MYCVAStory

SO....Judge Silverstein has ruled on the Coalition's Substantial Contribution Payment and has decided they get....NOTHING. That's right, they requested the BSA pay what, $20 million for the lawyers and professionals to represent it when it tried to strong-arm a settlement that the Survivors voted down!? The opinion is below and it's a doozy. Basically, "you were representing a constituency that the TCC already represented.", "You took credit for everything and that was objected to.", "You told the Court when you wanted to become a mediation party that the State Court Counsels who made up the Coalition would be paying its professional fees.", "Oh, and those personal injury attorneys are making 25-40% of their clients' awards so they can pay the bills of their professionals." So karma rules. Big Time. I'm no attorney but the ruling really reads like a "What not to do" for the next entity that tries to pull the same maneuver. 11652 12-05-23 Opinion.pdf

I found the materials on line that listed the individual cases and included the documents and I did read a fair number to get an idea of how serious the suit was and yes, it was serious but none of the cases I saw included any professionals as abusers (I certainly expect there were some, just not the ones I read) but mainly volunteer adults and in some cases adults that were not even registered but affiliated through the chartered partner or as a relative of a youth member. I would change my mind if you can direct me to the documentation that shows that BSA employees were the abusers in significant numbers. An organization is responsible for its volunteers and operations. Period. The law makes this clear. Go watch the Netflix Documentary and pay close attention to its former legal counsel who says essentially "The problem wasn't the BSA, it was a few bad apples in it." The lack of logic would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Oh, and those few bad apples, one was a EMPLOYED by the BSA and raped me. The bottom line is that I don't deny that victims should have had their day in court. Frankly, most of them could probably have gotten a much better settlement if they had sued their local councils individually. I believe there was one case settled for 5 million dollars, perhaps adjusted later to a lower amount but the point is, you are correct that individual judgements were quite substantial. "My day in court?" Hardly. The bankruptcy is PREVENTING my day in court. It PREVENTS discovery into knowing the names of colleagues of yours in the 1970's who may have known about or enabled my abuser. The bankruptcy denies the sort of restorative justice that allows me to confront them. And right now, it also prevents me from proceeding with my suit against my abuser because any award I receive may diminish my award from the Trust. So, the bankruptcy is shielding him too. My day in court? No, but I'm a lucky one compared to those of my brothers who the SOLs prevent any sort of suit from proceeding. For them their Council would be shielded and there is NO "day in court." The problem for me is I know literally dozens of individuals whose lives were vastly improved because of Scouting and the BSA because of this suit will now fail to reach 10's and even 100's of thousands of youth that could benefit from the values/teachings and trainings along with the positive mentors in Scouting. I ran an inner city program for over 6 years that served hundreds of Scouts and Cubs and that program no longer exists. The council no longer has the resources to even properly support its traditional unit programs let alone staff and support the Scoutreach program. There was no good outcome in this for anyone but the lawyers and law firms that brought the suit. Wow, "dozens" who were positively impacted. Tell that to the 82,000. That said, the vast majority of Survivors I've spoken to, and even the TCC for the ost part in its comments, have said "We don't care about the future of Scouting AS LONG AS KIDS ARE SAFE." Now, you claim that kids won't be positively impacted because of the bankruptcy? That's complete bull$hit. Survivors voted down the first plan and accepted a second one because for one reason the Youth Protection measures were significantly strengthened. THAT will improve lives. Units went out of business? That is NOT the fault of the bankruptcy, it's the fault of mismanagement by the Council, District, National and ultimately the local market for which Scouting was not attractive. How dare you blame current issues with the abuse that happened to many of us decades ago. As well, read the words of the new BSA CEO who claims membership will double. Seems to me that bankruptcy REORGANIZATION will help and not hurt. As far as no good outcome, it isn't over yet and Survivors will judge that when we see our actual awards and come to grips with what that means. So don't tell me what my outcome will be. That's for me to decide. Have law firms made money off of this? Sure, and I will pay my attorney a third of what I see, gladly. You get what you pay for and when billions are at stake you pay a lot. I'm sorry that you were a part of this dark chapter. I hope you find healing. God Bless While I appreciate the sentiment, I again urge you to do a VERY deep dive into this forum and others. The legal analysis and discussion of the FACTS of this bankruptcy are a real education. THAT is the best way to help Survivors. First and foremost, understand how we got here, what we've been through, and respect that some of us want to see the Scouts continue, some want them to go away, and some don't care, but we ALL want kids to be safe and for Society to learn from what happened to us so it doesn't happen again. Mods....I recognize that my tone is a bit aggressive but it's done respectfully to drive home a point or two and lend emotion to where it belongs.

