SiouxRanger

3 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

And that the Coalition's acceptance already of lowball settlements "on behalf" of survivors, under the guise of getting them awards quickly, truly is as Stang said a "Race to the bottom."

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?

2 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

TCC presses on how the FCR came up with his numbers.  So the BSA just agreed that the FCR's number of $5 Billion is 21% of a larger number.  My rough math makes that $24 Billion!  Thanks BSA for pointing out how low your settlements are to this point!

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±%

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

She even predicated that it wasn't a fair question so she knew what she was asking wasn't going to get a yes/no, but I think her point was made: we all know that whatever happens, the insurance companies are going to appeal.

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

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Judge: What do the insurers want for them to NOT object to the plan? Or are you just going to come back and object no matter what I rule?

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.

7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

 I don’t think we should ignore it in the name of defending ‘legitimate’ contingent fee engagements. I join you in defending the one, but I can’t pull that cloak of decency over the others. Sorry if that is judgmental or perceived as wrong. 

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.

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

I hereby apologize to any posters on this thread that misinterpreted any of my posts, or feel that I somehow disrespected them.  That has never been my intent.

I honestly hope that those actually having been abused in any manner might get some relief, though I know as I have noted a number of times, that the final results will never be enough nor actually fix much.  Perhaps, if you are spiritual, you might get solace in knowing that the final judgement will not be by we fallible humans.

While I may check back to just see what does not readily appear in the news, and to review things, I find this entire mess too depressing and am simply going to try to just work the program and help salvage whatever may remain after the carnage is decided.  After all, that is why most of us became involved or extended our involvement past our youth.

I would dream that somehow we might see our legal system fixed to some extent so that Justice's scale might be more regularly balanced.  That is about as likely to happen in my remaining lifetime as term limits, but one can hope.

Good luck.  And I really do mean that, even if you think otherwise.

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.

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

I hereby apologize to any posters on this thread that misinterpreted any of my posts, or feel that I somehow disrespected them.  That has never been my intent.

I honestly hope that those actually having been abused in any manner might get some relief, though I know as I have noted a number of times, that the final results will never be enough nor actually fix much.  Perhaps, if you are spiritual, you might get solace in knowing that the final judgement will not be by we fallible humans.

While I may check back to just see what does not readily appear in the news, and to review things, I find this entire mess too depressing and am simply going to try to just work the program and help salvage whatever may remain after the carnage is decided.  After all, that is why most of us became involved or extended our involvement past our youth.

I would dream that somehow we might see our legal system fixed to some extent so that Justice's scale might be more regularly balanced.  That is about as likely to happen in my remaining lifetime as term limits, but one can hope.

Good luck.  And I really do mean that, even if you think otherwise.

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.

18 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

still waiting for a legal argument as to how or why that flies.

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 element in this case. And that is their weakness of an Ivory Tower education:  they do not understand people.

National's bankruptcy is incredibly complex.  The 30 or 40 national legal bankruptcy super experts certainly find it complex. Just consider the range of the debate and objections over just about every aspect of the procedure.

And so, there are many posters here, and guests just listening in, hoping to learn about National's bankruptcy and how it might affect their unit, their district, or council.  In all likelihood, they have Zero knowledge of bankruptcy, little knowledge of abuse claims or their history, and probably marginal knowledge of the Scouting program. They can be commended for making the effort to stay informed.

And so, I have strived in my posts to explain the legal issues, the applicable legal principles and rules.  So the folks can understand and assess how this whole situation affects their situation in Scouting..

Personal attacks on this forum toward posters who have personal concerns, and even emotional ones, are totally unwarranted.

They may not understand how the process works, and need explanation.

And clearly, if YOU are the person responsible for explaining, if your audience does not understand you, it is YOUR failure, not your audience's failure.

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

First, the amount paid to the lawyers is simply obscene, and they do not deserve it.

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 rent, on-line legal research fees, and everything else related to handing the case and moving it forward.

In my community, the typical costs advanced by an attorney handling a medical malpractice claim is $150,000.

And though the fee agreement between the attorney and the client provides that the client is responsible for all those fees, clients never (a strong word in the law-so perhaps a few have) reimburse the attorney for this fees and expenses.

It is a big decision for an attorney to accept representation of a medical malpractice case.  Not quite as risky taking on a personal injury case (auto accident).  But the costs there can still hit $25,000.

Normally, contingent fee cases are taken at 33.33% contingent fee, and if an appeal is filed, the fee goes to 40%.  It appears that the abuse claims started at 40% for fees-that is high.  If that includes handling all appeals (and I expect there will be many), then maybe it is on par with the typical contingent fees charged.

