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.

The Trust will go into administrative "mothballs" with no money disbursed. Look for the Trust to make a statement soon. Then, we will all wait for Purdue to be decided before June ends. No one knows if the Stay is a sign of good news or bad down the road. Those who say one or the other are guessing. In the meantime, just some perspective, 86% of the almost 60,000 voting Survivors approved the BSA plan and the TWO attorneys who filed for the Stay represent .2% (that's one/fifth of ONE percent) of all Survivors. In the case of Lujan from Guam, that attorney already successfully negotiated awards for her Survivors from the Catholic Church. So while she enjoys her percentage of that, Survivors in the BSA Bankruptcy now see theirs on hold. Regardless of the outcome of all of this, today is a BAD day for Survivors who have waited for a glimmer of hope. Me, I filed my questionnaire yesterday. 24 hours later I now feel worse off.

In case any Survivors haven't heard....from the Trust: The Trust has now established a deadline for submission of Trust (“Matrix”) Claims Questionnaires. You must submit your Trust (“Matrix”) Claims Questionnaire and supporting documentation to the Trust by May 31, 2024. If you can submit these documents sooner, please do so as claims are reviewed on a first-in-first-out (“FIFO”) basis. Failure to submit a completed and signed Claims Questionnaire by this date will result in the denial of the Claim. If you have any questions or need help completing your questionnaire, please contact us at info@scoutingsettlementtrust.com.

For what it's worth, I compliment you so much for having the strength to come forward at that age. That's not typical and I worry about all the Survivors who someday will look back and add their silence, when the opposite was impossible, to the list of regrets. You encapsulated the feelings of many. The frustration, the inequity, the reality that bankruptcy is an ugly business and far from justice. Stay strong and know others gain strength from yours. To all those who now look forward to the BSA "moving on", I do get that and it's a reason that it declared bankruptcy. For now, our laws allow organizations to wipe the slate clean-ish and start anew. For the Survivors though, please understand that there are those who have shown Eagle1970's strength, those who summoned it up as a result of the bankruptcy, those who had the bankruptcy terminate their lawsuits, those who have passed away during all of this, and those who couldn't find the strength to come forward. None of those Survivors gets to start anew but most hope the BSA will learn and make the changes necessary to keep children safe.

Let me break this down: 1. No, every case is not documented in BSA files. To those who understand what it means to being a Survivor that is no surprise. The age of coming forward, if at all, is well into middle-age. Again, if at all. On top of that, if you are in a State where the SOLs do not allow for a lawsuit to be filed you have even less motivation. For some, coming forward is part of their healing. For others, burying this deeper is how they keep control in some way. 2. The bankruptcy produced an environment of "now or never" when it comes to admitting what happened to a Survivor. I hear from younger Survivors all the time that were it not for the bankruptcy they would have stayed quiet until they were ready, if ever. That is important because when I hear "The mass tort attorneys "produced' all these claims and many are bogus" I have to remind people that we will never know the number of younger Survivors who were not mentally prepared to come forward. I spoke to a Survivor last week in that situation. His comment was essentially "I just started a career and I'm dating someone that is becoming serious. I don't want to let my baggage screw any of that up so I didn't file a claim." How many like that are there? That's another number we will never know but we must recognize that this process set a time limit that essentially forced many to come forward long before they were ready, or in what I suspect were a large number of instances, not come forward at all. 3. While you might hope that Survivors can "Get on with life", I beg you, please stop saying that. It is so hurtful to suggest that this process will somehow provide a degree of resolution that will make people move on. What the bankruptcy resolves is Survivors' LEGAL path against some entities. I have yet to speak to a Survivor who has said that the Bankruptcy will let them move on. Being a Survivor for most is a lifetime sentence and many are now being re-traumatized with the waiting, loss of a legal path, and what I suspect will be payments far below the matrix value. In fast, a Wall Street Journal article this week blasting the mass tort industry had two "experts" predicting that a BSA claim with a matrix value of $1.2 million would see an actual award of $30,000. You want to be re-traumatized, well, there you go, and that isn't something you shake and get on with your life very easily. Oh, and that 30K prediction? Well, I reached out to one of the authors and asked where he came up with that number. His response, "It was an educated guess." GUESS? When people think so little of Survivors that they make guesses that will traumatize many, it's just another day of not "moving on." Please, have your hopes for the BSA but stop thinking that the vast majority of Survivors are going to "get on with their life."

Perhaps, but I've been struck by the number of professionals who said prior to the claims coming in "We don't have a problem" and then were shocked down the road when they saw otherwise. This is also a matter of scope that must take into account the number of youth served. Logically the more youth served the greater the chance for abuse. This is especially true for youth-on-youth abuse. Again though, it is/was a problem for all Councils. The summary of claims attached lists the Councils on the claim forms. NOTE: 38,000 Survivors did NOT indicate their Council at the time of filing a claim. I suspect that number will go down significantly when Survivors file their questionnaires with the Trust, and have the time to collect all their pertinent data. As well, I hope the Trust will release asummary at some point so this is all better understood. While Scouting won't want the reminder, it's critical that Society understand the full scope of what happened and where. Only then can we be assured that data-driven decisions are attempting to address the issues correctly. BSA Summary of Sexual Abuse Claims(1).pdf

No. All the Appellate Court said essentially was "We aren't going to dismiss the appeal at this point, we'll hear it." As well, the Trust is proceeding as previously because a confirmed plan is in place and has not been stayed. If anything, the Trust with each day will be working to make a stronger mootness case that the plan is far enough along. So while I'm sure the BSA wanted the appeal tossed without comment it wasn't unexpected that it would be heard. Interestingly, there are rumblings that SCOTUS will make its Purdue Pharma decision before its term ends in June, perhaps in April. If so, there's less chance that the Appellate Court will act without SCOTUS guidance. So....business as usual. Fill out your questionnaires and....wait. And if you live in a State where Statutes allow a suit to proceed, make sure you have a good attorney who is ready to pounce IF the national bankruptcy fails and the injunction against the Local Councils goes poof. Note to a LOT of Survivors, check your attorney retainer agreement. Many Many mass tort attorneys make it clear that they represent you in the NATIONAL bankruptcy and not in State cases against a local council.

