Eagle1993

18 minutes ago, 1980Scouter said:

73% is a solid D grade in school. Is a D good enough? I was surprised it is this high.

 

I doubt it, but not too surprised it hit that level.

 It was mentioned earlier about Judge Silverstein.  I would argue since the RSA, she has been pushing hard to get a plan out for a vote.  She agreed/pushed all controversial/tough decisions to plan confirmation (vs Disclosure/Plan solicitation) because she wanted voting to start.  She pushed out plan confirmation to Feb 22, but kept the voting report earlier.  Why?  She said she wants to see where the claimants are.

What BSA is asking is for thousands of organizations to be cleared of any liability of child sex abuse related to scouting (that term is even questioned).  I think the judge clearly wants to see if the claimants are on board.  They are not.  I question even the 75% target for what is being asked.

Now, as I mentioned, anything could happen including a cramdown/approval.  However, if I were to make a bet (which I won't as I am horrible at betting) I would lean to the other side (this plan is dead).  I could imagine her saying something like ... TCC/BSA/etc.  ... you have 1 month to come to agreement.  If no agreement, this becomes a BSA national only bankruptcy.

Again, just a hunch.  She has seen this go on multiple years.  After that, the vote is underwhelming (I think we could agree on that).  This is an incredibly complex case.  She wants BSA to survive.  ... That could take a major change in direction.

Regardless, if this plan fails, the BSA needs to start working with the TCC again and not only the Coalition.  White & Case messed up when they went all in on the Coalition.  I hope they can now all work together quickly to come to an agreement.

7 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

I don’t understand why there were so many abstentions. Those ballots that did not check accept or reject. Why would a claimant go to the trouble of casting a ballot if he had no opinion? Do abstentions count? This suggests to me what I feared which is the eBallot caused massive confusion or else it did not function properly. 

Many are on master ballots.   So my guess on those is that the law firm was not able to confirm how the claimant wants to vote but still includes their claim on their overall master ballot.  The direct ballots don’t make sense… I agree anyone directly voting would likely have wanted a vote to count.  Who knows … I’m sure will come out with discovery and further review. 

6 hours ago, scoutesquire said:

It is pretty clear from the data (unless OMNI is wrong), that a group of lawyers voted no via master ballot.  

I do believe master ballots will be questioned; however, they are allowed by the judge and they do (should) reflect the input of the claimants (either directly or via POA).  I wouldn’t e surprised to hear Omni flipped them with direct.  
 

Also note there are a large number of ballots rejected.  They are listed along with how they voted and why they were rejected.  That could be cleaned up before the final total.  

5 hours ago, Muttsy said:

Totally agree. How much has OMNI billed?

$17.8M since start of bankruptcy 

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/8e88654e-8770-45af-97da-6b95e61ed17b_8062.pdf

One final note before I sign off.  Nothing is guaranteed.  The judge could look at this and say it’s the best deal possible and allow it to go through.  This is a complex case and I’m not sure there will ever be 95% approval.  That said, I hope BSA sits down with TCC and finds a path closer to that 95% mark. 

What was the opt out question?  Over 21,000 selected the opt out. 

9 minutes ago, 100thEagleScout said:

Yup.  The way it was tabulated was weird.  Said Coalition votes weren’t by Master Ballot and Non-Coalition ones were.  Get ready for civil war and oh also this plan is dead on arrival, Coalition is finished, BSA just wasted two years and the executives might as well fire their attorneys now.

To me that 73% was right in the middle of limbo land.  It meets the minimum threshold; however, not the 95% you saw from talc/Purdue or 100% from USA Gymnastics.  January 10 will tell us where this is headed.  I expect Silverstein to weigh in if this is good enough or if it is a non starter for her. Personally, I hope she tells parties to sharpen their pencils and work on mediation and keeps the confirmation hearing going.  There are a ton of rulings she needs to make and they could be helpful even if it likely this plan isn’t approved.  

For direct abuse claims, 55,888 votes.  A bit surprising but the bulk of the rejects came through master ballots.  About 1/3 of approvals requested the $3500.

I doubt this will be enough yes votes to get accepted but it will be enough to go through months of hearings.  I expect we are in limbo. 
 

Indirect abuse claims are likely charted orgs that rejected the deal. 

Indirect abuse claims rejected the plan outright.
 

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/d45114a7-88c5-452f-9da1-f61ca4ac3eed_8141.pdf

Vote is in. 73.12% accept.

