Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[johnsch322 524]

2 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

The lawyers win too the longer the case goes on. 

Not the lawyers who have clients that are claimants.  They only win more when more is on the table.

[malraux 369]

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

Not the lawyers who have clients that are claimants.  They only win more when more is on the table.

From a strict economic view, doubling the length of the court case would need to double the size of the settlement to be worth it.

[Eagle1993 2160]

13 minutes ago, malraux said:

From a strict economic view, doubling the length of the court case would need to double the size of the settlement to be worth it.

Not really.  Let's say you get $30K today.  The court case has taken 2 years.  Let's say it takes 2 more years.  

So, today .. you invest $30K at a 6% rate of return, after 2 years, you would have $33,708.  So, even after paying 40%, the a $6,180 increase would be match your return ... so anything more than $6,180 would be worth it economically.  That means, doubling the court case would require about a 21% increase in settlement.

[malraux 369]

Just now, Eagle1993 said:

Not really.  Let's say you get $30K today.  The court case has taken 2 years.  Let's say it takes 2 more years.  

So, today .. you invest $30K at a 6% rate of return, after 2 years, you would have $33,708.  So, even after paying 40%, the a $6,180 increase would be match your return ... so anything more than $6,180 would be worth it economically.  That means, doubling the court case would require about a 21% increase in settlement.

Its not an investment, its a job though. You have to keep doing work. Presumably you would be giving up other cases to continue to pursue this one. Two cases each paying $30k after two years is better than one case paying $40k after 4 years.

[Eagle1993 2160]

1 minute ago, malraux said:

Its not an investment, its a job though. You have to keep doing work. Presumably you would be giving up other cases to continue to pursue this one. Two cases each paying $30k after two years is better than one case paying $40k after 4 years.

Yes, for the lawyers, I agree.   For lawyers, the best case now is a quick settlement.  I am talking as a claimant.

[johnsch322 524]

11 minutes ago, malraux said:

Its not an investment, its a job though. You have to keep doing work. Presumably you would be giving up other cases to continue to pursue this one. Two cases each paying $30k after two years is better than one case paying $40k after 4 years.

I would not think that any claimants' lawyers are turning down other cases because of the BSA case.

[Eagle1993 2160]

4 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I would not think that any claimants' lawyers are turning down other cases because of the BSA case.

To be fair, I think you can definitely see some lawyers giving up on this case and looking to cash in.  They just want the check now.

[johnsch322 524]

29 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

To be fair, I think you can definitely see some lawyers giving up on this case and looking to cash in.  They just want the check now.

I think that is what the Coalition lawyers want.

[T2Eagle 902]

47 minutes ago, malraux said:

Its not an investment, its a job though. You have to keep doing work. Presumably you would be giving up other cases to continue to pursue this one. Two cases each paying $30k after two years is better than one case paying $40k after 4 years.

It's a bit of both, an investment with some ongoing maintenance.  For the most part you've already done most of the work: securing the client, filing initial paperwork, managing the voting process, etc.  Now there's just some minimal work: keeping an eye on the docket, keeping your client informed, maybe answering a question from him here or there.  That's the nature of a law practice, you have a number of cases going on at any one time, but you're not actively putting work in on all of them.  It's doubtful anyone would need to turn down one client because of the work involved with another client.  And ALL cases take a long time.  In my jurisdiction, the time between initial filing and an actual trial if it has to go to trial on a civil case is more than two years, creeping up to three.

[Eagle94-A1 2687]

Another stupid question, so bear with me.

If council's were told  they and the COs were covered by the BSA's insurance, and council representatives repeated this to COs, and they are in fact not, who is liable? Would it be National, the LCs, or the professionals who repeated what they were told to say on this matter?

[fred8033 1592]

26 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Another stupid question, so bear with me.

If council's were told  they and the COs were covered by the BSA's insurance, and council representatives repeated this to COs, and they are in fact not, who is liable? Would it be National, the LCs, or the professionals who repeated what they were told to say on this matter?

BSA?  National is bankrupt.  There is no money there.  It's moot.  

