Eagle1993

Bishop Schol up now.

Three Harbors Council just announced that Indian Mound Scout Reservation is being sold to fund the bankruptcy.  It was established in 1917 ....

What I found interesting in terms of the expert witness summary of what impacts membership.  He talked about controversies and COs.  He didn't talk about volunteers at all.    

Going through P&L ... BSA did better in 2021 than plan.  #1 aspect of financials is membership

In 2021, we saw over 210,000 new scouts, but 2021 saw retention drop to 62% driven by Cub Scouts of only 50%

Overall, plan assumes worse rates than historic in recruiting & retention.  

Hearing this morning is focused on BSA's business plan and its feasibility.  Going into details of BSA financials right now.

AH ... Clarity.

Roman Catholic Church is not a participating CO.  They are simply no longer an objecting one.

Just now, yknot said:

How is that even possible ? 

On or as soon as reasonably practicable after the Effective Date, and subject to the Bankruptcy Court granting a motion filed pursuant to sections 363(b), 1129(a)(4) and 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rule 9019, or otherwise applicable bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy law, Reorganized BSA shall reimburse the RCAHC amounts they have paid to its counsel, ArentFox Schiff LLP and Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (the “RCAHC Professionals”) for, reasonable, documented, and contractual professional advisory fees and expenses incurred by the RCAHC Professionals (the “RCAHC Restructuring Expenses”); provided, however, that, without limiting the foregoing, the RCAHC Restructuring Expenses shall be in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1,500,000, any award of such fees shall be payable by Reorganized BSA over the course of the twenty four (24) month period following the Effective Date of the Plan in four equal installments with the first installment due six (6) months following the Effective Date of the Plan. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Plan, the RCAHC Restructuring Expenses shall be subject to the terms of Article II.A.2 of the Plan, with the following modifications: (x) RCAHC Professionals shall comply with the procedures and processes set forth in Article II.A.2 by filing final fee application(s), which, for attorneys or law firms who are RCAHC Professionals, shall include time entry detail, which may be redacted for privilege; and (y) payment or reimbursement of RCAHC Restructuring Expenses shall be subject to the review and procedure of the Fee Examiner.

Just now, johnsch322 said:

Bribe?

Strong term, but US Trustee alluded to that.

US Trustee not happy ... stated that basically as long as someone gets a check they settle.

That $1.5M goes TO the Roman Catholic Church.  Wow...

There is agreement with the Roman Catholic Ad Hoc Committee.

1 - They now support plan confirmation

2 - Will remove their witnesses

3 - Will support boy scouts including YP

4 - Will be treated as participating chartered orgs

cfa95f81-22b0-409a-862d-6eb07e166523_9387.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

BSA will pay $1.5M for this ... nothing from the Roman Catholic Church

Being discussed right now

43 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Again, he said that NO MEMBER objected.

This is true.  After Lujan asked her questions (which I honestly think many questions from her have been a bit odd/confusing/non relevant) Dr. Kennedy was asked some follow up questions and Dr. Kennedy clarified that No TCC member objected to this current plan.  I do find it odd that Lujan was asking these questions ... it makes me suspicious that she knew internal TCC discussions. ... anyways.. 

I wasn't able to listen much beyond the first 50 mins of the trial today but I rejoined it from time to time ... so perhaps something shocking happened and I missed it.

Certain insurers are fighting tooth and nail against this plan.  They are VERY concerned ... I think especially about that neutral path.  The BSA witness today, for the bit I saw him, was great.  Also, I have been a bit surprised, but the only claimant group I see fighting hard is Guam (Lujan). 

A bit of background on the Guam group based on what I have seen.  Lujan & Wolff, LLP seemed to have been offered a settlement in 2018 for their clients (I think in total 80 survivors).  They didn't take it and decided to go to trial.  Now, both the arch diocese AND BSA declared bankruptcy.  My guess ... whatever offer they had in the past was much, much larger than any TDP or even neutral payout they can expect.  Some of their lawyer's questions go into that history ... "remember when you gave us that offer.  Remember when you said x,y,z."  I'm sure she feels devastated for her clients, and I can see that pain, but at the same time, one had to know BSA was in financial trouble and factored that into the decision making.  

