Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[ThenNow]

26 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The Unsecured Creditors Committee for the Archdiocese of Guam's bankruptcy filed its objection to the BSA disclosure statement. In it, they ask that the court at least reach some of the aspects of confirmability now rather than wait for a vote of victims to approve/reject only to at confirmation veto the whole thing.

Quote

14. Evaluating confirmability at the disclosure statement stage avoids “engaging in a wasteful and fruitless exercise of sending the disclosure statement to creditors and soliciting votes on the plan when the plan is unconfirmable on its face. Such an exercise in futility only serves to further delay a debtor’s attempts to reorganize.”

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/bd4e3bde-0056-4944-a1b0-031ea56d53c7_5842.pdf

And the cheese that is this process continues to get more binding...

[MYCVAStory]

Given that there is another round of mediation starting tomorrow, and a reasonable guess would be that it is to address issues like the chartering organizations, as well as another round of hearings coming up next week, the TCC has rescheduled its August Town Hall to a better date.  Here's the filing and explanation:

NOTICE OF AUGUST 16, 2021 VIRTUAL TOWN HALL MEETING
HOSTED BY THE OFFICIAL TORT CLAIMANTS’ COMMITTEE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that when the Official Tort Claimants’ Committee
(the “TCC”) was formed it embraced three key goals: (1) represent ALL abuse Survivors, (2)
work to achieve the most compensation possible for all Survivors, and (3) keep Survivors
informed of the bankruptcy process as the TCC works to achieve these goals. To that last point,
the TCC has held monthly meetings to provide updates and field questions. These meetings are
viewed by thousands of Survivors and their counsel. Normally we hold these meetings the
second Thursday of every month but when necessary we change that date to provide the best
possible information at the best time. Now that the hearing for the approval of the Disclosure
Statement has been moved to August 25, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. (ET), the approval of the
Restructuring Support Agreement (“RSA”) moved to August 12-13, 2021, and another multi-day
mediation scheduled for August 3-5, 2021, the TCC changed the next meeting to August 16,
2021 at 8:00 p.m. (ET). Please do not take this delay to signal anything positive or negative
about the process going forward. By scheduling the next meeting on August 16, 2021, the TCC
will be in a better position to inform you about the status of the RSA, any mediation
developments, and what to expect for the Disclosure Statement Hearing. If the above the
schedule changes, the TCC might decide to change the time and date of the next Town Hall
meeting. The members of the TCC and their dedicated professionals continue to be fully engaged
in every part of this process. We ask for patience until August 16, 2021 so that we can provide
with the most up to date and thorough status of the restructuring process. In the meantime, stay
strong and please check the TCC website WWW.TCCBSA.COM for any updates or send your
questions to BSASurvivors@pszjlaw.com. The details for the next meeting are below.
https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/89421964324 (no registration required) or Phone number: 888-
788-0099 (Toll Free), Webinar ID: 894 2196 4324.

[CynicalScouter]

So Century has filed a proposed order to put into writing the judge's verbal decision to force Kosnoff/Kosnoff Law AND AIS to file a Rule 2019 statement. Century wants the following info by August 9. Names of victims and their contact info are to be filed under seal EXCEPT that the insurance companies + the U.S. Trustee get to see

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a1b194aa-a67b-4f48-8c0a-6892690cffa5_5852.pdf

2. On or before August 9, 2021, Abused in Scouting and Kosnoff Law PLLC shall
each file a verified statement setting forth the information required by subdivision (c) of Rule 2019
of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, including without limitation:

A. Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2019(c)(1), the facts and circumstances concerning
Abused in Scouting and Kosnoff Law PLLC’s representation of claimants in these
cases as follows:

(i) with respect to Abused in Scouting, the documents reflecting
the formation and governance of Abused in Scouting or, to the extent that there are no such documents, the facts and circumstances concerning its formation, including the name of each entity or person at whose instance Abused in Scouting was formed or on whose behalf Abused in Scouting has agreed to act in these chapter 11 cases;
and

(ii) with respect to Kosnoff Law PLLC, its employment with respect to these
chapter 11 cases including the names of each creditor at whose instance the
employment of Kosnoff Law PLLC has been arranged;

B. Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2019(c)(2) and (3), and to the extent not provided
under Paragraph 2(A), a list of the names and addresses of all creditors represented by Abused in Scouting and Kosnoff Law PLLC;

C. Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2019(c)(4), a complete copy of the form of agreement, agreements or any other instrument authorizing Abused in Scouting and/or Kosnoff Law PLLC to act on behalf of creditors in this case;

D. All other information and disclosures required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2019.

Edited August 3, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

As for the above Rule 2019, if I had to guess given how obstinante Kosnoff has been, he'll file something for the Rule 2019 but there will be nothing for AIS because they will stick to the claim that "AIS doesn't exist".