And there are many times lawyers get it wrong.  The invest hundreds of hours in handling a contingent fee case, expend tens of thousands of dollars for expenses and costs, and recover nothing. 

So, if attorneys handling contingent fee cases make big money today, they could well lost partially big money tomorrow.

There is one other very important aspect of the legal system in our country.

Anyone can go to virtually any lawyer, even a solo practitioner, and file a lawsuit against any entity, including the largest corporations in the country, and COMPEL them to appear in court and respond to your legal claim.

Think about that for a few minutes.

Got a claim against Putin. You get a radioactive cocktail. And die.

Got a claim against National, it has to appear in court and answer up to your claim.

If your attorney has $750,00 or $2-$10 million in the bank from prior contingent fee cases won, to fund litigation against National, you have a lawyer with financial clout to hold National to account.

Clearly, lawyers with a successful contingent fee practice, end their career very well off, but without them, most injured folks won't ever have legal representation to pursue a claim against the powerful and wealthy because they won't be able to find an attorney who has has huge money from prior cases won to finance their case.

I have seen attorneys reduce their 1/3rd fee when a case settles quickly without a huge expenditure of costs to fund the case.

Doesn't look like that is going to happen here.

9 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Seems problematic for the court, where corporations fade and re-incorporate under the same person but not necessarily at the same location.

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 Proposals no longer have all the required signatures on a single page of the Project, but now tend to have only one signature on multiple copies of the same page.  It is easy to overlook a missing page and thereby a missing signature.

You might also ask your Eagle Coach(or Scoutmaster if no Eagle Coach) to contact the district or council representative and explain the situation.

If you have any difficulties, please post here again before starting another Eagle Project.  I would hope that things work out OK for approval of your Eagle Project now completed.

It sounds like you have time to do an entire new Eagle Project.  Hopefully not necessary, but that is a good fall-back position.  And, good for you to have done your Eagle Project with plenty of time to spare, and not wait until the last minute.

And if things do work out OK, please post and let us know-or we will worry about you for a long time-years even

Good luck.

Eagle Scout, Philmont Ranger.

I have been an Eagle Coach for 10 or 15 years, and I would have no problem with a district or council representative approving your Eagle Project after the event.. 

On 9/23/2021 at 3:10 PM, CynicalScouter said:

"The United Methodist Church — which says up to 5,000 of its U.S. congregations could be affected by future lawsuits — recently advised those churches not to extend their charters with the BSA beyond the end of this year. The UMC said these congregations were "disappointed and very concerned" that they weren't included in the July deal.

Everett Cygal, a lawyer for Catholic churches monitoring the case, said it is unfair that parishes now face liability "solely as a result of misconduct by Boy Scout troop leaders who frequently had no connection to the parish."

"Scouting can only be delivered with help of their chartered organizations," Cygal told The Associated Press. "It's shortsighted not to be protecting the people they absolutely need to ensure that scouting is viable in the future."

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 with the BSA.

"As a result of the bankruptcy, the congregation cannot confidently rely on the BSA, the local council, or their insurers to defend it," the Lutheran church warned. "The congregation needs to make sure that it has sufficient insurance and that its own insurance will cover them.""

Whole categories of CO's thrown to the wolves.

How many CO's is that?

And congregations are left to obtain their own legal counsel, and claw their way to some measure of legal security.

(And still I get cards from NESA-every few days-asking me to update my data (and that of my 3 Eagle Scout sons, so there are LOTS of cards), so some book can be sold "to support programming.")

No CO should trust National.  It is reneging on its promises, and then leveraging its breach of trust to manipulate CO's to a Plan that favors National.

"Hey, but what are friends for?"

The clouds are darkening. As we all likely suspected.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

What does that look like in your eyes?

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

I will reply.  Great question.

10 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

I really think this is good news in the BSA bankruptcy proceedings.  Imerys was her first mass tort bankruptcy and she learned what NOT to do with voting.  Let's hope she's given thought to what TO do. 

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.

13 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Given the disaster of her other case that involves voting of large number of claims she better be careful to avoid a repeat.
 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/imerys-talc-reorg-plan-vote-changes-prompt-confusion-contention-bankruptcy-2021-06-23/

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 why this process seems so hesitant, tentative, and chaotic. Oh, and downright unjust.)

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

And take years to sort through.

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 the self-interested folks that got everyone in this mess.

Accepting National's argument that it can't afford delay (to clean up our own mess) in effect, blames the abuse victims.

And that is intolerable.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

we don't know how many valid claims

Above, per the Judge.

Well, wouldn't obtaining that number first answer a lot of important questions?

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Her point is that kind of ham fisted math as SOOOOOOO many assumptions and SOOO much contested questions that it could be misleading.

