Eagle1993

12 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

This is just my point.  The overall vote for the BSA is for an amount of money that the BSA, LCs, and others are to contribute.   If the a council is not released then they withdraw and the amount that was voted upon is no longer the same amount.  If several large councils or a large number of councils withdraw, then the total could be significantly smaller that would mean that the vote was for an amount that is far less.  That would seem to me to nullify the vote.   This process seems hopelessly flawed.

I guess I'll add my hunch.  If the vote comes back as 95% approval ... I think we exit with the plan as voted on.  It may have minor changes, but I bet the judge will say ... the claimants clearly support the plan, who am I to refuse.  With 95%, it is likely most if not all council and major CO subgroups probably passed the plan.   I think many of these issues will become sticky the lower that vote percentage is. 

2 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

This is just my point.  The overall vote for the BSA is for an amount of money that the BSA, LCs, and others are to contribute.   If the a council is not released then they withdraw and the amount that was voted upon is no longer the same amount.  If several large councils or a large number of councils withdraw, then the total could be significantly smaller that would mean that the vote was for an amount that is far less.  That would seem to me to nullify the vote.   This process seems hopelessly flawed.

Agreed.  There are so many issues that could substantially change the final plan that I question why they are proceeding with the vote first.  I wonder if the judge has to determine if the plan has substantially changed thus requiring a new vote.  One would think:

step 1 - Ensure claims are valid (or at least do some sort of minimal vetting)

step 2 - Discovery to ensure full transparncy of costs, assets, etc.

step 3 - finalize a disclosure statement & plan ... something that is 95 - 99% done and ready

step 4 - vote on said plan

step 5 - agree on vote outcome, minor changes to plan if needed, release from bankruptcy

It seems like we are:

step 1 - create a decent outline of a plan/disclosure

step 2 - vote on said plan

step 3 - discovery

step 4 - agree on vote outcome, major changes to plan

step 5 - vet claims

I really don't understand it, but perhaps that is how it is suppose to work.  No wonder bankruptcies seem to take forever.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Official agenda for September 28

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2937f369-53f7-4514-a6f6-b9cee21556ac_6358.pdf

1. Debtors’ Motion for Entry of an Order (I) Approving the Disclosure Statement and the
Form and Manner of Notice, (II) Approving Plan Solicitation and Voting Procedures, (III)
Approving Forms of Ballots, (IV) Approving Form, Manner, and Scope of Confirmation
Notices, (V) Establishing Certain Deadlines in Connection with Approval of the Disclosure
Statement and Confirmation of the Plan, and (VI) Granting Related Relief (D.I. 2295, filed
3/2/21).

2. Debtors’ Motion For Entry of Order (I) Scheduling Certain Dates and Deadlines in
Connection with Confirmation of the Debtors Plan of Reorganization, (II) Establishing
Certain Protocols, and (III) Granting Related Relief (D.I. 2618, filed 4/15/21).

Will we get to see Mosby & Kosnoff Tuesday?

Quote

Century has indicated that it intends to call the following witnesses: Roger Mosby, President and CEO- Boy Scouts of America; Erich Speckin, President of Speckin Forensic Laboratories; Charles Fox, Vice President of Operations and Special Investigations Unit at CoventBridge Group; Larry F. Stewart, Chief Forensic Scientist and President/Owner of Global Forensic Services, LLC; Veronica Stenulson, Former employee of Reciprocity Industries LLC (August 2020 through November 2020); Paul Hinton, Principal of The Brattle Group in New York City; David McKnight, Senior Associate in the Litigation and Finance Practice of The Brattle Group; and Tim Kosnoff, Licensed attorney that established Kosnoff Law PLLC.

39 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I don't think it is a ploy, I think it gets at a particular issue: BSA isn't looking to just get out of liability, it is looking to get LCs and COs out as well. BSA is a national entity operating across the nation. Therefore, it makes sense to have all victims vote on whether to approve/reject the BSA plan as it relates to BSA.

BUT let's take St. Louis Area Council (just to pick on them some more) for a second. They have 921 claims against then alone (plus some claims shared with other councils). Let's say the following took place.

50,000 claimants nationwide vote for Plan 5.0 and the vote is OVERWHELMING to approve the plan: 43,000 to 7,000 (86% yes).

