Eagle1993

Not good. But there may not be a choice. I'm sure BSA would love to provide protection to the CO/LCs ... but if the plan is rejected (either by the judge due to the long list of issues or votes) ... The only likely path is a National only settlement. Also, I am interested in the judge's take on the DOJ objection. It seems like the bankruptcy trustee from the DOJ believes that no settlement can be allowed legally that provides protection to COs or LCs (as they are non-debtors). I hope to learn more during the May 19th hearing.

Century Ins filed a motion to delay the hearing (due to BSA’s document dump yesterday). I hope the judge denies the request. We need this hearing so we can see the court rule on this proposal. Is it even close to good enough to go to a vote? What is the impact to this case from the DOJ objection? Time to make progress in court... no more delays.

@johnsch322 Welcome to Scouter.com.

I do not see anyone on this forum saying that. I see people comparing to other organizations to indicate BSA may be safer. I see comments that if BSA is closed, kids may actually be more at risk. That is not saying sex abuse is the cost of having BSA ... its the exact opposite. Now ... are these stat comparisons fair ... likely not. But I believe the clear intent is to understand how BSA's safety compares to other organizations with a clear goal of ensuring BSA is safer. I fully expect changes from this bankruptcy. I believe BSA has been too timid sometimes acting on change (for example, requiring YPT to register). However, I still see BSA as much more active in this space than GSUSA or sports teams I have been involved with. Most unit leaders spend time considering YP aspects when planning events. Every Eagle Scout project I review includes a discussion of safety and YP coverage. This is drilled into us by the BSA. So ... I expect changes and some of which are probably a bit overdue (more openness in reporting). However, I have a hard time saying BSA doesn't take this seriously.

From the TCC Townhall, they did mention that there would be redactions.

There has been some discussions about BSA restricted assets and questions about a "trial" regarding these. This seems to be captured under a docket labeled Adversary 21-50032 (TCC Identified Property Action). https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/documents?clientid=CsgAAncz%2b6Yclmvv9%2fq5CGybTGevZSjdVimQq9zQutqmTPHesk4PZDyfOOLxIiIwZjXomPlMZCo%3d&tagid=1250 This covers the following topics where BSA says the assets are restricted: Bank Account Cash - $39.9M LC Collateral - $62.8M General Investments - $81M Order of the Arrow - $7.4M Philmont, Northern Tier Sea Base - $63.3M Donor Restricted Pledges Receivables - $76.6M Misc Summit Assets - $6M Gift Annuity - $8.1M Note Receivable from Arrow WV - $345M All of these were considered restricted by the BSA. You can review the back & forth in the docket.

The plan will not be approved without changes to BSA's youth protection. The TCC was clear, they need at minimum, the amount from BSA as if they were liquidated + the YPT changes and release of all IVF (redactions as appropriate).

My understanding is that they are making the training better for mobile applications and updated some test questions. One of the councils had that info.

Just finished. A couple of newsy time things I heard. - I expected we could have guessed this, but TCC & the Coalition are working together on their proposal. - They have a good idea which camps have deed restrictions. For example, every camp BSA councils came up with as an example as deed protected, was not part of the TCC's settlement offer (they already excluded the camp). This is regarding LCs. - They will demand an outside party review and have authority to change BSA's Youth protection policies - They will start contacting each council next week to provide them their detailed analysis of what camps they will need to sell, what cash they will need to give to settle with the TCC. I'm sure I'm missing a few.

I'm going to follow up on this a bit. The $222.2M is what BSA owes JPM after the bankruptcy (assuming I added up the numbers listed in the following document: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/886292_2594.pdf Now here is the interesting part. I don't believe this includes the loan Arrow WV has with JPM. Arrow WV owed JPM $323M at the end of 2018. I'm guessing BSA, I mean Arrow WV, paid another $15M or so over the next two years (same paydown rate). Lets say the paid $23M ... so Arrow WV has a $300M loan for Summit opened against JPM. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/270441319/201903199349303075/IRS990 So ... is the combined debt of Arrow WV & BSA $522.2M leaving bankruptcy?

