Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, mrjohns2 said:

there just isn’t a ton of money/assets to go around.

Here's the problem: a LOT of the challenge has been that the LCs were being told by national and the Ad Hoc Local Committee that

1. This bankruptcy won't cost LCs a dime.
2. It will only cost $100-$200 million
3. We are now up to $600 million

Additionally, based on TCC townhalls and BSA's financial statements, we also know there are a LOT of properties that the LCs insisted were "Restricted" that probably were not really "restricted" or were restricted but in a way that did not preclude them from being sold.

I think Kosnoff's nuts when he throws around numbers like 20 billion in Local Council assets. But 4-7 billion sure. How much of that is restricted and how much of that is "restricted"? I know the TCC gave each Council a very detailed and precise version of what it felt was what in terms of assets that would be sold. Let's see what happens.

The other possibility is that enough LCs will balk/refuse to pay that the plan falls apart. I would imagine National is, as someone else put it, making the LCs offers they cannot refuse: pay or else.

[CynicalScouter]

48 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Not sure what you are trying to say. Could you clarify please?

I think the point for me is that victims were told to expect big pots of money in the billions if not tens or hundreds of billions and that BSA (and the LCs) were never, ever in a position to offer those kinds of numbers even if they were completely liquidated.

So, the question becomes are victims now going to vote against a plan that is "only" $850 million (with insurance TBD) in a fit of anger and confusion that they are being short changed? Or will the message get through that $850 million is really the best/most that can be gotten out of the BSA and LCs and that the next fight against the insurance companies is where the "real" money is?

[johnsch322]

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

So, the question becomes are victims now going to vote against a plan that is "only" $850 million (with insurance TBD) in a fit of anger and confusion that they are being short changed? Or will the message get through that $850 million is really the best/most that can be gotten out of the BSA and LCs and that the next fight against the insurance companies is where the "real" money is?

That is the 100 Billion dollar question.  Someone said that the survivors on this forum are not representative of the average survivors knowledge of what is transpiring so it will depend on how informed other survivors become.  The lawyers involved are the key here as they seem to hold a lot of influence with their clients (Kosnoff and letter writing to the judge).  My legal team has come out and publicly supported this outline of a settlement.  I believe that the lawyers who are voicing public opposition are trying to get a little more.  Maybe not more in the total figure but maybe in the no real questions payout.  They might know that they have more false/unsubstantiated claims.  Hypothetically if you have 20K claims and 75% are  false/unsubstantiated claims and you can get another $500 on top the $3500 you would pick up another $3.75 million for your firm (at 50% contingency). If more money is distributed such you might find a couple of lawyers speaking positively.  

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

So, the question becomes are victims now going to vote against a plan that is "only" $850 million (with insurance TBD) in a fit of anger and confusion that they are being short changed? Or will the message get through that $850 million is really the best/most that can be gotten out of the BSA and LCs and that the next fight against the insurance companies is where the "real" money is?

As MYCVAStory said well, this crew is far more engaged (hyper-engaged?) than the average claimant. I often wonder what those out yonder are thinking and being told. For me, I’m on to the insurance phase. I don’t think this is getting “bigger and better,” certainly not anytime soon, if ever. Will a “burn it down” endgame serve most claimants in state court? No way. Just consider the 58,000 closed or shades of Gray staters. I’m not saying I no longer care about the LC and BSA piece, I have simply resigned myself to “this is what it is.” As I’ve said repeatedly, I know and trust key players on the TCC and they have done a thankless, yeoman's job on this. If more was to be gotten under the time and competing interests constraints, they would not support the deal. I know others are far less trusting, but I cannot afford to wallow or cast aspersions when I really do not know what, precisely, is going on within the cone of silence. I’m trying to hold the moment loosely, see what comes of the bluster and meanwhile sharpen my knives and pull out my old flint knapping kit to reinforce the stock in my quiver. 

[MYCVAStory]

30 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

So, the question becomes are victims now going to vote against a plan that is "only" $850 million (with insurance TBD) in a fit of anger and confusion that they are being short changed? Or will the message get through that $850 million is really the best/most that can be gotten out of the BSA and LCs and that the next fight against the insurance companies is where the "real" money is?

