MYCVAStory

If that were to happen then consider this, the States where there are open SOLs would allow cases to proceed. Awards would be given to those who prevail, insurers would appeal indefinitely, but the real issue would be settlements. When the open States wipe out all the exposure for victims in "closed" States there would be ZERO left if/when States change their SOLs. Oh, and the same thing would happen to cases in open States that don't get settled in time before policy limits are reached. The mission of the Trust is to try and secure the most possible and distribute it "equitably." I Know the "equity" part is a third-rail. I'm not debating that. It's just important to understand at this point the impact of letting anyone sue who they want.

PLEASE do not accept that. The TCC SPECIFICALLY said that their analysis was not part of mediation and did not share the dashboards as part of it. The TCC spoke directly to the LCs outside of mediation via Zoom and information seen as confidential was designated by the individual LC. Each LC is in control of their dashboard and can disclose what it wants. If the LC believes that the TCC dashboard is incorrect then now is the time to make that case. If all it wants to do is hide behind some sort of NDA or mediation confidentiality that doesn't exist then perhaps the LC doesn't understand their "right" to release data or it has its own reasons for not doing so. So, the question to ask first is "Do you have something in writing from National or another entity that says that our LC's dashboard falls under mediation confidentiality because the TCC said previously that it didn't." Gotta say, it's always interesting when an entity cries poor, but then hesitates to prove it.

It's good that you're dubious of all of it. Every claimant should be until they are comfortable. It should make for a good discussion with your attorney since they're getting paid to represent and interpret.

As suggested, there would probably be a pre-arranged negotiation so that the selected case would pay back to the Trust a significant percentage so that it's a win-win. The claimant if they prevail receives an amount closer to the suggested "value" and other claimants via the trust will share in the trust's "percentage."

It can be confusing. I'll try to overly simplify it. A Victims Trust will take possession of the insurance policies. Basically, the BSA "assigns" them. Then, the trust allows some small number of "slam dunk" claims to go to court with much coordination. This will include a negotiated percentage of any award going to the trust so that it doesn't dilute coverage limits for remaining victims. Theoretically these claims will win in court and the insurers will then be liable for paying. String together enough of these and the insurers will want to settle to stop the bleeding. What this judge has displayed doubt on is the ultimate binding nature of the values that have been assigned and forcing the insurers to agree. Most certainly the insurers will put up a legal fight against ANY of this because they know that time is on their side. The longer any claimant waits for a settlement the less they tend to accept. This is also why they will demand a lot of verification and press their "bogus claim" arguments. This is all nothing new and has been played out in asbestos, airbags and lots of other mass tort issues. Victims need to understand that the Trust, led by the managing trustee, will take the fight to the insurers. Couple things....it will take time and the TCC has shared that there will be victim representation on a committee giving input to the committee. I also suspect that if a plan is approved the TCC will continue its Town Halls to explain in detail how the Trust will work and then the Trust will continue its own communication. I wish any of this would be settled quickly for us, victim or not. But, the only way that would happen is if the TCC and Coalition had somehow negotiated for the kind of lowball offer that the insurers would have responded to with "Who should we make teh check out to?"

So, the LC, which like all the others has expressed its financial and corporate independence consistently, has received a financial analysis from an outside source and doesn't want to share it with its members? Seems to me it would be happy to if the analysis was incorrect and too optimistic. Then again, bad news is always best kept secret isn't it. NOW is the time for everyone connected to the BSA to be screaming for transparency. The lack of it has put us all in this position and must end. Ask to see this "NDA."

Ask to see the TCC detailed analysis of your LCs finances. All LCs have received theirs. Might make for an interesting discussion.

I hope that as a part of this bloodletting every LC will start to ask more questions and press their Execs for answers. LCs need to be change agents. With a nod to Santayana, anyone who wants to believe that history doesn't repeat itself truly is headed for seeing it repeated. What will it cost next time?

