Eagle1993
-
Posts
2895 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
113
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Store
Posts posted by Eagle1993
-
-
15 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:
Record retention laws vary not only from location to location, but also what type of record and the information on it. It can vary from 3 to 50 years, and some records longer. Our COR is a records retention guru. When we purged our records, he told us to keep everything 7 years and under. Anything 8 years or older could be purged.
I think the concern being raised is that if councils purged records, then councils would simply say they don't have roster information. Instead, councils are saying they do have rosters, they have 5% of the claimants found, and in fact, they have so much data from rosters they don't have the man power to scan in all of the records to provide Century.
Century's lawyer said in court ... so, what you are telling me, is that only 5% of claimants are showing up PLUS you have a ton of roster data (hundreds of thousands, etc.) to the point that you cannot scan them all in. The council said yes. Century's lawyer then said no backies when it comes confirmation time .. .the judge stepped in and said that would be hard for them to undo that statement now that they made it in court.
Century made it clear. In every case in state court, BSA would start by finding the individual in their rosters, find the offender in their rosters, perhaps even find incident reports. They are wondering why BSA is not doing that in bankruptcy.
Here is the point Century will make. The BSA knows the majority of these claims are likely false. Probably not 95% ... but a very high percentage (think 50 - 75%). The BSA and councils are only offering a small dollar settlement, not because that is all they can afford (especially councils), but because they know most of the claims are false. In addition, BSA is using the $3500 payment to buy votes from many of the false claims. All of this is done to get a plan approved quickly with the lowest settlement they can. However, when they are promising other companies money (such as Century) they are saying to assume all or most of the claims are real. Century just wants to be on the same playing field as BSA ... if 75% of the claims are false, then Century only wants to talk to the 25% of the real claims.
This is why Century and other insurance companies are going after law firms and aggregators. They know they are on the hook for claims post plan and want to clear out questionable claims prior to plan confirmation.
-
22 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:
5% seems extremely low. That would mean only about 4,250 were actually scouts. Wonder how they came to that number? If the troops have lost that number of rosters it does not look good.
What I found very interesting was the following point. BSA councils are saying that they cannot even find the vast majority of claimants on their rosters. They are also saying they have so many rosters from that time period they cannot possibly scan them all in.
Century is preparing some big hits during plan confirmation
-
Judge ruling on various discovery .... believes that it should proceed including information into the $3500 and how the claims were vetted. Most of the requests do not implicate privilege info, or they may, but discovery could be not privilege . In general, how the claims were obtained/vetted are likely not protected by privilege.
She is opening up advertising, intake, proof of claim, how it was done ... pretty much everything.
-
1
-
-
Other councils similar ... 3% confirmed for one. Century going through a few councils. Basically, they are finding a very small number of abuse claimants are showing up on rosters. In addition, nearly no incident reports confirming the abuse.
-
Century is stating they are going to push back that the vast majority of claims are false and were not vetted. Century is making the statement ... BAC is saying they have a TON of data on rosters and are certifying that only 5% of claimants were really scouts.
-
95% of claimants in BAC cannot be confirmed as scouts.
-
Century & Baltimore Area Council in a fight ...
-
1 minute ago, RandomScouter said:
?? Wouldn't that have been part of the vetting process?
Also, I seem to recall something about [some group--possibly lawyers?] wanting the BSA to release its current & historic rosters.
Well ... were these ever vetted? Councils have released rosters and many are showing most claimants were never scouts. There are reasons for this (records destroyed, etc.). Century is indicating there are ways to address this but councils are not supporting that (per Century).
Basically, Century is claiming the BSA is paying as if most of the claims are false. However, the insurance companies as part of distribution will be paying as if the claims are all true. So, they are asking what the BSA did to vet any of these claims as clearly they think most are not valid (based on their offers).
-
2 minutes ago, MattR said:
I would have thought half of them would be in by now. Any idea if this really is all or does it not include the master/spreadsheet/ whatever it's called votes?
I'm not sure this is true, but Kosnoff is stating (via Twitter) that the Coalition has votes they are not releasing as they are not good news. So they continue to fight to get voters to switch.
I think it probably is underreported as the master spreadsheet ones are being held back. Now, if the votes were good news, I don't think BSA would be pushing (as is the Coalition) to push out the deadline. I also found it interesting that the TCC was actually somewhat against pushing out the deadline. So there could be some truth in Kosnoff's tweet.
