Eagle1993

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.

43 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.

The document is 40GB with 39GB of "please, please, please" followed by "vote for this".

10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Because of the alternatives. Vote against, and then what?

1. BSA stays in bankruptcy limbo forever, bleeding money out. The victims never see a dime and eventually BSA does go into some kind of Chapter 7 liquidation.
2. BSA exits bankruptcy with no deal and is immediately subject to over 900 lawsuits. Then it is a race for the courthouse door: victims in lookback window states get first dibs on whatever BSA assets are left and insurance company claims. The litigation goes on for another decade. Victims in non-lookback states get absolutely nothing. I think this is what TCC meant when it talked about trying to avoid years and years of litigation.

3. Require changes to how the payouts will be calculated.  Lower the peak for some, increase the baseline for others.  

I tend to agree that this will be the max $ out of the BSA, but I could see an argument that if you want the majority to vote for it, and most are looking at 1% of their claim being paid out, they may reject the deal.  So, it could be claimant lawyers arguing with TCC over the Trust payout calculations.

4 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

What exactly I want is for the insurers to pay out.

I do wonder if you don't sign on the settlement, would you have the option of suing the LC (and their insurance company) in the future if SOL lookback windows change.  For now, you could vote against the deal unless they change the payout percentages.

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

TCC is having a Zoom Town Hall tonight (July 1).

I still don't see the BSA RSA document yet on Omni.

https://www.pszjlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/BSA Town Hall Notice 7-1-21.pdf

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Tort Claimants’ Committee will hold a virtual town hall meeting on July 1, 2021 at 8:00 p.m.(Eastern Time); Zoom link: https://pszjlaw.zoom.us/j/82139795053 (no registration required) or Phone number: 888-788-0099 (Toll Free), Webinar ID: 821 3979 5053. At this Town Hall, the TCC will discuss:

• Status of Boy Scout’s Disclosure Statement
• Status of negotiations with the Boy Scouts, Local Councils, Chartered Organizations, and Insurers
• Other pending motions before the Court
• The plan confirmation process

They must know it is being submitted today.  Does a RSA mean there is a "general" agreement on a plan that can be submitted for a vote (at least between BSA, Ad Hoc Council Committee, TCC and the Coalition))?

We have far too many councils given our numbers.  GSUSA has more scouts and half the number of councils.  What to reduce overhead costs… merge councils.  Keep districts relatively untouched.  I would love to see a 1 to 15 or 1 to 25 ratio between SEs and DEs.  Right now it seems like we have too many SEs and not enough DEs. 

13 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

If memory serves (big if), this means about 50,000 men are about to get b-slapped. This is not a proverbial poke, but a legitimate musing. How do open state guys feel about those in closed states being left with an Oliver Twist look on their faces? I’m sure a good many of the 50,000 have similar or more egregious abuse stories and will get precious little. Meanwhile, just over the boarder, someone with a “minor to moderately severe” claim will get a notable sum. Does that feel at all troubling? 

To me, the test of this is if states change SOL windows in the future and then someone sues their LC which did not go bankrupt.  How can the National Bankruptcy shield litigation of an LC that did not go through a bankruptcy procedure when laws in that state change?  If I were a victim, I would probably not take a low settlement amount and reserve my right to sue the LC directly in the future (and their insurance company) pending any SOL change.  

I think this is where the US Bankruptcy Trustee is questioning the structure of the entire deal (that includes coverage for LCs).

30 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Er, sorta. It looks to me like the ONLY reason they are net positive this month was taking $20 million out of their endowment. That's not exactly optimal.

They are in Ch11 .. nothing is optimal.  They said they would be out of cash and may have to liquidate if they don't exit by end of summer.  Take a look at the cash flow again.  They only lost $1.76M in cash before the $20M (last year they lost over $5M and had far less bankruptcy expenses ... so they are managing cash better in 2021 than 2020).  They have $72M cash right now.   

In 2020 they burned through $42M in June - August ...  lets assume the same cash burn.  Leaves them with $30M in September with no further transfers from their endowment.  In 2020 they were actually ok on cash September through end of year (and that was a bad year for registrations).  

