Jump to content

Chapter 11 announced - Part 3 - BSA's Toggle Plan


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

But the constant questioning of the veracity of all sides makes the smart outcome less likely than the stupid outcome because of the emotions.

If this doesn't make it into my previous post, apologies. Again, I don't see a "constant questioning of the veracity of all sides," within the actual case. There is questioning of the sincerity and motive of the BSA by the TCC and Coalition, but that is based on facts, figures, filings and behaviors of the BSA and Ad Hoc Committee. In my view, that is completely legitimate and critical to their representation of all abuse survivors. If you refer to Tim Kosnoff, that's another matter and we sort of need to put him to one side unless the discussion is to focus on him specifically. My thoughts.

Edited by ThenNow
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Forums work well in many ways, but it is probably not the best way to discuss the difficult feelings of this bankruptcy while also discussing the impact to child sex abuse survivors.  However, there a

The mental fallout from my abuse was mostly dormant prior to the current lawsuit. It would still torment me in idle moments. Or at night sometimes when I lay in bed trying not to blame myself after so

I would like to not lock the thread but we seem to be in a rut that we need to get out of before any progress can be made. Here are some observations that might help. First, human dignity is the

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

So how did the court hearing go? Hopefully some progress.

It's going on and on and on. Nothing has been decided. Currently discussing whether an estimation of the value of all claims should go forward now, per the request of the Coalition, FCR and TCC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One quote from the judge from today’s hearing.   
 

"To solicit a plan that has no abuse survivor support is not an attractive option. But neither is engaging in protracted litigation that has the potential to end the Boy Scouts as it currently exists."

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

"To solicit a plan that has no abuse survivor support is not an attractive option. But neither is engaging in protracted litigation that has the potential to end the Boy Scouts as it currently exists."

Which, in my mind, dictates in favor of lifting exclusivity and allowing the TCC, Coalition and FCR to propose a competing Plan.

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

Which, in my mind, dictates in favor of lifting exclusivity and allowing the TCC, Coalition and FCR to propose a competing Plan.

Certainly sounds like it. Without being there, and not totally understanding all the legalese, it appears to this lay-person that BSA and their lawyers are still not putting forth any “real” effort. Over a year into it. Disappointing, I’d hazard to say, for all of us regardless of our interest in seeing the end of litigation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, swilliams said:

Certainly sounds like it. Without being there, and not totally understanding all the legalese, it appears to this lay-person that BSA and their lawyers are still not putting forth any “real” effort. Over a year into it. Disappointing, I’d hazard to say, for all of us regardless of our interest in seeing the end of litigation. 

I do have my subjective interest, but the court has caught BSA counsel on several points where they are pounding the table for adherence to their August timeline on one hand, yet delayed providing requested documentation or insisted on sticking to longer time frames set in the code on the other. She's basically said, "You say you must adhere to your 'out of cash' timeline. If you mean it, act like it."

Honestly, I fear she will extend exclusivity for a short period, reprimand and adjure the parties to play nice and figure this out, then we have more stonewalling and ring around the rosie for several more months.

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

She's basically said, "You say you must adhere to your 'out of cash' timeline. If you mean it, act like it."

Do you believe the BSA lawyers are losing credibility with the judge and if they are would that matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Do you believe the BSA lawyers are losing credibility with the judge and if they are would that matter?

I don't. They are competent in hearings, even if they go round and round. It's a bit of a game of "he said, she said." You'd either lose your mind or conclude everyone must be lying if you believed every party. The TCC and Coalition counsel are much more efficient, abbreviated and direct, in my view. Personal or team credibility isn't really the issue for me. It comes down to how she rules on the motions, which is driven by the facts, law and how well they present their arguments to lead her to the conclusion each party wants. To me, that's all that matters. JMO and I'm not a litigator, to be sure.

As to rulings, we still have zip.

Edited by ThenNow
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If she wants to fast track this, I really think she needs to simplify the bankruptcy.  There is no way to fast track a resolution where most councils see limited number of in SOL cases and will be willing to give up the billion+ of assets.   COs have not gotten involved and the insurance situation is complex.  Add in the DOJ objection and I see no way a fast solution can come if you include councils.  
 
Perhaps she lets the global plan go to a vote, see it rejected and accepts the Toggle Plan (but stays the Hartford settlement and decision on HA bases).  Those could be litigated after BSA exits bankruptcy.  I don’t see another path if she holds to her word that she won’t let the BSA end as we know it. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

During our council townhall, they indicated that our council will have to pay a sizable amount to the settlement. 

  • That yes, that is a change from the initial announcement.
  • The contribution is going to be large, it will hurt, but we will still be able to survive.
  • They cannot say the estimated amount at this time, but will when they are allowed.
  • They cannot say if camp sale(s) will be required nor how that would be conducted.
  • That they have a very good law firm that is working pro bono for our council.  
  • The council leadership is meeting multiple times a week.
  • In 2020 ... our council ended in the black (barely) which is better than most councils.

I was impressed they were open (as much as possible).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion ending the exclusivity would fast track the process.  With more than likely two new proposals that could land on her bench in a couple of weeks and the BSA knowing that the TCC's plan will be very detailed and generous to the survivors they would have to produce something similar  and then having a negotiated  compromise between the two might work.  Might scare the insurance companies and make them step up also.

 

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