any victim Survivors who have expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which their claim has been handled by their current counsel. They can contact me with no obligation at:mailto:lfriedman@friedmanpartners.net

The Stay only applied to Trust operations. The plan is still under appeal and scheduled for an April 9 hearing before the Circuit court of appeals. No one expects the Circuit to rule before SCOTUS does since any ruling would quickly be reversed if SCOTUS disagrees in Purdue.

You'll get lots of diverse answers to this. Personally, I think someone with a Scouting experience would make a big difference. The issue then is how you find that person. It isn't exactly something you advertise for! Step one is to get Council Exec buy-in. Then, reach out to existing volunteers. I've found a surprising number of Survivors that are still involved with Scouting, mostly because they wanted to prevent what happened to them from being repeated. Many have now come forward because of the Bankruptcy. My dream, pie-in-the-sky as it may be, is that National will show some leadership and start developing a mechanism for Survivors to say "I'm one and I'd like to help the Council where I live" or at least promote how to do so. All of that said, like any volunteer position it's all about fit. The three camps of Survivors seem to be those who want Scouting to last, those who want Scouting to go away, and those who are agnostic about it. Having a Survivor who wants Scouting to continue, but is also willing to be critical when appropriate, is the sweet spot. Bottom line, just take action. Talk to your Council Executive. See if he has the guts to address this head-on, and if so, how? Just start doing something. What happened to me and thousands of others typically happened because people FAILED to take action.

I appreciate your honesty. BSA National has not required Local Councils to have a Survivor on each Council's Board. They have jusrt "recommended" it. I don't want to get into a debate over "cherry-picking" such requirements or the legality but I will offer this; if you are dedicated to the future of Scouting AND the safety of youth, DEMAND that your Council has a Survivor on its Board and do what you can to make sure that his/her voice is heard by the leaders of EVERY unit. As Santayana said " “Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.”

The third-party releases don't specifically relate to the insurers as I think you mean. Their liability still exists and Survivors would be able to sue the BSA/Insurers as before the bankruptcy. BUT, insurers are skilled at delaying things a VERY long time and there ARE limits to their insurance. There are a great number of "what ifs" at play here but a real possibility if the plan does not move forward are two things: 1.) local councils in States where the SOLs are favorable to Survivors will head toward bankruptcy to receive direct benefit of bankruptcy and 2, failing that there will be a run on courthouses by Survivors to ramp up their pending suits so that they can get a piece of an insurer's coverage before it's exhausted. I'm also struck by something that the TCC said long ago. It's important that all Survivors understand their retainer agreement with their attorney. A lot of the "mass tort" retainers explicitly state that the representation is in the FEDERAL bankruptcy ONLY. This means that you don't automatically have a pending suit against a Council or CO. As well, I don't know if section 108(c) of the bankruptcy code will apply if your SOL ended during the bankruptcy so you have 30 days afterward to file your lawsuit(s). Regardless, there's a VERY real possibility that some number of Survivors may find their calls unanswered because their retainer doesn't provide additional help or their "bad" State makes it worth nothing to an attorney. I'm a big believer in worrying about the things I have some control over. Its kept me somewhat sane for 47 years. So, while there are a LOT of "what ifs" present, including the possibility that SCOTUS will end this temporary stay or Purdue WILL be favorable to the BSA, Survivors deserve an answer from their attorneys NOW to the question "What will YOU do for me if the BSA bankruptcy is thrown out?"

DOJ/UST is probably happy. It was objecting to the plan until that vanished. Buchbinder.....I remember well the hearing when he fell asleep with his head back and pen in his mouth, while we all looked on in horror fearing he was about to swallow it.

There really isn't a "staff" outside of the trustee and her two colleagues overseeing regular claims and the IRO. All others are contracted professionals. So, while I suspect the three won't get paid in the interim there's absolutely no reason for the contracted professionals to be getting paid unless they're representing the Trust legally. Shame on the Trustee for not calling a Town Hall to explain all of this. I have to believe that any court would see that action as reasonable. My thoughts are now with the pre-se claimants who don't have an attorney to help with unpacking all of this.

The Trust will go into administrative "mothballs" with no money disbursed. Look for the Trust to make a statement soon. Then, we will all wait for Purdue to be decided before June ends. No one knows if the Stay is a sign of good news or bad down the road. Those who say one or the other are guessing. In the meantime, just some perspective, 86% of the almost 60,000 voting Survivors approved the BSA plan and the TWO attorneys who filed for the Stay represent .2% (that's one/fifth of ONE percent) of all Survivors. In the case of Lujan from Guam, that attorney already successfully negotiated awards for her Survivors from the Catholic Church. So while she enjoys her percentage of that, Survivors in the BSA Bankruptcy now see theirs on hold. Regardless of the outcome of all of this, today is a BAD day for Survivors who have waited for a glimmer of hope. Me, I filed my questionnaire yesterday. 24 hours later I now feel worse off.

