Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by MYCVAStory

  1. 12 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

    For the moment, let's assume that advising clients in closed state to vote yes is sound legal advice.

    How could he make that video and give the same advice to every client? If it's true that survivors in closed states cannot do better than what the plan offers, it must also be true that survivors in open states are virtually assured of doing better by suing the local councils in state courts. They wouldn't be sharing anything with those in closed states.

    I don't know how he could only say that those in closed states risk (and, the way he put it, should expect) getting nothing without also saying that those in open states are making a large financial sacrifice, if the plan is approved.

    It seems to me that if an attorney is representing survivors in both open and closed states, a conflict of interest exists IF we assume that advising clients in closed states is sound legal advice.

    Remember....open, closed...attorneys will get their percentage.  It doesn't matter who gets what as long as it gets out the door so a percentage of the total awarded comes raining down. 

  2. The Rothweiler video is DISGUSTING.  He expressly states that if your claim is not in an "open" state that you will receive nothing. Importantly, he fails to recognize the many thousands of claims that are in statute even in bad states because the survivor is still within the timeframe under the applicable statute. Also, he quickly throws in the trash all of the claims in Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico, which each have very liberal rules when comes to this point. He also fails to tell everyone that under the plan those in "closed" stated will receive as little as 1% - 10% of their claims after the statute discount, which does not take into consideration an underfunded trust. Plus, he never lets us forget he is a trial lawyer from Pennsylvania, presumes that all of those claims will be disallowed when he and his partners argued vigorously for very minor statute of limitation discount. The hypocrisy is beyond what I ever thought was possible.   SURVIVORS DESERVE SO MUCH BETTER THAN BEING MISLEAD AND SUBJECTED TO FEAR-MONGERING.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2
  3. Just a reminder:

    The next Town Hall of the Official Committee of Tort Claimants' (the “TCC”) in the Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy cases will be held on Thursday, October 21, 2021, 8 pm (Eastern)

    Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/82272826295 (no registration required) 

    or by phone: 888-788-0099 (toll free), Webinar ID: 822 7282 6295

    To be discussed at this Town Hall:

    • Trust Distribution Procedures

    • Hartford Settlement and Local Council Settlement

    • Solicitation Materials and Voting Ballots

    • TCC’s recommendation on how to vote

    • Thanks 2
  4. Just a reminder...

    The next Town Hall of the Official Committee of Tort Claimants' (the “TCC”) in the Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy cases will be held on Thursday, October 21, 2021, 8 pm (Eastern)

    Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/82272826295 (no registration required) 

    or by phone: 888-788-0099 (toll free), Webinar ID: 822 7282 6295

    To be discussed at this Town Hall:

    • Trust Distribution Procedures

    • Hartford Settlement and Local Council Settlement

    • Solicitation Materials and Voting Ballots

    • TCC’s recommendation on how to vote

    • Thanks 1
  5. 20 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    I think that there is likely a range of 45 - 60% approval that wouldn't shock me.  I would be surprised if it <45% ... if that is the case, the Coalition should be removed as a mediation partner and trustee as they have no clue what their claimants want.  If >60% I would also be surprised, not shocked. However, I expect the current plan won't go forward unless the vote approaches 85 - 90%.  At that point, I think the TCC is the one to probably reassess and determine what remaining issues they would need to see to support the plan.

    First, remember that there needs to be a 2/3 majority of VOTING claimants for the class to approve a plan.  The Coalition won't be removed as a mediation party if it fails but obviously their influence would be greatly decreased.  As well, the TCC's position as truly representing ALL Survivors is enhanced.  Remember too that the Judge is really concerned about the "quick pay" votes.  She is going to hear the argument that someone in a "bad" State taking the quick pay option should not have the ability to impact someone in a "good State" who has a claim ready to continue if a permanent injunction isn't granted.  So, there's a scenario where this plan passes BUT after removing the quick pay votes it falls under the threshold.  That might seem like a mess but it really provides a fuller picture of support, or not, and she may need that in order to make an informed decision.

