Why hasn't the plan been approved yet?

[johnsch322]

Now that it has been over 90 days that we have been waiting for confirmation. Why do you all think that the hasn't been confirmed?

[fred8033]

Judge is waiting for the Geek Squad to recover her password.  

[1980Scouter]

I think as everyone knows there are issues with the plan. LC and CO releases being the most important. 

Also many other details, non settling insurers,  CO'S not on board. 

My question is what is going on behind closed doors at the National office? They have to be really worried that this plan could fail and the BSA would too.

[InquisitiveScouter]

I talked with the pastor (Institution Head) of our Chartered Organization two days ago about this.  If BSA tanks, the pastor fully supports us continuing a Scouting youth group, as long as we secure our own insurance policy.

Edited July 16, 2022 by InquisitiveScouter

[johnsch322]

I have heard others from the beginning saying that the plan is unconfirmable. 

[fred8033]

7 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I have heard others from the beginning saying that the plan is unconfirmable. 

I've given up predicting. 

I'm amazed we got this far. 

I don't even understand how the plan is legal to give so many 3rd party organizations legal protection ... especially as BSA's assets are approx $400m (at the start) and the insurance company, CO, LCs, etc cumulatively are in the billions.  

[Eagle1993]

No idea.  Heard rumors the judge is waiting to hear appeals court ruling on Purdue.  If that isn't the case, it doesn't make sense.  I wonder if she has everything ready except the third party releases.

[johnsch322]

Sometimes I wonder if it is such a mess that she doesn't want to rule. 

[MYCVAStory]

This is a historic case.  Historic in its amount if abuse and historic in the complexity of finances, third-parties, and insurance involvement.  The wait is especially excruciating for Survivors, most of whom have been waiting for decades for some degree of resolution, who after 2+ years of a bankruptcy process, hope daily for good news.  If her ruling is lengthy and complicated, well-considered and logical, we'll understand why it's taken so long.  If it's short and head-scratching or widely panned by those experienced in bankruptcy law, and ripe for appeal, we'll all shake our heads at the length of this wait.   I know a Survivor in tough shape physically.  I think about him every day.   I hope for his sake the wait is coming to an end.  Another day has passed....but another day closer to a ruling I suppose.  For some though those days are limited.

[1980Scouter]

8 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

No idea.  Heard rumors the judge is waiting to hear appeals court ruling on Purdue.  If that isn't the case, it doesn't make sense.  I wonder if she has everything ready except the third party releases.

If that is the case, how long will that take? The BSA will most likely be out of money by then.

Why not a status conference and explain the reason for the delay. Maybe BSA would change the plan to BSA only to get this finished faster.

There are serious doubts about third party releases and not the best idea to include them.

[SiouxRanger]

I have no practice experience in mass tort bankruptcies.  (As a percentage of lawyers in the country, it is a tiny percentage who do.)  But, I have persuaded myself that I have a working, plausible hypothesis of the litigation dynamics of this case.

1 hour ago, 1980Scouter said:

The BSA will most likely be out of money by then

I see legal issues in terms of "pressure."  ("Dynamics.")  Very little is absolute.  It is like chess.  A move is made.  The new placement of the piece poses a threat.  And threats are of different flavors, a clear and present threat of immediate chess board carnage, a potential threat, perhaps needing a move or two to raise the threat to clear and present status, suggestion of threat, and a veiled, foggy threat.  (My opponent made that move-perhaps sees something I don't-should I be concerned, or is it a mistake by my opponent?)  Threats, of whatever flavor draw attention, and have to be calculated into the player's plan.  Pressure.  A players next move is based on the player's evaluation of the summation of all of the threats on the board.  Chess is the Art Of Threat.

And so, litigation.  It is war, pure and simple.

I would think that the Judge is fully aware that BSA's diminishing cash reserves are an existential threat-delay alone could cause the destruction of BSA.  It is not an acceptable legal result that an entity is rendered defunct, not on the merits of the case, but on account of mere delay. 

2 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

If that is the case, how long will that take?

I find it difficult to accept the proposition that the Judge in the BSA case is awaiting a ruling on another case (unless the Judge is able to get inside information on the schedule of the release of that ruling).  For the BSA Judge to await the ruling in another case, essentially ties the schedule of the BSA case to the schedule of the other case.  And the BSA Judge has no control over the timing of the ruling on the other case.  So, if the BSA Judge is waiting on a ruling in the other case, the BSA Judge has surrendered control of the timing of the BSA case AND surrendered control over the issue of BSA's diminishing funds.  Judges don't like to surrender control-that is be "legally adrift."

