Chapter 11 announced

[Eagle1993]

10 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

I doubt either side will see it as in their interest to roll the dice and go that far

I disagree.  Jeff Anderson has already shown he is willing to battle an Archdiocese for 4 years over $55M.  LCs have billions.  It will take a large settlement offer (or National BSA liquidation) to avoid 3-4 more years of litigation.

[vol_scouter]

29 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Did I ask for information from the Ad Hoc Committee? What I did wonder out loud about is whether there are LC's that don't believe the AHC is representing their interests and if it has any real force or effect on the process. I represent myself as to my claim and have no formal professional role beyond that.

Some may find this an interesting side note and others not. The chairman of the AHC is attorney Ricky Mason, also the President of the BSA's Greater New York Council. Mr. Mason's firm, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, happens to represent JP Morgan Chase, which may or may not have an interest of note in this matter.

Hm. Life is curious and follow the money. Write it down.

You requested information about the unanimity of the decision that could be of help to the plaintiff's attorney's.  Hopefully, everyone sees this.

[ThenNow]

13 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

You requested information about the unanimity of the decision that could be of help to the plaintiff's attorney's.  Hopefully, everyone sees this.

Incorrect. I did not ask for inside information to scuttle off to someone of influence working on behalf of abuse survivors. If you took it that way, I apologize for being unclear. I was wondering if you men have an interface that would allow a channel to relay some of the good and common sense suggestions I've heard articulated here. I am not a power player in this case. Far from it. I have thoughts, a voice and, eventually, one vote among tens of thousands. I don't influence a group of claimants, a single claimant or state attorney, or any member in a position of leverage. 

This what I wrote: "Is anyone here connected in a meaningful way to a member of the Ad Hoc Committee? I am curious if they have any real influence and if I am correct in my assertion that many LC’s consider themselves beyond the reach of its representation and influence. I know some do, but not the degree to which, how divided the group is, and etc."

Edited March 3, 2021 by ThenNow
Update and clarify.

[ThenNow]

37 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Jeff Anderson has already shown he is willing to battle an Archdiocese for 4 years over $55M.  LCs have billions.  It will take a large settlement offer (or National BSA liquidation) to avoid 3-4 more years of litigation.

I apologize for being so active today. I didn't sleep well and am a bit manic. As you suggest the proposed Plan leads me to fear the entire thing is on the verge of becoming frightfully attenuated.

For me, and I am probably not alone among the abuse survivor claimants, I don't think I can bear several years of this. I rather feel like I was unwittingly attached to a team of horses and am being drug across the prairie. Granted, I could drop my claim and try to walk away, but it is not so simple as that. I am now invested in the process and the outcome, regardless my financial interest. The wound has been ripped open and I am trying to staunch the blood with little success. Probably TMI, but there it is. I appreciate you allowing me to be engaged and find it helpful to manage my emotions and the near constant rumination over the past, present and future. (I do have a therapist, but she's expensive. I owe somebody here a charred Elk steak or something.)

Edited March 3, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

he's purportedly or ostensibly representing your Council and all the others, as the Chairman of the AHC. If you want to remain beyond reproach, avoid all possible appearance of conflicted interest.

I'll put a point on it.

The AHC Chairman concurrently represents the Committee and is the President of a LC's Board. That Council, The Greater NY Council, has what I believe to be the greatest number of abuse claims, as submitted. Also, his personal LC has comparatively disproportionate wealth to many if not most other LC's. Someone in his "very large firm" represents the major creditor in the case. Can he or better, should he, represent those LC's with vastly fewer claims and substantially fewer assets? Is there such an LC represented on the AHC? I would hope so, for everyone's sake.

To me, again my assessment, perception and opinion, this does not seem like an ideal person to Chair a representative the group of Local Councils, which AHC (I thought) was created to speak for each of your Councils. I mean no personal aspersions toward him or his firm. I could not care less who the person is or who their firm is or isn't. To be clear, if this were a question on an ethics exam, asking whether Attorney A should accept the role this attorney now holds and why or why not, I would answer "No, he should not" and list the perceived, if not actual conflicts of interest. 

Does anyone else see the potential problem here or is it just me?

I just looked and may have mixed up Greater NY Council with Greater Niagara Frontier Council. As to wealth, I think my assessment holds. As to claims, I will check...

