Eagle1993

In terms of this case, the judge has been very supportive of everyone, but has been very apparent she wants BSA to survive long term.  When she mentioned the letters, she said she couldn't read them all, but she emphasized that several indicated they want the BSA to survive.  She seems more focused on BSA's survival than maximizing a payout for claimants.

I've also followed the USA Gymnastics bankruptcy and that judge has ripped the Olympic committee and said dig deeper.  There is a major tone difference.  She has never said that to the BSA.  

While cramdowns never happen, I would not be shocked if she allows a vote on the current BSA deal and if it rejected, takes their Plan B as is and closes out the bankruptcy.  If she does anything else, she risks having the end of BSA on her hands and from everything she says, she doesn't want her name attached to the end of the BSA.  Perhaps the Coalition and others see this as a real threat as well, which is why they are working to improve BSA's deal.  There is a strong chance that there is no other option available.  

Tomorrow we will see (perhaps today if there is a last minute deal). 

BSA's latest financials

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2f5112e6-d8c5-4fe3-b63b-dab01932cba9_5180.pdf

They gained $4.4M over the month of April 2021 in available cash.  In 2020, they gained $1.2M.  Now the details

in 2021, we are seeing higher income from HA bases (+$2M), Supply (+$3M) and transfers from investments (+$11M) than 2020.

On the cost side, payroll is up ($3M),, trade AP is down ($0.7M), and a combination of other expenses & capex increased ... so total non bankruptcy expenses are higher in 2021 ($4M).

Bankruptcy expenses are up by $9M

So expenses up $13M, income up $16M shows an increase over April 2020 for net by $3M.

I think the concern here is the transfers from investments.  I cannot imagine that continues indefinitely.

Plus ... in 2020 we didn't have HA bases very active, now we will have have the higher C&B to cover it.

Now .. May 2020 we lost $5M.  That is with lower C&B and much lower bankruptcy rate.  

5 minutes ago, yknot said:

It was pretty awful. I kept waiting for the cat face filter to pop up.  

I've started and stopped writing my thoughts several times.  I do think our leaders love the movement, but I don't think they are the best face for scouting right now.  

You can be older and active.  You can be larger and active.  But the key is active.  If you are running our scouting organization, you should be outdoors and active.  I rarely see our leaders, out in the field, camping, hiking, canoeing, etc.  I would love to see much more social media presence from our individual leaders, highlights scouts, highlighting their own personal adventures that could be attributed to scouting, perhaps some amazing leadership or something.

I rarely if ever see them.  I didn't know 2 of the key 3 without searching.  Nothing.  No weekly podcast.  No twitter.  No anything.  Where are they?  

17 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

IMHO, sharper, enthused, younger people heading an outdoor youth organization would haven take their 4G/5G laptop/phone outdoors for their report. Their audio and video likely would have been in sync too. As to content, well it resembled a performance review prefaced by a BTW we cannot be fired.

My $0.02 and a Scout Salute to Scouting Ireland,

I keep hearing the program and how we deliver it will be greatly changed after bankruptcy.  After bankruptcy we will rebrand.  Etc.  They have to have some ideas when they keep saying this .... what are their ideas?  What do they mean?  

22 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

That sure as heck doesn't sound like the mediation went well/we are going to see a breakthrough this week and that TCC is going full bore after the LCs.

From what I have read, the rumor is the TCC is not being included in the negotiations.  Essentially, the BSA has collected a group of claimant representatives >50% and is working with them on a settlement.  There may be some truth as the Coalition agreed to delay the hearing but the TCC objected. 

Does anyone know if the TCC is actively part of the current mediation or are the being excluded?  I know the target is 66%, but I wonder if the judge would accept >50% yes votes and if BSA has identified a path to yes with 42,001 claimants.  There could be a lot out there that are just looking for a quick payout.

On 8/13/2019 at 1:22 AM, WAKWIB said:

True!  And maybe I could share this lack of Zeus' integrity with the Scout in this very goofy scenario.  Keep in mind that the original poster of the Zeus comment was doing it in jest.  I seriously doubt that I will ever have to deal with such a situation.

