Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[MYCVAStory]

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

Then what are they worrying about. They’ll do just fine in state court, right?

What about victims?  What about all of those who will bankrupt their LCs or have NO path forward.  What happens when those in line first exhaust the insurance?

[CynicalScouter]

6 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

The BSA called up Stang and several attorneys pre-bankruptcy to see if any agreement could be reached.  He was paid esentially as a mediator and someone with the kind of experience to make realistic what the BSA would be facing.

And BSA disclosed that in the initial petition; they tried to have discussions in November 2019 and they quickly failed.

[MYCVAStory]

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

The objection was fine and it got some of what it wanted but please don’t conflate a nation-wide noticing campaign intended to protect BSA with justice for survivors in non-window states that you apparently agree should be thrown under the bus. 

Protect the BSA or make sure EVERY victim knows this is the time to file a claim?

[CynicalScouter]

40 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Protect the BSA or make sure EVERY victim knows this is the time to file a claim?

Given the nature of the pleadings, it appears the TCC and Stang were not part of some BSA conspiracy but instead, as is standard in ALL bankruptcies, BSA was required to give notice to ALL possible claimants.

So, on this BSA-TCC-Stang conspiracy theory, I decided to take a look at the exact language used in a) BSA"s initial request and b) the judge's order.

Initial request: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/799485_18.pdf

Judge's order: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/820848_695.pdf

First, note that the BSA NEVER specified in it is original request whether the solicitation was national or state by state. Yet the claim was BSA and Stang had "pillow talk" and already agreed to this. How odd that it never showed in the BSA proposal.

2) The judge's final order included the following language.

Quote

7. The Debtors shall use commercially reasonable efforts to publish the Abuse Claims Publication Notice, in substantially the form attached to this Order as Exhibit 3 (allowing reasonable time for administrative and logistical issues), in accordance with the Supplemental Notice Plan and with any necessary modifications for ease of publication.

22. The Debtors shall use commercially reasonable efforts, with the assistance of the Claims and Noticing Agent, to publish notice of the General Bar Date, with any necessary  modifications for ease of publication, once in the national editions of The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and The New York Times.

and this

Quote

Any Sexual Abuse Survivor who believes that she or he has a Sexual Abuse Claim, including but not limited to Sexual Abuse Survivors who  have  previously  filed  lawsuits  or  asserted  claims  against  the Debtors and/or  the  Debtors  and  a  Local  Council  or  chartered organization, Sexual  Abuse  Survivors  who  have  called  the  Scouts First  Hotline  or  otherwise  reported  a  claim  of  Sexual  Abuse,  and Sexual Abuse Survivors who have never filed a lawsuit, asserted a claim against the Debtors, entered into a settlement, or reported their abuse, must submit the applicable Sexual Abuse Survivor Proof of Claim Form. For the avoidance of doubt, even if the Sexual Abuse Claim is time-barred under an applicable statute of limitations, each Sexual Abuse Survivor is required to file a Sexual Abuse Survivor Proof  of  Claim  in  order  to  preserve  the  right  to  pursue  a  Sexual Abuse Claim, or such Sexual Abuse Survivor who fails to timely file a Sexual  Abuse  Survivor  Proof  of  Claim  shall  not  be  treated  as  a creditor with respect to such claim for the purposes of voting and distribution.

I believe it is clear the purpose was not to somehow be part of some grand BSA-Stang-TCC conspiracy but was instead to give ALL possible claimants notice across the nation and that, REGARDLESS of statutes of limitations to at least get the claims in FIRST and then sort of the SoL issues later. Later, of course, being now.

Edited August 29, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagle94-A1]

I am not a lawyer,  but wouldn't  this section of the judge's order

 

For the avoidance of doubt, even if the Sexual Abuse Claim is time-barred under an applicable statute of limitations, each Sexual Abuse Survivor is required to file a Sexual Abuse Survivor Proof  of  Claim  in  order  to  preserve  the  right  to  pursue  a  Sexual Abuse Claim, or such Sexual Abuse Survivor who fails to timely file a Sexual  Abuse  Survivor  Proof  of  Claim  shall  not  be  treated  as  a creditor with respect to such claim for the purposes of voting and distribution.

 

give those who did file a POC in a SOL barred state the opportunity to press their claim IF the SOL is removed or expanded?  So if Victim A is POC is barred in State 1 and filed their POC before the deadline and the SOL is lifted, then the money comes from the Future Claims Committee?

[CynicalScouter]

5 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

So if Victim A is POC is barred in State 1 and filed their POC before the deadline and the SOL is lifted, then the money comes from the Future Claims Committee?

There's a provision in the RSA that says the person would go back to the Settlement Trustee instead and get money from the Settlement trust.

[Muttsy]

3 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

So if Victim A is POC is barred in State 1 and filed their POC before the deadline and the SOL is lifted, then the money comes from the Future Claims Committee?

