Eagle1993

UMC just offered $30M. They also agree to work on YPT and help fundraising with councils to hit $100M more to the settlement. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/72e4dc04-9e45-4184-abc7-cd8c5c6595b3_7884.pdf

Unless they charge Scout Executives I doubt it. In the past, with respect to the Catholic Church, and the Mich AG has targeted the actual individuals not leadership. In addition, this is a small number vs the claims.

Purdue Pharma now officially being brought up on the Docket. Note that there will likely be a new case to reference soon as another District Court blasted nonconsensual non debtor releases (calling them nonsense). 00ea8d61-4406-4e26-8710-51a7af2d0ee0_7863.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) The TCC is asking the judge to not delay confirmation, other than allowing 1 more week for discovery. ... Note that if the TCC thought this was headed to an approval, I bet they would want to delay confirmation hearings. This may be a sign ... The TCC is asking the judge to have a two step Confirmation. The first step is to review the bankruptcy court's ability to issue protection to non debtors. They reference various cases including Purdue Pharma. Basically, the TCC would like to court to rule on this first as if the court decides they cannot issue 3rd party releases (either at all OR without major modifications) then there is no point to continue the confirmation hearing.

Bankruptcy court is supposed to find that balance. I would argue, if this was a National BSA bankruptcy only, and the settlement stayed within those bounds, we would see that scale more clearly. 1) BSA must be allowed to exit bankruptcy with a 5 year business plan that is achievable. 2) Claimants must approve the plan. I expect it would be much easier for all sides to find that balance. Now, by including LCs and COs and then their insurance coverage ... that scale becomes a 9-dimensional array and likely requires a degree in high energy physics to figure out. If there wasn't a major impact on camps, this would be much easier to take at the unit level. However, part of me believes if councils really wanted to save their camps they could. Most seem happy with the direction we are headed (online MB classes and Cub Scout day camps)

Exactly. Another topic going around the lawyer/legal professor Twitter universe is how BSA's LC contributions are structured. Specifically, a Georgetown Legal Professor is questioning how LC funds are being comingled. He is saying this is actually a case that isn't messy and they (BSA) should easily be able to divert funds from a LC to their specific claimants. The professor is also questioning the insurance settlements. The insurance, as written, has a per incident cap (many times $1M) but no aggregate cap. However, now through their settlement they have an aggregate cap which will require claimants to take much less than the incident camp. He states that the insurers have enough money to pay out the per incident cap. He is questioning how claimants who approve the plan could bind the claimants who reject the plan with respect to insurance coverage. I lot of questions remain...

I'm not sure that it would matter, but someone who read the 142 pages of the overturn ruling could comment better. Let's assume 100%. The issue is the Slackers who didn't declare bankruptcy. So, why should someone in a year or two be prohibited from suing them if the individual was not part of the bankruptcy case. If the Slackers want to personally benefit from protections granted in bankruptcy, then they should declare bankruptcy. I don't disagree most claimants will look at $ and speed. YPT is probably down the list. The reason I think BSA should have it higher has more to do with their recovery post-bankruptcy. They need everyone on board saying the organization is safe as they exit. This was a list in terms of BSA priorities, not a claimant view.

The Michigan AG now has 5 open cases into BSA claims, charges may be coming soon in 1. Nessel: Five investigations looking into Boy Scouts of America claims (detroitnews.com)

To be clear ... I should have said ... "It is critical for a BSA plan to be approved..." I personally don't believe this plan is going to survive appeals. I agree with you that this plan should be rejected. BSA's current focus seems to be (in this order): Protect high adventure bases Minimize local council payments Speed to confirmation Provide protection for charter organizations Maximizing claimant % approval Risk of overturn in appeals process Youth protection changes I think their priorities should be: Risk of overturn in appeals process (no reason to have a plan approved that is rejected later) Youth protection changes Protection of local council camps (a bit different than #2 above) Maximizing claimant % approval (I understand claimants will place this higher on the list) Protect high adventure bases Speed to confirmation Provide protection for charter organizations (I just don't see how they protect COs in bankruptcy without risking appeal court losses)

Purdue Pharma update Note that an appellate judge rejected the bankruptcy plan. Purdue has mentioned it will appeal. There is a twitter thread discussing how long it would take to undo the ruling. Estimates are in the 9 month range. So ... the Purdue possible time (Bankruptcy approved in Sept 2021, overturned in Dec 2021. Best case for Purdue, the overturn ruling could come in September 2022 (1 year after the initial bankruptcy plan was approved)! So ... think of this ... if BSA's plan is approved in February and then overturned by an appellate judge, it may be Feb 2023 to get that reversed. The entire time, BSA would then remain in bankruptcy. It is critical for BSA's plan to be approved; however, even more critical, is that it is built in a way to survive appeals.

