100thEagleScout

15 minutes ago, elitts said:

I dunno what school you went to, but That's a C- in this neck of the woods.

A 74 or lower was always an F for me in school.

15 minutes ago, elitts said:

You mean so that you can proceed to stated court, where you'll get to participate in another bankruptcy?  Outside of those LCs that end up with than a handful of suits, I expect any widespread move into the state courts will simply initiate more Chapter 11 filings, but without the National BSA insurers kicking in funds, anyone going that route is going to be getting a handful of beans, not a little bag of gold.

Still likely more than what we’ve got now

4 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

by Randall Chase , AP

https://www.theintelligencer.com/news/article/BSA-bankruptcy-plan-misses-mark-in-vote-by-abuse-16751195.php

Debtors in bankruptcy typically need two-thirds approval from creditors for a reorganization plan, but cases involving mass tort liabilities, whether stemming from asbestos or child sexual claims, generally need a greater level of support...

A final voting report is due Jan. 17 ...Meanwhile, attorneys continue to gather information and take depositions from opposing parties in advance of a hearing to begin Feb. 22 to determine whether Judge Laura Selber Silverstein should confirm the plan.

“We are encouraged by these preliminary results and are actively engaging key parties in our case with the hope of reaching additional agreements, which could potentially garner further support for the plan before confirmation,” the Boy Scouts said in a statement.

More in above  link.

Another reason for this is in bankruptcy it’s approved by 2/3 in dollar AMOUNT.  Not all claims are equal in value, so approving a plan without overwhelming support is similar to approving a plan that misses that dollar amount.  Especially in this case.  Something to keep in mind.

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Now, as I mentioned, anything could happen including a cramdown/approval.  However, if I were to make a bet (which I won't as I am horrible at betting) I would lean to the other side (this plan is dead).  I could imagine her saying something like ... TCC/BSA/etc.  ... you have 1 month to come to agreement.  If no agreement, this becomes a BSA national only bankruptcy.

Yeah I think this is pretty spot on.  Probably the worst-case scenario BSA could be put in.  Honestly, at this point I would just prefer a BSA-only bankruptcy so my lawsuit can proceed in state court and I can reach a real settlement myself.

4 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

73% is a solid D grade in school. Is a D good enough? I was surprised it is this high.

 

You have to remember many of these survivors either just did what ”Mr Corrupt Lawyer told me to do” or let the lawyer vote their ballot anyway.  The real attorneys (the ones actually filing and prosecuting valid claims that have been thoroughly vetted in state court like Zuckerman Spaeder) have all collectively voted to reject and it came down to a numbers game.  Even if the survivor class rejected, the court could issue a cramdown.  With Class 9 outright rejecting in Class 8’s place, it’s the exact same outcome where a cramdown would be required which is impossible to legally issue in a case this large.

Making national news this morning: Boy Scouts sex abuse survivors reject settlement

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2022-01-04/boy-scouts-of-america-falls-short-in-bid-to-emerge-from-sex-abbankruptcy?_amp=true

42 minutes ago, acema606 said:

The 80% he is referencing appears to be the Class 8 Summary (p. 10 of 92) the Direct Abuse Claim section and referencing those who submitted a master ballot.  There seems to be a very strong message being sent by that group that utilized the master ballot.  Interesting days ahead.  We shall see what the Judge reads in her tea leaves.  

They have it flipped around.  I don’t think they used the master ballot.  That amount of votes versus those that vote individually seems widely off.  I think Omni got that wrong.

10 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

What was the opt out question?  Over 21,000 selected the opt out. 

Third Party releases.  Also, I don’t think this was mentioned but there’s speculation Omni either switched the master ballot or there’s been massive voter manipulation by the Coalition because this eBallot should have been tabulated as a master ballot unless a survivor requested his own physical ballot.

Currently, my group is speculating what had gone wrong.

On another note, Tim Kosnoff just declared a Reject movement victory on Twitter.

