Chapter 11 announced

[vol_scouter]

12 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

How did you arrive at that certainty? Personally, my mind reading has proven iffy of late.

That little speech wasn't meant to diminish the value (which I recognized), but to encourage you guys to fight for whatever it is you think is important specifically by speaking up. I was also jumping off from the comments of many that "their camps" are most precious and critical. That's all. 

So we are told that the TCC is represented by some of the best professionals in the business.  Those professionals are either wishing to destroy all of Scouting in the USA or they are not as good as they claim because they do not understand the membership and financial models of the National Council (NC) and the Local Councils (LCs).  I tend to believe the former.

Attorneys have estimated that the LCs represent assets of $1.5 - 3.3 B.  So liquidation of the NC at ~$1.2 B will be consumed by the PBGC but that leaves more than is on the table by liquidating the LCs before ever tapping into the chartered organizations (COs).  That is the best financial outcome for the claimants that is what the TCC said was its only concern.

So my opinion is that the TCC wishes liquidation of everything and in my mind there is no doubt which does not make my opinion correct.  

[CynicalScouter]

45 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

There is no doubt in my mind that the TCC wants the destruction of Scouting. 

Again, I don't think TCC wants Scouting destroyed. They want maximum value for the abuse victims.

If that means Scouting stays alive after this, THEY DON'T CARE. If that means Scouting's destroyed, THEY DON'T CARE.

Again, this is in contrast to Kosnoff who does in fact was the destruction of Scouting.

If BSA National and the LCs (and COs) can come to the table with a real, reasonable offer that maximizes the amount that goes into a Settlement Fund, TCC will happily take it.

The only way I can think of it is draining blood (and yes, I know the "blood sucking" motif for lawyers).

1. TCC will take as much as it can and not 1 drop more.
2. The judge will only allow TCC to take as much as would leave BSA alive.
3. Kosnoff wants the BSA drained dry.

The challenge is that these three are in direct conflict with one another when one consider that NO judge is going to order a cramdown on sexual abuse victims and there's no chance BSA's plan will ever get 66% of abuse victims (because there's enough Kosnoff-affiliated claimants to keep that vote from happening).

BSA will then run out of money and this converts to a Chapter 7. Then Kosnoff wins.

THAT is why my troop told our parents this weekend it's over. There is no scenario here in which BSA survives. They'll run out of money (Chapter 7) in short order.

Edited March 14, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

7 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

that leaves more than is on the table by liquidating the LCs before ever tapping into the chartered organizations (COs).  That is the best financial outcome for the claimants that is what the TCC said was its only concern.

I’ve not listened twice, but my recollection is that the TCC vice chair said something close to, “From the outset, our concern has not been the continuation of Scouting, but maximizing the recovery to survivors.” That’s their entire purpose for existing and I’m pretty sure Stang, et al., understand the business model and structure. The BSA’s task, along with their best in the business legal crew, is to come up with a plan to meet its two stated objectives: “maintaining the program and equitably compensating victims.” Not discussing the Plan filed with the biggest player in the room was nonsense and arrogance or an act of resignation. The TCC isn’t responsible for either reason they whiffed.

[swilliams]

2 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

The BSA acquired the land for the Summit in 2009/2010 timeframe, the opening event was the 2013 National Jamboree.  The first year of summer programs for units was 2014.  You might be thinking about a different place if your troop went in 2005/2006.

Thanks. It was before my boys joined - four years ago for my older son, two for the younger. I was guessing at a rough time-frame and obviously way off. 

Thats what happens when you get old. 1995 seems like it was a couple years ago!  It was definitely Summit. We had a PLC meeting two years ago and were discussing HA trips, and where the scouts wanted to go.  Not a single vote for WV; evenly split between Philmont, Sea Base, and repeating a past trips to the Grand Canyon and Costa Rica. 

Which brings up the point that although Scout-owned bases are easier to attend for planning purposes, it wouldn’t mean the end of high adventure if we didn’t have them. 

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, ThenNow said:

“From the outset, our concern has not been the continuation of Scouting, but maximizing the recovery to survivors.”

Yep. In that sense TCC is "emotionless". TCC is simply about raw math. If a live BSA with all its local camps and HA bases = maximum benefits to the Settlement Fund (for annual payments for a generation), great! If a dead BSA and all local camps and HA bases sold = maximum benefits to the Settlement Fund, great!

Kosnoff wants BSA dead first, last, and foremost.

[MattR]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

THAT is why my troop told our parents this weekend it's over. There is no scenario here in which BSA survives.

Just curious, is there a competition to see who is the last eagle? The boys could play this game as well.

[CynicalScouter]

Boy Scouts Local Councils Face Financial Threat From Abuse Claims
 

Quote

Some of the largest and wealthiest of the Boy Scouts of America’s local councils are confronting thousands of sexual abuse claims, enough to put them into severe financial distress if the organization’s chapter 11 strategy falls through.

The official committee representing abuse survivors in the Boy Scouts bankruptcy case analyzed 83,807 claims of sexual abuse that ranged over decades, turning up evidence of a widespread problem, particularly in California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Florida and other states where the youth...