In case any Survivors haven't heard....from the Trust: The Trust has now established a deadline for submission of Trust (“Matrix”) Claims Questionnaires. You must submit your Trust (“Matrix”) Claims Questionnaire and supporting documentation to the Trust by May 31, 2024. If you can submit these documents sooner, please do so as claims are reviewed on a first-in-first-out (“FIFO”) basis. Failure to submit a completed and signed Claims Questionnaire by this date will result in the denial of the Claim. If you have any questions or need help completing your questionnaire, please contact us at info@scoutingsettlementtrust.com.

For what it's worth, I compliment you so much for having the strength to come forward at that age. That's not typical and I worry about all the Survivors who someday will look back and add their silence, when the opposite was impossible, to the list of regrets. You encapsulated the feelings of many. The frustration, the inequity, the reality that bankruptcy is an ugly business and far from justice. Stay strong and know others gain strength from yours. To all those who now look forward to the BSA "moving on", I do get that and it's a reason that it declared bankruptcy. For now, our laws allow organizations to wipe the slate clean-ish and start anew. For the Survivors though, please understand that there are those who have shown Eagle1970's strength, those who summoned it up as a result of the bankruptcy, those who had the bankruptcy terminate their lawsuits, those who have passed away during all of this, and those who couldn't find the strength to come forward. None of those Survivors gets to start anew but most hope the BSA will learn and make the changes necessary to keep children safe.

Let me break this down: 1. No, every case is not documented in BSA files. To those who understand what it means to being a Survivor that is no surprise. The age of coming forward, if at all, is well into middle-age. Again, if at all. On top of that, if you are in a State where the SOLs do not allow for a lawsuit to be filed you have even less motivation. For some, coming forward is part of their healing. For others, burying this deeper is how they keep control in some way. 2. The bankruptcy produced an environment of "now or never" when it comes to admitting what happened to a Survivor. I hear from younger Survivors all the time that were it not for the bankruptcy they would have stayed quiet until they were ready, if ever. That is important because when I hear "The mass tort attorneys "produced' all these claims and many are bogus" I have to remind people that we will never know the number of younger Survivors who were not mentally prepared to come forward. I spoke to a Survivor last week in that situation. His comment was essentially "I just started a career and I'm dating someone that is becoming serious. I don't want to let my baggage screw any of that up so I didn't file a claim." How many like that are there? That's another number we will never know but we must recognize that this process set a time limit that essentially forced many to come forward long before they were ready, or in what I suspect were a large number of instances, not come forward at all. 3. While you might hope that Survivors can "Get on with life", I beg you, please stop saying that. It is so hurtful to suggest that this process will somehow provide a degree of resolution that will make people move on. What the bankruptcy resolves is Survivors' LEGAL path against some entities. I have yet to speak to a Survivor who has said that the Bankruptcy will let them move on. Being a Survivor for most is a lifetime sentence and many are now being re-traumatized with the waiting, loss of a legal path, and what I suspect will be payments far below the matrix value. In fast, a Wall Street Journal article this week blasting the mass tort industry had two "experts" predicting that a BSA claim with a matrix value of $1.2 million would see an actual award of $30,000. You want to be re-traumatized, well, there you go, and that isn't something you shake and get on with your life very easily. Oh, and that 30K prediction? Well, I reached out to one of the authors and asked where he came up with that number. His response, "It was an educated guess." GUESS? When people think so little of Survivors that they make guesses that will traumatize many, it's just another day of not "moving on." Please, have your hopes for the BSA but stop thinking that the vast majority of Survivors are going to "get on with their life."

