Eagle1993

1 hour ago, scoutldr said:

What policy is it that "allows unscreened adults to be in charge on overnight trips"??

You only need to be a registered adult if you spend 72 hours with youth.   Exact policy below;

All adults accompanying a Scouting unit who are present at the activity for 72 total hours or more must be registered as leaders. The 72 hours need not be consecutive.

I break this up into two separate issues.  One is what they plan to do for their employees and the other for scouts & scouters.

Most larger companies have affinity groups.  From what I have been told, they help those who may feel out of place in large organizations with a clear majority of primarily one group (typically white males).  My wife worked in the fossil fuel industry out of college.  The vast majority of the workers were white older males.  There were times where meetings were held at Hooters and she told them she wasn't comfortable meeting at that location.  Their response - no issue, you don't need to come.  The affinity groups helped make her feel welcome.

The baby boomers are retiring in droves.  I'm currently working on hiring over 100 employees (primarily engineers & technicians) across three global locations.  Demand for labor is high everywhere and competition is tough.  There are simply not enough workers coming in right now to replacing those who are leaving the workforce.  If you want to compete for labor, you better be willing to pay and offer a welcoming workplace.  Plus, you simply cannot just recruit one gender/race.  If affinity groups help make your workplace more inviting to a more diverse group, I don't see a major downside.  

Ideally, over time, they can go away as your workforce and leadership becomes more diverse.   However, based on the experience of some of my friends (various non majority races/religions), wife, and recruiting efforts - they have been useful.

Now, in terms of the DEI training & merit badge ... I tend to agree it could and should have been integrated in existing merit badges.  I would also like to avoid another cyber chip type situation.  For the most part, DEI is applying the oath & law to all groups.  Personally, I think the bigger issue is that BSA's membership does not reflect the diversity of the youth in the USA.  I'm not sure if DEI will help address that, but I think it is more important to understand why we fail to appeal to a broader base of youth/parents is more important than DEI training/merit badges.

One topic I thought I would mention from the TCC's townhall is what they expect to happen if the plan is rejected.  There are really three options for the BSA.

• Exit bankruptcy with no deal.  I think at least one church threated that recently (and didn't follow through with that threat).  Basically, BSA can exit with no deal and then the individual claims would be pursued in state courts.  BSA would have to pay millions in legal fees to defend these lawsuits.  TCC doubts BSA will pursue this path and I tend to agree.  
• Declare Chapter 7.  BSA has this choice.  If they choose this path, a bankruptcy trustee takes over the BSA and the BSA no longer exists going forward.  The trustee would take over all HA bases and plan to maximize the return for the creditors.  No HA bases, no IP, etc.  TCC doubts BSA will purse this path as they don't think BSA would want to turn over Philmont to the trustee.  I also agree until BSA really does run out of $ which I think is much later than March next year based on their financial disclosures.
• Negotiate a new plan.  TCC believes this is the most likely path.

38 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Hasn't that train left the station??? 😜 

Well ... everything is relative.  If you take a look at some bankruptcies, you are talking 5+ years of litigation depending on how much fight you want to put up (on both sides).  We are only approaching year 2.  This is a very complex case.

5 hours ago, PeterHopkins said:

Nevertheless, if The Hartford doesn't come out of the Bankruptcy with a get out of jail free card in hand, it will be making that argument in the state courts, even if it is just a negotiating posture or delay tactic. They got the BSA to take the bait. If the claimants in this case continue using the same attorneys, many of them appear to be the sort that will take it as well.

I believe this was discussed during a townhall or even on one of our threads here.  The strategy the TCC would recommend following based on prior cases (for insurance companies that don’t settle) would be:

1) The settlement trust would take a few of the best legal cases they would have and sue the insurance companies in state court.

2) Insurance companies would likely lose and could lose big (based on their experience in other CSA cases).

3) Negotiations would be ongoing as more cases would be brought.

4) Eventually there would be a much higher negotiated settlement. 
 

The number floating around for Hartford is $8B in liabilities.  I doubt they give that with strong language and table pounding.  However, if they see the trust is willing to sue them in state court they may be willing to significantly increase their offer.   
 

Right now, there isn’t much incentive to maximize their offer as the Coalition and BSA are looking for a speedy deal. 

