Eagle1993

But during Rothweiler's cry fest, he said he represented 16,000. I wonder if BSA is using that 16,000 number instead of the 3,054. If that is the case, they are under 67%.

I did a bit of digging and found that Big Brothers & Big Sisters do more vetting of volunteers than BSA. First .. they require their professional staff to interview volunteers prior to approval. BSA outsources this work to COs. Second .. they require their volunteers to have monthly meetings with their professional staff. BSA has volunteers that have never met staff. Third ... my understanding is they review social media accounts of volunteers. BSA doesn't do this at all. Does this make Big Brother & Sisters safer than BSA? I'm not sure ... but I will say there are youth serving programs that vet their volunteers more than BSA. I really think there could be a big opportunity for a centralized youth volunteer clearing house. Basically, submit your details, Facebook pages, finger prints, etc. They do the background checks & reviews. Perhaps a phone interview. Then the "clear" the volunteer. As a youth volunteer in multiple organizations I would welcome it as I would have to get cleared once. My only concern would be some sort of political hurdle which eliminates volunteers for some non youth protection issues. But I digress... In terms of actually carrying out activities at the unit level, I haven't seen many differences from other youth programs.

I think we have a few (or at least 1) AIS claimants on this forum. I'm curious about that relationship. Who did they see as their counsel? Was it AIS or Kosnoff or some other law firm? The biggest group of claimants in the coalition come from AIS, correct? My understanding is 25% of the Coalition is AIS. However, AIS is clearly split and Kosnoff is against the deal while other lawyers are for it. So ... will those 16,000 claimants get mixed recommendations? What happens if their names appear on multiple master ballots and their votes differ? Century went on for a while about this, but I never heard a resolution.

I was looking at that legal proceeding yesterday and it was stayed due to the RSA. Now that the RSA is dead, I was just wondering if this would start up again. At this point, I tend to doubt it unless BSA files for Chapter 7. It seems like the TCC's primary focus now is LC, CO and insurance contributions. Those are in the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. The value of HA bases are pretty limited and even if some of the loans from JP Morgan are questionable, there are still legitimate secured debt. Net it probably won't provide much. The Century lawyer is a bull in a china shop right now. He will do everything he can to slow the process down. If the Arrow discovery can open up some questions ... great news for Century. I think he believes (and is starting to be proved correct) that the longer this takes the lower the amount the Coalition will settle for.

The official committee appointed by the U.S. bankruptcy trustee to represent and act in the best interest of all sexual abuse survivors is recommending that abuse claimants reject the Boy Scouts’ plan. In a draft letter filed with the court, the nine abuse survivors on the committee said the plan is “grossly unfair,” and represents only a fraction of the settling parties’ potential liabilities and what they should and can pay. Most claimants don’t follow scouter.com or other sites following this case. They may not read the 1000 pages. They will look at the letters but I expect they will definitely hear these news stories. The lack of TCC support is a huge risk and I think the BSA may underestimate the impact. Hearing the official group that represents you to reject it he ballot is a major deal.

Ok, moving on from paper... Century has been very busy tonight. They are busy issuing subpoenas ... including to Arrow WV and Ankura Consulting Group. Ankura served as a consultant to the FCR. 5dfb4003-657b-44ad-a477-f24fee838f65_6451.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

BSA wanted to only send a web link, at most a USB but the US Trustee objected as many may not be able to access the web or prefer paper and by law paper is default. BSA said it would be too expensive ($3M to print and mail) and the US Trustee said if BSA cannot afford to follow the law, perhaps they should reconsider the chapter they are filing under.

They lowered from $1.8 to $1.7B and changed "promptly" to "provide" and removed reference to full recovery. They also removed the term "billions". Looks like minor changes/corrections. Edit: I love the redlines ... makes checking on changes very easy and quick!

@TheRealDK on behalf of the moderators, welcome to scouter.com

In accordance with the Hartford Settlement, Hartford will contribute $787 million to the Settlement Trust, $137 million to be available immediately to the Settlement Trust on the Effective Date of the Plan and $650 million to be held in escrow until the order confirming the Plan is final and non-appealable. So Hartford will only initially pay in $137M until there are no further appeals? Also, Hartford does pay into the general fund, it doesn't look like their payment is allocated to Harford claimants only.

Moreover, pursuant to the Plan, and subject to the extent approved by the Bankruptcy Court, the granting a motion filed pursuant to sections 363(b), 1129(b)(4) and 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rule 9019, or otherwise applicable bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy law, the Debtors w I think the above is how the BSA handled the change. Basically, was this enough to show the Coalition will not be paid unless the court agrees that the fees align with the code? And if so, is this enough for the judge? It sounded like the judge wanted this pulled out completely. Century's question seems fair.

#1)This will be argued during plan confirmation. So, lets say the judge agrees with insurance companies (and some law firms) that claimants outside SOL should not get payment. She can remove them from the plan. Then ... the question will be the vote. They can then look at the vote of the remaining claimants. If they voted against the plan, then a new plan would likely have to be generated. This is one of many risks that could cause the current plan to fail. However, if the judge was really concerned, I don't think she would have allowed the current plan to go out for a vote. #2) If you are in the SOL, you are currently getting pennies on the dollar. You are likely better off suing LCs (and their insurance) and COs (and their insurance) in state court. Even if both go bankrupt, you will be splitting with a lot less other claimants. As others have stated, there are many fewer individuals suing in state court than the mass tort BSA case ...

