ThenNow

Exactly. Thanks for this.

Not being an NGO attorney, but having been an Executive Director of one and an associate pastor of another, this is a sticky wicket of issues and mechanisms. For this purpose and often with this type of thing, it's by way of a restricted deed or reversionary clause, though the latter may negate the gift as tax deductible. Not my area, to restate. Maybe another member is better educated in this. One thing that muddles the area of earmarking and directing funds is there are "advised" donations and "restricted." Back when, we used to call the former "allocated" donations. This may help with these two categories: Donors advising on the use of their donation sounds relatively the same as donors restricting the use of their donation, doesn’t it? These are actually very different concepts. Donor advised funds are separately identified accounts that are maintained by a public charity. After the donor makes an unrestricted donation to the donor advised fund/account, the charity has legal control over it. However, an arrangement or agreement has been made between the charity and the donor, where the donor retains advisory privileges on how those funds should be used throughout the existence of that separate account. A donor advised fund tends to be more of a long lived account that receives donations and from which disbursements are periodically made. Even though the donor can advise on the use of the funds, the charity still has the ultimate authority on the use, with the responsibility of ensuring that the use meets the tax exempt mission of the charity. Donor advised funds are carefully watched by the IRS due to past abuse with these funds where the donor essentially has control over the use of the funds, and then uses those funds in a way that results in an economic personal benefit to the donor, while the donor still receives a tax deduction. A charity can actually lose its tax exempt status if an individual uses the charity in some way in order to attain a personal benefit. A restricted donation relates to a specific donation, rather than relating to a separate account set up specifically relating to one individual donor’s donations. A donor places either a time or purpose restriction on one specific donation, which is received by the charity and usually pooled into the general operating or investment accounts of the organization. The charity has the responsibility to use the donation in accordance with the donor’s wishes, but after the donor makes the donation, the donor generally does not have any further involvement and does not have any ongoing advisory privileges. There is sometimes a misconception that a restricted donation can be made to a tax exempt entity, with the donor-restricted purpose naming an individual to benefit from the donation. Under IRS rules, no tax deduction is allowed if there is a direct personal benefit to the donor or any other person. Also, as mentioned above, a tax exempt entity is at risk of losing its tax exempt status if a personal benefit transaction occurs. For example, if a charity has a scholarship program, there should be an unbiased selection process as well as a conflict of interest policy to prevent personal benefit transactions from occurring. https://www.hhcpa.com/blogs/non-profit-accounting-services/what-is-the-difference-between-donor-advised-funds-and-restricted-donations/

This may help explain restrictions, at least a bit. I don't understand the history and structure of the entity created to hold the property or the deal with the note. It goes to the argument for and against it being restricted and assume it is at the center of the push/pull between the BSA and TCC. On the creation of the entity and note, I'm wondering if both were a strategic mechanism to distance the BSA from imposing the restriction on their own, through a legal structure that looks like the "donor" imposed the restriction. Again, I am shooting in the dark... Generally, funds are ‘restricted” when a donor places restrictions on their use. Typically, there are two types of restrictions—permanent or temporary. Permanently restricted funds are those for which the donor says the recipient must retain the assets permanently but may spend some or all of the income for specified purposes. The Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act, adopted in some form in all states except Pennsylvania as the successor to the Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act, has separate rules for handling this type of funds, which it calls “endowment.” (See Ready Reference Pages: “UMIFA Sets Rules for Charitable Endowments” and “New UPMIFA Sets Rules for Management of Charitable Funds.”) Temporarily restricted funds are those for which the donor says they must be used only for a specific purpose or after a certain period of time. The income from permanently restricted funds will be considered temporarily restricted if the donor requires that it be used for certain purposes. Your question implies that the funds solicited at the event will be temporarily restricted for a certain purpose. The key to restriction is that it must be donor-placed. Boards, acting alone, cannot normally create legally enforceable restrictions. If, however, a charity solicits funds for a specific purpose, it is generally believed that gifts made for that purpose become restricted for that purpose because the donor, by contributing for the purpose, has adopted the restriction. Most charitable solicitation registration laws (and other state consumer protection laws) require a charity to use funds for the purpose for which they are solicited. That is one reason why solicitations ought to include broad charitable use language as well as specific intent. If you get more than you can use, or if the project changes, you can still use the funds for general charitable purposes. https://www.nonprofitissues.com/to-the-point/what-court-cases-or-irs-rulings-if-any-define-restricted-funds

