MYCVAStory

Ahhhh....great idea....let's keep "giving context" to the abuse so it will make it seem much less devastating than it was to those of us abused. Just so we're all clear, please remind us what percentage is the over/under line for when the abuse rate doesn't seem so bad. Sarcasm mode off now. The abuse, whether you believe the number of claimants or not, is more than a total number. It was a number over time and the BSA knew it had a problem. For those of us abused while files were kept, and refused payoffs to drop our suits and go away, "context" is irrelevant. At some point a Trust may be validating claims. Then there will be a better understanding of the abuse but there is no reason to believe it will not be significant and historic in its scope. Then, the BSA will be able to better make its case every year that compared to the past it has improved. Not yet though.

It's critical to remember with the non-monetery agreements related to YP that they do not consititute a laundry list of changes intended to cure all ills. Instead, they are intended to change the culture via structural changes. Hiring a YP Exec, engaging an outside third-party for compliance and assessment, and developing a critically-important Youth Protection Committee that is 50% Survivors will ensure on-going assessment and change. As well, opportunity for reporting to LCs AND most importantly current and interested scouter parents aids in transparency. Changes were needed and assuredly more will be needed. What the BSA needs is structural and cultural changes over time and with knowledge of the public. This is the first step.

I deal in facts. It's probably worth noting that over 2,200 claims from abuse over the past 20 years were filed in the bankruptcy. While "small" in comparison to the total number of claims it is important to understand that for the majority of Survivors their abuse is never confronted and reported (if at all) until well into middle-age. This makes it entirely possible that the numbers for the past 20 years may be much higher. Had the bankruptcy occurred in 1980 you would NOT have seen the spike in the late 70's because very few Survivors would have been willing to come forward at that time if they were in their teens or 20's. As well, I encourage you to look deeply into the claim that the BSA has a lower incidence of abuse, including sports, and provide the facts to support that claim. Claim data related to this bankruptcy are found on the TCC's website.

Santayana said "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I suspect a large portion of the 82,500 Survivors disagree with you and want every piece of what happened to them known and remembered. In so doing we have the best chance of seeing that it isn't repeated. If the BSA can't withstand now the mistakes of the past decades then it has brought that upon itself and Society TODAY is going to be the the judge of that.

It has not. Netflix has contracted another production company not mentioned here to produce a documentary. Delivery date as I understand is January 1. Netflix has been VERY active in covering abuse-related stories. Besides their coverage of the USA Gymnastics horrors they recently released a documentary on Jimmy Saville. If you haven't seen it I recommend it. It is a textbook example of how our institutions turn a blind eye and fail those in the shadows. As well, Netflix has created a website: https://www.wannatalkaboutit.com/sexual-violence/ The reality is that no one was going to dive too deeply into the BSA story until there was some degree of resolution. With the bankruptcy coming to some sort of end it allows stories to have finality of some sort even if not for Survivors. We live in a time when streaming services are HUNGRY for content. I have heard of three pieces now in production and I have no doubt there will be many more. Bankruptcy was the loud explosion that drew a lot of attention and made many question their children's participation. Streaming media coverage will be the echo that will repeat several times over.

Don't expect an update anytime soon. There's a "status Conference" Friday because sometimes there are agreements that need finalizing or language changed. But don't expect anything significant. Instead, it should take 2-3 weeks for the Judge to have a decision ready. She'll then give a day or two notice. Enjoy the quiet.....for now!

It's factoredin to their financial projections if all goes according to plan including the review. They said they wanted to be out by June but no debtor ever says the latest month in reality. If it all falls apart, if the Judge says "Sorry, I can't confirm any of this..." well, that's another story. But I think most observing the fun over the past three weeks think that's very likely. We should wait until the court schedules the decision in a few weeks and right before make our predictions. Oh, I think someone pointed out in the last forum, status conference next week is to update the court on some crossing of T's and dotting of I's. It isn't unusual for some "tweaking" of plans to go on up until a decision. Just don't get excited to think she'll have a decision in seven days. Happy Passover, Easter/Ramadan all. At least it's good timing with the hearing concluding so we can all catch our breath a bit and maybe find a little bit of peace.

Doubtful! So the District has an automatic review of Bankruptcy decisions. That normally takes 2-3 months but in that time some parts of a confirmed plan can/do take hold. It's a tactic to say "Hey look court, it's underway and working." Don't expect checks to be issued though! In addition to all of that parties can appeal through other means/courts. Expect the non-settling insurers to do that if it means they can hold onto their money any longer. Insurers=Time Value of Money. So, put it all together and if the Trust portion of this plan is confirmed it probably won't be up and running until late summer or probably the fall. Also consider the issue of Third-Party releases. The Local Councils have made it clear that they're contributing of their COs are getting releases. If they don't then the game of chicken is on but if they don't contribute they lose their injunctions and for some that means their own bankruptcy. Oh, and the BSA can appeal if they don't get a good enough decisions...The TCC can apppeal if Survivors get screwed over any more.... This game is in the 7th inning stretch. Let's see if the Judge's decision closes it out or something comes up to put it in extra innings. I suspect we've got a ways to go. Sorry.

Annnnd....Judge has now said that she will give this another 45 minutes and pick things up in the morning. Thus far the only clear winner in all of this is "Billable Hours."

Buchbinder taking the BSA to task. Among other things, "The plan is the opposite of an apology."

Opening pitch about to be thrown out. Vegas oddsmakers split on whether this will be completed today.

