MYCVAStory

6 hours ago, Muttsy said:

70% growth in past 12 months. 

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.

1 minute ago, gpurlee said:

We appreciate everyone's assistance in making this forum possible.

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.

30 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Did you read the joint AIS 2019? It couldn’t be clearer. His firm DOES represent those clients. So do AVA and Eisenberg.  Jointly.

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?

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

But even if the coalition does in fact sell out they don’t control the votes it’s still possible to have a situation whereby Based on coalition lawyer advocacy you get a 51% majority or even a 60% majority but still failed to get the 2/3.

that would be an absolute horror show and I mentioned it back in May. 67% is the threshold what happens if it comes in at 65% does the judge order a cram down and just skip the 2%?

what if it were 60% or 55%?

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.

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

That’s why I later posted after I had time to think about it it might be BSA/Coalition/Hartford vs. TCC/FCR(?)

Apologies....playing catch-up on a busy day!

EVERY victim should be a proponent of a robust method of validating claims and weeding out any that were generated fraudulently or exaggerated.  Yes, there are people in this world who go from one class action to the next, fill out a form, and take their chances.  Check this: https://topclassactions.com/category/lawsuit-settlements/open-lawsuit-settlements/

But consider something else, lets make believe you have a large number of clients and then some other attorneys show up and through marketing put together their own large number or amass a larger number than yours.  All of a sudden your position is diminished.  While I appreciate any attorney wanting to weed out fraud lets remember that while victims are aided so too is that attorney when his/her position is enhanced.

Today was another day.  Points were made and negotiations will continue.  The BSA will probably file another plan Wednesday or Thursday.  Then, let's see who supports it and whether any group is willing to take the money and move on to the detriment of victims.  Oh, and don't forget, the BSA is VERY motivated to settle with the Hartford because if they don't they'll be the subject of an administrative claim because they backed out of the original deal.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

This is the fig leaf for TCC/Coalition/FCR to hide under: $650 million Hartford wasn't good enough, we got another $150 million, that's good enough to move ahead with the RSA/Plan 4.0

I'm not so sure I would lump those three together.  The TCC is FAR less motivated to settle for a fraction of what the Hartford owes.

4 hours ago, Muttsy said:

You asked me a legal question and I gave you the LEGAL answer.  The only way for BSA to escape this cockroach motel is for the parties to get a number with the carriers that is achievable.  Fair? No. Possible? Maybe. 

On this we agree and I think you've made the point regarding the difference between equity and equality and the problem with bankruptcy dealing with sexual abuse.  Equality would mean that everyone gets the same settlement regardless of SOL for each "category" and other factors.  Equity though is connected to the BUSINESS of bankruptcy and the reality that each claimant became a piece of data related to value prior to bankruptcy.  Then, factor in that the pool of available funds is limited from the debtor and the insurers NUMBER ONE defense is that some claims are worth less because of the SOLs and the equity, or for many of us what is seen as inequity, comes into focus.  Parties are negotiating AND trying to come up with the right numbers.  If that isn't reached I hope the TCC will say so and object, and hopefully the Coalition will also, and who knows even K wil set aside his personal attacks on Jim Stang and support the victims who make up the TCC.  Or, will some jump at lowball number(s) when they hear the mantra "We want to put money in the hands of victims ASAP" as they smile knowing that their judge-denied bills will have a chance of getting paid sooner.  It's 3-D chess and one of those dimensions is time. You mentioned the money that was available with Asbestos.  Nice job referencing that but all should remember two things.  One, that dealt with physical damages that were more easily validated and calculated pre-settlement, and two, it has taken years and years.  Victims should think about what they can stomach but also for how long.  Some may be in it for the long-haul.  Many might not want to wait around for 5-7 years until all the insurance is litigated, appealed, and litigated some more as more of the money available to victims goes to more attorneys.  Again, all should remember that this is about the "equity" from a business view and the value of everyone's money over time.  It all makes me sick and as I write this I'm sipping tea with beet powder in it hoping that'll pull my blood pressure down since the meds were doing more harm than good.  But, it's reality.  But hey, we're a day closer to some settlement at least!

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

The objection was fine and it got some of what it wanted but please don’t conflate a nation-wide noticing campaign intended to protect BSA with justice for survivors in non-window states that you apparently agree should be thrown under the bus. 

Protect the BSA or make sure EVERY victim knows this is the time to file a claim?

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

Then what are they worrying about. They’ll do just fine in state court, right?

What about victims?  What about all of those who will bankrupt their LCs or have NO path forward.  What happens when those in line first exhaust the insurance?

