Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

Would you mind educating the non-legal folks about Rules?

Sure.

There's the Bankruptcy Code, the law enacted by Congress that deals with, well, bankruptcy. That's found U.S. Code Title 11 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11

There you'll find familiar names CHAPTER 7—LIQUIDATION (§§ 701 – 784) and CHAPTER 11—REORGANIZATION (§§ 1101 – 1195).

So far, so good. Rules of practice and procedure of federal courts were until the Rule Enabling Act of 1934 also entirely in the hands of Congress. Since 1934 there's a shared arrangement: the courts (through the federal Judicial Conference) can adopt rules of practice and procedure, but Congress can come in and change them at will.

(Side Note: My experience in the courts is in states, which most have a similar courts-can-make-rules-but-the-legislatures-can-screw-with-them system. Some lucky states have a constitutional provision which gives rulemaking power exclusively to the courts. They are the lucky ones).

And so we get to Federal Rules, of which there are 5 main ones (Appellate, Civil, Criminal, Bankruptcy, and Evidence) https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules

There are local rules as well for each court, but let's focus on the Big 5 and in particular here Bankruptcy. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frbp

So, the Bankruptcy Code Congress enacted lays out the broad strokes, the Rules detail how things get done.

Bankruptcy Code says I have to file a petition to start a voluntary bankruptcy (e.g. 11 U.S. Code § 301) Bankruptcy Rule spells how/what that petition looks like (Rules 1001-1005).

Now, Rule 2019 has been the focus lately. It basically says ANYONE with ANY "Disclosable economic interest" in the case has to disclose certain pieces of information (Rule 2019(a) defines "disclosable economic interest"). https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frbp/rule_2019

Specifically 2019(b) and (c) spell it out what that disclosure statement has to have
 

Quote

(b) Disclosure by Groups, Committees, and Entities.

(1) In a chapter 9 or 11 case, a verified statement setting forth the information specified in subdivision (c) of this rule shall be filed by every group or committee that consists of or represents, and every entity that represents, multiple creditors or equity security holders that are (A) acting in concert to advance their common interests, and (B) not composed entirely of affiliates or insiders of one another.

(2) Unless the court orders otherwise, an entity is not required to file the verified statement described in paragraph (1) of this subdivision solely because of its status as:

(A) an indenture trustee;

(B) an agent for one or more other entities under an agreement for the extension of credit;

(C) a class action representative; or

(D) a governmental unit that is not a person.

(c) Information Required. The verified statement shall include:

(1) the pertinent facts and circumstances concerning:

(A) with respect to a group or committee, other than a committee appointed under § 1102 or § 1114 of the Code, the formation of the group or committee, including the name of each entity at whose instance the group or committee was formed or for whom the group or committee has agreed to act; or

(B) with respect to an entity, the employment of the entity, including the name of each creditor or equity security holder at whose instance the employment was arranged;

(2) if not disclosed under subdivision (c)(1), with respect to an entity, and with respect to each member of a group or committee:

(A) name and address;

(B) the nature and amount of each disclosable economic interest held in relation to the debtor as of the date the entity was employed or the group or committee was formed; and

(C) with respect to each member of a group or committee that claims to represent any entity in addition to the members of the group or committee, other than a committee appointed under § 1102 or § 1114 of the Code, the date of acquisition by quarter and year of each disclosable economic interest, unless acquired more than one year before the petition was filed;

(3) if not disclosed under subdivision (c)(1) or (c)(2), with respect to each creditor or equity security holder represented by an entity, group, or committee, other than a committee appointed under § 1102 or § 1114 of the Code:

(A) name and address; and

(B) the nature and amount of each disclosable economic interest held in relation to the debtor as of the date of the statement; and

(4) a copy of the instrument, if any, authorizing the entity, group, or committee to act on behalf of creditors or equity security holders.

 

And guess what? A lot of ink and dead trees are used to squabble over those terms, so before you ask me what any of that means, be aware the answer is going to be "depends".

 

Edited July 30, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[vol_scouter]

@CynicalScouter,

Thank you!  This helps a lot.  Just being informed about the origin and use of the rules is very helpful.  We might need more specific information later but this will likely satisfy my needs.

Thank you again.

[ThenNow]

5 hours ago, AnonEagle said:

If it looks like that is the case then is it wise for those of us that were abused to participate in this thread or at least purge our comments when it gets closer to the final hours?

I can see them saying stuff like " well you seemed just as interested in talking about red vs green loops or your personal experiences during camp or some third off topic thing discussed" and then use the stuff we post here as a wedge to basically say " see they aren't doing so bad, why should we pay anything more than the minimum?".

Yes, we can be called to “testify” under oath, in addition to going through a rigorous resubmission of our claim to the Settlement Trustee. It’s a serious bait and switch for many of us and it adds to my mantra that the general audience doesn’t seem to understand what this is doing to (many of) us.

