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

[ThenNow]

30 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Docket 4617

I get nothing on the click-through link.

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, elitts said:

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

$25 in 1967 is the same as $200 today.  I could not readily find anything on award amounts during that time.  I will say that that the award should be greater 50 years later since the actual damage to ones life can be more accurately measured.  you would not be trying to guess what the abused future might look like.  I might also add that the award that may have been received 50 years ago could have gone to therapy/counseling which could have mitigated the damage.  For me personally when I read that the BSA knew that one of my abusers had possibly 12 or 13 victims in my troop my first flash of anger was if they knew why didn't they try to help. That was 12 to 13 boys out of what 30 to 35 that were scarred for life.

[RememberSchiff]

6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I get nothing on the click-through link.

I removed the null link in my post, sorry for the confusion.

 

Edited May 21, 2021 by RememberSchiff

[DavidLeeLambert]

17 hours ago, elitts said:

20 hours ago, Muttsy said:

A cram down has never been done in a sexual abuse bankruptcy and she won't do it here.  

Yes, This has been repeated ad nauseam by another poster.  The problem with this little saying is that we aren't talking about some mountain of past precedent spanning the last 50 years that would need to be set aside; rather, pretty much all you are talking about are a couple dozen Catholic Church bankruptcies since 2004. Given the scope of this one, it would be a pretty easy thing for a judge to say "This is a functionally different situation than the past CSA bankruptcies".

It's not just functionally different because it's larger, or involves a congressionally-chartered debtor rather than a religious organization, or because the underlying accused perpetrators are largely volunteers rather than ordained lifetime paid ministers.

It's also different because it's actually intertwined with the prior Catholic diocese bankruptcies, and could potentially have a "second act" of dozens or hundreds of LC bankruptcies, and dozens or hundreds or even thousands of CO bankruptcies.

This might be a good place to pull in a couple items from the docket before this week's hearing. First, "Joinder of ... the Archbishop of Agana", D.I.4321.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/8705b18d-18f3-4edd-aaaf-e1638ffaddc5_4321.pdf

This isn't another Catholic diocese appearing. This is an official creditor committee in another open bankruptcy case, basically the equivalent of the TCC, complaining that the current draft Plan would shortchange the estate in their case.

And then one of the victim letters, D.I.4449...

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/8565d5f5-1d82-409c-aeb0-261cc83d2d9f_4449.pdf

Quote

"I left home at 17 years of age after persuading my mother to sign the documents which allowed me to enter the military. I was in a place in my life where I was unable to talk about what was happening to me out of shame and feeling that the only way out was to leave my family and home to escape the situation. I enlisted in the military [...]. It was during this tour that I was exposed to Agent Orange. [...] I am battling Leukemia from the exposure and have fought to stay as healthy as I can for as long as I can. My battle is not for myself, but for our little boy, [redacted,] who has just turned 6 years old. [...] I do hold the BSA responsible for the exposure to Agent Orange and the resulting disease of Leukemia."

So far I haven't seen a victim letter where the claimant says he worked a job where he was exposed to asbestos because of the abuse, or that he demanded that his wife get silicone breast implants because of his abuse, and it leaked, and she got sick.

I do follow the alleged cause-and-effect, but I also note that part of the reason some of the insurance-companies might not be able to pay tens of billions of dollars in this case is that they've already paid out huge sums in asbestos litigation, and other mass-tort lawsuits and bankruptcies (possibly including Agent Orange, or at least other industrial toxic chemicals.)

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

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.

I am not exactly sure how to address this except to say the BSA has definitely has not acted benevolently towards any victim in its history.  They chose to keep all that they knew as secret as possible (the perversion files started in the 1920's). They had to be sued and it took the Oregon Supreme Court order to make the files brought to light. Every victim was more than likely a dues paying Boy Scout, just like the Scouts of today.  The image of the Boy Scouts  became more important than the individuals including the non abused.  The actions that have been brought forward are against the institution not against the individuals.

Imagine a different scenario 40 years ago or 4 years if the BSA had recognized and conceded that it had a problem and debt owed to former scouts who had been victimized. Then on their own volition sold off the art, disposed of excess camps, turned to the LC's and said hey you will contribute XX amount of billions or we will cancel your charter, said the same to the CO's, and set up a system to help victims go after the insurance company's and or forced/negotiated with the insurance company's to contribute billions to a fund.  in this scenario there would be no TCC to pay legal fees for or their own legal fees which theoretically could have added another 150 to 200 million into the fund.

I have a hard time trying to host a "pity party" in my mind for BSA.  I think the TCC's approach of leaving 2 years of cash to each LC is fair.  this protects the "non abused currently-registered youth". This will also  give BSA the opportunity to prove it has truly evolved and now puts scouters first before image.

[ThenNow]

9 minutes ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

It's also different because it's actually intertwined with the prior Catholic diocese bankruptcies, and could potentially have a "second act" of dozens or hundreds of LC bankruptcies, and dozens or hundreds or even thousands of CO bankruptcies.

Does that sway your thinking in favor of cramdown or are simply pointing out the additional distinction and complexity?

10 minutes ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

I do hold the BSA responsible for the exposure to Agent Orange and the resulting disease of Leukemia."

I feel very badly for him, but if we start down this path, many, many of us could start drawing cause and effect flow charts that would turn the Gordian into Pandora's Box.

