CynicalScouter

Because all three AIS firms claim they all three jointly represent all 16,000. That number has been used by Kosnoff to claim HE represents 16,000. Etc.

They are complaining about children being sexually abused. And statistically speaking (not just in BSA, but in general) you interacted with sexually abused children as a CO and teacher. You just didn't know it because of the shame and pain associated with it. That does NOT mean it did not happen.

Here's the problem. AIS consists of 3 law firms. Kosnoff Law, PLLC AVA Law Group, Inc. Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck, P.C. Rothweiler is 100% Coalition. Kosnoff and AVA are not. As a result, you get this. So, non-Coalition, AIS abuse victims = 12,000. So, Coalition, AIS abuse victims = 3054.

And not letting me see.

So Ankura was pretty obvious why without even having to look: how did they come up with 11,000 future abuse claimants/$5 billion? But the Arrow WV subpoena was interesting. Some of it is the same demands they are sending to everyone (any/all documents about abuse, how BSA made the deals, etc.) but they are also trying to figure out how precisely the JP Morgan agreement was reached. Remember that at one point the TCC and others were demanding the exact documents about the loan to shelter Summit Bechtel and how it appeared to be a shell game. I along with others pointed this out and the TCC had started a separate legal proceeding before dropping in in favor of the RSA. It looks like Century is prepared to pick up that ball and run with it, or at least consider looking at it.

It depends on what the victims are hearing in their other ear, so to speak. Those represented by counsel, especially counsel that are part of the Coalition, are going to hear "I, as your lawyer, am recommending you approve the deal." The question is whether or not victims are going to go against the direct advice of their own personal attorneys. That's a major TBD.

If anyone wants to give notes from the TCC Townhall (or we can wait for video tomorrow)?

Net Cash Flow Before Endowment Contributions Funding Sources (Endowment Contributions) Total Ending Unrestricted Cash Balance - BSA Unrestricted Endowment Balance Unrestricted RBT Balance Total Estimated Ending Unrestricted Liquidity - BSA 2/7/2020 $14,114,000 $0 $114,868,000 $53,804,000 $65,283,000 $233,955,000 8/31/2021 ($11,939,000) $0 $75,881,000 $0 $66,533,000 $142,414,000

BSA operating report https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/d6efad20-6268-4028-b79c-41973a37cb27_6448.pdf The endowment is gone, zeroed out. They have not raided the retirement benefit trust but that looks like it is next (66 million) Total Ending Unrestricted Liquidity - BSA 142,414,000 Total Ending Unrestricted Cash Balance - BSA 75,881,000

Just based on the Menninger incident where it was shown that BSA hid from its own health and safety committee about the prevalence of sexual abuse, I'd say yep. When Menninger then went into deposition and under oath said "There is a greater threat to Scouts of drowning and loss of life from accidents than there is from sexual abuse by a Scoutmaster" I would say yep. A lie. Defend BSA's actions all you want. I won't.

And the newest version is out https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/23973daa-dbb2-40ff-b031-05f390ea1f6c_6443.pdf Century is going to still be upset that the mention of the Coalition fees are still in.

And where is the BSA data? Oh right, it isn't there because BSA continues to hide, hide, hide. If BSA has nothing to hide, then it will happily report annually the number of total incidents and (better still) by Council, type, and results. It isn't there because BSA is being forced as part of the bankruptcy and the TCC to actual start to disclose info and stop hiding.

Then it should have no problems with having a truly INDEPENDENT Monitor come in for at least 3 years. You are right. The incidence happened: and then BSA lied to their very own internal reviewers about the problem. BSA lied. It hid. It willfully deceived. It will pay and pay and pay. And BSA has proven it can NOT be left to monitor itself. When it has done so, it has failed miserably. "By dealing with these cases as a series of unrelated events rather than as a pattern, the Boy Scouts of America was behaving just like Carl: minimizing, rationalizing, assuring itself it had no problem. "The Scouts believed their own image. They believed their own publicity," says Mike Rothschild, a California attorney who represented an abused Scout.34 No one, therefore, reported the cases to the BSA's health and safety committee, which routinely got reports on injuries and deaths at Scout functions. When Scouts got hurt or killed while boating, the committee developed rules to make boating safer. During America's Bicentennial cel­ebrations, the committee studied whether the gunpowder used by troops in some ceremonial muskets was dangerous. But Dr. Walter Menninger, a psychiatrist who headed the Menninger Foundation in Kansas and who chaired the committee, says he did not believe sex abuse was a problem in Scouting because no one had informed him of any cases. Thus uninformed, Menninger sat in a 1987 deposition for lawsuit filed by an abused Scout and declared, "There is a greater threat to Scouts of drowning and loss of life from accidents than there is from sexual abuse by a Scoutmaster." In fact, BSA reports show that sex abuse is more common in Scouting than deaths or serious injuries. From 1971 through 1990, an average of 13 Scouts died during Scout activities each year, and 30 suffered serious injuries, defined by the Scouts as life-threatening or requiring hospitalization of at least 24 hours." For each of those years, however, the BSA banned an average of 67 adults suspected of abusing Scouts." Yes, as the direct result of being sued and sued and sued and sued. Don't make it as if BSA did YPT out of the kindness of its heart. It had to be dragged to it by lawsuits.

