Eagle1993

My 2nd dose of Pfizer was really rough ... but probably better than getting the virus.

I understand the vaccination hesitancy here, especially with mRNA versions.  I hope most will get a vaccine when more of the public is vaccinated (or more traditional vaccines are approved) and we (hopefully) see limited adverse reactions.  I don't think we need to hit 100% ... 80% would be big win.  I am concerned that if not enough people get the vaccine, more variants will be produced until one breaks through the existing vaccines.  At minimum, perhaps we can turn Covid into a mild cold or flu vs what it was or could be.

Note that I just got off a call with my team in India.  It is pretty bad there with multiple team members having close relatives die from the virus.  While our healthcare system is much better than theirs, I really think some of these variants are much worse than the initial strain.  The good news is it seems that vaccines help against their variant. 

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The reason that 24/7 rule is in place is because when scouts were sexually abused it was NOT always during a scouting activity. It would be Scoutmaster telling a scout "come on over to my house and we can work on your rank advancement", etc. There have been people posting on this very forum that have in fact said that is how they were abused: by a scout leader in the leader's home/some non-scouting location.

So, faced with the choice of a) writing a rule that limits Youth Protection Training/Guide to Safe Scouting to scouting events only b) writing the 24/7 rule, they went with the later because of BSA's past history in this area.

I think the no 1 on 1 is a good idea in life.  I would never want to be with a kid that is not my own without someone else around.  If my son's friend comes over and I need to drive him home ... my son will come with.

Now ... the 2 deep leadership ... I'm sorry, but that is excessive.  My son has friends come over (including a scout) and I may be the only one at home.  If BSA cracks down on this, I'll drop my BSA membership.  I wonder if BSA bans single parents as leaders as it is very likely they would have this situation happen frequently.

BSA looking to settle with someone who got hurt in a fall at Summit.  $3M ... primarily from insurance.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ee370ded-4028-485a-8e3c-6efe453bac3b_2719.pdf

6 minutes ago, Owls_are_cool said:

My COR, CC, and DE had to remove two parents from the committee , because they were bullying scouts. Those two parents lawyered up and I, as scoutmaster, was made out as the criminal in this process. 

Myself and leaders in my troop have put their necks on the line for youth protection, yet as we struggled through this mess the BSA and CO could be held liable, because someone did not fix this fast enough? 

I am a member of the BSA. So when the BSA is being sued, I am being sued. You know who is not being sued? The people actually responsible for the abuse. 

The people responsible for the abuse goes beyond the abuser.  It goes to volunteers, employees and the organization that let it happen.  

I go back to the Scout's Honor article and book.  This dates back to 1991 and shows how BSA knew they had a problem, but kept it quiet.  I recommend reading the articles ... it shows why the BSA is where it is today.

Quote

 

Nearly once every two weeks for the past 19 years, a Scout leader or camp worker has been banned for sexual misconduct with children. Except for a few people at national headquarters, no one - either in the public or in Scouting itself - knew how many Scouts said they were abused.

But Scout officials knew that if the public heard about leaders having sexual relations with boys, parents would be afraid to let their children join.

"Like anybody, we were not interested in broadcasting it," said Joseph Anglim, director of administration for the Boy Scouts. "For years and years it was one of America's greatest secrets."

 

https://www.bishop-accountability.org/news5/1991_05_20_Boyle_Scoutings_Sex.htm

https://www.amazon.com/Scouts-Honor-Patrick-Boyle/dp/1559583657

Wow ... this volunteer needs to go immediately.  I would report him as well.  There should be no place for him in any unit or any council.  There are some grey areas where someone may be perceived as flirty.  This one is clearly way over the line when multiple women are reporting that he is openly asking about sexual activities.  BSA is not Tinder.

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I don't see a universe in which BSA voluntarily goes into Chapter 7, and it cannot (as a not-for-profit) be forced into it.

Agreed ... but if the BSA runs out of cash to pay lawyers, what choice do they have?  I can't imagine BSA's cash situation is good right now.  I know BSA is using Ch 7 as a threat.  Perhaps JP Morgan can keep giving them loans, but JP may get antsy with these other lawyers added.

21 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

As much as I respect the TCC lawyers, they are to my way of thinking negotiators.

The lawyers the Coalition just brought in are fighters. They are are here to win and they are being paid the big bucks to do so.

This just sends a clear/clearer message that negotiations are over, as if the response they filed or the multiple discovery demands didn't get that message across,

I would not be shocked to see the Coalition formally withdraw from mediation; they could stick around just pro forma but not really engage.

I think we may look back and see a huge strategic error with the Hartford settlement.  Why even go there.  I'm starting to see a narrowing window for BSA to escape a Chapter 7.  I expect the only chance is give up the HA bases, withdraw the insurance settlement and move on.  The other side knows there is likely 10's of billions of dollars at stake with the insurance side.  They can be patient, filing lawsuits against National HA bases, LCs, COs and insurance companies.

