ThenNow

I have no idea about today, but in my day most cool, rich kids weren't in Scouting. Several from my school joined and all but 2 quit within a year or two. We had no money (I started working when I was 10 and buying my own clothes at 12) and couldn't afford golf, skiing, expensive field trips, Babe Ruth (fees) or activity that wasn't super cheap. My parents grumbled about Scouting fees, though I paid them.

I agree. I don't like the reality of it, but I agree. It may not seem like it, but I understand the mournful sentiment raised by several, recently with punch by OldScout448. Whatever cash goes out has the potential to negatively impact the life and Scouting experience of current and future Scouts who, through no fault of their own, are in Scouting during this tumult. On the same note, those of us who were abused happened to be in Scouting at a time when the house was not in order and we suffered the consequences. In both cases it stinks and innocent Scouts suffer. I hope people involved in this and in the general public clearly see who the victims are, yet again - kids. Just innocent kids. This goes to none of the topics and adds nothing to the discussion, but I'll say it anyway. I've done plenty of pointless blathering, so why stop now. Reading your posts and hearing the wanderings from the intensity of the moment into small Scouting quips, jokes about dodgeball, tales of memorable campouts, making do when more wasn't an option and being the better for it, HA trips or HA longings, how much you value your Scouts, upcoming Eagles and how passionate you are to sustain the experience, makes me both happy and sad. Sad in the better sort of way. I regret I didn't have an unblemished Scouting life as some did, but cherish the good parts. I keep a couple trinkets in my office to this day. I wish our boys had been able to be in Scouts, but I couldn't handle it at the time. That is a major life regret. I imagine being active now, but that has many complications and pointy edges. Oh, well. Anyway, I appreciate being on the forum. I appreciate you putting up the lane bumpers when my understanding is lacking and the ball careens over the gutter, pushing back when needed, voicing support for the survivors when you do, calling the BSA to account and generally being so involved in the lives of young people. You seem to most sincerely want the best for them and demonstrate it by giving your best to them. It's a very rich and deeply meaningful quest. It encourages my soul. This situation at hand is not wonderful or encouraging in any direction, but continue to strive for, protect and cherish the good parts.

In situations like this, not unlike a class action I was part of, I worry fees and costs are not examined very closely. They seem incidental in the grand scheme at the time, so they can easily slide. When you see $7.2M, reality sets in. I have no idea how they breakdown here, but that's a ton of cheddar.

Having practiced in the 80's and 90's when expense accounts were flush and pass-through fees could be a bit wild, I'm always curious to see these. I recall a firm that billed for dry cleaning, new French cuff shirts and room service while in LA for a protracted negotiation. Not my firm. I am not at all insinuating that's the case here. Some fee pricing for mundane admin services are still crazy these days.

Since this relates to the nature, duration, degree and impacts of the abuse, I'm wondering if anyone looked at the point system metric from the RCC NM case. If so, thoughts? It more or less corresponds to information requests in the Proof of Claim. If you haven't seen the POC in this case, I would be happy to attach a digital copy.

Got it. Personally, I think if the insurers get a crack at those claims, the number will be reduced. By how much, who knows. Will it be allowed, only the judge knows, as far as I know.

I really appreciate that assessment. Since so many are in the time-barred bucket, yes, I am asking about how everyone gets something. The guys with live cases and/or in open states will get a running start at the insurers. We likely will not, at least have no momentum and a greatly reduced upside. That said, you gave me insight into the possibility insurers will offer something to ensure a clean break.

You guys have an excellent grasp on all of this as to the BSA itself, what's needed to sustain programs, assets overall, and the relationship of the BSA and LC's contribution to the insurance side. When you look at the $6100 in Plan as proposed, overall assets - assuming the large property restrictions don't hold - what do you think would be fair to direct to each claimants. I know there is tremendous disagreement even among you, in part because it is so speculative and subjective. I am very curious and would welcome your opinion. Well, I'm most interested to hear from those who agree that the current offer is unreasonable. As we know and you've reported, many agree $6100 does not respect the abused nor represent the BSA being earnest about what it can give. Others are clearly frustrated, saying there is no way to say what's fair or will satisfy the attorneys. "If $6000 isn't enough, is $50,000? $100,000 even if it crushes the organization...?" (paraphrasing). Thoughts?

Forgive me if this is duplicative. The TCC and BSA reached an agreement for the production of rosters. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/877749_151.pdf

Having now learned my emotions have both gotten me in internal trouble and caused me to miss the trees for the forest, I'll endeavor to keep my hope in check.

Looping back, then it is as to #2 that we time-barred people are up the fecal creek without a long-handled wooden implement to move agua. I think I got it.

So, there are two components to a prospective award from the Settlement Trust: 1) BSA award component, as described; and 2) The "go fight the insurance companies" and see what you can get component. Yes?

Although I would personally appreciate having a go at my abuser in criminal court, which would require a window, I know the burden on law enforcement, the state(s) to defend and the court system overall would be crushingly expensive if deluged with these cases. I have less problem with civil windows, though courts are impacted, partly because the other governmental players are not tapped or taxed as with criminal cases.