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

To be fair, because you have provided a potentially inaccurate accounting of the hearing, he was asked by an objecting attorney if every member of the TCC agreed with the settlement.  His reply was that the TCC stood as one on its votes after the fact.  He then received an awkward follow-up question and stated clearly that NO member of the TCC voted to reject the most recent settlement.  He was not asked if any abstained.  So, a suggestion that a member voted to reject is incorrect.  As well, disagreement is not necessarily a cause for abstention. 

I'll concur here.  I tried to explain what happened and the questions were a bit confusing from Lujan.  However, the questioning and back and forth wasn't exactly clear so I could see how it would appear TCC members voted to reject the plan (later that was cleared up).

And Dr. Kennedy done.  On cross he was asked about the RSA a lot and reviewed transcripts of townhalls.  Basically, focusing on independence of the trust.  White & Case very upset now over adding the transcripts of the townhalls to the record without notice.

In any case, the insurance companies are very concerned about Trust Governance and not being fair to them. 

The Guam lawyer asked if the TCC approval of the new plan was unanimous and it wasn't or it was ... actually, I wasn't fully clear on that.  I question if it matters...

TCC firmly supports this plan, 85% approval is sufficient (never will get close to 100%).  

Dr. Doug Kennedy ... there is no other path available than this plan to resolve this case.  Many claimants are over 70 and many survivors may pass away before resolution if this plan fails (over 12,000).

If this plan fails, the likely other path is state courts.

One TCC member is near 80 and driving DoorDash to make ends meet.  The bankruptcy will help these people.

The plan approval would also help start the closure for survivors.  Every must follow their own path, but one of the worst parts is not having closure)

11 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Is anyone aware of abuse cases where unit leaders, not the alleged abuser, were named as defendants?

Thank you.

I am not aware of any; however, from what I heard yesterday the VAST majority of cases are being settled out of court so few would know.  I would not be surprised if a leader is named in the future, especially if they violated BSA policy.

1 minute ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Maybe for the professionals, but I am not so sure about the volunteers.

I am waiting for that to come up on Facebook.

I agree. I don't think most of the volunteers (unit, district and council) have a clue what is coming. The national volunteers seem well connected so they probably have a good idea. 

To be fair, I don't think any of us really know either (at least specifics), but we at least know some major changes are coming.  I'll see if I can find those slides on the docket.  I hate going by memory.  I remember seeing a full digital or improved digital experience, a single scout program, girls something, more relevant, outdoors (emphasized) as some of the key points.  Again, this was a brainstorming session and doesn't mean anything is locked down, but it gives an idea of what changes they have in mind.  

Also note Dr. Kennedy who made a short appearance on Scouter.com will be the first witness tomorrow.  I believe he was one of the key negotiators behind the youth protection changes.  They stated his testimony will be brief.  10 AM Eastern start. 

9 minutes ago, yknot said:

Except who other than us is paying any attention at all? Scouters have been told to keep their heads down and focus on their local units. So many are doing so. 

I expect a lot of council leaders watched Monday.  There was over 450 on the call at one point and the last two days <300.  I expect many knew to watch Devang Desai's testimony.  Those power point slides came up very early ... so you didn't need to watch long.

That said ... I expect for most it wasn't a surprise.   

16 minutes ago, PACAN said:

Two comments:

 

@Eagle 1993    80 Councils from 250 now.   I'm sure a lot of SEs puckered.

 

That AND the possibility of freezing of pensions.

Interesting points now coming up.  Basically, no defendants want to take sex abuse claims to trial.  The losses are big.  Juries award large amounts.  In addition, there was a case where the jury determined the case was outside SOL; however, still awarded $15K with no reason given.  The witness is basically indicating why the TDPs are valid (and why insurance is probably wrong when they say they are too high).

