Bankruptcy, everything but the legalese

[CynicalScouter]

7 hours ago, MattR said:

The BSA/councils are guilty of not describing their finances and the claimants are guilty of ignoring the fact that they can never get all the money they'd like to get.

I think this in the end is key. For the thousands of what I will call Tier 1-3 victims who were expecting payments akin to those found in the Catholic Abuse and similar cases getting $10,000 and being told “that is all BSA and the LCs have to offer” seems absurd.

I have read numerous victim letters where claimants say (almost verbatim) that the local scout camp down the road is worth millions and I am being offered thousands? BSA can give me more.

The victims, and I cannot blame them in the least, fail to grasp that even if that camp gets sold the money is getting divided 10, 100, 300 ways. And of course statute of limitations issues.

Edited October 7, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[Eagle1993]

22 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I can think of three reasons why "no comment" is the best of the bad options.

1) Defend the LC offering on its own merits. "We believe this amount is fair."

2) Defend the LC offering based on survival of BSA: We believe this amount represents the most we can offer while still maintaining scouting for young people today and into the future, which is BSA National's official line (“ongoing efforts to reach a global resolution that will equitably compensate survivors and ensure Scouting’s future by resolving past abuse cases for both the national organization and local councils.”)

3) No comment.

Which would you pick?

Probably depends on the LC.  New York can go with #1.  Sam Huston #3.  But expect Sam Huston to get killed in the press (if an article appears in Texas).

[Eagle1993]

A bit more about LC comments to the media. 

 

Going back to our 10 largest councils.  Articles in these states will be rough (you can see Cascade Pacific has already appeared in an article, and they were the best out of our top 10 in terms of contributions.

It is tough to argue that claimants who will get $9,000 for being raped as a child is a fair payout when Sam Huston, our largest council, is keeping 95.6% of their assets.

The biggest issue will be local articles in grey states.  I expect councils in the grey states contributed less and the claimants are receiving less in those states.  

BSA probably wants to talk about the total number ... but when you dig in, the numbers are tougher to defend in public.  BSA may need to give LCs talking points on how to defend these numbers.  The LCs will need to say that this money is needed to continue the program, and much of it are in camps, etc.  LCs could say they agree the payouts are less than what we would have liked.  Etc.  Otherwise, just allowing article after article to go out with the financials at the LC level will be tough.

Local Council Name	Total Assets	% of Total Assets Towards Contribution
SAM HOUSTON AREA	179,837,619	4.43%
NORTHERN STAR	99,707,945	7.24%
GREATER ST. LOUIS AREA	96,778,145	8.25%
ATLANTA AREA	95,546,679	8.37%
CIRCLE TEN	92,482,329	8.64%
MICHIGAN CROSSROADS	67,087,721	11.90%
DENVER AREA	58,634,253	10.23%
CASCADE PACIFIC	56,027,991	17.85%
CROSSROADS OF AMERICA	55,507,464	7.79%
GREATER LOS ANGELES	55,232,268	14.48%

[HelpfulTracks]

 

41 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I can think of three reasons why "no comment" is the best of the bad options.

1) Defend the LC offering on its own merits. "We believe this amount is fair."

2) Defend the LC offering based on survival of BSA: We believe this amount represents the most we can offer while still maintaining scouting for young people today and into the future, which is BSA National's official line (“ongoing efforts to reach a global resolution that will equitably compensate survivors and ensure Scouting’s future by resolving past abuse cases for both the national organization and local councils.”)

3) No comment.

Which would you pick?

That about sums it up, all of which can be said by national or with a press release.

 

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Then they are about to be killed in the press.  They talked before, all the time.  Each said the same thing… National is going bankrupt there is no impact to councils or units. Now no comment?
 

They need to defend their settlement offers.   If they cannot, then the articles are fair and I think the vote is more likely to fail.  Seeing article after article in local TV and newspapers talking about low settlements, local councils offering low percentages of their net assets and victims talking how this is negatively impacting then with no counter from LCs will impact the votes of claimants.  

The BSA has been killed in the press for years, it is unlikely to change now.

Besides they are in the middle of a legal process, I am sure their lawyers told them we do not need 250 different voices giving statements.

