Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 6 - Plan 5.0/TCC Plan TBD


Recommended Posts

Just curious: To you lawyer types..... Is it tantamount to legal malpractice to draw in clients with pitches of hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars when there may only be like $5k?  It just seems so egregiously negligent.  The wounds this has ripped open for everyone is a high price to pay for the way this has played out.  It would not surprise me to hear that more than a couple of victims end up going over the edge.  The whole thing is so disappointing.  At this juncture, they might just as well approve the best terms and divide it up among valid claimants.  Doesn't seem like there will be enough left to even argue SoL or degrees of abuse.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is Doug Kennedy, a member of the TCC.  First, I want to thank all of you for your comments over the past 18 months.  Your comments and those in other forums, whether I disagree with them or not,

A few months ago, one of the posters here offered some great advice I thought.  Type what you intend  to say. Set it aside for a few minutes and look at it again before you press "post". Does it

Normally I wouldn't discuss user issues, but given his profile pic and signature I'm going to make an exception: Regardless of the impression given by his profile picture and signature line, Cyni

Posted Images

This rather a cumulative question derived from several posts, so I'm not sure who to quote. We have many hints and no so subtle comments that the Coalition is ready to get out, collect the 40%+ and walk off with whatever that amounts to, likely in the range of $400Mish ish. Not sure how many claimant attorneys make up the Coalition, but that would be fun to know. Anywho, that's not my question. We keep talking about convincing clients to vote and bringing in ballots on behalf of or against a Plan. Many moons ago there was a fight about who gets to put their flyer in the coupon section of all the funny papers. BSA said only peeps who love them and want the Plan. TCC said, "Um. We are the only group appointed by the US Justice Dept. officially representing ALL claimants. We get our say regardless our recommendation." That brings me to the internal "vote solicitations" by the Coalition, AIS and/or other claimant attorneys. Here goes.

Is there any ethical and statutory standard by which their communications can be measured? Yes, we must assume those stump speeches are protected under attorney-client privilege? What if, for instance, one of the seemingly plentiful clients who has no idea who represents them and/or someone who simply thinks their attorney(s) are doing a poor job leaks the sales pitch? And, what if that sales pitch reads waaay more like the Reciprocity script than a factual representation of the genuine benefits and pitfalls of the Plan. To boil it down to gravy, it's full of rank speculation and manipulation. What then? This is of course purely hypothetic, don't cha know.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

To you lawyer types..... Is it tantamount to legal malpractice to draw in clients with pitches of hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars when there may only be like $5k?  It just seems so egregiously negligent. 

Some have said there's not fraud in this case, other than a limited area identified by that poster. I think that remains to be seen. If true, smells like fraudulent inducement to me. I have zippo words for how I feel as a human, never mind attorney and BSA child sexual abuse survivor, about what is being alleged by the insurers. If true, it's reprehensible. 

Edited by ThenNow
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

Is it tantamount to legal malpractice to draw in clients with pitches of hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars when there may only be like $5k? 

They will always couch it with "up to" "as high as", "prior victims got as much as".

They cannot guarantee specific amounts or levels, but they can couch it. That's why the comment from one of the aggregators "Our target is at least $100,000". Sure it is. My target's the moon. Doesn't mean I have any reasonable chance of making it if I jump real high.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

Some have said there's not fraud in this case, other than a limited area identified by that poster. I think that remains to be seen. If true, smells like fraudulent inducement to me. I don't have zippo words for how I feel as a human, never mind attorney and BSA child sexual abuse survivor, about what is being alleged by the insurers. If true, it's reprehensible. 

And my follow up would be: Just how many were induced to join in filing a claim BECAUSE of the high dollars that were pitched?  Perhaps if the dollars were more realistic to begin with, borderline claims may have never been filed, leaving the limited funds to be distributed to a smaller pool.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

They will always couch it with "up to" "as high as", "prior victims got as much as".

They cannot guarantee specific amounts or levels, but they can couch it. That's why the comment from one of the aggregators "Our target is at least $100,000". Sure it is. My target's the moon. Doesn't mean I have any reasonable chance of making it if I jump real high.

People of integrity, selling whatever it is they're selling, don't do things like that. Every time I deal with a vendor who undersells I make a huge deal out of pointing out what it means to me. Last week I had a guy bidding garage doors and openers. Mine are 21 years old, dated and the openers have put in for Social Security (eligible in garage door opener years.) When I asked him about this really expensive set up, wanting to never do this again, his answer said it all. "Well. I think that's overkill and you don't need it and probably won't ever use it." Sold. One of my friends is part of a firm with a significant number of clients. They never did anything like this. Just the opposite, in fact. They had a daunting questionnaire and interview process. He spent days vetting each client he brought in and was consistently overwhelmed and exhausted by the process and the experiences of the men he represents. Some fellas on here from CA had to sit for a long psyche eval. I don't know what to say about all this. This contravene the laws of decency and legal ethics, whether stated or implied. (I used the word "legal" so I could post it here and not get Ponged.)

