Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[swilliams]

Could someone please clarify where LCs stand with regard to the NDA?  I received an email from ours finally admitting they will have to pay, but claiming they aren’t allowed to tell us what the contribution is.  

I thought I read the info is no longer confidential.  This thread (these threads) are too long to go back and search for it. 

Edited August 24, 2021 by swilliams

[mrjohns2]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

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.

This is what was generating current operating income for them, though, so they will need to make that up. With falling membership, I assume that means to cut staff? Could that be $150,000 of annual income? 

[ThenNow]

17 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

18 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Also, what's this continuing claim of a confidentiality muzzle when we all know it's been lifted?

I think there's two different confidentiality items here:

1) "We can't tell you the number" is one. THAT has been lifted but some councils are still pretending it is binding. The fact that so many councils have released their numbers proves that's a fib.

2) "We can't tell you because we are in negotiations to sell local properties" is another that may be in play. Look at the language here.

Quote

Because of confidentiality requirements, we cannot at this time provide exact details of how we will fund our settlement contribution, but we promise to do so as soon as plans finalize and confidentiality restrictions are lifted.

In other words, the NUMBER is no longer confidential, but HOW the LC will pay may be if there's a deal being struck in the background

 

[ThenNow]

4 minutes ago, swilliams said:

Could someone please clarify where LCs stand with regard to the NDA?  I received an email from ours finally admitting they will have to pay, but claiming they aren’t allowed to tell us what the contribution is.  

See my post of Cynical’s post above. Sorry for the butchery. Cut and paste is too gracious a description for what I do.

[ThenNow]

5 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

This is what was generating current operating income for them, though, so they will need to make that up. With falling membership, I assume that means to cut staff? Could that be $150,000 of annual income? 

From what I understand, not a lot. They weren’t tapping it for anything like that amount. 

No cutting staff. They’re good.

Edited August 24, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

13 minutes ago, swilliams said:

Could someone please clarify where LCs stand with regard to the NDA?  I received an email from ours finally admitting they will have to pay, but claiming they aren’t allowed to tell us what the contribution is.  

I thought I read the info is no longer confidential.  This thread (these threads) are too long to go back and search for it. 

There is no reason for councils not to release at this point and in fact many councils have some other councils are either confused lying or stupid and still believe that the NDA it is in effect

[CynicalScouter]

35 minutes ago, David CO said:

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.  

Do you have particular names that are part of this conspiracy theory or is this just a general “they” and “them”?

[ThenNow]

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

38 minutes ago, David CO said:

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.  

Do you have particular names that are part of this conspiracy theory or is this just a general “they” and “them”?

If you guys are going to go at it, please give me five minutes to make some popcorn. Be right back...

[CynicalScouter]

24 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

There is no reason for councils not to release at this point and in fact many councils have some other councils are either confused lying or stupid and still believe that the NDA it is in effect

To further elaborate on this: the fact that the Greater New York Council released its number ($9 million) and the Grand Canyon Council released their number ($7 million) tells you the "it's behind a NDA" excuse is now officially garbage. Those two councils were on the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils. The GNYC attorney was the lead attorney for the group. If there was ANY legal reason prohibiting release of the numbers, surely the lead attorney for the Local Councils would know and have told his own council not to release the number.

As I said: councils that still insist the NDA is in effect are either a) lying b) stupid and/or c) believe(oh so wrongly) the NDA is still in effect.

Let me put it another way: if the NDA was in effect and it in ANY way impacted or impaired mediation and/or the bankruptcy proceedings, every council that blabbed would be subject to contempt of court for violating the judge's mediation and confidential order/orders.

If your council tells you "We cannot due to an NDA" point out that those councils did and that therefore clearly the NDA is no longer an issue.

Edited August 24, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

If your council tells you "We cannot due to an NDA" point out that those councils did and that therefore clearly the NDA is no longer an issue.

Add Bay-Lakes to your reference list, as well, since that big reveal ended up here a couple days ago.

I was also told that there is a Sept. date set at which time the entire list will be released. Any who can, please confirm, deny or slap me down.

Edited August 24, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

So I saw someone recently try and list all the known payout places.

Greater New York Council = $9 million
Dan Beard Council = $4 million
Theodore Roosevelt Council = $3,989,485
San Diego Imperial Council = "around $2.5 million"
Grand Canyon Council = "just over $7 million"
Greater Hudson Valley Council = $6,367,834.84
Bay-Lakes Council = "just under $3 million"

 

Edited August 24, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[swilliams]

15 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

To further elaborate on this: the fact that the Greater New York Council released its number ($9 million) and the Grand Canyon Council released their number ($7 million) tells you the "it's behind a NDA" excuse is now officially garbage. Those two councils were on the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils. The GNYC attorney was the lead attorney for the group. If there was ANY legal reason prohibiting release of the numbers, surely the lead attorney for the Local Councils would know and have told his own council not to release the number.

As I said: councils that still insist the NDA is in effect are either a) lying b) stupid and/or c) believe(oh so wrongly) the NDA is still in effect.

Let me put it another way: if the NDA was in effect and it in ANY way impacted or impaired mediation and/or the bankruptcy proceedings, every council that blabbed would be subject to contempt of court for violating the judge's mediation and confidential order/orders.

If your council tells you "We cannot due to an NDA" point out that those councils did and that therefore clearly the NDA is no longer an issue.

Thank you. I told our committee chair I was going to email them and call them out on this. Feeling a bit pissy this morning. I admitted it may not be scout-like to call BS on their email. The CC said it’s not scout-like to lie. Haha. 

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, swilliams said:

Thank you. I told our committee chair I was going to email them and call them out on this. Feeling a bit pissy this morning. I admitted it may not be scout-like to call BS on their email. The CC said it’s not scout-like to lie. Haha. 

Do it and share the numbers from other councils. If they insist on pretending that the numbers are still NDA, ask why then these others councils (INCLUDING THE LEAD ATTORNEY FOR THE LOCAL COUNCILS) are telling people the numbers.

[fred8033]

5 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Um. I think you sliced well wide of the pin. 

Understood.  I meant the other bigger bankruptcy.   Even for the LC contributions, there are huge questions.  Main one with LC contributions per US trustee, is it even legal to provide future protection to independent organizations that are not going thru bankruptcy.  If it's found not providing future protection, I assume the LCs will hold back their contributions.

Edited August 24, 2021 by fred8033

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

So I saw someone recently try and list all the known payout places.

Greater New York Council = $9 million
Dan Beard Council = $4 million
Theodore Roosevelt Council = $3,989,485
San Diego Imperial Council = "around $2.5 million"
Grand Canyon Council = "just over $7 million"
Greater Hudson Valley Council = $6,367,834.84
Bay-Lakes Council = "just under $3 million"

If you go back and read all the post filing announcements from LCs about being untouched, unscathed and uninvolved in the Chapter 11, they are pretty revealing about how National runs this operation. I just did that and the delusion ran deep. I was told from the jump there was no chance they wouldn’t be pressed to contribute or many would be in court soon after discharge. How does that happen, I mean seriously? If some/any were successfully sued prior to filing, that’s a pretty clear indication of liability or exposure at the least.