MYCVAStory

Yeah....the cringy moment of the day was when one of the attorneys lightheartedly mentioned to the Judge that the proceeding's complexity and reminder of past hearings might be "TRIGGERING" to her. UH, how about if we dont joke about that. Some just don't get it.

It has always run neck-and-neck with "A lot of wood to chop."

Keep your eye on the docket. Sounds like a ruling to approve will be posted within the next 48 hours. Today's winner were those who bet on "Anticlamactic."

I see what you did there. 😉

Could easily be years plural. There are several "Non-Settling Insurers." They will be taken to court and if the Trust is successful, or an agreement is reached before-hand, they'll be forced to pay. For the insurers this is always a Time Value of Money exercise. The longer they hold onto their money the more they can make off of it. At some point that risk or expense from their own insurers becomes a money losing proposition. Ever file a claim for auto insurance that gets contested? The insurer knows that the longer they can delay things the greater the possibility you'll settle for far less than originally. That's why any time you hear someone who owes Survivors moneyt say "The most important thing is getting money into Survivors' hands" you should be wary of a lowball offer. For the Trust the same dynamic is at play. How long and how much money should it spend chasing X dollars? Regardless, bringing non-settling insurers AND Charter Organizations to settlement will be the ongoing business of the trust and will result in a series of payments to valid claims. BUT....and teh BIG ASTERISK...."Your award may not result in you receiving that actual amount of money." Survivors need to be cautioned that at some point they'll learn what their award is "valued" but the actual amount received will be a function of the total amount of money the Trust can generate....minus expenses. So yes....could be multiple disbursements over a lengthy timeline. I cringe thinking of the impact on some Survivors, and myself included, when a check for $37.86 hits my mailbox. Insult, meet injury.

Guam can disrupt this now, and later via appeal. For them it has to be ALL about leverage. The BSA wants a plan approved. Century wants the BSA bill over with. Tanc's appearance wasn't coincidental. The BSA needs to make those two parties happy. How does it do that? Gets Century to set aside an amount to be paid to Guam as its bankruptcy slogs along? Century offers to pay contribute less because it still has Guam exposure? Then what? Will the Survivor groups (TCC and Coalition) accept less money for all Survivors or more money for one group? What if they split on that. It's all about leverage and nothing increases leverage more than the 11th hour.

And the question on every Survivor's mind...."Judge, you had EVERYONE there. They flew in to town to get things done and get this finished. Why didn't you send them out into a meeting room, or tell them to hammer it out overnight, and finalize it?" Bonus question to the BSA... "How do you feel knowing that the issue EVERYONE knew about, Guam and Century, wasn't addressed before today and Guam stated NO ONE reached out to her? The result being travel expenses for your professionals and the TCC's as well as continued expenses to get this done in the next six days?" It will get done. It will cost the BSA more. It's headed to District Court review with appeals teed up by insurers and Guam. In the mean time, let's see if Century decides any sort of resolution isn't acceptable and pulls or lowers its offer because it will have continued exposure with Guam. Then what dominoes fall? Then who says "No DICE, NOT the deal we agreed to" The 800-pound Gorilla is still sitting by patiently waiting to be addressed. It wasn't today. Should be an interesting weekend for the BSA's attorneys as they scramble to make this work.

Apologies if someone already shared this, and excuse my home tongue. But, this is an important article to read in order to understand the next possible "spanner thrown in the works." https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/boy-scouts-bankruptcy-exposes-court-split-on-liability-releases Everyone cross their fingers that this isn't headed for the Supreme Court. You think the process to this point has taken time.... Sorry.

That's really inaccurate. You make it sound like the TCC, a group of nine Survivors acting as volunteers, is acting in its own financial interest. Or, their Counsel is manipulating them. That doesn't look like a group that would fall for that. The exculpatory agreement IS a normal part of bankruptcy proceedings for ALL professionals representing parties so that when it's over it's over for them. It became an issue in this case because of the email that was sent out in error. This was a mistake that resulted in PSZJ paying something like a million to the BSA's attorneys to reimburse the fees to address it and another million to the Trust and to aid youth protection; and remember that this is in addition to the 10% the firm is contributing to the Trust. That's something the BSA's own attorneys ARE NOT doing. Did PSZJ work to be included with other professionals to be a part of the exculpation? Of course. Did the nine on the TCC let this happen because of some sort of "financial interest?" That's an unfair accusation and if it were the case PSZJ wouldn't have paid the fine it did. I hate defending the people who have made money off of this bankruptcy when my "award" still seems like a pipe dream. I get the frustration out there. But so too will I defend the Survivors who have spent 2+ years trying to help.

