Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[fred8033]

39 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

Especially when a unit has its own EIN, opens banking and savings accounts with people unrelated to the CO, and has no reporting or auditing done by the CO.

Interesting defense.   Does it prove a separate entity or just further demonstrates a dysfunctional situation.

For years, units would go into banks and an EIN wasn't required.  Then about 15 years ago (??), it became required.  So, bankers would share their computer screen with unit leaders and go to the IRS web site and create a new non-profit to get the EIN .. right at the banker's desk ... and apply for an EIN.  Effectively, opening the check book created a separate independent identity.  So, ownership was unclear. 

Registered BSA leaders were subverting the CO authority.  

Of the units I have led, I know at least three that did that.  The church had zero access to the bank account and the church non-profit status was not directly used.  

Theoretically, the church owned the unit per the charter, but nothing was setup that way.  

Edited September 21, 2021 by fred8033

[SiouxRanger]

37 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

Especially when a unit has its own EIN,

Just an aside (which I may have mentioned before but just to demonstrate the depth of ignorance).

My unit does not have an EIN.  Some years ago, in an effort to avoid paying sales tax of about 10%, I asked the CO for its EIN-a Catholic Parish.

I went around and around over many days' of phone calls with a senior layperson in the Parish.  (Not the Parish Priest who has official authority-I guess it was not important enough to be brought to his attention???).

"What do you want the EIN for?"

"Uh...food, equipment..."

"Well, we wouldn't want the troop to use it for food, camping fees, or for anything for an overnight activity, (you gotta sit down for this...) because the Parish would not want anyone to think the Parish sponsored such activities."

(Have YOU read the Chartering Agreement???)

 

Fine, I said, we will get along without it.

 

 

Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.  --Friedrich von Schiller

 

[SiouxRanger]

10 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

For years, units would go into banks and an EIN wasn't required.

I think that is still the case with my unit. I've been the Troop treasurer for 10 or 15 years now, imposing an actual accounting and record-keeping system that took our Troop from bouncing 2 checks a month to about $4,000 in the bank-all due to collecting camping fees, donations, and fundraising revenues.

I am not sure what EIN is on our account. (I try to keep my scouting volunteer hours to something less than my day job hours.)

I believe it was ThenNow who mentioned that he was famous.

I think Warhol was mistaken. We won't have 15 minutes of fame, but 15 minutes of incarceration-and for scouters, most likely on account of EIN violations. 

[ThenNow]

8 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

I believe it was ThenNow who mentioned that he was famous.

I think Warhol was mistaken. We won't have 15 minutes of fame, but 15 minutes of incarceration-and for scouters, most likely on account of EIN violations. 

Hey, now. Don’t be dragging me down into your mud wrestling EIN racketeering scheme! (I’ve had way more than 15 minutes of incarceration on top of my fame and misfortune, by the by.)

[MattR]

16 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Just an aside (which I may have mentioned before but just to demonstrate the depth of ignorance).

Sounds the same as our situation. We asked for the ein number and was told we can't use it because we're not part of the church. We were always told that we were lucky because we are the first outside group to get the service we have. 

I want to push for them to use the facility use charter. My guess is the committee will squash that idea.

[BadChannel70]

I have been following this thread and others similar to it for some time. Let me tell you "some" of my story...

1. My perpetrator is in the BSA IV Files and was barred from BSA.
2. There are multiple victims (not including myself) spread amongst multiple BSA troops.
3. My CO, LC and BSA were aware of the "propensity" of my perpetrator to victimize young boys but each turned a blind which is why # 1 & 2  above conditions exist.
4. Law enforcement got involved 2 decades ago. Hopefully, in the near future when I am in state court (NO SOL), the judge will explore why my CO and LC did not disclose material information (i.e. IV File) regarding my perpetrator to the exploitation of children police task force assigned to that case at that time. 
5. My sexual abuse lasted years as other victims.
6. Our perpetrator was not only our scout master but a full-time teacher at our CO.
7. I "was" a member of the Coalition but recently terminated my relationship with them. I am not going to watch them ride off into the sunset with a $10 million plus payout while survivors like myself are sold off for cheap scrap metal under this 5.0 amended plan.
8. My LC is not even contributing 10% of its available resources. Divided evenly amongst all claimants for my particular LC, we are talking barely $4k/survivor. And this is before before attorney fees. 
9. On top of #8, the proposed TDP will mitigate my claim valuation because my perpetrator had access to me outside of scouting. Adding insult to injury is a huge understatement here. 
10. I will be voting "NO" on the current 5.0 plan unless vast changes are made to it. I am not going to reward my CO, LC or BSA for their self-serving behavior based on my past experiences and current encounters with them in this BK.
11. The current Plain English summary is a farce. Reminds me of a peddler trying to scam people into purchasing some cure all snake-oil. Funny how they don't mention one word about the active appeal filed by the US Trustee/DOJ over the Purdue Pharma releases. Aren't we supposed to be made aware of risk factors???And that is just for starters...
12. If you are survivor and your abuse occurred in a state without SOL, then I HIGHLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE NO on the current 5.0 railroad job. And if you are a survivor in a time barred state, then I encourage you to see how little your LC is contributing and maybe even your CO.
13. My CO is MIA....shocking! No, not really that is par for the course for them.

