CynicalScouter Posted September 29, 2021 Author Share Posted September 29, 2021 Judge wants note right on the front on ballot: "This ballot being used for multiple things" and then listing those things (she thinks 3 things). Yes/No on plan Electing for $3500 Approving releases Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MYCVAStory Posted September 29, 2021 Share Posted September 29, 2021 Just a reminder, since I have a hunch the TCC is going to have a few things to say about all of this, the next Town Hall is Tomorrow (Thursday) night. From TCCBSA.COM: The next TCC Town Hall will take place on Thursday, September 30, 2021. (Click here to view the notice.) Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/82272826295 (no registration required) By phone: 888-788-0099 (toll free), webinar ID: 822 7282 6295. At this Town Hall, the TCC will discuss: (1) Status of Boy Scouts's bankruptcy case and (2) status of the disclosure statement and chapter 11 plan approval process. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 29, 2021 Author Share Posted September 29, 2021 (edited) We are going back to the $3500 ballot election issue. Again. I guess the concern is this: If a victim opts for the $3500 NOW, and down the road the settlement trust gets $15 BILLION, are they now "locked in" to that $3500 or can then opt BACK into the settlement trust? Stang's been clear: this $3500 election is NOT forever. It is not locking someone in. The Coalition: "victims will not take the $3500" and the victims fear if they do, their votes won't be counted. Judge: I don't know where people get the idea that $3500 voters will NOT be counted. "That is a misimpression. If people want to sell it that way, that's on them." But I also think given the relief asked by the debtors, that it is important to know in connection at least with channeling injunction and releases how many want this. Edited September 29, 2021 by CynicalScouter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 29, 2021 Author Share Posted September 29, 2021 Coalition lawyer - Issue of moving to separate class: will the $3500 electors be separated out? There's an attack being made to pull them out Judge - You can have all the concerns you want, but people who are advising their clients should do so on the facts as of this date. It is not unusual to have a range and not know your specific recoveries. If parties start putting information out there, it will snowball, and people will vote on misinformation. I cannot control that. If people want an opt-in, then that would be the plan. We don't want to be at confirmation and want certain information and we don't have it, because then the plan may not be confirmed. So, I am not revisiting this issue. If the parties want to add an opt-out, and everyone seems to want it, then do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 29, 2021 Author Share Posted September 29, 2021 (edited) Coalition fees will be decided SEPARATELY by motion. It will NOT be part of the Plan. The judge said: if the Coalition fees are a "condition precedent", people better waive it. So the Coalition now has to agree to pull their fees out of the Plan or the Plan won't go out the door. They can file a motion for fees later. Edited September 29, 2021 by CynicalScouter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 29, 2021 Author Share Posted September 29, 2021 No one turned off Zoom. Judge still heard talking. One attorney said the judge "Neutered the Coalition right at the end there" with the fees issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted September 29, 2021 Share Posted September 29, 2021 17 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: No one turned off Zoom. Judge still heard talking. One attorney said the judge "Neutered the Coalition right at the end there" with the fees issue. Somehow I knew you stayed on, as I always do, just waiting for that choice hot mic moment. Bam! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted September 29, 2021 Share Posted September 29, 2021 1 hour ago, fred8033 said: If 1 & 2 are not covered, why would LDS enter into the agreement. These are major holes in the liability protection that make a person question it's worth. #1 is clearly not covered. LDS, judge, BSA everyone agrees. LDS cannot pay $250M and expect all CSA claims to go away. #2 was not exactly clear. Judge & BSA seemed to agree it is not covered as only "scouting activities" are covered. That is where the debate of scouting definition came up. LDS seemed to think perhaps #2 would be covered ... but it wasn't 100% clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David CO Posted September 29, 2021 Share Posted September 29, 2021 1 hour ago, fred8033 said: If 1 & 2 are not covered, why would LDS enter into the agreement. These are major holes in the liability protection that make a person question it's worth. I agree. In some units, where the scouts are all members of a Chartered Organization, like a church or school, all of the scouts and scouters have some sort of connection or relationship outside of scouting. A settlement would settle nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted September 29, 2021 Share Posted September 29, 2021 26 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: No one turned off Zoom. Judge still heard talking. One attorney said the judge "Neutered the Coalition right at the end there" with the fees issue. Rothweilier must be ticked. While the judge let him speak yesterday, I don't think he did himself any favors. He seemed clueless on how the entire process works. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred8033 Posted September 29, 2021 Share Posted September 29, 2021 3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: #1 is clearly not covered. LDS, judge, BSA everyone agrees. LDS cannot pay $250M and expect all CSA claims to go away. #2 was not exactly clear. Judge & BSA seemed to agree it is not covered as only "scouting activities" are covered. That is where the debate of scouting definition came up. LDS seemed to think perhaps #2 would be covered ... but it wasn't 100% clear. If #2 is not covered (LDS scout leader doing abuse of scout outside of normal scouting events), then would the settlement reimburse victims of scout leaders where the act was outside of a scouting activity? The two should align. Reimbursement and liability protection. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 29, 2021 Author Share Posted September 29, 2021 1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said: He seemed clueless on how the entire process works. Stang nailed him on this as well. The claim that the TCC "only represented 6000 clients" (again that's not what the TCC does) and that he was a "member of the TCC" (no, 9 VICTIMS are the members of the TCC). Etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted September 29, 2021 Author Share Posted September 29, 2021 (edited) So I blanked but I know they were talking about coming back Friday, Monday, Wednesday, or some other day in the near future. Lot of people racing to catch flights for the in person mediation. Edited September 29, 2021 by CynicalScouter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted September 29, 2021 Share Posted September 29, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said: So I blanked but I know they were talking about coming back Friday, Monday, Wednesday, or some other day in the near future. Lot of people racing to catch flights for the in person mediation. The settled on Tuesday. Edit: Official zoom link updated to Tuesday, October 5 at 2:30PM EST Edited September 29, 2021 by Eagle1993 added exact time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David CO Posted September 29, 2021 Share Posted September 29, 2021 9 minutes ago, fred8033 said: The two should align. Reimbursement and liability protection. The 3 should align. Reimbursement, liability protection, and YPT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts