johnsch322

I am sure once the BSA documents (enrollment forms etc.) to the lawyers and claimants there will be many calls from lawyers to claimants to settle for the $3500.  Lawyers will not want to spend time and resources for claims that they don't believe in.  The lawyers will get their $1150 to 1750 for those claims and call it a day.  

1 minute ago, Eagle1970 said:

I have just completed reading the entire document.  Though the dollar values are incredibly low, given the assets and deferred insurance settlements it makes some sense-until I reach the final page (State SoL factors).  It has been stated that perhaps 50,000 claimants are time-barred to some extent.  I always felt that SoL should not be a factor in settlement because it is simply unfair.  And yes, I understand the legality of the SoL's.  I get that a claimant in an open State would support it.  But it leaves me wondering: Why would a claimant or attorney representing a large number of claimants in closed or Grey jurisdictions agree to this?

The short answer would be there really is no other viable option.  The states with no SOL's will still have those in place even if this does not pass and the judge can still do a cram down plan if that happens.  The Coalition who represents 60K claimants must know that at 30K of these will be affected yet they are endorsing the plan.  Depending on which state you are talking about there will be a value attached to a viable claim.

24 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I found this interesting...

So, the way I read this, if any local council or organized BSA is sued by a claimant, the trust will be responsible to cover the costs and losses of the LC/BSA.

They would also need the trustee to allow them to sue BSA/LC.  

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

I'm not sure where the $500 million number came from.

The promissory note I know about.  $500M is more than BSA national is putting into the trust.

4 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

With the BSA taking out a $500M loan to go into the trust, how is that different than selling off the properties? The cash is there just as if they were sold off, no?

Forgive my ignorance but what loan are talking about?

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Insurance company pre-emptive request to cancel July 20 hearing.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/67a7e046-be35-4050-bd0c-ccdbc228bfc2_5461.pdf

 

The insurers claim minimal offer for survivors is upped from $1500 to $3500.

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Ok, but do you really believe that the court is somehow going to order the insurance companies to pay out of claims that are not enforceable in their respective states?

There's literally no way that happens. The insurance companies will appeal and win arguing that the bankruptcy court cannot simply force insurance to pay for things that are not both VALID and TIMELY (as in not time-barred) legal claims.

The only way it happens is if your state(s) lift the SOLs. Many have or are. But that's months if not years down the road (most state legislatures are now out of session and won't come back until next January 2022)

What I don't believe is that this is over.  I do believe that there will be more SOL states.  My optimism is for others I live in California and my abuse occurred in California.  This is not over.

8 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

It is not just you.  I am now dealing with more injustice, piled on top of a lifetime of injustice on this issue.  Meanwhile, in a plaintiff-friendly State, victims (some with minor or questionable claims) are licking their chops.  It all figures.  My only regret now is filing my claim.  I took my daughter used-car shopping last week.  You literally cannot by an old beater for the amount of money we stand to receive as compensation for a lifetime of trauma.

Maybe I'll try to get the prosecutor to file criminal charges against my abuser, if he's still even alive.  I have lots of detail and people are convicted for far less.

I don't want to be overly optimistic but it is never over until the fat lady sings and she hasn't started to warm up yet.  

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

How do open state guys feel about those in closed states being left with an Oliver Twist look on their faces? 

Personally I feel lousy about it.  Hopefully there can be some kind of righting of this wrong even if it means I would get less.  

5 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

The body language of the TCC people last night was unmistakable. The mediation has fully finally failed. Tonight you will hear that admission. The “New” plan is the same as the old plan. Still full of gaping holes that can’t be filled. It won’t survive confirmation. If it does, it won’t get anywhere close to 2/3rds. Failure. Take it or leave it, is what the legal brain trust is going to tell you. 
 

Even the US Trustee will argue it is illegal to grant 3rd party releases and cannot be confirmed. 
 

There is no real money to distribute after deduction of future claims reserves and settlement trustee litigation reserves. 

The whole case has been disastrously managed. By all of them.  

 

 

I personally don't feel all is doom and gloom.  I found it interesting that the TCC said that the BSA was not happy no ones happy.  That is usually a good sign of compromise.  Also BSA was on the clock.

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

Does s/he have a specialty/concentration in CSA and/or abuse-related trauma?

I cannot answer that with any certainty.  My lawyer definitely did and I would assume so based on that fact.

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Gotcha. Thanks. Without disclosing your details, of course, what was the nature of the interview and who selected the psychiatrist? Was it in person of virtual? 

The psychiatrist was associated with my lawyer and it was virtual. The interview was about the abuse, my life since, impacts on my life, and he spent time on present mental state.

6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I assume there is a form or required structure to that opinion. Is it an affidavit? Where might I find the form or requirements for the substance of the psychiatrist’s opinion? I’d love to review it. Thanks very much.

I believe an affidavit. It was about a 1.5 hour session with the psychologist not sure if he was following a form.  It didn't fee like he was.  

