CynicalScouter

It isn't anger. It is a realization that the CO-BSA model has been a joke for years. The theory back in the early days of BSA was that a group of locals of good moral character would select what we now call the Key-3 from among themselves or others in the community that they personally knew/could vouch for. In theory. In practice what you now have, and had for DECADES, is COs who were under the impression they were just there to give free space for the unit, not be involved, etc. Of course, units were often only too happy to let that impression stick because it meant they could run "their" unit "their" way. And then the reality smacked COs in the face that no, they were LEGALLY on the hook, that units were LEGALLY SPEAKING, appendages. The example I use is for a church, of course the pastor is going to know and personally approve who is running the Sunday School. But are OK with renting out the fellowship hall for free because they viewed the BSA unit as a "community group", NOT part of the church. Of course now that the reality is setting in, COs are dropping units in droves, BSA has had to shift to allowing units to charter with their Councils (and the former-COs are NOW LEGALLY simply renting space). There's plenty of blame. COs not reading the LEGALLY BINDING document they sign every year. The units not even trying to engage with the CO beyond that once a year signing. Etc. BSA, happily and blissfully OK, with the COs being completely checked out. Here's a tracking mechanism: every CO is, ex officio, a voting member of the Local Council. I will bet, cash on the barrel-head bet, that no council has more than 10% CO participation in those votes/activities. And BSA, rather than looking at that as a problem, looked at it as a positive. So now we reap the whirlwind with COs dropping units.

1) Tax status is automatically extended to the unit because, for legal and BSA purposes, the unit is simply an appendage of the CO. If your CO is tax exempt, so is your unit. It if is for profit, so is your unit. 2) Extending insurance coverage is again not up to the CO. If they are volunteers APPROVED BY THE CO, they are automatically covered by whatever insurance National and the local council have AND (by virtue of being volunteers) whatever the CO has. THIS was a huge problem and why many COs are getting sued into oblivion because they thought they could charted a unit and were not otherwise legally responsible for anything that unit did. They failed to supervise the adult leaders who then proceeded to abuse scouts. Now, the COs are getting sued and wondering why oh why? Because CO, or COR, it was YOUR signature on the adult application. It was YOUR responsibility to oversee and supervise the unit. As I explained here As for this For their own legal safety, COs had better start managing and engaging with their units or else this will simply repeat again.

Here's the tricky part: at least SOME insurance policies had no limit. Some had aggregate caps (no more than $XX per occurrence, no more than $YY for the term of the policy). Part of the enormous mess here is figuring out which polices applied in which years and did that year's policies have a cap? Etc. Part of what the TCC has been demanding is answers to these questions. They haven't gotten very far.

Yes, where did $650 M come from? Why not more? And does BSA have any right/authority to let Hartford off the hook for the low, low price of $650 M?

My experience is that normally responses to document demands and interrogatories do not get filed with the court. Select points may show up in later filings. It's worth noting specifically what is being asked for it First Set of Interrogatories By the Official Committee of Tort Claimants, the Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice and the Future Claims Representative to [BSA OR Century OR Hartford] in Connection with Estimation Proceedings and First Request for the Production of Documents by the Official Committee of Tort Claimants, the Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice and the Future Claims Representative to [BSA OR Century OR Hartford] in Connection with Estimation Proceedings In 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.

