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

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

You should not disparage the character of individuals so soon after saying we are accusing others.  It's probably fair game if he's viewing this from the side lines.

I stated facts. C'mon man. Where's the disparagement? I respect him. He kills it at what he does and is living the sweet life. He's just not a credible witness against people who emulate him. Do you not see that? Seriously. Facts not disparagement. 

[fred8033]

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

I stated facts. C'mon man. Where's the disparagement? I respect him. He kills it at what he does and is living the sweet life. He's just not a credible witness against people who emulate him. Do you not see that? Seriously. Facts not disparagement. 

We're probably closer in opinion then differ on this one.

But I would assert sometimes other criminals understand crime better than the innocent.  

[ThenNow]

Just now, fred8033 said:

We're probably closer in opinion then differ on this one.

But I would assert sometimes other criminals understand crime better than the innocent.  

Gotcha. You're right. I'm playing lawyer and holding you to your use of language. He may see it, but he has no right to call it wrong or immoral if he built his cushy life doing the same. 

[Eagle1993]

I have not see a singled filing that is in favor of the new plan.  LSD, the Methodist Church, insurance companies and many, many law firms are all rejecting the plan.  Outside of JP Morgan and BSA, who is approving?  BSA lawyers are a waste of money and hopefully other companies see their incompetence on display.  If they cannot generate a plan that gets agreement, then what the hell was the point of the plan.  Mosby should fire them and call in a couple of $100/hr lawyers.  At least they would be worth their salary and perhaps we can last a bit longer before Chapter 7.

The judge needs to take charge May 19th.  Objection after objection after objection.  Not a single document in favor of the plan (except perhaps JP Morgan).  

https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/documents?clientid=CsgAAncz%2b6Yclmvv9%2fq5CGybTGevZSjdVimQq9zQutqmTPHesk4PZDyfOOLxIiIwZjXomPlMZCo%3d&tagid=1153&dateFrom=05/6/2021&dateTo=05/6/2021

[fred8033]

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

Gotcha. You're right. I'm playing lawyer and holding you to your use of language. He may see it, but he has no right to call it wrong or immoral if he built his cushy life doing the same. 

Where you'd say he has no right to call out wrong when he earned his money that way, I'd say people don't have the right to represent themselves as in it to help victims when they are billing $1000 per hour.  Those invoices are prima facia evidence that there's a lot of people in this to get rich.  Not everyone.  But definitely many.

Or helping BSA when billing $1000 per hour.   Sorry, you're doing it because you can bill $1000 per hour.

I suspect by the end of this, both BSA and plaintiffs attorneys will have charged massive amounts.  I'm not sure who will have charged more by the time this is history.

[fred8033]

5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

... BSA lawyers are a waste of money and hopefully other companies see their incompetence on display.  ...

Incompetence or strategy.   Not really sure which.

[Eagle1993]

Today alone, here is who is objecting to BSA's plan (there are many, many other objections):

• 60051 and 63823 (“Claimants”) 
• 90696 91700 92564 93309 94211 Claimants
• 53 claimants from another firm
• Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Inc. (f/k/a Aetna Casualty & Surety Company), St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company, and Gulf Insurance Company (“Travelers”)
• 1,800 claimants represented by Zuckerman Spaeder LLP
• Claim No. SA-71855, K.P., Claim No. SA-66172, E.K., Claim No. SA-78274
• United Methodist Ad Hoc Committee (the “Ad Hoc Committee”) and its constituent churches
• 88820 69930 70225 69999 Claimants
• Great American Assurance Company, f/k/a Agricultural Insurance Company, Great American E&S Insurance Company, f/k/a Agricultural Excess and Surplus Insurance Company, and Great American E&S Insurance Company (collectively, “Great American”)
• Knights of Columbus
• Another law firm representing a lot of claimants (too many to count)
• Claimant SA-35
• Another law firm representing a lot of claimants (too many to count)
• LDS 
• Another law firm representing a lot of claimants (too many to count)
• A named claimant
• 91806
• It goes on, and on, and on ... 

This is just the list TODAY.  Alarms should be going off at BSA HQ.  Their plan is a failure.  No judge will let this proceed.  They need to tell their counsel it's time to settle and stop playing games.

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I'd say people don't have the right to represent themselves as in it to help victims when they are billing $1000 per hour.

