Jump to content
mashmaster

Chapter 11 announced

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

and that the sum total of all those legitimate cases was and is greater than the liquid assets BSA would have available to pay them and still continue normal operations.

There's also two secondary aspect here (and they may not be totally "secondary")

1) This ends all claims at once. Even if every case/claim was legitimate, it would take decades of litigation. Even if only 70% or 60% or 50% were, it would be a quicker and "cleaner" solution to simply find the claims that at least meet the minimal requirements for filing a claim, figure out the assets, and divide. Otherwise, BSA gets "abuse lawsuit trial" in headlines for another 10+ years.

2) The insurance companies balked. This gets skipped over (a lot) but the other major reason BSA had to file was because several insurers refused to honor the policies claiming that either a) the policies didn't cover what BSA was accused of or b) the policies were void due to BSA's actions.

Quote

 

According to Bloomberg, the BSA is fighting hundreds of claims and a rash of litigation spurred on by the revelation in 2012 that the organization had kept records of thousands of sexual abuse and misconduct allegations. The BSA has described the records as the “ineligible volunteer files” and said they were part of an effort to protect children by spotlighting people who shouldn’t have been allowed to work with them in the first place.

The Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. and First State Insurance Co. in Texas have both turned their back on the BSA, arguing that the “ineligible volunteer files” show the organization hasn’t done enough to protect children against sexual abuse and misconduct, and hasn’t done enough to warn parents of the risks.

Both insurers are arguing in court that they shouldn’t have to pay claims related to abuse that the BSA could have reasonably prevented. The BSA and several councils sued both insurers for $13.5 million in June. In a separate legal battle, insurers are refusing to cover sex-abuse settlements and legal defense fees for the BSA, arguing that the events were not accidents and could have been prevented.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DISLAIMER: abuse is a horrible, reprehensible act and those people who abuse kids should be punished to the furthest extent of the law. 

Proposal: As this in part was a country wide issue, in addition to shutting down the BSA and selling it to settle claims, I lobby for a special tax fund to pay each victim of child abuse $25,000,000 per incident.  Everyone in the country knew that child abuse was happening.  That the government did not shut down all youth serving organizations that reported an incidence of abuse was clearly a sign that we were not doing enough as a country.  Our country clearly was at fault here.  We all need to recognize our culpability for this.  Just because we have come along later in history doesn't mean that we are any less responsible as a country for the actions of those we predated us.

17 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Does BSA get any protection for the scouts chartered to government organizations?  This is at least 10,400 units in 2004.

From my limited understanding, past liability was re-opened by recent law changes.  BUT, that liability was not re-opened for public schools and other governmental organizations. 

I'm trying to understand ... So BSA can be sued, but the charter organizations of many can't be sued even though they selected the leaders, provided the building, owned the materials and implemented the specifics ?  From what I read below, as of 2004,  400 units were sponsored by military bases and another 10,000 were sponsored by public schools.  

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#Governmental_sponsorship_of_Scouting_units

Are there any claim limitations for people that were in the 10,000 public school chartered units and 400 military units?  It just doesn't make sense.  If the professional expertise of teachers and public school administrators failed to protect those scouting youth and were closer to the units, how can BSA that is a further step away be liable. 

Seriously.  NONE OF THIS MAKES SENSE. 

 

Yes, the past abuse was outrageous.  But that was the past.  AND, much was done right.  The BSA files were an aggressive attempt to protect youth.  I doubt such files were kept by other groups.  BSA put YPT, rules and expectations in place years before other youth organizations.  BSA is in at least it's 20th year of YPT improvements.    This is just wrong.

The more I look at this, the more I come to the same conclusion.

So it's OK not to sue schools systems or the government, but it is the BSA?  I'm not following the logic.

The same arguments that apply to why you hold the BSA responsible apply to the government.  The same arguments that apply to why you don't hold the government responsible apply to the BSA.  You don't get to argue one without the other.

Edited by ParkMan
expanded the thought
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Proposal: As this in part was a country wide issue, in addition to shutting down the BSA and selling it to settle claims, I lobby for a special tax fund to pay each victim of child abuse $25,000,000 per incident.  Everyone in the country knew that child abuse was happening.  That the government did not shut down all youth serving organizations that reported an incidence of abuse was clearly a sign that we were not doing enough as a country.  Our country clearly was at fault here.  We all need to recognize our culpability for this.  Just because we have come along later in history doesn't mean that we are any less responsible as a country for the actions of those we predated us.

