Chapter 11 announced - Part 2 (after the big slow)

[Eagle1993]

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/886060_2577.pdf

This one has an interesting footnote (new plan coming in 36 hours or less):

Quote

The Debtors intend to file the Second Amended Plan described herein within the next thirty-six (36) hours unless they reach a resolution as a result of ongoing negotiations with creditors and insurers. The Debtors reserve their rights to file a plan of reorganization on terms that differ from the terms of the Second Amended Plan described herein.

 

New plan will be a toggle plan ... from what I can see, the BSA believes that plan (which appears to drop the protection of LCs and COs) will be a worse outcome form claimants than their other proposal.  However, it does seem like they may be offering that plan as well... we will see.

Quote

BSA Toggle Plan will afford the Debtors the necessary flexibility to emerge from bankruptcy on their required timeline even if they fail to obtain approval of a global resolution due to lack of creditor support or otherwise.

Quote

The Debtors should be permitted to fully exhaust all avenues for achieving that objective, to the fullest extent permitted under section 1121(d)(2), before survivors are forced to accept the suboptimal outcome that the TCC is advocating: de minimis recoveries from the Debtors’ limited assets and the right to pursue nondebtor defendants in the tort system—and likely into bankruptcy courts across the country as Local Councils confront a tidal wave of abuse lawsuits.

 

[T2Eagle]

Interesting procedural arguments.   Doesn't move the ball down the field at all.

[DavidLeeLambert]

5 hours ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Is the BSA Travel Agency the new way to pay the bills?

You and your family can stay at Philmont, Summit, or Sea Base.  Dont even have to be in Scouts.

Tents, bunkhouses, hotel style rooms.

https://www.scouting.org/outdoor-programs/family-adventure-camp/

That could be fodder for the claimant committees to argue that the HA bases are in fact available for liquidation as part of a settlement. The open sale of camping-time to non-Scouts could even call BSA's non-profit status into question. It might help defend against such complaints if there was a "hardship discount", where, for example, families with income below the poverty line could have their camping fees partially or fully waived.

Similarly, my Council's flagship camp only runs about 6-8 weeks of actual Boy Scout camp program in the summer. They also get revenue by hosting high-school band camps, and church youth groups, and so forth.

And my local GSUSA council has a "family camp" as one of their properties, although they're currently planning to sell it. It's only a few miles down the road from a BSA camp. 

Edited April 12, 2021 by DavidLeeLambert
spelling

[Eagle1993]

32 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

Interesting procedural arguments.   Doesn't move the ball down the field at all.

Agreed.  The HA bases are the major asset National has available. Most of this seems like a waste of time until a judge rules on their status.  We are well over a year into bankruptcy and we have yet to be to see any judge rule on the bases.  It’s time to get that moving. 

[walk in the woods]

10 hours ago, Owls_are_cool said:

Nobody associated with my troop will want to pay a dime towards any settlement, because none of us participated in the abuse. We're here to invest in scouts today, not to bail out scouters who were not held accountable decades ago. Making scouts sell popcorn, etc for such bailouts to keep the program running is just wrong. 

That horse left the barn years ago.  The BSA has settled multiple cases in and out of court already.  You've already paid.

[ThenNow]

FYI. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-pressured-to-end-bankruptcy-explore-leaving-local-councils-behind-11618274576?st=r5sccvtar4cix77&reflink=article_copyURL_share

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=boys+scouts+to+offer+new+plan&t=brave&ia=web

Edited April 13, 2021 by ThenNow

[RememberSchiff]

Seems National is offering to follow suggestions to simplify their bankruptcy case. Local Councils, the Ad Hoc Committee, local CO's and their assets would no longer be involved in bankruptcy. Focus on National assets and insurers.

Can a victim who agrees to a National settlement be prohibited from suing locally?

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, RememberSchiff said:

Can a victim who agrees to a National settlement be prohibited from suing locally?

LCs and COs are not parties. If they don’t participate and get a specific release under the Plan, there’s no protection. This alternate plan contemplates releasing National only. Short answer, no. 

[ThenNow]

31 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Seems National is offering to follow suggestions to simplify their bankruptcy case

From my view, and it’s a relative outsider view, they’re throwing everyone but themselves under the bus to get outta Dodge with what they can’t bear to lose.

