Jump to content

CynicalScouter

Members
  • Content Count

    3410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    78

Everything posted by CynicalScouter

  1. The BSA since at least Plan 2.0 intended the ballot to have an option for "Accept the plan AND I'll take the expedited payment". Here was the language in Plan 5.0
  2. The Colorado constitution prohibits laws allowing for the reopening of civil statute of limitation windows retroactively, but can do prospectively. Meaning any abuse that took place PRIOR to the law's enactment operates with the OLD statute of limitations. Any abuse that took place AFTER the law's enactment operates with the NEW statute of limitations.
  3. I should note that the Insurance companies have also called this plan vote diluting and manipulation as well (they even called it bribery) to induce claimants to take the money and run and vote for a plan that would never get approved without it.
  4. My guess is she'll say "lets just wait for the votes to come in and find out then." Remember: don't adjudicate what doesn't need to be adjudicated. If the plan fails to get 2/3rds even with the $3500 payout folks, it's dead. No need to worry about it. If it succeeds with 2/3rds the $3500 payout folks AND the 2/3rds of non-$3500 payout folks, it lives (it could be killed for other reasons of course) If if succeeds with 2/3rds of the $3500 payout folks BUT FAILS to get 2/3rds of the non-$3500 payout folks, then she has to rule.
  5. Yep. This is what the judge said/warned (emphasis mine) "And what I'm going to be giving thought to, and I'm sure it's going to come up in other aspects of this, is can we take a vote so that at confirmation, challenges of whatever nature people want to raise, there's an ability to do so and have a vote that we can look at to apply those challenges to. So that's what I'm trying to think about, as well, as we go through this process. For example, there is challenge to the $3,500 expedited distribution and questions about whether that is going to sway the vote and whet
  6. The resulting split would as I read it result in needing two-sets of 2/3rds votes. 2/3rds of all claimants WHO ARE JUST OPTING FOR $3500 2/3rds of all claimants WHO ARE OPTING FOR THE SETTLEMENT TRUST SYSTEM And they want the motion heard tomorrow (it technically says September 21, but that's because I believe tomorrow's hearing is the adjournment of the September 21 hearing)
  7. TCC throws down the gauntlet. They are demanding that all 82,500 be IMMEDIATELY classified for voting purposes, and quote the judge back at her. And BSA apparently made a Sunday night shift in its view of voting. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/375adbf4-92db-4a41-b164-2ecfb1fcc7ce_6368.pdf So this means that the BSA seek to allow those opting for $3500 to vote, swamping the claims of all others. The TCC is calling this voting diluting and manipulation (pages 9-10). The TCC now wants the court to order BSA to divided claimants into two group
  8. Here is one other item from the TCC that wasn't 100% clear to me last week and I don't think was 100% clear to anyone else. The Hartford $787 Million is NOT dedicated to victims covered by Hartford years/policies but goes to ALL claimants. The LDS $250 million will go ONLY to LDS victims. So, that means if you are a non-LDS survivor, the offer is $1.88 billion - $250 million (LDS only) = $1.63 billion / 82500 = $19,757 (average) If you and LDS survivor, you get (on average) $19757 + $100,000 ($250 million / 2500 LDS claimants) for a total of around $120,000 on av
  9. "Certain Excess Insurers" are submitting their proposed confirmation schedule based on what the judge (verbally) directed. Rather than putting in specific dates (December 9, October 15, etc.) they laid out a formula (150 days after X, then Y). https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/dad63f9f-ccb6-42d5-8cd7-527a885bf7fb_6367.pdf Based on their math, the earliest for a plan confirmation is 182 days after the disclosure hearing. If the disclosure hearing is 9/28/2021, that means the earliest for a confirmation hearing is 3/29/2022. And remember: BSA is N
  10. I think "claim" here is "how much LC assets there really are". This gets back to the LC's pleading restricted-and-or-poverty vs. the TCC which clearly now believes the LCs (in the aggregate) can offer triple what they are offering. But as I noted: some LCs that is undoubtedly true. Others, not so much.
  11. That is where this may differ. For example, some councils are so small/broke that doubling or tripling their contribution would effectively put them under. But you have a LOT of larger councils who are paying, in effect, peanuts. Just look at the 10 largest councils by total assets (according to BSA numbers). Only Greater Cascade is over the national average of 14%. Greater Los Angeles is close. The others are coming in way under. Local Council Name Total Assets % of Total Assets Towards Co