This may seem odd for an attorney to say, but I can count on one hand (hyperbole) the number of docket notices I've seen that don't contain at least one "Monthly Application for Fee Application and Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses." It's staggering. If I recall correctly, several are in the $1500 per hour range. (I am retired and never saw that kind of money, whatever that may mean or not.)

I immediately noted that the word "all" has been deleted from the reiteration of the first prong of the two-part goal: "Our Scouting Movement—the national organization and local councils alike—has a moral responsibility to compensate victims of past abuse and to continue Scouting’s mission. We understand the gravity of meeting these imperatives, and we are taking the necessary steps to get there."

I know. Truth hurts, right? I errantly left off the plural 's' on guy. We can't be the only ones...

Yeah. That's a clearer and better defined way to say it, but what I was trying to say by "defer and let the fight happen down the road."

Although not overtly stated, the Ad Hoc Committee statement seems to indicate they believe it demonstrates real "progress is being made" and all their hard work is paying off. I guess they go behind Door #4 where Carol Merrill is standing. (A familiar reference for the other old guy.)

That is correct. The Coalition and Abused In Scouting attorneys, with others chiming in, argued there is no precedent for the court to grant this kind of motion. Insurers countered with, "unless there are unusual/extraordinary circumstances," which they and others believe to be the case. (I tend to agree, given the exponential curve in the number of claims and all the shady business that drove it.) The judge has not been thrilled with them, having "defied" her admonition against, "seeing 100's of claims signed by an attorney." Many of them did that and more. It's possible, just like on her ruling that they could sign on behalf of clients, though she warned against it because they could be called as "fact witnesses," she may feel constrained to grant it or defer and let the fight happen down the road. Many hope she finds the will and a way to grant it now.

I don't necessarily, in fact literally, mean publicly. It would be beneficial even to have strategic input on things like the properties, for example. That said, in monitoring press from various local outlets, politicians, business and community leaders continue to be involved in and advocate for their constituent BSA entities. I haven't seen this wane in those specific markets. This may amount to a group of anomalies, but I assumed it was not. I have no idea if it is completely isolated and unique, I admit.

Day Late-Dollar Short is my very long middle name.

I wouldn't necessarily trust the "government" to do it correctly, but the BSA may have missed a perfect opportunity to help the internal crisis, as well as advance the cause of protecting children generally. I do understand why it didn't happen, including protecting the brand/reputation, participation, funding and all.

I'm on the outside looking in, but as an attorney, former high achieving Scout and abuse victim, I would long ago have added several solid men who were abused as Scouts to advise on the Youth Protection Program. If you're serious about rooting out fraud and data breaches - for an apples to oranges example - government agencies and private companies have hired expert fraudsters and hackers. I certainly wouldn't hire sexual predators, but many of us could add tremendous insight into how to craft and implement protection measures, not to mention speak to leaders about what this looks like in real life. Some, like me, have experienced other sorts of abuse, like physical and emotional, as well. All of that could add to the clear picture of what should be being taught and implemented in YPT. I would be involved in such a program in a minute.

I don't know the detail or if there is anything substantive involved, but doesn't National present an annual report to Congress on the state of Scouting? (I've often wondered why/how the matter of the abuse has been avoided in that discussion, but that's another point.) Does Scouting have a champion or sponsor in Congress or someone with whom it has a liaison relationship? It seems like there are great options to explore and discuss, if there are such relationships. Scouting has man people in high places and I would think these discussions could be had. That said, I understand no one was wanting/expecting to be in the position of considering "alternatives" for HA and other key properties. Just wondering out loud. In 2016 for example, 10 US Senators were Eagle Scouts.

