Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[johnsch322]

1 minute ago, skeptic said:

Again, I have never stated that the proceedings should not play out, only that they do it in a balanced and as close to fair manner as possible.  And that does not mean trying to force money out of questionable sources or ignoring larger effects.  Certainly, IF they finally arrive at a payout, the victims should be paid.  I personally would limit the lawyer payout to no more than 5-10 percent of the totals, period.  So, if you are to get the maximum payout under the current optins, you increase that payout by taking it from the lawyers, not trying to force liquidation of properties never meant to be used for anything but youth activities and such.  A balanced scale and rational aproach.  Not something that plays well in this tragedy.  

When you say balanced and fair who would it be balanced and fair for?  Why would it be fair to ask lawyers to take less and not those holding the liabilities to pay more?  The current options are currently weighted in balance to BSA, LC’s, CO’s and insurance company’s. A fair amount for victims would be comparable to what the victims of other CSA cases received and the current options are well below that payout. If the BSA ceased to exist (and I am not advocating for that outcome) the only larger effect would be youth would have to find other activities and there are multiple options for them. 

[CynicalScouter]

16 hours ago, skeptic said:

But they are personal, and no amount of manetary solice will make them go away, and I have mostly learned to live with them and keep them at bay. 

Great that you can. That, however, has precisely zero (0) with the LEGAL arguments at play here, namely that

1. BSA through its negligence allowed TENS OF THOUSANDS of boys to be abused.
2. That those victims of BSA's negligence are allowed compensation (in states with an open statute of limitations at least) and
3. Those victims of BSA's negligence in closed states are never, ever going to approve a plan that leaves them with $0.

16 hours ago, skeptic said:

*deleted by Mod*

*Deleted by Mod because it was a response to a deleted comment*

Edited September 27, 2021 by elitts
Original post edited so the response was edited.

[skeptic]

First, the amount paid to the lawyers is simply obscene, and they do not deserve it.  And that is a problem of our court system.  Limits on lawyers should exist, period; and emotion should not be allowed to overly skew it.

More importantly, again from my own perspective as a rational person, the jury payouts on many emotionally weighted cases is outlandish and again would not happen in other parts of the western world.  Our legal system is broken and allows those types of awards, even though they are attempts to fix something that cannot be fixed.

More importantly, the actual perpetrators again are not being brought to justice in most cases, and there is little effort, or so it seems, to do so.  IF this were to be a balanced procedure, then they would publicly vet all the claims, which might in itself bring some interesting developments.  They would also take into consideration who, beyond the BSA, swept things around and under.  How many government jurisdictions chose to NOT do what needed to be done?  How many family decisions played into those results in a different era of society?  

IF BSA is being held responsible for bad decisions, some perhaps forced by uncooperative families or obdurate of paid off public officials, what do you suggest be done?  It is still an impossible scenario, and it just shows the foolishness of trying to rewrite history and fix societal problems from the past in todays environment.  But how dare I suggest such outlandish things.  

[CynicalScouter]

10 minutes ago, skeptic said:

More importantly, again from my own perspective as a rational person, the jury payouts on many emotionally weighted cases is outlandish and again would not happen in other parts of the western world.  Our legal system is broken and allows those types of awards, even though they are attempts to fix something that cannot be fixed.

Great! Once again, not a single legal argument or one pertaining specifically to the bankruptcy court proceedings. Just your FEELING and EMOTIONS that this is unjust or unfair.

12 minutes ago, skeptic said:

More importantly, the actual perpetrators again are not being brought to justice in most cases, and there is little effort, or so it seems, to do so. 

Says who? Most of the perpetrators are dead. Those that have been found and alive are being prosecuted based on what has come out from the bankruptcy. Again: absolutely NONE of this in any way addresses BSA's legal liability.

13 minutes ago, skeptic said:

They would also take into consideration who, beyond the BSA, swept things around and under. 

As a matter of fact, there is a provision in the bankruptcy plan to address this. The example used was if a priest who was the scoutmaster of a unit abused a scout, how much was the fault of the parish and how much the fault of scouting? Etc.

15 minutes ago, skeptic said:

IF BSA is being held responsible for bad decisions, some perhaps forced by uncooperative families or obdurate of paid off public officials,

Again, and again, and again, and again, I have to repeat myself. The point is NOT a failure to report the abuse, NOT a failure to prosecute the abuse, and what is this conspiracy theory about "paid off public officials"?

The LEGAL point is that BSA, through its negligence, allowed the abuse to occur IN THE FIRST PLACE. It doesn't matter if AFTER THE ABUSE TOOK PLACE did or did not report it, did or did not seek to prosecute, did or did not get a conviction.

