Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[mrjohns2]

13 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

31 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

I don't think a number approaching 82,000 was even in their worst-case sceanrio projections.

Agreed. If they had asked CHILDUSA and other child advocacy organizations, they could have disabused them of that notion. Big time. Tim Kosnoff, even. 

With being off by an order of magnitude, all money is/was off by an order of magnitude. Huge difference. 

[CynicalScouter]

Unannounced hearing now announced for August 30. Topic: TCC/FCR/Coalition and their ongoing demands for Century/Chubb to release information on their finances.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a3a1e12b-8743-460d-a365-da1ae1611eed_6110.pdf

This has been going on months, but the latest document was 6102 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/cd0733b5-2a6e-4567-b79c-e973843ae343_6102.pdf

Oversimplified: since May 28, the TCC/FCR/Coalition have been asking Century and Chubb to produce documents specifically spelling out a) how much Century has in terms of assets as of now (well, May) and b) to what extent if Century runs out of money does Chubb as the parent company have to pay out to cover Century's insurance policies.

There was a 1995 and 1996 restructuring and it is NOT clear at all as part of that how much responsibility (read: liability) Chubb took on for Century's debts (past, present, and future).

The worry, the real worry, is that somehow Century is going to have only $1 billion in assets and NO access to Chubb's, therefore the expected big payday is not going to happen and Century will simply pay out its $1 billion, declare its OWN bankruptcy, and there's nothing.

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

There was a 1995 and 1996 restructuring and it is NOT clear at all as part of that how much responsibility (read: liability) Chubb took on for Century's debts (past, present, and future).

https://www.kcic.com/trending/feed/worried-about-century/

PS - Dated, but it has a flowchart.

Edited August 24, 2021 by RememberSchiff
Let's be more scoutlike in our language. Edited - RS

[PeterHopkins]

@ThenNow I was raised Catholic as well. Pubic school for kindergarten and then 12 years of Catholic school. Undergraduate and graduate degrees were from the same state instituttion.

I was an altar server for nine years and quite serious about the faith as a child. I began questioning as a senior in high school. I was quite fond of the priest who signed the religious letter of endorsement attached to my Eagle application. We had lots of time alone together. I was shocked to see is name on the list of abusers for my childhood diocese. He was listed as having offenses in three different parishes but not in mine. Although he had plenty of opportunities, he never did anything that even made me feel uneasy. Thinking back, there was usually a nun in the sacristy with us.

I found it disgusting that this priest appears to have been transferred to another parish in the diocese each time he committed a crime.

Having grown up in the 1970s and 1980s with both Scouting and Catholic experiences, I agee with you that pre-1990 Scouting offered perpetrators more opportunities to commit abuse than the Catholic Church did and does.

The thing that differs between how Scouting handled reported cases of abuse and how many Catholic dioceses handled it is that Scouting made an attempt to track ineligible volunteers. In the days befor ethe widespread use of databases, the sysem was less than perfect, but, at least, an attempt was made. Since the barriers to abuse in Scouting were low, the movement attracted those with a propensity to carry this out. In contrast, the Catholic Church simply relocated offenders and provided them fresh opportunities to abuse other children. The church treated these children as collateral damage associated with employing a priest.

[ThenNow]

30 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

I was an altar server for nine years and quite serious about the faith as a child. I began questioning as a senior in high school

Same. I decided fairly early on, as in third grade at the latest, I wanted be a priest or an attorney. There’s logic behind that, but I’ll spare you. Other factors influenced my thinking. I bailed on the priesthood when I went to pre-Seminary in 7th grade. I made a hasty retreat after one overly ‘playful’ group shower with a young priest, and all that appeared to indicate. I was already in Scouting with all the mess that involved.  

 

34 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

I found it disgusting that this priest appears to have been transferred to another parish in the diocese each time he committed a crime.

I have distant cousins, one of each side of my family, who were convicted child sexual abusers. I knew about the priest years ago. I just found the Scouter two days ago. A very unpleasant discovery as I scoured the IVF from my home state. 

36 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

Since the barriers to abuse in Scouting were low, the movement attracted those with a propensity to carry this out. In contrast, the Catholic Church simply relocated offenders and provided them fresh opportunities to abuse other children. The church treated these children as collateral damage associated with employing a priest.

Two things:

1) With all I know about sexual abusers and predation, from experience, treatment, therapy, I honestly believe there may have been a degree of coordination between Scouting perpetrators. There are just too many indicia throughout the files and stories I know. Methods, grooming techniques and even language associated with camping and Scouting are eerily similar; and

2) I realize the Church transferred, which is unconscionable and BSA had less than robust ability to track. However, many cases illustrate how easy it was for Scouters to go abuse boys in another city or county. There are testimonies of guys talking about how easy it was for them. Lack of adequate means to search can’t be a basis for exoneration or rationalization. I’m not saying you are, just making the point.

