ThenNow

I believe transcripts are delayed for a while as effectively proprietary to the court/stenographer. It’s recorded, but I think only for the transcription and court’s use. I’m guessing or vaguely recalling. Nothing is available right now as far as I know (which is approximately the distance between my keyboard and my nose on most days).

No time like the present and there may be no time at all if it isn't now. I haven't seen it noted, but the BSA's, as opposed to the TCC commissioned Berkeley Research Group's, assessment of net aggregate LC assets is $3.296B rounded. Of that, $1.427B is claimed to be restricted in one form or another leaving $1.896B unrestricted. I am so anxious to see BRG's comparative numbers I hardly bear it. I fear I will not get my wish, at least not for a good while. Alas.

I think so too. Ignorance may be blinding me, though. In part, hasn't the BSA created a huge dilemma for the LCs and COs by forwarding a Plan that has no support, risking the potential slide into their Death Trap B plan? If implemented, that launches them into the deep ocean, no? I'm rather surprised there isn't loud wailing and objecting from LCs, especially if they are willing to contribute more to get beyond this. If the TCC and Coalition aren't allowed to present their global resolution Plan of Reorganization, the LCs and COs are in a world of hurt. (See point three, below.) Yes, they are "a" problem. Agreed as to sentences 2 and 3. As MYCVAStory reiterated and I said earlier, 39,000+ claims have yet to land in a LC column. They are hovering and will land, upping the numbers. One thing I am watching for gee whiz is how many of the 16 "0's" (for claims not facially time-barred) are eliminated from the claims data chart. In my assessment, if an LC has even one viable, solid CSA case, it isn't "safe." I said this earlier, but all of these chickens haven't come home to roost and with an $18+/-M high water mark (so far). It simply doesn't take many successful abuse cases to change the entire complexion of the Scouting map or financial health of an LC. If I was an executive with an LC, I would be pounding on the BSA's front door to let me in with cash in hand and beg them not to launch me into the ocean. Again, 16 zeros in the non time-barred claim column will be shrinking. That is nearly statistically certain. My wife is a risk officer for a major health system. As I observe what she does, assessing and eliminating yet to be litigated claims is almost as big a part as managing live claims or liquidated awards. Big risk/little risk. Known risk/unknown risk. Which will it be?

I'm not sure if this is what you meant or a broader societal list of "complaints." These are the BSA Chapter 11 claims, of course.

Check your inbox.

I don't know and can't really speculate. I do have a few thoughts as I look at it, both as a claimant and a former practicing attorney. If I were most of the LCs, after reviewing the data, I'd be pleading not to go Toggle B and asking for some other way, given the fact that the BSA Plan A won't be approved. Here are my thoughts: 1) By my quick scan, there are only 16 LCs with zero active/not time-barred claims against them. That's just looking at the ledger portion showing individual LC claims and not those that follow showing joint claims. between 2 or more LCs.) They seem to be in a good spot if their states have low risk of opening up and they feel confident there aren't guys yet to come forward. Personally, I wouldn't be at all confident, but business and life are a constant game of "big risk/little risk" and "now vs then" analyses. (Start at pp. 323 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/213bd53f-b44f-45c9-97fc-246bcb7ca06b_4108.pdf) 2) A single case of CSA against many LCs could sink or nearly sink the ship, asset base depending. $18+/-M is the high water mark for judgments, as far as I know. 3) Again, super quick scan, but I see a fair number of LCs with over $10M and $20M in net assets and some with a couple hundred thousand. A few that jumped off the page on the high end are Atlanta Area with $85M, Crossroads at $53M and Silicon Valley at $45m. I didn't look closely for any with more as I quickly scrolled. (Start at pp. 265.) They can withstand some hits, but how many? I didn't cross reference cases against net assets, but I'm sure the TCC has. 4) All of this data provides a litigation map. My LC has a very solid asset base, but has 5 SoL "live" claims. 5 substantial awards and that's that. If I were them, I'd opt in and nestle in under that channeling injunction if at all possible. I also believe there are many more men that didn't come forward in my home state, some claims may have facts that tolled the SoL and it's not unthinkable that the legislature will reform the law. My nickel, for what it's worth.

FYI. Reprinted by permission. Peg Brickley 5.19 Hearing .pdf

The Toggle Plan is now openly referred to as a cram down option, meaning it's forced upon the survivor claimants. That hasn't been done in one of these cases, but this is an extraordinary case so who knows. If she puts the current Plan documents to solicitation, she knows the votes aren't there. To allow it then is no more than an expensive legal/academic exercise, which seems anathema to her view on fees and runs counter to the BSA's "August or die" mantra. Given her parting words yesterday, I think she's hoping against hope that the parties come to some agreement. Could happen. Doesn't seem likely. I say, bring on a competing Plan asap. She didn't say she "won't let the BSA end as we know it." (See, below.) Her point was, in my hearing of her words, that to send out Plan Option A is a waste of time and to force the Toggle Plan means BSA may get out of bankruptcy, but as currently configured on the ground it will systematically implode under the weight of litigation. To paraphrase, under the Toggle Plan, what a map of BSA looks like today will not be what it looks like in a few short years. I don't know the number of LCs in the open states, but it sounds like a hefty number in key states, some with national prominence. Personally, and this goes way back to early conversations I had here, I don't think states are done opening up. Not by a long shot. Post Toggle, the BSA LC and Unit map would become less populated with push pins year after year. To reinforce, my primary abuse was in a closed state. The number of claims against my LC is well over 100. 3.5% of those claims are noted by the BSA as not time-barred. Those cases alone will likely sink that ship, if they are viable and have any degree of significant abuse. To me, Judge Silverstein is looking at the two paths BSA has presented and is saying, "I don't like either of these options. There must be a better way."