I know I've told you this at least twice and others have as well. Over and over and over you think that BSA is being unfairly punished for failure to report. It isn't. In fact, even if BSA had reported, had gotten convictions, etc. BSA is STILL LIABLE for the abuse happening IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[johnsch322]

6 minutes ago, skeptic said:

First, the amount paid to the lawyers is simply obscene, and they do not deserve it.  And that is a problem of our court system.  Limits on lawyers should exist, period; and emotion should not be allowed to overly skew it.

More importantly, again from my own perspective as a rational person, the jury payouts on many emotionally weighted cases is outlandish and again would not happen in other parts of the western world.  Our legal system is broken and allows those types of awards, even though they are attempts to fix something that cannot be fixed.

More importantly, the actual perpetrators again are not being brought to justice in most cases, and there is little effort, or so it seems, to do so.  IF this were to be a balanced procedure, then they would publicly vet all the claims, which might in itself bring some interesting developments.  They would also take into consideration who, beyond the BSA, swept things around and under.  How many government jurisdictions chose to NOT do what needed to be done?  How many family decisions played into those results in a different era of society?  

IF BSA is being held responsible for bad decisions, some perhaps forced by uncooperative families or obdurate of paid off public officials, what do you suggest be done?  It is still an impossible scenario, and it just shows the foolishness of trying to rewrite history and fix societal problems from the past in todays environment.  But how dare I suggest such outlandish things.  

First I don’t think you totally understand contingency cases. If there is no award the lawyer gets nothing. Also there are quite a few lawyers with 10 to 20 clients. If 20 clients received 10k each should the lawyer worked for 500 to 1k? Also all claimants signed on their own volition a contract which specifies what portion of any award that they may get in writing or they could have represented themselves. So they had options. 
You might not like outlandish awards but that is the purpose of insurance. You can criticize the system but it’s a little late to use that excuse when the system is being used by the BSA, LC’s CO’s and insurance companies to limit the payouts to circumvent the state courts by using the bankruptcy.  The most outlandish part is that some states have time limits to file claims for Child Sexual Abuse. This is also a loophole that the actual perpetrators have to use in almost all states. 
As for governments and family members the abuse acts in the BSA were not committed by these entities. Families places the care of their young in the hands of the BSA and the BSA and the LC’s etc etc we’re negligent. 
No one is trying to rewrite history as fair as abuse victims are concerned. The only entity who tried to rewrite history is the BSA who hid from and fought against, and destroyed some of the files. 

[skeptic]

I hereby apologize to any posters on this thread that misinterpreted any of my posts, or feel that I somehow disrespected them.  That has never been my intent.

I honestly hope that those actually having been abused in any manner might get some relief, though I know as I have noted a number of times, that the final results will never be enough nor actually fix much.  Perhaps, if you are spiritual, you might get solace in knowing that the final judgement will not be by we fallible humans.

While I may check back to just see what does not readily appear in the news, and to review things, I find this entire mess too depressing and am simply going to try to just work the program and help salvage whatever may remain after the carnage is decided.  After all, that is why most of us became involved or extended our involvement past our youth.

I would dream that somehow we might see our legal system fixed to some extent so that Justice's scale might be more regularly balanced.  That is about as likely to happen in my remaining lifetime as term limits, but one can hope.

Good luck.  And I really do mean that, even if you think otherwise.

[SiouxRanger]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

First, the amount paid to the lawyers is simply obscene, and they do not deserve it.

It can be a huge amount of money, no doubt.  But in the strange math world of the law, it makes sense. (Not that I agree with it entirely, but there is a logic to it.)

In contingency cases, the lawyer evaluates a contingency case based on the amount of time the lawyer anticipates will be expended, AND the costs that the lawyer will advance to handle the case.  ("Advancing costs" means that the lawyer is paying for the costs of court filing fees, service of summons fees, deposition fees, copying costs, experts witness fees, travel expenses of expert witnesses, office staff payroll, office rent, on-line legal research fees, and everything else related to handing the case and moving it forward.

In my community, the typical costs advanced by an attorney handling a medical malpractice claim is $150,000.

And though the fee agreement between the attorney and the client provides that the client is responsible for all those fees, clients never (a strong word in the law-so perhaps a few have) reimburse the attorney for this fees and expenses.

It is a big decision for an attorney to accept representation of a medical malpractice case.  Not quite as risky taking on a personal injury case (auto accident).  But the costs there can still hit $25,000.

Normally, contingent fee cases are taken at 33.33% contingent fee, and if an appeal is filed, the fee goes to 40%.  It appears that the abuse claims started at 40% for fees-that is high.  If that includes handling all appeals (and I expect there will be many), then maybe it is on par with the typical contingent fees charged.

And there are many times lawyers get it wrong.  The invest hundreds of hours in handling a contingent fee case, expend tens of thousands of dollars for expenses and costs, and recover nothing. 

