Jump to content

Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

I know we don't want the bankruptcy to last forever, but this seems to be one of those cases of where the autonomy of councils is called into question. If one was a well funded council and was forced to merge with another by national, it seems odd that they would have to accept the liability. 

Correct, it doesn't make it any less real, but it does call into question any of your recollection and the facts are totally in question. If one can't articulate what happened where, the whole system falls apart. 

If you take over the assets you take over the liabilities also. 
The determination of validity will lie with the trustee. If there are records of you being a scout and the files indicate an abuser was in that troop in that time frame you will most likely get compensation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 870
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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

Posted Images

17 hours ago, skeptic said:

over 35% of the total listed claims appear to not know where they occurred, either because they do not know the council, or it is just missing.  Also, the types of abuse, as listed, appears to have 6.7% of the total that are unknown or missing.  These figures, especially the second one, seem odd to me.  I understand time is a factor, but I would think, especially the type would not be forgotten.  Granted, if the abuse was cordonned off in their minds, it might be fuzzy; but if it is recognized, I would think it would be more than just a vague "I was abused" memory. 

I am not calling anyone’s claim or legitimacy into question, but I’ve thought a lot about those numbers, having only my own frame of reference, experience and research to mull. As a survivor from an alcoholic, abusive home, I have a pretty good understanding of “walling off” memories. So, in light of that, I think the second number is very easy to understand, the first less so. I said this ages ago on the forum, but some geographic touch point seems available to most people. I lived in this town in this general location. We went to an Elk’s Club or school and I could walk. Something. I don’t understand that omission BUT the way many of us came into this process, thinking there was little to be done but submit the form, be believed and wait for an award, nothing really surprises me.

One more note on your concern about simply stating, “I was abused.” If you were abused in the worst sorts of ways, the acknowledgment is a daunting task. I think of John Humphrey’s comment on the last TCC town hall. He said something to the effect that his abuser had “unfettered access to him for about 3 years (as I recall)...probably 200 times...anything he could do, he pretty much did.” Writing that down in black and white, especially in your own hand, is down and dirty awful and terrorizing. Some survivors had never so much as said ONE WORD about it out loud, much less write it down. Ever. Some only waded through daily grief and trauma, seldom allowing it to percolate to the surface with any measure of clarity. As many of us have said, filling out the POC was a brutally unsettling and dark process. Try to keep that in mine when you ponder how someone could would writ nothing more than, “I was abused.” That may have been more than they uttered in the entire 40-50+ years since it happened. Big stuff. Hard stuff. Ugly stuff. Just my take on it.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RememberSchiff locked and unlocked this topic
  • 3 weeks later...

Boy Scouts Abusing Bankruptcy System

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/the-boy-scouts-are-abusing-the-bankruptcy-system

Quote

 

Appalling Bankruptcy Plan Is Not New

The releases of non-debtors under the Boy Scouts’ appalling bankruptcy plan is hardly unique. While bankruptcy courts would not historically approve releases of non-debtors, that has changed, and now wealthy tort defendants now regularly piggyback on others’ bankruptcy cases.

 

Quote

Adam J. Levitin is the Anne Fleming Research Professor and Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. He serves as a consultant to certain talc claimants against Johnson & Johnson and has testified before the House Judiciary Committee on non-debtor releases in bankruptcy.

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I have stated often that our legal system is a morass of inequality and prone to manipulation by greed and legal bending of things, I find the piece makes unfounded assumptions.  Mainly, most of the CO's are NOT deep pockets, nor did they have much to do with the actual crimes.  It also continues to perpetuate the idea that BSA has resources that are worth far more than reality or restrictions allow.  The perception that most local councils have billions in hidden assets is ludicrous.  Most have been struggling for decades to simply stay above water.  Yes, a few are flush.  But they also open those resources to more than BSA, often at cost to those outside the program.  Also, many camps have, and will continue to be basing sites for disasters, especially forest fires, at at no cost to the agencies using them.  Few are willing to do a complete review of all sides of the complex issues.  A good thing though with this piece is that it points harshly at the government connections getting away almost completely, which happens far too often due to twisted laws and court decisions.  JMHO, so please do not slay with insipient accusations.

