Chapter 11 Announced - Part 9 - Confirmation Hearing

[SiouxRanger]

24 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I am not aware of any; however, from what I heard yesterday the VAST majority of cases are being settled out of court so few would know.  I would not be surprised if a leader is named in the future, especially if they violated BSA policy.

Thanks.

[Eagle1993]

Dr. Doug Kennedy ... there is no other path available than this plan to resolve this case.  Many claimants are over 70 and many survivors may pass away before resolution if this plan fails (over 12,000).

If this plan fails, the likely other path is state courts.

One TCC member is near 80 and driving DoorDash to make ends meet.  The bankruptcy will help these people.

The plan approval would also help start the closure for survivors.  Every must follow their own path, but one of the worst parts is not having closure)

Edited March 17, 2022 by Eagle1993

[Eagle1993]

TCC firmly supports this plan, 85% approval is sufficient (never will get close to 100%).  

[Eagle1993]

And Dr. Kennedy done.  On cross he was asked about the RSA a lot and reviewed transcripts of townhalls.  Basically, focusing on independence of the trust.  White & Case very upset now over adding the transcripts of the townhalls to the record without notice.

In any case, the insurance companies are very concerned about Trust Governance and not being fair to them. 

The Guam lawyer asked if the TCC approval of the new plan was unanimous and it wasn't or it was ... actually, I wasn't fully clear on that.  I question if it matters...

[Muttsy]

It was not unanimous. One or more members either voted to reject or abstained from supporting. 
 

Significant. Even the committee members could not agree. That’s not “overwhelming” support. 

[Muttsy]

I wish someone would have asked Dr. Kennedy about this Plan paragraph. Who else could this apply to except TCC members? Smells very fishy. 

 

Section 4.1(c)

(c) Among the Trust Assets are funds contributed from Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP (the “PSZJ Contribution”). The Trustee shall have discretion to use such part of the PSZJ Contribution as the Trustee may determine to distribute to holders of Abuse Claims in recognition of their positive contributions made prior to, during or after the Chapter 11 Cases benefiting survivors of childhood sexual abuse and preventing abuse.

[MYCVAStory]

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

It was not unanimous. One or more members either voted to reject or abstained from supporting. 
 

Significant. Even the committee members could not agree. That’s not “overwhelming” support. 

To be fair, because you have provided a potentially inaccurate accounting of the hearing, he was asked by an objecting attorney if every member of the TCC agreed with the settlement.  His reply was that the TCC stood as one on its votes after the fact.  He then received an awkward follow-up question and stated clearly that NO member of the TCC voted to reject the most recent settlement.  He was not asked if any abstained.  So, a suggestion that a member voted to reject is incorrect.  As well, disagreement is not necessarily a cause for abstention. 

[MYCVAStory]

3 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

I wish someone would have asked Dr. Kennedy about this Plan paragraph. Who else could this apply to except TCC members? Smells very fishy. 

Well....members of the Survivor's Working Group that helped craft the YP changes, Survivors who become part of the Youth Protection Committee, the Survivor who will become part of the BSA Board and serve alone.  Perhaps Survivors who step forward and serve on their Local Councils?  I'm glad the PSZJ "fine" is going to YP and by this extension to Survivors who contribute.  Win-win.  It's also a reason an independant Trustee was critical.  I don't see a respected former federal judge getting involved with "fishy."

[Muttsy]

8 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Well....members of the Survivor's Working Group that helped craft the YP changes, Survivors who become part of the Youth Protection Committee, the Survivor who will become part of the BSA Board and serve alone.

So...the answer is yes, people like Dr. Kennedy can be awarded some or all of the 2 million dollar "fine"? 

BTW__ Dr. Kennedy answered clearly. The vote on the TCC was NOT unanimous. Your answer above is Orwellian. 

[ThenNow]

20 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

I wish someone would have asked Dr. Kennedy about this Plan paragraph. Who else could this apply to except TCC members? Smells very fishy. 

 

Section 4.1(c)

(c) Among the Trust Assets are funds contributed from Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP (the “PSZJ Contribution”). The Trustee shall have discretion to use such part of the PSZJ Contribution as the Trustee may determine to distribute to holders of Abuse Claims in recognition of their positive contributions made prior to, during or after the Chapter 11 Cases benefiting survivors of childhood sexual abuse and preventing abuse.

tccquestions@pszjlaw.com

[MYCVAStory]

1 minute ago, Muttsy said:

BTW__ Dr. Kennedy answered clearly. The vote on the TCC was NOT unanimous. Your answer above is Orwellian. 

