ThenNow

This is extremely interesting. Not something that was on my radar. Shows my limited knowledge of all of this. Although an Illinois ruling, I suppose it could have major ripple effects going forward. I am very curious to do more reading about this case and any commentaries or cross-references to the decision. This goes to the "date of the discovery of injury," as opposed to the date of the abuse, starting the SoL clock. The delayed date of discovery is based on the application of their fraudulent concealment statute. "The statute of limitations issue [is] a question of fact for the jury." Wow.

Whew. I can take a nap...

It's time to yield the floor to the gentlemen of the TCC and let them (on behalf of us) put forth a Plan that can and will be approved. It's time. WELL PAST time, but no time like the present.

High income doc's can't say they're in it to help patients, then? These are not mutually exclusive. You're judging where you don't know the truth of the thing. Income negates intention and motive? Again, you're only talking about the TCC counsel bc they are the ones whose invoices are online who represent "victims." Further, very few professionals do what they do out of benevolence and charity alone. Some, not very many at all.

Gotcha. You're right. I'm playing lawyer and holding you to your use of language. He may see it, but he has no right to call it wrong or immoral if he built his cushy life doing the same.

I stated facts. C'mon man. Where's the disparagement? I respect him. He kills it at what he does and is living the sweet life. He's just not a credible witness against people who emulate him. Do you not see that? Seriously. Facts not disparagement.

I agree it's run amok. As a claimant, I HATE it, but saying the TCC counsel reeled in the gig with "package or free steaks," is wrong and offensive when the BSA professionals are 2/3 of the billings and no one else is putting 10% into the Settlement Trust. They didn't even give you guys some nice t-bones or ribeyes for the summer campfires. This has mostly been directed at the claimants attorneys.

Yikes. I'm sorry, but that's a laugh. Not your comment, but a guy who's "won" 100's of millions of dollars for clients, collected his 1/3+ and now lives on a yacht in Puerto Rico bemoaning fees by other attorneys. Please, let's not let that "pot call the kettle black." Not even dark blue or purple.

System indictment. Capitalism sucks, I guess, and all who benefit are evil, immoral and self-motivated. You can't charge what won't be paid. It's the system. And, you're speaking about the claimant attorneys, again, and exclusively. Here's how we "save" some money. Call Mr. Mosbey and have him fire the current BSA professionals and insert some who charge a cool $100 per hour. I can support that move 100%. I'm sorry, but I understand it seems ridiculous and painful, but that's an argument for a thread on the morality of capitalism, inherent value vs. market value and a bunch of other stuff I won't say because Matt R. with say I'm waxing too academic.

Gotcha. Thanks for saying that. I'm with you. It's incredibly frustrating. My wife has had enough of listening to me about it so I lay it off on one of my brothers and two of my sisters. Yup. I've probably spoken too much about this already, I guess. For not having to put together a full blown case to bring to court, with all the tedious, expensive and time consuming components of discovery and all, I couldn't agree more. It's a pretty slick 40%. Thus, I'm trying to go it alone. I'm an attorney, but not a litigator and especially not one who's done a bunch of sexual abuse cases. That said, some of the claimant attorneys were well into the process of bringing civil actions when the cases were stayed by the bankruptcy filing. If you get 40% from 25, 50 or 1000's of clients, that seems outrageous to me, especially if all it entailed was the client(s) filling out a form and submitting it to the court. That's an oversimplification to make my point, but still... I understand. I apologize if I overreacted, as well. Multiple things. I'm sure someone else will better detail what they are. Hm. Immoral because of...? Rate? Market willingness to pay it? Lack of access by all of society? As I've said before, attorneys aren't the only people with high rates or compensation tied to commission. I guess you have indictments for many sectors of the market economy? On the access to the best and the brightest, I tend to agree that it is unfortunate. Immoral? I don't know. A discussion for another thread or forum. As I've said before, this inequity stretches across medicine (some doc's are better than others and I'm not saying access is denied to those who can't pay), accounting, broking, architecture, construction, personal coaching, fishing guides, landscapers and so on and so forth. I drove an unsafe tin can of a car as my school commuter because I couldn't afford a tank of a Mercedes or SUV. (A Subaru Justy. Look it up. Effectively a Yugo made by Subaru.) I sold it when my wife got no more than bumped by a substantive vehicle and it looked like a beer can I smashed against my forehead after one too many. We drove an unsafe car because that's all we could afford.

