Eagle1993

More details from the Guam objectors from a specific law firm. c86cabc6-3501-4653-aea5-9892d2260ed3_8708.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) 72 of the 73 voted against the plan. Their issue isn't national. Their concern is the release of non debtors. I found their objection interesting as it uses the BSA, LDS, Roman Catholic Church and other's statements that the toggle plan is feasible. This objection was pretty clear and I struggle to see, under the current plan, how it could be ignored. TCC indicated that the current plan isn't legal due to its releases. I'll be interested to see how those change. Now we have the updated DOJ objection. 987f6a0f-1219-4878-b63e-817da6c58f3b_8710.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

Quick update on schedule Dec 29 Deadline to serve discovery on voting, settlements Jan 4 Preliminary voting report Jan 5 Rebuttal expert reports due Jan 7 Deadline to serve responses/objections to voting/settlement discovery Jan 14 Document production regarding voting/settlement due Jan 17 Final voting report deadline Jan 28 Deposition of expert witness & fact witnesses due Jan 31 Deadline to identify trial witnesses Feb 4 Plan objection deadline Feb 10 Deadline to exchange depositions designations and file motions Feb 11 Status Hearing (added recently) Feb 14 Confirmation brief/plan reply deadline Feb 15 Deadline to exchange deposition couter-designations Feb 17 Deadline to submit joint pretial order, witness/exhibit lists, options to motions, etc Feb 18 Final pretrial conference Feb 22 Confirmation hearing (will likely take into early March)

Do I think the end of the bankruptcy will go beyond February 2024? While the trust will definitely still be open (per plan I think it goes until 2036 or so), and large payments may not be paid by then ... BSA will likely have emerged. I'm not 100% sure, but with TCC & likely other major law firms talking it sound like we may have a plan that can go through confirmation. Yes, the courts can definitely disrupt this ... but I still don't see it take until beyond Feb 2024 for BSA to exit. I do think there is still chances for major setbacks. For example, I would not be surprised to see the DOJ push back on any attempt to confirm a plan without sending it out for a revote. Perhaps the judge disagrees but district court agrees. Then you are talking perhaps May timing when the case comes back to bankruptcy and another 4 months or so for vote, tally, etc. Even assuming everything goes smoothly, that 1 issue could push the bankruptcy back until October 2022. Now what happens if district court rejects CO coverage ... that is a much bigger deal and could push this thing into 2023. I just struggle to see paths to get this all the way to 2024, but I'm sure they exist.

I think we may see a split in survivors. Those with strong cases (or the abuse was already front & center in their life) and good law firms ready to go after LCs and COs in state court vs those who, like you, are ready to be done and are ready to move on. How the courts/plan balances those groups will be interesting.

So, objections filed by the following: Endurance American Insurance company, Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company, Trader & Pacific Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, St. Paul Surplus Line Insurance Company, Gulf Insurance Company, Allianz Insurers, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, AIG, Munich Reinsurance American, Inc., Markel Insurers, Everest National Insurance Company, Claimant I.G. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp, Roman Catholic Ad Hoc Committee, Archbishop of Agana Guam Committee Eric Pai Girl Scouts of America Parker Waichman LLP (354 abuse claims holders) AT&T Corp Jane Doe Claimant M.C. Oracle Now many other groups can still stop the current plan (for example, the DOJ does not support it and is likely relying on its objection from months ago). So, I take the list above as the groups that may be most concerned on even the upcoming plan (or perhaps were left out of discussions). 1) Roman Catholic Church seems very concerned as to where the current plan is and doesn't seem content with where the plan is going. 2) Many insurance companies have concerns. Century, Hartford and a few others who have deals in the current plan... I wonder if those hold in the new plan or if we may see them object if the plans change. In general, non settled insurance companies appear concerned. 3) Some individual claimants. Now, these are pretty small groups, so perhaps they do not know the upcoming plan details. 4) Misc. entities (AT&T & Oracle just have disagreements on outstanding debts). GSUSA ... ugh.

