Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[Eagle1993]

14 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Chubb/Century: There's no way board did due diligence then. And there MUST have been emails outside of a mediation session. There must be emails.

Judge: I'm hearing that there is nothing, so there's nothing.

So ... she wants to move on and perhaps, I wonder, if this point is moot.  The US Trustee objected over this payment saying this is clearly outside what is allowed.  She may, in her mind, have already decided she will rule against the payment and would like to avoid the bunny hole of how it was calculated.  

We will see ... but it sounds like she wasn't concerned about digging into how it was calculated.

[johnsch322]

18 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Some folks just want to see the facts..

Here is a fact 82,500 claims.  Nobody in this forum has the right or the knowledge to discount not one of these claims (including myself).  Not one of them to my knowledge has been discounted in any type of court of law.  I have my suspicions that some are false but I have no proof of fact.  Yet some people on this forum who want or tout facts are quick to discount this number and are critical of anyone who chooses to believe based on other studies this number could be quite higher.  BSA was founded in 1910 and it would be quite reasonable and factual to say the majority of those who had been abused in the first 30 years are dead.  How many would that be? Statistically how many victims would have died off between the ages of 40 to 80? I posted a few months ago a number using mortality rates for men at certain ages based done year that abuse happened by the claims and the number was amazingly higher than 82,500.

[CynicalScouter]

Whitman testimony: He's BSA's bankruptcy/reorg/restructuring advisor.

BSA entered into the Hartford agreement after much deliberation. However, the Hartford agreement was predicated on the court's approval of it. Moreover, after the Hartford agreement came out, it became clear that the FCR/TCC/Coalition would never, ever accept it. (Therefore, Whitman is implying the judge should NOT approve the Hartford agreement at this point because to do so would be to scuttle the RSA plan and be a major setback to the bankruptcy).

 

 

[ThenNow]

4 hours ago, Eagledad said:

In this case, I know a lot of elderly Eagles Scouts who were approached several times in the last couple years to join this law suit.

I’m asking not poking. Was this simply based on their age and asked by whom? 

[johnsch322]

4 hours ago, Eagledad said:

In this case, I know a lot of elderly Eagles Scouts who were approached several times in the last couple years to join this law suit.

Since most scouters do not attain the rank of Eagle Scout (Eagle Scouts are older scouts and abuse victims tend to younger) and the fact that most victims withdraw from scouting old Eagle Scouts (exception @ThenNow) would tend not to be abuse victims.  But how were they approached...it couldn't have been thru the perversion files since victims names were redacted.  Do you know for a fact if they were abused or not?  If they were not abused are you saying someone (who) was trying to have them file false claims?

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Do you know for a fact if they were abused or not?  If they were not abused are you saying someone (who) was trying to have them file false claims?

Exactly. (We need to let the witness answer the foundational question so we can lead him to our punchline. Ha. Jk. Well done to get to the heart of the matter, brother.)

[johnsch322]

How I have been feeling about so much of what people post:

"People say believe half of what you see.
Oh, and none of what you hear.
Whoa, I jus' can't help being confused.
If it's true please tell me dear.

I heard it thru the grapevine"

 

[CynicalScouter]

34 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Whitman testimony: He's BSA's bankruptcy/reorg/restructuring advisor.

Whitman continued: lots of objections by insurers regarding Whitman's testimony due to lack of discovery.

At this point Whitman's testimony is being offered to suggest that the payments to the Coalition are good because having the Coalition's support going forward will help in additional negotiations.

The insurers are convincing the judge to strike/keep out whole portions of Whitman's testimony because BSA played this little game where Whitman's advice to the board was redacted/withheld during depositions and discovery BUT is now being offered ambush style.

She's said at least once if not twice BSA's lawyers are "skating" as in "skating close" to having even more stricken.

[CynicalScouter]

Judge about to issue a big ruling for or against BSA.

BSA wanted to simply release ONLY those portions of the board documents that made the RSA look good and then claim the rest was mediation privilege. There was literally a document (presentation slide to the BSA Board) that included ONLY the RSA and "privileged"redacted/blacked out the TCC/Coalition and BSA offers that led to the RSA.

The insurance companies want a ruling that either the ENTIRE slide comes in or NONE of it comes in. And I suspect the rest of the document(s) are going to be similarly treated.

