ThenNow

Understand and it’s your call. I had no way whatsoever to know your thoughts or predilections. Apologies, nonetheless. And, yes, it is explicit. And, yes, I believe not staring it straight in the eye is part of the problem. And, yes, that little chart represents a huge part of my Scouting life. Monetized and sterilized words on a page.

In case someone doesn't have access to the WSJ. This is authorized, by the way. https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/202104023701/sex-abuse-victims-duel-with-boy-scouts-for-right-to-steer-bankruptcy

Sounds like your Unit and CO have a clean record. That's highly commendable. Is that from inception to date? I wonder how many can say that. No way to tell without a massive, targeted dive into the data.

Just published. https://www.wsj.com/articles/sex-abuse-victims-duel-with-boy-scouts-for-right-to-steer-bankruptcy-11617383922?st=ucbzl2ecguscddl&reflink=article_copyURL_share

Seems to be the case. I wonder how the Ad Hoc Committee presented the prospect of participation, since they clearly don't speak for all LCs. I don't believe any COs were party to the mediation so that's a complete mystery, at least to me. It is. I'll take it as the quick and dirty path to a completed estimation. No one else was keen to do it, so now we know. Knowing what I know from other cases and bankruptcies, I feel good about the numbers. For me as a survivor claimant, it's at least affirming to see someone place a value on what I went through. I know it won't amount to that much, but it's peculiarly comforting.

Appears it put them into stark relief. I say, let’s replace the driver and move this thing forward. As my mom liked to say, “You’re coming along kicking and screaming, if that’s what it takes. Either way, you’re coming.”

Of course.

Beyond my sphere of limited knowledge. There is still the more looming issue of sexual abuse lawsuits post-hypothetical liquidation, but that bridge is yet to be presented for crossing. I'm thinking it may also be more than 6' off the ground...

All intellectual property is wedded to the congressionally chartered entity or entities. It goes away and they can't "deal" or assign it. Let's say National is liquidated and the LCs remain separate to live another day. You do understand, without the protection of a release by the abuse survivors they would be the named defendants in the sexual abuse lawsuits, along with the COs/SOs, yes? That's the reason people are calling to "burn it all [National] down" and liquidate. The most significant assets are with the secondary, "non-party" entities and insurance policies.

When he is free, I'm confident CS will give his studied and storied take on this. I'm mostly speculating, being a mostly ig'nert party. This is the argument that is being made, however. If you look back at the documents related to that asset trust transfer scuffle in the summer, it's pretty clear from the TCC's filings. Charters can be yanked for any reason, as I read it. We will await enlightenment. (Not being sarcastic.)

May I know which state this is and if the law is long-standing? If the reversionary interest in the established chartering agreement is valid, I would be keen to know the overriding state interest that justifies invalidating it.

I'm sure he will chime in, but my recollection is CynicalScouter addressed this. I believe he said the charter attaches to the specific BSA corporate entity and dies with its "host." It is an obligate symbiotic relationship.

Yes. This has been the argument all along and was at issue in the TN asset transfer situation last year. Aren't the councils all re-chartered annually? I assume if the chartering organization ceases to exist, so too the power to grant renewals. Thus, all would necessarily be liquidated by triggering the reversionary interest of National in the assets of all LCs as it is wound down.

On the Camp Gustin sale. The family of the namesake and donor is asserting a potential deed restriction and reversionary interest. https://www.sunjournal.com/2021/03/29/gustin-family-urging-boy-scouts-not-to-sell-sabattuss-camp-gustin/

If they don't talk about the estimation at the mediation sessions that would be sorta mind blowing. Again, I'm in the shadow of darkness within a cave in the woods. PS - I've been advised to keep my expectations right about ankle level, if that says anything.

I have no clue. Someone else may have an idea, though. I would think it greatly depends on what is accomplished, if anything, and whether confidential follow-on conversations are required to reach some measure of agreement.

Notice of Hearing on estimation motion. 5/19/21. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/884164_2475.pdf

If anyone is interested, here is a link to state SoL changes and legislation. A few states had bills introduced in previous sessions, but may be stuck in committee or died while there. Remember, this is a child victims advocacy group so that is the tenor of the recap. https://childusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-SOL-Tracker.pdf

It occurs to me that this Council, Glacier's Edge, serves WI and IL, both closed states. They are also the source for being "committed to meeting our social and moral responsibility to equitable compensate survivors of past abuse."

Yup. I understand. As to the last point, I was highlighting that the $$ figure achieved by the plaintiffs’ side may in part reflect who they are and who USC knows they are, if you get my drift, as we used to say. If not, I’ll snow again.

This is a group of 700 victims. The last 11 years of BSA claims yields roughly the same number. These cases are crimes and horrific. Unquestionably. The nature of the acts are much different than a vast number in this case, however. Just pointing out facts. Now, some complete speculation. Many who attend USC are people of power, resources and influence. I’m betting there are lots of high-leverage players in this case for and among the claimants. I’m sure we BSA survivors have our share, but I venture we are more so, “not many wise according to the world, not many mighty, not many noble...”

I don't know, but that may be one part public relations pressure, one part buying certainty and another part getting it over with. My Council is in a closed state with pending legislation. Watching to see what they do or not.

I see that some Councils, even in closed states, are stating a "moral obligation to contribute" as they see the number of claims filed against them. I don't know if this is rare or not. For gee whiz, I looked up the financial data on the TN Council after the transfer of properties and assets became an issue. It seems clear they transferred property and assets because they're loaded. They have 237 claims, per the TCC's data analysis. Moving assets seems a sure sign of concern over future liability and exposure. I wonder if they plan to contribute and how much.

Yes, but that is a prospective (forward-looking) change. It doesn't allow someone previously barred from filing.

My CO has numerous, as do many others. I'm not sure it's any more difficult to prove that with an LC. Sam measure of negligent oversight if any abuse took place onsite or nearby, which is not an isolated occurrence. I know this for a fact. As to single parishes, many churches are overseen by a next level of oversight and that's where the liability shifts. I'm not justifying, but stating the legal and historic reality. This is precisely why it is the Catholic dioceses being sued and filing for Chapter 11. Also, most are still very much in existence. Again, not sure why that is assumed any more than for LCs from closed states, some of which are already prepping for contributions. Remember, 18 states have pending legislation for look-back "revival" windows. That's not hypothetical, though certainly not guaranteed.