I have a hard time seeing them burn $72M+ in cash June - August.

48 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

BSA monthly report for the month ending May 31, 2021 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/b530ab52-51fe-4570-b64a-4b1f959d6d4f_5454.pdf

Total Ending Unrestricted Cash Balance - BSA is up almost $18 million (from 54,306,000 to 72,529,000) thanks to a $20 million dollar transfer from BSA's endowment into its operating fund.

Revenue was 9,672,000, including a 3,735,000 loss on HA bases. To date, the HA bases have lost BSA 32,184,00 this year but that number should bounce back up as revenue comes in from people attending over the summer

Now, compare that to May 2020 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/829308_916.pdf

Total Ending Unrestricted Cash Balance - BSA was $112 million.

 

 

Short summary ... they will NOT run out of cash by September, or October or even early 2022.  

I think they are showing $3.16M of income from HA bases; however, it is not clear the expenses.

https://apnews.com/article/only-on-ap-health-coronavirus-pandemic-7afeb2667df0a391de3be67b38495972

Quote

 

Membership for the BSA’s flagship Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA programs dropped from 1.97 million in 2019 to 1.12 million in 2020, a 43% plunge, according to figures provided to The Associated Press. Court records show membership has fallen further since then, to about 762,000.

The Girl Scouts say their youth membership fell by nearly 30%, from about 1.4 million in 2019- 2020 to just over 1 million this year.

 

• Program ran like normal, which was good
  • No cohorts or group requirements
    • Same experience.  Though, some scouts liked the cohort model from last year as it kept our Troop together all week.
• Some changes to food service, but not onerous
  • We patrol cook, so only impact was the elimination of 2 camp wide meals.
• The camp was somewhat short staffed
  • Main challenge was college aged Scouts as colleges had reduced tuitions for the summer
  • Also pay challenges with other businesses paying more and jobs plentiful
  • Same as was a nearby camp.  We also heard that many tourist areas are not getting the short term immigrant labor they did in past summers (partially due to Covid and impact on US consulates).  So, the tourist areas are hiring high school kids with better pay than camps.  Some private camps increased their pay substantially.
• Talked with leaders and most (like our unit) felt the virtual meetings were not a good replacement to move Scouting along
  • Agreed and had similar conversations.  I do expect virtual merit badge clinics may remain.
• All seemed to have found a way to meet during the pandemic and with CO's shut down
  • NOTE - none mentioned (including our unit) of any district or council proactive leadership on this 
• All units seemed to have lost some newer Scouts during the crossover and shutdown of Mar 2020 - June 2020, most have reached out to those Scouts but not much traction
  • We did as well.  They fall into two groups.  Young crossovers & limited engaged scouts (scouts that would attend 1-2 events per year).
• Many units are concerned for the health of the Cub Packs they work with
  • Some not meeting
  • Some are down 50%
  • Will be an issue on progression of youth in the program next several years
  • Universal concern ... we just talked about this last night with our adult leaders. We plan to start recruiting kids outside of Packs this fall to help increase our younger ranks.  We had a pretty long discussion and seemed to agree that there are kids out there that either did not join Cub Scouts or may have dropped and do not realize what Scouts BSA offers.  We have counted on Packs for years, but that may run into trouble.  
• Camp has a leader dinner on Thursday, would have been good to have SE there acknowledging the struggle is real with COVID and bankruptcy
  • Maybe acknowledging the future is charted but not 100%
  • Maybe thank the leaders not only for being at camp but also for in fact still being in Scouting and still working to bring the promise of Scouting to youth
  • A missed opportunity though not unexpected as the Senior Professionals on the Council seem to have a disdain for the lowly unit leaders
  • The Council President and Scout Executive from the council attended the dinner.  They thanked us and said they would answer questions about the sale of the camp.  
• The property was in decent shape despite not much use for the last year
• Scouts had a great time
  • 100% true for us as well.  Good to hear and a great break from a tough 2020 ... looking forward to the fall.