Jump to content
mashmaster

Chapter 11 announced

Recommended Posts

Just because they are asking for CO and roster lists going back to time immemorial does not mean they'll get them.

The fact that they are asking, however, certainly seems to indicate that any hope for wrapping this up by Spring 2021 is fading.

EDIT: Only reason you want the CO lists at this point is that now that the financial statements from Councils have been filed and that the High Adventure properties are being appraised or have been appraised, it is starting to sink in that even with total liquidation there won't be anywhere need the $1.5 billion number that was tossed around. And with tens of thousands of claims being filed, that means no one gets much of anything.

So off to find more assets they go. And that means COs

Edited by CynicalScouter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been a volunteer with a pack and five troops (one of the latter in California).  None was a legal entity under state or federal law at the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

I have been a volunteer with a pack and five troops (one of the latter in California).  None was a legal entity under state or federal law at the time. 

My district has 1 unit (92 or so) years that could, might be.

But the trick is this: even if the unit/troop/pack/whatever went defunct DECADES ago, the CO may still be on the hook.

Edited by CynicalScouter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TAHAWK said:

None was a legal entity under state or federal law at the time. 

Units are never legal entities...that is the purpose of the chartering organization.  But I know you knew that!

You could incorporate a unit, but it would not really be part of the BSA.  The legal entity you created could charter a BSA unit that would have the exact same membership as the incorporated entity.  But, the entity must have principal officers and a board which can, potentially, be held liable for actions of the corporation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meaning they are a program of the CO, not an entity at all, contrary to what the motion asserts.  Not a possible debtor/defendant.  Not a legal "person."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TAHAWK said:

Meaning they are a program of the CO, not an entity at all, contrary to what the motion asserts.  Not a possible debtor/defendant.  Not a legal "person."

Ahhh...re-read, please...a) BSA national, b) local council, c) chartering org...

Units are not mentioned, as they are not legal entities...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Except the lawyers...

If things are so "bad" that the lawyers are now targeting not just 200+ Councils but potential thousands (if not tens of thousands) of COs, there may not be much to go around even for them.

And keep in mind: lawyers like this work on contingency. They lose, and they get $0. The entities get liquidated and there's no assets, they get $0.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not good for the BSA to add COs to this lawsuit.  But, in a way isn't it the correct thing to do?  If you were the CO of a unit 30 years ago that had abuse going on, isn't it their responsibility too?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

It's not good for the BSA to add COs to this lawsuit.  But, in a way isn't it the correct thing to do?  If you were the CO of a unit 30 years ago that had abuse going on, isn't it their responsibility too? 

BSA isn't looking to get the COs in. The lawyers for the claimants/abuse victims want them in because (I suspect) they are realizing that the combined assets of National + Councils = not much when divided up among tens of thousands of claimants. So, you go for where the next set of assets/deep(er) pockets are. The COs.

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also another goal besides the money. Anyone who understands the BSA organization understands that if there are headlines about COs having liability for these decades old cases it will be the end of scouting. As we've discussed on this forum, most COs don't understand their role. They think they are sponsoring units with space and some good will. Most do not understand they have any liability at all. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

It's not good for the BSA to add COs to this lawsuit.  But, in a way isn't it the correct thing to do?  If you were the CO of a unit 30 years ago that had abuse going on, isn't it their responsibility too?  

 

The purely political act of virtually eliminating periods of limitations for these claims means that defense is impracticable or literally impossible,  Many of the accused and all other adults around at the time died years ago.  Thus, accusation equals guilt.  Indeed, it makes perfectly good sense is accusation equals guilt.

"The statute of limitations is a statute of repose, enacted as a matter of public policy to fix a limit within which an action must be brought, or the obligation is presumed to have been paid, and is intended to run against those who are neglectful of their rights, and who fail to use reasonable and proper diligence in the enforcement thereof .... These statutes are declared to be 'among the most beneficial to be found in our books.' 'They rest upon sound policy, and tend to the peace and welfare of society;' ... The underlying purpose of statutes of limitation is to prevent the unexpected enforcement of stale claims concerning which persons interested have been thrown off their guard by want of prosecution."

Pashley v. Pacific Elec. Co., 25 Cal. 2d 226, 228-29. 153 P.2d 325, 326 (1944) (quoting 1 HORACE G. WOOD. A TREATISE ON  LIMITATION OF ACTIONS 8-9 (4th ed. 1916»; accord Neff v. New York Life Ins. Co .• 30 Cal. 2d 165, 169. 180 P.2d 900. 903 (1947).

"Statutes of limitation ... are designed to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared. The theory is that even if one has a just claim it is unjust not to put the adversary on notice to defend within the period of limitation and the right to be free of stale claims in time comes to prevail over the right to prosecute them.

Wood v. Elling Corp., 20 Cal. 3d 353, 362, 572 P.2d 755, 760,142 Cal. Rptr. 696, 701 (1977) (quoting Order of R.R. Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 321 U.S. 342, 348 (1944»; accord Lackner v. LaCroix, 25 Cal. 3d 747, 751, 602 P.2d 393,395, 159 Cal. Rptr. 693, 695 (1979)

Edited by TAHAWK
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...