Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[CynicalScouter]

Back to the bankruptcy!

Amended notice of hearing August 30.

It is now BIGGER than ever. Grab a tub of popcorn because we are getting into the (allegedly) fraudulent claims.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/49aca881-6256-4550-a8f6-e93d204a36ac_6124.pdf

Item #1 is still the FCR/TCC/Coalition effort to get Century/Chubb to produce documents.

Item #2 is Hartford and Century’s Motion for an Order (I) Authorizing Certain Rule 2004 Discovery and (II) Granting Leave from Local Rule 3007-1(f) to Permit the Filing of Substantive Omnibus Objections (D.I. 1971, Filed 1/22/21).

This is the unredacted version https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870498_1972.pdf

This is Hartford and Century's attempt to get document discovery regarding 1400 claims and to conduct 100 depositions out of those 1,400 claims.

Item #3 Insurers’ Motion for an Order Authorizing Rule 2004 Discovery of Certain Proofs of Claims (D.I. 1974, Filed 1/22/21).

This is the unredacted version: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870566_1975.pdf

This is the accsusation that many of the claims were collected and signed by attorneys in a host of improper ways, including outright forgery/misuse of signatures. It includes the deposition of the handwriting and forensics expert as well as a woman who worked at the call/claims center and was told to lie to claimants.

The insurers plan to introduced Kosnoff's Rule 2019 declaration where he claims his signature was misused on several of these claims.

 

Edited August 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

The timeframe in which I started fielding questions was Feb 2020 through July/Aug 2020. It may have seemed unclear, so my apologies.

THAT clarifies 95% of it. The other 5% is how did AIS get the info from those two people. It wasn't BSA is my point and there's no proof it was BSA.

[CynicalScouter]

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Item #1 is still the FCR/TCC/Coalition effort to get Century/Chubb to produce documents.

Item #2 is Hartford and Century’s Motion for an Order (I) Authorizing Certain Rule 2004 Discovery and (II) Granting Leave from Local Rule 3007-1(f) to Permit the Filing of Substantive Omnibus Objections (D.I. 1971, Filed 1/22/21).

Item #3 Insurers’ Motion for an Order Authorizing Rule 2004 Discovery of Certain Proofs of Claims (D.I. 1974, Filed 1/22/21).

I should note that BOTH discovery motions call for MONTHS of discovery.

Item #2 alone will take at least 44 days just to get the first stage done (30 days to demand document discovery + 14 days to decide on which 100 claimants to depose). The 100 depositions could then take months.

[MYCVAStory]

GOOD GOD....I got some time at work and said "Well, let's see what the forum is up to and....BAM.  My takeaway:

Gilwell, as you've discovered, this forum tries its hardest to deal in facts.  As the Hollywood Producer Robert Evans said "There are three truths, yours, mine and THE truth, and all three are correct."  I don't know what you heard or were told but the reality is that the BSA DID NOT EVER direct claimants to AIS or any other law firm.  Period.  Did AIS reach out to your scouts like it has others because you can buy lists of former scouts from data analytics companies and say they were working with the BSA?  Who knows.  If THAT is a fact please produce the recording so it can be entered into the court record or be used as a defense in your slander/libel lawsuit when you're served!  I say that half-jokingly.  This is serious business.  What I do know is that many claimants reached out to multiple firms that advertised and often got confused with who told them what.  The number of duplicated claims was a result of that and have been weeded out.

Now, did an unknowing SE or DE make a Powerpoint with incorrect information?  Maybe.  Were they directed to do so by National?  There is NO evidence of that and it would be unprecedented and run against ALL of BSA National's actions to this point.   PLEASE tread lightly.  Whether we have your passion for the BSA or not we try to trade in facts here. 