 We may lose this battle but I can assuredly tell you I will go down swinging. And my story will be told both in public and in the courtroom.

 

 

[qwazse]

@BadChannel70, welcome to the forums.

All this site can offer is a place for you to hash things out. But, I hope it helps in the healing, and makes all the wiser those of us who were fortunate to avoid such malefactors in our childhood.

[1980Scouter]

Has anyone else heard BSA recruiting ads on their local radio? This past week I have heard some. I know they said after bankruptcy they were going to do an ad campaign to get membership back up.

 

[CynicalScouter]

Kosnoff: Plan 5.0 is "worst most appalling treatment of abuse victims ever." Victims get "less than 5000."

First, I think his point is that given that 5.0 releases LDS and so many others (Hartford, COs after 1976, LCs, and of course BSA) for what amounts to $2 billion that it is "appalling".

Second, the "less than 5000". I am not sure what his math is, but I have a guess.

$787 million from Hartford (but that may ONLY go to those claimants covered by a Hartford policy, not all 82,500)
$250 million from LDS (but that may ONLY go to those claimants abused by LDS leaders/in LDS units)
$600 million from LCs (but that may be broken down by LC?)
$250 million from BSA (but that includes $90 million in cash that BSA says may be gone by 1Q 2021)

For a total of $1.887 billion divided (perhaps) across 82,500 claims = $22,872

So, I am trying to figure out where he is getting "less than 5000"

82500*5000 = $412.5 million

LC ($600 M) + BSA ($250 M)/82500 = 850,000,000/82500 = $10303 - 40% attorneys fees (this is a guess) still gets above $5000 ($6181)

BSA alone = $250 million /82500 = $3030.

So, it looks like Kosnoff's "most victims get...less than 5000" refers to the BSA contribution.

There's a second possibility and that is he's acknowledging the reality that the settlement trustee in in fact going to take into consideration statutes of limitations and therefore NOT pay out 100% on claims from states where such statutes of limitation exist.

Also, as I've pointed out before: even total liquidation of BSA doesn't get victims that much more.

Let's pretend a second that BSA liquidates and (through some magic) has NO liabilities other than paying out to the victims. Again, that is PURE fantasy as there are other claimants and creditors out there, but let's just use Kosnoff Magic (tm).

All $1 billion (or so) of BSA National assets are instantly made available to all victims (again, notwithstanding statutes of limitations, whether the claim is valid, etc.)

$1 billion/82500 = $12,121.

 

[CynicalScouter]

This gets back to Kosnoff's Fantasy that all 82,500 victims can go back to state court tomorrow and sue, sue, sue.

As noted, over 50,000 claims are time barred. So no Mr. Kosnoff, you are simply wrong.

So this "let's go back to state court" idea may sound and work great for SOME claimants, but for the vast majority, not so much.

This simply borders on what I've described before as magical or wishful thinking. Kosnoff's never, ever provided a LEGAL argument for why 50,000+ statutes of limitation suddenly disappear overnight.

 

Edited September 25, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Muttsy]

If Mr K is so low in your opinion, why would he oppose the Coalition/BSA Plan where he would stand to make tens of millions of dollars? He has a substantial contingent fee interest in 17000 clients. 
 

Is your devotion to the BSA so extreme that it clouds your perspective of reality?