No, only three of the parties to the mediation (BSA, Century, Hartford) were served. Frankly, if they even TRIED to demand production from the mediators it would be (almost) instantly quashed by the court. The whole idea of private mediation is you cannot force the other sides, and ESPECIALLY the mediators, to reveal those proceedings outside some extraordinary showing (e.g. during mediation, one party indicated they were actively engaged in current criminal conduct). But if you were not part of that mediation, you can ask on what basis the conclusion was reached. So, here, the claim is the Hartford need only pay $650 million. Where did that number come from? What is Hartford's current financial status? What was the maximum that could have been sought? In other words, the MEDIATORS can never, ever say (again, outside of some extreme circumstances), but you better believe that the other parties, especially parties that may have a claim to Hartford's insurance policies (TCC, Coalition, etc.) have a legal interest in how that $650 million number came about. Also keep in mind: $650 is what BSA and Hartford agreed to. That does NOT mean it is what a) the court will agree to or b) what 67% of the abuse victims will accept. As @ThenNowhas pointed out over and over, BSA seems to truly think it can cut deals with everyone else (JP Morgan Chase was first, now Hartford) and in the end just...what? Expect the judge to order a cramdown? Expect to get 67% of abuse victims to simply say "fine, we give up, we'll take what we can get?" Remember: at the end of the day the purpose of a Chapter 11 is for the debtor to emerge, alive and functioning (for at least 5 years). BSA's cutting deals to just be done with this, taking pennies on the dollar to get out of this ASAP. And their plan is going to be to offer something to victims that amounts to "this is the best we can do". That's why the TCC needs to be allowed to offer its own BSA reorganization plan ASAP. I suspect that will include Selling at least 2 HA bases (which BSA now says are either necessary for future operations and/or restricted. Let's see what the court has to say about that) Allowing TCC to directly negotiate with the insurance companies and JP Morgan Chase from this point forward. No more BSA negotiating sweetheart deals for itself. Asking for $1-2 billion from LCs if the LCs are part of a global settlement. If not and the bankruptcy focuses ONLY on BSA/the "toggle plan", then disregard point #3 As the recent filing noted: ENOUGH. No more negotiation. (Possibly, probably) no more mediation. Sometimes, you just need to litigate this out. Put the judge in the position of having to start making rulings/determinations. Let me conclude with something an older attorney once told me. We were discussing the idea of judges/courts having calendar and case management (in short, judges set deadlines and schedule case management conferences in order to avoid cases dragging on forever). He vehemently disagreed with judges having active management of civil litigation. His view was that the role of a judge was like that of a baseball umpire or a ref in a prize fight. The two sides decide when they plan to beat each other to a pulp (prize fight) or play a game (baseball); the purpose of the ref/ump was to show up, get paid, and call balls and strikes or ref the fight. It is...a view one that modern court administration and management absolutely screams is not the right answer, but from an attorney perspective I get it. Past a certain point, the judge needs to step up and start putting an end to some of this.

Looks like negotiations are over. Counsel for TCC and others are demanding document and other discovery production from Century, Hartford and BSA. While the demand requests are not online, I would suspect that a lot of the focus is going to be on how that $650 million deal got struck, etc. Kosnoff, who likely has access to the discovery requests, is making it clear that negotiations are over. That is in keeping with that barn burner of an objection filed by FCR and others earlier this week. Demands on Century https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/889956_2684.pdf Demands on Hartford https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/889954_2683.pdf Demands on BSA https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/889956_2684.pdf

My advice to the judge echoes about 90% of what was posted earlier: 1) LCs have a drop dead date of June 1 to either reach an agreement with TCC (and FCR) or get lost. I'm not fully prepared to cut them all loose yet, but enough is enough. We already know that some/many LCs are selling camps to pay into a settlement fund based on what they were told by the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils. That indicates to me at least SOME LCs are TRYING to come up with settlement money. My concern is that they are being told by the Ad Hoc Committee to bring $X to the table and the TCC wants something much, much more from that LC. 30 days, or they get shoved out the courthouse door. 2) COs are on the same June 1 clock. 3) As for that June 1 deadlines, I've seen judges issue these kinds of orders before with the following added "requests for extensions (or continuances) will not be entertained". June 1 means June 1. Do, or do no. There is no try anymore. 4) I am not yet ready to agree to reject the ENTIRE bankruptcy due to the shell games BSA is playing with Arrow, WV (it's the Schrodinger's cat of assets It both is/isn't BSA's property. It both is/isn't restricted). There's already two adversary actions: a motion against the agreement BSA reached with JP Morgan over Summit + the main adversary case over BSA's assets includes "Note Receivable From Arrow WV" Let's proceed to trial in District Court on that.

Again, that is simply not true. Where on earth are you getting this idea? 1) As I've said before and I'll say again, the end result of this is that there will STILL BE a (much smaller) District of Columbia. The charter isn't going away David. Get that through your head. 2) Let's play out your delusion that suddenly the District of Columbia will cease to exist. The charter specifies District of Columbia, however there is a understanding in law that the successor entity remains as valid. The District of Douglass AS SUCCESSOR STATE TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA would be the place of incorporation. This has happened over and over and over the centuries. If, for example, you were incorporated in the Territory of Arizona, the fact that it is now the State of Arizona does NOT void all charters, articles of incorporation, acts of Congress (like a congressional charter), etc. that use the term "Territory of Arizona" because "State of Arizona" was considered the direct successor. In other words, that charter does not suddenly "disappear". 3) But let's play through your delusion for a second. There are over 100+ organizations with Congressional charters under Title 36, all of which specify that the place of incorporation is the District of Columbia. Do you really think the creation of a state suddenly voids them? Seriously? Is your knowledge of law that poor 4) State or federal corporations don't matter for liquidation purposes. What does matter is not-for-profit: a not-for-profit cannot be FORCED to liquidate/Chapter 7. It can voluntarily Chapter 7 if it requests, however. So no, DC statehood will have precisely ZERO impact on the BSA charter. If you want it revoked/rescinded because you want to fire literally every BSA staffer and BSA Board member, you'll need Congress to repeal the charter (36 USC Code, Chapter 309).

