MYCVAStory

7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Let's get this straight. I wiggle a way to have my clients (and survivors who are NOT my clients) pay for the attorneys who help me make a deal to make millions of dollars from my clients. Okay. Makes total sense. Or not. Anyone get this?

So my understanding is that the whole "substantial contribution" motion/argument is considered after the confirmation.  It's in the plan to let the judge know where money "may" be going.  The judge could say "okay, leave it in" or "I don't want to be bound by this in any way, take it out."  Regardless, it is considered after the confirmation portion.  I'm looking forward to that.  The judge has already signaled on more than one occasion that she has doubts about it.  Then last week it was evident to her thatthe Coalition was the group in the STAC that couldn't agree with the rest of its members on a Trustee.  That forced the BSA to just name the Trustee based upon a majority and the judge to show much displeasure as to how the STAC had started its work.  So, there's a very real possibility that the judge could say "You need to pay your attorney's bills, do what you're doing to your Survivor clients and pay for them yourself from the contingency fees you're taking."

10 hours ago, PaleRider said:

I haven't figured out who outside of Scouts I will have to worry the hell out of to keep the BSA in check about them doing any and everything in their power to stop this from happening to any other kids.

Absolutely.  The new YP changes compared to the original settlement are on a link at the top of the tccbsa.com website.  It might make you feel a little more at ease.  That's a big emphasis on "might."  The reality is that there are pedophiles out there and they will always look for opportunities.  What the BSA needs to do is have a culture of protection running throughout it AND the public able to know if it's working.  The new settlement allows for a mechanism where parents will be able to call and find out if a troop is safe before and during involvement.  As well, mandatory reporter laws exist where they never did.  Will it all make a difference?  I don't know, and the amount of youth on youth abuse that we may have never realized is really an issue but a LOT of Survivors are going to be on local Council boards and others will be making those calls to see if anything has changed.  Transparency is critical and the BSA owes it to the public and especially Survivors to prove that it deserves to exist after what it did, and is now doing, to every Survivor. 

2 hours ago, PaleRider said:

I'm beginning to wonder if filing a claim was even worth reliving the past.Its clear as day that BSA don't give no more of a damn about us today than they gave 40-50 years ago about us!;!.

We all have different paths to follow.  What's right for some isn't right for others.  The past was a nightmare and the present finds Survivors in a legal process designed to address business and not abuse.  The reality though is that this may be our only chance to be involved.  Follow the path you you feel is best but just remember that some day this will be in the rear view mirror and we'll all need to ask then whether we did today what we needed to.  Hindsight's a bitch and always 20-20 but usually favors action rather than inaction.  Hang in there and I hope you find some peace.

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Thank you, TCC. This was very helpful. Of course, I have 9.62 additional questions, while scratching 18.38 of them off the list. 

Yep, there's no way that everyone's individual situation can be addressed but at least this helps when we speak to our attorneys.  I hear those saying..."But I'm pro se!"  That's where the Trust is really going to need to continue the discussion of how this is all working and what it means.  The TCC mentioned that it will be meeting and stressing communication with the Trustee if/when he/she is appointed.  At least this is a start given how early it is in the process.

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

So an independent review of a single claim would go to increase the trust fund available to all members?  Or is it  affecting the distribution of the already established dollars in the fund to increase the amount to that single victim.  I was trying to understand the "go into the trust".

They said in the meeting last night that they had created an almost hour-long video explaining the review processes (three paths) in detail and hoped that the video would be up on the website very soon.  At that length hopefully it answers a lot of questions or at least helps Survivors ask the right questions of counsel.

You have to wonder if after trying to control things for so long and excluding the TCC, then having that fail, if this wasn't a last(ish) effort at retaining some control over Trust operations.  Sounded like the Judge wants no part of that.

Judge called a hearing on quick notice....NOT happy that the STAC couldn't agree on ONE Trustee.  TCC and Pfau/Zalkin wanted Hauser.  Coalition wanted Levy.  Deadlocked at 4-3 and the BSA submitted Hauser's name to the Coalition's consternation.  Coalition wanted two trustees with one being Levi.  Judge decides that she will allow Hauser to move ahead because it is the BSA's plan.  Buchbinder says two trustees would be a mess and she agrees.  She also seems VERY pissed that the STAC couldn't work this out an dmade work for her, she wants a VERY independant and qualified Trustee, she will be looking at the role of the STAC and appears to want it to be advisory at best with an independant trustee.  Interestingly, Rothweiler raised his hand to speak but she disallowed it because he is a represented party and Molton was already speaking for the Coaition.  NOT a good look when you want to jump in to take your attorney's place.  Pachulski gave Molton a biot of a lesson in Bankruptcy code so maybe this was damage control.  Overall....a good result for Survivors if this judge wants the right Trustee, and the lawyers who have been fighting for two years to be advisory at best.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

5) IV files most likely will not be fully released.  Dr. Kennedy explained that there are a lot of non sex abuse members listed in there, also non validated claims.  No one wants to be sued.  So, it will take a lot of time and redactions.  Something will be released, but limited.