[ThenNow]

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Edited 2 hours ago by RememberSchiff
Let's be more scoutlike in our language. Edited - RS

Sorry. I’m not sure what I wrote that wasn’t. No clue. Nothing intended. Please message me otherwise I may step in it again…

Edited August 25, 2021 by ThenNow

[1980Scouter]

Lake Erie Council just announced they will contribute 6.5 million to the settlement.  They have around 450 claims. They are using a line of credit to pay for it. They have 20 million in assets including two camps,  they sold a third camp last year. Very interesting on a line of credit use to pay for this. 

[ThenNow]

4 hours ago, ThenNow said:

PS - Dated, but it has a flowchart.

Edited 1 hour ago by RememberSchiff
Let's be more scoutlike in our language. Edited - RS

If it was the Southernism, my wife is from the South. Coincidentally, kids went to school in NC, MS and Alabama x2 and one lived in Texas for four years. That’s the one who went to undergrad in MS. He says what I wrote about pretty much anything he really likes, especially food and things that go *bang*. Maybe that was it? Not sure if you’re from, have had many occasions to be in or are well acquainted with folks from the South, but it’s a common phrase. Dunno. 

[Eagle1993]

[Eagle94-A1]

I can't believe anyone is saying they are getting off easy. In my neck of the woods, there are talks on losing 2 camps, not hiring needed staff, and possible multiple council mergers.

Edited August 25, 2021 by Eagle94-A1

[SiouxRanger]

15 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I think you sliced well wide of the pin.

Well, I recall a previous post speaking of 53% of total assets and 73% of unrestricted assets, if I got that right.

If that is not the case, but truly 15%, or paid from a year's passive income, well, certainly nearly painless.  I doubt that the Bay Area Council is a typical council.

On the other hand, based on information from a source considered reliable (by me), my council's contribution is at about 50% of unrestricted assets, and 32% of total assets-assuming National's financial statements for each council are accurate (which I don't necessarily accept). It seems that my council is credited with considerably more net worth than anyone I have discussed it with believes to be the case. And I also don't believe my council has the net worth attributed to it. 

But, from my years on the Executive Board, I felt that the council financial statements handed out to us intentionally obfuscated content.  It was impossible to determine if the camp made a profit or lost money, or Cub Day Camp, etc.  Not GAAP, I think.  We NEVER received any kind of profit/loss statement for any program or camp.  All smoke and mirrors. 

Regardless, my council is planning to obtain a loan, per the SE. I think the camp is restricted, so, perhaps an unsecured line credit as we have scout office which is worth about 1/7th the loan amount.  Or the phantom net worth, whatever it is, will also be collateral.

What lender makes an unsecured loan to a business that lost 40% of its customers in a single year?

 

And, if the Claimant Voters ever get good information, and 15% is the rule, then they can vote the Plan down.

[MYCVAStory]

2 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

And, if the Claimant Voters ever get good information, and 15% is the rule, then they can vote the Plan down.

Scary thought for the night....no judge has ever "crammed down" a sexual abuse bankruptcy settlement against the vote of claimants.  That's good.  Expect a 66% approval vote from VOTING claimants (not total number) for approval.  Claimants aren't required to sign their ballots if their retention agreement with their attorney and claim form signify that their attorney can do so for them.  So yes, that places a lot of power into the hands of mass tort attorneys who can be expected to vote for a LOT of clients.  Think their clients will do so instead?  Consider that when the Coalition asked its supposed 70,000+ clients to sign an agreement saying that their attorney would represent them as part of the Coalition only 18,000 returned that mailing affirmatively.  You can be sure that the remaining 50,000 votes will be cast when a plan is up for approval.  What's this mean?  Well, if the RSA blows up, and keeping the Hartford $hit deal as a part of a settlement would do that, then you might see two victims sides emerge.  Those attorneys with bills to pay (since the judge said not yet), and those representing the TCC and Zalkin group who have a long history of serving victims in STATE courts as well where they have filed cases. 

If you're reading this and wondering if your attorney filed your State case (if your SOL allows it) ASK NOW.  MANY MANY cases in NY were never filed before the NY deadline passed August 14 because the victim's attorney retainer is BSA bankruptcy only.  Consider that nightmare if this blows up and someone who waited decades for the SOL to change is told "Sorry, we never agreed to represent you in State court."  Consider the type of attorney who would do that.  Consider who will be voting for any plan when the time comes.  Sorry.    This is a long way from over.

[SiouxRanger]

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

This is a long way from over.

As I keep reading bankruptcy posts, I keep thinking of the post about the attorney who was "spitting nickels."

There are many aspects of this whole proceeding which are bizarre.

(Failure to comply with discovery, failure to file complete Exhibits (National-many times), seeking Ten Million Dollars in attorneys fees never having produced a bill??? (And $950,000± a month thereafter??? For what?)  A payment without substantiation to a group who controls the vote to approve National's Plan??? What would one call that???

