13 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

Over the years I have seen the mention of the "perversion files" a number of times. Were these files specific as to "why" the scouter was on the list? The reason I ask is eagle1993s post references the entire list as though they were all abusers. I am not suggesting otherwise, I am asking whether the files were solely of abusers and suspected abusers or did they include names of people who  were labeled as "pervert". (as an example homoexuals have been labeled this way, perhaps adulterers as well). 

Yes the perversion files stated that individuals with names were abusers.  Some were labeled homosexual especially in earlier years.  In my case a government document says that he admitted to homosexuality but we all know that he was a pedophile. He was suspected of  abusing 11 to 13 boys in my troop.  The file is made up of numerous letters between the national and local council.

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

Just as you, and others have touted 85,000 as a big number ... I have, with some reasonable objectively, identified it is a small percentage, relative to estimates from reliable studies.

Yes 85,000 is a big number but in my opinion that number is way higher.  30% of men die between the ages of 50 to 80 years old.  There was 53,619 claims in the years between 1954 and 1984 (if average age of abuse was 13 these victims would be between the ages of 50 to 80 now).  If the 30% were still alive and were to claim that would be an additional 16,086 claims.  That does not take take into account those who may still be alive suffering from dementia and or mental illness who cannot because of their conditions make a claim.  

Look at it a different way...what was the number of abuse incidents versus the number of local councils or scout troops?  I bet those figures would look a bit more scary.  

In 1970 there were 493 local councils.  There are 2,839 claims for the year 1970.  That is 5.75 claims on average for the 493 local councils...shocking?  Remember that number would be higher if all victims were alive or somewhat competent.

9 minutes ago, JoeBob said:

If Statutes of Limitations  can be waived (look back windows),  why can't Sovereign Immunity be bypassed?  Lawyers will argue "BSA doesn't have enough money to reasonably compensate the thousands of victims.  Only government can afford the amounts necessary to justly compensate the many poor abused victims..."

And our 40% will be...

I learned while serving in the military you can only sue the government  if the give you permission.  There will be no permission granted. 

7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

As I understand it, this is a typical structure and can be anticipated. A friend in the know refers to the tiers/phases as "off ramps" along the way. Here's $1000 with no scrutiny. Yes? Bye, bye. No, thanks? Howzabout $2500 after some low level scrutiny seems to validate your claim? And so on. 

I concur.  

Just now, 100thEagleScout said:

I’d need a little more information than that.  I’m not trying to be devil’s advocate here, but for the sake of fairness you have to remember something unless you have a valid diagnosis of repressed memory.  Maybe the color of the perpetrator’s jacket, relative location, time of year, etc.

When the insurance company's first came up with their idea of rooting out false claims I thought it was a good idea.  I figured there will be more money in the pot for myself.  I talked to a lawyer whom I trust and he told me that that was a delaying tactic and that the actual cost of investigation, interrogation etc. etc. would cost far more than paying out on those claims.  Seeing how much has been paid so far in legal fees I tend to agree with him.  That being said if a smaller amount was offered up to all for dropping out with the possibility of more vetting of the claims I think a lot of the false claims would disappear.  

6 minutes ago, 100thEagleScout said:

I’m suggesting those missing information be ineligible to vote if they can’t provide a reason.

How about how much time has past from the abuse, trying to keep it out of your mind for 40 to 50 years and now you are 70 or 80 years old and memories are not what they used to be.  Good enough?

My take for what is worth is that the National and the LC's have sweetened their offer but TCC is holding out for a bit more.  The insurance company's (except Hartford) won't be included nor the CO's.  Hartford wants to be part of the settlement and maybe has guaranteed the 650 million with no caveats and possibly increased the amount (insurance company's have been part of the mediation).  If this is what is presented it will pass the vote (at least I would vote for it).  Then the lawsuits can be filed against the insurers and the CO's.

11 minutes ago, AnonEagle said:

I understand that it is a fine line to walk when talking about money in what is appropriate and what isn't but I'm at a bit of a crossroads in terms of figuring out what I'm going to do with my life. It's hard to make long term plans without a "safe" number to think of.

I think the word "appropriate" should be used as: is it appropriate for me to be asking in this forum about what one might get personally in a settlement.  You know how you were abused and you can go to

https://www.pszjlaw.com/creditor-125.html

and look at the table posted and what the TCC believes is a appropriate.  You can do a little research for number of cases and degree abuse and try to make a wild guess like the rest of us about how much total monies might come in.  But the truth is until the end of the day when money gets paid out no one really knows.  

