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

[fred8033]

24 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

No incident report/awareness of the abuse is acknowledged by the BSA or by the police report until the second week of the month. His resignation was dated the first week of the month. Appears, to me, as a backdate.

Further, from one of the Regional Executives: 

"...and the attached letter we received from you dated _____ 11th, concerning ___________.  We have placed this information in our file and have taken steps to see that his name is deleted from our records as Institutional Representative of Troop __."

"Deleted" not noted as resigned.

I've seen "deleted" discussed in the past.  From an old registrar, it was reflecting how they tracked registered leaders.  Deleted was not hiding.  It was removing the registration.  

[CynicalScouter]

Page 46 of TCC's objection alludes to the atom-bomb for LCs. The TCC has been spending big bucks to get financial analyses of all the LCs, including and especially those camps.

And they brought receipts. An example is offered as Exhibit A using a redacted Council.

This is micro-level data for every council. Just wow. Appraised values. Total council expenditures. Cash on hand. Everything.

Just wow.

Edited May 10, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

39 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

CSA ??

Child Sexual Abuse.

39 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

What did the police report say?

Detailed the incident. I don't know that the particulars are relevant or is that not what you're asking?

39 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

It's common for people to quickly resign after an ugly incident ... especially where they have done wrong.  It's the only thing they can control.  The rest is out of their hands.  Plus, they often have magical thinking that they can avoid repercussions if they leave.  ... I'm sure many times they did ... 

So, I would not be surprised if the resignation happened days or even weeks before the other dates.  Deciding to come forward takes time.  Investigations take time.  There was no email or texting back then.  It was all hard-wired phone and typed paper.  The biggest delay often is people have to decide whether to submit a police report.  Police reports themselves have to be put together.  There were no mandatory reports in any field back then.  

I would not be surprised if the sequence was:   --> abuse --> discovery --> confrontation --> resignation --> complains to leaders (unit, council, charter org) --> police reports.   Things could take days or weeks.  

I see no indication that there was a confrontation of any kind. Not noted in the police report, filed by the parents with a statement from the Scout. I'm now jaded by the "deletion" and wouldn't be at all surprised if it was a backdated resignation. I hear your point and it's valid. Neither of us know for sure. The SE is alive and well and living large. Maybe I'll call him. Not in the BSA, but a business man.

40 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

The IVF entry you describe sounds SADLY very common.

The "deletion"? If that's what you mean, yes. It made me physically and emotionally sick.

40 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I'd also ask ... why did the police not continue.  Once it's in police hands, it's beyond unit / council / charter org control.  It's always been that way.  Why did the police not pursue it?  It sounds like they had the name of the victim and his family.  

No indication, other than the parents wanted their son to continue in Scouts, so long as they were assured the abuser was removed. People have to press charges. In my case, I found victims of my abuser who could've pursued action against him but couldn't come forward at that point. They were in their 30's and not prepared to face it, especially in their home town. If no one testifies, what do the police and DA have?

[ThenNow]

59 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I've seen "deleted" discussed in the past.  From an old registrar, it was reflecting how they tracked registered leaders.  Deleted was not hiding.  It was removing the registration.  

I can see that. Still troubles me. Sounds like he never existed and the incident certainly didn't make the papers or hit the grapevine. I would've known about it. The place was full of my family from top to bottom and all new I was in Scouts. In part, that's my problem. Delete, redact, erase, cross out, white out, take off the rolls...whatever. It and he were gone from view and out of sight for those who should've been made aware to beware. I understand why parents didn't pursue, but what a mess, regardless.

[CynicalScouter]

The most critical part of this data is that it gives sexual abuse claimants an exact amount they can see to approve/reject what an LC has to offer.

Take the redacted council for a second. A ~$40 million council.

It has three camps and an office building combined, between $19 and $21 million. They also have cash and investments of $20.5 million.

