Chapter 11 announced

[T2Eagle]

8 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

A contract is an "agreement" with certain chacteristics, depending on aplicable state law.   Most parties to such contarcts assume all will go as agreed, and the parties will ride off into the sunset with mutual satisfaction the order of the day.   That's why a cynical lawyer may have value; he may expressly provide for what happens if disagreement and conflict between the parties to the contract appear in the path of events..

Many, many moons ago my old Contracts professor told me never assume things will go right.  It's what happens after a breach that matters.  Assume everything has gone wrong, ask yourself if whether, when everything has gone wrong, the parties are where they want to be when everything has gone wrong.  If so, you have a good contract.

[RememberSchiff]

47 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

Many, many moons ago my old Contracts professor told me never assume things will go right.  It's what happens after a breach that matters.  Assume everything has gone wrong, ask yourself if whether, when everything has gone wrong, the parties are where they want to be when everything has gone wrong.  If so, you have a good contract.

Ah, Murphy's law class.

[CynicalScouter]

17 hours ago, ParkMan said:

Maybe it's just me - but I don't think this case is a big enough deal to influence legislation.  

It absolutely is:

1) If BSA is forced to pay and big it will be more on an incentive to allow for such lookback windows to compensate victims.

2) If BSA is forced into liquidation and killed, it may mean slowing these effort down. Unlike the Catholic Church/dioceses (which at the end of the day aren't going anywhere) if BSA is liquidated it would be used as the "see, you'll just kill these programs!" warning.

Either way BSA's the test case for the next 10 years

[ThenNow]

13 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

I thick he asked about statute-of-limitations corruption, not bankruptcy.

I understood his statement to question whether the filing and "litigating" of 95,000 sexual abuse survivor claims against the Boy Scouts of America, an iconic American institution trapped in time with the #METOO movement, would be enough to inspire SoL reform in the area of child sexual abuse. He said he didn't believe it would have any impact. I said several organizations and state legislators disagree. That's all. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

If BSA is forced into liquidation and killed, it may mean slowing these effort down. Unlike the Catholic Church/dioceses (which at the end of the day aren't going anywhere) if BSA is liquidated it would be used as the "see, you'll just kill these programs!" warning.

One thing I would note on the other side of the "slowing down" argument is the cultural mood against iconic institutions doesn't necessarily result in slowing down reforms. Some people would love to "burn it all down," as has been seen across the country and stated pretty much verbatim in this case. I am not inviting a discussion or debate on culture, ideology or politics, just stating that in the wave of "cancel all vestiges and institutions of the colonizers!", some will see the demise as a thing to be praised and hastened. I hate that, but there it is.

[ThenNow]

A few random points:

1) Rumor is, compelling data illustrating the YPT has not been as effective as claimed will be released soon, countering the narrative that the existing program is sufficient and there is no need to address enhanced measures in the Plan. I'm told the data is dispositive. I make no assertion about the effectiveness one way or the other, since I don't know the facts. I do know this is a major issue for many claimants, some of them with positions of influence in the case. If the BSA is unwilling to adopt and implement additional measures, whatever that means, those players will not be supportive of the Plan. Don't shoot the messenger. "I got my news from the Chinese plate!" Another arcane reference and one I use to say, I have it on good authority that this is so.

2) Continuing with the next verse of, "I heard it through the grapevine," apparently National has until Monday at 4PM ET to satisfy the TCC that they are working on and will produce the requested asset data from the LC's. If that doesn't happen, I'm told, the TCC will formally oppose the BSA's motion to extend the protective injunction shielding the LC's from lawsuits. Joinders to that opposition are expected.

3) Subject to further scrutiny by the insurers, should the judge grant their motion for Rule 2004 discovery, there are just south of 60,000 potentially time-barred claims among the remaining 83,837.

4) The guess is that Judge Silverstein may rule on the discovery motion during the March 17 hearing. I heard that one from a little bird. Said plate was otherwise occupied.  

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by ThenNow

[TAHAWK]

There are many rumors afloat.  Thus it has always been.

[ThenNow]

9 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

There are many rumors afloat.  Thus it has always been.

My apologies. I shouldn't have used the word "rumor" and then reinforced it with jocularity. All points are solidly sourced. 

[ParkMan]

6 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

It absolutely is:

1) If BSA is forced to pay and big it will be more on an incentive to allow for such lookback windows to compensate victims.

2) If BSA is forced into liquidation and killed, it may mean slowing these effort down. Unlike the Catholic Church/dioceses (which at the end of the day aren't going anywhere) if BSA is liquidated it would be used as the "see, you'll just kill these programs!" warning.

