MYCVAStory

That's a link to shorten the notice period. Here's the link to the ammendments: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/6907113e-9265-4b5f-9d7d-e9e61e182818_10188a.pdf

The link: Nothing anyone following this probably didn't already know or expect. Confirmation of complexity. Welcome to day 99.

This is a historic case. Historic in its amount if abuse and historic in the complexity of finances, third-parties, and insurance involvement. The wait is especially excruciating for Survivors, most of whom have been waiting for decades for some degree of resolution, who after 2+ years of a bankruptcy process, hope daily for good news. If her ruling is lengthy and complicated, well-considered and logical, we'll understand why it's taken so long. If it's short and head-scratching or widely panned by those experienced in bankruptcy law, and ripe for appeal, we'll all shake our heads at the l

The pot would be MUCH smaller at this point. It's hard to see Century and The Hartford contributing much, if at all, if they still had exposure at the LC level. These two insurers NEVER want to hear about the BSA again. A comprehensive bankruptcy addressing all of their expositor is their goal too.

I have no connection to the Coalition. Coalition firms have not billed the BSA, nor have their legal professionals. They were allowed to be a mediation party but must get the Judges approval for any reimbursement of expenses because they made a "substantial contribution" to getting a plan confirmed. The BSA said that was okay with them and the TCC said it wasn't taking a stand because to do so would effectively be an endorsement of that and would not put itself in a position to endorse fees for professionals other than their own. Yes, the judge can confirm a plan and NOT approve payment to

Reach..throw....row...go! We've reached the point where a ruling seems way overdue. Hey Judge, throw us a bone and make up your mind. However, there may not be the gentle stream to merrily row down for her as she writes her opinion. Looks like it's time for me to go cross another day off on the calendar. 🙂

Little. There are some issues that are anything but "cut and dry." Bankruptcy Judges know their decisions will be reviewed, and potentially appealed. This one has insurers with appeals ready to tee up. She's taking a long time to be thorough, wrestle with issues, and given the time it's taking possibly dealing with portions she will approve and portions she will reject.

I'll leave arguments over whether the rates charged are appropriate or not. I find that lots of arguments can be made. "Compared to X, Y is outrageous." "Well, we pay our professional athletes at the top of their game this so why shouldn't professionals at the top of theirs be paid a lot?" Lots of justifications are available and for me, and perhaps a product of abuse, is working hard to determine what I have some sort of control over before I ramp up my outrage to the white-hot level. Just offering this though: 1. There is a fee examiner in this bankruptcy. He is required to go th

In case you haven't taken a look, while a bit dated and not reflective of recent property sales, here's a link to the extensive Local Council financial analyses the TCC had its financial professionals BRG Group complete: https://www.tccbsa.com/local-council-analysis They're educational.

Thank you to the Survivors who voted to reject the first plan and THANK YOU to those that voted to approve it and were then patient while the BSA was pulled back into mediation to strengthen YP as part of a second plan. While I might not be happy where we are, I know it's a better place for any child going into scouting in the future.

Bankruptcy is a lot of things. Simple isn't one of them. Proclaiming absolutes doesn't make it so. This case is historic in many ways. In the level of abuse and the complexity of the relationship between the debtor, LC's insurers and others. History, the worst sort on many fronts, is being made here. The past might be a small glimpse into what happens but it is in no way an absolute guide. Simple? None of this is. If it were, the judge would have rendered a decision already.

Well....no on a lot of counts. First, and most importantly, a non-profit CANNOT be "forced" into an involuntary Chapter 7 proceeding. Second, and again, any order is moot when agreements are made to expedite payment to some at lower amounts to include others. Regardless, the BSA isn't going to be "forced" into bankruptcy and will do everything to avoid it. As well, its creditors and local Councils will do the same. Getting "priority" doesn't help if that gets you a property like the Summit where $400 million has been poured into it and it has been appraised at $40 million. A LOT of this

Not necessarily at all. In bankruptcy EVERYTHING is negotiable. There are a whole host of factors that impact relief. In some cases those "earlier" in line may agree to less quicker and avoid lengthy and expensive appeal. There are a number of websites that cover this.

