Eagle1993

Interested in seeing assets of various councils (at least based upon financial disclosures). You can see them here: https://www.causeiq.com/directory/scouting-organizations-list/ Note that single councils could have multiple lines of entry.

What surprised me is an hourly billing rate for lawyers of $1,195. Paralegals billing at $425. Is that typical? One lawyer billed 96.9 hours and made $116K. When people talk of the 40% of any settlement going to lawyers, they are not even including these fees. Since BSA is paying these directly + their own legal fees + 40% of the settlement ... I can only imagine lawyers are likely getting 50% of the available assets of the Boy Scouts of America. This is tough to stomach. FYI .. this guy has a history of cashing in as a victim trust lawyer. https://wislawjournal.com/2013/01/25/archdiocese-of-milwaukee-wants-judge-to-stop-payments-to-attorneys/

Just saw a document for the TCC fees. December 1 through Dec 30 ... 1 month. Total fees, paid out of BSA's funds, $850K. Nearly $1M a month for the TCC lawyers. Kosnoff is posting their info on Twitter as he is calling the lead lawyer of the TCC #mrCashIN. It appears he believes their goal is to simply extend the bankruptcy indefinitely as they make $1M a month in fees. This is regardless of a settlement results. Now he is pushing for liquidation of National to remove any protection of LCs where he believes the big $ is. This whole thing is sad .... its time for the Judge to start making some decisions. Sounds like April could be a major month.

Yeah, I am really interested if this is pre or post Covid. Most recharters didn't really become official until January 2021. That is when the real impact of Covid would show up. For example, my Pack went from ~50 scouts in December 2020 to 24 scouts in January 2021. I expect many others as well. However, the 2020 numbers are so low ... I really hope they include Covid. I do concur that we should see a rebound this fall. I plan a major push as we get back to outings, indoor meetings, etc.

Texas agree for now, but that can change in 10 - 15 years. All you need is a case where someone raped a bunch of kids, was known by the institution but nothing can be done due to SOL (ie, they came forward at 21). The public will scream and legislation will pass. There are some pretty Republican states that have SOL reform passed, so it is not necessarily a R vs D discussion. When the discussion is nebulous, it is easier to ignore and see this as trial lawyers vs great institutions. Once you have real names, stories and a pretty big instance of negligence, the pitch forks will come out. If I were an LC, I would look to get out via settlement now. Otherwise, every major donor may be asking when not if I would be hit by lawsuits.

I'll also state that having separate LLCs does not mean they are necessarily separate. For example, my company has 100s of LLCs ... but if my company went bankrupt, they wouldn't be able to say certain LLCs are not bankrupt as they are 1 corp. Given that, I do wonder what is the legal framework. I think the financial side is concerning. For example, can a council leave BSA, take the council assets and join a different scouting organization? Lets say BPSA ramps up and my council takes its camps, employees and assets and redeploys them to generate BPSA units. Is that allowed? If you equate this to the franchise model ... owners of franchises can clearly take their profits/assets they own from one franchise business and use it for other, different franchises. I've seen this when an owner left a Quiznos to open up a Subway. This is where the franchise model gets murky in BSA as I don't believe councils have the ability to keep all of their assets (post rebranding). Is that enough to not call them legally separate, I'm not sure.

I guess my question is about Catholic Dioceses. They have been going through bankruptcy and treated separate. Why wouldn't the same apply to LCs?

A lot of this has to be Covid impact, correct? Are the 2020 numbers late 2020 or January 2020. If they are January 2020 we are in SERIOUS trouble. If late 2020, I think it will bounce back. My other question is strategy going forward. We have a lot of small units in my area. All of us struggle to get enough volunteers. Is it time for BSA councils to look through their unit lists and work with unit leaders on a consolidation plan? I am Scoutmaster for a Troop, CC and Den leader for a Pack. I cannot and do not do all 3 of these well and my primary focus is as SM. However, I cannot find anyone to volunteer for the other roles (I threatened to let the Pack die and came back at the 11th hour to recharter it when no one else stepped up). My wife said Dec 2021 I should just let it die and move our daughter to a different pack. That makes me sick as our Pack has been chartered for 84 straight years ... but I'm done. At Klondike I talked with many leaders. SMs who are CMs as well. SMs, CC, CMs, DL combos. Its simply not sustainable. I do not believe we have the volunteer corp to support the number of units we have, let alone the number of districts and councils. This is making our existing units weaker and leading to further loss. I believe less units, councils and possibly districts could lead to a better program and then gains in numbers. That will take BSA leadership making the right calls on what units are healthy and strong vs the weak.

