Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[ThenNow 1373]

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

If the BSA cuts a deal with Hartford AND can get the Coalition on board, maybe they believe that the Coalition will deliver the votes for the plan.

MYCVAStory made the point very well. If the Coalition caves, it's likely because the bill collectors (enforcers?) keep lighting up their phones. They want it to stop, sooner rather than later, so they can start counting coin.

[ThenNow 1373]

Another denial. No delving into the POC's.

Allowing depositions of the aggregators/claims generators. Cited Mr. Kosnoff's statement about the fraudulent use of his signature on POC's by another firm or group.

Edited August 30, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter 1434]

Judge

Where we are on discovery and how plan related discovery is going to proceed and how.

As for this discovery, I am not going to ask Century/Chubb to produce AT THIS TIME. It is unteethered to any dispute in front of me and it does seem to be motivated by just wanting to know what Century and Chubb have for mediation discussions.

This brings me to old discovery issues.

Hartford/Century: discovery regarding Rule 2004 motions back in February related to proofs of claim. I was waiting to see where we were going to end up and what was going to be relevant. I am still not necessarily positive I don't know what plan will be in front.

1) Rule 2004 request of discovery of indivdual claimants. Real relevant testimony/declaration of NERA Economic Consulting (Dr. Martin) to get sample sizes and how she selected the samples. She is a statician, NOT a sexual abuse subject matter expert and she made that clear. At that time, and now, I am denying it. It does NOT indicate it will indicate relevant data. I have no evidence on why certain subpopulations were selected and not others. I am skpetical you can file OMNIBUS objections to ALL claims based on a statistical sample of SOME claims. If it is about aggregate abuse claims and values of those claims, then maybe you could do that, maybe. Also McKnight declaration, formerly of NERA, and he suggested that (Docket 3859-1) such an estimation wasn't valid when BSA tried to doing for only .5%. Judge has NO basis to think these 6 subpopulations are in any way helpful in evaluating anything or generalizing anything.

Motion denied.

2) Deposition of lawfirms and aggregators. Permitted. Aggregators will be deposed. There is evidence that raises concerns about how these claims were generated. And the recent declaration of Kosnoff adds to that concern. So, discovery and depositions of aggregators will move forward. I think that discovery COULD be relevant to voting and we need to get that underway regardless of the plan in front of me.

Motion granted.

Edited August 30, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter 1434]

Judge: I will ask parties to bring up any outstanding discovery to chambers AND how to promptly get to discovery regarding confirmation. It is not too early to give that thought.

That's all I have. Anything else?

One more matter: Mr. Beckty (sp?) There was a notice of withdrawl Docket 5891 as counsel for that claimant. Counsel does NOT get to withdraw without permission of this court. This needs to be addressed. It may relate to docket 5894 "Notice to the court of abandonment". I don't read that as consent by a client, I read it as claimant not happy with counsels responsiveness.

[ThenNow 1373]

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I don't read that as consent by a client, I read it as claimant not happy with counsels responsiveness.

With a blanket rebuff and admonition for anyone else who would so attempt to "extricate oneself from representing a client." Rare form today.

[Eagle1993 2160]

6 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

Be careful Eagle 1993 or you will end up on his Christmas card list lol.

He has been predicting this would turn into a mess from the beginning and it really looks bad today for the Coalition/TCC.   Kosnoff predicted it and I have to give him credit for that.

Now, to be clear, I DO NOT want to see the BSA dissolved. I am hopeful we see a deal that includes LCs and COs sometime within the next 6 months.   I'm probably more optimistic now that a deal is done, but only because I expect the Coalition to sell out their claimants and BSA to throw the COs under the bus ... allowing a target for the state lawyers in the future.

We will see what happens over the next few weeks.

[ThenNow 1373]

So, of the 44 days, how many now get spent deposing the aggregators? "We'll start with the aggregators." The second word really caught my attention.

[ThenNow 1373]

5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Kosnoff predicted it and I have to give him credit for that.

Yup. He is nothing if not calculating, and also smart. He is where he is for a reason. (I am NOT pandering. I've been saying this repeatedly, well before I had a fanboy and took on that celebrity client. Ha.) Why are they getting to depose the aggregators, again? What did the judge mention? What pushed the rock over the hill? Hm...

Edited August 30, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter 1434]

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

1) Rule 2004 request of discovery of indivdual claimants. Real relevant testimony/declaration of NERA Economic Consulting (Dr. Martin) to get sample sizes and how she selected the samples. She is a statician, NOT a sexual abuse subject matter expert and she made that clear. At that time, and now, I am denying it. It does NOT indicate it will indicate relevant data. I have no evidence on why certain subpopulations were selected and not others. I am skpetical you can file OMNIBUS objections to ALL claims based on a statistical sample of SOME claims. If it is about aggregate abuse claims and values of those claims, then maybe you could do that, maybe. Also McKnight declaration, formerly of NERA, and he suggested that (Docket 3859-1) such an estimation wasn't valid when BSA tried to doing for only .5%. Judge has NO basis to think these 6 subpopulations are in any way helpful in evaluating anything or generalizing anything.

Let me try and parse this out.