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

While I have stated often that our legal system is a morass of inequality and prone to manipulation by greed and legal bending of things, I find the piece makes unfounded assumptions.  Mainly, most of the CO's are NOT deep pockets, nor did they have much to do with the actual crimes.  It also continues to perpetuate the idea that BSA has resources that are worth far more than reality or restrictions allow.  The perception that most local councils have billions in hidden assets is ludicrous.  Most have been struggling for decades to simply stay above water.  Yes, a few are flush.  But they also open those resources to more than BSA, often at cost to those outside the program.  Also, many camps have, and will continue to be basing sites for disasters, especially forest fires, at at no cost to the agencies using them.  Few are willing to do a complete review of all sides of the complex issues.  A good thing though with this piece is that it points harshly at the government connections getting away almost completely, which happens far too often due to twisted laws and court decisions.  JMHO, so please do not slay with insipient accusations.

No one has said they have billions in hidden assets but the do have billions in assets that are in the open. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

He makes an interesting argument, I don't have a strong opinion on it as a philosophical question.

I do have some nits to pick with him in the particulars.   Louisville didn't not have to pay any of their own money.  Their portion of the settlement came from their self insurance fund, which is just their own money put aside for just such occurrences.  And I may be mistaken, but my understanding is that the COs don't get release unless they pay some funds into the trust.  That latter fact is the big complaint the COs have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2021 at 7:16 PM, johnsch322 said:

The TCC. Even the BSA says combined the LC’s have over 2 billion in assets. 

However, without the qualifier "Available", that statement isn't very useful.  Regardless of what many folks would like to believe, many of those assets are restricted (certainly not all of them though).  And even where they aren't restricted, they often wouldn't end up on the table in anything but a liquidation. 

Quite frankly, even among those assets LCs have been selling, I suspect if you actually looked into the past you'd find out the properties were donated on the condition that they be used as scout camps but they've managed to skate by and get them sold without the families involved finding out to file court cases. 

I know it's happened around me at least once or twice.  I think it was Owasippe where they had the whole sale written up in the back room and basically signed when someone popped up and said "Uh.. You can't sell that."

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

However, without the qualifier "Available", that statement isn't very useful.  Regardless of what many folks would like to believe, many of those assets are restricted (certainly not all of them though).  And even where they aren't restricted, they often wouldn't end up on the table in anything but a liquidation. 

Quite frankly, even among those assets LCs have been selling, I suspect if you actually looked into the past you'd find out the properties were donated on the condition that they be used as scout camps but they've managed to skate by and get them sold without the families involved finding out to file court cases. 

I know it's happened around me at least once or twice.  I think it was Owasippe where they had the whole sale written up in the back room and basically signed when someone popped up and said "Uh.. You can't sell that."

My experience that I am seeing are assets that are listed as restricted by the BSA and LC and TCC but are going for possible sale anyway. TCC did consider restrictions.  That said, I’m sure LCs don’t agree with what the TCC is saying.   
 

I think the main point of the article is that LCs or COs shouldn’t be part of the National BSA bankruptcy.   If there are CSA claims, they should proceed in state court.  If they lose cases or believe they don’t have enough money, then they should enter their own bankruptcy.  

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, elitts said:

However, without the qualifier "Available", that statement isn't very useful.  Regardless of what many folks would like to believe, many of those assets are restricted (certainly not all of them though).  And even where they aren't restricted, they often wouldn't end up on the table in anything but a liquidation. 

Quite frankly, even among those assets LCs have been selling, I suspect if you actually looked into the past you'd find out the properties were donated on the condition that they be used as scout camps but they've managed to skate by and get them sold without the families involved finding out to file court cases. 

I know it's happened around me at least once or twice.  I think it was Owasippe where they had the whole sale written up in the back room and basically signed when someone popped up and said "Uh.. You can't sell that."

No matter what the LC's offer was much to low and the and the BRG analysis of the LC's show that. On top of that the only people who will decide on the low ball offer will be survivors.  It is a far stretch of imagination that even 75% of survivors would vote yes and more that that would more than likely have to.

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

No matter what the LC's offer was much to low and the and the BRG analysis of the LC's show that. On top of that the only people who will decide on the low ball offer will be survivors.  It is a far stretch of imagination that even 75% of survivors would vote yes and more that that would more than likely have to.

Just for a little clarity, what is the difference between survivor and victim?

Barry

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

Just for a little clarity, what is the difference between survivor and victim?

Barry

Barry it is a mindset and I am a survivor of Child Sexual Abuse.  I choose not to be a victim.

  • Upvote 1
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...