BSA has filed an updated version of the 5th amended plan this past Saturday. At first glance, it is primarily about the Century deal. However, it changes definition of abuse and a few other topics (including the Charter Orgs). I haven't read through it fully yet. Note that it sounds like the various groups already know where the vote is today (8 days until the deadline). Media likely have some idea of where it is headed. Finally, there are questions being raised as to how a single claimant class can have a vote right now when the plan is changing. Some would have voted before and others after this change. It sounds like this may be a major issue and now require a revote. The DOJ raised this during the last hearing. There is a hearing tomorrow, about delaying the scheduled confirmation. BSA will fight the delay. Updated plan below: 3212ae53-bdaa-4a0f-b063-fe9611a43eb2_7833.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) 8b02f151-4d5c-4d5b-8c09-fae757c90eee_7834.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com) Microsoft Word - BSA - Modified Fifth Amended Plan of Reorganization (For Filing 9.29.21) (omniagentsolutions.com)

I expect both would be decided by state courts. First, the CO would likely ask for the case to be dismissed saying they were not liable as they followed BSA policies. If that didn’t work, then I expect the CO would then sue the BSA insurance company if they were not helping/providing coverage. I’ve seen many examples where churches/etc sued insurance companies for not covering them in CSA. These are just a couple of guesses but I agree the issue is complex.

I think @vol_scoutermay be correct ... one cannot dismiss the chance that net/net, the current plan may end up giving the average claimant the highest settlement. I also think @vol_scouter is correct in that it will be tough to get a much larger settlement from LCs across the board. Perhaps some LCs can provide an increase, but if the need is 2x or 3x ... at that point, LCs will probably just rather take the risk in state courts. If there is an LC by LC discharge option, and that money goes to the specific council claimants, there is a chance some stay within the National bankruptcy.

No chance this happens.

I agree, but there are state councils who filed objections to the plan referencing the steps I listed. I don't see this happening and BSA can completely avoid the question by staying in Chapter 11. If they enter Chapter 7, this will become a question that will have to be answered. The court will need to follow applicable law. They call balls/strikes. They must ensure BSA has a business plan that can succeed WHILE getting agreement from creditors. I'm not sure what I wrote that stated the court is fighting the BSA. Now ... to be fair .. the DOJ is absolutely fighting this plan, but they are not the court. Agree about the $10B but there are those claiming that (I don't know what that is based on). Per BSA's numbers, assets are in the $5B range if they had to be liquidated. Again, this will not happen, but there are those who are pushing this path.

One strategy, which the court hasn't really ruled on, is the following path. 1) Keep fighting National BSA until they simply cannot afford CH11 and they then volunteer to go CH7. 2) Court appoints a group of trustees to run BSA. Their job, just like all Ch7, is to maximize value for all claimants. 3) That group of trustees then pulls 100% of charters from all LCs. 4) Per LC/National charter agreements, once a charter ends, all LC assets are turned over to National. 5) Bankruptcy court liquidates the entire organization, and has 10B or so in assets. First ... I doubt the whole LC thing could/would happen, so I'll ignore that. Second ... with a National only CH7 case, yes, the pension fund would be in line. The national pension board will ask for $XB. However, they are an unsecured creditor ... so, they will be placed in other groups of claimants. They are not necessarily fully funded before claimants. That is why those with pensions typically see pension cuts post CH7. I HIGHLY doubt National goes CH 7. Even if the doomsday scenario above doesn't happen (which I doubt it could), going CH 7 means you lose total control. Everything is simply sold, including all trademarks.

I don't see this going CH7. I could see this going BSA National CH11.

The issue is the elimination of all liability will require payment of near bankruptcy levels for each LC. If they are not willing to do that, I question if any court is willing to accept the plan. My other question ...would a LC by LC release be an option? Those LCs that contribute enough could get releases (and those funds would be directed to claimants from those councils). To me, the NY LCs are likely going to go immediately to bankruptcy, so perhaps they would be more willing to settle now. Welcome to Scouter.com!

