Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[ThenNow]

7 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I don’t see my law firm on the list and they are supposedly representing 1600 claimants. 

Give them a bell and see what’s what. 

[ThenNow]

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

RSA 2.0 (hereinafter the Zombie RSA)

YES!! Bam!!

[Eagle1993]

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Ok, I know the general rule is no posting pictures unless they are relevant, but I'm posting the JPEGs listing all attorneys and the number of claims that are now party to RSA 2.0 (hereinafter the Zombie RSA).

 

Options….

1) Some of these firms lost clients to Kosnoff 

2) Kosnoff lost some of clients to these firms

3) Kosnoff is misrepresenting how many clients he has

4) These firms are misrepresenting how many clients they have

How can they even vote for a plan if they don’t know which law firm represents each client (and I expect some are not represented).   What an absolute mess. 

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

What an absolute mess. 

Welcome to ZombieLand. Hope you brought your baseball bat. (Nod to Woody H.)

[Eagle1993]

Ok …. Very interesting point just came up in FB.  The official UMC FB page said the final bankruptcy deal Must include COs to allow COs to continue work in scouting.  They also said progress is being made.     So…. Perhaps that is the hiccup.  The final deal must have COs (as BSA cannot function well at this time without COs) and the CO portion of the deal isn’t finalized.  

[CynicalScouter]

So, I'm trying to parse out what got amended and the key seems to be 6 items.

Item 1 (I.A.) simply resets the deadline for the judge to approve the RSA until August 27. Fine.

Items 2 & 3 (I.B. and I.C.) deal with whatever agreement is struck with the COs and gives both sides the power to terminate the RSA if they don't like what they see. Here's the TCC/Coalition/FCR's version.

Quote

the protocol for addressing participation by Chartered Organizations in the benefits of the Channeling Injunction is not satisfactory to the Coalition, the TCC, State Court Counsel, or the Future Claimants’ Representative, as applicable.

Item 4 changes Reimbursement, but I don't see how.

Item 5 changes some language about insurance rights.

Was:

Quote

(D) The BSA shall assign to the Settlement Trust a secured ownership interest (as designated in the Amended Plan by the Coalition, the TCC, and the Future Claimants’ Representative) in any proceeds of insurance rights and  insurance receivables; and

Now

Quote

(D) The BSA shall effectuate the Insurance Assignment and assign to the Settlement Trust interests (as designated in the Amended Plan by the Coalition, the TCC, and the Future Claimants’ Representative) in any proceeds of insurance rights under and insurance receivables relating to the Abuse Insurance Policies; and

Item 6 DST Note Mechanics

Was

Quote

Local Councils shall make monthly  contributions  into  an  account  (and  any  replacement  thereof) owned by the DST (the “LC Reserve Account”) in an amount equal to the Required Percentage of the Local Councils’ respective payrolls.

 Now

Quote

Local  Councils  shall  make  and  shall  agree  to  make  monthly contributions  into  an  account  (and  any  replacement  thereof) owned by the DST (the “LC Reserve Account”) in an amount equal to the Required Percentage of the Local Councils’ respective payrolls.

So, I don't get it. This doesn't look like massive changes. The Coalition still gets its sweetheart payouts ahead of everyone else. Etc.

[CynicalScouter]

11 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The final deal must have COs (as BSA cannot function well at this time without COs) and the CO portion of the deal isn’t finalized.

Right, the RSA accounts for that. Whatever deal gets cooked up with the COs, either side (BSA/LCs on one, TCC/FCR/Coalition on the other) can walk away from the RSA if they don't like it.