• TCC wants two out three camps sold along with the office building, leaving the smallest camp alone, for a total of $16 million going to abuse victims.
• TCC wants $13.625 million of out the $20.5 million in cash/investments. This is based on Council's membership will continue to freefall based on BSA's own assessment of this mess (BSA thinks this council will lose 12.44% of membership) and $425 in spending per scout with some adjustments.

They have total sexual abuse claims valued (by TCC) at $395 million, so, no one is saying this pays for everyone.

Abuse victims get 3/4 of total council assets ($30 out of $40 million)

• Two camps and an office building valued at $16 million
• Cash and investments valued at $14 million

This council is left with

• One camp valued at $3 million
• Cash and investments of $7 million

Just in case people are not getting the message here; this is as I said an atom bomb for councils.

Now, if I am an abuse victim, I can "see" that Local Council X is being forced to give up 2 camps, an office building, 70-80% of cash and investments, etc.

I will never, ever walk in the shoes of an abuse victim, so I can't say if this will help them vote or not. It DOES however make a few things clear:

• TCC is out for maximums. 75%+ of council assets.
• Claimants can now gauge. If the TCC thinks that the LC can give up 75% of assets, but the LC says it can only give up 25%, that's one thing. But if the TCC says 75% and the LC says 70%? Is that enough to vote yes for the plan?

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[elitts]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

All of which goes to show BSA (and LCs and COs) was negligent (if not reckless) in how they handled these maters.

There's a reason BSA and LCs do not want these to become lawsuits.

These are two different issues.  The argument for liability for a Sexual Assault has to be that the BSA could have prevented the assault had they taken reasonable preventative steps.

Whether or not you think they handled the cases appropriately after being notified has nothing to do with whether or not there were reasonable steps that the BSA should/could have taken that would have prevented the abuse.

[elitts]

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

Just in case people are not getting the message here; this is as I said an atom bomb for councils.

 

I promise that EVERYONE reading this thread understands your view on the issues.  The horse is not just dead, it's now nothing more than a stain on the ground with some skin and bones shards mixed in.

 

Though leaving only the small camp wouldn't really be a reasonable compromise.  If you've got 14k scouts using 3 camps, while there may well be excess capacity that would allow for some consolidation, you can't take all the scouts from 3 different camps (even half-utilized camps) and cram them into the smallest one. 

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, elitts said:

If you've got 14k scouts using 3 camps, while there may well be excess capacity that would allow for some consolidation, you can't take all the scouts from 3 different camps (even half-utilized camps) and cram them into the smallest one. 

The projection (based on BSA's own numbers/projection) is that that the 13,472 will drop down to 8,869 by December 2021.

That's another thing: BSA is saying, at least for this council, it expects the decline to keep going through 2021.

And while you may not think you can, TCC does. In the event BSA cannot get its plan approved by the abuse claimants, TCC will submit its plan and we now know (for that council) exactly what it will look like.

[CynicalScouter]

18 minutes ago, elitts said:

I promise that EVERYONE reading this thread understands your view on the issues.

That was more directed at the lurkers and people I see in FB groups who act as if this is all going to go away OR to the folks being told by their LCs that they just have to pay a little it of money and everything is going to be fine.

[ThenNow]

40 minutes ago, elitts said:

Whether or not you think they handled the cases appropriately after being notified has nothing to do with whether or not there were reasonable steps that the BSA should/could have taken that would have prevented the abuse.

Not my point, which is totally my fault. Got lost in the forest. This is research for my case, since I am my own attorney. That case still bothers me, regardless, but didn't set out to try a dissection. Just wound up there. Poor frog. Never was good at that. Anyway...here's the punchline that was very buried in my ranting and rambling.

This is my concern and, "Oh, YIKES!" moment. My DE (turned SE) was intimately involved in reporting and managing the other case. It happened one year after the first time I was abused. It put him on notice of this type of grooming (porn, booze, sexual suggestion/sexualizing, invitations to have sex, enticements, etc.) as part of a pattern of abuse. At the same time, he was a close compadre of my abuser/SM, came around the Unit, drank beers, was aware of porn passing...the very same stuff he knew were precursors to sexual abuse. Dat is what's so troubling and relevant to me.