ALL secured creditors, of which pension recipients are one, would get priority over unsecured creditors. Survivors are unsecured creditors. As well, remember that JP Morgan and any other lenders are secured. So, the mortgage that the BSA took out against the Philmont Property for example places JP Morgan in line ahead of Survivors. This is why the "Just liquidate the BSA" argument makes sense emotionally for some but certainly not financially. All of that said, any legal proceedings re Chapter 7 wouldn't fund secured creditors at 100% either. They'd just be battling over assets ahead of

For some context, her comment at the first hearing I believe (or close to it) was that the "....mission of the Boy Scouts is of paramount importance." While this was widely seen by Survivors as overly "pro-scouts" in discussion with experienced bankruptcy professionals it was viewed as reflective of being supportive of the debtor voluntarily entering bankruptcy. As well, the judge at that point had no idea of the enormity of this bankruptcy and number of claimants that would come forward. My observation is that over time she demonstrated the impartiality that Survivors expected. While her

Agreed and why the Trust administration and communication are so important. Survivors must have "trust" in a Trust to ensure a level playing field and an understanding of the administration of claims. It'll be interesting.

SORRY FOR THE LENGTH BUT..... Actually, the scaling factors are in the Trust Distribution Procedures. From: ARTICLE VIII CLAIMS MATRIX AND SCALING FACTORS the portion found below the abuse matrix is: B. Scaling Factors. After the Settlement Trustee has assigned an Allowed Abuse Claim to one of the six tiers in the Claims Matrix, the Settlement Trustee will utilize the Scaling Factors described below to determine the Proposed Allowed Claim Amount for each Allowed Abuse Claim. The Scaling Factors are based on evidence regarding the BSA’s and other putative Protected Parties’ historic

Yes, it has. But with no parties in opposition objecting to that, and they haven't, the judge isn't going to become a financial analyst.

ANY suggestions of when a ruling will come down is a guess. Period. It might be the end of Jun it might be tomorrow. It also might be scheduled and we all hear her read it and it might get posted to the docket without her verbalizing it. It also might be a part of a hearing where she essentially says "I'm good with this but I'd like to give some parties 48-72 hours to see if they can resolve that." I'm struck by the irony that after decades Survivors find themselves waiting, again. But, there will be more of that. If a trust is established then expedited checks will go out with relativ

The expense to run any Trust is an important issue. It's also a function of the size of the trust. There's economy of scale so the larger the trust balance the smaller the percentage to go to expenses (but quite possibly much more in total). A good target is 5-7% but start-up expenses are often large. THIS was why the TCC was fighting the "trust governance" issue so hard with the first plan. If a small group of attorneys, say a "coalition" if you will, then there are few checks and balances on everything from professional fees to claim administration. If there's a trust then Survivors M

This author has staked out a space highly defensive of the church so there must be some perspective. For example, here's a comment from: https://beyondthesestonewalls.com/blog/gordon-macrae/catholic-media-join-sex-abuse-pile-david-f-pierre-jr As I have written in the past, “credible” could mean as little as that the abuse was geographically possible, that it can be shown that the accuser was merely at a parish at the same time as an accused cleric. The “credible” bar is a very low one indeed.What do we truly know about the McCarrick scandal? We know he had a beach house. We know that he

No. That's the debtor's problem. While the Judge has expressed support for "continuing the mission" of the BSA it's ultimately up to the debtor to propose a plan IT feels will work. Inherent in that is the agreement of the other parties that the BSA will survive at least long enough to pay any amounts owed.

Did you get on? There was a bit of a delay in their admitting people to the hearing today.

I'm catching up but I noticed that you posted that comment and then photos of Scouts and adults. I'm also assuming that these are not all your family. If that's the case I believe they should be removed from this forum. Unless releases were signed or there was express consent that photos taken during a Scouting event would be shared with a larger audience I suspect those pictured and their parents believed this was for private and not public use. If It was my child I'd ask that you use photos he wasn't in to make your case. All of that said, I hope you will be as aggressive as you bel

Short answer: Apparently not. Long answer: I haven't seen this in writing but that shouldn't be taken to mean that it isn't important or could be part of new YP measures. I think all parties (TCC and SWG) were focused on creating a structural mechanism for ongoing evaluation and changes. This was the right tact to take. If the non-monetary demands were too granular then there would have been an excellent chance that any "laundry list" would have had omissions AND not able to address needed changes in the future. So, the non-monetary agreements are for a YP Executive and Youth Protection