Absolutely true. A couple things to consider are how this is getting communicated and the level of knowledge of the attorneys. The "headline" that was easy to write just divided the amount of the settlement by 82,000 and said "Victims to get...." That should have been accompanied by an asterisk that said "*For Now" The TCC has been saying all along that it's been trying to wrench all it could out of the BSA, LCs, Chartering Orgs and Insurance companies. Now the BSA and LC part of that equation has been addressed. What has to be better understood though will be the fight of a victim's trust (which we've been told will still have Victim representation) and it going after insurance. PURELY hypothetical so lets not put any down payments on anything, if the insurers have 100 Billion in exposure over the years then less than 1% of this has been settled. Call it 50 Billion and we're less than 2%. What I think the narrative is going to turn to very soon is going to be the insurance fight. That was what the Town Hall was discussing, the trust sending some cases out to start inflicting pain on the insurers so they will settle. As well, if I'm insurer #1 and settle for X dollars when my exposure was known then I've set the "standard" for other insurers to follow. That was the problem with the Hartford deal. It was SO low that it was going to set up other insurers for similar lowball settlements. Now, the insures know the TCC and Coalition aren't going to take quick laughingly low settlements. The bad news though is that this will take time and the insurers know it so they'll try to drag it out and cause more pain. Only time will tell. Bottom line though is that the ABSOLUTE LARGEST pot of money is with the insurers and always has been. They know it and their crying that they've been excluded is pretty funny. As the Hartford deal shows, they weren't excluded, some were just smart enough to know that a lowball "deal" was doomed to failure. One other thing to consider is that there are attorneys who have been very involved with this bankruptcy, some who have worked hard to stay in the loop, and some who read the same headlines as us. The media can always find opposing views and the most angry make for good copy. While he does represent a lot of clients in some way Kosnoff's views from the beginning have been under the heading of "good copy." His insistence that the BSA be burned down and other invective makes for good tweets and quotes but was NEVER the goal or realistic outcome of this bankruptcy. What we need to do now if we were victims is catch our breath. The money from the BSA and LCs was NEVER going to be enough. Beyond no number ever being enough the BSA is a financially struggling operation with declining numbers that may rebound but we have to deal with today's reality. The LCs are a part but their independence and while subject to "piercing the corporate veil" in court to force greater payments was an option it's time-consuming (like years) risky, and may have left some victims with NO payment from an LC in a bad SOL State or with little money. Almost a billion dollars has been wrenched out of the BSA and LCs. While not enough it's a start and the Victim's Trust will now have the most important piece of all of this, the rights to the insurance policies. Take a breath, it's been 16 months since the start of the bankruptcy and unless you take the "opt out" payment it's going to be a while until the insurers cough up what's owed. All of us want what's owed us and the years back that were taken from us. Now's the time to stay positive and at least be happy that the headline wasn't "BSA and Insurers come to 2 Billion Dollar global settlement." Check this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57692428 Now the fight will be taken to the insurers who were the beneficieries of our being members of the BSA and we can all prove that the "bogus claim" argument is just that, bogus. I for one am looking forward to the "public" annual meetings of the insurers, and change in focus for the media, when questions will be asked. Take a deep breath and strap in. There's much more work to be done but like most efforts the harder the work the greater the payoff.

Well....hate to throw cold water but... 1. It was a deal pending a approval of a larger plan AND the court regardless would needed to agree that it met the best interest test. The lowball offer by the Hartford and the BSA's attempt to show that it was part of "their" deal to all survivor made that unlikely from the jump. 2. The judge will say "Go deal with that later." 3. That's how bankruptcy works. People enter a class and get a vote. And....the reason bankruptcy isn't the place for sexual abuse. 4. Bankruptcy law allows for this exact channeling. 5. While the Trustee certainly has an opinion the judge often considers it but doesn't pay much attention if the major parties and claimants are ok with the agreement. 6. Then it's likely that a specific LC might not receive the injunction or their "share" will be made up elsewhere or they will have their own promissory note. Certainly if enough LCs disagree this could be derailed but there's every indication that the Execs of these LCs are supportive of keeping their jobs in the future. 7. Could happen but remember that attorneys by right have the ability to approve or disapprove the agreement and sign for their clients unless advised otherwise. The TCC has said that it will publish an FAQ AND continue town halls to educate so that victims may make their best decision. Again, hate to throw cold water but while there are paths that could cause this to derail some are far less likely than others. We all need to remember too that those on this forum are VERY engaged and far from the "typical" claimant. The next month or two shall be interesting.

Well....because bankruptcy law allows "non-debtor" entities to receive "non-consensual" releases from a class if in the eye of the court the relief provided (in this case by the LCs) is significant enough to get the debtor out of bankruptcy, and of course the class accepts it. That's reason #72 why bankruptcy law was NEVER designed to address sexual assault issues.

Some will be happy to take the $3500 and move on. That decision should be respected and unfortunately it might be $3500 more than they had a path to seeing before this. Should it be more. Of course. But in relation to number two, every victim and party to this should demand that only validated claims receive awards. The TCC has made it clear that a dollar given to a bogus claim is a dollar that can't be shared among those that are real. That deserves review. How that's done will be the work of the Trustee. Victims should at least take some solace knowing that there are professionals that specialize in this. Because primarily of the Catholic Church bankruptcy there are procedures for validating individual claims. The Trust should be spelling this out. Will it mean more work and more wounds opened? Unfortunately yes. But, it isn't realistic to expect a check in the mail simply by filling out a form. This IS also one of those areas where some victims, maybe many, will say My attorney earned their money" when they are tasked with submitting documentation. Do I want to deal with all of this and relive what happened? Of course not. But I accept that I owe it to every other victim to provide appropriate documentation to share in whatever money is available. For some that will be easy. For others VERY hard for a lot of reasons. But, until we have a lie detector that's fool-proof there's little alternative.