    • Upvote 1
  6. 1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

    Judge Silverstein will "delay ruling on whether to shield mediation communications from discovery" while reviewing precedent and establishment of privilege.

    She did make it clear that she would be ruling quickly and as the discovery proceeds she would be available to make VERY quick decisions when the parties can't agree on what's privileged.

    • Thanks 1
  7. 1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

    I was told point-blank that because the was a bankruptcy, SoL would not apply or I would not have gone through this, just as I haven't done my entire adult life since being informed of the SoL on civil action 40 years ago.

    Do you mind sharing who told you this?  I ask only because it of course isn't true as bankruptcy is practiced and it's important for all of us to know when we can where bad information may be coming from.  I absolutely understand if you don't want to share it!  

  8. 2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    Now BSA messed up the first deal with Hartford by allowing it to be tied to other insurance settlements.  That was a mistake that was corrected.

    Yes...but NOT corrected and now the BSA is on the hook for an administrative charge in teh tens of millions if they tried to get out of teh Deal.  So, they screwed up TWICE.

  9. Just now, johnsch322 said:

    Then why cut deals with them?  Why not leave them out of the plan (Hartford) assign the policies to the trust and let the trustee deal with them? That is what the TCC wants or wanted.

    Because they need friends.  Because it lets the coalition crow about a historic trust amount when what's historic will be the low amount of awards.  What the TCC wants is settlements but NOT what the coalition is willing to take.  Remember...right now teh Coalition firms are already splitting 425 MILLION dollars.....anc ounting.

  10. 47 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

    The trouble is viewing it as denying a day in court.  BSA is speeding into a financial wreck, but others are asking to be heard before the course is changed.  It doesn't work that way.   

    I don't follow this argument.  Consider the Survivors who DID have cases in court and those who were working tirelessly to change SOLs.  A permanent injunction ELIMINATES those cases and imposes awards on Survivors that are pennies of what they would have gotten in court.  Those awards....paid by the insurers.  The same ones that will now rush to settle for pennies as The Hartford did.

  11. 12 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

    Has anyone wondered why BSA was and is so willing to cut a sweetheart deal with the insurance companies?  Is it because they are afraid of not being able to get insurance once they exit? Do you think they might have a side deal where if the insurance companies are off the hook for tens of billions then they have agreed to insure BSA going forward?

    The BSA couldn't care less about the insurance companies as long as it has a "coalition" helping them out to accept insurance deals.  Remember, the old saying is "you need friends in bankruptcy."  The BSA's goal is to give away ALL insurance policies or settlements to a trust and move on.  As far as the future, here's another reality, insurers LOVE companies post-bankruptcy because there's a clean slate and no surprises.  So, there's no reason to think thatthe BSA has back romm deals going on.  Their goal is to NEVER be a defendant for anything that happened in the past.  That's the work of the Trust taking on the insurers.

  12. 10 hours ago, fred8033 said:

    I'd prefer the current plan as it has pain for everyone and people can move on.  BUT, I doubt it's future for many reasons.   If the current plan is adopted, great.  The sooner we can move past legal cases the better.

    I want to say this with all due respect if you are a Survivor, and respect for your personal wishes.  But, for many Survivors there is a realization that "moving on" isn't as easy as seeing this bankruptcy resolved for the BSA first and foremost.  Remember, this is the BSA'S VOLUNTARY bankruptcy and Survivors were dragged into it.  For many that had "good" claims working their way through the legal system this will forever deny them their day if a permanent injunction is granted.  For those hoping for a change in SOL it also dashes thoses hopes.  I TOTALLY understand any Survivor wanting resolution.  But after waiting decades for most we ALL have to think about the day after a bankruptcy is resolved or a check comes in the mail.  Then what?  How much "moving on" will there be?  I suspect that will be a fleeting feeling and there's teh great possibility that a horrible settlement will only amplify the feeling of being victimized, again.  I respect the feelings f any Survivor who wants this over and completely understand why anyone in the BSA would feel that way.  But for most Survivors the next step for "moving on" comes with NOT feeling like the only groups that benefitted were the professionals and BSA, at the unreasonable expense of the Survivors.

