Why hasn't the plan been approved yet?

[1980Scouter]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 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.  

I agree with your comment that is almost has to have to do with Purdue.

My question is can judges talk about similar cases to each other legally? What if she knew what the likely outcome of Purdue is and is waiting to be 100% sure before she rules.

Everything I have seen where following the court she has been very professional and I am sure she realizes this case could end BSA depending on the outcome. 

[Eagle1993]

1 hour ago, 1980Scouter said:

I agree with your comment that is almost has to have to do with Purdue.

My question is can judges talk about similar cases to each other legally? What if she knew what the likely outcome of Purdue is and is waiting to be 100% sure before she rules.

Everything I have seen where following the court she has been very professional and I am sure she realizes this case could end BSA depending on the outcome. 

https://www.courthousenews.com/second-circuit-looks-askance-at-6-billion-oxycontin-settlement/

There is this...

Quote

 Federal appeals court judges appeared hesitant Friday to revive a settlement plan with drugmaker Purdue Pharma that would shield individual members of the wealthy Sackler family from all current and future civil lawsuits over their roles in promoting the opioid epidemic.

Quote

U.S. Circuit Judge Lee responded that the proposed Purdue settlement includes “a broader release than prior cases have really addressed.”

Quote

 

The Biden-appointed judge also pressed Purdue’s attorney on the heightened risk of abuse with this type of release. “In a situation like this, where the parties being released are the ones determining the contribution and kind of driving the plan,” she said, “that suggests concerns about abuse, or even in future cases, the idea that the parties getting the benefit of this release are determining how much they give, how essential it’s going to be to the plan.”

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee, called some of that case law cited by Purdue’s appeal “kind of a flimsy ship” with which to steer their case.

 

I don't think she can call up the judges ... but if she watched the hearing, perhaps she saw comments from Judge Lee and Judge Wesley and thought ... uh oh.

 

[ThenNow]

3 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I don't think she can call up the judges ... but if she watched the hearing, perhaps she saw comments from Judge Lee and Judge Wesley and thought ... uh oh.

As I've said before on posts regarding this score, I "uh huh" your "uh oh." 

Edited July 21, 2022 by ThenNow

[johnsch322]

I just talked to an old judge just now and he related to me how he presided over a BSA CSA case around 1990 and how it was a hung jury in the first trial and was settled before the second trial.  I know it’s not pertinent to the thread but thought it was interesting. I sold him a car about 6 years ago and he just came in and bought another. He still sits occasionally and he is 90 years old. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by johnsch322

[ThenNow]

3 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

I just talked to an old judge just now and he related to me how he presided over a BSA CSA case around 1990 and how it was a hung jury in the first trial and was settled before the second trial.  I know it’s not pertinent to the thread but thought it was interesting. I sold him a car about 6 years ago and he just came in and bought another. He still sits occasionally and he is 90 years old. 

Interesting, for sure. Makes me feel pretty weak and wimpy. I sit all the gosh darn time. I’m ordering a standup desk right now! 

Edited July 22, 2022 by ThenNow

[Eagle1993]

Bankruptcy Professor Melissa Jacoby just tweeted out thoughts as to why the BSA plan hasn't been approved.

Quote

 

Some have asked why it would take long time to issue #BoyScouts bankruptcy decision. No inside info, but a few (non-exclusive) factors: 
1) Boy Scouts intentionally opted to file in forum particularly busy with chapter 11 cases, including mass tort cases. 

2) If bankruptcy judge approves plan, #BoyScouts wants life-tenured district court to immediately review and "confirm" the confirmation of trial it did not oversee. Also appeals expected. Those courts will need *extensive* written findings of facts, conclusions of law. 

3) case and scope of court order #BoyScouts and allies requested push many boundaries, to say the least. Far from an all-or-nothing ruling.

4) some bankruptcy lawyers have illustrated no firm boundaries on how they might next use chapter 11. Even if not strictly precedential as a legal matter, decision will be broadly impactful given its boundary pushing. 

5) None of this is meant to justify this bankruptcy. Only suggesting these these factors affect the timeline. 

 

I found this to be a good summary that could explain.  As mentioned, perhaps the judge is being very careful to ensure district/appeals approves the plan AND no one takes this plan as precedential where it is not intended to be.  That plus the possibility where it is not an all-or-nothing could mean this is a very complex ruling that is just taking 3+ months.  In case, good to see an expert weigh in.

[mrjohns2]

In a case like this, does the judge have clerks to help with all of the research and writing? It just seems massive. 

[Eagle1993]

Just now, mrjohns2 said:

In a case like this, does the judge have clerks to help with all of the research and writing? It just seems massive. 

