ThenNow

It was clear during the hearing that the BSA has taken multiple opportunities to press maximum statutory timeframes for some of their responses, as well as held out on requests from the TCC they will have to cough up anyway. I go back to the discussion about Summit and their refusal to prove restricted status by delivery documents. I have tried to get inside the Riddler's war room mentality, but my head ends up aching. I don't get a bunch of it, unless it is "embarrassment-driven." It sounds silly just reading it. I also wonder about the revelation of more LC asset protection trusts set up during the two years preceding filing.

Agreed and after waiting another two bloody weeks. My friends in the know are more skilled at patience then I am and have a "let's see what happens" attitude. I'm trying to borrow some of that while we twiddle. I don't disagree with Mr. K on this one. Not even a teeny. I might have said it slightly differently, but I thought it.

Bottom of the ninth. Two outs. Tying run on first. Ace reliever on the mound. Playoffs on the line. Coach is pacing, vexing over the DH options.. Jimmy: Put me in coach. I’m ready now! I know I can do it. Please coach. Gimme a chance! Coach: Jimmy. I appreciate your spirit, son, but you’ve struck out every at bat the all season and the playoffs are on the life. Jimmy: Please coach. I promise I can do. Coach: Ok, slugger. Let’s see what ya got. Watch the high heat and that splitter... What a steaming pile of chili dog all over my lap.

Oops. Victims Find Little Comfort 5.24.2021.pdf

In case you can't get to it. Used by permission. Such mysteries lie beyond the reach of my little brain and gumshoe capabilities.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/many-boy-scouts-victims-find-little-comfort-as-bankruptcy-nears-end-11621854003?page=1

11 USC Sections 548: (a) (1)The trustee may avoid any transfer (including any transfer to or for the benefit of an insider under an employment contract) of an interest of the debtor in property, or any obligation (including any obligation to or for the benefit of an insider under an employment contract) incurred by the debtor, that was made or incurred on or within 2 years before the date of the filing of the petition, if the debtor voluntarily or involuntarily— (A) made such transfer or incurred such obligation with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any entity to which the debtor was or became, on or after the date that such transfer was made or such obligation was incurred, indebted; or (B) (i) received less than a reasonably equivalent valuein exchange for such transfer or obligation; and (ii) (I) was insolvent on the date that such transfer was made or such obligation was incurred, or became insolvent as a result of such transfer or obligation; (II) was engaged in business or a transaction, or was about to engage in business or a transaction, for which any property remaining with the debtor was an unreasonably small capital; (III) intended to incur, or believed that the debtor would incur, debts that would be beyond the debtor’s ability to pay as such debts matured; or (IV) made such transfer to or for the benefit of an insider, or incurred such obligation to or for the benefit of an insider, under an employment contract and not in the ordinary course of business.

This is from other fellas on the thread with years of interaction with National and a view of leadership from their various Scouting roles. Their view, which I’m sure they’ll chime in to confirm or body check me, is that the guys at the top will protect at least Summit with their collective life. Their unwillingness to turn over the JP Morgan docs to prove the alleged restricted status, seems to validate that opinion. As to the LCs, I’m not aware of any such leverage. All I’ve heard is they can opt in or end up in court, as applicable to the given location/jurisdiction per the Toggle B Amended Plan. My tuppence.

My view, admittedly biased but trying to be as objective as possible, is the BSA “gets a win” if it exits with some assets and operating capital to ably pursue its mission. That seems to be its perspective, as well , with or without all of its LCs. That last part makes little sense to me. As a victim/survivor claimant, there is no winning for me in this. I was invited to file a claim for “equitable compensation” and I’d like to see BSA do better with YP. I (and we) have lost too much to call even a reasonably successful outcome a victory.

It seems like a very long time to give them, from my comfy chair. Even my wife was surprised, basically insinuating that the judge is avoiding the tough calls on a wish and a prayer. Hers is not an easy job and who am I to say. Still, lots of at bats and whiffs with precious little wood to leather, imho.

Yupper. As someone who knows A LOT more about this than I ever will told me, I guess it "can't hurt." Miracles happen and unicorns poop bonbons and fairy dust. I need to humor myself or don the straightjacket. Limited options. The latter would mean I can't type on here so that option's off the table.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a769189e-4507-4291-8930-158cd7f0075c_4831.pdf

I don’t see the TCC, Coalition and counsel as “blinkers,” which comforts me.

