Chapter 11 announced

[yknot]

18 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

How could anyone protect themselves from what is happening today?  How could anyone decide the proper insurance amount?  How could anyone protect themselves against a drastic societal change?   Most blatantly ... Laws changed to re-open lapsed liabilities.

I now I've said it before, but this whole situation is ugly on top of ugly and injustice on top of injustice.  Sadly, the only ones profiting are muck rackers.  

 

That is a cri de couer. I don't know. All I know is we have to get through it and somehow figure out a way to have some version of scouting survive even if it's simply a vestige of what was because some version of scouting is better than no scouting. 

Edited October 20, 2020 by yknot

[ParkMan]

29 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

How could anyone protect themselves from what is happening today?  How could anyone decide the proper insurance amount?  How could anyone protect themselves against a drastic societal change?   Most blatantly ... Laws changed to re-open lapsed liabilities.

I now I've said it before, but this whole situation is ugly on top of ugly and injustice on top of injustice.  Sadly, the only ones profiting are muck rackers.  

Agree 100%.  When it was people suing the Catholic Church it was one thing.  When it was people suing the BSA another.  When there are 6,000 lawsuits each for $10,000,000 against churches, schools, whatever, we'll have to see what happens.  When those 6,000 run out, I suspect lawyers will then go after whomever was abused 40+ years ago and sue that institution.  Clearly no entity was as attentive to the question of abuse as we are today.  I would think it would be easy for lawyers to go after youth sports, school districts, Sunday schools, next...

2 hours ago, David CO said:

 It wouldn't surprise me if they try to collect from the CO's insurance policies as well as the BSA policy.  I don't think the CO's insurance company would be willing to contribute to the bankruptcy fund.  Each CO would have to be sued individually.

I suspect that you are correct.  You can add the councils to the settlement because there is an obvious linkage between national and councils.  Not so in the case of a church somewhere. The only saving grace for the COs is that the volume of lawsuits required may be a deterrent to the lawyers.

[CynicalScouter]

2 hours ago, David CO said:

I'm not a lawyer either.  Yes, part of the charter fees was for insurance.  I don't think this relieves the CO's from liability.  Regardless of who purchased the insurance policy, if the CO's are under-insured, I believe they are still liable for any judgement in excess of the insurance.

Exactly. Insurance only covers up to the stated claim limit.

2 hours ago, David CO said:

It wouldn't surprise me if they try to collect from the CO's insurance policies as well as the BSA policy.  I don't think the CO's insurance company would be willing to contribute to the bankruptcy fund.  Each CO would have to be sued individually.

This is why the latest filings from the tort claimants' committee (main set of lawyers for those claiming abuse) is looking for the names of all COs. They want to go after them next.

And the insurance companies might want to contribute to a fund if they knew they would/could walk away with 100% certainty that no more claims will come up in the future.

[CynicalScouter]

13 hours ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

10. I and others working at my direction have reviewed the Claims Report. As of October 9, 2020, the Claims Report reflects that 5,487 Sexual Abuse Survivor Proofs of Claim were filed and assigned a claim number, and that:

• approximately 1,580 (or approximately 28%) contain no information regarding the Local Council associated with the claim;
• approximately 2,271 (or approximately 41%) contain no information regarding the chartered organization associated with the claim;
• approximately 188 (or approximately 3.5%) reflect that the alleged sexual abuse occurred in the year 2000 or thereafter; [...]

This is consistent with what I had been told by someone on my Council's executive committee: only about 40% of claims are coming in with enough specificity as to be eligible for a claim.

[tnmule20]

22 hours ago, robert12 said:

From the Baptist Press

Boy Scouts bankruptcy could leave churches liable in future sex abuse claims

"Churches who chartered or have ever hosted a Boy Scouts of America (BSA) troop should seek legal counsel now in case they are named in future sex abuse claims against the BSA, a Southern Baptist legal representative told Baptist Press."



https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/boy-scouts-bankruptcy-could-leave-churches-liable-in-future-sex-abuse-claims/

My COR got a call from our CO, which happens to be a First Baptist Church, this morning.  The Executive Pastor has seen the referenced article and now the CO wants me(Scoutmaster) and COR to meet with the Executive Pastor and the church's lawyer.  Not sure how this will turn out.