Yes, they have a staff.

[MYCVAStory]

35 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Bankruptcy Professor Melissa Jacoby just tweeted out thoughts as to why the BSA plan hasn't been approved.

The link:

Nothing anyone following this probably didn't already know or expect.  Confirmation of complexity.  Welcome to day 99.

[SiouxRanger]

On 7/21/2022 at 9:22 AM, Eagle1993 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.  

I stand by my post.  I could well be wrong.  But my marker stands firm as I posted.

[SiouxRanger]

As I understand the "model," BSA professionals "manage" the volunteers who "present the program" to youth.

And therein lies the problem.

BSA professionals--THEIR activities, decisions, (all benefitting their salaries and pensions), BANKRUPTED the BSA.  (Not to mention the psychological carnage their efforts left in their wake.)

And those BSA professionals (as a class), through the bankruptcy process, want to continue to direct us volunteers on presenting the program to youth.

And why should we, the volunteers, even let the BSA professionals make this argument?

Where is the Volunteer Outrage?

Essentially, it is" "We ruined our program, bankrupted it, shamed you volunteers for being associated with a program based on high morals though having none ourselves, highly paid as we are, and expect you volunteers to "Carry On."

 

[InquisitiveScouter]

5 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Where is the Volunteer Outrage?

Oh, it's right here ... 😜

[SiouxRanger]

I spent yesterday routing signs to establish the new boundary for our scout camp-a camp of 50+ years now butchered by decisions made by…Fortune 50 Executives…NO, Fortune 500 Executives…NO, my barber, my caddie, my Uber driver, my pizza delivery person, my…NO, NO, NO.

BSA Professionals.

And how many of them are standing up to take credit?

And @InquisitiveScouter you are likely to be searching for scouting for a long time.

[SiouxRanger]

And we sold off 1/3 of our camp.

For over a million dollars.

Can we buy a CNC router to do decent signs rather than an old fogey with unsteady hands making suitable but pathetic signs, with a million dollars? (For a million dollars, I could learn to paint like Michelangelo).

Or buy new chisels and carving knives for Woodcarving merit badge (which I resharpen, but only years after I was told that they needed to be resharpened-cheap steel-$4 knives and chisels…)

Or pay to repair broken firearms?  (We still have more functioning firearms than non-operational, but closing in.)

Or to connect to the camp power grid to the generator which has stood unconnected for over 5 years?  Critically needed several years ago, which was worthless, being unconnected.

To supply the fishing and fly fishing merit badge area with supplies.  Maybe $1,000?

Replace the dining hall.

Build a new camp office.

On and on, and we'd still have at least $500,000 of the million plus at hand.

Yet we have none of these benefits.

My council has dumped over a million dollars into the billion dollar hole dug by BSA National's "Professionals."

I gotta admit, it takes a lot of people working diligently, to dig a billion dollar hole.

Clearly, it can be done, as National BSA has shown.

And I am refreshed knowing that my National dues went to support idiots.

And your Council?  Are you chipping in to fill that hole with your retirement dollars?

 

--Cincinnatus

(Not sure the last two posts constitute "outrage" but close.)

Edited July 24, 2022 by T2Eagle
Unscoutlike ad hominem attack

[fred8033]

Dang.  I fear being baited, but I do want to reply.

4 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

As I understand the "model," BSA professionals "manage" the volunteers who "present the program" to youth.

My BSA experience is that BSA does not manage volunteers.  It was never, ever, ever structured that way.  The CO agreement document explicitly lays out who does what.  BSA is about providing training and resources.  CO is to "utilize the Scouting program to ... " and "Conduct the Scouting program"  ... The CO has the ownership of executing and managing the program.

The example repeatedly seen is when units have trouble with leader conflict.  There is ZERO the local council or national can do.  DEs are mostly powerless to "manage" the issues.  Only when it gets toxic enough that BSA views the charter org agreement or membership application has been violated, then the leader can get their BSA membership revoked.  That's the only power BSA has.  

The CO has always had the power to manage the volunteers.  

The fundamental problem is the charter org model.  Out dated.  More marketing than how the program works.  

 

4 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

BSA professionals--THEIR activities, decisions, (all benefitting their salaries and pensions), BANKRUPTED the BSA.  (Not to mention the psychological carnage their efforts left in their wake.)

And those BSA professionals (as a class), through the bankruptcy process, want to continue to direct us volunteers on presenting the program to youth.

And why should we, the volunteers, even let the BSA professionals make this argument?

Where is the Volunteer Outrage?

You will never broadly see it.  Victims rightly are angry.  Many don't accept the premise of the statements.