Eagle1993

29 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

As Omani suggested. Knowing a little about some of the firms who used the ballot, I would be surprised if they failed to button up and batten down the hatches on their paperwork. 

Even if you throw out 100% of master ballots you don't hit 90% approval which has been the case referenced by most as the value needed.  

It's too bad the hearing was cancelled today.  It would have been good to hear from the judge.  It feels that they are just burning cash right now without clear direction.

Almost no change to the direct abuse claim vote.  There were some minor changes on opt out number.  Also, BSA may object to some master ballots based on their questions about proper power of attorney paperwork.   However, the master ballots themselves passed review and were accepted.  
 

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ea7975fa-08bb-4e03-b739-96a7062815a0_8345.pdf

BSA just filed several updates to depositions they had scheduled.  All were going to occur tomorrow, but they have been delayed to Jan 19 - 21.  Still waiting to see the final vote posted.

Also note that the judge is fully booked Wednesday this week.  So, no clues found looking at the rest of her schedule.  It actually looks like she is pretty booked until January 24.  

11 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Final vote still due today?

 

Yes it is, so that may be interesting.  I would think any change would require more discovery into voting and vote counting.

I was wondering if perhaps Omni/BSA/LSS are aware of a major vote change (moving to 80%+) that would cause the meeting to be cancelled.  However, there were many other concerns listed that even if the vote increased greatly, the hearing would have been helpful.  In addition, a major vote count, in and of itself, could cause a need to revisit the schedule.  So, I lean to the options of..

• BSA has a change in direction (updated plan and/or updated strategy)
• LSS or someone else critical is ill/has Covid 19/has been exposed
• BSA found a major diamond deposit at Philmont

35 minutes ago, yknot said:

I suppose it's not impossible that this is due to Covid.  So many things are getting cancelled/postponed right now. 

Yes, this is definitely a possibility as well. 

56 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Hearing cancelled. Ugh.

**AT THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT, THIS HEARING IS CANCELLED**

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/bb83fb5a-7417-48cf-a88d-a1d50d4b257c_8334.pdf

What changed since the hearing was created?  Why would the court schedule a hearing (after seeing the request from TCC and objection from BSA) and then a few days later cancel the hearing?  I would have been optimistic, but after seeing the last BSA update, it seems like they are headed in the opposite direction so I tend to doubt any new plan will be announced.

Now, one thought - recently the Ann Taylor non debtor releases were rejected (now two cases are in limbo) and perhaps the court, BSA, others are rethinking what needs to be done here.  That decision came out after the BSA hearing was scheduled .and that judge said he recommended any case that includes non debtors should go to a district court first.  So, perhaps a chance, that BSA realizes they need to get a decision soon and should go to district court.  It would be great if the district court could also set the value of the of direct abuse claims.  To me, if a district court could clearly document what if any non debtors can be included and the value of the direct abuse claims ... the plan could come together rather quickly with low chance of failure in appeals.

In any case, I just don't like to see waste.  I hope that this isn't just a cancellation that will lead to delayed decisions and a longer wait to a final plan/solution.

Insurance company raises concerns that KR is delaying his depositon and there are 50 scheduled and must be complete by Jan 28.  Basically, they are saying, sure voting issues are a concern, but there is a ton of legitimate discovery & depositions and there is no way to complete it per schedule.

309b8315-0640-4e92-a7d3-5de0e2e9d091_8331.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

25 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

Oh My God, that is so true

Had a Scout come to the leader area on an outing, his challenge was no sleeping bag.  We went to his tent, sleeping bag was in fact in the bottom of his pack.  His comment "I guess dad put it in"

Chatted with parents on Sunday on the importance of the Scouts packing their own gear, being responsible for their gear.  Assisting and guiding is great, but THEY need to OWN it!!

I agree; however, parents need to know their kids and do a check for those who need it.  We had a scout attend a cold wet outing.  While in the 60s in the day, it dropped to low 40s and rain in the late afternoon.  He had shorts and shirt with no pants, sweatshirt, rain jacket, gloves, boots, anything.  He had his fishing pole (even though we were nowhere near a lake/pond/river/body of water other than puddles of rain).  It was pouring so much that it saturated all rain gear ... so we struggled to find enough dry/warm clothes for him (he was a large kid).  We told his parents, they said yep, will watch out in the future.  Next camp out (not as bad) once again not prepared.  So, we ended up having our PL check his pack for the next few campouts.

34 minutes ago, qwazse said:

We’re getting a lot of that here, too. I think partly because it’s risky business demolishing a church. Renovation can be, in the long run, cost effective.

 

There was a church in my town that was purchased by a developer.  They tore down the church and are replacing it with 7 new single family town homes, each sold for $1.25 to $1.40M.

Land in some areas is very valuable ... so it really depends on where the church is located.

It was sad to see a church torn down.