Edited October 20, 2020 by tnmule20

[CynicalScouter]

31 minutes ago, tnmule20 said:

My COR got a call from our CO, which happens to be a First Baptist Church, this morning.  The Executive Pastor has seen the referenced article and now the CO wants me(Scoutmaster) and COR to meet with the Executive Pastor and the church's lawyer.  Not sure how this will turn out.

I am expecting that call with my unit shortly.

There are two real questions:

1) When was your unit created/founded?

2) Were their prior units? Some COs have seen units live, die, and live again.

3) Is the CO ready to handle whatever bad press comes about scouting? There's still this perception that the abuse occurred recently. But as the item above noted.

Quote

approximately 188 (or approximately 3.5%) reflect that the alleged sexual abuse occurred in the year 2000 or thereafter;

The only other remain

 

[RememberSchiff]

On 9/30/2020 at 12:40 PM, RememberSchiff said:

There is a lot to this motion, I made summary cuts ~RS

Tort Claimants Committee (TCC) submits motion for an order annexed hereto as Exhibit A, authorizing the TCC to issue subpoenas to and directing discovery from Boy Scouts of America (“BSA” or the “Debtor”), members of the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils of the BSA (the “Local Council Committee Members”), and those local councils specifically listed on Exhibit B hereto (the “Additional Local Councils,” together with the Local Council Committee Members, the “Local Councils” and, together with the BSA, the “Examinees”).

The TCC seeks the entry of an order authorizing the issuance of narrowly tailored subpoenas pursuant to Bankruptcy Rules 2004 and 9016 for the production of (a) documents and information regarding assets that the Examinees contend are “restricted assets” (the “Restricted Assets,” and the documents and information concerning Restricted Assets, the “Restricted Asset Information”), 2 (b) troop and camp rosters (the “Rosters”), and (c) Insurance Policies for claims arising from or concerning sexual abuse (the “Insurance Policies” and, together with the Restricted Asset Information and the Rosters, the “Discovery Requests”)3 from the BSA and the Local Councils. The TCC needs to review and analyze this information so that it can participate in substantive discussions regarding a possible global resolution among the Debtors, TCC, the Local Councils, and the other mediation parties. 4

...

 

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/852384_1379.pdf

Hearing update 10/21/20: Hearing on this motion scheduled for Oct 23,2020 has been adjourned to Nov 6, 2020 as notice (link) below details including council responses and objections as well as related pleadings

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/857298_1557.pdf

[CynicalScouter]

Quote

(a) documents and information regarding assets that the Examinees contend are “restricted assets” (the “Restricted Assets,” and the documents and information concerning Restricted Assets, the “Restricted Asset Information”), 2 (b) troop and camp rosters (the “Rosters”), and (c) Insurance Policies for claims arising from or concerning sexual abuse (the “Insurance Policies” and, together with the Restricted Asset Information and the Rosters, the “Discovery Requests”)3 from the BSA and the Local Councils.

Reading between the lines, TCC believes National and the Local Councils are holding out on them. My reading

1) TCC thinks there's more assets than what National and the Councils are admitting to

2) TCC thinks the "restricted assets" are not actually restricted

3) TCC thinks there's a lot more possible claimants and the rosters will indicate (AND THEIR COs)

4) TCC thinks that the rosters will reveal additional units (AND THEIR COs)

5) TCC thinks there are a lot more insurance companies potentially on the hook.

I keep coming back to that $1.5 billion number that they (or other attorneys for claimants) tossed around. There's no way, even if you liquidate national, you get there. And even councils combined and liquidated get you there.

Troop rosters get you COs. COs get you new sources of assets and insurance claims.

Edited October 21, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[fred8033]

 

On 10/19/2020 at 10:48 PM, CynicalScouter said:

looking for the names of all COs.