15 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

It looks like a council office and store.

https://www.humboldtlistings.com/idx/1007-Wood-Street-Eureka-CA-95501-mls_259440/?SavedSearch=20140710193939388326000000&PropertyType=A&pg=1&OrderBy=-ModificationTimestamp&p=y&n=y

I looked up the Crater Lake Council web page and it says that location is temporarily closed. 

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Right, and all that those records are going to do is confirm that yes: John Doe was with Troop 123 in the XYZ Council (which was merged into today's ABC Council) in 1967.

You still have the problem of sufficient proof: is a statement of claim absent any other documentation or anything else sufficient to demonstrate to a trustee the claim is valid? BSA is, in effect, prepared to offer money to not fight that fight 82,500 times. Some/most LCs are going to be willing to do that as well on smaller scales, (10 claims, 100 claims, 1000 claims, etc.). But holdout LCs and definitely the insurance companies are going to fight tooth and claw all 82,500 or, perhaps, offer low ball payout offers ($10,000 on a purported $1 million claim) and indicate that if the claimant doesn't take the offer they'll be deposed/cross-examined/forced to provide more evidence and proof.

At that point BSA and the cooperating LCs will be out of this, but the claimants will be spending the better part of a decade in front of the trustee.

So what kind of supporting documents would you be talking about?  It seems that the majority of the claimants told no one about what happened and I have read that for male victims that is prevalent. So there would be no paper trail about the abuse. Most are old enough that if they had told there parents the parents are now deceased. Would the fact that the abusers name is in the perversion files be enough?

While browsing thru Zillow I noticed a house/meeting hall being sold by the local Boy Scouts in Eureka California. 

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The insurer's "day in court" if you will is at steps #1 and #2. The trustee will operate like a mini-judge, hearing testimony and evidence, reviewing documents and briefs, etc.

Appointing a trustee (or special master, or judicial hearing officer, or some other quasi-judicial officer) to hear victims claims is not unheard of and happens often in mass tort cases.

To oversimplify again, the trustee will have all the power and authority of the bankruptcy court judge SUBJECT TO THE JUDGE'S OVERSIGHT. So, the insurance companies will have their day in court before the trustee, appointed by the court to handle such matters. When the trustee speaks, it is with the bankruptcy court judge's voice.

The insurance company is going to argue to the trustee somethings along the lines of

1. No, the claimant didn't give enough information to prove their claim therefore it should be dismissed
2. Yes, the claimant gave information, but it's a $100,000 claim not a $1 million claim
3. Yes, the claimant gave information, and ok sure it's a $1 million claim, but the insurance plan for that particular year had a $500,000 cap therefore the claimant is not going to get more than that from the insurance company.

Etc.

One other question (for now) I was told by a lawyer that once BSA filed for bankruptcy I could not be cross examined.  What do you know about this?  Thank you for taking questions and answering.

16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

To be clear: other than BSA, there is no "pooling" of victims. That is why this is going to take years/a decade to sort out.

If what you say is true and I have no reason to doubt you there will be many disappointed claimants.  

19 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Each claim will have to be reviewed, one at a time to determine

1) Facial validity: is there enough information to even gauge which LC, CO, and therefore which insurance policy or policies are involved here? If not, is that amenable at this point? In other words, can claimants file amended claims? The insurance companies have said in some of their documents they don't think so, but then again, they would.

2) Detailed validity: did the claimant provide enough information to prove the claim or demonstrate a claim? How much information/evidence is enough? That's for the trustee to decide.

3) Based on #2, how much is that claimant entitled to, using the abuse claims matrix?

That sounds like low hanging fruit will be first maybe.  Perhaps this will be where individual claimants lawyers (if they have one will be needed).  Here in California to file a lawsuit if over a certain age you need a psychiatrist to evaluate you and render an opinion if he believes it was true (my lawyer has mine).  

23 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

4) Who has to pay what, exactly? The cleanest example I use is that the trustee determines that the claimant is entitled to $1 million, that amount divided between the BSA, the LC, and the insurance company. BSA has said it will contribute around $6,000 per victim (I know, that's oversimplified, just work with me a second). Then let's say the specific LC is producing $10,000 per victim. $1 million - $6000 - $10000 = $984,000 judgement against the insurance company.

I would think this would be the harder part.  I know that you have stated previously that if an insurance company doesn't pay what the trustee deems they must than the trustee can go to the court and have them held in contempt.  My question for this would be that doesn't give the insurer their day in court can you clarify please?

10 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Perhaps I'm forgetting some previous answer.  This overlaps with how LCs can settle.  I don't understand it.  BSA can settle because they are going thru bankruptcy and that ends past liabilities (usually).  But LCs and insurance companies are not going bankrupt.  There is no class action.  So, I'm really not sure how insurance companies (or LCs) can settle.  What prevents a state AG or a victim or a victim claim group suing in a state changes SOLs (first time or a second time SOL change).  ... Does this need to be first certified on a larger class action basis?  