I'll stop so the bankruptcy matters at hand can be discussed. No need for anyone to reply unless you want to do so. Feel free, though...

Edited May 10, 2021 by ThenNow

[MattR]

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

At the same time, he was a close compadre of my abuser/SM, came around the Unit, drank beers, was aware of porn passing...the very same stuff he knew was a precursor to abuse.

Now I understand. I was confused as well.

[CynicalScouter]

By the way, the Coalition of Abused Scouts has filed its objections to BSA being given more time to come up with plan(s) and want to make it clear: the global settlement plan is not going anywhere and the "toggle" plan could actually be worse.

Quote

The BSA Toggle Plan, which presumes the existence of at least one rejecting class (i.e., the survivors or the holders of Direct Abuse Claims), engages in unfair discrimination, is not feasible, is not in the best interest of creditors, and contains impermissible third-party releases. The BSA Toggle Plan may also likely result in the end of Scouting.

And the Coalition wants to put forth its plan now.

Quote

The Debtors have had their chance. No further estate assets should be wasted on the Debtors’ Disclosure Statement and Plan(s)

And, and frankly this is stunning and even the Coalition admits this is atypical, the Coalition wants the judge to find that BSA has not been acting in good faith. This is nice, gentle legalese for "BSA is lying/misleading the court"
 

Quote

 

Finally, the Plan was not proposed in good faith as required by section 1129(a)(3) of  the  Bankruptcy  Code.    Although  this  is  typically  a  confirmation  objection,  the  Coalition  believes  that  the  Court  should  take  the  totality  of  the  issues  relating  to  the  Plan  and  Disclosure  Statement into account before permitting the costly solicitation of votes on the Plan

Transparency  and  disclosure  are  supposed  to  be  hallmarks  of  the  chapter  11  process.    Here  the  Debtors  are  seeking  to  solicit  votes  based  on  a  Disclosure  Statement  that  includes inaccurate and misleading information regarding the aggregate value of abuse claims and the survivors’ expected recovery.  Century will not produce information necessary to understand the true value of the Hartford settlement as well as the value of the INA policies.  The Debtors and their insurers are trying to keep survivors in the dark.  The Debtors have failed to propose the plan with honesty and good intentions.  This is unfortunate because the Debtors can reorganize.

 

.And they come back to: let the TCC/FCR/Coalition come up with a plan and it will get approved in no time.

Quote

The  Debtors  could  propose  a  plan  that  provides  fair  compensation  for  survivors.    The Debtor are unwilling to do so.  The Coalition, the TCC, and the FCR are prepared to file a joint plan to save Scouting and provide safeguards to prevent future abuse.  The Coalition sincerely hopes that the Debtors will adopt a different approach but, for now, the parties standing in the way of a successful reorganization are the Debtors and their insurers.  For the sake of Scouting, fairness, and equity, this must end.  The path forward is clear.  The Coalition respectfully asserts that the Court should deny the Motion, terminate exclusivity, and permit the Coalition, the TCC, and the FCR to move forward with a plan that has the survivors’ support and can be confirmed by this Court.

 

[CynicalScouter]

And not to be left out, last but not least: Girl Scouts of the United States of America is objecting to this plan as well for failure to fully disclose info regarding the trademark lawsuit GSUSA has against them.

Quote

The Boy Scouts must adequately disclose the basis for its representation that Non-Abuse Litigation Claims will receive 100% recovery, or otherwise explain the disparate treatment of Girl Scouts under the proposed Plan. The Court should not approve the Disclosure Statement until it is amended to include such information and explanation.

 

[CynicalScouter]

But wait, here comes the Future Claims Rep who, you guessed it, opposes the BSA plan and wants to submit an alternative plan.

[ThenNow]

34 minutes ago, MattR said:

39 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

 

Now I understand. I was confused as well.

And you were 1000% justified in that state of confusion. I don't know how I got where I went, other than to say I was a bit crazed, dazed and gravely disappointed. I'll blame that.