Chapter 11 announced

[TAHAWK]

11 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

It is my understanding that is true for any franchise system. McDonalds can come and shut you down at will. 

What he basis of that understanding?  McD's typically leases the land and building to the franchisee for a term of  twenty years. 

[Eagle1993]

1 minute ago, TAHAWK said:

What he basis of that understanding?  McD's typically leases the land and building to the franchisee for a term of  twenty years. 

Not to go too far off topic, but I had a neighbor who owned 3 McD's.  He distributed pot through the drive thru & had employees get prescriptions for opioids which he then took and sold.  He purchased pot from sources on the West coast and had it delivered via US Postal Service to his house.  After the combined ATF, USPS, IRS and DEA raid on his house (wow, a lot of government issued pickup trucks) McD's came in and immediately took over his 3 franchises with no court action (they just took them back per some contract language).  So I know this can happen.

[yknot]

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

That is the way I read it.  Someone mentioned that BSA needs to go to war.  Well, BSA just declared war on the sex abuse claimants.  So, I guess those who wanted war will get one.  Though, to be fair, I think they wanted a PR war about the positive aspects of scouting.  Unfortunately, I think we will have a different war on our hands.  

That was me and that was what I meant:  A PR war focusing on program benefits in the court of public opinion, not in court with the lawyers. Funny how much your thinking can change in 24 hours though. This is such a negative move I doubt BSA will recover from it. If this is the strategy BSA has adopted in order to try and move forward by summer, it is not going to play well with the media and public. It comes off as arrogant, unrepentant, and inadequate. I think the time where we could have tried to do some image repairing is past. That USA Today article will seem pretty retrained in retrospect as we get further into this. One of the comments about BSA acting like it needed to get back to business as usual was dead on. It's just so tone deaf about the situation and the environment that it is hard to believe

  

[RememberSchiff]

Back to OP...

I found no mention of National intellectual property, specifically in regards to the original artwork being offered. Doesn't the BSA have copyrights on some/all of that commissioned artwork?

Did I miss something?

P.S. Artwork, Schedule 1 , pages 119-137

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/876518_2293.pdf

Edited March 2, 2021 by RememberSchiff

[ThenNow]

23 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

McD's came in and immediately took over his 3 franchises with no court action (they just took them back per some contract language).  So I know this can happen.

Was it literally "immediately"? Many such agreements have a "moral turpitude" provision that triggers a reversion, right to terminate and/or assumption of rights. There would be an extrapolation of how it is to be interpreted, defined and applied. I'm betting this is what happened. I private contract wouldn't need to require a conviction, either. PR, brand diminishment, public perception, interference with business advantage and all that.

Edited March 2, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

30 minutes ago, yknot said:

It comes off as arrogant, unrepentant, and inadequate.

Yep. And let's be clear about what it is they are asking for here.

Quote

The Debtors are committed to ensuring that the aggregate value of the Local Council Settlement Contribution is not less than $300,000,000, exclusive of insurance rights proposed to be contributed to the Settlement Trust. The Debtors intend to request the voluntary commitments of Local Councils to make their respective contributions, which contributions shall be set forth in commitment agreements executed by each Local Council. By no later than June 1, 2021, the Debtors shall file a report with the Bankruptcy Court concerning the status of the Debtors’ efforts to obtain contribution commitments from the Local Councils. Such status report shall contain information concerning the form of contributions by the Local Councils (i.e., cash, real property, or other assets) and the timing of such contributions. In addition, the status report will set forth any required amendments the Debtors may propose to the Plan to facilitate the Local Council Settlement Contribution.

In other words, ALL that BSA National is committing to in terms of the LC contribution is an ASK for VOLUNTARY pay-in and that won't be final until JUNE.

Talk about dragging this out.

[mrjohns2]

22 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Was it literally "immediately"? Many such agreements have a "moral turpitude" provision that triggers a reversion, right to terminate and/or assumption of rights. There would be an extrapolation of how it is to be interpreted, defined and applied. I'm betting this is what happened. I private contract wouldn't need to require a conviction, either. PR, brand diminishment, public perception, interference with business advantage and all that.

My original point is that the BSA argument is that councils are franchises. What they call a charter is a franchise agreement. I could make some arguments the other way, but that is their argument. 