 

Again, he said that NO MEMBER objected.  What constitutes "unanimity" is not defined by Roberts and is typically accepted in practice as the results of those who vote.  For example, if a member had a conflict of interest and abstained that member acted properly as a fiduciary and that should not be considered as objecting for purposes of a vote.  As well, as he mentioned today, the TCC had a fiduciary duty to ALL Survivors and members found themselves voting against their own self-interests financially at times when it was in the best interest of all survivors.   I'd rather have representatives doing that then voting to reject, or even abstain, because they are protecting their own interests.  Orwellian thinking is that which is destructive to a free society.  Stating the facts, that no one objected and that he was never asked if anyone abstained, is the opposite of Orwellian.  It's the truth.

 

[Better4itall]

5 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Well, my posts, just doing my due diligence after my SE reassured me (yesterday at a face-to-face meeting along with others from my unit) that I need not question whether us volunteers were covered by insurance for abuse and molestation issues. "Why would we ask?"

Yeah, well, I AM a lawyer, and yeah, where is the PROOF we are covered?

No proof offered. (SE offered to look into it.)

At my age, and hating THE LAW as I do, (and as everyone should-I am a professional) the prospect of spending my retirement years at a counsel table in a courtroom, at my expense, defending myself as a mere volunteer because of the deep and hidden actions of some skulking, pseudo volunteer, near (or) professional level predator, and thereby risking my net worth, being unpaid for my effort, yeah, I am not about to sign on to unlimited liability for someone else's sordid activities.

And there it is in a nutshell.

All of us were duped to do so in the past, and apparently National expects us to accept such in the future.

NO.

No Proof-No Play.

Why would anyone voluntarily subject themselves to this liability?

I am still "percolating" about my resignation from Scouting, and after a 60+ year run, and all so the wonderful times , I am but hours away from pulling the plug.

How has it all come to this?

And so the spinning of the World slowed and all turned to a darker shade of gray.

Valuable perspective @SiouxRanger - and one that I ponder too.  Remember that before there was a BSA organization, Scouting was a movement, and still is (https://www.scout.org). It's amazing that Baden-Powell's wisdom echos down all these ages. 

 

[Eagle1993]

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

To be fair, because you have provided a potentially inaccurate accounting of the hearing, he was asked by an objecting attorney if every member of the TCC agreed with the settlement.  His reply was that the TCC stood as one on its votes after the fact.  He then received an awkward follow-up question and stated clearly that NO member of the TCC voted to reject the most recent settlement.  He was not asked if any abstained.  So, a suggestion that a member voted to reject is incorrect.  As well, disagreement is not necessarily a cause for abstention. 

I'll concur here.  I tried to explain what happened and the questions were a bit confusing from Lujan.  However, the questioning and back and forth wasn't exactly clear so I could see how it would appear TCC members voted to reject the plan (later that was cleared up).

[Eagle1993]

43 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Again, he said that NO MEMBER objected.

This is true.  After Lujan asked her questions (which I honestly think many questions from her have been a bit odd/confusing/non relevant) Dr. Kennedy was asked some follow up questions and Dr. Kennedy clarified that No TCC member objected to this current plan.  I do find it odd that Lujan was asking these questions ... it makes me suspicious that she knew internal TCC discussions. ... anyways.. 

I wasn't able to listen much beyond the first 50 mins of the trial today but I rejoined it from time to time ... so perhaps something shocking happened and I missed it.

Certain insurers are fighting tooth and nail against this plan.  They are VERY concerned ... I think especially about that neutral path.  The BSA witness today, for the bit I saw him, was great.  Also, I have been a bit surprised, but the only claimant group I see fighting hard is Guam (Lujan). 

A bit of background on the Guam group based on what I have seen.  Lujan & Wolff, LLP seemed to have been offered a settlement in 2018 for their clients (I think in total 80 survivors).  They didn't take it and decided to go to trial.  Now, both the arch diocese AND BSA declared bankruptcy.  My guess ... whatever offer they had in the past was much, much larger than any TDP or even neutral payout they can expect.  Some of their lawyer's questions go into that history ... "remember when you gave us that offer.  Remember when you said x,y,z."  I'm sure she feels devastated for her clients, and I can see that pain, but at the same time, one had to know BSA was in financial trouble and factored that into the decision making.  

[Muttsy]

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

.  For example, if a member had a conflict of interest and abstained that member acted properly as a fiduciary and that should not be considered as objecting for purposes of a vote.  As well, as he mentioned today, the TCC had a fiduciary duty to ALL Survivors and members found themselves voting against their own self-interests financially at times when it was in the best interest of all survivors.   I'd rather have representatives doing that then voting to reject, or even abstain, because they are protecting their own interests. 

Are you saying a TCC member was disqualified from voting because he had a conflict of interest. Was that disclosed to the UST or to the survivor body?