Muttsy

CS, That’s a fair question. It would be such a complicated deal, the problem is how to communicate it. Just look at the high level discussions on this board. It takes time and effort to understand all the concepts. It’s a steep learning curve. I believe the insurance piece is not that risky. But it’s too risky if that is all the BSA is prepared to give which has been its position from the start. If there is 4B in LC assets and another 2-3 billion in BSA assets, how much do they have to surrender to get to a viable deal? Half? BSA’s and LC’s options are that or bleed out. Is BSA organizationally capable of making a decision of that magnitude? My sense is that it is not.

My guess is BSA knows it has to go with the TCC/Coalition/FCR plan which will allow BSA to emerge from chapter 11 in exchange for $2-3B in cash and LC real estate plus all the insurance assignments go in to a post-confirmation Settlement Trust. The CO's They can contribute a "reasonable" amount and get releases. The mediation discussions last week and next a probably focused on how much BSA and selected councils are going to kick in. It has to be substantial if they want to get the 2/3rds of votes cast. Those that don't can take their chances in the tort system or settle out with the Settlement Trustee down the road. The same could apply I suppose to the LC's that don't contribute. They will face their own bankruptcies and probable liquidations in short order.

The Mormon Church has long thought of BSA as a subsidiary of LDS, Inc., and for good reason. The Mormon Church goes back to the beginning of BSA, actually before BSA. LDS was the very FIRST Chartering Organization. The Mormon Church folded its Pioneers scouting program into BSA in approximately 1917. It became the largest CO with over 40% of all troops. It approached scouting differently than other chartering organizations. It used its association with BSA as a way to mainstream away from its terrible public image coming out of the polygamy criminal prosecutions and near forced-dissolution by the United States government in the 1870's, and as a recruitment tool. Join our scout troop and pretty soon the boy is baptized LDS and attending Sunday Sacrament meetings. Scouting was the exclusive youth program for males in the Church. Scouting and the Mormon priesthood progression were mirror images. Scouting was virtually mandatory for LDS boys, if not officially then culturally. Every LDS ward and branch in the US sponsored a troop. There were over 10,000 wards and branches. Unlike all other troops, the Church, not the individual scout, paid the annual registration fees. This gave the Church outsize representation on the National and LC boards through which it steered BSA from a mainstream organization to one in line with the Church's view of morality and civic virtue. To emphasize the point, every year the Church would send a leader to BSA headquarters with its check for payment for the registrations of millions of LDS scouts. A very big check indeed and one which reminded BSA National who the boss was. As noted in my previous post, when BSA initiated the Three R's program in the late 80's as a "public service" project to educate scouts about child molesters, LDS refused to allow the program to be shown in LDS sponsored troops. This is just one example of how LDS thwarted BSA's efforts to come to grips with sexual abuse in scouting nearly 40 years ago. A bigger issue concerns a fundamental conflict BSA's perversion file system had with LDS religious teachings. The Church instructs its members and especially its bishops and stake presidents that the church is about repentance and forgiveness of sin. It instructs that if a child molester i.e. "sinner" has repented to the bishop, he must be forgiven and restored to the position he was in before he sinned and repented. There are numerous IV files with correspondence between a bishop and BSA Confidential Records Section arguing with BSA's refusal to reinstate a previously removed abuser. Eventually, unless there was an arrest and media coverage and brought to BSA National's attention, the abuser was simply dealt with (mostly not) by the ward bishop through "the repentance process." The Mormon Church basically recycles child molesters and justifies it arguing religious freedom that is protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. I find it especially galling that the LDS Church has filed proofs of claim in the bankruptcy arguing that BSA National was responsible to indemnify the LDS Church for its own willful and wanton misconduct. I In reality, the LDS Church is the primary at fault entity in LDS-BSA cases. It ran the program. It selected the scout leader. It assumed responsibility for selection, retention and monitoring of adult leaders. I don't see how the LDS Church can be released and discharged in this bankruptcy without making a massive financial payment to the settlement trust. And I don't see that happening, at least not in the time allotted by this rapidly collapsing bankruptcy case.

Patrick Boyle's 1992 book Scouts Honor is essential reading to understand how it all came to this. It was the institutional instinct to conceal, minimize and deny. "By dealing with these cases as a series of unrelated events rather than as a pattern, the Boy Scouts of America was behaving just like Carl: minimizing, rationalizing, assuring itself it had no problem. "The Scouts believed their own image. They believed their own publicity," says Mike Rothschild, a California attorney who represented an abused Scout.34 No one, therefore, reported the cases to the BSA's health and safety committee, which routinely got reports on injuries and deaths at Scout functions. When Scouts got hurt or killed while boating, the committee developed rules to make boating safer. During America's Bicentennial cel­ ebrations, the committee studied whether the gunpowder used by troops in some ceremonial muskets was dangerous. But Dr. Walter Menninger, a psychiatrist who headed the Menninger Foundation in Kansas and who chaired the committee, says he did not believe sex abuse was a problem in Scouting because no one had informed him of any cases. Thus uninformed, Menninger sat in a 1987 deposition for lawsuit filed by an abused Scout and declared, "There is a greater threat to Scouts of drowning and loss of life from accidents than there is from sexual abuse by a Scoutmaster." In fact, BSA reports show that sex abuse is more common in Scouting than deaths or serious injuries. From 1971 through 1990, an average of 13 Scouts died during Scout activities each year, and 30 suffered serious injuries, defined by the Scouts as life-threatening or requiring hospitalization of at least 24 hours." For each of those years, however, the BSA banned an average of 67 adults suspected of abusing Scouts." The number of their victims is higher although there is no exact figure. Even without knowing this, Menninger's committee tried to grapple with sex abuse. Committee members wanted to educate Scouts about abuse or teach leaders how to respond when a boy said he'd been abused. Here they ran into a roadblock: religion. Religion is a cornerstone of Scouting. Reverence to God is in the Scout Law, and about half of the sponsors of Scout units are religious organizations, mostly churches.. The BSA could ill afford to offend them. Menninger, noting the "exquisitely sensitive nature of the relationship" between the corporation and sponsors, explains the dilemma: "There are a number of sponsoring organizations, particularly the LDS Church, the Mormon Church, that have made it quite clear they want the Scouting, outing, advancement programs as part of their youth program, but they want issues of moral, sexual aspects to be strictly part of the church's teaching."Churches, Menninger says, "have a substantial percentage of registration [of Scouts1and become a much more potent factor." As a result, the BSA "focused away from some of these specific sexual areas."

