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

[CynicalScouter]

So the TCC has said that it believes the $500 Local Council contribution isn't enough.

I am JUST using the BSA's LC balance sheets as of February (it was noted in a hearing that the LCs have made at least $80 million more due to the bull market since then).

LCs had

Unrestricted Net Assets 1,870,754,935

Restricted Net Assets 1,432,473,515

Total Net Assets of 3,303,228,450.

So, let's do the math. $500 million is 26% of unrestricted net assets and 15% of Total Net Assets

The TCC is ready to come in and demand $1.5 billion in part because they contend

1) The Net Assets are higher (and in particular the camps are worth more than BSA is claiming)

2) The Restrict Assets are not really that Restricted.

So, what does $1.5 billion look like? That looks like 45% of Total Net Assets.

It means, generally, take whatever number your council is offering up and multiply by 3.

Get ready, it is coming.

Edited October 11, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

Since at this point I have no idea what threads we are or are not allowed to talk about the bankruptcy and the council camps, I'll post here.

This is what Stang had to say

Quote

We have done an in-depth financial analysis of every local council. People think I’m being alittle smartass when I say I think we know more about them than they know about themselves. It is, John will correct me, at least 15 or 20 pages on each local council, ranging from an analysis of the claims that are against them, the cash and investments they have, the real estate they have, identified by camp, the camps that they don’t need because of underutilization, their membership trends, their operating expenses, our assessment of how much cash they need to have on hand to continue performing the scouting mission.

and

Quote

These proposals do not seek to liquidate local councils. The other thing we did was we looked at camp utilization. There 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.

 

Edited October 11, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter]

Just a meta-note here:

There is going to be hundreds, I dare say THOUSANDS of discovery requests in the next 90 days. As a reminder of how the process of discovery works (generally).

There's usually four types of discovery:

1. Interrogatories: Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge.
2. Requests for the production of documents: And "document" is broad. Email, text, note scribbled on a cocktail napkin.
3. Requests for admission: Like interrogatories (and sometimes this gets blurred) but more yes/no. Do you admit or deny that you....Etc.
4. Depositions: This can ask for a particular person (Roger Mosby) or a person in general ("Person with suitable knowledge regarding FILL IN THE BLANK.")

The PROCESS of obtaining discovery is usually 4 steps as well although the first gets skipped if time is an issue.

1. Letter to the person or entity, or to their lawyers, asking for any of the above ("please let us know when your client is available for a deposition regarding...") This may or may not result in anything actually happening.
2. Request or Demand: Formal, legal, served by process.
3. Subpoena: I'm not kidding, I want this and you better do it.
4. Court order: If all three fail to result in getting what you want, go to the judge and get an order. It still might NOT get you what you want, but disobeying the order has ramifications (like you lose the case if you ignore the order/fail to obey).

In-between those steps is supposed to be "meet and confers". Depending on the court and case, the parties have to meet and talk things out ("Why you no give me all the documents?!?!?") at some step along the way before you get to the judge/demanding a court order.

You may also see groups issuing a "joinder". That is legal shorthand for "Send us a copy, too." or "We want in on this as well."

Now, there are ways to skip some of these steps, such as going straight to subpoena if you already have a court order allowing discovery.

Now, how could this get real ugly, real quick? We are already there!

Since October 1, there have been no less than 200 different discovery requests sent TO at least 200 different entities FROM over a dozen entities. And that includes BSA sending 46 different requests to at least 15 different insurers.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1d9b91df-675e-47e9-be5b-d5047451adaa_6472.pdf

So, try not to focus on the docket too much. It is just going to be me a mess. As a former intake/docket clerk, I shutter every time I look.

[Wondering]

An article from The Conversation today:

Sexual abuse survivors are voting on the Boy Scouts bankruptcy settlement: 5 questions answered

https://theconversation.com/sexual-abuse-survivors-are-voting-on-the-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-settlement-5-questions-answered-168337

[CynicalScouter]

4 minutes ago, Wondering said:

An article from The Conversation today:

Sexual abuse survivors are voting on the Boy Scouts bankruptcy settlement: 5 questions answered

https://theconversation.com/sexual-abuse-survivors-are-voting-on-the-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-settlement-5-questions-answered-168337

Just as a point of reference and I’m glad this article alludes to it but I have had so many people in my troop and at my roundtable tell me that the bankruptcy is over the deal is been struck and everything‘s gonna be fine.