Judge is ticked. She's expressing concern that bankruptcy courts use mediation all the time for issues and that if mediation privilege is abused to cover anything and everything that becomes a problem.

She is taking a break and wants the slide emailed to her chambers to review and will decide whether it is ALL in, NONE in, or if BSA is correct and can hide portions as "privileged".

Break 2:01pm Eastern for judge to review the slide. Recess until 3pm.

One other possibility is that the judge will give BSA a choice: either let the entire document in (and the others) or else Whitman shuts up and the BSA's effort to argue that the RSA is the result of sound business judgement gets kneecapped.

Edited August 12, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

15 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

One other possibility is that the judge will give BSA a choice: either let the entire document in (and the others) or else Whitman shuts up and the BSA's effort to argue that the RSA is the result of sound business judgement gets kneecapped.

Seems to me, a big problem has been exposed regardless. If it was “sound” and hunky dory, why did they so heavily redact and put that determination at such jeopardy. They certainly had to have anticipated it would be challenged, even with overwhelming support by the victims’ counsel. What damaging info is in those docs if they’re fighting so hard, though poorly in my view? No fun having a gallery of objectors, I admit. Not knowing more than a thimble full, it seems like they made a strategic error.

[Eagledad]

59 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Since most scouters do not attain the rank of Eagle Scout (Eagle Scouts are older scouts and abuse victims tend to younger) and the fact that most victims withdraw from scouting old Eagle Scouts (exception @ThenNow) would tend not to be abuse victims.  But how were they approached...it couldn't have been thru the perversion files since victims names were redacted.  Do you know for a fact if they were abused or not?  If they were not abused are you saying someone (who) was trying to have them file false claims?

The older Eagles are friends and relatives in their mid 60's. The friends do not know the relatives. My Eagle son was contacted as well. None of these Eagles were victims.

Barry

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, Eagledad said:

My Eagle son was contacted as well. None of these Eagles were victims.

That. Is. Positively. Despicable. Dang. My level of cumulated disgust continues to rise. Thank you for that information, though I am really sorry to hear it. I figured it had to be based on nothing more than records. Who would’ve given them the record of Eagle Scouts? I wonder why I was not contacted. I absolutely hate hearing this, as a legit victim and as an attorney. More shame than one can spread around. Gah. I can’t express how disappointing that is, but I’m sure you get it.  Makes me angry and sad. That has been a consistent theme for me over the last year plus. I guess it would be pegged to LC asset trust transfer scuttle last July.

[vol_scouter]

3 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

The older Eagles are friends and relatives in their mid 60's. The friends do not know the relatives. My Eagle son was contacted as well. None of these Eagles were victims.

Barry

My son and I, both Eagles, were both solicited to file suits though neither had claims.

The court required the BSA to show that 95% of all men from some age (I think 50 or 55) and older were made aware of the bankruptcy to be able to file by the 16 November 2020 last day to file.  They hired a firm to certify to the court that the goal was reached. 
I do not recall by whom we were contacted.  

[ThenNow]

4 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

My son and I, both Eagles, were both solicited to file suits though neither had claims.

The court required the BSA to show that 95% of all men from some age (I think 50 or 55) and older were made aware of the bankruptcy to be able to file by the 16 November 2020 last day to file.  They hired a firm to certify to the court that the goal was reached. 
I do not recall by whom we were contacted.  

I didn’t realize that meant literally contact people. Is it not curious they skipped me? 

PS - I still don’t like it, regardless. I guess I was too busy working on my Proof of Claim.

Edited August 12, 2021 by ThenNow

[johnsch322]

5 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

My son and I, both Eagles, were both solicited to file suits though neither had claims.

The court required the BSA to show that 95% of all men from some age (I think 50 or 55) and older were made aware of the bankruptcy to be able to file by the 16 November 2020 last day to file.  They hired a firm to certify to the court that the goal was reached. 
I do not recall by whom we were contacted.  

Big difference of being contacted to be made aware of the bankruptcy and being solicited to file suits. If 95 percent of all men over the age of 55 or older were to be shown to contacted I wonder why I wasn’t?  I wonder how they got contact info?  If they only contacted active or current adult scouts whom BSA would have current contact info that would not sound Kosher to be able to certify anything.