Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[David CO]

41 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

I wish they were losers.  Losers are much easier to get rid of.  The BSA board members and executives are very effective at protecting their own interests over the well-being of everyone else.  They rarely lose.

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Boy Scouts get approval but judge rejected two key provisions

This is Andrew Scurria at WSJ? I think he’s the top reporter of the lot, honestly. He’s the Deputy Chief of the Bk Division, I believe. Recently promoted. All of them are solid, though.

[ThenNow]

Is this the part of bankruptcy where we wait? Oh. Never mind. That’s what we have been doing. You’d think I’d be pretty darn good at by now. Well, I’m not. I will try harder.

[CynicalScouter]

23 minutes ago, David CO said:

Losers are much easier to get rid of.  The BSA board members and executives are very effective at protecting their own interests over the well-being of everyone else. 

Under the terms of the Congressional Charter, the board decides how the board is selected. If they want to put in protections, they can.

Moreover, as the judge noted, having a 72 member Board is absurdly large. Like ridiculously. It only happens in not for profit land where you buy-a-board-seat.

[Eagle1993]

Andrew Scurria - BSA can press ahead with proposed settlement while requiring certain provisions be removed.  Status of $650m settlement with Hartford? Unclear

A Bankruptcy Professor (Prof. Jacoby) at North Carolina tweeted there was "no surprise that the judge challenged significant elements for the agreement" ... went on to tweet "...probably means a change in direction of strategy for the plan?"

@MariaChutchian tweeted that the Boy Scouts got approval to move ahead with a deal but ... "The deal isn't set in stone yet, though, and the fight with insurers isn't over."

[Eagle1993]

FYI ... I just got an email from Bay-Lakes Council

".... One of the biggest pieces of information that we have known and unable to communicate is the total amount that Bay-Lakes Council is being asked to contribute.  The attached video, aand this letter, mean that we are now authorized to share this information."

".... Bay-Lakes Council's portion to contribute is just under $3 million for the settlement trust."

"... Recentely, our Executive Board took action to commit to funding our portion..."

I wonder if councils are being released from NDAs today based on the judge's ruling???

[RandomScouter]

Bay-Lakes doesn't plan to sell any resident camps or use donor-given funds. (so where is the money for their portion of the settlement coming from?)

The email from Bay-Lakes Council also includes information on 2 zoom meetings being held next week to "share additional details and answer questions you might have."

Not bad. I mean, they're communicating.  I know some councils play it so close to the vest that it would take a court order requiring this kind of public disclosure before they would share anything with their volunteers (or possibly even with District Executives).

[vol_scouter]

5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

FYI ... I just got an email from Bay-Lakes Council

".... One of the biggest pieces of information that we have known and unable to communicate is the total amount that Bay-Lakes Council is being asked to contribute.  The attached video, aand this letter, mean that we are now authorized to share this information."

".... Bay-Lakes Council's portion to contribute is just under $3 million for the settlement trust."

"... Recentely, our Executive Board took action to commit to funding our portion..."

I wonder if councils are being released from NDAs today based on the judge's ruling???

@Eagle1993  First, I sincerely hope if that is not a copy and paste with such poor spelling.  Second, if there is a release, I have not been contacted.  Unless authorized by the council's legal council, I will assume that the NDA is in force.

Also, I read this to be in some ways a defeat for the BSA (yes, not sports but it is not necessarily favorable).  So in my mind, the amount and general terms to which the council agreed is not necessarily any longer part of an agreement.  Certainly, Kosnoff wishes to destroy all Scouting. 

[Eagle1993]

10 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

First, I sincerely hope if that is not a copy and paste with such poor spelling

May have been my typing ... it wasn't copy/paste but a quick attempt to transcribe a few points between my phone & PC. 

[ThenNow]

21 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

".... Bay-Lakes Council's portion to contribute is just under $3 million for the settlement trust."

