Eagle1993

$368M isn't the total fees. Don't forget that every claimant that has a lawyer will pay a large portion of their claim to them. In addition there are large bills that have yet to be decided from the Coalition. $368 is simply the direct bankruptcy costs paid by BSA.

No breakdown from what I could see.

I think it is really tough to say. If you look at the few years prior to bankruptcy, BSA lost: $22M in 2019 $58M in 2018 $41M in 2017 However, these were not cash statements. In addition, BSA has changed a lot since 2019. I expect they will exit bankruptcy with <$20M in the bank (as bills are still coming in). Who knows the backlog of work they have and what payments they face on their debt as they exit bankruptcy. I don't envy BSA leadership, they have a tough slog ahead.

Note that as of end of June, BSA had $32M in cash in the bank. They started with $117M and $55M (endowment) so burned through $140M of cash since Feb 2020 (through June 2022). Assuming plan is approved Sept 1 (or shortly thereafter) and confirmed ... they are looking at $400-$500M of debt and $30M in the bank. I expect their debt to asset ratio to be 1:1 at best, I believe they have Sumit worth $300M+. BSA will need a huge injection of cash plus look at fee increases. They need to get off the edge of Ch 7 fast. I know no one is happy, but if BSA went over that Ch 7 cliff (which it was probably to) then all of the insurance settlements and councils would abandon the plan. There would be very little payouts to anyone and claimants would have been stuck with suing individual councils and COs. I expect some claimants would have fared a bit better, but the vast majority would likely end up with little to nothing. Graphs.pdf

Based on end of June, I see: Approved to date for bankruptcy: Professional Fees : $240M US Trustee Fees: $2.5M Other Reorg Expenses: $125M Total Bankruptcy Expenses: $368M (OUCH) ... you can almost buy a nice camp for that Further Breakdown: Debtor Professionals - $148M Committees & Mediators - $84M 79443f84-dbaa-4574-838d-8d9810da69d8_10142.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

Several claimant representatives and certain insurers filed objections to the revised plan. The certain insurers had the most comprehensive set of objections and included recommended revised language. It appears the fight is really about Dr. Bates and his estimate. Essential the BSA, TCC and Coalition are attempting to say Dr. Bates is correct to allow plan confirmation but we expect he will be wrong so we want the court to confirm the plan saying it is 100% funded but also confirm the plan saying the trust isn't bound to that amount. Certain insurers are basically laying the groundwork to say the plan is funded so leave us alone. They call out the TCC a bit as the TCC didn't object to Bates. The other points are around language that was changed that goes beyond the opinion and language that wasn't changed that must be. Hearing Sept 1.

I'll add that I do not believe having a non contributing CO negatively impacts you in the matrix. However, I expect we will learn more once the trust is officially setup and starts processing claims.

Our District Klondike is probably the best patrol method event of the year.

Actually, they already have the impact in the plan ... took me a while to find it. So basically, if they don't make good in 3 years and pay the $27.5M, they will no longer be protected and can be sued directly by abused. They are expected to pay $2M within 180 days, $25.5M in 3 years and keep $2.5M reserved until year 6.

If the UMC does not pay, I expect the Trust will sue the UMC. They would sue for the $30M plus interest, court costs, etc.

Prof Jacoby had a quick summary of the 20 minute hearing yesterday. No survivors spoke nor their attorneys. DOJ didn't speak. BSA plans to seek district court approval as they believe that is needed given the releases. Non settling insurers will likely appeal. More from Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/boy-scouts-insurers-prepare-appeal-bankruptcy-settlement-approval-2022-08-18/

Question 1 - how are you involved in scouting Question 2 - Which scouting value most compelling Question 3 - Which value least compelling (only 4 listed and not sure how you would pick any of these) Question 4 - Which trait is most important (honestly, probably the only question in the entire survey that is useful for feedback on program development) Question 5 - How important to you that BSA survives Question 6 - Why did pick the rank you did in Q5 Question 7 - How have you supported BSA in the past Question 8 - Why did you support BSA Question 9 - How likely to financially support BSA Question 10 - Why did you answer as you did in Q9 Question 11 - Overall outlook of BSA in future Name, Email, etc. Other than Question 4, I don't see any of these questions leading to any input into program priorities at all. This seems to be clearly a collection of data to give someone to make a fundraising pitch in the future. They can use some answers to prioritize and then personalize the pitch based on the rest. I don't take this as negative, it is probably the right strategy to fundraise. BSA, as part of their recovery meeting, mentioned they believe they need to raise $400M in donations as they exit bankruptcy. This will require both large & small donations and separate from FOS.

