Eagle1993

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.

Various updates today. I didn't attend hearing as was working. - AIG said there is no way to hold current schedule, min delay of 4 weeks required. Discovery not nearly complete. - TCC is indicating that voting may need to restart due to substancial changes via settlement mid vote. - DOJ is stating that vote is almost certainly required and will need to be clearly told what % of the settlement is now based on the growth of scouting. (Note that a lot of new settlements are based on scouting growth). - TCC is indicating they will be seeking discovery into mediation, specifically about how a mediator got his name on the plan. - Sounds like the judge is not going to require AIS to send an email as she doesn't have authority. She can disqualify lawyers ... - BSA lawyers are saying any further delay will result in less money for survivors. I somewhat question that as National BSA is only making up $106M of the $2.6B pot ... so even if they contribute nothing, it is a small percentage now. Probably better to get it correct than quickly rush to a solution.

To me, the biggest question is how UMC and Catholic Church are let off with a payment of $15M from BSA. This seems to say that there is almost nothing expected from other COs. I don't expect the $2.458B to grow much more. Yes, there is upside to ~$2.8B and there are a few other insurance companies out there, but the big ones are in. Lets say $2.6B total. Remove LDS, remove FCR payment you get just about $2B. Lets assume half of the claimants take $3500. That removes ~$150M so you come down to about $1.8B. Remove trustee fees (lets assume 10%) which is probably optimistic, you drop to $1.6M. The remaining claimants will average $39K each. Now ... where is more money. Some LCs have more, some are tapped out. COs, outside of LDS, have not contributed anything. Insurance perhaps. National is tapped out unless someone can go after the JP Morgan loan. It seems like progress has slowed, so we are probably in holding until confirmation.

My guess below. This whole thing seems a bit like a hail mary (for the insurance companies, LCs and COs). I think National could exit fairly quickly ... but the foundation of the program would be at risk given LC/CO future liability. A ton of questions remain, confirmation will get to them. From National BSA ... they are out of money. The only money left would be selling their properties and then go after the JP Morgan loan (basically saying it isn't secured). That could be a tough fight. So, the only way they can provide more payments is loans and future payments. If this was a National only situation, I wonder if these future payments would even be offered (probably not). National is probably doing this to reduce burden on LCs and Charter Orgs. Note that the future payments must still show they are financially viable, which is why they are tied to their business plan. Basically, minimal payments if they are within their plan. Major payments if they go over (as they are viable if they at least reach their plan number of scouts). Local Councils ... as they are not in bankruptcy, as you stated, they can offer whatever they want that is accepted. So, I expect they are balancing between immediate payments and future loan payments.

So, with this, the guaranteed payments are: $106M from BSA in terms of property/cash (after removing payments to Coalition, etc.) $500M from local councils in cash/properties $250M from LDS (for LDS claimants only) $787M from Hartford (note for Hartford, this will not be an immediate payment and has some risk) $800M from Century $15M from LCs (for 2 charter org buyouts) $2.458M Total ... not 100% up front, but heavily I believe $400M+ is pulled out for future claimants (have to check again) and payments will also go to trust leaders Also ... $250M is for LDS claimants only. Then there is $80M Note from BSA with $4.5M payment per year + payments per number of scouts $100M Note from Councils $125M Loan/payment from BSA/Councils (really heavily dependent on big increase in membership)

In the updated agreement, there was a footnote that participating charter orgs, ad hoc committee (local councils), coalition, FCR will work together to identify youth protection changes. No details.

Ok ... a bit odd but would be good to see what others think. $100M ... based on payments above, ignoring everything else. BSA's current business plan page 376 below https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2e1a8c44-7812-46a0-8a93-5aa5621dc7b2_6431.pdf says they hit 1,010,000 scouts by 2025 and projects 5.5% growth rate after. So, it would take until 2034 to exceed 1,500,000 scouts. If everything works out, this $100M offer is really the following: $2.5M offer in 2034 $5.4M in 2035 $8.5M in 2036 This is per the BSA plan. Now, if BSA grows a lot more, sure, this could hit $100M. But per BSA's current plans, that $100M would only hit $16M and in the mid 2030s.