I'm as frustrated as the next Survivor at the pace and lack of information but this seems unfair. What are they supposed to do, complain about how much time it took for the judge to issue her opinion, and just pi$$ her off? What purpose does that serve? Have a Town Hall to discuss issues they're trying to settle where they agree and disagree with the BSA? Uh, mediation confidentiality is still in play AND regardless, doing so would feed into the hands of the "certain insurers" and other objectors by allowing them to point out where disagreement is present even within the plan proponents. I'd expect more to be said after the 9/1 Confirmation hearing and Judge's published decision. Then, when there's something concrete, and her opinion was NOT, I'd expect them to be in a position to say "Okay, here's what happens next." Until then, this grinds on and I'd guess a lot of sausage is being made behind the scenes leading up to the confirmation hearing.

That's a link to shorten the notice period. Here's the link to the ammendments: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/6907113e-9265-4b5f-9d7d-e9e61e182818_10188a.pdf

The link: Nothing anyone following this probably didn't already know or expect. Confirmation of complexity. Welcome to day 99.

This is a historic case. Historic in its amount if abuse and historic in the complexity of finances, third-parties, and insurance involvement. The wait is especially excruciating for Survivors, most of whom have been waiting for decades for some degree of resolution, who after 2+ years of a bankruptcy process, hope daily for good news. If her ruling is lengthy and complicated, well-considered and logical, we'll understand why it's taken so long. If it's short and head-scratching or widely panned by those experienced in bankruptcy law, and ripe for appeal, we'll all shake our heads at the length of this wait. I know a Survivor in tough shape physically. I think about him every day. I hope for his sake the wait is coming to an end. Another day has passed....but another day closer to a ruling I suppose. For some though those days are limited.

The pot would be MUCH smaller at this point. It's hard to see Century and The Hartford contributing much, if at all, if they still had exposure at the LC level. These two insurers NEVER want to hear about the BSA again. A comprehensive bankruptcy addressing all of their expositor is their goal too.

I have no connection to the Coalition. Coalition firms have not billed the BSA, nor have their legal professionals. They were allowed to be a mediation party but must get the Judges approval for any reimbursement of expenses because they made a "substantial contribution" to getting a plan confirmed. The BSA said that was okay with them and the TCC said it wasn't taking a stand because to do so would effectively be an endorsement of that and would not put itself in a position to endorse fees for professionals other than their own. Yes, the judge can confirm a plan and NOT approve payment to mediation parties or require separate proceedings for that. If she denies payment the Coalition firms would presumably be on the hook for paying the fees. This is an interesting issue since the Judge seemed skeptical at times of the whole Coalition organization and role of its hired professionals. Remember too that at least on one occasion a Coalition attorney tried to engage in debate and the Judge shut that down because he had representation. "Bribery"....well, it's part of the "Deal making" in Bankruptcy. A shame but "if you want your plan confirmed and the votes of our clients we'll support it if you support our fees for helping out" is the viewpoint basically. Welcome to Day 91 of waiting.

Reach..throw....row...go! We've reached the point where a ruling seems way overdue. Hey Judge, throw us a bone and make up your mind. However, there may not be the gentle stream to merrily row down for her as she writes her opinion. Looks like it's time for me to go cross another day off on the calendar. 🙂

Little. There are some issues that are anything but "cut and dry." Bankruptcy Judges know their decisions will be reviewed, and potentially appealed. This one has insurers with appeals ready to tee up. She's taking a long time to be thorough, wrestle with issues, and given the time it's taking possibly dealing with portions she will approve and portions she will reject.