1. I also saw Prof. Jacoby question who would appeal. It is a good question as she said most major parties are on board. There were a few claimant law firms fighting hard. One was Guam ... well, they keep their insurance for now which was their major ask. The other was about TCJC... well, now they can sue the TCJC. The third was more general. I expect law firms may give up spending more time on appeals and just focus on maximizing recovery through TDPs or independent review. Non settling insurers will probably appeal. US Trustee? That is the big question. My bet ... they will fight this. The US Trustee has been clear in every bankruptcy case I could find. Non debtor releases should not be allowed. I expect they will appeal. 2. If you are outside the SOL ... yes you could fight that, but it is likely most lawyers wouldn't have taken the case outside bankruptcy. This was one of Bate's main points. That a large number of the 82,000 would have received nothing outside bankruptcy court. So, I do expect there are many, who will receive more money than they would have outside bankruptcy. Now, is that $10-$20K worth the pain of the trial, wait, reliving abuse ... that will vary. I do expect there are many that could have received $10-$20M; however, technically, the independent review should address those as well. If you believe Bates, which not one law firm provided evidence he was wrong, then you believe everyone will receive the amount they are due based upon our current tort system. This is not to say that is a fair payment. I also question Bates, but nothing was brought up in court.

He retired in August per LinkedIn.

A flurry of action today: - The Judge approved the BSA/GSUSA agreement to stop suing each other: cd5eb23c-6a2c-4c70-a015-dc989fbfd257_10193.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) - The US Trustee/DOJ changed lawyers: 867dd5bd-aaac-414f-936e-0dc8e1bd486b_10191.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) - Certain insurers objected to BSA's timeline: b910e7e8-f15c-45b1-9612-f5b892b93ea2_10192.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) - The judge asked the BSA to have a status hearing on August 18th: 3eaca9e8-7586-42e0-8d3b-8b7d2d739506_10194.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) - A schedule has been released: Objections by Aug 24, responses to objections by Aug 29 and hearing Sept 1 081522 Notice of 7052 Motion (omniagentsolutions.com)

It's funny as the scouts in my Troop have no desire to have dining hall. The first dinner at camp this year was dining hall and otherwise it was patrol cooking. While our scouts have less "free" time due to the work involved in patrol cooking, the patrol cooking aspect of summer camp is typically listed as one of the scouts (especially older scouts) highlights of summer camp. The senior patrol usually sees it as a challenge to produce the best food, start eating first and complete KP before any other patrol. Other patrols, those who build strong teams, typically start challenging the senior patrol by the end of the week. Patrols don't necessarily follow the recipes. They make up their own variants. Many times those fail, but sometimes they work better than the provided recipe. They learn from failure and learn that taking different approaches to a challenge sometimes leads to better results. Unfortunately, it seems like many summer camps are headed to dining hall only. They can typically eek out an additional merit badge and more camp wide games. My troop, as long as the scouts continue to agree, will continue with patrol cooking. That does mean we sometimes miss a camp wide game or end up with less merit badges, but the impact on the patrol bonding is a great tradeoff. That said, I do wish our Troop was better at utilizing the patrol method beyond summer camp. We have patrols at camporees, outings and Troop meetings ... but we haven't been able to gain momentum in patrols meeting on their own (and many times patrols are mixed at meetings due to lack of attendance). Summer camp patrol cooking is that one time of year I see the patrol method shine.

I think this will be looked at on a case-by-case basis. Who did the abuse? Where did the abuse occur? Did the TCJC know of the abuse and take immediate action? Etc. I think you are correct, there will be some difficult aspects to clarify. Now, there has been no protections for the TCJC outside of scouting abuse ... so I expect if a flood of lawsuits were going to hit, they would have already. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a slight surge post BSA bankruptcy (as lawyers may have held back first focusing on the scout bankruptcy) and those early cases may clarify how this will work out long term.

Wish there was an angry face response. Glad they were caught.

They still have some time to work out a settlement on scouting abuse. Post 1976 scouting abuse ... Goes to bankruptcy. Pre 1976 scouting abuse ... TBD... They have 12 months to work out a settlement. Non scouting abuse... No protection

TCJC deal is removed but they are a participating CO. Insurance of Archbishop of Agana will not go to trust. Updated plan to address most of the objections. Note they are also removing the $100M fundraising commitment from UMC. They are asking for some specific findings of fact that she didn't mention. I may have missed some aspects, but we may be close to a decision. TCJC didn't go nuclear and become a opt out CO. To me, that is big and likely allows this to be confirmed.

BSA plans to submit an updated plan Aug 12 and have asked for a hearing Aug 24. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/dc3627da-d67c-4c45-8b43-42b5b17e32e7_10176.pdf

The only benefits I see of a council CO vs paper only CO: - We spend about 8 hours a year volunteering for our CO fundraisers. We could do our own fundraiser or even something else during that time. - Easier to track down adult leader and charter approval signatures Our CO raises thousands of dollars a year off of our scouts labor and gives us nothing. There are worse COs than councils out there.

I just received a call from my SE helping a unit that was previously chartered by a UMC unit. They are looking at different CO options and are considering our CO (just different branch). The SE said the unit has questions so he was helping check on my CO. Who insurers our trailer? (No one). What meeting space are we provided. (None). What storage space are we provided. (None). How much funding are we provided. (None). I told my SE that our CO signs off on adult leader apps and charter agreement and then we volunteer for their fundraisers. He said ok, he will relay the message. I expect several UMC units will see the brutal reality of what most COs provide... Ink on paper a few times a year. Sad to see the loss of good COs.

Looks like you can now request the transcript from March 14 hearing. You need to call: (302)654-8080 This was the day where that BSA leadership summit was discussed.