Eagle1993

The only issue I would have with the proposal is to reject some individual votes (or change them to yes). Given that the voting deadline is a month away, most law firms have plenty of time to undo any damage (if any actually occurred). This is mildly entertaining as we await the final voting numbers.

Boy Scouts Abusing Bankruptcy System https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/the-boy-scouts-are-abusing-the-bankruptcy-system

I partially agree, but I expect there would have been an argument about the ballot regardless of this email. A lawyer indicated Omni/BSA messed up earlier by sending information directly to their clients (after agreeing not to), causing confusion. This lawyer of 1,600 clients said it took them a long time to address the mistakes of Omni/BSA only to now see the email from Kosnoff/TCC cause more confusion. He indicated that he wants communication to his clients to stop and only go through state counsel (he did not indicate what he recommended in terms of voting). The judge agreed and said even corrections should only go out if state counsel approves. There are many claimants that have law firms that have been actively engaged and communicating with them. I think these claimants with engaged counsel will be fine. Their lawyers probably already told them to delete Kosnoff's email and just listen to them (regardless of what they are recommending). The issue will be claimants with counsel who are absent (ahem ... AVA). However, I expect they are already confused given the size 4 font mailing, hundreds of pages of legalese, multiple ballot options, etc. Just add Kosnoff's email to that pile of confusion. You can see the confusion in the letters listed in the docket. It appears TCC, BSA and others have agreed to a remedy for this email which will be set this week. By the time we get to vote analysis of the bankruptcy, I expect the email will be old news. Yes, Stang's law firm will have a bit of a red mark (depending on what discovery finds) but I don't expect any major change to the course of the bankruptcy. Note that even if there is a big YES vote, there are parties that will slice and dice it various ways. By council, by CO, by $3500 payout, by SOL. The judge will have to rule on each of these. In the end, unless we see 95%+ approval, I expect she will push for further mediation. The vote is really going to be a tool to see what side needs to give in more.

The judge said that since AIS clients are represented by 3 firms and those firms are not aligned, it gives greater weight to the point that the TCC should not have gotten involved. I expect if TK couldn't get a forum to reach coalition members of AIS, that could have been brought up to the court. In terms of AIS TK & KR were both in the hearing, their lawyers spoke but they didn't. AVA was completely missing. I am curious if Omni is releasing the results of the vote or just the vote totals. One law firm indicated half of their clients have voted (I believe they are doing a master ballot). In terms of next week, a lot of focus on why that email was sent out by the TCC. From the sounds of it ... there are two questions. 1) Why was it sent to all claimants. .... That COULD be just a clerical error. 2) Why was it sent to anyone. Clearly that wasn't a clerical error and was deliberate. Was is appropriate to even send it to AIS clients will be the question then. Someone from TCC stated they got approval from their ethics counsel to send out the email ... the judge found that interesting that they determined it should go through ethics counsel, indicating they knew there could be an issue sending it out. Most of this seems to be noise and may lead to sanctions against the TCC. It doesn't appear to have any impact on counting of votes nor the plan.

Based on judges is approving the TCC to send a letter: - Letter to go out from TCC attempting to correct the issue - Lawyers should be able to remove their claimants from the distribution of this updated letter - She also ruled on the language of the letter, taking in points from all sides. But she says the TCC does not need to include to language they don't agree with. She is VERY upset about this and there is a hearing next week. Discovery is ongoing to determine how this could happen. Her point is questioning why TCC is sending out even to AIS clients let along all claimants.

12,000 votes have come into Omni (but may be 1 week behind in terms of reporting) Hearing going on now about the Kosnoff letter that went out and how to correct that issue.

The difference is passwords in the clear could lead to stolen ballots. Custom phone app ballots that do not register no votes are clearly wrong. If these items are true, they are not just part of the game. Lawyers advocating for their clients and recommending a course of action, as long as it is being done in the clients interest, is perfectly fine. Some of Kosnoff’s acquisitions, if true, would be illegal or could call into question the entire vote from certain groups. So, if true, they should go to the court.

This is a good point. I think a good start is to look at the 3000 claims in bankruptcy post the year 2000. Someone should be reviewing those, how did they occur. Who did the abuse, how did they get registered? Did the unit, CO, camp follow BSA policy, etc. Then ... could there be changes to rules/policies that would have prevented the abuse? Finally, would those rule/policy changes destroy the program (for example, we could require every kid to have 2 adult guardians/parents present but that would clearly destroy the program). I tend to agree, the ideas we have generated here have not involved much if any changes at the unit level. More along the lines of reporting and more openness at the national BSA level. Perhaps the biggest question is COs and absent CORs. But to be fair, it is not clear that any of the proposed changes in this forum would have actually prevented abuse in today's scout program.

I don't think the 72 hour rule is restricted to parents or guardians.

I was wondering how pack recruiting was going in other areas. Our Pack (I'm actually dropping out but am still involved now) did well (we nearly doubled our size. That said, we are still down 40% from a few years ago, so while great compared to 2020, not great compared to 2018. Our council seems to have done well, hitting its recruiting target. Now, the key is how many reup in fall of 2021. Again, I think good recruiting is relative and probably still will show a decline since 2019.

I also agree, if some of Kosnoff's tweets are accurate (passwords in the clear, questionable eBallots, etc.) those should be raised to the court as well.