Note that none of these should be surprises. There will be many objections. I'll be watching for TCC, DOJ and Zalkin ... those were the big groups holding back support. The GSUSA objection is garbage (technical term). They are owed nothing. I'm sorry, but asking for millions of dollars because BSA let in girls ... come on. Even the district judge overseeing their lawsuit is about ready to throw it out. They should get nothing.

Objections: Girl Scouts of America 36057865-57ec-4d7c-b736-b8a5499747e8_8679.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) Jarred Pai Estate Microsoft Word - Confirmation Objection.New (002).docx (omniagentsolutions.com) Waichman Lawfirm (354 claimants) cd84befd-c5be-4563-96f9-4cc1e5da73af_8676.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) AT&T 70a1785a-81b0-46bb-a068-861d27ed5c58_8675.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) Everest Insurance Company e4877259-c67e-4843-a7e8-a041440ce92d_8672.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) Note that hearing has now pushed out to Feb 11.

Objections coming in. 72f3eb09-44db-46d5-870b-3137e3e48f42_8674.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) This one was a clear summary of an objection by a Jane Doe. Jane was an explorer scout who was sexually abused in 2013. Prior to bankruptcy, Jane sued the BSA, Town of Trumbull and certain individuals. Now, with this bankruptcy, the Town of Trumbull will be covered (and I don't think they paid a dime). I think this is where the plan gets really tricky. While the case can proceed against the PO (and it is) she can no longer sue certain individuals, or the Town given the current releases. A very valid point ... how is a protecting a Town critical to BSA's survival? This objection is well written and really gets to the heart of questioning the releases for COs. I expect we will see other individual cases that blow holes in the Chartered Org protections. This is a risk going forward even in district court. I expect LCs are probably safer ... the CO releases are the ones I think are at most risk.

I found that National is dictating the board of LCs. The size, members, etc. Now, how much that actually changes each board, I have no clue. Before, it was up to local councils on the size and composition of their board. The bolded language below is new... They eliminated the local council chair cabinet ... not sure if this exists today, but that is gone so at minimal it was a proposal that was rejected.

15dbaff5-5871-4ffd-a73c-0395915da442_8647.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) Amended plan ... new BSA bylaws listed. They reduced their board to no more than 64. Reduced executive board to 40. Reduced term to 1 year. A lot of changes to the relationship between National and councils in terms. They are also indicating the size of council boards. ... I recommend reading the blackline if interested in this.

Dietrich Knauth on Twitter: "A Delaware judge has allowed non-debtor releases in Mallinckrodt's bankruptcy, overruling Rhode Island's attempt to sue the company's CEO for allegedly negligent oversight of opioid sales." / Twitter This is big. Now the third circuit district court is going to see a bankruptcy with non consensual non-debtor releases. One key here is that the only objector, Rhode Island, represented only $1M of a $5B settlement. The bankruptcy judge indicated that he believes the value of the claims who object matters. In any case ... it may be a chance to see a 3rd circuit court decision before BSA's plan is confirmed.

Quick update from TCC. Tomorrow is the deadline for plan objections ... don't be surprised if the TCC doesn't file any. Mediation is going well per TCC. (They already have prior objections they can likely use). There is movement on all three of their pillars (money, youth protection and leadership of the trust). No specifics. Doug Kennedy has taken the lead on youth protection and BSA is listening. "1000s" of documents are being exchanged during mediation. They said if they don't get the money they believe that is needed, they are also working to cut costs of the trust. Everyone is being respectful to each other. Their hope was that if the vote didn't hit 75% they would see mediation ... that is what happened. Watch for a TCC meeting in the future. Sounds like it could be short notice if something comes up. This + the scheduled status hearing really makes me think there is a new plan coming with TCC buy in.

