Eagle1993

3 minutes ago, elitts said:

Personally, I really hope the local councils mostly took the hint a couple years ago and started protecting their assets back then.  If, in 2018, councils started putting conservation easements and deed restrictions in place on their properties, or transferred them to trusts, they should be pretty well protected come 2021-2022 if they start having to file bankruptcy. 

I would be careful assuming those will be deemed valid.  Take a look at the Milwaukee Archdiocese cemetery trust fund.  You'll see some familiar names.  3 years before going into bankruptcy, the Milwaukee Archdiocese moved a large amount of $ into a trust fund to maintain cemeteries (and marked it as restricted assets).  The OCC (think TCC) said it was an fraudulent  transfer.  So, expect the TCC or lawyers to sue to say those easements/deed restricts are not valid....

Note below that this case was headed to the Supreme Court (possibly) but a settlement occurred so the case was moot.  Perhaps we are simply headed to a slugfest for the next 4 more years ... we will see...

https://mediatbankry.com/2016/05/05/dont-let-this-happen-to-you-milwaukee-archdiocese-bankruptcy-part-three-the-in-court-slugfest/

39 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

I think it's still better for everyone, especially the majority of claimants if some universal settlement is achieved.  If settlement talks collapse, that really shuts out claimants from any state other than the current states with revival or extended SOL periods, which I believe is somewhere between six and twelves states depending on how you count things.

Shouldn't this be as easy as a table that states:

Entity        Total Assets     Total Unrestricted assets       Amount provided to Trust

Then fill in for BSA and every council.  The TCC could then review and argue if they believe the asset amounts listed are incorrect or if the amount provided to the trust is not a sufficient percentage of the unrestricted assets.

I agree its complex, but it sounds like TCC has already assessed 500 properties and could probably verify that table.

Given TCC's response, it seems like either BSA isn't providing sufficient information or are not providing an offer sufficient to settle.

While I agree councils in SOL states will be at high risk, given 11,000 claims since 2000, even non liberal SOL state councils could be at risk. There is a ton of variety with SOL ... this site shows details state by state.  

https://childusa.org/law/

(FYI, I feel creepy searching for statue of limitations sex abuse ... I'm sure I'll be added to a FBI watch list at some point.)

4 minutes ago, elitts said:

I don't actually doubt the severity of many of the claims, or that there were cases of negligence.  Where my doubt really comes into play when it comes to actually prosecuting lawsuits, is in the area of direct liability.  If an abuser had been accused and the BSA failed to act, I think there should be liability.  If the BSA admitted a known abuser due to negligence (as opposed to being deceived), I think there is liability.  But I don't think that the simple fact of a pedophile (who hasn't been caught) being a registered scouter means the BSA should be held liable for the rapists actions. 

The problem is ... a single case can result in a very large verdict.  For example, the 2010 Oregon case of a $18.5M verdict for 1 case is a warning.

https://abcnews.go.com/WN/boy-scouts-pay-man-185m-punitive-damages/story?id=10463429

Most councils could face 10s if not hundreds of cases.  I doubt they can handle the legal fees let alone 1 or 2 losses of this magnitude.  

24 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

One of the things I hated about being a DE was the pressure to start new units. I understand why it's important, you gotta grow. BUT when existing units are having issues that you need to help them out with, or are dead for all intents and purposes, it is a major challenge. And I know the UCs are suppose to be helping, but again when you do not have a commissioner corps, you gotta do it yourself.

I question the need/pressure for new units ... unless they are in areas where there are no existing units.  In my area, it seems like MOST of the new unit discussions I have heard of were in areas where there were existing units.  I didn't understand it.  Why not simply identify a good unit in that area and help then recruit members from the other school.  It seems like we spread recruits too thin when we add too many units.

Then, there are areas (primarily inner city) where there are no nearby units.  I've had parents contact me from the inner city but decide they were not interested as it would be tough to get their kids to my unit.  I always pondered if BSA would work on getting funding (from grants, UnitedWay, etc.) and partner with inner city churches if they would see their minority ranks grow.  I know their current path is ScoutReach, but I think churches may be a better partner.  I don't know much about ScoutReach so perhaps that is a good model.

