Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[SiouxRanger]

21 hours ago, PeterHopkins said:

Summaries of the "net income or loss" (not terms used in the not-for-profit context) would not be included in the audited financial statements. The objective of an audit is to express an opinion about whether the financial statements reflect the entity's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Drilling down to individual programs is not necessary to for that opinion. The cost associated with having the auditors express such an opinion would outweigh any individual benefits.

If some programs operate in the black and others operate in the red, it matters little to users of the financial statements. They will evaluate the entity based on its overall results.

Management's evaluation of the entity's operations should encompass far more than the audited financial statements. The council's internal accounting staff should have information concerning indiviual programs and should have mad eit available to members of the executive board, if it was requested.

I think we are essentially on the same page.

What should be done, ought to be done, and would be done in a normal business organization, at least in my council, has not been done. My information is only anecdotal, in-depth knowledge of my council, and incidental  information of other councils.  And even from incidental information, it is beyond clear that other councils operate in a much more efficient manner than my council.

I once asked the second in command in my council for some statistical information about a council-level program I was working on.  The second in command pretty much confides in me, and I him-a good friend.  He asked a third tier professional staffer for the information and the reply was, "Who wants to know that information and what will they use if for?" I never got the info. The subordinate refused to give it to his superior.  Hmmmm.

The program was never happened.

I do hope other councils operate better.

[David CO]

2 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

 

@David CO  The reason that the committee membership lists are not readily available is to limit abuse from volunteers in a youth program 

I very much doubt that.  I think it is much more likely that members maintain their anonymity in order to hang on to their positions.  You can't be held accountable if nobody knows who you are.  

Anyhow, I think the risk of abuse is far greater for the children than it is for the national committee membership. 

When you can honestly say that 80,000 committee members have been abused in scouting, I will have greater sympathy for BSA's viewpoint. 

 

Edited August 26, 2021 by David CO

[SiouxRanger]

11 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Nope...does not put a damper on it.

A mentor of mine pointed out long ago...yes, there is often a price for telling the truth, but there is also a price for not saying anything when the truth needs to be spoken.

And there times when one must speak the Truth, to be true to one's core beliefs, or remain silent and die a little bit in spirit and soul-and forever regret one's weakness.

One never stands taller when one shirks from one's beliefs.

[SiouxRanger]

It is a question of finding one's backbone.

[CynicalScouter]

On 8/24/2021 at 3:35 PM, CynicalScouter said:

Unannounced hearing now announced for August 30. Topic: TCC/FCR/Coalition and their ongoing demands for Century/Chubb to release information on their finances.

Century/Chubb have now responded to the demands. They offer what amount to three reasons why the TCC/FCR/Coalition shouldn't get the documents.

1) The discovery requests were asked as part of other motions that have since been withdrawn or rendered moot. The requests were made in the context of the Second Amended Plan or and the Estimation Motion. We are up to the FOURTH Amended Plan and the Estimation Motion was withdrawn as part of the RSA.

2) This is an (improper) attempt to use the discovery process to determine total liability and/or how much Chubb/Century were willing to pay rather than a legitimate discovery purpose

3) TCC/FCR/Coalition waited too long. ("The Claimants did not pursue their now moot discovery about Century’s financial condition following their entry into the RSA or in the run-up to the hearing on the RSA. The Coalition’s counsel filed its second letter with the Court on the Friday (July 30) after the RSA motion was to be heard but coincidentally right before the mediation scheduled for the following week."

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7213b4ff-b455-458e-9242-faa14c2c9563_6120.pdf

Item's #1 is really, really ticky tacky: Yes the original discovery demands were in the context of Plan 2.0. They are STILL relevant to Plan 4.0. The TCC/FCR/Coalition can fix this in a split second by simply re-submitting the exact same discovery demand NOW. This is a pure stall.

#2 has a point. It's one thing to ask "What are your current assets?" The way the Coalition phrased it, however, was "Identify the maximum amount that Century can pay for any Century Settlement.” This is basically asking Century and Chubb to admit the liability and how much they are liable for (or to set the maximums at any rate).