The takeaway is that this settlement gives the BSA 12 months to work out an acceptable protocol for release (redaction, privacy, etc) and the Trustee has the authority to file suit to compel the court to do so.  Bottom line, a path has been laid out and the BSA with the new Youth Protection Committee can walk it and the Trustee will be waiting to see if they show up at the destination.

Reminder.....

The TCC urges you to attend the TCC’s “Town Hall” meetings. The next “Town Hall” meeting will be February 17 at 5 p.m. (Pacific)/7 p.m. (Central)/8 p.m. (Eastern).  The TCC will discuss its recommendations about these material changes to BSA’s Plan.

Here is the Zoom link to the Town Hall meetings: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/82272826295

OR telephone: 1-669-900-9128; Code: 82272826295#

An FYI....

The TCC urges you to attend the TCC’s “Town Hall” meetings. The next “Town Hall” meeting will be February 17 at 5 p.m. (Pacific)/7 p.m. (Central)/8 p.m. (Eastern).  The TCC will discuss its recommendations about these material changes to BSA’s Plan.

Here is the Zoom link to the Town Hall meetings: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/82272826295

OR telephone: 1-669-900-9128; Code: 82272826295#

2 hours ago, yknot said:

I have not heard that any kind of vetting of the claims has been done

Vetting has only been done by attorneys filing claims.  (Insert opinions about that here).   That's why the selection of a Trustee, claims processing professionals, and a Trust Advisory Committee are so important.  Ultimately the Trust will vet claims as best as possible so that available funds go to valid Survivors.  While the scope of this is historically large its been done in other mass tort and abuse settings.  So, there are "best practices" and if a Trust is established let's hope it communicates well its work.

8 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Quick survey are we closer to the end of the end of the bankruptcy then the beginning and how much longer will all of this last?

One opinion....closer to the end of the bankruptcy than the beginning since a confirmation hearing is rapidly approaching.  But....if it all fails the clock resets to where all Survivors were the day before it was filed.  If it succeeds  then Survivors have to understand that a Trust needs to get up and running and claims are addressed "first in, first out" (FIFO) according to filing date.  Even then, as non-settling insurers are litigated by the Trust that will take time.  So, post any settlement this will take....more time.  Some Survivors might get a look at all of that and say "Give me my $3500 so I can forget about all of this.  And if some combination of the above happens, where third-parties can't be released, then Survivor litigation may commence for some.  Oh, and ALL of it can be appealed by objectors.  So, we're closer to the end of something....but not very close to the end of everything.  We're all living the reasons why bankruptcy was never intended to adjudicate sexual abuse.

20 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

he has a history of approving non-debtors and approved this RSA.

The RSA was essentially her saying "Okay, you can go down that path but it's YOUR job to prove that the destination is the right one."  An RSA isn't an endorsement of a settlement.  That said, getting to a confirmation hearing is huge and hopefully any decision won't get tied up in appeal.  Sorry to raise that possibility!

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

JLSS has faced some interesting situations in the past.  Shortly after a Supreme Court ruling made non debtor releases questioned, JLSS ruled on Millennium.

Judge Silverstein's Opinion in Millennium Lab Holdings Threatens to Bring Clarity and Common Sense to Debate Regarding Constitutional Power of Bankruptcy Courts | Bankruptcy Law Insights

The article is over four years old.  While it hints at her feelings re third-party releases it's a hint at the bankruptcy landscape THEN.  Recent decisions invalidating third-party releases and anticipated appeals moving higher and higher suggest that she would have reason for different feelings now.  As well, she did say from teh bench that her Millenium decision should NOT be taken to apply to this case necessarily.

2 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

So do you think that the 22 February hearing will provide an indication of the resolution of the case?

