ThenNow

I have no expertise, but the sections of the code I read (back when) indicate the request for reimbursement of expenses when the party claims and makes the case for a "substantial contribution to the settlement" are sought from the debtor's estate. That makes sense to me because that's the kitty from which the TCC and other professionals have been and are paid. The next part is not so easy for my wee brain to grasp. These requests are for fees paid to secondary firms that represented their clients (Coalition, Pfau...) in the effort to "make a deal" with the other constituents (BSA, insurers, etc.) The second link below will magically transport you to the doc setting out the Coalition's argument for payment of Brown-Rudnick's fees. Remember, the actual lawyers for the CSA claimants are tort lawyers in a bankruptcy court. Many (most?) are out of their league from a practice area and expertise standpoint so they hired bankruptcy experts to negotiate and assist in mediation and the case overall. The request is based on the notion that they spent money for more attorneys to represent them (also attorneys) to help serve those attorneys' clients and other claimants (creditors) in pursuit of money for their clients, 33%-40% of which goes to them. "Them" being the claimants' attorneys not the claimants' attorneys' attorneys. That's an intentionally lovely run on sentence attempting illustrate the goofy, circular, self-serving sleight of hand. [Deep breath] So, all that leads one to the conclusion that, because these are fees "above and beyond" the primary client representation that produced a substantial contribution to the settlement, the claimants' attorneys get to keep their hunk of the client money while covering their debt to the bankruptcy firms. This is per the code, as I read it. It all makes perfect sense, right? Or not. After all this time, I am still totally open to being publicly shamed and disabused of these conclusions. Short explanation. https://www.pbwt.com/bankruptcy-update-blog/substantial-contribution-a-new-decision-from-the-third-circuit/ Coalition Begs for (More) Money. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/67d103d9-e390-413b-b0ed-1dbd7320403b_10808.pdf PS - Please forgive typos. I've been up working on stuff since 2:10AM CT.

Ahem. We are here, kind sir. Silence is not absence, avoidance or disinterest. (NAM and membership numbers and charging into the fall of 2023 just aren’t conversations we care to engage.)

So I’m clear, are them der wheels sporting rubber or marshmallow treads?

Not sure how many of you logged on for the gathering, but it was informative and anything but celebratory. Just as I anticipated. TCC counsel advised the effective date is 6-18 month out, reasonably. I go with the outside, given the timelines so far. If more dawdling, wrangling, lack of settlements with the holdout insurers and etc., it could be more worser. Wee...

Two relevant news articles I've stumbled across. Ms. Kelly has covered the case since inception. (Not the film. That was 12 years ago. Hm. On second thought, that's a worthy note from where I sit.) https://www.reuters.com/markets/rates-bonds/boy-scouts-path-exit-bankruptcy-following-sex-abuse-settlement-approval-2022-09-08/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2022/09/08/boy-scouts-plan-exit-bankruptcy-historic-sex-abuse-case-ends/8023263001/

As I read the Code, the stays remain until the effective date. The plan cannot be implemented yet, so it makes sense to me. Confirmation is the beginning of the end for the debtor. Okay. I threw my dart and let's see where it landed. NB: I am not a bankruptcy attorney and do not play one on TV.

If he is willing, Eagle1993 would remind us of the timeframes for other cases, perhaps most relevant being Purdue.

Can we change that to binder twine? More Scouting flavor that way.

That departs from Platform 9 3/4, am I correct?

I second the motion for a new thread. Might we have a naming contest? Pretty please?

Nothing is “done.” The bankruptcy Judge signed the confirmation order. It’s a first down, not a touchdown. More courts, appeals, and for survivors (assuming all that goes well) years of fun with Judge Houser. Miles to go. If it’s determined the 2nd and 3rd Circuits are at loggerheads on non-consensual third-party releases, we may be sitting with the Supremes. I can’t count chickens. I’m still hunting eggs in the tall grass.

Okay. I happened to be looking at the NESA site because I'm trying to get replacement pins, medal and credentials for a new friend whose ex burned all his memorabilia. Anywho, I noticed an article from those attending NOAC. I clicked, scanned and my eye was drawn to this line. I'm sorry, but it made me laugh. "NESA’s newest class for those continuing their educational adventure entitled, “Free Money: A Boy Scouts of America Guide..."

