Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[ThenNow]

4 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

Their intention was to give reassurance that none of the camps would need to be sold and to praise those who had made good financial decisions on behalf of the council in the past, which put the council in a position to meet its obligations.

At the time of the call, they were not permitted to disclose their share of the amount in the RSA

Got it. (It's still a very weird movie...)

[yknot]

6 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

Here's the problem: that strategy, while it may have made legal sense, from an institutional perspective was a bad one. Now you have lots of COs who feel, as the attorney for the Methodists and Catholics put it, left out and abandoned. It certainly LOOKS on paper (in the form of the RSA and the Fourth Amended Plan) as if the COs are being left to fend for themselves. Now, that may not have been what BSA intended, but that's the message that go through.

I have sometimes wondered if one of National's possible survival strategies is to mostly give up on local scouting and COs. Almost all of its liabiity problems have come from the CO and unit level. There is a reason why local scouters and national and council scouters don't seem to be speaking the same language: they have almost completely different goals and purposes. If BSA were concerned about local scouting, it would have given up at least one HA base and tried to find a strategy to help functional councils keep functional camps. Problems with Youth Protection implementation make it clear it can't effectively manage units and COs. It also can't effectively manage the social differences required by religious based COs. BSA has repeatedly emphasized family scouting, which is much more managable in every sense. BSA may simply be seeking to maintain a national profile with family destinations and programming at its four HA bases. If any Councils can manage to hang on post bankruptcy, that will be gravy. BSA may literally not care that much about whether COs participate or not. 

[Eagle1993]

7 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

Their intention was to give reassurance that none of the camps would need to be sold and to praise those who had made good financial decisions on behalf of the council in the past, which put the council in a position to meet its obligations.

 

I wonder if council after council, coming out, stating how painless this will be could impact the voting on the plan.  

[ThenNow]

12 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I wonder if council after council, coming out, stating how painless this will be could impact the voting on the plan.  

Reference my reaction to the announcement you shared about taking a $3M slice off the stock portfolio. For me, that was irritating, regardless the number of claims or Shade of Gray. For those 155 guys and especially the 5 with live claims, that has to be painful. My thinking, anyway.

Edited August 23, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

13 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I wonder if council after council, coming out, stating how painless this will be could impact the voting on the plan.  

Only if the victims hear about it en masse.

[ThenNow]

20 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Only if the victims hear about it en masse.

Back to the weird movie. That doesn't feel so good on this end of the stick. How many guys would even know to watch for an announcement from their LC? Not many. The first they'll see is the disclosure. 

I'm not trying to tank the process, it just goes to how wonky it is trying to resolve mass torts in Chapter 11. "One of these things, is not like the other. One of these things, just doesn't belong..."

Edited August 23, 2021 by ThenNow

[Eagle94-A1]

2 hours ago, yknot said:

I have sometimes wondered if one of National's possible survival strategies is to mostly give up on local scouting and COs.  .... If BSA were concerned about local scouting, it would have given up at least one HA base and tried to find a strategy to help functional councils keep functional camps. ... BSA has repeatedly emphasized family scouting, which is much more managable in every sense. BSA may simply be seeking to maintain a national profile with family destinations and programming at its four HA bases.

"FAMILY SCOUTING" IS NOT SCOUTING!  I have seen "Family Scouting" first hand it nearly destroyed a troop.  I have been a long time member of this organization. I will not be a member of any "family scouting" group.

And how many families can afford those HA trips?

I grew up in a poor family with an abusive father. The best thing he ever did was walk out on me. Scouting gave me opportunities I would never have had if he stayed around. More importantly Scouting gave me positive role models that influence me to this day. And I know I am not alone, I have worked with and mentored Scouts in similar or worse situations over the years. You cannot get the same experience with parents and siblings constantly interfering.

Sorry for the rant, Those who read my post 3-4 years ago know all about the issues I had with "family scouting."

 

[MattR]

Can we save the family scouting thread for something other than ch 11?

Granted, we have to get to 100 pages before we find out what's next in this story, but still, arguing about family scouting just sounds like cheating

 

[yknot]

30 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

"FAMILY SCOUTING" IS NOT SCOUTING!  I have seen "Family Scouting" first hand it nearly destroyed a troop.  I have been a long time member of this organization. I will not be a member of any "family scouting" group.

And how many families can afford those HA trips?

I grew up in a poor family with an abusive father. The best thing he ever did was walk out on me. Scouting gave me opportunities I would never have had if he stayed around. More importantly Scouting gave me positive role models that influence me to this day. And I know I am not alone, I have worked with and mentored Scouts in similar or worse situations over the years. You cannot get the same experience with parents and siblings constantly interfering.

Sorry for the rant, Those who read my post 3-4 years ago know all about the issues I had with "family scouting."

 

No worries I've seen your posts and I know how you feel. I'm just saying I think BSA seems like it is increasingly headed in this direction. I don't know what to think about it. Some scouting is better than no scouting but I do fear it might eventually be unrecognizable. 

[SiouxRanger]

5 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I wonder if council after council, coming out, stating how painless this will be could impact the voting on the plan. 

I can't see how anyone with half a clue could see this as painless.

As I recall, National's standard was to report a 2% membership growth year-to-year.  Recruiting new members was a DE's job responsibility.

Now we have a 40%± drop in membership.

Further, it seems the consensus that the LC's will spend about 50% or so of their total assets and even a higher percentage of their unrestricted assets.  What company just sends off 50% of its assets and feels good about it? It would be fatal to most businesses.

