MYCVAStory

Link?

Thank you for capturing this. It's CRITICALLY important for this plan to see the light of day and the court allow victims to decide. The more the BSA and Coalition object the more you know it's going to be a better option for victims!

They tried to play nice and make it work. The Coalition overplayed its hand and now must hope, and the BSA too, that this judge doesn't care a thing about victims. The US Trustee's opinion will be interesting.

Yep. the TCC knew this was coming. Now we'll see a group that might care about ALL victims. Worth noting why the Coalition just might think the BSA plan is a good one. The lawyers that are a part of the Coalition GET REIMBURSED 10.5 MILLION DOLLARS to pay their attorneys. PLUS almost a million a month until this is done. That's money that could have gone to victims everyone. The portion below.... 19. Payment of Coalition Restructuring Expenses On or as soon as reasonably practicable after the Effective Date, Reorganized BSA shall reimburse state court counsel for amounts they have paid to the Coalition Professionals for, and/or pay the Coalition Professionals for amounts payable by state court counsel but not yet paid to Coalition Professionals for, reasonable, documented, and contractual professional advisory fees and expenses incurred by the Coalition Professionals (the “Coalition Restructuring Expenses”) from the Coalition’s inception up to and including the Effective Date, up to a maximum amount equal to (a) $950,000 per month for the period from August 16, 2021 up to and including the Effective Date (pro-rated for any partial month), plus (b) $10,500,000 So....Hartford gets off lighter and drops its administratvive claim...Coalition takes less than it should but its bills get paid... THAT'S why the TCC is saying "Enough is enough."

I think I hear wayyyy off in the distance the TCC's planes getting closer and closer to dropping a load of objections and motions onto the court. I'm still guessing it's by the close of business today. Whether that's the COB east coast or west coast is the question but they had to expect this and be prepared for this plan to be filed.

Perhaps. But if the TCC files a motion it will be interesting to see the law cited. This judge does like to follow precedent.

A hearing can be requested prior to 30 days. It may make sense to end exclusivity quickly before people start believing all the "Settlement reached" headlines for a plan not supported.

Hmmmm....since it was my suggestion that the TCC just might file a motion to end plan exclusivity so it can file its own plan I'll see your rare OA flap and raise you a rusted metal kneckerchief slide and that sweaty "Guardian Angels" red beret we had to wear for a while 🙂

If the TCC files a motion to end plan exclusivity, right after any new plan is announced, it's pretty much guaranteed that it has its own plan locked and loaded to be filed as soon as the judge accepts its motion.

Of course! But like my mother always said "Consider the source."

It's fair to Absolutely. Anticipate the next BSA plan soon if history holds to form. Then we'll see if the Coalition signs on to get its bills paid since the judge said "nice try." Then...a good barometer of whether this is as much as mediation could produce, or not, is whether the TCC signs on too or says "NO WAY" and signals its plan is on its way.

Or...remember that the TCC can motion to have its own plan considered. Considering that the BSA panicked and got itself involved with a BAD Hartford deal that no one likes, and now hasn't figured out how to get out of it without an administrative fee penalty, the TCC may be eyeing its own plan that meets the best interest test in the eyes of the court.

Were you sitting with Kosnoff and watching the same Town Hall?! PLEASE, either wait for the transcript or re-watch it at https://www.dropbox.com/s/7i01h4syy3vtgpb/BSA Town Hall 9-9-21.mp4?dl=0 and provide us with the actual words that bring you to this conclusion. FYI, NO ONE named "Chambers" was part of this meeting. The TCC has NOT said that anything is being accepted as stands and has stated that it will continue to fight as best as it can. They could have said "this is a done deal" but there wasn't a whiff of that. As far as the non-monetery, they brought up the IV files and reiterated that they are committed to having them become public. As far as the $3500, they have also made clear that this may be an option for those who want out but NO ONE would be required to take it. We're all entitled to our opinion but you were really watching a different meeting.

