JBWest Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: This seems to be a waste of time. To her credit she is quite entertaining to the lay observer. Frequent misstatements, light joking with Rudman, etc. Even opposing counsel can't resist cracking a smile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 Who, pray tell, is selecting these witnesses? Trial by committee appears to be a recipe for all manner of stroganoff, some of which with spoiled sour cream, others with cardboard noodles. Wowzers. Witness prep and doors blown open on direct is miserable lawyering. These are painful to watch. "Hurts so good," though. (That will be my single JCM reference. Promise!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted March 31, 2022 Author Share Posted March 31, 2022 5 minutes ago, ThenNow said: Who, pray tell, is selecting these witnesses? Trial by committee appears to be a recipe for all manner of stroganoff, some of which with spoiled sour cream, others with cardboard noodles. Wowzers. Witness prep and doors blown open on direct is miserable lawyering. These are painful to watch. "Hurts so good," though. (That will be my single JCM reference. Promise!) The BSA lawyer is using the settling insurer witness to actually make a stronger case for the plan. I do not understand attacking the TDPs. They have to get through 82,000 claims. The TDPs seem very well written to handle that. If anything, one could see more arguments from claimants. I don't understand why the settling insurers think they have a winner there. Then ... instead of finding experts in TDPs and trusts, they pull in people who have no clue how TDPs or trusts are supposed to work. I still think the neutral path has more liability (as there is no max, there is no money to pay for the results, insurance companies could claim it is not insurance neutral plus claimants have to pay a ton to go down that path). However, it seems like the insurers are simply stuck on the TDPs. My only thought ... settling insurers may say ... most of these claims deserve $0. The reaming have more than enough $ already in the trust. The only reason the trust needs more money is due to bad TDPs. Therefore, fix the TDPs and eliminate the $3500 payment then you don't need any money or neutral path from the non settling insurers. I just don't see this working, but who knows, I'm not a lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said: I just don't see this working, but who knows, I'm not a lawyer. Raise your right hand and repeat after me. The insurers are looking for good counsel and have gotten a judge to waive the education and bar exam requirements. You're in! Sidle up to the bar, my friend. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted March 31, 2022 Author Share Posted March 31, 2022 5 minutes on debating the definition of the word "voluntary" GIven the fees being charged, that probably cost the BSA $250,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted March 31, 2022 Author Share Posted March 31, 2022 Interesting ... judge continued to sustain objections over the coalition lawyer; however, when his questioning wrapped up the judge went back to him and apologized for being curt (I don't think she was) and said she made some notes that he brought up some good points early in cross and suggested he expand on those during closing arguments. Again, I don't think these witnesses are helping the certain insurers... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadChannel70 Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 (edited) There is a max under the Independent Review/Neutral path: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, any amount of an Accepted Settlement Recommendation or Allowed Claim Amount for an Abuse Claim that proceeds under this Independent Review Option in excess of a multiple of five (5) times the Maximum Matrix Value in the applicable tier set forth in the Claims Matrix... At least that is the way it looks to me, the max award a claimant could receive is $13,500,000.00 (Max tier in TDP $2,700,000.00 x 5). Maybe I am wrong. The way this stuff is written.... There is a time limit for a survivor to pursue the Independent Review/Neutral: "B. Time to Select Independent Review Option. Direct Abuse Claimants, other than Future Abuse Claimants, shall initially have until January 1, 2023, to elect to participate in the Independent Review Option. In addition, in order to participate in the Independent Review Option, the Direct Abuse Claimant must complete and submit the Trust Claim Submission by January 1, 2023 to enable the Settlement Trust to establish reserves." A Claimant has 6 months from after the Effective Date to participate so don't go by that date above. I don't know if this Independent Review/Neutral will survive but it's a lot more comprehensive than the TDP. A survivor must provide an expert report paid on their own dime (this won't be cheap based on the fees charged by the experts now): "Damages must be supported by an expert report (the cost of which shall be paid by the Direct Abuse Claimant); and" I encourage any survivor who is planning or thinking about participating in the Independent Review Option to carefully read through this material. There is a lot more information. You will have to make the determination what is best for you. And make your attorney answer any questions you have, if they are recommending you down this path. But like what I wrote above, I don't know if this this process will see the light of day. Edited March 31, 2022 by BadChannel70 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted April 1, 2022 Share Posted April 1, 2022 (edited) 15 hours ago, BadChannel70 said: I don't know if this Independent Review/Neutral will survive but it's a lot more comprehensive than the TDP. I think not. Jason Amala (of the Pfau/Zalkin cohort) badly damaged the prospect of accessing the upside recovery during his testimony, as well. As to the expert damages report, I find firms who charge $2500+ if you have good documentation to hand them. But, no one will do it for me as a pro se plaintiff/claimant. Tell me they only work for attorneys. What am I, chopped liver? (Don't answer that.) Edited April 1, 2022 by ThenNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebra132 Posted April 1, 2022 Share Posted April 1, 2022 Is there court today? I'm not getting anything when I log in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted April 1, 2022 Share Posted April 1, 2022 1 minute ago, Zebra132 said: Is there court today? I'm not getting anything when I log in I believe we're now on to next week, based on everyone's calendars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebra132 Posted April 1, 2022 Share Posted April 1, 2022 Thanks! Making sure it wasn't my machine! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted April 1, 2022 Author Share Posted April 1, 2022 4 minutes ago, ThenNow said: I believe we're now on to next week, based on everyone's calendars. Court begins at 1 Eastern today. I think Guam and a few others have witnesses. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted April 1, 2022 Author Share Posted April 1, 2022 16 minutes ago, ThenNow said: I think not. Jason Amala (of the Pfau/Zalkin cohort) badly damaged the prospect of accessing the upside recovery during his testimony, as well. As to the expert damages report, I find firms who charge $2500+ if you have good documentation to hand them. But, no one will do it for me as a pro se plaintiff/claimant. Tell me they only work for attorneys. What am I, chopped liver? (Don't answer that.) That seemed damaging a bit. They went over his past objections to the plan and how most were not addressed. I still think she approves; however, the neutral path and some council contributions are the areas that seem weak points if the judge raises concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted April 1, 2022 Share Posted April 1, 2022 4 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: I still think she approves; however, the neutral path and some council contributions are the areas that seem weak points if the judge raises concerns. Agreed. She didn't like the IRO upon first hearing, wondering why everyone didn't have access to it. Mr. B loves the $20,000 price tag. Not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vol_scouter Posted April 1, 2022 Share Posted April 1, 2022 17 minutes ago, ThenNow said: Agreed. She didn't like the IRO upon first hearing, wondering why everyone didn't have access to it. Mr. B loves the $20,000 price tag. Not. What is the meaning of the acronym IRO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts