Eagle1993

I'm not sure that it would matter, but someone who read the 142 pages of the overturn ruling could comment better. Let's assume 100%. The issue is the Slackers who didn't declare bankruptcy. So, why should someone in a year or two be prohibited from suing them if the individual was not part of the bankruptcy case. If the Slackers want to personally benefit from protections granted in bankruptcy, then they should declare bankruptcy. I don't disagree most claimants will look at $ and speed. YPT is probably down the list. The reason I think BSA should have it higher has more to do with their recovery post-bankruptcy. They need everyone on board saying the organization is safe as they exit. This was a list in terms of BSA priorities, not a claimant view.

The Michigan AG now has 5 open cases into BSA claims, charges may be coming soon in 1. Nessel: Five investigations looking into Boy Scouts of America claims (detroitnews.com)

To be clear ... I should have said ... "It is critical for a BSA plan to be approved..." I personally don't believe this plan is going to survive appeals. I agree with you that this plan should be rejected. BSA's current focus seems to be (in this order): Protect high adventure bases Minimize local council payments Speed to confirmation Provide protection for charter organizations Maximizing claimant % approval Risk of overturn in appeals process Youth protection changes I think their priorities should be: Risk of overturn in appeals process (no reason to have a plan approved that is rejected later) Youth protection changes Protection of local council camps (a bit different than #2 above) Maximizing claimant % approval (I understand claimants will place this higher on the list) Protect high adventure bases Speed to confirmation Provide protection for charter organizations (I just don't see how they protect COs in bankruptcy without risking appeal court losses)

Purdue Pharma update Note that an appellate judge rejected the bankruptcy plan. Purdue has mentioned it will appeal. There is a twitter thread discussing how long it would take to undo the ruling. Estimates are in the 9 month range. So ... the Purdue possible time (Bankruptcy approved in Sept 2021, overturned in Dec 2021. Best case for Purdue, the overturn ruling could come in September 2022 (1 year after the initial bankruptcy plan was approved)! So ... think of this ... if BSA's plan is approved in February and then overturned by an appellate judge, it may be Feb 2023 to get that reversed. The entire time, BSA would then remain in bankruptcy. It is critical for BSA's plan to be approved; however, even more critical, is that it is built in a way to survive appeals.

BSA has filed an updated version of the 5th amended plan this past Saturday. At first glance, it is primarily about the Century deal. However, it changes definition of abuse and a few other topics (including the Charter Orgs). I haven't read through it fully yet. Note that it sounds like the various groups already know where the vote is today (8 days until the deadline). Media likely have some idea of where it is headed. Finally, there are questions being raised as to how a single claimant class can have a vote right now when the plan is changing. Some would have voted before and others after this change. It sounds like this may be a major issue and now require a revote. The DOJ raised this during the last hearing. There is a hearing tomorrow, about delaying the scheduled confirmation. BSA will fight the delay. Updated plan below: 3212ae53-bdaa-4a0f-b063-fe9611a43eb2_7833.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) 8b02f151-4d5c-4d5b-8c09-fae757c90eee_7834.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) Microsoft Word - BSA - Modified Fifth Amended Plan of Reorganization (For Filing 9.29.21) (omniagentsolutions.com)

I expect both would be decided by state courts. First, the CO would likely ask for the case to be dismissed saying they were not liable as they followed BSA policies. If that didn’t work, then I expect the CO would then sue the BSA insurance company if they were not helping/providing coverage. I’ve seen many examples where churches/etc sued insurance companies for not covering them in CSA. These are just a couple of guesses but I agree the issue is complex.

I think @vol_scoutermay be correct ... one cannot dismiss the chance that net/net, the current plan may end up giving the average claimant the highest settlement. I also think @vol_scouter is correct in that it will be tough to get a much larger settlement from LCs across the board. Perhaps some LCs can provide an increase, but if the need is 2x or 3x ... at that point, LCs will probably just rather take the risk in state courts. If there is an LC by LC discharge option, and that money goes to the specific council claimants, there is a chance some stay within the National bankruptcy.

No chance this happens.

I agree, but there are state councils who filed objections to the plan referencing the steps I listed. I don't see this happening and BSA can completely avoid the question by staying in Chapter 11. If they enter Chapter 7, this will become a question that will have to be answered. The court will need to follow applicable law. They call balls/strikes. They must ensure BSA has a business plan that can succeed WHILE getting agreement from creditors. I'm not sure what I wrote that stated the court is fighting the BSA. Now ... to be fair .. the DOJ is absolutely fighting this plan, but they are not the court. Agree about the $10B but there are those claiming that (I don't know what that is based on). Per BSA's numbers, assets are in the $5B range if they had to be liquidated. Again, this will not happen, but there are those who are pushing this path.