#3 is crud. This was and is a fast moving case and the disclosure hearing is coming up fast. It isn't like they waited months.

Oh and you better believe the insurance companies want to keep the focus on Kosnoff. I am telling you, there are better than 50/50 odds that given Kosnoff has now said, in a statement under the penalties of perjury, that his signature was misused to sign claims, the insurance companies will keep Kosnoff as the center of attention at any future hearings.

Of course, Kosnoff will love that.

 

Quote

The Coalition’s founder, Tim Kosnoff, then tweeted the letter to the press quoting from
the unattributed assertions in the letter as fact. The Claimants filed their third letter the day after the Court issued its ruling on the RSA motion, again with further mediation sessions scheduled.

 

Edited August 26, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

14 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

BSA is one of the worst leaders in change management regardless of what side you stand on recent issues, and their poor communication and lack of transparency during the bankruptcy just adds fuel to that fire.  

 

13 hours ago, David CO said:

These local bodies conduct open meetings, and the names of their members are made public.  BSA could do the same.

I don't buy the argument that BSA needs to operate in such secrecy.  

 

13 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Even a list of the committee structure would help. The same thing is missing from my council. Very opaque.

 

12 hours ago, yknot said:

BSA operates like a cult, not like any kind of recognizable corporate entity. It has its own rules and seems to rely on blind discipleship. There are a lot of good people involved but the overall structure itself is a dysfunctional alternate reality.

 

12 hours ago, PACAN said:

Once you realize the LC EBs are lemmings to the SE, a lot of the "top secret management" will become clear.    My B-I-L's EB voted a gentleman back on the EB who had passed away.   "all in favor...say aye" 

This is a compilation of just four of the most recent statements to this effect. Brief as it is, how potent indeed. If I scoured the forum, the thing would be many, many pages long and I would be required to resort to episodic thread divisions using Avengers episode titles. 

From reading these, I don't see how anyone could miss why BSA finds itself in this situation with child sexual abuse in Scouting. "Shhhh. If we don't say anything, no one will know!" Exactly, idiots. Know one knew...BUT YOU!!! This is what results from "poor communication and lack of transparency," "operational secrecy," "opaque" organizational structure, "cult-like" management, "blind discipleship," an "overall structure itself [that] is a dysfunctional alternate reality," and "top secret management." Good grief. Once again, from Patrick Boyle's book:

Edited August 26, 2021 by ThenNow

[DavidLeeLambert]

A potential claimant has made a motion to the court requesting leave to file a claim, notwithstanding the Bar Date.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/08d00d9b-f3d7-4e65-b923-2860ee591eaa_6108.pdf

He says he saw some of the attorney advertisements last fall, but not the part about the Bar Date; and that he was never actually served with any notice of the case by the debtors. (In other words, the noticing program didn't really reach him.) He currently lives in Pennsylvania, but grew up in New Jersey, an "open window" state.

Also, "certain insurers" (American Zurich, etc.) have filed another objection to the Disclosure Statement and Plan, this one with specific suggestions for changing the wording of certain parts of the document.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/eb22d4e3-995d-434b-835d-0b7534508bf7_6062.pdf

They issued policies with "Self-Insured Retentions" (SIRs) for certain years. I guess one of those is even stronger than a deductible: with a deductible, the insurer doesn't pay out the deductible; with an SIR, the insurer doesn't pay out at all unless someone else pays out the SIR first.

And in all years they issued policies with an SIR of at least $1 million; in some years, $2 million or even $4 million. As they explain,

Quote

"These SIR provisions will have a significant impact on the availability of insurance coverage here. The TDPs provide that every type of claim against Debtors has a 'Base Matrix Value' of less than $1 million. Thus, every claim allowed by the Settlement Trust at the Base Matrix Value would not be eligible for coverage under any of the Zurich Policies, even if all underlying coverage is exhausted, because every such claim would fall within the SIRs, which are Debtors’ responsibility to pay. The TDPs also provide that for claims in Tiers 1-3, the Settlement Trustee can, by exercising his discretion to apply certain Scaling Factors, allow claims in amounts exceeding $1 million. Assuming coverage is otherwise available, and [...], any such claim that fell within the policy period of a particular Zurich Policy would be entitled to payment from Zurich only to the extent the allowed claim value exceeded $1 million per occurrence, if the Debtors or the Settlement Trust paid the first $1 million per occurrence of the value of the claim."

