Chapter 11 announced - Part 3 - BSA's Toggle Plan

[vol_scouter]

The Summit is encumbered.  

[CynicalScouter]

2 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

J. P. Morgan loaned money for the Summit, there should be no lawsuit.  Once again, it is wrong.

The CO's had agreements that the BSA was to provide insurance, suing them is wrong. 

1) The Morgan loan was and is a scam. It treats Arrow, WV and BSA is if they are separate entities. They aren't. BSA and Morgan are pulling a shell game.

2) The COs are getting sued because they were suppose to have had oversight over the units and especially the leader. They let the abuse happen. They're going down as well.

I can see you simply think abuse victims should be told to go away. That is not going to happen.

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

IF they were only going after the actual abusers or predators, they would not fall into that category, but hey are likely doing almost as much harm as the original predator by dragging emotional pain out of the past and causing many to have to again deal with it.

You act as if the court (or the settlement trustee appointed by the court) is going to simply approve whatever claims were filed. That's simply not true.

[vol_scouter]

The Summit was purchased with borrowed money that has never been fully paid off.  That has been some of the debate about having the Summit.  The BSA still owes a large amount of money.

 

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, vol_scouter said:

The Summit is encumbered.  

The "encumbrance" is a note receivable against Arrow, WV payable to JP Morgan on behalf of BSA.

It's a shell game to make it appear, on paper, like Arrow, WV is encumbered. It isn't.

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, vol_scouter said:

The BSA still owes a large amount of money.

Ah, but that's the shell game. BSA claims that Arrow, WV is a separate legal entity from BSA, therefore whatever is owed is owed to some other organization.

Arrow, WV = BSA. BSA owes the money...to itself. But JP Morgan is helping BSA play a shell game to pretend that there are liens and loans.

[yknot]

If Scouting is true to its own character, there is a debt of honor to be paid to victims. It happened on our watch, whether that was 50 years ago or today. Either we all believe in the same moral code and we take care of our own, or we don't.. If we don't, then scouting truly is dead in my mind. Even if it survives in some other format in name, what it supposedly stood for will be, in terms of character, forever gone. 

 

[vol_scouter]

14 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Ah, but that's the shell game. BSA claims that Arrow, WV is a separate legal entity from BSA, therefore whatever is owed is owed to some other organization.

Arrow, WV = BSA. BSA owes the money...to itself. But JP Morgan is helping BSA play a shell game to pretend that there are liens and loans.

So who paid for the Summit?  The pledges were commonly to be paid by a life insurance policy.  The BSA had to borrow the money.

[CynicalScouter]

10 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

The BSA had to borrow the money.

But there's the rub. BSA claims, in writing, that they didn't. Arrow, WV is, they claim, utterly separate.

The TCC is right: the Arrow, WV loan is a sham/shell game.

Quote

Arrow WV oversaw development of Summit Bechtel, using money raised through the sale of revenue bonds issued by the Fayette County Commission for that purpose. It continues to support the Boy Scouts “by developing land and related facilities for use by the Boy Scouts of America in carrying out its activities and operations,” according to its most recent public Form 990 tax filing.

 

While the Boy Scouts regard Summit Bechtel and other High Adventure base camps, as well as Arrow WV’s holdings, as exempt from addition to the trust fund settlement pool, the court-recognized tort claimants committee, which represents abuse victims, and attorneys for claimants do not.

 

They argue there are neither specific deed nor donor restrictions to prevent the sale of the High Adventure camps or protect the note held by Arrow WV.

 

 

Edited April 23, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[vol_scouter]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

But there's the rub. BSA claims, in writing, that they didn't. Arrow, WV is, they claim, utterly separate.

The TCC is right: the Arrow, WV loan is a sham/shell game.

 

 

Well the BSA has been making loan payments for the Summit for years.  J. P. Morgan loaned the money to the 'BSA' or some other entity that the BSA is paying.  The SBR is worth little if anything.

[ThenNow]

3 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

I would be surprised if there a billions with an s available in insurance payouts unless the insurers were unusually dumb or open ended in their policy writing.

Don’t be. They were. It took them years to figure it out.

[David CO]

7 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

To be clear, I think they were referring to the lawyers.  I think for the most part, everyone here is horrified by any abuse and has sympathy for the victims.  The struggle and debate is over how much legal and financial responsibility BSA and other entities  should have.  

Lawyers represent their clients.  You can't attack the one without attacking the other.

 

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

Don’t be. They were. It took them years to figure it out.

It was a combo platter.

1) BSA was not at all forthcoming with Ineligible Volunteer Files. BSA leaders are on record as saying they were trying to hide as much as possible. Somehow, I doubt they were more open/honest with the insurers. It wasn't until the Lewis case forced BSA, by court order, to open up that they were willing to be honest

2) Yeah, the insurance companies were probably not as diligent as they could/should have been.

But how much of this was BSA being less than honest, and the insurance companies being stupid? Had to say.

[CynicalScouter]

11 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Eagle1993 and jr56 are correct, the criticism is towards the attorney and somewhat for a broken system.

I see. So sexual abuse victims should not be allowed to hire lawyers? Seek civil damages? That's your position?

Or perhaps it is that sure, let sexual abuse victims hire lawyers, but those darn lawyers better not be paid one thin dime!

So, it is either

1) Ban lawyers from sexual abuse civil cases, in which case the victims are only allowed to proceed pro se.

2) Allow lawyers, but only if they promise not to get paid/they work entirely pro bono. There's no way THAT won't result in few or no attorneys taking on such cases.

Got it. Thanks for clarifying it.

[CynicalScouter]

9 minutes ago, David CO said:

Lawyers represent their clients.  You can't attack the one without attacking the other.

Rare are the instances where I agree with @David CO, but I absolutely do so here.

You want to tell the rape victim "Sure, you can seek justice. Just not civilly." or "Sure, you can seek justice in a civil case, but you better not hire a lawyer!" Etc.

Give me a break.

Edited April 23, 2021 by CynicalScouter