Eagle1993

Basically the LDS were attempting to clear out all claims where the youth was abused by a scout leader within the LDS. She said that while it is ok to clear out claims from scouting activities, she cannot approve clearing claims where the abuse occurred outside of scouting. LDS will have a tough decision. Do they pay $250M for significant protection or do they prepare for an onslaught of lawsuits. They may face that onslaught regardless. My guess is that they pull the $250M and become a non participating charter org.

It is not exactly clear to me, but as I understand it ... The proponents of the plan wanted the judge to rule with certain findings supporting the TDPs. That be would give the trustee more leverage when asking non settling insurers to pay up. The bankruptcy judge denied this and basically said it by is up to future courts to decide on a case by case basis. So, it gives the non settling insurers a bit more leverage. As I understand it, the TDPs will still be used, they just carry less weight if they are used in future court cases.

The way I look at this. 1) BSA and LDS need to talk. LDS likely had 3 options. Walk away from the plan, pay $250M but go with the standard charter releases or try to offer less and go with the standard charter releases. 2) BSA and settling insurers must decide if it is ok to punt on the guam insurance transfer and to accept a few minor changes to the plan. My guess is they do. 3) BSA will likely have to remove many of the 22 groups they included in the plan they didn't notify. It is a risk going forward but they can't delay this further. 4) BSA, TCC and Coalition will have to determine if the ruling on the TDP is ok. Probably not much to be done, it is what it is. The good news is that the BSA has a path to clear get to plan approval. My guess is that it may take a few weeks to a month to update. Then perhaps time for objections to the changes. My hope is by end of September they get plan approval.

We were at Bear Paw week 1 with linked Troops. We patrol cooked and while we had some recommendations for the future, overall a good experience.

She overrules another group of objectors, except for: UST & Jane Doe. They argue section 1129(a)7 is a confirmation requirement. (This is a requirement to show creditors would get at least as much as they would through Chapter 7). BSA said this section doesn't apply to non profits. The judge agrees with UST & Jane Doe. However, I think the point is moot from what I can see. Several certain insurer objections are overruled. Various other issues are punted to the trustee (basically Allianz plans to sue post plan confirmation and the settlement trustee will be the other side of the lawsuit). There is an issue that the judge cannot confirm all 22 categories of person listed in (d) of the defined term Releasing Claim Holders received notice to release their claims. There is an issue with the list of exculpation includes the reorganized debtors & Pachulski Stang. The reoganized debtors do not exist, so they shouldn't be listed. Pachulski Stang can only be listed if the settlement is approved. In addition, debtors must account for setoff and recoupment rights. That is it. I'm not a legal expert, but I expect the biggest issue is TCJC. That was $250M and they will get far less protection than initially planned. Otherwise, most of the remaining issues appear to be easily fixed. My reading was very fast ... so I may have missed something.

Independent fees ... in general , the judge approves the $20K in fees. However, she wants the following change. If the settlement trust doesn't waive the fee and the claimant is not happy, they can go to the bankruptcy court for review.

Very minor change required ... "Given the Debtor's intent, the word "negligence" should be added to Art. VII.C.2(c)". Other than that, certain insurer's objections are overruled and she finds the plan in good faith.

"If the plan is confirmed, the confirmation order will provide that the settlement trustee will propose procedures to suss out fraudulent claims taking into account factors she deems appropriate, which can include a cost/benefit analysis. Those procedures will be presented to the court. The STAC will have no consent or veto rights over these procedures. In addition to disallowance of a claim, penalties may include seeking prosecution of the claimant or claimant attorney for representing a fraudulent claim." She seemed VERY upset over what she herd with claim approvals. Basically, if she confirms the plan, before any payouts, she wants to see how the trust will vet claims.

She found some issues with post bankruptcy settlements. Basically, all parties must be notified even if bankruptcy court approval is not sought.

She overruled several objections including pro se claimants, the Girl Scouts (not that matters anymore) ... on page 204 of 281

TDP (Boy Scouts of America Trust Distribution Procedures for Abuse Claims) Findings ... ... she will not find the TDPs as "fair and equitable settlement of Abuse claims" as she does not see a need to do this to confirm the plan. ... she will not find the TDPs under Historical Consistency Finding. Again, she doesn't think she needs to do this to confirm the plan. ... she will not find the TDPs under "The Binding Finding" ... unnecessary ...she may agree to "They Allowed Claim Finding" .. however, needs an update .. she will not find the TPDs under "The Good Faith Finding" Basically, she is punting the TDPs to future litigation as needed. Major win for non settling insurers.