As to posts on this forum being “used against us,” I think it depends what a given claim and supplemental information look like, specifically as to the “life impacts” component. (Per Cynical, there’s also the anonymous forum layer. Good get, CS!) If one’s POC and eventual Trustee submission clearly shows the abuse with the needed identifiers, as well as impacts across some or all of the various categories in the POC (and included within the valuation scaling noted in the pre-plan documents), I say such a claimant will be fine. As you know (though others who didn’t fill out a POC may not), those things include residual life impact categories like psychological, educational, career, financial, relationships, sexual, legal and physiological.  

As to being “fine,” I should probably qualify and footnote. I personally have no qualms about posting here, based on my file and all I’ve documented in my POC showing vast longitudinal devastation over the 50 years since the first abuse. Maybe I’ll bring my wife, kids, siblings, therapists (a list as long as my arm) and friends all the way back to high school to testify on my behalf. I suppose someone could pull my jovial posts and say how great I’m doing and how lightly I take all of this. I’d be pleased to present all the lamentations I’ve also posted, along with references to the deceased comedians who teetered on the brink of severe depression when they were at the comic best. Some succumbed and ended their lives. I can also show what I have been going through since February 18, 2020, including all of the maladaptive survival strategies I’ve had to deploy. As some have heard, a number of these were dormant not torturing me prior to that monumental moments. I even have photos, which my therapist sometimes request for safety and accountability purposes. Ultimately, you have to decide, of course. If you want to delete, perhaps one of the great moderators would assist you?

Also, shame on AIS. Your experience is exactly what I feared may have happened/be happening to some of us. Damnable. Disgraceful. Shameful. Someone needs to be held to account. DANG IT THAT MAKES ME REALLY, REALLY ANGRY AND SAD!! I am so sorry.

Edited July 30, 2021 by ThenNow

[yknot]

I am so appreciative of Cynical Scouter's insights and postings, along with several others on this site. There are a few people on this site who I regularly send mental steak and beer dinners on me. 

[ThenNow]

34 minutes ago, yknot said:

I am so appreciative of Cynical Scouter's insights and postings, along with several others on this site. There are a few people on this site who I regularly send mental steak and beer dinners on me. 

110%!!!

I guess I’m not on that virtual DoorDash route because I’m serious hongray and have had a steak hankerin. I’ll try to do better and see what I get. If I can preorder, hoping I make the cut, I can only receive NA beers. Clausthaler makes a nice Dry Hop. Erdinger is fab. Beck’s and St. Paulie Girl do a fine job. And, WellBeing Brewing was founded by a fella in recovery who does nothing by Alcohol Frie, as we say auf Deutsch. Guinness AF is SkunkBier. Wow it’s bad, as is Heineken. I guess this may all get deleted...? 

Edited July 31, 2021 by ThenNow

[yknot]

17 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

110%!!!

I guess I’m not on that virtual DoorDash route because I’m serious hongray and have had a steak hankerin. I’ll try to do better and see what I get. (If I can preorder, hoping I make the cut, I can only receive NA beers. Clausthaler makes a nice Dry Hop. Erdinger is fab. Beck’s and St. Paulie Girl do a fine job. And, WellBeing Brewing was founded by a fella in recovery who does nothing by Alcohol Frie, as we say auf Deutsch. Guinness AF is SkunkBier. Wow it’s bad, as is Heineken. I guess this may all get deleted...? 

Virtual beers and steaks have been in your inbox from time to time too, ThenNow.

IRL I send actual steaks and beers, but this will have to do. 

[SiouxRanger]

On 7/28/2021 at 9:24 PM, gpurlee said:

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.

Curious.  I do not understand the significance of this.  Do we know if those meeting at the PTC are non-lawyer representatives of CO's, or legal representatives of the CO's?  And, are National representatives also meeting with those CO representatives?

[SiouxRanger]

Lawyers really do not like their clients, standing in opposition to one another, discussing the issues of a pending case without legal counsel present.  Too much chance of making an admission against interest, or agreeing to a concession without an adequate concession by the other side, or simply mucking up the case by all manner of ambiguous or vague statements or "agreements" that come back to haunt them.

Even in the presence of agreements that the discussions are non-admissible, there remains the chance of disclosing strategies or the measure of one's will to contest the case (the point at which a party will simply give up, or make big concessions).

[SiouxRanger]

Does anyone have any insight into the likely method and manner of a claimant's "testimony" in the claim evaluation process?  A more detailed questionnaire than the proof of claim questionnaire, a narrative description (that is, a letter), phone interview, zoom (or equivalent) interview, or open administrative hearing with testimony in person?

I am assuming that claimants will not be providing "testimony" of any sort in the bankruptcy proceeding proper but only as part of the settlement fund claim evaluation process. Perhaps I am wrong.

Last I checked, Perry Mason is defunct, and with 85,000 claims, I cannot see a day's hearing on each claim-that's 232 years if only one hearing officer. Even with 100 hearing officers, that 2.32 years, even if working weekends. Unmanageable and incredibly expensive.

I would anticipate a much more perfunctory evaluation due to the sheer volume of claims.

To the abuse survivors, this is understandably a big issue. 

[ThenNow]

5 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

I would anticipate a much more perfunctory evaluation due to the sheer volume of claims.