I listened closely to the SCOTUS hearing today, and spoke to several attorneys after, all of whom have a history in reading SCOTUS "tea leaves." What made today a bit tricky were the underlying feelings/hatred for the Sacklers. Cutting through that though this dealt with the existing law and the inconsistency between Districts as to how they treat third-party releases. The media is portraying this as the Court having strong feelings both ways. It usually does because it queries attorneys on both sides of their arguments. My takeaway, and it was confirmed by the attorneys I spoke to, was that the Court was extremely deferential to the proponents of the Purdie plan and the use of the releases. Time and again the Justices raised the issue that the plan proponents overwhelmingly supported the releases, and the underlying theme was "then why should the Court disagree?" There were also questions regarding why the Court should step in when Congress can remedy this as it has with Asbestos claims specifically. There is never any way to completely predict SCOTUS decisions but those I spoke to predicted that in June the decision will be to uphold Purdue with some new direction to place some guardrails on cases going forward. In the case of the BSA, if the Appeals Court rules before SCOTUS does and denies the appeal, and then SCOTUS doesn't take it up (and why should it now) then the BSA Plan is set in stone and the settling insurers can pay up fully. Many predict that the Appellate will just wait until after SCOTUS, deny the appeal, and then the same outcome is reached. Again, no way to predict but if you were looking for a deeply doubtful SCOTUS that was looking for a reason to deny third-party releases then you didn't get it today. The full oral argument, and it's fascinating to listen to, is here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/listen-live-supreme-court-hears-arguments-on-legality-of-purdue-pharma-bankruptcy-plan

That's just a portion, but I beg you, please, spend some time and go WAY back to dig into the posts on this topic. While there are opposing views, there is a great deal to be learned from the posts. In the words of the late Senator Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Sent out from the Trustee retired Judge Houser: As I noted when we announced last week’s opening of the claims processing portal, the Scouting Settlement Trust is committed to transparency and open dialogue. Please join me and Claims Administrator Randi Ilyse Roth for the first of what will be periodic Town Halls on Tuesday, Aug. 29 at 8 p.m. EDT / 5 p.m. PDT. During this hourlong online session, Randi and I will introduce ourselves and discuss our roles as mandated by the approved Plan of Reorganization and the Trust Distribution Procedures. We will also provide a high-level overview of what claimants can expect from the process and we will take questions. You can register for the Town Hall at this link. All attendees must register prior to the Town Hall. Once you have registered, you will receive a confirmation email from PwC Webcasting with a link to the Town Hall. I look forward to speaking with you next Tuesday. Respectfully, Hon. Barbara J. Houser (Ret.) Trustee

These attorneys appealed to the Circuit, and the Circuit said "Nice try, you need to start with the District." They have previously objected at the District level and lost. This is another shot, this time a stay, on slightly different grounds.

Yes, but that doesn't mean claimants get any more money, or that it "should" run out. The Trust will make awards based on projections for all claimants. I'm probably not saying that correctly. Bottom line is that there isn't a financial advantage to being first in line. Also, I've heard some attorneys will slow-roll in case clients' abusers get reported by someone else first. That might bolster a claim. Fingers crossed the Trust is going to address questions like this.

This will be an excellent opportunity for the BSA to comment on the YP agreements in the bankruptcy settlement, announce the third-party it's going to hire to consult with, and not sound tooo defensive. We'll see. Oh, remember as well that there must be a mechanism so that the public can find out how many YP infractions have occurred in the past with a specific troop. That transparency will mean more than any back-and-forth over press releases. Only thing is this, all the transparency in the world won't help if children don't report their abuse. We know many do not.

