CynicalScouter

Under the terms of the Congressional Charter, the board decides how the board is selected. If they want to put in protections, they can. Moreover, as the judge noted, having a 72 member Board is absurdly large. Like ridiculously. It only happens in not for profit land where you buy-a-board-seat.

Boy Scouts Deal With Abuse Victims Gets Bankruptcy Approval

It has been his wish-becomes-the-reality desire since the start. I don't see a Chapter 7. Moreover, I could see a toggle plan, but with all the LCs having committed to paying, I don't see BSA just dropping/abandoning them at this point.

So, placeholder here, but things I would expect to see soon: Judge's decision on the docket; she indicated she would get it there. I would expect it Friday, not shocked if it is posted Thursday night. Monday a motion or notification from the court that on request of the BSA the August 25 hearing is postponed to a date TBD. Things I would expect to see in the medium term: The insurers now have Kosnoff, on record, saying some of the claims used his name without his permission (which tap dances close to forgery) PLUS their own handwriting and other experts saying at least so

I think this news report by the AP is more accurate; emphasis on "conditional" Boy Scouts get conditional approval of $850M bankruptcy deal

BSA's cash/fiscal projections slide that was NOT heavily redacted showed several contingencies, including "March 2022" exit from bankruptcy. That looks about right. It also means a) rechartering and recruitment under a cloud and b) Methodists NOT having any kind of resolution by their December 31, 2021 "no recharter past this date" deadline.

Pure conjecture: she may have been so focused on the ruling today that she forgot about August 25 and that now that hearing is likely just gone. FYI: Reuters is touting today as an "approval" but I think it is a lot more nuanced than that. U.S. bankruptcy judge approves Boy Scouts sex abuse settlement

It's approved, but the FCR/TCC/Coalition have a provision that says they can walk way but they do not HAVE to walk away. Judge is indicating that if parties want to go ahead with the RSA anyway they can. Judge wants all parties to be notified ASAP if BSA intends to even try and hold that August 25 hearing after this ruling. After all the kicking and screaming that the TCC and Coalition did about how unfair the Hartford deal was, it would seem they HAVE to walk away from the RSA, invoke that provision above, and go into the disclosure phase opposing the BSA.

As the judge just said (quoting BSA attorney Lauria) we are heading into an epic fight when it comes time for disclosure and what victims will be voting on. That fight just got 10 times harder because the TCC/FCR/Coalition, who previously were willing to partner with the BSA on a deal THAT DID NOT INCLUDE HARTFORD, will now walk away because the Hartford deal is back in. It means that the exit is either Delayed into 2022 ONLY going to cover BSA (and leave LCs and COs high and dry) Something else Keep in mind as well: the RSA agreement also put off or settled disputes

Moving on: judge finds that there was no conflict of interest/BSA used good business judgment. Remember: the "business judgment" doctrine is the HARDER standard to meet, and it appears the judge is saying yes, they met it. And the third party releases (LCs) are going to come back as part of the disclosure plan and if there are even more issues they can be argued then. But the conflict-of-interest argument won't work.

Remember: BSA does not HAVE to have the RSA in place in order to get to the disclosure hearing/a plan for voting. But without it, they are coming in attached with the Hartford deal and that means TCC/FCR/Coalition are going to officially be vociferously opposed. The BSA toggle plan (BSA only, LCs and COs are left to themselves) is back on the table. OR they sent the Global plan with Hartford attached out for a vote and watch as that goes down in flames.

Biggest. The RSA says that the TCC/FCR/Coalition all or some can now walk away from the RSA. And they have all said they would and will.

Judge rules/reads decision from bench. 1) Parties agree that "good faith" section of the RSA withdrawn by parties, so no longer issue. 2) Coalition fees, I am not approving that. 3) Hartford deal is still in. That means RSA is dead.

