Eagle1993

Minor updates to plan df1f7288-a10b-4167-94ec-63699a871e04_8567.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) The interesting section is where councils have changed contributions (look at the blackline). For example, Denver is now contributing $6M of cash vs a $6M property. Other councils lowered cash and added property (Heart of New England, Northeast Illinois, etc.).

The reality is that BSA has far too many councils. Just as they restructured regions and areas they will need to cut councils down. I have no issue paying a SE a large amount if he/she does a great job and grow scouting in their area. I get emails from several different councils. From the program offerings to the user experience of the message parents see vastly different versions of BSA. Hopefully when there are mergers, BSA identifies the well run councils and has them take over some of their neighbors.

National will: Never declare Chapter 7 Never sell Philmont, Summit or major trademarks Outside of that, I see everything else on the table. So, yes, I could see National sending out a "request" to create a LC wide note to help fund National if needed. However, I think even this will be avoided. Their artwork alone would probably get them until mid 2023.

One point that keeps coming up in the bankruptcy is BSA's financial situation. BSA lawyers have recently stated they may need to start selling assets (oil leases, art work, etc.) to keep going. These threats have been made from time to time. I took a look at the financials posted since the beginning of bankruptcy and below is the total net unrestricted liquidity BSA lists. So, when will BSA run into trouble. $66M of these assets appear to be retirement benefits that are invested. While unrestricted, I don't think BSA can really touch those to keep operating. I believe BSA is saying they need at least $30M to operate. That probably allows them to deal with the cash flow changes during the year. So, lets assume BSA does not want to drop below $100M of net liquidity and if they do, they would need to look at selling assets to build up their liquidity. One pattern I have seen is that BSA liquidity is fairly stable between August and May and drops substantially between May and August. See below in terms of asset changes ($M). As you can see, $77M of loss between May and August of 2020 and 2021 and $15M of loss for the other 12 months since bankruptcy. Feb 2020 - May 2020 1 May 2020 - August 2020 -44 August 2020 - May 2021 -16 May 2021 - August 2021 -33 So ... based on this, when will BSA hit that $100M limit? Well ... they were at $142M in August 2021. Let's assume they lose that $16M again so May 2022 they will be at $126M. After that ... BSA starts running into trouble. Why? Those next three months BSA will see major negative cash flow. If 2022 is similar to 2021, they would end up in August 2022 at ~$94M ($66M of that is retirement). My guess ... if BSA does not see a clear line of site of bankruptcy exit by ~June ... they will need to start selling some assets.

Another hearing scheduled, Feb 1. 42aeca4c-d1b6-462c-b8ba-bcd220071581_8487.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) This is BSA vs Roman Catholic Church & Century vs Roman Catholic Church (Ad Hoc Committee). Basically, disagreements on deposition requests.

I was looking for that quote ... but yes, a lawyer quoted her Millenium decision and she said something like "don't quote me to me". She also said her Millenium was different than what she will need to rule on in this case. She has a history of approving non-debtors and approved this RSA. On the flip side the other district decisions have come out since the RSA + she has made comments about concerns, markups and how Millenium doesn't fully apply here. At least with the hearing, we will know where she stands with respect to the plan and objections. She mentioned speed is critical right now in this case, so I expect her to clear the way to Feb 22. Even if the current plan is not confirmed it should help get everyone on the same page where changes are required and the process to get it confirmed.

I guess the few times I listened in to hearings, seeing them on the docket or deposition (that Kosnoff released) I was impressed by their firm. They were the only one to join the TCC to ask for a status hearing. Patterson is a great lawyer and expert on bankruptcy.