Note that these are lawyers directly representing claimants ... not the TCC ... so they can file suit against LCs and COs.  (I don't think the TCC lawyers actually directly represent claimants).

Again, I expect much of the focus will be the insurance policies, but the tone is definitely changing here.

Just now, David CO said:

Are you sure these are two different lawyers?  It looks to me like this is probably the same person, but with the name misspelled somewhere..

 

I copy pasted incorrectly.  There are actually 4 lawyers from Robbins Russell added to the mix.

Lawrence S. Robbins https://www.robbinsrussell.com/attorneys/lawrence-s-robbins/

Joshua S. Bolian   https://www.robbinsrussell.com/attorneys/joshua-s-bolian/

Ariel N. Lavinbuk https://www.robbinsrussell.com/attorneys/ariel-n-lavinbuk/

William J. Trunk https://www.robbinsrussell.com/attorneys/william-j-trunk/

Looks like multiple lawyers added as part of a lawfirm.

Also add to the mix one Ariel N. Lavinbuk. Focus on bankruptcy, breach of contract and fraudulent transfer law.  He writes for Slate, Harvard and Yale Law Review.  

Also added is Ariel N. Lavinbu.  He is another Supreme Court litigator who has the highlight of winning a $4.6B lawsuit against the Country of Argentina.

Is it normal to see major lawyer changes this deep into bankruptcy hearings?  I’m curious what the thoughts are from our lawyers in the forum seeing the discovery requests followed by an addition of a fairly major law firm.

Lawrence S. Robbins Added as a lawyer for the coalition of abused scouts.  Apparently he has Kosnoff’s approval.
 

He has argued 18 cases in the Supreme Court and testified as a witness in major cases - as recently as Trump’s Impeachment (he was Mary Yovankavitch’s legal counsel).  
 

The discovery requests followed by adding a big legal gun makes me wonder where this is headed. BSA’s negotiation with Hartford appears to have blown up in their face.  National needs to figure how to get out of this mess... the current counsel seems to be failing.

6 minutes ago, David CO said:

It says the founder of Why Scouting Matters is a council president.  Doesn't sound much like an independent grassroots organization to me.

I believe it is considered grass roots as it is not directed by a council or BSA.  The council president is a volunteer role ... so he is a BSA volunteer.

I'm actually surprised someone so high up in scouting (a Council President & National Board Advisor) is basically saying BSA may die.  To me, I wish more would step up and say this out loud.

Quote

We know there are negative stories associated with Scouting. We respect the validity of those stories, but we will not publish them. Our mission is to showcase the overwhelming number of positive experiences Scouting has delivered.

I tend to agree with this comment from the site.  There are countless news sources and forums (ahem) that blast scouting from all sides.  It's great to see a positive message for the tens of millions who benefitted.  I believe in scouting which is why I spend my free time leading a Den, Pack and Troop.  I haven't been fishing in months, haven't gone golfing in over a year as I spend much of my free time working on scouting.  I believe it is a unique experience and greatly benefits those who participate.  Can the BSA improve ... sure, but its the best program available at this time.  I think our country would be much better off if more youth went through scouting and unfortunately, it appears we are headed in the opposite direction.  Hopefully efforts like this can start turning this around.

20 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

That's been the insurance companies position all along:

1) BSA withheld information when they entered into the policies, voiding them

2) BSA withheld information during the duration of the policies, voiding them

3) Insurance does not cover the criminal actions of the insured, and what BSA and its leaders did was criminal.

Similar battles are going on in other cases.  Found this article to be interesting ... and perhaps a hint to future battles.

https://buffalonews.com/news/local/buffalo-diocese-relies-on-insurance-policies-to-cover-abuse-claims-in-bankruptcy/article_aadfdb85-b90c-548d-9e36-9be79e19f1b5.html

Quote

Among the points of contention will be how “occurrences” of abuse get quantified and to what extent diocese officials knew about abuse and allowed it to happen. Insurers in past cases have sought to group allegations of abuse into a single occurrence, regardless of the number of victims or perpetrators, thus limiting the amount they would need to pay out. And Continental's lawyers already have accused the Buffalo Diocese of creating "a system of protecting, transferring, and obscuring the identities of pedophilic priests” that would invalidate insurance coverage.

I expect the BSA at all levels knows the CO model is broken.  If they truly implemented the model, @David CO is correct.  No unit can switch COs as the unit is simply the extension of the CO.  If the CO decides to not recharter, they shut down the unit.  Now, the CO can decide to be "friendly" and offer to donate the scout equipment to another unit, but it is the CO's property.  I'm probably incorrect, but I thought in the past veteran bars required the unit to be chartered with the same CO over the time period.

The BSA doesn't run this way anymore.  It seems like they are committed to the "idea" of the CO as they can claim that the CO is the owner of the unit and fully responsible.  However, they also don't really want the COs to own the units (look at changes they made to how the funds must be used for scouting after a unit closes).  DEs know that many COs don't really meet the charter agreement, but they have to sign off or they would see many units simply collapse.