Nope. From all accounts, this is going to be anything but. Thus, the swinging hypnotic bauble: “Look into my eyes. You’re feeling weary. Great trepidation about being sifted like wheat. Ah. You believed all that nonsense about anonymity and not having to testify. Tsk. Tsk. It’s okay. I’m here to make it all better. Come, now. How’s about a nice $3500 and a kick in the teeth for your troubles? You really don’t want to go through this Indiana Jones boobytrap maze, do you? I am your friend. Take my hand. Yes. That’s it. Very good, very good. You chose wisely. Sign here. Have a nice life. Toodles.”

Starting at page 89 of the document. 

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1d5f346b-47b8-43d3-b4cf-4a0393aa8256_5466.pdf

 

Edited July 31, 2021 by ThenNow

[vol_scouter]

7 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Lawyers really do not like their clients, standing in opposition to one another, discussing the issues of a pending case without legal counsel present.  Too much chance of making an admission against interest, or agreeing to a concession without an adequate concession by the other side, or simply mucking up the case by all manner of ambiguous or vague statements or "agreements" that come back to haunt them.

Even in the presence of agreements that the discussions are non-admissible, there remains the chance of disclosing strategies or the measure of one's will to contest the case (the point at which a party will simply give up, or make big concessions).

The representatives of the various religious organizations were likely involved on the CO’s national level but not someone who is a direct decision maker in this process.  They likely shared what we see here, that the CO’s are in general still supportive of Scouting though contractual relationships might change.  Decision makers and attorneys were not likely present though I could imagine that there might have been a scripted update via zoom. 

The CO’s are not going to discuss deliberations, discoverable evidence, plans, negotiations, etc in what is essentially a public forum.

[gpurlee]

11 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Curious.  I do not understand the significance of this.  Do we know if those meeting at the PTC are non-lawyer representatives of CO's, or legal representatives of the CO's?  And, are National representatives also meeting with those CO representatives?

Several of the CO's schedule annual meetings at Philmont for training purposes and to update stakeholders on various topics. The top denominational leadership is present. Often they are at PTC on the same week or share an overlapping weekend. In some cases, they may even share a session. There are always opportunities for them to get together during meal times or in the evenings to discuss common shared concerns.  The bankruptcy and its related issues certainly fall into the category of "shared concerns."

And yes, there have been and continue to be on-going mediations between the CO's and the BSA for months.  Most of the large CO's have had very active task forces meeting regularly.  

Edited July 31, 2021 by gpurlee

[Eagle1970]

On 7/29/2021 at 7:02 PM, Eagle94-A1 said:

As for the camera guy, he was setting the cameras up in the bathroom at his house, other peoples home bathrooms and even in one person's bedroom. From what i have read and heard, it does not take much time to set one up, and they are extremely difficult to find.

Everyone would be well-served to become educated on the "spy cameras" and what to look for.  They can look like a smoke-detector, phone charger and so on.

[CynicalScouter]

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

In short and perhaps a tad oversimplified, there's a (real) possibility that the hoped for big insurance payouts may not happen. Chubb may (and let be stress, may) argue down the road that under the terms of the 1996 acquisition of Century that Chubb took on only Century's assets and debts as of that date. Meaning that if, say, the result is $4 billion in sexual abuse claims next year and Century has only $1 billion in assets in 2022, then the abuse victims get only $1 billion and can NOT access Chubb's ~$100+ billion in assets.

The TCC/FCR/Coalition would like to get answers to that NOW, not after a vote or sometime down the road post-confirmation.

Since this is a really, really big deal to any proposed settlement, the FCR/Coalition/TCC are demanding answers. Chubb/Century is basically told them to stick it: refusing to produce anything, then only handing in paper documents (when electronic documents were asked for to allow faster review and scanning) and then on top of that rather than delivering copies to all three (FCR/TCC/Coalition) they simply dropped off copies to the Coalition's law firm.

And, just as BSA did before, the insurance companies are saying anything and everything is mediation privileged: if it was mentioned in the mediation, that means it cannot be revealed.

Again, this is the TCC/FCR/Coalition version of events. But it gets at the bigger, broader point. The insurance companies are going to stall, stall, stall as long as they can and throw up every roadblock they can.

 

Edited July 31, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[David CO]

3 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

Everyone would be well-served to become educated on the "spy cameras" and what to look for.  

I don't think so.  Not everyone needs to become an expert on counter-surveillance.  It sounds like more effort than I'm willing to put into it.

I know there are some really creepy people out there.  I see indications of it all the time.  Whenever I look up a celebrity on the internet,  I see a link to photos of them barefoot.  I'm not sure why some people are so intent on seeing other people barefoot.  I suspect it's a foot fetish thing.  Very strange.

I also don't understand this attitude about nudity.  There are billions of people in the world, and roughly half of them have the same anatomy.  There is nothing unique about human anatomy.

I think it's strange that some people are so obsessed with anatomy.  I also think it is strange that some people are so obsessed with concealing it.  I'm willing to go along with the normal codes of decency, but there is only so much effort I'm willing to make to thwart those who use extra-ordinary means to violate them.