Chapter 11 announced

[ThenNow]

54 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

My understanding is that in 1978 and prior, BSA had its HQ in New York and New Jersey.  Both states have updated their SOL. So, for any abuse nationally, 1978 and prior, lawsuits against National could pursue. Post 1978 it would likely then go per state law.   Now there are 30+ states with their own SOL changes.  

Now the question is, since BSA is declaring bankruptcy, did they give up the right to defend against abuse after 1978 and outside the current state’s SOL?  Is that the 57,000 reference?

I have not heard this. I don't think it's accurate, but I will ask. If so, I would think the number of cases in NY and NJ would have really exploded when they opened. If you're right, I could've sued in one of those two jurisdictions, prior to filing. Another inquiry for me to pursue. If that is true, every one of us with a pre-1978 claim which is a bunch, has a stronger claim and cannot be flagged as time-barred in the bankruptcy. Hm...

I previously posted another of these from CHILD USA showing pending legislation and the like. This shows the changes.

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by ThenNow
Add attachment

[Eagle1993]

16 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

The SOL for criminality should not exist. Obviously we cannot open that to past cases, but the SOL for the criminal behavior of abuse  should be eliminated from this day forward.

I agree with that ... in my mind I was thinking civil.  There is no SOL for murder and there shouldn't be one for child sex abuse in terms of criminal charges.

[Eagle1993]

20 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I have not heard this. I don't think it's accurate, but I will ask. If so, I would think the number of cases in NY and NJ would have really exploded when they opened. If you're right, I could've sued in one of those two jurisdictions, prior to filing. Another inquiry for me to pursue. If that is true, every one of us with a pre-1978 claim which is a bunch, has a stronger claim and cannot be flagged as time-barred in the bankruptcy. Hm...

 

 

 

There were  a bunch of articles at the time.  https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/investigations/boy-scouts-sexual-abuse-investigation/77-6b587579-410a-4f37-a9a0-d7f3cb0000b6

"On December 1st, New Jersey is giving people who say they were abused more time to file suit. The statute of limitations is changing from age 20 to age 55. That's significant because the national headquarters of the Boy Scouts of America was in New Jersey from 1954 to 1978."

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I agree with that ... in my mind I was thinking civil.  There is no SOL for murder and there shouldn't be one for child sex abuse in terms of criminal charges.

Although I would personally appreciate having a go at my abuser in criminal court, which would require a window, I know the burden on law enforcement, the state(s) to defend and the court system overall would be crushingly expensive if deluged with these cases. I have less problem with civil windows, though courts are impacted, partly because the other governmental players are not tapped or taxed as with criminal cases.

[CynicalScouter]

3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Now the question is, since BSA is declaring bankruptcy, did they give up the right to defend against abuse after 1978 and outside the current state’s SOL?  Is that the 57,000 reference?

It is my understanding that is yes. There are two groups here and I am rounding.

Group 1: 20,000 claims that are within the statute of limitations.

Group 2: 57,000 outside the statute of limitations.

BSA is offering BOTH groups a choice:

Group 1: You may have a valid and "live" claim against BSA, but a lawsuit will take years. Take $6100 now and be done with it.

Group 2: Maybe, someday, your currently time-barred claim could possibly become live again. Take $6100 now and be done with it.

BUT here's the messy part. Because this is in the context of a bankruptcy and NOT tens of thousands of individual lawsuits, Group 1 and Group 2 get lumped together. All 77,000-80,000 people get 1 vote. There are then several different scenarios that come out of that mess.

Scenario 1 - Acceptance: If 67% (51,000-53,000) of those people approve the $6100 plan, it moves ahead. BSA waives any defense in those cases and claimants waive any right to sue in the future. Any Councils who want to participate in the settlement fund also do the same: the council waives any defense and the claimants waive any right to sue in the future.

Scenario 2 - Rejection and Return to State Courts: If 33%+1 (25,000-26,000) of those people reject the plan, it fails. The bankruptcy judge lifts the stay on state litigation and thousands of lawsuits proceed or are filed. BSA and local councils spend the next several years/decades defending against such suits. The end result is likely BSA comes back into bankruptcy in a few months or years (a "Chapter 22") and is likely liquidated at that point (Chapter 7). Many/most local councils go into bankruptcy as well.

