Eagle1993

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 asset;

 Whether the recipient entity was independent from BSA or was a trust for which the trustee was unrelated to BSA;

 The source, manner, and timing of conveying any alleged donor restriction;

 The nature and specific language of such alleged donor restriction;

 Whether the donor restriction expressly indicated that BSA or its related party was to hold the asset in trust;

 The type of asset (e.g., cash or real property);

 How the assets were and are now held; and

 Whether the assets were commingled or transferred or spent such that their continued existence cannot be proven.

4 minutes ago, 5thGenTexan said:

I don't know how things are other places so, this may be just applicable to my council.

 

I am a bit concerned about our Camp Rangers when properties may be sold off.  I think all of our rangers live on site in homes owned by the council.  Not only will they lose their jobs, they will also lose their homes.

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.  

1 minute ago, CynicalScouter said:

Both. It is both core and it is restricted.

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/

29 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

CENTURY AND HARTFORD’S STATEMENT REGARDING THE RECENTLY-FILED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION AND PENDING RULE 2004 MOTIONS [DKT. NOS. 1972, 1974]

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?

13 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I know some are unable to access WSJ articles. If it is of any help, attached is a good one briefly summarizing some of the key points raised in the insurers' discovery motion mentioned above. Apologies if I am duplicating what someone else already provided.

Coalition WSJ 1.25.2021 PDF.pdf 115.97 kB · 0 downloads

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 reviewed.  She needs to rule on the HA bases ... are the in or out.  Make a ruling and let the appeals start.  She needs to rule if LCs are separate or not and let the appeals start.  Does anyone know when these rulings could occur?  To me, those are the 2 big questions that directly impact the BSA. 

25 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

My point is - let's just be honest about the tradeoff here.  Increased settlement for claimants results in fewer program assets (camps) for kids.

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 deed restrictions on properties, show them and have them vetted by the court. Then, make a fair offer that is likely a large percentage of available assets.  I think that leads to survival and likely the best outcome for our program.  

I think the BSA is not being fully transparent and that is risking our entire program.  Perhaps it is an impossible ask given the size and scope of the effort required given the timelines that need to be met.  The good news, for now, is the program continues.  We have scouts going to Philmont and a great signup for summer camp.  I have 4 Eagle Scout patches here, waiting on upcoming EBORs.  I just hate seeing these clouds on the horizon. 

1 minute ago, mrjohns2 said:

I don't believe everyone. I also don't believe the BSA was negligent in all of the legitimate cases. I also believe that the BSA might not have the funds or assets to provide adequate compensation. 

Isn't that why we are in court? To determine who is due what and what BSA can provide?

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 top down look and determine what we need to survive as an organization and offer up everything else.  I don't think we did that and now I think by not doing that we risk everything.

25 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

The proposed settlement has been called shameful.  Why is it shameful and $500 million not enough?  Why is $1.3 billion good, but $500 million is not?

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 claim one by one.  Identify the real claims and then make appropriate payouts for those where BSA failed to provide proper oversight.  Short of that, you need to make a substantial cut from your total net worth.  Its tough to say .. "yes, we believe all 85,000 were victims, we are sorry, and here is $6K while we walk away with most of our valuation".  

Just now, ParkMan said:

I think we need to be clear though.

The LC do not have billions - they have camp properties worth billions (maybe). 

As far as I know it, most councils are struggling to just pay their bills on time.  That's what Churchill added in a 90 day liquidity goal.  These are fairly small non-profits that have a few major assets (camps and maybe an office building), a fixed set of salaries to pay, and a donation stream to fund those salaries.  Some may have an endowment that they can draw on for improvements and capital expenses.  These are not companies with fixed revenue streams and numerous assets they can sell without impacting those they serve.

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 feet of property ... expected value on that one camp is $40M just for the lake frontage.  That is one cash strapped council, one camp.   

10 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

I doubt either side will see it as in their interest to roll the dice and go that far

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.

21 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Got it.