On 10/18/2021 at 9:38 PM, MYCVAStory said:

I'm optimistic that this horrible settlement will go down in flames.  But, as someone connected to this said to me the other day, "we all live in our own echo chambers."  

This is very tough to predict.  As you say, those claimants who watch this closely will likely reject the plan.  I have a hard time believing there will be even 66% approval let alone the 75 - 90% needed.  The recent Talc bankruptcy had nearly everyone on board (TCC, FCR, debtors, bunch of lawfirms, etc.) and even then they barely got past the 75% mark.  

From what I can tell... BSA is claiming the Coalition represents 80% of the claimants (or about 65,600).  However, 15,000 of those are AIS.  Those claimants will be getting a letter from Tim Kosnoff that says vote no.  I have a hard time including them in the Coalition.  So, really, the Coalition is closer to 50,600 claimants.  

Lets say best case for the BSA/Coalition ... 90% of the 50,600 vote yes (and everyone votes).  That would be 45,540 yes votes.

Now, the rest will be getting letters from the TCC & their lawyer(s) saying vote No.  Lets say only 10% of those vote yes.  That would yield another 3,190 votes. 

Assuming everyone votes and the motivation to vote is the same (I don't buy that as I expect no votes are more motivated) the result is 48,730 yes votes and 33,770 no votes or or 59% approval.  My guess ... that is likely the ceiling for the yes votes at this time.  

I think that there is likely a range of 45 - 60% approval that wouldn't shock me.  I would be surprised if it <45% ... if that is the case, the Coalition should be removed as a mediation partner and trustee as they have no clue what their claimants want.  If >60% I would also be surprised, not shocked. However, I expect the current plan won't go forward unless the vote approaches 85 - 90%.  At that point, I think the TCC is the one to probably reassess and determine what remaining issues they would need to see to support the plan.

Regardless of the results of the vote, it will help the BSA, TCC and other parties narrow in on who needs to move more ... so every vote counts.  

Note that I moved a few posts to the other thread to keep this one a bit leaner.

Boy Scout abuse survivor recounts horror for first time, says settlement is ‘massive step forward’

https://nypost.com/2021/10/19/boy-scout-abuse-survivor-recounts-horror-for-first-time/

Boy Scouts' settlement plan unjust, Arkansas victims say

https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2021/oct/20/boy-scouts-settlement-plan-unjust-victims-say/

My father was an industrial arts teacher for decades.  Back in the 1980s, instead of sending kids who were interested in trades to his class, they sent the kids who couldn't behave.  Over time, unfortunately, most kids who could behave were shuffled into college prep classes.  As those changes occurred, schools began to stop investing in that equipment.

Long story short ... many schools may not actually have that equipment.  Perhaps the labor shortage in the trades/truck drivers/etc. is an indication of our failures over the last 20-30 years to encourage the trades as much as we encourage generic college degrees.  

6 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Ok. Color me cynical (nod to our pal in the penalty box), but I find it painful, ironic and curious that the following is the very first “survivor endorsement” on the Coalition of Abused Attorneys for Payoff’s website. Honestly, I was shocked, but not surprised. (Forgive me if this Eagle Scout from Texas is you, but I felt it relevant to share here.) I, for one, would not have lead with this testimony, for a variety of reasons, optics being among them, Here it is:

“I am an Eagle Scout, I have sons who are Eagle Scouts, and I remain an active and dedicated volunteer in the Boy Scouts of America. My life, however, has been deeply and irrevocably impacted by the abuse perpetrated upon me beginning when I was 13 years old, and which continued until I was 18. I was a child, and while I primarily blame the predators involved, the BSA bears a significant measure of responsibility for my abuse, and should be held accountable.

Nevertheless, despite the long-term, repeated abuse I suffered at the hands of a PROFESSIONAL Scouter and an older youth member, I still believe the BSA remains the greatest organization in America for raising youth into responsible adults. Where there are lambs, there will always be wolves, and no level of vigilance on the part of the shepherd will thwart every wolf. Reflecting back, one reason I have maintained such an active presence in the BSA is to guard that no Scout under my watch ever has to experience abuse.

When I have the option, I will vote yes, in favor of resolution, certainly to gain an element of closure, but more so because I see a clear future for the BSA, in which it comes back better and safer than before, to benefit young people across the country and through the years.”