If you're speaking to me, I don't feel it's my brotherly "duty." Not at all. I do feel it's just right to defend someone/anyone against accusations that aren't backed up by facts. It's easy to cast aspersions. That's my response to that one. Is it "Scout-like" to accuse without proof, even if it's convenient and helps make your point? You guys probably know more about today's standard of Scout-likeness, given my years of absence. I really think you will need to ask your local exec's who'll need to ask their superiors who'll need to ask Mosbey. The BSA controls the stick and rudders on this whole thing. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been following. IF they were forthcoming and facilitated full disclosure from the jump, many of these hours would not be logged. Right? Are you saying the TCC is resisting progress? Now, I will share my own experience. The first day of law school I told my cohorts I would not practice law for long. Reason? I couldn't see myself tethered to billable hours for the rest of my life and I didn't plan on litigating or owning my own firm. I wanted to figure out what's what and move into a business role. In many respects, I look back with regret that I didn't take the in-house role I was offered with HP immediately after graduation. My life is full of such regrets. Oh, well. I distinctly recall being told, "You only billed X hours on this series of agreements. There's no way you did it that fast. Think about any other time that went into how your structured it, etc." I was once told I could "bill the time you think about it, even on the john." There you have it. I didn't like it. I left after 7 years and helped start an entertainment venture. That said, I will not impugn someone else because I don't know what they're doing. However, I know some of the men on the TCC and they rigorously review all invoices and ensure me/us the professionals are working their tails off.

Was supposed to have quoted all this. Sorry. fred8033 It's called a "kick-back". Choose us to be your lawyers and we will give you 10% of our fees. ... Of course, we'll make sure our fee is at least 20% higher than other clients. Thus, you both get richer thru the kickback. We had a local place give a box of stakes if you chose them to replace your car's windshield. Very popular place ... until the insurance companies succeeded pointing out they were being billed well above the value of the stakes. I think courts got involved and agreed that the insurance company did not need to pay. T/N: Aha. There is the real crux: you're a mind reader and heart renderer with vast knowledge of the firm's history, motives and record of representing creditor committees. I have no such intimate and expansive knowledge, so I'll let you sit with yours, resting your head on their impugned character and all that entails. Btw, I was at the TCC selection day in Delaware and met the firms applying for the role. I didn't hear anything while talking with them or after their selection was announced about a "package of steaks" and "ginsu knives" deal deal, express or implied. I happen to know they were selected based on experience, reputation, skill, track record and passion for representing sexual abuse tort creditor committees.

Yeah. This is where the tracks run into the ditch for me, in terms of following along. Local charters or Local Councils? Why don't LCs just do that now and be done with it? "We're separate, are fine without you and will deal with our own business as we see fit. Keep your Chapter 11, intellectual property, HABs and settlement trust contribution suggestions to yourself. See ya if we see ya. Don't if we don't." From what I've read here, which has been fairly detailed, it doesn't seem what you're saying is accurate, unless I've misunderstood you and them, mainly CS on the charter discussion.

I get what you're saying: "Big fees by all." But, TCC counsel represents the TCC who are the official representatives of all claimants before the court. They are not the individual claimants' attorneys. I'm not exactly sure, but might you be mixing up the chosen counsel hired by the US Trustee-appointed Official Tort Claimants Committee with the Coalition folks, TK, other state attorneys or just lumping them all together. If the latter, the individual claimant attorneys have yet to get paid and certainly are not getting paid by the court. On the TCC firm, they have already committed to returning 10% of their fee into the Settlement Trust. That may not amount to "the goodness of their heart," but I've not seen any other firm billing the estate pony up like that. Dat's all I got on this one.

What are the details of the "triggering event(s)," including the breadth of language that can flip that switch? The broader the language the easier to flip it and the more inherent control is imbedded in it. If revocation or failure to recharter are the "event(s)" - can't operate without the charter - what are the BSA's bases for revoking or refusing?

I understand what you're trying to say, but just a note to perhaps clarify. These are professional fees being billed to the estate (BSA funds) by approved counsel and consultants to the "official" parties. These are not fees being paid to the private attorneys and/or consultants representing individual claimants. Not many people do their job out of the "goodness of their heart," attorneys included. That doesn't mean they/we/you/anyone is not passionate and motivated to serve their client or customer.

