DavidLeeLambert

My council owns a certain camp, currently closed, that I visited once as a Scout. While there, I had the opportunity to attend a "camp tour", presented by one of the camp employees. The main feature of the tour was a "cabin" built by the original benefactor, with walls in the shape of unfinished logs but formed out of concrete. Many years later, some of the points I remember being told were: The benefactor was a friend of (a certain famous industrialist of that era) He was active in union-busting He was a Nazi sympathizer He was either connected to organized crime, or at least sufficiently afraid of organized crime that he took security precautions such as having his cabin built out of concrete He never married He was in the habit of inviting women to his wilderness getaway and, after they arrived, inviting them to swim nude in the pool next to the cabin (still present, no longer functional) while he mixed drinks at the wet-bar on the lower level and watched them swim through a glass window (and the tour guide pointed out a rectangular hole in the pool wall) Years later, I don't know how much of that was established historical fact or if some was embellishment to make the story more interesting to typical Scouts who attended that camp. But I take a couple points from the experience: 1. In the wrong hands, that tour and its narrative could have been an element of "grooming", by predator camp stamp or regular visitors. 2. The legacy of at least one benefactor is... complicated. I don't think the tour guides were trying to say that he was a perfect Scout, in fact I think they would have agreed that at least some of his habits were at variance with the teachings of Scouting. So perhaps today's Scouts should be Courteous and Cheerful by being happy that their recent predecessors were able to camp at that property, but Brave and Helpful by openly rejecting the negative elements of that legacy, and using that camp in a way that actually does the most positive good today, which may indeed be by selling it and using the proceeds to address today's problems, including by helping victims of sexual abuse (whether BSA or the LC was particularly at fault, or not, in their cases).

As I understand it, the amount that the claimant could get if they took their case individually though settlement or a jury verdict, on the merits of that case alone, not limited by the amounts due all other claimants. So for example, consider the following pleading by a claimant lawyer who posted the exact same document twice to the docket (once for each of his two clients; although maybe he has others who weren't on board with this particular motion), and appears to be working from a template that was shared among multiple claimant lawyers: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/886200_2586.pdf https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/886198_2585.pdf Each of his clients says he was abused by the Scoutmaster's son, at Scout Camp. It was the "worst" level of abuse, but a youth perpetrator, so 450,000 "Base Points" for each claimant. As far as we know, for each claimant, the abuser was accused by at least one other claimant, but not five or more; so that's a multiplier of 1.25. From the pleading, I can't see any mitigating factors, but I can't see the claim form or the details of any state-court case, so there may well be some. Let's assume, however, that there aren't any. BSA is saying, basically, that each of these claimants could probably expect a judgement or settlement of $562,500 (out of which his lawyer gets a big cut). With the Global Plan, they'll probably get roughly $45,000 to $129,000 near-term cash, plus a good chance of an insurance payout to make up the rest of that $562,500. With the Toggle Plan, they get roughly maybe $5600 to $22500 near-term cash, plus a poorer chance of an insurance payout, plus the possibility that they could get a judgement or settlement against the Local Council. In Chapter Seven, they could well get nothing in cash, and an even poorer prospect against insurance, and be facing a Local Council that is also bankrupt and get nothing there either. But they might get some cash from BSA even in Chapter 7, maybe $1000.

So I read through the new Plan, and the major differences from before are: An estimate of total abuse liability from $2.4 billion to $7.1 billion, prepared by Bates & White after analysis of a statistical sample of the abuse claims and comparison with "comparable" settlements and judgements The Trust Distribution Procedures, with a rough guide to how much different levels of abuse would relatively be worth, and a list of factors the Trustee might use of increase or decrease a particular claimant's payout The "Toggle Plan", under which neither COs nor LCs would pay in anything, and would get no releases of liability; but might still be drawing insurance against the same policy limits An "Expedited Distribution" of $1500 cash for claimants who vote for the plan and choose that option Page 172 of the Plan (179 of the PDF) gives the following estimates of recovery for the abuse-claimant class... Under the Global Resolution Plan: Estimated Percentage Recovery 8-23% plus insurance rights, expected to yield up to 100% recovery. Under the BSA Toggle Plan: 1-4% plus insurance rights, expected to have limited value. In Chapter 7: 0.0% - 0.2% (yes, that's fractions of a percent) Also, The expected Local Council contribution is now $455 million, up from $300 million. The increase and the not-so-round figure suggests that it's an actual total of tentatively-committed feasible amounts per Council, not just a wild guess. I'm still not clear on whether the Plan can go forward if some, but not all, of the LCs participate; or why a CO would participate, and how likely any of them are to do so. I note there's still an absence of concrete commitment to additional outside oversight of YPT, or additional protections, or limits on executive compensation. Even though the TCC already published the claim-counts by state, Council, and CO, I think the plan disclosure would be more informative if it included graphs and charts reflecting those statistics. But I think the new Plan is a move in the right direction.