BUT looking at 921 St. Louis Area Council claimants, it is the opposite: 121 in favor, 800 opposed, an 86% no vote.

While the argument could be made that sure, it is OK to have the 921 claims against BSA discharged this way, what is the legal basis for claiming that somehow that should translate into the discharge against St. Louis Area Council, especially where there is such an overwhelming vote against?

If St. Louis Area Council wants that kind of discharge, it should be in its own Chapter 11.

Note that the Ad Hoc committee for the councils stated they do not agree with this proposal.  Now a very strong and well versed claimant attorney seemed to have some bankruptcy/case law on his side saying it must work this way.  This will be fought over during confirmation.  So basically, the current plan & disclosure will ignore this possibility as will the ballots.  However, during confirmation, the judge may end up siding with the plaintiff lawyers.  That means ... each council could be released individually based upon the votes of the claimants within their council.

What gets messy ... would the councils still have to pay?  Likely not as most have only agreed to pay if they get the injunction.  So basically, councils could fall off the list, state lawyers could sue them and the settlement trust would decrease by that council amount.

I think councils/BSA are likely concerned as those who put in their council names are probably the same claimants that are probably closer to the actual case and may be more likely to vote against the deal.  A very large number of claimants haven't even claimed a council. So the group who's vote would be counted on a council by council basis would be a smaller subset of the overall vote and my guess more likely to reject the deal.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

As I heard it, the way it would/could work is this.

You vote your vote and either a) identify your council or b) your council is identified by your scouting history/claim

The vote is then looked at in two ways:

1) Your vote is one out a national voting system to allow for BSA to be discharged.

2) Your vote is one out a local subset for the LC.

So, for example, if you vote "no" to Plan 5.0.

1) You vote no, but are outvoted as to BSA by the rest of the nation. BSA is discharged out of bankruptcy.

2) You vote no, and a majority (or large minority, not clear) of those with claims against St. Louis Area Council reject the plan. THAT council is NOT discharged.

How on earth that would work (since Plan 5.0 is entirely based on LCs contributing) is beyond me.

To be clear, the proposal was that every ballot would be customized to include the council name or a blank to fill in the council.  The judge denied the request.  The ballots will go out without the council name and without the ability to filli n the council.  The judge was concerned that claimants would get confused, thinking by filling in the council name on the ballot they would think they updated their claim.  In addition, all of this data will be available through Omni, so Omni will be able to report votes by council (and CO) without even including it on the ballot.  Any party could then request that info via discovery.  It seemed like all sides were ok with that (at least they didn't scream and yell).

32 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

That happens to be my council, and nobody has asked for my vote.  I have read in this forum that there is paper mail being received at the claimant's home address.  I have checked my omni account and always check my mailbox online and personally, and nothing has been received from Omni or anyone else.  Are others receiving notifications?

I would always recommend checking with your lawyer.  This forum is definitely not meant to serve as any sort of official notification.  Many items here are opinion, others are ongoing updates from the court (that may not be final decisions) and we are sometimes wrong.  With that said..

No requests for votes have been sent yet.  There is a hearing Sept 28th.  If everything stays on track, voting requests could go out ~October 6 and the judge has stated (at this point) 60 days to vote.  Again, these dates/times can change, so stay in touch with your lawyer. 

20 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Probably because most troops car camp.

I think this cannot be understated.  We car camp, but we also have at least two backpacking camping trips a year and have a high adventure camping trip each year.  Most of our scouts don't participate in these.  We also get more adult support on car camping trips than backpacking.

Actually, I think you can become Eagle Scout without a single backpacking camping outing.  I may be wrong, but I don't think there is a single requirement to carry camping gear for any amount of distance.

6 minutes ago, MattR said:

I talked to a scout once about standing up to bullies and his response was enlightening.  He said that there was very little to no bullying at his school and there was a lot more fuss about it by the adults than warranted. 

 

It seems like we diverted the topic a bit, but figure I'll jump in. 

I've been happy that our schools crack down on bullying and they are also very clear that bullying is different than being rude/unkind/having conflicts.  Overall, schools are much more aware of actual bullying than they were when I was a kid. For many kids, our school systems have become much more safe than it was in the 1980s and prior.  I do agree that there are overreactions by parents ... but schools seem to have found a balance and have been pretty good (at least in my area).

