ThenNow

From Reuters. The big BUT..."Yeah, we know. This will really suck for the survivors, but look at it this way! We will save money! Just one more way we can say, we so desperately want to 'equitably compensate all abuse survivors'." Oh, joy. Oh, rapture. That plan would be “worse than sub-optimal” for the survivors, Lauria said, as it would raise complicated issues surrounding shared insurance policies with local councils, which would make it harder for the survivors to be compensated. But, she noted, it would also save the Boy Scouts millions of dollars in legal fees, which as of March had hit $100 million, by moving the case along faster. https://www.reuters.com/article/bankruptcy-boy-scouts-idUSL1N2M532D

The first wave is obvious from this graphic. During the town hall, TCC counsel very strongly encouraged survivor claimants in open states to seek state counsel NOW (if they haven’t) to ensure their cases are filed within the window deadlines. He also encouraged all claimants to seek counsel’s advice to determine if any case can be brought for their abuse, regardless the state or date of occurrence. From my perspective, LCs with notable claims against them in DC, NY, NJ, CA, VT, NC, MA, RI and Guam are in trouble. KY, OR and CT probably, as well.

From my view, and it’s a relative outsider view, they’re throwing everyone but themselves under the bus to get outta Dodge with what they can’t bear to lose. The status conference made it clear (to me) the BSA is not engaging the Ad Hoc Committee, Century or the TCC in a substantive or meaningful way. All three major parties groused about the lack of “invitation” and “inclusion” in the process, especially the mediation sessions, pre, post and during, and also in the preparation of the Amended Plan and the one soon to be filed.

LCs and COs are not parties. If they don’t participate and get a specific release under the Plan, there’s no protection. This alternate plan contemplates releasing National only. Short answer, no.

FYI. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-pressured-to-end-bankruptcy-explore-leaving-local-councils-behind-11618274576?st=r5sccvtar4cix77&reflink=article_copyURL_share https://duckduckgo.com/?q=boys+scouts+to+offer+new+plan&t=brave&ia=web

I don't want to misstate, but I think your response is based on one Scouter's opinion of how future claims should be compensated. I do understand your response to that idea. I'm not saying I don't. However, to my knowledge, this idea of "future" and ongoing "investments" as a means to pay future claims currently has no foundation in the case.

As with other mass tort bankruptcies, the case has a Future Tort Claimants representative and attorney (Future Claimants Committee or "FCC") representing their interests. Though we don't know how the Trust will be funded, how any of the abuse claims (current/future) will be valued or the future claims administered, you are right on track with your thinking. There is such an avenue in place, to what exact end I don't know.

Thanks. I was confused by the previous post as to how it would be detrimental to survivor claimants, now or later. At this point, the fact that the restriction game is being played makes life that much more difficult. From the assessments I've seen here and elsewhere, in addition to my own take, I don't think Summit is restricted. Acting as though it is and/or not laying all the cards on the table just creates more "animosity" and leaves another anchor in the water.

Would you clarify, please? Thanks.

I am pretty much in the “highly interested, but pretty much in the dark” camp, but I will hazard some thoughts. 1) They were completely taken off guard by the number of claims, throwing the entire strategy, whatever it was, into a swirling dive; 2) Pre-filling, they had a notion of what they would contribute to the trust and it was blown out of the water by the claims. Ditto for the Ad Hoc Committee of LCs, though less so as to the AHC other than the highly exposed Councils; 3) There is great consternation and disagreement within National about putting up High Adventure Bases and some (all?) decision makers are resisting at all cost; 4) Most Local Councils are have been sideswiped by the target on their back, in light of BSA assurances for the last several years, and now don’t know what to do and have no cohesive voice or inclination among them. It seem clear to me the AHC doesn’t represent the Councils; 5) National didn’t anticipate and has since underestimated the strength, determination and singularity of the TCC, possibly looking for them/the survivors to fracture and concede early in the process; 6) They miscalculated the degree to which the TCC would pursue assets and tunnel their way under facially valid asset protection measures and “restrictions” including on camps, by National and LCs; 7) Lack of managerial competence; and 😎 They may be frozen in the headlights, not sure whether to dart back into the board room or look plaintively into the oncoming lights. In looking over my uniformed guesses, it comes down to surprise leading to lack of a scaleable plan, underestimation of claims and the tenacity of the TCC/claimants, the mentioned possibility of incompetence and resignation. I don’t think it’s the latter two, honestly.