So, if attorneys handling contingent fee cases make big money today, they could well lost partially big money tomorrow.

 

There is one other very important aspect of the legal system in our country.

Anyone can go to virtually any lawyer, even a solo practitioner, and file a lawsuit against any entity, including the largest corporations in the country, and COMPEL them to appear in court and respond to your legal claim.

Think about that for a few minutes.

Got a claim against Putin. You get a radioactive cocktail. And die.

Got a claim against National, it has to appear in court and answer up to your claim.

If your attorney has $750,00 or $2-$10 million in the bank from prior contingent fee cases won, to fund litigation against National, you have a lawyer with financial clout to hold National to account.

Clearly, lawyers with a successful contingent fee practice, end their career very well off, but without them, most injured folks won't ever have legal representation to pursue a claim against the powerful and wealthy because they won't be able to find an attorney who has has huge money from prior cases won to finance their case.

I have seen attorneys reduce their 1/3rd fee when a case settles quickly without a huge expenditure of costs to fund the case.

Doesn't look like that is going to happen here.

 

 

[SiouxRanger]

18 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

still waiting for a legal argument as to how or why that flies.

I once saw a guy sued by a bank for over $2 million.

His defense fees to his attorney approached $50,000.

The bank agreed to pay the him $5,000 and to drop the case against him.

The client was ecstatic.  "They admitted that they were wrong." (Having spent a net of $45,000 to get the bank to make that admission.)

The human element of the law trumps legal argument all of the time.

People change their minds, and then the entire legal outcome of a case turns on a dime.

 

Some poster previously noted that the Harvard attorneys had no appreciation of the human element in this case. And that is their weakness of an Ivory Tower education:  they do not understand people.

National's bankruptcy is incredibly complex.  The 30 or 40 national legal bankruptcy super experts certainly find it complex. Just consider the range of the debate and objections over just about every aspect of the procedure.

And so, there are many posters here, and guests just listening in, hoping to learn about National's bankruptcy and how it might affect their unit, their district, or council.  In all likelihood, they have Zero knowledge of bankruptcy, little knowledge of abuse claims or their history, and probably marginal knowledge of the Scouting program. They can be commended for making the effort to stay informed.

And so, I have strived in my posts to explain the legal issues, the applicable legal principles and rules.  So the folks can understand and assess how this whole situation affects their situation in Scouting..

Personal attacks on this forum toward posters who have personal concerns, and even emotional ones, are totally unwarranted.

They may not understand how the process works, and need explanation.

And clearly, if YOU are the person responsible for explaining, if your audience does not understand you, it is YOUR failure, not your audience's failure.

Edited September 27, 2021 by elitts
formatting

[SiouxRanger]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

I hereby apologize to any posters on this thread that misinterpreted any of my posts, or feel that I somehow disrespected them.  That has never been my intent.

I honestly hope that those actually having been abused in any manner might get some relief, though I know as I have noted a number of times, that the final results will never be enough nor actually fix much.  Perhaps, if you are spiritual, you might get solace in knowing that the final judgement will not be by we fallible humans.

While I may check back to just see what does not readily appear in the news, and to review things, I find this entire mess too depressing and am simply going to try to just work the program and help salvage whatever may remain after the carnage is decided.  After all, that is why most of us became involved or extended our involvement past our youth.

I would dream that somehow we might see our legal system fixed to some extent so that Justice's scale might be more regularly balanced.  That is about as likely to happen in my remaining lifetime as term limits, but one can hope.

Good luck.  And I really do mean that, even if you think otherwise.

You have my confidence.  And your loyalty to Scouting Movement is clear to me. We are all passengers on a crashing plane hoping for a soft landing.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

A saying quoted to General Joe Stilwell.

[SiouxRanger]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

I hereby apologize to any posters on this thread that misinterpreted any of my posts, or feel that I somehow disrespected them.  That has never been my intent.

I honestly hope that those actually having been abused in any manner might get some relief, though I know as I have noted a number of times, that the final results will never be enough nor actually fix much.  Perhaps, if you are spiritual, you might get solace in knowing that the final judgement will not be by we fallible humans.

While I may check back to just see what does not readily appear in the news, and to review things, I find this entire mess too depressing and am simply going to try to just work the program and help salvage whatever may remain after the carnage is decided.  After all, that is why most of us became involved or extended our involvement past our youth.

I would dream that somehow we might see our legal system fixed to some extent so that Justice's scale might be more regularly balanced.  That is about as likely to happen in my remaining lifetime as term limits, but one can hope.

Good luck.  And I really do mean that, even if you think otherwise.

You need not apologize to anyone.  You have concerns, you are expressing them, and others understand your concerns or just don't get it and pounce on you.

