Jump to content

Chapter 11 announced - Part 2 (after the big slow)


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think there is a hearing next week.  I'll be interested to see what the judge says.  I know she raised concern over the spending on the case, but she hasn't taken much action to force closure.  Perhaps she can remove the exclusivity clause and allow the TCC to offer a plan.  I would expect she could rule on the LCs and HA bases (or at least set hearings and close out on these open decisions). 

Yes on April 12, at 3pm, a status conference regarding

a) Disclosure Statement for the Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization for Boy Scouts of America and Delaware BSA, LLC (D.I. 2294, Filed 3/1/21);

b) Notice of Status Conference (D.I. 2448, filed 3/24/21); and

c) Official Tort Claimants’ Committee’s Second Status Report (D.I. 2566, filed 4/9/21).

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/885969_2570.pdf

Edited by RememberSchiff
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'll do my best to explain what I have seen in this thread, so hopefully I don't misconstrue the message.  The one thing I would say about @ThenNow is that it does seem that he cares about the BSA and

You've nailed the attitude that I think is so counterproductive to ever resolving youth protection issues in scouting. There are too many who want to rationalize away the situation because they someho

I think you've jumped in the deep end of victim blaming and then failed to tread water. Blaming a child victim of sexual molestation or rape and saying the antidote is to keep them out of the program

Posted Images

14 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think the judge has to rule on that; however, her last hearing she said the plan wasn't ready.  Insurance companies just filed paperwork to delay the April 29 hearing ... it appears they are stating there must be at least 28 days for review,  before a plan can be approved for a vote.  Given the plan is not ready (per the judge) even now, there is no way April 29 hearing can proceed as previously stated. 

Note that even though the insurance companies & TCC are both stating the plan is garbage, my guess is that is likely all they agree on.

Century motion to

"The Disclosure Statement Hearing shall be adjourned from April 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (ET) to a date that is at least 28 days after the Debtors file the Settlement Trust Documents, including the Settlement Trust Agreement and the Trust Distribution Procedures and the sections of the Plan that describe the contributions by the Local Councils and Contributing Chartered Organizations."

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/885904_2568.pdf

Above is rather damning of the Miami meeting and the Debtor's incomplete plan submission.

"Century and the joining insurers honored the letter and spirit of the Court’s directive by making decision makers available to attend the Miami mediation. However, the moving insurers were excluded from all the meetings held among the BSA, Local Councils, and Coalition on the terms of a plan. As a consequence, multiple lawyers and business people sat in electronic waiting rooms for days over the course of March 30 to April 1 without being summoned to a single meeting between BSA and the Coalition beyond an opening 30-minute session"

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Above is rather damning of the Miami meeting and the Debtor's incomplete plan submission.

Indeed. I’m still trying to decide whether it’s complete incompetence, utter inability or unwillingness to manage the process and their side of the table, or both. I found this a potent excerpt:

C. The Substantive and Statutory Rights of the Parties Cannot Be Trampled to Meet the Debtors’ Preferred Schedule.

27. While adjourning the April 29 Disclosure Statement Hearing may cause some slight delay, any delay is entirely within the control of the Debtors. Likewise, the professional fees incurred by the estate are entirely within the control of the Debtors’ counsel to manage. The Debtors have permitted upwards of 30 professionals to bill the estate at over $1,000 per hour, these accumulated professional fees are not some unforeseen act. Further, the Debtors have refused to implement basic steps to mitigate their fees and costs, such as imposing budget restrictions or shifting to an end-of-case holdback.”

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

"Also 402 for "YMCA", 167 for "Boys and Girls Club" , [...], 9 for "Police Athletic League", 5 for "United Way", 5 for "Red Cross".   So, it appears that based on this both the Y and the Boys and Girls clubs in theory should be on the hook too?  I do not understand if these details are accurate why we are not seeing something related to the other groups.  I do not want them damaged either, but why should BSA take the full impact?

"If these details are accurate" is an important qualifier. Part of the reason I called those particular organizations out is that they directly compete with the BSA, and I don't believe that they actually charter BSA units, or have done so in the past 70 years. (The 1918 Boy Scout Handbook lists the YMCA or YMHA as a possible CO, and a few of the Merit Badges in the 1948 one cross-reference 4H literature as an alternate way to complete the badge. BSA units and Councils do still visit and rent YMCA facilities as general paying customers. I completed the First Class swim check and/or the swimming requirement for the Swimming merit badge with my dad as my buddy at a YMCA pool. When one of my sons was a Webelos, he attended a council "lock-in" [I stayed with him, and we left before midnight] at a YMCA.) But I gather that the typical CO was a church or a fraternal organization even in the '60s, well before the peak of the abuse-claim dates.

