Jump to content

Chapter 11 announced


Recommended Posts

  • 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

3 hours ago, BQZip said:

as long as the TCC remains in existence, they are making $$$. They have every incentive to continue this as long as possible.

I understand the notion that if money is good, more money is better, but the TCC's lead firm (in particular) doesn't need this money. They have a spate of other cases and made oodles well before this one. I have met Jim Stang and interacted with him and John Lucas, the two main attorneys. They are earnest, extremely smart, uniquely qualified for this case and frankly the best of the best at what they do. I believe they are deeply troubled by this case and truly dedicated to assisting the survivors. I will also say, the BSA and LC's have managed to get their heads and hearts further into the game by the shenanigans thus far. Bottom line, they don't need this money or the headache. Yes, it's what they do, but they have tons of money, lots of cases, a stellar resume and this case has been excellent advertising. If given the choice of a plumb deal soon or grinding for many months or years, I believe they would jump at the former. Call me naive... 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BQZip said:

It’s my understanding that TCC ‘s claim that all 85,000 are confirmed abuse survivors is (at best) a massive exaggeration. When all is said and done, the total number will be WAY less. (My guess, less than 10,000...hopefully WAY less). Thousands of these claims are little more than “I was a scout and I was abused” with no clear identifying information of the claimant or whom they are accusing.

These are the claims filed and now a part of the case. Unless and until someone winnows them, whether that be the insurers in the sooner scenario or the Settlement Trustee in the latter, this is the number. As many have said, let's say it's 42,500. Is that going to make a big difference?

At this point, the discussion has passed well beyond what the BSA is giving and the survivors getting. The BSA and LC's totally blew the opening salvo, have insulted and enraged the survivors and, frankly, failed Scouts. They managed to piss off the insurers in the process. As several have now said, this is likely no longer a matter of whether the BSA and LC's come quickly back to the table. LC's and CO's are going to be sued because they were smug, unconvinced they had liability, willing to play "wait and see" or frozen in the headlights, waiting for the dark winter to pass. Ain't happening and CO's, by several accounts, will be jumping ship and saying "No can do" to future Unit sponsorships. 

4 hours ago, BQZip said:

The connection to councils and units is tenuous as they were simply following national guidelines. 

You don't know this. In my case, our SE was aware. In fact, after I left Scouting he tried to get me to have sex with him. He was not my abuser, but if he did not abuse other boys, he was clearly interested and waiting the wings.

4 hours ago, BQZip said:

The courts need to recognize they are doing all they possibly can at this point and WAY more than most.

13,000 claims since the inception of YPT. The argument that the BSA cleaned house decades ago, and should not be held to account for ancient wrongs, just went up like so much flash paper in a magician's hand. From a public perception standpoint, the refrain that the BSA deployed a firewall of reform in the late 80's is what kept many people rooting for Scouting. 13,000 is not a lucky number. It may be the single most lethal piece of statistical data in this entire case.

Edited by ThenNow
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if when national and lc's realize it is over they start giving BIG bonuses to all staff to effectively draw down their cash reserves to a low point. I would not put this past them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few more points.

TCC clarified that there are 101K claims.  They said 83K were unique.  They also clarified they believe some may be fraud most most are true.  They also said the data issues on many claims need to be cleaned up and have examples.  (One claim didn’t list the council.  When they looked they found the individual put the council name next to the Troop number in the Troop field.). Again, they think there are some false claims bust my takeaway is they believe most are real.

TCC’s goal is maximum payout.  They do not care if BSA cannot function post bankruptcy.  They also cannot force liquidation. Their belief is that there will be no”yes” vote unless they have at least the liquidation value of BSA.

If BSA fights hard, this could take years and involve thousands of lawsuits.  Essential the message is surrender or face legal destruction. Give up every National and local asset (camp) that you cannot prove is encumbered.  I expect most BSA camps will be lost... especially those that have any real value.

TCC believes YPT is weak as there are a ton of claims post YPT.  They are demanding changes.   

Will BSA survive?  It will likely be up to volunteers putting on unit level activities at non BSA camps.  It will also depend on the YPT changes....   I think it will survive but be nothing like the BSA I knew. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BQZip said:

 

I’m just a layperson, but the people who want millions each are being unreasonable. All the councils and units put together don’t have those assets. Offering $330M is ~20% of ALL assets. Let’s say it’s everything they own, which isn’t a reasonable figure either. It would be $30k/person. The money these people envision simply isn’t there. 

