Chapter 11 announced - Part 3 - BSA's Toggle Plan

[CynicalScouter]

8 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

A big part of the funding came from the BSA.  They had to spend $6.8M on those ads.  However, I believe you are correct that other funding came in as well.

Yes, there was a big blowup over this involving claims that the ads put together by the mass tort groups were deceptive and confused would be claimants.

[Eagle1993]

5 hours ago, fred8033 said:

We've debated till our faces are blue about BSA being at fault for past abuses.  

I have a mixed opinion on this.  I know it’s nearly impossible to have 100% safety and society has changed over time in terms of understanding child sex abuse and how to increase protections.  I do think BSA is doing most of what it can now. 
 
That said, I really struggle saying BSA wasn’t at fault pre 1990s. What is your thoughts when you hear that the head of the Big Brother program approach the BSA to work on preventing sex abuse in 1980 and the BSA did nothing.  That psychologist in 1981 wrote to BSA leaders that they need to vet Scoutmasters more given the abuse.  Nothing.  That BSA leadership never even gave the sex abuse reports to their safety committee (their safety leader said at one point more scouts drowned than were abused which was 1000% false).   There are reports of BSA employees actively asking parents not to file charges and asking police chiefs to keep reports out of newspapers.  BSA leaders (both national and council) admitting they kept this quiet as it was bad for business.  

Again, I know hindsight 20/20 and some of this was the society at the time.  I also know at some point you have to move on otherwise many organizations should disappear. But when I see Big Brother program and others pointing out the issue in the 1980s and BSA leaders quotes where they actively hid the situation... I really struggle to defend the BSA.  In the end, hundreds of not thousands  of men joined the BSA with the intent to have sex with boys.  Based on what I see, too many employees of the BSA covered this up.

[Eagle1993]

7 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

So what was the purpose of this?

If I ran council X ... I would want to know what the TCC is looking for as a payout for a settlement.  That way, I can go back to our leadership and determine ... do we fight or surrender.  I know they didn't give actual values yet, but at least it gives me an idea of the process on how to get that so I can prepare.

[ThenNow]

7 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Dumb question ... By the TCC inviting the LCs directly and beginning direct discussions with LCs, isn't that TCC effectively acknowledging the LCs as separate entities ?   ...  incorporated separately ... paying taxes separately ... owning property separately  ...  now beginning to negotiate with TCC separately?  

Further, doesn't it create evidence that BSA doesn't control the council leadership?   (presidents, scout execs, etc?)   ... council leaders negotiating directly with TCC ...  choosing to opt in or opt out of a larger settlement ...   That lack of control is further evidence that councils are separate legal entities. 

Um. Unless I misread the recap of the meeting, the facts of this scenario evidence the exact opposite. The TCC requested and also offered to be in communication with the LCs. BSA's response? ACCESS DENIED!! "NO, you cannot talk to our LCs. But, of course, they are fully separate and autonomous legal entities making their own decisions, managing their own finances and controlling their own destinies." Ya, right. This major OOPS! can't be put back into the sack at this point. This is a clear, though inadvertent, example of the BSA controlling the LCs. They stepped in it BIG TIME. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

By the way, this has now run far, far afield of the original topic and should be put into the Toggle plan thread.

58 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

If I ran council X ... I would want to know what the TCC is looking for as a payout for a settlement.  That way, I can go back to our leadership and determine ... do we fight or surrender.  I know they didn't give actual values yet, but at least it gives me an idea of the process on how to get that so I can prepare.

Exactly. All the councils know right now is a number based on the formula the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils came up with (along with BSA) as the what THEY (Committee and BSA) think the LC should pay.

Now the TCC is giving its number based on what assets it thinks the LC can contribute.

IF (like my council) you have no camp and no real property, I would think that the BSA/Ad Hoc Committee number is going to be close to the TCC number.

If, however, you are a council with multiple camps you may think based in the BSA/ad Hoc committee number you only need to sell 1 camp or even no camps whereas the TCC number is maybe closer to 2 camps, etc.

Edited May 6, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagle1993]

I moved in some of the comments from the Respondeat Superior thread.  No comments were deleted in either thread.  Unlocked.

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Eagle1993

[MattR]

35 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

By the way, this has now run far, far afield of the original topic and should be put into the Toggle plan thread.

Peakaboo! For all of you that just look at the "what's new" page, it looks like @Eagle1993 corralled that other thread about how superior Latin is, or whatever it was, and put it back here. You can continue here.

[ThenNow]

9 hours ago, T2Eagle said:

What would be the value added by TCC or BRG?  What would they be telling councils that councils don't already know?

From this negotiator's standpoint, making the other party aware that, "I know what you got in the bank, Jack, so don't try to evade or jack me around in this negotiation," is a big, big deal. That alone is important for the LCs to realize. The TCC wasn't getting full disclosure so they hired some heavy hitters and created their own full asset disclosure statement(s). "So, BSA and LCs? You can't hide what we already know, folks. Lookie here? We got your digits. Let's talk about how to get you a release of future liability, yes?"

[CynicalScouter]

Century has filed a motion against the TCC, the FCR, and the UCC for burning through over $100 million with nothing (much) to show for it. And they are angry.

Under the current Compensation Order, estate professionals are paid 100% of their requested fees every three months.