-
1
-
-
Century insurance fighting for discovery. They are very concerned that the confirmed number of scouts in terms of claimants are very low. Basically, BSA has not been able to clarify that the majority claimants are actually were even scouts.
-
Proposed schedule of dates would be ...
- Voting Deadline - December 28, 4PM (2 weeks delay)
- Voting Report (Preliminary) - January 4
- Objection Deadline - January 7
- Final Audited Report - January 17
- Confirmation Brief Support Deadline - January 17
- Confirmation Hearing - January 24
Judge is concerned as in other case she had the preliminary & final report had big differences in votes. Even the Jan 4 to Jan 7 isn't enough time. BSA lawyers agree this is a big concern. Now more and more are concerned about the resulting timelines if vote is delayed....
Judge will allow parties to talk, will decide Monday. So, no change as of now.
-
1
-
Debtors (BSA) would like to delay, hoping mediation will lead to further settlements before the deadline.
-
TCC - RP - Prepared to file modified motion. Would like to keep voting deadline UNLESS the changes are approved.
-
Concern about voting deadline, sounds like most parties want to push it out including BSA. Preliminary results would be January 7, final a few weeks later. So far, no objections to pushing out the date.
-
Hearing started ...
1) Meditation went into midnight last night.
2) Total votes to date (Wednesday before Thanksgiving) - 4,300 votes complete.
-
@MattR is correct, if this is to the point you believe you may need a weapon, you should be talking with the police.
In terms of BSA, the first person I would go to is your charter organization rep. They are ultimately responsible for your unit and should be aware of any concerns. They decide who the adult leaders are in all cases ... so they decide the Committee Chair. If their is a parent/family causing trouble, there is no reason they must remain in your pack. @David CO is a COR and has mentioned multiple times that their unit does not approve applications for every youth ... they will reject youth for their pack.
-
On 11/4/2021 at 10:54 AM, Eagle1993 said:
New report released.
Total Ending Unrestricted Liquidity - BSA 145,024,000
Total Ending Unrestricted Cash Balance - BSA 78,496,000
BSA had positive cash flow & didn't touch their remaining trust during the month of September. Big increases in income from Registrations, Supply & High Adventure.
I expect we will see positive cash in October as more scouts join the organization. Then in December/Jan from rechartering. What will be interesting is that the Methodist Units will not recharter until March/April ... so we will see a late coming surge of recharter payments in 2022.
October report released.
Total Ending Unrestricted Liquidity - BSA $140,975,000
Total Ending Unrestricted Cash Balance - BSA $74,518,000
So, BSA lost $3,977,000 in cash in October. There is a bit less income from supply, registrations were nearly equal to Sept. The big charge? Bankruptcy.
October = $13.142M
Sept = $6.379M
Remember, October is when they mailed out all of those Size 4 font packages plus probably paid a ton of extra lawyer fees.
-
Quote
When a board is too large, the board’s business is difficult to conduct as a single group. In such situations, the executive committee is often used as the deliberative and decision-making group, and the remaining board members (the "full board") become a passive, rubber-stamping body seldom asked for input prior to important decision-making. Sometimes, the power positions on the large board may include other committees, such as finance or governance, as well as the executive committee. I remember speaking with a board member for a community health center who had served on the 22-member board for more than 25 years, including three non-consecutive terms on the executive committee, which he referred to as "the real board."
QuoteThe simple answer is that most authors agree that a typical nonprofit board of directors should comprise not less than 8-9 members and not more than 11-14 members. Some authors focusing on healthcare organizations indicate a board size up to 19 members is acceptable, though not optimal. [NOTE: the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD) surveyed their members in 2001. In for-profit corporations, almost 60% of respondents said corporate boards should have 8-11 members. For larger companies, boards typically fall in the 9-12 member range (Biggs, The Governance Factor).]
I am an employee of a formally large organization that nearly went bankruptcy. Nearly every article written blamed our board as one of the key factors. Our board size was too large ... we had 18 members.
-
1
-
-
This board is far too large to be effective. It is an audience not a board. BSA has been dying for 30 years…. I think I see one major reason here.
-
1
-
3
-
-
34 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:
The TCC says they have not attended mediation talks because they have not been informed of date and times. Is this true and would it be legal to not inform them?
Per the mediator this is true. I don’t see why it wouldn’t be legal. Judge didn’t seem to object. I think the BSA can work with any party they see fit as it is their plan.
The way I see this. The bankruptcy court is there to call balls/strikes and ensure everyone follows the law. The mediation is there to help parties to work to a plan… it isn’t required. The FCR and TCC are official parties representing groups of claimants. It’s BSA’s job to come up with a plan that will get all classes approval. They can use whatever tools they want to get to that plan.
