Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[ThenNow]

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

And the reason I don't think you see or hear LCs clamoring to claim the TCC's numbers are wrong is because I don't think there's much of a conflict between what the TCC is asking for/saying LC financial status is and what the LCs are about to announce to the court they are giving

I hear otherwise. Maybe time will tell. Or not. "For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed," just maybe not on this side of the dirt nap. 

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, ThenNow said:

I hear otherwise.

I should be clear: I think that the first numbers that came out (from Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils) were wildly off and that the TCC numbers are closer to where they landed. The fact that the TCC signed off on the RSA tells me that the TCC at least sees the LC contributions ($300 million cash, $200 million in property OR cash; $100 million loan) as at least reasonable.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1d5f346b-47b8-43d3-b4cf-4a0393aa8256_5466.pdf

Recall that the sequence was

• Plan 1 (February 2020 placeholder): $0 from LCs
• Plan 1.5 (March 2021, amendments to Plan 1): $300 million
• Plan 2 (April 2021): $425 million
• May 13 (or shortly thereafter): TCC sends to all LCs the TCC asset and financial dashboards
• Plan 3 (June 2021): $500 million
• Plan 4/RSA (July 2021): $600 million

The LCs have now, in effect, doubled what was on the table in March 2021 and the TCC is on record via the RSA that the $600 million number is acceptable.

The Local Council Settlement Contribution shall include: (i) at least $300 million of cash to be paid on the Effective Date, (ii) Unrestricted  properties  with  a  combined  Appraised  Value  of  $200  million (the “Property Contribution”), which shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis by  any  cash  payment  amount  in  excess  of  the  $300  million, provided  that  the methodology  and  procedures  related  to  property  selection  and  acceptance  are provided for as set forth in full in the Term Sheet; and (iii) a  $100  million  interest-bearing  variable-payment  obligation  note  (the  “DST Note”)  issued  by  a  Delaware  statutory  trust  on  as  soon  as  practicable  after  the Effective Date. 

 

[ThenNow]

27 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The fact that the TCC signed off on the RSA tells me that the TCC at least sees the LC contributions ($300 million cash, $200 million in property OR cash; $100 million loan) as at least reasonable.

Yup. That is what I've been told, as well. But, that is not to be taken as an agreement that the numbers given by the Ad Hoc Committee or BSA accurately reflect what the TCC discovered through the work of BRG. That's the basis for my "Where's the beef?" beef.

Edited July 12, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

Latest filing from claimant asks he be named as "Financial Master" for BSA case, including being named "CEO, COO, and CFO and Chairman of the BSA".

His plan to rescue BSA is to get a $100 billion (with a B, billion) PPP loan repayable over the next 50 years. All scouts will be assessed $1200 in fees per year (he thinks current fees are $600 per year) which the scouts will have to pay off via selling...something. Oh, and scouting will overnight go back to 2 million scouts.

And for his services as "Financial Master" "CEO, COO, and CFO and Chairman of the BSA" claimant wants $8.4 billion in payment.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ffc33d5b-b35a-4d1d-9027-3d0d76905d31_5552.pdf

Edited July 12, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[elitts]

On 7/9/2021 at 1:47 PM, CynicalScouter said:

My guess is the claim is going to be some form of

• Child sexual abuse (as aiding and abetting, not actually committing). Either its state equivalents or 18 U.S. Code § 2251 Sexual exploitation of children https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2251
• Criminal conspiracy (as in agreement to commit or assist in the commission of a criminal act, that act being child sexual abuse). Either its state equivalents or 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371
• Accessory after the fact of a crime (that crime being child sexual abuse). Either its state equivalents or 18 U.S. Code § 3 - Accessory after the fact https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3
• Child endangerment. Under state equivalents
• 18 U.S. Code § 2423(a) - Transportation of minors  Transportation With Intent To Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2423

Etc.