7 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Another district court has sent a bankruptcy back due to non debtor releases.  Fourth Circuit.  Purdue is in the second district. 

Prof. Jacoby on Twitter: "Like in #PurduePharma, a VA district court has just invalidated third party releases in a retailer bankruptcy (Ann Taylor/Dress Barn/etc). Unlike in Purdue, district court sending case back to bankruptcy court. & tone of opinion is ... different too (see below)" / Twitter

Key take away from Prof. Jacoby

Quote

District court puts to rest argument that approving a plan that permanently releases claims somehow is exempted from the constitutional issues involving adjudication. (#Purdue tried this too).

Another district court has sent a bankruptcy back due to non debtor releases.  Fourth Circuit.  Purdue is in the second district. 

Prof. Jacoby on Twitter: "Like in #PurduePharma, a VA district court has just invalidated third party releases in a retailer bankruptcy (Ann Taylor/Dress Barn/etc). Unlike in Purdue, district court sending case back to bankruptcy court. & tone of opinion is ... different too (see below)" / Twitter

5 minutes ago, MattR said:

I was wondering where this change came from and all I can think of is that people who feel trapped in a corner don't have free will.

I definitely that that is an option and it could be about COs.

My other thought is that BSA knows this plan is dead.  So, who do they blame? The TCC.

Lay out the case that the TCC is not fulfilling their role 

• Clearly 74% of claimants like this plan and the TCC is in the minority
• The TCC is just wasting the estates (trust's) money by fighting further
• The TCC sent that awful email
• The trust fully pays off survivors
• The TCC is obligated to represent all survivors and they are not

The, when the court says return to mediation, throw a fit and submit a request to the court to replace the TCC.

My guess ... this document is the 1st step the BSA will take to replace the TCC, or at minimum, the law firm they hired.  If BSA returns to mediation, they want someone else on the other side of the table.

16 minutes ago, scoutldr said:

I am not a lawyer.  However, I think it boils down to the fact that you do not have a current charter.  You are NOT authorized to use BSA's name.  Most if not all BSA materials are trademarked and copyrighted.  And any advancement that occurs after 12/31/2021 will not be recognized and recorded by BSA.  You are NOT covered by BSA insurance and, as you pointed out, a "broad release" form would be worthless.  I would cancel everything until a new CO is found, or transfer to a unit in good standing.

 

I see a two month grace period referenced here:

2022-Charter-Renewal-Handbook-Revised-24-Aug-2021.pdf (ncacbsa.org)

In addition, I know units have been able to register for HA bases without active charters.

However, I would not want to be in a situation where someone was hurt or worse and be looking at grace periods/etc.  If it looks like this is more than a minor correction in internet rechartering or sending in a check, I would absolutely look at finding a new CO immediately (or getting the council to agree to the facility use permit).

14 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

I would also think that without an active charter, one cannot even call it cub scouts or BSA or anything of the sort. Like calling your burger joint McDonalds without being an actual franchise.

What is currently being done is solely a church youth group, and is 0% affiliated with Scouting(tm).

We were told there is some buffer.  It sounds like it may not be a hard stop January 1.  BSA understands a large number of charters are not renewed in time.  I'm trying to get a bit more info.

Just now, ThenNow said:

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/boy-scouts-slams-victim-committee-for-opposing-2-7-billion-deal

I'm actually ok with BSA being aggressive publicly against the TCC.   I think it is a fair debate if the current plan could be the best one overall for all survivors.

BSA's mistake is now having to defend saying they will fully pay all abuse survivors.  In the disclosure statement, they didn't make that claim.  I think that allowed BSA to say ... this is the best plan for you and we could never fully pay off all of the victims.  It allowed some flexibility and to appropriately set expectations.  However, now, in a court filing, they state " Survivors of Abuse Will Be Paid in Full Under the Debtors’ Plan."

Q: Mr. Mosby ... do you think $7,000 is full payment for a child who was raped at a scout camp multiple times?   

A: Well, you know, um, it was by a volunteer ... so it doesn't count.  It was really the parents fault for trusting us.  Anyways, Friends of Troop 100 is really the one responsible. 

I wish BSA could go backwards and remove that document from the docket.  What's done is done.  I think they probably need to make a statement that they can never fully compensate victims and perhaps portions of the analysis could have been better worded.

54 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

If the group is so confident survivors will be paid in full then it should provide a guarantee of that to them and be released from liability only if all claims are fully paid, Mr. Pachulski said.

 

100% agree with this statement.  

36 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

I can't get past the pay wall.  Is the story getting it's source from court filings, or did a spokesperson actually make a separate statement claiming its own initial analysis was wrong?

If it's the latter it is both distasteful and dumb.

The court filing states (and bold is in the filing):

Quote

 

V. Survivors of Abuse Will Be Paid in Full Under the Debtors’ Plan. 7.

Unfortunately for survivors, the TCC has failed to inform them of the real facts underlying this Plan, including the fact that Class 8 will likely be paid in full. 

