CynicalScouter

The Ad Hoc Committees for Roman Catholic Dioceses and the Methodist Churches filed their joint objections to the BSA plans. Despite happy talk from the United Methodist FB group about how Methodists remain committed to the BSA, the filing says quite the opposite. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e118c88c-cfc9-48f8-9cd6-5e3967d21d9f_6067.pdf The Proposed Plan is not Feasible Because it Incentivizes Chartered Organizations to Abandon Scouting

Kennedy at 9:52 said "We know that there are cynical people out there...we know that there are volunteer scouters out there, we read the forums..." Hi Dr. Kennedy!

I think the broader point is that while there's always going to be a percentage of people who are just not able to process the message, that in this instance it was an absurdly large percentage. And I think this is in part two-fold. 1) The reports out about sexual abuse claims that got paid out in the hundreds of thousands if not millions BUT in small-number-of-victim cases. I've read in some of the victim letters to the court victims saying, in effect, "Why is BSA offering only $6,000? There is a camp near me that is valued at $1 million. Give me that $1 million." It is hard for people t

So, certain insurers have filed additional objections to the BSA reorg plan. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/67f31395-b829-4082-9f00-d457ab2b72f3_6052.pdf And they keep coming back to a point about 2/3rds votes but they also note the second part of the criteria: This may become important later for the following reason. Right now, the BSA plan calls for all 82,500 claimants to each be given $1 in value to vote. That means ALL 82,500 claimants have an equal say in this process. What the insurers have said, and what the Zalkin and other abuse

That was the message, almost verbatim, from the lawyer for the ad hoc committee of local councils. The BSA lawyers were more along the lines of take this deal NOW or it will simply be resubmitted in 2 months by the TCC/FCR/Coalition after exclusivity ends and they can simply directly submit this as a proposed reorg plan.

So I stepped away; I take it the hearing ended for the day?

That actually would cut against the "business judgement" rule and we saw this with the Whitman testimony. Who came up with those numbers? Whitman. Where did Whitman get those numbers from? The thin blue sky. Mosby cannot (necessarily) have it both ways where he says a) I and BSA exercised good business judgment but b) you can't ask us questions (mediation privilege) and c) our advisors are idiots.

One other possibility, given BSA's track record here, is they hired him without telling him just exactly how bad things were. The other factor, and this is something the attorney for Hartford mentioned, was the day the bankruptcy petition got filed there were around 200 lawsuits filed against BSA. Now we have 82,500 claims. I think what may have stopped Mosby and others simply dead in their tracks was this is ORDERS of magnitude more than I think many were expecting. If you go in thinking you'll have maybe 8,250 claims, finding out you've got 10 times that amount is simply off the ch

Hired December 2019, took over January 1, 2020. Literally just before the bankruptcy filing. https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-tap-outsider-ceo-to-navigate-legal-crisis-11577726749

Thomas Patterson Zalkin Lawfirm (1800+ claimants): thousands of claimants with NO timely claims will "Wash out" those with real claims against solvent entities that they have claims against. There's no way all 82,500 survivors should be treated as if they are all the same and all similarly situated. Some of these victims have NO claim at all (due to statutes of limitations). Patterson also notes and finds it notable that he and the insurance companies, who are NORMALLY on opposite sides (insurance companies vs. victims) are on the SAME side for this. Fuller-Austin is mentioned at lea

Jeremy Ryan (represents the Catholic Churches and Methodist Churches): The idea that there has been negotiations with the COs isn't true; we are barely at square one. The BSA did not even bother to consider how the COs would react to the RSA. No, it is grossly negligent. It is clear that the COs are the lifeblood of scouting. And yet the COs, the revenue source for BSA, were cut out of this process. Any questions about the COs, Mosby was told not to answer due to privilege. Mosby did admit he did NOT even know that COs were asserting claims against BSA for defense and indemnity. Mosby adm

Right, and we haven't even GOTTEN to the Coalitions fees portion of today's event. There are plenty of ways this completely goes off the rails.

