johnsch322

Quick survey are we closer to the end of the end of the bankruptcy then the beginning and how much longer will all of this last?

29 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

To be fair, I think you can definitely see some lawyers giving up on this case and looking to cash in.  They just want the check now.

I think that is what the Coalition lawyers want.

11 minutes ago, malraux said:

Its not an investment, its a job though. You have to keep doing work. Presumably you would be giving up other cases to continue to pursue this one. Two cases each paying $30k after two years is better than one case paying $40k after 4 years.

I would not think that any claimants' lawyers are turning down other cases because of the BSA case.

2 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

The lawyers win too the longer the case goes on. 

Not the lawyers who have clients that are claimants.  They only win more when more is on the table.

8 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

So then the LC's will not be insured as almost none (maybe none) had their own liability policies.

As I said before if they were named in the original policy they will still have that coverage. 

6 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

So if the National Council contracted and paid for the policies with ABC insurance company who then pays into a trust for a BSA only Chapter 11, then a local council gets sued the insurance company is still liable?  It is true that the BSA can pay to cover any part of the organization that it is mutually agreeable to the BSA and the insurance company.  However, when ABC insurance company pays into a chapter 11 and the BSA effectively ceases to exist (it is a 'new; entity free of debt), ABC is no longer insuring the BSA or any part of the organization.  When an LC gets sued, will it not be on its own?  Otherwise, insurance companies could be liable far beyond what they agree to insure as far as total amount of claims.  Not trying to be argumentative but this seems wrong but that does not mean that it is not the law.

The insurers will not be paying anything under a BSA only bankruptcy rather the insurance policies themselves will be part of the trust. 

2 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

The National Council contracted and paid the liability insurance in past years.  Local councils had some accident policies but typically did not carry liability insurance.  So if the insurance companies were in this current bankruptcy with the corporation that contracted and paid for the liability insurance, I don't believe that it will be available to local councils or CO's.  The local councils will be unlikely to have liability coverage.  The CO's might but will argue that the liability lies in Scouting and not the CO's. 

If the LC’s were insured in the policies it does not matter who paid for them. 

17 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Stupid question, but here it goes.

If BSA does a BSA only Chapter 11, what happen when LCs and COs get sued? How will the insurance that both LC's and CO's paid be handled? Will insurance companies say "not our problem" or will they be brought into the additional lawsuits? 

If it is only the BSA who goes bankrupt insurance policies will not be part of the bankruptcy. LC’s and CO’s should still have their coverage. 

19 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

That is an interesting possibility.  
 

I believe it would be easier to show negligence on the part of the LC’s as they had more direct control of the perpetrators. 

8 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

I certainly hope not because the current proposal or a modified plan is accepted so that we all can move ahead.  

I believe it would take a heavy modification to the plan to be accepted. For that reason I think we are at least a year from acceptance. 

8 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

You will be surprised that they do not have the funds that many assume.  Attorneys, witnesses, depositions, etc will chew up much more money.  My crystal ball sees little for lots more time and distress for claimants.  Several lawsuits will cause local councils to file for bankruptcy where they will contend that camps and offices are core to their mission.  Their restricted accounts will be found to be restricted in nearly all cases.  They are non-profits and cannot be forced into chapter 7.  There just is not much more to pay.

Local churches tend to have no assets other than the church itself so those will not be taken.   Insurance will claim that they paid in the national suit.  Some councils may have some extra coverage but I doubt it.  Churches will say that they were no responsible for the volunteers and their insurance companies will say that they are not liable.  Those issues could go either way but will be contested making the investment to sue larger.  
 

I might be wrong but I see little likelihood of significant payout.  

We shall see. 

3 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

So for those who are in statute of limitations barred states, the current proposal is the best resolution unless the governor is about to sign a change to the statute of limitations into law.  They will go from something to nothing with only a slight chance that the laws will change to their benefit.  For those in the minority where there are no statute of limitations barring them, they might get more but the local councils will defend themselves and the extra will be less if any more unlike many here think.  Just my view from my knowledge of many councils.  
 

