Chapter 11 announced

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

It was ... probably 50+ pages back.  It really goes to the heart of the issue.  Lack of transparency and trust.  BSA's #1 goal should be building the trust of the TCC & court through full transparency.  Unfortunately, National BSA has issues with transparency & trust so I expect we are headed to a cliff.

I've never heard of "transparency" as practiced by lawyers or companies.  Issue is not BSA.  This is a corporate / legal issue and always has been.

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I've never heard of "transparency" as practiced by lawyers or companies.  Issue is not BSA.  This is a corporate / legal issue and always has been.

It seems like many here have repeatedly experienced a lack of trust and transparency from BSA National, as a matter of course. In fact, it came across to this outsider as pretty much an MO. "Go back to your campfire and teach some knots..." Are you saying "not BSA" as in "not Scouting" or not National? Meesa confused. Also, we're not talking about voluntary disclosure and inspiring trust at this point. It's under duress and seems needful in this critical moment. Sometimes, that's the only way it happens. Might be an opportune moment to open up.

[CynicalScouter]

17 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Also, we're not talking about voluntary disclosure and inspiring trust at this point.

But see here's what I don't know and we'll never know.

1) We have National not being entirely forthcoming about this bankruptcy and its impact on LCs. At the start it was "LCs's are fine, National will take care of this." Now, it is blatantly clear LCs will have to pay something and National is still, IN WRITING no less, talking about "ask" and "voluntary" contributions from LCs to the settlement fund.

2) LCs still blowing happiness and sunshine at people. They too are either accepting National's version of events (the LCs will skate) or know that's a bunch of BS and are lying to themselves and/or their local units that all local fundraising will remain local and they camps won't be touched, etc.

3) A combination of the two that varies from council to council

As I said, my council from the start has been very upfront and honest: the LC is going to have to pay SOMETHING, they just don't know what. And I believe them when they say they don't know the number yet.

But there are a LOT of people who are going to be angry when the bill comes due and their local camp and XX% of other assets/cash on hand in the Council account have to get sold off after being told for 1+ years that wasn't going to happen.

THE MOST CHARITABLE interpretation would be that National in Spring 2020 believed #1 (the bankruptcy will have no impact on LCs) based on a few thousand claims coming in. Something under 10,000 claims. Maybe even under 5,000 claims. Up to that point, the Catholic Dioceses COMBINED for something under 5,000 claims.

Then the 90,000 number came in. Even reduced down to 80,000 that's a lot. And let's be RIDICULOUSLY cynical here (heh) and say 75% of those 80,000 are either fraudulent, duplicate, or so ambiguous they cannot be the basis of a valid claim.

That leaves 20,000 claims.

And yet LCs are still running around insisting that they can skate on this. No problem.

All this is a roundabout way of saying that I don't think at this stage National's the holdup. I think it is LCs who are now realizing exactly how screwed they are and are trying to play hide the assets (hi Middle Tennessee Council) or simply not cooperating in hopes dragging their feet will make this all go away or something?

Edited March 16, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

21 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

All this is a roundabout way of saying that I don't think at this stage National's the holdup.

From the early days post filing, all the people I spoke with said there is 100% chance the LCs will be required to contribute. It was just a matter of how much from which.

Sorry. I mistakenly tossed the LCs into the BSA basket because they are the two BSA entities in the negotiations and mediation and represent the BSA contribution money side. Principal and "affiliates." Maybe BSA is, in fact, pounding on the LCs to wake up and step up. Dunno. The "we will request the LCs make a voluntary contribution," didn't sound like that's the case. If the two of them would slug it out, which they might be, it seems like something could/would happen. Last point on this. As I've said before, I would think part of this LC resistance could spring from the Ad Hoc Committee being less than representative of the LCs. If that is the case, how in God's green earth can they be expected to either communicate effectively or negotiate with transparency and a unified voice? Who are the LCs on the AHC, btw? Just trying to confirm how representative they are or are not. 

Edited March 16, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

23 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I think it is LCs who are now realizing exactly how screwed they are and are trying to play hide the assets (hi Middle Tennessee Council)

Is this thought to be widespread? 