Open or closed state? If closed, is there looming SoL reform on the horizon? Does your council have many assets? I guess I am wondering what's "large" compared to the asset base, but suppose it doesn't really matter. I presume this is being dictated by National? It could also be their attorney, I'm sure.

I don't. They are competent in hearings, even if they go round and round. It's a bit of a game of "he said, she said." You'd either lose your mind or conclude everyone must be lying if you believed every party. The TCC and Coalition counsel are much more efficient, abbreviated and direct, in my view. Personal or team credibility isn't really the issue for me. It comes down to how she rules on the motions, which is driven by the facts, law and how well they present their arguments to lead her to the conclusion each party wants. To me, that's all that matters. JMO and I'm not a litigator, to be sure. As to rulings, we still have zip.

I do have my subjective interest, but the court has caught BSA counsel on several points where they are pounding the table for adherence to their August timeline on one hand, yet delayed providing requested documentation or insisted on sticking to longer time frames set in the code on the other. She's basically said, "You say you must adhere to your 'out of cash' timeline. If you mean it, act like it." Honestly, I fear she will extend exclusivity for a short period, reprimand and adjure the parties to play nice and figure this out, then we have more stonewalling and ring around the rosie for several more months.

Which, in my mind, dictates in favor of lifting exclusivity and allowing the TCC, Coalition and FCR to propose a competing Plan.

It's going on and on and on. Nothing has been decided. Currently discussing whether an estimation of the value of all claims should go forward now, per the request of the Coalition, FCR and TCC.

Ok. Sorry. The word "blame" is simply not accurate here. I guess some people may do that. I get it. You cut off critical parts of that last quote, btw, so you might not have read or understood what I said. That's okay, though. I am not getting into it with you, again. I have no desire. I would like to leave it there. Btw, I'm not trying to get the last word. I love to debate, I just don't see this going anywhere productive.

Here we go again. I'm not blaming them. Again, this is not an ethics class. Love it, hate, stand by indifferent, the court and laws are holding them accountable to a standard of negligence and violation of their duty to care, hire, protect, and, etc. This is an endless loop and, besides, we're talking about the BSA vs. Society as to CSA, not this again. My point is, if the BSA is doing great with its youth protection and in fending off CSA compared to society at large, what is at all hurtful or harmful about upping the ante with YPT and YP efforts?

To me, this is effectively the beginning and the end of the discussion. Everything else is suited for academia, sociologists and other such important work. I thought this was all about boots on the ground. Why chase gnats with a tweezers when there is a large fish to fry before you (us?). Amen. -The End

I think he may have just been using your post as a jumping off point to give his comments. He's new and I recall doing that when I started posting. Heck, I still do it! To blather about something I've said before, it is also misleading to use the 85,000 number alone, since that's claimants and not single incidents of abuse. Other data may be noting incident when here some boys were abused repeatedly Some, tens and tens of times. If 10% of the claimants were abused 5 times each, that adds 42,000 incidents of abuse.

If this doesn't make it into my previous post, apologies. Again, I don't see a "constant questioning of the veracity of all sides," within the actual case. There is questioning of the sincerity and motive of the BSA by the TCC and Coalition, but that is based on facts, figures, filings and behaviors of the BSA and Ad Hoc Committee. In my view, that is completely legitimate and critical to their representation of all abuse survivors. If you refer to Tim Kosnoff, that's another matter and we sort of need to put him to one side unless the discussion is to focus on him specifically. My thoughts.

I understand, but I think it would be more helpful, if you want to discuss it, to point out exactly what you're referring to as "this type of accusation." I assume you're including things beyond this grasping allegation from Century, and would be happy to hear what they are. I don't know that this is in any way "abnormal," but that's a much broader conversation about litigation. Personally, I don't think or feel the TCC has been flinging around wild accusations of nefarious behavior. I may be misunderstanding what you're saying, though. On the forum, there have definitely been a lot of heaters thrown back and forth, not always with much value other than to combust on impact.

Yup. Peeled off to dial in the listen only observers and duplicative members of the same firms. Starting off with an exasperated judge may be a good thing for expediting some of these things. One can hope. That said, it is currently a live audio debacle.

Roger that. I've surfed around to see and view them, but it's great that this one will stay at the top. Thank you.

Sorry. My brain is racing as I continue waiting for access to the hearing. Now pushed to 11:15 ET. I think it's essentially that. "We (Century) gave you all this 'evidence' of problems and you did nothing. You must want them to remain for a reason or you would've supported us, right?!"

As I understood their argument, they allege the BSA is allowing false claims in hopes such alleged people jump at the chance to get the $1500 "take it and run" offer, thereby inducing them to vote for the BSA's plan. I believe that's it...

For anyone curious, it appears the court is having technical difficulties. I've been waiting in the green room for 40 minutes waiting for "someone from the court [to] connect [me] soon." I called the judge's chambers and they said IT is working on it. "Look your honor, we crashed the internet..."

I'm selecting this excerpt for no good reason, just to ask a question about the line of reasoning and argument. What is the point of this discussion? Is it to show that the BSA's incidence of child sexual abuse isn't all that bad, comparatively, regardless the viability of those comparisons? Even assuming they are viable? Is it to affirm YPT? Mild form self-exoneration or placation? I just don't get the point, relative to the Chapter 11 and the claims filed. To me, this all sounds like, "Hey, guys. I know it looks bad, but we're really not that bad. See! Everyone else is worse. Whew!" What am I missing?