SNEScouter

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has asked for briefing, due March 8, addressing "addressing whether the Court should hold this case C.A.V. pending the issuance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, No. 23-124. " To me, this seems to make sense. We'll have a Purdue ruling by the 4th of July. At this point, the court and parties are better off knowing the Purdue ruling before charging ahead with oral argument and decision. IMO, the BSA plan will get affirmed regardless of the Purdue outcome, but for different reasons. If third-party releases are acceptabl

You seem to think that financial support of the council does not support "Scouting." That's concerning. BSA has lots of rules and guidelines about how units are to finance their operations, etc., and who can solicit funds from outside sources. (Spoiler - the unit cannot solicit). They're not perfect but they're the rules and simply circumventing them or flouting them isn't the answer IMHO.

SCOTUS vacated the stay. The settlement trust can resume its work. Here's the (very brief) language of the order: "The application for stay presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied. The order heretofore entered by Justice Alito is vacated." Edit to include link to order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022224zr_e2pg.pdf

This is an administrative stay issued by a single justice of the Supreme Court. It is only guaranteed to last a week-ish - just long enough for the entire Supreme Court to consider whether to further halt proceedings. That will be a significant ruling. For now, I suggest not reading too much into this.

At least in the BSA case, that is simply not what happened. Several courts had the opportunity to reject the plan or at least pause its implementation, and did not. It wasn't just one trial judge. The bankruptcy court (Judge Silverstein) first had to confirm the plan, which she did in September 2022 after lengthy proceedings. Then the district court (Judge Andrews) had to affirm the plan which happened in March 2023. Plan opponents then moved in the district court to stay implementation of the plan pending appeal, which Judge Andrews denied. Finally, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals de

To quote another poster: Equitable mootness is the idea that so much has happened since plan confirmation in reliance on effectiveness of the plan - property being bought and sold, money being spent, claims being processed, paid and settled, etc. - that it would be impossible to unwind it all. Therefore, the court simply dismisses the appeals and lets the confirmed plan stay in place.

The BSA and others filed their briefs to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. They also moved to dismiss the appeals outright on the basis of equitable mootness and that motion is attached. BSA MTD Appeal.pdf

Here’s the 18-page ruling. Order Denying Renewed Stay Motions.pdf

In the U.S. District Court (Delaware), D&V/Lujan filed their motions for a stay pending appeal and stay of the plan on Friday 8/18. For whatever reason, Omni hasn't made them available. Perhaps Omni is winding down now that the plan is effective. Anyway, Judge Andrews has set a briefing schedule. Briefs opposing the D&V/Lujan motions for a stay pending appeal and stay of the plan are due 9/1. Replies are due 9/8.

This was your first problem. It is the Council's prerogative to enter into agreements with outside organizations to become Charter Orgs. The troop's unit committee should not have done this without consulting with the Council first and obtaining the Council's blessing. I also question whether the Lutheran Church leadership fully understands the responsibilities associated with being a Charter Org, since (per your description) it is seemingly handing out signatures on paperwork to multiple units. If I'm reading this correctly (and the facts as presented are not entirely clear), this

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the stay motions "without prejudice to filing renewed stay motions in the District Court." They need to take it up with Judge Andrews in the Delaware District Court before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will consider it.

The settling insurers had to pay the money into escrow, where the funds will be invested until paid over to the Settlement Trust. If the market does well, the survivors will benefit from it.

This was not easy to find but here it goes... 1) Hartford is paying a total of $787 million of which $137 million was payable on the Effective Date. See Docket 8816, page 29. 2) Century is paying a total of $800 million of which $50 million was payable on the Effective Date. See Docket 8907, page 6. 3) Zurich is paying $52.5 million. As best as I can tell, none of it is payable until appeals are resolved. See Docket 8907, page 158. 4) Clarendon is paying a total of $16.5 million of which $2.871 million was payable on the Effective Date. See Docket 8907, page 227.