One possibility is that these claimants' units met somewhere that the other youth organization also met, and so the claim should actually be coded as "unknown" CO at this point. Or it could be that the claimant remembers or believes that the abuser was registered with the BSA, but the abuse actually took place at or in connection with the other youth organization's meeting or activity. (Similarly, the Pennsylvania grand-jury report about historic Catholic abuse includes a priest who abused his charge in the Big Brothers Big Sisters program.) Or it could be that these claims were filed by some of the claimants who have been convicted of insurance fraud, and are completely made up.

But YMCA and B&GC are on abuse lawyers' radar, and it may be that they have similar exposure. The first hit for a search about YMCA abuse is a "Top Class Actions" listing which says,

Quote

Although long heralded for providing a safe haven for children, the YMCA has faced accusations nationwide that there are child molesters within the organization who coached and tutored youngsters. [...]

And I separately found news articles about 9 men suing the YMCA in North Carolina.

YMCA also has a reputation as a gay hook-up spot; like in the movie Green Book, or in a science-fiction short story I read recently, written in about 2005 but largely set in the late 1940s, that featured a "Young Men's Athletic Club".

Boys and Girls Clubs also has a "Top Class Actions" listing. It cites a Connecticut Post news article that reports that "While the organization has enhanced policies to prevent abuse over the years, its programming is not consistently implemented at local clubs[.]" A news investigation had found 280 alleged victims across 31 states, and the article also mentions "12 pending criminal cases across the country against men who have in some way been affiliated with local clubs and stand accused of sexual misconduct."

At this point the BG&C is about where BSA was in 2018: hundreds of victims, and allegations of a historic pattern of cover-up. It may be that if lawyers had done multiple infomercials with Boys and Girls Clubs as the headline last summer, after the organization had filed for bankruptcy, and followed it up with intensive TV and targeted social-media advertising, we would now have thousands or even low tens of thousands of claims against them.

My concern about United Way is a bit different. It has donated money to the Boy Scouts, and in fact I've seen Council letterhead in old public Ineligible Volunteer files that proudly advertised that the Council was supported by United Way. It also donates to Girl Scouts, and Boys and Girls Clubs, and other youth programs. But I don't believe United Way ever directly charters a unit.

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

Indeed. I’m still trying to decide whether it’s complete incompetence, utter inability or unwillingness to manage the process and their side of the table, or both. I found this a potent excerpt:

C. The Substantive and Statutory Rights of the Parties Cannot Be Trampled to Meet the Debtors’ Preferred Schedule.

27. While adjourning the April 29 Disclosure Statement Hearing may cause some slight delay, any delay is entirely within the control of the Debtors. Likewise, the professional fees incurred by the estate are entirely within the control of the Debtors’ counsel to manage. The Debtors have permitted upwards of 30 professionals to bill the estate at over $1,000 per hour, these accumulated professional fees are not some unforeseen act. Further, the Debtors have refused to implement basic steps to mitigate their fees and costs, such as imposing budget restrictions or shifting to an end-of-case holdback.”

This makes me angry.  Are the BSA lawyers simply looking to suck the organization dry. The judge needs to do something more than sternly scolding everyone to work harder.   BSA lawyers look to have completely ignore the judge’s comments.  If BSA disappears, it might be partially due to her ineptitude.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

Public opinion regarding the Catholic Church being sued for past abuse has resulted in a lot of outrage --- towards the church.  That has been the primary driver behind the changes in SOL laws that brought us where we are today.

 

Respectfully, though, isn't one of the main complaints about the Catholic Church fundamentally different than the main complaint about the BSA? The Church has the power to relocate clergy as it deems necessary, and it was using that power to quietly reassign molester priests from one parish to another. Priest molests kids at St. Anthony's church and school in Town A, bishop finds out, reassigns said priest to St. Bridget's church and school in Town B without telling St. Bridget's about the troubles at St. Anthony's. 

Unless I'm misunderstanding the charge, it's not like BSA national was reassigning an accused scouter from Ohio to work with instead with these kids in Nebraska. It sounded more to me like "this scouter from Ohio is bad news, if he ever applies to volunteer for another council or unit, say no, but let's keep the authorities and the press out of it."

The charge of "You knew about this problem, and tried to sweep it under the rug and handle it yourself when you really should have gone to the authorities." will outrage a lot of people, but not quite to the level of "You knew this priest was molesting kids at that other school and, when he got caught, you chose not to report him or assign him to a distant monastery where he'd never work with kids again, but to assign him to work at another school--my kids' school--anyway."