Love the Paul Harvey reference …but you date yourself CS! re Oregon law of Respondeat Superior (which is unique in the US), the 1997 case is not good law. It was superceded by the Fearng/Buecher cases in ~2001 which recognized “mixed motive” situations and held it was ultimately a fact question for the jury. That’s significant because the jury was going to hear all the evidence even if it ultimately imposed liability based on negligence not on RS. BSA lawyers blundered massively taking a case like Kerry Lewis to a jury in Portland, particularly after the court had ruled the IV files admissible. The outcome was almost a guaranteed result. I could go on about other blunders like going to a jury trial in a jurisdiction with uncapped punitive damages (also rare as hen’s teeth). I checked with a lawyer friend who has handled numerous scout cases. She says she’s never seen BSA settle out a case without the LC “There’s never any daylight between National and the LC in the defense of these cases.” “A different story” for the CO. She pointed out that LDS settled out in the Portland case before trial. The Mormon Church had a smarter lawyer apparently.

A lawyer friend forwarded this letter from a survivor to Judge Silverstein. I was very impressed with it. TO: Justice Laurie Selber Silverstein BSA Bankruptcy Case 824 Market Street, 6th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 REF: Case # SA-18492 Honorable Judge Silverstein, Ma'am, it has come to my attention that Boy Scout of America (BSA) abuse survivors have been encouraged to reach out to you to let you know how victims, like myself, feel about the direction of this case - and BSA writ large. BACKGROUND In 1994, I, and a few others, spent a summer on BSA camp staff at Camp Avondale in Clinton, LA (Istrouma Area Council), where we were continuously sexually groped and fondled by the camp director - John Morgan. Our merit badge station was in the woods through a maze of trails, and he would come to the station in the evenings for what he called his "stress" relief sessions. These amounted to him talking about sexually explicit activities with women and then lying us on a table an giving sensual massages. For decades, I held the shame and embarrassment inside. For my entire life, after that summer, I have felt the need to protect those that are weaker and cannot protect themselves, which is why I joined the military in 1997, and which is why I ended up spending six (6) combat tours in Afghanistan - forever changing me as a person. Childhood abuse sends the child into downward spiral - not knowing who to trust, not wanting anyone to know the shame of the incident, and having to live a life always feeling like a piece of you has died. I cannot begin to imagine the immense pressure you must be feeling given the magnitude of this case before you. We are not talking about a standard bankruptcy or child abuse case, we are talking about BSA... an institution that is synonymous with the spirit of America. But an American Institution that has profited off the abuse of children as they swept allegations under the rug for fear it would damage the flow of money into their coffers. Before making a decision in how to proceed, I ask that you read the contents of this email and hopefully see that BSA will do anything in its power to protect an empire built on lies, deceit, countless abused children whose innocence was stolen from them. Remember, abusers always "blame the victim" or try to deflect using abstract moral equivalencies, which is exactly what BSA is doing now. It's not about protecting the innocent or making amends with the abuse-survivors, it is about protecting the fortune they have amassed over a century. BSA'S SLEIGHT-OF-HAND LEGAL TACTICS On 18 FEB 2020, I was told to reach out to BSA if I had information regarding any knowledge of sexual misconduct of an adult leader. I did just that, but instead of BSA responding, I received correspondence from the “BSA call center” under the “Scouts First BSA team” – who represented themselves as a BSA proxy handing information regarding abuse. After months of waiting for a response, I reached back out to this BSA entity to see if any follow-up was needed and then I was encouraged, by this BSA representative, to submit a claim. My only intent was to get the information to BSA to ensure this predator was no longer associated with the organization – I never wanted to file a “lawsuit claim”. Reluctantly, I agreed to file a claim because I was led to believe, by BSA’s proxy representative, that is was the only way BSA could pursue and investigate the allegation. I thought it was strange that BSA was encouraging people to file clams/lawsuits, but I now understand what they did it. Originally, BSA was claiming it was liable for 1200-1500 abuse claims. After getting tens of thousands of people to "file lawsuits" (near 95,000 the last I heard)... they can overwhelm the system and claim that the claims are fictitious, fabricated, unsubstantiated, or whatever other sleight-of-hand legal tactics their lawyers have concocted. Case in point, I read an article (https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/boy-scouts-seek-extend-halt-lawsuits-local-groups-76075359) wherein BSA’s attorneys questioned the legitimacy of the lawsuits they themselves encouraged survivors to file. Even worse, statements like, ““The TCC is apparently willing to gamble with the fortunes of abuse survivors and the debtors when the stakes are the highest.” Fortunes? I’m not sure what that really means, but, to me, this seems like a very big game to BSA. They led people to believe that “filing a claim” was the only way to investigate allegations, and when the survivors filed the claims… they turned around and said there were so many that the claims were most likely fraudulent and filed by people looking for “fortunes”. This is sickening and appalling. I did the right thing by coming forward, and now it feels like I am legal fodder for whatever game BSA is playing in court. BSA'S TRUE FINANCIAL MOTIVES While serving in the military, when learning how to conduct counter-terrorism, the first lesson was to always follow the money. I have attached a few .pdf files to this affidavit that illustrate a few things. Not necessarily financial misconduct, but how BSA hides their wealth, dupes donors (all in the name "of the kids"), and is currently trying to say the 270+ councils across the United States are separate, "autonomous" entities not liable under this case. In the file labeled "2020 Unaudited Financial Statements", BSA is claiming roughly $1,271,477,000 in assets and saying $675M of that has donor restrictions. When you read this financial statement, and who knows what type of accounting tricks they use to draft the numbers, it shows BSA brought in $175M in revenue ($100M in fees alone). BSA is further reporting they expended nearly $108M in salaries and benefits, which means they spent nearly 62% of all the revenue they generated in 2020, on salaries and benefits for themselves. Given that most of the money was spent on salaries to manage, dupe donors with fundraisers, and promote camps/activities most scouting families cannot afford to attend, at what point is BSA spending money on the scouts? BSA is reporting they expended $19.5M on executive salaries and fundraising salaries (plus benefits), which equates to 11% of all the revenue they generated in 2020. Of course, this is just for BSA National; all 270+ Councils have their own financial statements that are separate. I urge you to really consider BSA's claim of financial hardship before making a decision. There are unfathomable numbers of scouts that cannot afford proper camping gear, they cannot afford to attend BSA camps (that serve industrialized garbage-grade food), and countless scouting units are closing because councils and district executives are more concerned about fleecing donors “for the kids" so they can fill their pockets and sit comfortable at fat-feast dining tables. BSA is morally-bankrupt and only cares about the money it can generate through fees and lied-to donors; BSA DOES NOT SPEND MONEY ON SCOUTS OR ADULT SCOUTERS. It is sickening that the Chief Scout Executive of BSA earns a salary of $1,577,600 per year (plus benefits), which means he is taking nearly 1.2% of the $175M in revenue for himself. BSA is claiming they cannot afford to pay victims, but their executives can pay themselves small fortunes. Let us look at a few facts and use one council as example of the game they are playing so they can continue to exploit kids for financial gain. (*see the three other documents attached to this message): 2018 Form 990 (Filed with IRS) 2018 Annual Report (given to parents and donors) 2018 Actuals (budget given to board members) Mid-America provides three (3) different sets of numbers. What they tell their board members in the budget, what they tell parents and donors in terms of how money is spent on the kids, and what they report to the IRS. There is no transparency, and you can never get a straight answer from anyone within corporate BSA because if the word got out how they are exploiting youth to line their pockets, parents and donors would be furious. For the purpose of making a case, I will cite numbers from the 2020 Budget, which provides "actuals" from the previous years. The primary goal for BSA and councils is to generate more revenue streams to increase their ability to expand their corporate salaries. If you look at the three (3) financial documents, you can extrapolate that this particular council spends approximately 60% of its generated revenue on corporate salaries. Note that nearly 45% of its income derives from donor/fundraising