Hartford and Century wanted to seek discovery/documents form 1400 claimants and depose 100 of them. In order to select those 1400, they were going to select from 6 subgroups

1. 200 claims randomly selected from those alleging abuse 1971-1975
2. 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating No Scouting Affiliation
3. 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating No Abuse Identification
4. 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating No Physical Abuse Alleged
5. 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating they Sought Counseling
6. 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating No Impact Alleged
7. A seventh group made up of all the above 6 subgroups

Why those 6 subgroups were selected is COMPLETELY unclear. The statistician (Martin) simply said that those were the groups Hartford and Century wanted examined.

The judge ruled that there was NO basis to think these 6 subpopulations are in any way helpful in evaluating anything or generalizing anything.

If the insurers had tried to randomly sample 1,400 out of ALL 82,500 claims, then maybe. But cherry picking subpopulations? Nope. Motion denied.

 

Edited August 30, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow 1373]

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The judge ruled that there was NO basis to think these 6 subpopulations are in any way helpful in evaluating anything or generalizing anything.

If the insurers had tried to randomly sample 1,400 out of ALL 82,500 claims, then maybe. But cherry picking subpopulations? Nope.

As you know better than I, a classic case of expert backfires. Spectacularly. 

[Eagle1993 2160]

The good news from today is we are seeing some motions denied or approved instead of the kick the can down the road we have seen previously.

[vol_scouter 365]

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Let me try and parse this out.

Hartford and Century wanted to seek discovery/documents form 1400 claimants and depose 100 of them. In order to select those 1400, they were going to select from 6 subgroups

1. 200 claims randomly selected from those alleging abuse 1971-1975
2. 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating No Scouting Affiliation
3. 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating No Abuse Identification
4. 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating No Physical Abuse Alleged
5. 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating they Sought Counseling
6. 200 claims randomly selected from those indicating No Impact Alleged
7. A seventh group made up of all the above 6 subgroups

Why those 6 subgroups were selected is COMPLETELY unclear. The statistician (Martin) simply said that those were the groups Hartford and Century wanted examined.

The judge ruled that there was NO basis to think these 6 subpopulations are in any way helpful in evaluating anything or generalizing anything.

If the insurers had tried to randomly sample 1,400 out of ALL 82,500 claims, then maybe. But cherry picking subpopulations? Nope. Motion denied.

 

Her decision is completely reasonable and scientifically sound.  The insurance companies designated subgroups that they thought might have a preponderance of invalid claims so that they might argue that many should be removed.  My concern for this line of investigation in general is even if the insurance comapanies find widespread evidence of invalid claims, how does voting occur?  Any complete evaluation of all claims will take too long and will financially exhaust the BSA.

[ThenNow 1373]

11 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Now, to be clear, I DO NOT want to see the BSA dissolved. I am hopeful we see a deal that includes LCs and COs sometime within the next 6 months.   I'm probably more optimistic now that a deal is done, but only because I expect the Coalition to sell out their claimants and BSA to throw the COs under the bus ... allowing a target for the state lawyers in the future.

I'm feeling like mediation is going to undergo a spelling evolution. It will henceforth be spelled c-o-m-p-r-o-m-i-s-e and I don't mean that in the best sense of the word. I hope I'm wrong. Meh.

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

The good news from today is we are seeing some motions denied or approved instead of the kick the can down the road we have seen previously.

She's gone from cans straight to heads. 

[CynicalScouter 1434]

9 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

So, of the 44 days, how many now get spent deposing the aggregators? "We'll start with the aggregators." The second word really caught my attention.

First, it will be 21 days under the proposed order.

Quote

4. Insurers are authorized under Bankruptcy Rules 2004 and 9016 to issue  subpoenas seeking to compel the production of documents and information responsive to the  requests set forth in Exhibit E to the entities identified in Exhibit C to the Motion (the “Third  Party Discovery Requests”); and to issue subpoenas compelling the testimony on behalf of the ventities within twenty-one (21) days of issuance of this Order.

I suspect that this is just the start. The entire claims process and aggregators are going to be put under a microscope. I note that while she REJECTED deposing the law firms that were involved in this mess, she's clearing the aggregators now. If fraud gets found, the law firms (including the Coalition) are next under the microscope.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870566_1975.pdf

"Good" news is that it may mean a host of outright fraudulent claims (and I mean fraudulent, not just invalid) will be tossed.

Bad news is that it will a) besmirch the legit claims and b) take months.

Here are the aggregators being deposed.

• Verus Claims Services LLC (“Verus”)
• Consumer Attorney Marketing Group (“CAMG”)
• Archer Systems (“Archer”)
• Stratos Legal (“Stratos”)

[CynicalScouter 1434]

6 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

My concern for this line of investigation in general is even if the insurance comapanies find widespread evidence of invalid claims, how does voting occur?

That was the judge's point as well: even if it was discovered some arbitrary percent of claims was invalid or fraudulent, how can you have an OMNIBUS motion to reject all 82,500 claims?

The way I'd phrase it was this: if of those 1400 claims you found 1% invalid or fraudulent, does that mean all 82,500 are suspect?

What if of those 1400, 10% were?

20%?

100%?

How does ANY of this impact whether ANY claim selected at random is/is not valid?