Chapter 11 announced

[vol_scouter]

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Actually, it isn't, for two reasons.

1) As I noted, liquidation of a not for profit (like BSA national and the LCs) is legally impossible UNLESS the not for profit voluntarily does so.

2) Liquidation triggers the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Whose that you ask? It is a federal agency that insures all private pension in the U.S., just like the ones BSA National used to have.

PBGC has already filed a claim for at LEAST $1.2 Billion against BSA national (nearly the sum total of ALL BSA National assets which are around $1.4 Billion).

Upon liquidation, guess who jumps to the top of the creditor list? Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

What that means is that

1) Kosnoff cannot get his liquidation unless BSA falls on its sword and asks for it and..

2) The minute BSA did so, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation comes in and sweeps 90% of BSA's assets out the door. The abuse victims, the other creditors, JPMorgan Chase, EVERYONE else gets to fight for the $200 million (or less) in scraps at that point.

The LAST thing TCC wants is a liquidated BSA. They want the BSA Golden Goose to keep paying out settlement checks/golden eggs for years to come into that Settlement Fund.

Again, do NOT equate TCC = Kosnoff. They have two very, very different agendas.

It is clear that Kosnoff does not represent the TCC and vice versa.  It is true that the PBGC would have the first right to the proceeds of BSA liquidation.  So say it takes all of the BSA.  This opens up all of the local councils and chartered organizations that the TCC and Kosnoff both believe to be larger than the BSA.  The BSA has stated that they will be insolvent after this July and would be forced to convert to a Chapter 7 liquidation.  Since the TCC and Kosnoff believe that the assets of the local councils and chartered organizations, liquidation is the better course.  It seems to me that the BSA and local councils have little chance of survival.  The TCC is advocating proceeding with suing local councils and chartered organizations which shows intentions and makes its statements, at best, disingenuous.

[ThenNow]

21 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Again, do NOT equate TCC = Kosnoff. They have two very, very different agendas.

And to this I say, “Yea, verily, and pass the chipped beef!”

One of the greatest and most damaging “achievements” of the consortium attorneys - Coalition and AIS - is their success at creating the impression they are the voice of all claimants. The media has perpetuated and magnified the charade. (I directly called out reporters on it over the last month. Major publications.) Only the TCC has that role, even if the others forced their way into mediation. Yes, they control a bunch of votes, but they do not speak for me, the 9 men representing me or the overall sexual abuse survivor claimants.

In part, what you saw and heard at the recent TCC Town Hall was a full-throated reassertion of their role and unequivocal intention to exercise their authority to represent the survivors. I believe they made it crystal.

Edited March 14, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

6 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

This opens up all of the local councils and chartered organizations that the TCC and Kosnoff both believe to be larger than the BSA.  It seems to me that the BSA and local councils have little chance of survival. 

Right, but my point was specific to BSA. TCC does NOT want a liquidated BSA, but that's what we are heading towards. If TCC thinks it can maximize its claims for abuse victims by keeping BSA alive, it will do so. But that still takes 66% of abuse claimants agreeing to whatever plan BSA comes up with. And that's not going to happen, especially not after BSA's high handed, insulting $6000 offer and doing everything it can to protect Summit.

I think we agree this ends with BSA dead. I was just pointing out that it isn't a death TCC wants, but that is where we are heading since there is to my seeing NO chance of getting 66% of abuse claimants to agree to a plan.

Edited March 14, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

If TCC thinks it can maximize its claims for abuse victims by keeping BSA alive, it will do so.

As I have said, teeing up lawsuits against LC’s, CO’s and individuals is to force the players to the table at risk of losing all. It was clear by their conspicuous absence in the proposed Plan funding that those two groups had not yet taken this seriously. Again, “We are ready to launch. Are you coming in here to work on this or no? You pick. If not, you leave us no choice. It’s not our preferred path, but we will do it if need be.” Hand slap invites throw down, I suppose. 
 

For those who haven’t followed my posts, I’m simply stating the situation at hand, not spewing vitriol toward you, Scouting, Scouts or even the BSA. The messy game is afoot and it’s no use or benefit to decry, deny or look away.

Edited March 14, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

17 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

As I have said, teeing up lawsuits against LC’s, CO’s and individuals is to force the players to the table at risk of losing all. It was clear by their conspicuous absence in the proposed Plan funding that those two groups had not yet taken this seriously.

Right. But then again, the LCs have been out there screaming for the world to hear "Everything is fine. We won't owe anything. Local money stays local. Keeping sending in the FOS donations, there's no way those will go to the bankruptcy!"

My Council was clear: we are going to have to pay, the only question is how much. But I can think of at least 5 councils who in the last 10 days have VERY publicly announced they aren't going to have to pay a dime.

Just look at this from Black Swamp Area Council that got published in the local newspaper.

Quote

Charitable support of the Black Swamp Area Council stays local. All assets of the Black Swamp Area Council, including past and future charitable contributions, unit accounts, endowment funds, and properties, are independently held and protected. Dollars given locally in support of Scouting stay right here in the Black Swamp Area Council.

And let's take a look at the TCC report. Black Swamp has at least 69 claims.

They are going to have to pay. At this point it is either they are lying to themselves/delusional or they are lying to others to keep the FOS and other money rolling in.

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[5thGenTexan]

Is BSA really out of money in July as they said last year?  Or was that a lie, a bluff, or did they find money in the couch cushions?  They are indicating they hope to resolved things by this Fall now.  

It's all a little A LOT confusing.   

