Chapter 11 Announced - Part 10 - Post Confirmation Hearing/Judges Ruling

[MikeS72]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I think I’ll let someone who “knows” me, the case, my posting history, and this specific issue defend the point (and me). 

I would be glad to defend you.  I completely understood what you were saying.  Not absurd at all.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Now, I believe only 2 chartered orgs are fully freed from pre 2020 liability (LDS & Methodist) if this deal goes through.  The remaining chartered orgs are free from ~1976 and prior liability but could face lawsuits post 76 to present.

If I understand everything that I have read you may have said liability backward.  As I understand the insurance issue Charter Orgs were not specifically covered PRIOR to 1976, and could therefore be left holding the bag for any claims from whenever the abuse may have taken place, up to 1976.

[Eagle1993]

13 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

If I understand everything that I have read you may have said liability backward.  As I understand the insurance issue Charter Orgs were not specifically covered PRIOR to 1976, and could therefore be left holding the bag for any claims from whenever the abuse may have taken place, up to 1976.

Yes ... I reversed that.  Prior to 1976 chartered orgs still face liability and 1976 to present all are covered.

[T2Eagle]

16 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Cool. This is the first time I and/or one of my posts has been dubbed absurd. I think I’ll let someone who “knows” me, the case, my posting history, and this specific issue defend the point (and me). 

Man it's been a long couple of years, such that I now think of ThenNow as not just a regular but maybe even an old timer on these threads.

18 hours ago, Tron said:

I don't see the connection. The third party releases Purdue Pharma are about protecting the doctors and administrators who were making money off of Purdue Pharma and are the literal perpetrators of the crime. The third party releases in the BSA lawsuit do not protect the literal perpetrators of the sexual assaults or the people who covered up those assaults; the BSA third party releases are to protect ancillary entities. There is also a huge contrast between coordinated bribing operations perpetrated by Purdue Pharma to get doctors and administrators pulling a paycheck to commit illegal acts. No such comparable act was perpetrated by BSA. 

TN's original post was, I believe. most relevant because it was about the insufficiency of the settlement for individual victims, and spoke about how instead the bulk of the settlement was going to (hopefully) prevent future harms.  In the same vein many of the victims of CSA that occurred in scouting will receive an amount smaller than they would be entitled to if these cases were being settled outside of bankruptcy, but there is at least some hope that the structural parts of settlement will prevent future abuse in scouting.

The parallels between the Purdue case and BSA as bankruptcies are pretty clear: both current settlements rely on extensive involuntary non-debtor third party releases, which may not actually be permitted within the bankruptcy code.   Purdue's has already been kicked back by a higher court, BSA's may yet.  In Purdue, the releases protect the Sackler family, in BSA the releases protect Chartering Orgs and local Councils.

As to perpetrators, charter orgs and councils aren't ancillary entities, in virtually every law suit they are co-defendants with BSA.  They are in fact the perpetrators.  Given the structure of scouting, it could be argued that they are more responsible as perpetrators.  The Charter Org is responsible for the unit, and in the cases where the abuse was done by a unit leader it was the Chartering Org that selected the leader and then failed to supervise them.  The councils similarly are responsible for not supervising both their units AND their chartering orgs.  

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by T2Eagle

[vol_scouter]

The more legally astute on the list have provided the logical reasoning to support his contention far more ably than could I.  As @T2Eagle noted, @ThenNow seems like an old timer on this list (from me who has been on this list for 20 or more years).  ThenNow has made several profound posts and he is anything but absurd.  Sometimes his allusions can be a little challenging, he is always measured and thoughtful.  He has also shown that he carefully considers arguments that may not agree with his.  So whereas one may not agree with ThenNow, his posts are keeping with the Scout Law.  I can see where one may not believe that the Purdue Pharma has an impact on this case and I believe that it is likely that Judge Silverstein is spending quite a bit of time to make the case that the two are not alike.

We are all a little like cats on a hot tin roof awaiting Judge Silverstein's ruling and might be a little snippy with each other.  Let us all remember that whatever the Judge's ruling, we are all concerned for the victims and many wish to see the BSA survive.  Let us all be respectful whenever the ruling comes in.

[fred8033]

58 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

As to perpetrators, charter orgs and councils aren't ancillary entities, in virtually every law suit they are co-defendants with BSA.  They are in fact the perpetrators.  Given the structure of scouting, it could be argued that they are more responsible as perpetrators.  The Charter Org is responsible for the unit, and in the cases where the abuse was done by a unit leader it was the Chartering Org that selected the leader and then failed to supervise them.  The councils similarly are responsible for not supervising both their units AND their chartering orgs.  

