ThenNow

Exactly. See, TK deposition transcript beginning at page 34. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cHSgSLYfxauGupyEhNQF3Q5go68tuAJA/view

Both of you are right, in my view. Can’t happen during, likely happened prior and certainly will happen if LCs fall off the negotiating table. Doesn’t seem like they will, but if. I can’t imagine other LCs did not utilize asset protection trusts in the several years leading up to the case. If not, they all need new attorneys. If they did, knowing there was the looming possibility of the a Chapter 11 and depending on what they knew and when they transacted, there could be issues with hiding those assets via $1 transactions to these trusts. For me, what the MTC effort in July of 2020 highlighted was the lack of sophisticated and foresighted “estate planning” within the council. Was it smugness, poor legal and financial advice, lack of understanding of the basics of asset management and protection or what? Okay. It also demonstrated some massive bravado to do it in the middle of the Chapter 11 case in full contravention of the state of play and while signing documents committing to the court that no such nonsense was taking place. That took some moxie.

If this approach is going to be taken, I hope the strategy is not shielded behind the mediation paywall such that we only learn about it after the fact. Speaking as counsel for my survivor claimant client, if there are going to be direct negotiations with his LC as to its liability to him relative to the injuries suffered, I want to engage that conversation as soon as possible. A direct negotiation with the “defendant” puts a point on this that was absent from a global effort to exact settlement contributions from a sea of 252 entities. Also, if this shift occurs, I would want to know the formula that was used to get to the $2.9M contribution they currently have on the table. How did they value the nearly 150 claims that implicate my LC? How did they value the 5 + 1 live claims within that overall number? As a client and as an attorney, I am at a terrible disadvantage in making my case if I have no information on the existing formula, the negotiations that led to the current offer or access to the process going forward.

That warms my heart. I did that in college and literally just told someone about it earlier this week. Ok. I will exit quickly, lest I get the penalty box for “content unrelated to the topic.”

Address to check on and confirm your vote. I’d use this email and avoid calling. Bsaballots@omniagnt.com

Check your messages. It’s accessible through the little envelope icon at the top right of the page up yonder ⬆️.

Another article with an update (nothing new) and recap. https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/boy-scouts-america-bankruptcy-updates-100239596.html?src=rss

I’m sorry and hope I didn’t do something (again). I appreciate your opinions, tenacity and that you used the word “lambasted.” A much neglected but wonderful and very old part of the English language. Well done, you.

This is my sense of it. I won’t go so far as to call it an understanding. I think the implication is they are not child sexual abuse attorneys willing to go the distance with their clients. In the end and in the main, this is a personal injury/mass tort case. Many of the attorneys who are representing abuse claimants are, in fact, PI attorney. BUT, many do not have experience representing survivors of child sexual abuse. What that says to me (and only me) is, “Yee haw!! All aboard!! Bandwagons ho!!” If you pursue all manner of other tort cases in state court, why are you not representing your client here and there? My thinking, because this is a case to which you can hitch your buggy and go along for the ride under inertia power. When it arrives, you jump off and go to the bank. Then, (JOKE ALERT!!) the saloon. Again, this is my sniffer and not my lame brain. PS - Remember, some of them apparently have ample resources to pursue individual PI cases on state level. Here, they received investment dollars so they could represent muchos individuals. See what I mean?

This is my question exactly, which is multipart: 1) Dollars and who’s gonna cough them up and onto the table; 2) YP improvement requirements; 3) LSS’s threshold percentage required for approval; 4) LSS’s risk tolerance in the face of a possible post-approval Purdue smackdown; and 5) Who holds the votes that can be moved, whether through disqualification or satisfaction of demands. (Nod to Eagle1993 who I know said several of these items better than I.) As to votes that can be garnered, how many actual votes are held by the objecting firms? For those whose clients are predominantly in open states and voted master ballots, do they have any intention to settle with anyone other than BSA? From all I hear, I don’t think so. If that is the case, those votes won’t budge and become immaterial in the discussion. Am I wrong about that? I was wrong once. Maybe I’m wrong about that. Hm. Anyway, if they are intransigent, what’s left to gather and stick in the accept column? Dunno? Can the balance who might be convinced move the needle by 2% or 22%. That’s the range in question reflecting back to #2 above, yes? Per VolunteerScouter, who I believe speaks on good information, the BRG LC dashboard numbers are DOA. He could be wrong, though his opinion read as immutable. I should not speculate, assume or react in ignorance. I may get the penalty box. Perhaps he’ll chime in. Last two questions. Does anyone know in which states and LCs the 275+/- filed cases and the 1200 threatened were lodged? What about the firms who brought or were bringing them? I wish I knew where and who. Depending on their influence on the workings of mediation, it could be of note. PS - Knowing there are very mixed feelings about TK, I’ll nevertheless add one comment. He noted in his deposition that not many of the claimants’ bankruptcy attorneys are long-time CSA counsel. It has also been noted a good number of them did not agree to represent their clients in state court, should it get to that point. Who’s who in mediation and influential consultation I have nary a clue.

In response to a question during a TCC town hall meeting about a month or two ago, Doug Kennedy referenced a video of one of the earliest TCC town hall meetings where he gave a brief biography of all of the TCC members. The rejected attorney was correct. Below is a link to the TCC’s TH transcript of 1.14.21. Worth reading from the top to get the JH and DK intros. All the brief bios follow in short order. https://www.pszjlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/BSA Town Hall Transcript 01-14-2021.pdf

I have a vague recollection one is a retired attorney. Not this one of course. He was summarily rejected.