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

Doubt me? Ask Stang at the next Town Hall assuming there ever is one again  

Andolina/Laurie thought Stang’s connections to some of the lawyers representing clients with pending lawsuits or claims would enable them to do a pre-packaged bankruptcy with maybe 500 claims, a super short bar date, modest advertising budget, quick and dirty, in and out. But then out of nowhere came this tsunami which called itself AIS with thousands of clients and wrecked the party. 

What's your problem?  There was a Town Hall recently AND another one is advertised for 9/9.  They are postponed when it makes more sense but check www.tccbsa.com for the next one.

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

Stang was fully in bed with BSA staring lovingly in to each other’s eyes. One of the items of their pillow talk was how to ensure BSA et al got nation-wide immunity.

Your comments border on the disgusting.  The BSA from the beginning wanted blanket immunity and it was the TCC that objected to that for LCs.

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

The solicitation to all survivors in all states was cooked up long before Feb 2020. Stang was talking with Andolina for more than a year prior AND getting paid by BSA, to boot. I recall in an early filing BSA reported having paid Stang several hundred thousand dollars pre-filing.

Context is needed.  The BSA called up Stang and several attorneys pre-bankruptcy to see if any agreement could be reached.  He was paid esentially as a mediator and someone with the kind of experience to make realistic what the BSA would be facing.  It went nowhere fast.  If he were biased then he would ave pushed for a bad settlement.  He did not.  As well, I spoke to someone in the TCC.  BEFORE he was retained he made clear his previous involvement and that it was as an adversary to the BSA and supporter of victims.

Coming attraction for Monday should be a new face and voice taking on the insurers; Kirk Pasich the TCC's insurance coverage professional:  https://pasichllp.com/attorney/kirk-pasich/   Insurers hate him.  Google his name and check the news.  Hopefully he'll get a word in edge-wise.  This judge likes letting people go one and on and on and.....

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yes, after the voting takes place. Why should someone with no valid legal claim (time barred) get the same vote as someone with no time bar?

They shouldn't.  They absolutely shouldn't.  But, the debtor won't support the months and more it would take for complete validation.  That's why work continues to remove duplicates and more importantly, figure out what attorney is representing each claimant.  Sadly, this is why bankruptcy is the WORST mechanism for dealing with sexual abuse claims.

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And if I am the attorney for victims with valid claims worried my clients are going to get outvoted by invalid claims, I’d might just say “too bad, vet now, however long it takes”

Every dollar to an invalid claim is one dollar out of the pocket of my client with the valid claim. Moreover those invalid claims dilute my clients vote (word used was “swamps” their votes).

Of course you would, and the TCC has said that it believes in a robust vetting system.  But, this comes down to a judge and whether she is willing to do the right thing or the expeditious thing.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

vet first and let those with valid claims vote later.

Alas, the sheer volume and number prevents that.  As well, I suspect there are attorneys who do NOT want their claims vetted.  Why, because that increases the chance that their clients' claims will be denied.  Look at it from the Coalition's standpoint.  If you control a trust, if the judge isn't allowing your fees, if you can cut deals with insurers that will see their NOT objecting to those fees, then who cares where the money goes as long as you GET YOUR 40%.  I hope I'm wrong but if there's word in the next week, on the heels of the RSA expiring and the judge slapping down their fee argument, then you know the Coalition is trying to get their money NOW to pay their bills and don't expect rigorous validation.  Why bother when the faster we can "Get money into the hands of victims" the faster we can get our bills paid.

6 hours ago, ThenNow said:

So, process question. Would such a partial payment be via and subsequent to the Settlement Trustee's review and value determination? I assume every survivor payment has to pass through his review, whether total or partial. Yes?

Yes.  In part to make sure that claims are validated to make sure that there is no fraud or duplication involved.  A settlement trust if created would do that as well as take on the fight with insurers via retained insurance litigation experts.   

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

We got everyone money, even if they never went through with treatment because they couldn’t self fund. So, 4+/- years. That totally sucked, but it was required for them to come to the table and cough it up.

Exactly.  This is the awful part of bankruptcy being the process for dealing with abuse/injury.  Victims see headlines like "Judge allows BSA settlement to move forward...." and they start checking their mailbox for checks.  The reality os that the bankruptcy process is DEBTOR (BSA) initiated for DEBTOR benefit.  They settle with their claimants and move on down the road.  Claimants are left with a settlement of some portion of what's owed them or their litigation (in this case with insurers) continues.  Even if there were a global settlement with all insurers, and that is HIGHLY unlikely at this point unless victims were REALLY screwed over, it takes time to review every claim.  My wife asked me if she thought I'd see any amount in 2022.  My best response was "Maybe, but only a portion"  This isn't unusual.  The asbestos mass tort trusts have been going on for decades.  Madoff, while not mass tort has been clawing back money since 2009 https://www.madofftrustee.com/

Pissed about that?  The House Judiciary Committee might be interested in hearing your opinion: https://judiciary.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=4661

11 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Never underestimate this as a legal strategy some might take in order to achieve their desired ends...