I wouldn't make long term plans for any money and if you are young enough go back to school and get an education.  

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

There's nothing much to say at this point that hasn't already been said. Everything comes down to what the mediation Monday-Thursday holds and what the Friday court hearing does.

I imagine Century/Chubb will continue to fight document production for the rest of the week regardless, but if the real conversation/mediation is between BSA (and LCs?)  and the TCC/FCR/Coalition, then the Chubb/Century fighting becomes a side show/to be fought out later.

You are correct.  This lull in posting has given me a chance to read postings on other topics.  I have gotten the distinct impression that the average scouter/leader really wants all of this to be resolved.  Between the bankruptcy and Covid BSA as a whole has had a very rough year.

The silence on this topic right now is deafening.

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yeah, I absolutely agree. I am trying to figure this out. It's hard. All I can think is that

1) If I was a victim in a state with no lookback window TODAY, would I vote to let BSA and the LCs out TODAY on the chance that TOMORROW my state legislature approves a lookback window? Expected value: is $12,000 guaranteed TODAY more or less valuable than a possible $1 million payoff down the road that involves hoping the legislature creates a lookback window AND filing a lawsuit AND going through months if not years of civil litigation AND hoping I can convince a jury?

2) Those without a named council will eventually have to be attributed to a council.

Now, conversely, I can see councils refusing to pay into any settlement that serves to float/bankroll other councils.

What I was told by my Key-3 is that there was a formula, likely VERY close to the one that BSA/White Case used to create its abuse matrix, that looked at councils INDIVIDUALLY and, like TCC, balanced the need for the council to survive.

So, for example, the amount Michigan Crossroads has to pay into any settlement (1,550 claims of which only 58 are not time-barred, $48.3 million in net assets) is going to look at LOT different than what Three Rivers pays (153 claims of which only 1 is not time-barred, $4 million in net assets).

If I'm Michigan Crossroads Council I may decide to climb onto the plan. If I'm Three Rivers Council (again, only $4 million in assets) I may decide to roll the dice and take my chances.

One reason I see every LC signing (especially those with look back windows) is the cost of litigation. If BSA has no skin in the game will they contribute to an LC's legal costs....I d not think so.  Of course I am sure that those LC's might have the ability to pay in later. Most likely before the approval of a plan.

11 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

I find it hard to believe if a deal is close it can include LC's. I bet it is just national and deal with insurance and LC later.  There are so many variables in the LC matrix. 

That is just the cram down plan and why would the the TCC approve it.  They would be way better off waiting for the exclusivity to end.  Also some councils have sold off assets and sent letters to their members stating the money is going to the settlement.

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I'm trying to work it out, too. So, let's say the victim had a finger cut off and that was valued at $1 million of which, based on the financial matrix, BSA would be responsible for $12000 (again, there's only so much money BSA has here and $1 billion divided by 82500 claims = around $12000).

Scenario #1: Cooperating LC

BSA ponies up its $1 billion money into the Settlement fund and the LC $1 million to pay for all prior claims within its council boundaries (let's use the TCC plan: the LC puts in everything into the Settlement fund except 2 years expenses and 1 camp; it is forced to sell 1 camp and the council offices).

The BSA leaves bankruptcy and the claim against BSA is channeled into the settlement fund.

The LC has the claim against it channeled into the Settlement fund

The victim waits 1-3 years until the insurance company payout is decided to determine who pays what (e.g. the BSA contribution to that $1 million claim is $12000, that particular LC's contribution is $3000, and the remaining $985,000 comes out of insurance).

Scenario #2: Noncooperating LC, lookback window in place

BSA ponies up its money into the Settlement fund. The LC does not. The BSA leaves bankruptcy. The victim the immediately files suit against the LC for a $1 million judgement. The case then wanders through the courts, the insurance company for the LC is joined as a party to the lawsuit (victim vs. Local Council), and it takes years. Eventually the victim wins a judgement for $1 million MINUS what BSA already paid against the claim ($12000), leaving the LC and its insurer on the hook for $988,000.

I think this would work? It just means that the victim would have to go into the tort/state courts and spend the next several years in litigation.

