Eagle1993 Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Just now, scoutldr said: I have always heard that our scout Reservation was donated to our Council in 1958, and the deed specifies that if it is ever no longer wanted/needed, the deed is to revert back to the family. That was my understanding, but if so, why did the BSA simply not provide the clear documentation of this to the TCC? Also, if that is the case, how could the BSA use it as collateral for a loan? If BSA defaults on the loan, the land would go back to the family and the bank would be left with nothing. I hope it's true, but it may be lore or not legally binding/documented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RememberSchiff Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 (edited) Wed 3/4/2021: The Torts Claimants Committee (TCC) has agreed to give the BSA more time to respond to a lawsuit challenging BSA's claims that several hundred millions dollars of its assets are unavailable for creditors. The TCC filed a complaint in January (filed 1/8/2021) challenging BSA’s assertion that two-thirds of its listed $1 billion in assets, more than $667 million, are “restricted assets” that are unavailable to compensate abuse victims or other creditors. Attorneys submitted a court filing Wednesday, the deadline for BSA to respond to the complaint, indicating that the committee has agreed to extend the response time until April 2. The judge signed the order that same day. More at sources: https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2021-03-04/boy-scouts-given-more-time-to-respond-to-lawsuit-over-assets https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/868466_1913.pdf Edited March 5, 2021 by RememberSchiff 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 (edited) 36 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said: Attorneys submitted a court filing Wednesday, the deadline for BSA to respond to the complaint, indicating that the committee has agreed to extend the response time until April 2. The judge signed the order that same day. Given the BSA's assertion that the properties/assets are restricted and the TCC's exasperation over not receiving timely documentation which fueled the need to file the lawsuit, I say the restrictions are legal fictions. They look legit, but back to my previous quip: they are a ride with a V12 badge on the side but a Volt e-engine. If these were ironclad and locked down, why wouldn't they have handed them over pronto? I could be 100% wrong, but if that were the case, this tap dancing pee-pee dance wouldn't have been necessary. The TCC has given them more time to figure out how they're gonna spin, sell and keep the Fred & Ginger show on the road... (One more encoded wink to the old guys.) Edited March 5, 2021 by ThenNow 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walk in the woods Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 48 minutes ago, scoutldr said: I have always heard that our scout Reservation was donated to our Council in 1958, and the deed specifies that if it is ever no longer wanted/needed, the deed is to revert back to the family. Not sure how true (or legal) that is Well, I can say it's at least possible. In the mid-70s, the church I used to attend built a new building and "donated" their old church building to the local historical society to operate as a museum and wedding/lecture venue. There was a reversion clause in the donation contract. In the early 2000s, the historical society decided to sell the old church because it needed maintenance and a nearby private school wanted the ground. The church invoked the reversion clause, took back ownership of the building/grounds, formed a new NFP corporation to manage the property, and put it back into operation for weddings and lectures and such. Now, how that would have played out in a bankruptcy court I can't say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RememberSchiff Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 (edited) 41 minutes ago, ThenNow said: Given the BSA's assertion that the properties/assets are restricted and the TCC's exasperation over not receiving timely documentation which fueled the need to file the lawsuit, I say the restrictions are legal fictions. (One more encoded wink to the old guys.) IMHO, the TCC's points on page 19 of Docket 1913 should be resolved before the "Revised Plan" hearing. Edited March 5, 2021 by RememberSchiff insert link 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 10 minutes ago, walk in the woods said: Now, how that would have played out in a bankruptcy court I can't say. Does anyone know if the entity or entities said to hold these restrictive interests/reversionary rights gave notice of appearance of counsel to assert those rights to prevent sale or encumbrance? If I gave some mack daddy property and wanted it back if x or y happened, or if z was no longer going to happen, I would've been asserting those rights from the jump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RememberSchiff Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 I know of one, The Waite and Genevieve Phillips Foundation https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/839320_1093.pdf 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 (edited) 5 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said: IMHO, the TCC's points on page 19 of docket 1913 should be resolved before the "Revised Plan" hearing. Docket page 19 or page 19 of the filing? Sorry. Just want to be sure. Oops. I looked. They're concurrent this time...my bad. Edited March 5, 2021 by ThenNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkMan Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said: I think that is one of the debates in the courts. To me, this is the #1 question on the table. How liable are our local councils? My understanding that if the court determines that LCs are separate and there is no negotiated settlement, lawsuits could start against COs and LCs. Then, the state court where those lawsuits are brought would determine liability on a case by case basis and results would follow state law. If these cases then drive LCs into bankruptcy court, that court would take over for each LC. I wouldn't be surprised that councils in certain states would end up in bankruptcy court if there is no settlement. I will be very interested to see how the court rules on LCs being legally separate entities. Is there a timetable for that decision? It very much strikes me that the LC are separate - though the BSA's need for brand control and uniformity makes it seem that they are not. We have our own budgets, build our own camps, control our own programming, drive our own membership. We just have to do it all according to BSA policies, have to hire BSA trained people, at the higher levels we have to hire people with BSA experience, and have to have our facilities accredited by the BSA. It almost strikes me that it would be a court decision on how independent individual franchises are in a franchise model. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RememberSchiff Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 1 minute ago, ThenNow said: Docket page 19 or page 19 of the filing? Sorry. Just want to be sure. Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 1913 Filed 01/08/21 Page 19 of 20 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said: My understanding that if the court determines that LCs are separate and there is no negotiated settlement, lawsuits could start against COs and LCs. Yes. UNLESS they pay into whatever Settlement Trust plan is set up as part of the bankrptucy, the LCs get sued so do the COS. BUT that only occurs in states that lifted or extended the statute of limitations. That is why so many LCs are fighting this (I think) is that they do not look at this as "there are 1,000 claims against my council". but as "there are 1,000 claims THAT ARE TIME BARRED against my council, so why should I pay a dime?" The answer (from a purely legal perspective) is if that state legislature ever decides to reopen the statute of limitations, that council is covered. I do not know all the inner-workings of my Council Key-3, but they have always spoken as if they plan to pay into the settlement I suspect for this very reason: you are "Buying" your LC's security from future lawsuits for sexual abuse pre-January 2020. That said, I can see LCs simply rolling the dice and taking their chances as well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThenNow Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 10 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said: IMHO, the TCC's points on page 19 of Docket 1913 should be resolved before the "Revised Plan" hearing. The resolution of those points pretty much holds the keys to the kingdom, me thinks. There's a lot of arguing, resolving and ruling represented on that one page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 52 minutes ago, ThenNow said: I could be 100% wrong, but if that were the case, this tap dancing pee-pee dance wouldn't have been necessary. It is the same (or similar) reason why I think LCs didn't turn over information: some of these "restricted" assets are "we just don't want to give it up". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 (edited) 13 minutes ago, ThenNow said: Does anyone know if the entity or entities said to hold these restrictive interests/reversionary rights gave notice of appearance of counsel to assert those rights to prevent sale or encumbrance? Philmont did, yes. I can recall seeing an appearance sheet and notice. Edited March 5, 2021 by CynicalScouter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CynicalScouter Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 (edited) 14 minutes ago, ParkMan said: I will be very interested to see how the court rules on LCs being legally separate entities. Is there a timetable for that decision? The timetable for any federal judicial decision is "when the judge or panel of judges is darn good and ready." Not one moment before. Not one moment after. Edited March 5, 2021 by CynicalScouter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts