Oakland 2nd California diocese to seek bankruptcy over abuse

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Oakland 2nd California diocese to seek bankruptcy over abuse

May 8, 2023

OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — The Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland filed for bankruptcy Monday due to hundreds of new child sex abuse claims, becoming the second diocese in California to do so.

The San Francisco Bay Area diocese faces more than 330 lawsuits brought under a California law allowing claims that would have otherwise expired, Bishop Michael C. Barber said in a letter posted to the diocese’s website.

Most of them allege abuse that dates back to the 1980s and earlier, according to Barber, and by priests who are no longer active in ministry or deceased. He said a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization would ensure “a fair and equitable outcome for survivors” and allow the church to continue its work.

SNAP, a survivors’ network for clergy sex abuse victims, criticized the bankruptcy filing, calling it a ploy to keep information hidden. In a statement, it said the Oakland diocese could sell off property to compensate victims.

-snip-

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/oakland-catholic-clergy-sex-abuse-bankruptcy-5cf4a93fb5c7e67cec931c2ef8ed162d

[alwaysinasnit]

1. IMHO, tax-exempt organizations should not be allowed the protections of bankruptcy.

[edhopper]

2. Are all these Dioceses

completely independent with no connection to the Vatican and the RC Church?
Because if not, this is a joke.
If you get food poisoning at a Starbucks, can that one outlet declare bankruptcy to avoid a law suit? Fuck no!

[Eugene]

3. Dioceses are subsidiary corporations. When a subsidiary goes bankrupt, it's up to the courts

to figure who's on the hook. AFAIK pinning liability on a diocese's foreign sovereign state parent has never happened.

Not a lawyer but here goes...

As for Starbucks, the franchise operator is the usual corporate person involved. That's the point of corporations.

[edhopper]

4. I picked Starbucks

rather than someplace like McDonalds, because I believe all Starbucks are run by the parent company and not franchises. (Could be wrong about this)

AFAIK there are many cases of foreign companies being sued for what they do in another country.