One small change that might help would be to enlarge the prior-history section of the adult registration form. Not to add more questions, but to actually give more physical space for the answers. Right now the following questions are all crammed into a column 2 1/4" wide at the right-hand side of the form. Since the applicant almost has to "write on a grain of rice" to fit any reasonable amount of information in there, it gives the impression that the information is less important, or maybe no one even checks it: Now in my case I write "see attached" for at least one of those items and attach a second page, but there's no text anywhere inviting the applicant to do so, if needed. The recent additional background-check authorization added about five pages of disclosure text and an additional page to be filled out to the form. I don't think it would hurt to move that reference-collecting form to a separate 8 1/2" by 11" page, collect full names (not just abbreviations) of positions, organizations and memberships, and give a single "Explain" field with instructions such as, "If any of the options above is checked 'Yes', or if you need to explain your answer to any of them further even though all are checked 'No', please explain below. If you need more space, please check here [ ] and indicate the number of pages in your attached further explanation: ___ "

Another interesting, even if minor, twist in this case... D.I. 2581. "Letter Requesting assistance with the BSA case. Filed by T.W. . (NAB)" https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/886180_2581.pdf (And Omni's office is in California!)

If by "parties" you mean Debtors in this bankruptcy, correct. But all of the Local Councils and a significant number of COs have filed claims for indemnity, and are in the class on "indirect abuse claimant" creditors. One equitable solution to this bankruptcy would be to liquidate and pay out some fraction of the indirect abuse claimants' expected liability and/or litigation expenses. Then each council and each claimant would certainly be free to go after his LC and CO in state and federal civil court, but on each front he would be facing an opponent with a freshly-flush litigation warchest. During the status conference yesterday, the attorney for the Local Council Committee stated that, for the Local Councils to all participate, "thousands of volunteers across the country will need to agree." Someone else (I think either BSA counsel or insurance counsel) predicted a "tidal wave" of local counsel bankruptcies if the LCs aren't included in the plan.

That could be fodder for the claimant committees to argue that the HA bases are in fact available for liquidation as part of a settlement. The open sale of camping-time to non-Scouts could even call BSA's non-profit status into question. It might help defend against such complaints if there was a "hardship discount", where, for example, families with income below the poverty line could have their camping fees partially or fully waived. Similarly, my Council's flagship camp only runs about 6-8 weeks of actual Boy Scout camp program in the summer. They also get revenue by hosting high-school band camps, and church youth groups, and so forth. And my local GSUSA council has a "family camp" as one of their properties, although they're currently planning to sell it. It's only a few miles down the road from a BSA camp.