campaigns and product (popcorn) sales. When looking at the expenses, they really only spend 9.6% of their budget on camping and other activities. Meaning, they beg for money from donors and have little kids pander their popcorn on the streets. Here are the facts: Fact # 1: There are 4991 volunteers listed on this council's 2018 Form 990. These volunteers have to pay membership fees, training fees, camping fees, and other fees. They have to pay for everything, and they do 99% of the work with the youth. They runs camps, they run activities, they run events, they run projects, they run units, and just about anything you can think of is actually run by volunteers who have to pay for everything they do in the BSA program. Fact # 2: In 2018, 60% of the budget went to pay for salaries. Councils tells parents and donors 85-90% of their budgets go towards their youth programs, but it is simply lies they tell people. In 2018, this council spent $3.15M on salaries and benefits for its 40+ core corporate employees at its headquarters in Omaha, and only spent $161,000 on the salaries of its 170+ summer-camp employees, which handles the entire youth summer program at their summer camps. It listed 218 employees on its Form 990, which means the salaries of about 48 staff members consumed nearly 58% of the $5.3M in revenue brought in by the council. How does that benefit "the kids"? Again, looking at the numbers, only about 9.6% of the budget is spent on camping activities, the rest is spent on fundraising and generating money from donors. Fact # 3: The “Big Lie” they tell donors and parents during their "Investment in Character Campaigns" (ICC) or other Friends of Scouting fundraisers, is that the money goes to pay for “the program”. When talking to BSA, they always use ambiguous terms like "program" or "youth activities" so they can illustrate something grand they are delivering to youth. This is a lie. Scouts pay for everything. They pay for national membership fees, event fees, training fees, camping fees, and unit fees before they even get into the costs of buying uniforms, camping gear, and other items needed to participate in scouting. When scouts sell popcorn, they get a small commission, but it generally only covers national and council fees/events; it does not cover the costs of where 90% scouting actually happens, which is at the troop or pack level with volunteers and parents (that is the real “program”). BSA national and councils constantly say they exist "for the kids", but the kids (and their families) pay fees for everything councils and districts have on their programs. All of these costs are compounded by the fact that volunteers do 99% of the work at the district events, and a good majority of the council events (and volunteers have to pay BSA to attend these events). So where do all these fees go? What are they paying for? Councils are simply professional fundraisers who exploit youth under the guise of the "scouting" name. These professional beggars at the council and the districts use the good name of scouting and the hard work of volunteers to solicit donations from high-end donors who don't realize those funds do not directly benefit the youth - in fact, they do not benefit the youth at all. Councils could reduce their staff to zero and most unit leaders would barely even notice - that's how much councils "do for scouts". Fact # 4: Of the approximate $5.3M in revenue generated by this council in 2018, its council executive was paid almost $227K between salary and other compensation. This is ridiculous if you think about it. 7.2% of the $3.15M salary budget goes to one person. That's disgusting to think about. His salary is about four (4) times the average median household income for Nebraska families, yet he is perfectly fine with asking scout families to pay more than they are already paying to participate in scouting. These are lower income families, a majority of which are in rural areas, and he is perfectly fine with forcing them to pay more money so he can maintain his high salary and that of his professional fundraising-staff. That is just disgusting to think about. There are four (4) regions consisting of 272 councils. If we add up all those high-end salaries, to include the insanely high corporate salaries at national - like the $1.5M a year salary for BSA's CEO, it would most likely account for half the revenue brought in by scouting (maybe more, you can never get a straight answer from corporate scouters). That is sickening to think about. They use little kids to sell their product (popcorn) and use hundreds of thousands of volunteers (maybe more) to do 99% of the work, so why do they need to pay themselves so much money? It seems like a self-licking ice cream cone that only exists for the sake of generating revenue for paid scouters to fund-raise to benefit themselves. Some of these low-income families can barely afford the annual registration fees, and often the units (troops and packs) are stuck trying to figure out how to get gear for the kids/families that can’t afford proper gear for camping. This about how backwards that is. These professional beggars pay themselves ridiculous salaries, tell donors their mission “is for the kids”, but (after paying thousands and thousands of dollars to register with BSA)… the troops and packs have to figure out how to get money so little kids can go camping. Fact # 5: In 2019, National raised its membership fee from $33 to $60 per year (in 2020, that membership fee went to $126, which includes a new “council program fee”); they essentially doubled their fees to pay for an increase in insurance costs and lawsuits (the latter is true regardless of the lies they tell everyone). Some councils, like Mid-America Councils, are hiding the fact that 60% of the revenue generated by (or for) "the kids" is paid to staff members to go out and solicit more money so they can keep paying themselves more-and-more money. It's a scam that exploits kids. Fact # 6: A lot of council camps are in complete shambles because the councils spend little money on upkeep - let alone improvements. They charge hundreds-and-hundreds of dollars to scouts and leaders to attend summer camp, but then they claim they lose money on camps. This is yet another lie they tell parents and donors. If you look at the 2020 budget, you will see they generate positive net income from their summer programs, so why do they say they lose money on camps? It's because they constantly tell donors they need money for "upkeep or improvements", but use very little of the ICC/FoS money to actually make improvements or repairs, and they use that money to expand their staff and get another professional beggar out on the street to pull on the heart-strings of people to “give more money for the kids”. THE CHAPTER 11 FARCE This Chapter 11 tactic needs to be exposed for the farce and a sham it is. Every council around the nation operates like the council I've identified above. Furthermore, they are briefing parents and volunteers that national BSA is going through Chapter 11 to limit exposure to "independently operated councils, which is another lie. National has a fleet of lawyers and can slow-role this as councils, which fall under the absolute control of BSA, shuffle around their assets and insulate themselves from the fallout. These councils have already turned over their insurance policies to National BSA, and have used funds from their fortune-size endowments (usually in the tens-of-millions of dollars) to put towards BSA's bankruptcy and lawsuits. They are setup as "independent" on paper, but they are not independent by any stretch of the word. As far as claims of "financial destitution", National BSA hosted the 2019 World Jamboree at Summit Bechtel Reserve in West Virginia. 50-60 thousand people were there from around the world, and each paid, on average, 4-5 thousand to be there. It probably made $120,000,000 just in fees off that one event. It can claim the money was spent on the program, but that is a lie. 95% of the work was done by volunteers, who had to pay thousands of dollars to attend and work there. I don't know anywhere in the world where workers are forced to pay to be able to work. Again, BSA is exploiting the good name of scouting to make hundreds of millions of dollars. These were just attendance fees. There were other fees scouts had to pay just to participate in certain activities at this Jamboree, and then there was merchandise sales. I am not an accountant, but their 2019 financial statement does not seem to add up based on this one event alone. It is most likely because they create subsiderary companies/corporations for events like this, which look like seperate companies on paper (just like the councils), but I am sure if you pierced the corporate veil, it would show how everything actually operates under the corporate umbrella of BSA. Moreover, you can also see how it was posturing for this chapter 11. It made a fortune off the world jamboree at Bechtel, yet it took out a mortgage on Philmont in New Mexico to make "much needed improvements"? https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2019/11/22/boy-scouts-mortgage-new-mexico-philmont-scout-ranch/40689885/ This too is a lie. To put this into perspective... Philmont is like "Camelot" in terms of name recognition for BSA scouts. It is the "holiest of holiest" places. Even scouts from around the world attend. There is a lot of anger and animosity because corporate mortgaged Philmont without getting approval from its board. A move that infuriated board members because they say it goes against the stipulations of the donation of the land from the original owners. BSA did this without telling