EAGLE SCOUT FROM TEXAS

https://scoutingabusesurvivors.com/survivors/

Interesting that the Coalition is leading with a claimant whose primary focus is BSA survival.  Is the Coalition’s primary goal BSA’s survival or compensation for victims?  

Kosnoff is reporting his letter to clients (I believe that would be all AIS ... about 15,000) has gone out.  He is advocating to vote down the plan.

6 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

The original RSA was endorsed by the TCC if the Hartford deal was left out.  The latest is not endorsed by TCC with the revised Hartford deal.  Hartford deal is a "Hoover".

Actually, if I remember correctly, there was a time before the RSA where the case was headed back to a hearing.  BSA asked for a delay to work on mediation, the TCC objected but the Coalition concurred.  I think that was the first sign of a break between the TCC/Coalition.  I expect if it was the TCC alone, they wouldn't have signed onto the RSA.  Again, these are just guesses watching the info I have.

I think the Hartford deal was a mistake.  It came in April of this year, I believe.  Around the same time the council contribution was increased to $425M.  Before that date, councils I think were going to contribute $300M.  

I doubt the TCC will support the RSA with Hartford removed any longer.  I would expect they will reject the TCJC as well plus look for more from LCs (and do the LC by LC release just like COs).  

So, when the BSA knew they had to pump up the offer, they got $125M more from LCs and a headline number of $650M from Hartford.  Yes, a bad deal, but just like increasing the immediate payout from $1,500 to $3,500, it was about getting enough attorneys onboard to get a vote to hopefully get the plan approved.  

7 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

Yes...but NOT corrected and now the BSA is on the hook for an administrative charge in teh tens of millions if they tried to get out of teh Deal.  So, they screwed up TWICE.

That is true.  BSA went all in with Hartford to get this latest deal.  

2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Has anyone wondered why BSA was and is so willing to cut a sweetheart deal with the insurance companies?  Is it because they are afraid of not being able to get insurance once they exit? Do you think they might have a side deal where if the insurance companies are off the hook for tens of billions then they have agreed to insure BSA going forward?

At first I was baffled, but I think it is clearer now.  I think there was 0% chance any  plan would go to a vote with an LC payment of just 20% of their assets without more, immediate, money coming in.  So, where to go for more money?  Hartford.  Harford probably realizes they owe billions but are willing to settle quickly for much less if given the chance.  That allowed BSA to offer a bigger immediate number, allowing enough law firms to get their quick profit and move the plan to a vote.  

If the BSA didn't get the Hartford deal, I really think they faced two options.  Greatly increase the LC contribution (probably by $600M+) or go with a BSA only exit.  

Now BSA messed up the first deal with Hartford by allowing it to be tied to other insurance settlements.  That was a mistake that was corrected.

17 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Kosnoff may be the best lawyer in the history of lawyers and is worth every penny, but I find it more than a little disingenuous to say other lawyers are getting too much when he is getting basically the same, perhaps even more. 

This is not true.  The Coalition is asking for $15 - $18M directly from the BSA.  It is in the plan.  The judge is questioning this and will decide at the hearing.   This is on top of the 40% most will charge.   Kosnoff is not in the Coalition and will not get that $15M to $18M even if the judge approved it.  
 

In the plan document, there is a chart that shows the Coalition payment.   As it increases per month, it takes money away from the claimant settlement.   When I have more time I’ll post that.  

Edit:

The chart can be found here.  Per the plan, the BSA direct payment to the trust  in terms of cash is really a calculation based on:

• BSA's Unrestricted cash/investments minus
• BSA's withheld cash (you can see they plan to retain more the longer this takes)
• Professional Fees ... these are the fees paid to their lawyers, TCC, FCR, Omni, etc.
• Coalition Fees ... if the judge approves (this is Kosnoff's point)
• Other Fees... JPM exit fee and several other taxes/fees

You can see the Coalition Fees would directly take money from the trust.  This is on top of their 40% commission from each of their represented claimants.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2e1a8c44-7812-46a0-8a93-5aa5621dc7b2_6431.pdf

1 minute ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Is BSA trying to get the CO's covered in the channeling injunction??

Yes; however, they are only covered Jan 1, 1976 and later (per current plan).  Pre 1976 they are not covered.  Depending on state, they could be sued directly unless they offer payment that all parties accept.  LDS offered $250M for coverage of about 3,000 or so claims (not sure fully which of those are pre 1976).