  12. My council weathered the storm (no layoffs) but I was on an email chain about training for another council during which it was noted that promotion of events and a slew of other things were not happening for summer camp, at which point the SE chimed in "You all complained about professionals, now see how life is without them." That did not go over well, and I sympathize with him (he had to lay off half his people) but the point's valid. Professional staff exist to full roles volunteers cannot or will not perform.
  13. No, but I can also see fighting the language maybe? That's why I note they include "come to the TCC town halls" language.
  14. I just read this a third time. If they get this letter in, the plan's toast. The BSA and the Coalition are going to fight tooth and claw not to let it in, of course.
  15. The current BSA plan is around $1.88 billion. "10 cents on the dollar" = $18.8 billion
  16. So, doing the math here. The LCs are contributing $500 million (plus the $100 million note, but I put that aside for a second). The TCC has now come out with a specific number they expect from the LCs: "over a billion dollars" more. That would put the LC contributions that the TCC finds acceptable at least at $1.5 billion (again, I am putting the note aside a second) $1.5 billion / 82,500 = $18,181.81 It means, ROUGHLY all councils will have to TRIPLE what they are putting in the pot. That would, generally, move the AVERAGE LC contribution of assets from the 14-16% ra
  17. TCC latest filing includes their official letter to be included in the solicitation urging that victims reject the plan. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ccb69c72-6cc4-49ce-9153-1f417e8943fb_6365.pdf Key quotes (bold in original) "The Official Tort Claimants Committee (TCC) in the chapter 11 bankruptcy of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) urges survivors to vote to reject BSA’s Plan. The Plan is grossly unfair to the 82,200 survivors who were sexually abused as children. In the TCC’s opinion, survivors may receive less than 10 cents on the dollar unde
  18. At some point today we should see an amended version of the disclosure statement that the BSA and parties were supposed to have been working on all weekend long. I HOPE it is "Red-lined" so we can see the exact changes made, but more likely it will simply be an amended version which means having to go line by line to see what changed.
  19. My favorite is the person who has said he will use Dennis Prager videos to demonstrate how systemic racism/institutional racism doesn't really exist. https://discussions.scouting.org/t/concern-over-the-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-merit-badge/212618/8
  20. Rubber stamping only takes 30 seconds. I see where this train is heading: the person who sticks his/her hand up to say "I want to teach it" will be insta-approved. No real vetting.
  21. Right, so from a legal standpoint if XYZ Corp was subpoenaed but XYZ Corp dissolved in 2020, the subpoena is still live and valid against the "custodian of records" for XYZ Corp. Depending on the state, you have a statutory obligation to hold on to the records for a set number of years or forever. For example, here's a run down on Virginia https://www.vscpa.com/article/record-retention-small-businesses Now, that doesn't mean every LLC will do so, but the point is that the court (or attorney based on a court order) will subpoena XYZ Corp and if they don't respond, or respond with "we
  22. Starting to see more and more online references to this being field tested. http://ponyexpressbsa.org/resources/diversity-equality-inclusion https://www.troop97.net/bsaeagle.htm https://www.minsitrails.org/advancement/news-wire/73118 https://www.eventbrite.com/e/citizenship-in-society-troop-662-5-and-1g-at-central-park-sunday-92621-tickets-177624177697?aff=ebdssbdestsearch# https://stayhappening.com/e/citizenship-in-society-troop-662-5-and-1g-at-central-park-sunday-9-26-21-E3LUSQUCLG6C http://troop5harlem.com/ https://www.troop75ma.org/
  23. Great! Once again, not a single legal argument or one pertaining specifically to the bankruptcy court proceedings. Just your FEELING and EMOTIONS that this is unjust or unfair. Says who? Most of the perpetrators are dead. Those that have been found and alive are being prosecuted based on what has come out from the bankruptcy. Again: absolutely NONE of this in any way addresses BSA's legal liability. As a matter of fact, there is a provision in the bankruptcy plan to address this. The example used was if a priest who was the scoutmaster of a unit abused a scout, how much was the
  24. Great that you can. That, however, has precisely zero (0) with the LEGAL arguments at play here, namely that BSA through its negligence allowed TENS OF THOUSANDS of boys to be abused. That those victims of BSA's negligence are allowed compensation (in states with an open statute of limitations at least) and Those victims of BSA's negligence in closed states are never, ever going to approve a plan that leaves them with $0. *Deleted by Mod because it was a response to a deleted comment*
×
×
  • Create New...