Eagle1993

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.

This may actually throw a wrench in the whole process. I’m not 100% convinced their objection will help abuse victims. Perhaps, but it looks different than any of the others. I did find it interesting that the DOJ lawyer pulled this quote from another case. noting that “...third party releases are not a merit badge that somebody gets in return for making a positive contribution to a restructuring. They are not a participation trophy, and they are not a gold star for doing a good job. Doing positive things in a restructuring case— even important things— is not enough”

Perhaps. The problem with this. 1)How much will councils be able to pay lawyers to defend against sex abuse cases. Anyone can sue. Even outside the SOL window. 2) As councils start going bankrupt and losing their FOS money and camps, who will donate to other councils? I personally would hold back donating to my council until after bankruptcy as I would be concerned my donations would be used for lawyers and payouts. Others may feel the same. 3) How will recruiting and retention go when local media is discussing specific cases of sexual abuse at your local council? It is a tough call. Is it worth giving up 75% of your assets to avoid years of litigation and bad press.... eventually to give up 75% or more of your assets? I definitely think this varies by state, number of claims in and outside the SOL. But even then it’s a tough call. If my council was asked to give up one of their camps, their scout offices and cash ... I would say do it. That way, I know the camp I work on will exist long term and my donations going forward will be used on scouting.

I first clicked on the link from Kosnoff's twitter feed and it worked without payment required but now it is paywalled. I find incognito mode on the browser sometimes allows access to some articles.

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2021/05/10/boy-scouts-of-america-bankruptcy-exit-plan-angers-abuse-survivors/4995280001/

I expect it won't happen ... but I'm sure UCs can tell when a unit is headed downward. The ideal solution is to improve the unit; however, if that is not taking hold ... I do think it would be in BSA's best interest to end the unit gracefully as possible. In my town, we have 4? Packs .... 1 is barely functional. High dropout rates of scouts within the program and almost 0 Cubs transfer to Scouts BSA. Why would BSA want that Pack to continue ... essentially just giving parents/youth a bad idea of what Cub Scouts are. My Pack is OK, but I'm very concerned that we do not have the volunteer pool to continue. Our relationship with the school is non existent (they went to the effort of ripping out all of our recruiting signs in 2019). I have been looking to step down for 2 years with no parents interested (even after talking with specific parents). I see our program in decline (partially due to Covid). I plan one more major recruiting drive (youth & parents). The other two packs seem ok, not really sure. In the past, BSA DE/UCs in my area seem much more focused on adding new units than saving or consolidating existing ones. I am just saying that I think that focus should shift.

I think the first question is what does the youth of America need. In other words, is the aims of scouting (as written by BSA) still what is needed. Perhaps I would add one more ... "grit" .. but perhaps that is simply a subset of character development that I think is lacking in youth today. Overall, I think the aims of scouting are appropriate. Then, how about the methods. I personally believe the methods are appropriate (if implemented well and in a balanced approach). I still believe youth and parents are looking for an organization that instills the aims of scouting, using the methods of scouting. So ... why are we seeing a decline. Bad units - Units that simply do not implement the program correctly. Lack of sufficient volunteers who are willing to spend the time necessary to implement the program Noise/Press ... bankruptcy, girls, gay scouts, etc. (I'm 100% for the inclusion, but I do think how BSA handled all of these issues distracted from the core mission. Perhaps that was unavoidable.). How do we fix this? Eliminate bad units ... if there are 4 packs in one town and two implement the program well, pull the charter from the other two. Same with Troops. This helps focus scouts (and volunteers) into the high performing units. (Note that BSA should coordinate and ensure units are ready for transitions). Also, don't add units too quickly. Only add if there is areas where more units are sustainable long term. Reduce Volunteer burden ... improve IT systems, simplify forms, etc. GSUSA sign up & renewals are easier than BSA. Simplify as much as possible. I also used to believe in Lions & Tigers, but have flipped. Eliminate those programs as they are burning out volunteers. Improve training ... this is a mixed bag as a lot of my volunteers already struggle giving up time to the Troop, so asking to have them take time for training is difficult. Find ways to reduce burden but still have high quality training. This is a tough challenge. Cancel the noise ... if BSA is planning on making any other controversial changes, get them out of the way now. (To me, that is the possibility of eliminating the declaration of religious principals). If that is in the cards, do it now. Exit bankruptcy soon as possible and ensure you have years of non controversy (as much as possible). Most of the issues I hear, are from units not implementing the program correctly. The units that I see as doing a balanced implementation seem to grow and be sustainable long term.