One other thing discussed last night that Kosnoff hasn't mentioned. The TCC has posted a statement on mental health to include low-cost or free options for counseling. It's at TCCBSA.COM There are others but this is a start if you need help. It's a good reminder when attorneys start screaming about money that there's real hurt out there that money can't fix and at least the TCC is trying to help that too.

Good description of his warped view of #1. When the Town Hall video is posted at tccbsa.com people should watch it and decide for themselves whether the two survivors look and act like guys who are the least bit concerned with making attorneys rich. I'm working now on getting one to do an "AMA" day on this forum when possible. The problem is that the TCC is bound by mediation confidentiality and limited on what it can say. That might frustrate people here who have been paying close attention.

ABSOLUTELY untrue. Spoke to the TCC...they have NOT seen a new plan and are preparing for it as well as other options. THIS is an example of Kosnoff really working against the interest of ALL survivors to try and control the narrative for some reason. Disgusting. The TCC made it clear it is fighting and will continue to do so. an dis trying to say what it can while under mediation confidentiality. It's a shame someone not included is damaging the hope of survivors. Shame.

I recognize the challenge. Perhaps we're in the 7th inning stretch (he says optimistically) and when more definitive developments occur we'll be able to focus upon them. The disclosure statement will produce that focus as will a plan or plans.

Perhaps I'm dense or over-reading this but I've found this recent split confusing. The title says "bankruptcy" but how that connects to YP, moral vs legal, and the future of scouting seem at times connected and at others disconnected. Consider this one vote for starting a new thread after the BSA files a new plan to put things on a less confusing track.

Friendly reminder below. I suspect that if the BSA releases its next plan soon it will produce a TCC Town Hall right after: NOTICE OF VIRTUAL TOWN HALL MEETINGS HOSTED BY THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF BOY SCOUT ABUSE SURVIVORS The next TCC Town Hall will be held on Thursday September 9, 2021, at 5pm PDT/8pm EDT. Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/87520804555 (no registration required) or Join by phone: 888-788-0099, meeting id 875 2080 4555

Well....the issue there is that many attorneys who deal with mass torts have retainer agreements that specify they will represent clients ONLY in the federal bankruptcy court, and not in State court (where it costs money to file a case). The TCC has been begging claimants to ask their attorneys if cases have been filed in State court since that number in NY for example is far lower than the number of BSA claims. So, if an injunction goes away in a State that was open but now the window has closed there will be victims calling attorneys and being told "Sorry, our agreement said FEDERAL court only." If anyone reads this and is asking themselves "I wonder if my State court case can or should or has been filed....CONTACT YOUR ATTORNEY if you have one!

I am REALLY sorry to hear you say this. If you're involved get more involved. Speak out. Be the change you want to see. Any volunteer-driven organization MUST be driven by volunteers if change is going to come about. And if none of that is possible or works or you're ostracized, go find another organization where you and 100K can make a difference. The world needs both.

Growth numbers must be kept in perspective. When you go from next to nothing to something the growth can seem astronomical. Is this a competitor for traditional scouting? Yes. Threat. Not broadly.

As well, many many thanks. We may not always agree but at a time when people "tune in" to only the media that support their existing opinions, it's wonderful to read opposing sides and evaluate our own beliefs. One more vote for trying to keep this civil and also recognizing how hard that is when the subject touches us all so deeply.

Yeah, that's clear. Does that make 1/3 or 2/3 of the attorneys representing a client are also Coalition members? How many of those clients replied to the Coalition's solicitation that the COALITION represents them and produced the coalition's 18,000 affirmative signatures?

NO judge in a bankruptcy has ever forced a cramdown on victims. Now, if it gets to a point or two from 2/3 then perhaps but not much more than that. As well, sexual abuse bankruptcy decisions have seen 90% agreement as a standard from judges because they want that much agreement. The judge is realistic and won't have that high a standard but cramming down a decision when half a group disagrees would be unprecedented. That might also be the reason why she is so interested in how claims were generated and whether they should turn into votes.