That was my understanding, but if so, why did the BSA simply not provide the clear documentation of this to the TCC? Also, if that is the case, how could the BSA use it as collateral for a loan? If BSA defaults on the loan, the land would go back to the family and the bank would be left with nothing. I hope it's true, but it may be lore or not legally binding/documented.

I think that is one of the debates in the courts. To me, this is the #1 question on the table. How liable are our local councils? My understanding that if the court determines that LCs are separate and there is no negotiated settlement, lawsuits could start against COs and LCs. Then, the state court where those lawsuits are brought would determine liability on a case by case basis and results would follow state law. If these cases then drive LCs into bankruptcy court, that court would take over for each LC. I wouldn't be surprised that councils in certain states would end up in bankruptcy court if there is no settlement.

Well, it should be easier to get our desired Treks at Philmont going forward.... assuming we still own it.

Looking through the claims, GSUSA is asking for $8.4M and BSA's offer is $50K.

Found this from earlier in this thread. Has BSA provided this information? It sounds like this talks to the points @ThenNow is making. The TCC needs the Restricted Asset Information to assess the factual and legal basis for any claimed restriction for the purpose of making an accurate financial assessment of each Local Council. Determination of whether donor-restricted assets should be excluded from a financial analysis is complicated, and may require some or all of the following information:  The donor or source of the asset;  The identity of the initial recipient of each asset;  Whether the recipient entity was independent from BSA or was a trust for which the trustee was unrelated to BSA;  The source, manner, and timing of conveying any alleged donor restriction;  The nature and specific language of such alleged donor restriction;  Whether the donor restriction expressly indicated that BSA or its related party was to hold the asset in trust;  The type of asset (e.g., cash or real property);  How the assets were and are now held; and  Whether the assets were commingled or transferred or spent such that their continued existence cannot be proven.

I think this is very common. I know the 3 camps we utilize all have ranger homes. Those guys aren't the ones making 6+ figures. Most of the rangers I met are great people. Incredibly sad if they lose their job and home.

I think the BSA made a huge tactical mistake taking a loan out on Philmont. The TCC is using that as evidence that it isn't restricted (as its being used as collateral). The judge will see BSA did this right before bankruptcy ... so it will appear they only did this to try and protect the asset. We talked about this at the time, but I bet that comes back to bite. The argument in this forum that once BSA opened that door, they gave up the best defense of donor restrictions.

BSA Statement ... didn't see it here yet, but there have been a lot of posts. https://scoutingwire.org/an-important-milestone-in-the-bsas-chapter-11-case/

Ummm... I'm guessing Mosby will not be on their Christmas Card list. Wow... Century & Harford coming in hot! Sooo ... over/under on completing bankruptcy by end of August?

The WSJ brings up some good points and I question some, not all, of the lawyers involved on the claimants side. My question is what should the judge do about this? National BSA is paying a ton in legal fees during this bankruptcy. Should the judge require an audit/review of all claims that could take months possibly years? What is required to vet the claims? All that time would simply delay the inevitable for BSA. It is likely more important to those who submitted claims, insurance companies and future lawsuits. Hopefully she can keep the case moving in parallel while claims are reviewed. She needs to rule on the HA bases ... are the in or out. Make a ruling and let the appeals start. She needs to rule if LCs are separate or not and let the appeals start. Does anyone know when these rulings could occur? To me, those are the 2 big questions that directly impact the BSA.

