Eagle1993

Very well said.

Based on some info I found, it sounds like lawyers likely have an idea where the vote is headed. I'm not sure the BSA mass deposition requests mean the vote is headed to failing. I expect both sides are preparing for both passing/failing votes. Remember, BSA needs overwhelming support. So, they will fight to try and get as many reject votes thrown out. That said, if you listened to Kosnoff's deposition, it is clear there is a ton of focus on approval votes and coalition law firm's use of their own eBallot. Finally, there is still the investigation into the vetting of claims. All of these will be used to try and go after the votes. So, I'm not sure anything on the docket will indicate which way the vote count is going.

It is definitely not allowed and I have never seen it. You can’t even take alcohol on a camp property even if it is a private family rental. Smoking is not allowed around scouts either.

I think that could be argued for post 1975. The question is what is the value of that insurance once these insurance settlements are coming through. Now, prior to 1975 there was no insurance being provided.

We had more interest from women then men for our Philmont trip. We had 3 women go with two crews. We also have several women go to our summer camps. When I took over my pack, there were zero women adult leaders and only 24 scouts. I reached out to moms and built up a core of women leaders and our pack expanded greatly. I do agree in general men are more interested in camping; however, I have found plenty of women are as well. You have to find them, talk with them directly and make an environment where they feel welcome and then more and more will join and help. It could be we just lucked into groups of women who like the outdoors… but I also think even having one or two active will encourage women who are on the fence to give it a try.

For non-debtor releases, when they are allowed in certain courts, this article mentions 5 rules that must be met. (i) the identity of interests between the debtor and the third party, such that a suit against the non-debtor is akin to a suit against the debtor due to, for example, an indemnity obligation that may deplete the debtor’s assets; This could be argued in both chartered orgs and local councils. If chartered orgs are sued over scouting activities post bankruptcy, I would expect they would point to the indemnity obligation BSA has in protecting them. I think the court would review the local council and chartered org agreements to determine if this rule applies. (ii) whether the non-debtor has contributed substantial assets to the reorganization; Outside LDS, I see very limited to no contributions to the reorganization. I understand some will point to insurance, but that is held by BSA. Chartered orgs did not contribute their own insurance policies. I question how the judge would see this as being met by COs. LCs ... I think one could argue they contributed a lot. However, is it "substantial assets". (iii) whether the release is essential to reorganization; This could be argued either way. It would be beneficial to the reorg. Is it essential? I think for LCs, it is more essential. Chartered orgs less. iv) whether the impacted classes of claims have overwhelmingly accepted the plan in question TBD. What is overwhelmingly? In the past >90% has been expected. Also, is it by non-debtor? For example, what if votes of LDS claimants were <90%? One would think LDS couldn't be released. What if votes for one LC were less than 90%? Again, not sure they could be released. I think this is where vote by LC/CO will be critical, not just overall voting. If we only see 66% approval overall, this likely means non-debtors are out. (v) whether the bankruptcy court has made a record of specific factual findings to support such releases. I expect the above 4 will come up in court during confirmation and perhaps that is when factual findings could be made to support/deny releases. So, just my guess, but my reading of the rules ... even when allowed .. put the Chartered Org releases at high risk. Local councils are probably closer to earning their release. Voting will be critical. However, the judge could just go with Purdue and kick them out all together.

I would agree; however, state courts can decide this for COs. Note that Kosnoff has had a case dismissed against the BSA and local councils as, in the court's words, Chartered Organizations are responsible for units. So, he was to sue the chartered orgs; however, in that case, the Chartered Orgs were defunct, so no one was left to sue. So, BSA/Local councils ... in court ... stated that chartered orgs were ultimately responsible for units (and the court agreed in that case). Now, if chartered orgs state they cannot be held liable ... who should be held liable?

Novak is Trump. McMahon is Clinton. Delaware seems to have 4 judges, two Obama and two Trump. Im not sure it matters much in this case. I could see both sides upset if bankruptcy courts are going outside the law.