One can question the BSA, but I expect they simply want to focus on pleasing the Coalition and hope that they will deliver the votes. If the coalition fails to get the yes votes, BSA will have to reconsider their tactics.
-
36 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:
This was the important takeaway of the day. Whether the TCC refiles its motion or not several parties stated that a fight is coming over the validity of some votes. The last matter though, and the Judge making a decision, was telling because the Judge made it clear that attorneys who signed claims were to have first-hand knowledge of the claim. This can come via discussion directly with the client, reading a client's report of what happened, etc. She signaled this long ago when the issue first came up. She made it clear then that she ONLY wanted attorneys signing claim forms for their clients when they had enough knowledge of the claim to do so. So, the discovery then will look like this "Mr. Attorney, tell me about the process you used to determine that claim 12345 you signed was accurate and truthful." If, and that's a big IF but I suspect it's the reason insurers are pressing this, Mr. Attorney bought clients/claims and didn't do any due diligence then it's going to put those claims and votes in question. As ThenNow pointed out, it appears to be the reason the Coalition brought in a heavy hitter like Robinson. It doesn't want the discovery. In court, always look to see what a party is fighting or preparing to fight the hardest. It's often its biggest weakness.
This isn’t the judge’s first rodeo. Some of the coalition law firms are looking to be similar to some Talc law firms who didn’t do proper claims assessments. She ended up throwing out votes from these claims as they couldn’t be validated claimants.
So, if these law firms cannot show how they vetted the claims within the next few weeks, I expect many of those votes could be tossed. This will likely help the anti plan side as the concentration of questionable claims seems to be owned primarily by coalition law firms.
Silverstein said it's not clear the Bevan clients even have valid claims against Imerys because the firm did not conduct due diligence on whether they'd been exposed to the company's talc.
"In other words, Bevan & Associates simply printed out a list of its clients in excel spreadsheet format and slapped it behind a Master Ballot," the judge wrote.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, MattR said:
Why is that? I would think if they don't come through then TCC gets to drive towards another plan/vote.
I think final plans come through mutual trust. The BSA and TCC have 0 trust left. That means nearly every decision will be fought over in court. I’d rather see BSA say… this is our plan, we believe in it, but we will keep working with the TCC building that trust. So, even if not stated, if the plan fails they can quickly come to an agreed upon proposal.
I hope I’m wrong, I just think we would be better off if the bankruptcy firms were actually working together in mediation vs fighting every aspect of this case in front of a judge.
-
There was a hearing today and while I didn't attend, there is a great series of Tweets from @melissabjacoby
Richard Pachulski from TCC is stating that the AIS firms are essentially messing up this entire process. The judge must demand they send a joint letter to their claimants or the entire voting process may end up in being subject to debate. The judge basically said it may be too late, but she doesn't know what authority she would have to demand this of AIS. TCC said they would amend their motion. Expect some fast action over the next week or so over:
1) Demand on AIS to send letter.
2) Possible delay of voting deadline (no delay yet, but being requested)
3) Possible appointment of ombudsman.
Note that TCC has been excluded from all mediation since Summer (confirmed my mediators). BSA is all in on the coalition. If they don't come through, I have a hard time seeing National emerge. You can blame White & Case if it comes to that.
The judge did shoot down some objections to discovery (coming from several coalition law firms). Lawyers who sign off on proof of claims are subject to discovery.
I found the Tweet series interesting.
One issue ... while there are A LOT of claims ... many times, based on historical info, many do not submit votes. That means those who are voting are more motivated claimants. That could be a big factor into what we see.
Another issue ... in addition to BSA and insurance companies, several law firms reps are on the line. If White & Case oversee the downfall of the BSA ... who would hire them again? If PSZJ law ends up seeing a crap settlement ... they won't get another big claimant committee deal. Coalition law firms may be facing legal bills that can't be paid if they don't get a quick payout. A lot going on, just over 2 weeks left until voting closes (unless something changes).
-
1
-
-
And a bit more interesting tidbits
The BSA has hired a lobbying firm to go to Washington in an attempt to prevent the passage of the bankruptcy reform bill. If the bill passes, it could completely stop the ability of BSA to include COs or LCs in their bankruptcy plan.
-
1
-
Chapter 11 Announced - Part 6 - Plan 5.0/TCC Plan TBD
in Issues & Politics
Posted
Reminder for those interested