clbkbx

Thank you.

Given that there is a lot to digest in the vote breakdown… it jumped out at me that almost all of the Hurley McKenna & Mertz, PC entries are “Holder did not indicate vote to Accept or Reject the Plan.”

Now survivors want "limitless" recompense? Sounds like a different term for "greedy." I was innocent before the abuse that happened to me. The BSA knew this was an issue, did not make the program safe for kids and continued operating successfully. That was built on the backs of me and others who were innocent. At the start of this, I assumed BSA would continue. But now I think, who cares? Is there something great about scouting, yes. Is there something great about the BSA organization itself, certainly not in the current iteration. The BSA isn't meaningfully changing for the better, is looking out for its own best interests (which only partially overlaps with the interests of the youth scouts) and continues to act in bad faith. I'm not sure this will convince you otherwise, but the "balance" is not between survivors and innocent kids but between survivors and a lousy organization.

Thank you for this post, @johnsch322.

I completely agree with this. A fair representation of wanting an outcome with compensation closer to, but still much lower than, claim values determined by experts is not "greed".

Understanding that you think the LCs will not pay more... the current plan addresses more than just those entities. Accepting this plan means agreeing that LCs, insurance companies, COs, BSA all have their best and final offer (for money and YPT), which is surely not the case.

https://www.tccbsa.com/local-council-analysis Looks like many of the LC analyses were published.

Thank you. https://www.tccbsa.com/local-council-analysis

Yes, that is correct.

This is my attorney and they have been good to work with. Definitely responsive and almost always the point of contact is an attorney. They set expectations early on that it would be a long process and they send timely email updates when there is something to share. I had many questions early on and, looking back, I appreciate what they could and could not answer directly or specifically. My understanding of what is happening in the case is better informed by the TCC videos (and this forum) but I feel confident about the representation.

Thanks for sharing this, it seems like a laudable goal in all of the craziness that comes from a bankruptcy proceeding. Maybe this is also an insight into the TCC's approach and why they don't agree with the LDS terms.

Agreed. To my thinking, any attorneys recommending a "yes" vote are not being honest with themselves about the most likely outcomes and are no advising their clients appropriately. Glad to hear you are getting good representation!

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!