CynicalScouter

According to Kosnoff TCC has “caved” in the RSA and forthcoming plan 5.0 Warning foul language ahead https://twitter.com/sexabuseattys/status/1436152941468008454?s=21 My guess: the TCC accepted the rumored $850 million Hartford deal as “best we can hope for”.

It wouldn't. Let me explain why. If all that active pending litigation against BSA goes live, suddenly 1200+ plaintiffs and their attorneys become interested parties to the bankruptcy as anything that takes place there can be res judicata against THEIR lawsuits in state court. Her dockets and hearings and who is entitled to speak and be heard jump from a few dozen lawyers to hundreds as they are now interested parties. There's a reason why pauses are put in place like this. It is to maintain the status quo while the bankruptcy sorts itself out. If you let this become a free-for-all, look out. If you are trying to get BSA to come to an agreement with the major groups in this case (TCC, FCR, Coalition, Insurers other than Hartford, Hartford, and the COs) dumping 1200 more lawsuits on their lap is NOT going to get you there. All that does, at most, is make BSA bleed out cash even FASTER as its legal bills in 1200 state court cases eat up whatever is left of BSA.

Who does that benefit? Not BSA. The problem is that if she doesn’t extend the stay past October, 1200+ lawsuits against BSA go “live” in state courts throughout the nation. BSA and their attorneys instead of focusing on the bankruptcy will be having to fend off hundreds of lawsuits all at the same time.

Yep, the March-to-July extension. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/881961_162.pdf Acknowledgment and Agreement Preservation of Rosters Roster Production Protocol - Local Council Rosters Victims agree to extend temporary halt on Boy Scout lawsuits And then the July-to-October extension simply repeated the provision from the March-to-July: LCs needed to cooperate and produce, or keep producing, the rosters.

That was the March-to-July extention I believe.

BSA just telegraphed it is planning on this taking a long, long time into 2022 at least. In short, due to bankruptcy, civil proceedings against BSA AND "BSA related parties" (read: COs and LCs) were automatically stayed BUT those stays had to be extended past a certain point. The latest, dated July 21, stayed all state (and federal) civil proceedings against BSA until October 28, 2021. This is the July order. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/44cef109-6770-44d3-9f73-a16bbe1cb10c_185.pdf The effect was that some 1000+ state civil cases were placed in stasis/paused pending the outcome of the bankruptcy, with some limited exceptions (the GSUSA vs. BSA suit is proceeding for example). That number is now up to at least 1200. BSA has now filed for a new extension past October 28, 2021 and into at least January 10, 2022 and perhaps even longer. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/61073bc5-347a-4004-80c2-cac921f2fd0a_6187.pdf And for those paying attention at home: that is just past the December 31, 2021 recharter deadlines.

Let's be clear about what happened here and it wasn't that at all. The trial level proceedings lasted 3 years. Not a "decade". https://www.aclusandiego.org/en/news/boy-scouts-balboa-park-lease https://casetext.com/case/barnes-wallace-v-boy-scouts-of-america#p1276 Barnes-Wallace v. City of San Diego, case # 00cv1726J was filed in 2000 (thus "00cv" = 2000 civil case). The case was settled as to two of all plaintiffs EXCEPT the Local Council by 2003. The local council then appealed on several grounds. The WON on some points but lost on others. The 3-judge appellate panel then re-reviewed the points the scouts won on and determined they lost those, too. This was then put before an en banc panel of the 9th Circuit which then "certified the question" to the California Supreme Court as whether the plaintiffs (Barnes-Wallace) even had the RIGHT to bring such a suit. Certifying the question is a process by which a federal appellate court can ask the highest court of a state to interpret that state's laws, in this case whether Plaintiffs had standing to sue in the first place. the Park plan violated the California Constitution's No Aid and No Preference Clauses. The California Supreme Court said no, thanks, you're on your own, and the Ninth Circuit dismissed the Local Council appeal. The Local Council then tried to take it to the Supreme Court, but the court declined to take it up. Once it was settled that yes, indeed, the plaintiffs had a right to sue the local council, the Ninth Circuit took up the case on the merits. At every step of the way (except one) it was the local council filing the appeals, asking the court to reconsider decisions, appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, etc. That's not "Dragging it out". That's one party exercising its right to appellate review of a lower court decision. Why would they? They were out of the case by 2003. And the fact that the case was dismissed against the Boy Scouts (due to standing) does NOT mean the plaintiffs lacked standing as to the City.

