Chapter 11 Announced - Part 6 - Plan 5.0/TCC Plan TBD

[Eagle1993]

44 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

If #2 is not covered (LDS scout leader doing abuse of scout outside of normal scouting events), then would the settlement reimburse victims of scout leaders where the act was outside of a scouting activity?   

The example sited (this is a real example).  A youth was a member of LDS and was sexually abused.  He joined scouts and was also abused as part of scouting by the same man.  This claimant should have separate claims for the BSA settlement and also be able to pursue claims against LDS separately for the non scouting abuse.  There was agreement on this and so they are working on the language of the releases.  

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by Eagle1993
typo

[ThenNow]

37 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

The example sited (this is a real example).  A youth was a member of LDS and was sexually abused.  He joined scouts and was also abused as part of scouting by the same man.  This claimant should have separate claims for the BSA settlement and also be able to pursue claims against LDS separately for the non scouting abuse.  There was agreement on this and so they are working on the language of the releases.  

So, if this goes down with these bifurcated claims, is it going to carry over to all claims? All CO settlements? In my case, I met with and was abused by my SM while at his home or on his boat. Some were part of merit badge work. Others part of the special treatment. How do those fall out? Obviously, merit badges are Scouting-related so I assume an official event or activity. The ancillary things? Not so much. I met him exclusively through the Troop at my church/CO. If all the abuse was on his boat or in his home and not related to Scouting, per se, no viable claim in this case? If so, the mess just became a massive a roof leak with a sewer backup and a fire emanating from the furnace. No one say that the water intrusion from the roof will put out the fire. Promise?

Edited September 29, 2021 by ThenNow

[Eagle1993]

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

So, if this goes down with these bifurcated claims, is this going to carry over to all claims? In many cases, at least with me, I met with and was abused by my SM while at his home or on his boat. Some were part of merit badge work. Others part of the special treatment. How do those fall out? Obviously, merit badges are Scouting-related so I assume an official event or activity. The ancillary things? Not so much. I met him exclusively through the Troop at my church/CO. If all the abuse was on his boat or in his home and not related to Scouting, per se, no viable claim in this case? If so, the mess just became a massive a roof leak with a sewer backup and a fire emanating from the furnace. No one say that the water intrusion from the roof will put out the fire. Promise?

I think this is where there was a lot of discussions.  I think the clear cut is abuse at scouting events are clearly channeled to the settlement trust.  Also, it seems clear that if there was a non scouting interface with the abuser that was through the CO (for example a pastor who abused a youth outside scout settings) those could have direct claims outside the trust.  The murky area is the relationship with the individual is through scouting but abuse completely outside scouting programs/events/activities.  I believe it is primarily a CO problem.  LCs/national will always be channeled to the trust.

It sounds like everyone had a general idea where this was headed but they need to document it clearly.  I'm not 100% convinced everyone saw eye to eye.  I think we have to wait and see what comes out.

[Eagle1993]

Just now, Eagle1993 said:

I think this is where there was a lot of discussions.  I think the clear cut is abuse at scouting events are clearly channeled to the settlement trust.  Also, it seems clear that if there was a non scouting interface with the abuser that was through the CO (for example a pastor who abused a youth outside scout settings) those could have direct claims outside the trust.  The murky area is the relationship with the individual is through scouting but abuse completely outside scouting programs/events/activities.  I believe it is primarily a CO problem.  LCs/national will always be channeled to the trust.

It sounds like everyone had a general idea where this was headed but they need to document it clearly.  I'm not 100% convinced everyone saw eye to eye.  I think we have to wait and see what comes out.

I'll add on a bit. 

Quote

For the avoidance of doubt, no Claim alleging Abuse shall be a “Post-1975 Chartered Organization Abuse Claim” against a Participating Chartered Organization if such Claim is wholly unrelated to Scouting.

This one statement in the plan was debated as too broad.  This led to questions as to "define scouting".  There will be a fight over this language.  BSA came out and said that the trust is about abuse in scouting, not about abuse within COs outside scouting.

The judge seemed to be very clear ... she cannot provide any protection to COs for abuse that occurred outside scouting.  

All of us in this forum can already think of hundreds of examples of grey areas here where someone is tied to scouting but also has oversight at the CO outside a scouting relationship.  COs may find paying into a settlement offers them little protection in the end.

[CynicalScouter]

52 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

All of us in this forum can already think of hundreds of examples of grey areas here where someone is tied to scouting but also has oversight at the CO outside a scouting relationship.  COs may find paying into a settlement offers them little protection in the end.

The next time I hear someone complain that YPT is too restrictive about how it applies to interactions outside of Scouting, I'm going to point to this mess.

The line is so blurry, BSA would be stupid NOT to have YPT treated broadly.

[David CO]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

BSA came out and said that the trust is about abuse in scouting, not about abuse within COs outside scouting.

Of course they did.  Under YPT policies, a scouter is a scouter 24/7.  Under the settlement, a scouter is only a scouter while he is volunteering at a scout event.  Self-serving doubletalk... as usual.

 

[David CO]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

COs may find paying into a settlement offers them little protection in the end.

