MYCVAStory

Let's trade. I'm headed to a cardiologist next week after an "abnormality" turned up. I'm looking forward to when he asks "Have you been under any stress lately?" "Well, do you have a few hours so I can summarize it?!" Enjoy, safe travels, and happy hunting!

Someone let Kosnoff know he can tweet his apology re the TCC not holding meetings when he thinks best. The TCC for now has moved its REGULAR second Thursday of the month meeting to the week before. Not a huge surprise given the the upcoming court dates and what might be better timing: 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, August 5, 2021, at 5pm PDT/8pm EDT. Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/89421964324 (no registration required) or Join by phone: 888-788-0099, meeting id 894 2196 4324 To be discussed: Status of Boy Scouts bankruptcy case Status of the disclosure statement and chapter 11 approval process Status of negotiations with chartered organizations and insurers Other motions pending before the bankruptcy court Other pending motions before the bankruptcy court

Re the next TCC Town Hall meeting, considering the Bankruptcy court hearing schedule I wouldn't be surprised if their Town Hall gets moved to the best possible time, like the week before, as things crystalize. Someone please ask Kosnoff for a retraction and "thank you" if that happens. #wishfulthinking

Always interesting when someone under the gun starts pointing fingers elsewhere. The TCC said it would hold Town Hall meetings monthly. It has delayed meetings, and called one on short notice, to provide the best information. I suspect if the TCC held daily meetings he'd say it was spending too much time on meetings. #whatever.

Anecdotally, I've visited so many reservations in the past decade where I was told "We have several camps in the reservation but only use one regularly." It always follows the demographics. Take Ten Mile River Scout Reservation in New York. 10,000+ acres and at its height 11 independent camps and outposts. Today, three camps. Drive the old roads and it looks like one scout camp ghost town after another. I don't know that Council's plans but if the notion is to hold on to all of that property until eight more camps are filled, well, good luck. There are others like it. It's business. When times get tough, time to close the under-performing franchises.

Well, the BSA NCAP process looks specifically at utilization and strategic analysis of camp plans for usage. https://www.scouting.org/outdoor-programs/camp-accreditation/ I'm guessing these reports and documents would be available, but under mediation confidentiality, and would have helped inform the Ad-Hoc Committee and TCC regarding the amount of under-utilization that made properties "available."

Absolutely. As well, this is why the TCC had CBE conduct appraisals on hundreds of properties. This prevents an LC from saying "Here you go, it's worth a million" when it's worth a thousand. As well, it also prevents the LC from trying to transfer the unusable portion of a camp (i.e. swampland). The reality is that there are a lot of camps out there that while they have been valuable emotionally to LCs because of their history they have been grossly under-utilized. So, some LCs might sound like they're horrified that their camp will be sold but I bet quite a few scout execs are happy that their hand was forced on this.

Excellent point. Remember, the LCs are NOT under mediation confidentiality to do so, nor are they under an NDA. The TCC shared the dashboards with the LCs and specifically encouraged them to share them publicly. Because they contain financial data that is figuratively the "property" of the LC it's the LC's choice as to whether to share. Frankly, it's always a bad look when a non-profit doesn't share all that it can. Again, the question to ask the LC is "Will you share the TCC's dashboard for the Council? If not, in light of the TCC encouraging it to be shared, it not being part of mediation confidentiality, and no NDA ever being produced by BSA or the LC. why not?"

Sounds a lot like someone who got kicked out of the dance and found himself complaining about the music from the parking lot.

Remember, the TCC works with experienced bankruptcy attorneys, financial;l advisors and analysts, pension experts, insurance litigators, and others versed in bankruptcy. Its members never purported to be experts or have competence other than try to make the best decisions in consultation with the best experts it could secure. You're also making the assumption that they rely on heart and sincerity. We know that they come from business, the military, the legal profession, and others. I don't suspect they lack in guts. NONE spoke yesterday because it wasn't appropriate. My suggestion is that you watch the next Town Hall and pose the question to the members on by asking them directly if they feel used , embarrassed or ashamed. You might have your opinion but consider the alternative. Would having NO victims advising any part of this be better? The situation is horrible because of the number of claims and the limited pot of gold. That's the fundamental issue and I don't think the nine people trying to make the best of it should be criticized until after this is over and they choose to talk about the decisions made. Only then, when we know more, should we stand in their shoes and judge.

It is VERY important to note that the US Department of Justice career employees (not political appointees) interviewed over a hundred victims and selected the nine it felt most appropriate. They did this without consideration of how many clients a specific attorney represented. They wanted nine that would represent ALL victims and not one firm's clients. None of the nine were Kosnoff's clients. The Coalition was self-formed and filed to be recognized as a mediation party. I bring this up just so that victims recognize that the TCC was selected and instructed to represent ALL victims regardless of the "business" of their attorneys. Think what you want about the motivation of the coalition but It is grossly unfair and inaccurate for Kosnoff to suggest that the TCC is in the pocket of anyone other than the people it represents.