What has gotten much, much worse  is the form harassment takes when it occurs.  Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.  In some ways, it is much worse now than we were kids (at least to me).  When someone was bullied at school in the 1980s/1990s it ended when they left school and went home.   There is no escaping the harassment today and it is public for all of your classmates to see 24/7.  I think more needs to be done to protect kids (and in some cases adults) in terms of social media postings.

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

If I heard it right, they are claiming if they are not out by March (could have been May), the amount of cash they can contribute to the settlement reaches $0.

 

US Trustee was a bit spicy today and he held his own.  I don't think he was joking about BSA filing Chapter 7.  His point ... if you do not have enough cash to work your way through Chapter 11 by following the law, you need to reconsider filing for Chapter 7.   Basically, you can't rush this and undercut law by saying you are out of money.  You always have the option to liquidate.

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Right. Silence = silence. Not a yes. Not a no. Simply silence. UNLESS (and this is the unless) UNLESS there is a specific signed document that allows the attorney to vote for the client.

To me this is 100% fair. 

I think Century lawyer pointed out the big issue.  The largest group of claimants which the Coalition claims comes from AIS.  AIS is really 3 law firms, and they are NOT aligned.  Some are on board with the deal, others are not.  Without AIS, the coalition's power fades greatly.  I would not be surprised if many claimants from AIS have multiple and inconsistent votes submitted on their behalf.  If that happens, it will be a giant disaster.   The judge really needs to step in regarding the AIS claimants.  

8 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Now we are talking 2022 if I understand this right.

We were likely in 2022 anyway, but this seems to make it official.

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

Judge is going to insist on lawyers  attach to the master ballot somehow a document showing how it gained the AFFIRMATIVE consent of the client.

So ... they cannot assume a YES vote if they don't hear from the client.  Which lawyer will represent AIS clients?  Could we see three different firms submit those clients votes and what happens if the votes don't match?

1 minute ago, MYCVAStory said:

Theme of the day for the Judge: "We'll let this go and deal with it another time if we have to."  Possibility of this creating a mess at another time: 100%.  I suggested that she would learn from her Imerys mistakes.  It appears I was wrong.

 

I think to put this in perspective ... wasn't the vote from Imerys back in April roughly?  They are still debating the results of the vote now (5 months later).  We could be in a situation where the vote occurs in October and we are debating the results in March 2022.... and that isn't even talking about confirmation of the plan.

WOW ... US Trustee ... if the BSA cannot afford to follow the US Bankruptcy rules, they should reconsider the chapter they are in.

Another interesting point ... $1 per vote right now.  However, at confirmation, she will be open to argument that the weighting can be changed post vote.  Confirmation appears to be the big battle. 

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Right, why should a hypothetical California claimant (no statute of limitations) get outvoted by everyone else about his claim against Golden Empire Council? I guess I can see maybe about BSA, but not the LCs.

The Ad Hoc committee lawyer for the councils raised a concern about this path, so it will be a post vote confirmation battle.  A plaintiff lawyer made it clear that this bankruptcy is different than others as there are individual non debtors that have their separate claims each attempting to get their claims settled.  The court decided to leave council names off the ballot, but said that is because they will know who voted and could later determine outcome of the vote by council, by CO, etc.  All of that will be available by discovery.

Interesting point in court ... for the vote, the TCC wants to know votes for/against for BSA, LC and by CO.  For example, what % of Greater St. Louis Council votes in favor of the deal.  Same with LDS, Methodist, etc.  So those who are non LDS cannot release LDS.  Those who were not in St. Louis Council cannot release St. Louis Council.  Right now, they are talking about the ballot as it may be needed at confirmation (for example, there is a chance releases would be by council depending on council by council vote).  Judge wants to make sure there is the ability to know voting by council at confirmation (and CO).

2 minutes ago, skeptic said:

All the kabitzing about "reliable", "fair", "equitable", and so on, especially in relation to assets, is simply legalese.  Few involved, especially the lawyers, can agree on much, if anything.  Greed is the guiding principle, especially with most of the lawyers.  But, even with some claimants I suspect, as if vetting was done thoroughly, some would be shown to be pretty much made up.  

