Eagle1993

Just posted to a FB page.  Good info.  
 

I don’t understand how the RSA could have expired.   Didn’t the main groups just file documents supporting the RSA?  I’m struggling to understand what could have changed. 

9 hours ago, fred8033 said:

 

Even without the latest lawsuit and insurance issues, charter orgs should sign the agreement. 

Signatures mean something.  Words on the paper set expectations.  If you don't plan to fulfill the words, don't sign!   COs need to do-what-they-say and say-what-they-do. 

• Encourage training (lack of training is fault). 
• Maintain membership (unregisterd adults / youth is admitting it's out of control). 
• Follow BSA program, GTSS, etc (not following indicates rouge program) ... etc ... 
• Review unit leader apps.  Make follow-up inquires to confirm moral, educational and emotional qualities.

It's not just about after-the-fact libability.  It's about doing hat you say you will do.  If you don't plan to actually do what is in the agreement, don't sign.  It's not an honorific documents.  It's an "agreement".

Our charter org is absolutely glad to provide space.   I suspect they'd even donate fund or materials.  The real issue is their signing this agreement says they want to take responsibility they don't want.  I  hugely agree they should not sign.

Churches and public facilities will continue to support community organizations like the scouts.   Even without the current COs, units can find space.  Even cheaply rent space.   

This is about making the CO agreement match the current reality.  Most COs agree to provide space.  Very few actively oversee teh scouting program.

"WHAT IF" ... Latest registration costs are skyrocketing.  What if current unit leaders decide to help families that are tight on funds, by not registering their scout.  Scout can participate, but BSA won't know about cub's advancement ... except AOL does t really matter?  Slso, adults will be minimized to save pack cost.   ... So some adults and scouts are not fully registered.   Would the CO know?  Would the CO know they are taking responsibility for that?  

 

 

Most COs I know would likely never sign if they were truly expected to meet all of the obligations listed.  Ours has no buildings and we struggle to even find a COR to sign every year.  I know a few that had their COs drop them and they spent months finding any organization even willing to sign a document (one found a fire station and the other ended up creating a friends of CO as no organization).

It’s time for BSA to fully embrace a no CO model as a parallel path.  That would mean no CO, no IH, no COR and the CC is given that the voting rights in council activities.  

7 minutes ago, yknot said:

How was the higher percentage of claimants filing in the BSA case over the others been determined? My thinking was that it was likely low due to the fact that many potential claimants are already dead, many abused children don't come forward until well into adulthood, and the fact that there is an inhibiting stigma attached to actually filing for a child sex abuse claim that could become public, or at least would become known in an attorney's office. 

I think this is more about comparing total final number of claims vs current number of claims.  There are already 84,000 claims in BSA.  While I wouldn't be surprised more would come, I can't imagine a huge increase in the next 20 years (remember, it would have to be claims from 2020 and earlier).

In the asbestos case, they are expecting a total of 77,000 claims and 34,000 have been filed after 20 years ...

29 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Right. The asbestos (and Agent Orange) claims are famous/infamous for being forever because of people discovering illness due to exposure decades later and because of the litigation involved and because there were multiple companies.

The BSA bankruptcy may be as bad not because of BSA (they'll either get out of this or be dead from a lack of money in short order) but because of trying to also add-on the LCs, the COs (now dropped of course and utterly, utterly furious), and of course the insurance companies.

There is also the future claimants group.  People who didn’t sue, perhaps too young or other reasons.  But it is a good point that a much higher percentage of claimants have filed in the BSA case up front than those other examples.  

Kosnoff expanded ... there is precedent that he is siting in Fuller-Austin case.  Honestly ... it reads almost identical to the BSA case.  Fuller-Austin went through bankruptcy due to asbestos claims.  While they had an agreement with claimants, they did not involve their insurance companies.  The plan created a settlement trust.  Fuller-Austin received a full release after contributing to the trust.  In addition to cash they provided they contributed their insurance policies. .... sound familiar?

The plan created a CRP (claims resolution procedure).  There is a bunch of details on who gets access to claims and how periodical sums would be paid. Hmmm... 