The way I read this, the TCC is showing how camps can be sold off while remaining camps can still provide coverage for all scouts. So even if BSA can win the argument that camps are necessary, the other argument is that there is excess capacity of camps, so many can be sold off.

I agree that BSA's model is not much better or worse than other youth organizations at this time. However, times have changed and I expect many youth serving organizations are going to have to evaluate their policies. Why? Insurance coverage. Insurance companies will see the billions of dollars from the BSA lawsuit and increase their rigor when insuring youth organizations. One example form below. This is from an insurance company to buy sex abuse insurance for your organization. You can see in their questionnaire, they ask for details on how you vet volunteers. BSA does not do (picture IDs, personal interviews, personal references checked (we list them, how often checked), 5 years of employment history checked). In fact, for volunteers, we only tick off 1 of the boxes listed. Then look at background checks ... I don't think any one of us has been fingerprinted. https://www.greatamericaninsurancegroup.com/docs/default-source/specialty-human-services/abuse.pdf?sfvrsn=b79271b1_4 So, I expect the BSA bankruptcy to have a major impact on all youth organizations. Organizations will have a choice going forward. Drop their youth programming (see NMRA (https://www.nmra.org/nmra-risk-persons-policy). Greatly increase their rigor on adding employees & volunteers, likely enforced through insurance company contracts Go without insurance (typically no assets, small groups) BSA's current model of having a CO sign off on volunteers is likely going to be questioned by their insurance companies going forward (and COs as well). Someone will need to vet, interview, call references, etc.

I think this case shows the issue is complex and dynamic. Ideally, all COs & LCs can work through this bankruptcy and eliminate future risk. Otherwise, we are likely looking at a decade+ of Council by Council, CO by CO going through this mess. Note that in Illinois, today, there is no SOL for civil sex abuse cases. However, they also do not have a revival window (you can't go back to 1960 and use today's laws). Illinois did pass a window, but their Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. In this case ... if it proceeds ...it would go to the jury to decide. All of this is specific to Illinois and based on Illinois law. I think it just points out another variable where LCs and COs should not get too comfortable avoiding involvement in this bankruptcy. I would like my council to discharge their risk, even if it means selling a camp. That way, they can work on the program, hiring, getting donations, etc. without this cloud on the horizon.

Let's ignore the difference between Arrow WV & BSA as that always seemed a bit questionable. Why would BSA want to keep Summit through bankruptcy? National Jamboree every 3 years, perhaps World every 10. Generates a ton of excitement & positive revenue. Annual summer camps and big HA adventure option for big population areas. Again, excitement & revenue. Ability to provide summer camp as council camps in the region are lost to bankruptcy. ... Not yet true ... but I think we need to be prepared for this eventuality. Many councils will likely have no summer camps going forward. In addition to Summit, I would not be surprised if Territories start managing summer camps through selected councils. There are already a ton of rumors in other locations (FB & Reddit) of this coming as early as 2022. Even the TCC is showing where there is overlap in camps (so sell one and keep the other). If they give up Summit, they may then end up risking their stance on other HA bases. Why would BSA want to lose Summit? Still massively in debt (probably upside down on the loan). JP Morgan? Likely realizes the value of the property is under loan amount, so has no desire to call in the loan. They are motivated (as we see in the bankruptcy) to renegotiate terms. I think Summit was a mistake as it took too much funding .. but at this point, the question is should BSA fight for the right to pay off $150M? more to keep Summit. What they spent previously is already lost. I would probably give up Summit to save Philmont. That said, I have several scouts that went there (and nephews) who rave about the place. I honestly heard more positive comments and excitement from the scouts that went to Summit than scouts on other trips (Philmont, Sea Base, etc.) That could be because it was a Jamboree ... or it could be that my older scouter views of what I think is fun (hiking/canoeing) might not be what scouts want (ATV, zip lines, BMX, hanging out with a large group of scouts, etc.).

I looked at a few and they are consistent. Insurance companies have different reasons. One was very interesting as they are targeting a specific council. This firm represents 4,000 claimants. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7cef4ee9-129c-42d4-8e66-7e691ea43021_3284.pdf I found it interesting to see how they look at council finances and camps. I had a feeling that councils selling camps left and right (just for operational cash) would come back and haunt us ...

Interesting point from one of the bigger law firms. Doe v. Boy Scouts of America, 2016 IL App (1st) 152406. So... this lawfirm's argument is that 100% of the claims in Illinois will be able to proceed against both LCs and COs even though Illinois has a 38 year old limit and no lookback window.