I'll leave arguments over whether the rates charged are appropriate or not. I find that lots of arguments can be made. "Compared to X, Y is outrageous." "Well, we pay our professional athletes at the top of their game this so why shouldn't professionals at the top of theirs be paid a lot?" Lots of justifications are available and for me, and perhaps a product of abuse, is working hard to determine what I have some sort of control over before I ramp up my outrage to the white-hot level. Just offering this though: 1. There is a fee examiner in this bankruptcy. He is required to go through all bills and ask for clarification. 2. Some of the largest bills, potentially THE largest, are yet to come. These are the bills from all the depositions prior to the confirmation hearing AND then the weeks of confirmation. All those attorneys and every professional on Zoom watching confirmation were billing. 3. I remember reading once something to the effect of "Bankruptcy is expensive. It should be. Debtors need to know that it's going to cost a lot so that it's a deterrent to declaring bankruptcy." Twisted logic but logic nonetheless. I'd also like to offer a prediction, something I don't do often unless I'm pretty sure of it. In this case I just have a hunch. IF this bankruptcy plan is confirmed in some fashion there will be a lot of people seeing it as some sort of "resolution." That may or may not be the case and people who aren't Survivors will be on both sides; Survivors too I imagine. But still, the whole thing will be abstract because resolution is an abstract concept. But then, there will be an echo to the result of this stage. That echo will come back in the form of awards. Money is tangible. WHEN Survivors start seeing awards THEN they and especially the general public will truly understand the result and impact of the bankruptcy. We're making judgements about fees because they are tangible and we can weigh them against services performed. If checks start hitting mailboxes that will happen again and there is a real chance that Survivors AND ESPECIALLY others will look at all of this through a tangible lens that might cast a new light on ALL of it.

In case you haven't taken a look, while a bit dated and not reflective of recent property sales, here's a link to the extensive Local Council financial analyses the TCC had its financial professionals BRG Group complete: https://www.tccbsa.com/local-council-analysis They're educational.

Thank you to the Survivors who voted to reject the first plan and THANK YOU to those that voted to approve it and were then patient while the BSA was pulled back into mediation to strengthen YP as part of a second plan. While I might not be happy where we are, I know it's a better place for any child going into scouting in the future.

Bankruptcy is a lot of things. Simple isn't one of them. Proclaiming absolutes doesn't make it so. This case is historic in many ways. In the level of abuse and the complexity of the relationship between the debtor, LC's insurers and others. History, the worst sort on many fronts, is being made here. The past might be a small glimpse into what happens but it is in no way an absolute guide. Simple? None of this is. If it were, the judge would have rendered a decision already.

Well....no on a lot of counts. First, and most importantly, a non-profit CANNOT be "forced" into an involuntary Chapter 7 proceeding. Second, and again, any order is moot when agreements are made to expedite payment to some at lower amounts to include others. Regardless, the BSA isn't going to be "forced" into bankruptcy and will do everything to avoid it. As well, its creditors and local Councils will do the same. Getting "priority" doesn't help if that gets you a property like the Summit where $400 million has been poured into it and it has been appraised at $40 million. A LOT of this has been covered in the past and I too would encourage you to go back and check a lot of the threads over the past two years. LOTS of excellent analysis by many.

Not necessarily at all. In bankruptcy EVERYTHING is negotiable. There are a whole host of factors that impact relief. In some cases those "earlier" in line may agree to less quicker and avoid lengthy and expensive appeal. There are a number of websites that cover this.

ALL secured creditors, of which pension recipients are one, would get priority over unsecured creditors. Survivors are unsecured creditors. As well, remember that JP Morgan and any other lenders are secured. So, the mortgage that the BSA took out against the Philmont Property for example places JP Morgan in line ahead of Survivors. This is why the "Just liquidate the BSA" argument makes sense emotionally for some but certainly not financially. All of that said, any legal proceedings re Chapter 7 wouldn't fund secured creditors at 100% either. They'd just be battling over assets ahead of others.

For some context, her comment at the first hearing I believe (or close to it) was that the "....mission of the Boy Scouts is of paramount importance." While this was widely seen by Survivors as overly "pro-scouts" in discussion with experienced bankruptcy professionals it was viewed as reflective of being supportive of the debtor voluntarily entering bankruptcy. As well, the judge at that point had no idea of the enormity of this bankruptcy and number of claimants that would come forward. My observation is that over time she demonstrated the impartiality that Survivors expected. While her ruling will be the ultimate arbiter on that her decisions over two years in my mind have not been slanted one way in an egregious way.