Eagle1993

Sure, if they get 6,000,000 more scouts this fall, a lot can change. To be honest, I think a lot of professionals do not know what is coming. Perhaps SEs do, but I'm not convinced DEs. I know one time I sent a note to my DE about something that came out in court. He asked me how I heard and I sent him the document that was listed in the docket. He told me later the SE and council leaders were unaware. The first day of the hearing went through that slide show of the senior leader meeting at Philmont. I wished it ended up on the docket (I'll see off transcript are available). Th

Correct. This is part of the bankruptcy agreement. I think it also goes away for Cub Scouts if the adult is not a parent.

I was able to find this in the plan: Basically, the COs gave up their rights to insurance if the insurance was one of the "Settling Insurance Companies". The only way for the CO to not give up those rights, is to opt out. So basically, COs have 3 options. Option 1 - Opt Out: No protection from BSA, but they retain insurance rights. How they attempt to cash in will likely require some lawsuits for insurers who settled. So far, I am unaware of any CO going down this path. Option 2 - Participating CO: Protection for post 1976 abuse claims. No protection for pre 19

I started googling boy scout advertisement images. What surprised me is all of the companies/groups (coke, pepsi, tire companies, bike companies, cigarettes, etc.) that used scouts in their advertisements. GSUSA has a bit of that with their cookies. Part of that is on National to see how the brand could be used. It is amazing to see how scouting is fading into the background. Just one of many examples (I found it interesting for both the history of scouts & how cigarettes used to be marketed).

Perhaps before we even begin talking about a marketing issue, I think we need to determine if we have a product issue. While I don't agree with everything Mike says here, I think he makes many valid points. Off The Wall: Death of the Boy Scouts? – Mike Rowe I don't want to hijack this thread, but if the product is stale and lacks relevance, no amount of marketing will make a big impact. When I transferred my CC role to the new volunteer, I met several hours discussing various aspects of the Pack. His feedback to me ... scouting means a lot more to you than anyone else in

Local scouting marketing is almost nonexistent. Nothing reaches parents from National or our Local Council. Few Troops/Packs advertise outside yard signs during recruiting. When I was Committee Chair of my pack, I spent a lot of time on Facebook and a bit on Twitter. I promoted my Facebook join scouts night and advertised in our town's rec guide. However, most of that had minimal impact. Outside having social media presence posting pictures, I wouldn't waste much time there. The best recruiting, we had was when we had a popular mom in a grade hand out flyers to all the other moms i

My guess to help answer your question. Lets say the local Elks club is sued by Johnny scout for some abuse that occurred prior to 1976. Lets say the jury says the Elks club is 50% liable and owes Johnny scout $500K. Per BSA, the BSA did not provide any insurance to any CO pre 1976. So, the Elks would have to look through their own insurance policies from that time. Best case, they find a policy that is valid for abuse and didn't settle. At that point, perhaps some or all of that $500K could come from that insurance policy. To me, the complex part is if they had a policy that did set

This is definitely getting deep in the bankruptcy weeds. I think the path is fairly straight forward if the LDS removes their $250M offer but remains in the plan. Basically, they would be like any other non Methodist/Catholic CO and be given 12 months to negotiate a settlement. After that, they could face lawsuits. It is not clear to me what happens if the LDS pulls that thread, as @Muttsyreferenced, and opts out. How would insurance companies respond if the largest CO decides to risk post 1976 litigation to keep their insurance rights. I honestly do not know, but could imagine it is

Just so it is clear how unlikely the TCJC is an easy fix ... this the judge dedicated an entire section of her opinion to the TCJC settlment. "Throughout this Opinion, I have noted one exception to the appropriateness of the Scouting-Related Releases, namely, the settlement with TCJC...." (about Abuse claim releases unrelated to Scouting) "Both Debtors and TCJC argue that jurisdiction exists and that a full release of TCJC is warranted and supported by the evidence." The judge goes on to show she understands the TCJC and BSA had a unique relationship. "... It is undisputed that

From her ruling: ... The nomination of retired Judge Hauser together with the changes to the oversight authority of the STAC go a long way to allay concerns raised by the Certain Insurers. Nonetheless, the record supports the implementation of strong fraud prevention measures in connection with review of Direct Abuse Claims. ..." she goes on "...While no one questions the integrity of the proposed Settlement Trustee, it is appropriate, generally, and in this case in particular given the record, to require that the Settlement Trustee engage in a process that will ferret out any