anyone because now it is mortgaged... meaning, until that note is paid... it is owned by a bank, so it is safe from any asset seizure. Of course, they can also argue now that Bechtel is "in shambles" and not worth very much money, thus reducing their net worth. THE BSA PONZI SCHEME As I said, BSA needs to be exposed. So much of the public unconditionally supports scouts, but that is because they do not understand just how evil the corporate side really is. BSA does not care about the kids... it exploits them. BSA has kids, especially the very young Cub Scouts, pander popcorn and camp cards on the streets, but very little of that money goes back to the camps or programs. Again, there are 272 councils around the country who are "independent" but they all operate in the same capacity. They also have to pay 80-100 thousand dollars a year to national for charter fees, this is in addition to the $60 each scout has to pay. If we do simple math, each council pays $100K to national, which is $27M a year national collects in council recharter fees alone. Next, if there are 2 million scouts, and each paid $60... that is $120M just in "membership fees". So, on average, it collects roughly $150M a year just on fees. It then charges scouts thousands upon thousands of dollars to use its four properties (Philmont, Bechtel, Sea Base, and Northern Tier). Councils operate the same way. They charge scouts membership fees, in addition to the national fees, but all that gets scouts is just the ability to say they are scouts. They still have to pay tons of fees for any event they attend (summer camps, Jubilees, Jamborees, day camps, camporees, etc.) Moreover, if a unit wants to use a council camp for a weekend campout, councils will charge that unit an atronomical rate. As an example, Mid-America council will charge units $1500-$2000 a weekend to use camps that are poorly maintained and in shambles. This scam works because of Charter Organizations (churches, Legions, VFWs, and other sponsoring organizations). They charter a unit, a troop or a pack, and then they get parents to volunteer to be leaders. Those volunteers then have to pay council-level and national fees to complete mandatory training. Again, their lies are absolutely sickeing. Volunteers have to pay for their mandatory in-person training, and other volunteers (seasoned scout leaders) coordinate and teach 99.9% of those trainings, which they have to pay to teach. It is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. Councils and national BSA make money off the training that volunteers perform. These charter organizations truly want to have youth programs that benefit the kids, but they simply are not aware of just how much scouts have to pay to councils and national. Councils are made up of districts whole focus, outside of fundraising, is getting new charter organizations to sponsor a scout pack or troop. Why? Because that increases membership, which is more fees they can collect. The problem is that councils and districts set up these units, collect fees, but then do not care how run-ragged the volunteers get from selling popcorn and other "products". It drives volunteers to the brink of nervous breakdowns. But councils do not care. If a unit folds, they have more in the pipeline ready to be chartered by an organization. The last part of the Ponzi scheme includes the donors and deluge of fundraisers, which generates vast amounts of wealth for BSA because they use the allure of nostolgic "Americana" to market their organization to ususpecting people and corporations with deep pockets. It is sickening how they do things and how they use volunteers and kids to make money for themselves. This is how so many pedophiles were able to operate with impunity in BSA for all of those years. BSA only cares about the revenue stream for its executives. THE SLIEGHT-OF-HAND PARADIGM OF "INDEPENDENT" COUNCILS Councils are structured like independent "franchises" under BSA National, but they do not get to operation autonomously. They have to follow every policy and procedure national tells them to do. Also, recently, all councils have been required to sign over their insurance policies to BSA National, which shows just how "independent" they really aren't. They were also forced to take money from their endownments to help pay for the bankruptcy and lawsuits. Councils are staffed by a president/CEO and other paid professionals. These professionals run the store where scouts have to buy their uniforms, merit badges, patches, and everything else. Scouts do not get anything for free. These professionals are given titles like "camping program director" or whatever title needs to be made up. They all handle the "business side" of the franchises. But, here is how National BSA and councils run their scams. Councils are broken up into districts, and those districts are run by a paid professional called a District Executive whose sole purpose is to set up new units, increase membership, fundraise, and seek out donations from deep-pocketed donors "to help the kids". These districts have two volunteers in charge: the District Commissioner and the District Chair; they are responsible for all of the units (Packs and Troops) within their districts. Again, 99.999% of all scouting happens at the Unit level by volunteers (remember, all volunteers have to pay to register with National BSA and their councils, they have to pay to become trained, they have to pay to attend council/district events, and they have to pay for everything at the unit level - scouts get nothing for free). At times, these volunteers pay out of pocket so low-income kids can participate in the scouting program (whether that is to pay for event fees or buy equipment their families can’t afford). Those volunteers arrange meetings and activities for the scouts, and they have to pay their councils 30% of any fundraising they do to pay for the right to use the "BSA Logo"; if a unit conducts a fundraiser without paying this "use fee", councils have their legal teams go after that unit. In addition, councils have units sell popcorn and camp cards to raise money to pay for activities at the district and council level (camporees, jubilees, day camps, summer camps, etc.) But, units generally get 30% of the "profits" councils make on popcorn and camp card sales. As an example, if a scout sells $1000 in popcorn, $750 most likely goes to pay Trails End for the popcorn and advertising, $175 goes to the Council and $75 goes to the "unit account" at council, which can only be used to pay for council and district programs, activities, and events. They cannot use it to buy things like tents, sleeping bags, unit campouts, or anything else the unit may do. It’s like the “company stores” that used to make their employees rent tools, pay for housing, and other fees to be able to “work at the company” and then most of the workers ended up in debt to the “company” and working for free. I’m glad this was outlawed years ago, but it is rampant in organizations like the BSA. Next, there is the annual re-charter, which costs about $126 per scout/adult scouter. $66 goes to national and $60 goes to the councils. There are other fees and different levels, but that is the majority of what most scouts have to pay (adults are about half). A unit with 50 scouts and 25 adult volunteers would pay about $7900 per year to re-charter. This fee, which is carved up by the councils and National BSA, only covers annual fees just to be in the scouting program. Nothing actually goes to the scouts or benefits them in any way. After that enormous fee, scouts and volunteers have to figure out how to raise money to actually pay for the scouts to do things and to purchase rank badges, books, patches, and other items required by National BSA, as well as pay for things like council summer camps/day camps and district activities/camps (remember, councils also get 30% of these fundraising events as well). Generally, this forces units to charge scouts annual/monthly dues, charge scouts for monthly campouts, charge scouts for unit activities, and charge scouts for pretty much anything they do. Of course, this is in addition to what scouts have to pay when they attend a council/district camp or activity. To put this into perspective, here is an average cost for a scouting year (per scout). $126 (annual membership) $200-$300 (annual troop dues to pay for patches, rank items, and other BSA mandated items) $240-$300 per year for unit campouts $350-$450 per year to attend a Council Summer camp (varies by Council) $2500-$3500 per BSA High Adventure (Philmont, Sea Base, Bechtel, Norther Tier) *this is just the cost for admission and doesn't cover travel costs to get there, activities at those events, or extra "add-ons". $250 per year for misc. things like Order of the Arrow, NBZ, Mic-O-Say, and other BSA sanctioned events. Needless to say, scouting can get expensive. But, after all those fees are paid... districts and councils runs an annual Investment in Character Campaigns (ICC) and/or "Friends of Scouting" wherein their paid professionals go to unit meetings and solicit more donations from families - the money goes directly to councils. They lie to families and tell them it pays for "the scouting program", but it doesn't. When scouts want to go to summer camp, high adventure, or anything... they have to pay for it. As a farce, councils lie and tell people the popcorn and camp cards pay for summer camps and such, but scouts have to sell an enormous amount of popcorn to get a small percent that goes towards these ridiculous and constant fees. Councils lie and say these ICC donations pay for the scouting program, but, in reality, it goes into their general