I hope you stay strong. You've already hit on the most important part of all of this, what happened WAS a part of your past. This bankruptcy though has dragged it into the present for those who were ready for it as well as those who weren't. I hope for all our sakes that at some point we can all find a way to put this back in the past where it belongs. That's a tough destination to reach and the path is an individual one, sometimes interminably long with a lot of detours. Just don't ever give up and you'll keep getting closer.

Do you mind sharing that statement or what State that is?

In the for what it's worth category, I spoke to a long-time bankruptcy attorney today and asked "Was anything a surprise?" His response, "Nope, the timeline was realistic without objection. Objections are common and not a surprise" He seemed nonplussed and suggested that bankruptcy court is a wonderful venue for grandstanding and lengthy proclamations if you are a corporate attorney, regardless of the validity of argument. "Why?" "Because the client is listening." This grinds on but for all of us who hoped that our cases would see the light of day sometime it's still proceeding faster than they would have. Small consolation I know.

If that were to happen then consider this, the States where there are open SOLs would allow cases to proceed. Awards would be given to those who prevail, insurers would appeal indefinitely, but the real issue would be settlements. When the open States wipe out all the exposure for victims in "closed" States there would be ZERO left if/when States change their SOLs. Oh, and the same thing would happen to cases in open States that don't get settled in time before policy limits are reached. The mission of the Trust is to try and secure the most possible and distribute it "equitably." I Know the "equity" part is a third-rail. I'm not debating that. It's just important to understand at this point the impact of letting anyone sue who they want.

PLEASE do not accept that. The TCC SPECIFICALLY said that their analysis was not part of mediation and did not share the dashboards as part of it. The TCC spoke directly to the LCs outside of mediation via Zoom and information seen as confidential was designated by the individual LC. Each LC is in control of their dashboard and can disclose what it wants. If the LC believes that the TCC dashboard is incorrect then now is the time to make that case. If all it wants to do is hide behind some sort of NDA or mediation confidentiality that doesn't exist then perhaps the LC doesn't understand their "right" to release data or it has its own reasons for not doing so. So, the question to ask first is "Do you have something in writing from National or another entity that says that our LC's dashboard falls under mediation confidentiality because the TCC said previously that it didn't." Gotta say, it's always interesting when an entity cries poor, but then hesitates to prove it.

It's good that you're dubious of all of it. Every claimant should be until they are comfortable. It should make for a good discussion with your attorney since they're getting paid to represent and interpret.

As suggested, there would probably be a pre-arranged negotiation so that the selected case would pay back to the Trust a significant percentage so that it's a win-win. The claimant if they prevail receives an amount closer to the suggested "value" and other claimants via the trust will share in the trust's "percentage."

It can be confusing. I'll try to overly simplify it. A Victims Trust will take possession of the insurance policies. Basically, the BSA "assigns" them. Then, the trust allows some small number of "slam dunk" claims to go to court with much coordination. This will include a negotiated percentage of any award going to the trust so that it doesn't dilute coverage limits for remaining victims. Theoretically these claims will win in court and the insurers will then be liable for paying. String together enough of these and the insurers will want to settle to stop the bleeding. What this judge has displayed doubt on is the ultimate binding nature of the values that have been assigned and forcing the insurers to agree. Most certainly the insurers will put up a legal fight against ANY of this because they know that time is on their side. The longer any claimant waits for a settlement the less they tend to accept. This is also why they will demand a lot of verification and press their "bogus claim" arguments. This is all nothing new and has been played out in asbestos, airbags and lots of other mass tort issues. Victims need to understand that the Trust, led by the managing trustee, will take the fight to the insurers. Couple things....it will take time and the TCC has shared that there will be victim representation on a committee giving input to the committee. I also suspect that if a plan is approved the TCC will continue its Town Halls to explain in detail how the Trust will work and then the Trust will continue its own communication. I wish any of this would be settled quickly for us, victim or not. But, the only way that would happen is if the TCC and Coalition had somehow negotiated for the kind of lowball offer that the insurers would have responded to with "Who should we make teh check out to?"

So, the LC, which like all the others has expressed its financial and corporate independence consistently, has received a financial analysis from an outside source and doesn't want to share it with its members? Seems to me it would be happy to if the analysis was incorrect and too optimistic. Then again, bad news is always best kept secret isn't it. NOW is the time for everyone connected to the BSA to be screaming for transparency. The lack of it has put us all in this position and must end. Ask to see this "NDA."

Ask to see the TCC detailed analysis of your LCs finances. All LCs have received theirs. Might make for an interesting discussion.

I hope that as a part of this bloodletting every LC will start to ask more questions and press their Execs for answers. LCs need to be change agents. With a nod to Santayana, anyone who wants to believe that history doesn't repeat itself truly is headed for seeing it repeated. What will it cost next time?

