Jump to content

ThenNow

Members
  • Content Count

    1541
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

Posts posted by ThenNow

  1. 7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    But much of this is speculative.

    Of course it is. That’s the major game we play on this entire VI Episode thread, save for the factual reporting and some of the analysis. And, my main point was skipped in your refutation. SoL is a defense, not a preemption to file. Correct? We’re glossing over terms and I think your response, though accurate and well-taken, shines the gloss a tad. I was answering a specific post.

    12 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

    It does not mean you have standing or you are invested in the result.  I was trying to differentiate the "as invested" and voting on a settlement.

    I’m not sure, but my brain was telling me he meant vested as opposed to invested. Happy to be wrong, again. I’m keeping a poop sheet and I need more hash marks to finish a row.

    • Like 1
  2. 25 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Stenulson's declaration.  This is going to be devastating.

    Lovely. And so the dark cloud of suspicion and disdain circles the pool of claimants like a pack of Harris’s Hawks. (Look it up. They hunt in cooperative groups and can take down larger prey. They go so far as to stand on the back of another in a stack to maximize spotting range. Fascinating raptors. I’ve enjoyed being with them in Falconry. Parabuteo unicinctus.)

  3. 1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

    If they don't have legal standing to sue, then no they are not as invested even if they went thru something incredibly ugly and hurtful.

    From a non-litigator with only two such cases under his stretched belt, the issue is being raised incorrectly. The SoL is a defense to a lawsuit, not a bar from filing. Again, any one any time for any thing. This is what Muttsy was referring to more than once back when. As he explained better than I and maybe he’ll do it again, the immense cost and hassle for insurers and/or other BSA, LC and CO defendants, to potentially “defend” innumerable state lawsuits in which they may very well have a viable defense of time-bar, is no small matter. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong. I promise to take the digital tongue lashing gracefully. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2
  4. 22 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

    I'm not sure if SiouxRanger has said it that many times himself.  He's probably reflecting what many believe.  Many find it hard to understand how those with effectively no legal standing are involved in voting on this.  

    I believe he has said it multiple times in different contexts, though never before impugning and excluding Uruguayans three and under.

    • Thanks 1
  5. 15 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

    QUESTION - Is that true?  They have no standing?  Or is it that their potential claim against their LC is time-barred, but they can still pursue BSA.  

    If both, then it seems fairly easy to look at the fifty states and broadly remove those in time barred states as settlement voters as they don't show any standing.  The grey area are those who's standing is unclear.  ... It just seems wrong to have those who  would clearly have no legal standing vote.  

    Standing is a matter for a court to decide. It requires a hearing to demonstrate standing. Regardless, anyone can sue anyone at any time for any thing. Will they win? Who knows. Will it be tossed out on summary judgement? Maybe. Do they have a right to be heard? Yes. Will some of us be twice “barred” without a chance to be heard, preemptively, if votes are not universally allowed? Yes. If I have a fraudulent concealment case that is not heard because I am preemptively kicked to the curb since the three states in which I was abused are “closed,” is that a denial of my rights? Yes. Immoral? Yes. Dishonorable? Yes. Would I prefer not to file that case in three jurisdictions and simply proceed to do it all before the Settlement Trustee? Yes. Will I forgo doing so if disallowed a vote? No. I will make it happen immediately, if not sooner,” as my mom liked to say.

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 3
  6. 11 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

    Or, let everyone over the age of 3 in Uruguay vote also.  They have as much legal interest in the outcome of the vote as claimants with expired, legally unenforceable claims.

     

    And, I also want to vote on your next pay raise, as long as I get 10% of the raise I vote for.

    It’s easy to be glib and rest on “it’s just the law” when it’s not your life; not your pain; not your tens of tens of tens thousand of dollars lost and expended in often futile efforts to staunch the “bleeding;” not your marriage, career, child’s life destroyed or mangled by a dark force inside you; and not your gut and heart and soul and experience that was poured out on the unqualified invitation by BSA to, “Come forth all ye lowly and beleaguered and aggrieved so we can equitably compensate you, ye who were abused in Scouting!” Way too easy. Way, way, way. We get the point. It’s been fired from multiple angles and multiple people. You’ve said it many times, already. 

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 1
  7. 9 hours ago, Armymutt said:

    Our council has 2 claims and is paying $1.9 million

    May I know what state, please? It must be an open state if they’re valuing each claim at nearly $1M. I saw one closed state LC with 5-6 live claims is paying $2.9. They are flush with cash, investments and property. 

  8. 2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    there have been reports of some LCs being able to cover it through sales of investments vs touching current FOS contributions or properties.  

    I know this as a “true fact,” as a dopey friend of mine loved to say. Heard it with my own two hears and read the lips uttering the words ta boot.