[ThenNow]

33 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

My original point is that the BSA argument is that councils are franchises. What they call a charter is a franchise agreement. I could make some arguments the other way, but that is their argument.

I getchu. I was simply explaining the likely basis for McD's ability to swoop in and reclaim the 3 franchises from Mr. McDrug. 

Edited March 2, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

Doesn't the BSA have copyrights on some/all of that commissioned artwork?

By that do you mean whether or not they they will have future use via existing/retained copyrights?

[RememberSchiff]

4 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

By that do you mean whether or not they they will have future use via existing/retained copyrights?

Yes.

[ThenNow]

13 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Yes.

Because the two creative entities exist separately, like when an artist retains rights to duplicate and use in future publications, they can be retained. For example, a lithograph of an artist-owned original or a painting you may own that the artist retains the right to duplicate. Of course, the latter diminishes the value of the original work, but it is done. I have prints of photos on which I paid a premium to ensure the artist would not further duplicate, other than in promotional and portfolio materials. Does that help? It may be the case that this is what they are proposing and is implied by them not being listed among assets being contributed. I can't say for p-positive, of course.  

Edited March 2, 2021 by ThenNow

[vol_scouter]

33 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I getchu. I was simply explaining the likely basis for McD's ability to swoop in and reclaim the 3 franchises from Mr. McDrug. 

When Ray Kroc owned McDonald's, he was notorious for visiting a store in some city and if the service was substandard, slow, or not polite or if the food was not good, he would jerk the franchise (all stores of that franchisee) and award them to someone else.  It had nothing to do with anything but meeting McDonald's standards.  That was in the 1970's so it may no longer be as relevant.

 

[TAHAWK]

The "standards" are in writing and are part of the Franchise contrcat.  "At will" means for a good reason or no reason at all.   Most franchisors have "standrads" provisions in thier franchise contracts.   

Who is making the decison to offer the above-described offer, BSA, the insurance companies, or both?

Has it been determined that BSA can make an offer on behalf of local councils?

 

 

[skeptic]

I find it interesting that there has not been even one comment yet, until me I guess, abut the inaccuracy of the statements about YP has not done anything.  What am I missing.  Most of these claims that they speak of are well before the YP was developed, and since it has improved, from all that I have read.  Reality is that no amount of YP is going to stop abuse, sexual or other kinds.  There are warped people that will find a way, especially if they really want to.  On the other hand, IF YP is being administered and reviewed, they are far more likely to look somewhere other than BSA.  And, even before the YP was developed, percentage wise, it seems Scouting was not the top of the list for known predators; and to day it is at or near the bottom.  And no amount of money is going to "fix" bad judgment or erase bad players from the past somehow.  What IS important is that the current youth are better protected.  Again, though, most abuse still happens in families and in smaller youth connected groups.  

Again, kill off BSA, or weaken it to the point of no longer a target, and only youth and the communities will suffer.  Communities will lose much of the service BSA has showered on them for decades.  The tenets of Scouting will no longer graduate youth with real community care and awareness of their responsibilities as citizens.  

Meanwhile a few lawyers will count their pennies with smirks, and modern predators will simply find other victims with less visibility perhaps.  Lose, Lose.  

In the meantime, I will continue to do what little I can on the local level, and encourage youth to live Scout Spirit in their daily lives.

[Eagle1993]

2 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

The "standards" are in writing and are part of the Franchise contrcat.  "At will" means for a good reason or no reason at all.   Most franchisors have "standrads" provisions in thier franchise contracts.   

Who is making the decison to offer the above-described offer, BSA, the insurance companies, or both?

Has it been determined that BSA can make an offer on behalf of local councils?

 

 

I read the updated Chapter 11 statement.  This appears to be National BSA's offer.  My guess is that they think they can get at least $300M from local councils based on internal discussions; however, they don't have or are not ready to share the details yet.  Eventually, you'll probably see a council by council summary including their assets, camps, etc. that make up the $300M+.

The insurance companies are treated separately; however, there are 40+ pages that outline each insurance policy by council by date range.  I found it odd that several policies have council listed as unknown (N/A).  Essentially, the trust can sue the insurance companies and collect what they can as can our non sex abuse claimants.