Perhaps, but I've been struck by the number of professionals who said prior to the claims coming in "We don't have a problem" and then were shocked down the road when they saw otherwise. This is also a matter of scope that must take into account the number of youth served. Logically the more youth served the greater the chance for abuse. This is especially true for youth-on-youth abuse. Again though, it is/was a problem for all Councils. The summary of claims attached lists the Councils on the claim forms. NOTE: 38,000 Survivors did NOT indicate their Council at the time of filing a claim. I suspect that number will go down significantly when Survivors file their questionnaires with the Trust, and have the time to collect all their pertinent data. As well, I hope the Trust will release asummary at some point so this is all better understood. While Scouting won't want the reminder, it's critical that Society understand the full scope of what happened and where. Only then can we be assured that data-driven decisions are attempting to address the issues correctly. BSA Summary of Sexual Abuse Claims(1).pdf

No. All the Appellate Court said essentially was "We aren't going to dismiss the appeal at this point, we'll hear it." As well, the Trust is proceeding as previously because a confirmed plan is in place and has not been stayed. If anything, the Trust with each day will be working to make a stronger mootness case that the plan is far enough along. So while I'm sure the BSA wanted the appeal tossed without comment it wasn't unexpected that it would be heard. Interestingly, there are rumblings that SCOTUS will make its Purdue Pharma decision before its term ends in June, perhaps in April. If so, there's less chance that the Appellate Court will act without SCOTUS guidance. So....business as usual. Fill out your questionnaires and....wait. And if you live in a State where Statutes allow a suit to proceed, make sure you have a good attorney who is ready to pounce IF the national bankruptcy fails and the injunction against the Local Councils goes poof. Note to a LOT of Survivors, check your attorney retainer agreement. Many Many mass tort attorneys make it clear that they represent you in the NATIONAL bankruptcy and not in State cases against a local council.

In a nutshell, where we are right now: 1. A couple different attorneys representing a few hundred Survivors (and I think the non-settling insurers) are pushing an appeal that now rests with the appellate court. One of those attorneys represents clients in Guam that already are getting settlement dollars as agreed upon by the Catholic Diocese there in a separate bankruptcy. 2. Supreme Court has taken up the issue of non-consensual third-party releases via the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy that included the Sackler family as recipients of releases in exchange for their financial contribution. This is the same bankruptcy vehicle employed in the BSA bankruptcy by the Local Councils in exchange for their contribution. 3. While the appellate court could rule on the BSA plan, most court watchers think it will wait to see what the Supreme Court rules; expected in June. Then again, see #4 below. FWIW, Long-time Bankruptcy professionals I have spoken to were struck by the seeming support for releases during oral arguments with several judges saying essentially "Why should we disagree with a plan that was approved overwhelmingly?" Posted to his X/Twitter Attorney Kosnoff said "I now do a QB Joe Namath 1968 “I GUARANTEE”that SCOTUS holds nonconsensual third party releases unlawful & unconstitutional taking of prop’y. Sayonara BSA, Coalition, TCC & your “Plan”. Sharing both of the preceding so when we look back we can judge for ourselves. 4. In the meantime, the Survivors Trust is trying to do its business expeditiously because the courts have found that appeals are not granted because of the principle of "Equitable Mootness." Essentially, this means thatthe plan is too far along to unwind. Equitable Mootness is not without controversy and some believe it will be the next baknruptcy issue taken up by the SCOTUS. 5. So how does the plan go final and there's no going back? Today, the appellate court can decline the appeal and SCOTUS refuses a writ to have it considered by them. Or in June, when SCOTUS allows third-party releases in Purdue, the Appellate court then refuses the appeal and SCOTUS doesn't take the case. Obviously, the appellate court confirming an objection would stay the plan in the meantime and the BSA would then be arguing in the Supreme Court but there seems to be little belief that's going to happen since the Purdue case was identical. 6. In the meantime, the Trust works away to do its business. That said, while there is a 2/16/24 deadline for ponying up the first 10K to go under the IRO NO deadline has been set for Survivors to file their questionnaires and the Trustee has said that there will be at least FOUR months notice. So don't hold your breath for a check in the mail. How much is this costing in the meantime? We'll see when financial statements are filed by the Trust. The Trustee gets 100K a month I believe. Insert your own comment here about how that's appropriate for a CEO of a multi-billion dollar organization, or, just shake your head in disbelief and add it to the list of "My next career." Hope this helps. Omni still carries the docket for the case and publishes all correspondence and documents. https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/?clientId=3552

