Chapter 11 Announced - Part 4 Revised Plan

[Eagle1993]

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

We'll know tomorrow soon if a) the RSA was approved or rejected and b) if approved, disclosure hearing is the next big thing

Yep.  I was thinking after this hearing we may have a decision and can start a new thread.  
 

 

[ThenNow]

11 minutes ago, MattR said:

We need a better title than "part 5 - more of the same".

Episode V: When and How Much?

Brought to you by Black Coffee, Dramamine and Ambien. 

Edited August 12, 2021 by ThenNow

[Life]

As usual I’m late for the party. Me over here trying to get into a zoom town-hall that’s been moved back again. 
always a brides maid, never a bride.

[RememberSchiff]

"An attorney for the Boy Scouts of America told a Delaware judge on Thursday that the group's national board never adopted a resolution approving an $850 million agreement that is the linchpin of the Boy Scouts' proposed bankruptcy plan."

What? How is that possible? Next I'll be told the National Executive Board never approved mortgaging Philmont.

https://www.startribune.com/judge-begins-key-hearing-in-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-case/600087118

https://ohionewstime.com/boy-scout-bankruptcy-case-begins/231119/

further down the unbelievable is described.

Silverstein expressed surprise Thursday when Glenn Kurtz, an attorney for the Boy Scouts, said during arguments over what board materials had been provided to the insurers that the board never approved a formal resolution approving the agreement.

“Isn’t it a little unusual that a board doesn’t actually authorize the actual agreement?” the judge asked.

Kurtz replied that the board authorized “deal terms,” but delegated the documentation to the professionals.

“I don’t know it was the world’s most formal procedure in terms of documenting the approvals, but you got a yes vote from all 72 board members on these deal terms,” Kurtz said.

Silverstein suggested that the lack of board authorization for the agreement was particularly surprising given that several members of the board are lawyers.

“We’ll see whether the debtor is able, without an authorization, to convince me that they’ve met the business judgment standard or they’re entitled to the business judgment standard and they made informed decisions,” she said.

Under Delaware’s business judgment rule, courts typically give strong deference to a corporate board’s decision-making unless there is evidence that directors shirked their duties, had conflicts or acted in bad faith.

https://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/texas/judge-begins-key-hearing-in-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-case/article_c741a2e0-b85f-52cc-8a1f-e3f87df880f5.html

Edited August 13, 2021 by RememberSchiff

[ThenNow]

9 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

What? How is that possible? Next I'll be told the National Executive Board never approved mortgaging Philmont.

Well, we were also advised that no due diligence whatsoever was was done, retrospectively or prospectively, to validate the legitimacy or appropriateness of the mucho dollars promised to the Coalition’s attorneys, Brown Rudnick. How does that happen with Alvarez and Marsal doing your financial analysis and advising? Nothing? Say what? Too busy? They got lit up and taken to the woodshed on cross examination. 

[vol_scouter]

8 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

"An attorney for the Boy Scouts of America told a Delaware judge on Thursday that the group's national board never adopted a resolution approving an $850 million agreement that is the linchpin of the Boy Scouts' proposed bankruptcy plan."

What? How is that possible? Next I'll be told the National Executive Board never approved mortgaging Philmont.

https://www.startribune.com/judge-begins-key-hearing-in-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-case/600087118

https://ohionewstime.com/boy-scout-bankruptcy-case-begins/231119/

Just speculation, the National Executive Board (NEB) may have authorized the National Executive Committee (NEC) to authorize an amount up to some limit, perhaps the NEB authorized the Key-3 (CSE, Chair of the NEC/NEB, and the National Commissioner) to authorize up to some amount, or other possible similar scenarios.   The NEB could have approved it in a general sense but is awaiting the final wording to approve everything.  

[vol_scouter]

4 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Well, we were also advised that no due diligence whatsoever was was done, retrospectively or prospectively, to validate the legitimacy or appropriateness of the mucho dollars promised to the Coalition’s attorneys, Brown Rudnick. How does that happen with Alvarez and Marsal doing your financial analysis and advising? Nothing? Say what? Too busy? They got lit up and taken to the woodshed on cross examination. 

Our council approved the proscribed amount and we approved where the money would be raised (some from property and some from council accounts).  To my knowledge, there was no final agreement to sign.  So our board did not approve the deal but did commit to the requested amount.  

To my knowledge, nothing else was done.  
 

Once again, I am not on the inside of all these issues but it seems reasonable to me that boards will approve the final deal that has not yet been approved.  The councils and national council have agreed to the amount.  

[vol_scouter]

@RememberSchiff has provided the same answer that I had speculated to be the action.  

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

it seems reasonable to me that boards will approve the final deal that has not yet been approved.  The councils and national council have agreed to the amount.  

I’m not the most seasoned career non-profit board member, but my first seat was in 1989. It’s pretty odd not to have a formal board vote on a “deal point memo” of this magnitude. Who am I kidding? I’ve never been presented with a decision anywhere close to this magnitude, but even the small ones we made sure to have a recorded vote. Maybe everyone’s moving too fast (that doesn’t seem possible at this rate) or it’s another example of what has been said about National’s MO. Dunno. I think it’s a lack of formal process and procedure to have whiffed on this. 

