Eagle1993

Status conference scheduled for Friday. BSA - Agenda for Feb 18 Hearing (omniagentsolutions.com)

Amended Chapter 11 Plan Third Modified Fifth Amended Chapter 11 Plan Exhibit(s) Notice of Filing of Debtors' Third Modified Fifth Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization and Blackline Thereof (related document(s)6443, 7832, 8813) Filed by Boy Scouts of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (the redline Plan)) (Topper, Paige) Plan SupplementNotice of Filing of Fourth Amended Plan Supplement to Third Modified Fifth Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization for Boy Scout of America and Delaware BSA, LLC (related document(s)6443, 7515, 7832, 7953, 8647, 8813) Filed by Boy Scouts of America Exhibit(s) Notice of Filing of Exhibits I-1 and J-1 to Debtors' Third Modified Fifth Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization and Redlines Thereof (related document(s)8813) Filed by Boy Scouts of America. Exhibit(s) Notice of Filing of Exhibits I-2, I-3, I-4 and J-2 to Debtors' Third Modified Fifth Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization (related document(s)8813) Filed by Boy Scouts of America.

Within Scouting, barriers to abuse is effective when followed. I think the number of abused has dropped off from the peak and most Troops & Packs are safe. For the most part, I think the YP changes in the bankruptcy will further help. However, one of my concerns, long term, is the Explorer program. Given the number of youth in the program, it seems to have an outsized number of abused. Explorer+Scout+national+abuse.pdf (squarespace.com) Ohio Explorer scouts among sex abuse victims (news5cleveland.com) Lawsuit alleges sexual abuse of Police Explorers in 1980s by ex-Irvine sergeant – Orange County Register (ocregister.com) Dozens of Teenage Boy Scout Explorers Have Been Sexually Abused by Cops; Should Scouts Share the Blame? | News | Phoenix | Phoenix New Times | The Leading Independent News Source in Phoenix, Arizona To me, Explorers is not a key part of BSA's mission (along with Learning for Life). These programs should be spun off as separate organizations. Continuing these programs under BSA puts the entire mission at risk. I would think BSA should focus on Scouting (Cub, Scouts BSA, Venturing & Sea).

Yes. My understanding is that there are no changes to the TDP route from the current plan.

I think the only councils that would be 100% on board are those that are likely to go into bankruptcy if that National plan falls through. Even for my council, at some point it may be better to just let national go under and save as much money as possible. There is definitely a balancing act. I agree ... if BSA asks for a big payment to continue, it would probably go through the Ad Hoc committee.

No, none. A few references to Chapter 7 but not by BSA and only in passing. The ~$2.7B initially. The trustee would be empowered to go after non settled chartered orgs, non-settled insurance companies (national BSA insurance, LC insurance and it sounds like CO insurance). The Roman Catholics are VERY upset that the non-settled COs have their own insurance now targeted with this plan. They have 3 paths. $3500 or TDP just like previous. TDP requires more documentation and the trustee (designee) would determine payout based on TDP scales. The 3rd path is the neutral. A party (likely retired judge) would basically oversee a trial. The claimant would have to provide $20K + a ton of documentation. They would have to be examined by a psychologist (possibly). Sit through cross examination from lawyers (probably from insurance companies). After this "trial" the "neutral" would determine liability and damages as if it were a state case. Then, the claimant would get 100% of those damages. Up to $1M would come directly from the trust. Everything over $1M would come from the excess trust fund that is collected from the groups I mentioned in your 2nd question. I think basically everything is sold (trademarks, property, etc.). Then claimants are paid after secured debtors are paid. I doubt LCs would be pulled in. To me, if this plan doesn't go through this path there are two options. Option 1 - Chapter 7 Option 2 - BSA charges all LCs an assessment. Perhaps $500K each, one time charge. If you can't afford it, merge with another council. Lets say half councils merge, they would get $62.5M ... enough to probably last 6 more months in bankruptcy.

I'll be blunt. Most COs provid almost nothing to the program. The Methodist just released a joint statement with the BSA that they are on board and working on a new chartered organization agreement language. BSA just needs a way to have units charter with councils (like Girl Scouts) and for the most part they will be fine. That said, losing the Catholic Churches would definitely hurt. My unit already discussed and we would prefer no CO over our current one. They provide no meeting space, no money, are tough to find to sign off on leaders and charters.

I think the costs drop substantially by end of March. Since the TCC, FCR will likely not appeal, their costs should almost go to $0. Even the costs in district/appeals court should be a lot less (no voting to pay for, etc.). Looking at the history, early on they were spending at times less than $1M per month. I could see us return to $1-$2M per month vs $10M right now. However, if this plan is rejected ... I am VERY concerned. I think this is the last swing of the bat.

