Eagle1993

Rumors that local councils have increased their offer by $40M and Century settlement is in at $800M.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boy-scouts-america-bankruptcy-sex-abuse-settlement/

Looks like there is a deal being finalized now.

Insurance came through late and the US Olympic committee added $34M.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nassar-victims-reach-380-million-settlement-with-usa-gymnastics-and-u-s-olympic-and-paralympic-committee-11639406377

Note that these increases came in after 95% approved the deal ... so even with that large approval, these updates were seen as necessary for confirmation of the plan.

Also note that the Dept. Of Justice was objecting to the release of the USOPC ... which helped force the updated deal.

Unfortunately for the BSA ... I don't see them hitting 95%.  They also have objections from the DOJ in releasing COs and LCs.  Seeing how hard it was to get the gymnastics' deal done (which was far simpler) I am not yet optimistic for the BSA.  The only good news is that deals can close.

(I guess technically this isn't closed, but the story is there is agreement).

There is a hearing scheduled tomorrow.  One topic is PONIL RANCH, L.P. vs BSA.  Ponil filed a lawsuit against BSA October 19 about an easement they have through Philmont ranch.  It is not clear to me what happened that cause Ponil to file the lawsuit ... unless they just want to ensure their easement through Philmont is maintained during/post bankruptcy.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/c8dd3fa5-6704-49f7-ba60-59ecf6cd1591_1.pdf

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/6a26d2ed-e290-408d-a893-57cc7e1a0d44_7680.pdf

AVA is objecting to TCC's request to require AIS (AVA, KR & Kosnoff) to send a joint letter to all claimants.  AVA states they are neither in favor or against the plan.  They believe the plan is appropriate for some of their claimants.  They also believe others should reject the plan.  They indicate they have been advsising each claimant based on their individual situation.

Note that many AVA claimants are stating they can't even get in touch with AVA.

They make a pretty good argument in this document.  I would say if the issue was just KR vs Kosnoff, then TCC is probably on firmer ground.  

Most of these costs would have been avoided if BSA did a national bankruptcy only.  Including COs & LCs made it incredibly complex and unique.  Add in 84,000 claimants and the process grinds.

I think a big solution is eliminating the ability to include non debtors under bankruptcy.  Unfortunately, the horse has left the barn here.

4 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Let's put another exclamation point.  It is not that the YP was not enough, it was that it was not followed.  As we have trumpeted regularly, YP is only as good as its proper use.  And, in reality, even before the much enhanced rules, most things would have been avoided if precautions were in place and action taken when it appeared something was not as it should be.  

I think the question is ... who didn't enforce YPT in this pack.

• How did the adult gain access to the youth? Were there trained leaders present at these outings that did not enforce YPT? 
• How was the youth allowed to attend without parents?  Per G2SS, the youth must have had 1 adult responsible for him while he attended.  Who was that adult?
• Did the charter organization provide sufficient oversight of the unit?  Were all leaders registered and trained in YPT?  Were they aware of the outing and that a youth attended without his parents?  Do they some how ensure the unit follows G2SS?
• Is there anything the district or camp should have noticed with this unit?  Did they have prior YPT violations?

We simply do not have the information, but there are a lot of rules and procedures in place that should have prevented this.  

3 hours ago, ThenNow said:

https://people.com/crime/boy-scouts-sex-abuse-settlement-vote/?utm_campaign=peoplemagazine&utm_content=new&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_term=61b1ffb54c9fd40001e2efd0

I deleted my post after seeing this.

BSA is quoted as evaluating their 72 hour rule...

There is a screenshot in the docket above where an individual submitted a ballot to K.R. that they selected Reject and the receipt from K.R. states Approve.  If true ... wow.

Unredacted ..

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1258d52d-5524-45e6-ab56-3e9ea4d55115_7643.pdf

Um... a LOT of questions about the eBallot coming out including one claim that the ballot was chaning his vote.  A lot of emails in this link.