[David CO]

40 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

"An attorney for the Boy Scouts of America told a Delaware judge on Thursday that the group's national board never adopted a resolution approving an $850 million agreement that is the linchpin of the Boy Scouts' proposed bankruptcy plan."

What? How is that possible? Next I'll be told the National Executive Board never approved mortgaging Philmont.

I wouldn't be at all surprised.  It is possible because the volunteers have no control over BSA.  

[vol_scouter]

7 minutes ago, David CO said:

I wouldn't be at all surprised.  It is possible because the volunteers have no control over BSA.  

Interesting statement since the National Executive Board is composed of volunteers - most have been or are unit leaders.  

[SiouxRanger]

Document No. 5971, "Massey Law Firm Claimant's Supplemental Objection..." is a good summary of the complex issues regarding claims and BSA's Plan. (Sorry, but I can't seem to figure out how to copy a link.)

"All politics is local."

Same applies to claims.

Claimant A has a claim against Abuser B, Local Council C, and Chartered Organization D.  Perhaps against Insurer E.

Claimant A DOES NOT HAVE a claim against the AVERAGE of Abusers, Local Councils, Chartered Organizations, and insurers.

It is a question of "mapping" the claim to the defendants.

And, therein is the gorilla.

As best I can make out, the BSA, in its haste to "exit bankruptcy" quickly, seems to propose lumping all claims into a single category, give all claims an equal vote, hoping to carry the day on approval of its Plan, and exit bankruptcy before it runs out of cash, leaving claimants to battle it out post bankruptcy exit through the settlement/claim evaluation/distribution/battle-with-insurers process.

The Massey Supplemental Objection essentially argues that not all claims are created equal.  Some are time-barred by statutes of limitation. Some arose in states with state law favorable to claimants, and others in states hostile to claimants. There are a number of other distinctions separating claims into different categories per Massey.

Claims have differences among them.  Those differences translate into greater or lesser likelihood of recovery and amount of recovery. Yet, BSA proposes all claims have one vote.

Massey makes the point that a Claimant with a recent claim, not time-barred, in a state with favorable Claimant law, against a wealthy Local Council, and perhaps a wealthy Chartering Organization, should not be treated equally for bankruptcy purposes with a Claimant whose claim has none of those advantages.

Why would an "advantaged Claimant" willingly subordinate their claim  to the will (vote) of the average Claimant when holding an advantaged legal position?

Edited August 13, 2021 by elitts
readability

[SiouxRanger]

9 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

Interesting statement since the National Executive Board is composed of volunteers - most have been or are unit leaders.  

After my 25 years of active adult scouting, more of less, I do not doubt that the National Board has no control over the BSA.

My Local Council also has a Board and Executive Committee of that Board, but, I think that all decisions of significance are made by the Council Scout Executive.  The sentiment, "He's the TRAINED PROFESSIONAL, what do we know, being "mere volunteers???"  And so, the professional viewpoint carries the day.

That National appears to have authorized $850 MILLION in expenditures with no paper trail and apparently no discussion is simply ASTOUNDING.

What? The BSA has $10 Million dollar a month lawyers, except when spending $850 million

And so we are back to "The Hunt For Red October."

"Jack, the Russkies don't take a **** without a plan." Admiral Greer.

[SiouxRanger]

I confess that I grow weary of discussions of whether all 82,500± claims are valid, or some smaller number or larger number (not counted as a claim was not filed, or a deceased victim, or a prospective claimant who remains silent-for whatever reason.)

As near as I can tell, all processes are a slave to the Bell Curve.  Shift the Bell Curve left or right, flatten the peak, raise the peak, give it a few bumps, whatever, the Curve retains it primacy as a descriptor of facts. And if not all the facts for every case, certainly the bulk of the facts.

So, The Bell Curve tells us that some claims are bogus.   5, 50 or 5,000, not clear.  AND, at the other end of the curve, some claims are understated. So much damage was done that the Claimant can't or won't express the full impact of their abuse.

The BSA appears to want to move all claims around with a bulldozer.

Claimants prefer a microscope.

And, so we shall see just how the legal process treats them.

[ThenNow]

22 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Claimants prefer a microscope.

Explain what you mean by this, please? Simply, we want our claims to be examined individually, rather than in the aggregate? That’s what the Trustee process is all about. As we all know, this is not state court and the measure of exactitude will be degraded at least until we get before a Trustee. The process, now, is trying to get there and that requires “batching” as it’s called. And, in my mind, getting there means arriving with as many of us as possible so the claims can be well-examined and vetted, not hosed down the drain of the ME’s lab after the insurers or others put the saw to us.

PS - Yes, I understand why victims in a “legally advantaged position” might not want to yield to someone with a position weakened by the arbitrary lines on a map that bless or curse them in their effort to redress their injuries. Still, I hope the Shades of Gray Brigade isn‘t decommission before being allowed to enter the fray. It would be wrong for so many reasons, but I know this is not a morality play. It’s a money play.

Edited August 13, 2021 by ThenNow