People?  The former DEs that were making a small wage at the time?  Probably not.  They were simply the middle-man for the message they were being given.  Negligent medium-level professionals who repeated it in the 1970s / 1980s / 1990s?  You need to pull them out of the retirement homes to be sued.  The executive professionals who planned / signed the insurance contracts?  They need to be dug up to be sued.  

Local councils?  Individually they just don't have the cash to cover the liabilities without insurance.  Many would argue the scouting program was happening in the CO's presence; in their facilities; under CO selected leadership.  Plus, most LCs could argue they were hood-winked by the insurance problems too.  

IMHO ... there is no recovery path.

 

FYI ... I forget the thread.  A thread said that there are 40,000 to 100,000 COs that could be sued as part of this.  I wish I could remember the context.  Wow.

 

Edited February 3, 2022 by fred8033

[Eagle1993 2160]

24 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

FYI ... I forget the thread.  A thread said that there are 40,000 to 100,000 COs that could be sued as part of this.  I wish I could remember the context.  Wow.

That number was mentioned by an insurance company lawyer Tuesday this week.  It was in relation to the request from the Roman Catholic Church to the insurance company to describe how the settlement impacts Chartered Org insurance policies.  I don't think there is any way 40,000 or 100,000 would be sued ... just that to look at all of that insurance is impossible.

[skeptic 992]

Very possibly a separate thread, but I continue to shudder at what in my view is a major problem in our society.  For over a century, one of the things that has made our country, and its myriad communities successful and viable has been the many types of non-profit groups that have reached out to the less fortunate and also taken on much of the community interactions for overall societal improvements and solutions.  

Now, due to our messed up and terribly skewed legal system, that basic tool of community interaction and helping others is being bludgeoned by a constant threat of legal problems.  I realize that there are a few very negligent or misguided, and even some simply perverted individuals in all of our communities.  But, they are not the norm, and while errors in judgement and non recognition of problems has always been possible, and even likely in the larger groups, it is not the intent of these service and outreach efforts.  But, now, due to this focus on finding the deepest pockets to hold accountable, even though they were not directly responsible for the bad actor(s), though some think they should be culpable just for their poor oversight or blinders.  

This continued overreach, it seems, is now making fewer and fewer groups willing to offer help and service, either due to fear of legal issues, or just the cost of protecting against that fear.  And, fewer individuals are willing to any longer put themselves our there to work within the communities, sue to the same fears.  

That is not to suggest that actual predators and bad actors are not to be held accountable, only that the overreach, mostly for exhorbitant monetary punishments, has knocked that Scale of Justice off its pedestal.  Even faith communities, ones that have for over a century tended to the communities with free or inexpensive meeting places and volunteer aid are drawing back.  They no longer can absorb the cost of a bad actor being on their property due to long time community options of their facilities.  

Perhaps I am more naive than I might realize.  Or, maybe I am just viewing things from the wrong generation?  I have gone on and on about balance, and that certainly applies.  So does the reality that there are indefinite shades of grey between black and white.

[ThenNow 1373]

4 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

It's doubtful anyone would need to turn down one client because of the work involved with another client. 

All great points. I would add one. There are exceptions to this general rule. I know both litigators and transactional attorneys that cap the number of cases spinning at one time. This is particularly true of some highly specialized litigators and business guys with large clients. I just encountered a firm that will not allow one lead attorney to concurrently have more than six highly specialized PI cases. (Happy to explain they specialty if anyone cares to know. I am experiencing this situation in real time.) When I was doing land use and development, with attendant environmental, I had only three clients for about the same number of years. We turned down and referred out many prospects. 

Edited February 3, 2022 by ThenNow

[ThenNow 1373]

3 hours ago, fred8033 said:

People?  The former DEs that were making a small wage at the time?  Probably not.  They were simply the middle-man for the message they were being given.  Negligent medium-level professionals who repeated it in the 1970s / 1980s / 1990s?  You need to pull them out of the retirement homes to be sued.  The executive professionals who planned / signed the insurance contracts?  They need to be dug up to be sued.  

My situation may be an anomaly, but my SM/abuser is 11 years my senior. The DE turned SE, 13 years. One committed the abuse, the other at least tacitly complicit, if not actively an accessory. One is enjoying his retirement. The other the senior biz development officer for a very successful escrow and title company in one of the US's largest cities. They're very much alive and well.