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."

38 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

There are lots of signs that the units sponsored by Roman Catholic units may be next up. 

Any particulars on this?

56 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

and the idea that somehow you’re going to threaten insurance companies with court is a joke. First you have to find a lawyer willing to work on contingency in the face of a case where the statute of limitations ran out decades ago. Then you have to conjure up an insurance company incapable of filing a motion to dismiss.

I could see insurers paying of “nuisance value” of 10-30k to settle some. But at that point that is the same amount victims are getting through the BSA plan.

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.

16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

It was the TCC that demanded it as part of the RSA/Plan 4.0 in order to get the TCC onboard.

BSA’s Plan 3.0 was to give time barred claims 1% of claim value per the abuse matrix. So the “Tier 1” abuse would be $6,000-$27,000

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 prophecy and conquering Asia.  The only person who can untie National's Gordian Knot is the Judge.)
 

A recorder of deeds office many years ago was run by a group of extremely competent ladies.  Everything they did was perfect.  Not kidding.

There was a sign on the wall behind the main counter:

"Don't start vast projects with half-vast ideas."

And another favorite is:

"Don't start a land war in Asia."

21 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

There is “difficult” to overcome the statue of limitations and there is impossible. That scale came in from the TCC lawyers professional opinion on what the real possibility was to find a way around the limitations. Places like Alabama were listed as “closed”: no chance. Etc.

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?  (Say, "Tea leaves.")

And, how many abuse survivor claimants will actually file a claim?  Or still be alive to file a claim?  Will the right to file a claim die with the abuse survivor claimant, or survive as an enforceable right held by the estate of the deceased abuse survivor?  Will the executor of the deceased abuse survivor's estate, perhaps after canvassing the estate's beneficiaries, persist in pursuing a now revived claim, or will the beneficiaries elect to just "move on?"  (More tea leaves.)

You get the point.

And, that there are different levels to the gray scale means that there are folks who actually think (and perhaps they have sound data to support their scale) that they can put a percentage on each of the infinite (and really, maybe only 10 or 20 significant factors are material to the outcome) factors which would affect the viability of a claim.

But if there is science and statistics behind the levels of the gray scale, everyone should be given the benefit of that information.

23 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

So upon what principles did the grey scale originate.  It would seem to me that the claimant says that the crime occurred in some state that was statue of limitations barred or not.  If not barred, then the claimant could collect the maximum that can be negotiated whereas if time barred there could not be an award.  How does a scale apply?

To be clear, I am not saying that some group should not receive compensation - just trying to understand how a grey scale could be constructed.

Excellent question. I was late to the game here and know little of the "grey scale" concept as discussed in this forum.

My understanding, and I could be entirely incorrect, is that the gray scale originated from National in an early Plan.

IF, and only IF that is the case, the question becomes, why would National include clearly time-barred claimants as a class of creditors to receive some payment?  And the only answer I can come up with is that National wanted to appear that it was trying to "equitably compensate" abuse survivors.

My second best idea (at least to me), is that there is the possibility, however remote, extremely remote, that some states might reopen their statutes of limitation to create a pathway for time-time barred abuse survivors to receive compensation by litigation.  And this just might happen if state legislatures, after watching National's bankruptcy leave its citizen abuse survivors high and dry, are disgusted by the bankruptcy result.  So, my thought is that insurance companies just might be willing to pay something not to risk opening a much larger can of worms.  So, the lowest percentage gray scale value might be applied to states with constitutional prohibitions as mentioned by CynicalScouter, and higher gray scale percentages for states with no constitutional prohibitions, and legislatures more likely to reopen the statute of limitations.  But this is only food for thought.

And my third best and most cynical idea is that National knew the time-barred claimants would likely not recover anything in its bankruptcy but included them anyway in the hopes that they could be enticed to file a claim and by sleight-of-hand, allowed to vote on National's Plan, then National would be able to stack the deck toward Plan approval by adding a huge voting block of those with no hope who surely will vote in favor of the possibility of receiving something as opposed to the bleak certainty of nothing.

(Let everyone in Paraguay vote in favor of whether they ought to get $15,000, and I predict voter turn out will be nearly 100%.)

The gray scale to me is that area on ancient maps marked, "Unknown."

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

The fact is it is a fantasy a pure pure fantasy to suggest that suddenly all the statutes of limitation are going to go away or that 100% of victims will get 100% of claim value.

CynicalScouter is absolutely correct.

Heavens, for all that folks hate that legal process is interminable-we are going to kill off the only thing that puts an end to it:  statues of limitation?

Can't win, can't break even, can't get out of the game.