Eagle1993

May not be a bad idea. That could shake things up a bit. I don't think she has been happy with the coalition (asking for payments from BSA, fights between Kosnoff/KR, etc.) She sees that the voting percent didn't hit high enough and now this mess. Perhaps use it as a threat for now.

New hearing set January 24, 2022 at 2:30 p.m. (Eastern Time) Microsoft Word - Boy Scouts - Motion to Clarify Scope of Discovery - Notice of Hearing 4863-1975-2202 v.1 (omniagentsolutions.com) Right now it is about the coalition law firms who are not complying with the judge's ruling about discovery (per insurance companies).

I expect this is likely being discussed and I wouldn't be surprised if this is part of the deal. However, it adds complexity to the insurance payouts (they will likely need to know which LCs are in/out before closing their offer) and I expect there will be great debate on how to calculate the required "buy in" amount for each LC. One benefit is actually for the Ad Hoc committee. Right now, let's say the Ad Hoc committee is asked to increase the offer by $400M. They then have to spread that out to the 250+ councils and ask each one for approval. That is a tough discussion as if even a few councils bulk, the deal is dead. The win is that the Ad Hoc committee can go back and say this is your number ... are you in or out. Now, if this is the path, then I think the LC contributions would have to be limited to those who have claims against that council. Otherwise, some claimants would get payments from councils + be able to sue their own council.

Apparently during the Coalition townhall, it was brought up that BSA & TCC are in active mediation. So, perhaps, the status hearing was cancelled to allow mediation to find a solution. Let's hope they are making some good progress.

Hmmmm.. Survivors can change their votes until a Feb. 22 hearing on the deal before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein in Delaware, who must sign off on the deal. Really? I thought the judge was clear. She already saw a mess with claimants changing votes post deadline.

I don't think I am cut out to be a judge. It feels like she is herding cats. It seemed clear what she approved and now it seems like she is being ignored. If I were here, I would be angry about this ... but perhaps that is just how law is practiced.

A bit of insight from Prof. Jacoby's twitter feed: She doesn't expect this to be the last word on this vote ... expect both sides to fight to get votes removed. Steep battle expected to get this plan approved. (Based on prior tweets issues include voting results, requested releases) And now a group of insurance companies have asked the courts time to deal with a bunch of coalition law firms stonewalling them. Microsoft Word - Boy Scouts - Motion to Clarify Scope of Law Firm Discovery 4869-9614-2346 v.1 (omniagentsolutions.com) Basically, the law firms objected to this discovery due to privilege. The judge overruled their objection. Now the law firms are refusing to answer the questions.

Opt Out - That is a question for sex abuse claimants for non abuse claims. So, if you check "opt out" that means you can sue all of the protected parties (BSA, Coalition, COs, insurance companies, Omni, TCC, etc.) for non abuse claims. $3500 - Do they simply want the $3500, no questions asked, no ability to claim more (in terms of direct abuse) Two separate and independent questions. Note that the opt out was very confusing. I think many may be confused as I've seen letters where they "opt out" so they can sue their CO ... but they voted Accept. That means they can only sue their CO for non abuse claims.

Many moons ago I was in Ely Minnesota and one of our scouts kept going on about how he planned to "punch a bear in its face". Apart from questioning why he was so angry at an animal he never met (and if punching a bear aligns to the Oath and Law), we all had doubts. Sure enough, we saw a bear across a parking lot on one of the days we were in the bunk house area. Our SM looked for the scout who claimed he was going to punch the bear and saw him running full speed back to his bed. I don't know if the bear realized how close he came to be punched in the face.

Total Votes Total Accept Total Reject Accept % Master Accept Master Reject Direct Accept Direct Reject Opt Out $3,500 Initial Vote 53,888 39,401 14,487 73.12% 1,964 8,042 37,437 6,445 21,172 7,919 Updated Vote 53,596 39,430 14,166 73.57% 1,093 8,489 38,334 5,677 21,174 7,287 Delta -292 29 -321 0.45% -871 447 897 -768 2 -632

Even if you throw out 100% of master ballots you don't hit 90% approval which has been the case referenced by most as the value needed. It's too bad the hearing was cancelled today. It would have been good to hear from the judge. It feels that they are just burning cash right now without clear direction.

Almost no change to the direct abuse claim vote. There were some minor changes on opt out number. Also, BSA may object to some master ballots based on their questions about proper power of attorney paperwork. However, the master ballots themselves passed review and were accepted. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ea7975fa-08bb-4e03-b739-96a7062815a0_8345.pdf

BSA just filed several updates to depositions they had scheduled. All were going to occur tomorrow, but they have been delayed to Jan 19 - 21. Still waiting to see the final vote posted. Also note that the judge is fully booked Wednesday this week. So, no clues found looking at the rest of her schedule. It actually looks like she is pretty booked until January 24.

