MYCVAStory

One other thing discussed last night that Kosnoff hasn't mentioned. The TCC has posted a statement on mental health to include low-cost or free options for counseling. It's at TCCBSA.COM There are others but this is a start if you need help. It's a good reminder when attorneys start screaming about money that there's real hurt out there that money can't fix and at least the TCC is trying to help that too.

Good description of his warped view of #1. When the Town Hall video is posted at tccbsa.com people should watch it and decide for themselves whether the two survivors look and act like guys who are the least bit concerned with making attorneys rich. I'm working now on getting one to do an "AMA" day on this forum when possible. The problem is that the TCC is bound by mediation confidentiality and limited on what it can say. That might frustrate people here who have been paying close attention.

ABSOLUTELY untrue. Spoke to the TCC...they have NOT seen a new plan and are preparing for it as well as other options. THIS is an example of Kosnoff really working against the interest of ALL survivors to try and control the narrative for some reason. Disgusting. The TCC made it clear it is fighting and will continue to do so. an dis trying to say what it can while under mediation confidentiality. It's a shame someone not included is damaging the hope of survivors. Shame.

I recognize the challenge. Perhaps we're in the 7th inning stretch (he says optimistically) and when more definitive developments occur we'll be able to focus upon them. The disclosure statement will produce that focus as will a plan or plans.

Perhaps I'm dense or over-reading this but I've found this recent split confusing. The title says "bankruptcy" but how that connects to YP, moral vs legal, and the future of scouting seem at times connected and at others disconnected. Consider this one vote for starting a new thread after the BSA files a new plan to put things on a less confusing track.

Friendly reminder below. I suspect that if the BSA releases its next plan soon it will produce a TCC Town Hall right after: NOTICE OF VIRTUAL TOWN HALL MEETINGS HOSTED BY THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF BOY SCOUT ABUSE SURVIVORS The next TCC Town Hall will be held on Thursday September 9, 2021, at 5pm PDT/8pm EDT. Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/87520804555 (no registration required) or Join by phone: 888-788-0099, meeting id 875 2080 4555

Well....the issue there is that many attorneys who deal with mass torts have retainer agreements that specify they will represent clients ONLY in the federal bankruptcy court, and not in State court (where it costs money to file a case). The TCC has been begging claimants to ask their attorneys if cases have been filed in State court since that number in NY for example is far lower than the number of BSA claims. So, if an injunction goes away in a State that was open but now the window has closed there will be victims calling attorneys and being told "Sorry, our agreement said FEDERAL court only." If anyone reads this and is asking themselves "I wonder if my State court case can or should or has been filed....CONTACT YOUR ATTORNEY if you have one!

I am REALLY sorry to hear you say this. If you're involved get more involved. Speak out. Be the change you want to see. Any volunteer-driven organization MUST be driven by volunteers if change is going to come about. And if none of that is possible or works or you're ostracized, go find another organization where you and 100K can make a difference. The world needs both.

Growth numbers must be kept in perspective. When you go from next to nothing to something the growth can seem astronomical. Is this a competitor for traditional scouting? Yes. Threat. Not broadly.

As well, many many thanks. We may not always agree but at a time when people "tune in" to only the media that support their existing opinions, it's wonderful to read opposing sides and evaluate our own beliefs. One more vote for trying to keep this civil and also recognizing how hard that is when the subject touches us all so deeply.

Yeah, that's clear. Does that make 1/3 or 2/3 of the attorneys representing a client are also Coalition members? How many of those clients replied to the Coalition's solicitation that the COALITION represents them and produced the coalition's 18,000 affirmative signatures?

NO judge in a bankruptcy has ever forced a cramdown on victims. Now, if it gets to a point or two from 2/3 then perhaps but not much more than that. As well, sexual abuse bankruptcy decisions have seen 90% agreement as a standard from judges because they want that much agreement. The judge is realistic and won't have that high a standard but cramming down a decision when half a group disagrees would be unprecedented. That might also be the reason why she is so interested in how claims were generated and whether they should turn into votes.

Apologies....playing catch-up on a busy day!

EVERY victim should be a proponent of a robust method of validating claims and weeding out any that were generated fraudulently or exaggerated. Yes, there are people in this world who go from one class action to the next, fill out a form, and take their chances. Check this: https://topclassactions.com/category/lawsuit-settlements/open-lawsuit-settlements/ But consider something else, lets make believe you have a large number of clients and then some other attorneys show up and through marketing put together their own large number or amass a larger number than yours. All of a sudden your position is diminished. While I appreciate any attorney wanting to weed out fraud lets remember that while victims are aided so too is that attorney when his/her position is enhanced. Today was another day. Points were made and negotiations will continue. The BSA will probably file another plan Wednesday or Thursday. Then, let's see who supports it and whether any group is willing to take the money and move on to the detriment of victims. Oh, and don't forget, the BSA is VERY motivated to settle with the Hartford because if they don't they'll be the subject of an administrative claim because they backed out of the original deal.

