Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[CynicalScouter]

14 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Exhibit G is the TCC's summary and Exhibit G-1 is BSA's response.  Clearly fair is a personal opinion, but the two sides make arguments in this document.

I totally missed this. Thanks for pointing it out. Yeah, this really gets at the heart of it: BSA just does NOT agree with the assessment of assets.

Also, most councils are missing

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Fair was never an option.

Fair is an option that BSA is not pursuing.

[HelpfulTracks]

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

Fair is an option that BSA is not pursuing.

Then what is fair in your mind?
What should BSA pursue?

[CynicalScouter]

25 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Fair is an option that BSA is not pursuing.

Fair, if we want to define fair as "the same abuse claims values AND PAYMENTS as in similarly situated abuse cases) would be at least $100 billion, likely more.

• BSA doesn't have that kind of money.
• LCs don't either.
• Insurers may, but even THAT is debatable (because of issues related to statutes of limitations, claims caps, annual aggregation limits, etc.)

So, "fair" was never in the cards in that sense.

So, as was asked by others, what is "fair" here that BSA should be pursuing?

Edited October 7, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[johnsch322]

9 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Then what is fair in your mind?
What should BSA pursue?

First you need to understand that BSA's purpose for entering Bankruptcy was to keep as much of their assets as possible while getting out of the pile of crap they themselves had created.  They wanted to get the LC's off the hook along with themselves.  That goal has never changed.  Put up just enough to make all of this go away.

They totally underestimated the number of claimants.

Then they cut the first deal with Hartford (which was more than atrocious).  They than went to LC's and said hey put up some money I think we can make this turd of an offer shine a little.  They were cut off at the knees.

Back to the drawing board they went.  A little more money from National, a little more from LC's, talk to Hartford firm up a little more guaranteed cash, pressure on some CO's voila 250M from LDS but only to LDS CO survivors (whoa I have to split my LC's money with them and get none of the LDS money...that sucks).  Cut a deal with the Coalition for millions promise the sky when you basically have already capped the major contributors at pennies on the dollar and in doing this you lose the support of the TCC.  Turd still has no shine.

Now they want to send this all out for a vote.  So if I and other claimants vote yes we pretty much settle for the muddy turd.  If we vote no the worst we get is the proverbial turd and if enough say no (and you only need more than about 35,000 no votes we stand a strong chance of getting more.  With the toggle plan we get to go to state court or the entity's who are trying to shirt tail onto the Bankruptcy (LC's, CO's Insurance companies) need to come up with more.

In my opinion BSA National should exit bankruptcy on their own and let everyone else defend themselves.

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

In my opinion BSA National should exit bankruptcy on their own and let everyone else defend themselves.

So fair = BSA toggle plan?

[johnsch322]

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

So fair = BSA toggle plan?

At this juncture yes. 

Let me qualify what I mean.  If this is as good of a plan that BSA can come up with than yes.

Edited October 7, 2021 by johnsch322

[Muttsy]

Survivors can do better. There is a path. But BSA has to be gone first whether toggle or 7. 
 

The TCC plan is coming and once you understand the logic of it, you’ll be a certain NO vote on 5.0  

 

[1980Scouter]

1 hour ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Then what is fair in your mind?
What should BSA pursue?

Fair is LC contribution close to all endowments.  Start from scratch with limited camps. 

[CynicalScouter]

9 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

Fair is LC contribution close to all endowments.  Start from scratch with limited camps. 

 

15 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

The TCC plan is coming and once you understand the logic of it, you’ll be a certain NO vote on 5.0  

As I understand it, again broadly speaking, but the TCC plan outlined in April/May was

1. Determine OPERATING expenses for 2 years.
2. Determine camps that are highly or mostly utilized in the AREA (that may mean some LCs keep all camps and some next door neighbors will lose a lot)
3. Determine what assets are truly, truly restricted (such as those that are in historic parks or buildings that cannot be sold or liquidated because there is some government or other entity with a superior claim)

And whatever is left goes into the Settlement Trust.

Thus, just looking at my and other smaller councils for a second, our council might be better off under such a plan whereas the megacouncils that right now are only putting in 4-7% are going to see their numbers go up 10x.