That sure sounds like it will require a pretty huge pivot by someone in the equation, which I believe has to be the BSA. I feel they have been avoidant, resistant, recalcitrant and less than deserving, for lack of a better word, of another at bat. As you said, “or not.”

This may be isolated and anecdotal, but my family has been in the Catholic church, well, always. I attended all Catholic schools other than undergrad and current masters work, including law school. Our youngest son went to a Catholic university. From all reports, especially from my mom, that doesn't sound like the case. Perhaps it is facially or casually, but shrinking numbers, especially in the younger generations don't necessarily support high esteem. I do recognize the younger generations have become far less "churched" overall, which is a big factor. My mom is extremely embarrassed and ashamed of the whole thing and now the Boy Scouts. She can't even talk to me about the case because it makes her so upset. The worts may have been revealed, but they exposed them kicking and screaming, ala, the BSA. I do not currently attend a Catholic church. My other non-Catholic siblings (who all left) and friends are nothing short of disgusted with both institutions. Maybe that's a small pocket of the universe...

Now I understand and that makes sense. Very logical. I see it could go either way, cases, facts, locale and players depending. If an accused abuser has any ongoing connection to Scouting or went on to be a pillar in the community, that could be a game changer. All sorts of facts and angles could alter the PR trajectory, I suppose.

These are they, as noted and filed by me. Let that last part be a qualifier. I try...

Does that sway your thinking in favor of cramdown or are simply pointing out the additional distinction and complexity? I feel very badly for him, but if we start down this path, many, many of us could start drawing cause and effect flow charts that would turn the Gordian into Pandora's Box. Maybe. I don't pity or excuse them from trying, however. My experience is second hand through my wife's previous, long-term career phase in the insurance brokerage and carrier industry, but they will be fine. If not, as has been said, someone will buy them, take on the debt and roll it forward for future profit.

I get nothing on the click-through link.

Dueling perspectives, I know, but just a few more thoughts on why I don't think that would be the case. (Pun intended) If 5+ guys from my Troop who were abused by a guy who still lives in our town, which he does as do some of them I understand, that would be splashed all over the place. The details, accusations and drum beating by attorneys and the plaintiffs would spotlight not only things from the 70's and 80's but why Scouting may still not safe. On the ads, I know very few people who saw one, much less multiple. That may be a reflection of media choices and demographics, though. I think cases like that would have a huge impact, but then again I am a legend in my own mind and star in my own films.

I was being a smart aleck to show why I think that would be inequitable. Then again, my abuse happened 40+ years ago and I am my own attorney. I believe we got a baseline interest rate from the average time of claim payment denial in my class action case, but that was a negotiated settlement and the time frame was much shorter.

I probably misunderstood. I thought you were simply saying the judge might well opt for Toggle B, if the BSA's Plan A goes out and is voted down. I was saying, in light of other cases where judges were loathe to "make" victims accept a Plan, I think TCC/Coalition Option C is the winner. I defer on the point and the specific details of the RCC cases. I do not know enough about those cases to blow my nose, as my dad used to say, and should yield where I am uncertain. Apologies.

At 5% on your $25, you'd be over $150 in that forty year span. Should those that happened 40 years ago get the $50 bump?

Who knows, maybe they're wasting too much time glued to scouter.com to find out what's going on. I’m thinkin not. There are tons of great ideas on YP in here, including MYCVAStory’s most recent. Surely all of those good ideas would’ve made their way into a Plan, no? [wink, wink]

Another reason why this is best left to the TCC and Coalition, and arguably only to them. The survivors want this in the Plan as one of the mandatory non-monetary Plan components. The BSA did not do anything at all to forward ideas and they had two wide open chances. Do any of you know why that is? I've not seen nor heard a peep from the Ad Hoc Committee about it either. I would think they'd be involved, since you guys are the ones doing the actual implementation and the AHC is supposed to represent all the LCs. I know I'm revealing my ignorance of the multiple levels of organizational dysfunction, again. If the BSA did not have this in its Amended Plans I and II, I don't see the TCC and Coalition needing to take up the issue. BSA must not be worried about it. What is one to conclude? Shouldn't this also be a major concern for the AHC? For the 10th time, and I apologize, but I really don't understand what it truly is or does or represents. I know what it says it is, but I don't see that borne out in all of these gaps in communication, focus and consensus. Dunno.