CynicalScouter

I see. So sexual abuse victims should not be allowed to hire lawyers? Seek civil damages? That's your position? Or perhaps it is that sure, let sexual abuse victims hire lawyers, but those darn lawyers better not be paid one thin dime! So, it is either 1) Ban lawyers from sexual abuse civil cases, in which case the victims are only allowed to proceed pro se. 2) Allow lawyers, but only if they promise not to get paid/they work entirely pro bono. There's no way THAT won't result in few or no attorneys taking on such cases. Got it. Thanks for clarifying it.

It was a combo platter. 1) BSA was not at all forthcoming with Ineligible Volunteer Files. BSA leaders are on record as saying they were trying to hide as much as possible. Somehow, I doubt they were more open/honest with the insurers. It wasn't until the Lewis case forced BSA, by court order, to open up that they were willing to be honest 2) Yeah, the insurance companies were probably not as diligent as they could/should have been. But how much of this was BSA being less than honest, and the insurance companies being stupid? Had to say.

But there's the rub. BSA claims, in writing, that they didn't. Arrow, WV is, they claim, utterly separate. The TCC is right: the Arrow, WV loan is a sham/shell game.

Ah, but that's the shell game. BSA claims that Arrow, WV is a separate legal entity from BSA, therefore whatever is owed is owed to some other organization. Arrow, WV = BSA. BSA owes the money...to itself. But JP Morgan is helping BSA play a shell game to pretend that there are liens and loans.

The "encumbrance" is a note receivable against Arrow, WV payable to JP Morgan on behalf of BSA. It's a shell game to make it appear, on paper, like Arrow, WV is encumbered. It isn't.

You act as if the court (or the settlement trustee appointed by the court) is going to simply approve whatever claims were filed. That's simply not true.

1) The Morgan loan was and is a scam. It treats Arrow, WV and BSA is if they are separate entities. They aren't. BSA and Morgan are pulling a shell game. 2) The COs are getting sued because they were suppose to have had oversight over the units and especially the leader. They let the abuse happen. They're going down as well. I can see you simply think abuse victims should be told to go away. That is not going to happen.

TCC and others are claiming that the $300 M is returnable to BSA, therefore not a real lien but a shell game to make it appear Summit is encumbered when it really isn't.

Pack your bags. In fact, if you are serious, you would have left years ago. 1) Councils and National have already had to pay to settle dozens of lawsuits since 1997 over sexual abuse. 2) There are at least 850+ active pending lawsuits against BSA, local councils, and COs. They are paused/stayed due to the BSA bankruptcy, but they will proceed eventually and they will result in millions if not billions in judgments against BSA, LCs, and COs. 3) There is absolutely no scenario here in which all these abuse claims and lawsuits suddenly go away. None. We are well past the point of asking "Will BSA have to pay? Will LCs? Will COs?" the only questions left now are how much and when. So as I said, if you truly, truly believe paying a penny for the sexual abuse victims means "we'll move to another organization or quit scouting", then there's the (metaphorical) door. Those payments have already been made and it is 100% certain more payments will be occurring. Leave.

As I said, the Hartford thing was a joke. $650,000,000? Keep adding zeros to the end of that ($6.5 billion? $65 billion?) and there's a conversation somewhere in there.

At this point, as I've noted elsewhere, it will depend. Montana does not have a look-back window for abuse claims (for now), so it may be able to settle the 122 claims it has against it for whatever cash it has on hand. Or it may have to sell some camps, etc. It is going to vary from council to council. Some councils may not even participate in this at all and hope their state legislature never reopens these civil cases in the future.

That's not the threshold for a civil suit or a civil claim. Criminal = beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil = preponderance of the evidence. Keep in mind: OJ Simpson, for example, was found not guilty in criminal court, but found liable for the death of Nicole Brown Simpson in civil court. Saying that you cannot get a civil judgement unless you met the criminal standard is ludicrous.

Since BSA implemented YPT, over 11,000 additional abuse cases have occurred.

