Eagle1993 Posted January 17, 2022 Author Share Posted January 17, 2022 BSA just filed several updates to depositions they had scheduled. All were going to occur tomorrow, but they have been delayed to Jan 19 - 21. Still waiting to see the final vote posted. Also note that the judge is fully booked Wednesday this week. So, no clues found looking at the rest of her schedule. It actually looks like she is pretty booked until January 24. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted January 18, 2022 Author Share Posted January 18, 2022 Almost no change to the direct abuse claim vote. There were some minor changes on opt out number. Also, BSA may object to some master ballots based on their questions about proper power of attorney paperwork. However, the master ballots themselves passed review and were accepted. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ea7975fa-08bb-4e03-b739-96a7062815a0_8345.pdf 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980Scouter Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 49 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: Almost no change to the direct abuse claim vote. There were some minor changes on opt out number. Also, BSA may object to some master ballots based on their questions about proper power of attorney paperwork. However, the master ballots themselves passed review and were accepted. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ea7975fa-08bb-4e03-b739-96a7062815a0_8345.pdf That is progress. Now the ball is fully in the judges court. Time to make decisions and get this case moving forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said: Almost no change to the direct abuse claim vote. There were some minor changes on opt out number. Also, BSA may object to some master ballots based on their questions about proper power of attorney paperwork. However, the master ballots themselves passed review and were accepted. As Omni suggested. Knowing a little about some of the firms who used the ballot, I would be surprised if they failed to button up and batten down the hatches on their paperwork. Edited January 18, 2022 by ThenNow Oops. “Omni,” knucklehead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted January 18, 2022 Author Share Posted January 18, 2022 29 minutes ago, ThenNow said: As Omani suggested. Knowing a little about some of the firms who used the ballot, I would be surprised if they failed to button up and batten down the hatches on their paperwork. Even if you throw out 100% of master ballots you don't hit 90% approval which has been the case referenced by most as the value needed. It's too bad the hearing was cancelled today. It would have been good to hear from the judge. It feels that they are just burning cash right now without clear direction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 19 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: It's too bad the hearing was cancelled today. It would have been good to hear from the judge. It feels that they are just burning cash right now without clear direction. You suggested several reasons for the cancellation. I’ve been asking everyone I know who might have a clue, including insiders and press. No one has been able to say. If weather, how can that shut down a hearing that is 100% virtual, other than Judge’s chambers? I guess the Delaware forecast might justify that and this is, after all, just another bankruptcy hearing, other than for those fully vested. As to COVID among key players, I suppose we may never know. I have had all three strains, but count myself blessed not to have been extremely sick. For 98% of the people I know who have/had Omicron, they are mostly working through with limited impact. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted January 18, 2022 Author Share Posted January 18, 2022 Total Votes Total Accept Total Reject Accept % Master Accept Master Reject Direct Accept Direct Reject Opt Out $3,500 Initial Vote 53,888 39,401 14,487 73.12% 1,964 8,042 37,437 6,445 21,172 7,919 Updated Vote 53,596 39,430 14,166 73.57% 1,093 8,489 38,334 5,677 21,174 7,287 Delta -292 29 -321 0.45% -871 447 897 -768 2 -632 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1970 Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 Would someone clarify the meaning of the "opt out" and "$3500"? If the $3500 box was checked, are those basically settled out thereby reducing the number of claimants? Or would they take $3500 and remain in play somehow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted January 18, 2022 Author Share Posted January 18, 2022 4 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said: Would someone clarify the meaning of the "opt out" and "$3500"? If the $3500 box was checked, are those basically settled out thereby reducing the number of claimants? Or would they take $3500 and remain in play somehow? Opt Out - That is a question for sex abuse claimants for non abuse claims. So, if you check "opt out" that means you can sue all of the protected parties (BSA, Coalition, COs, insurance companies, Omni, TCC, etc.) for non abuse claims. $3500 - Do they simply want the $3500, no questions asked, no ability to claim more (in terms of direct abuse) Two separate and independent questions. Note that the opt out was very confusing. I think many may be confused as I've seen letters where they "opt out" so they can sue their CO ... but they voted Accept. That means they can only sue their CO for non abuse claims. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted January 18, 2022 Author Share Posted January 18, 2022 A bit of insight from Prof. Jacoby's twitter feed: She doesn't expect this to be the last word on this vote ... expect both sides to fight to get votes removed. Steep battle expected to get this plan approved. (Based on prior tweets issues include voting results, requested releases) And now a group of insurance companies have asked the courts time to deal with a bunch of coalition law firms stonewalling them. Microsoft Word - Boy Scouts - Motion to Clarify Scope of Law Firm Discovery 4869-9614-2346 v.1 (omniagentsolutions.com) Basically, the law firms objected to this discovery due to privilege. The judge overruled their objection. Now the law firms are refusing to answer the questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 26 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: A bit of insight from Prof. Jacoby's twitter feed: She doesn't expect this to be the last word on this vote ... expect both sides to fight to get votes removed. Steep battle expected to get this plan approved. (Based on prior tweets issues include voting results, requested releases) And now a group of insurance companies have asked the courts time to deal with a bunch of coalition law firms stonewalling them. Microsoft Word - Boy Scouts - Motion to Clarify Scope of Law Firm Discovery 4869-9614-2346 v.1 (omniagentsolutions.com) Basically, the law firms objected to this discovery due to privilege. The judge overruled their objection. Now the law firms are refusing to answer the questions. Now why would they do that?😠 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted January 18, 2022 Author Share Posted January 18, 2022 11 minutes ago, skeptic said: Now why would they do that?😠 I don't think I am cut out to be a judge. It feels like she is herding cats. It seemed clear what she approved and now it seems like she is being ignored. If I were here, I would be angry about this ... but perhaps that is just how law is practiced. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattR Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 What practical power does she have to "encourage" them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muttsy Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 Dismissal of case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted January 18, 2022 Share Posted January 18, 2022 12 hours ago, Eagle1993 said: Almost no change to the direct abuse claim vote. There were some minor changes on opt out number. Also, BSA may object to some master ballots based on their questions about proper power of attorney paperwork. However, the master ballots themselves passed review and were accepted. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/latest-vote-tally-boy-scouts-27-bln-abuse-settlement-falls-short-goal-2022-01-18/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts