Chapter 11 announced - Part 11 - Judge's Opinion

[5thGenTexan]

29 minutes ago, yknot said:

I don't know if it belongs here or not, but the regional UMC conference for my area sent budget guidelines out yesterday that broke down how much each local church has to contribute to the boy scout bankruptcy settlement over the next three years.  A number of churches already aren't paying their current apportionment for a variety of reasons from financial to philosophical and political so this is interesting. Local UMC churches that did not have a history of chartering a unit thought they were going to be unscathed but all churches will be required to pay. It doesn't appear to be a lot of money but for those churches who are currently having difficulty paying the electric bill, or who have a deep philosophical argument, it's possibly a bit of a lit match. 

The reason I put this here is because I wonder what happens generally if a third party finds it is unable to honor its commitment to the settlement? 

 

I thought the UMC contribution was removed from the deal??

On 8/13/2022 at 3:28 AM, Eagle1993 said:

TCJC deal is removed but they are a participating CO.  

Insurance of Archbishop of Agana will not go to trust.

Updated plan to address most of the objections.

Note they are also removing the $100M fundraising commitment from UMC.

They are asking for some specific findings of fact that she didn't mention.

I may have missed some aspects, but we may be close to a decision. 

TCJC didn't go nuclear and become a opt out CO.  To me, that is big and likely allows this to be confirmed. 

 

 

[PACAN]

@yknot  maybe this notice from the UMC is why they are dumping their scouts?

[yknot]

1 hour ago, 5thGenTexan said:

I thought the UMC contribution was removed from the deal??

 

That's LDS. I think the $30 mil from UMC is still in it. The promise to help fundraise an additional $100 million was I believe dropped from the side deal regarding rechartering between the BSA and the UMC scout committee. 

[5thGenTexan]

1 minute ago, yknot said:

That's LDS. I think the $30 mil from UMC is still in it. The promise to help fundraise an additional $100 million was I believe dropped from the side deal regarding rechartering between the BSA and the UMC scout committee. 

OK.... too much money from different directions to keep up with.

[yknot]

11 minutes ago, PACAN said:

@yknot  maybe this notice from the UMC is why they are dumping their scouts?

Possibly. It's regional so it might not apply everywhere else though and the dumping started last year. But this conference does involve a lot of churches. I think the UMC problem is bigger than scouts. They are having a lot of issues of their own and I think there is limited bandwidth to handle additional issues with scouts.  

[skeptic]

35 minutes ago, PACAN said:

@yknot  maybe this notice from the UMC is why they are dumping their scouts?

While there continues to be a great deal of confusion about the "agreement" between BSA and UMC, I do not feel it is accurate to suggest they are "dumping" the scouts.  It surely is not the case in most of the units with whom I am familiar.  But, as in ours, we are trying to formulate how to avoid any LC ownership, which seems likely to be a new CO, but continued primise use.  Our local church "wants" us therer, but the legal confusion and fear of more direct confrontations runs deep.  It is the lack of specific detail as to how they as a CO might be liable going forward that is the issue.  Unless our legal system makes serious adjustments, with some concrete guidelines and penalty tables, it will continue to be free range for the manipulative lawyers some call black birds of carrion and greedy.  So, the CO support that is still there, is very leery of such things in the current litigious atmosphere of our society.  

[PACAN]

Dumping might be too strong a word but when a unit is told to vacate the church properly by 12/31, the unit certainly feels that way.

[Eagle1993]

4 hours ago, yknot said:

I don't know if it belongs here or not, but the regional UMC conference for my area sent budget guidelines out yesterday that broke down how much each local church has to contribute to the boy scout bankruptcy settlement over the next three years.  A number of churches already aren't paying their current apportionment for a variety of reasons from financial to philosophical and political so this is interesting. Local UMC churches that did not have a history of chartering a unit thought they were going to be unscathed but all churches will be required to pay. It doesn't appear to be a lot of money but for those churches who are currently having difficulty paying the electric bill, or who have a deep philosophical argument, it's possibly a bit of a lit match. 