I think this is a good point ... One thing to remember, National BSA will walk away from this (given the current plan) in debt to JPM. It appears, based on what I can see, the total debt BSA will own JPM is $222.2M (when you add up each of the categories). It looks like that must be paid off in 10 years? ... I couldn't find a clear payment schedule. That is over $2M per month (assuming a <4% interest rate). With 1 million scouts, that is $24/year per scout. Now, there will be income from these properties ... but there is also maintenance, fees, salaries, etc. to support the property. I'll be interested to see BSA's business plan including how they pay off this mountain of debt if and when they leave bankruptcy.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/85c0d0bc-0fd3-4dc3-ba84-3b94e5e1e475_2964.pdf If you look at unrestricted cash, I think they are in trouble. They have $61.7M as of end of April and now they will burn through this cash with little ongoing income (the charters are mostly in as are many HA base fees). Now .. .they also list they have unrestricted non cash liquidity and that gets them to $184M. $184 would buy them another year+. Then they have restricted funds ... perhaps those could be utilized.

This is a very interesting document. The insurance company makes a pretty interesting claim in here. Essentially, BSA is attempting to use the $1,500 payout to get the large number of people with false claims to vote for their bad plan. Essentially, no person with a valid claim would approve BSA's proposal ... so they want to keep the fake claims in the pool as those people would likely jump at the chance to take $1,500 and approve their plan. This could be the reason why BSA hasn't pushed back at the claims. Also, it appears there is some questionable tactics. I have heard the info about lawyers signing off claims (one every 32 seconds). I never saw the examples where claimant signatures were clearly copied (they show the same signature on two different claimants. The whistleblower is stating the many people asked to remove their claim or decided not to pursue it but the legal teams told them to tell the person they removed the claim (but actually kept it on the books). Something interesting ... Kosnoff's own tweets are included in this filing. At first, I thought that the reviewing of claims can wait until the the settlement trust pays out (and before insurance payouts). My reasoning was that it didn't matter to the BSA if it were 10,000 or 84,000 claims ... the payment to the fund would be the same. However, if there are a large number of false claims and they vote in favor of a settlement where real claimants would have rejected it ... that is an issue that should be addressed now.

I expect this will be the outcome; however, that is still a rebuke of BSA. It means 0 chance of exiting by summer, so the ball is back in BSA's court. I'll be interested on what they say & do. I also think she does need to make a call about suing local councils/COs. If she doesn't, some state windows are closing soon and claimants may lose their right to sue. Finally, I expect a stern statement or two and some major finger wagging.

If BSA is being 100% truthful with you, me and claimants that they want to exit bankruptcy as quickly as possible this is not true. If we are to believe BSA that they will liquidate in September if they are still in bankruptcy, this is not true. Now, if those are simply bluffs and BSA can survive for 2-3 more years while going through bankruptcy, I agree. I think if BSA wants to keep their HA bases and continues to play the delay game, we are looking at years of bankruptcy trials. The only way BSA gets out quickly is surrendering the bases (or immediately proving they are restricted) and dropping protection for LCs and COs. My guess is the DOJ objection removes the LCs and COs from the process anyway. May 19th will be a big day to find out where this is headed.

BSA is asking the Judge, May 19th to approve their plan and allow it to go to a vote. TCC filed an objection and this was one of many reasons. Basically, judge, you cannot approve the plan as there has been no decision on HA bases. Since claimants have to approve the plan (67% of them) and they will reject any plan until the HA bases are litigated, there is no reason to approve BSA’s request May 19th. The TCC also shows the power is all within BSA’s control. TCC has already clearly defined the objection to the HA bases and BSA must respond or see their plan rejected. BSA is arguing that if their plan is not approved May 19, they will likely have to liquidate as they need to exit bankruptcy by summer or they run out of cash. So, May 19 this will be decided.

TCC is fighting for all $650M ... but it seems like much of the focus is Summit. Here is more from their objection: - They reference $650M ... that is more than Summit ... that must include Philmont, Sea Base & Northern Tier - See below where TCC is making requests for BSA to offer evidence at trial and they refuse to. TCC appears to be saying, reject every plan until BSA provides evidence & this issue can be settled. I agree 100%.