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 2
  13. 13 minutes ago, Life said:

    Thank you for this explanation. At current I feel better about it. My attorneys have suggested I vote NO and have been of that mindset for a while now. 
    thanks again. 

    I'm optimistic that this horrible settlement will go down in flames.  But, as someone connected to this said to me the other day, "we all live in our own echo chambers."  The folks on this forum are very well informed and I've been so impressed how open-minded all sides have been.  My concern though is that a lot of Survivors are in the dark and now about to get some bad advice.  I understand how some want this over with, I really do.  But every Survivor needs to consider the "morning after."  This is our ONE shot and most have waited decades.  If it fails I hope the TCC can make good on its promise to be the side of "better."  If it's accepted I hope Survivors will get some sense of resolution but I truly believe this plan will make many, from those in bad States to ESPECIALLY those in good States feel like they have become victims again.  Hey let me end on an optimistic note.  I'd like to officially request that the moderators create a forum on 12/15 for everyone to make their voting predictions so we can see whose prognostication skills are best!

    • Like 1
  14. 4 hours ago, Life said:

    My perception as this was taking place was that this “coalition “ was muscling their way into the bankruptcy and it left me confused and not feeling right.  It continues to baffle and leave me feeling un easy. Never really made sense. If the TCC was a panel made up of survivors why would we need another panel of opposing survivors? Then it became clear as to what it actually is. It still leaves me baffled as to why we have opposing sides. One side being survivors with their feet in the fire, the other being a group of attorneys. How is this not abundantly clear to the judge? 

    Well, just about any group can petition to be a "mediation party" so their inclusion was SOP.  Unfortunately 82,500 survivors are going to be the example of how mass tort bankruptcy has become a cottage industry for the legal and financial professions.  I think the group that was screaming loudest regarding their muscling in and power was the Coalition.  The judge has shown that she isn't buying it by already saying their fees would be thrown out of the current plan and she also cast doubt on a successful payment after plan approval unless the plan has widespread acceptance,  Consider as well that in bankruptcy the old saying is "You need a friend" and the BSA found one in the Coalition since it was willing to accept the lowball Hartford deal AND little youth protection change AND a trustee that is hand picked by the coalition (who also control trust governance based upon its membership).   The TCC has continued to represent Survivors and is clawing for every vote and educate Survivors.  If the plan goes down it's a new ballgame and the TCC can say "You all had your shot at this....now it's time to cooperate."  If the BSA wants to get out of Bankruptcy it'll listen.  Bonus crystal-balling...  A TCC plan will NEVER go out for a vote,  The judge won't let it drag on that long.  She'll send it to mediation with a message between 12/21 and a month later and if the parties can't agree she'll DISMISS the bankruptcy and tell the BSA "You had your shot at this voluntarily and couldn't pull it off.  Lawsuit injunctions are over.  Best of luck."  And then....well...if the BSA really is the "melting ice cube" it said would melt last August, then this November, well.......

  15. 1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

    Did anyone else watch the Coalition Town Crier event?

    I don't remember if I said this in this forum or another, and I hope we merge soon, but it was embarassing.  Rothweiler starts by crying about how he's working day and night?  Where do I sign up for that and its payday?  What really threw me though was this disconenct...he said at the beginning that they had 2,000 viewers.  Okay, let's say we believe that.  2,000 of the 70,000 clients they represent?  Not good.  They then answered 19 questions in 45 minutes.  The week before the TCC answered over 200 in an hour.  So you tell me:

    1.  They weren't prepared to answer questions?

    2.  Their clients are so well informed they didn't have any questions?

    3.  The questions they got they didn't want to see the light of day so they didn't answer them?

    I'm not a Coalition client but I'm curious.  I posted a question that they wouldn't see was positive to their cause and it never appeared because they didn't answer it.  The whole performance wasn't pretty and if I was a Coalition client who asked a challenging question I'd be pissed.  They'll be back Tuesday night and I hope for those clients' sake it goes better.

