ThenNow

To quote The Fonze, “Exactamundo.” Precisely my point and on the nose for this case. 😠 Bankruptcy is not the forum for mass torts, as the mantra goes.

We had this conversation at some length back when I was less gray-headed and had more stomach lining. I’ll briefly reiterate some of what I said then. My response and opinion to the contingent fee debated divides between the mass aggregators and the long-term (faithful and committed) child sexual abuse attorneys, including Tim Kosnoff. As complex as this case has become, if you have tens of thousand of clients simultaneously, the workload and per client out of pocket is relatively insignificant. Add to that the attorneys have attorneys and I find it even more troubling and egregious. That ethical muddle stands in stark contrast to bringing a single person personal injury case through trial, even one with great complexity. Add that to third party, front-loaded investment and I now have a big problem with 40%+ percent. As MYCVA has articulated, we now have non-attorney third parties in the mediation room, owning leverage beholden only to their interests, which are purely and exclusively financial. Several judges making commentators on mass tort funding believe this is a very, very serious problem. I agree. They’re the ones who came up with the third party/non-party language. Anyway, there are contingent fee cases as described, including class actions, then there is this mess. I have a different opinion about each, as described. Ditto. However, these cases/mass netting of clients did not involve a “big decision” for some (all?) in the pool of aggregators. I’ve noted that a number were approached with greenbacks extended even though they had zero experience in this arena and would get decimated standing on their own wobbly experiential legs. Zero experience. Zero to lose. Lots to gain. As an attorney, child sexual abuse victim claimant and citizen, this creates a distinction (for me). I don’t think we should ignore it in the name of defending ‘legitimate’ contingent fee engagements. I join you in defending the one, but I can’t pull that cloak of decency over the others. Sorry if that is judgmental or perceived as wrong.

On this point, I feel affirmed to be echoed, but hate that it seems few who can or will do anything are listening. I know for a fact that some of you reading this care and are fighting valiantly. We are grateful. The media need to take up this story now. I suppose, in the beginning, middle and end, there is no real leverage point into the turgid muck of the bankruptcy process. The self-interested will not be dissuaded from their march through the village nor persuaded by human misery along the way. “Alas. Earwax...”

Indeed...

Mine has been on the floor for sometime. Better get busy pulling up hardwood and subfloor to squeeze my head between the joists. That way, I have at least ten more feet before the basement concrete.

Yup. Lovely. And, there it is in living color and on the record. Is this the biggest on record? Where does it rank? Talk about getting into the bigs from the jump without so much as an practice swing. Meh, meh, meh. I would characterize this as an admission well after the fact (was obvious). My opinion of course.

[Insert “MegaMeh!” and bottomless disgust.] Blech! Color me disillusioned and disheartened.

“Never get involved in a land war in Asia” and “Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.” I couldn’t resist. Btw, where is the Dread Pirate Roberts when you need him? 🤔

One is an element of the bankruptcy Plan. That’s the Disclosure Statement. The other, discovery, is a general element of litigation, taking various forms, that is one party going on a spelunking expedition to mine data and statements from another party. Let’s call it legal “Go Fish.” Each in turn: The disclosure statement is a document that must contain information concerning the assets, liabilities, and business affairs of the debtor sufficient to enable a creditor to make an informed judgment about the debtor's plan of reorganization. https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/chapter-11-bankruptcy-basics This is the formal process of exchanging information between the parties about the witnesses and evidence they'll present at trial. Discovery enables the parties to know before the trial begins what evidence may be presented. ... Depositions enable a party to know in advance what a witness will say at the trial. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/discovery/

Not a fair or apt comparison. The TCC is saying this before the court, all parties, BSA, God and the milk man (person). When you're talking about bringing in clients, it is not at ALL what the TCC is doing IN the case BEFORE the world. "Let's use these baselines for in-court valuations" is not equivalent to, "There are billions up for grabs and you can get in on it! Sign here. Oh, wait. I'll do that for you. We'll call you if we need you (to vote.)"

People of integrity, selling whatever it is they're selling, don't do things like that. Every time I deal with a vendor who undersells I make a huge deal out of pointing out what it means to me. Last week I had a guy bidding garage doors and openers. Mine are 21 years old, dated and the openers have put in for Social Security (eligible in garage door opener years.) When I asked him about this really expensive set up, wanting to never do this again, his answer said it all. "Well. I think that's overkill and you don't need it and probably won't ever use it." Sold. One of my friends is part of a firm with a significant number of clients. They never did anything like this. Just the opposite, in fact. They had a daunting questionnaire and interview process. He spent days vetting each client he brought in and was consistently overwhelmed and exhausted by the process and the experiences of the men he represents. Some fellas on here from CA had to sit for a long psyche eval. I don't know what to say about all this. This contravene the laws of decency and legal ethics, whether stated or implied. (I used the word "legal" so I could post it here and not get Ponged.)

Some have said there's not fraud in this case, other than a limited area identified by that poster. I think that remains to be seen. If true, smells like fraudulent inducement to me. I have zippo words for how I feel as a human, never mind attorney and BSA child sexual abuse survivor, about what is being alleged by the insurers. If true, it's reprehensible.