 

I meant what criminal conspiracy that the evidence we have thus far actually supports.  The only one of those that you could even come close to with any of the statements or evidence I've heard of would be "Child Endangerment" but even that would be one hell of a stretch. 

On 7/9/2021 at 5:05 PM, CynicalScouter said:

But here's the thing: to my knowledge NONE of the Catholic Dioceses have ever been criminally prosecuted. And not only did they hide the abuse, they actively moved priests around.

And in the case of the Pennsylvania investigative grand jury and even the prior work in Michigan by that state's AG there was never criminal indictments of dioceses, only individuals.

Personally, I REALLY wish they had been able to file charges in at least a couple of places.  With as widespread as the "whack a mole" priest shuffling was, I simply can't believe that there wasn't some kind of instructions in place making that a quasi-official church policy.  Even if they couldn't make the charges stick, making a go at prying the lid off the church would have been worthwhile.

And that's coming from a Catholic. (I don't want anyone to think I'm just a church hater)

[Eagle1993]

FYI… The $100M from councils is coming from deferring payments to the pension plan.   As the pension plan is well funded, councils will instead make payment on the $100M note.  

[Eagle1993]

54 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Latest filing from claimant asks he be named as "Financial Master" for BSA case, including being named "CEO, COO, and CFO and Chairman of the BSA".

His plan to rescue BSA is to get a $100 billion (with a B, billion) PPP loan repayable over the next 50 years. All scouts will be assessed $1200 in fees per year (he thinks current fees are $600 per year) which the scouts will have to pay off via selling...something. Oh, and scouting will overnight go back to 2 million scouts.

And for his services as "Financial Master" "CEO, COO, and CFO and Chairman of the BSA" claimant wants $8.4 billion in payment.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ffc33d5b-b35a-4d1d-9027-3d0d76905d31_5552.pdf

This guy seems legit. He has a $4 quadrillion plan for China and other countries and is apparently and advisor for Obama and Trump.  I hope the judge approves his request.   

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

Latest filing from claimant asks he be named as "Financial Master" for BSA case, including being named "CEO, COO, and CFO and Chairman of the BSA".

His plan to rescue BSA is to get a $100 billion (with a B, billion) PPP loan repayable over the next 50 years. All scouts will be assessed $1200 in fees per year (he thinks current fees are $600 per year) which the scouts will have to pay off via selling...something. Oh, and scouting will overnight go back to 2 million scouts.

And for his services as "Financial Master" "CEO, COO, and CFO and Chairman of the BSA" claimant wants $8.4 billion in payment.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ffc33d5b-b35a-4d1d-9027-3d0d76905d31_5552.p

 

C’mon now guys. Don’t make fun of me. Mama needs a new pair of shoes (and a yacht and an island and a fleet of cars, servants, penthouses in all cosmopolitan centers and…a new printer and technology consultant for her hubby).

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, elitts said:

I simply can't believe that there wasn't some kind of instructions in place making that a quasi-official church policy.  Even if they couldn't make the charges stick, making a go at prying the lid off the church would have been worthwhile.

This is why I posted the excerpt from Scout’s Honor when we were discussing fraudulent concealment and AG investigations. I think the case against BSA is much stronger than diocese by diocese. Much. It appears so to me, anyway. Who were the National decision-makers during that Menninger Committee period and before? They clearly decided to withhold the data even from their own safety studies, much less the Scouting community and public. That is some gag-worthy smelly cheese in my book. If it happened then, into the 80’s, what went down prior? 

[CynicalScouter]

Got blast email from my council.

No details on amounts only that the council voted to sign a “non-binding letter of intent” and that since we have no camp or property it will be 100% cash “to fulfill its share of the total contribution by making an all cash contribution to a settlement trust created under the BSA’s Chapter 11 plan for reorganization.”