  9. 2 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

    Well, it just might be closer to 13.8% and explain why the TCC is saying "enough is enough" and coming out swinging.  OK, for the data-geeks, a VERY deep dive on this gives additional perspective from a friendly accountant looking over my shoulder.  His comment:

    The percentages in the summary appear to be mathematically correct based on the amounts reported by the BSA; however, it is important to remember that amounts reported in Exhibit 1 for “Land Buildings & Equipment” are book value. As a result, in most (if not all) cases the percentages calculated in the summary you shared are artificially high / inflated because book value is generally lower than current market value / appraised value.

     

    For instance, in the case of Greater New York Council (#640) (which admittedly is likely the most extreme example), the calculated percentage of “contribution to total net assets” is 43.05% ($9,000,000 / $20,904,468). However, the balance sheet information for GNYC in Exhibit 1 reports “Land Buildings & Equipment” at $5,630,537. This amount is obviously well below the appraised values for the three primary GNYC camps and results in an artificially high percentage of 43.05%.

     

    640

    GREATER NEW YORK

    20,904,468

    43.05%

     

    As a result, the summary is informative but also somewhat misleading because it gives more credit to the Local Councils than they deserve. I understand that the conclusion of whoever prepared the summary was that Local Councils were only contributing 17% of their total net assets (which is offensive), but that percentage is still too high.

     

    In order to make a quick and dirty adjustment for appraised values, we can use the Local Council liquidation analysis (Disclosure Statement PDF Page 306), which uses appraised values for those properties that were valued by CBRE, JLL and Keen. If you take total assets of $4,011,716,000 reported in the Local Council liquidation analysis and back off liabilities of $234,198,591 (PDF Page 333), you get total net assets of $3,777,517,409. Using total Local Council Contributions of $519,588,542 as reported on Exhibit C, you get a total percentage of 13.8% ($519,588,542 / $3,777,517,409).

     

    While the overall difference between 17% and 13.8% is not massive, certain individual local councils (e.g. GNYC) come off looking much better than they should.

     

    One additional thing to keep in mind. Exhibit 1 shows total net assets of $3,303,228,450 as of February 2021 (PDF Page 333). Based on a review of June 2021 balance sheet data, total Local Council net assets have increased by approximately $80 million to $3,382,300,795. In other words, Local Councils certainly appear to be in an even better position in June 2021 than they were in February 2021.

    Anyone have any clue what the BRG appraisals would reveal? I assume/hope they nail the book v. market value, and other disparities, to the door of BSA “Church.” I know there are 250 theses not 95, and it’s not in Wittenberg, but I really like the visual. I’m sticking to it.

  10. 1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

    Do we know the 637 is sexual? Do we know if they are physical? I ask because the abuse situation I know of that was physical was not sexual. And the sexual abuse situation was not physical. The sexual report came from an adult who was standing outside of a scout tent listening the scouts having a sexual discussion about girls.. 

    I would like to know, too. This a good point and has to factored into the equation, to be fair. I’ve appreciated the ‘correction’ about the IVF not being singularly based on sexual abuse or impropriety. Though it may seem otherwise, I don’t want to be blathering without foundation or credibility. These data points helped me balance my perspective, though in no way takes the wind out of my sails. 

    • Upvote 1
  11. 1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

    Precisely. Release the Infuriator. Please. 

    I waited to long to edit this, but had a note to add.

    The Monster to which I refer, of course, is the BRG Dashboard data. If we are to get full leverage out of the TCCs informed position on the true inadequacy of the LC contributions, we claimants (and all parties) need to see those numbers. It’s bad enough based on the numbers you’ve posted above. At some point, doesn’t honor come into play? If they’re refutable, refute away AFTER they are released. If they’re sound, go back to the drawing board and get trustworthy, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. (Nod to Yul Brynnar.)

  12. I hope this will be the open door to see the mysterious BRG Dashboards. That’s all I want for Christmas. Strike that. Halloween. It would be the best sweet treat and it’s closer.

    “The Tort Claimants’ Committee investigated the assets and liabilities of all 251 local councils. That analysis shows the local councils have the ability to fairly compensate survivors without jeopardizing the Scouting mission,” said John Humphrey, Chairman of the TCC. “As Chairman of the TCC, I cannot in good conscience support the release of 251 local councils who were on the front lines of decades of childhood sexual abuse. Local councils should not be allowed to keep billions of dollars of cash, investments, and real estate that is far in excess of what they need for Scouting while leaving survivors woefully undercompensated.”

    https://apnews.com/press-release/pr-newswire/business-sexual-abuse-boy-scouts-of-america-446f83be78992b4b29ba38a30391a2e3

  13. 1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

    Where I see an issue is when COs and LCs are being covered.  At that point, everyone should get a vote as those groups are not bankrupt but looking to get out of current and future claims.  

    This an important point, often ignored. My right to potentially pursue the three LCs implicated in my claim, all currently closed states, is being preempted. The proactive and peremptory nature of this case is one of the immoralities of it. 