The status conference made it clear (to me) the BSA is not engaging the Ad Hoc Committee, Century or the TCC in a substantive or meaningful way. All three major parties groused about the lack of “invitation” and “inclusion” in the process, especially the mediation sessions, pre, post and during, and also in the preparation of the Amended Plan and the one soon to be filed.

Edited April 13, 2021 by ThenNow

[Eagle94-A1]

I am not a lawyer, so this is a honest question.

If LCs and COs did NOT file claims against the BSA prior to the November 2020 deadline, then the LCs and COs are completely on their own and cannot sue BSA for breach of contract, or whatever legal term it would be, for not honoring the agreements in the charter agreements from all these years?

My understanding is part of the charter fees everyone paid was to protect the CO and LC from lawsuits just like this.

[Eagle1993]

15 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

From my view, and it’s a relative outsider view, they’re throwing everyone but themselves under the bus to get outta Dodge with what they can’t bear to lose.

I have no idea what those internal conversations are, but this is a VERY tough sell to councils.  

1) For councils with high likelihood of bankruptcy if this fails ... they will still debate what is restricted vs unrestricted assets.  Having them turn over their friends of scouting funds, most of their camps, etc. with out a court order will be nearly impossible.

2) For councils that believe they are at a low likelihood of bankruptcy/lawsuits ... why would they want to part with key camps or endowments?

I think attempting to have a grand bargain is nearly impossible.  I think National would love a deal that includes councils/COs ... but unless a court rules against an entity or that an asset is unrestricted, its hard to give up the amount needed voluntarily.

[Eagle1993]

2 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I am not a lawyer, so this is a honest question.

If LCs and COs did NOT file claims against the BSA prior to the November 2020 deadline, then the LCs and COs are completely on their own and cannot sue BSA for breach of contract, or whatever legal term it would be, for not honoring the agreements in the charter agreements from all these years?

My understanding is part of the charter fees everyone paid was to protect the CO and LC from lawsuits just like this.

Given that BSA is now saying (in the media & court documents) if the grand bargain fails, councils will likely go bankrupt,  I think they realize and are admitting those claims are likely worthless.

Edited April 13, 2021 by Eagle1993
grammar

[DavidLeeLambert]

35 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

LCs and COs are not parties. If they don’t participate and get a specific release under the Plan, there’s no protection. This alternate plan contemplates releasing National only. Short answer, no. 

If by "parties" you mean Debtors in this bankruptcy, correct. But all of the Local Councils and a significant number of COs have filed claims for indemnity, and are in the class on "indirect abuse claimant" creditors.

One equitable solution to this bankruptcy would be to liquidate and pay out some fraction of the indirect abuse claimants' expected liability and/or litigation expenses. Then each council and each claimant would certainly be free to go after his LC and CO in state and federal civil court, but on each front he would be facing an opponent with a freshly-flush litigation warchest.

During the status conference yesterday, the attorney for the Local Council Committee stated that, for the Local Councils to all participate, "thousands of volunteers across the country will need to agree."

Someone else (I think either BSA counsel or insurance counsel) predicted a "tidal wave" of local counsel bankruptcies if the LCs aren't included in the plan.

[Eagle94-A1]

14 minutes ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

Someone else (I think either BSA counsel or insurance counsel) predicted a "tidal wave" of local counsel bankruptcies if the LCs aren't included in the plan.

Which is what Kosnoff wants.

[ThenNow]

55 minutes ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

Someone else (I think either BSA counsel or insurance counsel) predicted a "tidal wave" of local counsel bankruptcies if the LCs aren't included in the plan.

The first wave is obvious from this graphic. During the town hall, TCC counsel very strongly encouraged survivor claimants in open states to seek state counsel NOW (if they haven’t) to ensure their cases are filed within the window deadlines. He also encouraged all claimants to seek counsel’s advice to determine if any case can be brought for their abuse, regardless the state or date of occurrence. 

From my perspective, LCs with notable claims against them in DC, NY, NJ, CA, VT, NC, MA, RI and Guam are in trouble. KY, OR and CT probably, as well.

 

Edited April 13, 2021 by ThenNow
Added thoughts