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

[fred8033]

... only providing BOLD to show my main points ...  not raising my voice ... I often skim documents looking for key points ... it helps ... when something peaks my interest, I'll read the surrounding material ...



I'm familiar that we have several lawyers posting in this thread.  I'm not a lawyer but I am posting as it doesn't seem we are getting valid legal advice representing BSA's best interest.

 

39 minutes ago, RobertCalifornia said:

 There are only two questions: how much? And when?

Yes ... we want ... how much and when .... but there is no such thing ...  there is no fixed price tag or fixed date.  ... depending how motions, arguments, cases, negotations, trials, etc ... this could be survivable or devastating.   The HOW MUCH is not a calculation from a set of facts.  It's the result of a legal process.  The WHEN is when the legal process is done.

This legal process that will be fought for months and years (this or related cases) with motions and findings.   I would not be surprised if one or more judges spend the rest of their career overseeing these specific cases.

I asserted it because we keep hearing BSA's delaying, BSA should just hand over; etc.  ... yep ... we all want that ... it makes things clean and easy.  ... I want it too.  

MY POINT IS --> It's not good legal advice. 

#64 asks for the material that would be provided at trial.  Disclosure motions are a huge part before any trial and can go on for a long time. 

I seriously asked ..  #64 refers to a "trial"?  Is the trial scheduled?  What is the date?  Is BSA in pre-trial discovery process?  What are the deadlines for witness lists?  Submitting evidence ?  etc.  ... Or are we in mediation to find a way out of the bankruptcy?  

As for the reference to providing why/how BSA will defend Summit as reserved (or other asserts for that matter ...  it's asking for BSA"s future game plan ... I'd want to delay too until absolutely required or it's in my best interest.

I provided the Advocate link because it confirms my thoughts ... no good lawyer would automatically hand over details automatically.  Am I legally required at this moment?  All of it or some?  Does it help or hurt his client?  In BSA'san his client preserve funds to continue operating?  

From the outside, we all want the final answer ... how much and when ... but a fixed price is a myth .

 

Like Toby Ziegler's lawyer pointed out ... it's not in the clients interest to go out in a blaze of glory providing opposing lawyers everything they want (evidence, strategy, arguments, etc ...)     It can help and it can definitely hurt too.

 

This will be long and drawn out.  The more I watch ... These cases has years to go.  

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by fred8033

[ThenNow]

6 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Your points reflect a desire for a one sided presentation which denies the reality of the current day.  Your points simply silence opposite views. 

I can't take this response seriously when two of the points have already been supported by Moderators, one has been (apparently) managed though internal self-government or some invisible, magical restraint and two others are completely neutral, to play your us vs. them game. I should've just DMd them to MattR and not further bread (sic) your hate.

[Eagle1993]

5 hours ago, fred8033 said:

#64 refers to a "trial"?  Is the trial scheduled?  Is BSA in pre-trial discovery process?  Or are we in mediation to find a way out of the bankruptcy?  

BSA is asking the Judge, May 19th to approve their plan and allow it to go to a vote.  TCC filed an objection and this was one of many reasons.  Basically, judge, you cannot approve the plan as there has been no decision on HA bases.  Since claimants have to approve the plan (67% of them) and they will reject any plan until the HA bases are litigated, there is no reason to approve BSA’s request May 19th.   The TCC also shows the power is all within BSA’s control.   TCC has already clearly defined the objection to the HA bases and BSA must respond or see their plan rejected.

BSA is arguing that if their plan is not approved May 19, they will likely have to liquidate as they need to exit bankruptcy by summer or they run out of cash.  

So, May 19 this will be decided.  

[Eagle1993]

5 hours ago, fred8033 said:

MY POINT IS --> It's not good legal advice. 

If BSA is being 100% truthful with you, me and claimants that they want to exit bankruptcy as quickly as possible this is not true.  If we are to believe BSA that they will liquidate in September if they are still in bankruptcy, this is not true.  
 

Now, if those are simply bluffs and BSA can survive for 2-3 more years while going through bankruptcy, I agree.  
 

I think if BSA wants to keep their HA bases and continues to play the delay game, we are looking at years of bankruptcy trials.  The only way BSA gets out quickly is surrendering the bases (or immediately proving they are restricted) and dropping protection for LCs and COs.  My guess is the DOJ objection removes the LCs and COs from the process anyway.  
 

May 19th will be a big day to find out where this is headed. 

Edited May 13, 2021 by Eagle1993
Added restricted comment

[ThenNow]

6 hours ago, fred8033 said:

#64 refers to a "trial"?  Is the trial scheduled?  Is BSA in pre-trial discovery process?  Or are we in mediation to find a way out of the bankruptcy?  

