Chapter 11 announced

[Eagle1993 2160]

2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Perhaps the BSA should "be prepared" for a delay as has occurred repeatedly this past year, Specifically,  have a list of most marketable assets (Judge approved) to liquify and reschedule the May Meeting to September/October (blame covid).

My $0.02,

BSA should make sure their offer is one the claimants cannot refuse.  Essentially, the lawyers on the other side would not see significantly more $ if they pursue liquidation.  

Lets say BSA decides they can survive without 2 or 3 of our 4 HA bases.  They should include those assets in the settlement regardless of the judge's near term decision.  Why?  Because that decision can be appealed and those appeals can take YEARS.  

One example ... Milwaukee archdiocese cemetery trust fund (which was litigated against Jeff Anderson).

The archdiocese argued that the trust fund is off limits in their bankruptcy as it was specifically created in 2007/2008 to cover the cost of Catholic cemeteries.

Jan 4 2011 the archdiocese files for bankruptcy.

The creditors committee claims the transfer of $ to the fund was illegal.

June 28 2011 the Cemetery trust fund files claims to keep the $55M of their assets out of the settlement.

May 25 2012 The creditor committee asks the judge for summary judgement to reject that claim.

Jan 17 2013 the judge agrees with the creditors committee

July 29 2013 the US District court reverses the bankruptcy court ruling

March 9 2015 the court of appeals agrees and reverses the bankruptcy court

It was then appealed to the supreme court who refused to hear this.

That was a fight over $55M of assets.  It took 4+ years and went through multiple courts of appeals.  

 

If BSA wants this settled quickly, they will need to give up nearly everything but their trademarks.  Otherwise, they need a plan to last 4+ years of legal battles. There is no in-between and their leadership team must make that call now.

 

 

[CynicalScouter 1434]

53 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

If BSA wants this settled quickly, they will need to give up nearly everything but their trademarks.

That has sorta been what I figured the outcome will be. BSA National is left a hollow shell. Not quite liquidated, but awfully close. It will then take another generation (or two?) to even get back to half of what it once was.

But the thing I still cannot figure out is: how much will the Councils be on the hook for? At they going to be gutted, too?

[Eagle1993 2160]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

But the thing I still cannot figure out is: how much will the Councils be on the hook for? At they going to be gutted, too?

That is the $64,000 $3,000,000,000 question. 

[jr56 92]

Every settlement, 50% goes to the lawyers.  Lots of lawyers are getting really rich at the expense of the youth in this country who will not have a scouting program left after the lawyers have gutted it out.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

3 minutes ago, jr56 said:

Every settlement, 50% goes to the lawyers.

Source?

The HIGHEST I ever, EVER heard was 40% (complex civil litigation). The standard is 33%.

I'd love to know where this 50% number came from

[jr56 92]

Was quoted to me by a law firm once.   Others are obviously different.  Still, the fact remains, this is a big payday for lawyers.  Some victims get some financial compensation, but is that really going to make much of the pain go away?

[CynicalScouter 1434]

5 minutes ago, jr56 said:

Was quoted to me by a law firm once.   Others are obviously different.  Still, the fact remains, this is a big payday for lawyers.  Some victims get some financial compensation, but is that really going to make much of the pain go away?

So, anecdote. OK. And that is not as you claimed "Every settlement". It was what one person/firm told you one time. But ok.

As for the rest, yes it is a horrible tragedy what was/is gong to happen/has happened to BSA financially.

But it was a bigger, more horrible one that the victims went through.

But let's game this out.

1) Are you saying victims should not be able to hire a lawyer to press their cases or claims?

2) That all lawyers in abuse cases should work pro bono?

3) That victims can hire lawyers and press their cases but should receive no compensation?

What is your desired end state, given that at least SOME if not MANY of these people have valid claims?

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[jr56 92]

My question is, how much of this is being driven by real claims by people that have been abused many years ago, and how much is being driven by greedy lawyers.  Since many of these cases occured long before our current preventive techniques have been put in place, and there is probably not much proof after many years, the BSA is giving settlements to avoid drawn out court battles.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

11 minutes ago, jr56 said:

My question is, how much of this is being driven by real claims by people that have been abused many years ago, and how much is being driven by greedy lawyers

That's what the court (or the victim's compensation claims adjuster approved by the court) will determine: claim validity AND claim severity.

Are you somehow under the (mistaken) impression that anyone who filed a claim is getting money, no questions asked? The point is that the court will create a victims claims fund and that the claims will be reviewed/vetted to determine validity.

Now, how about you answer my questions.

1) Are you saying victims should not be able to hire a lawyer to press their cases or claims?

2) That all lawyers in abuse cases should work pro bono?

3) That victims can hire lawyers and press their cases but should receive no compensation?

Edited February 18, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[jr56 92]

1.  If the claims are being reviewed by the courts  (thanks for the info,  no sarcasm intended) why is a lawyer needed?

2.  No, but they don't have to collect 33%.

3.  Instead of giving cash settlements, have the BSA offer to pay for counseling for the victims. 

[CynicalScouter 1434]

8 minutes ago, jr56 said:

1.  If the claims are being reviewed by the courts  (thanks for the info,  no sarcasm intended) why is a lawyer needed?

2.  No, but they don't have to collect 33%.

3.  Instead of giving cash settlements, have the BSA offer to pay for counseling for the victims. 

1) No one was required to have a lawyer to file a claim. Many people however opted to do so. So because they hired and attorney, that makes them what, evil? Liars? Not victims? As for why hire a lawyer, because a) they have every right to (are you saying now people shouldn't have the right to hire their own lawyers?) and b) they are not at ALL familiar with how the legal process works.

2) Then name your number. What do you believe is the "correct" amount for a lawyer to be compensated in abuse cases. 1%?

3) That's not how abuse cases (or any tort case in general) works. Money may not be the perfect remedy to the abuse these people suffered, but here in the U.S. it is what they are entitled to under law. Saying "we'll offer counseling, but nothing for your pain and suffering" isn't going to cut it. It is called compensatory damages.

[fred8033 1591]

Deleted.   Old point.  Nothing new.

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by fred8033

[BQZip 71]

The bankruptcy court will determine the net worth of BSA's assets (in fact, already has) and they will be on the hook for that much (at most), no more. Mortgaging properties like Philmont was part of that strategy to put cash-on-hand and make the HA bases practically untouchable (If I have a $1M property and mortgage it for $1M to get cash, a bankruptcy court could take the cash, not the debt....the value's already been taken out of the property). Chapter 11 practically keeps this in the past and locks in the max that an attorney could take. Likewise, I doubt that the amount per case will rise that high.

Individual councils shouldn't be on the list

[mrjohns2 577]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

2) Then name your number. What do you believe is the "correct" amount for a lawyer to be compensated in abuse cases. 1%?

I would rather pay T&M, but then maybe people aren't going to do a good job of managing their time? 

They should be paid an amount that compensates them for their time at the going $/hr rate. It should not be a windfall. Just because the defendant has more money, doesn't mean the lawyers should make more money. Now if the case took tons of resources (and thus time), maybe they should get more than 33%, but the complexity and resources needed for the case should dictate that. Not a percentage.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

2 minutes ago, BQZip said:

The bankruptcy court will determine the net worth of BSA's assets (in fact, already has)

Nope, they are still fighting over it. There's never to my knowledge been a final report on the value of the HA bases. And Plaintiffs are claiming BSA has $667 million in assets it needs to put on the table