True.  CO's have learned that they are not covered by BSA insurance policies.  Now they are learning that they won't be covered by a settlement, even if they agree to pay into it.  BSA has not only thrown the CO's under the bus, they backed up the bus to run them over again.

 

[RememberSchiff]

At this posting, the detailed link below is not behind a paywall.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-29/boy-scouts-preparing-to-seek-vote-on-1-6-billion-sex-abuse-fund

 

[RememberSchiff]

9/29/2021 Coalition statement: (no mention of fees)

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-coalition-of-abused-scouts-for-justice-comments-on-disclosure-statement-hearing-in-the-boy-scouts-of-america-chapter-11-bankruptcy-case-301388308.html

[ThenNow]

5 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Coalition statement: (no mention of fees)

Despicable. Reprehensible. Disgusting. I cannot believe they said this out loud, in public, had someone write it down and then send it out to the world. Shame on them. Shame...

"Unlike the Coalition, the TCC has no plan to compensate survivors and has not created a multi-billion-dollar compensation fund for survivors through its efforts to reach settlements with insurers and sponsoring organizations to build the most robust fund possible."

[Eagle1993]

20 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Despicable. Reprehensible. Disgusting. I cannot believe they said this out loud, in public, had someone write it down and then send it out to the world. Shame on them. Shame...

"Unlike the Coalition, the TCC has no plan to compensate survivors and has not created a multi-billion-dollar compensation fund for survivors through its efforts to reach settlements with insurers and sponsoring organizations to build the most robust fund possible."

I'll try to not guess nefarious motivations. Here is where I think the two sides are...

TCC Plan ... maximize National BSA contribution.  Maximize any national BSA insurance company settlement.  LC, CO, LC insurance and CO insurance ONLY if they contribute a substantial portion to the trust.  Otherwise, allow claimants to purse action in state courts.

Coalition Plan ... maximize National BSA, national BSA insurance, LC, CO and their insurance settlements in a centralized trust.  Accept their best offer within a certain timeframe (essential, negotiate hard until a time period is hit).  Then agree to that amount and move on.  State court pursuits are not an option.  Why is timeframe critical, because at some point, BSA would go Ch7 and the options of LC/CO coverage in a central trust is gone.

To be fair ... I think you could see the Coalition Plan as simply a different strategy.  It could  help individuals who are permanently outside SOL ... assuming insurance, BSA and/or LCs wouldn't have caved under pressure of the TCC and offered more (which was always a possibility).  However, I think it really negatively impacts claimants inside the SOLs.

 I think the coalition decided to go with the quicker guaranteed payout.  The TCC plan would have definitely increased the payout for those inside the SOL but put at risk the payout for those outside SOL.

In terms of voting ... If my #1 goal was cash and I was outside SOL I would likely vote in favor of the BSA plan.  If my #1 goal was cash and I was inside the SOL, I would reject the plan.  If my #1 goal was for BSA to feel the pain of my abuse, I would reject the plan. 

[CynicalScouter]

36 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

"Unlike the Coalition, the TCC has no plan to compensate survivors and has not created a multi-billion-dollar compensation fund for survivors through its efforts to reach settlements with insurers and sponsoring organizations to build the most robust fund possible."

Because technically they don't. They put in the 6-7 points of their plan, but they have not written it down. I am sure that come October 18 and the end of exclusivity they will submit a plan, but by that point it will be too late to vote on.

[CynicalScouter]

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

However, I think it really negatively impacts claimants inside the SOLs.

It does because they have to, in effect, share with people with absolutely no valid legal claim. If anyone wants to discuss whether this is RIGHT, JUST, or MORAL, I refer you to the other thread. If however we stick to the bankruptcy/legalese, as Zalkin and other lawyers with clients from open states have said: this is absolutely not within the confines of law to give those with no valid legal claim today access to the funds

[RememberSchiff]

50 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Despicable. Reprehensible. Disgusting....

"Unlike the Coalition, the TCC has no plan to compensate survivors and has not created a multi-billion-dollar compensation fund for survivors through its efforts to reach settlements with insurers and sponsoring organizations to build the most robust fund possible."

and Arrogant in releasing this PR before tonight's TCC Town Hall, they are not worried about the TCC .

18 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Just a reminder, since I have a hunch the TCC is going to have a few things to say about all of this, the next Town Hall is TONIGHT (Thursday) night.  From TCCBSA.COM:

The next TCC Town Hall will take place on Thursday, September 30, 2021. (Click here to view the notice.)

• Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/82272826295 (no registration required)
• By phone: 888-788-0099 (toll free), webinar ID: 822 7282 6295.

At this Town Hall, the TCC will discuss: (1) Status of Boy Scouts's bankruptcy case and (2) status of the disclosure statement and chapter 11 plan approval process.

 

Edited September 30, 2021 by RememberSchiff

[MYCVAStory]

I have a hunch that the members of the TCC will now go after the Coalition at the Town Hall.  Note to ANYONE who is NOT a victim...don't piss them off.  The TCC has consistently spoken on behalf of all survivors, including the Coalition's.  Now the Coalition is trying to make the TCC the enemy of Survivors?  Like I said, I have a hunch the TCC isn't going to sit back for that.  Survivors have decades of pent-up rage.  It doesn't take much for it to come out.