operating funds to pay for the salaries of the people that work for each council (most of which engage in fundraising). Additionally, councils will run "Friends of Scouting" fundraisers (some call it different names) which are fundraiser dinners and luncheons wherein deep-pocket donors pay to attend the event. At those events, councils will shamelessly get scouts in uniform to talk about their "great experiences" to get these donors to give large sums of money. Again, this money does not go to pay for anything for scouts... it goes into the council's general operating account. Scouts still have to pay all of their fees for membership and activities. Next, councils have large camps and large endowment funds. As an example, a council may have a camp worth millions of dollars and they may have endowment funds worth tens of millions of dollars. But, scouts have to pay fees every time they step foot on any council camp. Councils lie and say those fees go to pay for upkeep, utilities, and other things, but a lot of camps are in shambles because the councils never put money into them. If we look at a typical summer camp, the average fee is $350-$400 per scout to attend a 5-day camp (this does not cover any travel costs to get to that camp). The camps are staffed with seasonal camp staff that get paid ridiculously low salaries, and some of the younger staff that are scouts do not get paid at all (these are Counselors in Training). Most of the time, these staff members are even required to purchase their own supplies and equipment to run their programs. In really bad camps, the medics have to purchase their own first aid and medical supplies. In summation, councils charge incredible fees to scouts, but put very little back into the programs. A lot of the money councils generate is to pay to hire new "scout professionals" whose sole focus is to fundraise and solicit donations. On the books, the councils can claim loses while their bank accounts steadily increase. The last aspect of the sham is how scouts are able to meet. A scouting unit has to have a Charter Organization (i.e. American Legions, VFWs, churches, schools, rotaries, auxiliaries, PTAs, etc). Those organizations have to provide scouts a place to meet, but nothing more. Scout units are responsible to pay their re-charter fees, pay for their programs, buy equipment, and everything else. And, at the end of the day, all money raised by the unit or equipment they purchase, belongs to the Charter Organization - not the units themselves. This is how councils limit their liability and increase their profits. Scouts are literally charged fees left and right for everything they do, and councils rake in incredible donations under the guise of "it's for the kids", but Charter Organization bear all the responsibility of providing places for the scouts to meet. BSA is engaging in the most elaborate and legally intricate Ponzi Scheme ever created. They've created a franchise-style legal structure to limit their liability while being able to dupe donors into giving incredibly large donations so they can hire more people to fundraise to pay for their high executive salaries. It is absolutely sickening and needs to stop. BSA is exploiting kids. On paper, BSA can legally claim councils are separate entities, but they aren't. It's like the McDonald's Corporation. While there may be "independent franchisees", McDonald's owns the land they sit on and everything from burgers to napkins has to be purchased from the McDonald's Corporation. If a franchisee doesn't do what McDonald's tells them to do, McDonald's vacates them from the land and gets another franchisee in there. It's the same way for BSA and the councils under their umbrella. They have to do everything BSA National tells them to do or the lose their council charter and BSA will put a new council in its place. It's such a fraud. It's like companies that hire people as 1099 contractors to avoid paying taxes on a W2 employee. While it may not be illegal, it is a slimy practice. CLOSING Baden Powell, the founder of world scouting, had a vision, and that vision is shared with 50,000,000 scouts around the world. BSA is not scouting. It offers nothing to scouts other than a financial burden to pay one fee after another; this has nothing to do with scouting. Real scouting takes place in the troops and the packs (at the unit level). This is where parents coordinate campouts, community activities, and 99% of what scouts actually do. These leaders are just parents that get raked over the coals like everyone else, so they have to look for ways to do scouting adventures for as cheap as they can because they know families are burdened with paying so many fees up to councils and national. This is why scouting membership is declining so rapidly. It had nothing to do with policies or letting girls in. Girls have been in scouting for 40+ years (venturing and explorers). The decline is due to the fact that every time scouts turn around they are being metaphorically raped by council and national fees. Every time they turn around they are being asked to sell popcorn and camp cards, or donate money to ICC and "friends of scouting" campaigns, pay for camps, pay for events, pay for uniforms, pay for training, and pay for everything they do in BSA. The Boy Scouts of America National Headquarters and local councils have all reached a point that their existence and primary functions have the sole function of self-preservation and self-expansion - meaning, they only contribute a small percentage of their money to youth programs, but that is so they can have information to print on fundraiser data sheets for donors. Their mission is to make money so they can continue to solicit money from donors and sell their product (kids selling popcorn like street urchins in old England). In the end, BSA told me to come forward and report what happened to me when I was a kid. I did, but now it feels like they are simply using all of us that came forward to make the case of “rampant fraudulent claims” so they can side-step these lawsuits and get back to making money off the youth they exploit. Instead of granting BSA the ability to "get back to business as usual", councils need to be compelled to audits by third-party organization to show just how much money they are making versus how little they are spending on the scouts and "the program". I am not an accountant or financial analyst of any kind, but… from what I can see, this should make everyone sick from what they are doing. If councils are compelled to “open up their books” and really show where all of the money goes, it would make everyone scout family and donor leave BSA. Before that summer camp that the abuse happened, scouting shaped my outlook on life, which is why I felt so ashamed (for the longest time) to call myself a scout when the allegations started coming out. I didn’t want the stigma of being labeled or judged. Admittedly, I got back into scouting to give a great experience to my own kids because my experience was stolen from me by a sick and twisted camp director. But, the more I found out about “new BSA scouting”, the more-and-more I see it for the vulture organization it is. This always comes down to money for BSA, as evidenced by their legal statement in court “gambling with the fortunes of abuse survivors”, when they know for a fact that they have accumulated over a billion dollars’ worth of assets off the backs of little kids the adult volunteers that make scouting possible. Without a doubt, there were predators in scouting, and BSA shieled that information from law enforcement and the public because it threatened the reputation they were using to build an empire and amass their own fortune. Scouting (across the world) is a great idea if organizations like BSA weren’t always looking for a way to make financial gains by using youth to pull on the heart-strings of would-be donors and benefactors. BSA needs to go away – we need a new “scouting program” in the United States. One that isn’t built off of lies, deceitful practices of exploitating of children, and hiding sick pedophiles in its ranks. I am still in scouts today to protect youth from vultures like BSA and their subsidiaries (“councils”). I have been terrified to come forward because if BSA and its lawyers found out my name, they would come directly after me (a victim of childhood abuse in scouting) because I am threatening their empire of deceit and child abuse. Like my time in the military trained me to do... I followed the money trail and it led me down a path to discover a vast fortune of legal intricacies to protect an empire that preys on children. Ma'am, with all that is good and holy in this world, I urger you to not give BSA a pass and hold them responsible for the evil, corrupt organization they are. Follow the money trail; conduct a true audit of BSA, all of its councils, and all of its other subsidiary organizations. BSA does not represent the values of scouting. I was asked to share "how I felt" about BSA, and, without any equivocation, it is my hope they are forced into dissolution. It is my hope that you have the fortitude to end this morally-bankrupt organization so we, the abused childhood-victims, can start to make a better future that doesn't include BSA. I will absolutely stand behind this affidavit in court if asked to do so. I pray this letter helps sway your decision in the favor of the abused-victims, and not so that BSA can maintain its Ponzi Scheme organization that has amassed a vast fortune over a century by covering for the evil pedophiles in its ranks. Very respectfully, - All 95,000+ Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse in the Boys Scouts of America