Seems to be fixed!  Site it flying again!  Thanks!

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Appears it put them into stark relief. I say, let’s replace the driver and move this thing forward. As my mom liked to say, “You’re coming along kicking and screaming, if that’s what it takes. Either way, you’re coming.”

I see no path where there is an agreement to protect LCs and COs.  The complexity is just too great.   National BSA declared bankruptcy.  Settle out their assets.  Let the lawsuits against COs and LCs to proceed.  They can declare bankruptcy if appropriate.  I see now other path given how complex.

It’s interesting to see the $102B estimate.  

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANTS’ OBJECTION TO DEBTORS’ THIRD MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER EXTENDING THE DEBTORS’ EXCLUSIVE PERIODS TO FILE A CHAPTER 11 PLAN AND SOLICIT ACCEPTANCES THEREOF

excerpts:

More than a year into the chapter 11 cases, the Debtors are unable to propose a confirmable plan. Their plan proposes an inadequate contribution by 253 non-debtor Local Councils and thousands of Chartered Organizations seeking non-consensual third-party releases of 84,000 childhood sexual abuse claims. The non-consensual releases and the channeling of those claims to a trust will effectively discharge the Local Councils and Chartered Organizations over the objection of thousands of men. The time has come to end the Debtors’ plan exclusivity and allow the Tort Claimants’ Committee to file its own plan that allows the Debtors to reorganize without a fire-sale intra-family settlement with the Local Councils and Chartered Organizations

The Boy Scout’s current child protection protocols have been in place since the mid-1990s and the Boy Scouts do not propose revising or updating its child protection protocols even though more than 11,000 of the 84,000 childhood sexual abuse claims arose after the mid-1990s.

The Boy Scouts, Local Councils, and Chartered Organizations simply are not providing adequate compensation. In a settlement offer to the Boy Scouts, the Tort Claimants’ Committee estimated the value of the filed claims based on different types of childhood sexual abuse as follows: (page 2, an itemized chart of type of abuse, claim estimate, number of cases...)

...the claim amounts above yield an average claim value of $811,215, which likely is low

Second, counting each claim as a single act of abuse is an extremely conservative view of the 84,000 claims.

more objections and points

The Tort Claimants’ Committee intends to file its own plan of reorganization. To the greatest extent possible, the plan will mirror substantially the Debtor’s plan as to treatment of creditors other than Abuse Claimants. As to Abuse Claimants, perhaps the most salient change will be the absence of any non-consensual third party releases for the Local Councils and Chartered Organizations. The plan will allow for releases and a channeling injunction to be negotiated by the Tort Claimants’ Committee or the post-confirmation settlement trust but not for the relatively paltry sum offered by the Local Councils.

Under the Tort Claimants’ Committee’s plan, the Boy Scouts are afforded the opportunity to pursue their mission. They will be reorganized as an ongoing financially feasible entity within the parameters of the 5-year business plan that they have submitted.

 

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/884771_2506.pdf

So ... I'm guessing the intense mediation session this week is not likely resolving the differences.  

There have been several rejects to the BSA plan filed by various lawfirms.  See one example below.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/884597_2497.pdf

I've noticed an interesting trend.  All include this information:

Quote

The Disclosure Statement does not include in its liquidation analysis the
properties of the local councils. Under the Debtors’ governance documents, a local council’s
property reverts to the Debtors if the local council’s charter is not renewed. In a Chapter 7
liquidation of the Debtors, the Chapter 7 trustee presumably would not renew any local council
charters. Since the properties revert to the Debtors, the liquidation analysis must include the
liquidation value of all local council real and personal property. 

So, it seems clear that on the claimants side, the belief is that given out BSA is structured, if national liquidates, it will mean the liquidation of the entire BSA assets (all councils). I(This is only one side of the legal argument I am sure, but it does indicate ALL councils could be at risk, regardless of their individual claims or SOL laws).

I love the idea of rapid testing at summer camps.  The temperature checks are a joke as many people (especially kids) do not have fevers with Covid-19.  