Sounds like par for the course from my seat. Perhaps, but how many times has “better” been attempted so far? I think I just need my hunt and peck typing fingers.

I’m going with the end of the day, remembering Omni is on PT. Taking bets. And, btw, MYCVA. Don’t try to go all in with that stinky dang beret, yet again.

Yes. The words of the prophet are screaming in the form of no noticed Coalition update notice, ja? Who knows. I speak in ignorance waiting to catch the subway. (Please don’t say I’m being incoherent and/or obtuse. Suffer me this one.)

A news guy just told me “very soon.” Both words are, of course, relative and subjective.

For good or for ill (more often than not mine), I have a low threshold and hair trigger on my injustice reflex. It has often gotten me into trouble defending people in sometimes no-win situations. Occasionally, I win regardless. This goes all the way back to objecting to physically abusive parents to neighborhood bullies who picked on my brothers to developers who force out and displace at risk populations to COVID Era politicians and businesses who abuse the unsuspecting up to and including a giant insurer who took advantage of me and others similarly situated. I just hate it. Along those lines, often having too much time on my hands, I have been studying and pondering opportunism, defined as follows: “Opportunism is the practice of taking advantage of circumstances – with little regard for principles or with what the consequences are for others.” This situation has so many avenues and parties that wreak of opportunism it makes me sad, angry and disgusted. (I wonder how many times I’ve used that last word on this forum. Hm. I resisted saying “nauseated.”) While there are many parties who are well-meaning and truly concerned for things/people they love, there are many others in this Carnival slicing away seeking multiple pounds of flesh. They epitomize opportunism of the first order. The backs they are skinning have already suffered enough. I realize I am powerless to get at them, but I hope and pray someone or something does. I know that might cross purposes with my faith and beliefs, but if I can’t battle them...

So, when does the ball drop, anyway? Is Ryan Seacrest on standby?

Or, no one regards the number, whatever it is, as definitive and MAD commences with all parties attempting to “change” the vote tally by undermining the other. If the preliminary count is under the magic threshold, can’t BSA simply say, “the election was stolen,” proceed as if it “won” and do everything possible to make it so? Unless it’s a truly dispositive vote, this is the path I see.

On what precedent is this number based? I just haven’t seen it pegged so specifically before. This seems to be a strong indicator of the lay of the land (vote), no? Seems that way to me. As always, thanks for all your good info and insights!

Data source(s)? Is that an overall settlement number for suits vs BSA, LC and CO? Single entity...? Love to have you unwrap that tidy parcel you put under the tree.

I saw that and come to a similar conclusion. Assessing my own LC, there are 6 live claims (including mine) that could easily settle out over their current offer, not including fees. If they all go to trial, well past the number. As a non-litigator who is devoid of other than a basic recollection of the laws of evidence, making a multimillion dollar offer to “resolve” child sexual abuse claims via someone else’s bankruptcy proceeding doesn’t look great, even if inadmissible. From a public perception perspective alone, since all of the numbers are public, it could serve as leverage. I’m sure SiouxCity can enlighten on the law. As to simple optics, pretty no bueno. Wonder if that/this scenario has been contemplated and factored into decisions to this point. Thus concludes my ignorant ramble on this topic.

Same. Yup. Yup. Yup. Btw, did you mean limbo, purgatory or the hybrid place of waiting and torture? Limbatory, I like to call it.

In some ways, I’m not sure the tally we will see tomorrow will mean whatever it appears to mean. I put the odds at zero that it will be overwhelming in either direction. The numbers are just not there. There are two motivated factions, each with a devoted constituency they likely “turned out,” as they say. Given the assumption of a failed dispositive result, this is what I think. We are in for something that could end up looking like a MAD warfare scenario. There will be an all out assault on claimant votes both accept and reject. Both sides will try to invalidate the other’s respective tally by all means available and at any cost. TCC, Kosnoff, AIG, Patterson (Zalkin/Pfau), et al., with be seeking to upend “accept” votes. Coalition and its allies will try to undermine the “rejects” (used advisedly). The Kosnoff/TCC letter, e-ballot, time-barred and $3500 off-ramp claims, attorney e-signatures, aggregator methods, Coalition efforts to dog clients into changing votes and 30’000+/- claims lacking basic identifiers - LC, CO, abuser, year(s), etc. - will all be “painted” targets awaiting guided missile lock. I think it’s about to get ugly, not to mention the Purdue Kraken stirring beneath the dark waters. Well, what do I know, other than this is a terrible mess. Ack. Oh, yeah. Happy New Year.

So, the “YP & 18-20 Year Olds” topic runs through multiple posts on Iron City rot gut, the need for ASMs to choose better mentors for the selection of camp alcohol, the disdain for IPA and Crap, er, Craft beers, nationwide alcohol distribution, the ease of quitting drinking, and all manner regarding women who like or don’t like camping, and I get dinged (again) for an inside joke. Got it. Back to bankruptcy, voting and confirmation. I won’t say what I wanted to say... PS (and this is not what I refer to in the last sentence) - Some of us happened to be abused by our SM after booze (including domestic beer and rot gut) were used to groom us. Some of us were abused at Summer Camp in such circumstances. Some of us took 35 years to “quit drinking.” I won’t go on at this point.