Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan


Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

So, big take aways:

1) The COs are pissed, no other way to put it, they are pissed that they are getting thrown under the bus. The fact that the Ad Hoc Local Committee and BSA went out of their way to try to mend fences right there in the middle of the hearing tells you how big a deal this is.

 

I totally get why they'd be pissed off, but by the same token, I just can't fathom ANY way they could possibly have been included once the number of claims started skyrocketing.  I mean, it took months to get a single additional group (the LCs) looked at and participating and that's a relatively homogenous group of organizations.  Trying to add in every CO that wants in on top of that just seems like it would have been entirely unworkable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

@CynicalScouter Thanks from me and frankly, surely everyone, for tracking on the status of National's bankruptcy pleadings, and the procedural steps, past and pending, in the Bankruptcy case. And your

Okay. Enough. If you aren't talking about court proceedings then drop it.  It would be a shame to lock this thread now.

A few random observations from watching this bankruptcy unfold over the past several months: The focus has clearly been on protecting the national organization first and then the local councils.

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

 Scouters and represented claimants receive recapping the status conference.

Throughout the entire process, I have not gotten one single thing from my Council other than the Townhall Zoom in January. There is no way any LC is sending out updates about a status conference that many/most didn't even know happened.

All I do know is that the Ad Hoc Local Council Committee does send communications to the Council Key-3 (that I was able to get confirmed by my Key-3) who are then told not to share the info in that email with anyone.

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

This is one of those areas where it's hard (for me at least) to know how to approach the issue.  Whenever I see someone making impassioned but incorrect statements I always have to argue with myself about correcting them.  I'm always trying to decide "does this person actually want correct information or do they just want a chance to express their feelings?".  On top of that, my second thought is usually, "regardless of whether or not the commenter wants/needs to be corrected, would leaving it alone result in other people getting incorrect information, and would that matter?"

So sometimes I respond, and sometimes I hold my tongue. (or fingers)  Frankly I think sometimes my decision depends on how argumentative I'm feeling in general.

I'm not sure if I'm the one who should be biting my tongue, but I am totally open to correction. On the issues that go to claimants' feelings and state of mind (and heart), I frequently respond.  That's especially so when the "information" is wrapped in what could easily be perceived as reactive adamance that might read as hurtful. There are ways to say most things while being mindful of not making the pain worse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Throughout the entire process, I have not gotten one single thing from my Council other than the Townhall Zoom in January. There is no way any LC is sending out updates about a status conference that many/most didn't even know happened.

All I do know is that the Ad Hoc Local Council Committee does send communications to the Council Key-3 (that I was able to get confirmed by my Key-3) who are then told not to share the info in that email with anyone.

Oh, well. No certificate for you, my friend. I'm deeply sorry.

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

Kosnoff will try and drag this out if possible.  Could he appeal the discovery ruling?  

No he won’t. Can’t you see he opposes this “deal” and would never sign that RSA? He probably agreed with everything Schiovoni  said. He wants to expose the Coalition hedge funds and their fronts that he believes hijacked the case. 
 

He’s probably licking his chops to tell the insurance companies that part of the story. He formed the Coalition and quit six weeks later. Why did he quit it and take himself out of the mediation? What did he see that turned him against the Coalition. Now we are beginning to see. 

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

He wants to expose the Coalition hedge funds and their fronts that he believes hijacked the case. 
 

He’s probably licking his chops to tell the insurance companies that part of the story.

I can't wait for the next episode. Is it getting to the good part? Since the mediation parties agreed to pay the Coalition millions of cheddar for their critical role in reaching the deal, sans a hinted at objection by the TCC, do all said parties oppose "exposing" the Coalition? I know it will delay the process, but I will again admit and reiterate my feelings. These are not well thought out as to the impact at this stage, but they arose from about September 2020 through the bar date. I resented and also panicked watching the exponential rise in claims through a process that seemed painless to many claimants. It looked like there was no skin required to enter the game. No interview. No signature with penalties for fraud. No mulling and dredging out the past. I mean to cast no aspersion on any and all claimants that entered the case by whatever means if they 100% legit, regardless facial deficiencies in their claims. That happens. Memories fade. I just had a tremendously hard time seeing 100's and 1000's of attorney-signed POCs generated at mimeograph speed to get in under the deadline. It has always smelled of Danish fish. It may be wrong and currently counterproductive to voice this (again).

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, elitts said:

I just can't fathom ANY way they could possibly have been included once the number of claims started skyrocketing. 