Absolutely true.  A couple things to consider are how this is getting communicated and the level of knowledge of the attorneys.  The "headline" that was easy to write just divided the amount of the settlement by 82,000 and said "Victims to get...."  That should have been accompanied by an asterisk that said "*For Now"  The TCC has been saying all along that it's been trying to wrench all it could out of the BSA, LCs, Chartering Orgs and Insurance companies.  Now the BSA and LC part of that equation has been addressed.  What has to be better understood though will be the fight of a victim's trust (which we've been told will still have Victim representation) and it going after insurance.  PURELY hypothetical so lets not put any down payments on anything, if the insurers have 100 Billion in exposure over the years then less than 1% of this has been settled.  Call it 50 Billion and we're less than 2%.    What I think the narrative is going to turn to very soon is going to be the insurance fight.  That was what the Town Hall was discussing, the trust sending some cases out to start inflicting pain on the insurers so they will settle.  As well, if I'm insurer #1 and settle for X dollars when my exposure was known then I've set the "standard" for other insurers to follow.  That was the problem with the Hartford deal.  It was SO low that it was going to set up other insurers for similar lowball settlements.  Now, the insures know the TCC and Coalition aren't going to take quick laughingly low settlements.  The bad news though is that this will take time and the insurers know it so they'll try to drag it out and cause more pain.  Only time will tell.  Bottom line though is that the ABSOLUTE LARGEST pot of money is with the insurers and always has been.  They know it and their crying that they've been excluded is pretty funny.  As the Hartford deal shows, they weren't excluded, some were just smart enough to know that a lowball "deal" was doomed to failure.  One other thing to consider is that there are attorneys who have been very involved with this bankruptcy, some who have worked hard to stay in the loop, and some who read the same headlines as us.  The media can always find opposing views and the most angry make for good copy.  While he does represent a lot of clients in some way Kosnoff's views from the beginning have been under the heading of "good copy."  His insistence that the BSA be burned down and other invective makes for good tweets and quotes but was NEVER the goal or realistic outcome of this bankruptcy.

What we need to do now if we were victims is catch our breath.  The money from the BSA and LCs was NEVER going to be enough.  Beyond no number ever being enough the BSA is a financially struggling operation with declining numbers that may rebound but we have to deal with today's reality.  The LCs are a part but their independence and while subject to "piercing the corporate veil" in court to force greater payments was an option it's time-consuming (like years) risky, and may have left some victims with NO payment from an LC in a bad SOL State or with little money.  Almost a billion dollars has been wrenched out of the BSA and LCs.  While not enough it's a start and the Victim's Trust will now have the most important piece of all of this, the rights to the insurance policies.  Take a breath, it's been 16 months since the start of the bankruptcy and unless you take the "opt out" payment it's going to be a while until the insurers cough up what's owed.  All of us want what's owed us and the years back that were taken from us.  Now's the time to stay positive and at least be happy that the headline wasn't "BSA and Insurers come to 2 Billion Dollar global settlement."  Check this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57692428   Now the fight will be taken to the insurers who were the beneficieries of our being members of the BSA and we can all prove that the "bogus claim" argument is just that, bogus.  I for one am looking forward to the "public" annual meetings of the insurers, and change in focus for the media,  when questions will be asked.  Take a deep breath and strap in.  There's much more work to be done but like most efforts the harder the work the greater the payoff.

[RememberSchiff]

2 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

... The TCC has been saying all along that it's been trying to wrench all it could out of the BSA, LCs, Chartering Orgs and Insurance companies.  Now the BSA and LC part of that equation has been addressed. 

 

IMHO, has been passed over may be more accurate or maybe I missed the judge's ruling on which National properties were restricted and the whole J.P. Morgan shell game.

Locally, the prospect of selling a council camp(s) more utilized by our scouts than all 4 National camps is not sitting well particularly when Irving incredulously adds, "we share your pain".

My $0.01,

[MYCVAStory]

4 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Locally, the prospect of selling a council camp(s) more utilized by our scouts than all 4 National camps is not sitting well particularly when Irving incredulously adds, "we share your pain".

My $0.01,

I hope that as a part of this bloodletting every LC will start to ask more questions and press their Execs for answers.   LCs need to be change agents.   With a nod to Santayana, anyone who wants to believe that history doesn't repeat itself truly is headed for seeing it repeated.  What will it cost next time?

[CynicalScouter]

4 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

Locally, the prospect of selling a council camp(s) more utilized by our scouts than all 4 National camps is not sitting well particularly when Irving incredulously adds, "we share your pain".

And I think the answer would be that BSA's entire reorganization strategy is predicated on income from those HA bases paying off the $80 million loan they are having to take out.