Here are payment terms on the $100M. Note ... councils and charter orgs will need to agree to YPT changes. The BSA has agreed to pay to the Settlement Trust an annual variable payment, commencing the year after the BSA Settlement Trust Note is paid in full and the BSA’s total outstanding debt under the JP Morgan facilitie up to a cap of $100 million Payment must be complete by 2036 or $100M is met. So, there $100M is the maximum they would pay and if membership grown remains under that, they stop paying fees in 2036. The BSA expects to be paying down the JP Morgan loan ... note that once they complete they payment to the settlement trust, they believe their debt to JP Morgan and the Foundation will be less than $225 million. That still seems high. Local councils will pay 25% of the payments. Payments will be 50% of $72 paid by youth member in Scouts BSA/Cub Scouts each year in excess of 1,500,000 members. 50% of $45 paid adult in excess of 500,000 volunteer Note that per BSA growth plans, this payment would start until well past 2025. There is a chance this $100M becomes $0 if membership never exceeds 1,500,000 again.

Ok, a bit more info. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/086fbe27-7a3d-4f42-9a19-383482f8c997_7745.pdf It looks like BSA's increase of $140M ($15M cash from LCs, $25M Loan from LCs and a $100M loan from BSA/LCs based on membership numbers). This payment would release the UMC and Roman Catholic Church from all liabilities.

So… what does this mean. #1 - I think we will see one of the more entertaining and lively members of each hearing (Tancred Schiavoni) exit stage right. Century will now want to get out of the way to allow this plan to pass. #2 - I am highly suspicious of the language about the $100M added as it contains a reference to COs. LDS offered $240M … is BSA looking to buy out all CO liability with $100M linked to membership numbers? That needs more info. If it simply a bump up from BSA and LCs that is real movement. #3 - The $40M adder from LCs seems pretty small, unless combined with the $100M above. I doubt it makes a difference with the DOJ or TCC so I question why offer it. Overall, the biggest win for the BSA is they keep Tanc from delaying nearly every hearing. That is a win for BSA and the Coalition: I bet the TCC and DOJ still object the proposal. The coalition will try to get everyone to switch to yes now. However, they didn’t double the offer as they alluded to on a call. I have no idea where this ends, but I think we still have a long road ahead.

More information coming. I’m not sure if the $100M more from LC and BSA is contingent on releasing COs. As reflected in the Century and Chubb Companies Term Sheet, the Parties have also agreed to an additional contribution from the BSA and Local Councils on behalf of Chartered Organizations, which consists of: which consists of: (i) an additional $40 million contribution to the Settlement Trust, made up of an additional $15 million contribution from the Local Councils (in addition to the $500 million current cash and property contributions under the Fifth Amended Plan) and an increase of the DST Note from $100 to $125 million; and (ii) an additional payment of up to $100 million from the BSA and Local Councils attributable to growth in BSA membership over the coming years on account of Chartered Organizations’ continued sponsorship of Scouting units. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/4ad6b793-5040-43fa-8ab6-0c4a1ed44f18_7741.pdf

Rumors that local councils have increased their offer by $40M and Century settlement is in at $800M. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boy-scouts-america-bankruptcy-sex-abuse-settlement/

Looks like there is a deal being finalized now. Insurance came through late and the US Olympic committee added $34M. https://www.wsj.com/articles/nassar-victims-reach-380-million-settlement-with-usa-gymnastics-and-u-s-olympic-and-paralympic-committee-11639406377 Note that these increases came in after 95% approved the deal ... so even with that large approval, these updates were seen as necessary for confirmation of the plan. Also note that the Dept. Of Justice was objecting to the release of the USOPC ... which helped force the updated deal. Unfortunately for the BSA ... I don't see them hitting 95%. They also have objections from the DOJ in releasing COs and LCs. Seeing how hard it was to get the gymnastics' deal done (which was far simpler) I am not yet optimistic for the BSA. The only good news is that deals can close. (I guess technically this isn't closed, but the story is there is agreement).

There is a hearing scheduled tomorrow. One topic is PONIL RANCH, L.P. vs BSA. Ponil filed a lawsuit against BSA October 19 about an easement they have through Philmont ranch. It is not clear to me what happened that cause Ponil to file the lawsuit ... unless they just want to ensure their easement through Philmont is maintained during/post bankruptcy. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/c8dd3fa5-6704-49f7-ba60-59ecf6cd1591_1.pdf

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/6a26d2ed-e290-408d-a893-57cc7e1a0d44_7680.pdf AVA is objecting to TCC's request to require AIS (AVA, KR & Kosnoff) to send a joint letter to all claimants. AVA states they are neither in favor or against the plan. They believe the plan is appropriate for some of their claimants. They also believe others should reject the plan. They indicate they have been advsising each claimant based on their individual situation. Note that many AVA claimants are stating they can't even get in touch with AVA. They make a pretty good argument in this document. I would say if the issue was just KR vs Kosnoff, then TCC is probably on firmer ground.