Scenario 3 - Rejection and Immediate Liquidation (the Kosnoff Plan): If 33%+1 (25,000-26,000) of those people reject the plan, it fails. BSA decides it simply cannot proceed to any kind of Chapter 11 plan, converts to Chapter 7, and everything up to and including the staplers in HQ is sold. Similar to Scenario 2, state court lawsuits against local councils are allowed to restart and many/most local councils go into bankruptcy as well.

Scenario 4 - Cramdown: If 33%+1 (25,000-26,000) of those people reject the plan, it fails BUT the bankruptcy judge will overrule them and order a "cramdown" forcing them to take the $6100. BSA waives any defense in those cases and claimants are stripped of any right to sue in the future. Any Councils who want to participate in the settlement fund also do the same: the council waives any defense and the claimants are stripped of any right to sue in the future.

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[fred8033]

4 hours ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

For someone who actually looks, the Ineligible Volunteer Files already have cases where look-back liability could just as well be assigned to a local government entity. See for example  https://documents.latimes.com/paul-j-wadaga/ (elementary school teacher for 24 years, molested at least 18 boys, was an ASM for 4 years of that but the Council asked around and didn't find any Scouts among his victims), https://documents.latimes.com/michael-c-spangler/ (assistant fire chief), and https://documents.latimes.com/eric-frank-feichtinger/ (police officer in a Child Sexual Abuse investigation unit).

I don't think local government liability will be a significant factor in halting the trend to longer or weaker Statutes of Limitation.  Nor will massive liability against the LDS church or against Catholic dioceses. Enough people are distrustful of government, and enough people consider those churches "the other".

On the other hand, when the Methodist church on Main Street in every small town has to liquidate because it once chartered a Scout unit, some other unit in the Council had multiple cases of abuse, and every other related organization is bankrupt, defunct or has immunity, there may be more general political will to reintroduce or re-strengthen Statutes of Limitation. Unfortunately, if it gets to that point, it may be too late for BSA or the Local Councils.

I understand your point.   My doubt is that the lawyers pursuing these cases are looking for national organizations or organizations with deep, deep pockets.  The local churches have a building, but often with mortgages, debt and a year of cash at best on-hand.  It's too expensive to sue and pursue each individual organization without knowing who has assets to pay.  For local cities and local school districts, it's too expensive to pursue each school district, city, etc.  This type of civil suit wants large deep pockets.  

These lawyers are chasing huge rain-makers; big a wind-fall; not a life-long slow drudge campaign, one organization after another, lasting years at a time for a smaller amount of money.  

 

Your above school teacher example is a repeating pattern.  I can think of several non-scouting cases in my primary school years directly in our district (full-time teachers, paid coaches, city employees, etc).  

Your example above also does not surprise me at all.  At one time, one of the larger charters of scouting units was public schools.  This own forum discussed this in 2004.  Eamon said in 2004:  "... in 2002 PTA'S were number 11 in the top 30 Organizations that charter Scouting units. They had 77,894 youth members in 1,593 units. Public Schools, Board of Education were number 3 with 383,657 youth in 10,566 units.

This is yet another reason I find this lawsuit so simply wrong.  12,000+ units were overseen by professional educators and parents directly.  People with professional and immediate expertise !!!!   People vested in this topic.   This was a national issue / standard-of-practice.  

[ThenNow]

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

BSA is offering BOTH groups a choice:

Group 1: You may have a valid and "live" claim against BSA, but a lawsuit will take years. Take $6100 now and be done with it.

Group 2: Maybe, someday, your currently time-barred claim could possibly become live again. Take $6100 now and be done with it.

So, there are two components to a prospective award from the Settlement Trust:

1) BSA award component, as described; and

2) The "go fight the insurance companies" and see what you can get component.

Yes?

[Eagle1993]

7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

So, there are two components to a prospective award from the Settlement Trust:

1) BSA award component, as described; and

2) The "go fight the insurance companies" and see what you can get component.

Yes?

Yes.  Only that the "go fight the insurance companies" adds a clause that there are non settlement trust fights against the insurance companies and the $$ must be shared between all.  

What was mentioned, now my multiple insurance companies, that the BSA's plan did not detail out HOW the Settlement Trust would operate post bankruptcy.  They mentioned BSA had listed an appendix but it was blank.  Therefore, BSA does not have a "plan" that could even go to a vote.  A second insurance company group joined Hartford, objecting to BSA's submission. They are asking for an review and determination on claimants before proceeding and saying BSA's plan cannot go for a vote until this is done. 

