ThenNow

Starting with the Zoom feedback in her courtroom, an attorney who left his mic hot during the 5 minute recess, the stack of "paperwork" dumped on her desk at the last minute yesterday and all the finger pointing, she was not in a playful mood.

This question is in the name of seeing everyone come to the table, not with any joy in the asking. Do you think other LCs will now follow suit with the CFL sale? I know it sucks, but it would make things a lot easier if reality spread quickly. Anyone else getting this kind of news?

Oh, man. I REALLY want to see that: Lawyers' Survival Island. Please, Lord...

She told them to "bring a toothbrush."

I can't cite to the statute or case law, but standard fare in these mass tort bankruptcies. BSA is not being singled out on this. Not going to pat myself on the back, but she even made note of individual letters she received about the importance of continuing Scouting for future generations, including from survivor claimants. She was clearly touched, moved and motivated by what she read. Guys, it's real... Back me up on this, David? Can I get an "Amen"?

The new Mrs. Lauria (BSA/Jessica Boelter) made specific note of that and lodged a strong objection. The judge did say, "if the Estimation is not before me," indicating, to my reading of it, that she's not keen on it going elsewhere. Just my sense. Again, it was noted that the District Court judge is way slammed at the moment.

I don't believe so. She started off exasperated with the entire crew because of the extensive last minute "paperwork" that landed on her desk and took away from what she had planned to discuss and/or rule on (discovery). Then she was getting feedback into the courtroom from the Zoom audio and recessed for 5 to deal with it. More frustration. I saw a full compliment of press names in their "Hollywood Zoom Squares," so I'm sure a recap will land tonight or first thing tomorrow. I had three things going on at once and am not the best court reporter to begin with. Sorry

That is accurate as to all. She also lit a fire regarding a mediation meeting (I expect everyone to attend...no excuses) and the proposed Estimation of Claims. Discussion was toward the latter moving to District Court, but sounded like it's very backed up. Judge Silverstein said she was prepared to grant some of the discovery requests, but it seemed like elements would be covered in the Estimation so she would wait and see if they are folded in. From the attorneys, lots of reiteration of what has been seen in recent filings. He said. She said. That's not what I said! I told you so. They're not cooperating. I know you are, but what am I. Mom, she's pulling my hair. Yes, I am because you (claimants' side) keep dragging your feet and it's making me spend too much money and it's almost gone. The TCC is lying...we (insurers and LCs) don't have multiples of $300M! We (AHC) resent the TCC's implication that we're farting around and not coming to the table! We're cooperating in all respects, vigorously representing the LCs...the picture of angelic good faith negotiators. The Coalition is just playing cute and coy, say the insurers. Again, lots of what was seen in past and recent filings, effectively pre-cursers to oral argument on Plan and Disclosure opposition. David Buchbinder (Trustee's Office) interjected an observer's "human perspective" regarding taking care of the survivors and doing right by them. I was distracted at the moment, so only caught it with one ear. That's not much for detail, but it does give you the flavor of what went down.

I tried. Went crosseyed just shy of going blind. Good golly.

For what it's worth, it is not a very substantive piece. Basically, insurance will be critical, there are an enormous number of policies with various limits and application, and it's really, really complicated so stay tuned. Nothing you didn't already know.

FYI: https://www.wsj.com/articles/insurance-emerges-as-critical-question-in-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-strategy-11615932004?page=1

I guess so... https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/881136_2388.pdf To that end, the Tort Claimants’ Committee has attempted to meet (either inside or outside the mediation context) DOCS_SF:105210.3 85353/002 8 with certain of the Local Councils to present the Tort Claimants’ Committee’s analysis of their financial wherewithal. Those Local Councils (Silicon Valley Monterey Bay, Garden State, Greater New York, and Grand Canyon) have refused to meet and one other (Old North) has remained silent, which the Tort Claimants’ Committee interprets as a refusal to meet. Instead, the Local Councils are insisting that the Tort Claimants’ Committee meet with the advisors for the Ad Hoc Local Council Committee, which since the outset of the cases has made clear that it does not represent or speak for any of 253 Local Councils. To make things even more confusing, two of the members of the Ad Hoc Local Council Committee (Greater New York and Grand Canyon) have stated they would only consider attending the Tort Claimants Committee’s presentation solely in their respective roles as members of an ad hoc committee that has no power to act or negotiate on behalf of the 253 Local Councils.

Ok. That completely explains why this is a Jackson Pollock painting. [Said entirely in jest, though descriptively. I adore Pollock, even the early, quirky surrealistic stuff.] Are these filed randomly throughout the docket, I'm guessing?

Tort Claimants Committee, which is the official entity appointed by the US Trustee to represent the interests of all sexual abuse survivor claimants in the case. It's comprised of 9 survivor claimants and represented by a group of attorneys other professionals, some noted above.

Just curious if they communicate with the AHC or vice versa. I don't quite understand the functioning of that group. When it was formed, I assumed it would be akin to the TCC, representing and communicating with and on behalf of all LCs. From what I've seen and heard, that ain't so. Add to it my rantings about who chairs the group and I wonder if it amounts to the country club set of LCs. Again, dunno.

It seems apparent that hide the peanut is not working, which everyone clearly sees.

Yup. I'm exclusively talking about getting real and serious about disclosure and honesty IN the mediation and negotiations. I stated many times before I know from experience, and as an attorney, this is not a time for public disclosure. PS - That would be stupid and counterproductive.

Is this thought to be widespread?

From the early days post filing, all the people I spoke with said there is 100% chance the LCs will be required to contribute. It was just a matter of how much from which. Sorry. I mistakenly tossed the LCs into the BSA basket because they are the two BSA entities in the negotiations and mediation and represent the BSA contribution money side. Principal and "affiliates." Maybe BSA is, in fact, pounding on the LCs to wake up and step up. Dunno. The "we will request the LCs make a voluntary contribution," didn't sound like that's the case. If the two of them would slug it out, which they might be, it seems like something could/would happen. Last point on this. As I've said before, I would think part of this LC resistance could spring from the Ad Hoc Committee being less than representative of the LCs. If that is the case, how in God's green earth can they be expected to either communicate effectively or negotiate with transparency and a unified voice? Who are the LCs on the AHC, btw? Just trying to confirm how representative they are or are not.

It seems like many here have repeatedly experienced a lack of trust and transparency from BSA National, as a matter of course. In fact, it came across to this outsider as pretty much an MO. "Go back to your campfire and teach some knots..." Are you saying "not BSA" as in "not Scouting" or not National? Meesa confused. Also, we're not talking about voluntary disclosure and inspiring trust at this point. It's under duress and seems needful in this critical moment. Sometimes, that's the only way it happens. Might be an opportune moment to open up.

Personally, I hope she allows some of the inquiry now, specifically into the process issues. I see the info and data flowing to the TCC for their review of assets and to help remedy defective/deficient claims as a separate track. Insurers directly confronting claimants? Not sure I see that happening at all. Dunno.

The ruling on the insurers' discovery requests are on the top of my interest list, though it's full day (per RS's link).

Yup. Thanks. I guess I was referring to the specifics mentioned by USA Today that I hadn't seen others include. Too many publications!

It's an excellent piece, in terms of covering the breadth of issues and delving into the asset valuations. I'm surprised other pub's didn't do that analysis.

So I don't duplicate, has the 3.7.21 USA Today piece been posted here? I had not read it through to the end and found their research on assets and values to be helpful. I hadn't seen it anywhere else, though I certainly could've missed it.