The judge took Option #2: she struck any mention of Reciprocity in the final, signed order to allow depositions. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e9c77a1e-c550-4aaa-8e1b-bde29deeb405_6184.pdf and she added this in her own handwriting That's reaffirming what I noted above: the insurers will simply be back in court soon/tomorrow to get depositions out of Reciprocity. This will take more time/drag things out even longer.

Sorry too late for me to delete my post in this thread

To be clear, this is the supposed language that makes all LC assets = BSAs (the Kosnoff Theory). https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/Charter_and_Bylaws_June_2019.pdf However, a few big problems: 1) Not all local councils "included or incorporated" those provisions and told BSA National to pound sand. Remember this next time someone tells you that the LCs are mere appendages/alter egos of the National Council. 2) State laws would or could prohibit such a transfer. As the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils put it (in the context of a TCC proposal that would hypothetically have a Chapter 7 Trustee order the dissolution of all councils, which is EXACTLY the Kosnoff plan) https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/60803144-4f8b-4d9d-98fd-e93ae9818079_4103.pdf "An effort by a hypothetical chapter 7 trustee to rely on these reversionary interests to seize Local Council assets to satisfy claims against the Debtors would inevitably spawn fierce Local Council opposition and litigation, and face insurmountable obstacles, including: The contractual defense that attempted use of charter revocation or non-renewal to grab Local Council assets would constitute a lack of good faith and fair dealing. State franchise law that would bar a chapter 7 trustee of the Debtors from unilateral revocation or non-renewal of a Local Council charter to seize Local Council assets. The mandate under the terms of the very documents cited by the TCC that all obligations owed by a Local Council must be satisfied, or provision must be made for their satisfaction (including reserves for contingent claims against the Local Council), before any assets could even possibly revert to the Debtors The prohibition under state charitable organization laws on use of assets that are “donor restricted” or otherwise “institutional funds” under applicable law to satisfy general obligations of either a Local Council or the Debtors; such assets may only be used for the donor-restricted purposes or other charitable purposes. The legal limitation under the terms of the relevant documents that assets that might revert could be used only to advance the Scouting movement in the geographic area where a particular Local Council is incorporated, and are not available to satisfy general claims against the Debtors. On this basis, it is questionable whether any Local Council assets at all could ever revert to a chapter 7 trustee liquidating the Debtors, who by definition would not use such assets to advance the Scouting movement.7 As described further below, the net effect of these obstacles would be to severely limit – if not entirely preclude – any recoveries for holders of Abuse Claims against the National BSA as a result of a hypothetical chapter 7 trustee’s attempts to revoke Local Council charters. The Disclosure Statement must not contain statements that would erroneously suggest otherwise to holders of Abuse Claims."

This times 1000. BSA cannot “order” councils to turn over cash and property and if they did there are numerous councils who made it clear to they would tell BSA to go away.

Yeo. But the council is an independent LLC. And I know for a fact numerous councils have NOT put into this bylaws the “mandatory” BSA language that once a council charter dissolves assets of the council go to national. And it not true councils are mere alter egos of BSA. Fred laid it out well. If BSA pulled their charter tomorrow the Circle Ten Council LLC would remained an incorporated entity and could, indeed would, refuse to transfer one dime to BSA.

Insurers respond: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/3fdc76c3-5f0c-4ad2-ac36-cd7232f0f3e0_6174.pdf AVA/Reciprocity were put on notice through briefing that the insurers wanted to look into ALL aggregators, including Reciprocity (even if it wasn't named in the original motion) "Reciprocity is the claims aggregator run by Mr. Van Arsdale that generated many if not the bulk of the AIS claim associated with Mr. Kosnoff." "The Court referred to Mr. Kosnoff’s admissions in his Rule 2019 statement concerning proofs of claim filed by AIS as support for granting of the claims aggregator discovery and in explaining why the discovery sought is potentially relevant to the pending objections to the solicitation motion." Remember: this was the Kosnoff Rule 2019 statement where he said someone had misused his name/signature on these proof of claims. Since "many if not the bulk" of AIS claims associated with Kosnoff came through Reciprocity, it stands to reason Reciprocity should be under the microscope here. Therefore the insurers are offering two options to the judge Sign the original request they made for depositions which includes Reciprocity. Strike out any mention of Reciprocity in the original motion and sign that instead. It is implied that should the judge opt to do that, the insurers will be right back in court the next day to demand a hearing on AVA/Reciprocity depositions.

