Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[Eagle1993]

45 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

... side comment ...  for me, humor comes in strange places.  I looked at the twitter feed above.  I'm used to social media feeds with thousands of likes.  Even our states governor gets 2k+ to 5k+ likes per post.  Above post had three.  ... doesn't mean anything.  I just thought it was funny.

That is 2 more likes the the combined total of likes for all of Roger Mosby's tweets in the history of Twitter.  

[Eagle1993]

45 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Then the judge will have a choice: order a cramdown (I know, I know, never happened before in a sexual abuse related bankruptcy) or let BSA die.

I don't see the judge letting BSA die.  She seems to have a two clear goals .. don't let BSA die and don't let her decisions lose on appeal.  I think she would be ok BSA dies due to massive debt post bankruptcy or a failure of their business plan ... she just doesn't want this on her CV.  

So ... I expect if Kosnoff is able to rally support to get the plan rejected (note we don't know if, in the end, he will attempt that yet as there is no final official plan) then it is likely the toggle plan (BSA only) and let the state courts and future bankruptcies sort it out.  

We are almost 2 weeks removed from BSA saying they would come back to the court with an update.  The only update they have had is a request to defer state courts until Jan 10 (or later).  Concerning that TCC has not seen a plan.  One would think it is either Hartford and/or CO negotiations that are the cause of the delay.  

[MattR]

Posts have been moved

 

[Muttsy]

9 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

 

Then the judge will have a choice: order a cramdown (I know, I know, never happened before in a sexual abuse related bankruptcy) or let BSA die.

I don’t know. I really don’t know. 
This may be an inappropriate request to the moderators but here goes. 
 

This forum embodies a wide spectrum of views, which is its strength. It shares a shallow or deep or middling attachment to BSA as a company from persisting. Accept that with or without BSA, scouting will go on, and perhaps thrive or not. I don’t know. 
 

So, moderators, I request a straw poll be done here, on Plan 4.0. I want to know whether this forum continues to be relevant to anyone. 

[CynicalScouter]

9 hours ago, Muttsy said:

 

So, moderators, I request a straw poll be done here, on Plan 4.0. I want to know whether this forum continues to be relevant to anyone. 

To what end?

Say the straw poll shows overwhelming support for Plan 4.0. How does that make this forum more or less “relevant to anyone”?

Or the opposite: universal rejection of Plan 4.0: is the forum now suddenly more or less relevant?

I guess what I’m asking is what result of a straw poll would convince you this place is still relevant?

Edited September 11, 2021 by RememberSchiff
changed stew poll to straw

[Muttsy]

I guess relevant to me. I care what people really think when they are asked the hard question. The rest is just noise and banter “sound and fury signifying nothing.”

[CynicalScouter]

This getting back to fair vs. legal, so I am answering on this thread.

15 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Please tell us what assets and separate insurance coverage exists for the Methodists, Catholic dioceses, LDS and or the 56000 other chartering organizations. 

 

Let me clarify: AS TO BSA (which is the debtor-entity here) there was never an instance for $1+ million payments. There simply wasn't. I am sorry if you were led to think there was, but there isn't. BSA and its entire insurance portfolio (again with its insurance caps and limits) was never going to get to $82 billion dollars.

As for all those other entities, even if the sum total of all their insurance amounted into the trillions, you still have statutes of limitations and insurance coverage limits. I know you have said in the past those shouldn't exist, it isn't fair they exist, but we are back to what is fair vs. what does the law allow (or require). If an insurance policy is written with per occurrence or per policy year caps, no amount of wishful thinking is going to make a judge set those aside and demand insurance companies pay, etc.

Edited September 11, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

18 hours ago, Muttsy said:

I guess relevant to me. I care what people really think when they are asked the hard question. The rest is just noise and banter “sound and fury signifying nothing.”

It isn't a hard question at all. How you interpret the data would be.

If 100% of participants here vote to oppose Plan 4.0, that doesn't tell you WHY. Some may oppose because they think BSA shouldn't have to pay a dime for actions that occurred decades ago (and therefore Plan 4.0 is too harsh on BSA). Some may oppose because they think Plan 4.0 lets BSA get away with sexual abuse and that NOTHING short of the end of BSA is acceptable (and therefore Plan 4.0 is too lenient on BSA).

If 100% of participants here vote to support Plan 4.0, that doesn't tell you WHY. Some may support it because they think this is the best possible scenario for victims and that all the other possible scenerios are wishful thinking,  unrealistic or too improbable/will take too long to sort out.  Some may support Plan 4.0 because it offers BSA the fastest way out of bankruptcy. Etc.

So, what exactly is your point here? That anyone who accepts or supports Plan 4.0 is wrong, bad, and evil? Or that anyone who accepts or supports Plan 4.0 is right, virtuous, and good?

What is the point of a straw poll then?

