Eagle1993

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.

5 hours ago, David CO said:

Not even then.  It's not like Chuck E Cheese or day care.  We don't match up students with parents before they leave.  We just dismiss them.  Some kids walk home.  Some ride their bikes.  Some take the bus.  Some get rides from their parents.

You might be liable if you just happened to notice who the kid left with, and didn't say anything, but you are under no obligation to monitor who drops kids off and who picks them up.  No junior high or high school does that.

BSA would be crazy to voluntarily take on that obligation and liability.  It would be like inviting a whole new wave of lawsuits.  Stupidest thing I've heard of since the ineligibility files. 

 

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.

2 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

For reference our troop has +/- 60 registered Scouts and +/- 20 leaders

We restarted out troop activities in July of 2020 holding our own weeklong summer camp.  35 Scouts and Leaders, we did not require masks, but you could wear one if wanted.  We were 100% outside, 1 Scout / Leader per tent, no carpooling.  

The troop started meeting in person in August, again 100% outside, at a park pavilion near the CO, masks not required.  Also we started outings in August and have since then had 8 outdoor events; aquatics, kayaking, backpacking, AOL / Webelos visit, Winter trip to coast, more backpacking, wide game, and a ropes course.  The unit averaged about 30 Scouts per event.  Again, all 100% outside and we have done carpooling but limited the number in cars, (no middle seats).  Again no masks required.  One scout per tent and no hammock stacking.

Our weekly meetings are 100% outside (we are in the south) and fortunately our troop even before the pandemic utilized a large outdoor meeting area behind the CO, so that part was easy.  If it rains we may call the meeting and do virtual.

While this is anecdotal, looking back over the last 10 months, to our knowledge, we have not had any transmissions or COVID issues.  Parents do sign a COVID release.  The troop is 100% outside.  

Each unit needs to do what is right for them and their Scouts and families.  We have been very clear to the families what we are doing and what our plans have been.  The potential transmission while outside is very low.

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) and social distancing even when outdoors.  I was open with parents that if they have any concern, they should not send their kids to our events.  That made my job a bit easier when I had to call parents informing them of the infections.  I would say at minimum always follow your CO, Council, County and State Guidelines.  I would hate to be in the position of calling parents if we had a Covid case and were violating those rules/guidelines.

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

14 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

I would be surprised if there a billions with an s available in insurance payouts unless the insurers were unusually dumb or open ended in their policy writing.

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 they insured National & LCs all over the place for a long period of time.  So sure, 1 policy max payout may be $3M  ... but then if they have hundred of policies over the years and many of them start maxing out they could be on the hook for billions.

That is why the insurance companies are fighting against the estimation proposal.  They know the end result and its bad for them.  They raise some valid points (how can you legitimately estimate this in a bankruptcy hearing when civil action for a single case could take a considerable amount of time).  

This is at least my understanding of the liability side.

5 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

We are all guessing as to the limits of coverage.  I could just as easily posit that the maximum is $650 M and they are offering the maximum.  

My point is that no matter how much the attorneys want to get enormous pay checks, the companies involved have a finite amount of money.

The BSA has little more to offer.  It is giving up its building in Irving, Texas, supply (which makes several million dollars every year) with its buildings and stock, oil and gas holdings, the Norman Rockwell paintings, and other things.  The high adventure bases are valued at about $60 M for Philmont, Sea Base, and Northern Tier whereas the $350 M for the Summit looks good until one considers that J. P. Morgan has a lien for the loan to purchase it that is probably more than $300 M.  So the BSA made a reasonable offer.  The attorneys are disappointed but it is not a bad offer based upon its resources.

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 greatly increase their offer.  If they don't, get ready to wait years in court.  Many of these lawyers have been in this rodeo before.  They play the LONG game.  They have spent 4 years in court battles in the past over $20M.  Do you really think they give up hundreds if not billlions of dollars without a long court battle?  

3 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Wikipedia has the operating income of the Hartford Insurance company to be $2.82 B so the $650 M is about 23% of that.  Seems like a reasonable offer to me.

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.

2 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

Do you or anyone else know the $ amount (if any) listed on the BSA's insurance policy? 