 

 

 

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

This makes me angry.  Are the BSA lawyers simply looking to suck the organization dry. The judge needs to do something more than sternly scolding everyone to work harder.   BSA lawyers look to have completely ignore the judge’s comments.  If BSA disappears, it might be partially due to her ineptitude.

The BSA is the client and they need to take control of fee review, case management, and staffing by the professionals (does the $500 paralegal do this or the $1400 partner?). The TCC has three members who comb through all fee applications from the retained professionals, ask questions, push back and continually request maximum efficiency. Any “fee bleed” impacts what survivors may get and they wear that fiduciary responsibility with sobriety. On the BSA side, I have no idea who’s reviewing bills or, since they’ve never been in this spot before, whether anyone internally knows if what’s being submitted rises to the level or “reasonable and necessary.”

Here are a few things on Chapter 11 fees, if interested. Same author. The first article links to some of her other articles. Just for gee whiz. I found them instructive.

http://blogs.harvard.edu/bankruptcyroundtable/2020/07/28/want-to-take-control-of-professional-fees-in-large-chapter-11-bankruptcy-cases-talking-with-your-clients-general-counsel-is-a-good-first-step/

delivery.php?ID=485064027065072079090077

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

Unless I'm misunderstanding the charge, it's not like BSA national was reassigning an accused scouter from Ohio to work with instead with these kids in Nebraska. It sounded more to me like "this scouter from Ohio is bad news, if he ever applies to volunteer for another council or unit, say no, but let's keep the authorities and the press out of it."

There is a point related to this that doesn’t get mentioned a lot. I’m not saying it’s the rule, but I think it’s important. In notable cases, and some of them egregious, Scouters who were deemed “ineligible” not infrequently showed up elsewhere under a different name or simply showed up and not cross-references as ineligible. Sometimes, they made a simple name modification or used an initial in place of a their first name. Other times, brand new name. There are a good many instances of this that I’ve found/read about. Again, this goes to the insidious nature of these men, mainly, but also to what happens when law enforcement isn’t tracking someone and procedures aren’t followed. I am not saying it’s exactly the same as the Catholic Church routinely reassigning pedophile priests, just making a point I haven’t seen made here.

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

... when law enforcement isn’t tracking someone and procedures aren’t followed.  ...

The IVF existed because law enforcement had no such mechanism. If all BSA did was notify the police, any number of things could have happened, but none of them would have included registering these perpetrators nationally. At the time, the most likely lawsuit would have been from those ineligible volunteers who would sue for libel, should the list be made public.

The thought of the FBI tracking a hundred thousand citizens KGB-style would not sit well with anyone in the 70s. That BSA undertook this, with great difficulty, on its own is a credit to its tenacity. It is also betrays a bit of arrogance that it could do it.

What we don’t know, is how well it worked. It could be that millions of children were spared profound indignities because of this strategy.

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

The IVF existed because law enforcement had no such mechanism. If all BSA did was notify the police, any number of things could have happened, but none of them would have included registering these perpetrators nationally. At the time, the most likely lawsuit would have been from those ineligible volunteers who would sue for libel, should the list be made public.

The thought of the FBI tracking a hundred thousand citizens KGB-style would not sit well with anyone in the 70s. That BSA undertook this, with great difficulty, on its own is a credit to its tenacity. It is also betrays a bit of arrogance that it could do it.

What we don’t know, is how well it worked. It could be that millions of children were spared profound indignities because of this strategy.

Excellent point, duly noted and acknowledged. I admit to not knowing enough to blow my nose when it comes to the IVF. I’m learning a lot, thanks to you and others.

That was an “and” statement, I will add. “...and procedures aren’t followed,” which goes to those who relocated and counted on no one checking to see if they had been previously listed ineligible. “Hey. You reported a Jim Dandy. Did he ever go by JD or J. Dandie?” Slippery people will always try to do slippery things and slip through the cracks, slippery or not. Just the same, not following procedures makes their slipperiness that much more slippery.  

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

Here are a few things on Chapter 11 fees, if interested. Same author. The first article links to some of her other articles. Just for gee whiz. I found them instructive.

Just now reading this. Having trouble pasting it. I believe it’s the second “here” link in the initial article I posted. Sorry for my ineptitude. It’s a good read so far.

delivery.php?ID=927103126008002092100016

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

Century motion to

"The Disclosure Statement Hearing shall be adjourned from April 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (ET) to a date that is at least 28 days after the Debtors file the Settlement Trust Documents, including the Settlement Trust Agreement and the Trust Distribution Procedures and the sections of the Plan that describe the contributions by the Local Councils and Contributing Chartered Organizations."

