Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yes but I believe the idea, one pushed by both the insurance companies and at least some of the attorneys for the abuse victims, was and is that those with "bogus" claims shouldn't be allowed to vote on the plan at all.

And, I think it’s critical not to lose sight of a fact that isn’t being discussed here (at this moment). Among the “bogus” claims, the insurers are cloaking their position that 50,000+ Gray Staters are equally invalid on their face. Their definition of the word “bogus” massively diverges from mine. Reference my camel, his nose and this big circus tent. 

[MYCVAStory]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yes but I believe the idea, one pushed by both the insurance companies and at least some of the attorneys for the abuse victims, was and is that those with "bogus" claims shouldn't be allowed to vote on the plan at all.

It's one thing AFTER the plan to simply vet these out and/or payout $3500. It is another to say they should get a vote at all.

Absolutely.  Unfortunately, that has to be balanced against the amount of time it will take to validate claims.  No one wants to wait YEARS for that to happen before a vote can be take.  That's the problem with addressing mass sexual tort via bankruptcy and why the best TDP and settlement amount must be fought for now.

[MYCVAStory]

2 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:

And the insurance companies are probably concerned they are contributing money to the pot for "bogus" claims. Yea, those claims might get vetted out, but the insurance companies want to pay as little as possible. 

Of course.  Wouldn't it be interesting if we lived in a world where an amount was accepted, escrowed, and if there are invalid claims the money were "returned" to the insurers.  But, that would leave less for valid claims.  The fight to provide settlement money to the people who in part paid the policy premiums is going to get uglier and take more time than any victim wants to spend.  But, victims will get ONE shot at the largest settlement trust possible if they can stay patient when it's hardest.  Insurers know that time is on their side and they do everything possible to exploit it.

[CynicalScouter]

17 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Just a heads up for the week:

1) Century filed a motion to have a hearing as earlier as tomorrow (August 6) regarding discovery and document production from BSA. That will likely popup as a hearing at some point.

2) It looks like next week's hearing on August 12 has a built-in time limit: the judge has scheduled the BSA hearing for 10am but has also scheduled another hearing for 2:30pm.

https://www.deb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/moveit/LSS.html

One more thing: since it is clear an expedited hearing isn't happening today, that means that several pending  motions are either not going to be decided or are going to be decided at the last minute.

That includes

1. Century wants BSA to produce any and all documents related to how it decided to agree to the RSA.
2. TCC/FCR/Coalition want any testimony produced by the Insurance Companies regarding the RSA stricken unless  a) Hartford starts to produce documents on Hartford's liability and how it and BSA decided $650 million was acceptable and b) Century/Chubb starts to produce documents on how much Chubb is on the hook for in terms of policies.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/d0489f77-4726-4974-877d-453e156050b8_5898.pdf

The judge has time on August 9 and so I suppose could hear those motions then, but with the hearing set for August 12 I guarantee if she does order additional production at that point a) the insurance companies are going to demand the August 12 hearing get delayed and b) perhaps even the TCC/FCR/Coalition (if Century/Chubb drop a massive amount of documents on them on August 10).

The judge has already expressed in a prior hearing she's had to juggle her calendar because BSA wants to get out of bankruptcy ASAP. And this RSA hearing is delayed from its original date in late July. If this gets pushed back again, she'll be annoyed (at best).

Edited August 6, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[MattR]

One way to speed up the validation would be to hold the lawyers that signed the claims accountable. My understanding is that they were supposed to vet the claims they signed. So, just take the lost money out of their earnings where they didn't do their job.  They make 40% if they did their job but they lose 100% if they were sloppy. Call it a cost of doing business.

I'm sure I could come up with more rules to reduce the bad voting as well. 

[SiouxRanger]

7 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Among the “bogus” claims, the insurers are cloaking their position that 50,000+ Gray Staters are equally invalid on their face

Not having come across much about the basis of the insurers' position, is it more in the nature of:  "that the insurers have a contractual obligation to insure over legally enforceable losses suffered by their insured, and that claims barred by a statute of limitations, not being legally enforceable, are outside the insurers' contractual obligation?"

