MYCVAStory

The Trustee during the Town Hall mentioned that next week she will roll out a way to see where Survivors claims are in the claims/award process. But...if you're represented by an attorney they have to "grant permission" to do so. Something about making sure confidential info isn't seen by the wrong person. She lost me, to be honest. Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing if it works for anyone before I talk to my attorney.

Trust town hall just started. Recording to be posted on the website after: https://event.webcasts.com/viewer/event.jsp?ei=1686285&tp_key=a54d23e33b

A few things: 1. The IRO wasn't designed to come up with award amounts and then assume insurers would magically hand the money over. It serves to show insurers their potential losses, which they can and will ignore I assume, so then the Trust uses those cases to produce significant award verdicts, a portion of which goes to the Trust, and puts pressure on the insurers to start wondering how much it'll take to stop the bleeding. Remember, the non-settling insurer takes part in the IRO hearing so they can beat up the claim if they want, but also they receive a first-hand view of the future. 2. So Lujan's client on the TCC voted no on supporting the plan in a committee meeting? Where was that reported? As far as courage, the opposite could also be suggested. Official committee members serve ALL Survivors and not just their own interests or those of a smaller set of Survivors. Seems to me the "courageous" thing to do would have been vote AGAINST the wishes of his attorney if they were in the best interest of all. Again, we don't apparently have the inside information into the inner workings of the TCC you apparently do. So the TCC capitulated to pressure? Do you have specific examples to show that was the case or is this the opinion of someone who wasn't a part of their work? As far as the "shield", that's standard operating procedure and without them NO one would practice this law, or agree to serve on a committee as a volunteer. On the subject of the cost of all of this, agreed. Nice work if you can get it. I'm a Survivor plan proponent and I'm not mad at Lujan or Dumas. Do I wish they weren't holding this up? Absolutely. Too many Survivors are passing away waiting for this to be out of appeal. But, I also respect these attorneys' right to provide the best possible representation for their clients. Those same clients have the right to fire their attorneys and aren't so I'm not going to be mad at them either. I just wish they would accept that their number isn't enough change the plan vote outcome, and the reality is that in Bankruptcy we are ALL in a class, whether we like it or not. If anything, I'm jealous of the Lujan clients. The 280 have settled with the Catholic for between 34-45 million dollars. That's on top of any BSA awards. And Lujan...at 40% stands to make 16-18 million dollars?! Just saying. If my family member passed away before the appeals were exhausted I'd have ads and billboards up in Guam asking when enough is enough. What I AM mad at is jamming the round sexual abuse reason for this bankruptcy into the square hole that is commercial bankruptcy law. It wasn't designed for this or any other case of mass sexual abuse. There is support for Bankruptcy reform on Capital Hill. Grassley and Warren are trying. Child USA is fighting. Maybe when this becomes "real" for the public, when "checks hit mailboxes" and people can put a tangible cost to what we have suffered, maybe then the need for change will become "real" as well for Society. Too late for so many, but maybe it'll be the driver of much needed change.

I'm looking forward to January when several people with experience with this court think there will be a ruling. A few others think it'll be sooner since they know money into the Trust is being held up. All believe that the "equitable mootness" doctrine is of course at play here but the LAST thing this court wants to do is use this case, and dying Survivors, as the opportunity to make a statement. That point was driven home. Consummation is defined as more than dollars out the door when the very appeal is the thing holding that up. We'll see.

I just finished listening to the 3Hr audio of the hearing. The supporters had some really good attorneys. The attorneys appealing this represented themselves....and you know that old saying about representing oneself and having a fool for a client. But who knows. I will say this. The Judges did seem to be concerned about the Purdue issues but repeatedly came back to the impact this would have if it were undone. But what was really striking was Evan Smola of Hurley Law who spoke toward the end, at the 2:27 mark. He isn't my attorney but if he's yours you should be proud. He put a VERY important human face on this and reminded the court that Survivors are dying. His clients have left him with instructions that if they die they do NOT want family to know. So, for them their claim died with them. Thus far, his firm represents 5% of the total claims, and 250 of their clients have passed away. If you do the math, that extrapolates out to 5,000 total deaths if his number is representative. The story of all of this is yet to be told but the number of Survivors who never made it to the end must be known. Thank you Mr. Smola.