Or to add the insurance companies and their policy limits to this suit.

[RememberSchiff]

Again unless I missed it, the Court has not ruled on the Debtor position that local councils are "protective parties" not liable  for claims against the organization...they are distinct and financially independent entities...

So the TCC  motion seems, to paraphrase, whatever, lets see what local councils got and go from there.

Shouldn't the Court  have ruled on that point as a prerequisite to considering TCC's motion?

Edited October 21, 2020 by RememberSchiff

[MikeS72]

On 10/19/2020 at 11:52 PM, CynicalScouter said:

This is consistent with what I had been told by someone on my Council's executive committee: only about 40% of claims are coming in with enough specificity as to be eligible for a claim.

Could that be because many of those claims are nothing more than a response to lawyers hawking the idea of a big payday?  

I know for a fact that abuse did occur, and have first hand knowledge from more than 50 years ago.  I also cannot believe, based on the few real cases I have first hand knowledge of, that the true numbers are anywhere near what the lawyers want the public to think.

We had a discussion at a council leadership event almost a year ago on this topic, and what was likely to come in regards to bankruptcy.  We were given the example of someone who filed a claim, but could not recall the name of the council (it hasn't changed in 99 years); they also could not remember the name of the camp the alleged incident took place at (only camp in the council, same name for 70 years); they could not remember the time period or what unit or who abused them, nor could they remember what the abuse was, just that something happened somewhere and at some time, and the council should pay them for it. 

I would think a lot of that remaining 60% of claims may be similar.  We don't know when, where, what, or who, but we deserve money.  I have no problem with helping those who really were harmed, and have been unable to recover from what happened to them.  I was told by a member of the national executive committee familiar with this issue that national has paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past few years, paying the therapist of the victim's choice, without questioning their claim's validity.  Once the lawyers got done with their suits against churches and turned their sights on the BSA, that was no longer considered an acceptable response.

As to the lawyers wanting CO information going back countless decades and unit rosters as far back as they may exist, I see that as a case of 'here is a list of troops that used to exist where you once lived, pick one out and then look at the roster and pick a name, preferably of someone who is no longer around to dispute your claim.'

Sorry if this went on too long, but there is a reason why statutes of limitation exist, and this is a prime example of why.  It is almost useless to try to prove something did or did not happen 50, 60, or 70 years ago; which is exactly what these lawyers count on to help make today's scouts line their pockets.

[CynicalScouter]

59 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

Could that be because many of those claims are nothing more than a response to lawyers hawking the idea of a big payday?

Yes, but herein lies the the interests of the National and the insurance companies. They are going to want (and are asking, see the claim's form) something more than "someone did something bad to me at some time when I was a scout".

On 10/16/2020 at 3:58 PM, CynicalScouter said:

OK, let's get back to the Chapter 11 so I can dispel some myths here.

The November 16 date does NOT mean that anyone who files any scrap of paper that says "I wuz abused, pay me!" is going to get a payout.

Here's the claim form. I am going to walk people through step by step here.

PART 1: CONFIDENTIALITY

Do you want your identity released to the general public or not?

PART 2: IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

Who are you (the abuse claimant" and who is your lawyer (if you have one)

PART 3: BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR SEXUAL ABUSE SURVIVOR

What's your background? This may come up in the context of loss of income from the abuse. See in particular Section E. Involvement with Scouting which asks for what unit/years

PART 4: NATURE OF THE SEXUAL ABUSE

This is incredibly detailed. People are asked for dates, times, locations, individuals, units. When was the abuse? What kind of abuse (in graphic, graphic terms)? This goes on for almost 4 pages.

PART 5: IMPACT OF SEXUAL ABUSE

What was the impact of the abuse on the person? Mental? Physical? Emotional? Financial?

PART 6: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Did you sue BSA before?

SIGNATURE

And I quote

I know/see many here simply look at everyone who is filing a claim is a bunch of greedy liars who are just making wild accusations without any specificity and BSA and the Councils are just innocent victims. Hopefully reading through the above will put the lie to some of that.