Re the questionnaire being available... 1. FOUR months to submit, and not six. Attorneys with thousands of clients scrambling. 2. Check this interview from today's TODAY Show: https://www.today.com/video/former-boy-scouts-can-now-file-claims-in-sex-abuse-settlement-191094341570 If I were the Trustee I would NOT be telling Survivors that they will receive EXACTLY what was spelled out in the claims matrix. Regardless of ONE expert's opinion on this, and that opinion changed significantly during this process, my response would have been" "I am committed to seeing that Survivors get every penny available but we won't be able to best determine that until we understand fully the abuse and the number of Survivors that complete our questionnaire." If this moves forward AND doesn't turn out well financially she'd better prepare her answer to the question "You said that Survivors might get up to $2.7 million. Now it appears that none received that much. Why not and why did you make that statement?" Bottom line, this is all about scrambling the egg but the race is on to complete the questionnaires and move things along at the same time that the end result is still very much up in the air.

The Dumas and Vaughan attorneys, representing 69 clients, have filed for a Stay with the third district court of appeals. Unsurprisingly, Purdue and its issues, most notably third-party releases, was cited as cause. The requested Stay would of course pause things until the Supreme Court rules by next June. What a pause means though is not known right now and would be litigated. It could mean a pause on awards or a pause on all Trust activity, or somewhere in-between. Briefs objecting to the Stay motion will be due in October from Plan Supporters. One interesting issue is the requirement to provide a Bond while you get your stay. The Bond is also litigated and serves to protect the Trust against any losses during a Stay. If the court rules for a bond amount that D&V can't secure the Stay goes nowhere. Regardless of all of this, I haven't spoken to an attorney who practices in bankruptcy who expects the Court of Appeals to rule before the Supreme Court does. So....the post-Purdue pause expected Stay motion has been filed. This will heat up in late October or sooner if all briefs are filed beforehand, and Survivors will again wait to see whether it is granted, and if so, what gets paused. If you like the plan, stay worried. If you don't like the plan, know that there's an effort to have the Supreme Court's Purdue decision impact it.

Just reminded me.....Judge Silverstein still hasn't ruled on the Coalition's "Substantial Contribution" request for reimbursement by the BSA.

I understand that the third was from the "Tiger King" production crew but Covid hit and it didn't move forward. At least for now. I have a hunch the Netflix project was completed mid-bankruptcy so perhaps that's a story waiting to be told, someday.

So not having seen it you've formed an opinion huh? Sorry, but I fall into the camp of "Let's see what it has to say" before I form any sort of opinion. If it moves the needle at all to prevent what happened from re-occuring then good. As Santayana said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The fullest understanding of what happened and why will be the best way to step toward preventing its being repeated. I don't think you're black-hearted. I just hope ALL of us will do our best to watch with an open mind and consider its values and faults. Too much was secret for too long. This is a part of the reckoning.

Not as much as you think. While the BSA plan has gone effective it is still under appeal. So, it is reversible. One of the reasons the Trust is moving quickly is because sometimes a Court of Appeals will effectively say "The egg has been scrambled so any ruling we make shouldn't undo what has been done. In this case, the Court of Appeals is expected to NOT rule since it knows that the Supreme Court is addressing a key portion of the BSA plan, the third-party releases. I agree but remember that the settling insurers are NOT required to make a large portion of their payments until ALL appeals have been settled. So, the egg may not be as scrambled as it could be. The bottom line I believe is that this is still up in the air a bit more than most recognize. IF the appeals are denied tomorrow then ANY Supreme Court rulings later on won't matter. As well, should this be denied on appeals it CAN be paused if the objectors can get the Supreme Court to accept a writ doing so. Given its move to do so with Purdue, it very well might grant that as Purdue unfolds. Again....things are still in flux.

You point out well the problem with addressing mass torts through bankruptcy. It reduces every individual to one "class" and sacrifices individual rights for collective agreements. That's what the Supreme Court has to decide since to this point different circuits have ruled differently. It's a shame that the issue wasn't long resolved before now.