2 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

Why not a status conference and explain the reason for the delay.

This is an excellent question.  Judges do not like to be appealed, as it means that one side, or both, feel that the Judge has made a legal error.  No one likes to be accused of making an error.  Judges want to craft rulings/opinions that are devoid of allegations of legal error.

However, I cannot envision a Judge holding a status conference and "explaining the reason for the delay."  A status conference on that basis would smack of stating, "We are lost in this mess-any idea how I should rule?"  Not only an admission of judicial chaos, but not would reopen and invite attorneys for the parties to rehash their respective positions once again-and we've heard all of that.  (Judge is speaking from position of weakness.)

I can envision the BSA Judge holding a status conference on the basis of, "We're narrowing our ruling-staff is working diligently-have any discussions amongst the parties moved to any significant changes in position that I should be aware of before my final ruling?  (Meaning: "I've got my ducks in a row-anything you folks want me to incorporate into my ruling that will be more in accord with the parties' current positions?")  (Judge is speaking from position of control.)

2 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

Maybe BSA would change the plan to BSA only to get this finished faster.

"Finished faster" might be the hope of some survivors, but I do not believe that "BSA only" is National's hope.  "BSA only" is death.  I do not think that National Scouting will survive the "BSA only" path.

2 hours ago, 1980Scouter said:

There are serious doubts about third party releases and not the best idea to include them.

And this is the reason that "BSA only" is death.

If the local councils and chartering organizations are not given a discharge in bankruptcy, it appears that a flood of lawsuits will overwhelm them, and all will devolve into litigation chaos.  And a huge number of councils will file bankruptcy.

I still do not understand the role of the insurers in all of this-perhaps I am not thinking hard enough.

Third party bankruptcy discharges are critical to National BSA's survival.

Without them, I think all is lost.

 

And THE VOTE?  It will be interesting to see how that is worked into the ruling, if at all.  Given the inherent dilution of the vote of Survivors with legally viable claims, The Vote seems meaningless to me.  Well, other than to assure a positive vote for a BSA Plan that pays $3.500 to claimants with no demonstrable claim. The vote of Survivors being overwhelmed.

Trustworthy.

 

 

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, SiouxRanger said:

...  I do not believe that "BSA only" is National's hope.  "BSA only" is death.  I do not think that National Scouting will survive the "BSA only" path.

...

If the local councils and chartering organizations are not given a discharge in bankruptcy, it appears that a flood of lawsuits will overwhelm them, and all will devolve into litigation chaos.  And a huge number of councils will file bankruptcy.

 

Very well written and well reasoned.  

I doubt complete death. 

A BSA only would be ugly.  Many councils would be forced into bankruptcy.  I'm thinking states like CA and NY that have many cases under re-opened SOLs.  Others will survive because they don't have the deep pockets or the SOLs are not open or not enough cases.  Many will be dropped because the cash will not be there to be an incentive to law firms.  

I doubt BSA death because many councils would survive.  Some are under SOL closed states. Some don't have the cases.  Some don't have the wealth.

My view is the size of this bankruptcy case has perverted the law, the legal process and basic justice.  Of course, I want victims to get restitution, but I'm not sure if that is  possible except if funded by the federal government treasury.  It is a national charter.  Failure was everywhere at so many levels of society.

I would rather see this litigated closer to the specific cases.  

Edited July 19, 2022 by fred8033

[SiouxRanger]

On 7/19/2022 at 10:17 AM, fred8033 said:

I doubt complete death. 

The things one remembers with clarity (maybe?) from one's childhood.

In the 60's (19xx) when we decorated the family Christmas tree, we had spherical, glass ornaments.  Nothing special. But beautiful to me-reds, blues, greens, ...  Round balls.  All carefully stored away in their boxes of 12, cushioned by cardboard baffles to protect them in the off-season.

And then, at tree trimming, an ornament or two was entrusted to me (and my siblings) to hang on the tree, parents dutifully including us youngsters in the annual tradition.

Entrusted to us for about 30 seconds or so, until safely on the tree.

Even so, despite all reasonable care and parental guidance, an ornament or two would drop to the hardwood floor and shatter.