That was the Guam Committee's attorney and he said it with something bordering on glee, like boys joking in the locker room. I honestly thought the Judge would bodycheck him. I almost went live to chastise all of them for letting it pass without comment. A very tasteless and reprehensible attempt at an inside joke. PS - For those who were on the hearing, is anyone able to confirm that for me? I'm 99% sure and you know where that puts me. Tanks, as opposed to Tanc's.

Brother you can say that again. On second thought, please don’t. I’m beyond saturated with that attempt to self-coronate, canonize and congratulate.

I go with “Delay to Place” and have amassed a fortune.

I wonder if failure to make an appearance here can be found to be malpractice. If my attorney said, "No problem. We don't need to appear" and this was said by a judge, I wouldn't be too happy. Granted, I don't think an appearance would've altered the outcome at all.

And, it's an appropriately stout model, if I may add some color commentary.

Yup. That's what I was tinking.

And therein lies the source of the problem. Legal and ethical self government is a hard thing to police and even harder when the motive is moolah. Note: This is specifically a comment about the judge allowing something dangerous then saying, "You have my permission, but don't be naughty, children." Her admonishing was weak at best. I knew when she aid it during that hearing we had trouble right here in River City. Further, it's commentary on the recent directive to the Trustee to create the processes and begin investigating only AFTER she reviews and approves the means and method of sniffing.

Agreed. Let's just get on with it, shall we?! Inquiring minds want to know already. Oh. I am also wondering about the details of how the pattern analysis would work to suss out memory lags v smell like rotten fish claims. I can guess, but my skill there is akin to the ol' arithmetic chops.

Elaborate further, please? I believe a majority of the claims name abusers not previously known and similarly do not show multiple (or even more than one) victim. I may have that upside down and backward. Also, if a claim does not contain name of the abuser or other identifying aspects of Troop, LC, CO or geography, the POC wouldn't lend data to a pattern analysis. True or false? My recollection is, at one point, 30,000 or some big number had notable facial deficiencies. Numbers are not my forte and there are so many in this dervish, not to mention the number of zeros flying about.

JLSS specifically said she reserves the right to take additional actions against attorneys if malfeasance is found. It's on every Proof of Claim, so I would think each. I have no idea where that money would go, but I do hear the sound of a massive vacuum tracking on the radar as eminating somewhere in the vicinity of the Potomac region. I doubt survivors would see anything from that, but perhaps the judge could direct otherwise.

Simple answer is that the BSA did not want to pay for it and have the process drawn out longer. Wanting vetting was an insurance ploy so that they could keep their money in their investments for a longer period of time. A couple things: 1. Claimants are supposed to be signing these forms, which they didn't in thousands of cases. When the judge allowed it with the soft admonition of, "and I better not see a 100 Proofs of Claim signed by one attorney...when I was in practice I never signed a filing for a client," the game was on. Did she see 100 from one attorney? No. Hundreds and thousands. 2. Had hard core investigations happened after the "under penalty of perjury, $500,000 fine and prison time" didn't deter people, we would be adding another 6+ months to the process. That said, who knows how long it will take in the Settlement phase once Judge Houser starts her review and initial vetting. 3. If the insurers got the green light they wanted, there would almost certainly be less money in the pot, along with some reduction in the number of claimants. I have no idea which creates a better outcome for survivors in the end. 4. As an attorney and claimant, the whole thing saddens me to infinity and beyond. I stared at that signature block and the dire warning, taking it seriously. Before I signed, I ran around in my brain like a chicken, pecking at every detail to be sure what I wrote was as it happened to the best of my ability to recall. When you don't have to do that memory and soul-searching, the bar is automatically lowered. Sorry, but it's true.

Several things: 1. What do you mean by real? 2. How much good money is thrown after bad to accomplish the task? Is it a moral imperative or a legal and pragmatic exercise? 3. Are the judges looking more at the attorney and claims aggregators or the substance of the claims? In this stage, the former me thinks. Remember, this is a preemptory investigation, not necessarily the vetting and scrutiny that happens once a claim passes through the initial decontamination process. 4. I may not know what I'm talking about. Apply this truth liberally to the answers and questions above.

I bought everything on layaway that cost any real money. The super big deal trifecta was my Jansport Mountain Dome, Camp 7 down bag and Hine Snowbridge pack. That was also 1976, based on the fact that is the inception year of my REI membership. Ok. I'm done deviating from the straight and narrow topic.