I appreciate the compliment. I'll take them when I can get them! Been on the phone today with legal people far smarter than I am. The consensus....if the Supreme Court thought Third-Party releases were such a good idea then it wouldn't have taken up the case. Not good for the BSA's plan. Also, this is not a "Sackler-Specific" issue. It's all about interpretation of the bankruptcy code regardless of whether a wealthy family is involved. Had it not been the Sacklers it could have been the BSA's case to push this to the Supreme Court. It's been brewing a long time. The only way this goes away for the BSA in the interim is if the objections are dropped completely. This would mean that the two attorneys (representing Guam Survivors and the other various survivors in several States) would need to have their clients compensated at a level so that their Survivors are much better off than other Survivors in this Bankruptcy AND the non-settling insurers who object also drop their objections. All of that isn't outside the realm of possibility but doesn't seem probable right now. Who knows. If I'm Century or The Hartford I'd be trying to rescue this. What I do know is that there is now a very real possibility that a lot of dominoes could fall next June. If the BSA's plan is DOA, it would need to re-enter Chapter 11 or throw in the towel and go Chapter 7, Local Councils are again exposed and in "open" states especially, Chapter 11 becomes their reality. It's all up in the air and shouldn't keep anyone from moving ahead when they can complete their questionnaire but a lot of BSA execs must be asking themselves "What did we just pay over $300 million for?" I pray this all works out but often in life timing is everything. The BSA declared bankruptcy too late and has been caught up in an aggressive, and frankly needed, push by the DOJ to get guidance on third-party releases. This bankruptcy plan is in real peril and Local Councils especially must be pretty damn worried right now.

Well, if anyone was looking for a sign that this would be moving along a little quicker, you didn't get it today. What this means is that the Supreme Court will hear the Purdue arguments in December. Then, they will probably rule by the end of June when they go on recess. Lately they've issued a lot of decisions at the very end of the term. Purdue is in the Second Circuit and the BSA Bankruptcy is in the Third Circuit. BUT, the third circuit will most likely wait for a Supreme Court ruling on this so that it has guidance. This guidance has been long overdue since different Circuits/Districts are more and less favorable to non-debtor third-party releases. That's also the reason the BSA went venue shopping and set up an entity in Delaware shortly before entering bankruptcy. So, the Trust can continue to operate, and even make "quick pay" payments, start issuing award decisions, and even making a portion of payments with the money it has on hand. BUT....there is NOT $2.7B in the bank because full payment from settling insurers isn't due until ALL appeals have been settled. As well, yes, should the Supreme Court strike down third-party releases before the Court of Appeals rules then the current bankruptcy plan blows up. IF, and no one expects it, the Court of Appeals rules and denies the objections then the plan does move forward. A supreme Court ruling can't undue that after the fact. That said, the objectors can file a writ to the Supreme Court to have this paused, as is the case with Purdue. The Supreme Court would decide whether it will accept the writ. Again, the Court of Appeals is expected to avoid that scenario by waiting to see how Purdue shakes out. Lots of "what-ifs." Survivors are awaiting the Trust making the claims questionnaire available. Then, there will be a six month window to complete it. Since that will expire before a Supreme Court ruling Survivors will have little choice but to complete the questionnaire and keep their fingers crossed. In the interim, at the most will be some tea-leaf reading at the end of this year when we hear the tenor of the questions being asked in Purdue. If you want the bankruptcy to blow up then today's pause gives you a bit more hope. If you want this to move forward then you have a little more reason to be concerned. Regardless, if you're a claimant then your task will still be to submit your questionnaire and get back to waiting. I can only shake my head in frustration over all of it. Again.

That's correct but..... The Trust is "effective" and operational but can only distribute the funds it has "in the bank" once awards are determined. Making that even more tricky is that without full payments from the settling insurers and others the Trust must also "hold back" funds in a safe manner to ensure that it doesn't run out of money. The TDP makes clear that awards will be determined on a "First in First Out" basis but that does NOT mean that Survivors who get their information submitted first will get some sort of full payment and deplete available funds for those who submit later. So, Survivors will receive an award notification, and determine if they will accept it without review, and then receive some portion of payment. As settlements are reached and funds distributed there will be additional payments. Now, whether Survivors are paid 100 cents on the dollar or some fraction of that will NOT be known until we know how many total Survivors submit their questionnaire when the Trust starts that process AND the final total of assets gained. The former will be known six months after the questionnaire goes live. The latter will be known after ALL litigation against non-settlers is over. I fear that some Survivors will get a letter stating their award and fall prey to unscrupulous "structured settlement" lenders or run up debt in anticipation of funds that might not appear. Hopefully the Trust will be transparent and communicate expectations.

