Eagle1993

Stang said real number may be closer to 18,000 ... what was that about?

When does voting start/end?

Reading these filings, it really looks like the claim is: National BSA is running out of time. If they don't have a plan approved with a vote soon, they will likely liquidate. If they liquidate, the pension board will take most of their money, leaving little to claimants. Claimants will have to pursue LCs & COs in state court and they will start declaring bankruptcy

Ad Hoc Committee objecting to the TCC's request to delay: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/18922731-7312-4a0e-b52b-68cb33ecfe65_6307.pdf

That is a high hurdle. That means every non vote is essentially a no vote. So, with 84,000 voters, they need 55,440 yes votes. I think if the judge forces this through it will be very risky. The TCC and many law firms are on the other side plus 12,000+ of that 55,000 are questionable (many may listen to Kosnoff). What a mess.

Everything right now seems to be based on the belief that the Coalition can delivery the needed 55,440 votes (or more) for the plan to pass. In terms of voting... Do we know the number of claimants to coalition represents? What number of these are questionable due to AIS? Did the coalition already get letters from 100% of these claimants that their lawyers can vote for them, or is there risk that some of the claimants won't vote or will vote no even through their lawyers would recommend voting the other way? How will voting work .. is it 66% of those who voted or do they need 55,440 yes votes? It seems like BSA is putting all of their eggs into the Coalition basket. With the TCC on the other side, in addition to many other law firms, there appears to have no room for error. I'm curious how risky this strategy would be as a no vote could put BSA's survival at risk.

This is why I think the judge will deny the request and push Plan 5.0 to a vote. I completely understand the Hartford deal was not part of the RSA and that is likely a major issue. I just think the Judge may be thinking ... lets get this out for a vote. If approved, great, wrap it up. If rejected, then give up and go with a BSA only exit (no COs, no LCs).

I have a hard time seeing the judge make any changes to voting or pushing out claimants who don't meet the SOL window. She is all about speed to resolution now and these could cause major delays. I expect she will include SOL claims in the vote and let the trustee adjust payments. I expect she will say there is likely some fraud, but not enough to stop this process. I think the SOL/claimant debate will fall on death ears. If she was concerned she could have prioritized the hearing for that a while ago (I believe these issues have been brought up many time). Clearly I could be wrong, I just think she will lean on the trustee to sort it out during the payment cycle. Now ... she will be worried about anything that could either result in a rejected vote (TCC objections) or appeals (US Trustee). I think those are much bigger deals than the SOL/claimant debate. She may be upset with the TCC as she will say you approved the RSA, now what's wrong? I understand the Hartford deal was supposed to be excluded ... we will see if she is ok with that answer. She has never addressed the US Trustee's objection. I have to think she is watching Purdue Pharma and must be wondering if the DOJ will appeal her rulings. I get the sense that Congress is paying more and more attention to channeling injunctions and the DOJ is getting more upset how the bankruptcy courts are being abused. Based on the RSA hearing, my bet is she rams Plan 5 through to a vote but removes the Coalition payments. She will want to get something to a vote soon. It will look like a short term win. She will take the risk of the US Trustee appeal and a rejected vote (perhaps over 50% but not to 66%). Come Thanksgiving time, we may be looking at a deal that was rejected by claimants and is ready for appeal by a US Trustee.

Interesting status in the Purdue Pharma case. I've been following the journalist from WSJ who covers both this case and the BSA. There are parallels as there are channeling injunctions. In addition, both cases, the US Trustee has been fighting the plans. Now, in the Purdue Pharma case, the US Trustee (DOJ) is attempting to stop the decision. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/us/politics/sackler-bankruptcy-plan.html Kosnoff tweeted about this as well ... but the US Trustee has been ignored in the BSA case for a long time. He has been consistent that he sees the Plan 4, 3, etc. as not allowed by US Bankruptcy law. What happens if the US Trustee files an objection and halts progress (assuming Judge Silverstein approves the plan)? I don't think this is a minor risk ... this could be an 11th hour delay that could last a LONG time in appeals. I certainly hope BSA has a plan B just in case this happens (or better yet, address the US Trustee's concerns up front). I'm still waiting to see the US Trustee's response to Plan 5.

Locking this thread for now as I think the OP's initial point has completed its discussion.

For the units switching to facility use agreements, who signs off as COR on adult applications?