The Coalition and BSA said this is now  a framework for other COs; however, I have a hard time seeing the Methodist Church coming up with >$200M.  Perhaps they will.  

Kosnoff's letter to AIS claimants:

Kosnoff Letter to 15,0000 Abused in Scouting Clients Advising them To Vote NO to the BSA Plan (yumpu.com)

If a TCC plan is released today, we will create a Part 7 on this topic. Will it be named the Force Awakens?  Probably not, but who knows.

28 minutes ago, Rabid said:

Email from AIS directing me to the letter from ER.

I’m not on the fence about it.

 

Edit: They included other letters further down the email that recommend both sides of the decision.

I would recommend saving all corespondents with ER.  He may be building up a nice malpractice case if he is putting stuff out through AIS (as I thought AIS was a shell of 3 combined firms.   You might get more from his law firm and their insurance than BSA. 

3 minutes ago, gpurlee said:

I have not heard the specific number (or taken time to count the filings), but hundreds if not thousands of chartered organizations also filed claims to protect their interests. They are now being notified that they will be receiving the disclosure information and an accompanying ballot.  It will be interesting to see how the non-LDS organizations vote.  I suspect that most will vote as a bloc following the recommendation of their national organization.  

In addition, weren't there several others such as suppliers who also filed claims? And would they not also have the right to cast a vote?  In a close vote, every vote can have an impact.

Those are different classes.  Each class must approve by 2/3.  The sex abuse claimants are their own class and must approve by 2/3 for BSA and likely 75 to 90%+ if LCs and COs are included.   

One addition wrinkle.  There is a debate if those that select $3500 immediate payout are the same class as the other CSA claimants.   There are others that are arguing those outside SOL are a different class.  Those decisions will be made later.  

1 hour ago, Rabid said:

Just got an email from AIS recommending I vote yes. Repeatedly.

What was your reply?

16 minutes ago, Wondering said:

Article from the L.A. Times today: Boy Scouts payout disputed (pagesuite.com)

Note 4th paragraph 😉 

Has anyone seen an article with actual sex abuse survivors saying to vote for this plan?  Between twitter, Facebook, this forum and news articles .... every single claimant I can find wants to reject this plan.  

Note I still expect a large number of yes votes.  I think a lot of people will just listen to their attorneys and the coalition is telling them to vote yes.  Plus, all who signed over power of attorney to coalition lawyers will be yes votes (unless they take back that power of attorney).  However, the public facing claimants seem to be consistently rejecting the deal.  So, if it passes, would the judge consider that as part of her ruling on the plan? 

We have the hearing agenda (at least the current version).  Basically, from what I can tell, primary battles over discovery requests.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/963b908b-4745-4ddd-8dce-09e0789f8fbd_6635.pdf

• Moving Insurers vs Eric Green - Discovery
• BSA vs TCC and many others - Discovery
• Paul Mones request to no longer be counsel for client 
• Insurance companies vs aggregators vs Coalition (Discovery of aggregators & Coalition fee request)
• Law firm fighting against insurance companies over subpoena of aggregators

53 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Yes. It is a word problem worthy of the SAT.

Two Pennsylvania councils that serve parts of New Jersey with total assets of $23 million.

John Lucas, the (TCC) panel's bankruptcy attorney, says New Jersey's share of the settlement alone should be closer to $44 million and with the two Pennsylvania councils should total $58 million

so the two PA councils new TCC proposed total is 58-44 million = $14 million

14 / 23

The two Pennsylvania councils are Washington Crossings & Minsi Trails (note that Minsi is one of the members of the Ad Hoc committee).

Total Assets 

Washington Crossings - $6.45M ($5.8M net) ...  $3.9M Net Unrestricted Assets

Minsi Trails - $16.7M ($15.0M net) .... $6.7M net unrestricted

Current Contributions

Washington Crossings - $1.39M

Minsi Trails - $2.58M

Total CSA Liabilities per TCC:

Washington Crossings - $11M - $64M

Minsi Trails - $16.4M - $93.4M

The TCC statement indicates the PA councils should pay about $14M (based on $58M total & $44 from NJ).

That would be about 75% of their total net assets or 132% of their total net unrestricted assets ... so my guess is that TCC is calling into question some of their "restrictions".