Muttsy

If Hartford settlement 2.0 is still tethered to a Century 1.3B contribution, she has no basis to approve a Plan Disclosure Statement.  Is it 800M, 500M, 300M?

If so, it never goes out for a vote. 
 

By the time the carriers’ lawyers get finished with the Coslition mass torters’ aggregators, the Coalition will have less street cred than it has now which has been thoroughly crushed by the court. I’m surprised the C hasn’t imploded by now. 
 

I want to see TCC step up and show us the money. Show us their super duper plan. 

Can CerebralScouter, er, CynicAlScouter remind us if BSA exclusivity has expired? Stang said something a while back along the lines that he has a BSA only plan he wants to file. Does anyone know if that’s in the works? The way he alluded to it it sounded like maybe Toggle Plus. 

4 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

5 hours ago, MattR said:

 

There so much more to this and I know it’s been suggested to go elsewhere with this topic/thread. I’d love to do that, if anyone else is interested. MCVAStory has posted other great stuff, as I recall. For what it’s worth to anyone:

There is remarkable research by Harvard Med School professors that involved MRI brain scans of adult survivors of sexual abuse that show how the developing brain was altered by the stress hormones. I’ll dig out the article. 

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And of course it was nationwide. That is how bankruptcy works. I’ve never heard of a bankruptcy that only applies in some states but not others or discharges claims from some states but not others.

Who says it has to be nation-wide? If people from closed states have no right to compensation, then they can’t be creditors. Their claim is worth zero, right? So then why do you need a discharge order that applies to them? 
 

If down the road more states pass windows and claims mount, you go back in to another Ch 11. Happened all the time in asbestos. 

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

So, do you believe $155,000 per victim is "fair"?

No I don’t but there is no amount of money that can compensate these men. In the real world plaintiffs rarely if ever get 100%. CS, you keep switching back and forth it like watching a tennis match. You chide me for making the moral case and demand that I give you the LEGAL case. When I give you the LEGAL case of a consensual settlement including the carriers you switch back to the moral case of fairness. 
 

You asked me a legal question and I gave you the LEGAL answer.  The only way for BSA to escape this cockroach motel is for the parties to get a number with the carriers that is achievable.  Fair? No. Possible? Maybe. 

38 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I believe it is clear the purpose was not to somehow be part of some grand BSA-Stang-TCC conspiracy but was instead to give ALL possible claimants notice across the nation and that, REGARDLESS of statutes of limitations to at least get the claims in FIRST and then sort of the SoL issues later. Later, of course, being now.

Why was it necessary to seek a nationwide discharge? Who did that benefit? 
 

Notice of what? We intend to pay you nothing and extinguish your legal rights forever. But come forward and disclose your most painful memories and be retraumatized? 
 

You keep using the word conspiracy not me. A conspiracy is simply an agreement to do something unlawful or something lawful by unlawful means. This was not a conspiracy but it was an agreement the effect of which leaves 50,000 victims out in the cold. 
 

Sort out SOL issues later like now? How’s that working out?

3 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

So if Victim A is POC is barred in State 1 and filed their POC before the deadline and the SOL is lifted, then the money comes from the Future Claims Committee?

No. That claimant is not classified as a future claimant. He’s a claimant who will lose his legal rights forever even if his abuse state opens a window one day after BSA gets its discharge. 
 

Heads BSA wins, tails you lose. Everyone knows these claimants have no reason to support a plan like that so the lawyers offered 3500 bucks to shut up and go away. That still won’t cut it, so they want to take away their vote. 

20 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

You are right. That is incredibly unfair to those in non-window states. You've made the MORAL case for that.

Now, tell me the LEGAL case for

1. Removing or disregarding all SoLs for at least 58,000 claims
2. How the bankruptcy judge can compel insurance companies to pay money they are not legally required under the terms of the insurance policies to pay OR to somehow conjure up from BSA or the LCs money they literally do not have ("blood out of a turnip").
3. How to address, other than ignoring, any other legal defense.

 

And your proof this agreement/conspiracy between Stang and BSA is...what exactly? Transcript? Email? Letter?

That’s exactly what happened, didn’t it? 
 

In my world I don’t reveal sources and methods. 

15 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Thank you. Now, how do you expect to get there within the framework of U.S. law? You've still never described any LEGAL mechanism to

The only legal mechanism in Ch 11 is a consensual plan which includes the insurance carriers. 
 

I believe the carriers want to resolve this case but can’t come to the table because of the counter productive actions of the TCC, FCR and especially the Coalition.

