Jump to content

Chapter 11 announced - Part 11 - Judge's Opinion


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Non scouting abuse... No protection 

So, the debate then will always be ... was it church based or was it scouting based.   I can understand why they want to still be in the bankruptcy as a participating CO.

Edited by fred8033
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have nothing to say that is worthy of much attention, other than I am SOOO VERY grateful for Eagle1993 and his excellent reverse engineering of this opinion, and other such. I, for one, am indebted

Final plan & exhibits were uploaded last night.  Century supports the updates; however, we may see some fireworks with Guam and possibly the judge.   3b0d7c7a-ca0e-4eab-ad84-f43950dc2b65_1029

A flurry of action today: - The Judge approved the BSA/GSUSA agreement to stop suing each other: cd5eb23c-6a2c-4c70-a015-dc989fbfd257_10193.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) - The US Trustee/DOJ

Posted Images

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

So, the debate then will always be ... was it church based or was it scouting based.   I can understand why they want to still be in the bankruptcy as a participating CO.

How about is it simply "human predator based".  That is really what it is.  I has little to do with the Church/CO or BSA directly, as the people doingit are NOT representative of the CO's or BSA.  They are part of the fringe, but sadly fairly common negative elements of humanity.  Just an observation that seems obvious to me.  But, I guess some will disagree, as is their right.  

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

How about is it simply "human predator based".  That is really what it is.  I has little to do with the Church/CO or BSA directly, as the people doingit are NOT representative of the CO's or BSA.  They are part of the fringe, but sadly fairly common negative elements of humanity.  Just an observation that seems obvious to me.  But, I guess some will disagree, as is their right.  

Referring to future court cases.  LDS & scouting was tightly integrated.  I don't see how court cases can be cleanly scouting or church.  ... It feels like a future court case nightmare.  ... I'm wondering how lawyers interpret liability if in one view has bankruptcy protection and the other doesn't.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Referring to future court cases.  LDS & scouting was tightly integrated.  I don't see how court cases can be cleanly scouting or church.  ... It feels like a future court case nightmare.  ... I'm wondering how lawyers interpret liability if in one view has bankruptcy protection and the other doesn't.  

I think this will be looked at on a case-by-case basis.  Who did the abuse?  Where did the abuse occur?  Did the TCJC know of the abuse and take immediate action? Etc.  I think you are correct, there will be some difficult aspects to clarify.  Now, there has been no protections for the TCJC outside of scouting abuse ... so I expect if a flood of lawsuits were going to hit, they would have already.  I wouldn't be surprised if there is a slight surge post BSA bankruptcy (as lawyers may have held back first focusing on the scout bankruptcy) and those early cases may clarify how this will work out long term.

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

How about is it simply "human predator based".  That is really what it is.  I has little to do with the Church/CO or BSA directly, as the people doingit are NOT representative of the CO's or BSA.  They are part of the fringe, but sadly fairly common negative elements of humanity.  Just an observation that seems obvious to me.  But, I guess some will disagree, as is their right.  

How does it have little to do with co and Scouts when they are members of the church and Boy Scouts and have been for a very long time. I'm not understanding your comment or have I missed something?

Edited by PaleRider
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Referring to future court cases.  LDS & scouting was tightly integrated.  I don't see how court cases can be cleanly scouting or church.  ... It feels like a future court case nightmare.  ... I'm wondering how lawyers interpret liability if in one view has bankruptcy protection and the other doesn't.  

I should think it depends on whether joint and several liability is deemed to apply, which would differ by state.  At the risk of grossly over-simplifying:  If “pure joint and several liability” applies, then it’s easy peasy—the defendant who can pay (the church) pays the entire sum of damages, and the defendant who bankrupted out (BSA) walks away cleanly.  If it doesn’t, the the jury has to allocate proportion of fault between each defendant; the award is allocated amongst the defendants in equal proportions, the church pays its portion and the bankrupt walks away with the plaintiff a haircut on his award.