There is a ton of detail on insurance companies objecting to the plan and the judge ruled they didn't have standing.  (This hasn't happened yet).

It goes on, and on.  One point ... the appeals court, which ruled in favor of the insurance companies ... was 7 years after the bankruptcy plan was approved. 

https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20060122/story/100018223/asbestos-trust-cant-force-settlement-on-insurers

Now ... eventually the trust must have received some insurance funding ... but, get this ... it is still active.  The trust was generated in 1999 and it is still active.  Over the last 20 years it has paid out, on overage, $8.5K per person to about 34,000 claims.  You can still file claims.

The insurance companies fought hard with the asbestos case ... from what I can see, 7+ years post plan approval.  So ... its likely the only money in the plan for the foreseeable future is the National/LC settlement.

I wonder how these prior cases compare to BSA and impact insurance liabilities.  Hopefully the lawyers are reviewing and advising their clients.

Finally ... Kosnoff confirmed on Twitter there are only 2 ways the deal can be rejected (there is no other kill switch).

• The judge can still reject it
• If the judge approves, the claimants can vote against it, preventing the 2/3 approval

Kosnoff is highlighting some major, new, concerns today:

• The TDP awards will be non binding
• The insurance assignments re non-Debtor policies (LCs) might void those policies 
• The insurance assignments re non-Debtor policies might cap the exposure.

He is stating that since LCs are only contributing $600M, technically, the combined insurance exposure (based on how the policies are written) will max out the insurance liability to $600M.

Moulton (from the Coalition?) apparently has acknowledge the concerns and now claims there is a "kill switch" that will kill the deal if those risks materialize.

Kosnoff is stating there is no kill switch if the RSA is accepted. 

Any idea where this info is coming from?  Who is Moulton?  Was there an interview recently?  Is there really a "kill switch" that would dump LCs out of this plan?

-- Looks like he means David Molton, attorney for the Coalition.  

8 hours ago, awanatech said:

Wasn't it his high GPA in the computer that got him into this mess in the first place? 

At least he didn’t hack into the WOPR. 😀

Looks like the same person. He ended up having all charges dropped.  

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/crime/article158637234.html

Under a conditional agreement reached in August, Hanumanthu was placed on 12 months of supervised probation and agreed to pay the school system $5,000 in restitution. He was also required to perform 225 hours of community service, which he was allowed to do outside of North Carolina because he now attends Florida Polytechnic University where he studies cybertechnology. 

Wake County District Court Judge Keith Gregory dismissed the charges Wednesday after attorneys showed that Hanumanthu not only met all the conditions but performed more community service than required – 281 hours. 

Steven Saad, Hanumanthu’s attorney, said his client juggled doing the community service at a nursing home while being a full-time college student with a perfect grade-point average.

54 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Latest filing from claimant asks he be named as "Financial Master" for BSA case, including being named "CEO, COO, and CFO and Chairman of the BSA".

His plan to rescue BSA is to get a $100 billion (with a B, billion) PPP loan repayable over the next 50 years. All scouts will be assessed $1200 in fees per year (he thinks current fees are $600 per year) which the scouts will have to pay off via selling...something. Oh, and scouting will overnight go back to 2 million scouts.

And for his services as "Financial Master" "CEO, COO, and CFO and Chairman of the BSA" claimant wants $8.4 billion in payment.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ffc33d5b-b35a-4d1d-9027-3d0d76905d31_5552.pdf

This guy seems legit. He has a $4 quadrillion plan for China and other countries and is apparently and advisor for Obama and Trump.  I hope the judge approves his request.   

FYI… The $100M from councils is coming from deferring payments to the pension plan.   As the pension plan is well funded, councils will instead make payment on the $100M note.  

Not sure if it is the same person.  This individual already graduated college after some impressive internships and projects.  He currently works as an embedded SW engineer at Qualcomm.

31 minutes ago, MattR said:

Could someone summarize the "fish smell"? Something to do with the COs, Coalition and TCC. I don't have the time to read the past few days of posts. Thanks.