[fred8033]

 

 

38 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

It seems like many here have repeatedly experienced a lack of trust and transparency from BSA National, as a matter of course. In fact, it came across to this outsider as pretty much an MO. "Go back to your campfire and teach some knots..." Are you saying "not BSA" as in "not Scouting" or not National? Meesa confused. Also, we're not talking about voluntary disclosure and inspiring trust at this point. It's under duress and seems needful in this critical moment. Sometimes, that's the only way it happens. Might be an opportune moment to open up.

Yeah.  It's not realistic to represent a massive bankruptcy as an opportune moment to open up.  This is when companies remind employees that each and everything they say and publish can become part of the legal case.  This is far outside corporate leadership and marketing.  It's now a legal game.

I still am not sure how why local councils are expected to contribute.  Either they are legally separate entities since they were created or not.  This is why individual companies exist separately.

[CynicalScouter]

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

From the early days post filing, all the people I spoke with said there is 100% chance the LCs will be required to contribute. It was just a matter of how much from which.

Which is exactly the OPPOSITE of what most people were told locally and what LCs were (and still are) telling people.

I gave the example of  Black Swamp Area Council which as recently as last week was emailing and getting articles in the local paper about how LC funds were safe and secure and would never, ever go to pay for any of this.

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.

So...yeah.

[ThenNow]

8 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

This is when companies remind employees that each and everything they say and publish can become part of the legal case.  This is far outside corporate leadership and marketing.  It's now a legal game.

Yup. I'm exclusively talking about getting real and serious about disclosure and honesty IN the mediation and negotiations. I stated many times before I know from experience, and as an attorney, this is not a time for public disclosure. 

PS - That would be stupid and counterproductive. 

Edited March 16, 2021 by ThenNow

[MisterH]

22 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I gave the example of  Black Swamp Area Council which as recently as last week was emailing and getting articles in the local paper about how LC funds were safe and secure and would never, ever go to pay for any of this.

I'm seeing a date of December 14, 2018 on that article. Have you seen anything from this council since the Chapter 11 filing where they continue to assert this position?

UPDATED:
Welp, here's a link post-filing to a story about the council where I now live promising, literally, "business as usual" at the local level despite the national bankruptcy.
https://www.news-press.com/story/news/2020/02/19/southwest-florida-troops-promise-business-usual-despite-boy-scouts-america-chapter-11-filing/4804994002/

So, yeah, this might be the official position of many of the local councils.

 

Edited March 16, 2021 by MisterH
Added link

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, fred8033 said:

I still am not sure how why local councils are expected to contribute.  Either they are legally separate entities since they were created or not.  This is why individual companies exist separately.

For the following reasons:

1) This bankruptcy is TECHNICALLY Boy Scouts of America ("National") and Delaware BSA, LLC (National's main affiliate, don't worry about it for these purposes.

2) Local Councils are TECHNICALLY "interested parties". They aren't bankrupt but they MAY be able to take advantage of the National bankruptcy given that they are co-defendants in many of the civil cases involved (e.g. John Doe Sexual Abuse Victim vs. Local Scout Council and Boy Scouts of America)

Now we have two big messes to figure out and/or the judge to rule on.

Are LCs really "separate": The argument being made, and that the judge hasn't ruled on yet, is that the LCs are NOT separate and are really appendages of National for a host of legal reasons arguments. The LCs are arguing they are separate for a host of legal reasons. Back and forth. Etc. If LCs ARE NOT separate, then their assets are considered National's and subject to the bankruptcy. If LCs ARE separate then....

Can LCs voluntarily participate in the settlement: National's plan is to settle ALL 80,000 sexual abuse claims against it. If LCs are truly separate, they are being given the OPTION AND CHOICE to climb on board that settlement and participate. But it is not free: if the LC wants to get any/all sexual abuse claims prior to February 2020 settled, they have to pay into the settlement fund. Again, VOLUNTARY.

So, how much will it cost an LC to climb on board the settlement? That depends on a very, very ridiculously complex formula that boils down in a really, really oversimplified way to

a) how many claims having been filed against the council

b) how much would those claims cost (on average)

c) how likely are those claims going to showing up in a courtroom and

d) what assets does the Council have to offer?