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/885904_2568.pdf

Above is rather damning of the Miami meeting and the Debtor's incomplete plan submission.

"Century and the joining insurers honored the letter and spirit of the Court’s directive by making decision makers available to attend the Miami mediation. However, the moving insurers were excluded from all the meetings held among the BSA, Local Councils, and Coalition on the terms of a plan. As a consequence, multiple lawyers and business people sat in electronic waiting rooms for days over the course of March 30 to April 1 without being summoned to a single meeting between BSA and the Coalition beyond an opening 30-minute session"

I kinda of skimmed that document, because I lack the patience to read too much "attorney"  :)

I did ask my wife who deals with legal documents and on occasion mediation if the BSA is just stupid or are they running out the clock.  She thinks running out the clock.  I don't think the BSA is stupid and I don't believe the attorneys are stupid.  

So, why does it seem the BSA is throwing up roadblocks at every opportunity to impede the process?  Do they see no way out that BSA survives so they are just going to spend it all till Chap 7 is the only option and no one get anything?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

So, why does it seem the BSA is throwing up roadblocks at every opportunity to impede the process?  Do they see no way out that BSA survives so they are just going to spend it all till Chap 7 is the only option and no one get anything?  

I am pretty much in the “highly interested, but pretty much in the dark” camp, but I will hazard some thoughts.

1) They were completely taken off guard by the number of claims, throwing the entire strategy, whatever it was, into a swirling dive;

2) Pre-filling, they had a notion of what they would contribute to the trust and it was blown out of the water by the claims. Ditto for the Ad Hoc Committee of LCs, though less so as to the AHC other than the highly exposed Councils;

3) There is great consternation and disagreement within National about putting up High Adventure Bases and some (all?) decision makers are resisting at all cost;

4) Most Local Councils are have been sideswiped by the target on their back, in light of BSA assurances for the last several years, and now don’t know what to do and have no cohesive voice or inclination among them. It seem clear to me the AHC doesn’t represent the Councils;

5) National didn’t anticipate and has since underestimated the strength, determination and singularity of the TCC, possibly looking for them/the survivors to fracture and concede early in the process;

6) They miscalculated the degree to which the TCC would pursue assets and tunnel their way under facially valid asset protection measures and “restrictions” including on  camps, by National and LCs; 

7) Lack of managerial competence; and

😎 They may be frozen in the headlights, not sure whether to dart back into the board room or look plaintively into the oncoming lights.

In looking over my uniformed guesses, it comes down to surprise leading to lack of a scaleable plan, underestimation of claims and the tenacity of the TCC/claimants, the mentioned possibility of incompetence and resignation. I don’t think it’s the latter two, honestly. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I am pretty much in the “highly interested, but pretty much in the dark” camp, but I will hazard some thoughts.

1) They were completely taken off guard by the number of claims, throwing the entire strategy, whatever it was, into a swirling dive;

2) Pre-filling, they had a notion of what they would contribute to the trust and it was blown out of the water by the claims. Ditto for the Ad Hoc Committee of LCs, though less so as to the AHC other than the highly exposed Councils;

3) There is great consternation and disagreement within National about putting up High Adventure Bases and some (all?) decision makers are resisting at all cost;

 

I think these are the "Key 3".  IIRC, an early estimate of the claims was in the 8500 range.  If that was an accurate number we would be looking at $60,000 per claimant plus all the insurance.  Maybe that's a number that would get somewhere.

I think BSA started this process thinking they could control it.  Pay up about 1/3 of their assets, pass the benefits and challenges of collecting insurance onto the claimants, and come out the other side more or less intact.  I suspect that the idea of losing a HA base just never occurred to anyone, and they are now facing the probability of losing either Philmont, Summit or both, and that's probably beyond their ability to process/accept.  

I suspect they're now nearly paralyzed and aren't sure how to move forward.  What's clear at this point is that the case is stuck in the mud and some kind of ruling on one of the major issues needs to be litigated or conceded, or we're just going throw money onto the campfire while producing neither heat nor light.

Edited by T2Eagle
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ThenNow said:

... Scouters who were deemed “ineligible” not infrequently showed up elsewhere under a different name or simply showed up and not cross-references as ineligible.  Sometimes, they made a simple name modification or used an initial in place of a their first name. Other times, brand new name. There are a good many instances of this that I’ve found/read about. ...

The cheap, quick and reliable background check is a very recent concept ... 2003 ???  Before that, it was fairly labor intensive and costly.  And yes, it would have been very hard for an organization to know if it was the same person again.  

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