Eagle1993

Well, it should be easier to get our desired Treks at Philmont going forward.... assuming we still own it.

Looking through the claims, GSUSA is asking for $8.4M and BSA's offer is $50K.

Found this from earlier in this thread. Has BSA provided this information? It sounds like this talks to the points @ThenNow is making. The TCC needs the Restricted Asset Information to assess the factual and legal basis for any claimed restriction for the purpose of making an accurate financial assessment of each Local Council. Determination of whether donor-restricted assets should be excluded from a financial analysis is complicated, and may require some or all of the following information:  The donor or source of the asset;  The identity of the initial recipient of each

I think this is very common. I know the 3 camps we utilize all have ranger homes. Those guys aren't the ones making 6+ figures. Most of the rangers I met are great people. Incredibly sad if they lose their job and home.

I think the BSA made a huge tactical mistake taking a loan out on Philmont. The TCC is using that as evidence that it isn't restricted (as its being used as collateral). The judge will see BSA did this right before bankruptcy ... so it will appear they only did this to try and protect the asset. We talked about this at the time, but I bet that comes back to bite. The argument in this forum that once BSA opened that door, they gave up the best defense of donor restrictions.

BSA Statement ... didn't see it here yet, but there have been a lot of posts. https://scoutingwire.org/an-important-milestone-in-the-bsas-chapter-11-case/

Ummm... I'm guessing Mosby will not be on their Christmas Card list. Wow... Century & Harford coming in hot! Sooo ... over/under on completing bankruptcy by end of August?

The WSJ brings up some good points and I question some, not all, of the lawyers involved on the claimants side. My question is what should the judge do about this? National BSA is paying a ton in legal fees during this bankruptcy. Should the judge require an audit/review of all claims that could take months possibly years? What is required to vet the claims? All that time would simply delay the inevitable for BSA. It is likely more important to those who submitted claims, insurance companies and future lawsuits. Hopefully she can keep the case moving in parallel while claims are rev

100% correct and this is going to be painful. I want my son to have the experience of going to Philmont that I never got. I would love for him to go to Summit for a National Jambo. More that that, I want him to be able to go to the annual summer camp at a BSA site, to Klondike (which is held at a BSA camp) and my daughter to have a crossover at a BSA camp. I believe the only way to get any outcome that preserves any part of BSA is to be 100% transparent and open book. Get a full accounting of usage of every council property. Full accounting of every councils financials. If there are

It depends on how much time you have AND if you think spending that time will result in a better outcome for the BSA. What do I believe? I expect there are likely thousands of claims where BSA failed to protect children and should be financially responsible. Let's assume 5,000 total. Just a guess, who knows. So, 5,000 total ... what should we pay for each instance of child abuse we let happen that we could have stopped. $2M each? That is $10B. How long will it take to get to 5,000? 2 - 3 years? Just to end up back at something we cannot afford? To me, we should to a real

An organization's lack of oversight led to the sexual abuse of 85,000 youth and they are offering ~10% of their net worth to never have to think about that again. It would be one of the lowest settlements I have ever seen in a sex abuse case. Why not $0 and a I'm sorry card? That should be enough, correct? I would measure it in relation to their net worth (including all assets). To me, 75%+ would be close (around $4B) to the correct payment if you really believe the organization ended up with 85,000+ victims. If you don't like that, then don't say you believe everyone. Fight every c

Camps are assets that are worth billions. Assets are more than cash on hand. Unless they have clear deed protections, they can be sold. Given that local councils continue to sell camps to gain $$ for operations, its clear many don't have deed protections. Councils, unfortunately, have shown that properties can be used to generate cash for operations, likely undercutting that property must be used for scouting only. My council has lake property. Lake property in my area sells for $10,000 per linear foot. Over 100 feet, that skyrockets to $20,000 per linear foot. They own over 2,000

I disagree. Jeff Anderson has already shown he is willing to battle an Archdiocese for 4 years over $55M. LCs have billions. It will take a large settlement offer (or National BSA liquidation) to avoid 3-4 more years of litigation.

