Eagle1993

This is true. After Lujan asked her questions (which I honestly think many questions from her have been a bit odd/confusing/non relevant) Dr. Kennedy was asked some follow up questions and Dr. Kennedy clarified that No TCC member objected to this current plan. I do find it odd that Lujan was asking these questions ... it makes me suspicious that she knew internal TCC discussions. ... anyways.. I wasn't able to listen much beyond the first 50 mins of the trial today but I rejoined it from time to time ... so perhaps something shocking happened and I missed it. Certain insurers are fighting tooth and nail against this plan. They are VERY concerned ... I think especially about that neutral path. The BSA witness today, for the bit I saw him, was great. Also, I have been a bit surprised, but the only claimant group I see fighting hard is Guam (Lujan). A bit of background on the Guam group based on what I have seen. Lujan & Wolff, LLP seemed to have been offered a settlement in 2018 for their clients (I think in total 80 survivors). They didn't take it and decided to go to trial. Now, both the arch diocese AND BSA declared bankruptcy. My guess ... whatever offer they had in the past was much, much larger than any TDP or even neutral payout they can expect. Some of their lawyer's questions go into that history ... "remember when you gave us that offer. Remember when you said x,y,z." I'm sure she feels devastated for her clients, and I can see that pain, but at the same time, one had to know BSA was in financial trouble and factored that into the decision making.

I'll concur here. I tried to explain what happened and the questions were a bit confusing from Lujan. However, the questioning and back and forth wasn't exactly clear so I could see how it would appear TCC members voted to reject the plan (later that was cleared up).

And Dr. Kennedy done. On cross he was asked about the RSA a lot and reviewed transcripts of townhalls. Basically, focusing on independence of the trust. White & Case very upset now over adding the transcripts of the townhalls to the record without notice. In any case, the insurance companies are very concerned about Trust Governance and not being fair to them. The Guam lawyer asked if the TCC approval of the new plan was unanimous and it wasn't or it was ... actually, I wasn't fully clear on that. I question if it matters...

TCC firmly supports this plan, 85% approval is sufficient (never will get close to 100%).

Dr. Doug Kennedy ... there is no other path available than this plan to resolve this case. Many claimants are over 70 and many survivors may pass away before resolution if this plan fails (over 12,000). If this plan fails, the likely other path is state courts. One TCC member is near 80 and driving DoorDash to make ends meet. The bankruptcy will help these people. The plan approval would also help start the closure for survivors. Every must follow their own path, but one of the worst parts is not having closure)

I am not aware of any; however, from what I heard yesterday the VAST majority of cases are being settled out of court so few would know. I would not be surprised if a leader is named in the future, especially if they violated BSA policy.

I agree. I don't think most of the volunteers (unit, district and council) have a clue what is coming. The national volunteers seem well connected so they probably have a good idea. To be fair, I don't think any of us really know either (at least specifics), but we at least know some major changes are coming. I'll see if I can find those slides on the docket. I hate going by memory. I remember seeing a full digital or improved digital experience, a single scout program, girls something, more relevant, outdoors (emphasized) as some of the key points. Again, this was a brainstorming session and doesn't mean anything is locked down, but it gives an idea of what changes they have in mind. Also note Dr. Kennedy who made a short appearance on Scouter.com will be the first witness tomorrow. I believe he was one of the key negotiators behind the youth protection changes. They stated his testimony will be brief. 10 AM Eastern start.

I expect a lot of council leaders watched Monday. There was over 450 on the call at one point and the last two days <300. I expect many knew to watch Devang Desai's testimony. Those power point slides came up very early ... so you didn't need to watch long. That said ... I expect for most it wasn't a surprise.

That AND the possibility of freezing of pensions.

Interesting points now coming up. Basically, no defendants want to take sex abuse claims to trial. The losses are big. Juries award large amounts. In addition, there was a case where the jury determined the case was outside SOL; however, still awarded $15K with no reason given. The witness is basically indicating why the TDPs are valid (and why insurance is probably wrong when they say they are too high).

I left for a while and just rejoined and she is going on now about the neutral. Yes, if insurance doesn't want to pay the bill they could get sued. They can fight these in court. She was asking if insurance could force this into court (I think they can by simply refusing to pay). However, she really doesn't like the fact they enter court with a $ amount from the process. I'm confused and she pretty much burnt a day and from what I can tell, almost no impact on the case.

Today lawyer from certain insurers is cross examining an expert witness from BSA ... one who has some expertise in TDPs. Tried to get the expert thrown out, was denied. Now questioning vetting of claims, how it will be possible to really go through all of these claims and likely the cost of the trust and timing, etc. I have no idea why she is going down this path. So far, I haven't heard anything of note but perhaps others are listening more closely.

