Jump to content

Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese


Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

So, if National liquidates, does its intellectual property go on the auction block?

We don't know because much of National's IP is protected not merely by copyright and trademark law but a specific act of Congress.

36 U.S. Code § 30905. Exclusive right to emblems, badges, marks, and words

Quote

The corporation [Boy Scouts of America] has the exclusive right to use emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights

And that same Congressional statute says Boy Scouts of America is "perpetual"

36 U.S. Code § 30901. Organization

Quote

Except as otherwise provided, the corporation has perpetual existence.

So, we have NO idea what a bankruptcy court would do with that language since, as was pointed out several times by BSA at the start, we have NEVER had a congressionally charted organization go into Chapter 7.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 830
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No one here, except members who are claimants, have any part of deciding anything in this bankruptcy. Let's drop the personal criticism of others who express in a scoutlike way their differing op

We're going to split the ch11.x thread in 2. The original will be kept as it was intended, for the legal aspects of the case and everything else will go here. In a nutshell, if the judge is dealing wi

@Gilwell_1919 I want to respond to this, but in the proper thread, which is this one. Let's be clear what Kosnoff has said. 1) He had stated that scouting should continue. He's repeated th

Posted Images

11 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

 I bet BSA has a back pocket quick exit plan that they could convince the judge to implement via cramdown

Yep it was called the toggle plan and while it would take a little updating to account for updated financial data a BSA-only plan could be out the door and approved relatively quickly I would think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Tim Kosnoff is looking for survivors looking to talk to national media. Read his Twitter account. 

Sounds like we should be watching for updates on/in the Wall Street Journal, Fox News and Hearst owned media based on his Twitter updates.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yep it was called the toggle plan and while it would take a little updating to account for updated financial data a BSA-only plan could be out the door and approved relatively quickly I would think.

I agree. I guess when is the question. Do they wait until the ballot tabulations are announced 12/21? If 5.0 fails to garner 2/3 of non-quick pay votes, isn't the choice for BSA to go to the toggle or Ch 7?

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

Do they wait until the ballot tabulations are announced 12/21? If 5.0 fails to garner 2/3 of non-quick pay votes, isn't the choice for BSA to go to the toggle or Ch 7?

That's an interesting question, and I don't want to speculate based 12/21, but maybe I will now. In the next two weeks the TCC will (almost certainly) be putting out its plan once exclusivity ends.

What follows is wild, wild, speculation for if Plan 5.5 fails.

1) Fails by a little (65.99% or something like it) we get fights over whether or not to count the $3500-option ballots.

2) Fails but gets a majority (50%+) we get some kind of hybrid plan with elements of what TCC wants.

3) Fails by a lot: Cramdown BSA-toggle OR maybe the TCC gets to put its plan out to vote?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Sounds like we should be watching for updates on/in the Wall Street Journal, Fox News and Hearst owned media based on his Twitter updates.

Forgive me if I missed it, but would someone post paste his post post haste? As I said, I have no interest in responding, but want to forward it to someone who will be interested in the story. It’s that guy I know...danke.

PS - Is it post paste or paste post? I think the latter, so please cut and paste post the correct version in my above rambling. I’m too lazy.

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

Forgive me if I missed it, but would someone post paste his post post haste? As I said, I have no interest in responding, but want to forward it to someone who will be interested in the story. It’s that guy I know...danke.

PS - Is it post paste or paste post? I think the latter, so please cut and paste post the correct version in my above rambling. I’m too lazy.

To survivors who read my tweets: If you are willing to talk to the media about your reactions to the plan, please text me with yes and your phone/e-mail address at 425-830-8201. You don’t have to be an AIS client but if you are not, you should clear it with your lawyer first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

To survivors who read my tweets: If you are willing to talk to the media about your reactions to the plan, please text me with yes and your phone/e-mail address at 425-830-8201. You don’t have to be an AIS client but if you are not, you should clear it with your lawyer first.

Thanks, Brother. Is there an image of the Tweet? I’m demanding, right? ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

That is an image without his face. I copy pasted it.

To survivors who read my tweets: If you are willing to talk to the media about your reactions to the plan, please text me with yes and your phone/e-mail address at 425-830-8201. You don’t have to be an AIS client but if you are not, you should clear it with your lawyer first.
 
 
6
 
1
 
6
 
 
 
 
 
tX9gVo7B_normal.jpg
 
Wow. Thanks for all of you who are texting me that you are willing to talk to the media. I need for you to identify in your texts whether you are represented by AIS law firms; a Coalition Law Firm or you are unrepresented. I have a major news organization that wants to talk 2 U.
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the Tribune News Service, one of their papers in Seattle, has published an article which is obviously based on Mr. K's opinions, and maybe one or two of his proselyted contributors.  The financial details, such as they are, are of course completely skewed with Mr. K's opinion, obvious to me and likely those that have read any amount of this over the past month+.  I really do not understand how the judge continues to allow him to spread these half or less truths, pushing his own views without any other input.  Of course, the Tribune service writer is equally responsible for incomplete research(if any at all) and obvious lack of balance.  I have to wonder how much she may have made from this tabloid piece?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Sounds like we should be watching for updates on/in the Wall Street Journal

Confirmed. His crew will not be the only survivor claimant voices heard and stories published, for the record. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, skeptic said:

really do not understand how the judge continues to allow him to spread these half or less truths,

What do you think the judge is supposed to do: issue an order prohibiting him from speaking? the first amendment kinda gets in the way of that. It is called prior restraint.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, skeptic said:

I really do not understand how the judge continues to allow him to spread these half or less truths, pushing his own views without any other input.

I believe it is a First Amendment Right called free speech.  It should still taught in school classrooms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, skeptic said:

  The financial details, such as they are, are of course completely skewed with Mr. K's opinion, obvious to me and likely those that have read any amount of this over the past month+.  

I guess I ask how are they skewed?  Do you mean he is pointing out the low end of the settlements? 

The numbers published are correct and are similar to other news stories.  (In fact, the Seattle times shows a higher number for rape in a close state than what BSA is claiming.  In reality, the pay outs are historically low and many councils are keeping the vast majority of their assets, which is why so many claimants are upset with this plan and taking this message to the media.

Here are the numbers in the Seattle Times article

  • A rape claim against the Boy Scouts might entitle a survivor to as little as $3,300 under a nationwide proposal filed in court Tuesday.
    • In truth, it is actually lower per BSA .. $3,177 for the closed state midpoint
  • 82,500 claims
    • I have heard 84,000 unique claims, so the Seattle times is reporting a lower number
  • A Washington survivor who was molested unclothed could collect as little as $9,000 under the proposal.
    • Actual midpoint is $8,666 ... so the times is overreporting the BSA#

Every other number in their article appears accurate.  Are you saying the councils are paying more than the article is claiming?  Is your point the councils do not have the assets they listed in the disclosure?  I'm confused. 

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2e1a8c44-7812-46a0-8a93-5aa5621dc7b2_6431.pdf

 

Edited by Eagle1993
typo
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...