I couldn't afford Philmont when I was in Scouting. It would be a joy to experience it before I croak.

To reinforce, what the insurers are hoping to do now is find pockets of invalidity, like duplicates, obvious fraud, complete lack of identifying information or 100's of claims signed by an attorney that look to have come off a copier, so they can lop off a chunk with a sickle right quick. The actual examination of claims to assess legitimacy and gauge severity, which feed into the metric of valuation, is the long process CynicalScouter mentions as belonging to the Settlement Trustee. Maybe that helps.

There will almost certainly be a phase of lump sum "walkaway money" offered to claimants who just want to get something and be done with it. I don't know how that will work or how values will be calculated, but believe it will be deployed here as it has been in other cases. This will allow a reduction in the numbers, but how much and to what effect on the overall process, who knows. Not me, for sure.

I know some are unable to access WSJ articles. If it is of any help, attached is a good one briefly summarizing some of the key points raised in the insurers' discovery motion mentioned above. Apologies if I am duplicating what someone else already provided. Coalition WSJ 1.25.2021 PDF.pdf

Which is wise. I feel iffy about questioning claims, too. Having managed a class action case on an unrelated matter, witnessing the meteoric rise in claims, the public presentations and representations by the "firms," and then reading how this all came to be, how can one not question? By the by, the case I refer to certified its class based on contacts made with potential members via historic records. The class was not built by gill-netting prospects through advertising or claims aggregators.

That is the case here. The link below will take you to the insurers' Rule 2004 Discovery Motion. You can scroll to page 7 on the docket file, page 1 of the motion, and begin reading from there. Of course, this is what the insurers "allege" and the respondent groups deny many elements, especially the negative characterization. Several great news stories were written related to this internal battle, as well. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870566_1975.pdf

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I truly wonder what is going on in the conversations within the claims mining entities who have thousands of claimant clients under their tent. When you have that many, they must be keeping a directed focus. It appears that for some of them, definitely the group headed by he who shall not be named, that focus is "burn it all down" and we'll sort through the rubble and ash for for the good stuff. Personally, I see that direction as against the interest of most claimants. The complexity and implications of converting to a liquidation, with its varied impacts on creditors and classes, asset valuation and distribution, the much discussed reversion of LC properties upon revocation/dissolution of Charter(s), and how to handle these tort claims is beyond my knowledge and pay grade. I will do some research, though.

Thank you. Sincerely. I do not want to discount any valid claims from others like me, but I deeply question the validity of that many claims flooding in, especially knowing how they were solicited. Having read the discovery motions, the banter and blather from the so-called Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice (which name is so presumptuous and pretentious it makes me ill) and he who shall not be named, I think the number will go down if the judge allows the vehicle to be inspected with the sniffer dogs. I don't know what the number should be. Ultimately, it will be larger than the BSA and LC portion, since the insurers know they have to contribute to put this to bed and head for the hills, never to write another BSA policy. At this stage, it was simply a matter of what they projected when they made an initial offer, both in the substance of the offer and the manner in which they conveyed it. Neither seemed appropriate to the gravity of the moment, the stage of the case or the amount of time spent in asset review and negotiations.

Initially, I thought about it related to the squeeze being put on you guys via reductions in revenue and all. I was hoping, I guess is the word, that it wasn't merely being felt at the street level. I retracted the question as somewhat irrelevant because COVID and otherwise declining revenue are intermingled with the impacts of the Chapter 11, so it's hard to tell which is having an impact on what and whom. Sounds like "hurt" is pretty much widely distributed, by whatever ripples are now in the pond from which rocks one can't say. When a company is going through crisis, laying off workers and freezing salaries, it always galls me when/if there are no such austerity measures being felt in the C-Suite. That's what I was pondering.

Toss in a select group of politicians and several technocratic “experts” and you might just have my vote.

Have there been salary and bonus freezes for the executives? Other perk and comp reductions? "Sacrifices at all levels," and whatnot. I guess that’s mostly irrelevant, given the magnitude and scale. Never mind...