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

[ThenNow]

27 minutes ago, yknot said:

I don't see how any Chapter 11 reorg plan that doesn't seriously address YP issues going forward can be valid.

Another reason why this is best left to the TCC and Coalition, and arguably only to them. The survivors want this in the Plan as one of the mandatory non-monetary Plan components. The BSA did not do anything at all to forward ideas and they had two wide open chances. Do any of you know why that is? I've not seen nor heard a peep from the Ad Hoc Committee about it either. I would think they'd be involved, since you guys are the ones doing the actual implementation and the AHC is supposed to represent all the LCs. I know I'm revealing my ignorance of the multiple levels of organizational dysfunction, again. 

28 minutes ago, yknot said:

I have also not seen where any plans have addressed the issue of affordable liability insurance. Who will insure any kind of scouting endeavor post bankruptcy reorg at an affordable rate?

If the BSA did not have this in its Amended Plans I and II, I don't see the TCC and Coalition needing to take up the issue. BSA must not be worried about it. What is one to conclude? Shouldn't this also be a major concern for the AHC? For the 10th time, and I apologize, but I really don't understand what it truly is or does or represents. I know what it says it is, but I don't see that borne out in all of these gaps in communication, focus and consensus. Dunno.

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, yknot said:

I have also not seen where any plans have addressed the issue of affordable liability insurance. Who will insure any kind of scouting endeavor post bankruptcy reorg at an affordable rate?

If they have been able to get insurance presently they will be able to in the future.  I would think that the deductible would be extremely high.

Edited May 21, 2021 by johnsch322

[MattR]

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Do any of you know why that is?

Who knows, maybe they're wasting too much time glued to scouter.com to find out what's going on.

[ThenNow]

7 hours ago, MattR said:

10 hours ago, ThenNow said:

 

Who knows, maybe they're wasting too much time glued to scouter.com to find out what's going on.

I’m thinkin not. There are tons of great ideas on YP in here, including MYCVAStory’s most recent. Surely all of those good ideas would’ve made their way into a Plan, no? [wink, wink]

[elitts]

14 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Just curious what you mean by this....adjusted up or down?

Well, if a tort occurred 40 years ago, it would seem to make sense that you should get an award based upon the value of money at the time of the occurrence.  So if a current award for a similar tort today was $100, 40 years ago that may have only been $25.

I haven't actually reasoned my way entirely through that whole idea, it was just something that popped into my head to wonder if it would be addressed.

[ThenNow]

19 minutes ago, elitts said:

So if a current award for a similar tort today was $100, 40 years ago that may have only been $25.

At 5% on your $25, you'd be over $150 in that forty year span. Should those that happened 40 years ago get the $50 bump? 

[elitts]

14 hours ago, ThenNow said:

From my involvement in advocacy, which is admittedly limited to the last year plus, the fight against the state Child Victims Act(s) has been historically consistent from the RCC, BSA and others. I'm not aware of the private school involvement, but CHILDUSA would know. Culturally, and I'm not saying it's all good by any means, this trend of "accountability" doesn't appear to have reached any zenith. My take. I think it continues for a bit.

I agree that it will continue along, in my experience most state legislators just aren't forward thinking enough to actually walk down the paths they create with most of their policy measures to see where they might lead.  Instead they usually have to get slapped in the face with a result before they say "Oh... Maybe we shouldn't have done that".  What I think we've started seeing thus far is quiet pressure from the professional organs of government urging "wait and see what happens with the current changes before making more".  I don't imagine we'll see a full stop or even a recapping of SoL until the first time someone actually sues a School District or State.

14 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Excellent point. I think part of the ruination I see in my head and didn't express, beyond potential cash liability, is the impact on Scouting of one or many CSA cases in the hometowns, Districts and LCs across the country. Bringing these cases to the light of the courtroom is big time different than this bankruptcy. As I said, 16 current zeros is going to be a dwindling number when the 39,100 claims land in an their respective LC column. What will be the impact on registrations, fundraising, COs, staffing and volunteers when those things are reported on a daily basis in the Local Gazette, in addition to Reuters, WSJ, LA Times, AP, Bloomberg, and etc.?

Personally, (and this is just speculation) I don't actually think that will have a significant impact unless there is a LC with a large number of recent cases or maybe if there are accusations of a particular LC actively pressuring or coercing victims to stay quiet.  That advertising spate last year did a pretty good job of publicizing the issue (at least in a general way) so I suspect many folks will now look at further court cases as "old news".   I think what's more likely to happen in the case of local suits is condemnation of the COs that had significantly higher than normal numbers of cases.