Judge Novak, based on a case he is seeing, is now questioning releases in District 4. I agree, very interesting and it seems to be dynamic.

Here is an interesting example from an AIS claimant. a2b61c74-2f4c-406e-8faf-d84d603035d9_8027.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) They started with a no vote using eBallot, on Dec 8th. Changed to yes on December 20th after he was told by KR's firm he would receive $0 if he voted no (I don't think that is true). The firm then told him he would receive >$3500 if he voted yes even after all fees. Now, the abuser was his father ... so I wonder how BSA is liable at all. Since his father was also his Scoutmaster? Is this even a valid claim? Then there is this confused individual. ce8a444b-1aa4-4905-9e63-b99bafbc83b8_8021.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) Vote is yes, no to $3500 and he opts out of the release as he is suing his chartered organization. Um, sorry, right now if you vote yes you lose that right. This is going to be a MESS. Just reading these letters, these men are completely confused. Where are their law firms clearly explaining the impact of voting yes/no? These letters could be used by those against the plan to show even yes votes were not fully informed by their law firms. Note that I am sure some no votes are probably just as confused. If law firms make 40%, the least they should do is clearly inform their claimant as to the impact of their vote.

That said, I think Zalkin is preparing a major line of attack against yes votes from the Coalition. Kosnoff’s deposition focused on their questionable tactics and their custom eBallot. Silverstein has disqualified yea votes in the past, she may again. 100% agree. I think if she sees 95% yes votes she will jump on this plan. If she doesn’t, then she may be aggressive in the other direction.

FYI. Voting deadline is now closed. All votes must be in by now.

No, but there was this big vote dump. All of these 100+ voted yes. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a2bf89a1-0b09-4300-8a8b-78a14ef26e63_7988.pdf If this is any indication of master ballots, you might see thousands of yes votes pour in from these law firms.

I’m not a lawyer but my read based on articles and some good analysis from various legal feeds. Even though it is a different circuit, if McMahon is correct in terms of Bankruptcy law, it would seem to be applicable. Don’t forget another judge (Novak 4th circuit) is questioning non debtor releases in district courts. We may be seeing district courts across the board enforce bankruptcy courts to stay in their lane. Silverstein really wants to know where the claimants are in terms of this plan. If this plan sees >95% yes, then I expect she will want to find a way forward. She will need to find a legal argument to include LCs and COs. I could imagine her excluding COs while still keeping in LCs. If the vote goes south, the following must be decided: 1) Can non debtor releases be included in the plan 2) Are LCs separate from National or should their assets merge based on legal arrangements 3) Is the JP Morgan secured debt legitimate or are high adventure bases not secured. If the debt is questionable then JP Morgan may need to take a hit. 4) Depending on above, how should votes be counted be LC, CO, etc.

Voting is hours away from closing out. (If you are a voting entity ... get your votes in!). So, there is an updated schedule likely to be approved very soon. I found it interesting that in this case, the Debtors (BSA) and the TCC agreed to this update but the Coalition wasn't listed. 52ca7b40-5212-4b83-ba83-bde81e2d737e_7973.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) 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 Note that in other cases, there have been big changes between the preliminary voting report & final report. There shouldn't be ... but this was mentioned in court that it has been seen in the past. I really think January 4 is the key date here. Option 1 - Claimants massively approve this deal (95%+ yes votes). Based on what I have seen from other cases, I would expect this to go forward. Yes, there will be a confirmation battle. BSA, LCs, COs and insurance may kick in a few hundred million more combined to try to get TCC and remaining lawfirms on board. There may be tweaks but overall, I think the judge will try and make this plan work. Purdue is a big question, but that is a different circuit and not yet through all appeals so she may ignore it for now. Option 2 - Claimants approve, but not overwhelmingly (66% - 90%). The BSA, FCR, UMC/LDS, Coalition and insurance companies will fight hard to get the plan confirmed. TCC, Zalkin, Catholic Church and remaining insurance fights against the plan. Months of fighting & negotiations. Chaos. Option 3 - Claimants reject the plan (<66%). The Coalition will blame TCC/Kosnoff's email. Perhaps a bit of fighting, but BSA will admit defeat. I hope in all options, the judge keeps these hearings going. There are a TON of questions that must be answered and ruled on by the judge. Before a new plan takes shape (assuming Option 2/3) she needs to make rulings to help frame the plan (and future voting).