Edited October 7, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

Here is Stang on the TCC plan (May 13 Townhall)

http://www.pszjlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/BSA Town Hall Transcript 5-13-21.pdf

"I want to just build on that for a moment. Every analysis that we did, which includes a proposed contribution of money and camps to a settlement fund, is premised, first, on that each local council will keep two years of operating money. We know how much it costs to operate your local council, we have all of that financial information. So, we didn’t zero out the bank accounts, two years of operating money and whatever else you raise--or I should say, the local councils raise, by donations or otherwise, is in addition to that. So, there’s that buffer we put in there. It underscores what John just said. These proposals do not seek to liquidate local councils. The other thing we did was we looked at camp utilization. There are numerable reports coming from BSA and individual local councils that the camps are underutilized. So, we mapped out the location of every camp in the country, every scout store in the country, and we drew a circle around each camp to see what other camps were nearby. What was the utilization of those camps, ‘cause, frankly, while we hear every camp is essential, if you take away a single camp it’ll destroy our local council, the fact of the matter is, in lots of parts of the country, there are so many camps so close to one another that if you were efficiently using them, there’s probably about 40 percent or 50 percent of the camps that you could dispose of and not affect a kid’s ability to go camping."

[johnsch322]

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Here is Stang on the TCC plan (May 13 Townhall)

http://www.pszjlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/BSA Town Hall Transcript 5-13-21.pdf

"I want to just build on that for a moment. Every analysis that we did, which includes a proposed contribution of money and camps to a settlement fund, is premised, first, on that each local council will keep two years of operating money. We know how much it costs to operate your local council, we have all of that financial information. So, we didn’t zero out the bank accounts, two years of operating money and whatever else you raise--or I should say, the local councils raise, by donations or otherwise, is in addition to that. So, there’s that buffer we put in there. It underscores what John just said. These proposals do not seek to liquidate local councils. The other thing we did was we looked at camp utilization. There are numerable reports coming from BSA and individual local councils that the camps are underutilized. So, we mapped out the location of every camp in the country, every scout store in the country, and we drew a circle around each camp to see what other camps were nearby. What was the utilization of those camps, ‘cause, frankly, while we hear every camp is essential, if you take away a single camp it’ll destroy our local council, the fact of the matter is, in lots of parts of the country, there are so many camps so close to one another that if you were efficiently using them, there’s probably about 40 percent or 50 percent of the camps that you could dispose of and not affect a kid’s ability to go camping."

Now that sounds fair.

[MYCVAStory]

Reminder....gloves off for the TCC tonight:

The next TCC Town Hall will take place on Thursday, October 7, 2021, at 8:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) (Click here to view the complete notice.)

• https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/82272826295 (no registration required)
• By telephone: 888-788-0099 (toll free), Webinar ID: 822 7282 6295.

To be discussed: 

• Plan solicitation materials and voting ballots
• TCC’s recommendation on how to vote

[Muttsy]

22 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

As I understand it, again broadly speaking, but the TCC plan outlined in April/May was

1. Determine OPERATING expenses for 2 years.
2. Determine camps that are highly or mostly utilized in the AREA (that may mean some LCs keep all camps and some next door neighbors will lose a lot)
3. Determine what assets are truly, truly restricted (such as those that are in historic parks or buildings that cannot be sold or liquidated because there is some government or other entity with a superior claim)

And whatever is left goes into the Settlement Trust.

The key to it is that it puts the survivors in a stronger position of leverage against the carriers and the COs. I know folks here are fixated on the SOL defense in many states but that is an abstraction. The value of claims in window states and discovery states alone is massive. 
 

Add to that that insurance carriers have a near absolute legal duty to defend albeit under a reservation of rights, the financial risks to these carriers if all these cases go back into the tort system, it is a nightmare scenario for them. 
 

That is the posture a resounding NO vote will put the TCC IMO. 

[CynicalScouter]

2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Now that sounds fair.

I am NOT saying that is the current TCC plan or if that will be what comes out when the TCC plan gets filed October 16, but that was what it looked like in May. Generally, broadly.