Most straw polls I am familiar with are NOT yes/no or binary ("Do you support Plan 4.0?") instead they seek to get information on which of a selection of options has the most support. Etc.

I think you simply want in the end to broad bush many/most people here as "fellow travelers" of BSA (with by the way the communist-supporting undertones of that term) and therefore people who are NOT interested in victims or who do not care about victims.

I can say this: I do care. I believe victims should be compensated. But you've still never, ever, EVER explained how you think you can achieve that under existing bankruptcy law other than via magic (the judge will magically set aside all statutes of limitations, all insurance caps, and simply declare that all insurance companies must pay out everything now).

As Stang said in the last TCC Town Hall: reality is something different. You want the bankruptcy courts, or courts in general, to do things that simply are not going to happen.

So go ahead, I firmly support your straw poll. Post it "Do you support Plan 4.0?"

Just be aware that the data is the data, how you interpret it is on you.

[vol_scouter]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

What is the point of a straw poll then?

Certainly agree.  There is no science to a straw poll so even if some particular response is overwhelmingly selected, it means absolutely nothing.  It could agitate people as those who believe that nothing less than chapter 7 for the BSA, LC's, CO's, and maybe insurance companies is the least that should be done as contrasted to those who want a sooner rather than later decision and would consider accepting some version of the BSA RSA proposals.  Those who have not been abused and are Scouters will wish claimants to be compensated but will likely wish less severe financial payments.  

Let's not conduct a poll that will have no validity but could cause more strife on these threads.

[CynicalScouter]

On 9/10/2021 at 10:34 PM, CynicalScouter said:

Edited yesterday at 07:27 AM by RememberSchiff
changed stew poll to straw

For the record, I support both straw polls (when properly done) as well as stew polls (also when properly done).

[PeterHopkins]

On 9/3/2021 at 3:48 PM, CynicalScouter said:

Like right now, today, this second, if I had an idea for how to improve the Arrow of Light year, WHO would I even send that too?

1. Who is the Chair of the National Cub Scout program/lead volunteer? No answer. No way to know
2. Who is the Director of Cub Scout programing? I found a 2017 Scoutingwire article, but who knows if that's still accurate? And there is NO contact information for that person (I can GUESS it is firstname.lastname@scouting.org, but that is a GUESS) https://scoutingwire.org/meet-bsas-new-program-directors-cub-scouts-boy-scouts-venturing/
3. This website says they exist, but no names, no contact, nothing. https://www.scouting.org/programs/cub-scouts/den-meeting-resources/

Your point is well taken. However, the National Director of Cub Scouting, Anthony Berger, is highly engaged with the masses. He follows the Cub Scout Volunteers group on Facebook and appears on Cub Chat Live on modt Fridays. He is often joined by Lisa Wylie, the chair of the Cub Scouting subcommittee.

Anthony engaged directly with me in comments on Facebook. I sent him a friend request, and he accepted. When I saw something a local council was doing that I thought to be particularly toxix, I sent him a private message, and he responded.

Yes, it would be ideal if one could look up these folks on the website. Not only would it be more in line with how other non-for-profits operate, it would improve the optics that now make the BSA look secretive.

[CynicalScouter]

12 minutes ago, PeterHopkins said:

Anthony Berger, is highly engaged with the masses. He follows the Cub Scout Volunteers group on Facebook

A private group that is not listed anywhere on scouting.org that you need to have permission to join.

that is your definition of openness and engaging with the masses? Only the select few who have even knowledge of that Facebook group’s existence?

right now today if I was a den leader or a cubmaster tell me exactly and I mean exactly how I would even know to look for that Facebook group on any official BSA website or any official BSA information source.

if nothing else you’ve just proven my point: only the select elite few who are allowed access to private groups (FB) are allowed to get information while everybody else is told to go away.

[malraux]

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

that is your definition of openness and engaging with the masses? Only the select few who have even knowledge of that Facebook group’s existence?

This is just dumb. Its a group with 23 thousand members. Its not elite. Its far more accessible than most other methods. 

[PeterHopkins]

On 9/3/2021 at 7:37 PM, CynicalScouter said:

The entire Varsity program was to appease the LDS.

I agree with that statement completely. That being said, it was a great program and should have been utilized more than it was. I often thought it would work well in all-boys' high schools, particularly boarding schools.

[PeterHopkins]

On 9/4/2021 at 4:40 PM, yknot said:

Can you clarify anything about who was/is responsible for criminal background checks in scouting? In everything I recall, it was BSA. No CO I have ever dealt with had the resources to do that until relatively recently as part of their own youth protection initiatives. 

My pack is chartered to a Catholic church. The diocese requires a certain number of adults (based on the number of youth participants) to have separate background checks. They don't care that the BSA does background checks as well. So, some, but not all of our registered leaders have these additional background checks, and the pack has ot pay for them.