A confirmation hearing is a lengthy process in cases as complex as this one.  Recent predictions are that it could take weeks and not days.  Should a plan be confirmed it would be a resolution.  If not it could still be a resolution if a plan fails, the BSA says "we tried" and injunctions against LCs are lifted.  Still, even if a plan is confirmed there can be appeals and if a trust is set up it will take time for that operation to get going.  Survivors should remain as patient as possible and not expect checks in the mail the week after the 22nd!

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

So ... perhaps a hint.  Feb 22 is going forward.  Don't know if that means she is ok with 74% or not.

One has nothing to do with the other at this point.  The BSA can proceed with a confirmation hearing regardless of voting outcome.  Percentage of approval/rejection is one component of confirmation procedures and why it's expected to take weeks!

Let's remember that the Judge was VERY interested in knowing the numbers that elected the $3500.  If you take those accepts/rejects out the total lowers even more to 70% accept and 30% reject.  I have to suspect this is NOT what the BSA needed/wanted to demonstrate widespread support at a level that would make the judge remotely consider overwhelming creditor support for a plan that included third-party releases, partial insurance settlements and other issues.  Two years and how much has been spent "voluntarily" by the BSA to solve its past sexual abuse problems?  Keep in mind that beyond this disappointing vote and the fact that a judge has NEVER forced a cramdown in a sexual abuse-related bankruptcy there are significant hurdles now to releases for non-debtors, the DOJ waiting to make that clear in this case like it did in Purdue AND that a confirmation hearing is going to really dig into BSA and LC assets as well as the expert reports from Claro on Survivor claim value.  NONE of this is good news for the BSA.  If something's to be salvaged it's going to come from mediation at this point and the BSA and Coalition working WITH the TCC and Insurers to get a deal done.  This vote didn't do it.  

44 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The Coalition plans to hold a meeting this evening.

Well, I guess that tells us the results will be posted prior.  Or, they're prepared to walk a fine line without divulging anything.  Or, they'll just want to ignore them and spin whatever spin they want people to believe.  Look for winks and coded language but beware anyone holding a gold pocket watch and slowly swinging it back and forth....back and forth....  Sorry, sometimes the sad absurdity of all of this is too much to ignore.

If I were Omni I'd prep the docket notice, turn off my phone, turn the lights off at the end of the day, walk back in the dark, hit "send" and then run to the door, lock up and keep running.  There will be questions and I'd want to get a good night's sleep first!

Well....we'll know more soon.  If the BSA hits the 75% needed its calculation was right and partnering with the Coalition was a smart move and they delivered the votes.  If it's under 75% then it looks like they're teeing up an effort to go full Palm Beach County and start looking for hanging chads.  But what if there's a more current analogy?  What if it's like the most recent election and the discovery barrage on a ton of non-Coalition firms just further validates that these "smaller" firms counted and recorded their votes correctly after all?  Be careful what you wish for.  I'm a Survivor, and I don't do "looking back" very well.  But I try to keep perspective and reflection from time to time that I can handle.  Right now, I can't help but think about the millions that have been spent on legal fees by the BSA, money that could have gone to Survivors, done in a voluntary bankruptcy to achieve the goals of the BSA to wipe the slate clean and emerge.  If the 75% is reached it's  a step forward with SIGNIFICANT jurisdictional/release issues ahead care of Purdue but still a BIG step for the BSA to emerge.  And if the 75% isn't reached?  Well, I'd love to be a fly on the wall of that meeting with the BSA when it asks its bankruptcy attorneys "So tell us again how partnering with the Coalition, excluding the TCC, and having the US Trustee fight third-party releases is going to work out for us?"  You can spin every scenario but some days you just have to think about who you'd rather be.  Today it'll come down to one thing: 75%.   Very little in bankruptcy is "game over" until the judge says so but for today the BSA's path is about to get easier or a lot harder and judgement about that strategy and how all that money has and will be spent for now hinges on that same thing: 75%.

This could be an interesting TCC Town Hall meeting:

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

Judge grants a month delay for the confirmation hearing.  Hints that "other legal issues" need to be considered and will allow parties to request that they be addressed.  In other words, she will consider the third-party release issue at the start of a full confirmation hearing.  Voting deadline will NOT be changed.  She'll address any Survivor who wants to change their vote, on an individual basis, but wants to see the vote total first.   New date is February 22 for confirmation.

34 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Once again, Mr. Buchbinder is my hero. I wish I could post the video of his comments. He even choked up at the end. Wow. 

At which point everyone moved on like he had never spoken.  A shame.  At least he tried to remind participants that this was about Survivors.