It seems clear that Patterson (I believe representing Zalkin) dug deep into the Coalition confusion and especially the eBallot and voting. I expect this could come up again when reviewing voting results from coalition law firms. Century (Tanc) asked a ton of wide ranging questions. I still have an hour left but so far, most of the interest was in the signing/vetting of claims. He also identified a case where Kosnoff lost where a judge indicated that charted orgs have the primary liability not BSA. We are less than 24 hours until voting closes out. If I were to bet, I don’t expect this plan will receive enough yea votes. We may actually see more than 66%, but given the non debtors involved I think the judge will need to see 95% or more. I think we get official info next year.

Kosnoff uploaded his full deposition. I’m listening while working on my bathroom remodel. Interesting background on the formation of AIS and the Coalition. The coalition apparently started with a plan to litigate the separation of LCs vs National (they were planning to argue that it was one big entity). That switches when tort lawyers joined in whose goal was fast settlements. Also, per Kosnoff, Rothweiler took out loans to pay for litigation, spent more than their line of credit then signed over some of their settlement proceeds to Wall Street. Kosnoff indicated he was asked by these firms to sign on and he refused. Only 30 mins in…

@melissabjacoby tweeted that the BSA ballot (22 pages) is not fitting in the supplied envelope. 5 non-consecutive pages require signatures. Note that other forms of voting are allowed but this issue may come up later if ballots are not received.

Locking this for Christmas. Merry Christmas and hope you have a wonderful day.

I think there are multiple types of lawyers involved. I have seen lawyers who seem to know their claimants well, understand their case, vetted their claim, kept them updated and are fighting for them in all aspects. I respect those lawyers and have no issue with them. Then there are lawyers who trolled the internet to build a large group of claimants, have no clue and likely don’t care about their claims and are simply trying to get a settlement so they can charge their large fees while doing minimal work for individual claimants. I wish those lawyers never got involved in this case. What is sad about bankruptcy is that each claim doesn’t get it’s time in court. Some may be false. Some may not be the fault of BSA at all. Others the BSA is to blame or LCs or COs. Bankruptcy just lumps them together and says here is a check. It would have been if this could have remained outside bankruptcy but unfortunately BSA didn’t have the money to defend the onslaught. Hopefully we are closer to the end than the beginning for all involved.

If I were voting, I would cast my vote with Omni. I would then check to see how my final vote was recorded. If my lawyer switched my vote, I would complain to the court, complain to the bar and look for lawyers who sue other lawyers. What is being alleged in these letters is just wrong.

Great story about a scout not earning Eagle. https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2021/12/08/proof-that-earning-eagle-isnt-the-only-sign-of-a-successful-scouting-experience

This is what she did in a similar case. It was felony rape, sexual assaults, etc. https://www.michigan.gov/som/0,4669,7-192-47796-542878--,00.html

I believe it. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9156e828-9e46-448c-bdd0-ae41eab0683b_Chartered_Organization_Notice.pdf I found the charter org voting information here. Charter organizations votes will be counted under the claim they filed ... it looks like most would be under Indirect Abuse Claims.

Based on my understanding - Each voting group is counted separately. It is up to the plan to balance out these groups while also creating a 5 year plan that is viable. Note that one topic that is coming up. Should all direct abuse claims be lumped together, or should they be treated separately if they take the lump sum or are inside/outside SOL.