Based on my quick check of the financial and claims statements, this seems like a pretty sweet deal for them. They have roughly 10x that amount, right? I guess because they are Gray 3? They have well north of 100 claims and 5 that could be litigated in a quick minute. Is this illustrative of the percentages being contributed? Dunno.

[vol_scouter]

42 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

May have been my typing ... it wasn't copy/paste but a quick attempt to transcribe a few points between my phone & PC. 

@Eagle1993  I thought that it might have so but have seen some rather embarrassing official communications.

 

[Life]

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

As the judge just said (quoting BSA attorney Lauria) we are heading into an epic fight when it comes time for disclosure and what victims will be voting on. That fight just got 10 times harder because the TCC/FCR/Coalition, who previously were willing to partner with the BSA on a deal THAT DID NOT INCLUDE HARTFORD, will now walk away because the Hartford deal is back in.

It means that the exit is either

1. Delayed into 2022
2. ONLY going to cover BSA (and leave LCs and COs high and dry)
3. Something else

Keep in mind as well: the RSA agreement also put off or settled disputes over a) Sale of the HA bases b) valuing of claims, etc.

Thank you! 

[SiouxRanger]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

probably means a change in direction of strategy for the plan?

I had this vision of Native Americans herding buffalo off a cliff.

There's a plan?

So, considering all of today's events, is National closer to its toggle plan?

 

I see all of this as a cascade of positions, each a fall-back to other positions in this order:

 

1.  Initial plan of little money from National.

2.-? Maybe a couple of iterations to PLAN 4 with RSA and Hartford.

3.  Plan 4 without RSA-seems unlikely to pass. (Now we know Hartford deal is OK with the Judge).

4. Plan 4, like #3 but with CO's agreeing to something via mediation and negotiation.

5.  Toggle Plan.  (National retreats to only lifeboat on the ship. Everyone else fends for themselves.)

6.  Chapter 7 conversion.

7.  All BSA intellectual property acquired by some entity-and where will Scouting be then?

 

I keep thinking about that Laurel and Hardy line about a "fine mess."

 

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, RandomScouter said:

Bay-Lakes doesn't plan to sell any resident camps or use donor-given funds. (so where is the money for their portion of the settlement coming from?)

Well, let's take a look. It looks like they can get $3 million by selling their stocks/long-term investments.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ee5156a3-0c08-4833-a600-8256c44c8a56_5485.pdf

According to BSA data provided to the court, as of March Bay-Lakes had

Assets

Cash & Equivalents	667,003
Land, Buildings, and Equipment	8,083,634
Long-Term Investments	24,486,659
Other Assets	515,196
TOTAL ASSETS	33,752,492

Liabilities

Debt	1,965,457
Other Liabilities	688,011
TOTAL LIABILITIES	2,653,468

Totals

Unrestricted Net Assets	12,448,113
Restricted Net Assets	18,650,911
TOTAL NET ASSETS	31,099,024

[RandomScouter]

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Well, let's take a look. It looks like they can get $3 million by selling their stocks/long-term investments.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ee5156a3-0c08-4833-a600-8256c44c8a56_5485.pdf

According to BSA data provided to the court, as of March Bay-Lakes had

 

 

 

Assets

 

Cash & Equivalents	667,003
Land, Buildings, and Equipment	8,083,634
Long-Term Investments	24,486,659
Other Assets	515,196
TOTAL ASSETS	33,752,492

 

 

Liabilities

 

Debt	1,965,457
Other Liabilities	688,011
TOTAL LIABILITIES	2,653,468

 

 

Totals

 

Unrestricted Net Assets	12,448,113
Restricted Net Assets	18,650,911
TOTAL NET ASSETS	31,099,024

(Insert long low whistle sound here)  Wow.   I can certainly understand why they would be willing to sell off a fraction of their long-term investments...  That's a lot of money invested. 

I remember a story of a council taking out a $150,000 loan to help cover "lights on" expenses.  I think asking them to contribute $3 million (regardless of open/closed/gray status or number of claims) would break the bank.