Why would it? First, the plan for DC statehood would still leave a District of Columbia. The residential portions of what is now the District of Columbia would become Washington, District of Douglass. There will still be a District of Columbia. Second, even if the entirely of the District of Columbia was eliminated, the successor state would be the place of incorporation. As I think I've explained to you before: the only way to get the kind of complete and total elimination of the entire BSA National Executive Board and every BSA executive employee you want it for Congress to rescind the charter.

1) The judge cannot order that. 2) Under the terms of the BSA charter as approved by Congress, BSA leadership selects its own successors. There is no "election". You don't get to vote on who is on the executive board or for any position.

That is currently being debated. In short: 1) EVERY victim will have the right to vote. There is 0% chance that this can or will be taken away from you personally or any victim. 2) SOME victims may (I say may here) waive the right and turn it over to their attorney. So, AIS or the Coalition, for example, may be able to say "We have XX,XXX clients who have turned their votes over to us. And we vote Yes/No." Now, it is possible the court will rule no, lawyers cannot proxy vote/vote on behalf of their clients. 84,000 ballots go to 84,000 people and that is that. 67% of votes TURNED IN are required to move ahead with the plan. It is also possible the court will approve a proxy-vote plan where AIS, or the Coalition, can cast those XX,XXX votes. I would expect that will be part of the fight at the May hearing. Of course, it is possible it will be delayed; no sense deciding how to vote on the plan until we actually get a plan. There are also related fights about the ballot. When the ballots go out, they will contain a copy of the plan in the envelope. Will that envelope ALSO contain a) a statement from BSA why victims should approve the plan b) a statement from the TCC and their view of the plan c) a statement the Coalition, AIS, or some other group and their view(s) of the plan? All this is TBD.

There remains a non-zero chance that BSA National ceases to exist at the end of this. LCs and COs are going to be sued/forced into their own Chapter 11 and Chapter 7s.

Right, I should make doubly clear: everything I just described is BSA's plan. The actual abuse scores, severity, etc. is TBD and has to be approved of by a) 67% of the abuse victims and b) the judge. But the broader point remains: this will not be a situation where all abuse victims receive the exact same compensation ("same share").

I am so, so sorry for what happened to you. The answer to your question is no, this will not be "same share". There is going to be a "points" system. I am trying to be sensitive here, but basically it will be severity of act * number of occurrences = abuse score. So, and I am trying to be sensitive here, if some (relatively) minor thing was done to a scout but was done a LOT 100 severity "points" * 10 occurrences = 1000 abuse score. And if every 1 abuse score point = $1, then the victim would get $1000. But if one VERY major thing was done to a scout twice 1000 severity points * 2 occurrences = 2000 abuse score No one knows what the severity numbers or what the abuse score points will be (1 point may = $2, $1, $10, $.05, that is to be determined), but you can see BSAs plan for the severity points on pages 149-150 of this https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/886292_2594.pdf

The only thing I can think of, and it isn't exact but it is all I've got, is asbestos combined with 9/11. Asbestos: where exposure may have been decades ago, illness occurs now, and the (in those cases courts) had to/have to figure out how much asbestos was inhaled THEN to determine damages NOW. And yes, it included lookback windows and statute of limitations fights. In that case/those cases there was a push for an omnibus global settlement through and MDL in Federal Court. It failed miserably. Sound familiar? Rand Corp did several studies on the extent of ligation. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG162.pdf See in particular the section on Search for Global Settlement. Instead, what has happened has been tens of thousands of cases litigated one by one. September 11th Victim Compensation Fund: Claims adjuster was appointed and heard the bulk of the cases "Feinberg personally presided over more than 900 of the 1,600 hearings. At the end of the process $7 billion was awarded to 97% of the families." The one major advantage (if that's the right word) of this vs. asbestos is that there is a known, finite number of claims against BSA (~84,000) and that number may drop lower as duplicate claims and other admin things reduce the number. Asbestos there are still people testing positive for and suing now for inhaling it decades ago. 9/11 fund there was a finite number of claims (1600) as well. So, unlike asbsetos where there will probably be cases into the next 2-3 decades, any BSA settlement (whether Global or at least as to BSA National/the toggle plan) the settlement adjuster/trustee will be working this for a few years, not indefinitely, making it more like the 9/11 VCF.