What they made clear is they expect 100% of assets that are non restricted.  LCs haven’t shared that data so they don’t know if $300M is enough.   If a camp is restricted, prove it.  If you can’t they want it. Otherwise, face 10,000+ lawsuits. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

If BSA fights hard, this could take years and involve thousands of lawsuits.

Through the last two years, have you guys received any trickle down news or tactical planning from above? This whole operation, as illustrated by the non-plan Plan - little detail, no commitment from LC's, completely misreading or ignoring the other side's likely reaction -appears to lack any sophisticated risk management/tiered A, B, C contingency planning. Am I wrong? They have high powered big law with them so I don't get it. From a purely survival and business planning standpoint, it amazes me if they weren't "gaming this out" for a year or more.

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

Through the last two years, have you guys received any trickle down news or tactical planning from above? This whole operation, as illustrated by the non-plan Plan - little detail, no commitment from LC's, completely misreading or ignoring the other side's likely reaction -appears to lack any sophisticated risk management/tiered A, B, C contingency planning. Am I wrong? They have high powered big law with them so I don't get it. From a purely survival and business planning standpoint, it amazes me if they weren't "gaming this out" for a year or more.

Maybe they believe they are "too big to fail"?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Maybe they believe they are "too big to fail"?

In fairness, very few people anticipated this number of claims. They could've gamed scenarios for 20,000 on the highest end. Then, when the storm cuts loose and the flood of claims came down, there simply weren't enough white boards to do much good as the water rises and washes away the X's and O's.

Edited by ThenNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Through the last two years, have you guys received any trickle down news or tactical planning from above? This whole operation, as illustrated by the non-plan Plan - little detail, no commitment from LC's, completely misreading or ignoring the other side's likely reaction -appears to lack any sophisticated risk management/tiered A, B, C contingency planning. Am I wrong? They have high powered big law with them so I don't get it. From a purely survival and business planning standpoint, it amazes me if they weren't "gaming this out" for a year or more.

The only message ... this bankruptcy only effects national.  It has no impact on the councils, units or COs.  A bit of info trickled out that we may pay into a fund but no real serious discussion of impacts.  Given that nearly every council said the same thing (you can see this in media feeds) I expect that was directed by National.

They may have been gaming this out, but they have not prepared us for any impact.

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

The only message ... this bankruptcy only effects national.  It has no impact on the councils, units or COs.  A bit of info trickled out that we may pay into a fund but no real serious discussion of impacts.  Given that nearly every council said the same thing (you can see this in media feeds) I expect that was directed by National.

They may have been gaming this out, but they have not prepared us for any impact.

They are counting on the judge ruling the LCs as independent, but allowing them to "purchase" claims immunity coverage if they contribute to the bankruptcy-driven compensation fund?

I still don't see how they can make that argument/request seriously.  Doesn't pass the common sense, sanity, nor the "headlines" tests...

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

They may have been gaming this out, but they have not prepared us for any impact.

My wild guess is they looked at the total liability assuming a low end number of 2500 or so, given the landscape on 2.18.2020. Based on other cases, if they were thinking each claimant would receive $250,000-$500,000, that's $625M-$1.25B and doable through all contributing sources, including insurance.

Given the financial, community and political might of some LC's I've looked at, I'm sure a number of them did make contingency plans and have them ready to roll out. For a number, I'm guessing those plans included asset protection transfers, but who knows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The only message ... this bankruptcy only effects national.

As recently as last week there were Councils pushing out emails screaming for the world to hear that their Council would in no way shape or form be impacted or have to pay a dime.

That this was all National.

Quote

Charitable support of the Black Swamp Area Council stays local. All assets of the Black Swamp Area Council, including past and future charitable contributions, unit accounts, endowment funds, and properties, are independently held and protected. Dollars given locally in support of Scouting stay right here in the Black Swamp Area Council.

Well, guess what LCs? That's not going to cut it anymore (if it ever did).

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

They are counting on the judge ruling the LCs as independent, but allowing them to "purchase" claims immunity coverage if they contribute to the bankruptcy-driven compensation fund?

That is, almost verbatim, the plan as I noted here

Quote

The plan calls for all "protected parties" including National, local councils, even Contributing COs (listed on Exhibit B, right now that is noting more than a blank piece of paper) to be covered from "ALL abuse claims" including "FUTURE Abuse Claims" (emphasis mine).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've decided to stop FOS or any fundraising that helps my council.  They have over 200 claims.  I expect most of my funds will go to a bankruptcy settlement.  I will give them the funds I typically provide post bankruptcy settlement.  I'm going to recommend my Troop and Pack take a similar plan ... save your contributions and then provide post settlement.

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