I'm not so sure I would lump those three together. The TCC is FAR less motivated to settle for a fraction of what the Hartford owes.

On this we agree and I think you've made the point regarding the difference between equity and equality and the problem with bankruptcy dealing with sexual abuse. Equality would mean that everyone gets the same settlement regardless of SOL for each "category" and other factors. Equity though is connected to the BUSINESS of bankruptcy and the reality that each claimant became a piece of data related to value prior to bankruptcy. Then, factor in that the pool of available funds is limited from the debtor and the insurers NUMBER ONE defense is that some claims are worth less because of the SOLs and the equity, or for many of us what is seen as inequity, comes into focus. Parties are negotiating AND trying to come up with the right numbers. If that isn't reached I hope the TCC will say so and object, and hopefully the Coalition will also, and who knows even K wil set aside his personal attacks on Jim Stang and support the victims who make up the TCC. Or, will some jump at lowball number(s) when they hear the mantra "We want to put money in the hands of victims ASAP" as they smile knowing that their judge-denied bills will have a chance of getting paid sooner. It's 3-D chess and one of those dimensions is time. You mentioned the money that was available with Asbestos. Nice job referencing that but all should remember two things. One, that dealt with physical damages that were more easily validated and calculated pre-settlement, and two, it has taken years and years. Victims should think about what they can stomach but also for how long. Some may be in it for the long-haul. Many might not want to wait around for 5-7 years until all the insurance is litigated, appealed, and litigated some more as more of the money available to victims goes to more attorneys. Again, all should remember that this is about the "equity" from a business view and the value of everyone's money over time. It all makes me sick and as I write this I'm sipping tea with beet powder in it hoping that'll pull my blood pressure down since the meds were doing more harm than good. But, it's reality. But hey, we're a day closer to some settlement at least!

Protect the BSA or make sure EVERY victim knows this is the time to file a claim?

What about victims? What about all of those who will bankrupt their LCs or have NO path forward. What happens when those in line first exhaust the insurance?

What's your problem? There was a Town Hall recently AND another one is advertised for 9/9. They are postponed when it makes more sense but check www.tccbsa.com for the next one.

Your comments border on the disgusting. The BSA from the beginning wanted blanket immunity and it was the TCC that objected to that for LCs.

Context is needed. The BSA called up Stang and several attorneys pre-bankruptcy to see if any agreement could be reached. He was paid esentially as a mediator and someone with the kind of experience to make realistic what the BSA would be facing. It went nowhere fast. If he were biased then he would ave pushed for a bad settlement. He did not. As well, I spoke to someone in the TCC. BEFORE he was retained he made clear his previous involvement and that it was as an adversary to the BSA and supporter of victims.

Coming attraction for Monday should be a new face and voice taking on the insurers; Kirk Pasich the TCC's insurance coverage professional: https://pasichllp.com/attorney/kirk-pasich/ Insurers hate him. Google his name and check the news. Hopefully he'll get a word in edge-wise. This judge likes letting people go one and on and on and.....

They shouldn't. They absolutely shouldn't. But, the debtor won't support the months and more it would take for complete validation. That's why work continues to remove duplicates and more importantly, figure out what attorney is representing each claimant. Sadly, this is why bankruptcy is the WORST mechanism for dealing with sexual abuse claims.

Of course you would, and the TCC has said that it believes in a robust vetting system. But, this comes down to a judge and whether she is willing to do the right thing or the expeditious thing.

Alas, the sheer volume and number prevents that. As well, I suspect there are attorneys who do NOT want their claims vetted. Why, because that increases the chance that their clients' claims will be denied. Look at it from the Coalition's standpoint. If you control a trust, if the judge isn't allowing your fees, if you can cut deals with insurers that will see their NOT objecting to those fees, then who cares where the money goes as long as you GET YOUR 40%. I hope I'm wrong but if there's word in the next week, on the heels of the RSA expiring and the judge slapping down their fee argument, then you know the Coalition is trying to get their money NOW to pay their bills and don't expect rigorous validation. Why bother when the faster we can "Get money into the hands of victims" the faster we can get our bills paid.