Just now reading this. Having trouble pasting it. I believe it’s the second “here” link in the initial article I posted. Sorry for my ineptitude. It’s a good read so far.

Excellent point, duly noted and acknowledged. I admit to not knowing enough to blow my nose when it comes to the IVF. I’m learning a lot, thanks to you and others. That was an “and” statement, I will add. “...and procedures aren’t followed,” which goes to those who relocated and counted on no one checking to see if they had been previously listed ineligible. “Hey. You reported a Jim Dandy. Did he ever go by JD or J. Dandie?” Slippery people will always try to do slippery things and slip through the cracks, slippery or not. Just the same, not following procedures makes their slipperiness that much more slippery.

There is a point related to this that doesn’t get mentioned a lot. I’m not saying it’s the rule, but I think it’s important. In notable cases, and some of them egregious, Scouters who were deemed “ineligible” not infrequently showed up elsewhere under a different name or simply showed up and not cross-references as ineligible. Sometimes, they made a simple name modification or used an initial in place of a their first name. Other times, brand new name. There are a good many instances of this that I’ve found/read about. Again, this goes to the insidious nature of these men, mainly, but also to what happens when law enforcement isn’t tracking someone and procedures aren’t followed. I am not saying it’s exactly the same as the Catholic Church routinely reassigning pedophile priests, just making a point I haven’t seen made here.

The BSA is the client and they need to take control of fee review, case management, and staffing by the professionals (does the $500 paralegal do this or the $1400 partner?). The TCC has three members who comb through all fee applications from the retained professionals, ask questions, push back and continually request maximum efficiency. Any “fee bleed” impacts what survivors may get and they wear that fiduciary responsibility with sobriety. On the BSA side, I have no idea who’s reviewing bills or, since they’ve never been in this spot before, whether anyone internally knows if what’s being submitted rises to the level or “reasonable and necessary.” Here are a few things on Chapter 11 fees, if interested. Same author. The first article links to some of her other articles. Just for gee whiz. I found them instructive. http://blogs.harvard.edu/bankruptcyroundtable/2020/07/28/want-to-take-control-of-professional-fees-in-large-chapter-11-bankruptcy-cases-talking-with-your-clients-general-counsel-is-a-good-first-step/

Indeed. I’m still trying to decide whether it’s complete incompetence, utter inability or unwillingness to manage the process and their side of the table, or both. I found this a potent excerpt: C. The Substantive and Statutory Rights of the Parties Cannot Be Trampled to Meet the Debtors’ Preferred Schedule. 27. While adjourning the April 29 Disclosure Statement Hearing may cause some slight delay, any delay is entirely within the control of the Debtors. Likewise, the professional fees incurred by the estate are entirely within the control of the Debtors’ counsel to manage. The Debtors have permitted upwards of 30 professionals to bill the estate at over $1,000 per hour, these accumulated professional fees are not some unforeseen act. Further, the Debtors have refused to implement basic steps to mitigate their fees and costs, such as imposing budget restrictions or shifting to an end-of-case holdback.”

Precisely.

Remember, insurance policies are assets. Whatever happens and whomever is “gone after,” 84,000 claims are on the BSA’s front porch. That will be the focus of public sentiment and perception, regardless. Also, I don’t think it’s been mentioned, but the TCC said something during the town hall that must not be missed. Namely, in all the settlement demands they have made on each of the entities/organizations, none of them were aimed to extinguish. In all cases, the demands left them sufficient resources to continue their mission, whatever it is.

