Eagle1993

3 hours ago, Wyobkr said:

$198,046,270.81

Based on end of June, I see:

Approved to date for bankruptcy:

Professional Fees : $240M

US Trustee Fees: $2.5M

Other Reorg Expenses: $125M

Total Bankruptcy Expenses: $368M (OUCH) ... you can almost buy a nice camp for that

Further Breakdown:

Debtor Professionals - $148M

Committees & Mediators - $84M

79443f84-dbaa-4574-838d-8d9810da69d8_10142.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

Several claimant representatives and certain insurers filed objections to the revised plan.  The certain insurers had the most comprehensive set of objections and included recommended revised language.  

It appears the fight is really about Dr. Bates and his estimate.  Essential the BSA, TCC and Coalition are attempting to say Dr. Bates is correct to allow plan confirmation but we expect he will be wrong so we want the court to confirm the plan saying it is 100% funded but also confirm the plan saying the trust isn't bound to that amount.  Certain insurers are basically laying the groundwork to say the plan is funded so leave us alone. They call out the TCC a bit as the TCC didn't object to Bates.

The other points are around language that was changed that goes beyond the opinion and language that wasn't changed that must be.

Hearing Sept 1.

22 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

Would someone be kind enough to clarify for me the implications of pre-1976 abuse, as mine was just prior to that period?  Are CO's not released due to that timeframe?  And, if so, does that become a mitigating factor in the matrix?  My CO was a Catholic Church.

I'll add that I do not believe having a non contributing CO negatively impacts you in the matrix.  However, I expect we will learn more once the trust is officially setup and starts processing claims. 

11 hours ago, DuctTape said:

District and Council events are mostly the antithesis of patrol method camping anyway. I discourage them (to the adults).

Our District Klondike is probably the best patrol method event of the year.  

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.

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. 

Prof Jacoby had a quick summary of the 20 minute hearing yesterday.  No survivors spoke nor their attorneys.  DOJ didn't speak.  BSA plans to seek district court approval as they believe that is needed given the releases.  Non settling insurers will likely appeal.  

More from Reuters. 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/boy-scouts-insurers-prepare-appeal-bankruptcy-settlement-approval-2022-08-18/

• Question 1 - how are you involved in scouting
• Question 2 - Which scouting value most compelling
• Question 3 - Which value least compelling (only 4 listed and not sure how you would pick any of these)
• Question 4 - Which trait is most important (honestly, probably the only question in the entire survey that is useful for feedback on program development)
• Question 5 - How important to you that BSA survives
• Question 6 - Why did pick the rank you did in Q5
• Question 7 - How have you supported BSA in the past
• Question 8 - Why did you support BSA
• Question 9 - How likely to financially support BSA
• Question 10 - Why did you answer as you did in Q9
• Question 11 - Overall outlook of BSA in future
• Name, Email, etc.

Other than Question 4, I don't see any of these questions leading to any input into program priorities at all.  This seems to be clearly a collection of data to give someone to make a fundraising pitch in the future.  They can use some answers to prioritize and then personalize the pitch based on the rest.

I don't take this as negative, it is probably the right strategy to fundraise.  BSA, as part of their recovery meeting, mentioned they believe they need to raise $400M in donations as they exit bankruptcy.  This will require both large & small donations and separate from FOS.

2 hours ago, clbkbx said:

Thanks. Two comments on the article. 
 

1. I thought the case was going to be appealed. This article says it’s uncertain. I wonder if that’s just because of where the case is or if it not being appealed is a possible outcome. 
2. One of the interviewees said “For some victims it’s a great result,” which is something I haven’t heard from anyone. Is there a scenario where someone is getting a great outcome?  

1. I also saw Prof. Jacoby question who would appeal.   It is a good question as she said most major parties are on board.

There were a few claimant law firms fighting hard.  One was Guam ... well, they keep their insurance for now which was their major ask.  The other was about TCJC... well, now they can sue the TCJC.  The third was more general.  I expect law firms may give up spending more time on appeals and just focus on maximizing recovery through TDPs or independent review.

Non settling insurers will probably appeal.  

US Trustee?  That is the big question.  My bet ... they will fight this.  The US Trustee has been clear in every bankruptcy case I could find.  Non debtor releases should not be allowed.  I expect they will appeal.

2. If you are outside the SOL ... yes you could fight that, but it is likely most lawyers wouldn't have taken the case outside bankruptcy.  This was one of Bate's main points.  That a large number of the 82,000 would have received nothing outside bankruptcy court.  So, I do expect there are many, who will receive more money than they would have outside bankruptcy.  Now, is that $10-$20K worth the pain of the trial, wait, reliving abuse ... that will vary.  I do expect there are many that could have received $10-$20M; however, technically, the independent review should address those as well.  If you believe Bates, which not one law firm provided evidence he was wrong, then you believe everyone will receive the amount they are due based upon our current tort system.  This is not to say that is a fair payment.  I also question Bates, but nothing was brought up in court.

