Eagle1993

One problem here ... that is $86,060 in the Settlement Trust per victim. This does not mean victims walk away with $86,060. 1) The Settlement Trust will have to pay fees to lawyers, administration, etc. that manages the trust. In some cases, they will have property they have to sell (oil rights, paintings, etc.) 2) Many claimants, as mentioned, have legal representation who will take 40% of the recovery. So, $7.1B * 10% (trust management) + $7.1B * 40% (legal fees) = $3.55B in "fees" leaving $3.55B for victims. That means the victims walk away with $43K each with a $7.1B

I agree that the end goal of the TCC and many claimants is not the destruction of the BSA; however, most will want the money their lawyers are telling them they could expect if they reject the current offer. The TCC (and the various lawyers) has a number in mind on what the BSA can afford to pay (as they have said on this site, they have already had a company perform an assessment of more than 500 BSA properties including a review if they are restricted or not). They likely have a number in mind in terms of liability of insurance companies. I doubt it is the full $102B; however, it is l

Kosnoff is on twitter complaining about Judge Silverstein improperly sealing and over redacting victim letters to the court. I was curious has the redacting is working in this case and why they wouldn't allow release of a groups estimate of Harford's liability.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/887735_2672.pdf Interesting find in the Future Clamant Representative response .. the court redacted their estimates of Harford's liability. So clearly there are estimates, but the court doesn't want that public.

Ok, I'm unlocking this topic. I removed a comment made about lawyers and some of the back and forth about that comment. I left on the tort discussion and that back and forth as it seems applicable. Let's try and stay on topic and avoid calling people names. Also, it would be good to have some patients with each other as this is a difficult topic to discuss in an online forum. Lets keep it scoutlike. My apologizes if I deleted something you believe as critical to this topic. You can always repost if you like.

I also think there is a difference between Cub Scouts & Scouts BSA in this area. I wouldn't let a 2nd grader just wander off from my Den Meeting. I also know the kids parents so I confirm who is taking him home. Scouts BSA ... once our Troop Meeting is done, 1/2 the kids get on their bikes and ride off. I don't track down 40 kids to confirm they made it home safely.

I definitely agree that being outside is relatively safe and a good reason to keep meetings/events outdoors as much as possible. We were following a similar plan, but ended up with 1 scout with Covid on one of our backpacking trips. Then a few months later another scout (my son) ended up having Covid while at a Troop meeting (outdoors). Those two events did not lead to any transmission (as I expect being outside helped), but it pushed us to virtual only for about 3 months (that plus winter). I'll add that we did require masks (though on the backpacking trip they were not always up) a

CDC may be revising their guidelines for masks outdoors. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/it-still-necessary-wear-masks-outdoors-cdc-looking-revising-mask-n1264937

One of the topics in the May hearing is the estimation request. The TCC wants an estimate by claim. That way, they can look at every claim vs every insurance policy. Let's say Council A had a policy by Harford from January 1 to December 31 1990 with a maximum payout of $3M. The TCC will want to look at the total amount of claims (from the estimation process) they would have against that policy (that council in 1990). If it is $1.1M ... they want the $1.1M payout from that policy. There are both National & LC policies they will look at. The issue with Harford and Chubb is that th

Harford can likely afford $16B plus. They can sell off all of their investments/equity. It is not an offer based upon their resources to pay. BSA could sell off their HA bases and increase their offer. TCC is going to sue JP Morgan over that loan. Chubb will have to make an offer. LCs .. the TCC knows how much they can pay (they already assessed 500+ properties) COs ... who knows ... So ... the TCC and lawyers know what the real ability to pay is and I expect it is well north of the $1.1B offer. The only way this resolves quickly is BSA and insurers and LCs g

Lets say if you look at the combined total of all insurance contracts they have over the time period and max payout is $10B. Then $650M is a steal for them. Insurance payouts are not based on the operating income of the insurance company. Just look at AIG. They owe what they owe. If they go bankrupt, then they will have to determine how much they have to pay during their own Chapter 11.

Very, very difficult to determine. National & LCs each had their own insurance policies that vary by time period. In addition, each of those may have some sort of limit of coverage. You have to piece together 100s if not 1000s of insurance contracts to see the total amount and then compare that to how many claimants there are within that time frame against that policy.