BSA is essentially arguing none of this matters as they are running out of money so vote on this by August or they will liquidate in September.  They are requesting the judge approve the plan for a vote (I believe in mid April).  Voting would take until mid July and a court hearing late July would decide the fate of the plan.  

What are real risks vs negotiating tactics .. who knows.

[CynicalScouter]

16 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

So, there are two components to a prospective award from the Settlement Trust:

1) BSA award component, as described; and

2) The "go fight the insurance companies" and see what you can get component.

Yes?

Yes, this is just the BSA portion (or BSA and Council) portion of the conversation. The insurance side of the conversation is just a whole other thing entirely.

This is the operative language from page 58 of the plan

Quote

Resolution  of  Abuse  Claims.    All  Abuse  Claims  shall  be  channeled  to  and resolved by the Settlement Trust in accordance with the Trust Distribution Procedures, subject to the right of any Non-Settling Insurance Company to raise any valid Insurance Coverage Defense in  response  to  a  demand  by  the  Settlement  Trust  that  such  insurer  handle,  defend,  or  pay  any such Claim

and the Cramdown language on page 51

Quote

Cramdown.  If any Class is deemed to reject the Plan or is entitled to vote on the Plan  and  does  not  vote  to  accept  the  Plan,  the  Debtors  may  (a)  seek  confirmation  of  the  Plan under  section  1129(b)  of  the  Bankruptcy  Code  or  (b)  amend  or  modify  the  Plan  in  accordance with the terms hereof and the Bankruptcy Code.  If a controversy arises as to whether any Claims are,  or  any  class  of  Claims  is,  impaired,  the  Bankruptcy  Court  shall,  after  notice  and  a  hearing, determine such controversy on or before the Confirmation Date.

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Yes.

Looping back, then it is as to #2 that we time-barred people are up the fecal creek without a long-handled wooden implement to move agua. I think I got it.

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Voting would take until mid July and a court hearing late July would decide the fate of the plan.  

I just do not see how BSA is going to get 66% OR a federal judge to "cramdown" against sexual abuse victims/claimants. The optics would be horrific.

USA Gymnastics' bankruptcy judge is (I believe) currently considering a motion on whether to order a cramdown after 99% of claimants REJECTED that organization's Chapter 11 plan.

Quote

Survivors have criticized a $215 million settlement that USA Gymnastics offered in January 2020, saying it allowed third parties like the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee to be released from the lawsuit without making a substantial contribution – financially or otherwise. The judge in the case, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robyn Moberly, has agreed, saying in February 2020 that the USOPC needed to be “actively participating, particularly with their pocketbook.”

 

[CynicalScouter]

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Looping back, then it is as to #2 that we time-barred people are up the fecal creek without a long-handled wooden implement to move agua. I think I got it.

I am not sure. The insurance companies may offer a settlement now to the time-barred in order to buy stability. As you noted, LOTS of states are opening look-back windows. If the insurance companies don't settle now, they'll be answering suits for decades to come.

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

The insurance companies may offer a settlement now to the time-barred in order to buy stability. As you noted, LOTS of states are opening look-back windows. If the insurance companies don't settle now, they'll be answering suits for decades to come.

Having now learned my emotions have both gotten me in internal trouble and caused me to miss the trees for the forest, I'll endeavor to keep my hope in check.

[T2Eagle]

One thing I've been puzzling through, and haven't seen a good explanation of is whether or how a universal settlement now prevents currently unknown time barred claims in non look back states from being opened in the future if a state changes its SOL and does a look back period.

If anyone has seen a good explanation please share it.

[elitts]

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I just do not see how BSA is going to get 66% OR a federal judge to "cramdown" against sexual abuse victims/claimants. The optics would be horrific.

USA Gymnastics' bankruptcy judge is (I believe) currently considering a motion on whether to order a cramdown after 99% of claimants REJECTED that organization's Chapter 11 plan.

 

This is exactly why bankruptcy judges are appointed by Court of Appeals judges that are appointed for life.  They don't have any reason to worry about the optics because no one can really apply pressure to them.  But, to be fair, a cramdown doesn't mean the BSA's proposal is what carries the day.  In a cramdown the judge looks at the numbers and makes their own determination on what the BSA can afford to pay.  And while I imagine a judge trying to rope in the LCs would cause even more years of legal fighting, it would be entirely within their purview to order the sale of everything but the trademarks and absolute bare minimum of equipment necessary to keep the offices functioning.