I tend to agree. I expect BSA should be ready for this bankruptcy to last until 2023 or even 2024. They will need to clearly communicate: - HA bases ... if units register and provide funds to go to HA bases, what happens to their money if the HA base is sold off. Could this money ever be pulled into the bankruptcy settlement. - Councils ... if camps are lost, will fees paid for summer camps be refunded. - FOS donations ... will any of those donations go to the bankruptcy settlement... Outside of those issues/concerns, the bankruptcy really doesn't impact my units day to

Because BSA is paying a ton of legal fees each day/week/month this goes on. Articles early on, when there were 5,000 claims, indicated BSA should be expected to fund a settlement that would equate to most of their value. So, it really doesn't make a difference if it is 5,000 or 50,000 (at least in terms of the financial payout from the BSA). So, if this is delayed for 6 months to vet the list, and we drop to 25,000 claims ... BSA may just end up having to liquidate as they run out of cash to fund continuing operations.

A variety of articles (outside that rough USA Today piece). In general, I have not found a single victim or victim lawyer nor insurance representative that like the plan proposed by BSA. Probably not a surprise, but there seems to be aggressive anger in the responses. I know this is a negotiation, but National BSA basically put up their minimum, put the bulk on LCs (which they haven't committed to) and punted on suing insurance companies (the Catholic Church in the past actually helped sue the insurance companies to get payouts). This is going as well as a fart in church. https:/

WSJ Opinion Piece. They are basically saying that mass-tort is out of control and now big business. It requires reforms, otherwise, businesses and organizations will always be at risk of elimination. They are pushing that the victim list is vetted prior to proceeding. https://www.wsj.com/articles/looting-the-boy-scouts-11614728612 While I agree with much of the piece, BSA would be in serious trouble with 5,000 cases let alone 85,000 cases. The vetting should be done prior to payouts, but it shouldn't delay the bankruptcy progress. Delaying the process to vet could actually lead

Sounds like my Troop (southwest Chicago suburb) and I 100% agree. Actually my Troop as a youth never went to a BSA HA base as they were too expensive. We did our own HA at a much lower cost on our own. There are outfitters at many locations that charge substantially less than the BSA and give similar if not better experiences. For example, in BWCA we were able to do HA at1/3 of the BSA cost and we only had to have 2 scouts per canoe (vs 3 at Northern Tier). Even now when I am located in a wealthier area, our Troop considers the BSA HA bases as our "expensive" high adventure trips. We

Agreed ... and don't get me or my Troop started on dodge ball. However, I do care if units are not following the barriers to abuse aspects of YPT and I expect some are not carefully following those.

No & no. FYI ... USA Gymnastics offered $215M for 500 sex abuse and the survivors said not enough. The US Bankruptcy Judge agreed and said USOPC needed to be "actively participating, particularly with their pocketbook". That judge went on ... "It isn't news to anybody on this phone call, nor is it news to me, that the U.S. Olympic Committee needs to be an active participant, and I mean beyond just throwing in their insurance coverage in this" National BSA is offering $220M for 85,000 victims. Really, does anyone in their right mind think any judge will say yep, sounds good to

In part, as it takes people to get into their 30s+ before they may feel up to reporting incidents. That said, I do agree YPT & barriers to abuse have greatly helped. I believe my Troop is safe. I've seen multiple leaders within my Troop ensure YPT rules are being followed, even on zoom calls and emails. I see this at many other Troops as well. However, I believe there are likely units out there that may not follow YPT closely. My concern is that our current CO model is broken as there is no real oversight of those units/leaders. We do not have enough DEs or UCs to check into T

I read the updated Chapter 11 statement. This appears to be National BSA's offer. My guess is that they think they can get at least $300M from local councils based on internal discussions; however, they don't have or are not ready to share the details yet. Eventually, you'll probably see a council by council summary including their assets, camps, etc. that make up the $300M+. The insurance companies are treated separately; however, there are 40+ pages that outline each insurance policy by council by date range. I found it odd that several policies have council listed as unknown (N/A).

Not to go too far off topic, but I had a neighbor who owned 3 McD's. He distributed pot through the drive thru & had employees get prescriptions for opioids which he then took and sold. He purchased pot from sources on the West coast and had it delivered via US Postal Service to his house. After the combined ATF, USPS, IRS and DEA raid on his house (wow, a lot of government issued pickup trucks) McD's came in and immediately took over his 3 franchises with no court action (they just took them back per some contract language). So I know this can happen.

It will be interesting to see the insurance payout (when that comes after 4-5 years of litigation). Typically insurance has 2 limits (deductible & max liability). Insurance will never cover more than the liability limit and that is mentioned frequently in the filing. Note that the BSA already states there are liability limits ... so payouts cannot exceed those. In addition, the debtor and POST Bankruptcy BSA, reserve the rights to sue their insurance agency to get funds SEPERATE from those from the settlement trust. They specifically add that the settlement trust can try to obtain