ThenNow

Oh, no. I was on. Guy (Taylor) said just that. To add, she was very concerned about attorneys signing "100's of proofs of claims" and look where we are. She was clearly not happy and very "troubled." Blech. Btw, who should I bill for my hours upon hours upon hours of research, hearing attendance, writing, vexing and sheep counting? Who, I ask you? Good God man, is there not an adult in that house?

"Stand-down." If that doesn't just sum this up this entire drama in two little, single syllable words I don't know what does. Stand-down: "a relaxation of status of a military unit or force from an alert or operational posture."

Sorry if that article was posted already. It is regarding the Ann Taylor case, which has been discussed.

Interesting piece on third-party releases. “The beat goes on.” (Nod to S&C) Third-Party Releases Under Continued Fire in Ascena Retail Group Ruling https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3ff29bf9-15f5-44a8-8372-d79ca7921941

Many moons, hundreds of pages and thousands of posts ago someone VolScouter (?) noted that BSA worked with top experts and consultants to develop it’s program for YP over a number of years. Is anyone willing and able to post the names of those individuals and organizations? I’m very curious and grateful in advance.

Dang it! TK colors outside the lines, so that may be tough to curtail. (Anyone else grow up calling them Jarts?)

I cast my non-POA, non-master, non-e ballot for a mano a mano Tanc v Kosnoff face-off. I’ll buy the live streaming rights, take wagers and we’ll make bank. Venue and form of combat TBD. Stay tuned... By the way, “combat” is used broadly. It includes such things as checkers, one on one dodgeball, reflector oven baking, knots, impersonations, lawn darts, and etc.

I agree with the last paragraph. I’ve spoken with people in the know and they believe the risk to JLSS and the case is too great if she starts tossing votes. The underlying problem, of course, is are there substantively invalid claims that are being counting on either side? Personally, and this is from knowledge of attorneys working the “reject” side, I don’t think invalidity is going to be high among most firm’s clients. From what I know, they did too much rigorous vetting for that to get by them. My opinion. The issue may not matter. I doubt much if any review will happen prior to getting before the Trustee’s throne of grace or judgment seat, as the case may be.

The claims are/will be against the Settlement Trust, that's why we all have to repeat a proof of claim process and then even more extensive and intensive. This time, we will be subject to examination by the Trustee and other manner of litigation-style poking and prodding.

I'll hazard an amateur comment. Even in an auto accident, insurance companies don't give up money without a release. There's nothing saying they have to "contribute," especially when BSA's liability has not been adjudicated. All third-party non-debtors are simply trying to buy their ticket to freedom from this mess, ala the Sacklers. BSA can lay CSA claims at the carriers' doors all day long, but as with any other insurance claim, they ain't payin until they're either made to through litigation or they deem it to their best calculated advantage. Right now, we're in the latter scenario. In this case, we peons don't even know their overall exposure, in the aggregate, or the market value of the claims. Ah, mediation privilege.

I would very much like to see a deep dive into how this oft-repeated statistic breaks out. How many is "many" and are there any patterns to be seen between the multiple victim abusers and the single victim abusers? Patterns could include timeframe, geogrpahy, the source of the claim, as in law firm or aggregator, and etc. (I fear we will never know what really happened in this case, both as to the abuse and the mess this has become. I digress.) I don't know that many BSA CSA survivors, but the majority were abused by someone who abused other Scouts. In my case, as I've said, I wouldn't be surprised if 10 claims name my SM. 5 is a gimmie. I could name more than 5, but have no idea if they filed a POC. Also, "identified" only means as to POCs filed in this case. History and studies tell us there are likely other victims. I know, we have to stick to the record. Just sayin... Ima thinkin' you're on to somethin' here, mister.

(Reposting this here. Perhaps it was misplaced on the "All Legalese, All the Time" thread.) Jan 19 (Reuters) “The University of Michigan said it would pay $490 million to 1,050 people to resolve claims of sexual assault against a former sports doctor, in a settlement spanning decades and involving mostly male athletes as victims.” https://www.reuters.com/world/us/university-michigan-agrees-490-mln-sexual-abuse-settlement-ap-2022-01-19/ When you read the article, note the nature of the abuse in comparison to this context. Any and all sexual abuse is egregious, but this case involves mostly male athletes over the age of 18, a doctor and “unnecessary exams.” Horrid, but not child rape. A public vigil for the victims on campus. (WSJ) No one should ever take my word on matters involving ciphering, but does this mean the BSA Settlement Trust 'should' be in the neighborhood of $38B plus another $.5B for good measure? Hm. Yes, I'm dreaming, but it's a good dream for a change.