14 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Another great point. However, on the nose precedent is legit and that's what she has staring her in the face. 17 years and a couple dozen cases creating a consistent, unwavering precedent is not chump change. Honestly, that seems like a ton to me, especially with the culture of 2021 vs 2004. Also, in my view, the "functionally different situation," combined with the sheer magnitude of the case, in fact further mitigates against her breaking with precedent. Lastly, and equally important in light of those things, there is a competing Plan burning a hole in the shared briefcase of the TCC and Coalition counsel. Add those things up and cramdown would be another catastrophe for many BSA victims. If the BSA Toggle B cramdown stood as the single option, maybe. With the TCC/Coalition Option C, which can actually pass, I don't think so. Just my take, of course. Who knows what will happen. Only Judge Silverstein and then maybe not her as of this moment.

 

But again, unless I'm mistaken, none of those Catholic church cases involved the judge in question refusing the discharge and dismissing the bankruptcy filing because an agreement couldn't be reached.  So how could there have been a precedent set saying "There are no Cram-downs in CSA driven bankruptcies"?

Edited May 21, 2021 by elitts

[elitts]

4 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

At 5% on your $25, you'd be over $150 in that forty year span. Should those that happened 40 years ago get the $50 bump? 

At least in Michigan (I don't know about other states) you only get interest on court awards from either the time of judgement or sometimes from the time of filing, not from the time of the tort occurrence.  The only time I've ever heard of getting interest from the time of an occurrence would be in cases of funds being taken for tax debts or something like that.

[ThenNow]

18 minutes ago, elitts said:

But again, unless I'm mistaken, none of those Catholic church cases involved the judge in question refusing the discharge and dismissing the bankruptcy filing because an agreement couldn't be reached.  So how could there have been a precedent set saying "There are no Cram-downs in CSA driven bankruptcies"?

I probably misunderstood. I thought you were simply saying the judge might well opt for Toggle B, if the BSA's Plan A goes out and is voted down. I was saying, in light of other cases where judges were loathe to "make" victims accept a Plan, I think TCC/Coalition Option C is the winner. I defer on the point and the specific details of the RCC cases. I do not know enough about those cases to blow my nose, as my dad used to say, and should yield where I am uncertain. Apologies. 

Edited May 21, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, elitts said:

The only time I've ever heard of getting interest from the time of an occurrence would be in cases of funds being taken for tax debts or something like that.

I was being a smart aleck to show why I think that would be inequitable. Then again, my abuse happened 40+ years ago and I am my own attorney. I believe we got a baseline interest rate from the average time of claim payment denial in my class action case, but that was a negotiated settlement and the time frame was much shorter.

[Eagle1993]

44 minutes ago, elitts said:

Well, if a tort occurred 40 years ago, it would seem to make sense that you should get an award based upon the value of money at the time of the occurrence.  So if a current award for a similar tort today was $100, 40 years ago that may have only been $25.

I think this is a good point if the damage wasn't psychological.  If it wasn't psychological, you could simply look at the immediate impact and argue that is what the compensatory damage should be.  The issue is that the abuse is psychological and therefore likely life long.  At that point, you have to consider the cost and impact in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and on and on and on....  That would be impacts such as lost wages, life long pain & suffering, life long medical costs, etc.  Easily hundreds of thousands of dollars or more.

Then comes the punitive side.  I believe that is many times a multiplier and can vary by state.  Some I have seen are ten times.    So ... even in 1970, if someone could have claimed $1M in damages (from life long psychological damage) and then the jury said BSA should be punished 10x punitive, you could see an $11M verdict for 1 case. 

[elitts]

12 hours ago, yknot said:

I don't see how any Chapter 11 reorg plan that doesn't seriously address YP issues going forward can be valid. Without better standards it's clear any continuing scouting entity will face additional claims and be unable to pay anything meaningful into any future settlement trust let alone survive. I have also not seen where any plans have addressed the issue of affordable liability insurance. Who will insure any kind of scouting endeavor post bankruptcy reorg at an affordable rate? The assumption that there will be 1 million scouters in 2025 doesn't address this issue. What if registration fees have to be $500 to cover insurance? 

Lets be clear here, the issues aren't with the Youth Protection policies, they are with the reporting and tracking of violations and responses.  I have yet to see anyone come up with any suggested adjustment to the actual YP policies that would be functional.

But past that, insurance companies are pretty good at evaluating risk.  If they can be assured of the accurate reporting of incidents so that they can quantify the risk of abuse, they'll insure at a reasonable rate. (high, I'm sure, but reasonable relative to the risk)

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

I’m thinkin not. There are tons of great ideas on YP in here, including MYCVAStory’s most recent. Surely all of those good ideas would’ve made their way into a Plan, no? [wink, wink]

Personally, I think the best possible change they could make to YP would be to create a reporting system that people were confident would be fair and reasonable.  If I was considering reporting a minor YP violation, like a Scoutmaster accidentally ending up with only one scout left after a meeting (because they didn't realize scouts number 2 and 3 left at the same time) I would be very concerned about being sure the result was a discussion of how to avoid the situation in the future rather than a reflexive ban on the Scoutmaster or something.