On behalf of all victims, let me use an analogy.  Remember, long ago we were invited into a house and were hurt in it because the owners didn't look out for our safety.  That house has been falling down for decades in how it protected those it invited in.  Now, victims have been asked to enter that house once again and via bankruptcy work to prop it back up so it can stand today and in the future.  Some of us don't care if it remains standing. some hope it falls down the first second we get the hell out again, and some want to burn it down now to get it out of the way.  If you want to help repair it and make it stand for a long time then please remember that you'll need to start those repairs by accepting the FACTS that we know and can discover and the feelings of victims who expect only respectful factual treatment in return.  Please, if you haven't looked at the TCC's summary of the claims I encourage you to do so: http://www.pszjlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/BSA Summary of Sexual Abuse Claims.pdf 

That might help you better understand the scope of this historic bankruptcy and the constituency that the TCC is representing.  It might also help you understand the challenge before you in your work with the BSA.  If it is to survive then it's going to take a lot of work by people like you who are passionate about it but ONLY if the secrecy and ineffectiveness in confronting issues of the past changes.  Regardless of my personal feelings regarding your success I wish you well if you will take the time to understand the depth of the problem of abuse.  

Oh, and the hearing Monday....if anyone wants to read the tea leaves on how the judge feels about the insurers, that'll be a good opportunity.

 

[ThenNow]

36 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Item #3 Insurers’ Motion for an Order Authorizing Rule 2004 Discovery of Certain Proofs of Claims (D.I. 1974, Filed 1/22/21).

Question for my fellow survivor/victim claimants. What say you about this effort? As I’ve said, I hate the prospect of fraudulent claims and unethical attorneys, but have trepidation about letting the camels (Century/Chubb and Hartford) get their nose under the tent. Curious to hear your thoughts and feelings. Both matter to me. 

[CynicalScouter]

18 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Oh, and the hearing Monday....if anyone wants to read the tea leaves on how the judge feels about the insurers, that'll be a good opportunity.

Here's the other factor: it isn't just the insurers. Many of the other abuse victims and their lawyers have insisted on this/something close to this. They want SOME degree of vetting of these claims.

Here's the concern: 1,400 document discovery and 100 depositions. If so much as 1 claim is shown to be outright fraudulent (I don't mean mistakenly saying the person was abused at camp in July 1981 when camp records show the scout were there in June 1981) I mean just flat out "I want the money/I was never even a scout" fraudulent the insurance companies will use it to besmirch all the claimants and insist that the remaining 81000 or so be vetted before voting takes place.

Then it comes to the judge's call/decision.

But in the meantime, it will take months to depose/do discovery.

And, as Kosnoff has already noted, ANY loss on the part of the insurance companies will result in appeals. Now, not ALL appeals stop the clock/stop trial court proceedings, but some do. The Milwaukee Diocese bankruptcy effectively ground to a halt while there were issues in appeal in that case. That could mean another year.

And in the meantime, the COs are leaving in droves and BSA's running out of cash, and the victims are forced to worry that a) this is taking too long b) they might be among those required to provide documentary proof c) they might be among those deposed by insurance counsel.

Edited August 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

they might be among those required to provide documentary proof c) they might be among those deposed by insurance counsel.

Bring it on…

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, ThenNow said:

Bring it on…

I know you are OK with it, but there are a lot of victims as you know who a) were told they would be 100% confidential and anonymous forever b) that they'd never have to do anything other than file that Proof of Claim and c) would certainly never have to be cross-examined about any of this.

I honest wonder if 1,400 notices for document discovery go out, how many would be responded to.

If 100 deposition notices go out, how many would be declined/dropped/refused.

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

Again, my main concern is why AIS was telling people they were acting on behalf of BSA to intake claims. If they were misleading people who just wanted to give BSA information, not file a claim, then that needs to come out it court.

Although the claims process thru AIS appears to have cut some corners I would find it hard to believe that if someone called and said I have info it would be turned into a claim.  If that did happen and there is proof yes it should be brought to the court. Could it be possible that the few people who confided in you actually made claims but didn't for whatever reason want to fully confide in you?

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

This is Hartford and Century's attempt to get document discovery regarding 1400 claims and to conduct 100 depositions out of those 1,400 claims.