I have a lot of issues with Kosnoff's statements about the BSA, especially comments about men who like to take little boys into the woods. I have never seen an instance or heard of any instance of any abuse in my district let alone any unit I have been involved in or even been close to. I disagree with BSA and even various scouters on a variety of topics, but I have never seen anything that makes me think they have good intentions. That said, I don't think Kosnoff is the worst of the legal profession. In fact, I think he is probably one of the good claimant lawyers. He advocates for his side, is willing to take personal hits and truly hears and advocates for them. I wouldn't say he is the top lawyer (I think Zalkin is probably the best firm) and also believe many of his actions don't help ... however, he is far from the worst. From this case, the worst group of lawyers I have seen are those who: Obtained large loans from Wall Street to fund operations Trolled the fields of FB, night time TV, etc. to get a bunch of claimants Used questionable means to vet claims Turned over some of their fees to Wall Street Negotiated a quick settlement Didn't answer calls from Claimants, didn't look at each claimant to determine their best path (approval/reject) Badgered claimants to approve plan ... not simply to vote Oh, and asked for $18M+ of fees directly to them (on top of their 40%) and to get more fees for running the trust. Outside of the initial trolling for claims and linked to some of the questionable vetting, Kosnoff wasn't involved in the above. He dropped out of the formation of the Coalition when he saw mass tort & some of the Wall Street connections. So, not perfect (far from), but I do think he fights for his clients and they are his primary focus (vs bankers and a fast resolution to maximize his return on investment).

JLSS has faced some interesting situations in the past. Shortly after a Supreme Court ruling made non debtor releases questioned, JLSS ruled on Millennium. Judge Silverstein's Opinion in Millennium Lab Holdings Threatens to Bring Clarity and Common Sense to Debate Regarding Constitutional Power of Bankruptcy Courts | Bankruptcy Law Insights So ... she did at the time agree non-debtors can be included if the proper standard is met. I would be surprised if she decides that non-debtors are completely excluded from bankruptcy. Part of this seems like a turf battle between different courts ... so it will be interesting if the district court still agrees with non-debtor releases ... but I expect JLSS will. Now in this case, she has made some statements about "concerns" she has with the plan. She has talked about having marked up certain sections. She may limit the releases, expect approval to hit a certain level, limit which non debtors are granted releases and which claimants are included. Right now, I think she is holding to the Feb 22 date as she needs to get out in court where she has issues with the plan. She needs to rule and not rely on multiple parties guessing what is and is not allowable. Then, after the hearings, the parties can finalize a plan that gets TCC, Zalkin and a few others on board. The more I think about it, it probably makes sense to march to that Feb 22 meeting. Yes, there will be waste, but she needs to make some rulings or both sides will remain in their trenches.

Don’t Let This Happen to You: Milwaukee Archdiocese Bankruptcy – Part Three, The In-Court “Slugfest” – MEDIATBANKRY I figure this post belongs here. This article is about the fight between the Milwaukee Archdiocese & official committee (represented by Stang's firm). Basically, it resulted in a 4+ year court battle. Now, as you see news and updates from the bankruptcy (including hearing in late Feb/early March) remember this article. I highly doubt the current plan will be approved given legal issues mentioned earlier & the vote. However, the "slugfest" we will likely see in bankruptcy court over the next 2 months may end up brining the parties together in mediation. I certainly hope they are already there ... but if they are not, hopefully the next two months gets them there.

Here is the Kosnoff order. It was about the live tweeting when the TCC was deposing BSA counsel. It sounds like Kosnoff probably shouldn't have been on that call, but the bigger issue was that he was tweeting protected info. Note that 7 days after deposition, the material could be released if not determined confidential (or other privileged, etc.). They stopped the deposition to get Kosnoff to stop the live tweeting. e0809104-fbda-40e1-9c69-7c79ef65e400_8480.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

I may have just imagined the word "Stand-down" but it was pretty similar. I think Kosnoff gets a bit emotionally involved and I understand that ... but you have to follow the rule of law. I think he is in some serious trouble now and this is just a distraction to the bankruptcy. So .... we march to the Feb 22 date. If this ends up in plan failure, what a waste of money. It will just emphasize that bankruptcy reform is absolutely needed. My only hope is that the depositions, discovery, hearings, etc. will get use to rulings that can then be used to get agreement on a plan that could pass. However, there must be a lower cost and faster path to get to plans.

Ok ... that is it for today. Kosnoff told his clients to stand down.

So ... perhaps a hint. Feb 22 is going forward. Don't know if that means she is ok with 74% or not.

Very odd ... several of Kosnoff's clients want to speak but judge said they should talk to their lawyer. She would allow time right now. Feb 22 is going forward.

