Chapter 11 Announced - Part 9 - Confirmation Hearing

[Eagle1993]

Judge ... concerned over TDPs.  Her gut says there are issues.  She is asking what is the point of the TDPs and how they were created.  She said her gut may be wrong ... but that will be important.

Wondering ... whether she has any truly contested facts or how the facts are applied.  For example ... what does it mean to emulate the tort system.  Everyone agrees with the discovery tools available in tort ... that doesn't seem contested.  She would like it pointed out if there are contested facts.

[ThenNow]

Closing out this week's edition of BSA TV's Series, "As the Bankruptcy Turns," I enjoy neither the cliffhanger nor the sinking feeling in my gut. One is not necessarily related to the other. The gut dive stands alone like the cheese, which continues to get more binding. 

[MYCVAStory]

 

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Closing out this week's edition of BSA TV's Series, "As the Bankruptcy Turns,"

Well....the mini-series will come to an end next week or shortly after.  Potentially followed by the spinoff: "The Appeal."  At least we'll know 2-3 weeks after this series concludes what the decision will be.

[johnsch322]

It is all getting murkier instead of becoming clearer as to the outcome.  Hopefully whatever will come to pass will happen quickly.  I hated "as the world turns" my grand mother used to make me watch it as a kid. Now thru this mess I definitely feel like I am living it. 

[Eagle1993]

One interesting argument near the end of the hearing today was about the Archbishop of Agana.  They object to the plan but have never shown up in court.  The Guam committee lawyer went on and on about how the Archbishop still objections and has not withdrawn their objection (Guam is a different group).  The judge said fine, but if they don't show up it doesn't matter.  I'll have questions about the objection and who am I supposed to ask.  It looks like the Archbishop just filed a renewed objection but honestly, I wonder if they plan to show up.

I think closing will really be critical.  My understanding is that the judge will be asking a lot of questions.  Depending on those questions and how they are answered to her satisfaction, we may get a sense where this is headed.

For those with more experience .... what are the judges options?  I assume accept or reject are clearly two options.  However, can she modify the plan or line item veto it?

[Eagle94-A1]

3 hours ago, clbkbx said:

If helpful:

There's also section indicating you "declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct."

Thank you. I hope ever individual  who committed fraud to get a quick payout gets hit with fines. Their false accusations not only hurt the BSA, but also and more importantly hurt actual victims.

[scoutesquire]

There literally has been zero proof of fraud.  The insurers would have paraded it around the Courtroom.  There might have been people that didn't fill out the claim form completely--does that mean Fraud?  No.  It might mean they had a change of heart.  It might also mean they don't remember the details because it is suppressed.  Where is the fraud?  Why didn't they present fraud at the trial?  Signatures have nothing to do with fraud.  You all have bought into the insurers arguments.  

[johnsch322]

21 minutes ago, scoutesquire said:

You all have bought into the insurers arguments.  

This bone of contention has been going on for a few years and I think that if you have been following all of this close enough you must have question as to the validity of all of the claims.  When a lawyer filed a claim with no name (but his signature) and another who gave an unfilled POC with his signature and had intake people use that form coupled with the fact of 25% of claimants not even voting I sure have some doubts.

[scoutesquire]

I disagree about the voting.  First, in most major elections only a bit more than half of individuals vote.  Here, we had many people vote.  Secondly, many survivors are transient in nature and hard to find because they are avoiding debt collectors, imprisoned, and have other hardships that make it difficult to communicate with.  Also, if you look at most individual bankruptcy voting results---they are abysmal as far as attendance goes.  

Why have the insurers not shown hard proof of fraud?  They don't have any.  

As far as intake goes, a survivor told their story and were not able to be reached before the bar deadline again to verify their story. That hardly indicates fraud.  That indicates that maybe they had a change of heart, maybe they are incarcerated, or maybe there are a million other reasons.  

Again, what proof of fraud is there?  I would say the strongest indication is dual representation.  However, that happens in every major mass tort case.  Additionally, with the punitive nature of the bar date many survivors probably wanted to make sure they were covered.  

I just think this board has bought into the fraud accusations of the insurers and I think its a shame.

[fred8033]

5 hours ago, scoutesquire said:

I just think this board has bought into the fraud accusations of the insurers and I think its a shame.

I can share my personal view of the fraud.  Hoping it's appropriate here. 

If not appropriate, please feel free to delete.  