 

We had. Den leader talk to his den about Greek and Roman gods.  One of the scouts asked why these gods are no longer believed in.  The leader said that well, people stopped believing in those gods and moved on to other religions.  Then the scout asked... what happens when people stop believing in today’s God(s).   Den meeting over.....  

I think our Faith den meeting created some agnostics.

Moved the Michigan discussion to a new topic.

14 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Since I'm not familiar with the other cases or the Michigan AG's motive and politics, I'm very curious how/why this is happening in this time and space. From my experience in other businesses and top level insurance brokerage through my wife, these are often political animals looking for a crusade to win. I'd love the backstory, if anyone has insight. I recognize this could be a 100% justice motivated and that would be great. I guess it doesn't really matter. I'm glad it's being done, yet curious.

I have to believe MSU and Nasser come to mind.  They cannot be caught flat footed again.  

12 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I wonder if seeing Michigan Crossroads at the top of the LC list for most claims caught their attention or if this has been long bubblin' in the percolator. 

They did the same with the Catholic Church.   I expect they will start with search warrants soon.  You will see pictures of agents going into all scout offices and pulling files out. 
 

The good news is that I expect leaders and anyone who covered it up to be charged and probably go to prison.   Michigan charged a priest for assaults dating back to the 1970s.

Scouting University... 

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/62be061b-eeb1-427a-9416-8e57a135751f_5095.pdf

6 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I would go with typo.  

TCC mentioned that this is as a typo in one of their town halls.  

Riddle me this, Batman.  BSA is saying they are out of cash end of August.  They just delayed the hearing which means everything is delayed 2 weeks.  How do they complete this now by the end of August?  
 

I expect that if the TCC’s plan becomes public, BSA is going to have a nightmare on their hands as it will likely show a large number of council camps sold. They will hear screaming from volunteers who are not aware of what is about to happen. Perhaps, just perhaps this means BSA will really try to settle over the next two weeks.  They do not want that TCC plan made public if they can avoid it. I’m hopeful this means we are getting close to the beginning of the end. 

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/many-boy-scouts-victims-find-little-comfort-as-bankruptcy-nears-end-11621854003?page=1

Looks like BSA is negotiating with some but not all victims (or leaks to WSJ are simply not consistent).  

"The Boy Scouts have made progress in recent days toward a potential agreement with a coalition of law firms that represents the bulk of the victims who have filed claims ... people familiar with the matter said."

then there is this 

"... the Boy Scouts are farther apart from a separate official committee of survivors, other people said."

Who are the major law firms involved and how do you get to >42,000 without the TCC?  Kosnoff is 17,000 and I don't see him making a side deal.  The coalition is 7,000 and they seemed aligned with the TCC.  Either one of the leaks is not true or BSA is working around the TCC, Kosnoff and the coalition. 

46 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

#1  Excluding lender collusion and lender fraud ...  excluding no previously existing rights to the asset .... a secure debt is a secure debt.  The lender has a right to repayment independent of the reasons the borrow took out the loan.  It's easy to question the timing of the loan and even how the loaned money is being used, ... but does any of this affect the status of the secured asset?  

Even then, this seems like a minor point.  The insurance companies seem to be the biggest potential contributor.  

The question is fraud.  Did BSA do this with the intent of fraudulently protecting assets.  If you noticed, the Coalition hired a lawyer that specializes in fraudulent transfer law.  If it was fraud, JPM will be out of luck.  
 

2 hours ago, swilliams said:

Does anyone think they’ll now agree to sell off the HA bases?  Maybe they’ll try to legally force councils to participate?  I can’t pretend to know, but their past maneuvering makes any new progress seem unlikely. 

I think BSA would say ... the HA bases along with other unrestricted assets should be decided at trial.  So basically, lets setup the trust and get agreement.  If the judge declares some of the assets are actually unrestricted, those could then go to the trust.  But there is no reason to hold up the bankruptcy for the trial that will take until 2022.

There are actually 2 major players regarding the HA bases.  One is National.  They profit from the HA bases and believe they help recruit/retain scouts.  The other is JP Morgan.  JP Morgan loaned BSA hundreds of millions of dollars, using the HA bases as collateral.  They will argue that the loans must be paid first as they are secured debt.  There is  a chance that at least Summit is upside down on their debt .. possibly other HA bases as well. I'm sure JP Morgan will never willingly give that up unless they lose at trial.  So this is not simply BSA's call. 

