Eagle1993

She went HARD after those fees. I see no chance they are ever approved. What does this mean? The Coalition will not get the $10M + $900K/month ... likely $15-$18M of fees lost. If they were counting on those, they will need BSA to kick in another $30 - $40M in the settlement. If this was the only issue, then I think there was a chance the Disclosure hearing could be maintained. However, the Hartford deal will give the Coalition cover to abandon the current RSA without looking like they did it because of the fees. My guess ... RSA is DOA and a negotiations will pick up again.

From my understanding of the options now.. 1) Hartford deal is in the plan. Now, it could be rejected and that would meet the Hartford deal. ... But it must be in the plan. 2) Hartford deal is fought in court in an adversarial hearing. Evidence would be presented and the judge would be asked for a ruling on the deal. 3) Hartford agrees to a new plan. What does 1, 2 & 3 mean ... DELAYS! BSA will probably need to determine the path that gets them to the quickest resolution. I expect #3 is out ... so my bet is #2 as I'd have a hard time seeing TCC not object to #1.

No chance Aug 25 holds.

RSA approved - No Coalition fees .. they are abuse victims which the TCC already represents. Are services duplicated? Rule 2019 motion there was discussion on who would pay for it ... and in that filing 1429 "Coalition council is being paid by state court council." The state court council must pay those fees, not trust OR BSA ... only through client pockets (not directly). Relative scale ... not that great (my point) ... it doesn't matter. Coalition must make substantial contribution ... need to see outcome of their efforts. Also no evidence of their role in mediation.. - Hartford deal stays; however, the RSA cannot be used to append other requests (such as releasing the Hartford deal). Basically ... the judge cannot rule on the Hartford deal and she agrees. This requires a different vehicle. ... Basically, kick the can down the road.

It appears there is no issue with the lack of board approval and conflict of interest between LC/National boards.

More coming, but that Harford deal could be a big issue .... I'm not surprised about the coalition fees ... she killed many debates and it seemed like she wasn't going to approve.

Topic includes RSA ruling (see below) and impact on bankruptcy. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/cbf4b5e3-c8a1-450e-aa7f-f65e20f40ee7_6084.pdf

All ... we are 30 minutes away from the Judge's RSA decision. I know several will probably be monitoring the hearing and we are already at 108 pages on this topic. So, I'll freeze this one now and create a new one to capture the updates from the hearing and discussions post decision.

The big group is religious, followed by fraternal organizations then misc (PTOs, fire departments, etc.). I think the LDS, Methodist, Catholic, VFW, Knights of Columbus seem to be participating in the mediation. What happens to the VFWs, Moose, Lions Clubs, Kiwanis, PTOs, etc. who don't participate? Who knows? Many of them are dying off anyway and probably have almost no assets and limited insurance coverage ... so probably not a big target for lawsuits. I know our CO seems to be hand to mouth and perhaps has <$10K in the bank with no buildings and likely crappy insurance. If someone sues them, they couldn't even afford a lawyer ... though no law firm would ever sue if they knew the recovery would be so low. That is probably true for many other COs ... outside the big churches. Overall ... good question as the LC portion gives all LCs coverage. I tend to think the CO portion would only cover the COs that pay in.

I actually think National would love the COs to be part of the plan. The problem ... name 1 CO that has ever had to pay a settlement due to a sex abuse case brought against the BSA? There could be a case or two ... but I haven't found any. The big cases were paid out by National, LCs and possibly insurance carriers. So, I'm sure the COs are saying ... why do we have to pay anything? The BSA owned the program and process around volunteers and provided liability coverage. I'm sure the TCC/claimants have no desire to let the COs off the hook for $0 in payment. While they haven't paid (or paid much) in the past, there is nothing stopping future lawsuits against the COs. Oh, and now that there is no BSA, no LC and limited insurance ... the CO will be there, alone, defending themselves in these lawsuits. They could lose and lose big. This is a very tough spot for the COs. I'm sure they are looking for BSA to pitch in more $$ to cover them. They will likely have to pitch in $ as well. While I believe the BSA would love to include the COs, they also know they have time limitations in negotiations and limited assets they are willing to part with. So ... that is why mediation continues. Could the LCs pitch in more plus some payment directly from COs to provide coverage? Is there any other clever solution? I really think if there is a solution, the Catholic & Methodist Churches will continue. They truly believe it is God's work to help youth and scouting. The only way I see them leave is if the financial impact/risk to their entire work is put at risk for this one program. If they leave, BSA can provide facility use agreements, but I think the impact would be large and damaging.