One strategy, which the court hasn't really ruled on, is the following path. 1) Keep fighting National BSA until they simply cannot afford CH11 and they then volunteer to go CH7. 2) Court appoints a group of trustees to run BSA. Their job, just like all Ch7, is to maximize value for all claimants. 3) That group of trustees then pulls 100% of charters from all LCs. 4) Per LC/National charter agreements, once a charter ends, all LC assets are turned over to National. 5) Bankruptcy court liquidates the entire organization, and has 10B or so in assets. First ... I doubt the whole LC thing could/would happen, so I'll ignore that. Second ... with a National only CH7 case, yes, the pension fund would be in line. The national pension board will ask for $XB. However, they are an unsecured creditor ... so, they will be placed in other groups of claimants. They are not necessarily fully funded before claimants. That is why those with pensions typically see pension cuts post CH7. I HIGHLY doubt National goes CH 7. Even if the doomsday scenario above doesn't happen (which I doubt it could), going CH 7 means you lose total control. Everything is simply sold, including all trademarks.

I don't see this going CH7. I could see this going BSA National CH11.

The issue is the elimination of all liability will require payment of near bankruptcy levels for each LC. If they are not willing to do that, I question if any court is willing to accept the plan. My other question ...would a LC by LC release be an option? Those LCs that contribute enough could get releases (and those funds would be directed to claimants from those councils). To me, the NY LCs are likely going to go immediately to bankruptcy, so perhaps they would be more willing to settle now. Welcome to Scouter.com!

The DOJ is objecting to the plan. They haven't withdrawn the objection they have had since an earlier version of the plan ... as none of the versions address their concern. Note this objection was filed May 10, 2021. They object to the 3rd party releases. Yes, the judge can still approve the plan with the DOJ objection, it is a major issue. I found this comment interesting: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/241d24f2-4d85-482f-a433-da28b3f8ce3e_3581.pdf

TCC Townhall Summary. No major announcements. No change to recommendation. Vote, vote, vote. More details below: Purdue Ruling ... could have major impact, still digesting Voting ... pushing everyone to vote. They recommend reject, but want everyone to vote. Votes can be submitted/changed until Dec 28. If claimants are concerned about their vote, call or email Omni. Best to email as Omni will reply back with how their vote is recorded. That could then be used as evidence later if needed. Council dashboards ... this data is just a new format to show data that is already in the disclosure package and agreed upon by all parties. The TCC believes they may be able to release their analysis of every council (which is based on data shared by councils that may not be public). However, they cannot release this until the plan confirmation fight where this data may then be brought up in court. So, for now, the dashboards are limited. Century offer ... TCC believes once again that this is far less than their total liability. No change/impact to their recommendation. YPT ... BSA has started meetings with TCC about youth protection changes. The conversations were good and promising. Main issue is transparency. We will have to see what comes out. BSA offer ... TCC has not been able to confirm the full details of the BSA/LC offer increase to protect all COs outside UMC/Catholic church. That said, as I mentioned earlier, their estimates align fairly closely to my numbers in an earlier post. They openly asked the BSA to meet with them to discuss and confirm if this is a correct understanding. TCC was upset by some statements during the Coalition townhall about fees. Technically, the TCC is the 9 abuse survivors who are not paid. They make the call on if the offer is acceptable or not.

Prof. Jacoby @melissabjacoby on Twitter has a good analysis of the Purdue ruling yesterday. In addition, there are a large number of articles out (Reuters goes in a bit deeper as does WSJ). Based on those and comments from the TCC town hall.. The Purdue ruling will be appealed AND it is in a different circuit .... so it sounds like no immediate direct impact to the BSA case; however, the case still could be influenced as bankruptcy courts watch each other and this appears to be a major deep ruling (142 pages) that reference prior supreme court rulings that greatly limits bankruptcy court to follow the law Note that supreme court ruling comes from Jevic (2017) Bankruptcy law does not include non-debtor releases. This was added due to a ruling in one case and now it caught on like wildfire. The appeals court states ... right now, just because bankruptcy law does not include language you can't have non-debtor releases doesn't mean you can. Bankruptcy law is meant for bankruptcies. However, it has expanded now to the point it is replacing state court litigation. This was never the intent. Just recently, think of BSA, USOC, Johnson & Johnson, Purdue Pharma, etc. From the various articles, it looks like this is headed (eventually) to the Supreme Court. The question is ... can bankruptcy court replace state courts for non-debtors. There is nothing in bankruptcy law that allows this. So, the question for the BSA case. I wonder if there is any chance a plan is approved with DOJ/TCC rejecting the plan. That seems like it would be ripe for appeal. BSA should be ready with a plan of a BSA only exit.

TCC agrees with the estimate I had …. BSA will likely only start paying the $100M around 2035 (note payments stop 2036).