Richard Mason for the Local Councils: in short, if the court doesn't accept the RSA, then the BSA's screwed and it becomes very hard to see how the BSA can go forward in the bankruptcy. I wanted to clarify what the debate is The insurers want to have the RSA reviewed in the context of the total fairness rule or doctrine. This is the highest standard. The BSA wants to be under the "business judgment" rule. Again, in absurdly oversimplified. Business judgement rule: Can BSA show that its directors operated (1) in good faith, (2) with the care that a reasonably prudent person

Buchbinder basically laid out that he felt that BSA cannot simply "bed hop" (my paraphrase) so that BSA can abandon deals when a new/better one comes along UNLESS it can be shown circumstances have changed in particular ways. BSA didn't demonstrate that happened, therefore they need to stick to the Hartford deal. Judge took it under advisement Issue #2 is being discussed. In brief and probably oversimplified: "business judgment rule" vs. "entire fairness" rule. The BSA National Executive Board (72 directors) includes people with ties to local councils (currently serving/previous

One final point on Hartford: Anker is really clear. His view is that once the judge rejects BSA's efforts to try and end the Hartford deal, that claimants will start to make settlements because the judge is not issuing any "enforceable judgment." This goes to Anker and the insurance companies larger point, noted above. They absolutely believe that if the claimants have to go back to state courts (because the BSA was released in bankruptcy, but not the LCs and COs) the claimants will either a) not file or b) will lose more than they win or c) will take settlement offers. So, the argum

FYI the math on this: 82500 claims * $3,500 for the expedited "nuisance" payment = $288,750,000 Hartford is betting, and BSA has said in its filings as Hartford's lawyer pointed out, the VAST majority of claimants are going to take the $3,500. But let's say 20% don't and press forward. That means 80% (66,000) claimants will take the $3,500 at a cost to BSA of $231,000,000 Let's assume the remaining 16,500 claims will ALL win (they won't, but let's pretend) each get paid out at $350,000 each (on average). That means $5,775,000,000. That's almost PRECISELY what BSA's pro

Anker now up. In short, his belief is this. Despite the FCR/TCC/Coalition saying that they will never, ever accept the Hartford deal that's fine, because then we go to the toggle plan, ONLY the BSA is released, the the victims/claimants will have to go into state courts. "We are willing to go back to the torts system." Valid vs. invalid claims. Hartford is basically saying, and the judge asked if this was their "leverage", that the victims will be handed a choice: Take $3500 now or Spend the next several years in state court lawsuits and that the insurance companies

Stang opening statement addressed to survivors. Survivors have been watching and emailing and asking: what does this have to do with us/me? Stang trying to explain why Hartford was dealt with and why rejecting the Hartford deal was and is important to oppose.

Lauria raises what I think is a good point: this has taken 18 months or close to it. If the BSA cannot shake off the Hartford deal, the exclusivity period (where BSA has the exclusive right to file a reorg plan) ends in a matter of days/weeks. That means that the TCC/FCR/Coalition will have the right to introduce their own reorg plan and THAT reorg plan will never, ever include the Hartford deal. So, even if the judge makes the BSA stick to the Hartford deal, that nukes the RSA and in 1-2 months we are simply going to see the RSA come back, renamed as the TCC/FCR/Coalition reorganization

Ah, time limits. That would explain it. Ok, thanks.

Right, so I can see BSA wanting to do whatever they had to in order to keep Ownby and Mosby off the stand, but did the insurers worry that putting them on the stand could backfire? To be clear: I am not an attorney, but I've worked in the court system for a long time. I've seen so many times witnesses get called and then blow up on the stand/backfire. I have to assume that maybe the insurers felt putting them on the stand and beating them up for 3-4 hours would backfire and the judge wouldn't be happy having her time wasted with simply a round of repeats.

Hearing starts: Issue #1 is the Hartford Settlement. Lauria arguing, in effect, the Hartford plan looked good AT THE TIME, but since there's NO way the TCC/FCR/Coalition will every accept it, the plan looks bad now and needs to get junked. Paraphrase: If it is a choice between a) sticking to the Hartford agreement and b) the TCC/FCR/Coalition RSA plan, the RSA plan is infinitely better.

Given the extent to which counsel for the insurance companies (or the portions I heard) kicked the stuffing out of Whitman and others, I don't know why they wouldn't. Whitman admitting the $10.5 million and $900,000 a month numbers for Coalition payments (implicit in the questioning was they were bribes to the Coalition's lawyers) were conjured out of thin air? I remember even saying as Whitman said it: that's it for the fees. And I didn't even hear the Friday hearing but I gather Desai was a disaster. I know why BSA wouldn't want Mosby or Ownby on the stand, but why would the i

Ok, I logged in around 10:33, so I must have just missed it. Thanks.

Was anyone able to log in this morning? I'm getting "meeting not started".