I'm sorry, what? Annual reporting is not an "actual improvement"? Insisting on have an outside reviewer/monitor is not "actual improvement"? The TCC is not out here to try and fix the world or "all youth organization(s)." It is trying to help ensure that the sexual abuse they suffered IN SCOUTS does not have to OTHER SCOUTS and that SCOUTING starts to take sexual abuse seriously and report it annually.

I am not a victim, so I don't want to purport to say what a victim would or would not want BSA to do in the future. As a leader, I want BSA to finally come clean and report the abuse. Stop hiding it. Stop pretending it doesn't exist. Report it. Admit it. My own humble suggesting was something like what colleges and universities have to do through the Clery Act. For example, right now I can pull up data on Murder/Non-negligent manslaughter, Negligent manslaughter, Rape, Fondling, Incest, Statutory rape, Robbery, Aggravated assault, Burglary, Motor vehicle theft, and Arson. I can find this out for a particular college OR a particular campus of that college. I can then see how many resulted in arrests, disciplinary actions, unfounded crimes, and fire statistics (?) https://ope.ed.gov/campussafety/#/ I want, annually, for each Council this information. How much is my council actually enforcing YP? How often are leaders being disciplined? Arrested? Removed? I don't need or want names, I want numbers. If there's a Council that reports in the last year it had precisely NO YP violations whatsoever, then we know they are either a) lying b) hiding or c) reached a state of perfection and we need to duplicate what that council is doing because they are doing it right. Again, that is me as a leader who wants to make sure my scouts moving forward are safe and BSA takes this seriously.

Did you read the TCC's proposal (which was adopted as part of the RSA and into Plan 5.5.)? It is pretty clear and on this I believe the TCC and Coalition are 100% in agreement on. The BSA has been allowed to handpick their experts, hide information from them (and there's a TRACK RECORD of BSA simply hiding from their hand picked experts data on abuse) etc. This is the current proposal under Plan 5.5. The BSA doesn't get to hand pick its experts anymore to have them parrot back to the BSA "You are perfect just the way you are!" "1. The Debtors shall form a committee (the “Child Protection Committee”) of members from the BSA, Local Councils, the Tort Claimants’ Committee, and the Coalition (including survivors). The functions of the Child Protection Committee include the following: a. No later than six months after the Effective Date, the BSA will present to the Committee on the BSA’s current Youth Protection Program (the “Youth Protection Program”). The BSA will report to the Child Protection Committee regarding the Youth Protection Program and any changes thereto on an annual basis for a period of three years following the Effective Date. b. Following that presentation, the BSA and Child Protection Committee will work with an entity engaged by the BSA that is selected with the consultation of the Child Protection Committee that is not currently affiliated with the BSA to evaluate the Youth Protection Program (the “Evaluating Entity”). The Evaluating Entity will have expertise in the prevention of youth sexual abuse. (i) Any evaluation will be comprehensive in nature and include input from current BSA volunteers and professionals, survivors of sexual abuse while involved with Scouting, the members of the Child Protection Committee, and the Evaluating Entity. (ii) The Evaluating Entity will report to the Child Protection Committee assessing the current Youth Protection Program and make specific recommendations for reasonable improvements to the Youth Protection Program that may include mechanisms for the elimination of abuse and accurate and annual reporting regarding the results of the Youth Protection Program, including confirmed instances of sexual abuse that is made available to the public (the “Prospective Reporting”). (iii) The BSA will engage with the Evaluating Entity, and the Child Protection Committee, and will take appropriate steps as necessary to improve the Program. Changes to the Youth Protection Program will be reported on the BSA’s Youth Protection Program website and training will be reasonably adjusted to reflect changes. c. The BSA will propose and the Child Protection Committee will consider a protocol for the review and publication of information in the Volunteer Screening Database and the Prospective Reporting, which will take into account factors including: (i) the desire to make public credibly identified perpetrators of sexual abuse in Scouting; (ii) adequate protections for survivor identities; (iii) consideration regarding the protection of third parties, including survivor family members and volunteers; (iv) a notification process regarding any publication; (v) issues related to privacy and liability related to publication; and (vi) the potential appointment or retention of an appropriate neutral party to supervise the evaluation and review of the Volunteer Screening Database (the “Neutral Supervisor”). If the BSA and Child Protection Committee are unable to reach an agreement on the above protocol, the Neutral Supervisor shall mediate the dispute to resolution. In accordance with the process outlined above, information from the Volunteer Screening Database and Prospective Reporting shall be published annually after agreement among the parties or determination by the Neutral Supervisor d. After consultation and recommendations from the Evaluating Entity, the Child Protection Committee may propose and the BSA will in good faith consider other issues relating to child protection, including: (i) special BSA Scouting programs for survivors; and (ii) participation and leadership in a comprehensive reporting program to include other youth-serving organizations. e. The BSA will engage with the Child Protection Committee and consider all appropriate measures proposed by the Child Protection Committee to improve transparency and accountability with respect to any future instances of sexual abuse, including the dissemination of information relating to abuse statistics, consistent with practices of other youth-serving organizations, including what information may be publically available on the BSA’s website."

