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

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

So... this lawfirm's argument is that 100% of the claims in Illinois will be able to proceed against both LCs and COs even though Illinois has a 38 year old limit and no lookback window.

This is extremely interesting. Not something that was on my radar. Shows my limited knowledge of all of this. Although an Illinois ruling, I suppose it could have major ripple effects going forward. I am very curious to do more reading about this case and any commentaries or cross-references to the decision. This goes to the "date of the discovery of injury," as opposed to the date of the abuse, starting the SoL clock. The delayed date of discovery is based on the application of their fraudulent concealment statute. "The statute of limitations issue [is] a question of fact for the jury." Wow.

Edited May 6, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

4 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

United Methodist Ad Hoc Committee (the “Ad Hoc Committee”) and its constituent churches

This is what is going to ring alarms, pulling of hair, and gnashing of teeth.

The #1 sponsor for BSA units prior to 2020? LDS.

The #2 (now #1)? United Methodists.

So, what's got the Methodists upset?

Answer: BSA is planning to throw them under the bus.

Quote

Specifically,  for Chartered Organizations such as the member churches of the Ad Hoc Committee, the Disclosure Statement fails to provide information on: (i) the full terms to become a Contributing Chartered Organization  including,  most  importantly  the  financial  contribution  that  is  expected;  (ii)  policy year  by  policy  year  information  on  the  BSA  Insurance  Policies  setting  out  the  total  amount  of coverage purchased for each year, the amount of coverage remaining and the magnitude of claims asserted  in  each  policy  year,  and  (iii)  the  legal  justifications  for  the  implied  subordination  of Indirect Abuse Claims to Direct Abuse Claims.

That beep beep sound? Its the BSA backup the bus to run over the Methodists again.

Quote

A. The Disclosure Statement Lacks Information to Assess the Merits of Becoming a Contributing Chartered Organization under the Global Resolution Plan.

B. The  Disclosure  Statement  Does  Not  Provide  Chartered  Organizations  With Adequate Information to Assess the Impairment of Their Rights as Additional Insureds Under the BSA Insurance Policies.

C. The Disclosure Statement Fails to Explain Its Disparate Treatment of Indirect Abuse Claims.

And remember: the Methodist churches ALL (almost all?) filed claims against BSA because they knew or suspected BSA was going to do this to them.

But, let us not forget the former #1 CO: the LDS. They are hop snorting mad as well and filed both a redacted and sealed/unredacted version of their objection. Hoo-boy then. Let's take a look.

Quote

I. The Plan Is Patently Unconfirmable

A. The Plan Is Patently Unconfirmable Because It Would Impermissibly Modify the Property Rights of Non-Debtor Insureds under BSA’s Insurance Policies

B. The Debtors Cannot Dispense with Rights of Non-Debtor Insureds under the Plan or Otherwise

C. The Church Is an Insured

All of which is a roundabout legal way of saying "BSA is trying to get out from under ensuring our insurance and selling us out. No, thanks."

But there's more. Or rather, there isn't more.

Quote

II. The Disclosure Statement Fails to Provide Adequate Information as Required by Section 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code

A. The Disclosure Statement’s Description of the Church’s Indemnity Rights Is Inadequate

B. The Disclosure Statement Fails to Provide Adequate Information to Demonstrate that the Plan Satisfies the Best Interest Test

C. The Disclosure Statement Fails to Provide Adequate Information Regarding the Church’s Rights Under the BSA’s and Local Councils’ Insurance Policies May Eradicate BSA’s Indemnity Obligations

Let me translate: BSA's disclosure statement has so many holes and provides so little detail, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE for us (LDS) or anyone else to determine whether or not this is a good deal for LDS.

Move over Methodists, BSA wants to put the LDS under the bus next.

And so on.

And we are 13 days from the next hearing date.