Court just scheduled a status hearing for Feb 9. 020322 Notice of Status Conference Feb. 9 (omniagentsolutions.com)

There is a chance this may be interesting. Earlier this week, a joint statement was read in court that significant progress has been made by all mediation partners and to expect an update late this week. While TCC cannot be specific about anything (unless it hits the docket before their meeting) you may get some clues as to status of the discussions. This is their first townhall in a month. I believe the last Coalition update was the day the vote results came out. Again, don't expect details, but you may get their opinion on where this is headed. The TCC will be returning to a schedule of Town Halls on the first Thursday of each month. The next regular Town Hall of the Official Committee of Tort Claimants' (the “TCC”) in the Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy cases will be held on Thursday, February 3, 2022, 8 pm (Eastern). Please note, the TCC is actively engaged in all facets of this bankruptcy and wants to keep Survivors abreast of significant updates. PLEASE check this website to learn of any Town Halls that are scheduled before the first Thursday of the month. Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/82272826295 (no registration required) or by phone: 888-788-0099 (toll free), Webinar ID: 822 7282 6295

That number was mentioned by an insurance company lawyer Tuesday this week. It was in relation to the request from the Roman Catholic Church to the insurance company to describe how the settlement impacts Chartered Org insurance policies. I don't think there is any way 40,000 or 100,000 would be sued ... just that to look at all of that insurance is impossible.

To be fair, I think you can definitely see some lawyers giving up on this case and looking to cash in. They just want the check now.

Yes, for the lawyers, I agree. For lawyers, the best case now is a quick settlement. I am talking as a claimant.

Not really. Let's say you get $30K today. The court case has taken 2 years. Let's say it takes 2 more years. So, today .. you invest $30K at a 6% rate of return, after 2 years, you would have $33,708. So, even after paying 40%, the a $6,180 increase would be match your return ... so anything more than $6,180 would be worth it economically. That means, doubling the court case would require about a 21% increase in settlement.

Based on what I have seen in other lawsuits. I think it will depend on the case & liability. From what I have seen, a lawsuit could be filed against all of the following: National BSA (that will be dismissed due to bankruptcy) Local Councils Chartered Org Unit Leader(s) Individual Each of these groups will be asked to be dismissed. The judge could say ... looking at the facts, I see that XYZ has 0 liability and so they cannot be included in the lawsuit. Then, whoever remains, a could be sued. I believe either a judge and/or jury would then assign liability. I think they do this with precents ... like 20% parents, 20% CO, 10% LC, 50% National BSA. After all of that, then they could assign damages (and punitive charges) depending on state. So ... lets say they say $2M of damages only. So, CO would owe $400K and LC $200K. The CO & LC would owe that. Now, they could then sue their insurance company if insurance doesn't pay but the court would expect payment from them. Now, if the LC and/or CO go bankrupt, the insurance debate will be included in the bankruptcy.

I went ahead and moved these to the correct thread.

While I am not 100% on board with everything Mike Rowe says, I think he has a lot of valid points. We need someone, like a Mike Rowe, who sees the gaps that exist in kids today and how scouting can fill them. I would be perfectly happy with less emphasis on advancement/uniforms and more emphasis on exploring skills and getting outdoors, adventure and patrols/youth leadership. I bring this up as any group that is facing crisis must ask ... why are we here? I wonder ... what if we eliminate all ranks in Scouts BSA except Eagle. I'm not saying we do that, but personally, I could see how some bold changes like that could help improve the program and focus units/volunteers are areas more critical to the mission. In any case ... I hope there is a Baden-Powell or Green Bar Bill out there who has a vision of scouting in the 2020 & beyond.

I agree. I think the parties all want a broad settlement that is robust legally. Now, there is a chance, that the district courts all agree that nonconsensual releases for non debtors are no longer allowed, but I get the sense that the judge will push through one that complies with the law as she sees it today. Yes, BSA floated the national only, but that was a threat not a real proposal. I saw that as a ... well, you want to see how bad this can get ... I don't see that getting 66% of the vote. My guess as of today is that there will be a mechanism for LCs & COs to be included ... but the amount they pay and releases (who and what) they are granted may change. Crossing my fingers that magic happens this week.