Please forgive my ignorance as my only experience with insurance policies is car, house, life, and medical and all of them have maximum $ amounts as part of the policy.

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.

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

As I said, the Hartford thing was a joke. $650,000,000? Keep adding zeros to the end of that ($6.5 billion? $65 billion?) and there's a conversation somewhere in there.

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 seeing $650M when the expectation is (as you said) 10 times that really got them upset.

I wonder if BSA thought the Harford agreement would help their cause ... it looks like it hurt.

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

Quote

The Debtors’ Deal with Hartford Is Unconscionable

Quote

The Debtors (BSA) Are Trying to Arm the Insurers with Tools to Avoid Paying Survivors Post-Confirmation

Quote

Enough. The time has come for a different approach. The Coalition, the FCR, and the TCC are discussing a plan that they would propose to save the Boy Scouts, provide meaningful compensation to survivors, and provide an opportunity for Local Councils and Chartered Organizations to make contributions and become Protected Parties. Help is on the way, but for a competing plan—which would be proposed and supported by the survivor community—to be filed, exclusivity must be terminated. This needs to happen immediately.

Quote

Even if exclusivity is not terminated now, the Global Resolution Plan is still dead. The Debtors are determined to go forward with their settlement with Hartford. The Coalition and the FCR will fight any plan that includes the Hartford settlement and the Insurance Provisions.

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 dollars from the Ad Hoc Committee. 

We are talking billions of dollars at stake.  BSA + Insurance offer so far stands at ~$1.1B.  It is very likely it will end up larger.  It would be one of the largest payouts in the last 5 years in any case in the USA and likely the largest sex abuse settlement ever.  I expect a lot of what we see is scripted to try and influence the final outcome.

4 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

So the NC could liquidate while the charters are in force.  

As stated before, some states will contest the transfer of assets.

Councils could contest the transfer of funds since the NC had to liquidate.

Each council is an independent 501(c)3 corporation that could quit offering the BSA program but continue to serve youth.  While BSA items could be expected to be sent to the NC, other assets could be used on the new youth programs.  The LC Executive Boards can make these changes.  

Such strategies may or may not be ultimately be successful but would require time to work through.

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).

54 minutes ago, ALongWalk said:

I am busy raising money for the council right now. Not hearing much from the folks/businesses I call on about the issues but....it occurs to me that I am just asking for funds that are going to ultimately not help local scouting. 

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.

1 minute ago, jr56 said:

Thanks much.  That clarifies things.

Are there any legal proceedings against other youth groups out there,  Boys & Girls clubs, GSA,  youth sports organizations?   Or is the BSA being singled out?

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 youth organization and I expect there are lawyers out there looking to sue.

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

2) I think the idea with the new toggle plan is to legal the legal status of the LCs alone, estimate abuse claims based on a point system. That just leaves the question of the HA bases.

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 Chapter 7 of the entire BSA.

Now ... the judge needs to rule on the LCs and if they are fully independent even if National doesn't exist.  If she rules along those lines + rules on the HA bases (including Arrow WV) then I think we can finally start making progress.

I'm frustrated as I don't even see that on the docket.  Why is there no push to make these rulings?

In the mean time, the BSA is funding tax attorneys for our executives at $2K per month.  Sure, not a big $ amount, but all of these lawyer fees are bleeding BSA to death.  After spending >>$100M on lawyers, we are 14 months in and there has been no major decisions.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/887323_2654.pdf

36 minutes ago, SSScout said:

Let the PLC discuss what they might want to do, no limitations.  Total freedom of ideas.  

All the HAB and such are ultimately "canned" adventures.  Pick a trek.  Ask the outfitter.  

My family ultimately benefitted from my expertise , however limited it is,  in seeing possibilities.  When dear wife announced she had a job convention to go to in Reno, I took out the maps and Googled AMTRAK  time tables and presto, we had a family vacation out to the west coast, and drive back to Murlin. Two BIG weeks.  The kids went along, (they had to) but heck wife had three days in Reno, we had the Grand Canyon, and LOTS of other places.  Loose adventure.  

Europe?  Bike /history tour  thru Netherlands/Belgium. Hosteling in the Alps.  Hike the Camino in Spain.