Wee. Nigh onto my per diem back in the Wild West working world of 80's expense accounts. YeeHaw. I knew attorneys who billed clients for fresh (new) French cuff shirts while traveling. Nary an eye blink. (This is related and relevant to the topic because it is unpacking potential costs and fees associated with the case. True fact, as a good friend used to say.)

What’s the daily burn rate these days? Not my bailiwick, but if she can ditch a mediator with a flick of her wand, it would seem so. Right? In the event that happens, the “substantial contribution” argument by which they advanced the request (demand?) for payment of BrownRudnick’s fees would almost certainly go bye bye. Substantial contributor and obstructionist perch on the opposite ends of the teeter totter, me thinks.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/latest-vote-tally-boy-scouts-27-bln-abuse-settlement-falls-short-goal-2022-01-18/

You suggested several reasons for the cancellation. I’ve been asking everyone I know who might have a clue, including insiders and press. No one has been able to say. If weather, how can that shut down a hearing that is 100% virtual, other than Judge’s chambers? I guess the Delaware forecast might justify that and this is, after all, just another bankruptcy hearing, other than for those fully vested. As to COVID among key players, I suppose we may never know. I have had all three strains, but count myself blessed not to have been extremely sick. For 98% of the people I know who have/had Omicron, they are mostly working through with limited impact.

As Omni suggested. Knowing a little about some of the firms who used the ballot, I would be surprised if they failed to button up and batten down the hatches on their paperwork.

Sex abuse claimants torn over Boy Scout bankruptcy plan “If West Seneca resident Tracy Peterson had been sexually abused as a child in New York, his claim in federal bankruptcy court against the Boy Scouts of America could be worth upward of $1 million. But because the abuse is alleged to have occurred in the early 1970s in Texas, where Peterson was born and raised, he said his lawyers are telling him he probably will be eligible for no more than $30,000, minus 40% in attorney fees...” https://buffalonews.com/news/local/sex-abuse-claimants-torn-over-boy-scout-bankruptcy-plan/article_be11d1f4-7592-11ec-b256-5f4faec9e364.html

I spoke with Omni. The person in the know said, “The tabulation results are going to vary a bit, somewhat of a given between a preliminary report and a final. I don’t see any significant movement other than Class 9, which we called out in the declaration.”

Hearing cancelled. Ugh. **AT THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT, THIS HEARING IS CANCELLED** https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/bb83fb5a-7417-48cf-a88d-a1d50d4b257c_8334.pdf

This may sound asinine, but I feel like a child stuck in the middle of a nasty divorce and custody battle. There are some things I'd rather be hashed out in private, especially facts and/or accusations that are as yet substantiated. Unleashing the trebuchets of blame can cause lasting damage and deep in the moment confusion, resentment, fear, anger and self doubt. "What am I supposed to do? Who's telling the truth? Can't you just act like adults and pretend you care about me more than just winning and/or crushing the other? Can't your lawyers or the mediator get you to sit down and be reasonable?" I hate this, regardless who's correct or justified in their position. I do not care for the deep dark of mediation, but this disclosure seems inexplicable to me. I guess desperation and strategic positioning could be the driver, but it still feels awful.

Remember this? The Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice, which is urging a yes vote, has said that most claimants will receive between $3,500 and $2.7 million...“Voting yes will promptly deliver a degree of justice and closure to survivors, and accountability for the Boy Scouts organization,” Rothweiler said in a statement. https://www.oregonlive.com/nation/2021/10/boy-scout-sex-abuse-victims-begin-voting-on-bankruptcy-settlement-plan.html

Some of my earliest comments here were about the lure of hearing BSA was going to "equitably compensate" all survivors of abuse in Scouting. It's all clear to me now. We started at $6100 being the "equitable" amount. Now, we're at $38,000 as the "paid in full" number. Now I get it. We're getting 5x more than is equitable compensation! Wee. Makes perfect sense. Brilliant PR strategy. Bring on the Drum Award! (Who's monitoring the microphone over there?)

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/boy-scouts-slams-victim-committee-for-opposing-2-7-billion-deal

I'm forbidden to post full articles, so my apologies. All BSA statements were per the filing, but plan opponents were quoted for the story. Puchulski and Amala. Jason Amala, another lawyer representing survivors, said the group’s claim on Tuesday that victims will be paid in full is “absurd,” adding that “There’s not enough money to make it work.”