A few more objections to BSA's plan coming in .. Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco joins onto the LDS objection https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a1574d50-34c6-4ea1-9439-648b88930a77_3853.pdf The Coalition of Abused Scouters & Future Claimants Rep join the TCC in objecting to the Lehr settlement (that was the $3M settlement BSA proposed for Lehr). I figured this was coming. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/774c8ab1-d275-4150-bb65-09f0b7a8d4ef_3854.pdf https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/d71e341e-8270-451a-9948-1a0d75ccc7f4_3851.pdf Travelers & AIG object to the BSA disclosure https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a05021f6-6dd1-4325-8763-bd2e458874e6_3806.pdf I probably should just wait and see if anyone doesn't object to BSA's current plan. Now that would be news.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/c4beb8e1-80a4-4bb4-9ef5-19b94c488fcb_3816.pdf Another objection from the TCC & team front. This one is also very interesting. I found this very interesting. This details out the history & current status of the HA base fight. Would be interesting to see if BSA submits an answer tomorrow. Plus, if JP Morgan can get involved and perhaps a negotiated settlement. Also a bit surprised about this. BSA plans to disclosure their abuse settlements 2016 and later ... but is refusing to release data prior to 2016. I wonder their motivation and this one doesn't sit well with me, especially if it is data (not individual names that were not charged/convicted).

Forums work well in many ways, but it is probably not the best way to discuss the difficult feelings of this bankruptcy while also discussing the impact to child sex abuse survivors. However, there are not a lot of avenues for this discussion so as long as it remains scoutlike it can continue. That said, I do ask everyone to be patient with each other and not necessarily jump on a single word or phrase as a line of attack. Again, if we were sitting in person, it would be easier to read tone or intent in messaging. Forums are a bit unartful to communicate emotion. I really don't believe scouters, who have dedicated their lives to helping children, have anything but sympathy for survivors of sex abuse. At times, they may focus on the emotional pain they are going through, seeing a program they believe in and put much of their life's effort destroyed. It doesn't mean they believe that is worse or comparable to the pain of child sex abuse survival ... even if they don't always state it elegantly. If this thread simply starts becoming a place where a single phrase or word will be jumped on to attack a poster, then it loses it's value and will probably be locked. If you see something, you can DM the poster, post here asking for clarity or report the post to moderators.

I think the poster was speculating a bit. An objection came from the Department of Justice Bankruptcy Trustee which falls under the Biden administration. Essentially ... is it a sign the Biden admin will get involved (like they did the the NRA bankruptcy).

https://whyy.org/articles/boy-scouts-abused-in-other-states-sue-in-n-j-using-untested-strategy/

One of the reasons National BSA has all these claims, is that they had New York as their HQ for a long time, followed by New Jersey as their HQ. That went all the way until 1979. So to me, the state laws apply to national allow lookback windows. So 100% of claims from 1979 and prior are within state laws of New York/New Jersey. My question is with National HQ in Texas and 1980 and later. How are those claims valid? Some would definitely be valid based on Texas SOLs, but I'm curious how the claims in 1980s and most of the 1990s could be valid when National HQ is in Texas.

Agreed. I think the judge should use the US Trustee's objection to: - Eliminate the CO/LC/Insurance settlement talk ... they are excluded from further discussions. They are not part of this bankruptcy. Lift the stay of any lawsuits against these groups. - Set a timeline to determine HA base status & JP Morgan loan. BSA .. provide your justification with documentation, or rule that they are non restricted assets and the loan is not secured (JP won't get back 100%). - Once #2 is done, ask BSA to submit a plan. Only argument then is how much cash they need to run the operations post Chapter 11. Should be fairly simple.

If you take a look at the above, it appears the US Trustee is saying the BSA cannot (as of now) justify any release of liability of insurance companies, LCs or COs. I then question if the TCC could be given the authority to act on behalf of claimants with councils or COs. Perhaps the TCC now has info that will be used if LCs go bankrupt... but not before then. If I was abused in the BSA, the liability of National BSA (and their insurance companies) could be covered by this bankruptcy, but I should still be able to to sue Council X, CO Y and individual Z. I never signed on any agreement with TCC or anyone else to waive my right to sue councils, COs and/or individuals. How can the bankruptcy of the National BSA impact my ability to sue other independent organizations? The way I read the US Trustee's 1st and major point ... this bankruptcy can only discuss the debtor and the debtor's assets. It cannot provide releases of liability to COs or LCs, insurance companies, etc. who are non debtors. If that is part of the plan, BSA needs to provide the legal basis as to why it should be allowed, and they haven't been able to do that yet. That is why I am saying it throws a wrench in the whole discussion. Perhaps a good wrench, but a wrench none the less. I am not a lawyer, but I'm curious how others read this point.