"The BSA Settlement Trust Note to be issued on the Effective Date to the Settlement Trust by the Reorganized BSA in the principal amount of $80 million, which will bear interest at a rate of 5.5% per annum and be payable semi-annually.  Principal payments under the BSA Settlement Trust Note shall be payable in annual installments due on February 15 of each year during the term of the BSA Settlement Trust Note, commencing on February 15 with certain minimum payment requirements. (footnote 15) The BSA Settlement Trust Note may be prepaid at any time without penalty;

(footnote 15) In accordance with the Plan, such annual principal payments shall be equal to the sum of the following calculation: (a) $4.5 million; plus (b) $3.50 multiplied by the aggregate number of Youth Members as of December 31 of the preceding year up to the forecasted number of Youth Members for such year as set forth in the Debtors’ five-year business plan; plus (c) $50 multiplied by the aggregate number of High Adventure Base Participants during the preceding calendar year; plus (d) $50 multiplied by the aggregate number of Youth Members in excess of the forecast set forth in the Debtors’ five-year business plan; plus (e) $150 multiplied by the aggregate number of High Adventure Base Participants in excess of the forecasted number of High Adventure Base Participants for such year as set forth in the Debtors’ five-year business plan.  The forecast for years after 2025 shall be deemed to be the forecast for calendar year 2025."

[InquisitiveScouter]

18 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And I think the answer would be that BSA's entire reorganization strategy is predicated on income from those HA bases paying off the $80 million loan they are having to take out.

"The BSA Settlement Trust Note to be issued on the Effective Date to the Settlement Trust by the Reorganized BSA in the principal amount of $80 million, which will bear interest at a rate of 5.5% per annum and be payable semi-annually.  Principal payments under the BSA Settlement Trust Note shall be payable in annual installments due on February 15 of each year during the term of the BSA Settlement Trust Note, commencing on February 15 with certain minimum payment requirements. (footnote 15) The BSA Settlement Trust Note may be prepaid at any time without penalty;

(footnote 15) In accordance with the Plan, such annual principal payments shall be equal to the sum of the following calculation: (a) $4.5 million; plus (b) $3.50 multiplied by the aggregate number of Youth Members as of December 31 of the preceding year up to the forecasted number of Youth Members for such year as set forth in the Debtors’ five-year business plan; plus (c) $50 multiplied by the aggregate number of High Adventure Base Participants during the preceding calendar year; plus (d) $50 multiplied by the aggregate number of Youth Members in excess of the forecast set forth in the Debtors’ five-year business plan; plus (e) $150 multiplied by the aggregate number of High Adventure Base Participants in excess of the forecasted number of High Adventure Base Participants for such year as set forth in the Debtors’ five-year business plan.  The forecast for years after 2025 shall be deemed to be the forecast for calendar year 2025."

So, will they just tack on a $150 price hike to HA tuitions as a "make you pay for our sins" tax?

[1980Scouter]

So maybe in a week we should hear more from our LC as they vote on it.

There has been nothing from my LC on it ever. Councils need to be honest and upfront about what is going on. They are trying to present a face that everything is fine.

We do not need the numbers but how about some communication about our camps future?

[100thEagleScout]

My local council already approved the settlement.  They want out.

[MYCVAStory]

8 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

So maybe in a week we should hear more from our LC as they vote on it.

There has been nothing from my LC on it ever. Councils need to be honest and upfront about what is going on. They are trying to present a face that everything is fine.

We do not need the numbers but how about some communication about our camps future?

Ask to see the TCC detailed analysis of your LCs finances.  All LCs have received theirs.  Might make for an interesting discussion.

[mrjohns2]

1 hour ago, 1980Scouter said:

There has been nothing from my LC on it ever. Councils need to be honest and upfront about what is going on. They are trying to present a face that everything is fine.

We do not need the numbers but how about some communication about our camps future?

Our council sent a letter saying that they don’t anticipate having to sell one of our 4 camps. They believe they have the funds. I don’t know if I would have been so optimistic without having all of the data. 

[ThenNow]

On 7/2/2021 at 11:18 AM, CynicalScouter said:

shall consider supplemental information timely provided by the Abuse Claimant,

I’ve been advised that claimants will have the same discovery rights and powers as a plaintiff. Can anyone confirm or deny? 

Also related to the Trust Claim Submission(s), in what order will claims be assessed or will this be a team of people (committee) charged with wrangling various batches/buckets of claims to move them down the conveyor belt toward the actual Trustee? If by some order, is that first in first reviewed? Still trying to get my head around the sheer logistics and process of this monstrosity. I suppose there is real possibility of a good number of guys taking an Expedited trip to the bank, making things somewhat more manageable. I shake my head reading that last bit. It’s not going to be “manageable” any way you cut it. 

Edited July 4, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

4 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Ask to see the TCC detailed analysis of your LCs finances.  All LCs have received theirs.  Might make for an interesting discussion.

I want to see “mine,” too.