If BSA says sell the HA bases, JPM will jump in and say the money must go to them, leaving survivors with almost nothing from the sales.  Personally, I think the Summit loan is legit.  It was far too much money, but it seems like a legit loan.  I do question the loans taken out in the summer of 2019 against the other HA bases, less than 12 months prior to bankruptcy.  There were rumors at the time that those loans were taken out to protect the bases (by creating secured debt).  However others, including many here at scouter.com believed that it actually put the bases at more risk as its hard to argue they are necessary for BSA if BSA is so willing to use them as collateral for operating income.

Only time will tell.  I doubt the HA decision will be rushed so the bankruptcy settlement will have to have  an asterisk that states something about the outcome of the restricted asset trial (which concludes late 2021/early 2022).  Though, I guess there is a chance that JPM, BSA and TCC can meet and work something out earlier.  

11 hours ago, ThenNow said:

insinuating that the judge is avoiding the tough calls on a wish and a prayer.

That was my second thought.  My first was hopeful (that perhaps this is a good sign).  My second is that this judge is struggling to make any decision as this is a Sophie’s choice situation.   So, she will wait it out and let fate decide.  Which could mean both groups lose out.  

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Yupper. As someone who knows A LOT more about this than I ever will told me, I guess it "can't hurt." Miracles happen and unicorns poop bonbons and fairy dust. I need to humor myself or don the straightjacket. Limited options. The latter would mean I can't type on here so that option's off the table.

I find it very interesting that the judge delayed the trial by almost two weeks.  I wonder/hope it might mean she heard there is progress on mediation. Not sure if that is possible.  Otherwise, it seems a bit odd to delay as BSA is running out of time.  

Not at the unit level.  Our schools are discussing if they treat it like the measles vaccine (required) or flu (optional).  

My town is now at 91% first shot vaccination complete for 16 year olds and older and our Covid rate is 2 active cases out of 14,000 residents. So it works well, but I doubt we would have a mandate as everyone is pretty much getting it on their own.  

You could require masks for those unvaccinated when they are indoors (per CDC) but I wouldn’t require the vaccine. 

I live in a town of 14,000.  A few years ago, we had 4 fairly healthy packs (our at 80 scouts, another at 65, one at 35 and the fourth probably around 20.

We are down to two Packs.  My Pack at 20 scouts (we have lost 60 in the last 2 years) and one around 30.

In the past 3 hours, my Pack has lost 3 den leaders.  Why?  The answer I get is too much work to commit to running a den.  The pack of 65 that ended (it was in existence for 50+ years) ... no parents want to volunteer to lead the Pack.  The DE is going to try & rebuild it ... 

So ... one of the top issues I am hearing, right now, is that we simply do not have enough parents willing to volunteer to make Packs run well.

There is a second issue I am starting to hear from some Cub Parents.  This past 18 months, families spent a lot of time together ... and they are NOT in a rush to return back to their previously overschedule past life.  They are being more selective on activities and some are backing away from programs.  In general ... sports wins out more than scouts ... so they are more likely to pull or not return to Cub Scouts.  

The collapse has been sudden and it is actually getting worse as we exit Covid.  I'm seeing parents who stepped up during Covid now back away.  Again, multiple Packs in my area are seeing this ... otherwise, I would think it could just be a one off issue.

I plan a massive recruiting drive (including parents) and hope that will save us this fall.  However, I am very concerned that this may be early signs that the Cub Program will not rebound any time soon (if ever).  This may require fundamental changes in Cub Scouts.

44 minutes ago, elitts said:

Well, if a tort occurred 40 years ago, it would seem to make sense that you should get an award based upon the value of money at the time of the occurrence.  So if a current award for a similar tort today was $100, 40 years ago that may have only been $25.

I think this is a good point if the damage wasn't psychological.  If it wasn't psychological, you could simply look at the immediate impact and argue that is what the compensatory damage should be.  The issue is that the abuse is psychological and therefore likely life long.  At that point, you have to consider the cost and impact in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and on and on and on....  That would be impacts such as lost wages, life long pain & suffering, life long medical costs, etc.  Easily hundreds of thousands of dollars or more.

