Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[ThenNow]

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yep and as soon as I posted it I edited to to "MOST"

Though there only 5000+/- of us lone wolf pro se claimants, some here have mentioned allowing the so-called Coalition and TCC to carry the water unless/until it becomes clear they want/need to lawyer up. Perhaps those not included under the CM cover or Ad Hoc Committee of Catholic and Methodist COs are doing the same. Get free direction from a powerful, well presented entity or entities. 

Edited August 19, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

Gonna admit, 3:00PM ET can’t come soon enough. I might eat all the snacks in the house and be so caffeinated by then that I’ll have to go jogging while I watch my Zoom screen. Ok. I can’t jog after knee surgeries, a replacement and 10 other orthopedic surgeries. Welcome to premature physical breakdown at the hands of a lifetime of PTSD’s fight/flight/freeze and the resulting perpetual allostatic load/overload.

Edited August 19, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

27 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Gonna admit, 3:00PM ET can’t come soon enough.

Here are the scenarios I see playing out and the chances:

1) Straight up RSA approval = 25%. I think there is enough here to be able to latch onto and simply say that the points that the insurance companies and others have made are issues for confirmation (kicking the can down the road) and that while the Coalition fees are high, they do squeak in. As for Hartford, she could also accept BSA's notion that the Hartford deal was 100% binding until the court approved it, or whatever BSA conjured up, etc.

2) RSA approved with fatal revisions = 33%. By fatal I mean Hartford stays in. Well if Hartford stays in, the RSA's dead on its face, even if the judge approves the rest of it.

3) RSA approved with non-fatal revisions = 33%. For example, Hartford's out, but the Coalition fees are out too. It's not on its face fatal, it can be negotiated, but would the Coalition risk the RSA for that? Etc.

4) RSA is straight up rejected = 8%. The judge may rule that the process by which the RSA was developed was so flawed that the RSA is not acceptable OR that it has so many defects as to rendered it un-approvable.

[ThenNow]

24 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Here are the scenarios I see playing out and the chances:

Does Draft Kings cover this? Asking for a buddy of mine. 

[SiouxRanger]

4 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I actually think National would love the COs to be part of the plan.  The problem ... name 1 CO that has ever had to pay a settlement due to a sex abuse case brought against the BSA?  There could be a case or two ... but I haven't found any.  The big cases were paid out by National, LCs and possibly insurance carriers.

So, I'm sure the COs are saying ... why do we have to pay anything?  The BSA owned the program and process around volunteers and provided liability coverage.  

I'm sure the TCC/claimants have no desire to let the COs off the hook for $0 in payment.  While they haven't paid (or paid much) in the past, there is nothing stopping future lawsuits against the COs.  Oh, and now that there is no BSA, no LC and limited insurance ... the CO will be there, alone, defending themselves in these lawsuits.  They could lose and lose big.

This is a very tough spot for the COs.  I'm sure they are looking for BSA to pitch in more $$ to cover them.  They will likely have to pitch in $ as well.  While I believe the BSA would love to include the COs, they also know they have time limitations in negotiations and limited assets they are willing to part with. 

So ... that is why mediation continues.  Could the LCs pitch in more plus some payment directly from COs to provide coverage?  Is there any other clever solution?

I really think if there is a solution, the Catholic & Methodist Churches will continue.  They truly believe it is God's work to help youth and scouting.  The only way I see them leave is if the financial impact/risk to their entire work is put at risk for this one program.  If they leave, BSA can provide facility use agreements, but I think the impact would be large and damaging.

I only have experience with one Catholic Parish CO, and, as an institution, it could care less about the units it sponsors.  Elderly parishioners always smile at scouts when scouts are part of an activity parishioners see, but otherwise have little knowledge of the unit's principal scouting activities. Senior Troop adult leadership in my troop know nothing about National's bankruptcy unless I tell them.  

Given that a SINGLE ABUSE CASE could create a multi-million dollar liability for a CO, if they continue to sponsor units-they are not paying attention.  And if they listen to their lawyers and risk managers, they won't.

So, you may well be right.  There is a lot of support for the concept of scouting and happy-faced, good deed doing, scouts.  But reality will be measured by the statistics of the insurance companies-and those statistics will measure the true risk, and then add a percentage for insurer profit.

To my knowledge, mold coverage for houses and other residential units has all but disappeared.  The risk is too high and the losses per unit are disproportionately large. 

Not hard to imagine that sex abuse risks will become uninsurable.

Insurers will tell us what risks are financially controllable.

And even if a CO has such coverage, National will laugh in its face and yank the coverage in National's NEXT bankruptcy.

The present is history.  It is tomorrow where the game is always played.

[SiouxRanger]

Freedom of Speech is in the FIRST Amendment, for a reason: primacy of importance.

