Eagle1993
-
Content Count
2824 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
104
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Store
Posts posted by Eagle1993
-
-
@johnsch322 Welcome to Scouter.com.
-
2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:
Unfortunately you are seeing and living the nightmare that many in BSA and the forum consider children sexually abused just the cost of having BSA. A cost the children abused must pay.
I do not see anyone on this forum saying that. I see people comparing to other organizations to indicate BSA may be safer. I see comments that if BSA is closed, kids may actually be more at risk. That is not saying sex abuse is the cost of having BSA ... its the exact opposite.
Now ... are these stat comparisons fair ... likely not. But I believe the clear intent is to understand how BSA's safety compares to other organizations with a clear goal of ensuring BSA is safer.
2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:Time for BSA to start taking this seriously or someone is going to do it for them on behalf of and with the authority of a federal court.
I fully expect changes from this bankruptcy. I believe BSA has been too timid sometimes acting on change (for example, requiring YPT to register). However, I still see BSA as much more active in this space than GSUSA or sports teams I have been involved with. Most unit leaders spend time considering YP aspects when planning events. Every Eagle Scout project I review includes a discussion of safety and YP coverage. This is drilled into us by the BSA.
So ... I expect changes and some of which are probably a bit overdue (more openness in reporting). However, I have a hard time saying BSA doesn't take this seriously.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:
Do open Ineligible Volunteer Files (IVF) mean listed by name? If not, by identifiers such as council? So who will defend the lawsuits by people defamed by accusations that have not been proven? Who will defend the lawsuits from people placed in the IVF because they were accused of theft of funds from a unit or the council bu.t were defamed by being associated with the IVF?
From the TCC Townhall, they did mention that there would be redactions.
-
1
-
-
There has been some discussions about BSA restricted assets and questions about a "trial" regarding these. This seems to be captured under a docket labeled Adversary 21-50032 (TCC Identified Property Action).
This covers the following topics where BSA says the assets are restricted:
- Bank Account Cash - $39.9M
- LC Collateral - $62.8M
- General Investments - $81M
- Order of the Arrow - $7.4M
- Philmont, Northern Tier Sea Base - $63.3M
- Donor Restricted Pledges Receivables - $76.6M
- Misc Summit Assets - $6M
- Gift Annuity - $8.1M
- Note Receivable from Arrow WV - $345M
All of these were considered restricted by the BSA. You can review the back & forth in the docket.
-
1
-
46 minutes ago, qwazse said:
I’m not sure what’s in it for BSA. Will the dollar amount of the settlement be lowered if they provide a plan?
The plan will not be approved without changes to BSA's youth protection. The TCC was clear, they need at minimum, the amount from BSA as if they were liquidated + the YPT changes and release of all IVF (redactions as appropriate).
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:
As far as BSA is concerned, their modern YPT program is the best, most perfect thing and needs no improvements.
And just coincidence I am sure, but the entire YPT program is being "updated" effective June 1.
My understanding is that they are making the training better for mobile applications and updated some test questions. One of the councils had that info.
-
9 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:
Watching now.
All I can say is: wow. Wait until the video drops tomorrow. Wow.
Just finished. A couple of newsy time things I heard.
- I expected we could have guessed this, but TCC & the Coalition are working together on their proposal.
- They have a good idea which camps have deed restrictions. For example, every camp BSA councils came up with as an example as deed protected, was not part of the TCC's settlement offer (they already excluded the camp). This is regarding LCs.
- They will demand an outside party review and have authority to change BSA's Youth protection policies
- They will start contacting each council next week to provide them their detailed analysis of what camps they will need to sell, what cash they will need to give to settle with the TCC.
I'm sure I'm missing a few.
-
2 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:
I think this is a good point ...
One thing to remember, National BSA will walk away from this (given the current plan) in debt to JPM. It appears, based on what I can see, the total debt BSA will own JPM is $222.2M (when you add up each of the categories). It looks like that must be paid off in 10 years? ... I couldn't find a clear payment schedule.
