Eagle1993

Generally the teeth is that no insurance would cover you if you violate state law. In addition, if anything happens and you did not comply with this law, good luck in court. The state doesn't need to enforce it, insurance companies and trial lawyers will.

I'll add on a bit. This one statement in the plan was debated as too broad. This led to questions as to "define scouting". There will be a fight over this language. BSA came out and said that the trust is about abuse in scouting, not about abuse within COs outside scouting. The judge seemed to be very clear ... she cannot provide any protection to COs for abuse that occurred outside scouting. All of us in this forum can already think of hundreds of examples of grey areas here where someone is tied to scouting but also has oversight at the CO outside a scouting relationship. COs may find paying into a settlement offers them little protection in the end.

I think this is where there was a lot of discussions. I think the clear cut is abuse at scouting events are clearly channeled to the settlement trust. Also, it seems clear that if there was a non scouting interface with the abuser that was through the CO (for example a pastor who abused a youth outside scout settings) those could have direct claims outside the trust. The murky area is the relationship with the individual is through scouting but abuse completely outside scouting programs/events/activities. I believe it is primarily a CO problem. LCs/national will always be channeled to the trust. It sounds like everyone had a general idea where this was headed but they need to document it clearly. I'm not 100% convinced everyone saw eye to eye. I think we have to wait and see what comes out.

The example sited (this is a real example). A youth was a member of LDS and was sexually abused. He joined scouts and was also abused as part of scouting by the same man. This claimant should have separate claims for the BSA settlement and also be able to pursue claims against LDS separately for the non scouting abuse. There was agreement on this and so they are working on the language of the releases.

The settled on Tuesday. Edit: Official zoom link updated to Tuesday, October 5 at 2:30PM EST

Rothweilier must be ticked. While the judge let him speak yesterday, I don't think he did himself any favors. He seemed clueless on how the entire process works.

#1 is clearly not covered. LDS, judge, BSA everyone agrees. LDS cannot pay $250M and expect all CSA claims to go away. #2 was not exactly clear. Judge & BSA seemed to agree it is not covered as only "scouting activities" are covered. That is where the debate of scouting definition came up. LDS seemed to think perhaps #2 would be covered ... but it wasn't 100% clear.

Judge was clear ... 1 & 2 are not protected in the settlement, 3 would be covered. I'm not 100% sure LDS agrees.

BSA & LDS are not aligned .... it seems like BSA believes this is scouting only. LDS seems to think every person cannot sue for non scouting if they took the scouting claim. This is BIG. LDS seems to think otherwise.... uh oh. Ongoing discussion as it is not clear in the plan. Judge is indicating this is not clear.

There is a fight over the definition of scouting .... Insurance companies & BSA are working on a definition of scouting.... Judge believes it is important and shouldn't be relying on a dictionary definition. BSA ... programs offered by the Boy Scouts of America pursuant to charter and through organizations that the BSA has authorized to provide its program.

100% agree ... I wouldn't be surprised if all of the other COs combined do not hit the $250M LDS offered. BSA & Coalition are offering false promises of increases they have not delivered on. They got the easy one (the one with the most money and biggest risk with centralized funding. If BSA wants good relationships with COs, perhaps their counsel stops saying expect more settlements using the LDS as a framework.

I think the BSA and Coalition are offering false promises if they indicate any other CO will offer the same settlement as the LDS. They keep mentioning the LDS is a framework for other COs. I highly doubt that and believe they are not being truthful as I expect they also know other COs will not pay the same settlement rate.

Looks like hearing is continuing tomorrow at 12 Eastern.

He sounded like a man who bit off more than he can chew. He talked about the bills. The travel. His Covid battle and the fact his mom died of Covid. I’m sorry, but this is not about him. Why did he take 15 minutes of the judges time to explain how hard he worked?

Best line ... I wasn't prepared to talk and then went on reading a paper for 10 minutes. Stang is destroying him right now.

If I remember correctly, the TCC plan as explained to me would rely on a combination of settlements & state court trials. Basically, the trustee of the settlement would take cases from the settlement and sue insurance companies in state court. As they win cases, it would lay the foundation on a settlement. It would take longer, but likely get to a fair settlement. It sounds like the current plan took a different approach.

Insurance just wants delays. Lets say 59,000 are removed (I'm not 100% convinced as many could all file in NY/NJ using their SOL as BSA was HQ there for a while). Then lets say 20% of the remaining are false. That leaves 20,000 claims. Lets assume all still end up in bankruptcy court. Per BishopAccountability.org the average settlement is $268K. $5.3B . Rough math ... BSA's current offer is $2B and I don't expect much more coming from them ... most would come from insurance. So, insurance companies already include $750M and they would have to make up the $3.3B incremental ... so about $4B. That assumes the insurance companies are correct. My guess, if the other side is patient, that $4B would be much, much greater. So, why would they delay if the end result is likely a higher payment then the current deal they could strike. My guess is that they think by delaying, the other side will negotiate a lower settlement offer so insurance stops objecting. If the other side was willing to wait it out, insurance would likely have to pay >>>>$ than the current settlement.

