Eagle1993

First ... I'm shocked that the judge allowed the voting to push out but the objection dates to remain. That doesn't seem right. I remember she questioned the old dates as being a tight timeline between vote & confirmation ... this smells a bit fishy. Second ... ER sounds like he is very concerned if this is released ... I wonder what he is hiding.

Could you explain? Is the judge upset? Was this during the hearing or just the docket?

Did they push out all dates 2 weeks?

Again, if the numbers were smaller (like 5% of the claims) I think it could likely be ignored. I don't think they would sway the vote and would probably take a very small portion of the money. I definitely could see a small percent, even after working with lawyers, wouldn't be able to narrow down some details. I am now very concerned as it seems like this number may be much larger. I also expect that some law firms didn't do much if any vetting of the claims (or even help fill them out). A good lawyer would have sat down with the claimant. Asked questions about where they lived/grew up/went to school/etc. Eventually, you probably have enough info to add in a council at minimum. Eventually, even COs, unit numbers, etc. The areas I think must be questioned right now. 1) The $3500 payment. It will be good to see how many are taking that $3500. Lets say 50,000 take the $3500 payment. That is $175M. To me, that is too much. That payment should be $1.5K or less. 2) Voting ... I think those taking the immediate payment should be considered a separate class. I expect those not taking the $3500 are probably more likely to have valid claims and perhaps indicate where the true abusers stand in relation to the settlement. 3) Law firms with claims without basic info should be questioned and perhaps punished if found to be signing off on unvetted claims. If you are a law firm with 18,000 claims .... you should be hiring enough lawyers to sit down with every one of your claimants to discuss their case and claims. I really think some law firms got in over the heads on this and are not managing the case at all ... and now are just looking to get out with a quick payout.

I do question if all of these should have the same voting value. 1) .Really, someone who was abused and impacted cannot provide a date range on when they were a youth? 2) One would think they could at minimum provide a city/town/state. That info + date range would give a LC. 38,663 seems incredibly high. Yes, I can imagine a few ... youth that moved a lot ... that would struggle with this. But 46% of the claims don't have enough data to provide a council? 3) I'm sure that could happen. I'm also sure rosters could be lost. 4/5) Agreed; however, the LCs also stated they ensured everyone they looked through ALL of there rosters and already identified who was listed on one. At first I had always thought perhaps 5-10% were fraudulent. However, I'm starting to question the law firms, in take process and many of these claims. How many people saw the late night advertisements, thought what the heck and submitted a claim? If no one truly vetted these, perhaps we are talking 50% range of questionable claims. 1) I have an issue that even if they only take the $3500, that is a LARGE amount of the funding that is going away from real victims. 2) Those votes should not count. Only real victims should have their votes counted. Again ... 5% on rosters, only 54% can even identify enough info to locate a council ... those should be red flags. They shouldn't get $3,500 with no questions asked and they shouldn't be able to vote.

Thanks for the background, and the BSA was definitely clear they did all of the review of files that they have and the councils did as well. Part of this was legitimate questioning. I think the other part is just Century causing trouble. Sometimes I think Century's lawyer is a bit like the Blues Brothers when they were recruiting Alan Rubin. Tanc is simply there to create cahos, causing extra hearings, pontificating, jumping in on arguments he isn't a party to. I expect in mediation, he is telling BSA and the Coalition ... "If you say no, I will file requests morning, noon and night, every day of the week."

Short TCC call today. They introduced Richard Pachulski, emphsized votes are due at Omni by December 14, 4:00PM and their recommendation is to vote no ... but everyone should vote regardless of their decision. They also mentioned that mediation is ongoing ... so perhaps good news that TCC is back in mediation. There was some mention of some optimism on where mediation is headed; however, there is no agreement and nothing is in writing/plan yet. To me, this is actually really good news. I expect this first plan to fail, so for BSA to exit any time soon, they need an agreement with the TCC. Perhaps we are starting to see some movement. TIme will tell.

No. They are saying that they looked through all of their rosters and only found 5% of the claimants (number from Baltimore Area Council). They said they have too many rosters to scan them in. I think 5% is far lower than the actual end number. However, one would think those not on rosters may be asked a few more questions. I definitely believe there are many abuse victims who would not show up on rosters. However, it seems possible many claims are simply people looking for a check who were not abused. That is not fair to anyone involved. If that was 5-10% of claims … probably not worth the time. However, this data is starting to show that percent of false claims may be a lot larger. I think the judge is open to those interested in seeing if there are large groups of questionable claims and if they are focused in some law firms.

