SiouxRanger

Law is like a game of chess-except that the number and power of the pieces change constantly. I remember a M.A.S.H. episode where Hawkeye and Trapper were playing a game with cards, some chess pieces, and some checkers. Somebody asked, "What are you playing?" "Double Cranko." "How do you play?" "There are no rules."

We're 7 days into more bankruptcy drama-you had your chance to get into the EIN mud wrestle tussle-it ended days ago.

So, the Coalition attorneys want to wrap it up and get their % fees because they realize that they truly can "get by" in America on 40% of $1.88 billion-so why wait?

So, the significance of this is that the BSA admitted that its valuation of all of the claims is $24± billion, and that BSA admits it is offering $1.88 billion? 7.8±%

Yes. I think you are right. It ain't over until we've come to the end of forever.

Disturbing that the Judge would ask such a question because it cannot be answered with finality IF, after the answer is given, other conditions are allowed to change. Negotiation is an iterative process. Demand, response, amended demand, amended response... If it is interpreted as the Judge's solicitation for an amended response, fine, but if interpreted in the sense of, "You insurance folks just can't be pleased, no matter what." Well, that is where I see a problem.

I agree with you entirely. The model (reasoning and justification) for contingency fees does not fit National's bankruptcy. It seems to me that an attorney could file 500 claims and then do nothing-just let the big players duke it out and wait for a paycheck at the end.

You need not apologize to anyone. You have concerns, you are expressing them, and others understand your concerns or just don't get it and pounce on you. This is a hideously complicated situation. I doubt than anyone truly understands it.

You have my confidence. And your loyalty to Scouting Movement is clear to me. We are all passengers on a crashing plane hoping for a soft landing. Illegitimi non carborundum. A saying quoted to General Joe Stilwell.

I once saw a guy sued by a bank for over $2 million. His defense fees to his attorney approached $50,000. The bank agreed to pay the him $5,000 and to drop the case against him. The client was ecstatic. "They admitted that they were wrong." (Having spent a net of $45,000 to get the bank to make that admission.) The human element of the law trumps legal argument all of the time. People change their minds, and then the entire legal outcome of a case turns on a dime. Some poster previously noted that the Harvard attorneys had no appreciation of the human elem

It can be a huge amount of money, no doubt. But in the strange math world of the law, it makes sense. (Not that I agree with it entirely, but there is a logic to it.) In contingency cases, the lawyer evaluates a contingency case based on the amount of time the lawyer anticipates will be expended, AND the costs that the lawyer will advance to handle the case. ("Advancing costs" means that the lawyer is paying for the costs of court filing fees, service of summons fees, deposition fees, copying costs, experts witness fees, travel expenses of expert witnesses, office staff payroll, office

In my state, a corporation simply cannot simply cease operations, wind down the business, and dissolve. And run and hide, escape, and get away unscathed. Corporate liability continues for 5 years, I think after dissolution, remaining liable and responsible to respond to subpoenas (legal process), litigation, etc. .

@Needhelp434--Welcome to the forum. Lots of smart and sensitive Scouters here who can help. It appears that you do have the approval of the beneficiary of the project-that is very important. If the beneficiary has approved and has accepted the work, it is difficult for the district or council representative to dispute the beneficiary's approval. Did you submit a draft of your Eagle Project to the authorized district or council representative but just omit getting the final approval? With Covid and Eagle Project Proposals being sent around by email, Eagle Project Proposa

Officials of several other denominations — including the Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — have advised their churches to hire their own legal counsel if they fear possible sex-abuse litigation. The Presbyterian Church said its national leadership can't act on behalf of member churches because they are separate corporations. The leadership of the Evangelical Lutheran church also said its congregations were on their own, legally speaking, and must decide for themselves whether to continue any relationship wi

The clouds are darkening. As we all likely suspected.

I sent my reply to the printer. Should be done printing in 4 or 5 hours. I will reply. Great question.

Oh, I only so hope you are right. Judges really fear and hate being appealed and more so detest being reversed. But if she has learned little, that means that the abuse survivors will have to sit out an appeal. I truly hope that is not so for them. We, or at least I, do not have much insight as to what is happening behind the scenes, but I am totally unimpressed with the proceedings so far.

From the above quoted article: Silverstein herself admitted that she did not pay close attention to the provision of the solicitation procedures order governing vote changes. “Just because I signed it doesn’t mean it’s correct,” she said. Res ipsa loquitur. (the thing speaks for itself.) I was going to write something about this statement, but instead, I am headed to the garage to put my head in a vise. Ten minutes used to be enough before this week, when I increased my dose to 20 minutes. With this statement of the Judge: we'll try 30 minutes... (Now I understand wh

I agree with you. Personally, I don't have any sympathy for National that the mess it created could take years to resolve, with time running adversely against National, the tortfeasor. National made this mess and it should step up and take real measures that "equitably compensate" abuse survivors. And give them sound information to make an informed decision on its Plan. "Informed Consent" as a concept has worked its way into many aspects of life, except, apparently, bankruptcy law. And if National liquidates, well, someone will step up and pick up the pieces. It just won't be t

Above, per the Judge. Well, wouldn't obtaining that number first answer a lot of important questions?

Seems to me that what is left is also misleading, and pro National. Perhaps the Judge should compel the parties to produce accurate information so the the vote results are not corrupted by misleading simplification or misleading complexity. This is looking a lot like a third grade aptitude test: "Class-time is up, pencils down."

Any particulars on this?

Right on. Insurance companies cannot be threatened buy mere mortals. Not by single plaintiff cases. Hartford might be very concerned but only on account of the mass tort aspect of this. Even then, it seemed to be able to work a sweet deal to limit its liability. I can easily see insurers paying $0.00 for nuisance value in time-barred states. And finding a lawyer willing to work on a contingency basis facing an expired statute of limitations against an insurance company? Good luck won't help-you'll need a miracle.

Boy, I would love someone to explain to me why National thought this would be simple, and "we'll be out of this by Fall." It ALMOST looks like all of these issues are catching the principal folks (National, TCC, and such) off guard. (The process we are now in is that the main players are digging deeply into all the minutiae that affects them; the issues are exploding exponentially and will entangle and consume the litigation process. It is rapidly becoming a "Gordian Knot." Alexander the Great untied the Gordian Knot by slicing it in half with his sword, thereby fulfilling prophe

I am just going to say that given the infinite number of variables in making such an evaluation, the reading of tea leaves must play some part. As an example: "We rate State A as having an 8% probability of reopening its statute of limitations." How is that 8% determined? There are time considerations in getting the job done. If 2 or 4 years, then will the political makeup of the legislature change yay or nay? A new Governor who is more or less likely to sign the bill? And if vetoed, will the then (in the future political makeup of the legislature) be able to override a veto