I think the primary reason is they see it as within their ministry. They believe scouting values are important for youth and by serving as a CO, they can help youth obtain these values.

I question if this date can be held. There is still no ruling on the RSA. There is no official Disclosure document. Mediation is still ongoing with COs & insurance companies late this week. One lever these COs have that is outside bankruptcy court is to simply pull charters during recruiting. Could you imagine the pain they could cause if they send letters out to all of their units stating January 1, 2022 they will no longer charter the units? There have been a few instances of this, but really localized. If BSA submits their next plan, without CO coverage, those shots could go national. So, I have a hard time seeing the BSA having an official plan without COs included (at least the top COs). I expect BSA is aware of the shots over the bow that the Methodist and Catholic churches have already launched and the churn that has already caused. I cannot imagine that during recruiting season, BSA would want one of every three of their charters being threated. I also expect the COs realize their best hope is to be in the next offer ... otherwise, they will be sitting ducks in state court with no BSA and no insurance coverage (in many cases) to back them up. So ... we that Aug 25 date seems optimistic. The plan may not include COs in the end, but I expect the TCC, BSA and COs will ask for more time to get to a mediated solution. All of this assumes the RSA is approved. If it is rejected ... well ...

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." - Yogi Berra Yogi is 100% correct ... but I'll venture out a bit as it relates to bankruptcy. I'm not convinced most parents care about the bankruptcy. Occasionally it comes up ... but they see our Pack is lead by parents they know. We are not strangers and there is still some interest in scouting. I really doubt that amount BSA pays has any impact on recruiting. The real impact on the program going forward will be a mix of Covid, volunteers and what families value.

This is a fair point and it doesn't feel right. If I knew the Disclosure would proceed on schedule without this payment, I would be 100% in favor of rejecting it. Perhaps it will as the Coalition lawyers (I believe many if not all would be paid through the contingency fees) would look pretty dirty if they scuttled the RSA because they personally were not being paid directly out of BSA fees.

Ha! I will say that I'm in a few FB groups and occasionally check out Reddit. I don't know about ScoutsL but this forum and this topic seems to be the one that provides the most info from the bankruptcy case and has a good combination of claimants and current scouters providing their thoughts. At times it gets a bit nasty (moderators try to limit that) and drifts off topic, but overall it probably provides a good snapshot of the thoughts of the engaged members of various groups. We already have decent evidence that Kosnoff reads this forum/topic from time to time and we know, based on history, that senior members of National BSA are aware of this forum. It is probably good news that a member of the TCC is reading this (if he is). Looking through all of the objections and comments from the last 3 days of trial, I really do hope the judge rejects the Hartford deal (what is the point of keeping it if it seems very apparent it will be rejected by the claimants) approves the Collation payments (it is $10M+ ... yes, a lot of money, but in $850M is in discussion right now and rejecting it could stop the process and have BSA wasted many times that amount in getting to a new RSA) approves the RSA ... I'm not sure why the board didn't vote for it, but it is not like the BSA has another great plan up its sleeves. This saves the 4 HA bases, trademarks and overall organization. I'm not sure they can do better. If the judge goes the other direction, I'm concerned that the deal will be worse for both BSA & claimants. Insurance companies can fight later on in court ... there is no need to delay this deal.

Really good article; however, they completely missed the US Trustee’s objection.

The way I read it.. the BSA is basically saying this is it. Either approve the deal or the BSA will fold. Is that how it sounded today?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/boy-scouts-defend-sex-abuse-deal-deny-undue-influence-2021-08-16/

So what’s next? Bench ruling? If so, any idea when?

All of this is managed by lawyers. What he sees, what he doesn’t, what he says, etc. I’m not impressed by his leadership but I would not be surprised if much of this is being managed by a legal team.

Any update on the hearing? How did Buchbinder's testimony go?

I think the US Trustee will concur with this. I believe the US Trustee has a hard time believing you can insulate COs, LCs and pull in their insurance companies into the National BSA bankruptcy ... as they are non debtors. Also, US Trustee objected to the Coalition payments.

she seemed to quickly gloss over the process question on how they were calculated in addition the US Trustee says they are not legal. I think you are correct.

Any update on the hearing today? When does it start?