Because if you have thousands of clients and they receive relatively small amounts each it adds up and becomes a large amount for you. Welcome to the world of Mass Tort Attorneys. Asbestos yesterday, BSA abuse today, Something else tomorrow. All those infomercials urging victims to come forward work. I hope that the thousands of clients who now have thousands of questions about their individual cases are now getting their calls and email returned. The TCC's professionals represents that class and not individuals. As they commented last night they will produce an FAQ soon but if a victim has an individual question they need to ask their individual attorney, For some, given the number of clients, that might be difficult.

They are protected because they agreed to contribute. Essentially they have "bought" their permanent injunction. Some attorneys have said they will object to this and the US Trustee will weigh in but at the end of teh day Bankruptcy Judges lean toward being able to say "If the vast majority of the parties agree this is a good idea who am I to disagree?" Then, the judge can kick it to a higher court if that's where anyone wants to go. The insurers are already eyeing that.

This is an important issue to understand. If the agreement essentially said Anyone who wants to opt out can do so" it would produce an Oklahoma-style land rush on cases. The effect of that would be to eliminate insurance proceeds from all but the cases that make it to judgement. Essentially, the available proceeds will run out and leave victims with NO coverage. The trust will now determine which cases are "slam dunks" and allow them to proceed. THAT will place pressure on insurers. They WILL come to the table to stop the bleeding. As well, the trust will more than likely negotiate with those cases so that they will provide a percentage of any award back to the trust. That's a win-win.

That's for criminal prosecution. Civil isn't the same. Here's a great tracker from the Childusa site: https://childusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-SOL-Tracker.pdf

All docs to be linked via TCCBSA.COM for those who don't want to deal with the Omni site.

Yes, this has been the stated goal of the TCC since the beginning. Going forward, transparency for the public AND publication of those who are a danger to the community. Plus 100 mil promissory note.

I have a hunch you're going to hear in the Town Hall meeting tonight how the TCC has addressed its YP concerns for change moving forward.

I disagree. What they said, and it showed, was that they have been working hard on this, had hoped to say more, but because of mediation confidentiality had to wait a bit more before getting into details. Failed mediation would have meant no agreement was near. That wasn't the message. At this point all parties have to wait for the BSA's filings. The TCC said it hope that would be today but asked for patience.

Yes. It basically means the parties are saying "We agree with this in principal and with the critical items. Now we'll work on getting it ready for a vote." It does NOT mean that it's a done deal however. Parties including insurers can still object.

Apparently the TCCBSA website mixed up the day/date for the next Town Hall. It's been corrected and is Wednesday this month: 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 Wednesday, June 30, 2021, at 5pm PDT/8pm EDT. Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/88993247600 (no registration required) or Join by phone: 888-788-0099, meeting id 889 9324 7600 To be discussed: Status of Boy Scouts disclosure statement Status of negotiations with the Boy Scouts, local councils, chartered organizations, and insurers Other motions pending before the bankruptcy court The plan confirmation process

I'm the wrong guy to ask for predictions. I'm still waiting for my stock in Betamax, Enron, and Delorean Auto to come back.

The TCC has stated that this is a highly personal decision based upon many factors. In States where victims may pursue cases against their abuser because the Statute allows it it's critical to have a case filed before any deadline AND an attorney specializing in abuse cases. As well, if this goes to a trust to be sorted out for some the complexity may necessitate having legal expertise. Again, it depends on the individual AND trust distribution plan. I'll reserve comment on what is an "appropriate" fee or percentage to pay and only say that ALL financial agreements between clients and attorneys are negotiable. What's "standard" is only so as long as it's accepted. The most important point to all of this is that the TCC's attorneys/professionals and Coalition's counterparts represent those entities and NOT individual claimants. Individual claimants MUST retain an attorney if they so choose for their individual situations.

FYI...Town Hall: 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, June 30, 2021, at 5pm PDT/8pm EDT. Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/88993247600 (no registration required) or Join by phone: 888-788-0099, meeting id 889 9324 7600 To be discussed: Status of Boy Scouts disclosure statement Status of negotiations with the Boy Scouts, local councils, chartered organizations, and insurers Other motions pending before the bankruptcy court The plan confirmation process