johnsch322

And now there is a party who said that the BSA does not wholly own the Rockwell collection hence they cannot dispose of it in the bankruptcy. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a6eadea4-101c-4c41-b171-e4659b3d8f08_8748.pdf I did not see the earlier paost

Today I feel anger towards what happened to me and to this whole bankruptcy process. Most of the time I can have my feelings under control but for whatever reason today is not one of them. I am tired about hearing about the greater good...what did the greater good ever do for me? I am sick of hearing no amount of money will ever make you whole. How can $750 a year for every year I have lived since the hellish acts committed upon me be anything but scratching the pain and making it worse? I want myself and my fellow survivors to get more respect from the organization that allowed our lives to be destroyed. I feel for those who have gone thru worst then I have and who's pain has manifested in misery at a greater degree than my own. I want to shout at the people who keep saying well it was a different time back then....it does not change what happened. Most of all I am just plain old tired.

UCLA settles gynecologist sex abuse suit for $243.6M | Fox News $1.2 million per claimant

If BSA wanted to survive they could have entered bankruptcy as National only. They made the choice of bringing into the settlement the LC’s CO’s and insurance companies. Someone had to give them legal advice on that strategy and would bet coin it was there legal team. I personally have my doubts that there is a path out that will satisfy any other parties at this point.

You are correct the bankruptcy was never about survivors it was all about the BSA surviving and giving the least amount they could to us and trying to let their affiliates and business partners LC’s, CO’s and insurance companies pay pennies on the dollar for our suffering. From reading yesterdays DOJ Bankruptcy Trustee objections the BSA may find out soon that they shot themselves in the foot. If the 3’rd parties are not allowed to be part of the settlement they will have spent over $100M on wasted legal fees. They might find out that their legal advice to follow the course they took was flawed.

In a nutshell unconstitutional

Well waters have definitely muddied now with the Bankruptcy Trustees objection. What do you think Hoochie Coochie Man @ThenNow

Yet sadly 53 years of suffering from BSA personnel is worth about $750 per year.

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?

I think that is what the Coalition lawyers want.

I would not think that any claimants' lawyers are turning down other cases because of the BSA case.

Not the lawyers who have clients that are claimants. They only win more when more is on the table.

As I said before if they were named in the original policy they will still have that coverage.

The insurers will not be paying anything under a BSA only bankruptcy rather the insurance policies themselves will be part of the trust.

If the LC’s were insured in the policies it does not matter who paid for them.

If it is only the BSA who goes bankrupt insurance policies will not be part of the bankruptcy. LC’s and CO’s should still have their coverage.

I believe it would be easier to show negligence on the part of the LC’s as they had more direct control of the perpetrators.

I believe it would take a heavy modification to the plan to be accepted. For that reason I think we are at least a year from acceptance.

We shall see.

If there is a one year delay in this bankruptcy more and more states are opening up. Yes local councils and insurance will fight but will ultimately have to pay much more.

I think you may be mistaken. It would not be a having to start over situation and would make what ever the state courts decisions are as restitution. For many that would be much more than is in this plan.

What ever happened to BSA's threat of a BSA National only cramdown. Have they made to many promises too to many 3rd parties? This is the alternative that seems to be the best as more and more states open up their statute of limitations.

For the Boy Scouts and their accomplices, I would say maybe triple or at least double what's on the table now may not work.

I guess you did not understand what was written so you decided to remove it. I believe that is called censorship not moderating.

Are the lawyers flogging a dead horse?