Reminder for those interested

I think the concern being raised is that if councils purged records, then councils would simply say they don't have roster information. Instead, councils are saying they do have rosters, they have 5% of the claimants found, and in fact, they have so much data from rosters they don't have the man power to scan in all of the records to provide Century. Century's lawyer said in court ... so, what you are telling me, is that only 5% of claimants are showing up PLUS you have a ton of roster data (hundreds of thousands, etc.) to the point that you cannot scan them all in. The council said yes. Century's lawyer then said no backies when it comes confirmation time .. .the judge stepped in and said that would be hard for them to undo that statement now that they made it in court. Century made it clear. In every case in state court, BSA would start by finding the individual in their rosters, find the offender in their rosters, perhaps even find incident reports. They are wondering why BSA is not doing that in bankruptcy. Here is the point Century will make. The BSA knows the majority of these claims are likely false. Probably not 95% ... but a very high percentage (think 50 - 75%). The BSA and councils are only offering a small dollar settlement, not because that is all they can afford (especially councils), but because they know most of the claims are false. In addition, BSA is using the $3500 payment to buy votes from many of the false claims. All of this is done to get a plan approved quickly with the lowest settlement they can. However, when they are promising other companies money (such as Century) they are saying to assume all or most of the claims are real. Century just wants to be on the same playing field as BSA ... if 75% of the claims are false, then Century only wants to talk to the 25% of the real claims. This is why Century and other insurance companies are going after law firms and aggregators. They know they are on the hook for claims post plan and want to clear out questionable claims prior to plan confirmation.

What I found very interesting was the following point. BSA councils are saying that they cannot even find the vast majority of claimants on their rosters. They are also saying they have so many rosters from that time period they cannot possibly scan them all in. Century is preparing some big hits during plan confirmation

Judge ruling on various discovery .... believes that it should proceed including information into the $3500 and how the claims were vetted. Most of the requests do not implicate privilege info, or they may, but discovery could be not privilege . In general, how the claims were obtained/vetted are likely not protected by privilege. She is opening up advertising, intake, proof of claim, how it was done ... pretty much everything.

Other councils similar ... 3% confirmed for one. Century going through a few councils. Basically, they are finding a very small number of abuse claimants are showing up on rosters. In addition, nearly no incident reports confirming the abuse.

Century is stating they are going to push back that the vast majority of claims are false and were not vetted. Century is making the statement ... BAC is saying they have a TON of data on rosters and are certifying that only 5% of claimants were really scouts.

95% of claimants in BAC cannot be confirmed as scouts.

Century & Baltimore Area Council in a fight ...

Well ... were these ever vetted? Councils have released rosters and many are showing most claimants were never scouts. There are reasons for this (records destroyed, etc.). Century is indicating there are ways to address this but councils are not supporting that (per Century). Basically, Century is claiming the BSA is paying as if most of the claims are false. However, the insurance companies as part of distribution will be paying as if the claims are all true. So, they are asking what the BSA did to vet any of these claims as clearly they think most are not valid (based on their offers).

I'm not sure this is true, but Kosnoff is stating (via Twitter) that the Coalition has votes they are not releasing as they are not good news. So they continue to fight to get voters to switch. I think it probably is underreported as the master spreadsheet ones are being held back. Now, if the votes were good news, I don't think BSA would be pushing (as is the Coalition) to push out the deadline. I also found it interesting that the TCC was actually somewhat against pushing out the deadline. So there could be some truth in Kosnoff's tweet.

Century insurance fighting for discovery. They are very concerned that the confirmed number of scouts in terms of claimants are very low. Basically, BSA has not been able to clarify that the majority claimants are actually were even scouts.

Proposed schedule of dates would be ... Voting Deadline - December 28, 4PM (2 weeks delay) Voting Report (Preliminary) - January 4 Objection Deadline - January 7 Final Audited Report - January 17 Confirmation Brief Support Deadline - January 17 Confirmation Hearing - January 24 Judge is concerned as in other case she had the preliminary & final report had big differences in votes. Even the Jan 4 to Jan 7 isn't enough time. BSA lawyers agree this is a big concern. Now more and more are concerned about the resulting timelines if vote is delayed.... Judge will allow parties to talk, will decide Monday. So, no change as of now.

Debtors (BSA) would like to delay, hoping mediation will lead to further settlements before the deadline.

TCC - RP - Prepared to file modified motion. Would like to keep voting deadline UNLESS the changes are approved.

Concern about voting deadline, sounds like most parties want to push it out including BSA. Preliminary results would be January 7, final a few weeks later. So far, no objections to pushing out the date.

Hearing started ... 1) Meditation went into midnight last night. 2) Total votes to date (Wednesday before Thanksgiving) - 4,300 votes complete.

@MattR is correct, if this is to the point you believe you may need a weapon, you should be talking with the police. In terms of BSA, the first person I would go to is your charter organization rep. They are ultimately responsible for your unit and should be aware of any concerns. They decide who the adult leaders are in all cases ... so they decide the Committee Chair. If their is a parent/family causing trouble, there is no reason they must remain in your pack. @David CO is a COR and has mentioned multiple times that their unit does not approve applications for every youth ... they will reject youth for their pack.