ThenNow

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.

Money. Time. Frustrating the judge. Muddling the process. Angering the tort claimants. Hastening the threatened "decent into chaos." And, is this Plan guaranteed to pass muster with 84,000 victim claimants? Isn't that one of the most compelling practical considerations fifteen months in, as opposed to a technical or legal ability to file a Plan? Having qualifications to file, knowledge of the case and a pathway to file, I'll assume that to be true, but why? For their benefit alone? Do they have a better track on unraveling the knot? The ear of the Coalition or TCC? Maybe. Haven't heard tell of such.

Regardless if they can, which I don't know, I highly doubt anyone else has one locked, loaded and nigh on ready to launch. She wouldn't tolerate more scrambling and shambling and delay. Well, I hope not...

Do you mean the TCC without the Coalition? Assuming and hoping not to presume, that's not going to happen. Mr. Stang stated in open court that they are exchanging terms and coming to agreement on a Plan. If it's two weeks from file ready, that means they're well into it. Notably, Mr. Molten did not deny it and was tossed the ball if he wanted to bat it down. If it is co-sponsored, it's better able to get a ready thumbs up by the survivors, as well.

From my involvement in advocacy, which is admittedly limited to the last year plus, the fight against the state Child Victims Act(s) has been historically consistent from the RCC, BSA and others. I'm not aware of the private school involvement, but CHILDUSA would know. Culturally, and I'm not saying it's all good by any means, this trend of "accountability" doesn't appear to have reached any zenith. My take. I think it continues for a bit. Excellent point. I think part of the ruination I see in my head and didn't express, beyond potential cash liability, is the impact on Scouting of one or many CSA cases in the hometowns, Districts and LCs across the country. Bringing these cases to the light of the courtroom is big time different than this bankruptcy. As I said, 16 current zeros is going to be a dwindling number when the 39,100 claims land in an their respective LC column. What will be the impact on registrations, fundraising, COs, staffing and volunteers when those things are reported on a daily basis in the Local Gazette, in addition to Reuters, WSJ, LA Times, AP, Bloomberg, and etc.? Another great point. However, on the nose precedent is legit and that's what she has staring her in the face. 17 years and a couple dozen cases creating a consistent, unwavering precedent is not chump change. Honestly, that seems like a ton to me, especially with the culture of 2021 vs 2004. Also, in my view, the "functionally different situation," combined with the sheer magnitude of the case, in fact further mitigates against her breaking with precedent. Lastly, and equally important in light of those things, there is a competing Plan burning a hole in the shared briefcase of the TCC and Coalition counsel. Add those things up and cramdown would be another catastrophe for many BSA victims. If the BSA Toggle B cramdown stood as the single option, maybe. With the TCC/Coalition Option C, which can actually pass, I don't think so. Just my take, of course. Who knows what will happen. Only Judge Silverstein and then maybe not her as of this moment.

Monday May 24, is also the first day of the virtual National Annual Meeting (NAM). Does that denote a sign from heaven, be it sunshine or storm, given the concurrence of events? Quite a coinc-adink.

I believe transcripts are delayed for a while as effectively proprietary to the court/stenographer. It’s recorded, but I think only for the transcription and court’s use. I’m guessing or vaguely recalling. Nothing is available right now as far as I know (which is approximately the distance between my keyboard and my nose on most days).

No time like the present and there may be no time at all if it isn't now. I haven't seen it noted, but the BSA's, as opposed to the TCC commissioned Berkeley Research Group's, assessment of net aggregate LC assets is $3.296B rounded. Of that, $1.427B is claimed to be restricted in one form or another leaving $1.896B unrestricted. I am so anxious to see BRG's comparative numbers I hardly bear it. I fear I will not get my wish, at least not for a good while. Alas.

I think so too. Ignorance may be blinding me, though. In part, hasn't the BSA created a huge dilemma for the LCs and COs by forwarding a Plan that has no support, risking the potential slide into their Death Trap B plan? If implemented, that launches them into the deep ocean, no? I'm rather surprised there isn't loud wailing and objecting from LCs, especially if they are willing to contribute more to get beyond this. If the TCC and Coalition aren't allowed to present their global resolution Plan of Reorganization, the LCs and COs are in a world of hurt. (See point three, below.) Yes, they are "a" problem. Agreed as to sentences 2 and 3. As MYCVAStory reiterated and I said earlier, 39,000+ claims have yet to land in a LC column. They are hovering and will land, upping the numbers. One thing I am watching for gee whiz is how many of the 16 "0's" (for claims not facially time-barred) are eliminated from the claims data chart. In my assessment, if an LC has even one viable, solid CSA case, it isn't "safe." I said this earlier, but all of these chickens haven't come home to roost and with an $18+/-M high water mark (so far). It simply doesn't take many successful abuse cases to change the entire complexion of the Scouting map or financial health of an LC. If I was an executive with an LC, I would be pounding on the BSA's front door to let me in with cash in hand and beg them not to launch me into the ocean. Again, 16 zeros in the non time-barred claim column will be shrinking. That is nearly statistically certain. My wife is a risk officer for a major health system. As I observe what she does, assessing and eliminating yet to be litigated claims is almost as big a part as managing live claims or liquidated awards. Big risk/little risk. Known risk/unknown risk. Which will it be?

I'm not sure if this is what you meant or a broader societal list of "complaints." These are the BSA Chapter 11 claims, of course.

Check your inbox.

