Chapter 11 Announced - Part 6 - Plan 5.0/TCC Plan TBD

[yknot]

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

I'd be interested in more information state conference having power to consolidate / sell property.  From what I read, that is probably more about the goodwill congregation to congregation and that the congregation wants to stay in the good graces of the state conference.    I read this to learn more about Methodist church structure.  It's only one sample though.      https://nccumc.org/treasurer/files/Incorporation.pdf 

I'm betting that, beyond cooperation, a state conference has no real power to force selling  a specific congregations property.  

It might not be a clear absolute power but there are factors that can bring about closure and sale regardless. A church that is already struggling would have a hard time affording insurance outside of the group rates obtained by the conference for example. It is not 100% clear who owns church properties and it can get very tricky, especially in towns where tax assessors are questioning nonprofit status of things like parsonages if they are rented out for income. If UMC is offering to put money in, there must be some strategic plans to unload white elephant properties. 

[johnsch322]

11 hours ago, skeptic said:

Who was it that said, "It takes a village"? 

Well with that analogy I would say that it took a village to abuse me.  The village consisted of BSA National, the LC, a CO, a Troop and an abuser hence as a village they are responsible and should pay.

 

Edited December 15, 2021 by johnsch322

[1980Scouter]

17 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

That will likely not fly at all.  My council is a medium sized council who lost about 50% of its members through covid and chapter 11 PR.  This sum would be devastating.  We would likely fight in court and/or file chapter 11.  There just is not the money out there that the TCC says.

The LC's are going to have to contribute more for any plan to be approved.  They have two choices,  either pay the victims or pay the attorneys defending them.

The money will go to one of the two groups of people. 

[vol_scouter]

1 hour ago, 1980Scouter said:

The LC's are going to have to contribute more for any plan to be approved.  They have two choices,  either pay the victims or pay the attorneys defending them.

The money will go to one of the two groups of people. 

If this plan is not accepted by the court, local councils cannot contribute two to three times the current amount and will be forced into court with attorneys making money but likely little more for claimants.   This entire situation is so sad.  

[clbkbx]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

local councils cannot contribute two to three times the current amount

https://www.tccbsa.com/local-council-analysis 

Looks like many of the LC analyses were published. 

[Eagle1993]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

If this plan is not accepted by the court, local councils cannot contribute two to three times the current amount and will be forced into court with attorneys making money but likely little more for claimants.   This entire situation is so sad.  

I think you may see those within SOL and with good state counsel see much higher payouts if this plan fails.  They will be able to sue COs and LCs in state court and go after those entities + their insurance companies.

Right now, CO's insurance is completely protected in this plan with no payments required.  That is a big deal.  They would be brought in if this plan fails ... which is a major concern of COs.

LCs ... I really think this is a case by case basis.  Some LCs are contributing very small dollar amounts in terms of % of their assets.  Even 1 lawsuit that hits them would result in more money going to victims than what they are offering today.  I do agree with you that other LCs are/have contributed a large portion and lawsuits would likely mean less money for victims.  Its tough for me to judge the net result if it is positive/negative to claimants.

I do question, even more than LCs, the insurance settlements.  They likely believe the vast majority of the claims are false ... OR ... are not represented by counsel willing to sue in state court.  

In the end, I actually believe AVA is correct that the plan approval really depends on the claimant's situtation.  Some individuals .. .this plan probably means the highest payout.  If you are outside the SOL and in a state unlikely to change SOL you may not see a big increase in future plans.  However, if you are inside the SOL and/or in a state willing to change SOL you may see a huge potential upside if you reject the plan.

Good lawyers would be sitting with each claimant to discuss

• Their motivation ... is it to maximize their personal financial outcome.  Is it to cause as much damage to BSA as possible?  Is it to ensure YPT is improved?  Why did they sue and what is their goal?
• The current status of the plan and how it relates to their goals. 
• Depending on the above two, then provide them a recommendation on object/approve.

I feel these law firms who are sending mass requests to either reject/approve the plan are not serving their clients.  It is incredibly sad.  As a lawyer, if you want to collect the 40%, you should personally know your client and represent them.  Otherwise, don't take the case.

Edited December 15, 2021 by Eagle1993

[Eagle1993]

21 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

https://www.tccbsa.com/local-council-analysis 

Looks like many of the LC analyses were published. 

Looks like just the high level look per council, not the detailed report.  But progress.

[johnsch322]

3 hours ago, vol_scouter said:

If this plan is not accepted by the court, local councils cannot contribute two to three times the current amount and will be forced into court with attorneys making money but likely little more for claimants.   This entire situation is so sad.  