TRUSTWORTHY is FIRST in the Scout Law.

And, what is National's track record judged by that law?

Who will ever trust National again?

[CynicalScouter]

17 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Freedom of Speech is in the FIRST Amendment, for a reason: primacy of importance.

Nope. It is first by pure dumb luck.

A) Madison during the first Congress proposed a document with numerous amendments. What became the the First Amendment was listed fourth.

B) After Madison’s list got worked over by a committee what became the First Amendment was listed third.

C) The only reason the third listed amendment became the First was because the other two in front of it were so contentious that they were delayed. The first (House apportionment) never got ratified and the second (congressional pay raises) wasn’t ratified until the 1990s.

So as I said: the “First” Amendment is only first by dumb luck. It was almost Second and could possibly have been the Third.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Bill_of_Rights&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop#Crafting_amendments

Edited August 19, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[SiouxRanger]

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Nope. It is first by pure dumb luck.

A) Madison during the first Congress proposed a document with numerous amendments. What became the the First Amendment was listed fourth.

B) After Madison’s list got worked over by a committee what became the First Amendment was listed third.

C) The only reason the third listed amendment became the First was because the other two in front of it were so contentious that they were delayed. The first (House apportionment) never got ratified and the second (congressional pay raises) wasn’t ratified until the 1990s.

So as I said: the “First” Amendment is only first by dumb luck. It was almost Second and could possibly have been the Third.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Bill_of_Rights&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop#Crafting_amendments

Interesting, Thanks.  I have a volume on the debates over the Constitution, I will check it out.

Nonetheless, in practice, Freedom of Speech is a cornerstone of why democracy has (sort of) thrived.

Edited August 19, 2021 by SiouxRanger
ADDED an "o" to "ver"

[Eagle94-A1]

49 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Who will ever trust National again?

Who trusts National now? We have lost a lot of experienced and knowledgeable volunteers because of the way they have been treated, i.e. ignored and lied to. And with the way they are treating COs, i.e. not honoring the commitments, promises, and obligations they said they would do, only a crazy sense of loyalty to the youth is why I am still involved.

[yknot]

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

@ThenNow ... Is it a real "grouping" for Catholic / Methodist Ad Hoc Committees?  The ad-hoc committees can have one law firm, but the units are chartered by the individual parishes and arch-diocese.   I thought I saw the arch-diocese had their own lawyers and had often filed their own claims / case filings in this bankruptcy.   So, ad-hoc committees might help with consistent advise to their members, but it's still just advice.  Individual members might have different needs / different views.  

Just FYI on the Methodist side, they appear to be pretty well organized nationally and especially in my state.  Every weekly email from the state conference has had a directive not to recharter until the bankruptcy is resolved. I can't envision a scenario where individual churches would defy that. 

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

I only have experience with one Catholic Parish CO, and, as an institution, it could care less about the units it sponsors.  Elderly parishioners always smile at scouts when scouts are part of an activity parishioners see, but otherwise have little knowledge of the unit's principal scouting activities.

Every Troop in my town was sponsored by a Catholic Parish. To my recollection, 4. As I’ve said, our Pastor stopped at a Monday night meeting on a rare occasion and attended my Court of Honor. I doubt they had any knowledge of what they signed. The Parish community however, especially in the immediate proximity to our CO location, was very familiar and very supportive of us. At first, all of the boys in my cohort could walk to the meetings. There were barely a handful of exceptions over my 7 year tenure.

1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

Given that a SINGLE ABUSE CASE could create a multi-million dollar liability for a CO, if they continue to sponsor units-they are not paying attention.  And if they listen to their lawyers and risk managers, they won't.

Yup. To my knowledge, which is based on personal experience, the work done by the County Sheriff’s Department’s lead investigator (high school friend) thirty years later, and the AIS abuse map, that one CO has a minimum of five claims against it. I would bet more. I know AIS doesn’t represent me and the Troop is on their map. Locally, there is probably not too much money. On the Diocesan level? Probably a fair chunk. Also, our LC has almost a hun’ert and a half claims with roughly $35M in unrestricted assets. Just thought I’d throw that in for whatever it may be worth to the discussion. 

Edited August 19, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Here are the scenarios I see playing out and the chances:

So, can I get in on this with the DraftKings app? 

[ThenNow]

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

presented

“Presented,” was accurate since Mr. Ryan was precise, emphatic, well dressed and had a nice part in his hair, but I meant “represented.”

/s/ I.M.A. Dork

[Eagle1993]

All ... we are 30 minutes away from the Judge's RSA decision.  I know several will probably be monitoring the hearing and we are already at 108 pages on this topic.  So, I'll freeze this one now and create a new one to capture the updates from the hearing and discussions post decision.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by Eagle1993