Here's a link to the audio file of today's hearing: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/oralargument/audio/23-1664InReBoyScoutsofAmerica.mp3

Yes, another plan can be filed. The bankruptcy portion of the profession is pivoting quickly in light of Purdue. So, new plans are allowing claimants to "Not opt in" to a release and preserve their rights to sue a third-party. Sound like a good idea? Well, consider this. If your attorney did NOT file a suit in State court against a Charter Org or Council, and the "window" has closed, you're screwed because the bankruptcy didn't "toll" your rights against any third party. But let's say they did. Then you'd better hope you have a good attorney because most are NOT prepared to take dozens or hundreds or thousands of cases to trial in a timely manner. Another issue is who you will be fighting, the insurers. They are MASTERS at stalling so there's 3-5 years of your life. One more reality, the third parties (charter orgs primarily) are NOT bottomless pits of money. So, again, you'd better hope that your attorney is good and you're the first one they have in line before all their other clients. If big judgements come in to the first group of Survivors that get to trial they could wipe out all the available funds, insurance included. Then, the third party goes into bankruptcy, the insurance companies say "We've already paid out to the limits of our policies" and you're left fighting over scraps. I hate to sound negative, but Scouting does not have to go into liquidation, they can refile a new plan and still allow Councils and other parties to participate. You could then go it alone, but the risk could be greater and reward much less. I know a lot of people will read this and say "I'm not getting anything now, I'll take my chances." Of course. I get that. But reality must really be considered. Going it alone could be years, with a potential dead-end if the party you sue goes into bankruptcy itself and you're back where you started, and if you get your day in court, how long will that be and what will be left to fight over? The light at the end of the tunnel if this plan is overturned and Scouting does cast its Councils adrift, well, with all that's now known Councils in "good SOL States" will be motivated to pre-package a bankruptcy plan to get it over with quickly. Its happened in Catholic Diocese cases. But again, hovering over that are our good friends the Insurance attorneys. To them, time is money and the longer they can prevent us all from getting it, the more they preserve their money and profits. None of this is pretty. It's a tragedy. A very complicated tragedy that if this plan blows up you'd better have an attorney who can give you the right advice.

I wonder. I wonder how many claimants called a toll-free number that turned out to be an "aggregating company", had big dollars waved in front of them, had their "lead" sold to a firm, received the bare minimum of service and will be satisfied with the monetary outcome. It's going to become real when a more accurate picture of the award percentage is known!

I was asked to pass the message below on to Survivors. It doesn't constitute an endorsement on my part. It's for information. That said, I do find it intriguing that an attorney, with no shortage of experience in the US Bankruptcy system, is calling BS on the way attorneys take 40% for essentially filling out a form. I Know, in a lot of cases they do more than that but how great would it be to see a change where those who need more pay more and those who need less pay less. You know....like any other service we purchase! It doesn't apply to my personal situation but given that a number of Survivors on this forum have expressed concerns about "the system" I'm passing it on. I hope anyone reaching out to this attorney will share their opinion of the discussion. Again, I'm not an attorney, I have no financial interest in this, and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn last night. I'm just passing it on. July 22, 2024 To Survivors who have filed claims in the Boy Scouts bankruptcy case: My name is Lawrence Friedman. I am a former Director of the US Trustee Program. Prior to my appointment to that position, I was a bankruptcy trustee in Detroit where I administered more than 10,000 bankruptcy cases under both Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. I discovered considerable fraud and abuse in the bankruptcy system, and I began writing and speaking about my findings, ultimately testifying multiple times before the US Senate Subcommittee on proposed reforms to the bankruptcy system. My inside view led to my appointment as the Director of the Program responsible for the oversight of the bankruptcy system. Within 90 days of my appointment, I was faced with the mega bankruptcies of Enron, WorldCom and Adelphia. I immediately championed a change in policy which mandated the appointment of examiners in each of these cases. Examiners bring transparency to the process, and examiners also act as a clearing house for information thus adding efficiencies to the administration of these cases. Since leaving the Department of Justice, I have been increasingly troubled by the use of the bankruptcy system to solve societal problems. My focus is on these mass tort cases where victim Survivors are being victimized again by bad actor tort lawyers. I believe that my team can bring these matters to the attention of the Court and effectively free up more than $70,000,000.00 in funds which these lawyers are claiming in fees and which rightfully should go to Survivors. The explosion of claims within these cases is particularly troubling. I have authored several editorials and white papers on this topic. That said, real change comes from action. I have been reviewing claims filed in the BSA case and I am appalled by the practices of some of the attorneys. Many used claim aggregators to solicit clients and filed claims in these cases using the standard bankruptcy proof of claim form. The claim form is available online and was designed to allow non-lawyers to fill it out. The form doesn’t even have to be correct because if it’s not the debtor will object to the claim, and you get an opportunity to fix it. Yet every law firm that solicited large numbers of claimants had the client sign a one-page retainer agreement that gives the lawyers a 40% contingency fee for doing nothing more than filing out this form. The lawyers want to pretend this is a typical contingency fee case when in fact all they did was simply fill out a form. Rather than collecting 40% of the money paid to victims, these lawyers should get a fee similar to petition preparers – non- lawyers who help people fill out forms to be filed in court – which would be more like $150.00. There are other serious problems with these retainer agreements such as whether they comply with state laws and state bar ethics rules. Just as in the mega corporate cases, transparency in these mass tort cases is critical to fairness. My firm wants to help Survivors get the attention and assistance they deserve. Any compensation we receive would be a small fraction of the 40% they are being overcharged now!" I am interested in chatting with any victim Survivors who have expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which their claim has been handled by their current counsel. They can contact me with no obligation at:mailto:lfriedman@friedmanpartners.net