An Adversary Proceeding is Different From the Main Bankruptcy Case - The main bankruptcy case involves a debtor and the creditors of that debtor, and the main bankruptcy case has its own separate electronic docket and case number. An "Adversary Proceeding" in bankruptcy court has the same meaning as a lawsuit in other courts. This means that one or more "plaintiff(s)" file a "complaint" against one or more "defendant(s)." In many situations an adversary proceeding is required if a plaintiff wants to obtain a particular type of relief. Consult Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Rule 7001 to determine if a particular type of relief requires an adversary proceeding.

When an adversary proceeding is commenced, the clerk's office starts a separate electronic docket to record all activity in the adversary proceeding. Each adversary proceeding has its own "adversary number" which can be found on the first page of the complaint, right below the main bankruptcy case number. An example is 2:AP:12-01501-VZ. This means an adversary proceeding (AP) filed in the Los Angeles division in calendar year 2012 and assigned to the Judge Vincent Zurzolo. After an adversary complaint is filed, the defendant has a specific deadline to file and serve a written response to the complaint, and then a series of pre-trial hearings/conferences take place until the lawsuit is settled, dismissed, or goes to trial.

https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/faq/bankruptcy-case-vs-adversary-proceeding-what-difference

Edited May 13, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

39 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

May 19th will be a big day to find out where this is headed. 

How about we demonstrate great unity and magnanimity by seeing how many upvotes we can get on this one single solitary sentence? Or not. I just thought this is a flag worth saluting, but then again I have a tendency to humor myself with visual images of calming conflict through simultaneous salutes via digital button pushing and other such borderline nonsense. 

[CynicalScouter]

7 hours ago, fred8033 said:

#64 refers to a "trial"?  Is the trial scheduled?  Is BSA in pre-trial discovery process?  Or are we in mediation to find a way out of the bankruptcy?

As a matter of fact, yes, we are in pre-trial discovery.

In addition to the bankruptcy proceeding there is a parallel "adversary" proceeding filed to contest/challenge the JP Morgan/Summit shell game. Case number 21-50032 and referred to as the TCC Identified Property Action.

Since THAT portion of the mediation has concluded (with JP Morgan and BSA agreeing to this shell game) anyone challenging it is no longer bound by any mediation. It is fair game for litigation.

UNLIKE the bankruptcy proceeding which is happening in Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, this proceeding has been filed in the District Court for the District of Delaware.

Pre-trial conferences were set for 3/17, delayed until 4/15, and now 5/19 in District Court. No trial date set, but that will happen at the 5/19 pre-trial conference.

BSA has filed its answer to the complaint in that adversary proceeding which pretty much says the Summit deal is fine and perfectly legal and don't you worry about a thing TCC. You can trust us..

On April 30 TCC served its discovery asking for the shell game documents to be produced (interrogatories, request for document production, etc.). BSA's refusal to respond, reply, or in anyway cooperate was mentioned in the briefs in the "main" bankruptcy: TCC is asking for one shred of evidence or documents that the Summit deal isn't fraudulent and BSA is refusing to turn over the docs. "Trust us" is the answer "the deal is legit."

Which is why I said the next stage is going to be a subpoena for production directed to BSA. And if that doesn't get the message through there will be sanctions and contempt proceedings.

All so BSA's shell game with Summit can be protected.

But sure, quote West Wing. That's going to be a winning strategy for BSA.

But sure, continue to defend BSA as just trying to do right by the victims with this shell game.

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

May 19th will be a big day to find out where this is headed. 

I hate to say it: but that entirely depends.

For example, Century and a slew of other (lesser) insurance companies are in effect renewing their call for at least 2 months of discovery and vetting at it relates to the 84,000 claims.

Moreover, given her track record so far, I can see more can-kicking down the road by the judge.

[CynicalScouter]

Century is now claiming they have a whistleblower, presuambly willing to testify, that many if not most of the 95,000 claims (now 84,000) are fraudulent OR were fraudulently obtained and that ANY effort to move forward with a plan (BSA, TCC, or otherwise) needs to clear up who precisely has a valid claim BEFORE whoevers plan goes out for a vote.

First, they've now provided scanned signature analysis showing that some of Proof of Claim forms were clear forgeries. Moreover, they are claiming that they have a whistleblower, ready to testify, that many if not most of the claims are fraudulent. She provided a deposition on May 11.

Quote

A whistleblower has come to describe how the POCs were generated.30  The individual worked as an Intake Professional for Reciprocity Industries, LLC (“Reciprocity”), and handled calls concerning claims of abuse in scouting.  The whistleblower confirmed that employees were paid $11 or $12 per hour with bonuses paid to hit weekly targets.31  The organization would “keep track of numbers,” using “white boards everywhere in the office on which numbers of claims were written.”32  The tactics described are aggressive, with employees “ only doing electronic signatures,” and managers telling employees “push through Proofs of Claim without the claimants’ signatures.”33  Indeed, claimants’ signatures “were electronically affixed to Proofs of Claims by copying their signatures from their contracts and pasting them onto their Proofs of Claims.”34

When callers changed their mind about pursuing a claim—which happened “more than [employees] thought they would—or were told they did not qualify, employees were instructed “to leave the claim on file, but to inform the client that their claim had been canceled,”  even though they had not.35  At times, employees “were told to change the details of a caller’s story in order to make their claims seem more viable.”36  This individual estimates that, out of the approximately 6,000 claimants with whom she spoke, she rejected only ten prospective claimants.37

 

Edited May 13, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagle1993]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

Moreover, given her track record so far, I can see more can-kicking down the road by the judge.