I don't know and can't really speculate. I do have a few thoughts as I look at it, both as a claimant and a former practicing attorney. If I were most of the LCs, after reviewing the data, I'd be pleading not to go Toggle B and asking for some other way, given the fact that the BSA Plan A won't be approved. Here are my thoughts: 1) By my quick scan, there are only 16 LCs with zero active/not time-barred claims against them. That's just looking at the ledger portion showing individual LC claims and not those that follow showing joint claims. between 2 or more LCs.) They seem to be in a good spot if their states have low risk of opening up and they feel confident there aren't guys yet to come forward. Personally, I wouldn't be at all confident, but business and life are a constant game of "big risk/little risk" and "now vs then" analyses. (Start at pp. 323 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/213bd53f-b44f-45c9-97fc-246bcb7ca06b_4108.pdf) 2) A single case of CSA against many LCs could sink or nearly sink the ship, asset base depending. $18+/-M is the high water mark for judgments, as far as I know. 3) Again, super quick scan, but I see a fair number of LCs with over $10M and $20M in net assets and some with a couple hundred thousand. A few that jumped off the page on the high end are Atlanta Area with $85M, Crossroads at $53M and Silicon Valley at $45m. I didn't look closely for any with more as I quickly scrolled. (Start at pp. 265.) They can withstand some hits, but how many? I didn't cross reference cases against net assets, but I'm sure the TCC has. 4) All of this data provides a litigation map. My LC has a very solid asset base, but has 5 SoL "live" claims. 5 substantial awards and that's that. If I were them, I'd opt in and nestle in under that channeling injunction if at all possible. I also believe there are many more men that didn't come forward in my home state, some claims may have facts that tolled the SoL and it's not unthinkable that the legislature will reform the law. My nickel, for what it's worth.

FYI. Reprinted by permission. Peg Brickley 5.19 Hearing .pdf

The Toggle Plan is now openly referred to as a cram down option, meaning it's forced upon the survivor claimants. That hasn't been done in one of these cases, but this is an extraordinary case so who knows. If she puts the current Plan documents to solicitation, she knows the votes aren't there. To allow it then is no more than an expensive legal/academic exercise, which seems anathema to her view on fees and runs counter to the BSA's "August or die" mantra. Given her parting words yesterday, I think she's hoping against hope that the parties come to some agreement. Could happen. Doesn't seem likely. I say, bring on a competing Plan asap. She didn't say she "won't let the BSA end as we know it." (See, below.) Her point was, in my hearing of her words, that to send out Plan Option A is a waste of time and to force the Toggle Plan means BSA may get out of bankruptcy, but as currently configured on the ground it will systematically implode under the weight of litigation. To paraphrase, under the Toggle Plan, what a map of BSA looks like today will not be what it looks like in a few short years. I don't know the number of LCs in the open states, but it sounds like a hefty number in key states, some with national prominence. Personally, and this goes way back to early conversations I had here, I don't think states are done opening up. Not by a long shot. Post Toggle, the BSA LC and Unit map would become less populated with push pins year after year. To reinforce, my primary abuse was in a closed state. The number of claims against my LC is well over 100. 3.5% of those claims are noted by the BSA as not time-barred. Those cases alone will likely sink that ship, if they are viable and have any degree of significant abuse. To me, Judge Silverstein is looking at the two paths BSA has presented and is saying, "I don't like either of these options. There must be a better way."

Open or closed state? If closed, is there looming SoL reform on the horizon? Does your council have many assets? I guess I am wondering what's "large" compared to the asset base, but suppose it doesn't really matter. I presume this is being dictated by National? It could also be their attorney, I'm sure.

I don't. They are competent in hearings, even if they go round and round. It's a bit of a game of "he said, she said." You'd either lose your mind or conclude everyone must be lying if you believed every party. The TCC and Coalition counsel are much more efficient, abbreviated and direct, in my view. Personal or team credibility isn't really the issue for me. It comes down to how she rules on the motions, which is driven by the facts, law and how well they present their arguments to lead her to the conclusion each party wants. To me, that's all that matters. JMO and I'm not a litigator, to be sure. As to rulings, we still have zip.

I do have my subjective interest, but the court has caught BSA counsel on several points where they are pounding the table for adherence to their August timeline on one hand, yet delayed providing requested documentation or insisted on sticking to longer time frames set in the code on the other. She's basically said, "You say you must adhere to your 'out of cash' timeline. If you mean it, act like it." Honestly, I fear she will extend exclusivity for a short period, reprimand and adjure the parties to play nice and figure this out, then we have more stonewalling and ring around the rosie for several more months.

Which, in my mind, dictates in favor of lifting exclusivity and allowing the TCC, Coalition and FCR to propose a competing Plan.

It's going on and on and on. Nothing has been decided. Currently discussing whether an estimation of the value of all claims should go forward now, per the request of the Coalition, FCR and TCC.

Ok. Sorry. The word "blame" is simply not accurate here. I guess some people may do that. I get it. You cut off critical parts of that last quote, btw, so you might not have read or understood what I said. That's okay, though. I am not getting into it with you, again. I have no desire. I would like to leave it there. Btw, I'm not trying to get the last word. I love to debate, I just don't see this going anywhere productive.

Here we go again. I'm not blaming them. Again, this is not an ethics class. Love it, hate, stand by indifferent, the court and laws are holding them accountable to a standard of negligence and violation of their duty to care, hire, protect, and, etc. This is an endless loop and, besides, we're talking about the BSA vs. Society as to CSA, not this again. My point is, if the BSA is doing great with its youth protection and in fending off CSA compared to society at large, what is at all hurtful or harmful about upping the ante with YPT and YP efforts?