As I stated before the carriers arguments are “mostly” BS but not entirely so. The carriers need “process” and they haven’t gotten enough in their view and that’s the only thing that matters. The judge SHOULD grant their 2004 motion tomorrow at least in a pared down form.

I heard in one of the carrier’s arguments an opening. He mentioned in frustration the TCC’s 110B demand. Stang and the TCC were foolish to talk publicly about that kind of number. 
 

if you want the dog to jump, you have to lower the hot dog to a spot the dog thinks he could jump and reach.  That’s not 110B  

The lawyer mentioned above probably thinks the carriers could get closure in the 9-12B range. Just my guess. 
 

The problem is that the RSA is a loser for everyone. It seeks to deprive the carriers of their contract rights in violation of Due Process. It is a naked power grab that won’t work and will only serve to delay until BSA dies of natural causes. 
 

The plaintiffs have not been well served by their bankruptcy professionals  

No. You keep mixing apples and horse pucky. 
 

The agreement was to support a national discharge of all victims knowing survivors in non window states would be forever barred with no chance of getting fair value for their claims. In just eighteen months five more states opened. 
 

im not saying all these survivors would get justice but look what happened for victims who were screwed when NY,NJ, CA, North Carolina, AR, LA, DC. They got lucky, is that your filter of justice? Dumb luck?

Tell me why BSA should continue. If the BSA’s fate was in the hands of a jury on its history, how many jurors would be wanting to be the one to throw the switch?

Scouting began as a movement decades before there was a BSA  Scouting is the accomplishment of tens of thousands of earnest volunteers  It needs to go back to its roots and I believe it will. It doesn’t need a national bureaucracy, at least not this one  

I want fairness for all bona fide claimants regardless of statutes, absence of insurance or other technical defenses. 
 

only two questions: what did he/they do to you and how did it impact you? 
 

in this case the answers to those questions would play out on a bell curve with 80% of the awards within 5-10% of each other. The other 20% would fall at the ends of the curve. That’s what happens in every sexual abuse bankruptcy. 

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

By the way: you know who did NOT file any objections to the BSA plan for soliciting and notifying victims?

AIS.

If Kosnoff, AVA, or anyone else had a problem they could have filed objections. The insurers did. The TCC did.

AIS never did.

Stang and the TCC signed the RSA. What are you talking about? 

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

12 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Who objected? 

By the way: you know who did NOT file any objections to the BSA plan for soliciting and notifying victims?

AIS.

If Kosnoff, AVA, or anyone else had a problem they could have filed objections. The insurers did. The TCC did.

AIS never did.

 

At the time AIS was represented by the TCC. The TCC represented the AIS claimants indeed all claimants interests at that time. That objection was filed on behalf of all survivors.  The objection was fine and it got some of what it wanted but please don’t conflate a nation-wide noticing campaign intended to protect BSA with justice for survivors in non-window states that you apparently agree should be thrown under the bus. 

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The TCC for one.

C’mon CS be straight. There is nothing in the TCC objection opposing the nation-wide noticing. These were objections about the budget and the length of the claims bar period. 
 

Don’t parry with things that aren’t relevant to the point you are attempting to rebut. 

2 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

With more than 300,000 youth involved annually, there were only three claims. Of course, even one incident is too many.

Is this correct?

Then what are they worrying about. They’ll do just fine in state court, right?

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The idea that the solicitation and notification process was simply a stipulated motion that the TCC and BSA entered into with no hearings no briefing and no objections isn’t true.

Who objected? 

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And as someone who has worked for law firms and worked as a court employee and sat as a civil case manger for tens of thousands of state court cases I assure you: that is standard practice in every state court in the US and happens in “Real courts” every day

That may be true but it is not analogous when a judge is entering orders that affect the rights of thousands of non-parties and ruling on motions without being adequately “advised in the premises.”

17 hours ago, ThenNow said:

 

16 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Yes. You’re right. I am admittedly an outlier. I was not a survivor who was geared/teed/lawyered up in state court and I didn’t see a single ad or solicitation

The solicitation to all survivors in all states was cooked up long before Feb 2020. Stang was talking with Andolina for more than a year prior AND getting paid by BSA, to boot. I recall in an early filing BSA reported having paid Stang several hundred thousand dollars pre-filing.