She rejects the third party releases for TCJC (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints} as they went too far. That is why she is excluding their $250M settlement as she expects that may change. The issue is TCJC were attempting to clear out mixed claims. She is ok clearing out pure scouting abuse from TCJC, but mixed claims are a bridge too far. So ... "... I decline to approve the TCJC (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) Settlement."

She concludes that there is statutory authority to grant third-party nonconsensual releases. She goes through pages and pages including discussing Dr. Kennedy & Mr. Meidl's moving statements in support of the plan. In the end, she believes this case the releases are allowed. Major hurdle cleared here.

A bunch of more objections by Lujan were denied. So far, (page 120 of 281) there is 1 major issue. BSA cannot transfer the Guam abuse insurance rights to the debtor until the Guam bankruptcy concludes or that court addresses the issue.

7) The settling insurer settlements meet the standard required. Each insurer met the standard vs Ms. Gutzler's analysis EXCEPT Century. However, two points. BSA & Century were litigating coverage before bankruptcy & there is doubt if Century can pay more anyway. Plus, TCC, Coalition & FCR approved it. First Issue: She cannot approve the sale of abuse insurance policies in Guam. The Guam bankruptcy court blocked it during the Archbishop bankruptcy there and based on a review of law. A win for Lujan & Guam...

It is very long! Will attempt to summarize her findings: 1) She agrees with the Bate's estimate of $2.4 - $3.6B. 2) She agrees with the insurance expert that potential allocation to solvent non-settling insurance companies is between $321,319,886 and $400,546,854 and total limits of coverage potentially available is $4,295,878,628 and $4,404,844,433. 3) Based upon 1 & 2, the judge concludes that if the plan is confirmed, direct abuse claims will more likely than not be paid in full. 4) She CANNOT approve the $250M contribution from TCJC (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) because, of a release of non-abuse claims. 5) She also excluded contributions from other chartered orgs. for her analysis of #3 as there is nothing to really estimate a contribution 6) She also exlcuded Pachulski Stang's contribution of 10% of fees. Regardless, she believes direct abuse will be paid in full. ... more coming

Opened up new thread here Locking this one down.

Well, we have an opinion on the docket. From my brief review, it is not an approval; however, not a full rejection. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9ba8739e-283b-4ce4-b328-5a1eda289f30_10136.pdf Please keep the discussion civil.

The most violated rule in all of scouting is the charter org agreement. From training to product sales, many charters are not following the agreement. I think if units want to see councils crack down on rules, there are many rules not currently heavily enforced. Just start reading all of G2SS. Personally, I do agree with you. BSA should not have any rules they don't intend to fully enforce. That would probably prevent them from writing unnecessary rules.

It is definitely confusing.

I have one transgender youth in my Troop (who is life and is working towards her Eagle). By having a very closely linked Troop, it has greatly simplified this change. From my experience, gender has a bigger impact on scouting than sexual orientation (which actually rarely if ever comes up). Sexual orientation, to me, has no real impact on scouting. The issue with gender is shared tents, showers, separate units, etc. Talking with scouts, full transgender is still actually pretty rare at schools; however, from what I have seen, the use of "they" is more common. As a SM, what do we do with scouts that identify as "they"? I am still a fan of allowing single gender units. For example, if you are a boy only unit and one of your youth members comes out as "they" or a "she" then you can help them find another unit to work with. Similar for an all girl unit. That said, units who are willing, should be allowed to simply welcome all scouts (and not attempt to form several different Troops just to accommodate the different genders). I do expect that in 10 years or less, assuming BSA survives, units would have to apply to be single gender and default to all genders.

Several councils have kicked off pilot programs for coed dens. Feels a bit odd as many if not most coed packs I know of already operate this way. https://colbsa.org/familyden/

I've never heard this. I struggle to get enough adults to come to camp already... High adventure hasn't been an issue. Summer camp, they scatter.

I'm not sure about Summit, but BSA pay for staffers is far less than other summer camps in my area. Talking with some, camps are paying around $800 per week for staff. My daughter has gone to several camps and there appears to be no shortage. BSA needs to learn about capitalism.... If you want staff, you need to pay. These kids have options for summer jobs. Now, that also means you probably make less profit from summer camps and likely need to charge more. My BSA summer camp also had shortages of staff, the major impact was the riffle and shotgun ranges where they didn't really have much of an open shoot.

It's all over. All lawsuits dropped. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/b530ab19-6224-4f25-af12-fa7a92aa4b01_10117.pdf