The FCR/Coalition has proposed a new revised letter to claimants. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9e6bec25-c79e-44c4-9305-119362586c17_6441.pdf The FCR/Coalition was forced to change the language about "billions" to "over a billion". Before: It will result in meaningful distributions of billions of dollars in value to survivors following confirmation, without lengthy, expensive and harmful litigation of individual abuse claims. After: It will result in meaningful distributions of over a billion dollars in value (likely more) to survivors following confirmation, without lengthy, expensive and harmful litigation of individual abuse claims. They have now dropped a reference to victims getting "full" recovery

ORDER (I) APPROVING THE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND THE FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE, (II) APPROVING PLAN SOLICITATION AND VOTING PROCEDURES, (III) APPROVING FORMS OF BALLOTS, (IV) APPROVING FORM, MANNER, AND SCOPE OF CONFIRMATION NOTICES, (V) ESTABLISHING CERTAIN DEADLINES IN CONNECTION WITH APPROVAL OF THE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF THE PLAN, AND (VI) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/beb124f7-e931-4b0c-97cb-006a315622e8_6438.pdf

I'm on record saying as much as well. This becomes a BSA plan with, perhaps even shortly thereafter but most decidedly SEPARATELY, deals for the LCs. But if isn't VERY shortly thereafter, as I noted, at least 20 councils go into bankruptcy (NY, CA, Aloha Council for Hawaii/Guam, etc.)

Century files a "Motion for Clarification" these are rare but not unheard of from where I am at. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/8e85eddf-112e-40bd-aaae-110a882a7974_6435.pdf Century is trying to get at the question of are Coalition fees REALLY TRULY out of the Plan and Solicitation or not? BSA says the fees are still in the Plan. and Century wants a definitive statement, once and for all.

It all depends on if their votes are influential or not. If the plan fails 40% yes - 60% no, then even removing them doesn't get you to 2/3rds yes. It is a harmless error to keep them in. If the plan is accepted 90-10%, then odds are their votes don't matter, so keep them in. If however it is anything in the middle, then it will be a fight at confirmation. There's no need to have that fight NOW.

Net Cash Flow Before Endowment Contributions Funding Sources (Endowment Contributions) Total Ending Unrestricted Cash Balance - BSA Unrestricted Endowment Balance Unrestricted RBT Balance Total Estimated Ending Unrestricted Liquidity - BSA 2/7/2020 $14,114,000 $0 $114,868,000 $53,804,000 $65,283,000 $233,955,000 7/31/2021 -$12,300,000 $19,322,000 $87,820,000 $9 $66,417,000 $154,245,000

Retirement Benefits Trust https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/799079_13.pdf

I extremely doubt that the court will allow a speculative statement (there is a plan "being discussed"). I know based on my review that have been times where dueling plans were sent out (vote for Plan 1 or Plan 2) but that time has passed and BSA is going to get its plan out the door to vote before the TCC can get its plan formally before the court. That said, the TCC's letter will likely be amended to include "we have a plan". https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ccb69c72-6cc4-49ce-9153-1f417e8943fb_6365.pdf Right now, the closest thing they have in that letter is I would boost that to or