If interested, this is a link to the Board of Greater New York Councils. Doesn't look much like the Board makeup of the LCs in my Scouting turf. https://nycscouting.org/board-of-directors/ 

Edited March 3, 2021 by ThenNow
Correction

[ParkMan]

 

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I almost don't know where to start with this, because it seems like I am repeating myself, ad nauseam. I'll try:

1) I'm not part of any "group trying to sue the BSA." Never tried. Never initiated. Never thought about it until all of this blew up however many years ago. I wanted to put a man in jail, take his house and assets and reputation, then burn down the house, sell the property and assets and give it all to a child protection charity. It's just little ol' me representing myself;

2) You don't know what, if anything, I continue to do or don't do in support of Scouting. Might want to read into that, as may be appropriate; 

3) I did not initiate this campaign to do "equity" by all survivors of past abuse in Scouting. I was minding my own business and trying to manage my life, such as it was, when this blew up in my face. It set off a train wreck of a year wrought with months and months of darkness I won't go into, not the least of which was 4.5 months of research and documentation creating the materials to submit my Proof of Claim;

4) Neither I nor the other sexual abuse survivor claimants forced Mosby or Turley to make the promises that were made and repeated about their motives, goals, intentions and heartfelt sorrow;  and

5) To say that I/we/they/whoever are trying to get as "much money from Scouting as possible" is a non-statement, and uses your 'only two camps' assertion lumping everyone together. It's neither accurate nor helpful. What does "as possible" even mean? What the formula is, I don't know, but what has been offered, and the way it was done, is nothing short of shameful.

I have the utmost sympathy and compassion for those who were abused.  Please accept my comments with that in mind.  I find it very difficult do discuss this topic because of my sincere compassion for those who were abused. 

What's happening now is two sides are negotiating a settlement.  The side that wants more and the side that wants less.  The BSA and those representing it have a duty to Scouting to preserve as much as they can.  The claimants and those representing them will try to extract as much as possible.  Am I wrong here?

It is in the best interest of claimants to paint the BSA in the most negative light possible in order to apply pressure to the BSA to increase their settlement offer.  Any advocate for those pursuing the BSA would be doing exactly the same thing that we see being played out now.  I dearly wish it were not the case, but it's the unfortunate truth.  I have no doubt that claimants have conflicting emotions about that fact as well.  

The proposed settlement has been called shameful.  Why is it shameful and $500 million not enough?  Why is $1.3 billion good, but $500 million is not?

[ParkMan]

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I disagree.  Jeff Anderson has already shown he is willing to battle an Archdiocese for 4 years over $55M.  LCs have billions.  It will take a large settlement offer (or National BSA liquidation) to avoid 3-4 more years of litigation.

I think we need to be clear though.

The LC do not have billions - they have camp properties worth billions (maybe). 

As far as I know it, most councils are struggling to just pay their bills on time.  That is why Churchill added in a 90 day liquidity goal.  These are fairly small non-profits that have a few major assets (camps and maybe an office building), a fixed set of salaries to pay, and a donation stream to fund those salaries.  Some may have an endowment that they can draw on for improvements and capital expenses.  These are not companies with fixed revenue streams and numerous assets they can sell without impacting those they serve.

Edited March 3, 2021 by ParkMan
grammar

[RememberSchiff]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Does anyone else see the potential problem here or is it just me?

I just looked and may have mixed up Greater NY Council with Greater Niagara Frontier Council. As to wealth, I think my assessment holds. As to claims, I will check...

If interested, this is a link to the Board of Greater New York Councils. Doesn't look much like the Board makeup of the LCs in my Scouting turf. https://nycscouting.org/board-of-directors/ 

From page 48 of Doc 2294

1. Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils

Prior to the Petition Date, the BSA assisted in the formation of an ad hoc committee of Local Councils comprised of eight Local Councils34 of various sizes from regions across the country (the “Ad Hoc Committee”). The primary purpose of the Ad Hoc Committee is to allow Local Councils to participate in negotiations regarding a global resolution of Abuse Claims and other issues important to them, including the treatment of their shared insurance with the BSA. The Ad Hoc Committee has also been instrumental in coordinating the BSA’s ongoing efforts to collect and organize Local Council asset information. The individual members of the Ad Hoc Committee are all volunteers. The volunteer chair is Richard G. Mason of the Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz law firm. Mr. Mason is the volunteer president of the Greater New York Council.

[Eagle1993]

Just now, ParkMan said:

I think we need to be clear though.

The LC do not have billions - they have camp properties worth billions (maybe). 

As far as I know it, most councils are struggling to just pay their bills on time.  That's what Churchill added in a 90 day liquidity goal.  These are fairly small non-profits that have a few major assets (camps and maybe an office building), a fixed set of salaries to pay, and a donation stream to fund those salaries.  Some may have an endowment that they can draw on for improvements and capital expenses.  These are not companies with fixed revenue streams and numerous assets they can sell without impacting those they serve.