There is a lot of failure here and many to blame. Harvard Law Review will have a very expensive case study. The more I look at this, it is hard not to ultimately blame the judge. She has the overall power of this case. She could have demanded details on why only 2 of 3 mediators were signing reports. She could have prevented this from being a mass tort trolling exercise. She could have made rulings early on in terms of fee structures. She let this go on too long with a hope that mediation would get the two sides there. If this plan is voted down, she cannot simply say return to mediation. She needs to indicate which side needs to move and start ruling. I think she has done a good job over the last week ... but its time for wins/losses to quickly pile up. Take charge by appointing new leadership of the BSA (or threaten it). Throw out the Hartford deal as it failed. Throw out the LDS deal. COs are out (they had a long time and only 1 came up with an offer). LCs ... give 1 more chance, if TCC doesn't agree quickly with the offer, they are out. I tried to blame various parties, but honestly, every group is fighting for their own team. If the ref doesn't throw a flag, what do you expect?

Most of these costs would have been avoided if BSA did a national bankruptcy only. Including COs & LCs made it incredibly complex and unique. Add in 84,000 claimants and the process grinds. I think a big solution is eliminating the ability to include non debtors under bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the horse has left the barn here.

I think the question is ... who didn't enforce YPT in this pack. How did the adult gain access to the youth? Were there trained leaders present at these outings that did not enforce YPT? How was the youth allowed to attend without parents? Per G2SS, the youth must have had 1 adult responsible for him while he attended. Who was that adult? Did the charter organization provide sufficient oversight of the unit? Were all leaders registered and trained in YPT? Were they aware of the outing and that a youth attended without his parents? Do they some how ensure the unit follows G2SS? Is there anything the district or camp should have noticed with this unit? Did they have prior YPT violations? We simply do not have the information, but there are a lot of rules and procedures in place that should have prevented this.

I deleted my post after seeing this. BSA is quoted as evaluating their 72 hour rule...

There is a screenshot in the docket above where an individual submitted a ballot to K.R. that they selected Reject and the receipt from K.R. states Approve. If true ... wow.

Unredacted .. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1258d52d-5524-45e6-ab56-3e9ea4d55115_7643.pdf Um... a LOT of questions about the eBallot coming out including one claim that the ballot was chaning his vote. A lot of emails in this link.

TCC had several experts in valuation, CSA, pensions, etc. provide all parties documentation on their findings December 5. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2f3a34bc-a344-4d23-8b4a-3db3479c6aeb_7640.pdf

The court as officially opened up Kosnoff's deposition. It sounds like some documents that were redacted may be updated on the docket. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/701b1aa0-2bbf-4897-8dc1-a94b6d7bfeda_7641.pdf

There is no legal basis to file a lawsuit. The Supreme Court already ruled on Dale v BSA. I don't see this even getting to the supreme court and if it somehow did there is 0% they would overrule Dale. BSA is a private organization. They can decide who they accept as members. Now even with co-ed troops there is complexity. Do you have a transgender girl tent with another girl? What about bathrooms/showers that are shared? I'm personally a fan of co-ed troops, and honestly most of the girl Troops I see operate that way. That said, this is complex and BSA will probably need to keep working on guidelines/rules. I expect this will vary based on where you live. If you live in an area with other co-ed Troops you are probably going to be ok remaining male only. I haven't seen any pressure at the Pack level to force packs to go co-ed in my area. Perhaps because we have many Packs that accept girls. Now, that said, if you have no co-ed Troops in the area, I could see the council starting to pressure some of the all boy Troops to consider being co-ed. I also wouldn't be surprised, if eventually, BSA would require all new units to be co-ed. I'm personally a fan of allowing all boy, all girl and co-ed BSA Troops. I trust the leaders of units to determine what is best for their scouts. I especially see benefits for allowing all boy Troops to continue as there are many boys who wouldn't be comfortable in a co-ed Troop. If BSA does open up co-ed Troops, I hope they respect the wishes of units looking to remain boy only.

1) She will lose any lawsuit, so no need to waste $. 2) Gender is complex. Right now, BSA has Troops separated by gender (boy Troops and girl Troops). If a youth identifies as a girl, then they must be in a girl Troop. She should be treated like any other girl and since there is no girl Troop then loan scout is her only option. Now ... as I mentioned, gender is more complex. I have a scout who identifies as non binary. Actually, I am seeing more non binary youth than transgender. We have handled their gender as their initial gender they registered with. I think the debate goes back to if we should have coed Scout BSA units. I prefer that we allow that as an option, but given our current rules/model, the unit/council took the correct action.