BSA owns the next actions. 1) They need to meeting with LDS along with TCC, FCR & Coalition. The LDS will not have any releases for non-scouting abuse (as they wanted if the vicitim/abuser were in scouts regardless of setting). The LDS will need to choose ... be part of the plan with revised releases or leave the plan. 2) BSA to discuss with TCC, FCR & Coalition if they are ok with lack of findings supporting TDPs. 3) BSA to meet with settling insurers that covered Guam. See if they are ok proceeding or if the BSA needs to go to the Guam Archdiocese bankruptcy court

I'll attempt to explain my understanding of abuse claims going forward. This is for child sex abuse claims related to scouting that occurred prior to February 2020. This has nothing to do post Feb 2020 nor non abuse claims. I look at this under two umbrellas. One is liability and the other is insurance. The liability is the individual or organization that pays under tort. For example, for any case, there could be liability ranging from parent, perp, unit leaders, chartered org, local council and national BSA. Depending on a specific case, a jury could assign liability to any one of

The insurers were clear that their payments cover any liability they faced with respect to scouting abuse. That is why the Roman Catholic Church fought the plan so long as they felt they were losing coverage. Other LCs that didn't settle should have joined the Roman Catholics but likely did not understand the gravity of the situation. The Roman Catholic were able to get a better deal than other LCs by fighting in court. I think the Elks probably recognize the issue they are about to face. I'm not sure if others do yet.

I don't think so. The LDS negotiation was unique in that it was directed to LDS claimants only. The Methodist also settled which could be used as a benchmark.

The judge made it clear the BSA does not need the LDS $250M. She stated there is enough $ in the plan without the LDS contribution. I take that as a signal from her on a path out. BSA is probably best off removing the LDS from the plan. The LDS will face a surge of lawsuits but since they are not a currren CO there will be no negative impact to the BSA.

Basically the LDS were attempting to clear out all claims where the youth was abused by a scout leader within the LDS. She said that while it is ok to clear out claims from scouting activities, she cannot approve clearing claims where the abuse occurred outside of scouting. LDS will have a tough decision. Do they pay $250M for significant protection or do they prepare for an onslaught of lawsuits. They may face that onslaught regardless. My guess is that they pull the $250M and become a non participating charter org.

It is not exactly clear to me, but as I understand it ... The proponents of the plan wanted the judge to rule with certain findings supporting the TDPs. That be would give the trustee more leverage when asking non settling insurers to pay up. The bankruptcy judge denied this and basically said it by is up to future courts to decide on a case by case basis. So, it gives the non settling insurers a bit more leverage. As I understand it, the TDPs will still be used, they just carry less weight if they are used in future court cases.

The way I look at this. 1) BSA and LDS need to talk. LDS likely had 3 options. Walk away from the plan, pay $250M but go with the standard charter releases or try to offer less and go with the standard charter releases. 2) BSA and settling insurers must decide if it is ok to punt on the guam insurance transfer and to accept a few minor changes to the plan. My guess is they do. 3) BSA will likely have to remove many of the 22 groups they included in the plan they didn't notify. It is a risk going forward but they can't delay this further. 4) BSA, TCC and Coalition wil

We were at Bear Paw week 1 with linked Troops. We patrol cooked and while we had some recommendations for the future, overall a good experience.

She overrules another group of objectors, except for: UST & Jane Doe. They argue section 1129(a)7 is a confirmation requirement. (This is a requirement to show creditors would get at least as much as they would through Chapter 7). BSA said this section doesn't apply to non profits. The judge agrees with UST & Jane Doe. However, I think the point is moot from what I can see. Several certain insurer objections are overruled. Various other issues are punted to the trustee (basically Allianz plans to sue post plan confirmation and the settlement trustee will be the othe

Independent fees ... in general , the judge approves the $20K in fees. However, she wants the following change. If the settlement trust doesn't waive the fee and the claimant is not happy, they can go to the bankruptcy court for review.

Very minor change required ... "Given the Debtor's intent, the word "negligence" should be added to Art. VII.C.2(c)". Other than that, certain insurer's objections are overruled and she finds the plan in good faith.

"If the plan is confirmed, the confirmation order will provide that the settlement trustee will propose procedures to suss out fraudulent claims taking into account factors she deems appropriate, which can include a cost/benefit analysis. Those procedures will be presented to the court. The STAC will have no consent or veto rights over these procedures. In addition to disallowance of a claim, penalties may include seeking prosecution of the claimant or claimant attorney for representing a fraudulent claim." She seemed VERY upset over what she herd with claim approvals. Basically, if s

She found some issues with post bankruptcy settlements. Basically, all parties must be notified even if bankruptcy court approval is not sought.

She overruled several objections including pro se claimants, the Girl Scouts (not that matters anymore) ... on page 204 of 281