One more tidbit here:

Hartford as early as February hired a private investigator firm to do research on 100 claimants already and claims to have found, well, let me just post it.

Quote

As part of Hartford’s initial investigation, it retained a reputable investigative firm, HUB Enterprises, Inc. (“HUB”), to investigate the public records and social media postings of 100 claimants who filed proofs of claim. From that subset, HUB found evidence that calls into question the credibility of a substantial number of the claims. That evidence ranges from claimants convicted of tax fraud;14 to claimants convicted of forgery, identity theft and/or making false insurance claims;15 to claimants making false statements to the police;16 to claimants convicted of theft, robbery and/or burglary;17 and to claimants convicted of child molestation and other sex acts.18 And, on top of this, HUB found social media evidence refuting claimants’ statements in their proofs of claim regarding the impact the alleged abuse has had on their quality of life, such as their ability to sustain marital relationships, family relationships and employment.

Page 66 is an affidavit by the private investigator.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870498_1972.pdf

The insurers are going to do everything they can to paint ENOUGH of the 82500 claimants are fraudsters in order to stall this out for years.

Edited August 27, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagle1993]

Wasn't there a hearing today?  Outside the August 30 hearing details was there any decisions?

[RememberSchiff]

This forum has discussed vetting claims at least twice - last summer as a unexpected higher number of claims were filed and again as the bar date was repeatedly moved forward to insure claimants had time to submit their claims following a BSA-paid advertising campaign to remind them.

The finalized bar date was Nov 16, 2020.

Some questions, since that deadline nine months ago:

1. Has a court-approved vetting procedure been established? (IMHO, the court and all sides should have done this BEFORE claims were taken!)

2. If so, what percentage of the 80+ thousand claims have been vetted and declared legit so far?

 

Edited August 27, 2021 by RememberSchiff

[Eagle1993]

22 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

This forum has discussed vetting claims at least twice - last summer as a unexpected higher number of claims were filed and again as the bar date was repeatedly moved forward to insure claimants had time to submit their claims following a BSA-paid advertising campaign to remind them.

 

I think many times, in the past, many of us felt that while vetting of claims would be ideal, the delay in the proceedings would have a negative impact AND BSA would not pay out more regardless (as once they hit 5 - 10K claims they would have to max out their payment.

That said, I think vetting does take on importance if there are a high number of fraudulent claims.  Why?  Because I expect many of these will simply take the $3.5K for a yes vote and walk away.  That doesn't seem appropriate if the remaining valid claims are not in support of the deal.  

I think it could be appropriate for the judge to allow a vetting of a sufficient number of claims to determine a failure rate with a reasonable confidence interval.  Perhaps that is 1,400 ... not sure and its Friday and I don't care to break out my statistics book.  It could be a random sample by a 3rd party.  There should be a time limit (perhaps 1 - 2 months).  My concern though, If there is a substantial rate of issues, then what?  Are we going to wait 6 months to clean up the list?  

There are two short term impacts from false claims.

1) They will likely take the $3500 ... so there is a financial impact, taking money from valid claimants.

2) They will lower the required YES vote needed from valid claimants.

Hopefully my math is correct, but at $3500 each and 84,000 claims it looks like the numbers below.  1-5% of the claims being fraud doesn't make a huge swing.  However, if you start increasing that number you see a fairly large financial impact and a drop in the needed yes vote.  

I would argue ... do the audit.  If 10% or less are questionable, move on.  10 - 20% ... tough conversation.  20% or more ... we need to stop and audit all.  

 

 

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

I know you are OK with it, but there are a lot of victims as you know who a) were told they would be 100% confidential and anonymous forever b) that they'd never have to do anything other than file that Proof of Claim and c) would certainly never have to be cross-examined about any of this.

Yes. Solely and exclusively speaking for myself. I apologize if that post suggested otherwise. 

[johnsch322]

5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

That said, I think vetting does take on importance if there are a high number of fraudulent claims. 

What would the standards be for a fraudulent/false claim?