This rather a cumulative question derived from several posts, so I'm not sure who to quote. We have many hints and no so subtle comments that the Coalition is ready to get out, collect the 40%+ and walk off with whatever that amounts to, likely in the range of $400Mish ish. Not sure how many claimant attorneys make up the Coalition, but that would be fun to know. Anywho, that's not my question. We keep talking about convincing clients to vote and bringing in ballots on behalf of or against a Plan. Many moons ago there was a fight about who gets to put their flyer in the coupon section of all the funny papers. BSA said only peeps who love them and want the Plan. TCC said, "Um. We are the only group appointed by the US Justice Dept. officially representing ALL claimants. We get our say regardless our recommendation." That brings me to the internal "vote solicitations" by the Coalition, AIS and/or other claimant attorneys. Here goes. Is there any ethical and statutory standard by which their communications can be measured? Yes, we must assume those stump speeches are protected under attorney-client privilege? What if, for instance, one of the seemingly plentiful clients who has no idea who represents them and/or someone who simply thinks their attorney(s) are doing a poor job leaks the sales pitch? And, what if that sales pitch reads waaay more like the Reciprocity script than a factual representation of the genuine benefits and pitfalls of the Plan. To boil it down to gravy, it's full of rank speculation and manipulation. What then? This is of course purely hypothetic, don't cha know.

Well done, you. I'm definitely at 6's and 7's. Last one. Promise. We need to amuse ourselves lest we weep.

This a bloody mess. (I use "bloody" as used in the Commonwealth.)

Jim Stang referenced the need to see those held by the Coalition. No idea about the statutory requirements, but seems critical for the court and parties to have confirmation.

Hey, now. Don’t be dragging me down into your mud wrestling EIN racketeering scheme! (I’ve had way more than 15 minutes of incarceration on top of my fame and misfortune, by the by.)

I agree. Highly doubt this Plan 5.0 makes it over without plotzing. I’ve seen some awful injuries observing high hurdles. I wanted nothing to do with them and wish that on no one. In this case, well...

My recollection is they very much do not have letters from all of them. I believe the number is much lower than represented as the "ballots they can deliver." Memory ain't what it used to be, dough.

We had the valuation/estimation discussion back when so I won't loop back to that. This is huge. They "developed claim values for each claimant and assisted in the settlement..." One, that's no small task and two, that could get quite complicated for those of us in closed states and with the variability of the prospect of SoL reform and/or viable rebuttals to the time-bar defense.

There are a good number of us on the forum that have talked via DM and elsewhere about the longing we have for people, including the judge and BSA, to have a better appreciation for what this is “doing” to us. I really fault the media for not picking up the story and telling it deeply and thoroughly. I have given them innumerable opportunities and stories to tell, not just mine. The TCC members were interviewed for hours and mere blurbs were printed. Disheartening. It’s not too late to run a story. A post mortem would be in part great, in another part disrespectful lacking the timely purpose. This also goes to my feeling that the judge needs to hear from some of us in open court, sooner rather than later. Thank you. When thriving is not in reach, surviving is the baseline. When surviving is the long-term baseline option, the body and mind have a difficult time surviving. It is the proverbial endless loop waiting for Ctrl+C. A conundrum in a sour pickle. A sticky wicket in a confounding dilemma. Elevated allostatic load. Das ist nicht so gut.

In fairness to Mr. Green and BSA, any names and identifying features of people mentioned or thought of within a mediation context or by a mediation party or between mediation parties must surely privileged. They talked about Mr. Green as a potential mediator. Oops. He can’t be touched. They previously agreed he would be the Great and Powerful. Oops. He’s off limits. Can we find out why either of those decisions were made? Of course not. Mr. Green is cloaked in imperviousness. Mr. Greenjeans, you can depose. Mr. Green Grocer, the same. Jolly Green Giant, also fair game. Want to search Green Acres via warrant? Have at it, and so on. PS - BSA has just contacted me with a court order. All the secondary aforementioned “Greens” are now on the untouchables list. They are verboten as potentially related to Mr. Green, pending DNA testing. He who was the almost, so close, pretty nearly Great and Powerful casts a long shadow of privilege.

Well, that’s not entirely true. Monthly, we can say with certainty the amounts being expended for professional fees and costs. That’s something. May it bring you comfort and sweet dreams. Or not. PS - This is not a cast aspersion, rather a statement of fact to sooth my friend in these times of fear and uncertainty.

Uh huh. It also doesn’t mean it isn’t, if they tried to retract, had the material facts (or absence thereof) filled in by an aggregator or attorney, etc. You sure about that? Are you just being dramatic? Not poking, just asking. Also, does Rule 9011 apply here as to attorney conduct, signatures on claims and documents...that may lead to sanctions?

Yes. It is their suggestion. I say, “Balderdash!” Their actions, may not only have been fraudulent and unethical, but in direct contravention of the judge’s stern admonition. “I better not see attorneys signing 100’s of POCs!” Get a bloody pen and sit down for an extended period of writer’s cramp. And, who gave the aggregators those scripts and questionnaires? Are we to assume the law firms had zero input into how this was managed? Did they know about the bonus structure? Did Mr. AVA do this stuff for the majority of his career? Meh. Exactly my point. (Omitting references to my favorite falconry bird.) If they bring the storm down on all of us...shame upon shame. Disgust upon disgust. If it’s all true, they must face serious discipline, censure and fines. Maybe suspension and/or disbarment, depending on their level of knowledge and involvement. I find this horrifying without considering the impact on my cohort and me. Meh to infinity and beyond.