Eagle1993

1 hour ago, Muttsy said:

Finally, why would anyone vote for the toggle for the privilege of putting BSA back in to business for no money? 

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.  

1 hour ago, MattR said:

How is that possible?

If you look at National Only ... proceeds from liquidation would be $497M.

• Then liquidation fees (lawyers, wind down costs, etc.) would be $48M
• Secured claims (JPM + Pension Termination Claim) would be $337M
• Employee and professional claims would be $69M
• That results in $42M for everyone.  BSA predicts Abuse claims would be $36.5M best case.

If you look at Councils ... proceeds would be $1.8B (that assumes 0 sales of restricted land and a 60% return on unrestricted) ... essentially, that in a flash sale, you won't get much value.  Asset Value is actually $4.0B for LCs.

• Then liquidation fees (lawyers, wind down costs, etc.) would be $210M
• Secured claims (JPM + Pension Termination Claim) would be $1.14B
• Employee and professional claims would be $11M
• That results in $445M for everyone.  BSA predicts Abuse claims would be $405M best case.  

So, National is offering over $100M >> $36.5M if it were liquidated.  Councils are offering $450M > $405M if they were liquidated.

This is per BSA numbers.  This also assumes >$1B goes to the Pension Fund ... which I know is being debated.

46 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

So six months to negotiate an agreement before trial ... or during trial ... or wait for end of trial.  

This could be easily a year out.

I expect the high adventure bases (and other restricted assets) could take years.  Even after that initial trial November 17th ... there will be appeals.  I do hope that after that trial, it may then allow a negotiated settlement afterward ... though parties may wait until after a round of appeals.  I don't plan on knowing if the HA bases remain within BSA until the end of 2022.  We have decided to not go to BSA HA bases in 2022 and 2023 given the risk.

Note that I expect similar battles at councils.  The most valuable camp in the entire BSA appears to be this gem.. https://alpinescoutcamp.org/ ... estimated to be worth $175M and is listed as restricted.  I expect a battle.

More interesting tidbits.  The BSA also included a possible liquidation analysis for 100% of local councils.  Essentially, if the court agrees that all local councils would be liquidated if National must liquidate.

The BSA is showing that essentially, the abuse claimants would get <$400M total between National and all LCs if the entire BSA was liquidated.  That is their best case.  

So BSA is saying their current offer is better than what would be provided if the entire BSA is liquidated.

Some other interesting numbers from BSA's plan.

Global Resolution estimate for # of youth members

• 2021     1,050,000
• 2022   994,000
• 2023   978,000
• 2024  984,000
• 2025  1,011,000

Toggle Plan estimate

• 2021     1,032,000
• 2022   911,000
• 2023   859,000
• 2024  866,000
• 2025  916,000

31 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Questions:

Is there agreement or a bench decision which assets are restricted?

Does this new plan answer the pressing question of how much money/assets are committed to the Trust? It seems a potential pool of local council assets and insurance policies and good luck fishing.

If the motion to send this third plan out for a vote is denied, how will the exclusivity deadline be effected?

Schedule appears here... this will take the rest of the year, perhaps longer.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2e4fa3fc-bdfe-4582-9bac-60034eb0ef27_21.pdf

May 28 - Disclosures due

June 30 - Document Prodcution

Jul 30 - Fact Discovery cut off

Aug 20 - Expert Testimony Discovery

Sept 24 - Expert Discovery cutoff

Oct 8 - Dispositive deadline

Nov 17 - Witness list

Nov 17 - Pretrial Conference

TBD - Trial

Per shared document... looks like updated HA base valuations.

Philmont value... $153M

Sea Base... $29M

Northern Tier ... $8M

Summit Note $43M

The note from Summit is over $300M but they appraised Summit and looked at note and it’s value is only $43M.

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Here is the file with all council assets detailed by the BSA.  It also includes camp by camp value plus details how many claims are NOT time barred.  Just search any council.

BSA - Proposed Amended DS (omniagentsolutions.com)

 

There is a ton of info in this document. It includes a plan to continue to increase fees through 2025. Focus on increasing online programs for Cub Scouts. Targeting girls to increase membership.  No Jambo in 2022.   Financial data, etc.  even those not interested in bankruptcy could find some info regarding the future of BSA.  

Here is the file with all council assets detailed by the BSA.  It also includes camp by camp value plus details how many claims are NOT time barred.  Just search any council.

BSA - Proposed Amended DS (omniagentsolutions.com)

Hearing to be held May 19th .. more info below.

Link - May 19th hearing

8 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Based on the TCC's town hall last week and the new fairly oblivious filings over the weekend, I see no evidence, smoke signals or cloud formations indicating there is any prospect of a pending mediated settlement. I supposed there is always a very, very remote possibility, but I highly doubt it.

I tend to agree; however, it does seems like the NY mediation was better than Miami.  The TCC in their townhall was almost offended from the Miami interaction, but seemed more positive about NY.  I don't expect it before May 19th, nor did they indicate they were close ... but perhaps they are making progress.  One could hope.

34 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

How will the LC's feel about being put into such a vulnerable situation? 

Not good.  But there may not be a choice.  I'm sure BSA would love to provide protection to the CO/LCs ... but if the plan is rejected (either by the judge due to the long list of issues or votes) ... The only likely path is a National only settlement.

Also, I am interested in the judge's take on the DOJ objection.  It seems like the bankruptcy trustee from the DOJ believes that no settlement can be allowed legally that provides protection to COs or LCs (as they are non-debtors).  I hope to learn more during the May 19th hearing.

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.  

@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.

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.  

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).

https://cases.omniagentsolutions.com/documents?clientid=CsgAAncz%2b6Yclmvv9%2fq5CGybTGevZSjdVimQq9zQutqmTPHesk4PZDyfOOLxIiIwZjXomPlMZCo%3d&tagid=1250

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.

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).

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?  

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.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/85c0d0bc-0fd3-4dc3-ba84-3b94e5e1e475_2964.pdf

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.

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.

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.