My understanding of some of the complaints from Kosnoff, COs & Insurance companies ... they believe the current plan is to:

• get a  settlement now from BSA and BSA LCs by letting the BSA off easy
• have the court ignore proof of claim process ... basically assume everything is legit
• allow the trust to butcher the COs & Insurance Companies long term.  

Kosnoff seems to think that the insurance payout will not be nearly as large as is being claimed and there is a ton of money left in LCs that is being ignored.  I believe he thinks the Coalition is going for the quick settlement because many lawyers took out high interest loans from hedge funds to pay for advertising and other companies to aggregate claims.  These loans are starting to come due and/or have high interest rates so law firms that took them out want to pay them off quickly, regardless of the result on their clients.  Therefore, the Coalition, driven by a need to close on a settlement to pay off these loans, are agreeing to a lower than desired (by some other firms) payout from LCs.  Since the Coalition represent 60,000 claimants, the TCC has to work with them to get the best deal possible.

So, a bit odd, but Kosnoff, COs & Insurance companies are all on the same side.  Basically, don't approve this quick settlement. I use "quick" as relative.  Also, I am not claiming any of this, I am just attempting to summarize my understanding of some of the objections.

16 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I always struggle with this explanation because it's not about female that set the program back, it's the large influx of adults without any scouting experience. I was there, so I know the passion and enthusiasm moms brought to the troop program. I personally trained many female Scoutmasters. But, like just about all male and female leaders without a scouting experience, they didn't have the experience as a youth to guide them into what drives youth to scouts, ADVENTURE!. 

Adults by their nature look at stature as the goal of their adults decisions. Adults strive to be better at everything they do. Make life better and improve their lifestyles. It's just our nature. The simple pleasure of being in nature without a show of better position just doesn't fit in the adult mind. So, adults read the books and see how they use the program to show improvement. Unfortunately advancement and rank fit the mature adult psyche perfectly. The adults who didn't go fishing, hiking and play around the campfire don't really get it. They certainly don't know how to plan it. But, a program that gets to first class as fast as possible fits that adults drive perfectly. So, they drive it.

The program always had adults without a youth experience join, but their numbers were small enough that their ignorance of the program didn't take away the priority of fun and adventure. The sudden influence of the unexperienced wave was so great that National introduced completely new training courses in 2000 that were intended to help adults without a scouting experience understand better how a patrol method program was supposed to function. Actually, the training didn't do a good job of teaching patrol method. The course put more effort in teaching adults how to fun a unit as a team. But, the motivation behind the new courses was from the surge of leaders without a scouting experience. However, Patrol Method was never the same after.

Barry

We recently had a camp out where there were no activities planned during the day.  Just camp and figure it out.   During the day, the scouts went on a hike, bike ride and had fun in camp.  When we asked the adults at the next meeting how the outing went, another leader who was present complained that we didn’t have enough activities.   This was from someone with no youth scouting experience.  The PLC liked the outing and had no concerns or complaints… they had fun.  
 

Many adults seem to think that if you don’t have an agenda of activities and advancement then the outing wasn’t fully useful. 

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

And the reason I picked Dale and 2000 is because that was "the last 20 years" give or take a few months.

BSA didn't allow gay scouts until 2013 .. so I have a hard time understanding how they were PC for 20 years.

Kosnoff will try and drag this out if possible.  Could he appeal the discovery ruling?  

10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Does it in any way affect how much BSA is going to be able to offer here? Let's say that you are able to somehow get every SoL lifted/erased after months if not years of litigation. Does that in any way change that fact that a) BSA is running out of money (we can debate when it will run out, but it will eventually) NOW and/or b) somehow magically conjure up more for BSA to contribute to a victims settlement fund?

I think it could.  LCs, as a whole, are contributing $600M.  That is 1/3 of their net unrestricted assets.   We are already seeing LCs planning on possibly selling what they claimed as restricted assets to fund the $600M.  I expect if all LCs had look back windows, their payout would be much closer to 2/3 or 3/4 of their net unrestricted assets … probably another $600M or so.  
 

