Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[skeptic]

Yes, most of the suggested payouts are accurate based on info we have seen.  BUT, the main gist of the story is that LC's and others are not putting in as much as they can or should.  And that is simply not accurate, other than if they were to liquidate.  Of course, that would make Mr. K happy, as we already know.  

Still, I am properly chastised that I suggest his right to "free speech" should be restrained, and that is not corret.  Though his free speech tends to be a lot misleading and maybe even a little fuzzy.

He got what he wanted though, so he should be pleased, no matter how misleading much of it is.  Just don't expect me, or perhaps others, to not find it to be tainted.

[Eagle1993]

19 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Yes, most of the suggested payouts are accurate based on info we have seen.  BUT, the main gist of the story is that LC's and others are not putting in as much as they can or should.  And that is simply not accurate, other than if they were to liquidate.  Of course, that would make Mr. K happy, as we already know.  

Still, I am properly chastised that I suggest his right to "free speech" should be restrained, and that is not corret.  Though his free speech tends to be a lot misleading and maybe even a little fuzzy.

He got what he wanted though, so he should be pleased, no matter how misleading much of it is.  Just don't expect me, or perhaps others, to not find it to be tainted.

I understand your point and it is valid, but the failure is on the LCs.  
 

I actually don’t have an issue with Kosnoff in these articles.  

My issue is why did the LCs refuse to comment?  The Seattle times reached out.  That would have been a great opportunity to say look what we do for kids today and any further payment would severely hurt our ability to function.  No comment allows articles to be one sided.   BSA better have their LC PR groups better prepared in the future. 
 

Below was in the Times article 

The Chief Seattle Council, Pacific Harbors Council and Mount Baker Council did not return interview requests.

 

Edited October 6, 2021 by Eagle1993

[CynicalScouter]

53 minutes ago, skeptic said:

BUT, the main gist of the story is that LC's and others are not putting in as much as they can or should.  And that is simply not accurate, other than if they were to liquidate.

That’s your opinion.

The TCC has a far different opinion.

this is why we have a first amendment: Kosnoff is protected in expressing his opinion the LCs are not paying enough.

and based on that you think a federal judge should order him gagged for “half truths”.

you may disagree with his opinion  on the financial situation of councils but it’s just that: his opinion versus yours.

And no federal judge is it about to order him into silence

[CynicalScouter]

57 minutes ago, skeptic said:

matter how misleading much of it is. 

What specifically is misleading?  What is factually inaccurate? Not a difference of opinion: factually inaccurate?

Edited October 6, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[johnsch322]

2 hours ago, skeptic said:

BUT, the main gist of the story is that LC's and others are not putting in as much as they can or should.  And that is simply not accurate, other than if they were to liquidate.

And where are you getting your information from to be able to state that "other than if they were to liquidate"?  Los Padres council has 17 million in assets and offering up 1.7M and so you say any more than that they have to liquidate?  They could not continue to operate if they offered up 5.1M or 25% of their assets?

[HelpfulTracks]

4 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I believe it is a First Amendment Right called free speech.  It should still taught in school classrooms.

I am not a lawyer, don't play one on tv and didn't spend the night in a Holiday Inn last night, but my understanding is a judge has the right and power to issue and enforce gag orders on participants in cases. The participants do not enjoy the same protection of free speech they generally have. I'm not saying the judge has or even should, but the judge can from what I understand. 

[johnsch322]

46 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I am not a lawyer, don't play one on tv and didn't spend the night in a Holiday Inn last night, but my understanding is a judge has the right and power to issue and enforce gag orders on participants in cases. The participants do not enjoy the same protection of free speech they generally have. I'm not saying the judge has or even should, but the judge can from what I understand. 

If I am not mistaken (legal minds please let me know) the judge would have to put a gag order on all the lawyers not just one. 

[ThenNow]

59 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I am not a lawyer, don't play one on tv and didn't spend the night in a Holiday Inn last night, but my understanding is a judge has the right and power to issue and enforce gag orders on participants in cases. The participants do not enjoy the same protection of free speech they generally have. I'm not saying the judge has or even should, but the judge can from what I understand. 