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

She is awful. It was a 20 minute cross x that she's dragging out to four hours or longer. 

She is rigid in her thinking and demonstrates little understanding of how sexual abuse cases are actually handled in the tort system. 

She spent 90 mind-deadening minutes to make the point that the claim review process is not the tort system.. Yes you are right Ms. McNally. Does your client prefer to face 84,000 claims in the tort system? If the claims review process is gong to adopt all of the procedures found in the tort system, then this Plan cannot be confirmed. 

 

 

I left for a while and just rejoined and she is going on now about the neutral.  Yes, if insurance doesn't want to pay the bill they could get sued.  They can fight these in court.  She was asking if insurance could force this into court (I think they can by simply refusing to pay).  However, she really doesn't like the fact they enter court with a $ amount from the process.  I'm confused and she pretty much burnt a day and from what I can tell, almost no impact on the case.

Today lawyer from certain insurers is cross examining an expert witness from BSA ... one who has some expertise in TDPs.  Tried to get the expert thrown out, was denied.  Now questioning vetting of claims, how it will be possible to really go through all of these claims and likely the cost of the trust and timing, etc.  

I have no idea why she is going down this path.  So far, I haven't heard anything of note but perhaps others are listening more closely.

Further discussions about how to get around SOLs.  For example, in Idaho and then elsewhere, plaintiffs used the fraudulent concealment claims.  BSA legal team said they saw the legal theory increased after the success in Idaho.  

There are also other ways around SOLs depending on states.

Certain insurers going after SOLs, showing case after case being dismissed depending on SOL.  Also showing Kansas dismissing revival due to constitutional issues.  Lawyer claiming this is the only case they are aware of where claims outside SOLs are included.

Basically, looking to prepare to show that cases outside SOLs do not have valid claims. (my guess)  Note I'm not a lawyer or judging this opinion, just highlighting what was discussed in trial.

Missed this morning so far.

Yesterday ... my takeaways.

• Bankruptcy
  • US Trustee's path is clear .... go after the fact that some releases are being given with no contribution.  One of their arguments will appear to be the releases are too broad.  
  • The Guam group ... confusion. I wasn't following closely but a lot of objections and it seemed like she was just rehashing prior discussions.
  • AIG & certain insurers ... their path is that the Bates report proves no further insurance settlements are required as the plan was fully funded without them.  They will argue the TDPs should be reduced.
• BSA Post bankruptcy
  • I wasn't expecting this would be covered
  • A lot of focus on WHY certain changes were made to the Philmont executive committee power point slide deck.
    • Why was the quote from Eisenhower removed ... "who is BSA at war with"
    • Why was $400M removed from the donor list ... 
    • Why was 250 to 80 councils removed and changed.
    • COs ... major changes could exist (admitted we need updated agreements and ability to have meeting spaces without COs)
    • Etc.
  • Certain insurers seem to be preparing an argument that BSA has clear plans to raise money and reduce costs (it was confirmed in court that BSA agrees we have too many camps (not bases).  
    • So ... if BSA has these great plans (that were not in their business plan) then they should be able to cover more costs of the bankruptcy (my speculation as to why AIG went after this line of attack

As discussed earlier, I believe JLSS will likely confirm this plan as is or with minor changes.  However, district court could reject it and these groups are preparing lines of appeal.

To me ... the good news is that National BSA is aware of the membership, CO and financial situation they face post bankruptcy and they plan to address it head on.  There was slides about what services councils will get from National vs what they can provide locally.  National wants to make sure all $ that they get from councils is spent on program and not wasted.  They had a slide about building trust with councils.  However, it also appears they (National) know they cannot wait for 250 councils and 10,000s of volunteers to come to a consensus.  I expect they will have to force changes to survive.  I just hope it is transparent and not hidden in questionable surveys.