JLSS said the order is consistent with the order she was prepared to enter today. She is troubled by what she read in the submissions. In both the letter today from depositions. She considers that Kosnoff has appeared in this case as he attended a deposition. Mr. Kosnoff should not have been at the deposition. He isn't listed as a participating party. Not sure why he was attending at all. This seems to be about the Twitter comments about BSA deposition. He was tweeting about some aspects of what BSA lawyers were stating. JLSS checked rules in Washington state and they are same as Delaware. She said there was a case in Delaware, in 1994 case, what to do with Attny misconduct at depositions. She is content to form of order and go from there with respect to actual complaint. The complaint was filed under seal and some part of it could be public (make a redacted version) to put on the docket.

I would say the 1st ruling isn't really a win for the Coalition. It does kick the can down the road. The insurance lawyer said they are concerned as they found POC signed by both lawyers & claimants and they differed where the one signed by the law firm had more severe abuse ... they are questioning the validity of the claims. Coalition lawfirm lawyer pushed back and while she doesn't have anything specific to rule on now, it seemed clear that there will be discovery allowed in this area.

2nd agenda is about Kosnoff... there is agreement with his lawyer on the form of order with Century. His lawyer will send to JLSS and then look to JLSS to sign and issue today. JLSS said to email it to chambers. She was very concerned by what she read. She is clearly upset about something Kosnoff did.

First matter ... Judge ruled to allow discovery to go forward. Then after discovery, if insurance still has issues with the various lawfirms, come forward with what is with held.

Reminder ... hearing today, 2:30 PM ET. 410a5a25-20e3-48ed-b3d1-19a0d129b9e1_8391.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

Well, now we have Century going after Kosnoff. 01823e91-93d1-4930-acb7-9f3d3456a987_1.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) Boy Scouts of America: Documents List (omniagentsolutions.com) It looks like they are going for a restraining order against Kosnoff... Kosnoff was on twitter today, tweeting about the BSA deposition. That may not be allowed. He also plans to file a request to dismiss the Bankruptcy case. Finally, he had a few unflattering things to say about the TCC ... but I expect the hearing is about the deposition chatter, not the TCC stuff.

It sounds like BSA lawyers testified today that they were aware of the coalition's eBallot, reviewed it and approved its use. It also sounds like they do plan to go after master ballots. So, expect a fight ... from both sides about ballots. Some guesses... BSA may fight power of attorney documentation to get claimants votes thrown from master ballots. TCC and others may argue eBallot was not approved by the court, caused confusion, may have not been secure, etc., and therefore, any ballot submitted through the eBallot should be tossed. I think these fights back and forth may be helpful to avoid issues in the next vote, but I would be shocked if any of this was used to kill or approve the deal. JLSS has tossed votes in the past, but that was about invalid claims, not about POA or eBallots, etc. I would be a bit surprised she would toss votes based on either of these arguments.

Just a reminder of the current schedule. If this plan continues to go forward, I'll be interested in seeing the plan objections that come in by Feb 4. 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 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

Hearing agenda set. 410a5a25-20e3-48ed-b3d1-19a0d129b9e1_8391.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) No status conference listed. So, the ideas of weather, Covid, etc. are out the door. Why is the status conference not proceeding? My understanding ... TCC requested conference, 1 law firm joined them, BSA objected and then the judge set the hearing for a status update. Then ... a few days later, the judge cancelled that hearing. It seems like the only explanation is that the TCC agreed to cancel the hearing (or at least didn't object). The TCC hasn't had a townhall (I think they cancelled one), the Coalition townhall said TCC & BSA are in mediation. Perhaps, just perhaps, they are making good progress and we may see a new RSA with the TCC on board. (The last RSA the TCC as on board, but only if the insurance settlement was excluded). Who knows, but a perhaps a glint of optimism (at least for those who are looking for this to close with BSA surviving).

I wonder if the Bates analysis would have to reconsider. In addition, the Dr. at U of Mich worked from 1966 to 2003 ... so most of the victims are older right now (and male). It seems like Bates discounted older victims. Now, the one aspect where U of Michigan may be more liable is that he was a repeat abuser. Many of the BSA abusers were only identified once (Bates indicated repeat abusers are where the bigger payouts occur). I'm sure this settlement will be utilized in the BSA mediation/negotiations when calculating value of the claims. Insurance companies will likely be the ones going back to see if they can write a bigger check.