Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 9 - Confirmation Hearing


Recommended Posts

I find these arguments making more impact.  David Christian, lawyer for certain insurers, said ... we recommend you reject the plan and send it back to mediation.  However, on that continuum, if you don't do that, at least limit essentially how much you back this plan to allow some of these issues to be addressed during the trust process.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 319
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Dr. Doug Kennedy made an impassioned speech to the court and asked the Judge to keep her focus on the survivors as she makes her decision(s).  Jessica Lauria thanks the court for the time devoted.   A

Annnnd....Judge has now said that she will give this another 45 minutes and pick things up in the morning.  Thus far the only clear winner in all of this is "Billable Hours."  

Missed this morning so far. Yesterday ... my takeaways. Bankruptcy US Trustee's path is clear .... go after the fact that some releases are being given with no contribution.  One o

Posted Images

Interesting comment from the judge.  Excess Insurer comments that two seperate psychologists said they believed there were many claims that weren't valid.  Judge nodding and says "I noted that but they didn't say the reasons why."  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

David Christian closing out ... at age 15 I was the SPL and age 30 I was Cubmaster of my son's pack.  We are not here to end the BSA.  We are here to protect our client contract rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MYCVAStory said:

Interesting comment from the judge.  Excess Insurer comments that two seperate psychologists said they believed there were many claims that weren't valid.  Judge nodding and says "I noted that but they didn't say the reasons why."  

The judge also stated ... we have 82,000 claims and they are not going away.  We have to deal with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

BSA counsel just said that if this plan is denied it will result in liquidation of BSA.  

It was an interesting point.  Essentially. the insurers who spoke discussed their experience in Scouting and professed to not want an end to the BSA.  But, that's illogical because no one has argued that this plan failing confirmation will NOT mean the end of the BSA.

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

It was an interesting point.  Essentially. the insurers who spoke discussed their experience in Scouting and professed to not want an end to the BSA.  But, that's illogical because no one has argued that this plan failing confirmation will NOT mean the end of the BSA.

To restart a new plan, go through voting, etc. could easily mean they would remain in bankruptcy through 2022.  Their cash is near $0 by September and that assumes they can back off on bankruptcy expenses.  It was interesting as it was the first time I heard anyone say it, but it seems clear, if this plan completely fails and is rejected, BSA will likely have to choose Chapter 7.

Christian did give the judge a path to approval though ... I thought that was interesting.  At least on the issues he raised today.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge is looking for legal cover:

"Do I feel like I'm weighing in on a dispute I should be weighing in on"

Attorneys would be smart to focus not on the benefits or harm of any parts of this plan, but on the legality of it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all..thanks for suffering through these hearings for the benefit of all of us.

Because my head would likely explode searching for this, could the person who posted about the reorg going down to 80 councils please post it again or PM me.   Thanks.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

(Sorry for being a noob... I won't attempt any more to understand what's going on with the lawsuit because it is unknowable.)

Can anyone direct me to information about what processes and procedures were used to insure that the claims made against the BSA were not fraudulent?  I have spent 3 hours on this forum (which earlier research lead me to believe was the most current, active and authoritative on the subject) and I have found nothing.

Thanks

John

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PACAN said:

Hi all..thanks for suffering through these hearings for the benefit of all of us.

Because my head would likely explode searching for this, could the person who posted about the reorg going down to 80 councils please post it again or PM me.   Thanks.  

 

It's on page 1 of this thread 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Essayons926 said:

(Sorry for being a noob... I won't attempt any more to understand what's going on with the lawsuit because it is unknowable.)

Can anyone direct me to information about what processes and procedures were used to insure that the claims made against the BSA were not fraudulent?  I have spent 3 hours on this forum (which earlier research lead me to believe was the most current, active and authoritative on the subject) and I have found nothing.

Thanks

John

The short answer is that attorneys who filed claims on behalf of clients were supposed to do do some screening as to basic validity of a claim before they filed.  If a claimant was pro se, that is representing themselves, then they themselves attested to the basic validity.  Any claim made was made under penalty of perjury so there is the possibility of severe penalties in the event a fraudulent claim is made.

At least in part because it isn't yet certain that there will be a settlement or any money actually paid out there hasn't been any greater scrutiny than that of the veracity of the claims made.

How that's going to happen, how rigorous it will be, and when and how it will be done are points of contention that need to be worked out as part of the final settlement and plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

The short answer is that attorneys who filed claims on behalf of clients were supposed to do do some screening as to basic validity of a claim before they filed.  If a claimant was pro se, that is representing themselves, then they themselves attested to the basic validity.  Any claim made was made under penalty of perjury so there is the possibility of severe penalties in the event a fraudulent claim is made.

At least in part because it isn't yet certain that there will be a settlement or any money actually paid out there hasn't been any greater scrutiny than that of the veracity of the claims made.

How that's going to happen, how rigorous it will be, and when and how it will be done are points of contention that need to be worked out as part of the final settlement and plan.

Based on the judge's comment yesterday, there is a 0.0000001% chance any further vetting of claims will be done before plan confirmation.  Vetting will be done during trust distribution (except for $3500 payout).

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

 

Boy Scouts Abuse Settlement Attacked for Preventing Future Lawsuits

April 7, 2022 by Steven Church

https://amp.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2022/04/07/661698.htm

After two full days of closing, the judge summarized the 1 issue (so far) she has to decide.

- Are the TDPs fair based on the evidence presented

- Should she even decide if they are fair

That's it.  I think the fraud arguments, venue arguments, bad faith, etc. all failed to land any punches.  Now, there are more arguments coming up ... but so far, I think she is looking at narrow issues of law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...