I cannot image that news coverage with have much effect on those voting, they are going to listen to their lawyers. I cannot see a victim being told this is a bad plan vote no by their lawyer, reading an article and deciding, "yeah, but the local council said this is all they can do, so I'll vote yes." Nor can I image many (if any) victims being told by their lawyers, "this is as good as we are going to get, vote yes or risk getting nothing" deciding they should note no because the local councils did not explain their balance sheets to the media. 

Finally, even if the councils gave the detailed explanation this would require, its not going to make it into the article, at least not with the mass media. I could maybe see that with some industries media outlets.

[InquisitiveScouter]

So, I am curious... does anyone here think the offer is fair? (I do not...)

Do you believe the LC's can put up more than they have? (I believe they are short of what they could "comfortably" do, and that they should be giving an "uncomfortable" amount.)

Understand this would be nothing but your opinion, because the spectrum of LC finances is wide...

[Eagle1993]

38 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I cannot image that news coverage with have much effect on those voting, they are going to listen to their lawyers.

BSA is putting the future of BSA in this 1 basket.  When a law firm of 10 lawyers represents 16,000 claimants ... I expect the news can play a bigger role than you think.  But perhaps it is correct that the offer by many LCs is not defendable so why try.

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Nor can I image many (if any) victims being told by their lawyers, "this is as good as we are going to get, vote yes or risk getting nothing" deciding they should note no because the local councils did not explain their balance sheets to the media. 

No, but that is where the TCC and Kosnoff and other voices come in.

If local news affiliate runs a story "LCs are not reporting their balance sheets", that is one thing.

The theory is that the TCC and/or Kosnoff saying it is different. Is it enough?

Remember that the threshold is 2/3rds of voters (not all 82,500, just those that vote) are required to approve the plan. You don't need a majority No, you need a large enough minority to say No and the plan goes down in flames.

THAT is where these news articles, buttressed and supported by voices that victims will listen to (over their own lawyers advice to say yes) are key.

Edited October 7, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[SiouxRanger]

43 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

I believe they are short of what they could "comfortably"

Well, in the beginning, National did start with nothing, and 100± years later built it into what it now has.

So, even starting at zero is doable.

But, the second time around,, National would have its intellectual property, and a tradition (some of which is laudable), and a shell of a structure, though hugely damaged, and some camp properties with which to carry on the outdoor component of the program.  It won't be what is was before the bankruptcy, but what does one expect when they burn down their own house?

[HelpfulTracks]

11 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

So, I am curious... does anyone here think the offer is fair? (I do not...)

Do you believe the LC's can put up more than they have? (I believe they are short of what they could "comfortably" do, and that they should be giving an "uncomfortable" amount.)

Understand this would be nothing but your opinion, because the spectrum of LC finances is wide...

Fair was never an option. 

No amount of money can justify, erase, what happened to victims, or ease their pain. 

Some larger settlement amount would potentially give them an opportunity to seek help to cope with it.

Once this case went to bankruptcy the settlements became closer to a class action suit in terms or payout, pennies on the dollar. That would be true if it were Ch7 or Ch11.

If this were going the Ch7 route, then only those who have already won in court (and I don't imagine any of those are part of this group) would be getting anything as creditors would have taken it all.

For those that had cases that could have gone to trial and stood a chance of winning, certainly not the settlement they would have received. 

But for thousand more that would have never been able to file suit it is more than they would have received. 

Had all of these cases gone to trial somehow, then the money would have been long gone before getting through even a small percentage. So, again......................fair was never an option. 

Beyond the dollar settlement, I guess it depends on what is the wanted outcome. BSA going forward with a stronger YP program, BSA done as an organization, something else? That remains to be seen. 

[SiouxRanger]

National has sat down to a table to play the ultimate game of Texas Hold'em.

Where a Chapter 7 liquidation is the "All-In."

National has yielded control of its future to a formidable number of powerful players-a "Hail Mary" strategy.

[Eagle1993]

33 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

So, I am curious... does anyone here think the offer is fair? (I do not...)

Do you believe the LC's can put up more than they have? (I believe they are short of what they could "comfortably" do, and that they should be giving an "uncomfortable" amount.)

Understand this would be nothing but your opinion, because the spectrum of LC finances is wide...

