Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[CynicalScouter]

26 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

If it was “sound” and hunky dory, why did they so heavily redact and put that determination at such jeopardy.

One thing I can think is that they are playing hardball: you don't give anything up you don't absolutely have to.

The other is that it will be clear how far apart the BSA (left column of slide) and the TCC/Coalition (right column of slide) apart were and who it was that folded. It might show that BSA just utterly folded like a cheap tent.

[CynicalScouter]

2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Big difference of being contacted to be made aware of the bankruptcy and being solicited to file suits.

Exactly. That's what is not as clear here.

If the the people were simply contacted "you may be part of this lawsuit/bankruptcy" that's one thing. It's quite another if an attorney said, on a possibly recorded line, that people should file false claims.

Edited August 12, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[vol_scouter]

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

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. 

I believe that some were contacted and most made aware by commercials.  Have no idea how our contact information was obtained or by whom (aggregators or BSA representatives). 

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

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. 

Agreed. Same. Ditto. From the first posts, I thought it was solicitation contact. Also curious, why a handful of eagles, including Vol Scouter’s son. Not sure of his age, of course.

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Somehow I suspect it was more "you may be part of this lawsuit" and not "hey, please file a false claim and let us do it for you."

Inquiring minds would love to know the answer to this.

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

Also curious, why a handful of eagles, including Vol Scouter’s son.

Because you can get from NESA their entire directory for a price.

[vol_scouter]

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

Agreed. Same. Ditto. From the first posts, I thought it was solicitation contact. Also curious, why a handful of eagles, including Vol Scouter’s son. Not sure of his age, of course.

We are both adults. I am inside the specified age range but my son is not. 

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

Because you can get from NESA their entire directory for a price.

Which directory contains my name and contact information. This is my pernt.

[CynicalScouter]

3:08pm still no judge on Zoom. But judges are always on judge time and we don't know what could be happening behind the scenes.

[ThenNow]

24 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

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.

Forgive the misfire, at least as it concerns any court-directed, legit notice for awareness purposes only.

[skeptic]

If you responded to any of the several come-ons for the "registry/book", you likely are in one or more.  Mine was only partially accurate, and then later it got closer.  Still is not totally since my council has been gone since about 1970 or so.  

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

3:08pm still no judge on Zoom.

For the highest paid at $20+ per minute, delay is not a bad thing, per se. 

[CynicalScouter]

Doug Kennedy of the TCC tried to speak for 2 minutes and the judge said no.

He is not an attorney, so that's not un-reasonable.

Edited August 12, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

Doug Kennedy of the TCC tried to speak for 2 minutes and the judge said no.

He is not an attorney, so that's not un-reasonable.

It’s not, but he only represents the entire group of sexual abuse survivor claimants. An exception should have been made in this case. Two minutes? Give me a break. That would not have slowed her roll at all. 

[CynicalScouter]

Judge: This needs to be limited to process and terms. BSA is "Straying" from what it should be focused on: the process and terms of the RSA. The reason is that the order is asking for a finding that the RSA was done in "good faith" and "at arms length". Still not what "good faith" means in the context of a RSA context, but that requires a much different evidentiary basis than just a small scope of this hearing: "Should debtors be able to go forward here? Has debtor properly exercised its business judgement?"

"Quite frankly I am a little unclear on debtors case".

Question to debtors or RSA parties: how are we going forward? If you want "good faith" determination, then the evidence admitted will be much broader. If so, that opens the door to privileged communications.

The document sent to chambers and the redactions are mediation and/or attorney client privilege BUT if you want to use the document, why? Does it go to terms? Process?