CynicalScouter

49 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

So do you believe that pennies on the dollar is just compensation and how are you advocating to get victims the best possible compensation?

Here, I'll show you what an answer looks like:

No, I do NOT believe that pennies on the dollar is just compensation and I am strongly in favor of getting victims the best possible compensation which, again, pennies on the dollar is NOT.

There. That's an answer.

Since at this point I have no idea what threads we are or are not allowed to talk about the bankruptcy and the council camps, I'll post here.

This is what Stang had to say

Quote

We have done an in-depth financial analysis of every local council. People think I’m being alittle smartass when I say I think we know more about them than they know about themselves. It is, John will correct me, at least 15 or 20 pages on each local council, ranging from an analysis of the claims that are against them, the cash and investments they have, the real estate they have, identified by camp, the camps that they don’t need because of underutilization, their membership trends, their operating expenses, our assessment of how much cash they need to have on hand to continue performing the scouting mission.

and

Quote

These proposals do not seek to liquidate local councils. The other thing we did was we looked at camp utilization. There underutilized. So, we mapped out the location of every camp in the country, every scout store in the country, and we drew a circle around each camp to see what other camps were nearby. What was the utilization of those camps, ‘cause, frankly, while we hear every camp is essential, if you take away a single camp it’ll destroy our local council, the fact of the matter is, in lots of parts of the country, there are so many camps so close to one another that if you were efficiently using them, there’s probably about 40 percent or 50 percent of the camps that you could dispose of and not affect a kid’s ability to go camping.

Just a meta-note here:

There is going to be hundreds, I dare say THOUSANDS of discovery requests in the next 90 days. As a reminder of how the process of discovery works (generally).

There's usually four types of discovery:

1. Interrogatories: Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge.
2. Requests for the production of documents: And "document" is broad. Email, text, note scribbled on a cocktail napkin.
3. Requests for admission: Like interrogatories (and sometimes this gets blurred) but more yes/no. Do you admit or deny that you....Etc.
4. Depositions: This can ask for a particular person (Roger Mosby) or a person in general ("Person with suitable knowledge regarding FILL IN THE BLANK.")

The PROCESS of obtaining discovery is usually 4 steps as well although the first gets skipped if time is an issue.

1. Letter to the person or entity, or to their lawyers, asking for any of the above ("please let us know when your client is available for a deposition regarding...") This may or may not result in anything actually happening.
2. Request or Demand: Formal, legal, served by process.
3. Subpoena: I'm not kidding, I want this and you better do it.
4. Court order: If all three fail to result in getting what you want, go to the judge and get an order. It still might NOT get you what you want, but disobeying the order has ramifications (like you lose the case if you ignore the order/fail to obey).

In-between those steps is supposed to be "meet and confers". Depending on the court and case, the parties have to meet and talk things out ("Why you no give me all the documents?!?!?") at some step along the way before you get to the judge/demanding a court order.

You may also see groups issuing a "joinder". That is legal shorthand for "Send us a copy, too." or "We want in on this as well."

Now, there are ways to skip some of these steps, such as going straight to subpoena if you already have a court order allowing discovery.

Now, how could this get real ugly, real quick? We are already there!

Since October 1, there have been no less than 200 different discovery requests sent TO at least 200 different entities FROM over a dozen entities. And that includes BSA sending 46 different requests to at least 15 different insurers.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1d9b91df-675e-47e9-be5b-d5047451adaa_6472.pdf

So, try not to focus on the docket too much. It is just going to be me a mess. As a former intake/docket clerk, I shutter every time I look.

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

But as I asked if it had happened to you how would you feel if 50 years later you are being offered pennies on the dollar  

And the fact that he is still dodging the question tells you what his answer is.

You've made your point, and his silence and dodging has made his position clear and how he feels about victims being offered pennies on the dollar by BSA.

Since at this point I have no idea what threads we are or are not allowed to talk about the bankruptcy and the council camps, I'll post here.