32 minutes ago, 100thEagleScout said:

Oh and by the way I keep seeing this <75% stuff.

Technically only 66.67% (or 2/3) of the vote is needed to approve this plan as a class.  If it fails to reach THIS threshold it is presumed that the class voted no on the plan.  So even though <75% and the plan will still likely fail miserably, in that instance the class is still considered to have preliminarily accepted the plan pending potential vote disqualifications for various reasons.

If this was a National only bankruptcy yes.  However, there are non debtors involved and non consensual claimants.  This is the same issue Purdue Pharma ran into.  Some circuits do not allow this while others (currently) do in rare cases.  See below from an article about these releases including iv.  There it talks to claimants having overwhelming accepted the plan.  Purdue that was 95%. Talc that was 95%. It sound like some cases it dropped into the 80s. <75% likely won’t cut it unless this judge wants to see the plan thrown out by a district court 2 months later.
 

In the circuits where non-consensual third party releases are permitted, a debtor must satisfy a high evidentiary bar to obtain approval of such releases.  The factors a bankruptcy court must consider in such circuits include (i) the identity of interests between the debtor and the third party, such that a suit against the non-debtor is akin to a suit against the debtor due to, for example, an indemnity obligation that may deplete the debtor’s assets; (ii) whether the non-debtor has contributed substantial assets to the reorganization; (iii) whether the release is essential to reorganization; (iv) whether the impacted classes of claims have overwhelmingly accepted the plan in question; and (v) whether the bankruptcy court has made a record of specific factual findings to support such releases.

5 hours ago, DuctTape said:

wow. seems like a lot of pack meetings to me. no surprise then the amount of questions/issues from cubmasters I see here. I wonder if one solution is to extremely lessen the number of pack meetings, move more to the den level.

I definitely think that may help reduce burden on leadership.  However,  pack meetings are a lot of fun and a way we built up excitement for the program. For us, we had a pretty easy calendar that worked.

Sept - New scout intro, kickoff

Oct - Outdoor  S’mores and campfire 

Nov - Cake Bake (bake cakes at home and vote on each other’s)

Dec - No meeting but went caroling as groups of dens

Jan - Pinewood Derby

Feb - Blue and Gold

Mar - Bear Carnival 

April - Camping/Cabin trip

May -Advancement ceremony 

It seemed to work well.  We would add in a Fall and June overnight most years as well.  Wasn’t too bad.

Note that our den meetings were also only Monthly which I know is a bit unique.  

17 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

TCC has withdrawn notice of deposition to Omni. Any thoughts?

and now they want to depose the BSA. 

The way I read it is they cancelled their first request and created a new request both with the BSA.

The Coalition plans to hold a meeting this evening.  Zoom link can be found on the site below.

Events | Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice (scoutingabusesurvivors.com)

3 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

They’ve known the probable outcome for weeks.

I know Prof. Jacoby indicated that major law firms likely know the outcome ... so you are probably correct.  I just don't want to jump to conclusions yet.  I think unless the vote is very close to the number needed, attempts to disqualify ballots are just a waste of money and time.  It would be much better to restart negotiations then try and see a few percentage points swing in a failing outcome.

9 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Yes. The words of the prophet are screaming in the form of no noticed Coalition update notice, ja? Who knows. I speak in ignorance waiting to catch the subway. (Please don’t say I’m being incoherent and/or obtuse. Suffer me this one.)

No official update as far as I can tell.  I think the cancellation of the townhall could be that they don't know the official vote count yet and want to wait and see that info as it will impact what they communicate.  I don't think it means it didn't go well for the BSA.  (Similar to the deposition requests ... now both sides are deposing the other about votes).

We should know by late tonight or tomorrow.  

46 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

So, when does the ball drop, anyway? Is Ryan Seacrest on standby?

Or are we waiting for white/black smoke above BSA HQ?

1) Omni said they needed every minute possible ... so I don't expect anything until late today ... but we could be surprised.

2) I'm not sure if this will be on the docket or publicly available.  I expect all parties will be made aware sometime today.  

I'm infrequently refreshing the docket & watching for some specific tweets to see if anything comes out.  Silence so far.

6 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

now hinges on that same thing: 75%.

