MYCVAStory

It was NOT a comparable group. Regardless, it is a reminder of the need for a ROBUST validation process.

This proceeding has backed the Judge into a box. Typically by now the parties have danced around enough that they are coming to agreements and the Judge can "tweak" them a bit by making it clear where the issues are. Then, after some hallway negotiations the Judge is asked to bless a mutually consensual plan. This is anything but. Between the MASSIVE insurance issues, third-party release challenges that she clearly signaled yesterday, and a host of others there are REAL challenges in place and she could very well say "I'd like to agree that X issue can be agreed to but my hands are constitutionally tied." All of this is showing that the BSA NEVER should have entered into bankruptcy. That advice led them into a trap where the mass tort attorneys opened the floodgates. Instead, the BSA WITH ITS INSURERS should have dealt with cases as they arose, even with that number increasing significantly. How did their attorneys NOT warn them of the flood they'd create? Next week's arguments should be interesting and allow for some tea-leaf reading but then it'll be 2-3 weeks until we know anything. Then, we'll see if the insurers appeal...or maybe the TCC if she tries to cram anything down, and if so, would the Coalition say "We'll take what we can get to pay our bills at this point." It's a mess and while I suspect the Judge wants to do the right thing, the bankruptcy code thing might get in the way. Hoping I'm wrong.

Quite right. This is why an unbiased independent Trustee was so important to the TCC and important to Survivors. The Coalition wanted its designated Trustee and one can only assume that was to get awards out the door. If your firm is getting 40% of an award your motivation is to have Trust personnel in place who won't delay that money going out by taking care of that pesky validation. NO Survivor wants unnecessary delays but if it means money going to those who deserve it only then a reasonable process and wait is time and effort well spent. At this point, even if the judge confirms and says "The Trust needs to worry about validation" then the insurers have done us all a favor by highlighting the issue.

Hearing ends. Insurers spent the afternoon raising doubt about the validity of mass tort attorneys' client intake practices. When asked when closing arguments might be heard Debtor's attorney said she wants to speak again regarding progress on youth protection measures, good faith, and third-party releases. Additional discussion will be presented related to the TDP, insurance neutrality, and a bunch of other objecting issues. She saw two days of closing arguments. Judge has her own list including "Appropriate standard for her decisions related to the TDP and mentioned fair and appropriate" Also wants discussion of automatic stay issues raised by Guam objectors. For third-party releases she is interested in why she should grant them IF she has constitutional authority to do so. Cautioned attorneys that she tends to ask a lot of questions. Pro Se claimant who is incarcerated will have arrangements made so he can speak. Debtor must also give opportunity for any pro se objectors who have filed objections be able to make arguments. She scheduled it all for Wednesday and Thursday 4/6&7 but has a commitment Thursday AM. Sounds like a bit of a longshot for it all to be done in two days.

It was really a forehead-slapping testimony at times. "I can tell you that 40-45% of claims are fraudulent."..... 30 minutes later.... "I don't know who's paying me. The checks come from the Boy Scouts Defense Fund." Really now?

Coming attraction for Wednesday....Ken Rothweiler to be a witness.

Schullman's taped deposition up next. Looked and sounded as you'd expect an attorney to look and sound after he had filed hundreds of clients' POCs. Unsure, unsteady. "How many of the POCs you signed did you speak to the client personally?" "I don't know." "Did you physically sign every POC" "No, I did not." "How were your signatures authorized?" "I indicated on SmartAdvocate (software) I had reviewed it. so it was afffixed." "You signed Mr. X's POC on the 12th....you were retained on the 12th....but it wasn't reviewed until the 13th and the client was asked by your associate for additional information. So why was the POC dated the 12th?" It's going on like this. Suggestion to mass tort attorneys; if you're going to take on hundreds or thousands of clients expect this kind of scrutiny and don't save money by NOT having the infrastructure to accurately and personally manage ALL of your clients. This is red meat for the insurers.

Her experience is as a court investigator and deals with a lot of domestic issues where abuse allegations are used as retaliation unfortunately. This is not the situation with the population in this bankruptcy. TCC attorney on cross asked her if she would discuss with the Trustee applicable questionnaire items..."Of course." Coalition attorney asks who pays her and if it's the insurers. She doesn't seem to know! Says they come from the "Boy Scouts Defense Fund." Document presented showing that yes, the insurers are paying her. "Yes, but they still come from the defense fund?!" Seems very sincere about Survivors being compensated for valid claims but her lack of bankruptcy and trust experience was a mistake for the insurers. Insurer's attorney looking on very pained.

Informative discussion related to reliability of the TDP in addressing claim validity. A better description may be the "validity" only given the points trying to be made. As a reminder, the TDP was always intended to be a first step and placeholder. The Trust is to design a specific questionnaire that would then be validated along with other evidence by trust personnel. Dr. Treacy continues to discuss the RELIABILITY of the POC but doesn't seem to understand its limited use in the TDP. Anyway....a good discussion though of a "Conceptual Framework for Child Sexual Abuse" by Sgroi. Here's a Google Books link: https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/XfBX3y5O8WcC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA9&dq=sgroi+framework Pages are missing but this framework includes five stages: Engagement, Sexual Interaction, Secrecy, Disclosure and Suppression. That framework hits the nail on the head.