That said, if I were this unit I would be doing the same actions they are currently planning.  Unfortunately, the units I know that searched for COs recently ended up panic signing a CO up right before charter.  They were selective at first, but then realized few if any organizations are looking to sign on BSA units (at least based on what they have told me).

12 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

What are the policy limits - the number that caps Hartford's maximum exposure?

 

Is there "excess" coverage?

Look at Schedule 2 and 3 here. 

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/876518_2293.pdf

This shows all of the various insurance policies for National and LCs. The question is what is coverage of each of these policies.  Then someone would have to see how many claims existed against that specific policy.  Then add all of those up.   The problem for Hartford (and others) is that have a ton of exposure through multiple policies.  I think the TCC is asking (through Discovery) how they came up with $650M.   The collation has already concluded the that $650M is not adequate.

29 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

n other words, the focus is going to be on where BSA, Century, and Hartford came up with $650 million as the estimate for abuse payout or whatever.

I think you are correct that it’s the insurance companies that were served.  While Kosnoff is tweeting about BSA and Mediators it looks like he indicated there was discovery coming from the insurance companies.

“The mediators Carey, Finn and Gallagher have zero credibility now, if they ever did. They facilitated this outrage in secret and w/o the survivors’ bk lawyers. They simply sold out the victims. They should resign or be fired and no one should ever accept them as mediators again.”

“I’m certain that BSA and it’s team of legal vermin and Chubb and Hartford’s pond scum legal teams and even the disgraced mediators are soiling their BVDs today. Discovery a few hours ago propounded on CB and HIG lawyers. No more talking; no more mediation...”

I saw Kosnoff’s tweet yesterday and was wondering why he made the statement about discovery.   He mentioned that the mediators were also served.  It really seems the judge has lost all control.  

Agree with simplify.   LCs and COs are pushed out of the court room and settlement.  National insurance policies are given to the settlement trust.  The trust can either settle with the insurance companies or sue them in District Court.   BSA HA bases including Arrow are added to the pot and the Philmont mortgage is determined to be unsecured (Arrow is secured).  Done.  

WSJ reporting Century may go bankrupt over the BSA lawsuit.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-sexual-abuse-claims-threaten-financial-havoc-for-insurance-companies-11619211199

@Eagle1970 welcome to Scouter.com.  I’m terribly sorry to hear of your abuse.  

CFL's sale is going final.  The plan is to make it a high end family camp ground.  

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

$7.1 billion / 82,500 = $86,060

One problem here ... that is $86,060 in the Settlement Trust per victim.  This does not mean victims walk away with $86,060.

1) The Settlement Trust will have to pay fees to lawyers, administration, etc. that manages the trust.  In some cases, they will have property they have to sell (oil rights, paintings, etc.)

2) Many claimants, as mentioned, have legal representation who will take 40% of the recovery.

So, $7.1B * 10% (trust management) + $7.1B  * 40% (legal fees) = $3.55B in "fees" leaving $3.55B for victims.

That means the victims walk away with $43K each with a $7.1B payout.

9 minutes ago, elitts said:

I truly don't think most of the claimants have Kosnoff's dedication to burning down the BSA.  So when you start looking at the relatively small increase in the payout pool from a complete liquidation of BSA National vs a Reorganization, I don't think it's going to have the kind of attractiveness that some folks believe it will.

I agree that the end goal of the TCC and many claimants is not the destruction of the BSA; however, most will want the money their lawyers are telling them they could expect if they reject the current offer.

The TCC (and the various lawyers) has a number in mind on what the BSA can afford to pay (as they have said on this site, they have already had a company perform an assessment of more than 500 BSA properties including a review if they are restricted or not).  They likely have a number in mind in terms of liability of insurance companies.  I doubt it is the full $102B; however, it is likely well north of $1-$2B.  Until BSA's offer comes close to number they have in mind, they will continue to reject any offer.   The judge is unlikely to approve a deal until the claimants approve an offer.  In the latest response, the prediction is that 95% of claimants will vote against BSA's current offer.  BSA needs 66% to approve.

Now, does this then end with Chapter 7 of BSA ... I think that is too early to tell.  

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

My experience is that it usually is NOT the court (read: clerk of court) that redacts. The attorneys will a) PACER file the redacted version and b) PACER file an unredacted version that only the judge and court staff have access to, with unredacted copies emailed or mailed to the other parties.

Kosnoff is on twitter complaining about Judge Silverstein improperly sealing and over redacting victim letters to the court.  I was curious has the redacting is working in this case and why they wouldn't allow release of a groups estimate of Harford's liability.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/887735_2672.pdf

Interesting find in the Future Clamant Representative response .. the court redacted their estimates of Harford's liability.  So clearly there are estimates, but the court doesn't want that public.