JBWest

I would suggest that it was advertised to be as easy as buying a lottery ticket. Just call the number and see what you win! Jackpot justice as they say, and the allure to those unemployed during Covid must have been powerful. Now that the Powerball number has increased, some have buyer's remorse, or wish they had bought the multiplier. This is not to take anything away from the survivors or claimants. Rather, it is an argument for sound legal advice. I am not a lawyer, but everyone should have one. (Lord knows there are enough of them in this country.) If you stand to win $350

While I share your concerns, I suggest you are missing the point of the Scouting movement. We used to have four TV channels, and Scouting was the only game in town for outdoor leadership. Now there is an LL Bean or an REI on every corner or in every smart phone, and the challenge is getting kids outside at all. They do not mature until they are older, and by then they have aged out of Scouting, having forsaken a childhood outdoors in favor of TikTok and Discord. Be Prepared to embrace outdoor leadership whatever its form. You may encounter a kid just out of college, strung out on ADHD

Trustee sues opposing (non-settling) insurance companies in Texas. https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2023/07/18/judge-sues-insurers-for-alleged-bad-faith-in-boys-scouts-sex-abuse-cases/?slreturn=20230619223103

See the bottom of page 7: "Finding no error in the Bankruptcy Court's legal conclusions either, I will affirm the Confirmation Order." https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/c44b0ea9-73ae-42bf-90e2-f6750105fbde_11057.pdf

What's interesting to me (with regards to timing) is that certain aspects of the NAM depend on the Ch. 11 appeals. Everyone wants to get started with the rebirth, and in the meantime we have lots to celebrate (our EOY numbers), but it would be nice to come out of the gate charging hard towards the fall 2023 membership goals. Regardless of what happens in Delaware, it's going to be a great year for Scouting.

This particular law in Louisiana lengthening the look back period (down here we call it the prescriptive period) was ruled unconstitutional by the state supreme court. Will be interesting to see how it plays out now that the feds have taken over.

Yes, that was the second one I mentioned. Lionsgate and Starz share common ownership.

Apparently there are two more films in the works, one from Netflix and one from the owner of Starz. Stepping back from my role as a Scouter and looking as an investor, the subject matter is fairly compelling. Lots of mom and apple pie type "America's fall from grace" narrative, piggybacking on the MeToo movement and the CSA scandals in the Roman Catholic Church. Expect these to be more widely viewed than this one. At one of the legal briefings during the bankruptcy case an expert summed it up best. We had a sexual revolution in the 1960s, precipitated by the birth control pill's release

It's interesting inasmuch as overall journalistic standards have declined in a way that dwarfs the membership decline in BSA. When your #1 interview subject is also a producer of the film, it is the cinematic equivalent of an infomercial. The imprimatur of Hulu and ABC News will obscure this for most.

Agreed. Recall also from testimony that there is a bell curve of CSA claims, and it markedly dropped off in the 90s. We need to continue our YPT efforts, but I don't see it becoming a problem again.

If memory serves the issue before the judge Friday is the sale of the scouting service center or something relatively minor. There might be an update on the ch. 11 confirmation, but probably not.

One thing I noticed this week was discussion of the channelling injunction being extended. My understanding prior to this trial is that local council protection will end at the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings (Spring 2022) or the LC payments into the trust (Fall 2022), but if memory serves it was argued that protection should extend until the trust distribution process gets underway, or until the trust is exhausted (ten years?). Perhaps sharper legal minds than I noticed this and can comment on their recollection.

I wonder as well. Judge Silverstein seemed annoyed during this exchange. I also wonder how long it will take to hear from the pro se claimants, one of whom made a brief but testy appearance on Friday. All of this plus closing arguments? Sounds like three or more days remaining.

To her credit she is quite entertaining to the lay observer. Frequent misstatements, light joking with Rudman, etc. Even opposing counsel can't resist cracking a smile.

Today's testimony from Charles Bates was interesting to armchair tort lawyers such as myself. Surprised to see how many claimants provided no information in their proof of claim: no unit number, no name of the abuser, not even a physical description. I'm not sure it had a substantial bearing on the case, and I noticed minimal objections from the creditors. His data was fascinating from an actuarial / finance point of view, however. If this continues tomorrow I suspect the number of Zoom participants may drop below 300.