 

[fred8033]

Does BSA get any protection for the scouts chartered to government organizations?  This is at least 10,400 units in 2004.

From my limited understanding, past liability was re-opened by recent law changes.  BUT, that liability was not re-opened for public schools and other governmental organizations. 

I'm trying to understand ... So BSA can be sued, but the charter organizations of many can't be sued even though they selected the leaders, provided the building, owned the materials and implemented the specifics ?  From what I read below, as of 2004,  400 units were sponsored by military bases and another 10,000 were sponsored by public schools.  

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#Governmental_sponsorship_of_Scouting_units

Are there any claim limitations for people that were in the 10,000 public school chartered units and 400 military units?  It just doesn't make sense.  If the professional expertise of teachers and public school administrators failed to protect those scouting youth and were closer to the units, how can BSA that is a further step away be liable. 

Seriously.  NONE OF THIS MAKES SENSE. 

 

Yes, the past abuse was outrageous.  But that was the past.  AND, much was done right.  The BSA files were an aggressive attempt to protect youth.  I doubt such files were kept by other groups.  BSA put YPT, rules and expectations in place years before other youth organizations.  BSA is in at least it's 20th year of YPT improvements.    This is just wrong.

Edited October 22, 2020 by fred8033

[qwazse]

As I’ve been saying, pretty soon the institution of the family will be sued because of the increase risk of abuse that it poses to kids.

[T2Eagle]

7 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Does BSA get any protection for the scouts chartered to government organizations?  This is at least 10,400 units in 2004.

From my limited understanding, past liability was re-opened by recent law changes.  BUT, that liability was not re-opened for public schools and other governmental organizations. 

I'm trying to understand ... So BSA can be sued, but the charter organizations of many can't be sued even though they selected the leaders, provided the building, owned the materials and implemented the specifics ?  From what I read below, as of 2004,  400 units were sponsored by military bases and another 10,000 were sponsored by public schools.  

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#Governmental_sponsorship_of_Scouting_units

Are there any claim limitations for people that were in the 10,000 public school chartered units and 400 military units?  It just doesn't make sense.  If the professional expertise of teachers and public school administrators failed to protect those scouting youth and were closer to the units, how can BSA that is a further step away be liable. 

Seriously.  NONE OF THIS MAKES SENSE. 

 

Yes, the past abuse was outrageous.  But that was the past.  AND, much was done right.  The BSA files were an aggressive attempt to protect youth.  I doubt such files were kept by other groups.  BSA put YPT, rules and expectations in place years before other youth organizations.  BSA is in at least it's 20th year of YPT improvements.    This is just wrong.

In virtually any actual lawsuit about abuse BSA, from today, or 10 years ago, or 30 years ago, the CO, the local council, and the individual offender are all going to be sued.  Assuming the suit has merit, at the end of the trial a judgment is first rendered about each defendant: was that defendant responsible for the harm that occurred yes or no.  So if, as a matter of law BSA's programs were enough that they were not responsible for the harm than they're in the clear, same for  actions or lack of actions by council, same for CO, same for individual defendant.  After its determined who is responsible for the harm than you need to determine who is going to pay the damages.  This varies by state, some states say everyone is responsible for everything, and so everybody has to pay what they can until the victim is made whole, in some states blame is apportioned by level of responsibility, and so if a particular defendant is only 5% responsible than they only pay 5% even if that leaves the victim uncompensated.

Even under these old cases, even if the CO can't be made a defendant, the CO's actions are going to be part of the decision, either in deciding blame, or if there is apportioned liability, in deciding how much of the damage BSA is responsible for. 

The working assumption behind the bankruptcy and the desire to set up a universal victims' fund is that however meritorious BSA's YPT programs were, either they were according to the law insufficient, or they were not carried out well enough in an individual case to prevent that individual harm, and that the sum total of all those legitimate cases was and is greater than the liquid assets BSA would have available to pay them and still continue normal operations.

Edited October 22, 2020 by T2Eagle