"If these details are accurate" is an important qualifier. Part of the reason I called those particular organizations out is that they directly compete with the BSA, and I don't believe that they actually charter BSA units, or have done so in the past 70 years. (The 1918 Boy Scout Handbook lists the YMCA or YMHA as a possible CO, and a few of the Merit Badges in the 1948 one cross-reference 4H literature as an alternate way to complete the badge. BSA units and Councils do still visit and rent YMCA facilities as general paying customers. I completed the First Class swim check and/or the swimming requirement for the Swimming merit badge with my dad as my buddy at a YMCA pool. When one of my sons was a Webelos, he attended a council "lock-in" [I stayed with him, and we left before midnight] at a YMCA.) But I gather that the typical CO was a church or a fraternal organization even in the '60s, well before the peak of the abuse-claim dates. One possibility is that these claimants' units met somewhere that the other youth organization also met, and so the claim should actually be coded as "unknown" CO at this point. Or it could be that the claimant remembers or believes that the abuser was registered with the BSA, but the abuse actually took place at or in connection with the other youth organization's meeting or activity. (Similarly, the Pennsylvania grand-jury report about historic Catholic abuse includes a priest who abused his charge in the Big Brothers Big Sisters program.) Or it could be that these claims were filed by some of the claimants who have been convicted of insurance fraud, and are completely made up. But YMCA and B&GC are on abuse lawyers' radar, and it may be that they have similar exposure. The first hit for a search about YMCA abuse is a "Top Class Actions" listing which says, And I separately found news articles about 9 men suing the YMCA in North Carolina. YMCA also has a reputation as a gay hook-up spot; like in the movie Green Book, or in a science-fiction short story I read recently, written in about 2005 but largely set in the late 1940s, that featured a "Young Men's Athletic Club". Boys and Girls Clubs also has a "Top Class Actions" listing. It cites a Connecticut Post news article that reports that "While the organization has enhanced policies to prevent abuse over the years, its programming is not consistently implemented at local clubs[.]" A news investigation had found 280 alleged victims across 31 states, and the article also mentions "12 pending criminal cases across the country against men who have in some way been affiliated with local clubs and stand accused of sexual misconduct." At this point the BG&C is about where BSA was in 2018: hundreds of victims, and allegations of a historic pattern of cover-up. It may be that if lawyers had done multiple infomercials with Boys and Girls Clubs as the headline last summer, after the organization had filed for bankruptcy, and followed it up with intensive TV and targeted social-media advertising, we would now have thousands or even low tens of thousands of claims against them. My concern about United Way is a bit different. It has donated money to the Boy Scouts, and in fact I've seen Council letterhead in old public Ineligible Volunteer files that proudly advertised that the Council was supported by United Way. It also donates to Girl Scouts, and Boys and Girls Clubs, and other youth programs. But I don't believe United Way ever directly charters a unit.

Speaking of 4H, I was looking at the TCC summary of abuse claims again and I noticed that there are three claims that list the chartered organization as "4H Club". Page 16 of 328 (page 39 of the PDF), about halfway down. Also 402 for "YMCA", 167 for "Boys and Girls Club" , 89 for "Boy Scouts of America", 9 for "Police Athletic League", 5 for "United Way", 5 for "Red Cross". (I once invited a family to attend Cub Scout meetings, but the parent was reluctant because they had a standing commitment to attend Boys and Girls Club daily earlier in the day and transportation would have been difficult from one place to the other. They did attend exactly one pack activity, a fire-station visit. The parent passed away only a month or so later, from an accident while attempting repair of an automobile.) And one at the West Texas Boys Ranch (Guardian exposé)...

At least a couple of Chartered Organizations that had filed claims for indemnity have now withdrawn their claims. Today's example is St. Paul's Evangelical Lutheran Church of Albion, in Albion, Michigan. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/885510_2544.pdf https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/claimdocket?clientid=CsgAAncz%2b6Yclmvv9%2fq5CGybTGevZSjdVimQq9zQutqmTPHesk4PZDyfOOLxIiIwZjXomPlMZCo%3d No idea whether the Board of Trustees just looked at the filings (or news about them) and decided that the likelihood of BSA actually covering them against any claim was so low that it didn't make sense to follow the case any more; or whether they did their own investigation and assured themselves that nothing in their past could give rise to a claim; or whether they inquired and got confirmation that, indeed, they were not a target of any of the filed abuse claims; or something else. So that's $1,000,000 less in the bucket of the "Indirect Abuse Victims" class, and only 165 other "Evangelical Lutheran" churches among the claimants.

Thank you for having advocated to make sure that kind of abuse would be included. However, as it's actually written, the plain language on the claim form includes all youth-on-youth abuse, no matter what the level of adult involvement. Consider the following incident I remember from when I was a Scout. At the campfire before bedtime, some of the Scouts talked about some time at least one of them had played "strip poker" before, and made plans to play it that night. A leader overheard them, and told them that "strip poker" was against the rules of BSA as well as the teachings of their church, which was also the CO. If he hadn't luckily overheard them, would one (or all) of them now have a claim? I think "yes", by what the claim-form actually says. But I don't know how many of the claims are for such youth-on-youth incidents. It seems like the insurers are focusing on the credibility of the claimants and the process used by certain claimant lawyers, so maybe it's not a significant number of the claims.