Camps are assets that are worth billions.  Assets are more than cash on hand.  Unless they have clear deed protections, they can be sold.  Given that local councils continue to sell camps to gain $$ for operations, its clear many don't have deed protections.  Councils, unfortunately, have shown that properties can be used to generate cash for operations, likely undercutting that property must be used for scouting only.

My council has lake property.  Lake property in my area sells for $10,000 per linear foot.  Over 100 feet, that skyrockets to $20,000 per linear foot.  They own over 2,000 feet of property ... expected value on that one camp is $40M just for the lake frontage.  That is one cash strapped council, one camp.   

 

[ThenNow]

30 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

The proposed settlement has been called shameful.  Why is it shameful and $500 million not enough?  Why is $1.3 billion good, but $500 million is not?

Thanks. I do appreciate that.

I feel like whatever I say, on this score, is not going to be acceptable (to you). I refer you back to several of your fellow Scouters and their responses to the Plan. They have more contextual credibility than I ever will. As I recall, a handful of them pretty much said the same thing I did.

The one thing I will say, by way of a sideways answer, is: $6000? Seriously? 

Edited March 3, 2021 by ThenNow

[Eagle1993]

25 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

The proposed settlement has been called shameful.  Why is it shameful and $500 million not enough?  Why is $1.3 billion good, but $500 million is not?

An organization's lack of oversight led to the sexual abuse of 85,000 youth and they are offering ~10% of their net worth to never have to think about that again.  It would be one of the lowest settlements I have ever seen in a sex abuse case.  Why not $0 and a I'm sorry card?  That should be enough, correct?  I would measure it in relation to their net worth (including all assets).  To me, 75%+ would be close (around $4B) to the correct payment if you really believe the organization ended up with 85,000+ victims.

If you don't like that, then don't say you believe everyone.  Fight every claim one by one.  Identify the real claims and then make appropriate payouts for those where BSA failed to provide proper oversight.  Short of that, you need to make a substantial cut from your total net worth.  Its tough to say .. "yes, we believe all 85,000 were victims, we are sorry, and here is $6K while we walk away with most of our valuation".  

[skeptic]

2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I disagree.  Jeff Anderson has already shown he is willing to battle an Archdiocese for 4 years over $55M.  LCs have billions.  It will take a large settlement offer (or National BSA liquidation) to avoid 3-4 more years of litigation.

"LCs have billions."   Not sure on what you are basing this.  Our council is in the red, for all intents and purposes, and the value of the camp property is certainly not in that high value country, nor the falling down office which is a historical house that needs huge repairs.  I believe many councils are in similar positions, so other than the properties, which in many case were gifted in the teen, twenties, and thirties or even later, they have few resources.  The original "gifters" certainly did not give that property to be sold to pay off greedy lawyers, but for the scouts and the program.  Of course, another era as we know.  An era where few would have thought this kind of thing might occur, or they may have not given, or made sure it was protected for its original intent.  

[ParkMan]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Thanks. I do appreciate that.

I feel like whatever I say, on this score, is not going to be acceptable (to you). I refer you back to several of your fellow Scouters and their responses to the Plan. They have more contextual credibility than I ever will. As I recall, a handful of them pretty much said the same I did.

The one thing I will say, by way of a sideways answer is: $6000? Seriously? 

Thanks!

I'm curious to explore that reaction:

1. Why is $6,000 bad?

2. Why is $14,000 or $20,00 better?

3. What is the right amount?

 

[ThenNow]

6 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Lake property in my area sells for $10,000 per linear foot.  Over 100 feet, that skyrockets to $20,000 per linear foot.  They own over 2,000 feet of property ... expected value on that one camp is $40M just for the lake frontage.  That is one cash strapped council, one camp.   

Exactly.

I've done a limited amount of research looking at the public filings of several Councils. Many list liquid, investment and real property assets at or well above that number. Some of them much more and the real property assets can be stated at assessment value, which in some states is the value upon acquisition, as in many years ago.

There is an enormous amount of "money" there. Do I want to drain it to cripple the Scouts? No. Do I want to be insulted by someone turning inside out their pockets, looking at me with an innocent and quizzical look while hunching their shoulders in feigned surrender? Definitely, not. 

[mrjohns2]

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

If you don't like that, then don't say you believe everyone.  Fight every claim one by one.  Identify the real claims and then make appropriate payouts for those where BSA failed to provide proper oversight. 

I don't believe everyone. I also don't believe the BSA was negligent in all of the legitimate cases. I also believe that the BSA might not have the funds or assets to provide adequate compensation. 

Isn't that why we are in court? To determine who is due what and what BSA can provide?