Forgive me for snickering, but this is my favorite excerpt from Century's motion. What a beauty. Good grief... The estate has been billed for over $1 million for parties to prepare their fee applications. The excessive duplication is generating absurd results. With nearly thirty firms preparing monthly and quarterly fee applications, enormous hours are being consumed simply generating the applications to collect this money. The fee applications appear to seek allowance of over almost $1.4 million for the preparation of those documents alone.

Does Grand Rapids issue you an annual charter or some other such right to continue operations? Do they have any intellectual or other property you utilize that they can retract or withhold? Do they have the unilateral right to withhold that annual renewal or a right to revoke? I'm asking because I don't know, not because I'm taking potshots. I also don't know the inner workings and details of the BSA annual charter and all that rot. Trying to understand your comparison of the two contexts. Thanks.

I agree with the juxtaposition. The Coalition also added a layer of complexity they didn't exactly see coming. However, I think the lack of early acceptance that "what we thought ain't what we got" paved the way for failed case management and exploded fees. Scrambling to deny, avoid and stonewall are inherently inefficient, especially with this many players. Also, the apparent unwillingness or inability to meaningfully engage the key constituents in the discussions surrounding the Plans they were concocting was a major waste of time, money and whatever goodwill and good faith previously existed.

I'm not following how any of that reinforces or establishes the LCs as separate and distinct. The BSA wants the LCs to have a release at the end of the process. The LCs want to have a release, too, I'm thinkin. The TCC is saying, "We can show you what you have to do to achieve that, if you'd like. Might be a lot more efficient and less painful if we go direct, rather than through the BSA and intermediaries."

I see where you took my jocularity as a universal statement. I was riffing on the meeting moment. I have a screen writer's brain. Jim Stang: "Hey, now. We'd be more than happy to answer questions and have a little back and forth about all this. That may help advance the process and make some actual progress. Is that cool, Ms. Lauria?" Ms. Lauria: "Hard pass. That's a wrap."

From this negotiator's standpoint, making the other party aware that, "I know what you got in the bank, Jack, so don't try to evade or jack me around in this negotiation," is a big, big deal. That alone is important for the LCs to realize. The TCC wasn't getting full disclosure so they hired some heavy hitters and created their own full asset disclosure statement(s). "So, BSA and LCs? You can't hide what we already know, folks. Lookie here? We got your digits. Let's talk about how to get you a release of future liability, yes?"

Um. Unless I misread the recap of the meeting, the facts of this scenario evidence the exact opposite. The TCC requested and also offered to be in communication with the LCs. BSA's response? ACCESS DENIED!! "NO, you cannot talk to our LCs. But, of course, they are fully separate and autonomous legal entities making their own decisions, managing their own finances and controlling their own destinies." Ya, right. This major OOPS! can't be put back into the sack at this point. This is a clear, though inadvertent, example of the BSA controlling the LCs. They stepped in it BIG TIME.

One thing from me, after more publicly thanking you for this. Thank you. Sincerely. "There, but for the grace of God, go I." I appreciate this entire post. Good reflection and background for me. I can see your point in both paragraphs. Of course, none of this can be seen as "voluntary," per se. That's not your point and I get it. As I also said a few times, I agree that this was obviously not what they expected. Still, they should've braced themselves better, given some of the widely known research and their own internal data. Men don't come forward easily or early and they had to know that. The inability to pivot and turn into the solution appears to be a giant hurdle.

I want to echo this, which is an echo of my echo of my echo... Something that doesn't seem to be understood is that many of us were bumping along in life, doing our level best to stay positive and productive on this side of a dirt nap. Then, out of the blue, here comes the BSA exploding the past in our face and plopping it on our lap, inviting us to tell our story and file a claim "or be forgotten." Their motive wasn't to help or compensate us. Let's be honest. It was to get this gorilla off their back so they can move on. I don't know if the impact and magnitude of what happened when each of us learned of the call for claims is fully appreciated by many. Some say we should just leave it lay and walk away. Some who say that are survivors and I completely respect their decision. But for me, I simply could not do that when there is some chance to obtain a measure of recompense to benefit my family. Again, I'm not looking for miracle soul surgery or a magic wand to "make it all better." Ain't my game or expectation. I was invited. I considered the invite. I counseled with my wife and therapist. I decided to step up and dredge up my story, documenting the details and the damage. And, as you said, "Here we are."