It's probably already been said a few times in these threads.  I am having trouble following how the case might unfold ... beyond it's a huge mess.

My understanding is that the LC's that contribute (not sure if they all will) by a channeling mechanism.  Insurance company's if they settled could essentially do the same as Hartford has tried (but TCC and others have said no).  The insurance settlements (if they happen) post bankruptcy will be with the trust settlement trustee.  Neither the LC's nor the insurance have to bankrupt to settle though some may as a result.  I am not sure about state AG's suing (though they could bring charges).  LC's that contribute I believe will not be subject to SOL lawsuits as they will be deemed to have settled with the victims.  If others on the forum with more legal could help me out here I would appreciate it.

6 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

BUT, it seems like we are in for some type of mapping / tracking of insurer paid versus victim was in which org and when.  Same reasoning as property sales from a LC would get allocated to a specific set of scouts that was victimized from that area and not for all 84,000 scouts in the case.  ... Some policies will have limits.  Some won't have umbrella coverage for these cases.  I'm sure will be pooled as similar coverage.

One of the messy parts I see for mapping/tracking is how resources will be deployed and to which cases.  If claim "A" was given only cursory attention, very little resources from the trust but claim "B's" claim was given extreme attention and more resources put into it and they both were paid on an individual basis would that not open the trust/trustee to be liable for negligence?  How would claim "A's" lawyer feel if this were to happen? 

8 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Seriously, is there a projected insurance path?  Settlement (if even possible to settle) ... or will it be a gut-wrenching case-by-case battle over years. 

For what it is worth and I have put quite a bit of thought/worry/anxiety into this.  My thoughts are there will be settlements from the insurance company's.  Most likely they have all or most all of them have run case scenarios from best to worse on their exposures.  Just like Hartford did they have come up with an amount they want to settle for, what there top amount they would agree or what they would say hell no come at us on a case by case basis.  I am sure Hartford knew they were getting off lightly at 650Mil. and that is why they are upset. On the other side of the coin I am sure that the TCC has come up with how much they will be asking each insurance company for (with some refinements with more data) just like the did with the LC's contribution amounts.  They have retained insurance specialists already.

The total amount of cases will be whittled down (duplicates, outright fraud, etc. Remaining survivors will get assigned a dollar value according to the 2 matrix we have seen or something similar. I believe this is were either lawyers or individuals representing themselves may have to make a case in some situations for their claim.  There may even be quick low dollar offer to shrink the pool of claimants further.  

Once the values are assigned and I believe that the money will be divided based on the assigned values.  If the total value amount of the claims is XXX,XXX and only XXX is collected than a survivor will get 50% of his assigned value (less fees) This will most likely be in several payouts over time.  

8 hours ago, fred8033 said:

•  
• Case-by-case?   Prove we insured them.  Prove that scout was in that council / charter org.  Prove the dates.  Prove the injury.  ... etc, etc, etc.  

It is hard for me to imagine a case by case situation or what insurer or even council charter org.  since all of the fight against the insurers  will be funded from the same pool of money.  If the insurance company that is liable for my case settled for myself (and all others they covered) and legal cost for that recovery was XX but another insurance carrier settled for the same amount but cost of recovery was 4 times XX or more it would turn into a logistical nightmare.

Of course this is just how I see the future but then I also have no magical ball.

I am not sure it was a TCC lawyer who said that but rather a member of the TCC. I just reread the FAQ that the TCC put together and it isn’t exactly clear why one would need a lawyer though I do have one.  My understanding is that once the settlement trust is established that would be when a lawyer would be most helpful. I would like to hear some real expertise on this. 

21 minutes ago, qwazse said:

And it feels like you are writing an ad hominem, which violates forum rules. I respectfully advise you to relent. Meanwhile allow me to restate …
Plaintiffs get help in acquiring large sums. It doesn’t matter how vile the holder of those sums is, it doesn’t matter how righteous the plaintiffs’ cause, the party who helps will reasonably expect half the award so as to continue their agenda, whatever it may be.

If this is not neutral enough language, I’m happy to revise further.

Sounds less like attacking survivors.  I am sorry for being a bit personal.  I wouldn't wish my misery on anyone and I feel for those who are innocent of the acts that were committed upon my body and soul.  Conversely there is no amount of money that could actually compensate me or other survivors.  

17 hours ago, qwazse said:

If you were to ask me to extract some billions from anyone (legally or otherwise), I would expect about half the take. It really doesn’t matter who you are or how tough life’s been for you. I’d need that much in order to arrange the resources for the next attempted extraction on behalf of whoever else for whom I may be asked to raid a castle.

This feels like you are saying that survivors of abuse are extracting (possibly illegally) billions and shouldn't expect half of the take (common word for stolen money?). That you would need that much to to extract (steal) if some one raided a castle (stealing again?). And it really doesn't matter who you are (abuse survivors) or how tough life's been for you (being, raped as a child and having to live with that for your life).  (deleted-personal attack)

I vote 55B