Reality suggests, at least to me, that there is no end result that will find large satisfaction.  And the idea that somehow destroying the 95%+ positive elements of BSA, or for that matter, any youth serving groups, is fair to ALL is nonsense.  Humans are not capable of total real acceptance, and many are simply unable to see beyond their noses.  JMHO of course.  

Then don’t include COs and LCs in the deal and it can close.  The issue is COs and LCs are asking to wash their sins by paying a sum of money …. So who determines that sum?  That is the issue. 

9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

There's a really concern here the Coalition is going to vote against client directions and/or pressure clients unethically.

If you vote yes, I can buy that vacation home in Cabo and you can afford a partial year of therapy.  If you vote no, I'll have to work more on this project and my wall street backers may increase my interest rate.  Please vote yes.  I think I heard a yes.  Ok, then, we agree ... yes.  Thanks!

Yeah ... good luck controlling the vote if the Coalition lawyers get the ballots.  As much as I love the BSA and I think this deal works out well for them, I really dislike the Coalition lawyers.  Those few hours I spent listening to court was enough to see who they represent.  BSA lawyers are great ... they represent BSA well.  The insurance lawyers are great defenders of their employer (one reminds me a a mob lawyer, but that's fine.)  The TCC lawyers ... also well spoken, clearly defending their position.  The claimant lawyers who are sex abuse lawyers have been stellar ... frequently objecting, telling us why it doesn't represent their client interests.  The one time I heard from the Coalition lawyer it was about themselves more than their clients.  It made me sick thinking that there is a group of people in this process so poorly represented.  It also makes me concerned, as a BSA supporter, that this could end bad ... because a group is so poorly represented.  I would rather have all sides represented well as the outcome is less likely to be appealed and when the plan is approved we are done.  I'm not convinced we are headed to that resolution.

4 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

It’s not working. 

@CynicalScouter Do you have the link to register for this Zoom?  May be too late, but some may be interested.  

34 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

But here's the rub.  People on this forum are not typical.  We'll probably all vote personally.  However, tomorrow she's going to start addressing the "master ballot" issue.  Essentially, this means that attorneys will be voting on behalf of their clients.  The issue then is whether there is agreement to do so and what robustness the judge requires.  So, must attorneys certify that they have discussed with their clients the plan and their wishes and received authorization to vote on their behalf (and have proof of  that authorization) or can attorneys just send out an email that says "If we don't hear from you we'll assume it's a 'Yes' vote and take care of that."

Given the disaster of her other case that involves voting of large number of claims she better be careful to avoid a repeat.
 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/imerys-talc-reorg-plan-vote-changes-prompt-confusion-contention-bankruptcy-2021-06-23/

1 minute ago, MYCVAStory said:

Of note....the judge commenting earlier that she is "new to mass tort bankruptcy."  Wow.  That should really make victims feel comfortable.

This is probably not the case to get your feet wet...  WOW.  If she is not careful, this case will end up in appeals hell.  

1 hour ago, gpurlee said:

I think the ad hoc committee believed a month ago that there would be a firm decision or direction established by September 20. As was evident from comments made yesterday, that has not happened yet. At least to the point of a public announcement.  

I think the September 20th date made a lot of sense if the thought was the pretty much final plan was to be reviewed at the hearing September 21.  I didn't follow the hearing today but the several hours I had it on yesterday ... it seems like we may be weeks away from closing out a plan that will go to a vote.  Even then, it sounds like post vote, the plan could change a bit.  So ... there is still time for a CO deal with the UMC.  

25 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Judge "I was surprised to see his [Green's] name come back in this case."

She said she wasn't saying anything more than that, but it is clear that she is NOT thrilled with Green being trustee.

Who is Green?

Talks primarily to LC disclosures and the judge encouraging the TCC to share the information they have.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/boy-scouts-plaintiffs-lawyers-call-breakdown-local-council-abuse-claims-2021-09-21/

Just a quick notice.  There were several comments hidden and others that drifted from the legal aspects of bankruptcy.  Those comments were moved to our other thread.  Given that we will have several hearings this week, it made sense to move those to keep the topics separate and manageable.