I would hate to see that, but there are many LCs claiming no camp sales will be required for them to fund the settlement… so their seem to have assets they are not forced to sell right now. 
 

I think the question is … are claimants better off rejecting this deal and fighting for a larger LC contribution or accepting what has been offered.  If most claimants are only seeing <$10K total do they think there isn’t much to lose by rejecting the deal?  We will see…

Just heard from a council… they have to sell all of their camps to cover the cost.  Not official yet, so I’m holding out hope.
 

Another council is selling their offices and camps and will purchase a cheap warehouse where they plan to have a permanent PWD track, climbing wall and a area for indoor tent camping.  

This next month is about to get real rough as we see the impact of $650M.   It will be especially rough knowing that HA bases were protected while LC camps are being discarded left and right.  

Some law firms coming out against the plan. 

Kosnoff Tweeted it is DOA, claimants will reject it.  

I don’t think it really means it is dead, but they are looking for a lot more info in the coming documents.   I think this just shows that we may not be 100% closed on a deal yet.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/07/02/boy-scouts-settlement-abuse-victims/

I found this interesting...

Quote

The Indemnification by Settlement Trust provisions set forth in Article IV.I of the June 18 Plan shall be deleted and restated to provide that from and after the Effective Date, the Settlement Trust shall reimburse, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, Reorganized BSA and each of the Local Councils for any documented out-of-pocket, losses, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, judgments, attorney’s fees and expenses) incurred by Reorganized BSA or any Local Council after the Effective Date attributable to the defense of an Abuse Claim that is channeled to the Settlement Trust if the holder of such Abuse Claim seeks to hold Reorganized BSA or such Local Council liable for such Abuse Claim in violation of the Confirmation Order, as set forth in the Term Sheet.

So, the way I read this, if any local council or organized BSA is sued by a claimant, the trust will be responsible to cover the costs and losses of the LC/BSA.

30 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Regarding Hartford: BSA wants out of the deal, but if the judge decides to require the Hartford deal (because BSA signed that deal) is part of the settlement, then the RSA falls apart.

RSA says LCs are paying $500 million. The TCC Zoom says $600 million.

Actually LCs did increase as they are taking in a $100M note.  
 

(iii) a $100 million interest-bearing variable-payment obligation note (the “DST Note”) issued by a Delaware statutory trust on as soon as practicable after the Effective Date.

1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

Each LC was given a $ amount. My guess is that if 100% of LCs sign on it will be well north of $500M. The $500M is the minimum number (probably assuming x% decline). TCC may know which LCs have already said yes.   

I expect nearly 100% accept, so I wouldn’t be surprised if that $600M is closer to the final actual number.  
 

The limited rumors I have heard (probably fourth hand) is that the LC yes/no to the settlement is along the lines “BSA is going to make them an offer they can’t refuse.”  Yes, a LC can refuse the offer, but good luck to the SE or that council in the future.  Perhaps it isn’t that bad, but the pressure is definitely on.  

12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Regarding Hartford: BSA wants out of the deal, but if the judge decides to require the Hartford deal (because BSA signed that deal) is part of the settlement, then the RSA falls apart.

RSA says LCs are paying $500 million. The TCC Zoom says $600 million.

Each LC was given a $ amount. My guess is that if 100% of LCs sign on it will be well north of $500M. The $500M is the minimum number (probably assuming x% decline). TCC may know which LCs have already said yes.   

52 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I assume something's off with the clerk's office or Omni today because NOTHING has been filed or posted to Omni yet today. Not just the RSA, nothing at all.

Insurance company pre-emptive request to cancel July 20 hearing.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/67a7e046-be35-4050-bd0c-ccdbc228bfc2_5461.pdf

Quote

Although the Moving Insurers have not seen the new Plan or Disclosure Statement, a limited review of the proposed RSA and TDPs sent to the Moving Insurers in draft form last Friday evening (June 25th) starkly reveals that the new Plan will materially modify the Third Amended Plan.