That is over $2M per month (assuming a <4% interest rate). With 1 million scouts, that is $24/year per scout. Now, there will be income from these properties ... but there is also maintenance, fees, salaries, etc. to support the property.
I'll be interested to see BSA's business plan including how they pay off this mountain of debt if and when they leave bankruptcy.
I'm going to follow up on this a bit. The $222.2M is what BSA owes JPM after the bankruptcy (assuming I added up the numbers listed in the following document:
https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/886292_2594.pdf
Now here is the interesting part. I don't believe this includes the loan Arrow WV has with JPM. Arrow WV owed JPM $323M at the end of 2018. I'm guessing BSA, I mean Arrow WV, paid another $15M or so over the next two years (same paydown rate). Lets say the paid $23M ... so Arrow WV has a $300M loan for Summit opened against JPM.
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/270441319/201903199349303075/IRS990
So ... is the combined debt of Arrow WV & BSA $522.2M leaving bankruptcy?
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:
The BSA has had massive layoffs and has only said that it could not emerge from bankruptcy past this summer - not that its cash would = $0.00.
I think this is a good point ...
One thing to remember, National BSA will walk away from this (given the current plan) in debt to JPM. It appears, based on what I can see, the total debt BSA will own JPM is $222.2M (when you add up each of the categories). It looks like that must be paid off in 10 years? ... I couldn't find a clear payment schedule.
That is over $2M per month (assuming a <4% interest rate). With 1 million scouts, that is $24/year per scout. Now, there will be income from these properties ... but there is also maintenance, fees, salaries, etc. to support the property.
I'll be interested to see BSA's business plan including how they pay off this mountain of debt if and when they leave bankruptcy.
-
12 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:
So, one more can kick in which the plan does NOT go out until after a June hearing by the judge puts BSA in what it had said was an impossible position.
If you look at unrestricted cash, I think they are in trouble. They have $61.7M as of end of April and now they will burn through this cash with little ongoing income (the charters are mostly in as are many HA base fees).
Now .. .they also list they have unrestricted non cash liquidity and that gets them to $184M. $184 would buy them another year+. Then they have restricted funds ... perhaps those could be utilized.
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:
First, they've now provided scanned signature analysis showing that some of Proof of Claim forms were clear forgeries. Moreover, they are claiming that they have a whistleblower, ready to testify, that many if not most of the claims are fraudulent. She provided a deposition on May 11.
This is a very interesting document. The insurance company makes a pretty interesting claim in here. Essentially, BSA is attempting to use the $1,500 payout to get the large number of people with false claims to vote for their bad plan. Essentially, no person with a valid claim would approve BSA's proposal ... so they want to keep the fake claims in the pool as those people would likely jump at the chance to take $1,500 and approve their plan. This could be the reason why BSA hasn't pushed back at the claims.
Also, it appears there is some questionable tactics. I have heard the info about lawyers signing off claims (one every 32 seconds). I never saw the examples where claimant signatures were clearly copied (they show the same signature on two different claimants. The whistleblower is stating the many people asked to remove their claim or decided not to pursue it but the legal teams told them to tell the person they removed the claim (but actually kept it on the books).
Something interesting ... Kosnoff's own tweets are included in this filing.
At first, I thought that the reviewing of claims can wait until the the settlement trust pays out (and before insurance payouts). My reasoning was that it didn't matter to the BSA if it were 10,000 or 84,000 claims ... the payment to the fund would be the same. However, if there are a large number of false claims and they vote in favor of a settlement where real claimants would have rejected it ... that is an issue that should be addressed now.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:
Moreover, given her track record so far, I can see more can-kicking down the road by the judge.
I expect this will be the outcome; however, that is still a rebuke of BSA. It means 0 chance of exiting by summer, so the ball is back in BSA's court. I'll be interested on what they say & do.