 

If there is a one year delay in this bankruptcy more and more states are opening up. Yes local councils and insurance will fight but will ultimately have to pay much more. 

21 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

I was thinking viable regarding the current process.  Yes, a BSA national only plan is an alternative, but it would mean effectively starting the whole process over again having achieved nothing.  It wouldn't change anything fundamental about the monies available to be fought/negotiated over, simply send most of those fights and negotiations into a string of dozens of other bankruptcies.  It would, more importantly, ignore the expressed opinion of a majority of claimants that the current deal is acceptable.

I think you may be mistaken. It would not be a having to start over situation and would make what ever the state courts decisions are as restitution. For many that would be much more than is in this plan. 

22 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

Mostly because no other alternative seems viable.

What ever happened to BSA's threat of a BSA National only cramdown.  Have they made to many promises too to many 3rd parties? This is the alternative that seems to be the best as more and more states open up their statute of limitations.

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

How to avoid getting Purdued? Increase the “accept” vote tally and get more money from third-party non-debtors. 

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/sacklers-states-near-bigger-purdue-pharma-opioid-settlement

For the Boy Scouts and their accomplices, I would say maybe triple or at least double what's on the table now may not work.

10 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Lets get back on topic. thanks, RS

I guess you did not understand what was written so you decided to remove it.  I believe that is called censorship not moderating.

Are the lawyers flogging a dead horse?

25 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Including the TCC?  The sides were so far apart on financials and structure of the plan.

 

So now we look forward to TCC's Town Hall on Thursday for possible clarification.

A lot has been discussed about prevention of abuse, but I have not read much about what happens in the aftermath of abuse.  Specifically what resources does the BSA provide in the direct aftermath?

14 minutes ago, MattR said:

And that would do a lot to reduce the trauma.

The trauma could only be helped in the reaction to the individual incident.  Immediate help is needed for the victim at whatever cost to the organization.  

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Forget all the practical, bankruptcy, child protection and economic benefits. This  was a ginormous missed opportunity for the PR campaign of a lifetime. Own it, get out in front of it, and manage the terms and playing field by demonstrating modern era business savvy and resource utilization, a definitive moral compass and good old fashioned common sense. Absolutely mind boggling to me. Am I right or am I right, yet again?  

You are correct this has evolved into FUBAR territory. 

16 minutes ago, yknot said:

I have a few reactions to this.

First, I can't recall where this was posted but one of the things that reportedly came out of the 82,000 abuse claims is that many of the perpetrators were not identified in the IVFs. While it's true some of the cases in the IVFs may be unrelated to abuse, it also means they didn't capture a lot of the most egregious predators that have turned up in some of the lawsuits and claims. So I'm not sure that point serves well as a defense for BSA. 

Second, I don't think BSA was a purposeful predator. I think it's clear though that it was an incompetent and mismanaged organization that blindly and maybe arrogantly dismissed risks and so unwittingly aided and abetted perpetrators.  I'm not sure scouting has done better than other organizations. As I've pointed out multiple times, 4-H doesn't have this problem.

Third, BSA somehow for a long time did not comprehend or face the fact that it was providing the perfect petri dish for predators. It was and is an organization frequently recommended for at risk youths or those lacking a paternal presence. It allowed unrelated men to take young boys overnight to remote locations in the woods out of the public view. This is something that Michael Johnson, the departed Youth Protection director, repeatedly pointed out.

Scouting does do a lot of positive things but unless the organization really restructures so that it can ensure proper supervision down to the unit level where most of the adult/youth interaction occurs it really shouldn't be trusted with children. BSA to me is wasting far too much energy trying to hang on to the status quo or tinkering with window dressing details instead of really deeply examining how it needs to be in order to continue providing scouting in the years ahead. 

 

One of my abusers was identified in the perversion files and BSA said he was suspected of molesting 11 plus boys. 
 Of course lots of abusers were never identified because survivors never named them. I personally told no one of my abuse for over 50 years and I know I was not alone in my silence. 