They issued policies for the year March 1, 1989, to March 1, 1990, and from March 1, 1996, through March 1, 2007.

The number of cases in those years are...

1989	1105
1990	1125

1996	759
1997	662
1998	635
1999	538
2000	532
2001	369
2002	357
2003	325
2004	241
2005	227
2006	202
2007	171

Assuming that abuse occurred at an even rate during the relevant end-years, that's about 5860 claims covered by Zurich.

Edited August 26, 2021 by DavidLeeLambert
add image

[skeptic]

Once more we are confronted with the conundrum of statistics.  One can select the data one chooses, and then build a case for whatever result is desired in their premise.  And, based on the selected base data, it appears accurate.  Yet, in a broader sample, a different conclusion might be determined, or if the comparisons are not the same categorically, we also find an alternate outcome.  

What IS a reality is that sexual abuse of youth is a universal problem, and one that is viewed in numerous ways in different societies and cultures, now and in the past.  Is Scouting safer than some other youth group?  There appears to be many indicators that would suggest that.  But there are also other data sets that contradict that premise.  We cannot rewrite history, but we CAN and SHOULD use it to reorient our direction.

Instead of beating the horse, which is already in bad shape, we need to help it recover and do all we can to not let it get into that condition again.  Along with this, we need to arrive at as "equitable" and "rational" method of compensating the "verified" abused, understanding and accepting that we cannot fix the trauma, no matter what the monetary salve may be.  It is likely that most of the claimants will not agree on what that monetary figure is, nor will that do much for the emotional issues included in the occurence(s).  Emotional/psychological injuries are not the same as physical ones.  Insurance table often list various physical traumas in their coverage tables; loss of a limb is so much; loss of only part of a limb, so much; and so on.  But they are not able to have concrete amounts for the emotional, and it comes down often to a judge and/or jury.  And those decisions are unlikely to be agreeable to many either.  And, when you are attempting to pass out "blame" beyond the actual perpetrator, where does that end, and who ultimately determines the magnitude of that blame?

I understand that many will accuse me of somehow trying to make excuses, and that is their view.  To me, we are now in the position of the dog chasing its tail.🙄

[InquisitiveScouter]

9 minutes ago, skeptic said:

To me, we are now in the position of the dog chasing its tail.🙄

Never underestimate this as a legal strategy some might take in order to achieve their desired ends...

Insurance companies, in order to pay the minimum they'll have to pay...

BSA, to a much lesser extent, but, still, in order to pay the minimum they'll have to pay...

Kosnoff-ites, in order to bleed BSA into a Chapter 7 situation...

As @David CO points out, "Bankruptcies are about money.  Period."  No matter what else we want this one to be about...

Edited August 26, 2021 by InquisitiveScouter

[MYCVAStory]

11 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Never underestimate this as a legal strategy some might take in order to achieve their desired ends...

I was told by a wide old Sage Bankruptcy Professional at the start of this "In mass tort bankruptcies 90% of the claimants have TWO questions ONLY.  How much will I get and when will I get it?"  Insurers know this.  They live for it.  Their outside attorneys are paid by the hour more in a couple weeks than I'll make all year and that's still a bargain for the insurers compared to settling.  The longer insurers can get claimants to wait the less they'll take to get it over with and the money that sits in the insurers accounts makes more than expenses. .  The shorter they can get claimants to settle they know they'll do it for less money to get it quickly.  It is ALL about Time Value of Money.  The best strategy for claimants is also the hardest.  A well-litigated strategy that takes time and is intended to leverage as much as possible from insurers.  Alas, that doesn't come quickly.  That's why the worst thing you can do with an insurer that owes you money is show your frustration and impatience and the best is smile and make it clear you won't be sold out quickly.  That's also why there are quick payouts for those who don't want to wait.  Unfortunately the insurers live for dragging things out and their attorneys are only happy to do so.  You can't have it both ways. 