That's what shocked me, too. The TCC seemed to be saying in its recent filings and at the last court hearing that they were concerned that they were being cut out and that BSA was trying to cut a deal directly with the Coalition. Well, any plans to work direct with the Coalition just went up in smoke. Forget global plans and toggle plans.

I don't think BSA will willingly go into Chapter 7, and it cannot be forced to (not for profit and all). What I can see is that a) the judge will NOT order a cramdown over the objections of sexual abuse victims. The ramifications of that would be cataclysmic. Like "Congressional hearings and newspaper headlines" seismic of a bankruptcy judge ordering victims to take pennies on the dollar. b) the sexual abuse victims will never come to 67% approval FOR A BSA-CREATED PLAN. c) if this has any chance at all at this point, the exclusivity time frame has to end and TCC (and others) have to be able to produce their own reorg plan for review and vote. No more games by BSA about what is/is not restricted assets. Sometimes you just have to litigate this thing out. You cannot mediate yourself out of everything. d) There is still a better than even chance IMHO this ends with either a failed bankruptcy (BSA National emerges with no reorg plan) or a plan that leaves BSA so crippled that it is right back in bankruptcy court in 2-3 years (a "Chapter 22" double-dip bankruptcy).

The clerk's office will redact if there is some sort of personally identifiable information on a pro se filing. So, for example, if an SSN or something that isn't suppose to be for public consumption is filed. The clerk will do that for pro se people, but the burden is on lawyers (or their paralegals, let's get real here) to redact as appropriate in their own filings. Kosnoff can complain all he wants, that is standard practice for all federal courts and every state court I've ever dealt with. It's called Rule 5.2 at the federal level. States have their own multitude of versions. Silverstein, given that this involves sexual abuse victims, may have added an even stronger order beyond 5.2 because of the pro se filings to ensure victims didn't accidentally reveal information that they intended for the court to the whole wide world. Why they won't let Hartford's number out, I just don't know. Perhaps it is part of the ongoing mediation? I just don't know.

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.

Ok, so back to the subject at hand: math. $2.4 billion / 82,500 = $29,090 $7.1 billion / 82,500 = $86,060 There's no way I know of about how they came up with that when so many of these abuse cases have had $1+ million payouts. But that's ok, we'll take their numbers for now. Show of hands: how many people here really, really thing that the abuse victims, or 67% of the abuse victims, are going to take on average $86,060 and say "thanks" and let BSA National exit bankruptcy? There's at least 870 active pending cases against BSA National that are NOT time-barred. Assume 1 victim each (that's not true, some have multiple plaintiffs). That's $870 million in liability at least right there assuming $1 million per victim. $7.1 billion is an asinine low ball, which may have been the point of course. Now TCC and BSA have staked their ground. BSA wants to go to $7.1 billion and no higher. TCC wants at least $102 billion. And now we'll drag this out some more. But at least for the first time ever we've got numbers to work with.

And on contingency, when the lawyer loses and gets 0%? Just don't worry about that, right? Just focus on the Evil Lawyers(tm) and "windfalls". I'm focused on the victims.

Oh no! It is so much simpler to hate the Evil Lawyers(tm) than to think about the abuse and how BSA and the LCs and COs will have to now pay for it. Better to just blame lawyers, deny victims their right to a day in court, and hope that all these lawsuits and sexual abuse claims just go away so BSA can go back to the way it was.

There are a lot of people in this forum that want to ignore the abuse, pretend those boys didn't exist, and instead focus on the Evil Lawyers(tm) .

Rare are the instances where I agree with @David CO, but I absolutely do so here. You want to tell the rape victim "Sure, you can seek justice. Just not civilly." or "Sure, you can seek justice in a civil case, but you better not hire a lawyer!" Etc. Give me a break.