I actually think your proposal is a reasonable response.  Parents failed.  Teachers failed.  Police failed.  Many, many parts of the system failed here.  If damaged needs to be made whole, it's our whole society that should pay the price. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2020 at 2:16 PM, RememberSchiff said:

IMHO, I do NOT think we will see

    -  any changes to the torte system coming in time for this case. 

    -  the Federal government bailing out the BSA or any non-profits.  

    - taxpayers paying for a reparation fund or for another government oversight agency. 

For an organization whose motto is "Be Prepared",  I think many will say accept the consequences and fix your own problems.

My $0.02,

Can't sue schools or the government? Not true. 

I wonder who sues school districts more often - parents or the teachers union. 

There can be some general restrictions, e.g.,  Federal Tort Claims Act states a two year time limit for claimants against the federal government but there are exceptions for actions in the line of military service and time extensions if government agencies hid information or stonewalled the legal process. 

My $0.02,

Edited by RememberSchiff
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2020 at 6:12 PM, RememberSchiff said:

Interesting ...BSA representation followed to our lawyers new firm?

For the Boy Scouts: Jessica Boelter, Thomas Labuda, Michael Andolina, Matthew Linder and Blair Warner of Sidley Austin and Derek Abbott, Andrew Remming, Eric Moats and Paige Topper of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell  from Reuters

The Boy Scouts of America is represented by Derek C. Abbott, Andrew R. Remming, Eric W. Moats and Paige N. Topper of Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP, and Jessica C. K. Boelter, Michael C. Andolina and Matthew E. Linder of White & Case LLP.   from Law360 (October 14, 2020, 9:43 PM EDT)

Followup: Seemingly there is more to this. I bolded summary ~RS

10/22/20: Debtor files docket 1566 to retain and employ White & Case LLP attorneys (former Sidley Austin attorneys)

8. The Debtors are requesting authorization to retain White & Case as their lead restructuring counsel as of October 23, 2020 because the core members of the legal team began transitioning their practices to White & Case from Sidley Austin LLP (“Sidley”) as of such date. These attorneys, who include Jessica C. K. Boelter, Michael C. Andolina and Matthew E. Linder, have led the Debtors’ restructuring efforts for the past two years, including the first eight months of the Debtors’ chapter 11 cases. Blair Warner and Laura Baccash, critical members of the legal team, and Andrew O’Neill, who has appeared in front of the Court on behalf of the Debtors, have also transitioned their practices to White & Case. Accordingly, these attorneys have extensive preand postpetition experience providing legal services to the Debtors, including significant knowledge of the Debtors’ non-profit operations, financial affairs, liabilities, organizational structure, and the legal issues being addressed in the Debtors’ restructuring. Moreover, these attorneys are familiar with the numerous stakeholders that are actively participating in these cases. For this reason alone, White & Case is uniquely able to represent the Debtors in these chapter 11 cases.

...

10. For the foregoing reasons, White & Case is both well qualified and uniquely able to represent the Debtors in these chapter 11 cases. The Debtors could not replace the core members of the White & Case team without incurring significant costs in terms of the time and money that would be required to select and educate replacement counsel. Moreover, the Debtors have requested that White & Case and Sidley work cooperatively to ensure that the transition of services to White & Case does not interrupt or delay the Debtors’ restructuring efforts.

...

12. The Debtors anticipate that White & Case will replace Sidley as restructuring counsel in rendering the foregoing professional services. This transition is ongoing, and the Debtors expect it to be completed within the next several weeks. In light of the integral role of the core legal team members who have transitioned their practice to White & Case from Sidley, the Debtors submit that the retention of White & Case as lead bankruptcy counsel is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. White & Case has indicated its desire and willingness to act in these cases and render necessary professional services to the Debtors, subject to the Court’s entry of an order approving the Firm’s retention as of October 23, 2020.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/857764_1566.pdf

10/22/20: Debtor withdraws above document (1566)???

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/857818_1570.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ParkMan said:

Proposal: As this in part was a country wide issue, in addition to shutting down the BSA and selling it to settle claims, I lobby for a special tax fund to pay each victim of child abuse $25,000,000 per incident.  Everyone in the country knew that child abuse was happening.  That the government did not shut down all youth serving organizations that reported an incidence of abuse was clearly a sign that we were not doing enough as a country.  Our country clearly was at fault here.  We all need to recognize our culpability for this.  Just because we have come along later in history doesn't mean that we are any less responsible as a country for the actions of those we predated us.

The more I look at this, the more I come to the same conclusion.

So it's OK not to sue schools systems or the government, but it is the BSA?  I'm not following the logic.

The same arguments that apply to why you hold the BSA responsible apply to the government.  The same arguments that apply to why you don't hold the government responsible apply to the BSA.  You don't get to argue one without the other.

