johnsch322

I believe that the lawsuits can be filed against BSA and LC’s but only the insurers would have to actually pay. One of the more knowledgeable members would know more than myself.

From my understanding and what some others here have said is that there will be attempts at settlements with the carriers (I.e. Hartford Settlement but for larger amounts) and if that doesn’t succeed there will be individual lawsuits filed in state courts to bring pressure. If a settlement can accomplished between the trustee and carrier’s that money will be awarded thru the settlement trust.

That is the 100 Billion dollar question. Someone said that the survivors on this forum are not representative of the average survivors knowledge of what is transpiring so it will depend on how informed other survivors become. The lawyers involved are the key here as they seem to hold a lot of influence with their clients (Kosnoff and letter writing to the judge). My legal team has come out and publicly supported this outline of a settlement. I believe that the lawyers who are voicing public opposition are trying to get a little more. Maybe not more in the total figure but maybe in the no real questions payout. They might know that they have more false/unsubstantiated claims. Hypothetically if you have 20K claims and 75% are false/unsubstantiated claims and you can get another $500 on top the $3500 you would pick up another $3.75 million for your firm (at 50% contingency). If more money is distributed such you might find a couple of lawyers speaking positively.

Not sure what you are trying to say. Could you clarify please?

I am sure once the BSA documents (enrollment forms etc.) to the lawyers and claimants there will be many calls from lawyers to claimants to settle for the $3500. Lawyers will not want to spend time and resources for claims that they don't believe in. The lawyers will get their $1150 to 1750 for those claims and call it a day.

The short answer would be there really is no other viable option. The states with no SOL's will still have those in place even if this does not pass and the judge can still do a cram down plan if that happens. The Coalition who represents 60K claimants must know that at 30K of these will be affected yet they are endorsing the plan. Depending on which state you are talking about there will be a value attached to a viable claim.

They would also need the trustee to allow them to sue BSA/LC.

The promissory note I know about. $500M is more than BSA national is putting into the trust.

Forgive my ignorance but what loan are talking about?

The insurers claim minimal offer for survivors is upped from $1500 to $3500.

What I don't believe is that this is over. I do believe that there will be more SOL states. My optimism is for others I live in California and my abuse occurred in California. This is not over.

I don't want to be overly optimistic but it is never over until the fat lady sings and she hasn't started to warm up yet.

Personally I feel lousy about it. Hopefully there can be some kind of righting of this wrong even if it means I would get less.

I personally don't feel all is doom and gloom. I found it interesting that the TCC said that the BSA was not happy no ones happy. That is usually a good sign of compromise. Also BSA was on the clock.

I cannot answer that with any certainty. My lawyer definitely did and I would assume so based on that fact.

The psychiatrist was associated with my lawyer and it was virtual. The interview was about the abuse, my life since, impacts on my life, and he spent time on present mental state.

I believe an affidavit. It was about a 1.5 hour session with the psychologist not sure if he was following a form. It didn't fee like he was.

I looked up the Crater Lake Council web page and it says that location is temporarily closed.

So what kind of supporting documents would you be talking about? It seems that the majority of the claimants told no one about what happened and I have read that for male victims that is prevalent. So there would be no paper trail about the abuse. Most are old enough that if they had told there parents the parents are now deceased. Would the fact that the abusers name is in the perversion files be enough?

While browsing thru Zillow I noticed a house/meeting hall being sold by the local Boy Scouts in Eureka California.

One other question (for now) I was told by a lawyer that once BSA filed for bankruptcy I could not be cross examined. What do you know about this? Thank you for taking questions and answering.

If what you say is true and I have no reason to doubt you there will be many disappointed claimants. That sounds like low hanging fruit will be first maybe. Perhaps this will be where individual claimants lawyers (if they have one will be needed). Here in California to file a lawsuit if over a certain age you need a psychiatrist to evaluate you and render an opinion if he believes it was true (my lawyer has mine). I would think this would be the harder part. I know that you have stated previously that if an insurance company doesn't pay what the trustee deems they must than the trustee can go to the court and have them held in contempt. My question for this would be that doesn't give the insurer their day in court can you clarify please?

My understanding is that the LC's that contribute (not sure if they all will) by a channeling mechanism. Insurance company's if they settled could essentially do the same as Hartford has tried (but TCC and others have said no). The insurance settlements (if they happen) post bankruptcy will be with the trust settlement trustee. Neither the LC's nor the insurance have to bankrupt to settle though some may as a result. I am not sure about state AG's suing (though they could bring charges). LC's that contribute I believe will not be subject to SOL lawsuits as they will be deemed to have settled with the victims. If others on the forum with more legal could help me out here I would appreciate it.

One of the messy parts I see for mapping/tracking is how resources will be deployed and to which cases. If claim "A" was given only cursory attention, very little resources from the trust but claim "B's" claim was given extreme attention and more resources put into it and they both were paid on an individual basis would that not open the trust/trustee to be liable for negligence? How would claim "A's" lawyer feel if this were to happen?