CynicalScouter - the letter and Chubb's responses are on the internet. Here is the full document. 60e0abcc-d3d9-438d-bc90-a89987fe94b3_5057.pdf

Welcome to the forum. I can confirm from the survivors side that your intel is correct. Then NJ, NC and CA. Good to hear the LC’s are tuning in to reality. They have no good options.

He laid this out on his twitter feed with links to documents and news stories. It is worth checking out.

Thanks. This puts enormous pressure on Chubb. It can fight but I think the survivors' case against Chubb is strong. Chubb will eventually lose on the facts and the law if it fights. If she orders Chubb to produce the documents (and she must), it is game over for Chubb/Century. The documents it is refusing to produce will probably show that the PA Insurance Commissioner conditioned the INA/Century restructuring as mandating notice to its policyholder (BSA), that INA/Century is still on the hook (INA is still an active insurance company albeit a subsidiary of Chubb). Tis means all roads lead to Chubb. This is a very positive development. You can pay me now or you can pay me a LOT more later is the way I see it.

This is what I discussed in my earlier post about the INA-Century-Chubb restructuring. This is a very BIG deal. I distilled it but I got it mostly right. This letter contains some remarkable new information. One, Chubb is posturing to reneg on its INA Century obligations. If it did that it would devastate its rating and reputation. Two, under the restructuring policyholders approval was required but apparently never obtained from BSA Third, BSA or it’s assignees of the rights to the insurance policies (a post confirmation litigation trustee can sue Chubb) under the PA Ins Commissioner’s order approving the restructuring Hats off to Kosnoff for pointing the way months ago

Kosnoff is mistaken. Chubb Fire and Security is not connected to Chubb. Same name, different lineage.

Representative Speier has expressed interest in using her perch as a senior member of the House Oversight Committee to investigate BSA. See her Open letter to colleagues attached. I don't hold much faith in politicians but at least she is making the right sounds. SIGN ON_ Speier Letter to Boy Scouts of America re Reports of Child Sexual Abuse – DearColleague.us.pdf

I have a difficult time seeing how further mediation at this moment can possibly yield a deal or even meaningful progress. Stang was right to oppose it. Just one example of BSA's countless missteps was the Hartford $650M deal. The BSA lawyers did not diligence the fact that Century did not have even a third of the $$ needed to prevent the clawback of 50% by Hartford. It was a sham deal and Hartford is laughing all the way back to the board room. It was such a colossal blunder, it ranks high in the list. And the mediators facilitated it according to the WSJ article. BSA desperately wants to control the bankruptcy and keep its plan alive but the Hartford deal cannot be undone by BSA. BSA is bound. Yet no plan will ever garner sufficient votes if it contains the Hartford buy-back deal. As they say, "it seemed like a good idea at the time." The only way forward is to end exclusivity and see what the Coalition/TCC/FCR plan brings to the floor.

Forwarded to me from a lawyer friend in the know. From: James Stang <jstang@pszjlaw.com> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2021 9:06 AM Subject: BSA continuance Colleagues, At the mediators’ request, and over the objection of the TCC, the Court has continued the hearing scheduled for this Monday to June 4 at 10 a.m. EST. During last Wednesday’s hearing, the Court urged the parties to continue settlement discussions. The TCC always intended to do so, and in fact continues to negotiate with the Coalition in an effort to find common ground for a joint plan. The mediators, without any prior discussion with the TCC, contacted the Court by email stating that they thought continued mediation would be beneficial and sought a continuance of the Monday hearing. The TCC promptly wrote to the Court objecting to the continuance and observed that the hearing last Wednesday served to inform the parties and narrow the issues. The TCC apparently was the only party who objected to the continuance. The mediations are tentatively scheduled for two days next week and two days the week of May 31. The TCC appreciates all of your efforts and, within the limitations of the mediation privilege, will keep you advised of the status of the case.

