Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 7 - Plan 5.0 - Voting/Confirmation


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I think you may be mistaken. It would not be a having to start over situation and would make what ever the state courts decisions are as restitution. For many that would be much more than is in this plan. 

So for those who are in statute of limitations barred states, the current proposal is the best resolution unless the governor is about to sign a change to the statute of limitations into law.  They will go from something to nothing with only a slight chance that the laws will change to their benefit.  For those in the minority where there are no statute of limitations barring them, they might get more but the local councils will defend themselves and the extra will be less if any more unlike many here think.  Just my view from my knowledge of many councils.  
 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 563
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As the time that a vote total approaches, I encourage everyone to repeat the Scout Oath and Law several times to remind us how to treat one another.  There are victims here who wish for the plan

I just finished reading Bates' report.  Now I have a headache.  It's well-written, but a bunch of spin.  So we're too old to deserve a decent settlement?  While I get the sol issue, if a suit is valid

66% is the threshold for a bankruptcy.  However, WSJ was reporting even BSA admitted they needed 75% which they didn't reach.  There are two issues that the 73% causes. One will be with Silverste

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

So for those who are in statute of limitations barred states, the current proposal is the best resolution unless the governor is about to sign a change to the statute of limitations into law.  They will go from something to nothing with only a slight chance that the laws will change to their benefit.  For those in the minority where there are no statute of limitations barring them, they might get more but the local councils will defend themselves and the extra will be less if any more unlike many here think.  Just my view from my knowledge of many councils.  
 

 

If there is a one year delay in this bankruptcy more and more states are opening up. Yes local councils and insurance will fight but will ultimately have to pay much more. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, johnsch322 said:

If there is a one year delay in this bankruptcy more and more states are opening up. Yes local councils and insurance will fight but will ultimately have to pay much more. 

You will be surprised that they do not have the funds that many assume.  Attorneys, witnesses, depositions, etc will chew up much more money.  My crystal ball sees little for lots more time and distress for claimants.  Several lawsuits will cause local councils to file for bankruptcy where they will contend that camps and offices are core to their mission.  Their restricted accounts will be found to be restricted in nearly all cases.  They are non-profits and cannot be forced into chapter 7.  There just is not much more to pay.

Local churches tend to have no assets other than the church itself so those will not be taken.   Insurance will claim that they paid in the national suit.  Some councils may have some extra coverage but I doubt it.  Churches will say that they were no responsible for the volunteers and their insurance companies will say that they are not liable.  Those issues could go either way but will be contested making the investment to sue larger.  
 

I might be wrong but I see little likelihood of significant payout.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

You will be surprised that they do not have the funds that many assume.  Attorneys, witnesses, depositions, etc will chew up much more money.  My crystal ball sees little for lots more time and distress for claimants.  Several lawsuits will cause local councils to file for bankruptcy where they will contend that camps and offices are core to their mission.  Their restricted accounts will be found to be restricted in nearly all cases.  They are non-profits and cannot be forced into chapter 7.  There just is not much more to pay.

Local churches tend to have no assets other than the church itself so those will not be taken.   Insurance will claim that they paid in the national suit.  Some councils may have some extra coverage but I doubt it.  Churches will say that they were no responsible for the volunteers and their insurance companies will say that they are not liable.  Those issues could go either way but will be contested making the investment to sue larger.  
 

I might be wrong but I see little likelihood of significant payout.  

We shall see. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

I certainly hope not because the current proposal or a modified plan is accepted so that we all can move ahead.  

I believe it would take a heavy modification to the plan to be accepted. For that reason I think we are at least a year from acceptance. 

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

You will be surprised that they do not have the funds that many assume.  Attorneys, witnesses, depositions, etc will chew up much more money.  My crystal ball sees little for lots more time and distress for claimants.  Several lawsuits will cause local councils to file for bankruptcy where they will contend that camps and offices are core to their mission.  Their restricted accounts will be found to be restricted in nearly all cases.  They are non-profits and cannot be forced into chapter 7.  There just is not much more to pay.

Local churches tend to have no assets other than the church itself so those will not be taken.   Insurance will claim that they paid in the national suit.  Some councils may have some extra coverage but I doubt it.  Churches will say that they were no responsible for the volunteers and their insurance companies will say that they are not liable.  Those issues could go either way but will be contested making the investment to sue larger.  