Further discussions about how to get around SOLs. For example, in Idaho and then elsewhere, plaintiffs used the fraudulent concealment claims. BSA legal team said they saw the legal theory increased after the success in Idaho. There are also other ways around SOLs depending on states.

Certain insurers going after SOLs, showing case after case being dismissed depending on SOL. Also showing Kansas dismissing revival due to constitutional issues. Lawyer claiming this is the only case they are aware of where claims outside SOLs are included. Basically, looking to prepare to show that cases outside SOLs do not have valid claims. (my guess) Note I'm not a lawyer or judging this opinion, just highlighting what was discussed in trial.

Missed this morning so far. Yesterday ... my takeaways. Bankruptcy US Trustee's path is clear .... go after the fact that some releases are being given with no contribution. One of their arguments will appear to be the releases are too broad. The Guam group ... confusion. I wasn't following closely but a lot of objections and it seemed like she was just rehashing prior discussions. AIG & certain insurers ... their path is that the Bates report proves no further insurance settlements are required as the plan was fully funded without them. They will argue the TDPs should be reduced. BSA Post bankruptcy I wasn't expecting this would be covered A lot of focus on WHY certain changes were made to the Philmont executive committee power point slide deck. Why was the quote from Eisenhower removed ... "who is BSA at war with" Why was $400M removed from the donor list ... Why was 250 to 80 councils removed and changed. COs ... major changes could exist (admitted we need updated agreements and ability to have meeting spaces without COs) Etc. Certain insurers seem to be preparing an argument that BSA has clear plans to raise money and reduce costs (it was confirmed in court that BSA agrees we have too many camps (not bases). So ... if BSA has these great plans (that were not in their business plan) then they should be able to cover more costs of the bankruptcy (my speculation as to why AIG went after this line of attack As discussed earlier, I believe JLSS will likely confirm this plan as is or with minor changes. However, district court could reject it and these groups are preparing lines of appeal. To me ... the good news is that National BSA is aware of the membership, CO and financial situation they face post bankruptcy and they plan to address it head on. There was slides about what services councils will get from National vs what they can provide locally. National wants to make sure all $ that they get from councils is spent on program and not wasted. They had a slide about building trust with councils. However, it also appears they (National) know they cannot wait for 250 councils and 10,000s of volunteers to come to a consensus. I expect they will have to force changes to survive. I just hope it is transparent and not hidden in questionable surveys.

I expect much of the hearing will be laying foundations for appeal. JLSS will approve this plan. I expect most know that.

He was live tweeting a deposition and exposing info that may have been privileged. Apparently, someone was on video taking cellphone pictures today of the hearing.

Remember back when we discussed here that we were shocked BSA allowed the Bates report to be filed on the docket. We thought it was good to have in mediation, but surprised they put it on the record. Now that is an issue. BSA and others are attempting to prevent the Bates report from being in evidence. AIG is attempting to get that in. Why? Because AIG is saying they don't need to provide anything as everyone is paid in full per BSA (Bate's report). Take this in addition to the Hartford deal as bad moves by the BSA. This isn't 20/20 hindsight ... we called this out immediately after the filing that it was likely a mistake. Now, I have no idea if it will have any impact, but it is currently causing issues.

No details, just PPT level info. 10 regions, 8 councils by region and the statement in a note "preemptive consolidation". Edit ... They also had a statement about too much collaboration slows us down. Take that as a sign on how this will be done.

Ok, there is a break in the hearing. I'm working while the hearing is in the background. From what I can gleam, AIG is asking how BSA executive committee was involved in pulling together the plan and also to clarify what they plan to do post bankruptcy. Speculation here ... it is almost as if AIG is laying out a case that BSA is attempting to dump most of the cost on insurers, sandbag their current financial situation and then post bankruptcy, show major cost savings and big donors to quickly recover (while insurance bares the brunt of the cost). AIG also spent a lot of time indicating the Coalition essential wrote the TDPs. My bet is that there are no more meetings going forward on how to respond post bankruptcy until the actual bankruptcy is finished. I'm sure BSA is probably not happy 455+ people on the call heard their plans to merge councils and freeze pensions.

Correct. I would assume a pension freeze. Now going through slides ... $400M from donors in by Dec 2023. Place HA bases in trusts. 100% debt free by Dec 2023. Focus on the $400M discussion that was removed as was the pension plan topic. That is being discussed now.

Explore pension elimination. Too much collaboration slows us down.

Focus on "preemptive consolidation" of councils. Going through handwritten notes of DD. 10 regions, 8 councils per region

Ok now certain insurers (AIG counsel) is going over that board retreat at Philmont.

I figured anything like that wasn't allowed ... glad I made the correct decision!