Note that BSA's monthly operating report should be posted later today. This will cover their position at the end of August. What will be interesting, is this is the first month (August) where they entered with almost no liquidity left in their Unrestricted Endowment Balance (only $9,000). At the beginning of the year, they had $55M. Now, since the start of the year, they haven't touched their Unrestricted RBT Balance. Does anyone know what the RBT balance is? I wonder if they start taping into that. Otherwise, I expect the liquid cash balance to start dropping rapidly.

Starts January 24. 😀 I wouldn't be surprised that this takes months of hearings. The disclosure statement had very few substantial changes. Most of the major fights were pushed to confirmation. There are MANY issues to be addressed during confirmation. Each one could take days of hearings. The judge can't meet every day (she has other hearings). I can't over state this ... the confirmation will take a huge about of time ... so much so it could put BSA survival at risk. Even this assumes nothing shocking comes from the vote or discovery. If something comes up there ... Chapter 7 or a BSA only plan.

I don't disagree. From what I heard, I would estimate 75%+ of the words spoken by coalition lawyers were about themselves and not claimants. Personally, I would have either gone with no lawyer or hired a lawyer outside the coalition by now.

I'll try to not guess nefarious motivations. Here is where I think the two sides are... TCC Plan ... maximize National BSA contribution. Maximize any national BSA insurance company settlement. LC, CO, LC insurance and CO insurance ONLY if they contribute a substantial portion to the trust. Otherwise, allow claimants to purse action in state courts. Coalition Plan ... maximize National BSA, national BSA insurance, LC, CO and their insurance settlements in a centralized trust. Accept their best offer within a certain timeframe (essential, negotiate hard until a time period is hit). Then agree to that amount and move on. State court pursuits are not an option. Why is timeframe critical, because at some point, BSA would go Ch7 and the options of LC/CO coverage in a central trust is gone. To be fair ... I think you could see the Coalition Plan as simply a different strategy. It could help individuals who are permanently outside SOL ... assuming insurance, BSA and/or LCs wouldn't have caved under pressure of the TCC and offered more (which was always a possibility). However, I think it really negatively impacts claimants inside the SOLs. I think the coalition decided to go with the quicker guaranteed payout. The TCC plan would have definitely increased the payout for those inside the SOL but put at risk the payout for those outside SOL. In terms of voting ... If my #1 goal was cash and I was outside SOL I would likely vote in favor of the BSA plan. If my #1 goal was cash and I was inside the SOL, I would reject the plan. If my #1 goal was for BSA to feel the pain of my abuse, I would reject the plan.

Generally the teeth is that no insurance would cover you if you violate state law. In addition, if anything happens and you did not comply with this law, good luck in court. The state doesn't need to enforce it, insurance companies and trial lawyers will.

I'll add on a bit. This one statement in the plan was debated as too broad. This led to questions as to "define scouting". There will be a fight over this language. BSA came out and said that the trust is about abuse in scouting, not about abuse within COs outside scouting. The judge seemed to be very clear ... she cannot provide any protection to COs for abuse that occurred outside scouting. All of us in this forum can already think of hundreds of examples of grey areas here where someone is tied to scouting but also has oversight at the CO outside a scouting relationship. COs may find paying into a settlement offers them little protection in the end.

I think this is where there was a lot of discussions. I think the clear cut is abuse at scouting events are clearly channeled to the settlement trust. Also, it seems clear that if there was a non scouting interface with the abuser that was through the CO (for example a pastor who abused a youth outside scout settings) those could have direct claims outside the trust. The murky area is the relationship with the individual is through scouting but abuse completely outside scouting programs/events/activities. I believe it is primarily a CO problem. LCs/national will always be channeled to the trust. It sounds like everyone had a general idea where this was headed but they need to document it clearly. I'm not 100% convinced everyone saw eye to eye. I think we have to wait and see what comes out.

The example sited (this is a real example). A youth was a member of LDS and was sexually abused. He joined scouts and was also abused as part of scouting by the same man. This claimant should have separate claims for the BSA settlement and also be able to pursue claims against LDS separately for the non scouting abuse. There was agreement on this and so they are working on the language of the releases.

The settled on Tuesday. Edit: Official zoom link updated to Tuesday, October 5 at 2:30PM EST

Rothweilier must be ticked. While the judge let him speak yesterday, I don't think he did himself any favors. He seemed clueless on how the entire process works.

#1 is clearly not covered. LDS, judge, BSA everyone agrees. LDS cannot pay $250M and expect all CSA claims to go away. #2 was not exactly clear. Judge & BSA seemed to agree it is not covered as only "scouting activities" are covered. That is where the debate of scouting definition came up. LDS seemed to think perhaps #2 would be covered ... but it wasn't 100% clear.

Judge was clear ... 1 & 2 are not protected in the settlement, 3 would be covered. I'm not 100% sure LDS agrees.