Jump to content

Chapter 11 announced


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

$300M from independent local councils?

Right, literally the billion dollar question. If the court (which to my knowledge has not) rules the Councils are in fact subsidiaries or franchises or what-have-you then ALL those assets get tossed onto the table. If they are treated as "interested parties" (as they currently are) then they get to put in their $300 million and walk away safe.

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What is legally right is not always morally right.

I would encourage everyone to not ask @ThenNow to rehash particular circumstances. They can be found by patiently browsing his posts. From what I read, they were far from legal. His claim would have b

Posted Images

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

So the proposed settlement would cover the costs of therapy.

Yes, provided he only went to therapy a total of 48 times over the course of 26 years at a rate of $125 per session.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Right, literally the billion dollar question. If the court (which to my knowledge has not) rules the Councils are in fact subsidiaries or franchises or what-have-you then ALL those assets get tossed onto the table. If they are treated as "interested parties" (as they currently are) then they get to put in their $300 million and walk away safe.

The BSA wants this two ways.

Financially ... councils are completely independent.  Their funding sources and assets have no tie to National.

Legally ... councils are completely dependent.  They have 0 liability with respect to sexual abuse.  All liability is National BSA.

That is a tough sell.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

How?  26 * 52 * 150 = $202,800

This a $100,000 less than my therapy bill alone. Session costs for a decent therapist have skyrocketed since 2005 or so. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The BSA wants this two ways.

Financially ... councils are completely independent.  Their funding sources and assets have no tie to National.

Legally ... councils are completely dependent.  They have 0 liability with respect to sexual abuse.  All liability is National BSA.

That is a tough sell.  

Most anyone who has followed the case to any degree or reads this cold will see the offer as smug, insolent defiance sprinkled on top of contempt for sexual abuse survivors. Just sayin'...

Edited by ThenNow
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Most anyone who has followed the case to any degree or reads this cold will see the offer as smug, insolent defiance sprinkled on top of contempt for sexual abuse survivors. Just sayin'...

That is the way I read it.  Someone mentioned that BSA needs to go to war.  Well, BSA just declared war on the sex abuse claimants.  So, I guess those who wanted war will get one.  Though, to be fair, I think they wanted a PR war about the positive aspects of scouting.  Unfortunately, I think we will have a different war on our hands.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yeah, the USA Today coverage is, well, brutal. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2021/03/01/boy-scouts-bankruptcy-reorganization-plan-woefully-inadequate/6872981002/

And much of the focus is on the idea that Councils have the biggest piggy bank and are "subsidiaries" of National who need to be forced to give up those properties/assets.

So far, I've said that I thought the end state was going to be a crippled, hollow, BSA with no assets (or not much, BSA is looking to keep $75 million PLUS all the "restricted assets" worth $667 million).

However, now that I've seen their best offer, I really do not think BSA survives this. I know this is where the negotiation starts and the judge gets ahold of the issue, but I think liquidation just became the more likely outcome.

Please note that one of the victims in the USAToday story, Gill Gayle, is NOT a member of the Official Tort Claimants Committee.  This was an error by USAToday.

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Unfortunately, I think we will have a different war on our hands.  

I'm going to predict something and it's not something I am inclined to do. This will likely energize the national effort to 'reform' statutes of limitations for child sexual abuse cases. There could not be a better platform than this offer (Plan) and the way it will almost certainly be perceived. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Right, literally the billion dollar question. If the court (which to my knowledge has not) rules the Councils are in fact subsidiaries or franchises or what-have-you then ALL those assets get tossed onto the table. If they are treated as "interested parties" (as they currently are) then they get to put in their $300 million and walk away safe.

Having followed the case since the outset, as you have, and after reading many of the other cases and RCC Chapter 11 files, I think Judge Silverstein will seriously consider proactively "piercing the veil" to access the LC's. This is obviously being hotly debated in the mediation.

When the issues surrounding transferring assets to Protection Trusts arose with the Middle TN Council, she was not happy. From my reading, National holds a reversionary interest in LC assets upon revocation or relinquishment of Charter. If so, that is the thread upon which one tugs to show the two entities are, indeed, of the same cloth. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

When the issues surrounding transferring assets to Protection Trusts arose with the Middle TN Council, she was not happy. From my reading, National holds a reversionary interest in LC assets upon revocation or relinquishment of Charter. If so, that is the thread upon which one tugs to show the two entities are, indeed, of the same cloth. 

Is this one of the main reasons National chooses who the SE's are?  To protect their "reversionary interests"?

 

And before you say National doesn't choose...they choose the small pool from whom the SE comes, so, in effect, they choose.

Edited by InquisitiveScouter
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that they do not yet have the $300M from local councils.  

"The Debtors are committed to ensuring that the aggregate value of the Local Council Settlement Contribution is not less than $300,000,000, exclusive of insurance rights proposed to be contributed to the Settlement Trust. The Debtors intend to request the voluntary commitments of Local Councils to make their respective contributions, which contributions shall be set forth in commitment agreements executed by each Local Council. By no later than June 1, 2021, the Debtors shall file a report with the Bankruptcy Court concerning the status of the Debtors’ efforts to obtain contribution commitments from the Local Councils. Such status report shall contain information concerning the form of contributions by the Local Councils (i.e., cash, real property, or other assets) and the timing of such contributions. In addition, the status report will set forth any required amendments the Debtors may propose to the Plan to facilitate the Local Council Settlement Contribution."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding costs ... I am only pointing out that the rhetoric does not match the math.

To be honest, I expect the cost of therapy to rise in proportion to the size of the settlement. Victims might actually get less support if they are awarded more.

Regarding properties, etc ... scouting doesn't really need them. But, I can foresee a future in which independent property owners could be sued if they allowed a troop with an abuser to camp on their land.

Regarding the term "arrogance" ... note that I'm not the only one using it. BSA needed to admit that it's protections only work unto a point, but it now cannot do so in the face of litigation.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...