Hartford and Century have made partial payment. Approximately 150 mil total if memory serves. It's in the confirmed plan. Optimistic assessment: Yes, the remainder must be paid after appeals but at least the Trust is funded to a level that allows it to start its work. Pessimistic assessment: Yes, let's hope that the plan isn't overturned on appeal at the same time the Trustee and Trust professionals burn through the initial contributions and become the only recipients of Trust money!.

I just wanted to say happy father's day to all the Survivors who tried and have tried their best, for so long, to be the best father they could be. The secrets you kept to protect the partners in your life you cared about, how hard you tried to protect your own children, and the hard work to not let anyone know what you were battling are all the stuff to be proud of even when you feel like you could have done more. Chin up.

To the best of my knowledge the scaling factors will be modified to the "current" State of the SOL landscape. That's also why there's a 12-month holding period for Survivors who anticipate changes for their State. Just my guess. But, a couple other points: 1. The Trust has a LOT of explaining to do regarding processes. The Judge has said she's going to answer questions. We'll see if she knows what that means. A claims processing company will be retained. It will get a lot of questions. For now we all have questions and the questionnaire is in development. THEN, there will be six months to get that in. So, there's a LOT of time for a LOT of issues to come up and hopefully be addressed. As well, there are 4,000 pro se claimants and the Trustee knows it so there will need to be assistance for unrepresented Survivors and those who aren't happy with their attorney communication. 2. And, a "Don't shoot the messenger" message. Remember that the Third Circuit still has this to be considered under appeal. All it did was refuse to continue the stay. That allowed the Trust to move forward since the plan allowed it after District Court affirmation. So, while the Trust is motivated to get things going ASAP since the Circuit will look at how much progress has been made and will consider that before overturning anything, that may take a year considering the Circuit's pace. Non-settling insurers are happy to wait. THEN, if they don't prevail they submit a writ to the Supreme Court to have it consider their position. Getting that accepted is anyone's guess and then the time to any hearing is also an unknown. What all of that means is that Survivors will get an award "letter" but any award "payments" are more than likely a multi-payment proposition that will take more than a year and the percentage of the award value is still a big unknown. Sorry, I know this didn't answer your question directly. It's just meant as some encouragement that a LOT of questions are to come AND there is a lot of time for this to still play out. What did I hear, 10,000 claimants over 70? I just want to be alive when this is done playing out. The fact that many Survivors haven't made it, and still more won't, is tragic and I hope some day that story becomes part of the narrative that changes how the bankruptcy laws are being used to address what happened to us.

Agreed. The reality is right now anyone covering this, and the BSA as well, have only the BSA's "expert" Dr. Bates and his report to point to. The reality will only be known when checks start hitting mailboxes. Even then, that will only be part of the story. There are still non-settling insurers and the LDS to factor in. So, that 100% comment we see will be replaced by reality. And if the Bates prediction isn't correct? Well, I'm looking forward to his explaining that because there will be eyes on this for a very long time and I suspect the story of this bankruptcy and its effect on Survivors is a long way from being over or filmmakers/documentarians/journalists losing interest.

The Trust may now engage in settlement discussions AND litigation against the non-settlers. There are years when Survivors have claims, and the covering insurers didn't settle, that the Trust will now allow to "go to court." There's a formula in the settlement agreement discussing how that works if there is a positive outcome. But, the Trust still acts as a gatekeeper so the best examples of "slam dunk" cases will move forward. The STAC has a hand in that determination. The strategy is that a handful of verdicts against an insurer will be good motivation for it to settle and stop the bleeding. The Trust will employ insurance litigation experts with all of this. Remember that there are not only primary insurers in a given year but also "excess" insurance. It's complicated and will see insurers do what they do best. Delay.

Sorry....yes, plan may now go effective. Fat fingers.

Circuit has denied stay. Plan may now go effective!