No. No, no, no, no. No.

There's no way anyone is going to agree to that kind of taxpayer support for the victims of a private organization. Nope.

And no, not "everyone knew". That was the point.

As for why you can't sue school systems or the government. First, for state and local schools, you can sue in federal court. Second, there's the idea of sovereign immunity: the government cannot be sued without its consent.

And the arguments are entirely different. BSA is a PRIVATE volunteer youth organization. The government is, well, the government. PUBLIC.

I do not want to get into a major legal discussion here but there's a giant, massive legal difference between

1) BSA, a private not for profit which agreed to work with children and which is accused of failing to monitor and properly deal with cases of abuse it knew or should have know and

2) The federal government

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late last week, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein allowed the Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice to join mediation discussions, giving a group representing 28,000 clients a say in any future settlement agreement. 

So far, 7,300 victims represented by the 10 law firms in the coalition have signed consent forms allowing the attorneys to negotiate on their behalf. More are expected to sign before the November deadline to file proof of their allegations. 

More at source: Scouts' abuse claims may become largest case against a single national organization

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/10/23/boy-scouts-sex-abuse-claims-may-grow-tens-thousands/3718751001/

Share this post


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

No. No, no, no, no. No.

There's no way anyone is going to agree to that kind of taxpayer support for the victims of a private company. Nope.

And no, not "everyone knew". That was the point.

But these people are not solely victims of a private company.  The state and federal governments were aware that more than zero adults participating in the programs of the BSA had abused children.  Just as the BSA had developed lists to track those cases, so too the governments had legal proceedings and at least records of allegations of abuse.  That the individual states and federal government did not launch aggressive investigations nor shutdown Scouting and other youth organizations clearly demonstrates a willingness to allow youth to be abused.  That is reprehensible and the governments clearly need to be held responsible for their willful negligence. 

Of course people knew that youth were being abused.  Perhaps not every instance and case, but we all knew about abuse - that is why parents taught their kids to be wary of strangers.  I grew up in that time and remember well lessons from my parents about it.  

Further, it is only right and just that victims receive adequate compensation for all those who had some role in their abuse.  The government, through the willful disregard for their responsibility in the role of protecting children, was clearly negligent and as such needs to provide compensation.  In fact, I would further amend my proposal to now be:

Proposal: As this in part was a country wide issue, in addition to shutting down the BSA and selling it to settle claims, I lobby for special tax funds to pay each victim of child abuse $25,000,000 per incident.  Funds need to be established at each level of government such that victims receive $25,000,000 payments at the local, state, and federal level - for a total of $75,000,000 per incident.  Victims must be made whole and willfully negligent governments need to be held accountable.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

As for why you can't sue school systems or the government. First, for state and local schools, you can sue in federal court. Second, there's the idea of sovereign immunity: the government cannot be sued without its consent.

The federal government in the FTCA has already permitted tort claims against the federal government.  They clearly recognizes that concept of the federal government being held liable for the actions of their employees.  It shows that they know they bear responsibility for their actions.  Many states have extended the statue of limitations of abuse cases and so they recognize the severity of these crimes.  It's time for the federal government to extend the concepts in the FTCA to acknowledge their errors here.  It's time for the state governments to acknowledge the same.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

And the arguments are entirely different. BSA is a PRIVATE volunteer youth organization. The government is, well, the government. PUBLIC.

I do not want to get into a major legal discussion here (happy to do so) but there's a giant, massive legal difference between

1) BSA, a private not for profit which agreed to work with children and which is accused of failing to monitor and properly deal with cases of abuse it knew or should have know and

2) The federal government

This is a distinction without a difference.  Just because people work for the government, that should not enable them to allow the abuse of children.  Just because the politicians have the money and influence to get elected doesn't mean that they should get to allow the abuse of children.  Just because someone is a politician doesn't mean that they get to enable pedophiles.  The government absolutely needs to be held accountable too.

Edited by ParkMan
clarified a thought
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

That the individual states and federal government did not launch aggressive investigations nor shutdown Scouting and other youth organizations clearly demonstrates a willingness to allow youth to be abused.

The government has no legal responsibility to protect you. The lack of an investigation is not an actionable claim.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County

Supreme Court held that a state government agency's failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child's right to liberty for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Why? Because the federal and state government have no affirmative duty to protect you, start police investigations (see Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales), or do anything.

This is what the U.S. Supreme Court had to say about this.

Quote

The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf... it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf – through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty – which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means.

Since Joshua DeShaney was not in the custody of the DSS, the DSS was not required to protect him from harm. In reaching this conclusion, the court opinion relied heavily on its precedents in Estelle v. Gamble and Youngberg v. Romeo.