• The Debtors, TCC, UCC, and FCR have all failed to exercise any oversight of fees.
• The appointment of a fee examiner has not amelioratedthe issue of disproportionately high fees in this case.
• This massive spending occurred largely in the absence of litigation.
• A shocking number of professionals are billing at top-of-the-market rates without any regard to the proportionality of the services rendered.
• The enormous rates and the incredible number of lawyers are out of sync with othersexual abuse bankruptcies.
• The TCC and Coalition professionals are generating enormous duplicative costs.
• The estate has been billed for over $1 millionfor parties to prepare their fee applications.

What does Century want? Hold back some of the fees at least for now until a final settlement or closure is reached.

Quote

Century requests that the Court modify its Compensation Order for all estate professionals to provide that the 20% holdback be paid from the estate only after consideration and approval of a Final Fee Application.

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagle1993]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

What does Century want? Hold back some of the fees at least for now until a final settlement or closure is reached.

 

 

Quote

But the run-up in administrative fees has been driven as much by Debtors’ professionals: nearly two-thirds of total reimbursements for which professionals seek allowance in the monthly fee applications is for BSA professionals

So ... BSA lawyers are 2/3 of the total fees and they appear to be delaying the whole process.  At some point ... I wonder if we look back and find out the BSA lawyers' advice was based on their goal of maximizing the money they get out of this entire process.

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

"NO, you cannot talk to our LCs. But, of course, they are fully separate and autonomous legal entities making their own decisions, managing their own finances and controlling their own destinies."

I am going to quibble just a touch here.

BSA, to my knowledge, did not say "you cannot talk to our LCs". They said "you cannot talk to our LCs using our Zoom platform Q&A thing, today, here, now."

I don't think BSA has formally told TCC to route all requests to LCs through BSA. In other words, TCC could pick up the phone right now and call the Scout Exec (paid professional) or Council President (volunteer) and try to start up a chat since they are NOT represented by counsel.

Of course, no council level person in his/her right mind would take that call, instead forwarding it on to a) BSA's counsel or b) their own local LC counsel c) the lawyers for the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils or d) a combo platter.

[ThenNow]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

I am going to quibble just a touch here.

BSA, to my knowledge, did not say "you cannot talk to our LCs". They said "you cannot talk to our LCs using our Zoom platform Q&A thing, today, here, now."

I see where you took my jocularity as a universal statement. I was riffing on the meeting moment. I have a screen writer's brain.

Jim Stang: "Hey, now. We'd be more than happy to answer questions and have a little back and forth about all this. That may help advance the process and make some actual progress. Is that cool, Ms. Lauria?"

Ms. Lauria: "Hard pass. That's a wrap."

[CynicalScouter]

25 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

"I know what you got in the bank, Jack, so don't try to evade or jack me around in this negotiation," is a big, big deal.

Especially given the shell games some councils played (hello, Middle Tennessee) in trying to hide assets.

The other item is that it opens some eyes. I can imagine that some LCs think "Well, there's no way we'll ever be forced to sell Camp XYZ." Or "Well, Camp XYZ is only worth $100, and the TCC thinks it is worth $1,000? Huh?"

The other key is proportionality and equity in terms of ongoing operations.

Say you are a local council with $1 million in assets. Based on that 70% of those assets ($700,000) are core essential in the form of two camps. There's just NO WAY we can give up those camps! (Putting aside that lots of councils don't have their own camps).

TCC comes in and with their experts says: you can part with one, or both. Lots of councils don't have camps. Pay up (or transfer the camp to the settlement fund).

Now it isn't esoteric fights about big giant numbers ($400 million! $1 billion!) this is now trench war. Line by line. Property by property. Asset by asset.

LCs are not going to be able to just say "All assets are core essential and restricted" and leave it at that. They'll have to prove/demonstrate.

There's also equity: Go back to that $1 million council for a second. If 70% of its assets are those two camps, forcing the sale of both takes out 70% of total assets. Even if the camps are not "core essential", taking out that much of a council's asset structure could leave it dead or dying. Therefore TCC (or the court) could force the sale of one camp, but not both.

Again, contrary to the belief of some people here

• TCC is NOT here to kill off BSA and the LCs.
• The judge is NOT going to approve a plan that kills off BSA and the LCs (this is a Chapter 11, not a Chapter 7).

Where the line is between a) a crippled but alive BSA or LC forced to sell XX% of assets vs. b) a dead one is pure math.

Edited May 6, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[fred8033]

Per TCC talking directly with LCs as evidence of being legally separate

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Um. Unless I misread the recap of the meeting, the facts of this scenario evidence the exact opposite. The TCC requested and also offered to be in communication with the LCs. BSA's response? ACCESS DENIED!! "NO, you cannot talk to our LCs. But, of course, they are fully separate and autonomous legal entities making their own decisions, managing their own finances and controlling their own destinies." Ya, right. This major OOPS! can't be put back into the sack at this point. This is a clear, though inadvertent, example of the BSA controlling the LCs. They stepped in it BIG TIME. 

 

But then the reality of the efforts between the LCs and TCC recently show the opposite.  I've been reading comments about last TCC mtg and other TCC activities.  About last meeting, attendance was huge and suggested that hat people should ask their scout exec or council president attended.  Further, the TCC inviting (the invite itself) shows a direct communication approach.  Another comment in this thread said that TCC was open to direct communication with any LC.

 

[CynicalScouter]

15 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Another comment in this thread said that TCC was open to direct communication with any LC.

Yes, because TCC would RATHER have the LCs turn over the assets directly vs. do this the "hard way" in which BSA National revokes all the LC charters (either voluntarily or as directed by the court), seizes all LC assets (per the BSA Bylaws, as I noted above), and BSA turns over the assets.