Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

Let's let the forum member respond.  I think there is enough room for many views regarding this topic.  

I agree. There's plenty of room between "nothing" and "not much" to pick a number from.

[skeptic]

10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I agree. There's plenty of room between "nothing" and "not much" to pick a number from.

Must be alot of great brownies available to some posting here.  The snide inuendos is not missed by anyone, but that has become the norm with a few now.  Not worth even trying to actually having balance and overall fairness with a few.  So, since the suggestion is that I do not care about the victims (though I do, but with vetting)I might suggest that some do not care about the youth of today's program.  That is surely not the case, but the outlandish settlement figures do not validate that.  Have fun with your pointed tongue.

 

[johnsch322]

15 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Let's let the forum member respond.  I think there is enough room for many views regarding this topic.  

I agree. I will wait for a response and I hope it is not the old cliche of “there is not enough money to make claimants happy”. I find that type of response to be insulting and demeaning. 

[johnsch322]

2 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Must be alot of great brownies available to some posting here.  The snide inuendos is not missed by anyone, but that has become the norm with a few now.  Not worth even trying to actually having balance and overall fairness with a few.  So, since the suggestion is that I do not care about the victims (though I do, but with vetting)I might suggest that some do not care about the youth of today's program.  That is surely not the case, but the outlandish settlement figures do not validate that.  Have fun with your pointed tongue.

 

I am sorry but I find that to be a terrible response to a pointed question. I will try to  ask again in a different way. 
I am a tier one victim and my abuse occurred in an open state with aggravating factors. My abuse has been vetted by a psychiatrist and I am currently in therapy and on Prozac.  How much do you think would be a fair amount for me? 
Please do not beat around the bush and give me your honest opinion. 

[CynicalScouter]

11 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Not worth even trying to actually having balance and overall fairness with a few.

EDIT: I retract my question: @skeptic answer this one instead, if you can or would that be "pure insanity"?

https://www.scouter.com/topic/32769-bankruptcy-everything-but-the-legalese/?do=findComment&comment=534113

4 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I am a tier one victim and my abuse occurred in an open state with aggravating factors. My abuse has been vetted by a psychiatrist and I am currently in therapy and on Prozac.  How much do you think would be a fair amount for me? 
Please do not beat around the bush and give me your honest opinion. 

Edited October 7, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[skeptic]

2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I am sorry but I find that to be a terrible response to a pointed question. I will try to  ask again in a different way. 
I am a tier one victim and my abuse occurred in an open state with aggravating factors. My abuse has been vetted by a psychiatrist and I am currently in therapy and on Prozac.  How much do you think would be a fair amount for me? 
Please do not beat around the bush and give me your honest opinion. 

Enough to cover your therapy and creat a tangible and stable investment to allow comfort financially without avarice and living above others in moderate middle income families or individuals in the U.S.  Added to that, an honest effort by authorities to punish properly the actual perpetrator if still alive, without punishing his descendents unless they could be proven to be involved beyond familial blindness.  Monetarily, a half million dollars invested properly will offer a good return indefinitely.  Especially if the cost of therapy is not coming out of your pocket or those earnings.  I do not even suggest that this would make you whole, as even a billion dollars will not do that.  At the same time, unless each of you can find a way to hold others in the larger tragedy of poor judgements or CYA, including possibly family, authorities, and maybe even therapists and octors responsible similarly, then you (not you specifically) might be viewed as vindictive with no peripheral considerations.  

It will never be "fair", to you, the victims, or to those tangentially affected by others' poor judgements or CYA decisions.  Pure vengeance and avarice at the detriment of others not responsible is not anymore "fair" than just ignoring the whole thing.  As I noted befoe, "Lady Justice" carrys a scale for a reason.  

[CynicalScouter]

18 minutes ago, skeptic said:

allow comfort financially without avarice and living above others in moderate middle income families or individuals in the U.S. 

I'm sorry, but your definition of how to compensate for pain and suffering is based NOT on the person's pain and suffering but on median household income? Wha?

18 minutes ago, skeptic said:

At the same time, unless each of you can find a way to hold others in the larger tragedy of poor judgements or CYA, including possibly family, authorities, and maybe even therapists and doctors responsible similarly, then you (not you specifically) might be viewed as vindictive with no peripheral considerations.  

So a victim can only receive compensation if he demonstrates to YOUR satisfaction that he is actively seeking out others to sue?

Sorry, this makes me sick to my stomach. These are VICTIMS. They don't have to prove a THING to your satisfaction about seeking out others. How absolutely arrogant to suggest they have to.

Edited October 7, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[johnsch322]

19 minutes ago, skeptic said:

a half million dollars

Ok a half million dollars to me would require a $665,000 award (my lawyers would get 33.3%).  That is a hell of a lot more than 57K which is on the table right now.  My personal feeling is that I should receive 1.5 to 2M and out of that would come my lawyers cut.  If I was in state court the 2M might be on the low side. So you see there is an amount that I would be content with and there is an amount beyond what the BSA is offering that you think is fair.  So now please go to whomever you know within the BSA and ask for claimants to get a fair settlement.

Edited October 7, 2021 by johnsch322

[CynicalScouter]

6 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Ok a half million dollars to me would require a $665,000 award (my lawyers would get 33.3%).  That is a hell of a lot more than 57K which is on the table right now.

