Eagle1993

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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/

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.

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.

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.

I don't think the court got through all of the Plan Disclosure objections. When will those be covered? It seems like we have days and days of hearings left just on that.

I see a chance to get 67% Only positive statements about the plan are included in the voting package More claims than we thought are either fraudulent or submitted with minimal care ... claims just looking to get a quick payout of anything. All claims get the same vote. I actually think those most impacted will be the non time barred claims that are looking to pursue the issue in state court. If they get a bigger vote, I see this deal dying. Coalition lawyers have letters allowing them to vote for their claimants So, I think it is a done deal yet. It is definitely risky and I would love the TCC to be on board before it goes out to a vote. Note that even if a vote approves the deal, it could die (for example, if the Purdue Pharma deal is blowing up in appeal courts, the judge in this case may rethink where this is headed). I really think BSA should have a negotiated BSA only settlement ready if the grand bargain dies. I have no idea of the odds of this, but I don't have a good feeling unless the TCC backs the deal.

Perhaps I am confused, but BSA isn't offering $1.3B for time barred claims. They are offering ~$2B for ALL claims. Given that the non time barred claims are going to be given a much higher payout than time barred claims, I believe the BSA offer for time barred claims will end up being <<<$1.3B. I think it is too early to really see where this is headed as there are complexities with LDS & LC payouts, but I expect all claims will get much less than any average settlement they would have seen in state court.