100% correct and this is going to be painful. I want my son to have the experience of going to Philmont that I never got. I would love for him to go to Summit for a National Jambo. More that that, I want him to be able to go to the annual summer camp at a BSA site, to Klondike (which is held at a BSA camp) and my daughter to have a crossover at a BSA camp. I believe the only way to get any outcome that preserves any part of BSA is to be 100% transparent and open book. Get a full accounting of usage of every council property. Full accounting of every councils financials. If there are deed restrictions on properties, show them and have them vetted by the court. Then, make a fair offer that is likely a large percentage of available assets. I think that leads to survival and likely the best outcome for our program. I think the BSA is not being fully transparent and that is risking our entire program. Perhaps it is an impossible ask given the size and scope of the effort required given the timelines that need to be met. The good news, for now, is the program continues. We have scouts going to Philmont and a great signup for summer camp. I have 4 Eagle Scout patches here, waiting on upcoming EBORs. I just hate seeing these clouds on the horizon.

It depends on how much time you have AND if you think spending that time will result in a better outcome for the BSA. What do I believe? I expect there are likely thousands of claims where BSA failed to protect children and should be financially responsible. Let's assume 5,000 total. Just a guess, who knows. So, 5,000 total ... what should we pay for each instance of child abuse we let happen that we could have stopped. $2M each? That is $10B. How long will it take to get to 5,000? 2 - 3 years? Just to end up back at something we cannot afford? To me, we should to a real top down look and determine what we need to survive as an organization and offer up everything else. I don't think we did that and now I think by not doing that we risk everything.

An organization's lack of oversight led to the sexual abuse of 85,000 youth and they are offering ~10% of their net worth to never have to think about that again. It would be one of the lowest settlements I have ever seen in a sex abuse case. Why not $0 and a I'm sorry card? That should be enough, correct? I would measure it in relation to their net worth (including all assets). To me, 75%+ would be close (around $4B) to the correct payment if you really believe the organization ended up with 85,000+ victims. If you don't like that, then don't say you believe everyone. Fight every claim one by one. Identify the real claims and then make appropriate payouts for those where BSA failed to provide proper oversight. Short of that, you need to make a substantial cut from your total net worth. Its tough to say .. "yes, we believe all 85,000 were victims, we are sorry, and here is $6K while we walk away with most of our valuation".

Camps are assets that are worth billions. Assets are more than cash on hand. Unless they have clear deed protections, they can be sold. Given that local councils continue to sell camps to gain $$ for operations, its clear many don't have deed protections. Councils, unfortunately, have shown that properties can be used to generate cash for operations, likely undercutting that property must be used for scouting only. My council has lake property. Lake property in my area sells for $10,000 per linear foot. Over 100 feet, that skyrockets to $20,000 per linear foot. They own over 2,000 feet of property ... expected value on that one camp is $40M just for the lake frontage. That is one cash strapped council, one camp.

I disagree. Jeff Anderson has already shown he is willing to battle an Archdiocese for 4 years over $55M. LCs have billions. It will take a large settlement offer (or National BSA liquidation) to avoid 3-4 more years of litigation.

I tend to agree. I expect BSA should be ready for this bankruptcy to last until 2023 or even 2024. They will need to clearly communicate: - HA bases ... if units register and provide funds to go to HA bases, what happens to their money if the HA base is sold off. Could this money ever be pulled into the bankruptcy settlement. - Councils ... if camps are lost, will fees paid for summer camps be refunded. - FOS donations ... will any of those donations go to the bankruptcy settlement... Outside of those issues/concerns, the bankruptcy really doesn't impact my units day to day operations. We made the call to go to Philmont this year in fear it would be lost by 2022, but otherwise, limited impact. It is ugly in the media and probably has some impact on recruiting, but I expect that is minimal. Given their offer, it seems clear this we are not looking for a quick settlement and need to live with bankruptcy for a long time.

Because BSA is paying a ton of legal fees each day/week/month this goes on. Articles early on, when there were 5,000 claims, indicated BSA should be expected to fund a settlement that would equate to most of their value. So, it really doesn't make a difference if it is 5,000 or 50,000 (at least in terms of the financial payout from the BSA). So, if this is delayed for 6 months to vet the list, and we drop to 25,000 claims ... BSA may just end up having to liquidate as they run out of cash to fund continuing operations.