Before we get too far, I should mention that there's already a locked thread and another unlocked thread about substantially the same question. I like the idea of random spot-checks, and outside audits, for YPT compliance and other policies. Some of it could be a Commissioner/DE thing, but supplement it with an additional level of checks from something totally outside BSA. The "outside" part could be some sort of investigative agency, or it could be (if they'd agree to it) employees or volunteers of GSUSA, or victims vetted by the TCC/FCR. Such a spot-check visit should be actually random... much like when I worked at a trucking company, and we were subject to random drug checks. The person doing the check shouldn't know until the week of the visit which troop he or she will be visiting; maybe roll dice to generate the lucky unit-number. The visitor should show up at a meeting unannounced, based on information posted in "Be a Scout", ScoutBook, and other public sources. If there is no meeting, the first question should be "why" and "how were parents and Scouts supposed to know this?"

My parents' family car in the '80s was a Chevy station wagon with the rear-facing back seat. By the time my youngest brother was born (seven kids total), we had to sit three in the back (or four in the middle), and there were only two seat-belts in the back. And my dad is a scientist who worked for a car-company, and had to read NHTSA traffic-safety papers as part of his job. (This discussion prompted me to go find world records of how many people could fit in a vehicle.)

Notices of "Transfer of Claim" have started showing up on the docket. I guess this is where an investor buys the claim from a creditor who wants some cash now, rather than whatever the full value might be later (and without the risk of getting nothing later). For example... Red Mountain Appraisal Services, LLC to Fair Harbor Capital, LLC. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/884714_2501.pdf Robots and Pencils to Bradford Capital Holdings, LP. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/884440_2491.pdf Element Moving & Storage to CRG Financial LLC. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/884360_2488.pdf

Historically, the BSA added people to the IVF, at least some times, based on just a report that they were talking about starting a Scout unit, not only if they had already been registered. And it also added people to the IVF for conduct that had happened several years before. For example, I remember reading one file about a man who was the wintertime supervisor of the horse-tending program at D bar A Scout Ranch (Michigan) in the early '70s. In the early '80s, the local council got a letter from a now-man who accused him of drinking, drunk driving, giving alcohol to underage boys, and certain semi-clothed "games"; he was in the IVF on that basis. (I'm having trouble finding that particular file today. LA Times no longer shows a dot on its map anywhere near that camp; I wonder if the alleged IV is still alive, and now lives in California, and invoked his rights under the CCPA; or maybe the record is still out there, but he was registered with a unit a long way from that camp.) Just to clarify further, did you send two copies of the letter, one to National and one to the LC, or a letter to one with a request that they forward it to the other? Did you provide a phone-number, so they could call you back to verify it? Did you send it Certified Mail? 60 years ago a candidate for Scoutmaster could ask the Council executive "Am I on the Confidential File?" One abuser did, and was told "no", and went on to commit more abuse, and that fact is duly noted in his file. According to the terms of the most recent stipulation extending the stay against local councils, you should be able to request your former unit's roster, with names of other youth redacted, from either the TCC or the Coalition.

I've been to camp Rota-Kiwan exactly once. My oldest son and I used it as a starting-point for a 13.5-mile hike (largely over roads, but we did go through the "Au Sable Land Bridge" next door) while my wife and daughter attended a Cub Scout activity at the camp. I'm not happy that the Council was selling any of its camps, but there was some logic for this one, and I'm glad to hear about the buyer they did find and the conservation easement that will be on the property. The camp was smaller, not really big enough to run a full summer-camp program or a big event for another youth organization, and it was being encroached by suburban development. In fact, the Council has previously sold a small slice of the camp to a developer, who had built houses on that portion. The camp has been closed since the end of the Summer 2019 season. As I recall, the Council had announced plans for its closure in spring 2018 or earlier. They had run a deficit most years over the past decade; they took out a PPP loan to maintain some staff positions during the worst of the pandemic lockdown, last summer. But in 2019 they had revenue less expenses of $2.3 million, out of total revenue of $19.9 million.

