Eagle1993

Riddle me this, Batman. BSA is saying they are out of cash end of August. They just delayed the hearing which means everything is delayed 2 weeks. How do they complete this now by the end of August? I expect that if the TCC’s plan becomes public, BSA is going to have a nightmare on their hands as it will likely show a large number of council camps sold. They will hear screaming from volunteers who are not aware of what is about to happen. Perhaps, just perhaps this means BSA will really try to settle over the next two weeks. They do not want that TCC plan made public if they can avoid it. I’m hopeful this means we are getting close to the beginning of the end.

Looks like BSA is negotiating with some but not all victims (or leaks to WSJ are simply not consistent). "The Boy Scouts have made progress in recent days toward a potential agreement with a coalition of law firms that represents the bulk of the victims who have filed claims ... people familiar with the matter said." then there is this "... the Boy Scouts are farther apart from a separate official committee of survivors, other people said." Who are the major law firms involved and how do you get to >42,000 without the TCC? Kosnoff is 17,000 and I don't see him making a side deal. The coalition is 7,000 and they seemed aligned with the TCC. Either one of the leaks is not true or BSA is working around the TCC, Kosnoff and the coalition.

The question is fraud. Did BSA do this with the intent of fraudulently protecting assets. If you noticed, the Coalition hired a lawyer that specializes in fraudulent transfer law. If it was fraud, JPM will be out of luck.

I think BSA would say ... the HA bases along with other unrestricted assets should be decided at trial. So basically, lets setup the trust and get agreement. If the judge declares some of the assets are actually unrestricted, those could then go to the trust. But there is no reason to hold up the bankruptcy for the trial that will take until 2022. There are actually 2 major players regarding the HA bases. One is National. They profit from the HA bases and believe they help recruit/retain scouts. The other is JP Morgan. JP Morgan loaned BSA hundreds of millions of dollars, using the HA bases as collateral. They will argue that the loans must be paid first as they are secured debt. There is a chance that at least Summit is upside down on their debt .. possibly other HA bases as well. I'm sure JP Morgan will never willingly give that up unless they lose at trial. So this is not simply BSA's call. If BSA says sell the HA bases, JPM will jump in and say the money must go to them, leaving survivors with almost nothing from the sales. Personally, I think the Summit loan is legit. It was far too much money, but it seems like a legit loan. I do question the loans taken out in the summer of 2019 against the other HA bases, less than 12 months prior to bankruptcy. There were rumors at the time that those loans were taken out to protect the bases (by creating secured debt). However others, including many here at scouter.com believed that it actually put the bases at more risk as its hard to argue they are necessary for BSA if BSA is so willing to use them as collateral for operating income. Only time will tell. I doubt the HA decision will be rushed so the bankruptcy settlement will have to have an asterisk that states something about the outcome of the restricted asset trial (which concludes late 2021/early 2022). Though, I guess there is a chance that JPM, BSA and TCC can meet and work something out earlier.

That was my second thought. My first was hopeful (that perhaps this is a good sign). My second is that this judge is struggling to make any decision as this is a Sophie’s choice situation. So, she will wait it out and let fate decide. Which could mean both groups lose out.

I find it very interesting that the judge delayed the trial by almost two weeks. I wonder/hope it might mean she heard there is progress on mediation. Not sure if that is possible. Otherwise, it seems a bit odd to delay as BSA is running out of time.

Not at the unit level. Our schools are discussing if they treat it like the measles vaccine (required) or flu (optional). My town is now at 91% first shot vaccination complete for 16 year olds and older and our Covid rate is 2 active cases out of 14,000 residents. So it works well, but I doubt we would have a mandate as everyone is pretty much getting it on their own. You could require masks for those unvaccinated when they are indoors (per CDC) but I wouldn’t require the vaccine.

