ThenNow

Is anyone aware of the coverage years? The TCC has obviously pegged the number of relevant claims according to those years, as well as indicated there may be more since some claims omitted the year(s).

I both stand corrected and beat to the punch, again!

You keep saying that. Are you certain? Have you reviewed all 870 cases and the criminal statutes of limitations in each respective states? It’s the law, like it or not. You’re “kicking agains the goads,” as the Bible says. Too late now. I do think we did break off a discussion along these lines. Do you really want to be sued for real, and not just metaphorically or by implication based on your contributions, dues, time invested and, etc.? The cost of that will be much, much greater. Again, this hyperbole about concomitant “abuse” of the current and future Scouts/Scouters and being sued in proxy does not advance the conversation about this Chapter 11. Just my opinion, of course.

We went there when it happened, so I pretty much agree, from the BSA’s perspective. From my perspective as a victim/survivor BSA CSA claimant, it revealed much and flipped the switch. For that, I’m perfectly content. Maybe it’s worth noting that when Ms. Lauria changed firms there was a vociferous objection to her and her partners continuing to represent the BSA, due to potential “confidential information” they had previously acquired in dealings with Century. As I’ve said before, and I’m certain she’s a top notch bk attorney, there has been a demeanor and approach I felt was incompatible with this case since I heard her speak at the TCC selection meeting in Delaware. I do believe they chose poorly and it is showing. My take. I think it’s too late. The cow has left the barn and said cattle keeper is well ablaze. Correct. Contrary to what the Coalition has projected, the TCC is the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE representative of ALL victim/survivor BSA CSA claimants. (Sorry. I keep using “CSA.” Is stands for Child Sexual Abuse.)

You beat me to it!

Oversight. Negligent. Stewardship. Negligence. Entrusted into the care. Negligence. Implied duty of care. Negligence. Badge on the uniform says BSA (Trustworthy, loyal...). Affiliate, associate, agent, sanctioned and approved volunteer, employee...liable.

PERSONAL OPINION: There are significant differences between the facts of the RCC cases that distinguish them from the BSA CSA liability scenario. I believe those differences are critical and place insurers in the direct line of fire to pay on the historic policies.

I’d call it a litigation pivot. Different team for a different strategy, as well as a signal of the level of seriousness. Free agent acquisitions and substitutions mid-season recognizing you have a chance to win or lose the title based on key talent.

I'm thinking incidental claims between $45 and $8000 will have little bearing on the substantive discussion, precedent (express or implied) or court's ruling on 84,000 individual abuse claims valued at not less than between $2,450,000 and $50,000. Just my guess.

$102.716B+, but what's another $700,619,500 between friends?

Yes. I've been through it, in fact.

FYI, in the event it wasn't accessible. Reprinted with permission. Peg Brickley WSJ 4.21.2021.pdf

Are the substantive docs expected to land in the docket? I'm not sure if they're sealed behind the mediation wall or what.

As we both said several times, they almost literally invited this. Several ways and several times. Maybe this pulls the wagon out of the ditch, at long last.

I’m sorry. That’s terrible and one reason I’ve eschewed all social media, other than this forum.

This is the example I referenced. The points allocation system starts at Exhibit A, page 67 of the pdf. 662378991_RCCofNewMexicoClaimPointsSys.pdf

Welcome. As you've read, you're not alone here. It was brave to speak up. Thank you for doing so.

Just a footnote. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that this claims valuation matrix is not the one used, given the effort of the TCC, FCR and Coalition to lift the exclusivity and file a separate Plan. In that event, it would still have these tiers and multipliers, but may look more like the one in the New Mexico Catholic Church Chapter 11. It is built on the same concept, but quite different.