Kosnoff's team dug into this a bit and they believe that Harford is able to get the $650M from Warren Buffet's reinsurance company (so essentially they can settle with almost no impact to their bottom line). He is spending a ton of time ripping the various insurance companies (and their families). I think the $650M really touched a nerve as most plaintiff lawyers probably know deep down BSA has limited unrestricted assets (they will argue how much, but it is not $5 - $10B). The various insurance companies; however, do have some deep pockets and will borrow to stay out of bankruptcy ... so s

So ... um, here is an official response to BSA's & Harford's offer. If you don't want to read it ... the Cliff Notes ... "BSA can pound sand." https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/887735_2672.pdf

I think the one thing all of us need to remember is that what is said in public (even in court submissions) could simply be negotiation tactics. For example, National BSA may know that Sea Base, for example, will easily be lost if challenged. They would never admit that in their submissions as it can be a traded off during negotiations if included in the final settlement. Same with some of the submissions from lawyers. Kosnoff and others likely know the council assets wouldn't really go to National if National goes Chapter 7 ... but they push that message to perhaps scare up more doll

I completely agree and it seems like a far fetched plan. In fact, I think National BSA could change the bylaws before entering Chapter 7; however, it has been submitted by several lawyers as their theory to the court. That said, these along with arguments over restricted/non restricted assets are the types of things the court needs to rule on before any agreement is likely to be reached. Unless the BSA just gives up and turns over everything, I highly doubt claimants will approve the plan (without exhausting their efforts in court).

A council pitch I saw (when they explained their camp sale) stated 100% of Friends of Scouting money are restricted assets and cannot be used for the settlement. Now, that is what is being pitched by a council, not sure if it will hold up in a court of law.

Boys & Girls Club is definitely a big target. https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/sexual-assault-abuse/boys-girls-clubs-of-america-sexual-assault-class-action-lawsuit USA gymnastics already field bankruptcy a year before BSA and is struggling to emerge. GSUSA is also being targeted .. "The Boy Scouts are a magnet for men who are looking for sexual relationships with young boys, and the Girl Scouts are just as dangerous for young girls" https://www.stopsexualabusenow.com/services/sexual-abuse/community-leader-sexual-abuse/girl-scout-sexual-abuse Pick a y

The issue with the toggle plan is that there are multiple lawyers filing documents with the court that they plan to have their clients reject all plans until the BSA includes a Chapter 7 proposal that includes 100% of assets from local councils. Their theory is that since in the charter agreement if a charter is not renewed, 100% of the council assets are returned to National. Therefore, if National goes Chapter 7, all councils will have to return their assets to National (as there is no National to renew their charters). So ... at that point, a Chapter 7 of National would be essentially a

This was essentially what I decided to do. My last PLC I listed out a bunch of ideas (both BSA and non BSA) and various adventures. Mountains in Africa to canoeing in Wisconsin. I told them to look at these and go research some on their own. Then, come to the next PLC with their ideas. If they pick Sea Base and sailing ... fine .. now, I wouldn't recommend that we go with Sea Base, but we can then look for outfitters that provide similar services. A lot of good ideas in these posts (and in Scouter.com).

Ok ... I think I split off the separate topic correctly. Apologizes if I caught a couple of on topic remarks. You can find the new topic below.

I'm going to lock this for a short bit while I move some of the this to a new topic. The comments back and forth are fine, just straying pretty far from the bankruptcy discussion. Will unlock shortly.

https://childusa.org/law/montana/sex-abuse-sol/ Civil lawsuits must by filed by 27 years old. So, the question is how many sex abuse victims are under 27 that were abused within the Montana Council. Now the issue is, if there is even 1 case, that could cost the council a ton of money (one Oregon case cost $20M). It doesn't take many cases like that to bankrupt a council. The other question is if the endowment is a restricted asset. That would factor in even if they had enough cases to bankrupt the council. Too many unknowns, but for now, I would think it is relatively safe.

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/business-news/boy-scouts-bankruptcy-plan-includes-new-insurance-estimate-252348.aspx James Stang, an attorney representing the official torts claimants committee, which is charged with acting as a fiduciary in the bankruptcy case for all abuse victims, said the BSA’s valuation estimates seriously downplay the liability exposure of insurers. “We think that is so understated it’s not even funny,” he said, adding that the TCC remains committed to a global resolution. “... Based on our review as of this moment, the plan is not satisfactory to us, b

That is true in general, but the Larry Nassar case should raise a ton of questions for parents of kids in sports. I think rec sports are safe because, as you said, kids are all together out in the open with coaches. Travel teams have a lot more interactions (overnight lodging, one on one coaching sessions, physical trainers, etc.). I wonder if they have the correct protections in place to prevent abuse.