Basically, the Federal District Court must affirm all decisions by the bankruptcy judge. Additionally, expect the "certain insurers" to appeal IF there is confirmation. The insurer M.O. is to appeal and delay. As anyone who has ever filed a home/auto claim knows, they're kinda picky about holding on to their money as long as possible! The good news is that the District Court usually takes fairly quick action because it looks for significant mistakes. We'll see next week the beginnings of how ugly the DOJ is going to make this.

Judge to decide on Brian Whitman testifying and being crossed again. Guam folks thought they'd get another shot. He appears to be the last person testifying for the debtor and the judge sounded like she was inclined to have him be crossed again. Game's back on at 10AM Monday. Enjoy the weekend break all. Probably closer to the end of this hearing than the beginning.

They haven't started on objecting party witnesses or final arguments so this will go well into next week and there's the suggestion that it will start and stop around the judge's prior committments.

Perhaps because if Bates' low valuations are accepted it could make it a lot more difficult to get at the excess insurance coverage in some years.

Wow....I'm not jumping to a conclusion. I'm only, again, reporting what was said today. No one on the TCC voted to reject the plan. If any abstained that hasn't been reported, wasn't asked, and no TCC specific outcome of votes have been reported as far as I know.

Again, he said that NO MEMBER objected. What constitutes "unanimity" is not defined by Roberts and is typically accepted in practice as the results of those who vote. For example, if a member had a conflict of interest and abstained that member acted properly as a fiduciary and that should not be considered as objecting for purposes of a vote. As well, as he mentioned today, the TCC had a fiduciary duty to ALL Survivors and members found themselves voting against their own self-interests financially at times when it was in the best interest of all survivors. I'd rather have representatives doing that then voting to reject, or even abstain, because they are protecting their own interests. Orwellian thinking is that which is destructive to a free society. Stating the facts, that no one objected and that he was never asked if anyone abstained, is the opposite of Orwellian. It's the truth.

Well....members of the Survivor's Working Group that helped craft the YP changes, Survivors who become part of the Youth Protection Committee, the Survivor who will become part of the BSA Board and serve alone. Perhaps Survivors who step forward and serve on their Local Councils? I'm glad the PSZJ "fine" is going to YP and by this extension to Survivors who contribute. Win-win. It's also a reason an independant Trustee was critical. I don't see a respected former federal judge getting involved with "fishy."

To be fair, because you have provided a potentially inaccurate accounting of the hearing, he was asked by an objecting attorney if every member of the TCC agreed with the settlement. His reply was that the TCC stood as one on its votes after the fact. He then received an awkward follow-up question and stated clearly that NO member of the TCC voted to reject the most recent settlement. He was not asked if any abstained. So, a suggestion that a member voted to reject is incorrect. As well, disagreement is not necessarily a cause for abstention.

No argument here. I just wanted to remind people so they are aware that disseminating screenshots, video, audio might get them in trouble.

DANGER WILL ROBINSON! "Recording, photographing, or live streaming of this hearing is prohibited." And yes, is breaking the law. BUT...after it's all over you can request an audio recording from the court. We need one of those cool court artists!

In case anyone wants a scorecard to see who's in the on-deck circle, here's a link to the order of witnesses: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/20a14698-406e-4a81-a6aa-dd7508a5bf2f_9269.pdf

We can't be premature. The settlement could look a lot different IF one is approved. Regardless, yet to be determined is the expense related to operating the trust (more lawyers and claim review staff) AND the number of claimants that will be "non-responsive." I know it's hard to believe but in every mass tort case there are those claimants who submit a claim and then just plain disappear. Given the number who didn't vote in this case, and the fleet of attorneys trying to get them to, it's reasonable to assume that the number of Survivors receiving awards will be less than the number who submitted claims. Keep your fingers crossed regardless.

So incredibly true. The story of Survivors isn't the stories of individuals. It's the stories of how what happened affected all those around them. My abuser changed my life AND the lives of my wife, children, friends, co-workers and others. I'm fighting for them even more than for myself. Give those people like her an extra long hug. They deserve it.

100% that's who you should be talking to and demanding any action if necessary. If so, make sure you demand correspondence verifying that action has been taken. If you ever need to convince the Trust of something "Take my word for it" probably won't fly!

No voting update. Judge wasn't happy with delays, missed deadlines, etc. Commented that she might request a meeting this week to finalize issues but this is squarely on the BSA to choreograph and she isn't satisfied that everyone has ignored deadlines over the last two years. As she said..."I'll be here Monday." Buchbinder the US Trustee reminded everyone that this isn't a typical bankruptcy and its about more than debt. Unfortunately he didn't mention that he meant Survivors or any suggestions for fixing things. If mods are reading this they might want to consider a specific "Confirmation Hearing" forum later this week or Monday. Going to be an interesting three weeks.

Well, it arms the Trust with the ability to apply pressure to non-settling insurers, especially the excess insurers by basically saying "See, you're going to get beaten up if these go to court." Another issue this addresses is Survivors "competing" against Survivors for limited funds in the trust. If all "high-dollar" awards, those in excess of 2.7 mil come out of the existing trust then it will deplete available assets dispraportianately.