The issue is that the Judge cannot invent/modify laws because there is no other alternate plan. There is always options of National only or consensual nondebtor releases. She was clear that she will evaluate statuary aspects of the plan, releases and injunctions. She previously said she had concerns and marked up sections. DOJ was clear that this plan is non confirmable ... it violates law. TCC has also been clear it violates law. The changes could be substantial and impact settlement amounts. While possible, I find it highly unlikley the current plan is approved. I do look forward to seeing the update later this week (perhaps in the form of a RSA). Note that even if TCC & most claimants join in (for example, Purdue had 95%) there is risk with including nonconsensual nondebtor releases. The only way to avoid fully is making them consensual. Otherwise, this will be risky (which may be necessary).

Really good input. I am very concerned about the debt load that BSA will face post bankruptcy that will continue to drive costs higher. In my school district, I attended the Girl Scout recruiting event for my daughter when she was in K5. Cost - $25 ... no unit fee. When the council person was asked about fees, they said they are MUCH cheaper than Cub Scouts and everyone laughed (this was before the more recent BSA fee increases) Uniform Cost - $20 Patches ... very cheap Fundraising ... they ask but no requirement to sell cookies (easy to sell) Minimum to start $45 Volunteer requests .. only to help your grade, no "pack or committee type roles, only 2 parents needed" Now BSA approaching a Cub Scout $25 New member fee $72 for following year + $18 for remaining year ($90) $50 Pack fee $7 Council Fee ~$40 Uniform Cost Fundraising ... ask to sell popcorn, no requirement (not too bad to sell, but much tougher than cookies) Oh ... and surprise fundraising ... FOS request More volunteer overhead (committee, COR, Pack) ... some benefit but also more overhead Minimum to start $212 Unfortunately, the volunteer overhead and increasing costs will hurt Cub Scout recruiting vs past efforts. Now, I do think a great national voice (think Bear Grills) that could generate natural excitement in scouting could help ... but has been absent from BSA for decades. With Cub Scouts not keeping up, Scouts BSA will start declining as well. As numbers decline and debt is high, fees will continue to rise. To me, that is the death spiral for BSA. How to avoid this? #1 ... Clarify mission, aims, etc. What role does scouting fill in the 21st century. Do parents and society agree that is a need. Personally, I think BSA's mission is good, but they need to really be introspective and agree. This could go from uniform through STEM. Evaluate it all. #2 ... Cut EVERYTHING that doesn't fit that mission. Spin off or end projects/side gigs, etc. that do not align to that mission. #3 ... Hire young, energetic leaders at the National Level that are active, communicate well at various forms of media, etc. Generate a national excitement in scouting and the values it provides. #4 ... Cut overhead costs aggressively. Merge councils, consolidate IT, etc. #5 ... Spend MORE in areas that directly touch units. #6 ... Invest in volunteers. Free training. Go after the 18 - 30 year olds (before they are parents) .. have them lead Packs, Troops, etc. #7 ... Be aggressive on directing scouts to "good units" and help strengthen them vs just adding more units. I'm sure there are many others. BSA can thrive; however, I am a bit pessimistic based on our current state and National leaders.

I didn't get the sense that the amount of money was the issue. The issue is that if there is nothing in bankruptcy code that specifically allows nonconsensual releases of non debtors. There is also a constitutional question (Article I courts vs Article 3 courts). My understanding and will definitely welcome input. In terms of the constitution, the Supreme Court is the only federal court established by the Constitution. Based on the Constitutional Convention, the SC determined that Congress can establish courts under Article III with judicial powers and Article I with legislative powers (regulatory). Bankruptcy courts fall under Article I. Their judges are not lifetime appointments (vs Article III which are lifetime). One concern raised is that Article I courts cannot take on Article III duties. So, when non debtors get non consensual releases, an Article I court is abusing their constitutional authority over Article III courts. This part will likely go to the Supreme Court. The other aspect of Purdue, which apparently is the bigger deal, is that since there is no statutory basis for a bankruptcy court to approve a release of such claims. Basically, bankruptcy courts cannot invent the ability to include powers they were not given. It sounds like the 3rd circuit believes the constitutional powers are there but haven't ruled on the statutory issue. I guess I wonder if the real issue is that if someone rejects the plan, they should still have the right to sue non debtors (so the plan is only for individuals who accept it).