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagle1993]

4 minutes ago, MattR said:

Just curious, is there a competition to see who is the last eagle? The boys could play this game as well.

This is pretty funny ... sad ... but funny.  Dark humor my friend...

[ThenNow]

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Boy Scouts Local Councils Face Financial Threat From Abuse Claims

I have a standard WSJ script, but don't pay for Pro. Is there a posting of the piece elsewhere?

[MattR]

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

This is pretty funny ... sad ... but funny.  Dark humor my friend...

It's the Yiddish in me. When everything looks hopeless and grim, make a joke of it. Subtle is better.

Honestly, it's the only way to accept what you have no control over and move forward. The only question I have is will I have the energy to help in whatever scouting is after all this is over. It's easy to talk on a forum. It's a lot harder at my age to stay warm on a cold campout.

[5thGenTexan]

I know its a long shot, but I would like for it all to hang on till Nov or Dec.  I would like to get my current Webelos Den through Arrow of Light.  

 

[vol_scouter]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Again, I don't think TCC wants Scouting destroyed. They want maximum value for the abuse victims.

If that means Scouting stays alive after this, THEY DON'T CARE. If that means Scouting's destroyed, THEY DON'T CARE.

Again, this is in contrast to Kosnoff who does in fact was the destruction of Scouting.

If BSA National and the LCs (and COs) can come to the table with a real, reasonable offer that maximizes the amount that goes into a Settlement Fund, TCC will happily take it.

The only way I can think of it is draining blood (and yes, I know the "blood sucking" motif for lawyers).

1. TCC will take as much as it can and not 1 drop more.
2. The judge will only allow TCC to take as much as would leave BSA alive.
3. Kosnoff wants the BSA drained dry.

The challenge is that these three are in direct conflict with one another when one consider that NO judge is going to order a cramdown on sexual abuse victims and there's no chance BSA's plan will ever get 66% of abuse victims (because there's enough Kosnoff-affiliated claimants to keep that vote from happening).

BSA will then run out of money and this converts to a Chapter 7. Then Kosnoff wins.

THAT is why my troop told our parents this weekend it's over. There is no scenario here in which BSA survives. They'll run out of money (Chapter 7) in short order.

We totally agree that they don't care, that is not what I am arguing.  My argument is that they believe that the LCs have assets of $1.3 - 3.3 B which is greater than what they will get from the BSA plus LCs (~$1.2 - 1.5 B) and they can attack the COs on top of that.  Certainly the former is quicker than the latter.

The other factor is that Kosnoff says that his firm represents ~80% of the claimants.  The latter approach better satisfies his desires.  I would expect that he will encourage his clients to vote against anything other than liquidation.

So it is my belief that the TCC favors liquidation as they believe it to provide the maximal payout and aligns with Kosnoff so is the easier course.

[ThenNow]

26 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

We totally agree that they don't care, that is not what I am arguing. 

I'll let you guys have at it with the details and the numbers, but this is patently untrue. You simply can't say that. You can say that it, "appears from this or that statement they have no regard for the future health or vitality of Scouting," but you do not know if they/we care. As I've said before, when I went to Delaware one year ago to stand for the TCC, I made it clear to the US Trustee's Office I do not want to see Scouting eviscerated. He surprised me by saying the sentiment is shared by most applicants.

The TCC was formed well before 95,000 claims flooded in. Please remember that. Everyone has needed to pivot. Hard. The BSA hasn't pivoted, imho. Also, you're talking about 9 men, not an entity. 9 sexual abuse survivors with valid, vetted claims of sexual abuse against the BSA. I don't know any human who knows another man's heart, much less that of 9 at one time...

Edited March 14, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

21 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

but you do not know if they/we care.

My point is that even the 9 TCC victims care, of  50% of the victims care or 60% of the victims care, it only takes 33% of abuse victims to say "no" and BSA's dead. It will be forced to either

1. a failed bankruptcy that results BSA running out of money this summer/fall and maybe civil suits for the next DECADE (if it does somehow find cash, which I doubt) or
2. liquidation this summer

And the local councils in states with no SoLs or lookback windows as COs will be right behind.

There's no out here.

[vol_scouter]

ThenNow said: "I’ve not listened twice, but my recollection is that the TCC vice chair said something close to, “From the outset, our concern has not been the continuation of Scouting, but maximizing the recovery to survivors.”"

So the TCC is about maximizing the money paid.

Unlike some others here, I think that the BSA sees the high adventure bases (HAB) as core to the mission.  If you accept that, then the offer is not unreasonable.

The local councils (LCs) are getting requests for contributions that are harmful but not fatal.  Most have agreed to this initial proposal but much more will be damaging to the ability of the LCs to deliver the core mission.

As a physician, I have had many patients who were abused as children and the damage that it caused.  I do not recall any abused in Scouting (most in families) but the repercussions were many and often debilitating.  So I am sympathetic to all victims.  At the same time, this is going to harm all of the youth currently in Scouting and for years to come - if not totally end Scouting.  The correct balance is based on how you value the different issues.