Chapter 11 announced - Part 14 - Plan Effective

[RememberSchiff]

Scouts Lawyer Seeks to ‘Shine a Light’ on Mass Tort System Flaws

..."In the Boy Scouts case, former clients of Slater Slater Schulman LLP approached Friedman, he said, after the settlement trustee said she stopped processing thousands of Slater claims for irregularities. The New York-based firm acknowledged its claims were being investigated over “procedural and factual problems.”

A Delaware judge next week is scheduled to hear Friedman’s unusual request to take over some Slater clients and, more pointedly, reduce or outright deny Slater’s 40% contingency fees in the case, which he estimates could top $50 million.

Slater on Thursday lashed back at Friedman, filing a response that called his motion an improper bid to interfere with their clients and “wholly untethered to any recognized legal authority.”

Friedman insists he didn’t seek out the role or the clients, saying that they approached him after reading his past public criticisms about mass tort firms gaming the system.

“I didn’t ask for this,” he told Bloomberg Law last week in an interview near his Stuart, Fla. home.

But the lawyer sees it as a golden opportunity to go beyond talking and writing about the need for change. With clients in the case, he can actively litigate the problems he says have followed mass torts into the bankruptcy system."

More at source:

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/scouts-lawyer-seeks-to-shine-a-light-on-mass-tort-system-flaws

[clbkbx]

On 10/7/2025 at 9:35 AM, clbkbx said:

October 1 update:

A little late in the month... feels a bit of a slog at this point with all of the unknowns.

November 1 update: average $588,121 per TDP claim... again, about the same for the last few months but steadily rising (for reference, it was $557,053 six months ago).

• For the TDP, 72% claims determined and 52% paid (30,413 paid)
• For the IRO, 58% claims determined and 27% paid (54 paid)

The "paid" percentages include me this month! Thanks to my counsel, Jeff Anderson & Associates. 

The Trust has valued the paid-only claims so far at just about $18B (noting that, presumably and in some cases, confirmedly, the IRO determinations push this higher... this only accounts for the first $1MM of any IRO determination). If the mix remains similar through the remaining unpaid claims, the Trust would need $34B. With the SSS issues, hard to say if it does remain the same. Initially, I was going to note that 30% of disallowed claims were in the last quarter! But there were also a lot more claims determined, so the disallowed claims percentage only ticked up a litte (1.7%, from 1.4%) inching up to 1.7% of claims determined). I think reasonable bounds are $25-35B. 

I hope everyone is hanging in there and has a lovely Thanksgiving. 

 

[clbkbx]

In light of the Liberty Mutual filing, I’ve been thinking about this post:

The Bates approach being accepted really hung survivors out to dry. If implemented, unfortunately, the operative information needed to provide to the trust was not that the abuse happened, but that someone else was also abused by the same person. On par with the unfairness of the SOL. 

A dude with the worst abuse by one (known) abuser in a 10% state: $2.7MM reduced by 90% and then again by 90% receives $27k. 

I thought the SOL information was fairly detailed when people voted on the plan. That there could be a 90% reduction based on whether other (living) scouts put in a claim about the same person was not really apparent. 

Maybe this was the best way to maximize insurance coverage but it definitely seems unfair and unexplained.  

[mrjohns2]

2 hours ago, clbkbx said:

A dude with the worst abuse by one (known) abuser in a 10% state: $2.7MM reduced by 90% and then again by 90% receives $27k. 

Why the second 90% reduction? I understand the first, but I don't see where the second one is coming from.

[Eagle1970]

Let me get this straight:  So the administrator had no problem refusing my pro se appeal/amateur brief, and stuck with reducing my award by 90% on SoL.  But the same administrator was supposed to reduce perhaps tens of thousands of claims by 90% and failed to do so??  And that is how we are ending up with only a small percentage of the award being able to be paid?

I have read the Liberty Mutual response and it sure looks like the trust ignored a huge calculation, based on claims where the abuser hadonly one claim of abuse against him.  And only the 25% of claims that have not been settled/paid can still be reduced?  This cannot be on solid legal grounds.

Someone please explain this to me.

[clbkbx]

2 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Why the second 90% reduction?

The insurance company filing says: the Bates calculation accepted by the Court reduced all claims with only one abuser by 90%… and the Trust is not doing that. I’m not at a computer so don’t have the link handy. 

[mrjohns2]

Ugh. That is not good.

[clbkbx]

17 hours ago, clbkbx said:

I’m not at a computer so don’t have the link handy

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/5ca0a357-0f66-45cc-a538-8124ae215111_13249.pdf

[MYCVAStory]

Writ has been denied by SCOTUS.  Additional $1.65 billion sitting in escrow can now go to the Trust.  Hopefully the Trustee will have a statement and perhaps Town Hall soon.  The appeal by an attorney representing 72 claimants only took 3 1/2 years post confirmation.  Enjoy some rare good news.

Edited 6 hours ago by MYCVAStory

[Timbuktu]

Email that just went out this morning:

[johnsch322]

Today is truly a historical day in the BSA Bankruptcy. Almost 59,000 survivors will see a path forward without having a tiny majority being able to throw up roadblocks. The plan itself is not perfect and has many warts but now we can see the end. I still would not vote yes for it, and I believe many who did now have regrets however, many of my fellow survivors would recover nothing for their suffering if the Supreme Court had decided to uphold the Lujan writ.

You will see many posts about how little you may ultimately receive (some say less than 10%) but remember they have no crystal ball or insider information. the ultimate percentage amount will depend on the outcome of Houser vs the non-settling carriers. Try hard to not let the Debbie Downers rain on today's good news.

[mrjohns2]

2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

ultimate percentage amount will depend on the outcome of Houser vs the non-settling carriers.

Is this the trust then suing each holdout insurance carrier? 

[johnsch322]

Just now, mrjohns2 said:

Is this the trust then suing each holdout insurance carrier? 

The case has been filed in Texas Federal Court, Houser vs the Non-Settling Carriers.  I believe there are 82 carriers involved.

[MYCVAStory]

54 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

Is this the trust then suing each holdout insurance carrier? 

Yes, but the IRO option was designed to identify cases that would be "released" to trial and start applying pressure on the non-settling insurers.  To date, none have moved forward and there's been no explanation why that is.  That strategy is used in Catholic Diocese cases all the time and to great effect.  It's a significant arrow in the Trustee's quiver that she refuses to shoot.

[BadChannel70]

8 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Yes, but the IRO option was designed to identify cases that would be "released" to trial and start applying pressure on the non-settling insurers.  To date, none have moved forward and there's been no explanation why that is.  That strategy is used in Catholic Diocese cases all the time and to great effect.  It's a significant arrow in the Trustee's quiver that she refuses to shoot.

This is the most recent order from the Texas judge. Combined with today's SCOTUS denial, I do believe the pressure is building on these insurance carriers.