The reason I put this here is because I wonder what happens generally if a third party finds it is unable to honor its commitment to the settlement? 

 

If the UMC does not pay, I expect the Trust will sue the UMC.  They would sue for the $30M plus interest, court costs, etc. 

[yknot]

10 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

If the UMC does not pay, I expect the Trust will sue the UMC.  They would sue for the $30M plus interest, court costs, etc. 

It's going to be interesting because the Methodist church is in the middle of a schism and some of those who are looking to break away are not paying some or all of their apportionments plus looking to take assets with them. It may be difficult or at least complicated to come up with payments for an undetermined period of time. Although in the face of $2 billion, $30 million is not a lot. 

[5thGenTexan]

2 hours ago, PACAN said:

Dumping might be too strong a word but when a unit is told to vacate the church properly by 12/31, the unit certainly feels that way.

No interest is facilities use agreement?  Our Methodist Church is all for letting us continue to use what we need and continue our relationship despite who the actual CO is.

[PACAN]

@5thGenTexanMy understanding is that is not an option for them.

[Eagle1993]

46 minutes ago, yknot said:

It's going to be interesting because the Methodist church is in the middle of a schism and some of those who are looking to break away are not paying some or all of their apportionments plus looking to take assets with them. It may be difficult or at least complicated to come up with payments for an undetermined period of time. Although in the face of $2 billion, $30 million is not a lot. 

Actually, they already have the impact in the plan ... took me a while to find it.

 

Quote

If the United Methodist Release Effective Date fails to occur for any reason, including without limitation because the United Methodist Entities fail to contribute the full amount of the United Methodist Settlement Payment (less the Reserved Amount as set forth herein) to the Settlement Trust or the United Methodist Escrow Account on or before the date that is the three (3) year anniversary of the Effective Date of the Plan, such that the United Methodist Entities are not Protected Parties, then any amounts held in the United Methodist Escrow Account or the Settlement Trust shall be returned to the United Methodists Entities that paid the monies into the United Methodist Escrow Account or the Settlement Trust.

So basically, if they don't make good in 3 years and pay the $27.5M, they will no longer be protected and can be sued directly by abused.  They are expected to pay $2M within 180 days, $25.5M in 3 years and keep $2.5M reserved until year 6.

 

[gpurlee]

3 hours ago, yknot said:

That's LDS. I think the $30 mil from UMC is still in it. The promise to help fundraise an additional $100 million was I believe dropped from the side deal regarding rechartering between the BSA and the UMC scout committee. 

I believe you are correct. And that other UMC conferences are expected to follow the lead of your conference and assign assessments to local congregations. Yes, for many UMC congregations, even paying apportionments for conference and district expenses is beyond their financial capabilities. Unfortunately, this assessment is likely to leave a lingering concern about the wisdom of chartering a local unit(s). 

We continue to be told that the traditional charter will be an option from both top-level council and conference sources. And that the insurance coverage will be strengthened and broadened even more in the future.

[5thGenTexan]

10 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

 

We continue to be told that the traditional charter will be an option from both top-level council and conference sources. And that the insurance coverage will be strengthened and broadened even more in the future.

I wish that would be communicated officially.  I had rather not find a new CO to then find it wasn't necessary.

[gpurlee]

2 hours ago, 5thGenTexan said:

I wish that would be communicated officially.  I had rather not find a new CO to then find it wasn't necessary.

We were told to expect an official announcement by the end of the month.  The person telling us, who has been a very reliable source, stated that it was in the final national review process, awaiting final approval by both the BSA and the UMC.

In our case, our units have made contingency plans regardless of the direction this process takes. Our UMC sponsor of 111 years definitely wants to maintain a strong relationship and involvement. Just not quite sure what form this will ultimately take.