Jump to content

MYCVAStory

Members
  • Content Count

    182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by MYCVAStory

  1. 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."
  2. Ask to see the TCC detailed analysis of your LCs finances. All LCs have received theirs. Might make for an interesting discussion.
  3. 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?
  4. 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 tru
  5. 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 t
  6. 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.
  7. Some will be happy to take the $3500 and move on. That decision should be respected and unfortunately it might be $3500 more than they had a path to seeing before this. Should it be more. Of course. But in relation to number two, every victim and party to this should demand that only validated claims receive awards. The TCC has made it clear that a dollar given to a bogus claim is a dollar that can't be shared among those that are real. That deserves review. How that's done will be the work of the Trustee. Victims should at least take some solace knowing that there are professionals th
  8. Because if you have thousands of clients and they receive relatively small amounts each it adds up and becomes a large amount for you. Welcome to the world of Mass Tort Attorneys. Asbestos yesterday, BSA abuse today, Something else tomorrow. All those infomercials urging victims to come forward work. I hope that the thousands of clients who now have thousands of questions about their individual cases are now getting their calls and email returned. The TCC's professionals represents that class and not individuals. As they commented last night they will produce an FAQ soon but if a victim
  9. They are protected because they agreed to contribute. Essentially they have "bought" their permanent injunction. Some attorneys have said they will object to this and the US Trustee will weigh in but at the end of teh day Bankruptcy Judges lean toward being able to say "If the vast majority of the parties agree this is a good idea who am I to disagree?" Then, the judge can kick it to a higher court if that's where anyone wants to go. The insurers are already eyeing that.
  10. This is an important issue to understand. If the agreement essentially said Anyone who wants to opt out can do so" it would produce an Oklahoma-style land rush on cases. The effect of that would be to eliminate insurance proceeds from all but the cases that make it to judgement. Essentially, the available proceeds will run out and leave victims with NO coverage. The trust will now determine which cases are "slam dunks" and allow them to proceed. THAT will place pressure on insurers. They WILL come to the table to stop the bleeding. As well, the trust will more than likely negotiate with
  11. That's for criminal prosecution. Civil isn't the same. Here's a great tracker from the Childusa site: https://childusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-SOL-Tracker.pdf
  12. All docs to be linked via TCCBSA.COM for those who don't want to deal with the Omni site.
  13. Yes, this has been the stated goal of the TCC since the beginning. Going forward, transparency for the public AND publication of those who are a danger to the community. Plus 100 mil promissory note.
  14. I have a hunch you're going to hear in the Town Hall meeting tonight how the TCC has addressed its YP concerns for change moving forward.
  15. I disagree. What they said, and it showed, was that they have been working hard on this, had hoped to say more, but because of mediation confidentiality had to wait a bit more before getting into details. Failed mediation would have meant no agreement was near. That wasn't the message. At this point all parties have to wait for the BSA's filings. The TCC said it hope that would be today but asked for patience.
  16. Yes. It basically means the parties are saying "We agree with this in principal and with the critical items. Now we'll work on getting it ready for a vote." It does NOT mean that it's a done deal however. Parties including insurers can still object.
  17. Apparently the TCCBSA website mixed up the day/date for the next Town Hall. It's been corrected and is Wednesday this month: 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 Wednesday, June 30, 2021, at 5pm PDT/8pm EDT. Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/88993247600 (no registration required) or Join by phone: 888-788-0099, meeting id 889 9324 7600 To be discussed: Status of Boy Scouts disclosure statement Status of negotiations with the Boy Scouts, local counci
  18. I'm the wrong guy to ask for predictions. I'm still waiting for my stock in Betamax, Enron, and Delorean Auto to come back.
  19. The TCC has stated that this is a highly personal decision based upon many factors. In States where victims may pursue cases against their abuser because the Statute allows it it's critical to have a case filed before any deadline AND an attorney specializing in abuse cases. As well, if this goes to a trust to be sorted out for some the complexity may necessitate having legal expertise. Again, it depends on the individual AND trust distribution plan. I'll reserve comment on what is an "appropriate" fee or percentage to pay and only say that ALL financial agreements between clients and atto
  20. FYI...Town Hall: 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, June 30, 2021, at 5pm PDT/8pm EDT. Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/88993247600 (no registration required) or Join by phone: 888-788-0099, meeting id 889 9324 7600 To be discussed: Status of Boy Scouts disclosure statement Status of negotiations with the Boy Scouts, local councils, chartered organizations, and insurers Other motions pending before the bankruptcy court The pl
  21. Vegas odds say the next one will be Wednesday 6/30. Stand by.
  22. Well, here's more than you probably want to know below. I'd guess that the attorneys representing a majority of claimants and have been involved with mediation would say that they are making a substantial contribution by getting to a settlement that the majority would vote for. Please don't make me explain the thinking of attorneys beyond that! It IS something that is objected to but the cost of the objection could add the fees if the objection didn't prevail. At any rate, here's the code in part from: https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2012/06/construing-substantial-contribution-under-
  23. In bankruptcy proceedings it is not uncommon for recognized mediation parties to "bargain in" certain fees as a part of a settlement. The code actually allows for reimbursement of fees if substantial contribution to achieving a settlement by a party can be demonstrated in the eyes of the court. If all parties agree then the court will usually allow it. Ahhhh....the business of bankruptcy.... I think saying the BSA "bought" votes is over-reaching however and would require not only the TCC and Federal Bankruptcy Trustee to look the other way but all other parties who would have to agree to
  24. An excellent question. Here's my guess. This is about to become ALL about the insurance and I wouldn't place my money on the Hartford "deal" (or better said Insult to Victims) even lasting too much longer. So, how then to get the insurance companies to settle? Well, that's where the trust comes in. There are cases that are "slam dunks." Horrible acts of abuse, States with viable SOLs, complaints about the abuser that weren't pursued, you get the idea. If the Trust allows them to go forward and the insurers start to get judgements against them they have to pay. If they pay enough then i
×
×
  • Create New...