This is what Stang had to say

Quote

We have done an in-depth financial analysis of every local council. People think I’m being alittle smartass when I say I think we know more about them than they know about themselves. It is, John will correct me, at least 15 or 20 pages on each local council, ranging from an analysis of the claims that are against them, the cash and investments they have, the real estate they have, identified by camp, the camps that they don’t need because of underutilization, their membership trends, their operating expenses, our assessment of how much cash they need to have on hand to continue performing the scouting mission.

and

Quote

These proposals do not seek to liquidate local councils. The other thing we did was we looked at camp utilization. There underutilized. So, we mapped out the location of every camp in the country, every scout store in the country, and we drew a circle around each camp to see what other camps were nearby. What was the utilization of those camps, ‘cause, frankly, while we hear every camp is essential, if you take away a single camp it’ll destroy our local council, the fact of the matter is, in lots of parts of the country, there are so many camps so close to one another that if you were efficiently using them, there’s probably about 40 percent or 50 percent of the camps that you could dispose of and not affect a kid’s ability to go camping.

So the TCC has said that it believes the $500 Local Council contribution isn't enough.

I am JUST using the BSA's LC balance sheets as of February (it was noted in a hearing that the LCs have made at least $80 million more due to the bull market since then).

LCs had

Unrestricted Net Assets 1,870,754,935

Restricted Net Assets 1,432,473,515

Total Net Assets of 3,303,228,450.

So, let's do the math. $500 million is 26% of unrestricted net assets and 15% of Total Net Assets

The TCC is ready to come in and demand $1.5 billion in part because they contend

1) The Net Assets are higher (and in particular the camps are worth more than BSA is claiming)

2) The Restrict Assets are not really that Restricted.

So, what does $1.5 billion look like? That looks like 45% of Total Net Assets.

It means, generally, take whatever number your council is offering up and multiply by 3.

Get ready, it is coming.

10 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

At low levels.  If the contribution amounts are kicked up, those without current or probably liability, ... would they stay in the agreement?

This is going to be key.

Even at a mere $500 million, several councils merged and lots of councils have put camps and other property on the seller's block.

Just wait until Plan 5.5. fails, overwhelmingly, and the TCC comes back to the LCs demanding $1.5 billion. My guess: councils start to bail out of the deal and take their chances in court or hope the statute of limitations never reopens.

3 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

If it had been me or my children, I would likely have a very different legal issue to deal with.

You did not answer the question:

9 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Pennies on the dollar being offered by BSA, LC’s Participating CO’s and insurance companies to abuse victims. And yes that includes me. If it included you or your child what would be your reaction?

4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I did not think all 250+ had agreed to contribute.

Yes, they all did pages 299-303

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/da60d7ce-df85-45e9-9737-4dd1a5d50014_6445.pdf

EXHIBIT C
EXPECTED LOCAL COUNCIL SETTLEMENT TRUST CONTRIBUTIONS

Quote

As of the date of the filing of this Disclosure Statement, all Local Councils have submitted letters of intent reflecting each Local Council’s intent to contribute the amounts listed on this schedule.

1 minute ago, johnsch322 said:

Pennies on the dollar being offered by BSA, LC’s Participating CO’s and insurance companies to abuse victims. And yes that includes me. If it included you or your child what would be your reaction?

I'm curious to see the answer to this question.

Pennies on the dollar isn't fair when everyone else is walking away, at worst, with 75%.

3 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Good point LDS left. So Utah probably doesn't need as many camps. ... The question is whether the LCs in Utah have signed up for the agreement as I bet their SOLs won't re-open.

All 250+ councils have signed on

1 minute ago, fred8033 said:

I just did not make the connection that the trust explicitly was funded by future kids signing up.  ... Legally it sounds normal, but it just sounds wrong that a non-profit with a good cause would be penalized for doing more good will.

Yeah, BSA is really, really clear: it isn't coming back to 2 million and they'd be shocked if it reached 1 million.