Tell me, what Councils did you work in? I ask because you make it sound as if there were no issues under your watch. I'd love to know which Councils didn't have a problem. As well, I wouldn't crow too much about being on the inside during the 70's through 90's. Claims from that period were at their highest. Below is the summary of claims. You might want to read it. As well, just a friendly reminder to all, like him of not, Michael Johnson stated that HALF of the YP reports he read were youth on youth. We seem to forget that when we talk about all the safeguards in place. At any rate, about your statement "Sorry to break your balloon but I was a BSA employee and I know how active the BSA was over 4 decades ago in addressing this problem. " Well, take a look at the file below. regardless of how active the BSA was in "addressing" the problem, I have news for you, it failed. Don't tell me about how the BSA's rates of abuse are no worse than the general public. Our parents weren't getting assurances from the general public that their kids were safe. Don't tell me that training existed. The Scouts own records show that half of registered leaders didn't take YP training. Don't tell me the YP training is foolproof now. I sat for it last year and could skip ahead to get my "certificate" without completing all modules. I could go one. Active or not, look at the attached claims summary AND remember that with men on average coming forward well into middle-age the numbers for the past three decades might be artificially low. I won't argue that the BSA didn't try. It did, and it failed. BSA Summary of Sexual Abuse Claims.pdf

The whole "Being offended is a choice" is an interesting issue. This piece is food for thought: https://thirdhour.org/blog/life/being-offended-is-a-choice-as-cop-out/ For Survivors, it often isn't a choice. For many, working on making that better is a lifetime sentence.

Tell the 10,000 Survivor claimants since then that the abuse cases going back so long ago should make them feel better? If anything, the fact that the BSA had such a long history of abuse AND knew enough to fix it should sting even more for those who were abused more recently. As far as lawsuits, they remain against the abuser and every day I want mine to remember that the day is approaching when mine will commence. What doesn't remain, are the lawsuits against any enablers within the BSA. Time will tell whether that's a topic the DOJ will be looking into.

Agree 100%. My comment was in response to someone stating that the reorg will hurt kids' opportunities. At the end of the day that's 100% in the hands of the entity that voluntarily entered bankruptcy and those who joined in because it was in their interest to do so, the National and Local organizations. Time will tell!

SO....Judge Silverstein has ruled on the Coalition's Substantial Contribution Payment and has decided they get....NOTHING. That's right, they requested the BSA pay what, $20 million for the lawyers and professionals to represent it when it tried to strong-arm a settlement that the Survivors voted down!? The opinion is below and it's a doozy. Basically, "you were representing a constituency that the TCC already represented.", "You took credit for everything and that was objected to.", "You told the Court when you wanted to become a mediation party that the State Court Counsels who made up the Coalition would be paying its professional fees.", "Oh, and those personal injury attorneys are making 25-40% of their clients' awards so they can pay the bills of their professionals." So karma rules. Big Time. I'm no attorney but the ruling really reads like a "What not to do" for the next entity that tries to pull the same maneuver. 11652 12-05-23 Opinion.pdf

I found the materials on line that listed the individual cases and included the documents and I did read a fair number to get an idea of how serious the suit was and yes, it was serious but none of the cases I saw included any professionals as abusers (I certainly expect there were some, just not the ones I read) but mainly volunteer adults and in some cases adults that were not even registered but affiliated through the chartered partner or as a relative of a youth member. I would change my mind if you can direct me to the documentation that shows that BSA employees were the abusers in significant numbers. An organization is responsible for its volunteers and operations. Period. The law makes this clear. Go watch the Netflix Documentary and pay close attention to its former legal counsel who says essentially "The problem wasn't the BSA, it was a few bad apples in it." The lack of logic would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Oh, and those few bad apples, one was a EMPLOYED by the BSA and raped me. The bottom line is that I don't deny that victims should have had their day in court. Frankly, most of them could probably have gotten a much better settlement if they had sued their local councils individually. I believe there was one case settled for 5 million dollars, perhaps adjusted later to a lower amount but the point is, you are correct that individual judgements were quite substantial. "My day in court?" Hardly. The bankruptcy is PREVENTING my day in court. It PREVENTS discovery into knowing the names of colleagues of yours in the 1970's who may have known about or enabled my abuser. The bankruptcy denies the sort of restorative justice that allows me to confront them. And right now, it also prevents me from proceeding with my suit against my abuser because any award I receive may diminish my award from the Trust. So, the bankruptcy is shielding him too. My day in court? No, but I'm a lucky one compared to those of my brothers who the SOLs prevent any sort of suit from proceeding. For them their Council would be shielded and there is NO "day in court." The problem for me is I know literally dozens of individuals whose lives were vastly improved because of Scouting and the BSA because of this suit will now fail to reach 10's and even 100's of thousands of youth that could benefit from the values/teachings and trainings along with the positive mentors in Scouting. I ran an inner city program for over 6 years that served hundreds of Scouts and Cubs and that program no longer exists. The council no longer has the resources to even properly support its traditional unit programs let alone staff and support the Scoutreach program. There was no good outcome in this for anyone but the lawyers and law firms that brought the suit. Wow, "dozens" who were positively impacted. Tell that to the 82,000. That said, the vast majority of Survivors I've spoken to, and even the TCC for the ost part in its comments, have said "We don't care about the future of Scouting AS LONG AS KIDS ARE SAFE." Now, you claim that kids won't be positively impacted because of the bankruptcy? That's complete bull$hit. Survivors voted down the first plan and accepted a second one because for one reason the Youth Protection measures were significantly strengthened. THAT will improve lives. Units went out of business? That is NOT the fault of the bankruptcy, it's the fault of mismanagement by the Council, District, National and ultimately the local market for which Scouting was not attractive. How dare you blame current issues with the abuse that happened to many of us decades ago. As well, read the words of the new BSA CEO who claims membership will double. Seems to me that bankruptcy REORGANIZATION will help and not hurt. As far as no good outcome, it isn't over yet and Survivors will judge that when we see our actual awards and come to grips with what that means. So don't tell me what my outcome will be. That's for me to decide. Have law firms made money off of this? Sure, and I will pay my attorney a third of what I see, gladly. You get what you pay for and when billions are at stake you pay a lot. I'm sorry that you were a part of this dark chapter. I hope you find healing. God Bless While I appreciate the sentiment, I again urge you to do a VERY deep dive into this forum and others. The legal analysis and discussion of the FACTS of this bankruptcy are a real education. THAT is the best way to help Survivors. First and foremost, understand how we got here, what we've been through, and respect that some of us want to see the Scouts continue, some want them to go away, and some don't care, but we ALL want kids to be safe and for Society to learn from what happened to us so it doesn't happen again. Mods....I recognize that my tone is a bit aggressive but it's done respectfully to drive home a point or two and lend emotion to where it belongs.

