Eagle1993

RSA approved - No Coalition fees .. they are abuse victims which the TCC already represents. Are services duplicated? Rule 2019 motion there was discussion on who would pay for it ... and in that filing 1429 "Coalition council is being paid by state court council." The state court council must pay those fees, not trust OR BSA ... only through client pockets (not directly). Relative scale ... not that great (my point) ... it doesn't matter. Coalition must make substantial contribution ... need to see outcome of their efforts. Also no evidence of their role in mediation.. - Hartfo

It appears there is no issue with the lack of board approval and conflict of interest between LC/National boards.

More coming, but that Harford deal could be a big issue .... I'm not surprised about the coalition fees ... she killed many debates and it seemed like she wasn't going to approve.

Topic includes RSA ruling (see below) and impact on bankruptcy. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/cbf4b5e3-c8a1-450e-aa7f-f65e20f40ee7_6084.pdf

All ... we are 30 minutes away from the Judge's RSA decision. I know several will probably be monitoring the hearing and we are already at 108 pages on this topic. So, I'll freeze this one now and create a new one to capture the updates from the hearing and discussions post decision.

The big group is religious, followed by fraternal organizations then misc (PTOs, fire departments, etc.). I think the LDS, Methodist, Catholic, VFW, Knights of Columbus seem to be participating in the mediation. What happens to the VFWs, Moose, Lions Clubs, Kiwanis, PTOs, etc. who don't participate? Who knows? Many of them are dying off anyway and probably have almost no assets and limited insurance coverage ... so probably not a big target for lawsuits. I know our CO seems to be hand to mouth and perhaps has <$10K in the bank with no buildings and likely crappy insurance. If someone s

I actually think National would love the COs to be part of the plan. The problem ... name 1 CO that has ever had to pay a settlement due to a sex abuse case brought against the BSA? There could be a case or two ... but I haven't found any. The big cases were paid out by National, LCs and possibly insurance carriers. So, I'm sure the COs are saying ... why do we have to pay anything? The BSA owned the program and process around volunteers and provided liability coverage. I'm sure the TCC/claimants have no desire to let the COs off the hook for $0 in payment. While they haven't

I think the primary reason is they see it as within their ministry. They believe scouting values are important for youth and by serving as a CO, they can help youth obtain these values.

I question if this date can be held. There is still no ruling on the RSA. There is no official Disclosure document. Mediation is still ongoing with COs & insurance companies late this week. One lever these COs have that is outside bankruptcy court is to simply pull charters during recruiting. Could you imagine the pain they could cause if they send letters out to all of their units stating January 1, 2022 they will no longer charter the units? There have been a few instances of this, but really localized. If BSA submits their next plan, without CO coverage, those shots could go

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." - Yogi Berra Yogi is 100% correct ... but I'll venture out a bit as it relates to bankruptcy. I'm not convinced most parents care about the bankruptcy. Occasionally it comes up ... but they see our Pack is lead by parents they know. We are not strangers and there is still some interest in scouting. I really doubt that amount BSA pays has any impact on recruiting. The real impact on the program going forward will be a mix of Covid, volunteers and what families value.

This is a fair point and it doesn't feel right. If I knew the Disclosure would proceed on schedule without this payment, I would be 100% in favor of rejecting it. Perhaps it will as the Coalition lawyers (I believe many if not all would be paid through the contingency fees) would look pretty dirty if they scuttled the RSA because they personally were not being paid directly out of BSA fees.

Ha! I will say that I'm in a few FB groups and occasionally check out Reddit. I don't know about ScoutsL but this forum and this topic seems to be the one that provides the most info from the bankruptcy case and has a good combination of claimants and current scouters providing their thoughts. At times it gets a bit nasty (moderators try to limit that) and drifts off topic, but overall it probably provides a good snapshot of the thoughts of the engaged members of various groups. We already have decent evidence that Kosnoff reads this forum/topic from time to time and we know, based on hist

Really good article; however, they completely missed the US Trustee’s objection.

The way I read it.. the BSA is basically saying this is it. Either approve the deal or the BSA will fold. Is that how it sounded today?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/boy-scouts-defend-sex-abuse-deal-deny-undue-influence-2021-08-16/

So what’s next? Bench ruling? If so, any idea when?

All of this is managed by lawyers. What he sees, what he doesn’t, what he says, etc. I’m not impressed by his leadership but I would not be surprised if much of this is being managed by a legal team.

Any update on the hearing? How did Buchbinder's testimony go?

I think the US Trustee will concur with this. I believe the US Trustee has a hard time believing you can insulate COs, LCs and pull in their insurance companies into the National BSA bankruptcy ... as they are non debtors. Also, US Trustee objected to the Coalition payments.

she seemed to quickly gloss over the process question on how they were calculated in addition the US Trustee says they are not legal. I think you are correct.

Any update on the hearing today? When does it start?

Yep. I was thinking after this hearing we may have a decision and can start a new thread.

What was the pro/con aspect of the "good faith" decision. It sounds like the RSA parties (BSA, LCs, TCC/Coalition) decided they didn't want the "good faith" decision. I'm confused as it sounded like it would be a benefit for the TCC/Coalition.

So ... she wants to move on and perhaps, I wonder, if this point is moot. The US Trustee objected over this payment saying this is clearly outside what is allowed. She may, in her mind, have already decided she will rule against the payment and would like to avoid the bunny hole of how it was calculated. We will see ... but it sounds like she wasn't concerned about digging into how it was calculated.