 

Quote

Ultimately, claimants will have the opportunity to vote on the Plan. The BSA is hopeful that it can come to a resolution that is in the best interest of survivors and all parties and emerge from Chapter 11 this fall.

https://www.bsarestructuring.org/event/bsa-takes-critical-step-toward-emergence-by-filing-an-amended-plan-of-reorganization/

Edited March 14, 2021 by 5thGenTexan

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Colorado looks poised to repeal the statute of limitations on civil suits involving sexual abuse.

The Colorado constitution currently prohibits new laws to impose retroactive liability. I don’t think they are proposing a window or a constitutional amendment. I’ve not read the legislation, though. Could be wrong.

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

The Colorado constitution currently prohibits new laws to impose retroactive liability. I don’t think they are proposing a window or a constitutional amendment. I’ve not read the legislation, though. Could be wrong.

Yep, I deleted my post.

[CynicalScouter]

2 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Is BSA really out of money in July as they said last year?  Or was that a lie, a bluff, or did they find money in the couch cushions?  They are indicating they hope to resolved things by this Fall now.  

It could be a bluff. It could be real. Here's the tricky part: it could be both.

Keep in mind: BSA is burning through cash for lawyers at an amazing clip. PLUS membership collapsed in 2020 down to 1.1 million. 40-48% of members are gone.

So some of this is BSA conjecture: they don't know how much money will/won't come in between now and the fall. They've got estimates I am sure. They also don't know how much money will/won't have to be spent on lawyers. They've got estimates I am sure.

So, if you assume a rate of cash coming in as X and cash going out (for operating expenses and the lawyers) as Y, BSA could be guessing at July. Or fall. Or whenever.

How much is guess and how much is bluff isn't clear.

[SilverPalm]

I had the privilege of going to both Northern Tier and Seabase as a Scout, but we never did Philmont.  Seabase in particular provided an experience like no other I had in Scouting, and it would be a shame (though perhaps a necessary evil) to lose the High Adventure sites.

Summit, on the other hand, I have no interest in.  It didn't exist when I was in the organization, and I suspect that many Scouters with even a recent Scouting pedigree would rather see it gone than to continue to watch National play this shell game.  

This is the Boy Scouts. Pretending you can't surrender the exorbitantly expensive and least popular High Adventure site to double your offer to the abuse victims doesn't seem particularly Trustworthy, Kind, nor morally straight. 

And as fond as I am of Seabase and of the legendary Philmont Ranch... I'd be a lot harder hit by losing the local camps.  IMO, National needs to recognize the writing on the wall here and do everything in their power to protect Scouting at a local level.  Yes, National owns the Eagle Scout title and the Supply department, but I for one would rather see Summit gone than my local campground. 

What's a realistic best-case scenario here? National gets gutted and we keep one or two of the High Adventure sites, but local Councils keep local campsites and Scout Shops?  Is it even reasonable to hope to keep, say, Philmont and Seabase?  Seabase and Northern Tier?  Or do we think all the HA sites are most likely gone?

Scouting has a debt to pay, and $6100 per claimant isn't reasonable.  What, then, is?

Edited March 14, 2021 by SilverPalm

[ThenNow]

15 minutes ago, SilverPalm said:

And as fond as I am of Seabase and of the legendary Philmont Ranch... I'd be a lot harder hit by losing the local camps.  IMO, National needs to recognize the writing on the wall here and do everything in their power to protect Scouting at a local level.  Yes, National owns the Eagle Scout title and the Supply department, but I for one would rather see Summit gone than my local campground. 

Do you guys consider writing National, leaders, their attorneys, the Ad Hoc Committee...to share your strongly held views and sense of urgency? Your story, SP, is powerful. Many of your are very articulate and effective in presenting this case. All are passionate, which surpasses most finery, in my book. I encourage you to act. Write letters. Take out an ad in the paper. Do an online petition. They’re easy. If you don’t speak now and limit it to this forum and your Units and LC’s, you don’t want to be on the field when the lights go out and realize you didn’t play through the whistle. I’m totally serious. You might not be inside the belly of the beast, but that doesn’t mean you can’t make noise and lend some folks a piece of your individual or collective minds. If it’s for naught and so much chasing after wind, join the club. I’ve been doing that for most of my life.

Edited March 14, 2021 by ThenNow

[SilverPalm]

You know, that's a good point.  I think I will send National a letter, regardless of whether it makes a difference.  

Any of us who are Eagle Scouts were charged to dedicate our skills and abilities to the common good.  Maybe this is a good place to start.   

[vol_scouter]

56 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Is BSA really out of money in July as they said last year?  Or was that a lie, a bluff, or did they find money in the couch cushions?  They are indicating they hope to resolved things by this Fall now.  

It's all a little A LOT confusing.   

 

https://www.bsarestructuring.org/event/bsa-takes-critical-step-toward-emergence-by-filing-an-amended-plan-of-reorganization/

They have laid off a large portion of the national council staff.  It is not a bluff, the national council will not have sufficient liquidity to file a viable business plan that will enable an emergence from Chapter 11.  

[swilliams]

I’m not a great letter-writer. I do wonder if a petition would do any good, and I would happily sign my name to a statement saying I could care less about keeping Summit. 

I mentioned upthread a ways that our troop went once - it would have been around 2005 or 2006 - and we never went back again. Maybe the ‘improvements’ changed it for the better, but we’ve chosen Sea Base and Philmont on a rotating basis every three years (with a less-expensive option in the third year).

Might be too little, too late, particularly after BSA’s opening offer, but if someone does start a petition I’ll circulate it as far and wide as possible. 

[David CO]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

In fact, enhancing and improving YPT is one of the key non-monetary requirements for the TCC to recommend approval of a Plan. The BSA knows that, but utterly blew it off in what they filed. Zippo. This is the sort of nonsensical, arrogant non-negotiating negotiation strategy that infuriates us as survivor claimants. 

How important are non-monetary requirements in this bankruptcy?