So, based on today's status hearing. 1) BSA is running out of money. Everyone seemed to agree they are in serious trouble. They may need to use the few million from Scouting U to keep operating. I get the sense that there is a strong possibility BSA is on the edge of Chapter 7. TCC legal team looked a bit grey when talking about the timelines and how important it was to get to the hearing as quickly as possible. I get the sense that if this plan fails, BSA probably doesn't have enough in the tank to take another shot and may just go Chapter 7. Perhaps this got TCC and others on board (along with the changes). 2) It sounds VERY likely that the plan we see Monday is the plan. The judge says in bankruptcy, settlements change; however, she indicated that at some point you need to stop. 3) I believe the plan will be confirmed. There will be more changes through the hearings. However, I have the sense that the framework is there ... it is a matter some language here and there. Perhaps even eliminating the $20K charge but make a tiered TDP. Releases/injunctions may change a bit. But overall, the plan will be close to the one Monday that is confirmed. 4) The hearings will take a while ... 50 hours was mentioned but that may be on the low side. March 9 it starts, guessing ... I think it takes a full 3 weeks then 1 week following to get a ruling. My over/under for the ruling is April 6. 5) This plan will be appealed (either to an appeals court first or just fight at district). I have no idea what will happen there; however, if this plan is scuttled, I think it is more likely to be scuttled in district court than bankruptcy court. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this happens. If this happens on the Purdue Pharma timeline (and April 6 is correct guess) the plan could be overruled mid July. Now assuming district confirms the bankruptcy, appeals could still happen, but at least the plan would be confirmed and BSA would start exiting bankruptcy. So ... my guess right now, is exit from bankruptcy (with district court approval) by August 1. However, a lot of risk.

Sounds like hearing starts March 9 (2 week delay). I missed parts of the hearing today, but it is clear that certain insurance companies, some COs (most notably Roman Catholic Church) and various claimants are objecting to the updated plan along with the US Trustee. BSA is running out of money. TCC lawyers even indicated that any delay means less money left for the trust. Opponents to the plan (most notably the US Trustee) said that is BSA's fault for wasting everyone's time this past summer. Judge made a reference that she doesn't want due process to be an issue during appeal, as she said she knows no matter what side she rules on during the hearing, there will be appeals. Judge encouraged parties to continue to meet to see if they can get objectors on board before the hearing. Hard to see that as most want non debtors excluded. Perhaps insurance companies could be brought in. A lot of discussion about the hearing. No opening statements. Closing statements will be oral. Various other points made about how to handle the trial. One area the judge seems to be concerned about is the $20K fee ... why not just send everyone through TDPs. We will see.. I 100% believe she is open to including non debtors. Plan and other documents must be filed by Monday. Objections later. Again, trial March 9. A mention of 50 hours for a trial was thrown out but not agreed to. Also, they will likely have 1 day or a few hours of the trial for subset of claims (Oracle, AT&T, GSUSA, etc.). Those that are not the primary part of the debate. Finally, claimants who have lawyers must have their lawyers represent them. Any claimant that was to be part of the trial directly and testify, etc. will need to release their name publically.

Roman Catholic Church ... last time the debtor said no reason to vote last time (per debtor) as plan got better. Now, 40,000 charters, have had the rug pulled out from them. This needs to go out. Time is needed.

US Trustee Proposing to change votes is inappropriate. We should call this the 6th amended plan. Disclosure statement is needed. Need to show how this improves plan for Class 9 parties. All they did is confuse COs. This is the no third party left behind act. New TDPs ... fee for independent review. No court in this country requires a filing fee of $10K to initiate a tort case. Attempt to change votes without consent .. slap in fast for survivors.

Insurance - what seems to go on ... claimants have taken over and now inflated claim values are being used. They are very upset. There were unapproved extensions already done. The plan is now worse and more objectionable. JLSS ... Discovery needed? Was hoping update would check boxes off of insurance list, but it sounds like it went the other direction. Insurance said ... yes your honor. JLSS ... Ok

Going through various updates. Insurance wants to adjourn until at least March 15.

Proposal from BSA: - TCC & Coalition and state court want to communicate to survivor community as whole and discuss with those who did not vote or voted against plan to allow them to approve plan. - Push start of confirmation to March 1 (from Feb 22) to allow time to revote - Debtors have 1 witness who is lead lawyer and would not be able to support ... so would want that witness to go. This Monday ... file Plan, TDP and Settlement Trust Agreement Thursday Feb 17 .... updated objection deadline (on updates to plan). Now that CO releases are changed for Pre 1976 - Feb 21 ... debtors & others file briefs in support of plan Feb 28 .. Abuse claimants to update votes to Omni Feb 28 ... Other COs to provide objections to changes in releases Feb 28 ... IF COs want to opt out, that is the day March 1 ... start hearing

Due to BSA liquidity, BSA can use proceeds of Scouting U to support BSA liquidity as they are running out of money.

Hearing started ... BSA starts by going through the updates Lots of thanks around. Many days, late nights, early mornings. Went through YPT updates ... BSA wants to be platinum standard Updated Abuse definition & added mixed abuse (that was always out there but now clarified) A big issue was how chartered orgs were treated in last plan. Not TCJC or Methodist. Pre 1976 if not included through settling insurance, they cannot just slide in. They have to settle or they are not protected. That was a major roadblock. Before they were all included New independent review process New trustee to be named Monday next week Document sharing was critical, especially for survivor counsel to ensure there is access to discovery. Term sheets talked Bates/White report & supplemental report. Creditors do not agree with Bates/Whites Debtors do not agree with Creditors They have agreed to disagree

My understanding is no. There are 3 paths running in parallel. The $3500 would be paid quickly. The other two paths (TDP, Neutral) would require longer. It sounds like TDP would be faster than Neutral, Neutral gives the highest possible payouts (or $0). However, probably clarified more when added in plan.

Insurance will fight the updated plan. 87292318-be02-41ca-a258-8d0b44a78386_8785.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) They believe the confirmation hearing must be delayed. It is a substantial change, they need time to review, object, etc.

Lawmakers look to ax time limit for civil child sex abuse cases | Courthouse News Service US Senate is moving to remove SOLs to file civil charges in federal court. Big bipartisan support. If this passes, how does it impact the bankruptcy case? How does this impact liability of COs, LCs?

Bankruptcy professor is asking about the independent review option. I don't expect much in today's hearing as Silverstein seems very reserved until specifically asked to rule.

DOJ did create a new objection that was very long, but I tend to agree. If the judge didn't like where this was headed, she should have stopped it at the RSA. I see a bigger risk in district court. That said, she did mention concerns in certain areas of the RSA. I wouldn't be surprised if she changes some language in certain sections and tightens up the releases. However, I bet she lets the COs & LCs go through. This judge has been allowing nondebtors go through and I believe she was one of the first that did it after a Supreme Court ruling that put them at risk. Now ... the big issue could be district & appeals courts. I could absolutely see a situation where bankruptcy court approves but the district court rejects the plan. I really hope that doesn't happen.

The way I read it ... you can pay $20,000, the neutral party could rule you get $0 ... and then you walk away with $0 (not even the $3,500 quick pay or the TDP). High risk, high reward. So, either take: $3500 no questions asked TDP ... some questions asked, but highly discounted Neutral ... push your chips in. $20K up front. But can get up to 5x TDP. My Guess 35% will take the $3500 60% will take TDP 5% will take neutral (heavy number of these will be the 2000 - present claimants)

@ThenNow This makes a lot of sense as one would likely need all of that to pursue a state court case anyway. Like you said, this is like a mini state court case with a judge in charge. I think in general, the group most negatively impacted are those who's abuse occurred in a closed state that is likely to open in the future. Their claims against the LC and covered Chartered Orgs are being wiped out even those groups are not in bankruptcy. At this point, I think this plan is probably the best path forward for almost everyone. Major changes to YPT. Major changes to release of records. Path to get compensation based on today's laws. It clarifies abuse and mixed cases. Primary downside .. unable to gain compensation in the future if the SOL laws change. I think TCC sees the writing on the wall. If they continued to object, it was more likely to have non debtors excluded ... leaving National BSA's small fund + a mess in terms of insurance coverage. So, get as much as you can and support the plan. That said, I believe you have to follow the law and I struggle to see how non debtors can be included. I think I see where the US Trustee is coming from. They see the flaws. They see the issue in terms of the constitution and bankruptcy law. They know the end result will be bad for everyone involved ... but they also know you need to follow the law. I think it is 50/50 if this plan gets confirmed. It probably depends on who objects to the plan. Either JLSS or district could wipe out the non debtor releases. If that happens, I see a National only bankruptcy with almost nothing in the trust except some insurance policies that are messy. LC and COs will be sued left and right, many going bankrupt. A few will get a ton of money, but most will end up with a $50 Visa credit card.

It seems clear they did not contribute more. However, that is because there is a path to allow all claimants to get 100% of what would have been expected to be received in court.