CynicalScouter
-
Content Count
3410 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
78
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Store
Posts posted by CynicalScouter
-
-
36 minutes ago, fred8033 said:
Denver Area - Colorado - Opening - Time window ... Not sure how to interpret their "new cause of action" law. Different than revived SOL
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.
-
31 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:
The TCC is calling this voting diluting and manipulation (pages 9-10).
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.
-
20 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:
This could be a non issue if the judge denies the request.... so we should know tomorrow as it can't be put off until confirmation of the plan.
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.
-
1
-
18 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:
It sounds like the judge agreed to this (as did BSA) during the hearing.
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 whether it should. Well, we're going to know the answer
to that question when we get the vote and whether the votes of the
survivors who choose the $3,500 distribution swing the class.
We'll know that. There are things we can know once we see the
vote and who's voted." -
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)
-
1
-
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.
QuoteLate in the day on Sunday, September 26, after the Debtors acknowledged to the
Court that it was essential to have this very information as part of the voting report for
consideration at the confirmation hearing, the TCC learned that the Debtors intended to make a
sudden about-face. Presumably to avoid this Court’s scrutiny of a critical confirmation issue that
they recognized just days ago, the Debtors now intend to have Electing Abuse Claimants, who
are in a fundamentally different position than non-Electing Abuse Claimants, make the election
to receive an Expedited Distribution after the Plan goes effectiveSo 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 groups the order would
Quotedirecting the Debtors (a) to amend the Plan to establish two separate classes of Direct Abuse Claims, as follows: (i) Electing Abuse Claims, and (ii) Non- Electing Abuse Claims, (b) include on any Ballot sent to Direct Abuse Claimants an election concerning whether such Direct Abuse Claimant voluntarily agrees to receive an Expedited Distribution, and (c) for such other and further relief as is just and proper under the circumstances.
-
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.
QuoteBecause the $787 million is not being dedicated to claims that trigger Hartford’s policies, the $787 million will yield approximately $8,500 per survivor after accounting for trust expenses and overhead.
The LDS $250 million will go ONLY to LDS victims.
QuoteThe TCJC settlement funds will only be distributed to survivors who have claims against TCJC which may result in additional distributions only to them.
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 average.
-
2 minutes ago, DuctTape said:
If I were in charge, there would be at most 5 required mBs.
There have never been that few.
-
"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).
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 NOW saying it's out of cash by that point (1Q 2022).
-
6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:
In what respect and as to which “claims”?
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.
-
8 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:
I do not know the likely effect on other councils but from what I know about my local council the effect of that would be to put the council on the brink. Perhaps other councils are different but we raise the money every year to operate the council. There is no two years in reserve right now.
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 Contribution
SAM HOUSTON AREA
179,837,619
4.43%
NORTHERN STAR
99,707,945
7.24%
GREATER ST. LOUIS AREA
96,778,145
8.25%
ATLANTA AREA
95,546,679
8.37%
CIRCLE TEN
92,482,329
8.64%
MICHIGAN CROSSROADS
67,087,721
11.90%
DENVER AREA
58,634,253
10.23%
CASCADE PACIFIC
56,027,991
17.85%
CROSSROADS OF AMERICA
55,507,464
7.79%
GREATER LOS ANGELES
55,232,268
14.48%
-
5 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:
All of those places need to be staffed and even at the lowest pay levels it comes to thousands of dollars per week. And much more for trained personnel like COPE director, life guards, shooting sports personnel, medical staff (we have MD or PA, Nurse and medic on staff each week of camp). All those people need to be housed and fed.
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.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, ThenNow said:
I can’t see how the judge excludes an official statement from the Official Tort Claimants Committee representing all victim claimants.
No, but I can also see fighting the language maybe?
13 minutes ago, ThenNow said:Including the TCC statement and having it read may be two different fishes.
That's why I note they include "come to the TCC town halls" language.
-
10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:
TCC latest filing includes their official letter to be included in the solicitation urging that victims reject the plan.
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.
-
8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:
In the TCC’s opinion, survivors may receive less than 10 cents on the dollar under the current BSA Plan.
The current BSA plan is around $1.88 billion.