I might be wrong but I see little likelihood of significant payout.  

Could suits also face a LC challenge to negligence?  If an LC can show relatively few cases and the LC followed procedure to roll them up, the LC could claim it was following trained procedure, doing more than other organizations and was blind to the BSA records showing larger number of incidents?  ... I'm not sure it would work, but the negligence tier changes.  

In some ways, this seems right as it moves general huge level negligence into looking at specific incidents.  That seems to be a good thing; extremely painful, but good.  

I should clarify "good".  By good, I mean that I absolutely cringe thinking of someone effectively getting $5,000 to $20,000 for the trauma of CSA.  Dealing with the specifics seems to get people their day in court.  I doubt it gets more money, but moves away from the hidden abstract and an insulting amount of money.

Edited by fred8033
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Could suits also face a LC challenge to negligence?  If an LC can show relatively few cases and the LC followed procedure to roll them up, the LC could claim it was following trained procedure, doing more than other organizations and was blind to the BSA records showing larger number of incidents?  ... I'm not sure it would work, but the negligence tier changes.  

In some ways, this seems right as it moves general huge level negligence into looking at specific incidents.  That seems to be a good thing; extremely painful, but good.  

That is an interesting possibility.  
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

That is an interesting possibility.  
 

I believe it would be easier to show negligence on the part of the LC’s as they had more direct control of the perpetrators. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

Local churches tend to have no assets other than the church itself so those will not be taken.   Insurance will claim that they paid in the national suit.  Some councils may have some extra coverage but I doubt it.  Churches will say that they were no responsible for the volunteers and their insurance companies will say that they are not liable.  Those issues could go either way but will be contested making the investment to sue larger.  
 

I might be wrong but I see little likelihood of significant payout.  

I'm not so sure about COs. Some, yes, but a lot of the historical church sponsors include plenty of failing congregations. What do you need assets for if  you're about three warm bodies away from shutting the doors? Many churches and church councils have assets like parsonages, rental properties, and campgrounds of their own. As far as other COs, there are a number of Elks lodges by me, for example, that have picnic groves and recreational facilities. Not really essential to their operations and many rarely used in these different times.  There are possibly more assets than are obvious. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dietrich Knauth on Twitter: "A Delaware judge has allowed non-debtor releases in Mallinckrodt's bankruptcy, overruling Rhode Island's attempt to sue the company's CEO for allegedly negligent oversight of opioid sales." / Twitter

This is big.  Now the third circuit district court is going to see a bankruptcy with non consensual non-debtor releases.  

One key here is that the only objector, Rhode Island, represented only $1M of a $5B settlement.  The bankruptcy judge indicated that he believes the value of the claims who object matters.

In any case ... it may be a chance to see a 3rd circuit court decision before BSA's plan is confirmed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15dbaff5-5871-4ffd-a73c-0395915da442_8647.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

Amended plan ... new BSA bylaws listed.  

They reduced their board to no more than 64.

Reduced executive board to 40.

Reduced term to 1 year.

A lot of changes to the relationship between National and councils in terms.  They are also indicating the size of council boards. ... 

I recommend reading the blackline if interested in this.

Edited by Eagle1993
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this came out in September, but is dated May? Odd. 

https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Charter_Bylaws_May2021.pdf

One step forward and one step back? See the page that lists changes:

"Article III, Section 7, Clause 10. Eliminated terms limits for members of the Governance and Nominating Committee."

Edited by mrjohns2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

15dbaff5-5871-4ffd-a73c-0395915da442_8647.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

Amended plan ... new BSA bylaws listed.  

They reduced their board to no more than 64.

Reduced executive board to 40.

Reduced term to 1 year.

A lot of changes to the relationship between National and councils in terms.  They are also indicating the size of council boards. ... 

I recommend reading the blackline if interested in this.

I read through it.  I wasn't very familiar with previous versions, but I don't see the big changes in National and local changes.  Help me out.

The elimination of an Arbitration clause is unusual, but I'm not that big a fan of how arbitration works these days so that's fine with me.

The constructive trust language on council properties is there, but I know that not all councils sign off on that exact language.

The special assessment proposal should be a non starter for LCs; I hope they rise up against that.

Of course near as I can tell there is no requirement for any greater amount of transparency or governance owed to we the worker bees.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...