I know there is a mediation next week in NY thanks to @MYCVAStory

The remaining potential large CO "Groups" left are

• Catholic Church (although I will note that the quasi-independent Knights of Columbus has filed its own objection)
• Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
• Lutheran Churches

The question would be do they object together, or as individuals (e.g. the Diocese of Arlington, the Diocese of Des Moines). The Diocese of Dallas already thew all BSA units out last year because of this mess. I won't be shocked to see some filings from that corner/those corners.

Edited May 7, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

3 hours ago, elitts said:

I'm just saying we need to be done.

I thought I was going to get a nice long nap. I woke up for a minute and here we are again. Or, maybe I’m dreaming? 

[CynicalScouter]

I like this one objection, mostly because it cuts right to the chase. Rather than saying (as every other objection did) that BSA didn't give enough information/disclosure to even GUESS if this was a good plan or not, this objection simply asks 8 questions and (in effect) dares BSA to answer (it won't, of course).

Oh, and they are asking on behalf of 4,000 claimants. That's about 5% of the total votes needed to sink any BSA org plan, so no, these are not rhetorical.

1. What information should victims know about The Hartford settlement?
2. Does my local council have assets to contribute and, if so, how much?
3. How much is my local council contributing in exchange for its release of liability?
4. Does my charter organization have assets and, if so, how much?
5. How much is my charter organization contributing in exchange for its release of liability?
6. How many claims are there against my local council and charter organization?
7. Does my claim have insurance to cover it and, if so, how much?
8. How is my claim being treated in a distribution procedure?

Now, in truth, Question 8 is probably answered generally and broadly (e.g. there will be a settlement trustee appointed to review all claims and distribute funds) even though it doesn't name that person ("John Smith") or set dates, times, etc. But I can understand why the question is there. It's reasonable to say BSA may not have that level of detail.

But 1-7? Oh absolutely, BSA is going to hide, shuffle and do whatever it can to NOT answer and just punt/kick the can as far down the road as it can. It could get those details, or TCC can shove them down BSA and the LC's throats.

But wow. This is direct, on point, a devastating.

[CynicalScouter]

One more point (on a roll tonight) and I'm taking it from Kosnoff (credit where credit is due).

How soon until we start to see formal filings from councils that are going to read, in effect "BSA and the Ad Hoc Committee do not represent us and we object to this plan, too."

Keep in mind this is more than rank speculation. Several councils (Circle Ten in particular comes to mind) have already had their own lawyers admitted into the case pro hac vice and filed motions on their own behalf/in their own right.

DocketNo	DocketPartNo	Title
1421		Objection of Circle Ten Council to Motion of the Official Tort Claimants' Committee Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 for an Order Authorizing the Issuance of Subpoenas for Discovery from Debtors and Certain Local Councils (related document(s)[1379]) Filed by Circle Ten Council (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A: July 31 Letter # (2) Exhibit B: September 4 Letter # (3) Exhibit C: BSA Bylaws # (4) Certificate of Service) (Bowden, William)

 

And, oh yes, Hartford technically sued Circle Ten and a cluster of other councils as part a related adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy. Hartford wanted all insurance policies they had for those LCs declared void. The deal Hartford cut, as I understand it, covers BSA's hide. NOT THE COUNCILS. But maybe it does? We don't know because BSA is not precisely forthcoming here.

So, yeah. There's that.

[CynicalScouter]

One more thing: if it seems like my most recent posts are goddy and gleeful? They are. Want to know why? Because this is actually a positive development.

Wha?

Hear me out. BSA was and is prepared to go round and round the mulberry bush with TCC, trying to wear it down and get to the point of BSA forcing TCC and the victims to accept a pittance on the theory that by summer they'll be completely out of cash and honestly be able to say "$6000 is the best we can do. There's nothing left."

Moreover, BSA no doubt was expected "fire from the front". Of course they knew TCC would object. How much and to what was TBD.

But this is "fire from the rear". I cannot image BSA thought it was going to be getting shots taken at it by LDS, the Methodists, the Knights of Columbus, etc.

And I suspect it is not going to stop.