 

Great!  In fact, if BSA's law firm is so confident, perhaps they would insure the trust that if the trust ends up running out of $, Bates White will guarantee making up the difference!  Or, if that doesn't work, I'm sure an insurance company would take a small payment to provide the insurance given how many degrees Dr. Bates has, I'm sure his analysis is spot on!  I think they would get 100% of the vote, TCC on board, BSA, LCs and COs out of this mess!

I go back to my prior comments ... I think this was a dumb move to make this public.  This is a document you negotiate with.  This is not something you want to get started where all survivors now expect to be fully compensated.  We are now seeing the results of this bad move hit the media and BSA will have to figure out how to tell abuse survivors they think $38K, on average, if full payment.  Good luck with that narrative. 

BSA was much better off stating that no one has enough money to compensate abuse survivors. 

I'll just add this to the giant pile of dumb that comes out of the national side of this organization.  I would like them publicly to state if they agree with their own court filing ... that survivors will be paid in full!

Split off the discussion about rechartering.

1 minute ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

My unit is in paperwork limbo. Everything has been turned in, and money has been attempted to be paid. but something in the online system is not allowing it to go through. To make matters worse, only the 2021 key 3 have access to the online system, and they are unavailable at this time. Hence why we got new Key 3.

We are also stuck with the money issue.  One issue is the online system is going to charge adults in multiple units multiple times.  We are just going to pay and then get refunds later.  A bit of a mess.

1 hour ago, 1980Scouter said:

Are there still a lot of units in limbo on charters?

 I know in my district, about 20% of units haven't even started the rechartering process as of Jan 1.  I would guess more than half haven't completed including payment.

Normal years, DEs spend most of December and January chasing down these charter documents/payments.  May be more of a mess this year with some COs balking.

29 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

There was a great article December on the bankruptcy and it's costs.  Some great quotes in it.  

https://news.yahoo.com/big-winners-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-100024259.html

* UCLA law professor calling the whole bankruptcy system corrupt.
* BSA fees 40% projected compared to Enron's 3%.
* BSA administrative bankruptcy cost is over $200m.  Remaining funds is approx $200m also.

In some parts of the world, the only bankruptcy is essentially CH7.  You can't pay your bills, fine, appoint a trustee, sell off everything and pay your creditors.  

1) It probably makes you a bit more careful about taking on excess debt ... something I think US non profits and businesses seem to ignore.

2) Not much money to be made by lawyers. 

Watching this, I tend to think those other countries have it right.  

What I find interesting is that TCC, long ago, argued that they should go to district court to calculate damages and determine what claimants are owed.  BSA pushed back hard, said there wasn't time, there is no need (as this is bankruptcy so they wouldn't have enough anyway), etc.  I AM SHOCKED that BSA is now apparently claiming the opposite.

I don't have experience here ... but if I were the TCC I would say this is now a critical decision that must be decided in district court.  BSA may have exposed their flank.

This reminds me once when I responded to a European regulator with a 30 page document, going point by point where they were wrong.  They response... ok great, we can go to court, I can come back and audit you again in an area where you are weak or you can agree to my initial points.  We ended up agreeing on the auditor's initial points.

If BSA makes this a fight of claims valuation, TCC may say thank you, lets debate this in court.  I thought BSA was better off saying we don't have enough to pay.

10 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Valuation is not a fixed $$$$ amount.  You can't price tag this type of victimization.  Rather, the question is how big is the pot of money.  Then, what portion each victim gets.

 

This is exactly what BSA was doing up until yesterday.  BSA has now changed tactics.  They are arguing that there is now enough money to pay everyone in full.  Why does that matter?  They are saying there is no need to look at chartered organizations, local council finances or insurance companies as the settlement trust is already set to the value that pays 100% of claims in full.

So, they are attempting to price tag this type of victimization and the price tag they place on it is about $36K per claim.  I have a hard time seeing this path as a winning one.

9 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I fail to understand how all thru this settlement procedure claims were worth $XXXX according to the BSA and now they say claims are worth only $XXX.  Can someone please explain this to me. 

 

Very long document, but I'll try to simplify.

1) Most of the claimants are older.  Older people don't get big settlements in sex abuse cases. 

2) Most of the accused are only accused once.  Bigger settlements come in when there are accused with multiple victims.  Why?  Because BSA liability would be less and more liability would be on the victim's parents, others, etc.

So ... when adjusting for these factors, the analysis shows the average value of each claim times number of claims leave them at the settlement amount.

Boy Scouts Says Abuse Claims Likely to Be Paid in Full, With Lowered Liability Estimates - WSJ

Prof. Jacoby says there are two issues with BSA's statement:

1) Valuation ... is BSA correct in their valuation?  

2) Trust administration ... even with a $3B trust (if it hits that number) there are trust admin fees and costs that means that $3B will not all go to claimants.