Stang was fully in bed with BSA staring lovingly in to each other’s eyes. One of the items of their pillow talk was how to ensure BSA et al got nation-wide immunity. That could only be done in Ch 11 if BSA ran a nation-wide noticing/solicitation program. This was fully baked in many months before the bk was filed  The judge had nothing to do with it  It was an agreed order and she signed off on it  Remember her multiple 5% comments at the last hearing, how she only ever knows more than 5% of what’s going on in the cases in her court? She didn’t know and wouldn’t care  Ch 11 is a commercial let’s make a deal court  If the parties agree and it’s mostly within the bounds of the code and rules she could care less  This is not a real court fellas  

Doubt me? Ask Stang at the next Town Hall assuming there ever is one again  

Andolina/Laurie thought Stang’s connections to some of the lawyers representing clients with pending lawsuits or claims would enable them to do a pre-packaged bankruptcy with maybe 500 claims, a super short bar date, modest advertising budget, quick and dirty, in and out. But then out of nowhere came this tsunami which called itself AIS with thousands of clients and wrecked the party. 
 

After sitting on these motions for seven months, she put them both on for hearing Monday. That tells me she is going to grant both motions, perhaps in some truncated form. Century Chubb will appeal. Will the survivors’ reps cooperate or likewise appeal?

CS, please read my post again, relax and think about it some more. You have a sharp analytical mind but you are operating with a flawed understanding of bankruptcy. 

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I can find no basis in law that would allow a bankruptcy judge to, in effect, set aside the statutes of limitations in all of these states ("accident of geography") to the tune of 58,000 cases in one fell swoop.

You misunderstand.  She has no authority to adjudicate any unliquidated claim. She cannot rule one way or the other on SOL or any claim or defense. Every claimant has the right to adjudicate his claim in state or federal court. She has no power to strip them of that right. It’s in the bankruptcy code. 
 

As for blood from a turnip you are mixing apples and oranges. The case will either win claimant approval or it won’t and BSA will fail, which seems more likely. Whatever blood gets extracted from BSA et al is what it is. I’m talking about morality and fairness  

“There’s too much confusion, can’t get no relief.”

First, SOL is not an on/off switch. It is nothing more than a DEFENSE to a lawsuit. Defenses like plaintiff complaints require proof. 
 

There are defenses to the defense of SOL. Fraudulent concealment, disability tolling, repressed memory, the location of the tort is not where the abuse occurred but in the board meeting rooms in Washington DC, New Brunswick, NJ where the negligent acts of commission or omission took place. These are complex discovery matters involving documents, depositions of current and former executives and board members. 
 

Now, how much do you think the cost of defense is for the carriers who are contractually bound to defend these cases. and must develop facts to support a single motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. Answer: A Lot. Now multiply that by 50,000 claims the carriers call invalid. 
 

Imagine the 5000 cases in FL or TX and the trial judge rules that it cannot dismiss on summary judgment and that a jury should decide disputed issues of fact about the viability of the SOL defense.  Now how much is the cost of defense then?

Everyone seems to forget that it was BSA that solicited survivors to come forward from EVERY state regardless of the SOL rules of that state.  Why not just solicit claims from window states, ya know, the “valid” ones. Answer: Because they wanted a complete bar to all claims not just the ones where they were hosed - NY, NJ, North Carolina, VT, CA, PA etc. Note also that since the bankruptcy filing Feb 20, 2020 two more states AR and LA passed windows. GA came close and IA will likely pass next legislative session. 
 

So consider that the carriers’ arguments are mostly BS. And people are advocating that these victims shouldn’t even get a vote? I strongly agree with others here who call that out for what it is — immoral and unjust. (moderator edit - remove sexually explicit language) Do those who disagree honestly believe a scout who was victimized once in say NY get 1.5M while another scout was violently victimized multiple times should be given 10% of what a similarly abused victim  from an open state should get? Really?  (/moderator edit)

I believe the virtues represented by the commenters on this forum cannot be squared with throwing some victims under the bus because of the accident of geography or the vagaries of the law or the unavailability of insurance in a particular coverage year. 

Sad robots. 

8 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Ah. Gotcha. The other guys would be best able to update you on that.

I can also tell you, as you may have read in my posts, the SE managing this matter knew about the booze and pornography in our Troop. He participated, in fact. How can that be seen as anything other than willing complicity, failure of the duty to warn and effectively accessory to the crime of abuse? He was the dang SE for cripe’s sake. He knew we were being provided those things. In light of the criminality alone, exacerbated by his knowledge that these are elements OF abuse and precursors to illegal sexual contact, did nothing. Well, other than *Wink wink. Nod nod* I hate that those two boys went through what they did, but finding that file changed my perspective entirely.

Ernst Secret 1972 Memo To Scout Executives re IVs.0001.pdf