On a personal note, my Troop's summer camp was sold due to this bankruptcy.  At the closing ceremony grown men cried as it was the last summer camp closing they would be attending at that camp.  I have ashes from that camp fire in my office.  So, it is painful in many cases as this is being repeated nationwide. 

I know many councils seemed to have lack of money going into this bankruptcy.  That said, when I see the actual council finances on display, by blood starts to boil.  It is clear that many councils sat on huge endowments/investments, claimed they were poor and sold camps.  So, to be fair, some of my thoughts are influenced by my history of seeing councils abandon what I think is valuable in scouting to save what I think is only valuable to a few council leaders.

• National BSA - for the most part, yes.  I think the offer is fair.  
• LCs - varies.  I think some LCs  are providing more than a  sufficient payout to get their liability waved.  Others are probably about right and still others  the offer is embarrassingly low.  On net, you are probably correct that LCs can contribute more.  As I mentioned earlier, their assets have risen a lot during this bankruptcy.  Some are able to cover with less than the increase of their asset increase since Feb 2020.  
• Hartford - I have no clue.  I tend to think no, but someone in the industry may be able to convince me otherwise.
• Charter Orgs - yes .. I actually think COs shouldn't have to pay anything.  While technically they signed paperwork, I have yet to find a CO ever have to pay for a scout related sex abuse case.   Unless there is a instance where the CO clearly violated BSA policy, I don't think they should have to pay.  My guess is the vast majority of the 84,000 are not due to CO negligence (just a guess, so I could be proven incorrect here).

 

[ThenNow]

15 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Here are the numbers in the Seattle Times article

• A rape claim against the Boy Scouts might entitle a survivor to as little as $3,300 under a nationwide proposal filed in court Tuesday.
  • In truth, it is actually lower per BSA .. $3,177 for the closed state midpoint
• 82,500 claims
  • I have heard 84,000 unique claims, so the Seattle times is reporting a lower number
• A Washington survivor who was molested unclothed could collect as little as $9,000 under the proposal.
  • Actual midpoint is $8,666 ... so the times is overreporting the BSA#

Every other number in their article appears accurate.

I guess I missed the link to this. Help, bitte? 

[CynicalScouter]

51 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

So, I am curious... does anyone here think the offer is fair? (I do not...)

Do you believe the LC's can put up more than they have? (I believe they are short of what they could "comfortably" do, and that they should be giving an "uncomfortable" amount.)

No, it isn't fair. Nothing but full restitution would be. Outside a government bail out (akin to the 9/11 fund) would be. Too many victims not enough cash.

Do I believe the LCs can put up more? Maybe? We don't know. I can say that my council (without giving it away, although I suspect people can deduce it after all these posts) is offer over 25% of total assets. We are small, We have no camp. We have a little over 100 claims, but only 5 are inside the statute of limitations. We are  Gray 3 (10-25%).

So, is it "fair" that my council is getting slammed 25% of total assets? I don't know. There are too many variables. I've had people tell me it is not fair for the council to pay a dime for victims that have no legal claim (that could NOT walk into our state court today and file a lawsuit). Etc.

So, what is "fair"?

What is "enough"?

[HelpfulTracks]

32 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

BSA is putting the future of BSA in this 1 basket.  When a law firm of 10 lawyers represents 16,000 claimants ... I expect the news can play a bigger role than you think.  But perhaps it is correct that the offer by many LCs is not defendable so why try.

I don't think their position is not defendable, at least not in all cases. 

I think we are talking about the media, complexities will get lost or ignored. Media's bias toward either position will come into play. And recent history (last 2-3 decades) has shown that bias is against BSA in main stream media. 

PR is more alchemy than science, so I could be wrong. But at this stage in the process, I think it better for the BSA and the councils if the councils remain silent. 

Pending the outcome, the PR for the councils will be targeted at current and future Scouts and Scouters, that is who they can and will need to win over going forward. If a council handled their statements perfectly now, I just see it being of benefit to them in the bankruptcy, but if the bungle it now, it could well hurt them down the road.

[Eagle1993]

This document has a pretty good way to help determine "fairness" by council.  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.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2e1a8c44-7812-46a0-8a93-5aa5621dc7b2_6431.pdf