US of A?  Great Allegheny Trail (200 miles of almost flat, down hill from Pittsburgh to Washington DC.  Campgrounds, history all along the way.

Anybody got some farm fields ? Plan your own summer camp, two weeks of "roughing it" can be had and the parents will enjoy being the Staff.  Play the What If game,  Think about what you need.... Others have done it. Yeah, some family vacation /work leave time has to be used.  So? 

Canoe trip?   Shennadoah,  Potomac,  James.... What you got out west? 

And think about it.... the Older Scouts can stretch their wings working things out with the Oldsters guidance. Isn't this what it's about? Or supposed to be about?  

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.

37 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

Probably not, Montana is not one of the look back states so these older claims are beyond the statute of limitations.  Montana Council might decide to put some of that endowment into the victim trust fund in return for a release of any the old claims against it.

Of course, if a scout or scouts were abused more recently, and it's shown that some negligence on the part of the council contributed to that abuse, the endowment could be wiped out by that.  Nobody thirty years from now would then be saying "hey, my scout is being punished today for something that happened thirty years ago".

If the victims who may finally be receiving some part of the compensation due them, had received it back at the time it was due them, today's camps and endowments would be smaller, we just wouldn't know that they were smaller.

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, but we continue to work toward one that will treat people fairly.”

10 hours ago, yknot said:

Baseball doesn't really need two deep. The kids are hardly ever out of public view. 

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. 

50 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

As I said previously, what confidence and relative respect I had for BSA National is dwindling.  Back room deals like this reek of self-dealing and self-preservation. I continue to see near singular focus on one prong of the two Chapter 11 goals, and not “equitably compensating all abuse victims.” As someone who’s been both and attorney and executive in for profits and NGO’s, I know the proverbial back room is part and parcel of business. However, this is not your run of the mill merger/acquisition or squabble over assets. It’s sexual abuse of tens of thousands of boys in the Boy Scouts of America. I feel the same way about telling the judge you’ll file a new Plan on a Monday and dropping it Thursday, with no indication of its contents nor collaboration with the official representatives of the claimants who put you into bankruptcy. It looks terrible. Feels worse.

I can’t wait!

I do wish the BSA was working more directly with the TCC, but I see this as BSA attempting to get all of the payers (LCs, insurance companies, COs and National) to pull together a settlement offer.  On the other side of this is really the TCC & FCR who are likely working on detailed expectations of what they think the National BSA, LCs, COs and insurance companies should pay.  This will be a negotiation back & forth.  I'm just happy to see that we have finally seen an offer from the insurance companies (understanding it probably isn't high enough for an agreement yet).

The reddit thread below describes the current status of the offer pretty well.  I do question the author's statement that BSA is working directly with sub groups within the TCC (especially Kosnoff).  Kosnoff was shocked (and not necessarily happy) about the Insurance offer so I'm not sure if he has really been involved with BSA discussions.

While I am still hoping for an overall settlement that covers all parties, I'm pessimistic it can happen.  I think we should be prepared for a decade of lawsuits within various aspects of the BSA (LCs, COs and insurance companies).  

11 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Being one such leader, and a scout who has benefited from such leaders, and a father of scouts who have benefited from such leaders, I see nothing but good. The method is adult association, not parent association.

Tenure has nothing to do with perilous leaders. Or, if it does, nobody is publishing stats on it.

We have an ASM who has stayed on well past his kids aging out.  I can’t imagine the Troop without him.  He provides scouts (and adults) great guidance.  Any time I suggest a change he is supportive (even if it differs from how he ran the Troop).  I know he will leave at some point, and that will be a bittersweet day.  

44 minutes ago, David CO said:

I'm not sure what this means for the councils and CO's.  Are the insurance companies off the hook now when the LC's and CO's are sued under the "toggle" plan?

 

Good question.  It looks like this is 1 of 2 major insurance groups for both National & LCs.  I'm not sure if this only applies if the claimants go for the primary plan.

Insurer Hartford to pay $650 million for claims linked to Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases | WTVB | 1590 AM · 95.5 FM | The Voice of Branch County (wtvbam.com)

That seems like a pretty big step forward.  It brings the settlement trust to $1.2B+.