USC ‘s $1.1-Billion Payout https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-03-25/usc-payout-gynecologist-sex-abuse-claims-to-top-1-billion?utm_id=26092&sfmc_id=1183278 "MARCH 25, 2021 UPDATED 4:06 PM PT USC has agreed to pay more than $1.1 billion to former patients of campus gynecologist George Tyndall, the largest sex abuse payout in higher education history. The huge sum was revealed Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court as lawyers for a final group of 710 women suing the university told a judge they had settled their claims for $852 million. USC previously agreed to pay thousands of other alumnae and students $215 million in a 2018 federal class-action settlement. A group of about 50 other cases were settled for an amount that has not been made public." (University of Southern California is a private, non-profit university. According to its 2020 financial statements, it had $1.8 billion cash on hand, $6.8 billion in investments and $4.5 billion in PPE, net of depreciation. It has 46,000 students, with average net tuition and fees of about $35 thousand per year. It looks like this final group of victims is getting $1.2 million each, but an earlier group got less than $100,000 each.)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that victims themselves (nor individual pensioners, bank officers, chartered org officers, etc.) need to attend the negotiation. The discussion here is whether counsel for the parties should meet in the offices of one party's counsel, or over Zoom; or whether it would be better to meet against the backdrop of what has been implied to be the Debtor's biggest asset, the HA bases and the Council camps. And from what I've seen of the TCC members who presented during Town Halls, I don't imagine they'd be particularly bothered or endangered simply by setting foot on BSA or Local Council property. Since I posted yesterday, I've dug up a bit more information about the amenities at a couple facilities. The newest HA base, Summit Bechtel, advertises conference services. It's only a six-hour drive from Delaware, and one of the close airports has several non-stop daily flights ot other cities, including New York City. It has a 300-seat auditorium, and a couple of 500-seat dining halls. The number of new COVID cases per day has increased slightly over the past couple of weeks in West Virginia, as it has in many states; but Raleigh and Fayette counties are both below 45 new cases per day, per 100,000 residents. The Michigan Crossroads Council has a Cub Scout day-camp, Adventure Point, which advertises facility rental. That camp also has multiple conference-rooms. It's a short drive from the Gerald R Ford International Airport in Grand Rapids; in fact it's literally within a few hundred feet of a freeway exit. Michigan has also had a slight increase in COVID cases recently, but it's doing so well at vaccination that all adults will be eligible starting April 5th. And I think a circus-tent with temporary power and A/V equipment could be set up at just about any of the hundreds of Council properties, for a socially distanced but in-person meeting. But the insinuation that victims are fundamentally prejudiced by meeting at National Council or Local Council camps strikes me as FUD, along the lines of comments that the BSA is or was a "rape factory". In the public IV files and in the few redacted abuse claims that have been introduced on the bankruptcy docket, there are some reported incidents at council camps; but none that I've seen yet at HA bases, and the majority are elsewhere: leaders' homes, leaders' vehicles, camping at public parks, leaders' workplaces, even the victims' homes. (Can you cite any public allegations of abuse at any HA base? Can you share any statistics about how many of the abuse claims in the case allege abuse at a national High Adventure base, or at a Council-owned camp property?) An important question in the case, and probably still a sticking-point in the negotiations, is whether the camp properties are "core" to BSA's mission, and to the mission of each of the local councils who have them. Now, during the first decade of Scouting in the U.S. there was no High Adventure base (Northern Tier was established in 1923, and Philmont was donated in 1938, although the donor had allowed a few Boy Scout troops to camp there before he donated it), and even today many units do the majority of their camping and other activities at non-Council properties. It's possible to carry out the program as written without ever setting foot on a council property. But a properly-run camp makes it easier, and can actually contribute to safety by allowing only registered Scouts and volunteers on-property during program time. And I'd still say the camps are "important" to BSA's mission. In fact, if there's a choice between the headquarters building and a camp, I'd say to keep the camp. Presumably the headquarters is where the registration database and IV files are kept, but BSA could build a secure bunker on Philmont property and a backup one on Northern Tier property, maybe a tertiary one at Summit, with sustainable solar power at each location, as a permanent repository for its records. The executives are global travelers anyway and can arguably work from home. Likewise, my local Girl Scouts USA council has its headquarters office on the grounds of a Girl Scout camp, not a separate location.