"10 cents on the dollar" = $18.8 billion
-
6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:
BSA’s Plan includes settlements with Local Councils that leave them with over a billion dollars of cash and property in excess of what their current need to fulfill the mission of Scouting.
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% range to more than 42-48% range.
-
TCC latest filing includes their official letter to be included in the solicitation urging that victims reject the plan.
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 under the
current BSA Plan."That "10 cents on the dollar" thing is going to be huge.
"The key flaws in BSA’s Plan include:
- BSA’s Plan includes settlements with Local Councils that leave them with over a billion dollars of cash and property in excess of what their current need to fulfill the mission of Scouting.
- Under the terms of BSA’s Plan, Chartered Organizations do not pay a cent for broad releases for more than 40 years of sexual abuse claims (1976-2020). Instead, Chartered Organizations receive a release of their sexual abuse liability in exchange for a transfer of their interest in insurance policies purchased by the BSA and Local Councils.
- BSA’s Plan includes a settlement with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (TCJC) that is completely insufficient to pay for claims for which it has liability.
- The Hartford Insurance Company (Hartford), the only settling insurer to date, is paying a small fraction of the coverage it is contractually obligated to provide."
Other key passage: what happens if plan gets rejected?
"If a sufficient number of survivors vote to reject BSA’s Plan, then the possible outcomes include (i) BSA’s case may be dismissed and survivors may be free to pursue claims against BSA, Local Councils, Chartered Organizations and other parties subject to applicable statutes of limitation; (ii) the Court may appoint a trustee for BSA; (iii) the TCC (or other parties) may submit an alternate plan to reorganize BSA; or the BSA may amend its Plan and seek to resolicit votes to accept or reject such amended plan."
-
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.
-
9 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:
ESPECIALLY if the rumors that council's have to formally approve the MBC are true.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:
ESPECIALLY if the rumors that council's have to formally approve the MBC are true.
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.
-
11 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:
In my state, a corporation simply cannot simply cease operations, wind down the business, and dissolve. And run and hide, escape, and get away unscathed. Corporate liability continues for 5 years, I think after dissolution, remaining liable and responsible to respond to subpoenas (legal process), litigation, etc. .
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 shredded it" that can in the civil context have negative connotations.
-
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
QuoteCitizenship in Society (renamed "Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion" merit badge, to be released in November 2021 and added to the Eagle required list in July 2022)
https://www.minsitrails.org/advancement/news-wire/73118
-
10 minutes ago, skeptic said:
More importantly, again from my own perspective as a rational person, the jury payouts on many emotionally weighted cases is outlandish and again would not happen in other parts of the western world. Our legal system is broken and allows those types of awards, even though they are attempts to fix something that cannot be fixed.
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.
12 minutes ago, skeptic said:More importantly, the actual perpetrators again are not being brought to justice in most cases, and there is little effort, or so it seems, to do so.
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.
13 minutes ago, skeptic said:They would also take into consideration who, beyond the BSA, swept things around and under.
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 fault of the parish and how much the fault of scouting? Etc.
15 minutes ago, skeptic said:IF BSA is being held responsible for bad decisions, some perhaps forced by uncooperative families or obdurate of paid off public officials,
Again, and again, and again, and again, I have to repeat myself. The point is NOT a failure to report the abuse, NOT a failure to prosecute the abuse, and what is this conspiracy theory about "paid off public officials"?
The LEGAL point is that BSA, through its negligence, allowed the abuse to occur IN THE FIRST PLACE. It doesn't matter if AFTER THE ABUSE TOOK PLACE did or did not report it, did or did not seek to prosecute, did or did not get a conviction.
I know I've told you this at least twice and others have as well. Over and over and over you think that BSA is being unfairly punished for failure to report. It isn't. In fact, even if BSA had reported, had gotten convictions, etc. BSA is STILL LIABLE for the abuse happening IN THE FIRST PLACE.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, skeptic said:
But they are personal, and no amount of manetary solice will make them go away, and I have mostly learned to live with them and keep them at bay.
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.
16 hours ago, skeptic said:*deleted by Mod*
*Deleted by Mod because it was a response to a deleted comment*
Chapter 11 Announced - Part 6 - Plan 5.0/TCC Plan TBD
in Issues & Politics
Posted · Edited by CynicalScouter
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