I expect this will be the outcome; however, that is still a rebuke of BSA. It means 0 chance of exiting by summer, so the ball is back in BSA's court.  I'll be interested on what they say & do.

I also think she does need to make a call about suing local councils/COs.  If she doesn't, some state windows are closing soon and claimants may lose their right to sue.

Finally, I expect a stern statement or two and some major finger wagging. 

 

[vol_scouter]

10 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

TCC is fighting for all $650M ... but it seems like much of the focus is Summit.  Here is more from their objection:

- They reference $650M ... that is more than Summit ... that must include Philmont, Sea Base & Northern Tie

Actually, the $650 M figure includes all High Adventure Bases; the national service center; the national supply division warehouses, buildings, and contents; unrestricted funds; and other things.  The Norman Rockwell collection and some oil & gas holdings are to be included but their value, to my knowledge, has not been publicly disclosed.

The Summit Bechtel Reserve is valued at $350 M [unpaid loan money to the BSA to purchase it is not accounted for in that figure] while Sea Base, Northern Tier, and Philmont all three together are valued at about $60 M.

The payment of $650 M [note that this is just BSA assets - it does not include insurance companies, the local councils, or chartered organizations] will have a crippling effect on the BSA.  From what I know, its survival will be in jeopardy. 

 

[CynicalScouter]

Just now, Eagle1993 said:

If she doesn't, some state windows are closing soon and claimants may lose their right to sue.

It was my understanding that BSA agreed to allow for a lifting of the stay(s) and to allow those suits to be filed but NOT proceed any further in order to avoid statute of limitations deadlines.

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, vol_scouter said:

The Summit Bechtel Reserve is valued at $350 M [unpaid loan money to the BSA to purchase it is not accounted for in that figure]

Again, if BSA would be willing to turn its financials on this over to the TCC to ensure that is in fact true and not a fraudulent shell game they are play to hide assets, then I'd believe that number/those numbers.

But as the TCC has pointed out (and in fact now sued BSA to force production) BSA simply refuses to provide documentation that this wasn't in fact a fraudulent debt instrument placed on Summit to make it appear more encumbered than it really is.

1 hour and a set of PDF documents emailed back and forth would settle this. Instead, BSA digging in its heels, wasting tens (if not hundreds) of thousands in legal fees rather than just turn over the financials to TCC and the judge.

[CynicalScouter]

12 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I also think she does need to make a call about suing local councils/COs.

Here's the thing: she cannot do that sua sponte. As near as I can see, there has never been briefing on the question of what the exact legal status of LC assets are (do they really belong to national? Are they directly subject to the bankruptcy as a result?)

If she is going to rule on that, she'll want and indeed need briefs and oral argument. Since the CO/LC question is not on the May 19 agenda, that means the earliest it could be is June but more likely July for oral argument on the CO/LC question.

Edited May 13, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

16 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

The payment of $650 M [note that this is just BSA assets - it does not include insurance companies, the local councils, or chartered organizations] will have a crippling effect on the BSA.  From what I know, its survival will be in jeopardy. 

I've been in BSA for years and my sons are in a troop. BSA survival in jeopardy? Too bad at this point given:

1. all the foot-dragging
2. the LIES told by local councils (that National would cover/protect them)
3. BSA's efforts to throw COs under the bus (notice how the United Methodist Church, LDS, and other major CO groups have all filed objections to the BSA plan because it renegs on BSA's promises?)
4. the JP Morgan Summit shell game (again, 1 hour, some phone calls, and that entire mess is cleared up; BSA simply refuses to let ANYONE look at the books, especially the TCC and the judge)
5. the sweetheat deal with Hartford for $650 million (vs. BILLIONS in insurance coverage)
6. the fact that even the U.S. Trustee/Department of Justice has filed papers indicating the BSA plan (global, toggle, whatever) is garbage.
7. and of course that insulting $6000 offer

I am getting very close to the point of saying "too bad" if BSA's survival is in jeopardy.

Maybe that is what it will take to light a fire under them to start acting honestly and forthrightly and get a move on.

At this point we are 15 months in, $120+ million in expenditures (my estimate based on latest filings) and BSA is still trying to protect Summit at literally all costs.

If BSA's survival is in jeopardy at this point, it has only itself to blame. If it runs out of cash in August or September, too bad at this point

Edited May 13, 2021 by CynicalScouter