I have not heard this. I don't think it's accurate, but I will ask. If so, I would think the number of cases in NY and NJ would have really exploded when they opened. If you're right, I could've sued in one of those two jurisdictions, prior to filing. Another inquiry for me to pursue. If that is true, every one of us with a pre-1978 claim which is a bunch, has a stronger claim and cannot be flagged as time-barred in the bankruptcy. Hm... I previously posted another of these from CHILD USA showing pending legislation and the like. This shows the changes.

My first abuse was on my 11th birthday. The last just just before turning 17. I woke up to it all when I was 42. At the time, other boys/men in our Troop who had been abused by the same SM were identified by the Sheriff's Dept. lead investigator . They were in their 30's, but unwilling to talk about it much beyond acknowledgement and refused to prosecute. Not ready to countenance the whole experience and repercussions of coming forward. They could have initiated, as not time-barred, but they couldn't bring themselves to act. I understood.

The number includes claims that would have been barred against civil suit in state court on 2.18.2020. Those were the non-starter cases for which the Chapter 11 was the court of last resort, unless/until SoL reform happened in the given state. No SoL's have changed, to my knowledge, over the past year so that would be the same today. As claims are logged, they flag the abuse dates, how much time has passed and the applicable SoL in the state(s) of abuse. That's my understanding how the number is derived.

I may misunderstand how this is going to work (ya think?), but it seems ParkMan implied the BSA would pay each man regardless of time-bar. I take that from his statement, "...you are not in the category of people who will receive insurance payments." This could be me reading between the lines, again, which has proven a bad idea. I will ask someone who may know. Yeah. The number is huge. If, however, everyone will get something from the BSA, with $6100 as a baseline, some men will be very grateful. I think of the guys in prison, jobless, in need of medical care, and, etc.

Opps. I guess this was deleted. 1804815587_RCCofNewMexicoClaimPointsSys.pdf

You're right. I am frustrated, as it's defined. What I feel is very different, but you have no responsibility to relate or empathize. I can't expect that from you or anyone. With no previous familiarity in bankruptcy, I had no idea there was going to be a distinction between the money sources. I imagine I'm like the many guys who came in independently or through the "mining" process. If that weren't so, we wouldn't have 59,000 time-barred and 24,000 from open and window states, before more winnowing for fraud and whatever. Right? Those who came in with state counsel prep and teed up claims knew what they were doing. Again, I was ignorant and naive, taking the representations at face value. Though trained as a lawyer, emotions of this type are a powerful thing and allowed me to foolishly assume more than I should have. If you ask anyone in the public who's uninitiated, they have no idea there is a difference between money from the BSA, LC's, CO's or insurers. It's all about, "What is the BSA giving survivors of abuse?" If you haven't seen something like the doc below and you want to better understand the sexual abuse claim assessment and valuation process, check it out. Even if there is winnowing for fraud, unethical behavior, insufficiency of identifying data, and etc., or the application of a time-bar should any of that happen prior to the Settlement Trust, the process of assessing claims remains. I assume the metric in this case will be somewhat similar, but that's nothing more than a guess.

I almost said, "I am Pessimist, hear me whine," but resisted the temptation.

I am Pessimist and that's all I need to know how to spell.

Yup. Reading you 5 by 5. I think what I'm failing to communicate is that 59,837 men probably should never have been offered an opportunity to file unless there were caveats. I can only really speak for myself, of course. I'm an inadequate Demosthenese warning of the depth of pain that may be coming for many, if turned away or sent away with a token. I understand that may seem out of reach and/or exaggerated. I am just unable to articulate it without getting extremely morose and graphic. The insurers are coming for every one of those time-barred claims, regardless 60,000, 6000 or 600. That's what I'm saying. I should've known better. Will I take $6100 if that's offered as my "equitable compensation"? I'd be lying if I said I'm going to shred the check. Will it feel like a pat on the head and your aptly dubbed, "I'm sorry" get out of jail card? Yes. In the meantime, am I twisting on a spit? You guys can fill in that answer at this point. Oops. Another reference. That was historic, though, so doesn't break my vow.

You are, after all, "Optimist." Equitable means "just, fair and reasonable." As others have articulated far better than this necessarily biased participant, what was put forward seems to fall a mighty bit short of that bar. I defer to them. Yes, it is subjective, but I am not imposing my "definition." Fair, just and reasonable is about context, which includes damage on one side and assets, ability and willingness on the other. How that shakes out, I can't say. On this topic, I got no table and got no way no how to approach the feast set before others. I'm sitting at my desk in the corner watching the world go by, tilting at windmills in my mind. Maybe better, "letting the days go by...after the money's gone. Same as it ever was..." I promise to stop the dark imagery from literary and pop music references now. Well, I promise to try.

If it's being presented to the court for approval, I believe it must be. I'm not sure if anyone here has a running list, but there are a slew of consultants on top of the legal teams who were hired on various fronts including insurance counsel, property and asset valuation, forensic accounting...

Gross or net? If the latter, who gets to set the definitions and accounting method?