In a nutshell, where we are right now: 1. A couple different attorneys representing a few hundred Survivors (and I think the non-settling insurers) are pushing an appeal that now rests with the appellate court. One of those attorneys represents clients in Guam that already are getting settlement dollars as agreed upon by the Catholic Diocese there in a separate bankruptcy. 2. Supreme Court has taken up the issue of non-consensual third-party releases via the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy that included the Sackler family as recipients of releases in exchange for their financial contribution. This is the same bankruptcy vehicle employed in the BSA bankruptcy by the Local Councils in exchange for their contribution. 3. While the appellate court could rule on the BSA plan, most court watchers think it will wait to see what the Supreme Court rules; expected in June. Then again, see #4 below. FWIW, Long-time Bankruptcy professionals I have spoken to were struck by the seeming support for releases during oral arguments with several judges saying essentially "Why should we disagree with a plan that was approved overwhelmingly?" Posted to his X/Twitter Attorney Kosnoff said "I now do a QB Joe Namath 1968 “I GUARANTEE”that SCOTUS holds nonconsensual third party releases unlawful & unconstitutional taking of prop’y. Sayonara BSA, Coalition, TCC & your “Plan”. Sharing both of the preceding so when we look back we can judge for ourselves. 4. In the meantime, the Survivors Trust is trying to do its business expeditiously because the courts have found that appeals are not granted because of the principle of "Equitable Mootness." Essentially, this means thatthe plan is too far along to unwind. Equitable Mootness is not without controversy and some believe it will be the next baknruptcy issue taken up by the SCOTUS. 5. So how does the plan go final and there's no going back? Today, the appellate court can decline the appeal and SCOTUS refuses a writ to have it considered by them. Or in June, when SCOTUS allows third-party releases in Purdue, the Appellate court then refuses the appeal and SCOTUS doesn't take the case. Obviously, the appellate court confirming an objection would stay the plan in the meantime and the BSA would then be arguing in the Supreme Court but there seems to be little belief that's going to happen since the Purdue case was identical. 6. In the meantime, the Trust works away to do its business. That said, while there is a 2/16/24 deadline for ponying up the first 10K to go under the IRO NO deadline has been set for Survivors to file their questionnaires and the Trustee has said that there will be at least FOUR months notice. So don't hold your breath for a check in the mail. How much is this costing in the meantime? We'll see when financial statements are filed by the Trust. The Trustee gets 100K a month I believe. Insert your own comment here about how that's appropriate for a CEO of a multi-billion dollar organization, or, just shake your head in disbelief and add it to the list of "My next career." Hope this helps. Omni still carries the docket for the case and publishes all correspondence and documents. https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/?clientId=3552

Tell me, what Councils did you work in? I ask because you make it sound as if there were no issues under your watch. I'd love to know which Councils didn't have a problem. As well, I wouldn't crow too much about being on the inside during the 70's through 90's. Claims from that period were at their highest. Below is the summary of claims. You might want to read it. As well, just a friendly reminder to all, like him of not, Michael Johnson stated that HALF of the YP reports he read were youth on youth. We seem to forget that when we talk about all the safeguards in place. At any rate, about your statement "Sorry to break your balloon but I was a BSA employee and I know how active the BSA was over 4 decades ago in addressing this problem. " Well, take a look at the file below. regardless of how active the BSA was in "addressing" the problem, I have news for you, it failed. Don't tell me about how the BSA's rates of abuse are no worse than the general public. Our parents weren't getting assurances from the general public that their kids were safe. Don't tell me that training existed. The Scouts own records show that half of registered leaders didn't take YP training. Don't tell me the YP training is foolproof now. I sat for it last year and could skip ahead to get my "certificate" without completing all modules. I could go one. Active or not, look at the attached claims summary AND remember that with men on average coming forward well into middle-age the numbers for the past three decades might be artificially low. I won't argue that the BSA didn't try. It did, and it failed. BSA Summary of Sexual Abuse Claims.pdf

The whole "Being offended is a choice" is an interesting issue. This piece is food for thought: https://thirdhour.org/blog/life/being-offended-is-a-choice-as-cop-out/ For Survivors, it often isn't a choice. For many, working on making that better is a lifetime sentence.

Tell the 10,000 Survivor claimants since then that the abuse cases going back so long ago should make them feel better? If anything, the fact that the BSA had such a long history of abuse AND knew enough to fix it should sting even more for those who were abused more recently. As far as lawsuits, they remain against the abuser and every day I want mine to remember that the day is approaching when mine will commence. What doesn't remain, are the lawsuits against any enablers within the BSA. Time will tell whether that's a topic the DOJ will be looking into.