I also think she does need to make a call about suing local councils/COs. If she doesn't, some state windows are closing soon and claimants may lose their right to sue.
Finally, I expect a stern statement or two and some major finger wagging.
-
5 hours ago, fred8033 said:
MY POINT IS --> It's not good legal advice.
If BSA is being 100% truthful with you, me and claimants that they want to exit bankruptcy as quickly as possible this is not true. If we are to believe BSA that they will liquidate in September if they are still in bankruptcy, this is not true.
Now, if those are simply bluffs and BSA can survive for 2-3 more years while going through bankruptcy, I agree.
I think if BSA wants to keep their HA bases and continues to play the delay game, we are looking at years of bankruptcy trials. The only way BSA gets out quickly is surrendering the bases (or immediately proving they are restricted) and dropping protection for LCs and COs. My guess is the DOJ objection removes the LCs and COs from the process anyway.
May 19th will be a big day to find out where this is headed.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, fred8033 said:
#64 refers to a "trial"? Is the trial scheduled? Is BSA in pre-trial discovery process? Or are we in mediation to find a way out of the bankruptcy?
BSA is asking the Judge, May 19th to approve their plan and allow it to go to a vote. TCC filed an objection and this was one of many reasons. Basically, judge, you cannot approve the plan as there has been no decision on HA bases. Since claimants have to approve the plan (67% of them) and they will reject any plan until the HA bases are litigated, there is no reason to approve BSA’s request May 19th. The TCC also shows the power is all within BSA’s control. TCC has already clearly defined the objection to the HA bases and BSA must respond or see their plan rejected.
BSA is arguing that if their plan is not approved May 19, they will likely have to liquidate as they need to exit bankruptcy by summer or they run out of cash.
So, May 19 this will be decided.
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:
TCC has only been fighting over Summit.
TCC is fighting for all $650M ... but it seems like much of the focus is Summit. Here is more from their objection:
- They reference $650M ... that is more than Summit ... that must include Philmont, Sea Base & Northern Tier
Quote61. Through the Restricted Property Action, the TCC contests the Boy Scouts’ position that most of its assets are unavailable to satisfy abuse claims due to charitable restrictions. Resolution of the disputes concerning the Restricted Assets is required to determine whether over $650 million of real estate and financial assets titled to the Boy Scouts are property of the estate available to satisfy abuse claims.
- See below where TCC is making requests for BSA to offer evidence at trial and they refuse to. TCC appears to be saying, reject every plan until BSA provides evidence & this issue can be settled. I agree 100%.
Quote64. In an effort to streamline the Restricted Property Action, the TCC has made repeated requests that the Boy Scouts inform it whether it intends to offer evidence at trial to meet its double burdens of proof or if it intends to attempt to convince the Court that Judge Sontchi’s opinions should not be followed. If the former, the TCC has requested the prompt production of the evidence that the Boy Scouts will rely on at trial to meet its burdens of proof. If the latter, the matter may be disposed of by summary judgment. To date, the Boy Scouts has refused to do either.
-
A few more objections to BSA's plan coming in ..
Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco joins onto the LDS objection
The Coalition of Abused Scouters & Future Claimants Rep join the TCC in objecting to the Lehr settlement (that was the $3M settlement BSA proposed for Lehr). I figured this was coming.
Travelers & AIG object to the BSA disclosure
I probably should just wait and see if anyone doesn't object to BSA's current plan. Now that would be news.
-
Another objection from the TCC & team front. This one is also very interesting.
I found this very interesting. This details out the history & current status of the HA base fight. Would be interesting to see if BSA submits an answer tomorrow. Plus, if JP Morgan can get involved and perhaps a negotiated settlement.