All summer camps should be open this summer, end of story.  Its not just a matter of what mitigations you have to take, depending on Covid rates in the community.  We have a year+ of experience and should know how to handle it.  Great to see the news coming in!

Very interesting article.  Looks like a research firm (not sure if paid by BSA) looked into why BSA is not more popular among Black, Latinx, and Asian populations.  This is just one study, but I found it interesting.

https://www.kpcnews.com/opinions/article_2e2ebb7c-a04c-5286-b4e5-22a6dbbd9b09.html

Quote

Parents are concerned with safety. To reassure them is to include them in the process of what adult leaders have to go through before becoming their son or daughter's leader. The perception among parents is the program is expensive because of the equipment and uniforms that are required. There was a sense that their child(ren) may not want to wear the uniform because it looks outdated.

8 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Notice of Hearing on estimation motion. 5/19/21.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/884164_2475.pdf 

That is interesting as it is AFTER the Disclosure Statement Approval Hearing.  So essentially, after BSA's updated settlement offer.  That makes me think the estimation will have more impact on the insurance claims than on the BSA offer.

Any idea when info will come out from the mediation session to be held tomorrow - Thursday this week?  I wonder if it will give a key reading on how assets will be confirmed as restricted (or not) and which LCs are (are not) participating.

I have my PLC meeting today and we are discussing high adventure trips in 2022 and 2023.  At this point I will be telling them that I recommend avoiding the National BSA bases ... but I really hope I don't have to tell them all BSA bases are off limits.  It would be great to know as planning can take years for the bigger trips.  I'm trying to read the tea leaves....

It looks like BSA is selling through Amazon now.

https://www.amazon.com/Scouts-BSA-Handbook-14th-Edition/dp/B084JG9PQ2/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Scout+Book&qid=1617027806&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/sp?_encoding=UTF8&asin=&isAmazonFulfilled=1&isCBA=&marketplaceID=ATVPDKIKX0DER&orderID=&protocol=current&seller=A11OJQXOR06UFM&sshmPath=

Looking at details, it appears some BSA items are Shipped through Amazon & Sold by BSA.

We had a situation at a summer camp a few years ago.  Storm hit middle of night, constant lightning.  Camp had us stay in tents as they felt the run/walk across an open field was more dangerous.  It was nearly four hours of constant lightening... scouts were able to play cards without flashlights in their tents.  One of the worst lightening storms I was in. Nearly no wind.  
 

It was a tough call either way.  I think they probably should have evacuated us before the storm hit but who knows how quickly it ramped up.  

USC has a $5B endowment.  They can pay this without bankruptcy or selling buildings and firing anyone.  I think that is the big difference.   BSA has made large payouts in the past $19.9M to a single victim.  I think the current situation has more to do with the mass claims and limited assets instead of who the actual victims are.  

1 hour ago, MattR said:

Consider that the bsa declared bankruptcy when the assumed number of cases was in the small number of thousands, when the expected payout was in the few hundreds of millions. Maybe they're not playing bluff. Maybe there is no grand plan because they're essentially broke and the $300M is not far off.

I think the $300M comes down to ... restricted vs non restricted assets and which councils are contributing. 

In terms of restricted vs non restricted ... I would think the mediator should be able to help.  Are the assets councils consider "restricted" truly restricted.  For example, Three Fires Council indicated ~$3M of restricted assets.  Does the TCC in their review agree and if not, that should go to mediation.  Now multiply by 200 - 300 councils.

The few councils I have heard from, are indicating they are providing nearly all of their "unrestricted assets".  So the other question I would have is ... which councils are not participating.  There could be a fair number that are not and if their assets are high, that could end up scuttling the settlement. 

I have no idea of $300M is far off anymore.  My initial hunch was it seemed very low ... but now that I see a great camp being sold just to meet the $300M commitment I begin to wonder.  I also know BSA has been selling camps for a decade plus and have seen major donors drop off.  Perhaps each council is in financial stress and all that is left is a bunch of camps, already mortgaged and or donor restricted that are left.

8 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Remember, 18 states have pending legislation for look-back "revival" windows.