To be fair, the official TCC response to the plan is to vote NO and their letter had to be approved by court. Having the TCC send out a state counsel's letter, without court approval, seems to be a pretty big violation. If they only sent it to AIS, it probably would have been ok. BSA is asking that TCC never forward state counsel emails any longer (I think that is fair) They are also asking TCC to notify BSA of any major notification, giving 48 hours notice (perhaps they can negotiate the notice.) Finally, they are asking TCC to send an email out. That email I have an issue as it seems to emphasize voting YES. I think an agreed upon correction is fair, but it should be balanced and correct. I personally have issues with the plan, but regardless of what side you fall, this should be a fair vote with every claimant being informed of the various parties opinions. This letter could have skewed the vote unfairly (by perhaps putting out false information).

BSA is going after the TCC for sending Kosnoff's letter to everyone. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9aace805-eeb0-40bd-bd27-19b2bb835971_7122.pdf https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/d9144e08-fd27-42bb-ad74-6441d11e1dfd_7118.pdf

I would have youth programs that are run my own organization. I wouldn't have youth programs that I am legally responsible for that are not run by my organization. So, as a church, I would have Sunday school and church youth groups. I wouldn't sign documents to say I approve the adults for separate youth organizations. I would let them use my facilities for a fee. Given how little most COs are involved in units, I'm shocked any sign off on adult leaders and charters. Many times the COR doesn't even know the adult that is volunteering. I haven't seen my COR at a meeting for 3+ years. The only reason I saw my COR in the past as our COR was also our DE. The legal liability could be huge once lawyers figure that out. Mr. COR, please state your name. So, you signed off on Mr. X's adult application. How do you know Mr. X? Did you ever talk to Mr. X? What process does your CO utilize to vet adult leaders that you are approving? Let's now look at the charter agreement that you signed ... how often did you attend Troop meetings? Hmm... very interesting Mr. COR, I think we have heard enough.

It doesn’t but it prevents future ones. We have a local Troop that is not chartered by the Methodist but are allowed to meet there for free. That will likely change as the church wants to make it clear they support scouts but do not want any liability risk (or at least limit it as much as possible). For example, my Troop meets at a school. When I send in the reservation forms, I pay for the rental and sign a form that says we have appropriate insurance and take liability for the event. If I was a lawyer for a CO, I would never have my organization sign an adult leader application nor charter org agreement. Far too much liability going forward.

Hearing in 2 days. Seems like the big fights are over disclosure & an insurance firm asking for state court cases to restart. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1c39536c-af30-438f-9e93-f1eff9166d63_6989.pdf The insurance company believes their policy/coverage must be determined by state court, not bankruptcy court. Given this, they are stating that there is no reason to delay those trials. This, like everything else going on, could simply be a negotiating tactic and bluff. Who knows, but it will be interesting to see where the judge lands. I expect she will allow the stay to continue.

This cannot possibly be true. It’s wrong and will likely call the vote into question. Anyone here get one of these ballots?

For those watching the docket this is an important point. Someone wrote a letter to the judge saying they are represented by AVA. They received their package and it didn’t have a ballot. They called AVA 10 times with no response. They are very concerned they won’t have a vote counted.

New report released. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/0fcb0932-c53d-4728-b795-65895a0826df_6901.pdf Total Ending Unrestricted Liquidity - BSA 145,024,000 Total Ending Unrestricted Cash Balance - BSA 78,496,000 BSA had positive cash flow & didn't touch their remaining trust during the month of September. Big increases in income from Registrations, Supply & High Adventure. I expect we will see positive cash in October as more scouts join the organization. Then in December/Jan from rechartering. What will be interesting is that the Methodist Units will not recharter until March/April ... so we will see a late coming surge of recharter payments in 2022.

To be clear, the TCC is the official committee appointed by the United States Department of Justice through the US Trustee. They are paid by the BSA as a cost of the bankruptcy process. The TCC contains both lawyers and 9 claimants who were selected by the US Trustee. Their sole role is to represent all child sex abuse claimants. This announcement is clearly about addressing the non financial aspects of the bankruptcy. To take only Coalition representatives poisons the well. It makes the appearance of giving power to those who agree to BSA’s terms vs giving priority to those who would best represent claimants. There definitely could be overlap but making this solely under the Coalition is wrong. If BSA was truly interested in improving they wouldn’t limit it to the group of lawyers who are attempting to get their current plan passed.

Not clear yet. Someone mentioned it is going to COs that were pre 1976. Another stated they contacted their LC who told them they were not allowed to make any recommendations regarding the packets.

Apparently charter organizations are being mailed something by the BSA asking for donations to the survivors fund. This was mentioned before, but now more and more updates are coming confirming something was mailed out. Some charter orgs seem to be confused as they are sending it to the unit (Pack/Troop). Some have indicated it is asking about Charter Org, Troop/Pack assets. I'll post more info if anyone actual scans in what is being sent.

8-12 members of the Coalition. I’m a BSA supporter but I wouldn’t trust the Coalition to represent victims well. Let’s see the names they add before we say this group is useful. If they add only survivors who support the plan, I question the entire proposal and expect it is nothing more than a marketing ploy to try to get votes as KR has not been able to double the cash as he committed.

Is John and Roger any relation? Why are they not giving names?

Update. BSA now saying as long as the scout completes all requirements prior to July 1, 2022 they do not need this merit badge even if the application wasn’t submitted yet and the BOR completed.