Scenario #3: Noncooperating LC, no lookback window

BSA ponies up its money into the Settlement fund. The LC does not. The BSA leaves bankruptcy. The victim receives whatever BSA pays out ($12000). The insurance companies likely will NOT be forced to pay for a claim that isn't even actionable in that Local Council's state courts and neither does the LC.

So if your claim falls into scenario #3 would you vote yes? What about the 10's of thousands of claims that named no local council....how would you vote then?  Still needs to be enough votes.

37 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Question I have is how much is BSA and participating LC's kicking in to the pot right now

Still not sure how it could work without all of the LC's contributing from the get go.  

1 minute ago, Muttsy said:

Given this level of control by national, isn't the LC's corporate separateness illusory?

I completely agree.  Especially if the LC's assets are reverted back to the National upon termination of the charter.  LC's are not franchises.  

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Corporate veils a) are NOT "pierced quite often" and b) refer to where an individual person, rather than the incorporated entity, is personally liable.

It has nothing to do with the question of whether National "controls" the LCs or whether or not the LCs assets = Nationals.

The question will be are LC's the "alter ego" of the national.

59 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Let me describe to you just how absurdly complicated this process of control is with something very basic: who hires the local Council executive?

The answer is National has a role: until 2-3 years ago ONLY "commissioned" professionals could be the Council Executive. That meant working your way up the ranks of the BSA (DE, etc.) and taking some BSA professional development courses.

So, this means that National controls the Council Exec, right? Nope. Because the hiring, firing, salary, disciplining, etc. of the Council Exec was controlled by the Council President, Council Board, or some combination.

So, that means that LC controls the Council Exec, right? Well, nope because while National could not and did not directly supervise the Council Exec, they had one trump card. Remember how I said to be Council Exec you had to be a "commissioned" professional? Well, National could revoke the commissioned status of anyone at any time. And since being a commissioned processional was a condition of employment, National could nuke any Council Executive at any time.

So, if I asked you: who "controlled" the Council Executive, the chief paid professional for the LC, what would you answer? National, or the Local Council?

This entire situation is not so clear cut as "LCs rule" or "National rules". Etc.

 

In the corporate world you basically have the same situation.  Corporate veils are pierced quite often.  When push comes to shove so will this one.

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I understand, but my question still stands. All other things being equal, do you want to see BSA survive or not? I've read through many of the victim statements/letters to the judge.

ALL (or effectively all) say they want BSA to pay/be held accountable.

• SOME letters say "and BSA needs to end."
• SOME letters say "BSA needs to survive"
• SOME letters are simply silent on the subject

Etc.

I believe they should be allowed to exist and they should get another chance to prove that they are able to not make the past mistakes but victims should come first.  Victims should be adequately, fairly and justly compensated.  BSA should be actively going after the insurance company's (not just making meager agreements with back doors for them) and compelling the LC's to put up as much as possible not allowing them to be hiding behind a veil (BSA should come out and say we have control of the LC's because they do).  Not just trying to give the least possible in effort and monetary compensation.  

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

Which one? The TCC or the BSA?

Either.  What do you as an individual feel?  Is 2.3 or 2.7 million for the upper end meet what you would call adequate/equitable or do you think it is high or low?

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

One final note on "adequately compensated". The TCC has put out its "marker" for what adequate compensation looks like: $103 billion for 84,000 claims.

And the BSA has put out its marker for what adequate compensation looks like: $2.4 billion – $7.1 billion (page 24).

How did BSA come up with that? Pages 76-78 lays it out. Here's the summary

 

Yes that is what the BSA says and the TCC has a much larger figure.  Not so interested in the legal stances I wonder more about what individuals feel.

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Since the start (February 2020) BSA has used the phrase "adequate compensation" or "adequately compensated" numerous times. In the recent National Annual Meeting (NAM) the phrase was "equitably compensate."

So all of the phrasing is basically the same.  BSA and the TCC has put forward a Matrix.  BSA says as of now there there is not enough assets to meet the matrix payouts.  But there might be in the future.  My question is and I am putting it to the forum do you think that the matrix is fair and adequate?  Do you think 50% is or is it low when you add in say 50 years of suffering?

I keep hearing and heard in the NAM presentation the words "adequate compensation" yet what gets put on the table seems to me to be far less than adequate.  So I pose this to the forum...What does "adequate compensation" equate to you? I am very curious what those who were not abused have to say and how that would be compared to a survivors perspective.

Moved to Bankruptcy topic