Nope. It is first by pure dumb luck. A) Madison during the first Congress proposed a document with numerous amendments. What became the the First Amendment was listed fourth. B) After Madison’s list got worked over by a committee what became the First Amendment was listed third. C) The only reason the third listed amendment became the First was because the other two in front of it were so contentious that they were delayed. The first (House apportionment) never got ratified and the second (congressional pay raises) wasn’t ratified until the 1990s. So as I said: the “First”

Here are the scenarios I see playing out and the chances: 1) Straight up RSA approval = 25%. I think there is enough here to be able to latch onto and simply say that the points that the insurance companies and others have made are issues for confirmation (kicking the can down the road) and that while the Coalition fees are high, they do squeak in. As for Hartford, she could also accept BSA's notion that the Hartford deal was 100% binding until the court approved it, or whatever BSA conjured up, etc. 2) RSA approved with fatal revisions = 33%. By fatal I mean Hartford stays in. Well

Yep and as soon as I posted it I edited to to "MOST"

Correct, however SO FAR other than the dioceses which are in bankruptcy themselves and therefore have unique needs (Guam) most of the dioceses and archdioceses have filed joinders to the Ad Hoc Committee's briefs. Moreover, because Catholic Mutual Relief Society of America serves as an insurance plan for MANY churches in the United States and Canada and is part of the Ad Hoc Committee, the closest thing that the dioceses of the U.S. have to an "umbrella" organization is now in the mix. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7a62ffb7-ae7b-44d5-9355-e497ca133d02_5

True, but then again I think of the classic example of use of the fellowship/parish hall that rents out to, say, weddings. If the bride slips and falls and files a claim against the church for the warped flooring (just bear with me a second), the facilities use agreement she signed for use of the space will have liability and other information in it to protect the church's interests in terms of liability. I cannot imagine a situation where a church will allow what is now for all intents and purposes an OUTSIDE group (BSA) to come in and use their facilities absent SOME kind of facili

As I read it, the rejection of the RSA by the court voids it automatically. More specifically, the RSA "Automatically terminates" on August 27 if it is not approved by the court before the "RSA Deadline". 1) RSA 1.0 says the RSA automatically terminates "if...(ii) the RSA Approval Order is not entered on or before the RSA Deadline" defined in RSA 1.0 as July 28, 2021. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1d5f346b-47b8-43d3-b4cf-4a0393aa8256_5466.pdf 2) RSA 2.0 redefines the RSA Deadline as August 27, 2021 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/

That was Hartford's objections. Here's Century's https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/deb019d8-d9de-45e1-84eb-36c26104c262_6083.pdf This is a key part: "The Plan violates section 502 of the Bankruptcy Code by replacing the Code’s claims-allowance process with a non-adversarial, non-judicial process that would allow legally unenforceable claims" in other words, the Bankruptcy Court can NOT make a legally unenforceable claim (due to statutes of limitation) suddenly enforceable.

Right, both nationally and locally the Methodists have been told to NOT sign any recharters that take them past December 31, 2021. Some did (summer recharters) but most didn't. I know my council typically sends out the "it's recharter time!" emails starting in September. Once that happens, that is when the very awkward conversations are going to happen in earnest. Right now, the Methodists and Catholics have the leverage, I agree. But the question is how much of it is a bluff?

Judge entered an order today regarding BSA's exclusivity time. In short, by statute, BSA can have up to 18 months from filing of the bankruptcy to be the exclusive entity that can propose a reorganization plan. Technically, the last extension expired in May, but there a "Delaware bridge" which gives an automatic extension when requested. The judge's order confirmed that the BSA's time runs out August 18 and that their time to exclusively solicit votes for a plan ends October 18. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/474026c0-2a8b-4a8d-b7bb-db3e57711f8d_6076.pdf

They will come up at oral argument at the Disclosure Statement hearing August 25. Now, there are literally dozens and dozens of objections (or more accurately a dozen or so objections to that dozens of others have "joined", which is is legaleeze for "Yeah, what they said, we say." So I would NOT expect dozens and dozens of objectors. But a dozen or more? Possibly. The ones that are almost certain to object orally and at great length LDS Church Methodists/Catholics "Certain Insurers" (some of the lesser/lower value insurers are grouped together, but they MAY each arg

That's why the next few weeks are an utter murky mess. The RSA being accepted, rejected, or accepted with modifications by the court could have only a passing relationship with whether the full Reorg Plan goes to a vote this fall. BSA's already financially plotted out what happens if they cannot emerge until March 2022 and that slide was presented in the hearing (short version: cash flow and cash reserves drop to near zero, things like the OA fund, the endowment, and other "restricted" funds get raided for cash). There's also a possibility, small as it is, that with the ongoing negot