12 minutes ago, skeptic said:

The fact that many of the IV files have little or nothing to do with abuse, or at least sexual abuse seems pertinent.  By labeling them as they were, it leaves exactly that impression in the minds of many.  Of course the media loved it, and loves it still, and uses it as often as possible to mislead.  There is evidence the files actually did in some incidences help stop abusers, though unless there was good reason to contact National, nothing was computerized, so it likely easily fell through cracks.  That still seems to ask, for me, what was being done to attempt to respond to these issues by anyone else at the time?  Little, if anything appears to be the answer.  So, the files are forced into the public view and allowed to be mined.  Yet, considering the number there, few have proven to be smoking guns; though apparently some have.  Again, the additional question is what other persons or agencies may have been aware of these things at the time?  How much did the societal taboos affect things at the time.  How many families may have felt the need to not bring things public, nor to fight the practices of the time?  So many other factors involved.  

And we still come back to simple statistical things that indicate, based on incomplete data to be sure, that BSA did better than most at the time.  There is no question that errors in judgment occurred, and unfortunately a few really heinous cases.  And that should not have happened.  But that does not make BSA, as an organization, a purposeful predator.  We always come back to the fact that in the minds of many, somehow NO abuse should ever be perpetrated, and that is a great goal.  But, it is not a real possibility in reality, and even the loudest should recognize that.  

At the same time, the overwhelmingly positive effect of the BSA over the past 110 years has been positive and its tenets are in sore need of larger acceptance within society.  But logic and balance, there's my favorite workd again, does not seem applicable to a few, and that is not something any of us can combat.  

Our goals ahould be to come to the fairest conclusion as possible, and to continue to work on stronger barriers to those who will act in predatory ways.  We certainly see that progress being made; but it will only be as good as those that will pay attention and follow the rules.  Again, human nature may come into play, and when it does, the response needs to be open and immediate.  

For my part, I will do my best to no longer label certain, what I feel are bad actors in this drama.  That does not mean I will not still see them that way, just not pass it along again.  

Do understand that I in no way feel the survivors are not due a settlement.  I just would like it to be in step with the lady and her scale.

    

I have a very hard time getting past some of what you say. I feel it is like an ostrich with his head stuck in the sand. 
“The fact that many of the IV files have little or nothing to do with abuse, or at least sexual abuse seems pertinent “

Have you read the files published in the LA Times?

“Yet, considering the number there, few have proven to be smoking guns”

once again have you read them?

“And unfortunately a few really heinous cases”

There is more than a small number of which is the definition of “few”

“Overwhelming positive effect of the BSA”

I am sure when Mao Tse Tung starved to death parts of China he did that for the positive effects on the rest of China.  

“I Just would like it to be in step with the lady and her scale”
Have you by any chance researched what type of settlements are given out by the lady to sex abuse victims?

8 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I suppose it depends on your definition of damage.  But, he is the one that labeled the IV files the perversion files early on.  He has interfered with the ballots, and he has apparently intruded on other communication of which he is not a part.  Most importantly, he has done all he can to paint the BSA as the predator, rather than those that actually were.  His actions very likely have put the larger case in jeopardy.  Just my interpretation and impression, so take as you will. 

I have seen no evidence that he interfered with the ballots....has anyone else? So in reality your argument for him being a bad lawyer in the system is because he has made the BSA look bad. LOL I think the BSA has done quite well making itself look bad all by themselves. The larger case in this situation is the one that the BSA created and that is the case of CHILD ABUSE under BSA's watch and those within the BSA's.  And now it is the BSA who is making a mockery of the legal system with the inclusion of the third party releases in their bankruptcy. This is not my interpretation nor my impression it is fact.

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

Fair enough; but that will not cure the damage he has done, and may continue to do, with his game.  As it almost seems like one much of the time.  "Poke the bear"; and maybe I have become an annoyed bear?

And exactly what damage has he caused?