The DOJ is objecting to the plan. They haven't withdrawn the objection they have had since an earlier version of the plan ... as none of the versions address their concern. Note this objection was filed May 10, 2021. They object to the 3rd party releases. Yes, the judge can still approve the plan with the DOJ objection, it is a major issue. I found this comment interesting: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/241d24f2-4d85-482f-a433-da28b3f8ce3e_3581.pdf

TCC Townhall Summary. No major announcements. No change to recommendation. Vote, vote, vote. More details below: Purdue Ruling ... could have major impact, still digesting Voting ... pushing everyone to vote. They recommend reject, but want everyone to vote. Votes can be submitted/changed until Dec 28. If claimants are concerned about their vote, call or email Omni. Best to email as Omni will reply back with how their vote is recorded. That could then be used as evidence later if needed. Council dashboards ... this data is just a new format to show data that is already in the disclosure package and agreed upon by all parties. The TCC believes they may be able to release their analysis of every council (which is based on data shared by councils that may not be public). However, they cannot release this until the plan confirmation fight where this data may then be brought up in court. So, for now, the dashboards are limited. Century offer ... TCC believes once again that this is far less than their total liability. No change/impact to their recommendation. YPT ... BSA has started meetings with TCC about youth protection changes. The conversations were good and promising. Main issue is transparency. We will have to see what comes out. BSA offer ... TCC has not been able to confirm the full details of the BSA/LC offer increase to protect all COs outside UMC/Catholic church. That said, as I mentioned earlier, their estimates align fairly closely to my numbers in an earlier post. They openly asked the BSA to meet with them to discuss and confirm if this is a correct understanding. TCC was upset by some statements during the Coalition townhall about fees. Technically, the TCC is the 9 abuse survivors who are not paid. They make the call on if the offer is acceptable or not.

Prof. Jacoby @melissabjacoby on Twitter has a good analysis of the Purdue ruling yesterday. In addition, there are a large number of articles out (Reuters goes in a bit deeper as does WSJ). Based on those and comments from the TCC town hall.. The Purdue ruling will be appealed AND it is in a different circuit .... so it sounds like no immediate direct impact to the BSA case; however, the case still could be influenced as bankruptcy courts watch each other and this appears to be a major deep ruling (142 pages) that reference prior supreme court rulings that greatly limits bankruptcy court to follow the law Note that supreme court ruling comes from Jevic (2017) Bankruptcy law does not include non-debtor releases. This was added due to a ruling in one case and now it caught on like wildfire. The appeals court states ... right now, just because bankruptcy law does not include language you can't have non-debtor releases doesn't mean you can. Bankruptcy law is meant for bankruptcies. However, it has expanded now to the point it is replacing state court litigation. This was never the intent. Just recently, think of BSA, USOC, Johnson & Johnson, Purdue Pharma, etc. From the various articles, it looks like this is headed (eventually) to the Supreme Court. The question is ... can bankruptcy court replace state courts for non-debtors. There is nothing in bankruptcy law that allows this. So, the question for the BSA case. I wonder if there is any chance a plan is approved with DOJ/TCC rejecting the plan. That seems like it would be ripe for appeal. BSA should be ready with a plan of a BSA only exit.

TCC agrees with the estimate I had …. BSA will likely only start paying the $100M around 2035 (note payments stop 2036).

TCC talking about Purdue. BSA case is in the 3rd Circuit while Purdue is in 2nd. However, the judge addresses topics that apply to the BSA bankruptcy. There may or may not have some impacts. TBD…

Note that the issues are different in the BSA case in that there are questionable conduct by the Owners prior to filing. That said, I still find the various bankruptcy cases interesting as they are a bit ahead of BSA’s and may give us an indication of the hurdles left ahead.

Purdue Pharma bankruptcy has been overturned on appeal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-overturns-4-5-billion-settlement-between-purdue-pharma-sacklers-11639698359 Issue was allowing releases of shareholders under a company bankruptcy. Bankruptcy code does not authorize such non-consensual non-debtor releases. Voting ... 95% of the 120,000 plus votes were in favor of the plan ... and it still lost on appeal.

There is some sort of formula we will probably never see. I expect it includes net unrestricted assets, claims, perhaps SOL vs outside SOL, etc. They had some sort of formula. The TCC, right now, does not show in these filings what they think the council can pay. We do know, that on mass, they believe in order for their liability to be discharged through bankruptcy it should be closer to triple their prior offer. In the end, I doubt the judge is going to discharge liability against thousands of organizations with this much churn in claimants. Perhaps if DOJ, TCC and everyone was on board, she would give it a green light. I just don't see it ... the Purdue pharma is getting enough bad press and that was much less far reaching. I can already hear her saying .... While there is a path to allow the discharge of non debtors, the bar to clear is incredibly high. While I understand the debtor's position, and the potential impact to their business plan, I just cannot accept a plan that discharges liability without the complete and total support of all parties. We are not there. I would ask the debtors to go back and determine if this is the path they would like to continue ... or if they need to change their strategy. ... Unless there is a major change ... I think this ends with a BSA only plan. Perhaps the TCC can save it by offering an LC by LC buyout, but the price may be too high for most councils. Time will tell ... but the faces of all involved appear grim.