I struggle to see that 75% will be enough.  Many recent cases seemed to have issues even as they approached 95% approval.  You may be right, that 75% would likely mean the plan confirmation will go forward ... but that still leaves a large number of non consensual creditors for the non debtors to be included.  I also wonder if you could see several COs or LCs with subtotals under 66% approval.

Perhaps the way I will look at it:

<75% and the plan is dead.   The judge should kick the coalition out as a mediation partner and restart mediation.  BSA & TCC should meet to discuss plan structure that could get their buy in.

 75% - 94% or so ... this plan will go forward; however, perhaps a high likelihood of issues during confirmation OR appeals. 

95%+ likely less issues during confirmation (pending Purdue) and just minor changes before plan approval.

28 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Data source(s)? Is that an overall settlement number for suits vs BSA, LC and CO? Single entity...? Love to have you unwrap that tidy parcel you put under the tree.

I think that was from non bankrupt CSA settlements that were made public.   It also came from the TDP where the "max" claim amount is in the range of $2 - $2.7M.   I couldn't find anything else outside the TDPs.

I did find the below which details out all of the Catholic Church settlements that were public.  Note their average per claimant is post attorney fees.  Also, some of the earlier lawsuits you have to adjust for inflation.

https://www.bishop-accountability.org/settlements/

I know this has been debated before, but our Troop does not charge adult leaders to attend summer camp.  We bump up the charge for all scouts to cover the extra costs (such as adult fees).  Note that many summer camps allow a few free leaders as well. 
 

Otherwise, does your troop use scout accounts?  That is one way many scouts help cover their cost of camp.  They fundraise and some percent goes to their account.

FYI ... TCC, as expected, filed depositions against Omni and BSA about voting.  

66ded425-a7b8-41b6-9ece-51a6eba612bf_8101.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

937d5a67-ffb1-4121-8020-5bd252c5b952_8100.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

43 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I'm assuming that will trigger a LC bankruptcy case ... which seems the right way to handle it.  Those 20 get a claim against BSA's bankruptcy and the future local LCs bankruptcy.  It seems the righ way to handle it. 

That is my guess if this plan doesn't go through.  Typically settlements seem to hit at least 2-3M for each case... so they would be looking at 40 - 60M just in settlement talks.  

11 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

Ultimate responsibility should lie with the COs.  

Based on BSA's model, I think there is shared responsibility in many cases.

Vetting of volunteers and ensuring units operate per BSA rules is the CO's responsibility.  

Creating the rules is BSA's responsibility.

If the issue is found with a unit not following rules ... then the CO should be considered liable.

If the issue is found with a gap in the rules ... then that falls on the BSA.

If a combination ... then shared liability.

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

We are in for something that could end up looking like a MAD warfare scenario. There will be an all out assault on claimant votes both accept and reject.

100% agree.  Kosnoff noted that BSA is deposing nearly every group that is against the plan.  From the Roman Catholic Church to the TCC and all law firms in between.  They are going to ask about their communication in terms of voting, how they kept track of votes, how they communicated with claimants who decided not to vote, etc.  

Now, the other groups are already lining up arguments against the coalition, eBallots, badgering clients, etc.

My guess is that the vote comes in the range of 70-85% accept.  Why?  Because that likely the worst case scenario for all involved and given BSA's luck, I expect that is what we will see.  What is this the worst case?  Because it is enough to pass a BSA only plan; however, not enough for the judge to likely accept non debtors.  BSA will believe they are close enough.  Anti plan advocates will believe that close doesn't count.  With no clear "winner" of the vote, we will be stuck in limbo for months. 

To me, the best case situation for the BSA is >95% accept.  The second best is a very low accept rate <<66%.  At least in this scenario, most could agree that we are either very close to a final plan or need to allow other groups (TCC) to take the lead. 

If a new plan takes shape, I do expect some LCs will need to kick in more.  I just saw Daniel Boone council had 20 lawsuits filed against it for CSA.  From prior discussions, each CSA lawsuit costs about $500K in legal fees ... so they are likely looking at $10M (roughly) in legal fees.  I took a look at the Daniel Boone's settlement ... they only offered $656K.  They have net unrestricted assets of $7.8M.  It seems like some councils are playing with fire.  Just the legal fees from 2 cases likely exceeds their settlement offer.  If this plan fails, I believe some councils may have wished they offered more.  Daniel Boone is one that I question right now.

c1f98e_d7d75080e9ef4391ae5b8bc408cb8211.pdf (filesusr.com)