[ThenNow]

4 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Unfortunately the insurers live for dragging things out and their attorneys are only happy to do so. 

One of the things I learned through my class action v. Aetna is they have a well-crafted, time-tested, two-deep strategy. The two amigos are Deny and Delay. Rinse. Wash. Repeat. From the point of my initial claim on a 36 session procedure to my ultimate denial on “independent 3rd party review” took about a year. The lawsuit itself took another 3 ish. I was not going away after certifying a class of 1250 similarly situation people, each with a legitimate claim for wrongful denial of coverage for a highly efficacious depression treatment. We got everyone money, even if they never went through with treatment because they couldn’t self fund. So, 4+/- years. That totally sucked, but it was required for them to come to the table and cough it up.

[ThenNow]

52 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Emotional/psychological injuries are not the same as physical ones.  Insurance table often list various physical traumas in their coverage tables; loss of a limb is so much; loss of only part of a limb, so much; and so on.  But they are not able to have concrete amounts for the emotional, and it comes down often to a judge and/or jury. 

I don’t want to argue about the rest of your post, but this is simply inaccurate and untrue. It’s one of the reasons BSA hasn’t, to my knowledge, put all the awards and settlement amounts in plain view. You can see how they’ve assigned value. Emotional distress, pain and suffering and life impacts have been in the injury and damages calculus for many years.

Edited August 26, 2021 by ThenNow

[skeptic]

9 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I don’t want to argue about the rest of your post, but this is simply inaccurate and untrue. It’s one of the reasons BSA hasn’t, to my knowledge, put all the awards and settlement amounts in plain view. You can see how they’ve assigned value. Emotional distress, pain and suffering and life impacts have been in the injury and damages calculus for many years.

They may be there, but on what are they based?  Do you feel that they are valid, or even close to valid?  My point is that it is impossible to make that data fair to all, or even often to some.  Sort of like the insurer with his chart on losing say three fingers.  If the victim is a pianist or other type of digital musician is the payout as fair as for someone that is not?  No, most would agree.  Should we go to the plan of the proverbial farmer that says to the guy that ran over his hen; "you need to pay me for the ten years of eggs she will not lay"?  While the industry may have the "tables", the judge and or jury will often tell them tough luck.  We think it should be this.  

Ultimately, the dog catches its tail and bites it, then yelps because he caught it.  

[CynicalScouter]

7 minutes ago, skeptic said:

They may be there, but on what are they based?  Do you feel that they are valid, or even close to valid?

The point is pain and suffering damages are part of the US tort system going back to the UK/British system we borrowed/copied our legal system from.

To argue now that "you cannot quantify pain, therefore sexual abuse victims get NOTHING" isn't realistic.

Moreover, as part of the RSA, the TCC/FCR/Coalition and BSA are all on record as having agreed to an abuse matrix. I won't post it directly, but suffice to say it is exists and was agreed to by the major parties creditors and debtors.

[ThenNow]

19 minutes ago, skeptic said:

They may be there, but on what are they based?  Do you feel that they are valid, or even close to valid?  My point is that it is impossible to make that data fair to all, or even often to some.  Sort of like the insurer with his chart on losing say three fingers.  If the victim is a pianist or other type of digital musician is the payout as fair as for someone that is not?  No, most would agree.  Should we go to the plan of the proverbial farmer that says to the guy that ran over his hen; "you need to pay me for the ten years of eggs she will not lay"?  While the industry may have the "tables", the judge and or jury will often tell them tough luck.  We think it should be this.  

Yes. I hear you. To start, what all are you putting in the economic damages column for these child sexual abuse cases? I should have asked that first. Thanks.