I understand you will not have 82,500 unique calculations; however, you know where many claims are occurring, if they are LDS or not (or unknown), what state, SOL impacts, type of abuse, etc. You should be able to make a range for many of these claims. Again, when I voted on the pension deal, it was a very specific value $XX,XXX but even then, it included statements that this was the best estimate at this time ... blah, blah, blah. While I don't think you can do this in the BSA case, you should be able to give a range with caveats. The range of $3.5K to $2.7M is just meaningless.

I have been involved in a few larger lawsuits. In all cases, I was given information on what my specific settlement would be if the deal was agreed to. Some cases they were mass tort and my payout was a small coupon. In one case, it was a complex pension case where each individual had a specific unique settlement number (the final actually came in a bit higher than what we voted on). This was in the range of $40K and while I wasn't physically abused, it was a serious case where I wanted to ensure the settlement was fair. I do not understand how claimants could be asked to vote on a deal when given a range of $3,500 to $2,700,000. While there will always be a range, you need to give a more reasonable range. I would expect my lawyer to tell me a much more narrow range (at minimum, keep it to an order of magnitude). $0 - $10K ... $10 - $99K ... $100 - $999K ... $1 - 9M. The fact that the coalition is ok with giving a $3.5K to $2.7M range shows they don't care about their claimants. They remind me of the lawyers that sue credit card companies, Facebook, etc. and get their claimants $5 and rake in $100Ms of fees. Typically I'm just annoyed by them as most "claimants" in the other lawsuits have limited damages. This is different. Gathering a bunch of men who were raped as kids so you can collect $100Ms+ and give them $3,500 - $10K is horrible. It is sickening. The fact that BSA lawyers are colluding with them vs working with the TCC makes me question the honor in the BSA. I hope the judge ensures there is some methods for claimants to determine their likely payout. Otherwise, I don't understand why we are even seeking a vote.

I would be shocked if the judge allows this. She seemed interested in collecting the data with the ballot given the concerns the TCC/others raised. The only reason she removed other proposals from the ballot (i.e. council) was that you could do the analysis later during plan confirmation. Without the $3500 selection, you wouldn't be able to do that. BSA was OK with this during the hearing but changed their minds later. I wonder why.

I person like the 1952 to 1965 stent where you found your own path outside the first 10. In addition you can make sure there is a diverse skill set earned and only some merit badges qualify in those groups. I feel the system is broken, the current list is boring for many scouts and it emphasizes classrooms vs activities. Im not saying the below is perfect (from 1952) but it is much closer to where we should go vs where we are today Camping, Cooking, Firemanship, First Aid, Life Saving, Nature, Personal Fitness, Public Health, Safety, Swimming, one from the Outdoor Sports group, one from any of the following groups - Animal Husbandry, Plant Cultivation, Communication, Transportation, or Building, one from the Conservation group, three from the Citizenship group.

My understanding is that if you vote Yes AND selected $3500 ... as soon as the plan is approved (and the money is in the account) you should get your $3500. I don't think it removes your right to vote and if the plan changes substancially, I wonder if you could change your mind. For example, there is no guarantee the $3500 remains and is in the final plan. I think there are going to be several cross tabs on this vote. - Overall vote % - Vote by LC - Vote by CO - Vote by $3500/total claim If the total vote is 99%, none of the above will matter. If it is closer to 66%, I expect there will be fights to show how only those taking $3500 approved the plan. Or that only xx% of councils were approved. It seems to open up avenues to fight the plan even if it achieves >66% of the total claimant vote.

If the ballot will collect this info then I agree they will push this to reviewing the vote/plan confirmation.

The question is .. how will she know which individuals plan to take the $3500. It sounds like BSA doesn't want to know that until plan approval. You need to know that before plan approval. So the ballot must include that info.

Beat me by 1 minute on posting this update. I think this is a HUGE deal. If the judge allows this, BSA may be screwed and realize the vote is likely to fail. I wonder if the judge rules in favor if BSA asks for a pause on the plan to renegotiate. I see 0% chance that those who don't take the $3,500 quick pay out vote. While it is likely they get 100% of those votes who simply want the fast payout, they would need at least 66% of the votes of those who want a full settlement. It sounds like the judge agreed to this (as did BSA) during the hearing. Now BSA lawyers are probably realizing the impact. This could be a non issue if the judge denies the request.... so we should know tomorrow as it can't be put off until confirmation of the plan.