TCC had several experts in valuation, CSA, pensions, etc. provide all parties documentation on their findings December 5.  

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2f3a34bc-a344-4d23-8b4a-3db3479c6aeb_7640.pdf

The court as officially opened up Kosnoff's deposition.  It sounds like some documents that were redacted may be updated on the docket.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/701b1aa0-2bbf-4897-8dc1-a94b6d7bfeda_7641.pdf

15 minutes ago, yknot said:

There is no way for BSA to "win" on this issue, even if the mom should lose a lawsuit.

There is no legal basis to file a lawsuit.  The Supreme Court already ruled on Dale v BSA.  I don't see this even getting to the supreme court and if it somehow did there is 0% they would overrule Dale.

BSA is a private organization.  They can decide who they accept as members.

16 minutes ago, yknot said:

It just highlights the need to have the co-ed troop option available because that would solve something that is only going to come up more and more frequently.

Now even with co-ed troops there is complexity.  Do you have a transgender girl tent with another girl?  What about bathrooms/showers that are shared?

I'm personally a fan of co-ed troops, and honestly most of the girl Troops I see operate that way.  That said, this is complex and BSA will probably need to keep working on guidelines/rules.

1 minute ago, tnmule20 said:

My Troop wants to remain an all male Troop.  The BSA implements co-ed Troops with the option to stay single gender Troops if desired.  A girl or a transgender male or a transgender girl want to join my Troop.  What leg does my Troop have to stand on?  None because the BSA willingly or unwillingly just cut us off at the knees.

I expect this will vary based on where you live.  If you live in an area with other co-ed Troops you are probably going to be ok remaining male only.  I haven't seen any pressure at the Pack level to force packs to go co-ed in my area.  Perhaps because we have many Packs that accept girls. Now, that said, if you have no co-ed Troops in the area, I could see the council starting to pressure some of the all boy Troops to consider being co-ed.  I also wouldn't be surprised, if eventually, BSA would require all new units to be co-ed.

I'm personally a fan of allowing all boy, all girl and co-ed BSA Troops.  I trust the leaders of units to determine what is best for their scouts.  I especially see benefits for allowing all boy Troops to continue as there are many boys who wouldn't be comfortable in a co-ed Troop.  If BSA does open up co-ed Troops, I hope they respect the wishes of units looking to remain boy only.

22 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I’m not sure if this is widely known. Thoughts?

https://13wham.com/news/local/transgender-teen-kicked-out-of-boy-scout-troop

1) She will lose any lawsuit, so no need to waste $.

2) Gender is complex.  Right now, BSA has Troops separated by gender (boy Troops and girl Troops).  If a youth identifies as a girl, then they must be in a girl Troop.  She should be treated like any other girl and since there is no girl Troop then loan scout is her only option.

Now ... as I mentioned, gender is more complex.  I have a scout who identifies as non binary.  Actually, I am seeing more non binary youth than transgender.   We have handled their gender as their initial gender they registered with.

I think the debate goes back to if we should have coed Scout BSA units.  I prefer that we allow that as an option, but given our current rules/model, the unit/council took the correct action.  

This AP story includes a quote from the first mediator and why he resigned.  Carey refused comment. 

Another mediator, Paul Finn, resigned three weeks ago. Finn told The Associated Press afterward that he resigned because of “philosophical differences that have existed for some time with other parties and can no longer be reconciled.”

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article256415931.html

A couple of quick updates from the docket today:

The judge granted TCC's request to shorten the time notice period regarding the request to have AIS provide their claimants a single summary stating the various law firm's views.  The hearing will be Dec 14.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9b4fd7cb-ba8a-4818-ae3d-6ca81d2e3694_7612.pdf

TCC Townhall Dec 9 ... they will cover voting extension, communication between TCC/counsels, mediation update and their goals.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/3296e7df-f694-408d-a5c2-d7ae47a64a5e_7613.pdf

8 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

Hearing is done.  Silence.