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Vote is in. 73.12% accept.

Yup.  The way it was tabulated was weird.  Said Coalition votes weren’t by Master Ballot and Non-Coalition ones were.  Get ready for civil war and oh also this plan is dead on arrival, Coalition is finished, BSA just wasted two years and the executives might as well fire their attorneys now.

Oh and by the way I keep seeing this <75% stuff.

Technically only 66.67% (or 2/3) of the vote is needed to approve this plan as a class.  If it fails to reach THIS threshold it is presumed that the class voted no on the plan.  So even though <75% and the plan will still likely fail miserably, in that instance the class is still considered to have preliminarily accepted the plan pending potential vote disqualifications for various reasons.

45 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Maybe a longer (past Thurs?) wait for final vote count.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/97a48d20-5534-47f6-b9d0-67714df8c811_8131.pdf

The results are DUE tonight.  Not tomorrow, not next week, TONIGHT.  So unless there’s a very good excuse as to why they’re being delayed it’s expected Omni does their part and releases the preliminary voting tabulation.

Just now, johnsch322 said:

From Tim Kosnoffs Twitter 

EISENBERG ROTHWEILER harassing survivors who voted to Reject to change their votes. Judge needs to stop this.

There is an audio recording of a call from an Eisenberg attorney calling an AVA claimant in Oklahoma who voted to reject the plan trying to persuade him to change his vote.  I did not know how to copy the recording but it is shocking to hear.

 

I just saw this as well.  I will say these lawyers also sound super unprofessional. People need to start firing their lawyers.

13 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Yikes!  At $500K per (or five years in the hoosegow, pokey, slammer, etc.) that could potentially bump up the victim fund.  But, I believe, since this is a federal court, monies from fines imposed only go to the US Treasury, and, so, only Congress could direct the disposition of those penalties to fund the fund.  Good luck with that!  Literally, an Act of Congress.

Don’t forget that it needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and something about the Feds is they only take cases they are almost certain to win.  You may see a few get caught if their stories are off and were signed by a lawyer but I think it’s more likely they’d go unpaid and uncharged.

14 minutes ago, DJ72 said:

Vote has been cast.  Will continue to watch the clown show..

You don’t have to answer but was it a yea or nay?

29 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Her point is questioning why TCC is sending out even to AIS clients let along all claimants.

From what I understand this is AIS’ disorganization at fault again.  Kosnoff probably couldn’t get a forum that could reach the Coalition members of AIS.  The non-coalition members of AIS it didn’t matter because they’re being encouraged to vote no by their lawyers (which are comparably very good).  I’m not sure how Coalition vs non-Coalition clients were decided but I think it probably had to do with statute of limitations and those not affected by the statute probably didn’t need to join the Coalition and are thus avoiding all of these problems.

19 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The difference is passwords in the clear could lead to stolen ballots.   Custom phone app ballots that do not register no votes are clearly wrong.   If these items are true, they are not just part of the game.  

When I cast my vote I made certain to do it early as possible and both on individual ballot and communicated to my attorney for the master ballot.

This master solicitation is just a bad idea in general.  Take a look at regular public voting for example.  Parties of interest vote and make their selections but only usually 25-30% of the population votes.  Those not interested in voting should not vote and these lawyers pushing later votes are doing more harm than good.  Additionally, any votes after the first week there have been so many misleading remarks made and critical errors with some in bad faith that those votes may not even be valid anymore.

If I were the judge I’d request to see how the voting is going particularly the votes cast individually vs master ballot so she can track how everyone is viewing this chaos.

BSA is trying to say this is undermining the voting process.  Should it have been done?  No.  I think we can all agree on that.

That being said, I’m seeing very clear signs of voter fraud from the Coalition and am more worried about them than the TCC’s flub

1 minute ago, DJ72 said:

Where are you seeing the debtors comment Said?