The plan is not going to be accepted by the survivors and for good reasons.  Los Padres the council where I have a claim has 83 claims against it and values Los Padres share of liability at $22,098 per claim.  This is in California and open state and they want to contribute just under 13% of their unrestricted net assets to get a release of liability as if they had gone thru a bankruptcy or paid off their share of judgements or settlements.  the councils cost of litigation would exceed the $22,098 per claim.  

[MYCVAStory]

TCC having a Town Hall Thursday night.  From its website:

A Town Hall will be held on Thursday, December 16 to discuss this week's developments, including the newly announced settlement agreements.

 

Be sure you know how to fill in your ballot if voting individually. Watch our video "How to Complete & Return Your Ballot" and read more about how to be sure your vote is counted.

View Most Recent Notice

Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/82272826295 (no registration required) 

or by phone: 888-788-0099 (toll free), Webinar ID: 822 7282 6295

[Eagle1993]

On 12/14/2021 at 7:09 AM, Eagle1993 said:

Ok, a bit more info.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/086fbe27-7a3d-4f42-9a19-383482f8c997_7745.pdf

It looks like BSA's increase of $140M ($15M cash from LCs, $25M Loan from LCs and a $100M loan from BSA/LCs based on membership numbers).

This payment would release the UMC and Roman Catholic Church from all liabilities. 

Actually, I relooked at this.  It appears that this deal above is for all Charter Organizations, EXCEPT the UMC, the Roman Catholic Church and the LDS.  So, NO DEAL for the UMC or Catholic Church; however, a deal for every other CO.

The agreement also has this footnote. It would be interesting to understand what this really means.

Quote

 

The Debtors, AHCLC, FCR, and Coalition have agreed to enter into a separate agreement which shall provide that any settlement with the Methodists and/or Catholics shall include mandatory fundraising efforts with a dollar for dollar reduction of the Settlement Growth Payment Cap and support Scouting and growth through 2036.

 

 

[skeptic]

Yes, it seems to be as clear as the proverbial mud.

 

[Eagle1993]

7 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Yes, it seems to be as clear as the proverbial mud.

 

At first appearance, it looks like the BSA, the BSA local councils, the Coalition and the future claimants committee struck a deal that IF there is a deal with the Methodist and/or Catholic church

• The Methodist and Catholic church must help BSA fundraise
• They must support scouting growth through 2036
• Any fundraising dollars would reduce the amount BSA would have to pay to the settlement in terms of the $100M note

At least that is the way I read it ... but it is an odd footnote.  My ONLY guess is that there is concern the Methodist/Catholics pay off a settlement, flee the BSA and then membership collapses and some of the payments based on membership collapse.  So, this footnote is there to indicate there is agreement that the Methodist/Catholics must also guarantee support for scouting through 2036 if they are going to get protection via bankruptcy.  

I noticed they didn't say the Methodist/Catholic committee agreed to this footnote.

[RememberSchiff]

Seems related to the Monday press release regarding Century Insurance $800M contribution.

the Boy Scouts said in a prepared statement. “In addition to our continued negotiations with other insurers, the BSA has worked diligently to create a structure that will allow the Roman Catholic-affiliated churches and United Methodist-affiliated churches who sponsored Scouting units to contribute to the proposed settlement trust to compensate survivors.”

IMHO,  they really wanted to announce their two largest CO's were on board ahead of the voting deadline. This was their best spin.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/12/13/boy-scouts-bankruptcy-case-800-million-dollars-fund-victims/6504441001/

My $0.02,

Edited December 15, 2021 by RememberSchiff

[Eagle1993]

Hearing now scheduled December 21.  Will cover emergency request from some insurers to delay schedule.  I believe their request is by 4 weeks minimum.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/5db0af36-3dca-44b2-968e-c9821b875e9a_7783.pdf

 

[yknot]

45 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

At first appearance, it looks like the BSA, the BSA local councils, the Coalition and the future claimants committee struck a deal that IF there is a deal with the Methodist and/or Catholic church

• The Methodist and Catholic church must help BSA fundraise
• They must support scouting growth through 2036
• Any fundraising dollars would reduce the amount BSA would have to pay to the settlement in terms of the $100M note

At least that is the way I read it ... but it is an odd footnote.  My ONLY guess is that there is concern the Methodist/Catholics pay off a settlement, flee the BSA and then membership collapses and some of the payments based on membership collapse.  So, this footnote is there to indicate there is agreement that the Methodist/Catholics must also guarantee support for scouting through 2036 if they are going to get protection via bankruptcy.  

I noticed they didn't say the Methodist/Catholic committee agreed to this footnote.

I got that impression too although it's hard to tell. That would be extremely weird if not concerning if UMC/RC churches were somehow committed to helping BSA grow membership for financial not philosophical reasons. Especially without any clarity regarding what is happening with youth protection. And it would put BSA back in bed with a religious organization a la LDS, which was problematic. Not to mention those two denominations have different views on some key topics. 

Or... this may mean something else entirely.