I think it started with a historical reference but the attempted defense of the Klan crossed a line. For example, we could talk about the fact that Hezbollah operates the Imam al-Mahdi Scouts which is a member of WOSM. I think that would be acceptable and an interesting discussion. Perhaps some may try and say that see … this is really interesting that they do things other than being terrorists. That is also fine with me but a careful discussion. There are a lot of organizations Nazis, al Qaeda, ISIS that I’m sure have done nice things…. but I mean come on. Where I think the thread would cross a line would be a defense of Hezbollah the organization. Perhaps someone can, but I don’t think it would belong in this Forum. I think for the most part this thread about the KKK in scouts stayed in category 1 above and perhaps occasionally slipped into category 2. Where it went bad was an attempt to defend the KKK itself. The KKK is a domestic terrorist organization. There is no defense of the KKK. Just like other terrorists, they did some good things from time to time, but it doesn’t mean they are not terrorists.

Good. This was a bad lawsuit by a bitter organization. GSUSA's reaction to this change was sad and I hope they and their councils grow up and allow us to work together again. That said ... BSA can't come back and sue other orgs if they use the word scouting when working with boys.

There are details and details by council. There are not details by year at least as far as I can tell. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1a12ff15-6275-4111-af0d-7c683fdd59f2_6213.pdf Page 368 for high level details., 389 by council

BSA councils reported $1.651B in Long term investments Feb 28,2021. Using the S&P 500 as a baseline ... this was likely $1.41M in February 2020 when BSA filed bankruptcy. Then, looking at today, those investments ... again using S&P 500 as a baseline are likely $1.89B. So, since BSA filed bankruptcy, it is very possible Local Councils' long term investments increased by $480M. They are currently contributing $500M + $100M loan they are taking out. Their entire contribution is almost covered by the increase in long term investments since they filed bankruptcy. Now ... these are very rough estimates and it would be interesting if someone had the details from back in February 2020. In addition, some councils are getting hit much more than others and each council has their own investments. My summer camp was sold to cover this ... so I know the pain is real for some councils. That said, I am not surprised the TCC believes LCs (overall) can afford more and there have been reports of some LCs being able to cover it through sales of investments vs touching current FOS contributions or properties.

Probably a different thread.

If 637 kids drowned since 2010 in BSA I would think you would say we need to relook at our water safety program .... 637 is far too many CSA claimants. I agree we have improved. I don't agree we are doing everything we can.

BSA has 637 CSA claims 2010 and later. USA Gymnastics has a total of just over 500 claims.

I am fully vaccinated as is my wife and son (who had Covid and got the shot 2 days after it was approved). My friends and my kids friends are all vaccinated. I live in an area with where 74% of the total population is vaccinated (not just adults). I had a coworker with no underlying issues (skinny, fit, etc.) die of Covid this year. I fully believe in the vaccine and believe it is the best path out of Covid. That said ... I think BSA has the correct policy and shouldn't change it. We are a large country and the backlash would fall on our volunteers. If there are requirements by other bodies (government, business, school, etc.) let them enforce those and I'm certainly willing to enforce other party requirements if we are using their facilities/etc. I really have no desire to go beyond that at this time. While mandates by businesses may work (as people get paid to work and quitting has bigger impacts) or travel (take a train/bus/plane is a big impact), I think a mandate by a scouting organization will simply lead to loss of membership with no increase in vaccination rates.

I think Kosnoff may actually support a plan that does not include CH7 of BSA. The TCC plan could win a huge vote by claimants; however, I’m not sure if it would be acceptable to the BSA.

That is the whole reason why we are here in bankruptcy. If the SOL said you only have 2 years to file a civil claim like a slip and fall, BSA would never had to enter bankruptcy. Several states opened look back windows and expanded their SOLs which flooded BSA with lawsuits (or was about to) and BSA went into bankruptcy proactively. One could argue that if only National BSA was being covered then those with outside SOL claims should be considered under the Future Claimants then I could agree. Where I see an issue is when COs and LCs are being covered. At that point, everyone should get a vote as those groups are not bankrupt but looking to get out of current and future claims.

There is no moral equivalence between our US military possibly killing innocent people when targeting groups who are our enemy and the Ku Klux Klan who bombed churches because black people worship there. Take that crap somewhere else.

I'm 99% sure it was 40% which was mentioned in a TCC townhall. That is why I was shocked the Hartford settlement was so low. It really cuts the legs out of any real major payment to claimants. I wish BSA didn't have that initial Hartford settlement. Without that, I think this deal would be much closer to finalizing.