Century Indemnity is a Pennsylvania corporation and regulated by the PA insurance commissioner. Century Indemnity has 300 employees across all locations, meaning not that many jobs in PA. Century is a subsidiary of Chubb LTD, which is a Swiss corporation. Chubb reincorporated itself in Switzerland from NY state in 2015. Its principal headquarters are in NYC not PA. When I first examined this fact, I thought that it did so because Switzerland has a corporate tax rate of 8% as compared with a combined US and NY corporate tax rate of 32% (probably a little less that that after the tax reform act of 2017). This gives Chubb a big advantage over US-based competitors like Hartford, Berkshire Hathaway etc. Now I am thinking the decision to reincorporate in Switzerland was not just about lowering taxes. It may have been done to get a more advantageous jurisdiction to one day file its own Ch. 11 bankruptcy, which by 2015 was clearly on the radar screen of all the big insurance companies that issued these "no-cap" policies decades earlier. And Chubb was sitting on the biggest pile of these toxic policies. Kosnoff has tweeted about this. Evan Greenberg, Chubb's CEO and Chairman, said in Chubb's annual report last December that Chubb had been lobbying against window legislation around the country "for years." It would be interesting to see how much Chubb spent on lobbyists tasked with screwing survivors. Chubb is probably still spending millions on the losing effort. BSA also spent millions on lobbyists in an effort to defeat window legislation in NY, NJ, CA, GA, etc. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/boy-scouts-lobby-in-states-to-stem-the-flow-of-child-abuse-lawsuits/2018/05/08/0eee0a44-47d8-11e8-827e-190efaf1f1ee_story.html I agree that the PA Insurance Commissioner's Office should investigate. It should investigate how it approved the 1996 INA-CIGNA creation of the grossly underfunded "run-off" company Century Indemnity. It should turn over all the documents related to the ACE/Chubb acquisition of Century in 1999. That may turn out to be one of the greatest corporate blunders in history. Did the PA Ins Comm approve the deal because it trusted that Chubb would stand behind Century? What does it say now about Century/Chubb? Evan Greenberg took over at ACE around 2001. For the next decade, he tried ridding Chubb of Century. He tried peddling Century to some foreign insurance companies. Around 2009 he had a fish on the line, a British insurer who was willing to take Century off Chubb's hands. Interestingly, a bunch of brand name US insurance companies objected and successfully blocked approval of the sale by the PA Ins Comm. The details of that story are murky but it appears that these companies had "treaty" exposure or possibly reinsurance exposure for those polices and didn't want Greenberg and Chubb to slither out from under the 1999 Century acquisition blunder.

It is highly unlikely Kosnoff would be supporting any deal and is furious that she is continuing to drag the case out by not issuing rulings. He said so quite colorfully last night on Twitter "I Can't Go for That"

With respect to the the TCC $103B claim value estimate, it is probably conservative but it is also academic. The BSA's most valuable asset is the insurance. Some councils participated in its insurance program a year or a few prior to 1984 when the national BSA insurance program became mandatory for all councils. Some of the pre-1984 policies named the local councils, troops and camps as "additional insureds." Before the national insurance program was established LC's maintained their own separate insurance. Much less is known about those policies because the LC's have been unwilling or unable to produce them. Lost policies problems can be overcome. The problem is that it is difficult to negotiate when one doesn't know the extent of insurance coverage. The same is true with respect to the SO's especially the larger ones like the Catholic Dioceses, Mormon, Methodist etc. They maintained the same Commercial General Liability policies as BSA, and often with the same insurance companies. Again, the TCC has not been provided with most of these policies so the extent of coverage with respect to those entities is unknown, but it is substantial. I say substantial because of several critical problems for the insurers who sold these policies. First, prior to ~1984, the underwriters of these companies did not envision a claims avalanche such as the child sexual abuse phenomenon that has taken place over the past fifteen years. Second, They did not foresee that legislatures would pass retroactive window legislation years later that would revive "dead" claims and policies. Third, they never understood the nature of pedophilia and child molesters nor understood that a pedophile has over a hundred victims in a lifetime of offending. They knew or should have known from their claims experience especially with the BSA that it could be a big problem. But they went ahead and collected millions of dollars in premiums from these institutions and issued the policies. Fourth, until the late 1980's they issued polices for bodily injury that did not have "aggregate caps." The policies had maximums of $250/500k per abuse occurrence but there was no cap on the number or amount of claims it would face per policy year. If they had five claims per policy year then their maximum exposure would be 5 x 500 = $2,500,000. This was standard in the industry. No annual aggregate cap policies like these extend back in time to at least the 1950's. None of them thought these legacy policies would later emerge on their balance sheets as massive liabilities decades later. Century and its predecessor companies like Insurance Company of America (INA), later acquired by ACE and then ACE when it merged and became Chubb understood the problem by the mid-nineties. INA and CIGNA which were responsible dumped these toxic polices in to a "run-off" company it named Century Indemnity. It grossly underfunded Century, putting only 1.2B in to it. (A "run-off" insurance company is one that does not sell insurance. It exists to handle claims from historical legacy policies like the ones discussed above.) Century has less than $400M left of that initial capitalization, not nearly enough to cover the BSA claims alone not to mention all the other institutions that purchased policies from INA et al. The mystery behind the creation of Century as a "toxic waste dump" of massive liabilities that was grossly underfunded is the reason the Coalition has subpoenaed documents from Chubb regarding this transaction last week. Why Chubb? Because Chubb (f/k/a ACE Insurance) purchased Century Indemnity in 1999 for ~$3.5B. The Coalition/TCC/FCR will correctly argue that Chubb is responsible for the toxic polices in its subsidiary Century Indemnity. Chubb will fight to the death because the liabilities of Century Indemnity are Chubb's liabilities and those liabilities are, as asserted by the TCC, $103B conservatively. Chubb is welcome to fight to the death post-confirmation with the Trustee of the post-confirmation trust. The BSA will be out of bankruptcy and the fight over insurance will go on. There are insurance coverage lawyers that are superstars that the trustee will hire. Chubb has some serious problems here. First, It is the largest (most prestigious) publicly held property casualty insurance company in the world. It has the highest rating (A++) that A.M Best, the Moody's of the insurance industry, gives in recognition of Chubb's balance sheet, book of business and management. A.M. Best is apparently unaware that Chubb's balance sheet does not reflect the toxic liabilities of subsidiary Century Indemnity and Century is now, essentially, insolvent because of BSA claims. When ACE purchased Century in 1999, the transaction had to be approved by the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner. The Coalition is pursuing those emails, letters, memoranda, too. The PA Insurance Commissioner undoubtedly assumes that Chubb as the parent company of Century will stand behind it and won't it go into insurance insolvency. And it is not just the Insurance Commissioner that cares about this. So does the stock market. So do Chubb shareholders. And most importantly, so do existing and future Chubb policy holders. When you look at $101B in BSA exposure and realize that Chubb's total market capitalization as of today is $75B, you see the math problem for Chubb. If Chubb were to allow Century to go insolvent, it would devastate Chubb's A.M. Best rating. Who would be foolish enough to buy insurance from a company that reneges on its promises to policyholders? That is why Chubb is in a tough spot and why Tanc Schiovoni, the attorney for Century behaves like such a goon in this case. His job is to throw as many obstacles in the path of the bankruptcy case as he can. He attacks the survivors as frauds and their lawyers as filing fraudulent claims. He is not acting in good faith. He is Chubb's thug. Finally, on a brighter note, what we don't know but which the Coalition is pursuing, is the question of how much re-insurance there is in the case. Again, neither the Hartford nor Century have cooperated in giving this information. It could be substantial. These are some big players like Lloyds of London, Berkshire Hathaway, AXA Bermuda and a host of others who issue insurance policies to insurance companies enabling them to lay off risk. We also don't know if there are insurance company "treaties" involved here. Without getting in to the weeds, think NATO. When one comes under severe "attack" they have agreements among themselves to help out in case one of them gets hammered. These are things to think about when considering the TCC/Coalition/FCR plan when, hopefully, the judge allows them to file it.