That's not why they are angry. They are angry because the RSA and the plan called for COs to be put to the BACK in terms of indirect claims. In other words, under the BSA plan, if a victim sued the CO for abuse, the CO would then demand BSA indemnify the CO based on the insurance policies and other BSA assets.

What the COs objected to as near as I can tell (and the judge read it the same way), BSA was a) walking away from ALL need to use its insurance to cover COs and b) putting the COs in the back of the line for such "indirect abuse claims."

It wasn't that the COs were not part of the deal, it was that the deal absolutely hung the COs out to dry with NO insurance coverage, NO BSA coverage, NOTHING.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First media reports coming out about today.

Boy Scouts to Give Insurers More Time to Review Victim Settlement

The Boy Scouts of America must give its insurers and other interested parties more time to vet the organization’s $850 million settlement with sexual abuse victims, a ruling that likely delays the end of its bankruptcy proceedings.

The Boy Scouts’ timeline to solicit and confirm a Chapter 11 reorganization plan must be pushed back to allow for depositions and comprehensive briefing on the nonprofit’s watershed deal filed last week, Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware said at a virtual hearing Wednesday.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Based on the Fourth Amended plan I tried to math-out how long until BSA can get out of bankruptcy now that the disclosure statement hearing is delayed until August 17.

The answer: late October if they are very, very lucky. I'm sorry about the formatting, I just cannot make it work.

I should also note this is a very compressed deadline: the Second Amended place gave victims 72 days to vote; this is down to 45 days.

Event

 

Fourth Amended Plan Date

 

Days from Disclosure Hearing

 

Adjusted Timeline

 

Disclosure Statement Objection Deadline

7/13

-7

Tuesday, August 10, 2021

Disclosure Statement Hearing

7/20

0

Tuesday, August 17, 2021

Voting Record Date

7/20

0

Tuesday, August 17, 2021

Deadline to Mail Solicitation Packages and Related Notices

7/28

8

Wednesday, August 25, 2021

Rule 3018(a) Motion Deadline

8/13

24

Friday, September 10, 2021

Deadline to File Plan Supplement

8/20

31

Friday, September 17, 2021

Voting Resolution Event Deadline

9/3

45

Friday, October 1, 2021

Voting Deadline

9/3

45

Friday, October 1, 2021

Preliminary Voting Report Deadline

9/8

50

Wednesday, October 6, 2021

Plan Objection Deadline

9/14

56

Tuesday, October 12, 2021

Final Voting Report Deadline

9/17

59

Friday, October 15, 2021

Confirmation Brief/Reply Deadline

9/22

64

Wednesday, October 20, 2021

Confirmation Hearing

9/27

69

Monday, October 25, 2021

Edited by CynicalScouter
Cannot format to save my life.
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As I said, the COs do not appreciate being thrown under the bus and left to rot by BSA after BSA promised to protect them.

Boy Scouts insurers secure more time to build settlement opposition

Insurers, represented by lawyers at O’Melveny & Myers, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr and Gibson Dunn, say the settlement validates, and requires insurance coverage for tens of thousands of claims without proper vetting. They have repeatedly accused the Boy Scouts’ lawyers of leaving them out of critical mediation sessions that led to the deal with survivor groups. The Boy Scouts’ attorneys have denied that allegation.

...

Certain chartered organizations, including churches, that run local Boy Scouts units have also challenged the settlement. The deal subordinates their indirect abuse claims, which typically seek indemnity for liabilities stemming from direct claims that would have otherwise been filed against the national organization, below those of the direct sex abuse claims.

 

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Our state United Methodist Church Council issued a statement today saying all Methodist churches should not renew COAs but have the council charter units instead to limit liability. 

 

 

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, yknot said:

Our state United Methodist Church Council issued a statement today saying all Methodist churches should not renew COAs but have the council charter units instead to limit liability. 

So, that simplifies it to a lease agreement waiving all liability other than premises?

Are any of the 70’s Charter agreements available to view?

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Cannot format to save my life.

You’ve done AMAZING reporting work today. Go easy on yourself. Many of us are most grateful for your diligence and speed.

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

So, that simplifies it to a lease agreement waiving all liability other than premises?

Are any of the 70’s Charter agreements available to view?

Yes. Looks like it. 

I am unaware of any paperwork that exists at the COs that I know. Most of them are run by a vestigial group of people in their 80s. All they know is some nice scout person comes by to see them once a year to ask for a signature.  In doing forensics for one of the units I'm affiliated with, we thought it was solely located at one church but about three months ago based on oral histories found out it actually started at another church in town. There is no paperwork whatsoever. I don't know how these things will be sorted out.  

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