QuoteB. The Restricted Property Action 14. On January 8, 2021, the TCC commenced an adversary proceeding (Adv. Pro. Case No. 21-50032) (the “Restricted Property Action”) seeking a declaratory judgment that Boy Scouts assets having an asserted value of $667,075,374 that allegedly are subject to donor Case 20-10343-LSS Doc 3816 Filed 05/12/21 Page 7 of 32 DOCS_LA:337783.10 85353/002 8 restrictions (“Restricted Assets”) are, in fact, not subject to enforceable donor restrictions, and, instead, are available to satisfy creditor claims. The Boy Scouts filed its answer in the Restricted Property Action on April 23, 2020. The TCC and the Boy Scouts had their Bankruptcy Rule 7026(f) conference on April 29, 2021. Initial disclosures pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7026(a)(1) are due on May 13, 2021. The initial scheduling conference is set for May 19, 2021. JP Morgan Chase Bank has filed an unopposed motion to intervene and the parties are negotiating a stipulation to permit the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors to intervene as a party. The TCC served its initial document requests and interrogatories on the Boy Scouts on April 30, 2021. No responses have been served to date.
Also a bit surprised about this. BSA plans to disclosure their abuse settlements 2016 and later ... but is refusing to release data prior to 2016. I wonder their motivation and this one doesn't sit well with me, especially if it is data (not individual names that were not charged/convicted).
QuoteAfter over a year in bankruptcy, the Boy Scouts intends to disclose sexual abuse settlement data only for settlements arising from and after 2016, despite its awareness and possession of data regarding abuse claims stretching back to 1940: On May 7, 2021, the Boy Scouts advised the survivors groups of its refusal to provide any information relating to the decades of scouting child molestation claims arising before 2016.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Forums work well in many ways, but it is probably not the best way to discuss the difficult feelings of this bankruptcy while also discussing the impact to child sex abuse survivors. However, there are not a lot of avenues for this discussion so as long as it remains scoutlike it can continue.
That said, I do ask everyone to be patient with each other and not necessarily jump on a single word or phrase as a line of attack. Again, if we were sitting in person, it would be easier to read tone or intent in messaging. Forums are a bit unartful to communicate emotion.
I really don't believe scouters, who have dedicated their lives to helping children, have anything but sympathy for survivors of sex abuse. At times, they may focus on the emotional pain they are going through, seeing a program they believe in and put much of their life's effort destroyed. It doesn't mean they believe that is worse or comparable to the pain of child sex abuse survival ... even if they don't always state it elegantly.
If this thread simply starts becoming a place where a single phrase or word will be jumped on to attack a poster, then it loses it's value and will probably be locked. If you see something, you can DM the poster, post here asking for clarity or report the post to moderators.
-
1
-
2
-
8
-
27 minutes ago, skeptic said:
Okay, what am I missing in regard to the Biden connection? Did they file some kind of legal involvement? I looked at the partners on the link given, and currently are no BSA groups that I saw, though I may have missed something. Also did not see anything related to Scouting in general, or for that matter hardly any major youth serving group.
I think the poster was speculating a bit. An objection came from the Department of Justice Bankruptcy Trustee which falls under the Biden administration. Essentially ... is it a sign the Biden admin will get involved (like they did the the NRA bankruptcy).
-
22 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:
If @Eagle1993knows of such a case, I'm all ears.
https://whyy.org/articles/boy-scouts-abused-in-other-states-sue-in-n-j-using-untested-strategy/
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:
A claimant from a non look back state doesn't really have a legally cognizable claim against BSA, would they even retain their right to vote on a plan that is BSA national only?
One of the reasons National BSA has all these claims, is that they had New York as their HQ for a long time, followed by New Jersey as their HQ. That went all the way until 1979. So to me, the state laws apply to national allow lookback windows. So 100% of claims from 1979 and prior are within state laws of New York/New Jersey.
My question is with National HQ in Texas and 1980 and later. How are those claims valid? Some would definitely be valid based on Texas SOLs, but I'm curious how the claims in 1980s and most of the 1990s could be valid when National HQ is in Texas.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:
IMHO above all, the BSA wants to remain "in the driver's seat" no matter what.
So again IMHO, the TCC or any creditor plan seems likely to be dead on arrival.