As cryptic as the judge's comments and questions seemed, I think she will do the following (generally), because there is no alternative for her. She knows there is no support for the BSA plan A. The toggle plan means cram down and she knows she cannot cram down a plan over the objections of 95% of the victims, either politically or legally. A cram down has never been done in a sexual abuse bankruptcy and she won't do it here. First, Kosnoff's/Abused in Scouting's campaign to encourage its 17,000 clients to write to the court has been impactful even if the judge redacted portions of them. Only the mediation parties were allowed to see the Proof of Claim forms; the world got the opportunity to read the letters and the excruciatingly painful personal narratives. The TCC led its opening argument with the letters and what they mean. The letters were important to counter the judge's apparent debtor bias, e.g. "restoring the BSA and its mission is paramount" and "the BSA needs to put this behind them and get back to fundraising," etc. She's said nothing about whether the BSA can be made reasonably safe for children going forward. Experts have opined that the structure of scouting is inherently risky because it places scouts in vulnerable situations that no amount of scout protection training is going to change. 25% of the claims in the bankruptcy involved abuse after the BSA implemented its sexual abuse programs in the late 1980's. see ChildUSA Report on Scouts. The judge is going to end BSA exclusivity, probably on Monday. The plaintiffs will get their shot. Their plan will be filed within two weeks if not sooner. After it is filed, some of the councils and insurance carriers will engage in (more) realistic negotiations because she will order the BSA to turn over to the plaintiffs decades of its settlement claims files. These files will contain the evidence of claim value because they will show what the BSA and its carriers actually paid on similar claims and cases over the years. She said she would do it on a letter request meaning no motion is necessary. That was a big deal yesterday. Once plaintiffs have that data, claims estimation would superfluous. She strongly hinted that claims estimation would be wasteful, expensive, unnecessary and that she didn't feel it fell within her job description. She implied a few other important things. The issue of insurance neutrality means the insurance companies are allowed to object to a plan and be heard at confirmation, but they don't have the power to block the plan. That apparently is the law and was the part of the discussion yesterday about the origins of insurance neutrality as an offshoot of "standing" law. I believe she will signal she is not going to approve the Hartford settlement. I thought the Coalition argument that the settlement sent a terrible signal to the other carriers that they were in control of the case and need not seriously negotiate. It also broke whatever good faith may have existed between the plaintiffs and the BSA and also the mediators who brokered it. Regarding the mediators I think she recognized from the various colloquies about how the mediation sessions were being run that the mediators are an impediment to progress. That's why she told the parties to start talking directly to each other. She basically fired the mediators is my take. The TCC/Coalition/FCR Plan will encompass settlements that are worked out in the next 60-90 days with participating LC's, SO's and insurance carriers. Those participating entities will get third party releases and will participate in the channelling injunction. Something critical from yesterday is that she was open to retaining continuing jurisdiction for some period of time post confirmation and would approve/modify the confirmation order to include those entities who settle with the post confirmation trust. For the holdouts like Century, Chubb and the other hard cases like the Mormons, they get thrown in to the post confirmation trust and they can slug it out there for the next how many years. That realization may bring some of them to the table now or not long after plan confirmation as they see the ship sailing away. They may also be incentivized to get realistic because it will get more expensive for them to hold out. As noted here, more states are passing windows. (Last week, it was Arkansas! Arkansas! ) The dominoes are falling. MI, IL, OH, FL, TX etc won't be far behind.) For those holdout LC's and SO's they will be facing tens of thousands of lawsuits and not only from claimants in the BSA bankruptcy. More victims will come forward and file lawsuits against those entities. It will cost them more, probably much more to settle later on assuming they don't get wiped out in their own bankruptcies. The judge won't do estimation. Everything unresolved will go in to the post-confirmation trust. Whatever funds go in to the trust at confirmation effective date, the net after set-aside reserves to fund the trust and its lawyers, will be distributed to the claimants under the Distribution Trust Protocol or whatever its called. That is where claims will be vetted for fraud, lack of evidence, etc. As the trust settles out with holdout insurance carriers, LC's and SO's more funds will be available for subsequent distributions. Or those claimants can pursue their lawsuits separately. The toggle plan was highly significant because it was a clear message to the LC's and SO's that the BSA intends to survive even if it means throwing them under the bus. I learned from this discussion board that the LC's and the SO's are not indispensable because BSA can adopt a different model that does not utilize the LC/SO system e.g. Girl Scouts. The LC's can survive under this approach but it won't be pain free. I'm unsure how much of their asset values that they would have to surrender to settle, 40-50%?, but it won't be pain free as they seem to have expected up to now. I would hope to see all the dead wood on the National Board and the local boards cleared away and new leadership installed.

I’m new here. The discussions are high level. I’ve read through everything posted. A couple of posts have stuck out. First, the toggle plan makes no logical sense. As noted by others, how does BSA go forward without the LCs and the COs? They will be buried in litigation and in their own Ch 11’s. Windows or not, there is no escape. For example, MI councils are beating their chests about the cases being defensible on SOL in MI. 1600 cases and there will be more under the toggle. How will they defend thousands of lawsuits any more than BSA could defend against 84,000? Second, how does BSA operate without the LCs and COs? Isn’t it like cutting off a pianist’s hands and then telling him to play anyway? What is BSA without its “boots on the ground”? Finally, why would anyone vote for the toggle for the privilege of putting BSA back in to business for no money? KOSNOFF has a point: Isn’t the BSA signing it’s own death warrant meaning liquidation is the inevitable logical conclusion?