Personally, I don't believe that, "the well runs dry in July," rhetoric. I've not heard anyone on the claimants side verify that apprehension and it sounds tactical, to a negotiator's hears.

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 day operations.   We made the call to go to Philmont this year in fear it would be lost by 2022, but otherwise, limited impact. It is ugly in the media and probably has some impact on recruiting, but I expect that is minimal.  Given their offer, it seems clear this we are not looking for a quick settlement and need to live with bankruptcy for a long time.

Just now, ThenNow said:

How so?

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://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-lawyers-rail-against-boy-scouts-bankruptcy-plan-to-resolve-sex-abuse-claims-as-unacceptable/

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/boy-scouts-offer-sex-abuse-settlement-aiming-for-end-to-bankruptcy

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/us/boy-scouts-bankruptcy-norman-rockwell.html

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 to a worse outcome for BSA.

Just now, David CO said:

For sure.  I, for one, don't particularly care if scouts play laser tag.

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.

6 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

1) Does anyone here really, really, think that 66% of the creditor class/subclass (sexual abuse victims) is going to really sign off on this?

2) Does anyone here really, really think that if they cannot get 66% that the judge will issue a "cramdown" and order the class to accept it anyway?

 

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 me.  I expect the BSA will be hammered by the court.

20 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Most of these claims that they speak of are well before the YP was developed, and since it has improved, from all that I have read. 

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 Troops with no CO oversight.   I am concerned about those kids until there is more mandated oversight from either an active CO or district/council representatives.  So yes, I think BSA could be doing more by admitting the CO model is broken (for many units) and needs reform.

2 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

The "standards" are in writing and are part of the Franchise contrcat.  "At will" means for a good reason or no reason at all.   Most franchisors have "standrads" provisions in thier franchise contracts.   

Who is making the decison to offer the above-described offer, BSA, the insurance companies, or both?

Has it been determined that BSA can make an offer on behalf of local councils?

 

 

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).  Essentially, the trust can sue the insurance companies and collect what they can as can our non sex abuse claimants.

1 minute ago, TAHAWK said:

What he basis of that understanding?  McD's typically leases the land and building to the franchisee for a term of  twenty years. 

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.

3 minutes ago, elitts said:

 While I can't say I'm an expert in trial law involving liability insurance, it most cases I've ever heard of, the liability of the insured doesn't start until after the damages exceed the policy limits.

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 funds from BSA insurance providers but they cannot disrupt or negotiate changes that would result in the BSA not obtaining funds for non abuse victims (which would fall under the same limits of liability).

So ... essentially the insurance pot of money will be split between non abuse and abuse claims and that is a fixed pot of money not to exceed the limits of liability.  At least that is the way I read the clause below.

"the right of the Debtors and Reorganized BSA (and any other named or additional insureds under such Specified Insurance Policy) are expressly reserved to (a) tender any Insured Non-Abuse Claims to the Specified Insurance Policies and (b) access the limits of liability of the Specified Insurance Policies to settle or otherwise resolve Insured Non-Abuse Claims. Further, the Settlement Trust cannot settle, compromise, or otherwise resolve any rights, duties, or obligations under the Specified Insurance Policies without the express written consent and approval of the Debtors or Reorganized BSA, as applicable, and the Creditors’ Committee, prior to its dissolution. Nonetheless, the Settlement Trust shall have the same rights, if any, as the Protected Parties with respect to any Specified Insurance Policy insofar as the Settlement Trust may (i) tender Abuse Claims to the Specified Insurance Policies and (ii) access the limits of liability of the Specified Insurance Policies to pay Abuse Claims pursuant to the Trust Distribution Procedures.

23 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Our current youth membership (~1.2M) is the same as 1937 which is before Philmont, our first HA, was donated to scouts by Waite Philips the following year.

I think what we need is local camp(s), the program, great volunteers, training and enough professional scouters to ensure things are running well.  I would love to keep the HA bases, especially Philmont, but I don't think they are needed.  You can do HA without BSA bases.  Its tough to do scouting without local camp(s).