Does anyone have any historic or contextual experience with how something like this actually works, in practical terms? I recognize it would be cross-referencing with a different type of mass tort claim, so not a direct comparison. CSA cases like this one have different variables, indicia of veracity and quantifiers, of course, but I'm trying to wrap my head around how a Trustee is going to cull, review, assess and grade/rank this many claims with so many of the aged variety. I know the BSA CSA Proofs of Claim range from those with nothing but the form completed (basic data entered or not, and boxes checked) to a select few that are voluminous with exhibits, photos and other elements of proof.

I understand. The BSA is compounding its dilemma by being less than forthcoming and through poor timing. I don't know if it's a negotiating tactic or what, but it looks ham-fisted. From an observer's standpoint, when you read that "more than half of the amount the BSA has offered consists of the estimated value of [their] art collection," it don't look so good. "Not the Renoir! Take the Rothko. I always hated that thing." From everyman's viewpoint, this is what really rich people do when they need to get some cash. They liquidate some of the peripheral niceties so they can protect the real assets. Early in my career I practiced real estate law. I worked with restricted properties, unwinding the restrictions so we could develop. As to Summit anyway, that is smoke and mirrors. I'm telling you, it definitely is.

Possibly. Maybe. Perhaps. Not so sure about that. “Most” and “would” are squishy, but perhaps “many” and “might” are more apt. Regardless, all who have good counsel and/or good sense, which is most (to use your word) will not do anything like that before seeing the real cards on the table. Fortunately for survivor claimants, the TCC, FCR and Coalition may have been galvanized by the ill-advised and very badly timed deal with Hartford, creating an impenetrable wall sealing off the path for the BSA’s Plan. Stay tuned. Same Bat time. Same Bat channel. (Old guys, I gotchu.) PS - They/we already think something fishy is going on with the insurance company contributions, so that “unless” trigger has already flipped.

Agreed. The BSA did not offer me justice, they invited me here to receive “equitable compensation.” I gave up on justice long ago and no have absolutely zero delusion about finding it. I’ll take the money. As to your lawyer friends, I’ve heard that. I was told to “wash everything in the cynical acid of the law and truth.” I went to a Jesuit law school, though. My belief is that my calling is to “do justice, love mercy and walk humbly...” I see almost no other profession, other than law enforcement, firefighters and EMTs like yours. Completely different. One is about life or death in the moment and going forward. They are simply worlds apart. Attorneys are more like brokers than they are physicians. Yes. You’ve said this before and I appreciate your experience. What this wreckage has cost me and my family can’t be repaid. I agree on that and see my first answer above. I’ll take some money just the same, thank you very much.

I’m not quite sure what this entire line of objection is really about. A moral objection to making money from doing “nothing,” like investing in Amazon when it went public? A moral, cultural and economic objection that teachers work hard and get paid too little? I know high level brokers and commercial real estate people who do pocket deals that reap huge rewards with little time invested. Other deals, just the opposite. It’s fine to indict the system of contingent fee (legal) representation, as opposed to calling professionals who utilize it “vultures,” but include all who utilize it and recognize a very valuable service goes away if it does. Namely, taking on cases/deals that won’t otherwise be advanced under a time and expense structure.

You’re condemning anyone who works on commission. My real estate agent represent me, but she’s not doing it for free. She’s doing it to make a living and a good one, at that. The commission you’re poking at just happens to be potentially huge. Not saying I agree with or completely condone it. Watch Erin Brockovich (or many other books and films) to get a feel for what it takes to bring large cases on contingency. “Choose wrong” and you could go out of business unless you get help from a more flush firm or, as today, an investor. You’re talking about a business model, not one profession, per se.

With complete respect and with several doctors in the family, the “function” of a physician charged with treating patients cannot be compared apples to apples with an attorney who’s responsibility it is to advocate for her client. One seeks to make whole or well, and minimize pain and maximize quality of life. The other, seeks to maximize the benefit to their client. The law and society set the boundaries for fees and any good advocate will push to the boundary on behalf of the client. You’re attempting to compare two different universes. That said, I agree 100% the tort system has fallen into the muck. Regrettably, it may be irretrievably so unless Congress acts.