Chapter 11 announced

[CynicalScouter]

27 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Do you think other LCs will now follow suit with the CFL sale?

Yes and they already have. How much of the recent camp sales were a) because of COVID b) declining membership and c) anticipated payments or d) a mix.

Also, there's at least one Council that is selling their office in a mad dash to save having to sell their camp.

[elitts]

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I feel the same way. I don't see the sides coming to an agreement on a settlement fund number, which means BSA voluntarily liquidates OR faces sex abuse lawsuits for the next decade, effectively killing the program anyway.

I really think that if the BSA finds a number that truly gets creditors more than they get under liquidation and she can't see a way to strip more out without killing BSA, but the creditors still won't agree, she'll order the cram-down.  But in a situation like that, what I DO see happening is that while the re-vamped BSA is now free of liability, because there wasn't an agreement the LCs and COs will still be fair game and we can start this all over again, all over the country.

[CynicalScouter]

11 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Setting aside my vested personal interest, I don't get this at all from a pure deal making standpoint.

Then let me rephrase:

Given the Kosnoff "kill BSA, kill and liquidate" contingent can control over 33% of votes, that means either

1) a failed bankruptcy (BSA emerges with no reorg plan, dies from the ensuing lawsuit tsunami) or

2) a Chapter 7 liquidation or

3) a judge-ordered cramdown which as TCC said, there is NO chance of happening

Edited March 17, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

3 minutes ago, elitts said:

she'll order the cram-down.

If it hasn't happened in 18 similar sexual abuse bankruptcy cases, I doubt any judge will be sticking their neck into that chipper. Not with 83,000+ sexual abuse survivors standing in her courtroom.  

[Eagle1993]

8 minutes ago, elitts said:

For a single property or even a few?

Single.

CFL is essentially the property pictured below.  In Wisconsin, you cannot technically own lakes, but they own the property around the entire lake.  The claim is that it is the 2nd cleanest lake in Wisconsin.  I have no idea what the property will sell for ... my guess its outside my price range.

 

[CynicalScouter]

12 minutes ago, elitts said:

But in a situation like that, what I DO see happening is that while the re-vamped BSA is now free of liability, because there wasn't an agreement the LCs and COs will still be fair game and we can start this all over again, all over the country.

Depends if the cramdown includes LCs and COs. That is BSA's plan for the reorg/settlement fund.

But I disagree with the premise, namely, a bankruptcy judge ordering a cram-down on sexual abuse victims. I just cannot believe that would happen in a million years.

I know bankruptcy judges are "protected" from politics in the sense of their terms are 14 years, but I just cannot think of a judge over-ruling abuse victims.

Maybe, maybe, MAYBE if instead of 66% yes it was 65/64/63 I could see her saying "close enough". But even that's a huge maybe.

 

Edited March 17, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Given the Kosnoff "kill BSA, kill and liquidate" contingent can control over 33% of votes

From whence cometh this ciphering? Officially, the Coalition has 16,000 clients. I'm asking, not poking. I don't know the answer...

Edited March 17, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

From whence cometh this ciphering? 

Abused in Scouting and the Coalition control/represent 33% of more of the claimants.

[Eagle1993]

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I have no idea what the property will sell for

I will say, from my experience, Wisconsin scout property typically sells to logging companies.  They'll go through and remove most of the trees then possibly lease the land for farming.  Its pretty far from populations and the lake is very small ... so not a ton of value of water frontage in this case.

[ThenNow]

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Abused in Scouting and the Coalition control/represent 33% of more of the claimants.

And, the assumption is the TK brings all of them because Andrew Van Arsdale is a key member of AIS? I know he (TK) was a founder, but is he still the controlling voice?

Edited March 17, 2021 by ThenNow

[5thGenTexan]

37 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

To me, this makes a ton of sense.  I love private lake camps ... but if the balance is no camp or sharing a lake, I'd go for a shared lake.  Most of the time, scouts do not need the entire shoreline.  We need a waterfront to swim & and boat launch area.  I hope some councils consider this option as it could net a large portion of the camps value while still maintaining a local summer camp.

My Council has 4 camps, but the one most local to me seems like a good model.  It is a lease on Corps of Engineers property.  Only thing the Council owns is infrastructure on the property.  Seems if a deal could be made with the Fed Govt to use other such lands, the cost would be much less to the Councils.

[CynicalScouter]

10 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

And, the assumption is the TK brings all of them because Andrew Van Arsdale is a key member of AIS?

I think there's enough people to say "burn it to the ground" that getting to 66% is impossible.

 

[ThenNow]

16 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I think there's enough people to say "burn it to the ground" that getting to 66% is impossible.

As you have articulated multiple times, how does he propose to do that if BSA is unwilling? He seems to be speaking to some power in the judge's hand, which I understood isn't there. Just persist in refusing to approve revised Plans? 

[Eagle1993]

9 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

As you have articulated multiple times, how does he propose to do that if BSA is unwilling? He seems to be speaking to some power in the judge's hand, which I understood isn't there. Just persist in refusing to approve revised Plans? 

I would also add, that while technically they need 66% ... if the TCC supports the deal and 52% of the claimants, I could see the judge accepting the deal.  From the TCC townhall, they talked that no judge approve a deal over the objections of the sex abuse survivors.  They didn't necessarily the 66% approval.  

I bet when the TCC approves, they will get close to the 66% and the Judge will approve.  No deal will be done until the TCC approves, so just focus on that for now.

[CynicalScouter]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

As you have articulated multiple times, how does he propose to do that if BSA is unwilling?

Correct, BSA has to voluntarily go into Chapter 7. But he's made it clear he wants all 80,000 claims in state court (or as many as he can with statute of limitations) ASAP.

That's option #1 I listed here. A failed bankruptcy. BSA emerges with no reorg plan, dies from the ensuing lawsuit tsunami.

Think about it: if even 10% of the 80k are both valid and in states where the statute of limitations isn't an issue (or won't be soon with lookback windows) that is 8,000 cases over the course of the next 1-5 years with BSA as named defendant in all of them and Local Councils as well.

So let's take it one step further. Of the 8,000 cases, BSA and local councils are found liable in only 10%. That's still 800. Reports indicate that the average settlement amount for victims of clergy sex abuse is somewhere around $200,000 - $300,000 (see this says $268,466, this $200,000, etc.)

800*200,000 = $160 MILLION. That's an absurdly low and you can easily see that increasing by a factor of 10.

Kosnoff is going to get his liquidation either formally (Chapter 7) or with BSA under so many civil judgments it cannot operate.