That's my guess.

[CynicalScouter]

On 7/31/2021 at 3:21 PM, CynicalScouter said:

Chubb/Century and Hartford are still refusing to turn over financial information, perhaps most critically the question of how much assets Century has and to what extent Chubb is liable for Century debts.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f71fbcdd-939f-4ded-b0b8-2569bdcffb06_5835.pdf

Media coverage of this

Boy Scouts’ Victims Push for More Insurance Info from Chubb (subscription required)

Quote

The Boy Scouts of America’s sexual abuse victims urged a judge to compel the bankrupt organization’s insurer, Chubb Group Holdings Inc., to turn over documents spelling out its liability exposure and a subsidiary’s financial condition.

Chubb and its subsidiary Century Indemnity Co. “have stonewalled” the victims’ requests for information, lawyers for three groups representing more than 80,000 claimants said in a July 30 letter.

The companies should be ordered to reveal whether Century is a solvent entity and which of Chubb’s units are liable for sexual abuse claims leveled against the Boy Scouts, according to the letter from the Official ...

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[elitts]

On 8/1/2021 at 3:03 PM, ThenNow said:

I think the Mack Daddy among them can. I don’t read spy, but it seems pretty comprehensive. This will link you to what I was surfing. You can see the less expensive models, too.

https://www.spygadgets.com/andre-deluxe-advance-bug-detector/

I believe there are some detectors that can detect the power source rather than the transmissions, but the good ones aren't cheap.

On 8/1/2021 at 4:31 PM, CynicalScouter said:

4) Boy Scouts of America, the Local Council, and the CO still acted recklessly or negligently in allowing the abuser to access to the scout.

Therefore

1. Negligence in Hiring - (yes a volunteer is "hired" for these purposes) Boy Scouts failed to do enough of a background check to detect the abuser's tendencies and nevertheless held the abusive leader out as a "competent and trustworthy scout leader, supervisor, servant, teacher, and counselor."

Now, before people start screaming "That's not fair! That's not right!" keep in mind that these are the underlying arguments that have already been successfully used against BSA and LCs in the past.

 

Cynical and I have had this conversation before, so I'm responding because there are new folks reading who raised the issue, not to try and beat Cynical over the head with my response yet again.

My primary issue with this key factor in determining liability is that most of the time with these cases (and other similarly heart-rending issues) the viewpoint seems to be that the very fact of a scout having been abused is considered prima facie (I think I used that right) evidence that the BSA is guilty of neglecting their duty to protect kids.  The fact that an abuser may have changed their identity, took elaborate steps to hide their predilections, lied their way through an interview and then spent years gaining people's trust before beginning to abuse scouts is basically just considered "proof" that the BSA's screening process is negligent rather than considering the situation to be one that no organization could reasonably have prevented.

And while the fact that other cases have been litigated and won by plaintiffs in the past might well be evidence of how a current case is likely to play out now; that doesn't mean that those cases "should" have won based upon the actual legal statutes. (as opposed to winning based upon the sympathies of a jury)

[elitts]

Moderator Note:

I'm being admittedly over-bearing on the issue because of how fast it tends to spiral out of control, but I have deleted a few more comments and posts referencing the legal profession in general.  It was a newer member, so I'm not issuing any reprimands, but I wanted to remind people that the rule is still in effect, even if I'm not as quick to see the posts over the weekend.

For those of you who have been around for a while, I'd like to encourage you to simply flag posts that stray into dangerous waters rather than replying to them.  Reporting them doesn't automatically result in a "ding" against the poster, the comments will be reviewed and a decision made.  But it does actually generate an email notification to the moderators whereas without a report a comment may not get noticed until I get enough time to read the thread myself.

[CynicalScouter]

26 minutes ago, elitts said:

And while the fact that other cases have been litigated and won by plaintiffs in the past might well be evidence of how a current case is likely to play out now; that doesn't mean that those cases "should" have won based upon the actual legal statutes. (as opposed to winning based upon the sympathies of a jury)

We can debate whether that is a fair or right or just thing (i.e. that as soon as a jury hears about a child being sexually abused, they'll go after anyone and everyone involved out of a sense of outrage and sympathy).

I will however note two things:

1) BSA doesn't always lose in these cases, but it loses enough that if you multiply out over thousands of cases filed that BSA saw the writing on the wall: it would be in court for the next decade and have hundreds of millions if not billions in judgments against it. At least this way victims who are first-to-the-courthouse-door don't "win" ahead of those who get there later.