 

14 minutes ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

I also note that part of the reason some of the insurance-companies might not be able to pay tens of billions of dollars in this case is that they've already paid out huge sums in asbestos litigation, and other mass-tort lawsuits and bankruptcies

Maybe. I don't pity or excuse them from trying, however. My experience is second hand through my wife's previous, long-term career phase in the insurance brokerage and carrier industry, but they will be fine. If not, as has been said, someone will buy them, take on the debt and roll it forward for future profit. 

[MattR]

2 hours 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]

Maybe we can get them to come forward and introduce themselves. 

I agree that a YP plan could, if it's done right, help in so many ways, but the details are likely difficult. BSA's program quality has always been an afterthought and if there's one thing I've learned about quality it's that it has to be a driving factor in most decisions. Whether it's manufacturing, software, youth protection or the patrol method, quality has to be front and center. It's a mindset of constant improvement. The current YP program doesn't have this. 

JTE is an attempt at improving program quality but there's nothing that suggests it has helped. Understanding why could help with improving both YP and program quality.

That's my 2 cents for national and the TCC. If either has received this message then please create an account with a name based on the scout song "one fat hen and a couple of ducks." Your mission, should you decide to accept it .... 

 

[yknot]

2 hours ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

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.)

 

Are you referring to the 700,000 scouts she cited? I believe that is a reference to what looks like the latest membership figures that were posted here a couple of weeks ago. It shows total membership of cubs and scouts is about 750,000. It seems numbers dropped a bit more in 2021 after all the paperwork cleared. 

[ThenNow]

21 minutes ago, MattR said:

Maybe we can get them to come forward and introduce themselves. 

These are they, as noted and filed by me. Let that last part be a qualifier. I try...

[grizzly702]

On Reddit r/bsa there was a comment that the judge has ended the BSA exclusivity period. Has this been confirmed? And what happens next?

[johnsch322]

10 minutes ago, grizzly702 said:

On Reddit r/bsa there was a comment that the judge has ended the BSA exclusivity period. Has this been confirmed? And what happens next?

As far as I can see there has been no such ruling and I believe there will be no rulings until Monday.

[elitts]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

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. 

The reason I think the fallout would be different is that I view much of the collective anger over the situation (as opposed to the anger any one victim might feel) as being directed at the BSA primarily out of a lack of a clear target for the "masses".  You can't pick any one perpetrator to be angry at for 80k+ cases, so instead that anger falls on the BSA which is a large faceless organization.

But when you get to the local level that shifts for a couple reasons.  First, because it becomes easier to pick a "poster child" perpetrator to vilify.  Take for example your abuser of 5+ guys; he could theoretically become the target of all the generalized anger if he was the worst known predator.  And then since there is a known, living target for the active rage, the local council is left only having to bear the remainder anger of having "not having protected the children somehow".  And since it's a local organization being accused, it means that angry people are more likely to know the individuals who were part of the organization which humanizes it and makes it easier to think "people were doing the best they could".

Of course, I could be wrong, and I'm sure your scenario will be more likely in those districts that have a truly huge number of cases or if there are districts where the leadership was blatantly unconcerned with even trying to screen scouters.

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, elitts said:

The reason I think the fallout would be different is that I view much of the collective anger over the situation (as opposed to the anger any one victim might feel) as being directed at the BSA primarily out of a lack of a clear target for the "masses".  You can't pick any one perpetrator to be angry at for 80k+ cases, so instead that anger falls on the BSA which is a large faceless organization.

Now I understand and that makes sense. Very logical. I see it could go either way, cases, facts, locale and players depending. If an accused abuser has any ongoing connection to Scouting or went on to be a pillar in the community, that could be a game changer. All sorts of facts and angles could alter the PR trajectory, I suppose. 

[johnsch322]

16 minutes ago, elitts said:

The reason I think the fallout would be different is that I view much of the collective anger over the situation (as opposed to the anger any one victim might feel) as being directed at the BSA primarily out of a lack of a clear target for the "masses".  You can't pick any one perpetrator to be angry at for 80k+ cases, so instead that anger falls on the BSA which is a large faceless organization.

But when you get to the local level that shifts for a couple reasons.  First, because it becomes easier to pick a "poster child" perpetrator to vilify.  Take for example your abuser of 5+ guys; he could theoretically become the target of all the generalized anger if he was the worst known predator.  And then since there is a known, living target for the active rage, the local council is left only having to bear the remainder anger of having "not having protected the children somehow".  And since it's a local organization being accused, it means that angry people are more likely to know the individuals who were part of the organization which humanizes it and makes it easier to think "people were doing the best they could".

Of course, I could be wrong, and I'm sure your scenario will be more likely in those districts that have a truly huge number of cases or if there are districts where the leadership was blatantly unconcerned with even trying to screen scouters.

For my two cents I think you are short changing what publicity could be generated against both the National and the local level.  I believe as this moves forward and more survivors come into the public eye more awareness that the average person will have in America.  Most people I talk to who have never been abused, have a scouter in their family or are a mental health professional have no or little idea what has taken place.  I think the NBC video which went out to a national audience is just the beginning of what negative publicity could come if there is no Global type plan approved.  Think of how the Catholic Church is now globally known as a hunting ground for pedophiles.

Former Boy Scouts speak out on sexual abuse claims, bankruptcy case (nbcnews.com)

Edited May 21, 2021 by johnsch322

[qwazse]

35 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

... Think of how the Catholic Church is now globally known as a hunting ground for pedophiles. ...

I work a couple blocks from the town cathedral and rectory, boy's high school, girl's high school, and the collegiate center. I all but trip over priests and seminarians on my way to afternoon coffee. The Catholic church right now is seen very positively -- almost better for having their warts revealed.