Quote

Such annual principal payments shall be equal to the sum of
the following calculation: (a) $4,500,000; plus (b) $3.50 multiplied by the aggregate number of
Youth Members as of December 31 of the preceding year up to the forecasted number of Youth
Members for such year as set forth in the Debtors’ five-year business plan; plus (c) $50
multiplied by the aggregate number of High Adventure Base Participants during the preceding
calendar year; plus (d) $50 multiplied by the aggregate number of Youth Members in excess of
the forecasted number of Youth Members for such year, excluding the portion of the excess that
is comprised of members under the ScoutReach program, as set forth in the Debtors’ five-year
business plan; plus (e) $150 multiplied by the aggregate number of High Adventure Base
Participants, excluding those attending events with a registration fee of less than $300 (e.g., for
non-typical High Adventure Base activities), in excess of the forecasted number of High
Adventure Base Participants for such year as set forth in the Debtors’ five-year business plan.
The forecasted numbers of Youth Members and High Adventure Base Participants referenced in
clauses (b), (d) and (e) of the foregoing sentence are included in the Financial Projections
attached to the Disclosure Statement. The forecast for years after 2025 shall be deemed to be the
forecast for calendar year 2025. The BSA Settlement Trust Note may be prepaid at any time
without penalty.

12 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

2019 was still 2 million members and 700,000+ volunteers.

And LDS left in 2020's numbers.

And BSA has even said it doesn't expect to get to 1,000,000 until 2025 at the earliest. That's not conjecture: that's what they reported to the court as part of their 5 year projections.

It's never coming back to the point where you need all these camps, built for a time when you had triple if not quadruple the number of scouts.

The camps are getting sold because BSA and the LCs need to pay and because frankly not all of them are needed anymore.

5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

BSA is betting against this.  I'm not sure if it is in the current plan, but previously BSA agreed to big penalties if they grow much beyond their current business model (which shows <1M scouts until 2025).  BSA had agreed to pay $50 per scout they register above certain thresholds.  In addition, they agreed to pay $150 per scout who registers at a high adventure base above certain thresholds.  These payments would be made to the trust settlement.  Now, they can get out of those payments by immediately paying off the large loan they are giving the trust.

Exactly. Even BSA is saying they won't get back to 1,000,000 until 2025 at the earliest.

56 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Funny though how other classes within the bankruptcy are not getting pennies on the dollar...only abuse claimants.

Yep.

Look at the disclosure statement: ALL other classes of voting creditors are getting 75%+

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/da60d7ce-df85-45e9-9737-4dd1a5d50014_6445.pdf

All other voting classes (Class 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9) are much better

Class 3A, 3B, 4A, 4b, and 5 = 100% recovery
Class 6 (GENERAL Unsecured claims) 75-95%
Class 7 Non-Abuse Litigation Claims = TBD - these are the wrongful death and personal injury claims against BSA
Class 8 (Direct Abuse Claims) = 10-21% of $7 billion which, as noted, is an ABSURDLY low estimated value
Class 9 (Indirect Abuse Claims) = 10-21% of $7 billion which, as noted, is an ABSURDLY low estimated value

1 hour ago, RobertCalifornia said:

i don’t know who is compiling their written transcripts, but they are ridiculously slow. I could compile the transcript in just a few hours of typing. 

My own experience with court transcripts and transcriptionists in general is: you pay for speed. If you want same day or day after, expect to pay huge premiums.

If you are willing to pay for "normal" processing (7-10 days) it is substantially less expensive.

17 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Have you seen anything that breaks down claimants and who their attorneys are?  To get to that figure those attorneys would have to represent 66,000 claimants.  Tim Kosnoff says he represents 16,000 and he is very vocal in his opposition. 

Here's the problem: AIS consists of three lawfirms. Two of those firms (AVA and Kosnoff) are NOT affiliated or part of the Coalition. The third is. Thus some of these claimants are getting claimed by BOTH camps.