Respectfully, I must strongly disagree with your assessment of Purdue's impact on the BSA plan. There is a HUGE difference between BSA and Purdue, which is that BSA's plan has already gone into effect. Purdue's plan is now stayed and cannot go into effect, if at all, until after SCOTUS rules on the validity of non-consensual third-party releases. (I agree June '24 is the likely timeframe for that decision.) We are in unchartered territory here, and so a lot of permutations are possible. BSA Plan Supporters are not happy to see SCOTUS reviewing nonconsensual third-party releases.

I'd be a little surprised if councils just "waited until people forgot" to then sell land with transfer restrictions. Buyers and their title insurers generally make sure they are getting good title before paying real money for land. But it is common for councils to try and transfer such land and, if necessary, to seek court approval under what is known as the "cy pres" doctrine. I've run into that on several occasions. People tend to donate small, low-value parcels to councils and impose transfer restrictions on them. It becomes a burden rather than a benefit, so it often makes sense to g

I disagree. Every council is different, and I'm sure all councils can do better. However, council employees are necessary to train leaders, implement programs, and supervise and support units. They do not work for free. Personally I'd rather pay a fee than deal with Friends of Scouting presentations.

This is happening more and more. Councils are moving towards a user-fee model because Friends of Scouting / other fundraising isn't pulling in the dollars that are needed.

Full press release from BSA on emergence from bankruptcy, including hiring of Mr. Pounder as YP executive: https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/press-releases/the-boy-scouts-of-america-bsa-announces-confirmation-of-plan-of-reorganization-and-emergence-from-chapter-11-bankruptcy-to-equitably-compensate-survivors-while-ensuring-scouting-continues-across-the/

BSA filed a Notice of the Effective Date in the bankruptcy court. It is over. BSA has emerged from bankruptcy. The Settlement Trust can begin its work. Edit to include link to notice: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/5bdd7d51-2fcc-451e-8ed1-4ac76fc4341e_11119.pdf

Lots of movement in the District and Circuit Courts today. First, Judge Andrews denied the stay motions. In the Third Circuit, stay motions were filed by the Lujan & D&V claimants, and the Certain Insurers. BSA & plan supporters filed opposition briefs almost immediately. Later in the day, a single judge of the Third Circuit entered a temporary stay “… for the sole purpose of allowing the Court an opportunity to review the requests for a stay pending appeal. Nothing herein constitutes a ruling about the merits or a need for more than a temporary stay.” Now we w

It is not clear to me whether the plan will "go effective" on Wed. 4/12 if a request for a stay is pending to the Third Circuit but has not been ruled upon. I thought David Moulton suggested at the Town Hall (but memory may be failing me) that even the mere pendency of a stay request would delay the effective date for a little while, even if no court has actually ordered a stay. That would make sense because by its terms, the plan cannot go effective while a stay request is pending unless all of the plan supporters & settling parties agree. That's in Art. IX.B(1)(c) of the plan (a condit

At the end of the insurer's reply brief, they said something interesting. "Because their appellate rights are at risk, the Certain Insurers respectfully state that, absent a stay, notices of appeal will be filed no later than 12:00 pm ET on Monday, April 10, followed by an expedited stay relief request thereafter in the Third Circuit." Essentially, they are saying that because it is so time sensitive, they can't wait forever for Judge Andrews to rule on the stay requests. Presumably this is headed for the Third Circuit today barring a ruling in the next few minutes/hours. Of course it

For those following along at home, it seems like a good time for a look at Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_8

Omni created a new docket for the appeals here: Consolidated Appeals of Confirmation Order Lengthy scheduling order is here: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e4a87bc5-4d56-40e5-bff6-4bcc044476c2_22.pdf TL;DR on scheduling order - look for briefs from plan opponents by Monday Nov. 7. Response brief of Debtors (and maybe other plan supporters) on Dec. 7. Replies on Dec. 21. Oral argument date TBD.

The allocation of authority between a bankruptcy court and a district court, and the standard of review that applies, are very complicated legal questions in an already-complicated bankruptcy case. Here's a somewhat relevant article co-authored by ... you guessed it.... Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein. https://www.potteranderson.com/newsroom-publications-14.html. This article mostly addresses the situation where a bankruptcy court does not have authority to enter a final order on a particular matter. In that event the bankruptcy judge issues proposed findings of fact and conclusions o