2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

 

IMHO, removing attorney David Buchbinder suggests the US Trustee/DOJ will not further object to third party releases in District Court.  

He retired in August per LinkedIn.

A flurry of action today:

- The Judge approved the BSA/GSUSA agreement to stop suing each other: cd5eb23c-6a2c-4c70-a015-dc989fbfd257_10193.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

- The US Trustee/DOJ changed lawyers: 867dd5bd-aaac-414f-936e-0dc8e1bd486b_10191.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

- Certain insurers objected to BSA's timeline: b910e7e8-f15c-45b1-9612-f5b892b93ea2_10192.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

- The judge asked the BSA to have a status hearing on August 18th: 3eaca9e8-7586-42e0-8d3b-8b7d2d739506_10194.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

- A schedule has been released: Objections by Aug 24, responses to objections by Aug 29 and hearing Sept 1  081522 Notice of 7052 Motion (omniagentsolutions.com)

4 hours ago, RainShine said:

An unfortunate update on my post: its a few years later and that patrol of young Scouts are older now. I hate to say it, but they don't remember the patrol cooking favorably and don't want to go back that camp. As an adult, I thought it was great and I observed the guys made a lot of progress and it was good for them in every way. But in our troop, the Scouts decide which summer camp to visit and they have firmly crossed that one off the list. <heavy sigh> This year's summer camp dining hall food was uneven, at best, but they don't want to cook at summer camp.

It's funny as the scouts in my Troop have no desire to have dining hall.  The first dinner at camp this year was dining hall and otherwise it was patrol cooking.  While our scouts have less "free" time due to the work involved in patrol cooking, the patrol cooking aspect of summer camp is typically listed as one of the scouts (especially older scouts) highlights of summer camp.

The senior patrol usually sees it as a challenge to produce the best food, start eating first and complete KP before any other patrol.  Other patrols, those who build strong teams, typically start challenging the senior patrol by the end of the week.  Patrols don't necessarily follow the recipes.  They make up their own variants.  Many times those fail, but sometimes they work better than the provided recipe.  They learn from failure and learn that taking different approaches to a challenge sometimes leads to better results.

Unfortunately, it seems like many summer camps are headed to dining hall only.  They can typically eek out an additional merit badge and more camp wide games.  My troop, as long as the scouts continue to agree, will continue with patrol cooking.  That does mean we sometimes miss a camp wide game or end up with less merit badges, but the impact on the patrol bonding is a great tradeoff.

That said, I do wish our Troop was better at utilizing the patrol method beyond summer camp.  We have patrols at camporees, outings and Troop meetings ... but we haven't been able to gain momentum in patrols meeting on their own (and many times patrols are mixed at meetings due to lack of attendance).  Summer camp patrol cooking is that one time of year I see the patrol method shine.

12 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Referring to future court cases.  LDS & scouting was tightly integrated.  I don't see how court cases can be cleanly scouting or church.  ... It feels like a future court case nightmare.  ... I'm wondering how lawyers interpret liability if in one view has bankruptcy protection and the other doesn't.  

I think this will be looked at on a case-by-case basis.  Who did the abuse?  Where did the abuse occur?  Did the TCJC know of the abuse and take immediate action? Etc.  I think you are correct, there will be some difficult aspects to clarify.  Now, there has been no protections for the TCJC outside of scouting abuse ... so I expect if a flood of lawsuits were going to hit, they would have already.  I wouldn't be surprised if there is a slight surge post BSA bankruptcy (as lawyers may have held back first focusing on the scout bankruptcy) and those early cases may clarify how this will work out long term.

Wish there was an angry face response.  Glad they were caught. 

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

Does this mean incidents will need to be judged on whether they were "scouting" or "church"?  If scouting, it's part of bankruptcy?  If church, it's not?

They still have some time to work out a settlement on scouting abuse.  

Post 1976 scouting abuse ... Goes to bankruptcy.

Pre 1976 scouting abuse ... TBD... They have 12 months to work out a settlement.

Non scouting abuse... No protection 

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. 

BSA plans to submit an updated plan Aug 12 and have asked for a hearing Aug 24.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/dc3627da-d67c-4c45-8b43-42b5b17e32e7_10176.pdf

53 minutes ago, PACAN said:

maybe the units should ask the SE the same questions if they are sponsors by him.   The answer is likely not none, it's we send you a bill. 

The only benefits I see of a council CO vs paper only CO:

- We spend about 8 hours a year volunteering for our CO fundraisers.  We could do our own fundraiser or even something else during that time.

- Easier to track down adult leader and charter approval signatures

Our CO raises thousands of dollars a year off of our scouts labor and gives us nothing.  There are worse COs than councils out there.  