[ThenNow]

There should’ve been a warning footnote when BSA issued it’s Chapter 11 press release inviting survivors of abuse in Scouting to come forward and be “equitably compensated.” If consulted, I would’ve worded it something like this:

BE IT KNOWN BY ONE AND ALL! THE PROCESS YOU ARE CONSIDERING WILL BE LIKE HAVING OPEN HEART SURGERY WITH A CHAINSAW AND BACKHOE. A NAIL GUN WILL BE DEPLOYED TO CLOSE. EXPECT SIGNIFICANT BLEEDING, SWELLING, BRUISING AND SCARRING, ACCOMPANIED BY THE HIGH LIKELIHOOD THAT THERE WILL BE NO DISCERNIBLE BENEFIT AFTER SURGERY, IF THERE IS AN AFTER. CHOOSE WISELY...

Edited July 29, 2021 by ThenNow

[yknot]

11 hours ago, elitts said:

It's called the "Activity Consent Form", I can't personally say how long it's been around, but at least since 2014 as that's when an article about it was written on the Scoutingmagazine blog.

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/19-673.pdf

Yes, I'm aware of that form obviously. What I am saying it that nowhere on that form does it say your child is at risk of being sexually abused while in scouting. That's what I'm talking about. 

[CynicalScouter]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck, P.C.

16869

Kosnoff has got to be reading this forum. He's claiming these 16,869 attributed to Eisenberg etc. are HIS 17,000 clients/AIS' or...something.

That's why the math didn't work: because Kosnoff's claiming those 16,869.

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[SiouxRanger]

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Ok …. Very interesting point just came up in FB.  The official UMC FB page said the final bankruptcy deal Must include COs to allow COs to continue work in scouting.  They also said progress is being made.     So…. Perhaps that is the hiccup.  The final deal must have COs (as BSA cannot function well at this time without COs) and the CO portion of the deal isn’t finalized.  

The UMC must see some way clear to continue involvement and drastically minimize the liability exposure.  If they have a plan, I hope it is shared with the other CO's who may be on the verge of walking.

[CynicalScouter]

2 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

The UMC must see some way clear to continue involvement and drastically minimize the liability exposure.  If they have a plan, I hope it is shared with the other CO's who may be on the verge of walking.

If I had to guess it is going to be to convert to facilities use agreements with the councils serving as COs

[SiouxRanger]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

If I had to guess it is going to be to convert to facilities use agreements with the councils serving as COs

If I were a CO even with a facilities use agreement I'd still insist that my employee be present in three deep leadership concerned that some crafty/artful lawyer would seek to impose liability through some theory or nuance of premises liability.

If you do NOTHING, you are almost certainly not a defendant.  If you do anything, perhaps ever so slight as provide a key to the front door, you are a target. The risk is not zero.

[gpurlee]

26 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

The UMC must see some way clear to continue involvement and drastically minimize the liability exposure.  If they have a plan, I hope it is shared with the other CO's who may be on the verge of walking.

I think that you can rest assured that there is on-going communication among the major CO's.  If you look at the PTC conference schedule, a number of them were together at the Philmont Training Center earlier in the month.

[SiouxRanger]

14 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Hm. I hadn’t known. It makes sense I couldn’t remember. I feel better. Thank you. Now I “know” something else about a subject and context I hope I never need to remember, even though I now know it in my knower. 

As to death, resurrection and miracles, I’m getting a Zombie Apocalypse vibe. I think I’ll prepare accordingly. Not sure if we’re in the Walking Dead, Zombieland, Resident Evil, Night of the Living Dead or Train to Busan. I’ll give it some thought and report back.

The course of a lawsuit can change on a dime and head off in virtually any direction.

The hearing yesterday, the Judge completely changed her mind upon learning of the looming expiration of the RSA. Curiously, but understandably, for the reason that she was not about to put the smaller parties through expensive pre-motion preparation if there was the possibility that the hearing was not to be held at all.  Sensitive and cost conscious.

Back to changing on a dime...clients change their minds. There are many reasons to numerous to launch into, but a huge trial can devolve into the preparation of a settlement agreement on the last terms offered. Or explode into a hotly contested matter when all seemed calm.  It only takes a change of mind; mind changing is not subject to the laws of physics.

Another significant game changer is a court ruling.  One can entirely change the course of litigation.

Litigation is the fastest game in town, bar none, the markets, politics...none.