Yes it is, so that may be interesting. I would think any change would require more discovery into voting and vote counting. I was wondering if perhaps Omni/BSA/LSS are aware of a major vote change (moving to 80%+) that would cause the meeting to be cancelled. However, there were many other concerns listed that even if the vote increased greatly, the hearing would have been helpful. In addition, a major vote count, in and of itself, could cause a need to revisit the schedule. So, I lean to the options of.. BSA has a change in direction (updated plan and/or updated strategy) LSS or someone else critical is ill/has Covid 19/has been exposed BSA found a major diamond deposit at Philmont

Yes, this is definitely a possibility as well.

What changed since the hearing was created? Why would the court schedule a hearing (after seeing the request from TCC and objection from BSA) and then a few days later cancel the hearing? I would have been optimistic, but after seeing the last BSA update, it seems like they are headed in the opposite direction so I tend to doubt any new plan will be announced. Now, one thought - recently the Ann Taylor non debtor releases were rejected (now two cases are in limbo) and perhaps the court, BSA, others are rethinking what needs to be done here. That decision came out after the BSA hearing was scheduled .and that judge said he recommended any case that includes non debtors should go to a district court first. So, perhaps a chance, that BSA realizes they need to get a decision soon and should go to district court. It would be great if the district court could also set the value of the of direct abuse claims. To me, if a district court could clearly document what if any non debtors can be included and the value of the direct abuse claims ... the plan could come together rather quickly with low chance of failure in appeals. In any case, I just don't like to see waste. I hope that this isn't just a cancellation that will lead to delayed decisions and a longer wait to a final plan/solution.

Insurance company raises concerns that KR is delaying his depositon and there are 50 scheduled and must be complete by Jan 28. Basically, they are saying, sure voting issues are a concern, but there is a ton of legitimate discovery & depositions and there is no way to complete it per schedule. 309b8315-0640-4e92-a7d3-5de0e2e9d091_8331.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

I agree; however, parents need to know their kids and do a check for those who need it. We had a scout attend a cold wet outing. While in the 60s in the day, it dropped to low 40s and rain in the late afternoon. He had shorts and shirt with no pants, sweatshirt, rain jacket, gloves, boots, anything. He had his fishing pole (even though we were nowhere near a lake/pond/river/body of water other than puddles of rain). It was pouring so much that it saturated all rain gear ... so we struggled to find enough dry/warm clothes for him (he was a large kid). We told his parents, they said yep, will watch out in the future. Next camp out (not as bad) once again not prepared. So, we ended up having our PL check his pack for the next few campouts.

There was a church in my town that was purchased by a developer. They tore down the church and are replacing it with 7 new single family town homes, each sold for $1.25 to $1.40M. Land in some areas is very valuable ... so it really depends on where the church is located. It was sad to see a church torn down.

Key take away from Prof. Jacoby

Another district court has sent a bankruptcy back due to non debtor releases. Fourth Circuit. Purdue is in the second district. Prof. Jacoby on Twitter: "Like in #PurduePharma, a VA district court has just invalidated third party releases in a retailer bankruptcy (Ann Taylor/Dress Barn/etc). Unlike in Purdue, district court sending case back to bankruptcy court. & tone of opinion is ... different too (see below)" / Twitter

I definitely that that is an option and it could be about COs. My other thought is that BSA knows this plan is dead. So, who do they blame? The TCC. Lay out the case that the TCC is not fulfilling their role Clearly 74% of claimants like this plan and the TCC is in the minority The TCC is just wasting the estates (trust's) money by fighting further The TCC sent that awful email The trust fully pays off survivors The TCC is obligated to represent all survivors and they are not The, when the court says return to mediation, throw a fit and submit a request to the court to replace the TCC. My guess ... this document is the 1st step the BSA will take to replace the TCC, or at minimum, the law firm they hired. If BSA returns to mediation, they want someone else on the other side of the table.

I see a two month grace period referenced here: 2022-Charter-Renewal-Handbook-Revised-24-Aug-2021.pdf (ncacbsa.org) In addition, I know units have been able to register for HA bases without active charters. However, I would not want to be in a situation where someone was hurt or worse and be looking at grace periods/etc. If it looks like this is more than a minor correction in internet rechartering or sending in a check, I would absolutely look at finding a new CO immediately (or getting the council to agree to the facility use permit).

We were told there is some buffer. It sounds like it may not be a hard stop January 1. BSA understands a large number of charters are not renewed in time. I'm trying to get a bit more info.