COs ... I can't blame them much ... CO ownership was always more honorific than liability ownership ... all people involved in the paperwork knew that.  BSA professionals.  unit leaders.  CO leaders.   Except LDS, most unit leaders were not chosen by the CO except in honorific terms ... can you sign this form?  It was more signed after-the fact and for awareness.  ....  Even twenty years ago, few believed the liability that the forms are now implying.  ... COs thought they were doing a good deed for the community.  Giving space.  Supporting a good community program.  ...  Similar to opening their building for elections or a community meeting.  

Councils ... I don't blame them much either ... THIS IS MY VIEW.   It might not be popular.  ... From what I've seen, it was the standard of care for the time.  If they removed the perpetrator and tried to track the person to keep them out of scouting, they did more than many organizations.  

I believe the circle of blame is ... #1 the perpetrator ...  (less than #1)  #2 the other adults in the unit (leaders, parents, etc) ... (less than #2)  #3 local community (police, school, etc)  ... police were often involved but could not pursue.  schools were the experts with adults working with kids and where scouts recruited ...)  ....   #2a the experts ... CSA was really not well understood or managed or prevented or educated until last twenty years.  I hate marking this has #4 of the outward radius from most blame as the real issue is CSA was not well handled until recently.  I had #2a as #4 except it was the real cause.  CSA was not well understood until last 20 years.

 

[Tron]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

The more legally astute on the list have provided the logical reasoning to support his contention far more ably than could I.  As @T2Eagle noted, @ThenNow seems like an old timer on this list (from me who has been on this list for 20 or more years).  ThenNow has made several profound posts and he is anything but absurd.  Sometimes his allusions can be a little challenging, he is always measured and thoughtful.  He has also shown that he carefully considers arguments that may not agree with his.  So whereas one may not agree with ThenNow, his posts are keeping with the Scout Law.  I can see where one may not believe that the Purdue Pharma has an impact on this case and I believe that it is likely that Judge Silverstein is spending quite a bit of time to make the case that the two are not alike.

We are all a little like cats on a hot tin roof awaiting Judge Silverstein's ruling and might be a little snippy with each other.  Let us all remember that whatever the Judge's ruling, we are all concerned for the victims and many wish to see the BSA survive.  Let us all be respectful whenever the ruling comes in.

So if the judge who is supposedly the expert on this sort of stuff, is making the case that these are not related ...

[Eagle1970]

17 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Chartered Organizations are directly responsible for the units where abuse occurred.  So, they will face liability in individual cases.  How liable they are will vary case by case.  Now, I believe only 2 chartered orgs are fully freed from pre 2020 liability (LDS & Methodist) if this deal goes through.  The remaining chartered orgs are free from ~1976 and prior liability but could face lawsuits post 76 to present.

Councils ... similar.  They were responsible for providing oversight to units ... so could be found liable for the abuse.  Again, that will vary case by case.  100% of councils are buying coverage through this bankruptcy for abuse pre Feb 2020.

So am I correct in my understanding that since my abuse was pre-1976 (Catholic Church Sponsor) and they will not be released, that I will receive a mitigating factor in the calculations?  Even though under State law they are protected by SOL....

[Eagle1993]

54 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

COs ... I can't blame them much ... CO ownership was always more honorific than liability ownership ... all people involved in the paperwork knew that.  BSA professionals.  unit leaders.  CO leaders.   Except LDS, most unit leaders were not chosen by the CO except in honorific terms ... can you sign this form?  It was more signed after-the fact and for awareness.  ....  Even twenty years ago, few believed the liability that the forms are now implying.  ... COs thought they were doing a good deed for the community.  Giving space.  Supporting a good community program.  ...  Similar to opening their building for elections or a community meeting.  

Councils ... I don't blame them much either ... THIS IS MY VIEW.   It might not be popular.  ... From what I've seen, it was the standard of care for the time.  If they removed the perpetrator and tried to track the person to keep them out of scouting, they did more than many organizations.  

I believe the circle of blame is ... #1 the perpetrator ...  (less than #1)  #2 the other adults in the unit (leaders, parents, etc) ... (less than #2)  #3 local community (police, school, etc)  ... police were often involved but could not pursue.  schools were the experts with adults working with kids and where scouts recruited ...)  ....   #2a the experts ... CSA was really not well understood or managed or prevented or educated until last twenty years.  I hate marking this has #4 of the outward radius from most blame as the real issue is CSA was not well handled until recently.  I had #2a as #4 except it was the real cause.  CSA was not well understood until last 20 years.

 

I think legal blame really depends on the case.  There was an example of a CO who didn't register a leader and allowed the abuse to continue.  I think COs are clearly to blame in a case like this.

Other cases go to different extremes.  For example an abuser was also the parent of the scout and the abuse was never reported to BSA.  It is tough to hold BSA liable for that case.

