Muttsy

I’m wondering if the TCC approach requires 2/3rds. It is a consensual plan for those who consent. The non-participating entities don’t get released. I think it gives the trustee much more leverage. It puts some money in survivors’ pockets now and preserves the prospect of much larger insurance contributions down the road.

I like the TCC Plan. A LOT. Quite an about face. It is a much clearer path. I’m sorry it has taken so long to roll out. It could well be a game changer.

I think the point of his Tweet is that DE is in the Third Federal Circuit which recognizes third party releases. TEXAS is the Fifth Circuit which does NOT. They used their DE shell corp to get it into the 3rd Circuit. We’ll see what she does here but she has a record not substantially different from Judge Drain. Maybe BSA just got lucky at the roulette wheel when it landed on green.

Please tell us what assets and separate insurance coverage exists for the Methodists, Catholic dioceses, LDS and or the 56000 other chartering organizations. Until then, what you say is unsubstantiated hooey.

The one positive when 5.0 is announced is that all the RSA promoters and their fellow travelers won’t be able to proclaim that “sure you’lll get pennies now but they’ll be gazillions in insurance later.” Because there won’t be. You’ll maybe get 20k before attorneys fees and that’s it. Best we could do. Take it or leave it.

In his defense, I saw and heard things that sounded very much like the RSA/4.0 framework was a done deal. The Trust Distribution aspects were affirmed by Lucas and Stang with certitude. Will I get a vote? Yes Will I get less if I was abused in a state with a bad statute? Yes How much less will I get? There are tiers depending on how bad the statute is in you abuse state Lots of talk about the 3500 dollar benefits and how quickly those men could get the cash to pay their bills The body language was telling as was the gratuitous comments by Chambers and Ke

I guess relevant to me. I care what people really think when they are asked the hard question. The rest is just noise and banter “sound and fury signifying nothing.”

I don’t know. I really don’t know. This may be an inappropriate request to the moderators but here goes. This forum embodies a wide spectrum of views, which is its strength. It shares a shallow or deep or middling attachment to BSA as a company from persisting. Accept that with or without BSA, scouting will go on, and perhaps thrive or not. I don’t know. So, moderators, I request a straw poll be done here, on Plan 4.0. I want to know whether this forum continues to be relevant to anyone.

I don’t understand why LC’s assets are off limits to BSA. In every charter I’ve read it states that BSA has the absolute right to terminate a charter. For any reason or no reason. The transfer of assets from one charitable org to another pursuant to a contract does not appear to be an unlawful transfer. It appears to be a lawful transfer. Second, BSA owns all the IP rights. LC’s could be enjoined by a state court if they use BSA’s name, insignias, everything. Third, under the Congressional Charter the local councils existence deriveS directly from BSA. Fourth, th

Technically you could be right. But what then for BSA? She has to find the BSA only discharge leaves it with what financially to start over? No cash, the bases and a donor base spigot it could turn on. It could close LC’s or merge them and grab their assets. Then it could quickly file another Ch 11 to discharge any other liabilities it carries out of Ch 11 1.0. Not sure how it operates without chartering orgs. I’m sure they have a plan for that. Or maybe the mountain of blunders, bad legal advice and rank incompetence make the situation not resolvable. I’m just not seeing t

There is a significant pile of further anecdotal evidence mounting in this forum that demonstrates how child molesters could so easily enter scouting, undetected and unvetted, even during the early days of YP. Anyone remember the 3Rs program? The reality of a criminal background check, while itself inadequate, is nonetheless an important “barrier to entry.” The BSA had the audacity to testify to Congress that in addition to the administrative burdens, and checking about prior convictions or accusations would also deter adults from volunteering. BSA understood exactly what it was

There have been multiple BSA membership fraud scandals. There was one in the early 2000’s. The FBI opened an investigation. It ended with some kind of consent decree with BSA that they wouldn’t do it again. The fraud is connected to the fact that large charities like United Way make donations in relation to the number of people, here scouts, actually serve. BSA fought criminal background checks until around 2006. In the 1990’s BSA testified before Congresss that it should not be required to do them because of the administrative burden despite the fact that the FBI did not charge not

Of course you should volunteer. As a volunteer I believe you are or were an additional insured on BSA’s policies. If you are volunteering for any group you should be covered on it’s policies or it should be a deal-breaker for you.