Given the way LDS units used to run, I would think they’d have to be deemed well over 50% liable for cases of sex abuse within each individual unit; maybe as high as 90-95%.  It was the church that selected (and, at its discretion, removed) the unit leaders; and I’ll bet well over 90% of the claimants were LDS kids—they participated in those units not primarily because of the appeal of the BSA name and curriculum; but because that was the youth program that their own church congregations happened to be running.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A flurry of action today:

- The Judge approved the BSA/GSUSA agreement to stop suing each other: cd5eb23c-6a2c-4c70-a015-dc989fbfd257_10193.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

- The US Trustee/DOJ changed lawyers: 867dd5bd-aaac-414f-936e-0dc8e1bd486b_10191.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

- Certain insurers objected to BSA's timeline: b910e7e8-f15c-45b1-9612-f5b892b93ea2_10192.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

- The judge asked the BSA to have a status hearing on August 18th: 3eaca9e8-7586-42e0-8d3b-8b7d2d739506_10194.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

- A schedule has been released: Objections by Aug 24, responses to objections by Aug 29 and hearing Sept 1  081522 Notice of 7052 Motion (omniagentsolutions.com)

 

 

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

 

On 7/29/2022 at 4:23 PM, Eagle1993 said:

She concludes that there is statutory authority to grant third-party nonconsensual releases.  She goes through pages and pages including discussing Dr. Kennedy & Mr. Meidl's moving statements in support of the plan.  In the end, she believes this case the releases are allowed.

Major hurdle cleared here.

IMHO, removing attorney David Buchbinder suggests the US Trustee/DOJ will not further object to third party releases in District Court.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

 

IMHO, removing attorney David Buchbinder suggests the US Trustee/DOJ will not further object to third party releases in District Court.  

He retired in August per LinkedIn.

Edited by Eagle1993
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Thanks. Two comments on the article. 
 

1. I thought the case was going to be appealed. This article says it’s uncertain. I wonder if that’s just because of where the case is or if it not being appealed is a possible outcome. 
2. One of the interviewees said “For some victims it’s a great result,” which is something I haven’t heard from anyone. Is there a scenario where someone is getting a great outcome?  

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

Thanks. Two comments on the article. 
 

1. I thought the case was going to be appealed. This article says it’s uncertain. I wonder if that’s just because of where the case is or if it not being appealed is a possible outcome. 
2. One of the interviewees said “For some victims it’s a great result,” which is something I haven’t heard from anyone. Is there a scenario where someone is getting a great outcome?  

1. I also saw Prof. Jacoby question who would appeal.   It is a good question as she said most major parties are on board.

There were a few claimant law firms fighting hard.  One was Guam ... well, they keep their insurance for now which was their major ask.  The other was about TCJC... well, now they can sue the TCJC.  The third was more general.  I expect law firms may give up spending more time on appeals and just focus on maximizing recovery through TDPs or independent review.

Non settling insurers will probably appeal.  

US Trustee?  That is the big question.  My bet ... they will fight this.  The US Trustee has been clear in every bankruptcy case I could find.  Non debtor releases should not be allowed.  I expect they will appeal.

 

2. If you are outside the SOL ... yes you could fight that, but it is likely most lawyers wouldn't have taken the case outside bankruptcy.  This was one of Bate's main points.  That a large number of the 82,000 would have received nothing outside bankruptcy court.  So, I do expect there are many, who will receive more money than they would have outside bankruptcy.  Now, is that $10-$20K worth the pain of the trial, wait, reliving abuse ... that will vary.  I do expect there are many that could have received $10-$20M; however, technically, the independent review should address those as well.  If you believe Bates, which not one law firm provided evidence he was wrong, then you believe everyone will receive the amount they are due based upon our current tort system.  This is not to say that is a fair payment.  I also question Bates, but nothing was brought up in court.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Prof Jacoby had a quick summary of the 20 minute hearing yesterday.  No survivors spoke nor their attorneys.  DOJ didn't speak.  BSA plans to seek district court approval as they believe that is needed given the releases.  Non settling insurers will likely appeal.  

More from Reuters. 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/boy-scouts-insurers-prepare-appeal-bankruptcy-settlement-approval-2022-08-18/

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cases and thoughts on whether a bankruptcy court has authority to approve nonconsensual liability releases.

Silverstein’s 281-page opinion ...concluded that abuse victims can lose, without consent, their right to sue third parties that contribute to a mass settlement fund to pay them. The bankruptcy code “does not explicitly authorize releases, neither does it prohibit” such liability releases. 

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/boy-scouts-bankruptcy-exposes-court-split-on-liability-releases

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it belongs here or not, but the regional UMC conference for my area sent budget guidelines out yesterday that broke down how much each local church has to contribute to the boy scout bankruptcy settlement over the next three years.  A number of churches already aren't paying their current apportionment for a variety of reasons from financial to philosophical and political so this is interesting. Local UMC churches that did not have a history of chartering a unit thought they were going to be unscathed but all churches will be required to pay. It doesn't appear to be a lot of money but for those churches who are currently having difficulty paying the electric bill, or who have a deep philosophical argument, it's possibly a bit of a lit match. 

The reason I put this here is because I wonder what happens generally if a third party finds it is unable to honor its commitment to the settlement? 

 

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