Absolutely true. A couple things to consider are how this is getting communicated and the level of knowledge of the attorneys. The "headline" that was easy to write just divided the amount of the settlement by 82,000 and said "Victims to get...." That should have been accompanied by an asterisk that said "*For Now" The TCC has been saying all along that it's been trying to wrench all it could out of the BSA, LCs, Chartering Orgs and Insurance companies. Now the BSA and LC part of that equation has been addressed. What has to be better understood though will be the fight of a victim's trust (which we've been told will still have Victim representation) and it going after insurance. PURELY hypothetical so lets not put any down payments on anything, if the insurers have 100 Billion in exposure over the years then less than 1% of this has been settled. Call it 50 Billion and we're less than 2%. What I think the narrative is going to turn to very soon is going to be the insurance fight. That was what the Town Hall was discussing, the trust sending some cases out to start inflicting pain on the insurers so they will settle. As well, if I'm insurer #1 and settle for X dollars when my exposure was known then I've set the "standard" for other insurers to follow. That was the problem with the Hartford deal. It was SO low that it was going to set up other insurers for similar lowball settlements. Now, the insures know the TCC and Coalition aren't going to take quick laughingly low settlements. The bad news though is that this will take time and the insurers know it so they'll try to drag it out and cause more pain. Only time will tell. Bottom line though is that the ABSOLUTE LARGEST pot of money is with the insurers and always has been. They know it and their crying that they've been excluded is pretty funny. As the Hartford deal shows, they weren't excluded, some were just smart enough to know that a lowball "deal" was doomed to failure. One other thing to consider is that there are attorneys who have been very involved with this bankruptcy, some who have worked hard to stay in the loop, and some who read the same headlines as us. The media can always find opposing views and the most angry make for good copy. While he does represent a lot of clients in some way Kosnoff's views from the beginning have been under the heading of "good copy." His insistence that the BSA be burned down and other invective makes for good tweets and quotes but was NEVER the goal or realistic outcome of this bankruptcy. What we need to do now if we were victims is catch our breath. The money from the BSA and LCs was NEVER going to be enough. Beyond no number ever being enough the BSA is a financially struggling operation with declining numbers that may rebound but we have to deal with today's reality. The LCs are a part but their independence and while subject to "piercing the corporate veil" in court to force greater payments was an option it's time-consuming (like years) risky, and may have left some victims with NO payment from an LC in a bad SOL State or with little money. Almost a billion dollars has been wrenched out of the BSA and LCs. While not enough it's a start and the Victim's Trust will now have the most important piece of all of this, the rights to the insurance policies. Take a breath, it's been 16 months since the start of the bankruptcy and unless you take the "opt out" payment it's going to be a while until the insurers cough up what's owed. All of us want what's owed us and the years back that were taken from us. Now's the time to stay positive and at least be happy that the headline wasn't "BSA and Insurers come to 2 Billion Dollar global settlement." Check this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57692428 Now the fight will be taken to the insurers who were the beneficieries of our being members of the BSA and we can all prove that the "bogus claim" argument is just that, bogus. I for one am looking forward to the "public" annual meetings of the insurers, and change in focus for the media, when questions will be asked. Take a deep breath and strap in. There's much more work to be done but like most efforts the harder the work the greater the payoff.

Well....hate to throw cold water but... 1. It was a deal pending a approval of a larger plan AND the court regardless would needed to agree that it met the best interest test. The lowball offer by the Hartford and the BSA's attempt to show that it was part of "their" deal to all survivor made that unlikely from the jump. 2. The judge will say "Go deal with that later." 3. That's how bankruptcy works. People enter a class and get a vote. And....the reason bankruptcy isn't the place for sexual abuse. 4. Bankruptcy law allows for this exact channeling. 5. While the Trustee certainly has an opinion the judge often considers it but doesn't pay much attention if the major parties and claimants are ok with the agreement. 6. Then it's likely that a specific LC might not receive the injunction or their "share" will be made up elsewhere or they will have their own promissory note. Certainly if enough LCs disagree this could be derailed but there's every indication that the Execs of these LCs are supportive of keeping their jobs in the future. 7. Could happen but remember that attorneys by right have the ability to approve or disapprove the agreement and sign for their clients unless advised otherwise. The TCC has said that it will publish an FAQ AND continue town halls to educate so that victims may make their best decision. Again, hate to throw cold water but while there are paths that could cause this to derail some are far less likely than others. We all need to remember too that those on this forum are VERY engaged and far from the "typical" claimant. The next month or two shall be interesting.

Well....because bankruptcy law allows "non-debtor" entities to receive "non-consensual" releases from a class if in the eye of the court the relief provided (in this case by the LCs) is significant enough to get the debtor out of bankruptcy, and of course the class accepts it. That's reason #72 why bankruptcy law was NEVER designed to address sexual assault issues.