TCC talking about Purdue. BSA case is in the 3rd Circuit while Purdue is in 2nd. However, the judge addresses topics that apply to the BSA bankruptcy. There may or may not have some impacts. TBD…

Note that the issues are different in the BSA case in that there are questionable conduct by the Owners prior to filing. That said, I still find the various bankruptcy cases interesting as they are a bit ahead of BSA’s and may give us an indication of the hurdles left ahead.

Purdue Pharma bankruptcy has been overturned on appeal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-overturns-4-5-billion-settlement-between-purdue-pharma-sacklers-11639698359 Issue was allowing releases of shareholders under a company bankruptcy. Bankruptcy code does not authorize such non-consensual non-debtor releases. Voting ... 95% of the 120,000 plus votes were in favor of the plan ... and it still lost on appeal.

There is some sort of formula we will probably never see. I expect it includes net unrestricted assets, claims, perhaps SOL vs outside SOL, etc. They had some sort of formula. The TCC, right now, does not show in these filings what they think the council can pay. We do know, that on mass, they believe in order for their liability to be discharged through bankruptcy it should be closer to triple their prior offer. In the end, I doubt the judge is going to discharge liability against thousands of organizations with this much churn in claimants. Perhaps if DOJ, TCC and everyone was on board, she would give it a green light. I just don't see it ... the Purdue pharma is getting enough bad press and that was much less far reaching. I can already hear her saying .... While there is a path to allow the discharge of non debtors, the bar to clear is incredibly high. While I understand the debtor's position, and the potential impact to their business plan, I just cannot accept a plan that discharges liability without the complete and total support of all parties. We are not there. I would ask the debtors to go back and determine if this is the path they would like to continue ... or if they need to change their strategy. ... Unless there is a major change ... I think this ends with a BSA only plan. Perhaps the TCC can save it by offering an LC by LC buyout, but the price may be too high for most councils. Time will tell ... but the faces of all involved appear grim.

Hearing now scheduled December 21. Will cover emergency request from some insurers to delay schedule. I believe their request is by 4 weeks minimum. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/5db0af36-3dca-44b2-968e-c9821b875e9a_7783.pdf

At first appearance, it looks like the BSA, the BSA local councils, the Coalition and the future claimants committee struck a deal that IF there is a deal with the Methodist and/or Catholic church The Methodist and Catholic church must help BSA fundraise They must support scouting growth through 2036 Any fundraising dollars would reduce the amount BSA would have to pay to the settlement in terms of the $100M note At least that is the way I read it ... but it is an odd footnote. My ONLY guess is that there is concern the Methodist/Catholics pay off a settlement, flee the BSA and then membership collapses and some of the payments based on membership collapse. So, this footnote is there to indicate there is agreement that the Methodist/Catholics must also guarantee support for scouting through 2036 if they are going to get protection via bankruptcy. I noticed they didn't say the Methodist/Catholic committee agreed to this footnote.

Actually, I relooked at this. It appears that this deal above is for all Charter Organizations, EXCEPT the UMC, the Roman Catholic Church and the LDS. So, NO DEAL for the UMC or Catholic Church; however, a deal for every other CO. The agreement also has this footnote. It would be interesting to understand what this really means.

Looks like just the high level look per council, not the detailed report. But progress.

I think you may see those within SOL and with good state counsel see much higher payouts if this plan fails. They will be able to sue COs and LCs in state court and go after those entities + their insurance companies. Right now, CO's insurance is completely protected in this plan with no payments required. That is a big deal. They would be brought in if this plan fails ... which is a major concern of COs. LCs ... I really think this is a case by case basis. Some LCs are contributing very small dollar amounts in terms of % of their assets. Even 1 lawsuit that hits them would result in more money going to victims than what they are offering today. I do agree with you that other LCs are/have contributed a large portion and lawsuits would likely mean less money for victims. Its tough for me to judge the net result if it is positive/negative to claimants. I do question, even more than LCs, the insurance settlements. They likely believe the vast majority of the claims are false ... OR ... are not represented by counsel willing to sue in state court. In the end, I actually believe AVA is correct that the plan approval really depends on the claimant's situtation. Some individuals .. .this plan probably means the highest payout. If you are outside the SOL and in a state unlikely to change SOL you may not see a big increase in future plans. However, if you are inside the SOL and/or in a state willing to change SOL you may see a huge potential upside if you reject the plan. Good lawyers would be sitting with each claimant to discuss Their motivation ... is it to maximize their personal financial outcome. Is it to cause as much damage to BSA as possible? Is it to ensure YPT is improved? Why did they sue and what is their goal? The current status of the plan and how it relates to their goals. Depending on the above two, then provide them a recommendation on object/approve. I feel these law firms who are sending mass requests to either reject/approve the plan are not serving their clients. It is incredibly sad. As a lawyer, if you want to collect the 40%, you should personally know your client and represent them. Otherwise, don't take the case.