I just received a call from my SE helping a unit that was previously chartered by a UMC unit.  They are looking at different CO options and are considering our CO (just different branch).  The SE said the unit has questions so he was helping check on my CO.  Who insurers our trailer? (No one).  What meeting space are we provided.  (None). What storage space are we provided. (None). How much funding are we provided.  (None).  I told my SE that our CO signs off on adult leader apps and charter agreement and then we volunteer for their fundraisers.  He said ok, he will relay the message.  

I expect several UMC units will see the brutal reality of what most COs provide... Ink on paper a few times a year.  Sad to see the loss of good COs.

Looks like you can now request the transcript from March 14 hearing.  You need to call:

(302)654-8080

This was the day where that BSA leadership summit was discussed. 

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).  The key slide was basically they cannot wait for consensus.. perhaps the councils do not know what is about to happen. 

11 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

My understanding is the 72 hour rule, i.e. no registration needed for adults if the activity is under 72 hours, will be going away for Scouts BSA, Sea Scouts, and Venturing.  It will remain for Cub Scouts. 

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

On 8/2/2022 at 11:43 PM, fred8033 said:

BSA insurance settling liability claims without covering the insured CO smells like a violation of the basic insurance agreements.  

I was able to find this in the plan:

Quote

203. “Participating Chartered Organization Settlement Contribution” means: a. to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, the Participating Chartered Organization Insurance Assignment; b. to the extent of any rights, claims or interests not assigned to the Settlement Trust pursuant to the Participating Chartered Organization Insurance Assignment, the waiver and complete release of (i) each of the Participating Chartered Organization’s rights, titles, privileges, interests, claims, demands or entitlements under the Settling Insurance Companies’ Abuse Insurance Policies and any Settling Insurer Policy Rights; (ii) any Claim held by the Participating Chartered Organization that is attributable to, arises from, is based upon, relates to, or results from, in whole or part, directly, indirectly, or derivatively (including through any insurance policy issued by the Settling Insurance Companies), alleged Abuse Claims that occurred prior to the Petition Date against the Settlement Trust, the Debtors, Reorganized BSA, the Local Councils, any Contributing Chartered Organization or Settling Insurance Companies; and (iii) any and all Claims that have been asserted in the Chapter 11 Cases by or on behalf of any Participating Chartered Organization, including any Indirect Abuse Claims, without any further notice to or action, order, or approval of the Bankruptcy Court, which Claims shall be expunged from the Claims Register, and the agreement of each Participating Chartered Organization not to (a) file or assert any Claim or Claims against the Settlement Trust, the Debtors, or Reorganized BSA arising from any act or omission of the Debtors, the Local Councils, any Contributing Chartered Organization, or any Participating Chartered Organization on or prior to the Confirmation Date, (b) object to the Document Appendix and obligations thereunder, or (c) file or assert any rights or interests in any property transferred to the Settlement Trust under the Plan, including the proceeds of any settlements paid by a Settling Insurance Company; and c. the assignment to the Settlement Trust of any and all Perpetrator Indemnification Claims held by the Participating Chartered Organizations

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 1976 abuse claims.  What did they give up?  They gave up any insurance coverage for abuse claims that came from settling insurers (even pre 1976).  Now, they could have their own coverage from an insurance company that did not settle in the bankruptcy. 

Option 2B - Roman Catholic Only:

Protection for post 1976 abuse claims.  & protection from pre 1976 abuse claims IF that claim would have been covered by a settling insurer.  What did they give up?  They gave up any insurance coverage for abuse claims that came from settling insurers (even pre 1976).  Now, they could have their own coverage from an insurance company that did not settle in the bankruptcy. 

Option 3 - Contributing CO:

By settling, they are protected from all scouting abuse claims.

On 8/2/2022 at 11:43 PM, fred8033 said:

The insurance settlement is with the victim; not the theoretical CO. 

Actually, by the CO choosing Option 2,  they agreed to the insurance settlement and removed any rights they had to the policy.

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).

14 minutes ago, FireStone said:

We need Mike Rowe in some nationwide BSA ads. 😁

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 this Pack.  Most parents and youth see it as a nice activity, but family, sports and school rank much higher than scouts.  So, if it is really this much work, most parents would be fine seeing the Pack die before putting in the effort you did. 

So, how does scouts move up that ranking and be equivalent to at least sports?  Marketing could help ... but I think relooking at the program and the role scouting can play in the 21st century is probably a better start.  From G2SS to  merit badge requirements, ranks, uniforms, etc.  what does a 21st century scouting organization look like?  What can be expected of volunteers?  Then, where to get volunteers as I'm not sure the current model works well.

Mike Rowe brings up a lot of good points and perhaps that is a good starting point.