Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[vol_scouter]

3 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

But they are offering 57K.

But they can do a lot better.

My council is contributing quite a bit that will require a long time to recover.  The TCC evaluation for my council is not reasonable and the BSA response seems quite accurate.  

[Eagle1993]

16 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

The proceedings are by attorneys representing what they feel are the best interests of their clients.

I think this is true for all attorneys involved, except the coalition attorneys. Perhaps they are, but I'm not fully convinced.

[ThenNow]

43 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

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.

I am also a Tier One claimant with multiple aggravating factors. As far as I can tell, the only variable that remains unknown is whether 5+ or 10+ claims implicate my SM/abuser. I tick all the other boxes. Then, I am technically in a Gray 3 state, but have a strong case around the time-bar defense. Whatever. What is my abuse and the implosion it caused worth. Dunno. According to the Claim Matrix, $2.7M or a tad less due to the one unknown. My deep discontent and vexation is twofold:

1. I do not feel like BSA, especially LCs, are being forthright about their assets. If both BSA and the LCs were truly - and I mean deeply and sincerely - committed to equitably compensate BSA child sexual abuse victim claimants, they would be in lock step with the TCC as much as humanly possible. I don’t think that’s happening because it is not the primary mission of this case nor has it ever been. My opinion. Emergence is paramount. Transparency and collaboration clearly are not. My LC has $33M in assets (per the BSA and not BRG) and is contributing under 3. The contribution is a clean scoop from the investments. Why is it honorable to do anything other than a true mea culpa and how can we make this as “right” as we can; and

2. This is a corollary to number one, but I see it as distinct. Again, if the deep commitment were there, BSA and LCs and all the insureds would be fighting the insurance companies side by side with the victims and TCC. They are, after all, the policy holders. Ditching the 40 whatever pages of policies to the Trustee, telling us have fun with your multi-year death dance with the insurance companies is a chicken poop move. Stand with us and fight. You and WE paid for those policies. Pursue maximum coverage for US. Aren’t we what you say you’re all about? Leaders in my day would call us “My/their Scouts.” What are we now? The actions speak so much louder than the words I’m about deaf from watching this theater of the tragic and the absurd. If your child is injured and you hold the policy do you tell the lawyer the policy and agent information and let them go into court and settlement discussions without involvement? Strike that. More to the point, do you give your son the information and tell him, “Go figure this out, son. I need to get back to work and help some other kids, because I’m REALLY, REALLY good at it...now.” Of course not, unless you’re a complete deadbeat absentee parent willing to put your child at further risk of injury. Is this not plain as day? I don’t get it.

Edited October 7, 2021 by ThenNow

[johnsch322]

5 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

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

That was BSA's secondary plan where they exit bankruptcy on their own.  If not enough votes are garnered in favor of the current plan that may be what the judge orders.

 

7 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

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.

Nor was this a problem that survivors created.

[Muttsy]

6 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

@Muttsy maybe I am misreading what you mean, but it sounds like the dissolution of BSA is required for you to s

You are misreading me. I don’t do “fair”. I look at market rates for abuse cases. The plan is nowhere near market. 
 

I don’t much care what happens to BSA. It is 100% responsible for its predicament. I’m fine with a BSA only plan. But BSA is a dead man walking but if it can start over with some property and operating income I don’t care. My point is that it is now an impediment to survivors getting market rate compensation and I want it to exit stage left. 

[vol_scouter]

To the moderators:

It seems to me that the views on this thread are so vastly divergent and, for many, the emotions are some what raw so that this will devolve into arguments.  It seems to me that fair is largely determined by one's starting point.

[johnsch322]

8 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

To the moderators:

It seems to me that the views on this thread are so vastly divergent and, for many, the emotions are some what raw so that this will devolve into arguments.  It seems to me that fair is largely determined by one's starting point.

I think that the forum would be quite boring if everyone thought the same way.  For the most part I find these discussions to be quite civil.  

[CynicalScouter]

44 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

But they can do a lot better.

Exactly. LCs paying out only 4% of assets? Seriously? One good year of a bull market and they will be back to status quo ante.

[ThenNow]

13 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

It seems to me that the views on this thread are so vastly divergent and, for many, the emotions are some what raw so that this will devolve into arguments.  It seems to me that fair is largely determined by one's starting point.

As brother John has been saying, what wears me out is the lack of offering solutions or stating what you think is not happening, should happen or lending honest assessments of what we deserve, in context. Some do. Others throw grenades and run off. I don’t think much of this sword play is getting a great accomplished at this point. I think we get pent up waiting for the next plot pivot.

My above post is what I think should have been done from the jump. It wasn’t. It won’t. I don’t expect it. It made me said as soon as it was clear that it would be the course of action and inaction. That is why we are where we are in this case. There are battle lines. I think the insurance companies delight at the infighting, which gives them additional delay and strategy time. If someone comes to you and says, “Hey. I didn’t do right by you. I really want to make this ‘right’ (as much as possible). I just ask that you don’t obliterate me and give me provisions so I can do what we both likely agree is important work.” You do not then expect them to quickly drop back, build bunkers and start shelling you. Say what you want, I just don’t see the proof in the pudding. I’m not eating it. I’ve never cared for blood pudding. Is there a path for equitable compensation? Not without a tremendous fight and not if this Plan passes.

Edited October 7, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

47 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

My council is contributing quite a bit that will require a long time to recover.

Then you are the exception.

Most councils are offering 14% or LESS of assets. Many are below 10%.

The LCs are holding out IN GENERAL. And when this plan blows up and the BSA toggle-plans out the 1600 lawsuits against LCs go live. Then we will see some real dollars for victims. Then LCs will rewlly start to pay.

As previously noted: the 40+ councils that make up CA, NY, and Hawaii/Guam have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of cases the day BSA leaves bankruptcy. The next day those lawsuits go “live” and about a day after that those 40 councils go into bankruptcy themselves.

Edited October 7, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

36 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

mission of this case nor has it ever been. My opinion. Emergence is paramount.

Yep. If the councils want to be discharged they need to go into their own bankruptcies and not try to dodge.

[johnsch322]

4 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

blood pudding.

I gag at blood pudding and I was born in the UK LOL

[CynicalScouter]

45 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

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

I consider the current scouts secondary indirect victims of BSA’s. bad choices. The judge has said she is considering their interest in seeing scouting survive. But victims don’t just disappear because the organization does good works elsewhere.

[1980Scouter]

57 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

But the LCs cannot either.  

The LC's have A LOT more they could give up(most,not all). I feel all cash and investments except for 6 months operating capital should go to the fund.  And maybe 50% of current camps too. That will still leave an alive BSA. They will have to work harder in the future to stay afloat.

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, 1980Scouter said:

for 6 months operating capital should go to the fund.

The TCC plan discussed in April was even more generous: LCs could keep 2 years operating expenses.

Edited October 7, 2021 by CynicalScouter