[ThenNow]

On 7/11/2021 at 11:22 AM, CynicalScouter said:

https://dianerehm.org/audio/#/shows/2021-07-09/what-the-boy-scouts-settlement-says-about-justice-for-child-sex-abuse-victims/116455

Thank you so much for posting this. Truly. Excellent interview. She has my vote to be the overseer of the new YPT!!!!!!!! 

Edited July 12, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

So, BSA is asking to depose John J. Kinney who is Chief Claims Officer, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. and president of its Heritage Holdings unit. https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/HIG/company-people/executive-profile/117973693

In July 2021 "Kinney's responsibilities were recently broadened to include Operations in addition to his role overseeing Claims." https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hartford-announces-expanded-roles-for-cio-deepa-soni-and-john-kinney-head-of-claims-operations-01625136872?tesla=y

Here's his LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-kinney-a49b4a51/

[SiouxRanger]

On 7/11/2021 at 7:36 AM, ThenNow said:

Thanks for your post. I’m sorry my question was misinterpreted. All I meant was if he had unpacked the statement that Scouting saved his life, even in the midst of the abuse.

Been mulling your comment looking for a response.  I met him when he was old enough to work on camp staff and we worked together for several years.  He was no longer affiliated with a troop, but only the Council camp, and was clear of the abuse he experienced at the unit level.  He fit in well with staff, had an engaging personality, and nothing seemed amiss.  He worked tirelessly at camp, preferring commissary work requiring physical exertion to counseling merit badges and such.  He had earned Eagle, and was a top student.  He preferred being outdoors and camp work put him in his element.  It also gave him a break from parents who I'd characterize as "not having a clue" and thereby incapable of being meaningful support, though they were aware at some point and attempted help which only compounded the damage.

[SiouxRanger]

On 7/8/2021 at 7:23 AM, CynicalScouter said:

That is due to federal law and has nothing to do with BSA's wishes. In short, all pensions are guaranteed by the federal government (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation). You cannot attack the pension via bankruptcy and even if the pension became part of the bankruptcy in the event of a liquidation the pension program gets paid out first/near the top. So no, you cannot attack the pension.

No. The decision is the Council's. Precisely because Councils ARE independent entities, the decision on their assets belongs to the Council, not National and not the Council/Scout Executive.

Right now, as I type, all 250 or so Councils are voting or have voted on whether or not to participate. The deadline is July 9. That is a Council vote. The SE/CEs do NOT get to unilaterally decide this.

Frankly, at least in the case of Summit, it isn't clear that selling would do any good. Summit is such a debt sink/money loser that even if sold it isn't clear that it would pay off the debts it had on it even prior to the bankruptcy.

Regarding your comment that "the councils are voting" just who in the council governing structure is voting?  You don't think the SE makes a unilateral decision, so that leaves the Council Key Three, the Council Executive Committee (perhaps 4 or 5 folks), the entire Executive Board, and then, I guess, would be the Chartering Organization Representatives.  I have not heard a word in my council about the bankruptcy. 

Its seems like the questions put to the councils are "Does the council participate in contributing to the settlement?" and if so, "What assets are used-cash and/or liquidate real estate?"

[SiouxRanger]

A few procedural questions-perhaps someone can enlighten me:

1.  Does a council have to accept the amount National has set for that council's contribution or can that amount be negotiated? That is, is it a "take it or leave it" proposition?

2.  Do real estate assets need to be liquidated by October, 2021, or is there some other date (i.e., are they to be sold at a "fire sale?"  Distress sales always yield low prices.)

3.  Is there any mechanism for a council's volunteers to attempt to raise the funds for the contribution amount and save a camp or scout office?

4.  Are restricted asset camps entirely protected, or is protected only on a case-by-case basis?

5.  Is the amount of a council's contribution based on the enforceable claims attributed to that council, or on its ability to pay, and if so, does the ability to pay equation include the value of restricted assets.

Thanks you.

(I suspect these are answered throughout the various threads, but a current summary collected at this point might be helpful to others.)