I wanted to post this here because while it is RELATED to the bankruptcy thread, it needs to be parsed out. The chief complaint against the suits and claims is that a) the abusers are getting off free and b) BSA, the LCs, and COs reported what they could to the police. But, a) isn't relevant and b) is only part of the story. As for a), yes in those instances where the abuser is still alive, they are in fact part of these lawsuits. This Minnesota case, for example, names BSA, the LC, and the abuser as defendants. As for b), while all these lawsuits have different aspects and dimensions, most I've seen boil down to the following: 1) Boy Scouts of America (the chartered entity) created the Boy Scouts (or Cub Scouts, or whatever) program and chartered local councils to carry that program out. 2) Boy Scouts of America directly chartered each year the units in question. 3) Boy Scouts of America knew from early, early on it had a pedophile problem and created the Ineligible Volunteer Files. 4) Boy Scouts of America, the Local Council, and the CO still acted recklessly or negligently in allowing the abuser to access to the scout. Therefore Negligence/Duty of reasonable care - BSA had an obligation to look after these kids and not let them be harmed. Negligence in Supervision - the abusive leader was an "agent of [Boy Scouts] was under [Boy Scouts] direct supervision, and control" using BSA methods, uniforms, instruction, etc. Negligence in Retention - the abusive leader was not shoved out the door fast enough Negligence in Hiring - (yes a volunteer is "hired" for these purposes) Boy Scouts failed to do enough of a background check to detect the abuser's tendencies and nevertheless held the abusive leader out as a "competent and trustworthy scout leader, supervisor, servant, teacher, and counselor." Now, before people start screaming "That's not fair! That's not right!" keep in mind that these are the underlying arguments that have already been successfully used against BSA and LCs in the past. And there are over 850 (at least) cases already filed against LCs. So, complain all you want about it not being "fair" or "right", but this is the current legal landscape.

Most are dead. And the point of these lawsuits and claims is NOT the abuse, but that BSA allowed the abuse to happen, failed to supervise/oversee the adult leaders, etc. The BSA, LCs, and COs are being sued for failing to care for the scouts in question here.

Scouting will exist with or without BSA.

I am sorry for what you went through and what you just saw that poster post. Rest assured: You are believed. You are welcome. I for one don't support or condone sexual abusers, or attack the attorneys for those who seek justice in the courts.

No. BSA's very, very clear. The LC must abide by National's requirement that the LC write into their Articles of Incorporation that If an LC fails to recharter, ALL assets of the LC revert to National. Any LC that refuses to include that clause in their Articles of Incorporation will simply not be chartered by BSA. This is clear as day in the Boy Scouts of America Charter and Bylaws

And LCs are not "state sanctioned". They are registered and incorporated as not for profits by each state, but so what? That does not mean the State of Vermont's governor can order LCs not to turn over their assets to national should national refuse to recharter the LC.

No, because no one ever even considered the possibility of BSA not existing. No one wrote into the BSA Charter or Bylaws "in the event we are dissolved, do X." There are two other factors. First, not-for-profits cannot be FORCED into liquidation/Chapter 7. They can voluntarily enter it, but the creditors cannot force it/make a motion to convert the Chapter 11 to a Chapter 7. What they can do, however, is reject ANY plan that is not a Chapter 7. Second, is the congressional charter: CAN a congressionally chartered organization which, per statute, has "perpetual existence" even be liquidated? The only other times such congressional chartered organizations shuttered was when membership reduced to 0 such as the Grand Army of the Republic when the last Union soldier died.

That would absolutely look like hiding assets in order to avoid turning them over the creditors.

And the race for the courthouse door is moving faster. Remember how I said there was like 850+ suits against LCs? Yeah, that was 2-3 months ago. There's going to be thousands by summer. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-sex-abuse-victims-face-narrowing-windows-to-sue-local-councils-11619046471?mod=article_relatedinline

It isn't. That is why I said: this "toggle" plan by BSA leaves LCs in the lurch. This does NOT mean that BSA National wants to come down and take all LC assets. It means, however, that is what some of the lawyers for the abuse victims want.

Every LC has a provision in their articles of incorporation that state, unequivocally, that if National refuses to renew the charter, the assets go to National. This is what the Kosnoffs of the world want and is the basis for their claim that, in the end, LCs are mere appendages of National, therefore ALL of the LC assets should be part of National's bankruptcy.

1) National issues annual charters to each LC. 2) If an LC fails to recharter, ALL assets of the LC revert to National. LC's do not have any choice in the matter. 3) The timing would be that FIRST: National terminates all LC charters directly or by failing to issue an annual renewal. SECOND: The LCs must turn over/transfer all assets to National, per the above. THIRD: National itself dissolves under Chapter 7, leaving the combined pot of National + LC assets to creditors.