And the MINIMUM base payouts estimated by both BSA and the TCC ($600,000).

He's at or near lowballing BSA's low ball.

Edited October 7, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[DuctTape]

The difficulty here (at least one difficulty) is that this is a bankruptcy case too. While the victims deserve compensation, and while most of us would agree that numbers currently being floated are not nearly enough nor could they ever, this is a bankruptcy case. This point cannot be lost. It really really sucks that the major debtors are CSA victims and they will not recieve just compensation like most (all?) debtors in bankruptcy cases. It really really sucks that even with complete liquidation the victims will recieve significantly less than what they deserve. Perhaps the victims groups (I apologize for not understanding the TCC and other names), should settle with the BSA and then go after the insurance companies separately?  WDIK.

[vol_scouter]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Now. you may also think $22 billion - $102 billion is also "pure insanity". I also happen to think BSA's attitude and demeanor, the horrific way it has treated a) these boys as boys and b) these men as victims has been "pure insanity". So, there.

So when claimants attorneys make demands, no matter how large (far beyond the value of the BSA and LCs), they are praised on this forum.  When the BSA lawyers do something favorable to the BSA, the BSA - not its lawyers - is castigated.  When people criticize the claimant lawyers, they are censored, but, when they slam the slam the BSA for what the lawyers are doing, that is fine.  Let us all be fair to all concerned.  The proceedings are by attorneys representing what they feel are the best interests of their clients.  The results of these proceedings will affect all of us and none of us will be winners but will all be losers.  The victims have suffered from the actions of years ago and due to it being drudged up again.  Volunteers will be repairing the damage from the proceedings for decades to come.  Let us all be Courteous and Kind to all concerned.

[johnsch322]

2 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

The difficulty here (at least one difficulty) is that this is a bankruptcy case too. While the victims deserve compensation, and while most of us would agree that numbers currently being floated are not nearly enough nor could they ever, this is a bankruptcy case. This point cannot be lost. It really really sucks that the major debtors are CSA victims and they will not recieve just compensation like most (all?) debtors in bankruptcy cases. It really really sucks that even with complete liquidation the victims will recieve significantly less than what they deserve. Perhaps the victims groups (I apologize for not understanding the TCC and other names), should settle with the BSA and then go after the insurance companies separately?  WDIK.

And in reality that is my position.  If the BSA national cannot put together and adequate compensation package do the toggle plan (BSA exits alone) and let us go after LC's CO's and insurance company's in state court.

[vol_scouter]

Just now, johnsch322 said:

And in reality that is my position.  If the BSA national cannot put together and adequate compensation package do the toggle plan (BSA exits alone) and let us go after LC's CO's and insurance company's in state court.

But the LCs cannot either.  

[johnsch322]

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And the MINIMUM base payouts estimated by both BSA and the TCC ($600,000).

But they are offering 57K.

Just now, vol_scouter said:

But the LCs cannot either.  

But they can do a lot better.

[HelpfulTracks]

2 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

In my opinion BSA National should exit bankruptcy on their own and let everyone else defend themselves.

 

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

Survivors can do better. There is a path. But BSA has to be gone first whether toggle or 7. 

 

1 hour ago, 1980Scouter said:

Fair is LC contribution close to all endowments.  Start from scratch with limited camps. 

First, I don't know enough about "Toggle Plan" is without doing a lot more research than I have time for now. 

Second, what is in the interest of current and future scouts is included in my concept of fair. This was not a problem they created.

Third, something that can be achieved. Some number I have seen could not be reached if every single asset and restricted fund the BSA has liquidated. 

Forth, I am no lawyer, so my opinion relies on a laymen understanding.

@johnsch322 I am not sure how that would be fair for anyone unless the primary, and maybe only, goal would be to kill BSA. If BSA went it alone then the total victims gets with Ch11 is likely not much different. And though, I have not seen their balance sheets in sometime if they went Ch7, I doubt much would be left after secured creditors carved it up.

That would leave the insurance companies, 250 councils, and thousands to CO's for victims to try and deal with. 

You could toss out some portion of the victims claims because of SOL. 

You could toss out some portion of the victims claims because law firms would see them as un-winable and refuse to take them. 

And still more because some cases will be enough risk that few if any law firms will take them on a contingency.

That scenario would likely produce a fair outcome for a handful of victims, but I  think it would leave many (most/vast majority maybe) exactly where they were when this started. For some maybe worse, because they have pain spotlighted.

@Muttsy maybe I am misreading what you mean, but it sounds like the dissolution of BSA is required for you to see it as fair. Please correct me if I am not reading this correctly. 

@1980Scouter Maybe you are correct, it would be hard for me to agree or disagree without more info. My understanding is part of what a council is asked to pay is based on the number, time frame and severity of the the abuse. Which appears to pretty well define in the the documents. As for the ability to pay, I would like to know more about the assets, liabilities, cash flow and restricted funds before pointing to a council and saying they can do more. 

I do know, the few council balance sheets I have seen, the return from endowments is not nearly enough to run a council. 

 

Maybe FAIR is not a standard that can be achieved for victims, regardless of what BSA pays, even it that is everything it has.