And I truly agree, this is a long way from over.

And the greater the talk, the longer it takes, and the darker the forest becomes for National to realize its Plan. (And I do not think that National will realize its goal of a "quick hit" solution, namely, put $850M into a Settlement Fund, quickly get a pat on the back for "A Job Well-Done" and move on to membership drives and Recharters.) I think that hope is toast.

 I have not been able to watch but a few minutes of Zoom hearings.

I cannot tell if the Judge is oblivious to the "spitting nickels" aspect of this, or is paying out enough rope for parties to hang themselves, only to draw it tight at some point-a comeuppance.

What is happening here is an "awakening." It is the typical response of persons affected by a program affecting them being rammed-through:  they awaken (usually slowly) to the consequences of the ran-through on their interests and raise their voices, singularly or collectively, but soon enough become a force affecting the process and outcome.

National's quick-hit Plan is now being pressured by insurers and CO's.

The LC's role in this is likely that of the lap-dog.  "Whatever National says, we do."

[PeterHopkins]

3 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

But, from my years on the Executive Board, I felt that the council financial statements handed out to us intentionally obfuscated content.  It was impossible to determine if the camp made a profit or lost money, or Cub Day Camp, etc.  Not GAAP, I think.  We NEVER received any kind of profit/loss statement for any program or camp.  All smoke and mirrors. 

Summaries of the "net income or loss" (not terms used in the not-for-profit context) would not be included in the audited financial statements. The objective of an audit is to express an opinion about whether the financial statements reflect the entity's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Drilling down to individual programs is not necessary to for that opinion. The cost associated with having the auditors express such an opinion would outweigh any individual benefits.

If some programs operate in the black and others operate in the red, it matters little to users of the financial statements. They will evaluate the entity based on its overall results.

Management's evaluation of the entity's operations should encompass far more than the audited financial statements. The council's internal accounting staff should have information concerning indiviual programs and should have mad eit available to members of the executive board, if it was requested.

[SiouxRanger]

1 hour ago, PeterHopkins said:

Summaries of the "net income or loss" (not terms used in the not-for-profit context) would not be included in the audited financial statements. The objective of an audit is to express an opinion about whether the financial statements reflect the entity's financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Drilling down to individual programs is not necessary to for that opinion. The cost associated with having the auditors express such an opinion would outweigh any individual benefits.

If some programs operate in the black and others operate in the red, it matters little to users of the financial statements. They will evaluate the entity based on its overall results.

Management's evaluation of the entity's operations should encompass far more than the audited financial statements. The council's internal accounting staff should have information concerning indiviual programs and should have mad eit available to members of the executive board, if it was requested.

And so, let's take this ON.

First, I am not talking about audited financial statements. (You have made the legally objectional assumption of a "fact not in evidence.")

I am talking about MANAGEMENT reports to its Executive Board provided by management;  "stated" in accountancy parlance. And pumped out routinely from the council's accounting software.

And if financial statements are given to Executive Board members, but are of no meaningful use to assist those Executive Board members in managing the financial aspects of the council, then please tell me why anyone bothers to provide them?

"Last month's Cub XXX lost its 'donkey'-third year in a row..." (And what went wrong and how can we improve???)

"Last month's Cub XXX did twice as well as last year, and the changes that made the big difference are..."

Why not just give the Executive Board members a report of the local river levels, or pollen counts, or a bird census. Or local parking ticket fines, or any other manner of drivel?

If the Executive Board is not intended to be provided with reliable data on the operational performance of the council and make policy decisions based on that data, then the Executive Board is a sham.  (And that is precisely my view.)

Financial reports are presented by council management presumably to INFORM the Executive Board and empower it to make sound management and financial decisions about the future operations of the program.

Are you saying to me that the members of the Executive Board of a Council are NOT ENTITLED to know if major programs of the Council are losing their "donkey," month-to-month, year-to-year?

Seriously?

 

I have served on my council's Executive Board, I have seen our meetings cut from monthly to quarterly, and I KNOW that the financial statements, of management, are worthless as far as providing meaningful information to the Executive Board in aiding it in its duty to manage the Council.

I was the lone voice on the Board to point out, some decades ago, that my Council was insolvent, that is, incapable of paying its bills as they fell due, and that the council was about a quarter year behind paying its bills, at that.

Board members were being asked for $1,000 donations to cover payroll. Every two weeks. And they paid, and paid.

And no one on the Board knew of this precarious financial situation, board meeting after board meeting, quarter after quarter, until I and another non-Board member, figured it out, and there was h***fire to pay.

Council professional staff WILL NOT MAKE INTERNAL FINANCIAL DATA AVAILABLE TO ANYONE NOT A SENIOR PROFESSIONAL STAFFER.

That was confirmed to me, just 3 days ago, by a Scout Camp Site Manager who said, "You will never get that data." And that site manager is on the volunteer side of the equation.