No:

1. There is no jury pool to influence or infect;

2. The gag would have to be universal, as all main players discuss elements of the case outside the courtroom and you don’t direct an order at one party; and

3. Tim Kosnoff is doing absolutely nothing that the BSA, Coalition, LCs and insurers aren’t already doing in spades. Namely, those parties are way down the line in speculating on the case and manipulating “facts” trying to move the needle in the direction of their respective positions. Schiavoni says Century will be bled dry. Anker says he welcomes going back to state court. (Really?) BSA says they’re out of money and these are all the assets we have. (BRG Dashboards, anyone?) LCs are going under. (What’s the average percentage of assets contribution, again?) The Coalition says they’re part of the TCC, Jim Stang is a liar, the TCC has no plan to assist victim claimants and they refuse to make deals where deals can be made. It’s a mess and those parties have cleared the path. Also, I think TK is saying what he believes and is acting in the best interests of his clients, per his perception. 

Edited October 7, 2021 by ThenNow

[SiouxRanger]

14 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

And that same Congressional statute says Boy Scouts of America is "perpetual"

I've never seen Articles Of Incorporation which did not provide that the corporation was "perpetual."  Likely, they all are.  My state has statutes providing for the voluntary dissolution of a corporation, (and the involuntary dissolution, for that matter, in the event that the corporation fails to pay annual corporate fees, and such-but not likely a BSA issue.)

 

Seems to me there are only 3 likely scenarios regarding BSA intellectual property::

 

1.  BSA keeps all its intellectual property, having no right to sell it, or for the bankruptcy court to dispose of it due to some provision or interpretation of the statute you cite, or its Federal Charter.  This option leaves open the possibility that BSA continues as a corporation, owning its intellectual property, but without a cent to afford even a custodian.  In this scenario, BSA is a hollow shelll with no on-going operations.  BSA, in this scenario, does not have the financial strength to operate, and Congress does not want it back.  Some group might come along and rescue the Movement.  This seems to be the least likely scenario.

2.  BSA's intellectual property reverts in some fashion to Congress.  Surely, Congress can revoke BSA's Federal Charter.  Congress can't pass a law it cannot amend or revoke.  In this case, Congress could control to whom the intellectual property was granted as a successor to BSA.  I cannot think of any analogous procedure in my state.  The assets of dissolved corporations do not revert to the state.  But perhaps, BSA would be different due to its Federal Charter.  The situation presumes that Congress would have to find some entity willing to fund a new startup BSA and then transfer the idle intellectual property to the startup..  

3.  BSA's intellectual property remains assets owned by and controlled by BSA, subject to sale (or pledge as collateral) by BSA, and subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.  A Chapter 7 liquidation would put these assets on the auction block. In this scenario, BSA is treated like a typical state chartered not-for-profit corporation.  

 

BSA's entitlement to exclusive use of its intellectual property appears to me to be nothing more than a "super trademark."  I don't see how it adds much, in that trademark holders are also entitled to exclusive use.  Though, normal trademark holders have to "defend" their trademarks (so that their trademarks don't become "generic" and thereby in the public domain where anyone can use them) to continue to be entitled to exclusive use. " Yellow Book" is a trademark that lost its status.  So, the "exclusive use" provision may mean that BSA need not defend its trademarks to prevent them from losing their trademark status and becoming generic.

 

I would also note that BSA National has many aspects of a franchisor-and appears to be licensing its intellectual property to its franchisees-the local councils.  Which councils are separately state chartered not-for-profit corporations, which themselves are chartered (franchise agreement?) by BSA National.

 

As with so many aspects of National's business model and relationships with other legal entities, things are very fuzzy.

[HelpfulTracks]

39 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

No:

1. There is no jury pool to influence or infect;

2. The gag would have to be universal, as all main players discuss elements of the case outside the courtroom and you don’t direct an order at one party; and

3. Tim Kosnoff is doing absolutely nothing that the BSA, Coalition, LCs and insurers aren’t already doing in spades. Namely, those parties are way down the line in speculating on the case and manipulating “facts” trying to move the needle in the direction of their respective positions. Schiavoni says Century will be bled dry. Anker says he welcomes going back to state court. (Really?) BSA says they’re out of money and these are all the assets we have. (BRG Dashboards, anyone?) LCs are going under. (What’s the average percentage of assets contribution, again?) The Coalition says they’re part of the TCC, Jim Stang is a liar, the TCC has no plan to assist victim claimants and they refuse to make deals where deals can be made. It’s a mess and those parties have cleared the path. Also, I think TK is saying what he believes and is acting in the best interests of his clients, per his perception. 

