Eagle1993

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

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.

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,

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 t

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.

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.

[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

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

I wasn’t on the call, so it’s tough for me to know. He quotes keep bringing up her desire to save the BSA. (I don’t think any judge would want on their record the elimination of one of the largest youth organizations in the USA.) She also wants victims to be compensated fairly. Right now, no plan does both. I would be fine seeing the TCC plan ... perhaps that is her decision. I know she is hoping for a negotiation, I just don’t see that happening until she makes some rulings.

We are a bit of a mixed state. No look back window. Some are pushing, but the leaders who previously support d reforms are not answering questions. The Catholic Church is fighting hard against changes as are private schools. Council has two camps, one worth $2M and one worth $1.5M along with a scout shop in the $1M range. I expect a camp will be sold even though listed as restricted. NDAs. They said the leadership signed NDAs which means they can only share what is public info. They did say the $450M is not equally spread across all councils and councils in better fi

This is a copy of the judges final statement today.

During our council townhall, they indicated that our council will have to pay a sizable amount to the settlement. That yes, that is a change from the initial announcement. The contribution is going to be large, it will hurt, but we will still be able to survive. They cannot say the estimated amount at this time, but will when they are allowed. They cannot say if camp sale(s) will be required nor how that would be conducted. That they have a very good law firm that is working pro bono for our council. The council leadership is meeting multiple times a week

If she wants to fast track this, I really think she needs to simplify the bankruptcy. There is no way to fast track a resolution where most councils see limited number of in SOL cases and will be willing to give up the billion+ of assets. COs have not gotten involved and the insurance situation is complex. Add in the DOJ objection and I see no way a fast solution can come if you include councils. Perhaps she lets the global plan go to a vote, see it rejected and accepts the Toggle Plan (but stays the Hartford settlement and decision on HA bases). Those could be litigated after BSA

https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/judge-frets-over-potential-end-boy-scouts-amid-chaotic-bankruptcy-2021-05-19/

One quote from the judge from today’s hearing. "To solicit a plan that has no abuse survivor support is not an attractive option. But neither is engaging in protracted litigation that has the potential to end the Boy Scouts as it currently exists."

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e6463ebf-5761-47e7-9e21-2a9358c45549_3857.pdf No evidence ... however, I do believe Century requested Discovery from BSA and others.

Apparently they broke zoom. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/f4390fd2-ca3c-457a-bff5-95afa2d61e1e_4686.pdf

Moved the discussion about BSA youth protection vs society and other programs here. Let me know if you need any comment moved back to the main CH11 thread. Thanks!

I'm going to quickly lock the thread and create a new topic. I think the discussion is valid and has been courteous ... but isn't directly linked to the bankruptcy discussion. Plus, we have 2 - 3 separate discussions going on here and it is a bit confusing. Will unlock shortly.

This thread has most of the info in this article. That said, some quotes from BSA including this one about Century Insurance. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/business/details-on-local-council-finances-filed-in-boy-scouts-case/2635256/ Note that Century has accused the BSA of allowing thousands if not tens of thousands of false claims to remain on the books. Their belief is that BSA wants the false claims as those individuals are more likely to take the $1,500 payout and vote yes to their plan. Century said BSA is buying votes of false claimants. So, Century wants to pause this u

Well... LDS just served the BSA. This relationship has soured https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1f0068a3-a7a6-468f-a9a7-9f64b80210e2_4659.pdf

Welcome to Scouter.com. The BSA would absolutely prefer the global resolution plan. It provides protection for their LCs and COs. The issue is that the claimants do not believe the offer is close to enough to give the liability waivers. Why would anyone vote for the toggle? Well, technically BSA is not even looking to get the toggle approved by claimants. They are asking the judge to enforce it through a cram down if the global plan is rejected. There are a lot of moving parts. Hopefully some come to a resolution tomorrow during the hearings.