Will that mean the U.S. Trustee submits another plan or there is a dismissal?
My $0.01,
Agreed. I think the judge should use the US Trustee's objection to:
- Eliminate the CO/LC/Insurance settlement talk ... they are excluded from further discussions. They are not part of this bankruptcy. Lift the stay of any lawsuits against these groups.
- Set a timeline to determine HA base status & JP Morgan loan. BSA .. provide your justification with documentation, or rule that they are non restricted assets and the loan is not secured (JP won't get back 100%).
- Once #2 is done, ask BSA to submit a plan. Only argument then is how much cash they need to run the operations post Chapter 11. Should be fairly simple.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Quote
1. As the centerpiece of their Plan, the Debtors have proposed a complex series of releases and injunctions that will channel their tort liability, along with the tort liability of certain non-debtor affiliates and “representatives” (and, depending on the specific version of the Plan confirmed, numerous other non-debtors) to a Settlement Trust that will become the sole source of recovery for persons asserting abuse claims against the Debtors and other Protected Parties. The proposed Channeling Injunction resembles the injunctions that have historically been featured in chapter 11 cases involving product liability claims for which injuries and claims are expected to arise indefinitely into the future. But as the Debtors themselves seem to acknowledge, the use of such an injunction is novel in a case such as this, which involves only past torts with no latency period. See Disclosure Statement at 44 n.35.
Quotethe Disclosure Statement does not identify any legal authority for the Channeling Injunction, nor does the Disclosure Statement attempt to reconcile this relief with the stringent limitations placed by this Court on non-consensual third-party releases. The United States Trustee reserves judgment on whether the Plan ultimately will be confirmable, but the Disclosure Statement should not be approved until the Debtors have at the very least elucidated the legal argument on which they intend to rely.
If you take a look at the above, it appears the US Trustee is saying the BSA cannot (as of now) justify any release of liability of insurance companies, LCs or COs. I then question if the TCC could be given the authority to act on behalf of claimants with councils or COs. Perhaps the TCC now has info that will be used if LCs go bankrupt... but not before then.
If I was abused in the BSA, the liability of National BSA (and their insurance companies) could be covered by this bankruptcy, but I should still be able to to sue Council X, CO Y and individual Z. I never signed on any agreement with TCC or anyone else to waive my right to sue councils, COs and/or individuals. How can the bankruptcy of the National BSA impact my ability to sue other independent organizations?
The way I read the US Trustee's 1st and major point ... this bankruptcy can only discuss the debtor and the debtor's assets. It cannot provide releases of liability to COs or LCs, insurance companies, etc. who are non debtors. If that is part of the plan, BSA needs to provide the legal basis as to why it should be allowed, and they haven't been able to do that yet.
That is why I am saying it throws a wrench in the whole discussion. Perhaps a good wrench, but a wrench none the less. I am not a lawyer, but I'm curious how others read this point.
-
7 hours ago, yknot said:
https://www.beaubidenfoundation.org/
I'm not surprised there might be federal interest in ensuring justice for CSA survivors based on this:
https://www.beaubidenfoundation.org/
This may actually throw a wrench in the whole process. I’m not 100% convinced their objection will help abuse victims. Perhaps, but it looks different than any of the others.
I did find it interesting that the DOJ lawyer pulled this quote from another case.
noting that “...third party releases are not a merit badge that somebody gets in return for making a positive contribution to a restructuring. They are not a participation trophy, and they are not a gold star for doing a good job. Doing positive things in a restructuring case— even important things— is not enough”
Chapter 11 announced - Part 3 - BSA's Toggle Plan
in Issues & Politics
Posted
Century Ins filed a motion to delay the hearing (due to BSA’s document dump yesterday). I hope the judge denies the request. We need this hearing so we can see the court rule on this proposal. Is it even close to good enough to go to a vote? What is the impact to this case from the DOJ objection? Time to make progress in court... no more delays.