No. That claimant is not classified as a future claimant. He’s a claimant who will lose his legal rights forever even if his abuse state opens a window one day after BSA gets its discharge. 
 

Heads BSA wins, tails you lose. Everyone knows these claimants have no reason to support a plan like that so the lawyers offered 3500 bucks to shut up and go away. That still won’t cut it, so they want to take away their vote. 

[Muttsy]

38 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I believe it is clear the purpose was not to somehow be part of some grand BSA-Stang-TCC conspiracy but was instead to give ALL possible claimants notice across the nation and that, REGARDLESS of statutes of limitations to at least get the claims in FIRST and then sort of the SoL issues later. Later, of course, being now.

Why was it necessary to seek a nationwide discharge? Who did that benefit? 
 

Notice of what? We intend to pay you nothing and extinguish your legal rights forever. But come forward and disclose your most painful memories and be retraumatized? 
 

You keep using the word conspiracy not me. A conspiracy is simply an agreement to do something unlawful or something lawful by unlawful means. This was not a conspiracy but it was an agreement the effect of which leaves 50,000 victims out in the cold. 
 

Sort out SOL issues later like now? How’s that working out?

[Muttsy]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

So, do you believe $155,000 per victim is "fair"?

No I don’t but there is no amount of money that can compensate these men. In the real world plaintiffs rarely if ever get 100%. CS, you keep switching back and forth it like watching a tennis match. You chide me for making the moral case and demand that I give you the LEGAL case. When I give you the LEGAL case of a consensual settlement including the carriers you switch back to the moral case of fairness. 
 

You asked me a legal question and I gave you the LEGAL answer.  The only way for BSA to escape this cockroach motel is for the parties to get a number with the carriers that is achievable.  Fair? No. Possible? Maybe. 

[CynicalScouter]

15 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

but it was an agreement the effect of which leaves 50,000 victims out in the cold. 

Again: your evidence of such an agreement between Stang and BSA is… what?

And of course it was nationwide. That is how bankruptcy works. I’ve never heard of a bankruptcy that only applies in some states but not others or discharges claims from some states but not others.

and once again I would point out that it was the judge who directed nationwide distribution. The original BSA filing (the supposed Stang-BSA “agreement”) was silent on the issue.

According to you this was part of the original BSA proposal (it want) that was unobjected to (5 different groups including the TCC opposed BSA’s original plan)

and still again no proof of a BSA-Stang agreement. Put up your proof.

 

[Eagle1970]

2 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

I do not know how I feel about scouting continuing.  It was a very good program for me in my time, but I feel like I did not have any knowledge of all the horrors going on. 

As many posters have said home life in the past was not great. Mine was no different, not so great. Scouting was a fun time most of the time. I feel like the BSA needs to shut down and reboot maybe in the future. They are going to lose most of their assets in this proceeding. 

Scouting now is more about large paid staffs on councils. Maybe rebooting can get back to the roots of very few employees and focusing on Scout values and camping, not fund raising.

I share your concerns.  A recent news article addressed the arrest of an adult who was capturing hidden video and involved in abuse as recently as last month,  AT THE VERY CAMP where my abuse occurred over 50 years ago and set in motion a lot of trauma in my life.  The reality that these children will suffer for years to come from the events that occurred THIS summer leads me to believe that even with the improvements in procedures, parents and children simply cannot be assured protection by the BSA.

[Muttsy]

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And of course it was nationwide. That is how bankruptcy works. I’ve never heard of a bankruptcy that only applies in some states but not others or discharges claims from some states but not others.

Who says it has to be nation-wide? If people from closed states have no right to compensation, then they can’t be creditors. Their claim is worth zero, right? So then why do you need a discharge order that applies to them? 
 

If down the road more states pass windows and claims mount, you go back in to another Ch 11. Happened all the time in asbestos. 

[Eagle1970]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Toss in what BSA and the LCs will bring ($850 million / 82,500 claims = $10,303) and victims, on average, will get just over $155,000 each.

And that is IF you can convince the insurers to pay out on claims they have no legal obligation to pay out on because of insurance caps and limits.

So, do you believe $155,000 per victim is "fair"?

You want to know what I believe would be fair???  How about this:  BSA compensates ALL abuse victims without regard to SOL.  AND, should they be unable to accomplish that within legal framework let's see them reach out to EVERY State Legislature and ask them to offer a window.  THAT is what they should do if they really cared.

 

[David CO]

26 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

parents and children simply cannot be assured protection by the BSA.

Or by anybody else.  

It is up to the parents and children to decide what constitutes an acceptable risk and plan their activities accordingly.  

[Eagle1970]

Just now, David CO said:

Or by anybody else.  

It is up to the parents and children to decide what constitutes an acceptable risk and plan their activities accordingly.  

Fair enough.  Put disclosures to parents in all promotional material to inform them of the risk of abuse, because many really don't know.  My parents did not or I'm sure my mom would have steered me away from BSA.