I listened closely to the SCOTUS hearing today, and spoke to several attorneys after, all of whom have a history in reading SCOTUS "tea leaves." What made today a bit tricky were the underlying feelings/hatred for the Sacklers. Cutting through that though this dealt with the existing law and the inconsistency between Districts as to how they treat third-party releases. The media is portraying this as the Court having strong feelings both ways. It usually does because it queries attorneys on both sides of their arguments. My takeaway, and it was confirmed by the attorneys I spoke to, was that the Court was extremely deferential to the proponents of the Purdie plan and the use of the releases. Time and again the Justices raised the issue that the plan proponents overwhelmingly supported the releases, and the underlying theme was "then why should the Court disagree?" There were also questions regarding why the Court should step in when Congress can remedy this as it has with Asbestos claims specifically. There is never any way to completely predict SCOTUS decisions but those I spoke to predicted that in June the decision will be to uphold Purdue with some new direction to place some guardrails on cases going forward. In the case of the BSA, if the Appeals Court rules before SCOTUS does and denies the appeal, and then SCOTUS doesn't take it up (and why should it now) then the BSA Plan is set in stone and the settling insurers can pay up fully. Many predict that the Appellate will just wait until after SCOTUS, deny the appeal, and then the same outcome is reached. Again, no way to predict but if you were looking for a deeply doubtful SCOTUS that was looking for a reason to deny third-party releases then you didn't get it today. The full oral argument, and it's fascinating to listen to, is here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/listen-live-supreme-court-hears-arguments-on-legality-of-purdue-pharma-bankruptcy-plan

That's just a portion, but I beg you, please, spend some time and go WAY back to dig into the posts on this topic. While there are opposing views, there is a great deal to be learned from the posts. In the words of the late Senator Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Sent out from the Trustee retired Judge Houser: As I noted when we announced last week’s opening of the claims processing portal, the Scouting Settlement Trust is committed to transparency and open dialogue. Please join me and Claims Administrator Randi Ilyse Roth for the first of what will be periodic Town Halls on Tuesday, Aug. 29 at 8 p.m. EDT / 5 p.m. PDT. During this hourlong online session, Randi and I will introduce ourselves and discuss our roles as mandated by the approved Plan of Reorganization and the Trust Distribution Procedures. We will also provide a high-level overview of what claimants can expect from the process and we will take questions. You can register for the Town Hall at this link. All attendees must register prior to the Town Hall. Once you have registered, you will receive a confirmation email from PwC Webcasting with a link to the Town Hall. I look forward to speaking with you next Tuesday. Respectfully, Hon. Barbara J. Houser (Ret.) Trustee

These attorneys appealed to the Circuit, and the Circuit said "Nice try, you need to start with the District." They have previously objected at the District level and lost. This is another shot, this time a stay, on slightly different grounds.