So far the only entities expressing anything vaguely approaching support for this are Hartford and JP Morgan.

The rest are frankly objecting to BSA not giving a darn bit of details of how it plans to pay, what it plans to pay, who or what is getting thrown under which particular bus, etc.

And TCC has already stated on the record in a court filing it was working on its own reorg plan. One that no doubt could get the 66% of abuse victims onboard.

I feel somewhat better now. If this was more complex (the COs and others backed the BSA plan) I'd be more nervous about what may/may not happen. But now? Yeah, BSA's plan is toast. There's no way the judge even lets this go to a vote.

The question is will BSA get a plan to introduced Reorg plan 3.0? Amend the disclosure statement to provide more info (Reorg plan 2.1?) Or simply let TCC introduced its plan and be done with this.

[MYCVAStory]

Just a reminder, the TCC's objection to the BSA's disclosure statement is Monday.  This is the TCC's opportunity to take issue with specific items the BSA has raised as serious concerns such as its pension plan obligations.  Should be interesting reading after the weekend. 

[BlueandSilverBear]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Keep in mind this is more than rank speculation. Several councils (Circle Ten in particular comes to mind) have already had their own lawyers admitted into the case pro hac vice and filed motions on their own behalf/in their own right.

I'm a Circle Ten guy... The council has a lot of claims, but it's huge, old, and has absorbed a couple other councils over the last hundred years.  A quick skim of the council executive board includes a congressman, a state senator, the wife of an oil billionaire, and the most recent Dallas Chief of police... and those are just the names I recognize.  I get the impression that the council office is relatively sophisticated and has access to the resources to do what is in it's own best interest.  I would be surprised if other councils aren't doing the same.

46 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

But this is "fire from the rear". I cannot image BSA thought it was going to be getting shots taken at it by LDS, the Methodists, the Knights of Columbus, etc.

Shouldn't be a shock to anyone... The LDS church has 100 billion reasons to fight...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/mormon-church-has-misled-members-on-100-billion-tax-exempt-investment-fund-whistleblower-alleges/2019/12/16/e3619bd2-2004-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html

Edited May 7, 2021 by BlueandSilverBear

[mrjohns2]

33 minutes ago, BlueandSilverBear said:

Shouldn't be a shock to anyone... The LDS church has 100 billion reasons to fight...

I've read a lot on the forms over the years. One theory that wasn't mentioned often was that the LDS reason to leave wasn't gay leaders, gay scouts, girls, or LDS churches overseas that couldn't be members of the BSA. Was the real reason was the bankruptcy and not being a part of it? They are still part of the bankruptcy, but they aren't in the ship anymore. 

[vol_scouter]

29 minutes ago, BlueandSilverBear said:

Shouldn't be a shock to anyone... The LDS church has 100 billion reasons to fight...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/mormon-church-has-misled-members-on-100-billion-tax-exempt-investment-fund-whistleblower-alleges/2019/12/16/e3619bd2-2004-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html

BlueandSilverBear, you just revealed the likely end game (by the way, you are right about the local councils though few are as powerful and capable as Circle Ten).  The TCC, Kosnoff, and others have been wanting to get to the COs.  Suing the CO's will at best force the BSA into a new model and at worst could sink the current Scouting movement because there would be no place to meet if the CO's all pull out.  But the real reason is those attorneys are eyeing the previous largest CO in the BSA and the one that the charter was through the LDS church and not individual stakes.  The attorneys are after the $100 B of the LDS church.  All is clear now.

[mrjohns2]

6 hours ago, SilverPalm said:

Summit seems like the obvious sacrificial lamb to me.  Philmont, Northern Tier, even Seabase have something to offer.  But Summit is the least popular of the sites, the most expensive, and only BSA National seems to give a damn about it.