Did a quick Google search....

1. Apparently, that doesn't matter. I found a number of references to gag orders in bankruptcy cases for a wide variety of reasons. 

2. I didn't state otherwise, in fact I said participants. 

3. Id did make any statement about this at all, but all the more reason a judge might want to use a gag order. I have no doubt that every single one of them are "speculating on the case and manipulating “facts” trying to move the needle in the direction of their respective positions," including Kosnoff. 

[MattR]

3 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

And where are you getting your information from to be able to state that "other than if they were to liquidate"?  Los Padres council has 17 million in assets and offering up 1.7M and so you say any more than that they have to liquidate?  They could not continue to operate if they offered up 5.1M or 25% of their assets?

Until there's a discussion as to how their money is spent and how much is spent, i.e., how much they need to survive, arguing about percentages is meaningless. The BSA/councils are guilty of not describing their finances and the claimants are guilty of ignoring the fact that they can never get all the money they'd like to get.

Right now there's no such thing as fair. This is mostly people just trying to skew the vote to their advantage. To what ends we'll have to wait and see.

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, MattR said:

Until there's a discussion as to how their money is spent and how much is spent, i.e., how much they need to survive, arguing about percentages is meaningless. The BSA/councils are guilty of not describing their finances and the claimants are guilty of ignoring the fact that they can never get all the money they'd like to get.

Right now there's no such thing as fair. This is mostly people just trying to skew the vote to their advantage. To what ends we'll have to wait and see.

You are correct in saying “BSA/councils are guilty of not describing their finances” but the sad truth is that until they do claimants will have a hard time to vote yes until they do. It will be the claimants who decide if the offer is fair and that will be through the voting process. 

Edited October 7, 2021 by johnsch322

[HelpfulTracks]

7 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

My issue is why did the LCs refuse to comment?  The Seattle times reached out.  That would have been a great opportunity to say look what we do for kids today and any further payment would severely hurt our ability to function.  No comment allows articles to be one sided.   BSA better have their LC PR groups better prepared in the future. 

Not surprising the councils have not made a statements. It just make sense, from a PR stand point, you don't want 250 voices, you want one.

Not to mention, what do they gain, even taking the abuse cases out of picture, the majority of Scouting stories I receive in my news feeds have a negative stance toward BSA, particularly larger national media outlets. The few positive stories that show up in my feeds are mainly from small market or specialty outlets. 

[Eagle1993]

3 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Not surprising the councils have not made a statements. It just make sense, from a PR stand point, you don't want 250 voices, you want one.

Not to mention, what do they gain, even taking the abuse cases out of picture, the majority of Scouting stories I receive in my news feeds have a negative stance toward BSA, particularly larger national media outlets. The few positive stories that show up in my feeds are mainly from small market or specialty outlets. 

Then they are about to be killed in the press.  They talked before, all the time.  Each said the same thing… National is going bankrupt there is no impact to councils or units. Now no comment?
 

They need to defend their settlement offers.   If they cannot, then the articles are fair and I think the vote is more likely to fail.  Seeing article after article in local TV and newspapers talking about low settlements, local councils offering low percentages of their net assets and victims talking how this is negatively impacting then with no counter from LCs will impact the votes of claimants.  

[CynicalScouter]

35 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Then they are about to be killed in the press.  They talked before, all the time.  Each said the same thing… National is going bankrupt there is no impact to councils or units. Now no comment?

I can think of three reasons why "no comment" is the best of the bad options.

1) Defend the LC offering on its own merits. "We believe this amount is fair."

2) Defend the LC offering based on survival of BSA: We believe this amount represents the most we can offer while still maintaining scouting for young people today and into the future, which is BSA National's official line (“ongoing efforts to reach a global resolution that will equitably compensate survivors and ensure Scouting’s future by resolving past abuse cases for both the national organization and local councils.”)

3) No comment.

Which would you pick?