So there's supposed to be a three-day mediation session starting on March 30th. Parties were invited to intend in-person in Miami, Florida, but they will also have the option to attend over Zoom. At the last hearing, when the judge was saying she expected all parties to attend and work together to make progress, Mr. Stang (TCC counsel) said that he has pre-existing conditions and would only participate via Zoom. This morning, the TCC filed a motion (as well as another motion for an expedited hearing on the motion) to force everybody to only attend via Zoom. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/883420_2427.pdf https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/883423_2428.pdf They say, "Miami is not convenient to anyone but Debtors’ counsel and it is an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, on March 20, 2021, the mayor of Miami Beach declared a state of emergency in an effort to control rampaging throngs of largely mask-less students, whose disregard for public health and safety has been nothing short of stunning. Even as COVID-19 infections have declined significantly in much of the country, the positive-test rate in Miami-Dade County has increased from 5.97% to 9.18%,3 and it now accounts for approximately 22% of all Florida COVID-19 cases.4 Miami is among the cities with the highest risk of variant strains of the virus taking root, and in fact variant strains have been detected" and go on to cite several more news articles about the situation in Florida... "melting pot for variants. U.K., Brazilian, New York COVID strains found in Miami" [Miami Herald] "Maskless spring breakers flout South Beach COVID rules" [Miami Herald] "Florida Surpasses 2 Million Covid Cases, Reports 5,105 New Infections Saturday" [NBC} "Miami Beach declares state of emergency and curfew as spring break crowds spark safety concerns" [ABC] "State of emergency in Miami Beach extended to April 11 as spring breakers overwhelm the city" {Washington Post] I don't remember who suggested it, but I agree: in-person mediation might be more productive if it's conducted at Florida Sea Base or Summit Bechtel or Philmont or Northern Tier. Also safer, more fresh air, fewer crowds. For those who've been there, how long is the drive from the Miami airport to Florida Sea Base? Are there any on-base accommodations suitable for aged lawyers with health conditions, or any nearby reputable motels? Any concerns about network bandwidth to the site... anything that a few grand (in other words, less than the combined billing for all of the lawyers in attendance for a couple hours) couldn't address?

And speaking of Statue of Limitations windows... "HARRISBURG — Prospects are dimming in the legislature to employ a rarely used, emergency tactic so voters can decide this spring whether survivors of decades-old sexual abuse should have a chance to sue the perpetrators and institutions that covered up the crimes. The state House of Representatives left the Capitol on Wednesday without a final vote on a measure that would have resurrected the hard-fought referendum on whether to give those survivors, who are time-barred under the statute of limitations, a two-year reprieve to pursue civil litigation." https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2021/03/18/Pennsylvania-clergy-sex-abuse-hopes-dim-lawmakers-will-push-emergency-relief-legislation-victims/stories/202103180161 The referendum would have been on the May 2021 statewide ballot, except that the "top elections official" (Secretary Kathy Boockvar) neglected to publish a notice in statewide newspapers during the required time before the election. Some of the legislators who are opposing the "emergency tactic" are saying, in effect, that, since these claims are already barred, it doesn't matter whether the window is opened for them now or a couple years down the road. The TCC summary says that there are 3,053 Survivor Claims in the BSA case related to Pennsylvania.

No, that's not what the "estimation" would be for. Right now we can multiply the number of claims times the Michigan State University settlement amount per survivor in the Larry Nassar and say the total combined liability of all parties should be about $155 billion. BSA and Local Council assets combined are literally 1%-3% of that. Even Century's reserves are only about 50% of that. Or we can multiply it by an average over some group of Catholic diocese abuse settlements, various ones over a series of years, which I think I saw above in this thread as $200,000 per survivor, and get an overall figure of $17.2 billion. Even for that, without some contribution from COs, insurers, or both, under complete liquidation of the BSA and LCs, using an optimistic interpretation of the value of available assets and leaving the bank with nothing, survivors would get less than 10% of that. But maybe the claimants in this case are, on average, different from the settling plaintiffs in some of the earlier class-actions cases. Maybe some fraction of them are completely making the claim up. The claim form invited claims of youth-on-youth abuse; maybe that's a significant fraction of the claims, and maybe there isn't an actual comparable settlement for that kind of abuse. So the estimation proceeding will look at questions like: If a typical claim went to jury trial, how likely is it that the jury would find damages, and, if so, how much? If all the claims from a particular state went to class-action jury trial, what would the total judgement be? If all the claims against a particular council went to class-action jury trial, what would the total judgement be? If all the claims relating to abuse in a particular year (hence covered by a particular insurer, who may have had an overall policy limit in that year) went to class-action jury trial, what would the total judgement be? And to get to that point, it will probably look into further questions like: How much, on average, have the victims spent on counseling and other medical care so far? How much can they expect to spend over the rest of their lives? What is the economic cost, over a lifetime of work, of being less confident in one's career (or even unable to work) as a consequence of abuse at the hands of Boy Scout leaders? How does that vary based on the seriousness of the abuse? Or based on the strength of the relation between the abuser and Scouting? (Consider the difference between "a Scoutmaster registered for several years, who had been reported for abuse before" and "an unregistered adult who had acquired a uniform second-hand and was approaching various organizations, trying to organize a Troop") And all the statistics we've seen already, but perhaps in more detail and with some of the "unknown"s cleaned up a bit. As well as legal/policy questions like: How likely is it that Statute of Limitation widows will open up further? Are there loopholes (such as "repressed memory" in the existing Statute of Limitations landscape that a significant number of the otherwise-barred claims could use, based on what they say already?