How much of the Summit is owned outright? Last update I heard was many years ago, but that the BSA still owed like $200M or so. So, the sale would go to pay off the bonds, no? Or have they been paid? Boy Scouts of America Seeks Survival Skills To Deal With Abuse Allegations (forbes.com)

[CynicalScouter]

37 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

Was the real reason was the bankruptcy and not being a part of it? They are still part of the bankruptcy, but they aren't in the ship anymore. 

Does not matter if they left or not. If the abuse occurred while they were CO, they are on the hook.

Edited May 7, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

32 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

How much of the Summit is owned outright?

That is what the TCC wants BSA to release. It is why or part of why they are opposing the deal BSA made with JP Morgan. The math does not add up. It looks like there is money being shielded by a fake loan agreement.

That whole mess could be solved in 1 hour if JP Morgan or BSA just emailed the financials to the judge and the TCC. TCC asked, BSA said no.

Makes you wonder.

[SilverPalm]

It also seems like selling Summit is the obvious solution to everyone not at National... which, perhaps, explains the delay in providing documents.  

Purely speculation on my part, of course, but I would guess these documents do not support BSA National's argument that Summit is totally underwater.  I would sell Summit in a heartbeat if it meant we could keep Philmont, Northern Tier, Seabase, or any arrangement of the above, and I imagine many other Scouters would do the same.  I also believe National knows this.  But for some reason, some folks at National are digging in to save Summit, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes. 

Presenting documents that show that it is indeed possible to sell Summit when many on both sides want that to happen would make everyone happy... except for National.  This might be why we haven't seen any documents at all.  If they had documents that proved Summit was indeed underwater, they'd have presented those documents already.

/speculation

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Stop blaming victims from having the audacity to have lawyers looking out for their interests (TCC).

I'm sorry that this turned out to be our first interaction on these boards.  I've read a lot of your posts, and I respect your passion for the program as well as your sense of justice. 

I'm a little surprised you would make this comment, considering that I've spoken at length elsewhere about how important I feel it is that Scouting does the right thing for the survivors.  I certainly do not intend to victim blame, and I think the term might have been misapplied here.  All I said was that the BSA was paying continual legal bills without having anything to show for it - I didn't apply a virtue statement to that, nor did I suggest it was any of the victims' fault.

I'm a proponent of taking responsibility for things I've done, both good and bad.  I owe that sense of moral responsibility in large part to Scouting.  And I expect Scouting to, for lack of a better phrase, put their money where their mouth (or handbook) is.  If Scouting wants to hold the moral high ground, they need to be worthy of it, and that means doing the right thing and putting right the wrongs of the past.  They hurt kids.  Those kids deserved better.  Scouting has a duty to do everything they can to right those wrongs as much as they can, even if that hurts the program.

Someone else - maybe even you, Cynical - raised a good point earlier.  If we have to sell camps to make up the difference, so be it.  It just so happens that we're the ones who have to do it.  If these wrongs were made right forty or fifty or sixty years ago, we still wouldn't have those camps - we just wouldn't know about them in the first place.

[fred8033]

 

6 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Interesting point from one of the bigger law firms.

Doe v. Boy Scouts of America, 2016 IL App (1st) 152406.

So... this lawfirm's argument is that 100% of the claims in Illinois will be able to proceed against both LCs and COs even though Illinois has a 38 year old limit and no lookback window.

Statue of limitations is a confusing topic and seems extremely pliable to the point we can quesiton if limitations really exist.  I fear the Illinois case as it's reasoning effectively eliminates statue of limitations in many cases. 

• For BSA, Illinois elimiated it because of BSA's special relationship installing morals.   
• What about those of churches that exist to instill morals also?
• What about those of schools that exist to instill reasoning and knowledge? 
• What about medical who's special relationship is to lookout for the health and wellfare of the patient?
• What about police ...
• What about employers who's "special relationship" is as a source of money for people to buy food, house themselves, etc?  ... I know many people who sweat losing their job and might hush up many things. 
• What about a family member?  There is no more special relationship.
• What about landlords?  That's a pretty special relationship.

Seems statues of limitations might only exist when you don't interact with other people.