I live in a town of 14,000. A few years ago, we had 4 fairly healthy packs (our at 80 scouts, another at 65, one at 35 and the fourth probably around 20. We are down to two Packs. My Pack at 20 scouts (we have lost 60 in the last 2 years) and one around 30. In the past 3 hours, my Pack has lost 3 den leaders. Why? The answer I get is too much work to commit to running a den. The pack of 65 that ended (it was in existence for 50+ years) ... no parents want to volunteer to lead the Pack. The DE is going to try & rebuild it ... So ... one of the top issues I am hearing, right now, is that we simply do not have enough parents willing to volunteer to make Packs run well. There is a second issue I am starting to hear from some Cub Parents. This past 18 months, families spent a lot of time together ... and they are NOT in a rush to return back to their previously overschedule past life. They are being more selective on activities and some are backing away from programs. In general ... sports wins out more than scouts ... so they are more likely to pull or not return to Cub Scouts. The collapse has been sudden and it is actually getting worse as we exit Covid. I'm seeing parents who stepped up during Covid now back away. Again, multiple Packs in my area are seeing this ... otherwise, I would think it could just be a one off issue. I plan a massive recruiting drive (including parents) and hope that will save us this fall. However, I am very concerned that this may be early signs that the Cub Program will not rebound any time soon (if ever). This may require fundamental changes in Cub Scouts.

I think this is a good point if the damage wasn't psychological. If it wasn't psychological, you could simply look at the immediate impact and argue that is what the compensatory damage should be. The issue is that the abuse is psychological and therefore likely life long. At that point, you have to consider the cost and impact in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and on and on and on.... That would be impacts such as lost wages, life long pain & suffering, life long medical costs, etc. Easily hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. Then comes the punitive side. I believe that is many times a multiplier and can vary by state. Some I have seen are ten times. So ... even in 1970, if someone could have claimed $1M in damages (from life long psychological damage) and then the jury said BSA should be punished 10x punitive, you could see an $11M verdict for 1 case.

I just mean 1 between the two. I think it would be a mess if various law firms, groups, etc. start filing their own plans. I would say the judge should not allow a free for all ... just 1 plan from the TCC/Coalition.

Kosnoff Law just tweeted the same. He indicated that (he believes) the BSA judge will end BSA exclusivity and allow victims to file a plan and that is essential to progress and BSA's survival. This is the first time, I can remember, where Kosnoff is mentioning that BSA survives. He has been a liquidation or bust guy. The more comments I read from others, I really think we should open it up to the TCC and the TCC alone to submit alternate plans. Clearly BSA hasn't been able to come up with one yet and they are running out of time.

[2] U: Unrestricted - No restriction on the property was asserted or confirmed [2] L: Limitations - Documents support existence of use limitations or sale limitations such as conservation easements which may impact the value of the property [2] R: Restricted - Assertion of or documents supporting legal restrictions including donor restrictions to the sale of property and/or requiring the reversion of property or proceeds to an unrelated party. [2] TBD: Assertion of restriction remains subject to review and/or additional documentation

Scouts UK has 450K "young people". BSA membership is under 1M and even BSA is not indicating getting back to over 1M until 2025. There are about 16M "young people" (from 5 - 25) in the UK so % of them in UK Scouts is 2.8%. My guess is that % is higher when you look at under 18. Now .. BSA is about 1M today and just counting 5 - 18 and younger is about 62M. So, about 1.6%. UK scouts no longer require DoR. They show you can have a successful program without DOR. Now ... I DO NOT think removing DoR will have any real positive impact on the US numbers. I do not believe there would be a surge of applications. I think you might see some minor changes to some groups willing to host scouts, perhaps some contribution changes (could go either way) but this would likely be minimal and rare. I also don't see public schools coming back, even with this change. The only thing it could do is remove a potential future controversy. I think we should only consider it if it is being considered in the future (to get it out of the way now). I think you can operate without it and be successful ... you can also go the Scouts Canada route. In terms of impact on day to day on unit function ... I think almost none if you remove DOR. Troops & Packs that are chartered by non religious institutions are already very secular. Unless you are a hard core atheist, you can easily meet our current DOR. Note that not all religions believe in a God or gods ... but they still fulfill DOR. For example, Buddhist do not believe in any deity, but you can still get a BSA religious medal. So, if I were running BSA, I would probably not make the change and ensure there is no debate about a change going forward.