I hope she does. It seems to me it's a matter of negotiating with people who will not "give" unless forced. Like the chart and the TCC's extensive analysis of claims, they have financial information and insurance assets assessments that can put things into the public eye and start leveraging people to act. When those two documents I mentioned went public, even just here, the reaction was huge. I want to see what the TCC has in open court and then see how the BSA, LCs, insurers and all other non-party parties can hide their heads in the sand.

1 hour.

Gah. Good point. I meant as to parents.

And informed consent.

Two points: 1) You asserted previously that vicarious liability - "deep pockets" - is a relatively new concept. Not so. It's ancient. We're talking surfs and lords, with modifications and mutations dating back to the Anglo-Normans in the 1300's forward; and 2) Very few attorneys can win a jury trial without a plaintiff and some measure of injury. Many of the BSA claims may be subject to great scrutiny. Some may not hold up. As one of my supervising law partners told me early on, "You can sue anyone anytime for anything. You might not win, but you can file." Absent injuries (abuse), these attorneys whether righteous or unscrupulous would be dead in the water. It simply can't be merely "about" or mostly about "lawyers going after dollars to fund their lifestyles." Maybe they should sue the BSA because they don't like the Boy Scout tan (socks to hem on the shorts), find neckerchiefs outmoded and a sign of colonialism or think burning wood is causing global warming?

Assumption One: This WAS the 70's. (See my posts.) Who knows what the relationship was between the CO and the Troop. Regardless, they are a non-party part of this Chapter 11. A HUGE part. It's irrelevant, by definition. Assumption Two (or I misunderstand what you're saying): I contacted them in the early 2000's after the SoL had run, both criminal and civil. I was 41-42. As to my experience being better or worse? Let's say I wish it on no one. If I had done it in the 70's, he'd have been in prison. Alas, I was weak and frail and unable...

Yes. I hear that. What I'm saying, at least as to this point, is it is a compelling cultural, political, philosophical and sociological discussion I am eager to have. As to this moment in time, the BSA is in Chapter 11. LCs and OCs are in the line of fire facing 84,000 men who were abused as boys while in that very BSA under the supervision - to one degree or another - of all those entities. This is a conversation for another time. It will not be part of the court proceedings. Perhaps we add an august body of theoretical experts and double the $150M that will be spent before August. The matter at hand and the topic is BSA Chapter 11: The Remix (Part 2). Yes? It can't be avoided or steered around by diverting into a discussion on the ills and failings of the legal, political, academic, medical, psychology or parental spheres of influence and governance.

A few things: 1) Again, if you've read all my posts (and I fault no one who hasn't bc there are many), I had nothing to do with any of this but pursuing my SM in 2002-2003ish. I advised the Sheriff's Dept about the other leaders. Our CO's "employees" had ZERO interaction. We unlocked, set up, cleaned up, served the community and nothing reciprocal. Is that my fault? As I've said 3 times, I knew nothing about other parents alleged knowledge (third hand hearsay) until 40 years later; 2) On February 18, 2020, the whole mess came roaring back into my life and settled over me like a vicious storm. I had previously settled it with the BSA and won't go into greater detail about what that involved. I was presented to submit a claim and did so. Who would not?; and 3) I've never NOT been proud to be a Scout, Eagle, and etc. One of these posts I'll show some "evidence," which in retrospect perhaps I should've at the outset. 20-20 and all that. Suffice it to say, I still wear my Eagle pin, NESA pin and Eagle cufflinks. Might be meaningless to you, but it is HUGE to me. Show me one post where I "pretended BSA is uniquely at fault." Please. In my case, they are. It may be shameful, but you cannot put that on me. As to the "massive good," see above. See my other posts. Talk to some who've interacted with me on DM. So, the "massive good" and societal deficit is the absolution and exoneration of the BSA? The tiny "blip" of bad is vastly outweighed by the good, both results and intentions? If it's exoneration, stop trying to make it better and let the chips, er abuse, fall where it may.