I would also like to know this.  I didn’t see the BSA comment at all, but my lawyer sent out a follow-up message to ignore it.

6 minutes ago, Zebra132 said:

Does anyone have a copy of the nasty email that the TCC is being accused of sending out on behalf of Kosnoff? How bad is it really?

It’s the same message as what he’s posted on Twitter.  At the very least it seems to have gotten the word out.  Hearing a lot more confirmed no votes now.  Coalition is in trouble.

21 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Dear survivors represented by AVA did you hire lawyers or call center managers?

New Call Center Billings Montana - YouTube

Or maybe it just to hard to distinguish between the two?

 

Yes AVA is Reciprocity I mentioned this.  AIS survivors shouldn’t talk to them anymore because their job is done.  Also absurdly Reciprocity has been the call center used by Anderson and Associates in the past who is now AIS’ direct competitor based solely off of volume of claims.

10 minutes ago, Life said:

When running their calculator the claims amount still come in as we are being told by council they would. Super super low. They just put a lot of effort into saying what’s already been said. It’s a really low number. 

National just continues to lie and lie.  I’m going to start calling low settlements “Boy Scout Settlements” from now on.  I find that the way they assert their opinion as fact is especially obnoxious.

9 minutes ago, DJ72 said:

Which firms make up AIS?  

Kosnoff Law, Eisenberg Rothweiler, AVA Law Group and Zuckerman Spaeder.  I wrote out a whole synopsis of what each firm did but my phone crashed and I don’t want to retype it.

39 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Hopefully there are more AIS or former AIS clients like you. 

Also an AIS client, was never asked to be a member of the Coalition since the facts of my case are very different to most others in this case.  (Open state, recent experience, pending lawsuit in state court)

I received both a paper ballot and a ballot from Zuckerman Spaeder suggesting I vote no, refuse the expedited payment and opt out of all releases.  I’ve filled out and returned both.

For the record on my POC I did not direct the court to communicate with me by mail, they just do so anyway?

This voting process has been such a mess and we can thank it on the Mass Solicitation Procedures.  These mass solicitation measures should NEVER have been introduced and the ballot is going to reflect the opinions of most lawyers and not their clients because of it.

19 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Apparently charter organizations are being mailed something by the BSA asking for donations to the survivors fund.  This was mentioned before, but now more and more updates are coming confirming something was mailed out.

Some charter orgs seem to be confused as they are sending it to the unit (Pack/Troop).

Some have indicated it is asking about Charter Org, Troop/Pack assets.  I'll post more info if anyone actual scans in what is being sent.

I don’t see a lot of packs/troops contributing to that.  They’ll hide any visible assets in an instant.

3 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

It also makes me wonder how viable the alternative idea of "well let's all just go to state court" is.

How successful you do in state court is like 10% the facts of the case and 90% the attorney you’ve hired for the case.  Personally I have a large law firm partner who filed on my behalf in state court because small time attorneys would have a very difficult time pressuring the LCs into a larger individual settlement.

1 hour ago, clbkbx said:

Agreed that you should look at your retainer agreement. I would add that my recollection from the TCC meeting on October 14 is that you can notify your attorney that you are switching and it is up to the attorneys to work out any fee sharing structure. I was going to switch if my attorney (Jeff Anderson) did not recommend a "no" vote (which they eventually did). I hope everyone that has representation feels appropriately represented!

My law firm which is at this point really just being represented by Tim Kosnoff + Zuckerman Spaeder both in state court and the bankruptcy (since AVA has since moved onto the next advertising gig and Eisenberg Rothweiler has ditched all non-Coalition clients) has been very adamant about voting no.  While I voted my ballot myself the form they sent had all of the Reject and Opt-out options before the accept options.  Better that I’m actually getting good representation from them and they respond to my emails and texts any time I need and very quickly, but I know not everyone is afforded this luxury and I don’t see how ER can continue to “represent” me when there’s obviously a conflict of interest now in their firm representing me.