Jump to content

    • The same way that California can impose higher emissions standards than other states. The Supreme Court has said that the commerce clause does not mean states cannot impose requirements on businesses doing business in that state PROVIDED it treats its own "domestic" businesses the same. For example, if California's emissions rules said "All cars manufactured outside of California are not required to meet the emissions standards; all other cars must" that would violate the commerce clause. It's sometimes called the dormant commerce clause: states are free to enact their own tort laws SO LONG AS they hit every company from everywhere equally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause First question, does NY opening up its statute of limitations impact interstate commerce? Sure. Second question: does it have as its PURPOSE to discriminate against commerce from other states? In other words, is NY picking on BSA because BSA is in Texas? No. Third question: does it have as its EFFECT to discriminate against commerce from other states? In other words, even if NY didn't mean to pick on BSA because BSA is in Texas, is that the result? Again, no. That ends the discussion. But the fourth question (we didn't get to) is even if NY could be shown to be discriminating against BSA because it was based in Texas, is there some justification for picking on Texas? Etc.
    • No.  It's not that they are "as invested".  It's that it's just too hard to figure out right now and the answer is being kicked down to the future to clarify.   Again ... "As invested" ... Emotionally absolutely.  Morally yes.  The question is legal standing is not clear.  That's the debate.  If they don't have legal standing to sue, then no they are not as invested even if they went thru something incredibly ugly and hurtful.  ... Current legal actions (voting on settlement) can't be based on possible future legislative action.  The debate is can it be based on probable legal standing as it's too difficult at this exact moment.  ... but ... if it's clear they don't have right to funds, they don't get a say.  ... that was the reason for the comment about Uruguay votes.  ... there is a ridiculous aspect to those without legal rights voting on a settlement.    
    • As always, thank you.  The detailed reasoning is very useful and I am grateful. My interpretation of your writing is that potentially not a single claim is time-barred in this bankruptcy.   Potentially.   BSA owns the program and BSA has been incorporated in SOL open states.  So even if the incident is in a closed state and the unit / CO and LC were all in closed states ... and even if the DE / SE and BSA oversight individuals' offices were in closed states, the BSA organization itself was incorporated in open states.  ... effectively jurisdiction shopping ...  @CynicalScouter ... Going for a far stretch that I could see some court pulling in.  ...  At some point, it seems the commerce clause of the constitution comes in.  How does an organization as BSA function across nation wide  when individual states such as NY can change laws effectively putting companies like BSA out of business.  I really question whether organizations like BSA should exist anymore.  Instead, should BSA be designed more like a standards body (think IEEE) that is funded by members and provides structure and standards.  Places like Philmont should be also independent to serve nation wide under that same organization body.  To be honest, I bet BSA often sees itself more like IEEE than McDonalds.     
    • I would also say it would open the door for other arguments such as a claim might be worth more (penetration vs touching fully clothed) so that claim should have a larger say (bigger vote).  Or a false claim that is worthless so you would have to investigate every claim.  That is a Pandora's Box that I am sure that the court would not want at this juncture.
    • Which is why Zalkin and Pfau have argued one way to address this is apply the scaling system (Gray 1/2/3 or some other system) on the FRONT end. For example: 1) A victim from an open statute of limitations state gets $1 or 1 vote. 2) A victim from a closed state (like Alabama) gets 10 cents or 1/10 of a vote. This addresses the imbalance of a) victims with live claims in the here and now against b) speculative claims that may or may not ever be eligible to enter in a state court some day in the future. It also means trying to parse out 82,500 claims and "weighing" them and telling some victims they are more or "less" worthy than others. Nightmares on top of nightmares. BSA called this putting the cart before the horse: use the scaling factors at the BACK end (settlement trust), not now.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Create New...