4 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Only if the victims hear about it en masse.

Precisely.  And they won't.

The non-disclosure agreements have put the lid on mobs of irate peasants (us) storming the Lord's castle (National).

The peasants have some facts and much conjecture. It does not seem to be enough to spur the needed numbers of peasants to take to the digital streets.

There is no grass-roots movement, much less opposition, to the implications and growing consequences of National's bankruptcy plans.

The consistent posters on this forum number 24 to 36 people.  There are a number of guests, but still not typically more than 250 or so at any one time.  Just not enough to get the attention of National. The guests are not motivated to register and make their voices heard.

5,000 folks sending a daily email to National for a month.  Well, that's a start, perhaps.

4 hours ago, ThenNow said:

How many guys would even know to watch for an announcement from their LC? Not many. The first they'll see is the disclosure. 

Some Claimants may be paying attention-either on this forum or other forums.

There is another problem. Even educated, Scouting folks (non-claimants), at least in my orbit, are paying virtually no attention to the bankruptcy.  The COR, Troop Committee Chairperson, SM-none of them seem interested and know very little about it.

5 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

Just as a reminder, because it is part of the bankruptcy "deal" all Council contributions will be a part of the disclosure.  That said, that information like all others is open to objection. 

True, but probably of little practical importance as those voting will be voting on the Plan as a whole.  Arguments for and against the Plan will be based on an aggregate analysis, not the facts pertaining to a single or limited number of LC's. 

For example, those voting might reject the Plan if it is shown that only 5% of LC assets are being paid into the Settlement Fund.  That a council or two is paying 99% means little as the total Settlement Fund contribution is miniscule in the aggregate.

Conversely, a Plan which proposes that 85% of LC assets be paid to the Settlement Fund would have a better chance of approval, even though a council or two might be paying 0%.

We will be handed a fait accompli.

Our choice will be to accept what is left of Scouting and soldier on, or leave in disgust (or for any other reason).

[Eagle1993]

2 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Further, it seems the consensus that the LC's will spend about 50% or so of their total assets and even a higher percentage of their unrestricted assets.  What company just sends off 50% of its assets and feels good about it? It would be fatal to most businesses.

LCs are spending less than 50% of their unrestricted assets. Per Disclosure, the combined net unrestricted assets are currently $2.4B.  Now, if they have to liquidate, they claim the would only recover $1.7B of that.  They are contributing $600M, about 35% of their net recoverable unrestricted assets.  Now there are fees, etc. that get involved, but on average it appears closer to 15% of total net assets (not 50% as you listed).

7082572a-2eeb-4a35-bc9b-e515925846fd_5486.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) - Page 323

In any case ... some councils are paying more and others far less.  For example, many NJ, NY, etc. are likely going to pay a lot.  I expect that messaging will be tough (camps sold, program cuts, fees increased, etc.). 

The issue is that many other councils are paying relatively little (and some may pay $0) to get a life time pass for everything that occurred Feb 2020 or earlier.   Yes, that is likely due to current SOLs, etc ... but SOLs can change in the future.  We have already seen councils come out and say ... we don't have to sell camps, touch program funds, your donations, etc.  That is great news for current scouters and scouts.    My point is that this messaging is terrible for the claimants from those specific councils and I wonder how it could influence voting or lawyers representing those clients on the deal.

Again, I understand why, I understand SOLs, I understand the math and risk of taking this to state courts, etc.  I just think the councils that have relatively lower impacts should probably work on their messaging.

[fred8033]

I'm still baffled by so many fundamental questions that I'm not sure how this continues.  

[ThenNow]

7 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

I can't see how anyone with half a clue could see this as painless.

Um. I think you sliced well wide of the pin. Bay-Lakes Council takes its $2.9M from it’s interest and dividend portfolio and that is that. “Spit, spot,” as Mary Poppins would say. As to their contribution, not so painful. Others are having their entire contribution paid by donors. True. Others have donors standing in the wing to replenish the fund once the case is over. True. From a victim claimant’s standpoint, and that is what we were talking about here, that doesn’t seem to match the “crime.” (No one freak out. I’m using a phrase that is relevant and applicable to some of us.) Finally, we’re talking largely about perception, remember, though there is plenty to evidence this being pretty darn easy for some. For others, very painful. I get it. For most us? We stand in the “others” line. 

/s/ <Half A. Clue

Edited August 24, 2021 by ThenNow

[ThenNow]

7 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

We have already seen councils come out and say ... we don't have to sell camps, touch program funds, your donations, etc.  That is great news for current scouters and scouts.    My point is that this messaging is terrible for the claimants from those specific councils and I wonder how it could influence voting or lawyers representing those clients on the deal.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I have learned what my LC is contributing and I am not happy about it. I understand this is a process and it is bankruptcy, not state court. As has been said, no one is going to be “happy” at the end, unless there is a Chapter 7. Then, Tim Kosnoff has a phat yacht party with a massive fireworks display, complete with flaming effigies. Back to the point, it hurts to see and feel such a relative incongruity between the injury and the “penalty.” I know for a fact that some LCs were surprised and pleased by the number they were given and easily found the money. They were prepared to go much more deeply into their cash and assets. From a messaging perspective, that was stupid to say, but now it’s out. 

Edited August 24, 2021 by ThenNow

[David CO]

9 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

I can't see how anyone with half a clue could see this as painless.

It is even better than painless for the guys at the top.  This bankruptcy is their dream come true.  When BSA comes out of this bankruptcy, the big shots will have more power than ever.