2) There's also a degree of "actual legal statutes" that doesn't always jibe because of the fact that we have common law torts like Duty tof Care (for a minor at least) there IS no statute, or wasn't at the time of the offense. Therefore, the judge will give the jury an instruction on negligence, duty of care, etc. that relies on case law and not necessarily a statute. And that is yes, why we have juries.

Edited August 3, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, elitts said:

The fact that an abuser may have changed their identity, took elaborate steps to hide their predilections, lied their way through an interview and then spent years gaining people's trust before beginning to abuse scouts is basically just considered "proof" that the BSA's screening process is negligent rather than considering the situation to be one that no organization could reasonably have prevented.

I’ve come to “know,” personally and anonymously, a good number of victims over the last fifteen months. For what it’s worth, not a single fact pattern of the abuse fits this hypothetical. Not even close. My bet is these are truly outliers, but what do I know? Oh. That’s right. Not what, but who. Victims of BSA child sexual abuse.

Edited August 3, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

7 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

For what it’s worth, not a single fact pattern of the abuse fits this hypothetical.

Right. I'm not sure that any of that hypothetical (the SM that lies about their identity, etc.) has been alleged in any of the cases I am aware of.

The negligence claim ultimately boils down to this:

1. BSA, the Local Council, and the CO (or some combination)
2. let groups of young boys alone with these leaders
3. which BSA, the LC, and the CO put into positions of authority or agreed to supervise or both and
4. the young boys were abused by these leaders
5. in part because BSA, the LC and/or the CO failed to even provide a modicum or cursory supervision or examination.

And in the case of BSA

6. Once BSA knew, for decades, it had a systematic problem with child sexual abuse it did nothing, did not do enough, or actively engaged in efforts to cover it up, such as the famous/infamous program safety review researcher (Menninger) was not told about the existence of the IV files at all.

 

[ThenNow]

50 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Once BSA knew, for decades, it had a systematic problem with child sexual abuse it did nothing, did not do enough, or actively engaged in efforts to cover it up, such as the famous/infamous program safety review researcher (Menninger) was not told about the existence of the IV files at all.

I’ve added this little (not so little!) factoid to the briefs I’m preparing for The Great and Powerful. This single fact is not only damming, but illustrative of a pattern of denial that is utterly indefensible. Well, other than based on self-protection, organizational preservation, fire-walling donors from reality and not risking a decline in reputation and membership. How else can this be rationalized or excused? I’m seriously asking the question. I guess we revert back to the “different cultural norms of the day” argument? Search me.

PS - This is the sort of thing about which I was utterly clueless when I started thinking about pursuing anything, which was exclusively against my abuser and then only criminally. Just wanted him in prison. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by ThenNow

[johnsch322]

25 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I guess we revert back to the “different cultural norms of the day” argument?

Child maltreatment[edit]

Child sexual abuse has been recognized specifically as a type of child maltreatment in U.S. federal law since the initial Congressional hearings on child abuse in 1973.^[1] Child sexual abuse is illegal in every state,^[2] as well as under federal law.^[3] Among the states, the specifics of child sexual abuse laws vary, but certain features of these laws are common to all states.^[4]

I copied this from Wickpedia. For me it takes away any argument of  “different cultural norms of the day”. Society had laws on the books to punish those who victimized children. It was illegal, in every state period.  If it was known and not reported then those that knew are as guilty as those who abused.  If you have knowledge of a crime and you don't report it you aided and abetted.  They may not have let them be part of BSA but they were free to find other areas to full their pedophilia.  When an organization has a policy of cover up it makes it that much worse.

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I copied this from Wickpedia. For me it takes away any argument of  “different cultural norms of the day”.

Yes. Exactly. I’ve argued against that view over and over again. That’s why I suggested, “Are we really going back to that tired yarn?”

[johnsch322]

6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Yes. Exactly. I’ve argued against that view over and over again. That’s why I suggested, “Are we really going back to that tired yarn?”

And yet there seems to be a widespread belief from people who occasionally comment in this forum with that argument. What bothers me is that they seem to be older scouters (such as myself) who have a long history with the BSA.  The other point that seems to be made quite often is why punish the new scouters.  All of this is not against scouters per se but the organization BSA and it's LC's and CO's etc. They failed under the law!

[David CO]

4 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I’m seriously asking the question. I guess we revert back to the “different cultural norms of the day” argument?

No.  You are not seriously asking the question.  

Those of us who were around in those days know that the cultural norms of the day were different.  We lived through it.  We remember how it was.