So, let's do another round of CynicalScouter's Magical Math.

a) XYZ Council has 100 claims against it and ALL are valid.

b) Each claim, on average, is going to cost $100,000 if this goes to court. This gets into some complexity, but to be blunt, it means assigning a cash value to sexual acts based on a points system. I don't want to go into details, but I think you get the idea that certain sexual abuse is more traumatizing than others.

c) There's a 5% chance of it showing up in court because XYZ Council is in a state that has a statute of limitations on civil claims for sexual abuse AND is unlikely to enact a look-back window or repeal that civil statute of limitations in the future (as has happened in NY, PA, etc.)

d) XYZ Council has $4 million in total assets, including the summer camp and council offices.

So, the math is

100 claims * $100,000 each * 5% chance of any of those 100 claims becoming a successful lawsuit = $500,000

Since $500,000 represents only 12.5% of XYZ Council's total assets, the price of admission/the price for XYZ Council to participate in the Settlement and have ALL 100 claims against it (and any other sexual abuse claims prior to February 2020) is $500,000. Take it or leave it.

But let's try that math again. Only now, the average claim is $1,000,000.

100 claims * $1,000,000 each * 5% chance of any of those 100 claims becoming a successful lawsuit = $5,000,000

Since $5,000,000 is way, way beyond XYZ Council's total assets, what is going to happen? Either the offer will be reduced down to something that results in XYZ surviving (say, $2 million from the sale of the summer camp and/or the Council offices) or XYZ goes into its own bankruptcy or XYZ walks away and takes the risk that its state never opens up the statute of limitations on civil claims for sexual abuse.

What about the insurance companies?: Last problem. ALL of this assumes that National and the LCs are going to have to pay something. But the insurance companies may be on the hook for more/even more. That's, in effect, a separate track. Several insurance companies are refusing to honor their policies saying that BSA lied when it signed them about how much sexual abuse they knew was going on and/or that insurance does not cover criminal acts. That's a whole other fight. If the LCs and National can convince the judge to force the insurance companies to pay the claims, then that Magical Math up there changes. It doesn't mean LCs pay $0 to get all claims waived, but maybe it means a lot less.

That's as clear as I can make it. Void where prohibited by law. Your mileage may vary.

[T2Eagle]

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Which is exactly the OPPOSITE of what most people were told locally and what LCs were (and still are) telling people.

I gave the example of  Black Swamp Area Council which as recently as last week was emailing and getting articles in the local paper about how LC funds were safe and secure and would never, ever go to pay for any of this.

So...yeah.

You've posted that Black Swamp article twice recently.  It's not from two weeks ago, it's from two years ago --- before the bankruptcy was even filed. 

You've also mentioned that BSA keeps talking about "ask" and "voluntary" when talking about LC contributions.  That's what they will be, there's no mechanism today that would force LCs, especially LCs in non look back SOL states, to make a contribution.  My council has been up front about the possibility that we'll need to make a contribution, but the devil is in the details, how much and in return for what.  I don't know what the message has been in look back states, clearly they're going to be on the hook more because the same people who could file against BSA national can file against them.  But even there the devil is in the details, as soon as lots of suits are filed locally the local council will go into bankruptcy and all the same issues will apply: what assets are restricted what are non restricted, what's actually available to a creditor, etc.

I agree that transparency and forthrightness has been lacking in some cases, a characteristic of BSA that has always frustrated me, but it's also important to remember there are still a ton of unknowns in this case.

[CynicalScouter]

24 minutes ago, MisterH said:

I'm seeing a date of December 14, 2018 on that article.

Sorry, you are right. They sent a repeat of the 2018 "all is well" thing out last week.

[CynicalScouter]

25 minutes ago, MisterH said:

Welp, here's a link post-filing to a story about the council where I now live promising, literally, "business as usual" at the local level despite the national bankruptcy.

Yeah, and read it

Quote

“The national council has put aside a few hundred million for a fund to pay people who are filing tortes against the Boy Scouts,” Coen said. “We’ll be talking about the bankruptcy and trying to put out the message that all the local programs are going to be the same.”

Southwest Florida Council has at least 108 claims against it. The idea they are going to tell all 108 to go away and not have to pay a dime is nonsense. If they want in on the settlement, they'll pay.

[T2Eagle]

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Sorry, you are right. They sent a repeat of the 2018 "all is well" thing out last week.

Have you read the new one?  I haven't seen it, but my own council sent out an "all is well but with a subtle message that we're going to have pay into the fund" note.  Usually these things are circulated boiler plate that every council uses a version of.

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, T2Eagle said:

Have you read the new one? 

Without giving away my council, yes. 😃