Fair points. But to be clear I don’t see this being a plan encompassing LC’s. With a Toggle plan or the TCC’s yet to be unveiled Toggle plus plan, a simple majority is all that’s needed. But even that assumes she would ever approve a plan that doesn’t meet the “best interests of the creditors test which means the Crown Jewels of some of them would need to be sold.

Trump tweeted his way to the Presidency. What matters is how he advises the AIS law firms’ 16000+ clients about the present or future Plan. As it stands now, does he really need to be very persuasive? Take 3k now before attorneys fees and we can’t say whether the insurance carriers have any money or ability to pay anything close to a reasonable settlement despite their massive exposure. Century may have little or nothing; Hartford’s obligation is ratcheted to a Century 1.3B payment, which it probably doesn’t have. And Chubb who owns Century has no obligation to infuse it with more cash as per

Wow! You guys are true blue. You buy insurance coverage for yourselves just to volunteer to serve? Are your wives on board with it? If I was your best friend I’d take you out for a beer and a heart to heart.

My point is that if your church gets sued under a “should have known of the hazardous potential” theory or any theory, your church has already lost. It’s lost money for lawyers. To even get to a summary judgment dismissal stage, it has endured discovery and motions practice - easily 100k in defense costs depending on prevailing law firm billing rates. it’s also suffered reputational damage in the community. A single lawsuit could crush a small church or civic organization.

Barriers to entry do work and are the most effective. Your argument seems illogical. If YP actually works as a barrier to entry, then logically the perpetrator will go elsewhere. Sex crimes laws on the state and federal level have gotten much tougher over the past thirty years. To your point, the pedophiles have gone elsewhere and in the process created a huge offshore child sex tourism industry to places like Thailand, Romania and Mexico to name a few.

All I’m saying is that they could still get sued and possibly held liable depending on the facts. The cost of defense could be prohibitive. I also question whether BSA could obtain insurance that does not contain an exclusion for sexual abuse which has been standard since beginning in the late 1980’s. If it could it would probably require a huge deductible. Hey Skeptic, don’t shoot the messenger because you don’t like the message.

Very illuminating post. Thank you. Something I don’t understand is why any COs believe that a facilities use agreement will protect them. Landlords/lessors can be held liable if the sexual assault happened on church property under a variety of theories. Many of the fact patterns in the IV files occurred at meetings in the church, school, Kiwanis basements. It wasn’t the chartering agreement that established their liability, it was the facts. You can’t let crimes be committed on your property, when you knew or should have known they could occur. You must do something. To do not

Not endorsing TrailLifeUSA. Just observing that alternatives are popping up. https://www.traillifeusa.com/ 70% growth in past 12 months.

To my knowledge this is true. There have been numerous Congressional Charters issues to various civic and patriotic groups over the past century. The Congressional Charter to BSA granted it IP rights. Other perks to BSA are also littered throughout the US Code. IF BSA liquidates in a Ch 7, I think the Charter becomes a legal nullify and it has no IP protection. It is a valuable asset which the Ch 7 liquidation trustee would have to decide how, if possible, to monetize it for the trust. But Congress would have to sign off on any transfer of the IP rights to a new scouting entity. If

I think it’s been said the coalition has about 5000 claimants total of various firms who signed consents to be represented as a whole not as individuals by Brown Rudnick. The judge said earlier that attorneys would not be allowed to vote their clients’ ballots without express written authority. Is anybody here a Coalition member? If so, were you asked to sign a proxy to have your lawyer vote your ballot? i don’t understand why these Coalition lawyers statements to the media that they represent 70 000 men means they control their votes. I don’t think they actually have much i

Did you read the joint AIS 2019? It couldn’t be clearer. His firm DOES represent those clients. So do AVA and Eisenberg. Jointly.

All three firms jointly represent 15,103 clients. They are all correct. Their clients will vote their own ballots after receiving the perspectives of the three law firms that represent them. The question is who will make the most sense to their collective clients about the pros and cons of a plan that it is presented to them. That’s what happens in joint representation. Presidents have advisors and cabinet secretaries who strongly sometimes violently disagree with each other. They make their respective cases to the President and he decides. Same thing here. Not mysterious.