No, BSA's lawyer said $100 million so far, $150 million total expected by August (so $50 million more expected over next 5 months). The Judge then quoted those numbers in her comment. Whoever posted the $250 million figure must have mistakenly added those two figures together, double-counting what has been spent so far.

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-connecticut-girl-scout-camps-closing-20210316-3uhheu6d7zblrp6n6wydjsae7u-story.html Pushback as Girl Scouts plan to close camps in Lebanon, Milford, Bristol and New Fairfield '“We have a rare window of opportunity to take advantage of rising property values in Connecticut due to the pandemic,” the organization’s website said. “If we monetize these assets at peak valuation today, we can use that money to fund investments in the properties where we can grow tomorrow.”'

That is accurate as to all. She also lit a fire regarding a mediation meeting (I expect everyone to attend...no excuses) and I can confirm. In the same comment, she said that "the victims need to be compensated appropriately and BSA's mission needs to continue." She moved the Plan hearing two weeks back, to the end of April, with a status conference April 12th or 13th. To put the legal-fees-so-far figure in perspective... That's a significant fraction of the book value of Summit Bechtel (or perhaps more than what it could actually fetch at sale any time soon, especially in a post-COVID, post-BSA environment where no one wants to run a campground because of the risks and liability) That's more than the book value of any other HA base, perhaps more than all of them put together That's more than the total net assets of any single Local Council That's about $50 per Scout registered at the end of 2019 ... or more than $1000 per Abuse Claimant And I've alluded to it before, but by my calculations the total amount of registration fees that BSA collected during the 20th century has to be less than $883 million. (126 million Scouts through some recent date, and registration was $7.00 in 2003). So someone may be able to make the argument that their liability for the total of all pre-1999 abuse should be limited to that figure. No, it was open to anyone who received notice of the hearing (including by seeing it on the public docket) and signed up in advance, and was willing to have their name displayed while attending the meeting. It was "open court". Although the Judge did say that, had she been meeting with counsel in-person, she would have requested some of the status updates in chambers.

So yes, the short summary is that BSA gave TCC a small concession, one that mostly affects the LCs and not them, in exchange for an extension of the preliminary injunction. On March 8th, it looked like the TCC wasn't going to agree to extend, so they filed a motion asking the Court to extend it anyway: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/875432_144.pdf https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/875435_145.pdf https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/875438_146.pdf The local councils, and one of the insurers, agreed: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/877257_148.pdf https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/877482_150.pdf Then in the last hours of the day when objections were due, BSA filed a "Stipulation" it had entered with the TCC and UCC: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/877749_151.pdf It threatens Local Councils with losing the benefit of the injunction unless they cooperate as follows: Preservation of Rosters - Basically, if they haven't shredded their troop rosters (and other documents with lists of names of Scouts, like camp rosters) from before 1999 already, they can't do that now. Roster Production Protocol - BSA will give the names, troop numbers, etc., of claimants to each council, and the councils will give back any matching copies of pre-1999 rosters to the BSA. The BSA will give the rosters to the TCC, Coalition, FCR, and insurers, after redacting any names of youth who are not claimants. Survivor Request - An Abuse Claimant will be able to request his own roster from either the TCC or the Coalition. What he'll get back will have all youth names except his own redacted. So the next day Century file a "Joiner" that actually objects to the stipulation: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/877752_152.pdf They say because many of the LCs and COs have claimed some sort of indemnity, in their proofs of claim, and the TCC hasn't objected to any of those claims, the objection should stand. Thay also complain that the roster-production protocol involves "identifying children and their affiliation with religious and other Chartered Organizations". But some claimant attorneys and another insurer responded with real joinders to the BSA's motion: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/877835_153.pdf https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/877941_154.pdf And BSA and TCC filed replies to the objection: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/880539_156.pdf https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/880545_158.pdf