  16. 47 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

    Article III. The Executive Board, Section 2 Membership  will drop from 64 to 40 members. Adding a single survivor is similar to having a single, token scout member on the National Executive Board. 

    Zero impact.

    Damn right.  This is so amazingly token it's yet another example of the BSA setting a new low for the least it can do.  ONE vote in a closed-door meeting.  The fact that the Coalition was touting it shows they don't get it either.

  17. 8 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

    So we could see the TCC plan maybe today for their vision of how contributions would be under their plan.

    This could be a game changer for bankruptcy. 

    At the last Town Hall meeting the comment was made that the focus is on the current plan since THAT is what's being voted on.  If I were the TCC I'd let that mess of a plan take a bit of a beating for a while before releasing all or parts of their plan.  Stay down in the fox hole until the time is right to attack!  That said, maybe some will be discussed Thiursday at the next Town Hall?

  18. 5 hours ago, PeterHopkins said:

    This surprised me more than anything else in the letter. In recent versions of Youth Protection Training, youth-on-youth abuse is addressed, but it is not emphasized. Twenty years ago, I don't recall the subject being included in Youth Protection Training. If this is really true, this is something important that those who complete YPT should have known. It should have been emphasized to such an extent as to have made it unforgettable.

    Don't know if you saw the last TCC Town Hall.  Kennedy took the online YPT training and besides it saying that 25% of abuse is youth-on-youth, when the former head of Youth Protection who has seen the reports says it's actually 50%, he was allowed to take the test and get his YPT certificate without completing an entire module on bullying.  I'm just tired of shaking my head over the constant breakdowns in youth protection.  "$h*t happens" isn't good enough when it comes to the safety of the nation's youth.

  19. An interesting mention in the Coalition "Not ready for Prime Time Players" performance....Rothweiler going on about how the BSA will allow ONE Survivor to be on its Board and how historic that is.  Seriously...ONE Survivor with a voice behind closed doors?  He doesn't get it.  The TCC at its meeting laid out that a BSA-controlled committee of short-term duration and no third-party oversight wasn't sufficient and the Coalition's response was basically "We'll let on Survivor take care of it."  This for me really encapsulated this plan.  It's all "a start" but certainly not enough.  The BSA and Coalition are working hard to get this over with and like the dollar amount, doing the bare minimum.

  20. 18 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

    “We can’t tell you how to vote, but we can frankly tell you this plan sucks,” Doug Kennedy, vice chair of the court-appointed tort claimants committee that represents abuse survivors in the bankruptcy, said at a virtual town hall Oct. 7. “That’s not the legal term. That’s the survivor term — it sucks.”

    Last night they were allowed to suggest how Survivors should vote, and did...and their Zoom backgrounds for Kennedy and Humphrey included the TCC logo and in Red Caps VOTE NO

  21. Here's your chance to watch the Coalition's Town Hall...no idea if they'll take questions....

     Coalition Meeting

      1.  Saturday, October 16, 2021 at 3:00 p.m. EDT / 12:00 p.m. PDT:
               Please click the link below to join the webinar:
               Passcode: 098865

               Or One tap mobile :
                 US: +13017158592,,84832741950#,,,,*098865#  or +13126266799,,84832741950#,,,,*098865#

               Or Telephone:
                 Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
                   US: +1 301 715 8592  or +1 312 626 6799  or +1 929 436 2866  or +1 253 215 8782  or +1 346 248 7799  or +1 669 900 6833

               Webinar ID: 848 3274 1950
               Passcode: 098865

               International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kbKllVCOn<https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kbKllVCOn>

    • Thanks 2
  • Create New...