If that is the insurers' position, it is not a statement that the abuse never happened, only that the insurers no longer have a contractual obligation to compensate barred claimants.  Frankly, that position would be understandable as surely insurance premiums are determined in part by the applicable statute of limitations to the risk being covered.

It would not be surprising if claimants with enforceable claims would demand all the insurance coverage for their class, leaving barred claimants some fraction of the remaining.

There is the argument that if enough barred claimants recover nothing, or disproportionately insignificant small amounts, legislatures may reopen the statutes of limitations in some states, thereby increasing the insurers' contractual liability.  But has the crystal ball been created that can sift and weigh all the variables to put a number to that exposure?

 

[SiouxRanger]

4 hours ago, MattR said:

My understanding is that they were supposed to vet the claims they signed.

This is a particularly devious and brilliant idea.

The lawyer has the choice of standing by all the claims he/she filed, and perhaps losing a lot of money as claims are ruled to be invalid, OR, to protect his/her income, taking a position, on the (court) record, that a claim filed by him/her is not valid, thereby admitting to incompetence and/or fraud upon the court and subjecting the lawyer to court imposed sanctions), AND, at the same time, taking taking a position on the record AGAINST his/her own client! (Thereby violating ethics rules.)

Catch 22.

[CynicalScouter]

Starting to see some movement this morning:

1) Judge signed order today (August 9) for Abused in Scouting and Kosnoff Law PLLC to file their Rule 2019 disclosures by...August 9. We'll see how that goes. Extra loving tidbit in the order "Hartford and Century may make further application to the Court to ensure compliance with this Order."

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/58f315d5-7725-4bf3-acae-0248f9d62090_5902.pdf

As I said previously, I expect Kosnoff Law PLLC to file something (not necessarily very responsive), but I also expect there will be nothing from AIS as the three lawfirms involved continue to insist there is no such thing as AIS. But maybe I'm too cynical (ha, ha).

2) BSA filed its objection to insurer's motion for production of more documents (and further delay) regarding Board actions, the RSA, etc. In short BSA is arguing that it has produced every non-privileged item it can already and insurers are just playing a stalling game.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9851b45d-a658-4986-b901-4da61fa25189_5903.pdf

Edited August 9, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

5 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Starting to see some movement this morning:

1) Judge signed order today (August 9) for Abused in Scouting and Kosnoff Law PLLC to file their Rule 2019 disclosures by...August 9. We'll see how that goes. Extra loving tidbit in the order "Hartford and Century may make further application to the Court to ensure compliance with this Order."

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/58f315d5-7725-4bf3-acae-0248f9d62090_5902.pdf

As I said previously, I expect Kosnoff Law PLLC to file something (not necessarily very responsive), but I also expect there will be nothing from AIS as the three lawfirms involved continue to insist there is no such thing as AIS. But maybe I'm too cynical (ha, ha).

2) BSA filed its objection to insurer's motion for production of more documents (and further delay) regarding Board actions, the RSA, etc. In short BSA is arguing that it has produced every non-privileged item it can already and insurers are just playing a stalling game.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9851b45d-a658-4986-b901-4da61fa25189_5903.pdf

I’m sort of responding to this after reading the docs and also just saying how I continue to feel about the process on Day 538+.

One of the other things that makes this so gut wrenching for me, speaking for myself as a victim claimant, is it’s almost impossible to discern what is cover fire for my/our cause, what is incoming and what is friendly fire. Not being able to tell who is for me and who’s agin’ makes the churning all the worse. Should I hope the insurers succeed in getting to rummage around in the potentially fraudulent claims and expose some no good attorneys or not? Does what the BSA may be hiding from the insurers matter to me or not? If they get it, will it help or cause harm? If the COs manage to get significant leverage and stall approvals, then what? Is hoping for an AIS smack down purely me wanting to put some bad apples in their place and make attorneys behave honorably or would it advance the cause? What is Mr. T hiding and does it matter one iota...? 