The report that came out several weeks ago of the RSA being approved and the fact that local councils have still not exactly been forthcoming is going to slam people like a bat to the back of the head when this plan gets voted down.

everybody’s convinced it’s all over things are fine because they read online a deal got struck.

We’re going to be deep into 2022 before we see anything that even looks like daylight.

[Eagle1993]

Split here:

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by Eagle1993

[CynicalScouter]

Ok, so I want to bring this announcement into the bankruptcy context. What could it mean?

1. Johnson's getting a deposition and document demand notice from like, everyone.
2. The next hearing date is October 19. I'd lay Vegas odds his name or existence gets mentioned no fewer than 4 times.
3. It is too late to stop the presses: the ballots are out the door. But the schedule calls for a "supplemental" document drop in the middle of voting. What can go in there? This is what the court's order says

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9d623e3a-8baa-4d7d-a583-0d74bce4c415_6528.pdf

Quote

(b) with respect to the Plan Supplement to be filed by Debtors no later than November 30, 2021, (i) Participating Parties shall be permitted to propound reasonable, appropriate discovery related to items in the Plan Supplement, and to notice depositions related thereto, and (ii) Debtors have the right, subject to the meet and confer requirement in paragraph 8, to oppose, and seek protection from, any such Plan Supplement-related discovery that they believe is not reasonable and appropriate.

So, the TCC can try to get Johnson's existence or even better a deposition from him into the supplemental that goes out. And BSA can oppose it. Let's see if they will.

If I'm the Stang on behalf of the TCC I am simply putting in a copy of Johnson's declaration under oath/perjury with the words VOTE NO in 72 point font.

Edited October 12, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[ThenNow]

I’ve tried to perish the thought, but if this is indeed cataclysmic doesn’t it rather aid insurers in their coverage defense arguments, in or out of the bankruptcy? Not my mud puddle, so just wondering out loud in the dark. 

[ThenNow]

46 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

the Stang

Because I’m me, I must call attention to this beautiful ‘typing too fast’ moment. “The Stang.” OMG I LOVE that!! Done. Write it in stone. The Fonz. The King. The Rock. The Stang. 

[Muttsy]

I’m concerned as well Re blowing coverage  on expected and intended. Fortunately I don’t believe Anderson would be that reckless. But who knows how evil and deliberate the beans that he spills reveal. 
 

can’t wait to see the movie. 

[SiouxRanger]

11 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

Anderson

What background about "Anderson" can you provide?  Many may not understand the reference, nor do I.

 

[SiouxRanger]

10 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Restricted Net Assets 1,432,473,515

Has no one vetted the "Claimed Restricted Assets?"

[vol_scouter]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

I’ve tried to perish the thought, but if this is indeed cataclysmic doesn’t it rather aid insurers in their coverage defense arguments, in or out of the bankruptcy? Not my mud puddle, so just wondering out loud in the dark. 

I would think that you are correct if what Michael Johnson has to say is as salacious as the advertisement alludes.  The insurance companies could say that the BSA acted in a manner that violated the terms of the policies thus removing their obligations to cover the cases.  

This is starting to look increasingly more likely that the BSA will have to convert to a Chapter 7 with the local councils following suit with their own Chapter 11 or 7.  The insurors will say that they are not longer liable and most of the churches have little.  It does not seem to me that this will gain much for the claimants.  Claimants who are in states where the statute of limitations do not allow suits would end up with nothing.  Perhaps those claimants in non-statute of limitations barred states might benefit but if the insurors are out, it is hard to see how.  

Tomorrow might change many things.  As a non-legal type, this is just my little informed conjecture but this seems ominous for most of us on this list whether hoping for more compensation for all, preservation of the BSA, or both.

[ThenNow]

7 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

What background about "Anderson" can you provide?  Many may not understand the reference, nor do I.

https://www.andersonadvocates.com/?identifiers=kwd-39552198631%3Aloc-4125&Campaign=MA-Augurian-Search-Brand-USA&CampaignId=132797948&AdGroup=Jeff Anderson&AdGroupId=4554139401&AdId=81570058109454&Network=s&msclkid=b1f337c678db1efb001556a315cfe919&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=MA-Augurian-Search-Brand-USA&utm_term=jeff anderson&utm_content=Jeff Anderson

[CynicalScouter]

7 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Has no one vetted the "Claimed Restricted Assets?"

TCC has as you know and their number is likely much different.