Edited by ThenNow
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dropped off the call and was primarily focused on work today, but a few things points I took away:

  1. The delays are done.  We are now at the start of the beginning of the end.  
  2. Current focus is the disclosure.  Expect this to take most of the week.  The judge has been clear that disclosure is separate from discovery which is separate from plan confirmation.  
  3. There are some pretty big questions.  Does the LC, LDS & Hartford money go to all (an LDS attorney wasn't sure and it could impact the vote)?  What amount of detail is required in the disclosure ... sounds like more than what there is now, but it must be useful for claimants AND reasonable to obtain.  
  4. The judge is VERY concerned about parts of the plan.  She has a lot of questions.  Tons of focus over insurance liability.
  5. Some LCs may back away if COs are not included.  That was a shock.  The LC contributions are not necessarily locked and loaded.  If COs don't sign on, the BSA lawyer indicated some LCs may back away.  That was a surprise to me.  
  6. COs ... tons of talk about COs and if COs join, what disclosure they need to provide.  For example, now that the LDS contributed $250M, should they have to disclosure details on their assets, liabilities, etc.  Essentially, the same disclosure as LCs?  
  7. Discovery, discovery, discovery .... while the disclosure hearing will be long ... discovery may be bigger.  The judge emphasized this.  Basically, if I put everything in disclosure, would you stop discovery.  Stang said no.  So, her point ... lets keep disclosure reasonable as you will have the opportunity to get the info through discovery.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

And my follow up would be: Just how many were induced to join in filing a claim BECAUSE of the high dollars that were pitched?  Perhaps if the dollars were more realistic to begin with, borderline claims may have never been filed, leaving the limited funds to be distributed to a smaller pool.

And this would be their response

"Based on prior history of claims against Catholic dioceses and other similar situations, we reasonably believed that such payments of hundreds of thousands or even millions were well within the realm of possibility. How we were to know that BSA had just so many victims that the money would divide down to nothing?"

And by the way, that exact point (other abuse victims got these kinds of payouts, so should these victims) is exactly what TCC has said in its filings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Some LCs may back away if COs are not included.  That was a shock.  The LC contributions are not necessarily locked and loaded.  If COs don't sign on, the BSA lawyer indicated some LCs may back away.  That was a surprise to me.  

I mentioned in a prior post that some letters of intent included some restrictions

Quote

My understanding (spoke with people from my council and my next door neighbor council last night) is that these votes are not going well for BSA.

1) Non-binding letter of intent: lots of councils dong this. In short, they are only promising to pay out if and only if the plan is ultimately approved by the claimants and the court.

2) Councils putting in conditions: there have been councils that have put conditions on payment. Some wanted to try and put assurances their payments would only go to pay claims arising from their council. There is a big worry some councils will be bailing out other councils. This is apparently a sticking point.

 

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And by the way, that exact point (other abuse victims got these kinds of payouts, so should these victims) is exactly what TCC has said in its filings.

Not a fair or apt comparison. The TCC is saying this before the court, all parties, BSA, God and the milk man (person). When you're talking about bringing in clients, it is not at ALL what the TCC is doing IN the case BEFORE the world. "Let's use these baselines for in-court valuations" is not equivalent to, "There are billions up for grabs and you can get in on it! Sign here. Oh, wait. I'll do that for you. We'll call you if we need you (to vote.)"

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Judge's fixation on the Local Council's was unexpected.  Third-party releases are quite the concern nowadays.  We should all remember that this was a DISCLOSURE hearing and nothing more.  Can a judge approve disclosure for a faulty plan that has legal issues?  Yes.  THOSE are decided at a later date.  I know.  Illogical. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Only if you’re in a state with no or a relaxed statute of limitations.

in 24 states the Legislature is never ever going to lift that statute (due to state constitutional provisions that ban such look backs ).

Those laws are being ignored or circumvented. Look at CO and LA. 
 

Years ago in a political science class, my professor remarked that “nobody’s life or liberty is safe while the legislature is in session.” 
 

I think a survivor  if presentented with hope or 15k, will choose hope. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Those laws are being ignored or circumvented. Look at CO and LA. 
 

Years ago in a political science class, my professor remarked that “nobody’s life or liberty is safe while the legislature is in session.” 
 

I think a survivor  if presentented with hope or 15k, will choose hope. 

Correction: “Nobody’s life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” 
 

I know for a fact that people supposedly dead on the statute in bad states are getting 50-100k. The cost and risk to the carrier isn’t worth litigating the issue with the plaintiff. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

Those laws are being ignored or circumvented. Look at CO and LA. 

For now when their state Supreme Courts strike them down as unconstitutional look out.

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.

 

just think about the example you used that there are carriers handing out 50000 to 100000 that’s a far cry from millions and millions.

 

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Eagle1993 locked and unlocked this topic
  • Eagle1993 featured and unfeatured this topic
  • Eagle1993 locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...