I think that is why bankruptcy court is a bad path of addressing these cases.  It lumps all of them together, averages out details and comes up with a number.  However, allowing tens of thousands of individual cases to be pursued is likely not feasible (BSA would run out of money just paying lawyers).  So, bankruptcy is the least bad of a group of bad solutions.

[Eagle1993]

10 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

So am I correct in my understanding that since my abuse was pre-1976 (Catholic Church Sponsor) and they will not be released, that I will receive a mitigating factor in the calculations?  Even though under State law they are protected by SOL....

Best to contact an attorney.  My understanding of the paths forward (if the plan is approved):

1) Take the immediate $3500 payout no questions asked.

2) Go through TDP path.  You will likely have to fill out some sort of document with more details.  Based on your claims (severity) and state where they occurred (that factors in SOL) they will come out with a value.  Note that as of now, the only individuals who get separate payments is LDS victims.  So, the chartered org does not factor into the calculation for you or any non LDS victim.

3) Go through the neutral path.  Pay $10K up front and $10K before going through a review process that will determine what your payout should have been in civil court.  Then the trust will work to collect that for you.

Now, since you were pre 1976 and Catholic Church CO, there is a chance you could directly sue the CO at a later date.  However, the plan allows COs some time (I think 1 year) to negotiate settlements with the trust.  SOL may work against you in the lawsuit; however, lawyers here have stated that SOLs are not necessarily black and white nor treated the same state by state.  Again, consult an attorney as they would be 10000000% better at informing you.

 I think once the plan is approved, there is still a lot of work left to setup the trust and detailed trust processes.  While that will take time it should help provide victims much more clarity (hopefully).

[fred8033]

56 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I think legal blame really depends on the case.  There was an example of a CO who didn't register a leader and allowed the abuse to continue.  I think COs are clearly to blame in a case like this.

Most COs would never know if there is a leader that is not registered as most COs never had that level of involvement.  It was the rare exception when the CO knew the leaders in detail.  ...  Taking it further, until recently it was always a gray area if someone was a registered volunteer or just a parent or a leader who's registration never got completed.  

For this reason, I can hold the other unit leaders and the parents much more accountable than the CO.  They saw the interaction.  Someone should have spoke up.

Edited June 3, 2022 by fred8033

[PaleRider]

I'm just ready for this 40 year chapter of my life to be over.The money will be nice but being able to finally shut the door on all of this just so I can finally have some peace of mind far out weighs anything else.Having to open up this can of worms was far worse than I could've ever imagined. Especially having been through therapy,was in  inpatient therapy for 6 months.The wound is just as painful today than it was 40 years ago.I guess that will never go away.

[skeptic]

4 minutes ago, PaleRider said:

I'm just ready for this 40 year chapter of my life to be over.The money will be nice but being able to finally shut the door on all of this just so I can finally have some peace of mind far out weighs anything else.Having to open up this can of worms was far worse than I could've ever imagined. Especially having been through therapy,was in  inpatient therapy for 6 months.The wound is just as painful today than it was 40 years ago.I guess that will never go away.

Just a note.  My "sad" emoticon is not about the comment directly, only that it seems to verify one of the early concerns I proferred; that ripping off the scabs and bringing it all back might be worse than leaving it alone and focusing onl the present to keep it from happening again.  No easy answers, and this post seems to suggest that, as have a couple of others on here that are survivors.

[yknot]

21 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Just a note.  My "sad" emoticon is not about the comment directly, only that it seems to verify one of the early concerns I proferred; that ripping off the scabs and bringing it all back might be worse than leaving it alone and focusing onl the present to keep it from happening again.  No easy answers, and this post seems to suggest that, as have a couple of others on here that are survivors.

I feel for the survivors who have had to relieve their worst memories but the price of "leaving it alone" would have meant a future legacy of yet more destroyed children. BSA only began to confront this when it was put face to face with the nightmares that happened on its watch.  

[johnsch322]

20 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Just a note.  My "sad" emoticon is not about the comment directly, only that it seems to verify one of the early concerns I proferred; that ripping off the scabs and bringing it all back might be worse than leaving it alone and focusing onl the present to keep it from happening again.  No easy answers, and this post seems to suggest that, as have a couple of others on here that are survivors.

I for one am glad that that the scab was ripped off. Now maybe it can be just a scar. I also believe the only way BSA was going to make meaningful changes was for them to go thru this process also. I believe I speak for more survivors that feel this way than don't.

[PaleRider]

Well it has made me aware that I still have some issue's that need to be dealt with.I will be starting more therapy next week.Im glad to the scab has been ripped of to because it has made me aware of what needs to be done.(Therapy)