Right, and one way or the other (BSA only, BSA/LC, BSA/LC/CO) it seems pretty clear at this point victims will be given a vote that looks like Hartford at $850 million (maybe) BSA/LC at $850 million Insurance, which may equal billions or may be worth not much if anything That third point is such a big giant question mark that it may be victims simply refuse to approve without more data.

Then the committee and those who are anti-Bob need to make it clear: Bob goes or we go.

There's two aspects here Refusal to a sign off on adult leader applications...why? If he has reason to believe the adults are not OK, that's one thing. If it is simply to cut Dave off at the knees, it is hurting Bob maybe, but scouts are the collateral damage. Bob is within his rights as COR to make himself a committee member and even a committee chair. The COR is the exception to the no-two-positions-in-same-unit rule. As others said: a unit or district commissioner (volunteer) or district executive (paid professional) can come in and try to talk to all parties and "mediate" (maybe too strong a word) but at the end of the day EVERY adult leader serves at the will and whim of the COR and that will can be revoked at any time for any reason Absent youth protection or outright criminal activity, the district and council will not do anything more than offer a group therapy session (maybe) And then we get to this So, then why are you sticking with the CO? I will tell you that if you talk to a district or council person, professional or volunteer, that will be the first or second question. You have three painful choices. Get into the good graces of whoever is running that CO and try to convince them Dave's right and Bob's wrong. Based on the above, I suspect that's not going to happen. Throw Dave out of position as SM or wait long enough for Bob to do it. That fixes the short term problem (the Dave-and-Bob strife) but not the long term one (Bob's still there). Get a new CO.

This has come up in the past and I know it is part of Kosnoff's big plan/idea. In short, it is NOT clear that can happen, for a host of reasons. The BSA Charter and Bylaws theoretically require that all LCs include in their local articles of incorporation a statement that, on dissolution of the council, assets revert to national. HOWEVER, I've been made aware of at least two dozen councils that have simply refused to put that language in. Moreover, a host of state not-for-profit laws make it clear that such a move would and could be contested in state court as an unlawful transfer of charity or not-for-profit assets. Finally, even absent these two, I am sure that if BSA National make such an attempt they might get away with it with smaller councils but larger ones with bigger war chests would fight it tooth and claw.

The fact that BSA cannot survive without the LCs and COs does not mean they get their hands washed/claims waived. This is that needle they are trying to thread: to get the BSA bankruptcy (within which context the LCs and COs are third parties) to cover the LCs and COs and discharge their liabilities/claims. As was pointed out before, it's a really, really hard legal case to make.

There is the toggle plan which is a combination of 3) and 4). Plan 3.0. Send out the global plan with BSA and LCs covered and maybe the COs and the Hartford deal (or new one valued maybe at $850 million). It goes down in flames. Then the judge bypasses a second vote and simply orders BSA only bankruptcy discharge. You could argue that’s a cram down. You can also argue it’s not a cram down since victims/claimants did NOT reject a BSA only plan, just the BSA/LC/CO plan.

The judge approved the RSA WITH TWO MAJOR AMENDMENTS: The Hartford settlement is still in. The Coalition is not getting paid ahead of everyone else. For those two reason, BSA has never formally asked the judge to sign an order making the RSA (or what is left of it) go into effect. Lauria noted in the last hearing: the moment BSA does offer such a proposed order, Hartford can claim BSA is in breach of their agreement and file a claim for damages against BSA that takes precedence above everyone else. So, the RSA isn't going anywhere.