24 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

That is exactly what the TCC wants to do.  They will show how much more is needed and a path to get there.  I am sure if XYZ council can find a way to get to the figure no one will care which path they take.  One important point to remember this is a BSA National bankruptcy and all other entities LC's CO's etc. are just trying to piggyback so they won't possibly suffer greater losses in the future.  

I will also say this: I know my council is absolutely furious to see that there are councils who are getting away with paying out tiny percentages of their assets while my council is on the higher end of the percentage spectrum.

I think a lot of this may be the TCC coming in COUNCIL BY COUNCIL and saying "Heart of Virginia, you are fine, Cascade Pacific, no way" etc.

16 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

The compensation plan is woefully inadequate.  Not even close to equitable and fair that BSA touted.  If you sold me a piece of land for $100,000 and I only paid you $1,000 and you took me to court and the judge allowed me to keep the land and you were out $99,000 what would you say?

Yep. The average is 14% or less. So to use the example: $100,000 and only gave $14,000. Judge then allows you to keep the land. Fair? Just? Equitable? Nope. Nope. Nope.

The LCs are going to have to convince the victims. The current offer ($500 million + $100 million note) is not even close.

TCC has said it is looking at $1.5 billion or more.

9 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

BSA is not refusing to compensate victims - there is a compensation plan on the table

I would argue it isn't a compensation plan. It's an insult.

42 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

It is entirely possible to care about survivors, while disagreeing that the TCC should be determining what IS and IS NOT needed for the current scouts. 

Then the judge will decide if the LCs really need these. And remember: the victims get the vote. If the LCs keep holding out, they'll never, ever get this plan approved.

The victims have the power here to vote yes or no. So you don't need to convince me or the judge. You need to convince the 82,500 victims that the LCs are being honest about "what IS and IS NOT needed for the current scouts."

Good luck with that.

3 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

The TCC determining what camps are needed in order to best serve the current scouts is NOT their job

Except it is.

The BSA and LCs are claiming that certain camps are vital to the mission of Scouting and that they can NOT operate without them. That has legal ramifications as part of a bankruptcy: assets that are deemed essential to the continuing operation of a debtor or in this case third-party non-debtor cannot be touched in a bankruptcy.

The LCs, for example, at one point absolutely insisted there were NUMEROUS properties that were "restricted" and therefore could not be sold. Sure enough, they were. Funny how that worked out.

The TCC is going to make the case, and very well I would imagine, that many/most of these camps are NOT essential to the continued operation of the LCs. And then camp by camp, the utilization rates will be reviewed and the judge will decide if the LCs want to push it that far.

9 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

Since the LC's only want to give up approximately 14% overall and some LC's much less by claiming they need certain camps to carry on their mission why wouldn't you care for what they have to say. 

Exactly. This is simply refusing to compensate victims and claiming that EVERY camp is absolutely necessary and EVERYTHING has to be off the table.

14% contributions (on average) from LCs and they want to claim that is "substantial" contributions? Note the word "substantial" is the word used in the bankruptcy code as to whether or not a debtor or others seeking to be relieved of claims that they have to reach.

No judge is going to look a 4-14% contributions as "substantial". Those camps are getting sold one way or the other.

For those of you tracking the related Purdue Pharma case (in which third-party non-debtor the Sackler Family was allowed to be released from claims) the U.S. Trustee objected and filed an appeal.

The U.S. District Court has now issued a TRO (on a Sunday) to prevent implementation of the plan pending appeal.

Kosnoff raises an excellent point. It isn’t that the BSA plan needs to fail. It needs to catastrophically fail. That provides the TCC all kinds of leverage later on.

13 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

f what I have read here about the TCC's standards, they want to close camps all the camps in some councils and force scouts to travel out of council.

Do the gross financial mismanagement five years ago my council Lost it’s only camp.

We are still here.

We are still alive.

We are still providing scouting.

it can be done.