I wonder if the tides turn on this as Boy Scout camps are sold and then clear cut.  Local news interviewing young scouts about their sold camp, followed by loggers clear cutting old growth pine forests make an emotional appeal and will be grabbed quickly by Republicans as an example of “cancel culture” stopping legislation.  I don’t know which way this goes... is the story Larry Nasser/organizational negligence or loss of current youth activities over generation old claims and tort big business.   It could go either way.  The question is if LCs from closed states are willing to take a bet. 

Very little is being shared; however, my understanding is that there are a very low number of individuals in each council under NDA who know the plans.
 

I doubt LCs would pull in their COs.  Perhaps National is in talks with larger COs, I doubt this is occurring at the LC level. 

To add an example from one council.  
 

There seems to be three big questions that must be answered in the March mediation.  What will be the National, LC and CO contributions to the fund.  I think the insurance aspect cannot be covered until the estimates are complete for District Court.

In terms of National, it’s pretty simple.  Are the four HA based restricted assets.  To me, it should simple be a matter of law.  Are there clear deed/donor restrictions, does the JP Morgan debt take precedent on the claim and is Arrow WV separate.  I expect the mediator should be able to help here and by simple I mean relative to the next to.  
 

LCs ... while very little is shared, due to NDAs, from digging through Facebook, a council presentation and Reddit comments it appears the $300M is nearly all the unrestricted assets from many councils.  The questions I have... is that all councils or just councils at risk to further litigation.  Also, how valid are the restrictions.  This will be tougher to move as it involves either pulling in councils that might not be at risk of much litigation (for example from limited SOL states) or restricted assets.  The Ad Hoc committee better be ready with a final number.  At a certain point they may be better off walking away and allowing individual lawsuits.  
 

COs.... dead silence.  I don’t see CO protection as part of the settlement.  I just don’t see any COs feeling much risk.  Just a hunch but we haven’t seen anything from them so far so I’d be surprised if we see movement.  They may be better off not contributing and simply saying this is a BSA issue.  
 

I guess I don’t have much hope for mediation outside National BSA’s contribution.   You might see some minor movements in LCs. I was surprised the $300M was so low, but for the council that I am close to it meant selling their best camp property.  If it is already coming to that at $300M I would be shocked there is a ton of unrestricted assets out there.  This might just be a council by council legal fight going forward. We will see... 

1 hour ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

Mr. Stang (TCC counsel) said that he has pre-existing conditions and would only participate via Zoom.

Send other reps from the TCC. I hope the judge denies the motion.  I’m ok if they meet somewhere else, but it should be in person.   
 

Based on what I am hearing, the $300M of LC assets are nearly 100% of unrestricted assets at LCs.  Payment is expected from LCs this year so watch for a surge of camp sales.  

Offer was made and accepted for CFL - $2.0M.  Property will be leased back for 2021 summer camp.  

9 hours ago, MattR said:

Just about the time sports gets overly competitive might be a good time to have a scout membership drive.

Perhaps, but I would say 90% of the 5th grade scouts started as 1st graders.  We advertise to every grade each year and rarely get new 2nd - 5th grade scouts.  Like I said, there is a chance this could work. On the other hand, starting at Wolf might mean you have a lot of 2nd graders who will never be scouts that would have been scouts if you had a K5 or 1st grade program.

It may be a good idea for BSA to encourage at some Packs who have shown a history of attrition either within the Cub program or greater than expected between Cub/Scouts BSA.

Also, since I know they will never completely end Lions or Tigers it may be interesting to see if they look at the UK structure where they break up the younger scouts a bit more.

Parents these days seem to select programs early.  If BSA doesn’t have an offering for K5 and 1st graders they may never sign up.   There is a lot more competition between youth programs now.

That said, burn out is real.  I wonder if there is a different solution.  Perhaps Lions and Tigers are not part of a pack.  They are stand alone programs between the District and parents.  Low key, low cost and a way for the Pack to get a list of names and parents for the Wolf Scout Den.  
 

Tough decision as I see both sides of the coin on this one.  

“has had an unforeseen and pronounced negative effect on the Debtors’ operations, including an 81% membership recruitment decline in 2020 attributable to school closures and social distancing measures.”