I was told by a wide old Sage Bankruptcy Professional at the start of this "In mass tort bankruptcies 90% of the claimants have TWO questions ONLY.  How much will I get and when will I get it?"  Insurers know this.  They live for it.  Their outside attorneys are paid by the hour more in a couple weeks than I'll make all year and that's still a bargain for the insurers compared to settling.  The longer insurers can get claimants to wait the less they'll take to get it over with and the money that sits in the insurers accounts makes more than expenses. .  The shorter they can get claimants to settle they know they'll do it for less money to get it quickly.  It is ALL about Time Value of Money.  The best strategy for claimants is also the hardest.  A well-litigated strategy that takes time and is intended to leverage as much as possible from insurers.  Alas, that doesn't come quickly.  That's why the worst thing you can do with an insurer that owes you money is show your frustration and impatience and the best is smile and make it clear you won't be sold out quickly.  That's also why there are quick payouts for those who don't want to wait.  Unfortunately the insurers live for dragging things out and their attorneys are only happy to do so.  You can't have it both ways. 

57 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

For you active Scouters, I hope this doesn’t put a damper on the candid discussion here. 

Yeah, that candid conversation is important but sometimes you have to watch what you say.  Let's all remember this tidbit that was entered into the court record from Mr. Kosnoff, defender of victims when he mistakenly hit "reply all" to the wrong group.  Best interest of ALL victims or one group?

Yes but no more. We need to control our power. Not just to the committee but to everyone - mediators, BSA, councils etc. 

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

If you know some specifics, many have no clue that the TCC works hand and glove with a passel of the best, most experienced and most committed child sexual abuse attorneys on the planet. Well, that’s what been briefly stated in Town Halls. Any info to help understand this would be appreciated. Inquiring minds want to know.

C/O an advocate involved here are the "principle" attorneys representing TCC members and advocating for ALL victims, and not just the clients of any coalition.  The bios give an idea of their experience on the victim experience side.   I'm not a lawyer, I'm not shilling for any, and other than my college roommate who became an attorney and owes me beer money none have ever paid or owe me a dime to post this 🙂

https://www.paulmones.com/paul-mones/

https://mersonlaw.com/founder-jordan-merson/

https://www.hurley-law.com/attorneys/christopher-t-hurley/

https://www.crewjanci.com/our-team/ (Crew and Janci)

https://www.hurley-law.com/attorneys/evan-m-smola/

https://www.andersonadvocates.com/overview/attorney-profiles/

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lujanandwolff (Delia Lujan)

2 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

And, if the Claimant Voters ever get good information, and 15% is the rule, then they can vote the Plan down.

Scary thought for the night....no judge has ever "crammed down" a sexual abuse bankruptcy settlement against the vote of claimants.  That's good.  Expect a 66% approval vote from VOTING claimants (not total number) for approval.  Claimants aren't required to sign their ballots if their retention agreement with their attorney and claim form signify that their attorney can do so for them.  So yes, that places a lot of power into the hands of mass tort attorneys who can be expected to vote for a LOT of clients.  Think their clients will do so instead?  Consider that when the Coalition asked its supposed 70,000+ clients to sign an agreement saying that their attorney would represent them as part of the Coalition only 18,000 returned that mailing affirmatively.  You can be sure that the remaining 50,000 votes will be cast when a plan is up for approval.  What's this mean?  Well, if the RSA blows up, and keeping the Hartford $hit deal as a part of a settlement would do that, then you might see two victims sides emerge.  Those attorneys with bills to pay (since the judge said not yet), and those representing the TCC and Zalkin group who have a long history of serving victims in STATE courts as well where they have filed cases. 

If you're reading this and wondering if your attorney filed your State case (if your SOL allows it) ASK NOW.  MANY MANY cases in NY were never filed before the NY deadline passed August 14 because the victim's attorney retainer is BSA bankruptcy only.  Consider that nightmare if this blows up and someone who waited decades for the SOL to change is told "Sorry, we never agreed to represent you in State court."  Consider the type of attorney who would do that.  Consider who will be voting for any plan when the time comes.  Sorry.    This is a long way from over.

1 minute ago, PeterHopkins said:

At the time of the call, they were not permitted to disclose their share of the amount in the RSA.

Just as a reminder, because it is part of the bankruptcy "deal" all Council contributions will be a part of the disclosure.  That said, that information like all others is open to objection.  The TCC has maintained strongly that claimants have the right to know before they vote.