Put another way:

1) If the abused child were in a state-controlled facility such as a state/local jail, or a state/local OWNED AND OPERATED hospital, or a state/local juvenile home (DSS = Department of Social Services), then the state has taken on the affirmative duty to protect child from abuse.

2) Otherwise, the state has no duty and cannot be sued for failure to protect the child (DeShaney) or the woman with a restraining order (Gonzalez).

EVEN IF THE STATE KNOWS THE CHILD (DeShaney) OR WOMAN (Gonzalez) IS BEING ABUSED OR IS IN JEOPARDY OF BEING ABUSED, OR HAS A RESTRAINING ORDER (Gonzalez)

This plan simply will not pass legal muster.

Edited by CynicalScouter
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please take @ParkMan  proposal and other future tort reform discussions to its own topic. This topic is for discussing the BSA's current Chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

Thank you.

RS

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Late last week, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein allowed the Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice to join mediation discussions, giving a group representing 28,000 clients a say in any future settlement agreement. 

So far, 7,300 victims represented by the 10 law firms in the coalition have signed consent forms allowing the attorneys to negotiate on their behalf. More are expected to sign before the November deadline to file proof of their allegations. 

More at source: Scouts' abuse claims may become largest case against a single national organization

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/10/23/boy-scouts-sex-abuse-claims-may-grow-tens-thousands/3718751001/

Here's the number to watch: 3500.

That's about 10% of total claimants (28000+7300).

Based on prior filings, the plan is that any settlement would require 90% approval. That means if 3500 people reject it, and the plan fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Followup: Seemingly there is more to this. I bolded summary ~RS

10/22/20: Debtor files docket 1566 to retain and employ White & Case LLP attorneys (former Sidley Austin attorneys)

8. The Debtors are requesting authorization to retain White & Case as their lead restructuring counsel as of October 23, 2020 because the core members of the legal team began transitioning their practices to White & Case from Sidley Austin LLP (“Sidley”) as of such date. These attorneys, who include Jessica C. K. Boelter, Michael C. Andolina and Matthew E. Linder, have led the Debtors’ restructuring efforts for the past two years, including the first eight months of the Debtors’ chapter 11 cases. Blair Warner and Laura Baccash, critical members of the legal team, and Andrew O’Neill, who has appeared in front of the Court on behalf of the Debtors, have also transitioned their practices to White & Case. Accordingly, these attorneys have extensive preand postpetition experience providing legal services to the Debtors, including significant knowledge of the Debtors’ non-profit operations, financial affairs, liabilities, organizational structure, and the legal issues being addressed in the Debtors’ restructuring. Moreover, these attorneys are familiar with the numerous stakeholders that are actively participating in these cases. For this reason alone, White & Case is uniquely able to represent the Debtors in these chapter 11 cases.

...

10. For the foregoing reasons, White & Case is both well qualified and uniquely able to represent the Debtors in these chapter 11 cases. The Debtors could not replace the core members of the White & Case team without incurring significant costs in terms of the time and money that would be required to select and educate replacement counsel. Moreover, the Debtors have requested that White & Case and Sidley work cooperatively to ensure that the transition of services to White & Case does not interrupt or delay the Debtors’ restructuring efforts.

...

12. The Debtors anticipate that White & Case will replace Sidley as restructuring counsel in rendering the foregoing professional services. This transition is ongoing, and the Debtors expect it to be completed within the next several weeks. In light of the integral role of the core legal team members who have transitioned their practice to White & Case from Sidley, the Debtors submit that the retention of White & Case as lead bankruptcy counsel is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. White & Case has indicated its desire and willingness to act in these cases and render necessary professional services to the Debtors, subject to the Court’s entry of an order approving the Firm’s retention as of October 23, 2020.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/857764_1566.pdf

10/22/20: Debtor withdraws above document (1566)???

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/857818_1570.pdf

1566 edited and resubmitted as 1571.  So after two years, Sidley is being replaced but not its attorneys who left for White & Case?

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/857857_1571.pdf

Page 74 and 158 Deferred Compensation and Restoration Plan Participants

Douglas S Smith Jr  😡

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Order approving Coalition for Abused Scouts for Justice motions amending claim verification, as I recall, particularly who can take and process claims.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/857843_1572.pdf

 

Order approving Coalition for Abused Scouts for Justice to Participate in the Mediation

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/857845_1573.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Please take @ParkMan  proposal and other future tort reform discussions to its own topic. This topic is for discussing the BSA's current Chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

Thank you.

RS

 

 

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...