[DavidLeeLambert]

On 5/19/2021 at 8:42 PM, Eagle1993 said:

"There are 82,000 individuals who have filed abuse claims that need to be appropriately and timely compensated. And I have a [sic] 700,000 Boy Scouts who would presumably like to continue to be Boy Scouts. And that's not necessarily an interest that National holds, that's 700,000 boys. So there are a lot of considerations here. I haven't read all of the letters coming in recently, that's simply not possible, they're overwhelming our clerk's office and we're getting them on the docket as soon as we can. Many of them tell tragic stories. But many of them as I've said also recognize the need for Boy Scouts to continue. So there is a balancing act. And I encourage everyone to continue to have discussions even in this interim period and I will consider all of the arguments that have been made today and I appreciate the excellent arguments that I've heard today. All parties in this matter are well represented. And [it's] clear that each is looking out for their particular constituency which is exactly what they should be doing."

This is a copy of the [judge's] final statement today. 

There are posters on this forum who have said or implied before that the National Council has had a habit of ignoring the wishes and needs of the majority of experiences Scouters, or the majority of actual Scout-involved families. I'm inclined to read "and that's not necessarily an interest that National holds" as a comment along those lines.

So far there is no committee representing non-abused currently-registered youth.  I'm not sure there's a legal basis to create one; maybe to protect their interest in paid but unearned dues for the current year?  (And by now, that's a post-petition liability.) But morally, those youth, as well as other youth who are eligible to join but not currently registered, are the actual charitable mission of the organization.

So what does it mean that each patrol of 8-9 boys can be matched up to an abuse claimant somewhere? If he has a million-dollar claim, are they each going to take out a $125,000 loan, enough for a four-year degree at a top-tier university, or a decent "starter" house in many parts of the country, to pay it? A Boy Scout isn't going to make that kind of money selling popcorn, or Christmas wreaths, or doing car-washes, or cleaning the stands after a sporting-event.

Near the beginning of the hearing, one of the BSA attorneys mentioned that a certain contingent delay in the confirmation hearing was expected to add $25 million in professional fees to the case, which would reduce the amount available to pay claimants.  I did the math, and that's about $303.00 per claimant; or almost $36 per youth in the group the Judge was referring to.  (She might have been counting only Scouts BSA boys, not Cub Scouts; but there's some logic in that, as teenagers are old enough to have some say in whether they participate, while Cub Scout age youth are still under more parental control.)

So of course each attorney is representing their own client's interest, and the ones who have been busy filing motions, participating in mediation, and arguing at hearings have don that job pretty well; but there are a lot of people with interests in the case who are likely to suffer; especially people with multiple indirect interests.

[RememberSchiff]

18 hours ago, RobertCalifornia said:

Are there any minutes or a recorded zoom from the May 19 meeting? 

 

17 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I believe transcripts are delayed for a while as effectively proprietary to the court/stenographer. It’s recorded, but I think only for the transcription and court’s use. I’m guessing or vaguely recalling. Nothing is available right now as far as I know (which is approximately the distance between my keyboard and my nose on most days).

 

05/21/2021 Docket 4716

Transcript regarding Hearing Held 5/19/2021 RE: Omnibus/Disclosure Statement. Remote electronic access to the transcript is restricted until 8/19/2021. The transcript may be viewed at the Bankruptcy Court Clerk's Office. For information about how to obtain a transcript, call the Clerk's Office or Contact the Court Reporter/Transcriber, Reliable, at Telephone number (302)654-8080. Notice of Intent to Request Redaction Deadline Due By 5/28/2021. Redaction Request Due By 6/11/2021. Redacted Transcript Submission Due By 6/21/2021. Transcript access will be restricted through 8/19/2021. (BJM)... less

Edited May 21, 2021 by RememberSchiff

[ThenNow]

43 minutes ago, elitts said:

Personally, (and this is just speculation) I don't actually think that will have a significant impact unless there is a LC with a large number of recent cases or maybe if there are accusations of a particular LC actively pressuring or coercing victims to stay quiet.  That advertising spate last year did a pretty good job of publicizing the issue (at least in a general way) so I suspect many folks will now look at further court cases as "old news".   I think what's more likely to happen in the case of local suits is condemnation of the COs that had significantly higher than normal numbers of cases.

Dueling perspectives, I know, but just a few more thoughts on why I don't think that would be the case. (Pun intended) If 5+ guys from my Troop who were abused by a guy who still lives in our town, which he does as do some of them I understand, that would be splashed all over the place. The details, accusations and drum beating by attorneys and the plaintiffs would spotlight not only things from the 70's and 80's but why Scouting may still not safe. On the ads, I know very few people who saw one, much less multiple. That may be a reflection of media choices and demographics, though. I think cases like that would have a huge impact, but then again I am a legend in my own mind and star in my own films.