Eagle1993

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.

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 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.

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.

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 only do it every other year as they are more expensive vs doing our own HA trips. Yes, I want to save Philmont and several other HA bases. That said, if I have to make the tradeoff, I'll keep $600M of local camps vs $600M of HA bases. Most scouts in my troop uses local camps multiple times a year. Camporees and summer camp would be tough to do without a private camp. Our big competitors for summer camps all own their own (JCC, YMCA, GSUSA, private camp offer). If BSA doesn't have local camps, the program suffers. If BSA doesn't have HA bases, we will find alternates and I see almost no impact on the program.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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).

This is what the Girl Scouts would get: essentially, the right to sue BSA's insurance companies or $50,000. That is 10,000 boxes of cookies. "Allowed Non-Abuse Litigation Claim from (i) available Insurance Coverage or the proceeds of any insurance policy of the Debtors, (ii) applicable proceeds of any Insurance Settlement Agreements, and (iii) co-liable non-debtors (if any) or their insurance coverage. Solely to the extent that the holder of an Allowed NonAbuse Litigation Claim fails to recover in full from the foregoing sources on account of such Allowed Claim after exhausting its remedies in respect thereof, such holder may elect to have the unsatisfied portion of its Allowed Claim treated as an Allowed Convenience Claim and receive cash in an amount equal to the lesser of (a) the amount of the unsatisfied portion of the Allowed Non-Abuse Litigation Claim and (b) $50,000."

The average portion I have seen from Catholic Church settlements is the Church pays out 30 - 50% of the final settlement and insurance covers the rest. The Church has agreed to help sue insurance companies to cover the gap. So ... BSA $6K ... that means final settlement would be $12 - $18K. That is before legal fees OR the cost of actually distributing the funds to victims (as that cost is also funded by the settlement trust). FYI ... here is a summary of settlements from the Catholic Church. The lowest payment I could find was Milwaukee at $63K per victim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlements_and_bankruptcies_in_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

Each person, on average, will get $6K out of this settlement. I think for most victims that require therapy, $6K is nothing. I also don't think psychologists change their hourly rate based upon BSA settlement. Nor do I think the need of therapy varies based upon the settlement amount. I'm a bit confused as your statements here ...

Interesting that they do not yet have the $300M from local councils. "The Debtors are committed to ensuring that the aggregate value of the Local Council Settlement Contribution is not less than $300,000,000, exclusive of insurance rights proposed to be contributed to the Settlement Trust. The Debtors intend to request the voluntary commitments of Local Councils to make their respective contributions, which contributions shall be set forth in commitment agreements executed by each Local Council. By no later than June 1, 2021, the Debtors shall file a report with the Bankruptcy Court concerning the status of the Debtors’ efforts to obtain contribution commitments from the Local Councils. Such status report shall contain information concerning the form of contributions by the Local Councils (i.e., cash, real property, or other assets) and the timing of such contributions. In addition, the status report will set forth any required amendments the Debtors may propose to the Plan to facilitate the Local Council Settlement Contribution."

That is the way I read it. Someone mentioned that BSA needs to go to war. Well, BSA just declared war on the sex abuse claimants. So, I guess those who wanted war will get one. Though, to be fair, I think they wanted a PR war about the positive aspects of scouting. Unfortunately, I think we will have a different war on our hands.

The BSA wants this two ways. Financially ... councils are completely independent. Their funding sources and assets have no tie to National. Legally ... councils are completely dependent. They have 0 liability with respect to sexual abuse. All liability is National BSA. That is a tough sell.

How? 26 * 52 * 150 = $202,800

This is terrible. The national narrative is that BSA is asking sex abuse victims to settle for $6k each (even with the reduced number of victims). The TCC also says this is DOA. A Sex abuse survivor is quoted saying BSAs payment won’t even cover their cost of therapists. TCC states the land is worthless as the leases are more than they oil revenue. Yes, I hope we keep everything of true value to scouting, but I’m very concerned by attempting to save Summit we lose everything.

Agreed. BSA better be ready to survive for the long haul while in bankruptcy court if this is their best offer. This is no where near enough to get an early settlement.

Same here. My son's friend and his sister are going to a local private school this year. $50K between the two of them. They plan to go back to public schools this fall when they are open.