Jump to content
  • LATEST POSTS

    • Great quote ... “All of us have discounted our rates on these cases because, if all the money goes to the lawyers, there’s not going to be anything left for survivors,” said Susan Boswell, an Arizona bankruptcy attorney who has worked on several abuse cases involving the Catholic Church in which she has dropped her hourly rate — normally $700 — to as low as $450, she said." Still immoral if it's only half as immoral.   Index the "discounted" maximum rate to 10 times minimum wage.  I just have trouble calling $450 per hour "discounted".
    • I started a new thread about LCs.  I'm going to move some posts over.  If your post disappeared that's where it went.
    • I wanted to separate out some of the questions about the relationship between LCs, National, and what property rights each might have in the LC assets. I'm going to go back about three pages in the Part 3 thread and move some relevant posts over here.  (I hope.  I've never tried this before.)
    • It's a partnership.  A&B in business together.  A can't ditch B without recompense, but if B fails, that does not mean A is forced to go down with the ship.  A can find ways to survive and continue.  If anything, A has a claim against B for impact to A's business.   Perhaps the LCs should counter sue in bankruptcy for business impact due to BSA's legal issues.  If BSA goes out of business, LCs should sue for legal rights to the intellectual property they have depended on.  That seems fair.
    • I wasn't really speaking to anyone in particular, in truth.  I think that there's just some surprise from us non-legal folks at the amount of money changing hands without going to the survivors.  I think we can all agree that we want to maximize the payouts to survivors in the hopes that it at least starts to make up for the injury you've suffered.  This happened in Scouting, and Scouting shouldn't have been about that, and it's up to Scouting to make you whole - or, at least, more whole. I would also guess that many of us also hope to minimize the damage to the BSA program.  These goals are, unfortunately, at cross-purposes, at least at face value. Speaking personally, I am surprised that lawyers in such a case would take 40% of the settlement before it reached survivors (or as was mentioned above, 36%).  Is such a large piece of the pie typical for cases like this?   (I know text can disguise meaning, so just know that my questions are sincere and not intended to be leading toward any one conclusion or argument). Goodness, no.  I was legitimately asking what was taking so long.  I haven't followed along as closely as some of you folks, as this whole process has been emotionally draining to me as someone who did have a good experience in the Scouts.  If anything, it looks again as though the BSA presented a second offer which was again viewed as wholly insufficient and insulting to survivors.  But if we all agree on that, that this offer is insufficient, what's holding us up?  Are we waiting for the BSA to bring another offer to the table?  Are we waiting for the judge to rule on what assets can be rightfully classified as restricted?  What's the next step?  (I suppose the answer to that may well be more complicated than I know). Please do read my questions as sincere, which is how I intend them.  This is not an area in which I have any expertise at all, and I don't really know whether this sort of timeline is typical.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...