Then comes the punitive side.  I believe that is many times a multiplier and can vary by state.  Some I have seen are ten times.    So ... even in 1970, if someone could have claimed $1M in damages (from life long psychological damage) and then the jury said BSA should be punished 10x punitive, you could see an $11M verdict for 1 case. 

20 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Do you mean the TCC without the Coalition? 

I just mean 1 between the two.  I think it would be a mess if various law firms, groups, etc. start filing their own plans.  I would say the judge should not allow a free for all ... just 1 plan from the TCC/Coalition.

2 hours ago, Muttsy said:

The judge is going to end BSA exclusivity, probably on Monday.

Kosnoff Law just tweeted the same.  He indicated that (he believes) the BSA judge will end BSA exclusivity and allow victims to file a plan and that is essential to progress and BSA's survival.  

This is the first time, I can remember, where Kosnoff is mentioning that BSA survives.  He has been a liquidation or bust guy.

The more comments I read from others, I really think we should open it up to the TCC and the TCC alone to submit alternate plans.  Clearly BSA hasn't been able to come up with one yet and they are running out of time.

8 minutes ago, MattR said:

How can you tell if it's restricted? I couldn't find the description of letter codes that went with each camp.

[2] U: Unrestricted - No restriction on the property was asserted or confirmed

[2] L: Limitations - Documents support existence of use limitations or sale limitations such as conservation easements which may impact the value of the property

[2] R: Restricted - Assertion of or documents supporting legal restrictions including donor restrictions to the sale of property and/or requiring the reversion of property or proceeds to an unrelated party.

[2] TBD: Assertion of restriction remains subject to review and/or additional documentation

Scouts UK has 450K "young people".  BSA membership is under 1M and even BSA is not indicating getting back to over 1M until 2025. There are about 16M "young people" (from 5 - 25) in the UK so % of them in UK Scouts is 2.8%.  My guess is that % is higher when you look at under 18. Now .. BSA is about 1M today and just counting 5 - 18 and younger is about 62M.  So, about 1.6%.

UK scouts no longer require DoR. They show you can have a successful program without DOR.

Now ... I DO NOT think removing DoR will have any real positive impact on the US numbers.  I do not believe there would be a surge of applications.  I think you might see some minor changes to some groups willing to host scouts, perhaps some contribution changes (could go either way) but this would likely be minimal and rare.  I also don't see public schools coming back, even with this change.

The only thing it could do is remove a potential future controversy.   I think we should only consider it if it is being considered in the future (to get it out of the way now).  I think you can operate without it and be successful ... you can also go the Scouts Canada route.

In terms of impact on day to day on unit function ... I think almost none if you remove DOR.  Troops & Packs that are chartered by non religious institutions are already very secular.  Unless you are a hard core atheist, you can easily meet our current DOR.  Note that not all religions believe in a God or gods ... but they still fulfill DOR.  For example, Buddhist do not believe in any deity, but you can still get a BSA religious medal.

So, if I were running BSA, I would probably not make the change and ensure there is no debate about a change going forward. 

Quote

The BSA maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts from the Declaration of Religious Principle and the Bylaws of the BSA shall be entitled to register.

23 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

Something I still don't understand is how a TCC plan would handle the LCs.  What incentive would it provide that would lead them to contribute substantially more than is now being proposed?

My understanding is the TCC plan would be a council by council settlement.  So, if you are in council Z ... TCC would say pay $YM and the sex abuse liabilities prior to Feb 2020 goes away.  If the council doesn't pay, then there would be no protection and lawsuits can begin.  

I think the benefit is that it really allows each council to individually decide.  Risk lawsuits, future lawsuits, future disruptions and future bankruptcy or pay a high fee right now.  I think that makes a lot more sense and may be easier to discuss with volunteers.  The downside is that the payout is likely to be much higher than what they are contributing to the $450M settlement.

What is being proposed now likely won't pass.  Sure, if it could pass it will likely be better than the TCC proposal (in terms of council payouts).