    Way back when, we argued here about whether this case would even register in the outside world, including broader implications with law enforcement and legislatures. I said it would. Many said not. We have seen what the MI AG is doing, which I think will be replicated. I have been contacted by three different people about working on SoL reform. I am involved in a conversation with one legislator later today. This game is afoot.

    44 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Right and the idea in the state legislatures was that victims should, retroactively, have their day in court. Opponents (BSA and Catholic dioceses) indicated that was unfair to them and jeopardized their missions.

    I have been looking into whether these sexual abuse bankruptcies are a destructive force to organizations going through them or a winnowing, pruning. Many have reported internally that it has, in fact, been “healthy” and they have emerged better for it, though their pockets lighter. You’ll never read that in the WSJ, USA Today or LA Times, however.

    44 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    The response in many states was “too bad” and the windows to file suit were reopened, often unanimous votes in the legislatures (who is going to vote to NOT let victims of sexual abuse have their day in court? What are you, a pro-sex molesting monster?)

    Again, this game is truly afoot. Watch for it to continue. If you attended, reviewed or read the transcript of the last TCC town hall, the chairman, John Humphries, said something powerful. Namely, his life has a new focus after serving on the TCC; advocating for victims, which includes SoL reform. He doesn’t seem like the sort of man who noodles around with things for fun. He is not alone among the cohort of BSA child sexual abuse survivors who will march out of here and to the state houses.

    Oh, yeah. On this note, I would be remiss if I failed to mention MYCVA’s Funny Pink Hat Brigade. Recruiting season begins soon. Watch for the sign up table at your local mall, grocery store, coffee shop and, etc. He’ll be the one in the ill-fitting pink head covering of a yet undisclosed nature and form. Not sure why a guy who is a self-confessed “bad hat head” starts such a group, but I admire him even more for it. 

  14. 3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    I'm 99% sure it was 40% which was mentioned in a TCC townhall.  That is why I was shocked the Hartford settlement was so low.  It really cuts the legs out of any real major payment to claimants.  I wish BSA didn't have that initial Hartford settlement.  Without that, I think this deal would be much closer to finalizing.

    To quote Cheech & Chong, “my head is like a sieve,” but I believe it was that percentage limited to a specific timeframe, not all claims. 

    • Upvote 1
  15. 43 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    Right, but she ruled I believe "without prejudice" meaning, they could try again. Doesn't mean it will WORK any better the second time around of course...

    Yes, but/and the esteemed Mr. B said it was not only out of place and time, but out of proven proportion to the actual, realized “substantial contribution.” As in, come back to us when we KNOW what you achieved not what you speculate and can convince BSA you’re worth. “Show me the money and the goods before we show you the money, honey.”

  16. 3 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

    You went from his favorite to not favorite in a pretty short amount of time. 

    Guess this means I take the seat. In fairness to me, we were connected by an "also" which means I was pretty much already tied for first. I don't think the judge has ruled on that yet, though, and the media has failed to report its definitive opinion. 

    • Upvote 2
  17. 1 minute ago, vol_scouter said:

    Having seen the attendees for about a decade, those attendees to the NEB have changed - my feeling is a reasonably large amount but perhaps it was not as large as my perception.  The NEB is more diverse too.

    I am a no nothing relative outsider, but why isn't the composition completely accessible and distributed, along with available experience and bios? I feel more wretching coming on...

  18. 7 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    There is only 1 reason BSA incorporated in Delaware 2 years before bankruptcy and it isn't their business friendly tax rates (as MOST of their business stayed in Texas ... not exactly a high tax state).

    I realize sound business decisions are just that, but I can't help thinking about the asset transfer tangle of last summer with the fairly clear implication it was not an isolated incident. Like this slippery shenanigans, there is only one genuine reason those "asset protection trusts" were create and used as depositories. Guess what it was? Hint: "Those abuse claimants are going to want our loot so what can we do so they can't?" Is any of this Scout-like? Any ol' business with shareholders and all, who cares. This one? Blech. It all makes me wretch.

  19. 7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

    It isn't only that of course. Delaware is home to a LOT of businesses due its business friendly tax rates and its semi-dedicated business court (Chancery).

    Yup. That was just too long to include in my pithy, potent prose.

    1 minute ago, Life said:

    I believe Louisville KY gets the bbq, pie, and hotdog. 

    Oh, oh. You just started a war. I'm out!

  20. 45 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    If BSA only incorporated in 2019 I bet you he is correct (at least in terms of picking Delaware).  BSA knew they were in serious financial trouble for many years.

    You want dim sum, go to San Fransisco, CA. (Sorry NYC.)

    You want country music, go to Nashville, TN.

    You want the best beach, go to Hapuna on the Big Island of Hawaii.

    You want the best art, go to the Met in NYC, NY.

    You want the best BBQ, pie or hotdog...I ain't touching any of those.

    You want to survive Chapter 11, go to Wilmington, DE.

    Might be the one smart decision they made. Dunno.

×
×
  • Create New...