I do a whole lot better when I don’t have to engage (or even try to monitor) five different fronts in a “jungle warfare” case. It wears me out to no end. I’m not necessarily looking for someone to respond to those points, arguing one way or the other. I’m just laying on the virtual shrink’s sofa and exorcising an exhausted, musty, Monday afternoon exhale. 

[ThenNow]

AIS and TK. Two of interest, I suppose.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/47fa66fb-180b-411f-80c4-59e56cd1d63d_5923.pdf

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f26f9981-f41d-42bd-adbd-d7996d12f44f_5924.pdf

Edited August 10, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

10 hours ago, ThenNow said:

AIS and TK. Two of interest, I suppose.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/47fa66fb-180b-411f-80c4-59e56cd1d63d_5923.pdf

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f26f9981-f41d-42bd-adbd-d7996d12f44f_5924.pdf

The Kosnoff Rule 2019 is interesting to the extent it is clear that Kosnoff had a vision for this bankruptcy that was a) grossly unrealistic and b) that the other attorneys in this process have shunned, namely that the bankruptcy court was going to ignore every statute of limitations AND all insurance policies in all cases and simply award maximum damages in every case.

Quote

The three firms would oppose any settlement that distributes money to clients based on the accident of geography or caprice of insurance coverage periods.  That is, if a client had been abused in a non-window state, his claim would not be reduced on statute of limitations grounds. Rather, each victim’s claim should be evaluated based on the abuse he experienced and the damages he sustained. Similarly, a victim who was abused in a year where insurance happens to be exhausted or the insurer is insolvent, his claims would be unaffected.

And here's the math.

Quote

Kosnoff Law represents 15,103 Abuse Victims. Of that group, 3,054 are also members of the Coalition.

So Kosnoff's claiming to represent 15,103. BUT read the AIS Rule 2019

Quote

The Law Firms represent 15,103 Abuse Victims. Of that group, 3,054 are also members of the Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice (the “Coalition”).

In other words:

1) Kosnoff is claiming those 15,103 are his clients.

2) The AIS filing is claiming those 15,103 are clients held jointly by the three firms.

Interesting

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

In other words:

1) Kosnoff is claiming those 15,103 are his clients.

2) The AIS filing is claiming those 15,103 are clients held jointly by the three firms.

Interesting

And, embarrassing. Please grow up. Behave honorably. Stop playing games. You’re supposed to be defending the rights and lives of victims of child sexual abuse, not having a peeing contest in the sandbox while shouting, “I know you are, but what am I?” Good grief. 

Edited August 10, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

And, embarrassing. Please grow up. Behave honorably. Stop playing games.

It also gets into a massive legal question: who really is counsel of record for these victims?

And it might also explain why some of the victims we've seen post here and elsewhere have been at an absolute loss as to who exactly is their attorney, who represents them, who they should be talking to, etc.

[CynicalScouter]

Reading the Kosnoff Rule 2019 he is directly accusing some unnamed lawfirm of forging his name on documents.

Quote

In one instance, a law firm that had associated with the three law firms on some cases, asked if it could affix Mr. Kosnoff’s signature to a single proof of claim. After Mr. Kosnoff agreed, that firm digitally signed his name to dozens more proofs of claim, without Mr. Kosnoff’s knowledge or permission.

That should provide more than enough fodder for the insurance companies to grind the entire proceeding to a halt until the forged claims can be removed or vetted.

Edited August 10, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

FYI: A slew of CA attorneys just filed for pro hac vice admission.

Because California law gives sexual abuse victims a slew of rights in civil litigation AND against insurance companies, some of which were already alluded to, I suspect this will be the major fight: that this plan cannot be approved at least as to CA victims.