With two weeks to go until the September 21 hearing what could we expect? 1) From Local Councils: A listing of ALL local council payments as part of the settlement. As previously noted, some councils already released this info. 2) From BSA: who knows at this point. Could they bring forth a new RSA (with an increased Hartford settlement) and try their best to get it approved and then move on to the disclosure statement? Or just bypass the RSA stage and submit Plan 5.0 that integrates all the parts of the RSA/Plan 4.0 that were approved + with an increased Hartford settlement and statements-in-support from the TCC, FCR, and Coalition? If so, that greases the skids for the September 21 hearing, but doesn't mean 100% certainty because of all the other objections. Either way, I would expect some responsive filings to the challenges brought up to so far by others: that there's no way a bankruptcy court has the authority to judge 82,500 claims or do anything about them, that any such channeling injunction is void, that votes from victims in time-barred states should be set aside, etc. 3) From the U.S. Trustee: while not a veto-holder, I've been told (again my experience is state courts, not bankruptcy) that bankruptcy judges take U.S. Trustee statements seriously. Whatever the Office comes out with/already came out will will have to be addressed at that September 21 hearing. 3) From the COs: Who knows at this point. There's a ton of mediation and for all we know they are within minutes of signing a deal. Or they are deadlocked and prepared to fight BSA on September 21 kicking and screaming all the way. 4) From the insurers: We all know where this is going. Let's wait, wait, wait. Wait for (in no particular order) the aggregator depositions, depositions of the law firms involved with aggregators, vetting of all 82,500 claims, etc. 5) From Kosnoff: Burn it all down. Chapter 7 only. Liquidate everything. Repeat. 6) From sexual abuse victims not represented by Coalition or AIS: For those in states where they have no statutes of limitations (and therefore their claims are NOT time barred) most but not all have filed objecting to any vote plan that gives victims from time-barred states the same vote. Expect some more filings to this effect and some responsive filings. 7) From the judge: Probably not much. I will say one thing I've thought about since the hearing was how she ended it "noting" that "it is not too early" for parties to start making discovery and other requests for a confirmation hearing. You can never, ever predict what will happen, but that certainly to my ears sounded like "Let's start thinking about wrapping this up."

FOS I understood. That's just a given. But this was just flat out "We want the money for the seat" and a specific benchmark West Silver which translated at $5000.

Putting a price on Scouts sex abuse Deciding victim payouts fraught with complexities "A USA TODAY analysis of court filings suggests that as many as half of those who filed claims could end up with a few thousand dollars - a fraction of what their counterparts have been allotted in more than a dozen bankruptcy cases involving Catholic dioceses. One point of contention involves statutes of limitations - laws that prohibit survivors from suing for abuse after a set period of time. USA TODAY found Scouts' identified 59,000 - 71% - as potentially too late under state statutes. The Boy Scouts' insurance companies balk at paying anything in states where a civil claim would be barred, but the Scouting organization doesn't exclude these claims in its plan. Instead, it proposes a discount reflecting the breadth of the statute in the state where the victim lives or was abused. For a rape claim filed in Alabama, where child abuse survivors can file lawsuits only until their 25th birthdays or within two years of the abuse, the base range would drop to $6,000 to $60,000, down from $600,000. For less severe claims, such as touching, the base could fall as low as $750. An unusual provision in the Scouts' plan would allow claimants to wait for up to a year to see if the laws in their state change in their favor. Changing sentiments around statutes of limitations have prompted state legislatures to loosen restrictions; 35 states introduced such bills in 2021, according to a tracker from the nonprofit Child USA."

Yes, they can sue COs now in states where the statues of limitations were lifted and many have done so. BUT they cannot advance the case. So, for example, in several instances (notably New York because the their statute of limitations open window closed recently) a victim filed their law suit and served the defendants. The defendants then immediately went to that state court and filed a copy of the bankruptcy court's Stay Order that pauses all state lawsuits against BSA until the bankruptcy is sorted out. It is basically just to be a placeholder lawsuit to ensure no one misses their last day to sue. And yes, a claim can convert into a lawsuit BUT in states where there is a statute of limitations the suit would likely be almost immediately subject to a motion to dismiss (due to the statute of limitations). Then the claimant, now plaintiff in the lawsuit, would have to provide a reason and evidence why the statute of limitations did not apply. There are a very, very narrow set of circumstances where that would take place. There's also a question of whether the stay applies to COs. I believe a consent order was entered to extend BSA's stay to the COs.

http://ponyexpressbsa.org/resources/diversity-equality-inclusion