Eagle1993

I'm taking a look at the votes that were not counted. I found several issues in Omni's table. Claimants 17518, 73211, 95439, 93065 listed either "Accept or Reject" under the vote heading; however, the Reason(s) for exclusion is that "Holder did not indicate vote to accept or reject the plan". These are all AIS claimants. Something is off on those. Also note, I took a quick look at the first several pages of AIS claimants who submitted a direct ballot to Omni that was not counted. Most of these were not counted as their votes were superseded by a master ballot submitted by AIS. Now, it is unclear if the vote changed between the direct ballot and master ballot ... that would be interesting info. The direct votes that did not count (from the first several pages ... of the report) 26 Accept 18 Reject 16 Abstain (why would there be any abstain votes when voting directly) In any case, just counting reject vs accept ... that is a 59% acceptance rate. Now the question is ... what are these votes in the master ballot and did that rate change? I think it also leads into the question into Omni if they swapped Master/Direct in their summary.

I guess what is the impact of those that vote to "opt out"? My understanding of the situation is that if this plan goes forward, no one can "opt out". That 3rd parties (chartered org and LCs) are granted release of liability and it is funneled into the settlement trust. Therefore, I wonder what it means if someone "opts out". Does that mean they could sue the LC/CO even if this plan is approved? I don't think so. Why am I questioning the "opt out"? One example ... someone wrote to Omni (posted in the docket) saying they vote to accept the plan for BSA but also said they "opt out" as they don't want to release their CO. I don't think that is how it works. I see 21,172 selected "opt out". That is far greater than the 14,487 reject votes. Assuming all reject votes were also opt out, that leaves 6,685 Accept votes that also selected "opt out". That is an odd combination to me. It would be great if someone could explain why someone would Accept and then "opt out".

66% is the threshold for a bankruptcy. However, WSJ was reporting even BSA admitted they needed 75% which they didn't reach. There are two issues that the 73% causes. One will be with Silverstein. Has there been a case where there are non consensual releases of non debtors with this low of a vote? Recent votes have all been in the 95% range and even then they had struggles. This will be a hurdle to get over with her. Now, if she approves (which is probably unlikely) the next court to see this plan is a district court. District courts have started to question non consensual releases of non debtors (Purdue in 2nd Circuit and now Mahwah Bergen in 4th Circuit). Purdue was at 95% and not sure about Mahwah Bergen. I'm not sure I would want to take 73% or even 75% approval into a district court. As I mentioned, anything could happen. Silverstein could say this is the best deal that could be reached, ignore Purdue, ignore Mahwah and punt it to the district court. The district court, larger court of appeals could also let it go through (barring anything happening in the Supreme court in the future from Purdue .. apparently 1 aspect of it could go there). That is a definite possibility. That said ... I think BSA would be wise to reconsider this path. Perhaps go ahead and pursue it, but I really hope they start laying out the framework of an alternate plan that could get TCC (and DOJ) buy in. Ignoring that path is putting all of your cards into a rusty, hole filled bucket. The scout motto is "Be Prepared" ... they should be "Be Prepared" for Silverstein OR a district court now rejecting this plan.

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.

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.

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.

$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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.