Either way BSA's the test case for the next 10 years

I think we may be discussing something slightly different - but that's OK.  My point was that while this is an important case legally and for public policy, I don't get the sense that this is one of the primary political issues of our day.  People are certainly sensitive to and feel bad for abuse victims.  There are also a lot of people with a Scouting background.  I suspect that if asked 60% of people want to see both sides come out from this ok.

Everyone is on board with helping abuse victims.  Even from comments here, I gather that people assume that somehow the executives at the BSA or insurance companies will feel the brunt of this.  If local kids Cub Scout packs start shutting down because of this I wonder if we'll see a shift in emotions.  I doubt that shift will ever be enough to affect legislation, but I'm guessing that in many people's minds we'll see more sympathy.  

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

My point was that while this is an important case legally and for public policy, I don't get the sense that this is one of the primary political issues of our day.  People are certainly sensitive to and feel bad for abuse victims.  There are also a lot of people with a Scouting background.  I suspect that if asked 60% of people want to see both sides come out from this ok.

Ah. I understand now and I agree with you. I'm not sure about the 60%, but those I speak with may be biased, even if they don't know my situation. Many have little sympathy for anyone accused of child sexual abuse, especially to the degree the BSA has. Again, historic "per capita" numbers and the upsides of Scouting are disregarded after hearing the number of claims and reading the stories.

[RememberSchiff]

"Two West Virginia entities account for more than half of the Boy Scouts’ restricted assets."

Well written article

https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/summit-bechtel-state-chartered-nonprofit-play-roles-in-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-case/article_7e36f599-ac41-51dc-9f36-badfbe4cc094.html

[ThenNow]

4 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

"Two West Virginia entities account for more than half of the Boy Scouts’ restricted assets."

Well written article

https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/summit-bechtel-state-chartered-nonprofit-play-roles-in-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-case/article_7e36f599-ac41-51dc-9f36-badfbe4cc094.html

This is the mirror image of an Asset Protection Trust, with the same result. I contend they are, in fact, asset shielding creatures of the state to protect them from creditors masked as maintenance and funding shells. The lease-back and closely held board control, by essentially the same principals of the related lessee entity, are identical.

"Arrow WV Inc., in fact, owns the Summit Bechtel Reserve and leases it to the Boy Scouts, according to bankruptcy filings. It was incorporated in Fayette County in June 2009, according to the West Virginia Secretary of State’s office. Texas equity investor Jack D. Furst, who led the Boy Scouts task force chosen to identify a permanent National Jamboree site, is listed as president; current Scouts President and CEO Roger Mosby, vice president; and Charleston attorney and current Scouts general counsel Steve McGowan, secretary."

Edited March 7, 2021 by ThenNow

[ParkMan]

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

This is the mirror image of an Asset Protection Trust, with the same result. I contend they are, in fact, asset shielding creatures of the state to protect them from creditors masked as maintenance and funding shells. The lease-back and closely held board control, by essentially the same principals of the related lessee entity, are identical.

"Arrow WV Inc., in fact, owns the Summit Bechtel Reserve and leases it to the Boy Scouts, according to bankruptcy filings. It was incorporated in Fayette County in June 2009, according to the West Virginia Secretary of State’s office. Texas equity investor Jack D. Furst, who led the Boy Scouts task force chosen to identify a permanent National Jamboree site, is listed as president; current Scouts President and CEO Roger Mosby, vice president; and Charleston attorney and current Scouts general counsel Steve McGowan, secretary."

If the claimants want the Summit I think most Scouters would be happy to give it up to settle this.  How about:

• claimants get: the Summit and Northern Tier
• scouts keep: Philmont and Sea Base.

Edited March 7, 2021 by ParkMan
grammar

[swilliams]

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

If the claimants want the Summit I think most Scouters would be happy to give it up to settle this.  How about:

• claimants get: the Summit and Northern Tier
• scouts keep: Philmont and Sea Base.

Our Troop went to Summit once, before my time.  Says something that they haven't been back since.

In discussing some of this with our CC and SM, they think our Council owns only one of the three properties in their operation.  I tried to verify that, and couldn't actually find anything concrete providing that information.  How hard is it going to be for National to pull all this together?  I would think they'd already have a list of what councils own, but maybe not?

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, ParkMan said:

If the claimants want the Summit I think most Scouters would be happy to give it up to settle this.  How about:

• claimants get: the Summit and Northern Tier
• scouts keep: Philmont and Sea Base.

Ha! I have no influence whatsoever. You guys contact your representatives and use your muscle. Another, “HA!” am I correct?