CynicalScouter Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: Sooo ... over/under on completing bankruptcy by end of August? Last month I would have bet BSA out of bankruptcy by August, a shell of its former self in terms of assets. But this, where they literally put up (practically) nothing? This ends post-August in liquidation AND possibly some councils getting dragged down for the ride right after with their own Chapter 7s. EDIT: Why? Because a) I just cannot see getting 66% of the abuse victims class agreeing to this. and b) some LCs kicking and screaming they won't participate. Edited March 4, 2021 by CynicalScouter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said: I also wonder if the court will kick the can down the road: sure there may have been shady claims, but we'll leave it for the Fund Trustee to figure this mess out? 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." 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 BSA Statement ... didn't see it here yet, but there have been a lot of posts. https://scoutingwire.org/an-important-milestone-in-the-bsas-chapter-11-case/ 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RememberSchiff Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 4 minutes ago, ThenNow said: ...I guess they go behind Door #4 where Carol Merrill is standing. (A familiar reference for the other old guy.) Ouch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 Just now, Eagle1993 said: BSA Statement ... didn't see it here yet, but there have been a lot of posts. https://scoutingwire.org/an-important-milestone-in-the-bsas-chapter-11-case/ Well for those who wanted Mosby to speak, that's all he is going to say. For now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said: Ouch. I know. Truth hurts, right? I errantly left off the plural 's' on guy. We can't be the only ones... Edited March 4, 2021 by ThenNow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 4 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: https://scoutingwire.org/an-important-milestone-in-the-bsas-chapter-11-case/ 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." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidLeeLambert Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 40 minutes ago, swilliams said: 7 hours ago, ThenNow said: 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 haven't read through this entire thread. Has the motion in the link been ruled on? No. The attorneys spent the better part of 8 hours at the last omnibus hearing arguing that and another related motion (at $1000/hour for many of them, of course). Two of the experts were introduced and cross-examined. The judge gave no indication of if or when she would rule on them, and i haven't seen any ruling on them yet. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 (edited) 16 minutes ago, DavidLeeLambert said: (at $1000/hour for many of them, of course) 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.) Edited March 4, 2021 by ThenNow 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swilliams Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 16 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said: BSA Statement ... didn't see it here yet, but there have been a lot of posts. https://scoutingwire.org/an-important-milestone-in-the-bsas-chapter-11-case/ A national BSA contribution to the Trust that includes a significant portion of national BSA’s unrestricted, non-core assets that are not subject to liens of its secured lender. A loan from the National Boy Scouts of America Foundation to the BSA to provide the BSA with sufficient working capital following emergence from bankruptcy. A contribution of at least $300 million from local councils to the Trust. I'm not sure what I was expecting to see from that statement, but am left struggling for words. No wonder BSA has gotten such a negative reaction, and it isn't just because of the dollar amount. I can't write persuasively to save my life, so should probably keep my mouth shut, but this comes across as something slapped together by the same people who write the captions for those cheesy office posters about 'Teamwork!' or the like. As someone whose entire family is involved in scouts, the quoted part above makes me more than a little upset. I realize BSA wants to preserve assets so it can continue offering scouting, but (to use a phrase from my kids) Duuuude... National will contribute its "non-core assets", and will get a loan, but then will ask councils to give up their core assets? As much as my kids are (were?) looking forward to going to Philmont, they are much more concerned that our council's wilderness camp will no longer be an option. They're already devastated that it was closed last summer due to Covid. They love that mosquito-infested, bear-prowling, loon-calling, scout-cooking place. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, swilliams said: National will contribute its "non-core assets", and will get a loan, but then will ask councils to give up their core assets? Yeah, BSA's basic claim is that of the $667 million in "restricted assets" over half is Summit Becthel. Let's see how long that lasts. So you got to give up YOUR camp but the Summit is off limits. Quote More than half of the purportedly restricted assets, $345.4 million, consists of a note receivable from Arrow WV, a nonprofit entity that was formed by the BSA in 2009 and which owns the Summit Bechtel Reserve in West Virginia, home to the National Scout Jamboree. The BSA leases the Summit from Arrow WV and provides the services required for its operation. Other purportedly restricted assets include three “High Adventure” facilities valued at more than $63 million. They are the Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico, the Northern Tier in Minnesota and the Florida Sea Base. The tort claimants committee contends that there is no restriction that could be applied to the Arrow WV note, and that there are no specific deed restrictions or donor restrictions that preclude the sale of the High Adventure facilities and use of the proceeds to pay creditors. Edited March 4, 2021 by CynicalScouter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred8033 Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said: Yeah, BSA's basic claim is that of the $667 million in "restricted assets" over half is Summit Becthel. Let's see how long that lasts. So you got to give up YOUR camp but the Summit is off limits. Is the "restricted" referring to donor conditions tied to Summit Becthel ? Or BSA considered restricted as needed for continued operation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5thGenTexan Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 I don't know how things are other places so, this may be just applicable to my council. I am a bit concerned about our Camp Rangers when properties may be sold off. I think all of our rangers live on site in homes owned by the council. Not only will they lose their jobs, they will also lose their homes. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 Just now, fred8033 said: Is the "restricted" referring to donor conditions tied to Summit Becthel ? Or BSA considered restricted as needed for continued operation? Both. It is both core and it is restricted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle1993 Posted March 4, 2021 Share Posted March 4, 2021 1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said: Both. It is both core and it is restricted. I think the BSA made a huge tactical mistake taking a loan out on Philmont. The TCC is using that as evidence that it isn't restricted (as its being used as collateral). The judge will see BSA did this right before bankruptcy ... so it will appear they only did this to try and protect the asset. We talked about this at the time, but I bet that comes back to bite. The argument in this forum that once BSA opened that door, they gave up the best defense of donor restrictions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts