Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[CynicalScouter 1434]

Lauria: Need 10 minute break to see if other RSA parties need/want that "Good faith" determination.

Judge: Fine, I'll give you 15 minutes.

Now in recess.

I am now more convinced than ever: the reason the BSA (and the TCC/FCR/Coalition) so desperately want this "good faith" determination is so that the judge's finding can be used as res judicata in OTHER state and federal court proceedings against the insurance companies to say that the ENTIRE RSA and any money judgements against the insurance companies that come out of this process have already been deemed "good faith" and therefore valid.

The insurance companies do NOT want that and, like them or hate them, they have a point: they have NOT had their due process/day in court.

Edited August 12, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[johnsch322 524]

46 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

The older Eagles are friends and relatives in their mid 60's. The friends do not know the relatives. My Eagle son was contacted as well. None of these Eagles were victims.

Barry

Hopefully none of your friends and relatives are victims but factually they may not tell you and might be claimants. As far as the court records go we are just numbers not names. 

[CynicalScouter 1434]

11 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

It’s not, but he only represents the entire group of sexual abuse survivor claimants.

Not to quibble, but as an attorney you know that no, he doesn't.

The 9 members of the TCC collectively do and they are represented by counsel of record.

Doug Kennedy doesn't represent the group. The TCC as an entity does and they speak to the court through their attorney.

EDIT: If Kennedy wanted to speak, Stang or another attorney of record should have made the request to the court to allow him to speak OR Kennedy should have relayed his message through Stang.

I've been in far too many courtrooms where parties tried to ex parte themselves to the court and it is improper. You have counsel: THEY speak. Not the parties (unless they are pro se or there is some other limited reason with prior approval of the judge).

Edited August 12, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter 1434]

This is what the insurance companies are arguing about the Coalition's sweetheart deal. Did the Coalition lawyers, in effect, take a $10.5 million bribe to sell out their clients to ensure they got paid first/ahead of everyone else?

 

[ThenNow 1373]

14 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

It’s not, but he only represents the entire group of sexual abuse survivor claimants. An exception should have been made in this case. Two minutes? Give me a break. That would not have slowed her roll at all. 

If Mr. Buchbinder can commemorate the founding of Scouting at the outset of a hearing, surely a representative of the Official Tort Claimants’ Committee can be given two minutes. It would have been nice to hear a simple, direct message from someone who has a huge stake in this, not to mention a ginormous constituency, each member (presumably) having skin in the game. Tsk. Tsk. 

[CynicalScouter 1434]

Lauria: Good faith/arms lengths findings are out.

Whitman being brought back in to testify.

Edited August 12, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow 1373]

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Not to quibble, but as an attorney you know that no, he doesn't.

The 9 members of the TCC collectively do and they are represented by counsel of record.

That is a quibble. You know I was not making an officer of the court statement. I will add footnotes and references next time. 

[yknot 1338]

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Lauria: Good faith/arms lengths findings are out.

Whitman being brought back in to testify.

This is high drama. I'm hanging on your every post.

[ThenNow 1373]

1 minute ago, yknot said:

This is high drama

Did you say “drama” or “trauma”?  

Edited August 12, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter 1434]

We are back to fighting over the document/slide showing what the BSA vs. the RSA vs. the TCC/Coalition proposals were.

Remember: the BSA the TCC/Coalition sections are redacted as "privileged".

Document admitted with redactions. Insurers lose on this point.

[Life 32]

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Did you say “drama” or “trauma”?  

We have a bingo. 

[CynicalScouter 1434]

Whitman's testimony, generally and broadly, is getting at the following:

1) BSA reached the conclusion that the RSA was a good deal in a methodical, deliberate manner that shows good business judgment. There's day by day, step by step discussions ("I met with the National Executive Committee on the following dates, I met with the National Executive Board on the following dates." etc.)

2) During these meetings he discussed the RSA, the BSA's financial status (hint: bad and getting worse), the LC trust contributions, etc.

3) Whole portions of these presentations he gave are redacted as "privileged".

Notable here: reactions from local councils and scout executives are redacted.

Edited August 12, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[docSquatch 4]

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

2) During these meetings he discussed the RSA, the BSA's financial status (hint: bad and getting worse), the LC trust contributions, etc.

How transparent are they being with the finances? 

Sorry, I'm trying to catch up, but 93 pages of comments is a lot. 

Edited August 12, 2021 by docSquatch

[ThenNow 1373]

4 minutes ago, docSquatch said:

How transparent are they being with the finances? 

To quote my dad, again, they’re “clear as mud.” Nothing new.

[MattR 2659]

5 minutes ago, docSquatch said:

How transparent are they being with the finances? 

Sorry, I'm trying to catch up, but 93 pages of comments is a lot. 

Umm, this is part 4.

Good luck.