• Victims - Intentional fraud
  • I don't believe intentional victim fraud is significant.   
  • This is absolutely not a get-rich-quick scheme.  This is not like whiplash or claiming a work injured bad back.  This is injecting yourself into an ugly past; with life-changing implications and the case will take years to work thru.  This means interviews, follow-on and years of waiting for cash. 
  • Perhaps there is some small number wishing to associate with a large legal case or be famous for some reason or chase future dollars.  ... I just don't see it as significant. 
• Victims - Unintentional fraud or imperfect cases
  • I don't believe this is a significant impact.  
  • I believe some facts may be influenced to better the case.  
  • I believe some incidents are outside SOLs or outside other limitations.  
  • I believe some incidents are less connected to scouting.  An example being someone who had strong connection to the abuser outside scouting.  
  • I believe some victims have incomplete or vague memories.   Memories of 7 to 14 years old are rarely clear 40/50 years late.  
  • I believe some victims may not know the scouting relationships involved or if they were even in scouts.  Perhaps it was Indian Guides, squires, church youth group or another similar youth organization.
• Legal process
  • Intentional fraud to preserve victim's rights (or to get largest number of claims).  Absolutely.  This is where I believe there has been fraud.  Period.  Fraud with signatures, unfulfilled expectations, process, deadlines, paperwork, representation, etc.  
  • It's an ethical justification of fraud to argue "preserving the rights" of the victim.  Leave that to an ethics course.   "Officer, I'm running late for my appointment".  Whatever.  It's still fraud.  The deadlines were clear.  The court expectations were clear.   Not fraud is providing a list of pending paperwork to the court before the deadline and then submitting correct paperwork the next week.  I'd be surprised if the court rejected those additions.  Instead, court expectations were intentionally ignored.
  • I do believe there is still case duplication across firms.  I'm not sure if it is a large, but with what I've seen I'm begging firms will be arguing with the trust on who represents who. 

I just don't see victim fraud as significant.  ... Legal fraud?  ... well ...

Edited April 2, 2022 by fred8033

[clbkbx]

9 hours ago, scoutesquire said:

Why have the insurers not shown hard proof of fraud?  They don't have any.

My recollection is that insurers asked to further investigate some claims earlier in the process but it was not allowed. That act could have other effects but for the insurers it would be difficult to show proof if not allowed to look for evidence. 

[Eagle94-A1]

11 hours ago, scoutesquire said:

There literally has been zero proof of fraud.  The insurers would have paraded it around the Courtroom.

 

53 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

My recollection is that insurers asked to further investigate some claims earlier in the process but it was not allowed. That act could have other effects but for the insurers it would be difficult to show proof if not allowed to look for evidence. 

Yes, the insurers did put in motions to investigate claims which was denied because the judge stated the trust would handle the distribution of funds and deal with the fraud then.

There is a post in one of the threads on this topic about several potential fraud cases including:

The mother of one claimant who stated her son was lying because he was never involved in Scouting.

The phone center operator who was told to make up info on claims if they were unable to get it from the caller.

The person named as a perpetrator who was living in another state in college when alleged abuse happened,

The prisoner who has a history of filing false class action lawsuits filing in this one.

 

[Eagle1970]

14 hours ago, scoutesquire said:

There literally has been zero proof of fraud.  The insurers would have paraded it around the Courtroom.  There might have been people that didn't fill out the claim form completely--does that mean Fraud?  No.  It might mean they had a change of heart.  It might also mean they don't remember the details because it is suppressed.  Where is the fraud?  Why didn't they present fraud at the trial?  Signatures have nothing to do with fraud.  You all have bought into the insurers arguments.  

While I haven't bought into insurer's arguments and have no interest in debating the topic, there is typically a percentage of fraudulent claims in mass tort cases.  It would be highly unlikely this is an exception, with the around-the-clock tv and fb ads telling the world there is a ton of money awaiting.  

[JBWest]

On 4/1/2022 at 4:54 PM, Eagle1993 said:

It looks like the Archbishop just filed a renewed objection but honestly, I wonder if they plan to show up.

I wonder as well.  Judge Silverstein seemed annoyed during this exchange.  I also wonder how long it will take to hear from the pro se claimants, one of whom made a brief but testy appearance on Friday.  All of this plus closing arguments?  Sounds like three or more days remaining.

[MYCVAStory]

2 hours ago, JBWest said:

I also wonder how long it will take to hear from the pro se claimants, one of whom made a brief but testy appearance on Friday. 

It appeared that the debtor and this pro se Survivor had a history of back-and-forth.  Here's their most resent response to one of his filings: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7b495b94-112f-4176-95ed-c31831a5996b_9525.pdf