Have you bothered to study his record? If not, you have no integrity to accuse him the way you have, Mr Boy Scout Skeptic  

 

 

[CynicalScouter]

57 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

If Mr K is so low in your opinion, why would he oppose the Coalition/BSA Plan where he would stand to make tens of millions of dollars?

Because in the end he's not interested in what in monetarily in the best interest of his clients OR himself. He simply wants BSA dead. He is allowing his ideological/vendetta to kill BSA at all costs to override the best-interest-of-clients.

Again, and again, and again, he's playing the Pied Piper to victims: just reject the plan and he can magically get all 50,000 statutes of limitations lifted and billions of dollars. Of course, he's never specified the legal theory behind any of this. He's offered nothing.

The TCC at least is offering a path, or at least the 6-7 specific points of a path (details TBD).

The Coalition/BSA/FCR plan offers a path. Agree, disagree, but it is a path.

[MattR]

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

Have you bothered to study his record? If not, you have no integrity to accuse him the way you have, Mr Boy Scout Skeptic

Touched a nerve I see. Is "you have no integrity to accuse him the way you have, Mr Boy Scout Skeptic" supposed to be an insult? Either way, if you want to defend Mr Kosnoff and explain why he doesn't want to burn the BSA to the ground then enlighten us, but insulting forum members isn't helping.

[Sentinel947]

10 hours ago, Muttsy said:

If Mr K is so low in your opinion, why would he oppose the Coalition/BSA Plan where he would stand to make tens of millions of dollars? He has a substantial contingent fee interest in 17000 clients. 
 

Is your devotion to the BSA so extreme that it clouds your perspective of reality?

Have you bothered to study his record? If not, you have no integrity to accuse him the way you have, Mr Boy Scout Skeptic  

 

 

Have you studied @CynicalScouters record? He's been largely critical of the BSA and on the side of the CSA victims. His legal analysis is typically accurate. At one point he was Mr. Kosnoffs favorite poster when He was reading our little website. 

Unless you've forgotten, this is a Scouting forum and the BSA in the Chapter 11 process. Most of the Scouters here would like to see the BSA survive and the victims compensated to the extent possible. If you can't stomach that position, perhaps you shouldn't be here in a Scout leaders forum. 

 

Edited September 26, 2021 by Sentinel947

[CynicalScouter]

51 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

He's been largely critical of the BSA and on the side of the CSA victims. His legal analysis is typically accurate. At one point he was Mr. Kosnoffs favorite poster when He was reading our little website. 

Right, and I want to be absolutely clear: I've said before and I'll repeat that I want CSA victims to be compensated as much as the law allows, but that is the key. As much as the law allows.

Please note that I have never, ever objected to or opposed those CSA victims that have said they either a) want BSA destroyed or b) don't care if BSA gets destroyed in the process. I'm not going to judge their emotions and feelings. They have every right to feel that way. I'll never argue against that sentiment.

But what I have asked, and in particular @Muttsy , is what is the legal path they think exists here? To put it back in the bankruptcy context a second, the Kosnoff Magic Plan is that somehow 100% of victims will receive 100% of claim values and the means to achieve this area

• Option 1: The bankruptcy judge is going to by magic waive or eliminate 50,000 statutes of limitations and allow those cases to proceed against insurance companies. What is the legal basis for this? Magic and wishful thinking.
• Option 2: The BSA falls apart or BSA is liquidated. All those 50,000 claims go back to state court and the statutes of limitation go away. Again, that may happen in SOME states for SOME claims, but not for all 50,000 claims. You still wind up with claimants walking away with $0.
• Option 3: The 20-30,000 existing NON-timed-barred claims will convert into actual lawsuits and suddenly result in the insurance companies agreeing to pay out on all 82,500. Not all will. Right now those 20-30,000 claims could turn into lawsuits RIGHT NOW. Instead, only around 1300 have. When I did the math on payouts, I showed that the insurers will simply pay out around $1-2 billion in settlements on those 1300 and that's the end of it.

So, you can have:

• 100% of claimants get SOMETHING. It may be a pittance, but SOMETHING.
• 2-5% of claimants get settlement claims (non-statute of limitation states) and the rest get 0%

But Kosnoff's Magic Plan will convince victims, and has as I see on his twitter feed, that there's a magic way for 100% of victims to receive 100% of claim values. There simply is not.

 

Edited September 26, 2021 by CynicalScouter