My understanding is the TCC plan would be a council by council settlement. So, if you are in council Z ... TCC would say pay $YM and the sex abuse liabilities prior to Feb 2020 goes away. If the council doesn't pay, then there would be no protection and lawsuits can begin. I think the benefit is that it really allows each council to individually decide. Risk lawsuits, future lawsuits, future disruptions and future bankruptcy or pay a high fee right now. I think that makes a lot more sense and may be easier to discuss with volunteers. The downside is that the payout is likely to be much higher than what they are contributing to the $450M settlement. What is being proposed now likely won't pass. Sure, if it could pass it will likely be better than the TCC proposal (in terms of council payouts).

I wasn’t on the call, so it’s tough for me to know. He quotes keep bringing up her desire to save the BSA. (I don’t think any judge would want on their record the elimination of one of the largest youth organizations in the USA.) She also wants victims to be compensated fairly. Right now, no plan does both. I would be fine seeing the TCC plan ... perhaps that is her decision. I know she is hoping for a negotiation, I just don’t see that happening until she makes some rulings.

We are a bit of a mixed state. No look back window. Some are pushing, but the leaders who previously support d reforms are not answering questions. The Catholic Church is fighting hard against changes as are private schools. Council has two camps, one worth $2M and one worth $1.5M along with a scout shop in the $1M range. I expect a camp will be sold even though listed as restricted. NDAs. They said the leadership signed NDAs which means they can only share what is public info. They did say the $450M is not equally spread across all councils and councils in better financial health (such as ours) are expected to pay more (there are other factors as well).

This is a copy of the judges final statement today.

During our council townhall, they indicated that our council will have to pay a sizable amount to the settlement. That yes, that is a change from the initial announcement. The contribution is going to be large, it will hurt, but we will still be able to survive. They cannot say the estimated amount at this time, but will when they are allowed. They cannot say if camp sale(s) will be required nor how that would be conducted. That they have a very good law firm that is working pro bono for our council. The council leadership is meeting multiple times a week. In 2020 ... our council ended in the black (barely) which is better than most councils. I was impressed they were open (as much as possible).

If she wants to fast track this, I really think she needs to simplify the bankruptcy. There is no way to fast track a resolution where most councils see limited number of in SOL cases and will be willing to give up the billion+ of assets. COs have not gotten involved and the insurance situation is complex. Add in the DOJ objection and I see no way a fast solution can come if you include councils. Perhaps she lets the global plan go to a vote, see it rejected and accepts the Toggle Plan (but stays the Hartford settlement and decision on HA bases). Those could be litigated after BSA exits bankruptcy. I don’t see another path if she holds to her word that she won’t let the BSA end as we know it.

https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/judge-frets-over-potential-end-boy-scouts-amid-chaotic-bankruptcy-2021-05-19/

One quote from the judge from today’s hearing. "To solicit a plan that has no abuse survivor support is not an attractive option. But neither is engaging in protracted litigation that has the potential to end the Boy Scouts as it currently exists."

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e6463ebf-5761-47e7-9e21-2a9358c45549_3857.pdf No evidence ... however, I do believe Century requested Discovery from BSA and others.

Apparently they broke zoom. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f4390fd2-ca3c-457a-bff5-95afa2d61e1e_4686.pdf

Moved the discussion about BSA youth protection vs society and other programs here. Let me know if you need any comment moved back to the main CH11 thread. Thanks!

I'm going to quickly lock the thread and create a new topic. I think the discussion is valid and has been courteous ... but isn't directly linked to the bankruptcy discussion. Plus, we have 2 - 3 separate discussions going on here and it is a bit confusing. Will unlock shortly.