And what I remember most is that the ornaments would shatter into vicious-looking shards, many of them sized about half the circumference of the ornament. Bi-wedge-shaped, with sharp, pointed ends-laying on their backs with the pointed ends upward, just inviting a foot.  They looked wicked, and pieces went everywhere.  My parents admonished, "Don't move your feet-we have to sweep up the pieces."  (And, I, for one, did not want my feet to meet up with the long shards.  My main concern, even as a youngster was whether ALL of the pieces were swept up, or that I might find one a month later.)  (To this day, I NEVER go barefoot anywhere-maybe this is the reason???)

All the pieces were there, just no longer the mesmerizing, sparking ornament of a moment earlier.

And all the King's horses, and all the King's men…

On 7/19/2022 at 10:17 AM, fred8033 said:

A BSA only would be ugly.

All the pieces of the ornament were there, just no longer the mesmerizing, sparking ornament of (much, much) earlier.

And all the King's horses, and all the King's men…

On 7/19/2022 at 10:17 AM, fred8033 said:

because many councils would survive.

And maybe the shards can be formed into something resembling a prior National, but as a prior poster well pointed out in an excellent post (sorry for the non-atribution), a national organization provides significant benefits to "franchisee organizations."  And as the prior poster listed, I am convinced of his her points.

And a "collection of shards" the New National would be, and just what effort would it take for the New National Of Shards to extend its primacy over the "Movement USA Scouting" in areas where local councils went bankrupt?  And thereby re-establish the National of yore?

Well, numerous posters have noted National's stunning silence, (and corresponding local council silence) if not total abdication, of making any comment on the bankruptcy, and worse, offering any guidance to us volunteers, the folks who are supposed to be the folks actually running the program.  We are touted as the "heroes of the movement," "guided by the professionals."  Well, where are any of them?  National, local, what are we to do to "carry on?" It has been two and a half years that volunteers have waited for guidance.

A poster on another thread asked, "What is your unit looking forward to in the next year?"  (Paraphrasing.)

Last I looked, there were no replies.

I have pondered flippantly posting, "Getting our units' 2022 Rechartering documents back from Council by 12-21-2023."  (Note the year difference.) But that is outside what I consider a proper response under such desperate circumstances.  (I have previously posted that my unit started the re-chartering inquiry process in October 2021, in anticipation of this mess.  A Catholic Church sponsored units for 75 years or so.)

We have found another CO, in May, 2022, and even after all the paperwork was submitted changing to the new CO, several months ago, not a word from the Council.

Out Troop was allowed to attend summer camp which had been paid for, though warned "if not rechartered-you cannot attend."

Not used to Scout Councils THREATENING Scout Youth.

Kind.

Friendly.

Thrifty.

Trustworthy (which embodies most or all of them.)

And thanks, @fred8033. 

 

[SiouxRanger]

And thanks to all who have persevered through my last two posts.

[Eagle1993]

On 7/19/2022 at 8:23 AM, SiouxRanger said:

I find it difficult to accept the proposition that the Judge in the BSA case is awaiting a ruling on another case (unless the Judge is able to get inside information on the schedule of the release of that ruling).  For the BSA Judge to await the ruling in another case, essentially ties the schedule of the BSA case to the schedule of the other case.  And the BSA Judge has no control over the timing of the ruling on the other case.  So, if the BSA Judge is waiting on a ruling in the other case, the BSA Judge has surrendered control of the timing of the BSA case AND surrendered control over the issue of BSA's diminishing funds.  Judges don't like to surrender control-that is be "legally adrift."

On 7/19/2022 at 4:57 AM, 1980Scouter said:

Let this sink in.  Purdue Pharma, complex case, had confirmation hearings in mid/late August 2021.  Judge Drain did a 5+ hour ruling approving the plan September 1.  Days after the last hearing.  That plan was rejected by district December 16.  So, 3.5 months to get a ruling from the bankruptcy judge, have that plan then reviewed by district and rejected by district.

The BSA plan is already at 3+ months post confirmation hearing and still no decision.  This seems very odd.  Perhaps a bankruptcy lawyer can explain how common it is for a judge to not rule for 3+ months after a confirmation hearing where other complex cases are able to go through both the judges ruling and district court review within that same time period.

The only reason I have heard that may make sense is if she heard something during the Purdue appeals court hearing (back in April) that gave her pause.  There could be other reasons, but I haven't heard a good explanation.  She definitely doesn't want this plan to be rejected and if the appeals court either rejects or approves Purdue, she could use that language as guidance on the BSA plan.  That should help avoid loss at appeal.

In any case, only she knows why it is taking this long.  Hopefully we hear an answer soon.  Claimants need to start the next steps of closure and BSA needs to implement their post bankruptcy plan.