Monday hearing observations: Guam: Throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks. Settling Insurers: This is how you clean the wall. Girl Scouts: We may have just lost our trademark case against the BSA via a summary judgement but we don't agree so just ignore all of that. Judge" Quietly thinking to herself "This is a day I'll never get back." Saying out loud: "Okay, I want to wrap this up tomorrow." US Trustee: Time to break out my even fancier tie because tomorrow's about third-party releases and it's GO TIME! Boy Scouts Attorneys: Yes, your honor, if everyone will just be nice and not object too much we can wrap it up tomorrow. Everyone else: Nice try.

Can you provide some clarification? How would that be different than a thread related to the confirmation hearing? Thanks.

Judge is looking for legal cover: "Do I feel like I'm weighing in on a dispute I should be weighing in on" Attorneys would be smart to focus not on the benefits or harm of any parts of this plan, but on the legality of it.

It was an interesting point. Essentially. the insurers who spoke discussed their experience in Scouting and professed to not want an end to the BSA. But, that's illogical because no one has argued that this plan failing confirmation will NOT mean the end of the BSA.

Interesting comment from the judge. Excess Insurer comments that two seperate psychologists said they believed there were many claims that weren't valid. Judge nodding and says "I noted that but they didn't say the reasons why."

It appeared that she wanted to get to the break and knows that there are other objectors so she's probably holding off on questions. He was effective and did a great job of illustrating his points graphically. His "appropriate plan" is pretty comical. The insurers love the status quo. They get to ignore all the claims that are out-of-statute and fight the rest one-by-one using time and delay to their advantage. It'll be interesting to see if she's loading up questions to ask but she also commented that she wants to address today the schedule for the rest of the confirmation.

Pachulski covers for the Judge that the TCC, BSA, FCR and Coalition sat down to address certain insurers' objections regarding Trust operation. This included STAC does not need to approve neutral in IRP, or approve claims professionals (Trustee may make this decision. Trustee will get $125K a month. (Nice work if you can get it but in reality the Trust WILL BE a multi-billion dollar entity so that's probably the going price for a CEO. I'm still jealous). Trustee won't have a financial interest with any non-settling insurers. There were a host of other changes to "clean up" operations that allow the Trustee to act independently. Today's filing is Docket #9595 and the Trust may be set up as an LLC. Any disputes between the Trustee, STAC and FCR will take place via ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) instead of going back to bankruptcy court all the time. This was a LONG presentation of "Courthouse steps" changes addressing concerns before the insurers raise them. I'll be in my car so I'll leave it up to someone else to post the Judge's reaction.

Sort of from an "appearance" and not "time" aspect. If the judge spoke up and said "I agree with you and don't have any questions" they'd be happy to shut up and yield any time! The bigger issue is that this was doomed from the start when it came to only taking two days. The Judge's face said that when Lauria laid out the pre-wedding plan. Let's look at it another way. We're all tired of waiting but now more than ever is the time for the Judge to take ALL the time she needs. This case is unusual and historic in many ways. She may need to carve out new territory to suit this case best. Regardless, whatever side you're on I think we all want this confirmation hearing portion to take as long as it needs to at this point. Puchalski now indicating that they are trying to massage the schedule to be logical. Well, maybe it's best to expect it to take a VERY long time and maybe get pleasingly surprised when it doesn't!

To the former, I don't think it's a battle. This judge said that she was going to have a lot of questions, the objectors certainly will take issue with supporter testimony, and at the end of the day it's up to each to make the right arguments that give her rationale for her decisions. There will be moments when observers will think "OH, she supports this...." and a minute later "UH, not so fast with that thinking, might have been wrong about that...." What will be interesting will be to see the "cumulative" nature of her comments and questions by the time this wraps up.

Perhaps she underestimated there being a TCC that would have immediately demanded a longer claim period. One of many miscalculations.

Agreed. I had flashbacks to Wilmington where Survivors gathered when the TCC was being selected and she walked out, said "The BSA is sorry, we'll give Survivors 90 days to get their claims in, and wrap this up quickly." NO BSA professionals spoke, NO understanding of how difficult it would be for Survivors to come forward, let alone do it in 90 days.

Grain of salt....in the case of some assets, like Philmont, there is significant debt attached. Others, like the Summit, have less value according to recent appraisals than the amount spent/contributed in development ($45 Mil versus $400 Mil). So, the non-liquid assets aren't always what they appear.

Wednesday and Thursday on the schedule. Pro Se objections on Thursday 11-12:30. Debtor is concerned that Pro Se involvement will address their individual claims. Judge is going to allow comments but not get into claims. Could be an interesting 90 minutes. Overall theme is one of doubt that this is going to get wrapped up over two days. Debtor reminded court that fee issues (Coalition, Pfau/Zalking, Catholics) are a part of seperate court actions outside of this. Judge nodded in agreement. One pro se claimant, Cutler, was very involved but his comments were all over the place and included being served with papers that had "The mark of Zorro" on them, Mormonism includes a ritual disembowelment if you give up secrets, Price-Waterhouse should be counting votes, victims thought this was going to be like the Nuremberg trials). It was hard not to feel a combination of confusion and compassion but the court was patient. So....starts 10AM Wednesday until it's done. Judge called it "ambitious" and expects issues to be argued in time allotted provided she doesn't have a lot of questions. She suggested the objectors should go first so the debtor doesn't spend too much time on issues where others don't disagree. TONE DEAF comment of the day: Lauria's step-daughter is getting married so she isn't available Friday..."We've been waiting a long time for this." UHHHHH....yeah....most of us have been waiting decades for our abuse to be addressed. Unbelievable.

It appeared that the debtor and this pro se Survivor had a history of back-and-forth. Here's their most resent response to one of his filings: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7b495b94-112f-4176-95ed-c31831a5996b_9525.pdf