This is a hideously complicated situation.

I doubt than anyone truly understands it.

[ThenNow]

15 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

First I don’t think you totally understand contingency cases. If there is no award the lawyer gets nothing. Also there are quite a few lawyers with 10 to 20 clients. If 20 clients received 10k each should the lawyer worked for 500 to 1k? Also all claimants signed on their own volition a contract which specifies what portion of any award that they may get in writing or they could have represented themselves. So they had options. 

We had this conversation at some length back when I was less gray-headed and had more stomach lining. I’ll briefly reiterate some of what I said then.

My response and opinion to the contingent fee debated divides between the mass aggregators and the long-term (faithful and committed) child sexual abuse attorneys, including Tim Kosnoff. As complex as this case has become, if you have tens of thousand of clients simultaneously, the workload and per client out of pocket is relatively insignificant. Add to that the attorneys have attorneys and I find it even more troubling and egregious. That ethical muddle stands in stark contrast to bringing a single person personal injury case through trial, even one with great complexity. Add that to third party, front-loaded investment and I now have a big problem with 40%+ percent. As MYCVA has articulated, we now have non-attorney third parties in the mediation room, owning leverage beholden only to their interests, which are purely and exclusively financial. Several judges making commentators on mass tort funding believe this is a very, very serious problem. I agree. They’re the ones who came up with the third party/non-party language. Anyway, there are contingent fee cases as described, including class actions, then there is this mess. I have a different opinion about each, as described.

13 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

In contingency cases, the lawyer evaluates a contingency case based on the amount of time the lawyer anticipates will be expended, AND the costs that the lawyer will advance to handle the case.  ("Advancing costs" means that the lawyer is paying for the costs of court filing fees, service of summons fees, deposition fees, copying costs, experts witness fees, travel expenses of expert witnesses, office staff payroll, office rent, on-line legal research fees, and everything else related to handing the case and moving it forward.

In my community, the typical costs advanced by an attorney handling a medical malpractice claim is $150,000.

And though the fee agreement between the attorney and the client provides that the client is responsible for all those fees, clients never (a strong word in the law-so perhaps a few have) reimburse the attorney for this fees and expenses.

It is a big decision for an attorney to accept representation of a medical malpractice case.  Not quite as risky taking on a personal injury case (auto accident).  But the costs there can still hit $25,000.

Normally, contingent fee cases are taken at 33.33% contingent fee, and if an appeal is filed, the fee goes to 40%.  It appears that the abuse claims started at 40% for fees-that is high.  If that includes handling all appeals (and I expect there will be many), then maybe it is on par with the typical contingent fees charged.

Ditto.

However, these cases/mass netting of clients did not involve a “big decision” for some (all?) in the pool of aggregators. I’ve noted that a number were approached with greenbacks extended even though they had zero experience in this arena and would get decimated standing on their own wobbly experiential legs. Zero experience. Zero to lose. Lots to gain. As an attorney, child sexual abuse victim claimant and citizen, this creates a distinction (for me). I don’t think we should ignore it in the name of defending ‘legitimate’ contingent fee engagements. I join you in defending the one, but I can’t pull that cloak of decency over the others. Sorry if that is judgmental or perceived as wrong. 

Edited September 27, 2021 by ThenNow

[SiouxRanger]

7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

 I don’t think we should ignore it in the name of defending ‘legitimate’ contingent fee engagements. I join you in defending the one, but I can’t pull that cloak of decency over the others. Sorry if that is judgmental or perceived as wrong. 

I agree with you entirely.  The model (reasoning and justification) for contingency fees does not fit National's bankruptcy.  It seems to me that an attorney could file 500 claims and then do nothing-just let the big players duke it out and wait for a paycheck at the end.

[johnsch322]

I agree with you to a point but I also see a need for legal representation when it gets to the point of being in front of the trustee. The lawyers who just sat back and did nothing and if they continue to do nothing will find that their clients will get next to nothing. And they will get their cut of next to nothing. I think this is why the TCC is pushing for claimants to have representation. Of course if I was a lawyer I might feel I could represent myself. 

[ThenNow]

11 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

I agree with you entirely.  The model (reasoning and justification) for contingency fees does not fit National's bankruptcy.  It seems to me that an attorney could file 500 claims and then do nothing-just let the big players duke it out and wait for a paycheck at the end.

To quote The Fonze, “Exactamundo.” Precisely my point and on the nose for this case. 😠  Bankruptcy is not the forum for mass torts, as the mantra goes.

[elitts]

Moderator Note:

And with that we are going to need to let the discussion of contingency fees die folks.  That horse was beaten nigh unto to a puddle a few months ago and the most recent few posts have recapped that discussion pretty much in its entirety so anyone who might not have seen it can see the main points now.

 

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by elitts