TCC has withdrawn their request for an ombudsman for voting and agreed that no further delay is required.    They are pushing the judge to require AIS law firms to submit a single coordinated letter to their clients.   
 

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/05872c48-7a98-426a-b467-cdf731af043b_7601.pdf

Sounds like the coalition canceled their Townhall tonight. 

Just now, RememberSchiff said:

Just baffling, Kevin Carey was her former colleague.

 

It could explain why she seems so upset.  Not emotional, but clearly not happy with having to take action.  She found his name in the 620 page supplement BSA filed November 30.  She must have read that entire document as no one objected to Carey.  Very impressive.

Just now, ThenNow said:

So, remember the Kosnoff/TCC email thing? Me either. I just had a “flashy thing” *poofed* before me and that is no longer in my memory bank as of...NOW. This day, I shall not forget. (Nod to Men In Black.) WOWZERS!!

If bankruptcies have momentum, today seemed like a big swing to the TCC.  A coalition lawfirm lost their fight to keep some of their communications sealed.  They fought hard and even had AVA (who seems to do nothing in this case) file agreements. The judge ruled against them.  Then to see the BSA be slapped for using a mediator in their plan .. can't be good for them.   I'll be curious to see if we see the reason KR fought so hard to keep them private.  

If I were to guess what is happening based on the last few hearings.

• Vote is not going BSA's way.   If it were, they would NOT have delayed the deadline.  The schedule was critical to them ... and now they are open to delays?  In addition, do I really think Coalition lawyers would be calling up no votes and spending 20-30 minutes begging one person to vote yes if the vote was going well?  I expect the total votes coming in (including master ballots) is very low.  This would follow other similar cases.  In addition, the votes coming in are not at the 66%+ needed (which is why the are spending a LOT of time with individual claimants.
• Meditation with TCC is picking up and improving.  I expect that means the local council contribution may be back on the table (I don't see much more from National).  There have been multiple references to mediation starting to go well.  It was mentioned at the TCC townhall.  It was mentioned today in court.
• The judge is calling balls & strikes ... and just called two strikes on the BSA/Coalition.  Will KR now start stepping back knowing his communications, even going forward, could easily end up on the court docket?  Will he start being concerned about keeping a law license given complaints that are starting to be filed in PA?  Mediators are now pretty much out of the picture ... so it seems like it will be Mono vs Mono (BSA vs TCC).  Remember, the mediator who seemed to question the direction previously resigned ... it seems like mediator change was against the BSA.

1 minute ago, MYCVAStory said:

Good day for Survivors in court.  The Judge said that the appointment of Kevin Cary, as a part of any trust, is a "non-starter" and now places the impartiality of the mediation in doubt.  The selection of Carey made her think about cancelling mediation!  But, because one is left, Gallagher, mediation may continue.  Carey is no longer a mediator!!  So the only mediator left is one who specializes in insurance mediation.  The judge is completely amazed that the BSA and Coalition would try this.

 

She was clearly upset.  Note that NO ONE brought this up ... she found it and ruled on her own.  It wasn't even on the agenda.  It seemed to be a clear shot across the bow of BSA & Coalition.  They probably need to relook at who is leading the Trust right now.  That will cause some questions later on.

Hearing is done.  Silence.

Kevin J Carey ... was appointed was approved instead of Mr. Green.  Judges MUST disqualify themselves if their impartiality is in question.

Judge is NOT HAPPY with Mr. Carey.

Having him as the initial special reviewer, she thought about terminating mediation.

There is 1 mediator left.  Parties can continue outside of mediation.  Mr. Carey is OUT>

Good for the judge.

Plan supplement filed Nov 30, Exhibit I ... identifies initial special reviewer.  That was never part of any discussion.

Kevin J Carey ... one of the mediators.  NOPE ... she is rejecting that selection.

Mediation neutrality is under question by the judge.  Carey now as a stake on the outcome of the mediation.

Uh Oh.