The Stay only applied to Trust operations. The plan is still under appeal and scheduled for an April 9 hearing before the Circuit court of appeals. No one expects the Circuit to rule before SCOTUS does since any ruling would quickly be reversed if SCOTUS disagrees in Purdue.

You'll get lots of diverse answers to this. Personally, I think someone with a Scouting experience would make a big difference. The issue then is how you find that person. It isn't exactly something you advertise for! Step one is to get Council Exec buy-in. Then, reach out to existing volunteers. I've found a surprising number of Survivors that are still involved with Scouting, mostly because they wanted to prevent what happened to them from being repeated. Many have now come forward because of the Bankruptcy. My dream, pie-in-the-sky as it may be, is that National will show some leadership and start developing a mechanism for Survivors to say "I'm one and I'd like to help the Council where I live" or at least promote how to do so. All of that said, like any volunteer position it's all about fit. The three camps of Survivors seem to be those who want Scouting to last, those who want Scouting to go away, and those who are agnostic about it. Having a Survivor who wants Scouting to continue, but is also willing to be critical when appropriate, is the sweet spot. Bottom line, just take action. Talk to your Council Executive. See if he has the guts to address this head-on, and if so, how? Just start doing something. What happened to me and thousands of others typically happened because people FAILED to take action.

I appreciate your honesty. BSA National has not required Local Councils to have a Survivor on each Council's Board. They have jusrt "recommended" it. I don't want to get into a debate over "cherry-picking" such requirements or the legality but I will offer this; if you are dedicated to the future of Scouting AND the safety of youth, DEMAND that your Council has a Survivor on its Board and do what you can to make sure that his/her voice is heard by the leaders of EVERY unit. As Santayana said " “Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.”

The third-party releases don't specifically relate to the insurers as I think you mean. Their liability still exists and Survivors would be able to sue the BSA/Insurers as before the bankruptcy. BUT, insurers are skilled at delaying things a VERY long time and there ARE limits to their insurance. There are a great number of "what ifs" at play here but a real possibility if the plan does not move forward are two things: 1.) local councils in States where the SOLs are favorable to Survivors will head toward bankruptcy to receive direct benefit of bankruptcy and 2, failing that there will be a run on courthouses by Survivors to ramp up their pending suits so that they can get a piece of an insurer's coverage before it's exhausted. I'm also struck by something that the TCC said long ago. It's important that all Survivors understand their retainer agreement with their attorney. A lot of the "mass tort" retainers explicitly state that the representation is in the FEDERAL bankruptcy ONLY. This means that you don't automatically have a pending suit against a Council or CO. As well, I don't know if section 108(c) of the bankruptcy code will apply if your SOL ended during the bankruptcy so you have 30 days afterward to file your lawsuit(s). Regardless, there's a VERY real possibility that some number of Survivors may find their calls unanswered because their retainer doesn't provide additional help or their "bad" State makes it worth nothing to an attorney. I'm a big believer in worrying about the things I have some control over. Its kept me somewhat sane for 47 years. So, while there are a LOT of "what ifs" present, including the possibility that SCOTUS will end this temporary stay or Purdue WILL be favorable to the BSA, Survivors deserve an answer from their attorneys NOW to the question "What will YOU do for me if the BSA bankruptcy is thrown out?"

DOJ/UST is probably happy. It was objecting to the plan until that vanished. Buchbinder.....I remember well the hearing when he fell asleep with his head back and pen in his mouth, while we all looked on in horror fearing he was about to swallow it.

There really isn't a "staff" outside of the trustee and her two colleagues overseeing regular claims and the IRO. All others are contracted professionals. So, while I suspect the three won't get paid in the interim there's absolutely no reason for the contracted professionals to be getting paid unless they're representing the Trust legally. Shame on the Trustee for not calling a Town Hall to explain all of this. I have to believe that any court would see that action as reasonable. My thoughts are now with the pre-se claimants who don't have an attorney to help with unpacking all of this.