High income doc's can't say they're in it to help patients, then? These are not mutually exclusive. You're judging where you don't know the truth of the thing. Income negates intention and motive? Again, you're only talking about the TCC counsel bc they are the ones whose invoices are online who represent "victims." Further, very few professionals do what they do out of benevolence and charity alone. Some, not very many at all. 

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

Alarms should be going off at BSA HQ.  Their plan is a failure.  No judge will let this proceed.  They need to tell their counsel it's time to settle and stop playing games.

It's time to yield the floor to the gentlemen of the TCC and let them (on behalf of us) put forth a Plan that can and will be approved. It's time. WELL PAST time, but no time like the present. 

[Eagle1993]

Interesting point from one of the bigger law firms.

Doe v. Boy Scouts of America, 2016 IL App (1st) 152406.

Quote

The Appellate Court held that the statute of limitations issue was a question of fact for the jury. The Court recognized the nature of abuse claims generally in support of the conclusion that claimants often do not connect their harm with the misconduct of institutions until much later in life. The Court also noted that the efforts of BSA to instill morals in boys potentially gave rise to a “special relationship” requiring proactive disclosure of liability in cases of abuse.

So... this lawfirm's argument is that 100% of the claims in Illinois will be able to proceed against both LCs and COs even though Illinois has a 38 year old limit and no lookback window.

[elitts]

Acting as a Moderator again:

Since this is the 3rd or 4th or 5th time we've started in on it, let's put an end to the generalized discussions regarding the pros and cons of lawyers.  If future comments aren't very directly related to the bankruptcy case AND discussing something reasonably new, I'm going to just start deleting them. 

And yes, I know I've made comments myself.  I'm not criticizing anyone, I'm just saying we need to be done.

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, elitts said:

I'm just saying we need to be done.

Whew. I can take a nap...

[CynicalScouter]

34 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Today alone, here is who is objecting to BSA's plan (there are many, many other objections):

I haven’t had a chance to look at them all but I’m going to bet every single one of them contain some version of “Insufficient information regarding the assets and commitments of BSA, LC, or both upon which to determine whether the plan is or is not acceptable.”

[Eagle1993]

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

I haven’t had a chance to look at them all but I’m going to bet every single one of them contain some version of “Insufficient information regarding the assets and commitments of BSA, LC, or both upon which to determine whether the plan is or is not acceptable.”

I looked at a few and they are consistent.  Insurance companies have different reasons. One was very interesting as they are targeting a specific council.

 

This firm represents 4,000 claimants.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7cef4ee9-129c-42d4-8e66-7e691ea43021_3284.pdf

I found it interesting to see how they look at council finances and camps.  I had a feeling that councils selling camps left and right (just for operational cash) would come back and haunt us ... 

Quote

Pathway to Adventure has significant cash and land assets. A publicly available 990 form shows cash, as of the end of 2019, totaling $27,401,939. Additionally, Pathway to Adventure owns a Camp Napowan in Wisconsin – 400 acres, three-and-a-half hours from headquarters in Chicago. It also owns the Owasippe Scout reservation – 4,800 acres, three-and-a-half hours from headquarters. Pathway to Adventure has essentially conceded Owasippe is not a core asset. In 2012, it solicited bids for the property and a member of the Chicago Area Council Board conceded that “We can run a good Boy Scout camp on a few hundred acres. We don’t need 5,000.”2 In addition to two camps, equidistant to Chicago, BSA owns a building and lot in the West Loop neighborhood of Chicago known as the Steve Fossett Center for Scouting. The West Loop is one of the most sought-after areas of real estate development in Chicago. This is in addition to three other offices the same Council maintains in Arlington Heights, Illinois; La Grange, Illinois and Munster, Indiana. It is not clear why a non-profit requires four offices, much less one in a neighborhood with numerous bars and hotels, but few youths.

 

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

It's time to yield the floor to the gentlemen of the TCC and let them (on behalf of us) put forth a Plan that can and will be approved. It's time. WELL PAST time, but no time like the present. 

Agreed: Forget even trying to get this to a vote which instead of getting 66% in favor among sexual abuse victims it could result in a lopsided 66% AGAINST.

This just massively increased the probability that the judge will reject BSAs exclusivity period and the TCC (and FCR and Coalition or some combo) will be invited to submit a plan.

Edited May 6, 2021 by CynicalScouter