Eagle1993

I know Prof. Jacoby indicated that major law firms likely know the outcome ... so you are probably correct. I just don't want to jump to conclusions yet. I think unless the vote is very close to the number needed, attempts to disqualify ballots are just a waste of money and time. It would be much better to restart negotiations then try and see a few percentage points swing in a failing outcome.

No official update as far as I can tell. I think the cancellation of the townhall could be that they don't know the official vote count yet and want to wait and see that info as it will impact what they communicate. I don't think it means it didn't go well for the BSA. (Similar to the deposition requests ... now both sides are deposing the other about votes). We should know by late tonight or tomorrow.

Or are we waiting for white/black smoke above BSA HQ? 1) Omni said they needed every minute possible ... so I don't expect anything until late today ... but we could be surprised. 2) I'm not sure if this will be on the docket or publicly available. I expect all parties will be made aware sometime today. I'm infrequently refreshing the docket & watching for some specific tweets to see if anything comes out. Silence so far.

I struggle to see that 75% will be enough. Many recent cases seemed to have issues even as they approached 95% approval. You may be right, that 75% would likely mean the plan confirmation will go forward ... but that still leaves a large number of non consensual creditors for the non debtors to be included. I also wonder if you could see several COs or LCs with subtotals under 66% approval. Perhaps the way I will look at it: <75% and the plan is dead. The judge should kick the coalition out as a mediation partner and restart mediation. BSA & TCC should meet to discuss plan structure that could get their buy in. 75% - 94% or so ... this plan will go forward; however, perhaps a high likelihood of issues during confirmation OR appeals. 95%+ likely less issues during confirmation (pending Purdue) and just minor changes before plan approval.

I think that was from non bankrupt CSA settlements that were made public. It also came from the TDP where the "max" claim amount is in the range of $2 - $2.7M. I couldn't find anything else outside the TDPs. I did find the below which details out all of the Catholic Church settlements that were public. Note their average per claimant is post attorney fees. Also, some of the earlier lawsuits you have to adjust for inflation. https://www.bishop-accountability.org/settlements/

I know this has been debated before, but our Troop does not charge adult leaders to attend summer camp. We bump up the charge for all scouts to cover the extra costs (such as adult fees). Note that many summer camps allow a few free leaders as well. Otherwise, does your troop use scout accounts? That is one way many scouts help cover their cost of camp. They fundraise and some percent goes to their account.

FYI ... TCC, as expected, filed depositions against Omni and BSA about voting. 66ded425-a7b8-41b6-9ece-51a6eba612bf_8101.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) 937d5a67-ffb1-4121-8020-5bd252c5b952_8100.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

That is my guess if this plan doesn't go through. Typically settlements seem to hit at least 2-3M for each case... so they would be looking at 40 - 60M just in settlement talks.

Based on BSA's model, I think there is shared responsibility in many cases. Vetting of volunteers and ensuring units operate per BSA rules is the CO's responsibility. Creating the rules is BSA's responsibility. If the issue is found with a unit not following rules ... then the CO should be considered liable. If the issue is found with a gap in the rules ... then that falls on the BSA. If a combination ... then shared liability.

100% agree. Kosnoff noted that BSA is deposing nearly every group that is against the plan. From the Roman Catholic Church to the TCC and all law firms in between. They are going to ask about their communication in terms of voting, how they kept track of votes, how they communicated with claimants who decided not to vote, etc. Now, the other groups are already lining up arguments against the coalition, eBallots, badgering clients, etc. My guess is that the vote comes in the range of 70-85% accept. Why? Because that likely the worst case scenario for all involved and given BSA's luck, I expect that is what we will see. What is this the worst case? Because it is enough to pass a BSA only plan; however, not enough for the judge to likely accept non debtors. BSA will believe they are close enough. Anti plan advocates will believe that close doesn't count. With no clear "winner" of the vote, we will be stuck in limbo for months. To me, the best case situation for the BSA is >95% accept. The second best is a very low accept rate <<66%. At least in this scenario, most could agree that we are either very close to a final plan or need to allow other groups (TCC) to take the lead. If a new plan takes shape, I do expect some LCs will need to kick in more. I just saw Daniel Boone council had 20 lawsuits filed against it for CSA. From prior discussions, each CSA lawsuit costs about $500K in legal fees ... so they are likely looking at $10M (roughly) in legal fees. I took a look at the Daniel Boone's settlement ... they only offered $656K. They have net unrestricted assets of $7.8M. It seems like some councils are playing with fire. Just the legal fees from 2 cases likely exceeds their settlement offer. If this plan fails, I believe some councils may have wished they offered more. Daniel Boone is one that I question right now. c1f98e_d7d75080e9ef4391ae5b8bc408cb8211.pdf (filesusr.com)

During Kosnoff’s deposition Tancred brought up a question about Chartered Organizations and the BSA. Kosnoff actually had a lawsuit against the BSA dismissed as the BSA argued that chartered organizations are the ones ultimately responsible for the units and therefore they should not be liable for sex abuse. The judge agreed. To me, that should have been the warning to all charter orgs. Now, in that case, the charter orgs were defunct so the claimants had no where to go … but it showed that BSA was willing to use charter org agreements as cover when needed. While Kosnoff mentioned this case and Tancred seemed to know about it I haven’t found it in the news. It could go back a while.

My guess is that most LCs are focused on rechartering units. The bankruptcy is a concern, but right now it’s in a holding pattern and they have other more pressing issues to tend to.

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.