CynicalScouter

This is the doc link https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/327b25bb-1d4e-4db6-a901-0b542f32f572_5756.pdf Yep. No breakdowns on how much each Council will contribute until the last minute. But a lot of time is spent trying desperately to insist the COs are not being thrown under the bus (see pages 4-5). Meanwhile, the COs themselves are running for the hills and/or switching to facilities-only agreements.

As promised. Just as a refresher: the US Trustee is a Department of Justice appointee in each Bankruptcy Court Region (Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania in this case) who "monitors the conduct of bankruptcy parties and private estate trustees, oversees related administrative functions, and acts to ensure compliance with applicable laws and procedures." It was the Trustee who appointed the members of the TCC. Before people worry is a Trump thing or a Biden thing, I'll repeat what I said in May First, Biden did not appoint this person. Vara's been in office since the Obama administration and was not purged by Trump. Second, Biden has made it clear that he will not intervene in directing DoJ to do anything, unlike frankly Trump. Third, U.S. Bankruptcy Trustees tend to be apolitical, long term career types. NOT firebrands itching for political fights. Again, to reiterate, just because the person is a DoJ appointee does not make this a "Biden Administration" move, or that the Biden administration has lifted a finger, one way or the other, in this matter. Now that that is out of the way, Vara (or rather lawyers working for him) basically took BSA AND the Coalition AND the TCC to the woodshed here. You may recall that the last time we heard from the Trustee he expressed major concerns that this entire plan to direct 82,500 claims into a mass settlement via bankruptcy THAT ALSO covered third parties (such as LCs and COs) was likely illegal. Welp, the Trustee's views have gotten even dimmer of this whole plan and in particular the RSA and it is now targeting what it sees as inappropriate conduct by both BSA and the Coalition. In short, there is no statute whatsoever that authorizes any of this stuff, especially the plan for the Coalition to get paid (in effect) before anyone else.

I think this ultimately is local, but that the strong undercurrent is that many/most Methodist churches will end their CO relationship and simply switch to a facilities us only. That also means Councils will be taking on the burden of functioning as COs for a lot of units at a time when they are losing staff. I don't know how this works out long term

One more point: the Methodist Scouting groups are both saying a) local Methodist bishops should NOT end the CO relationships but b) they should not renew charters past December 31, 2021. https://www.facebook.com/MethodistScouting/posts/579407730131725 It is an absolute mess.

Been at summer camp with my troop last week. Now, back to this. If I had to guess, I'd say that the RSA plan is done for. Every major group INCLUDING and perhaps most critically the US Trustee has come out against it. 1) We are starting to seem numerous attorneys for abuse victims filing objections to the BSA/TCC/FCR plan/RSA document. These are ENTIRELY redacted or almost so to protect the names of the victims. For example, the first two pages of this document are entirely blacked out. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/c2b60c10-6ffe-419b-86fa-90917ff67bb1_5725.pdf From what I can read/gather in-between the redactions, victims lawyers are echoing the insurance companies: there is no way all 82,500 claimants should get a vote until it is determined if all 82,500 have valid claims. 2) The insurance companies have also come out in force, objecting to the RSA, demanding BSA produce documents and other materials, etc. They argue the RSA fails for a host of reasons https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/9ce30206-3b08-48c0-9909-76c18b9134b2_5723.pdf The benefits it confers on the Debtors are illusory. The RSA itself is illegal. The Amended Plan is unconfirmable. The RSA negotiation process was flawed. The Debtors have tied their hands. 3) Interestingly, we are also seeing attorneys in NON-abuse cases stepping up. For example, In Re EJK. In short, a scout (known only as EJK) was killed in 2018 while at a summer camp owned by the Greater Atlanta Council. The EJK's parents sued BSA and the Greater Atlanta Council and won in state court not only on the merits BUT they were able to get sanctions after they proved BSA and the Council was withholding evidence/information. However, under the BSA/TCC/FCR plan there is no clear way to determine if they will get compensation at all either from BSA, Greater Atlanta Council, or the insurance companies. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a71a4006-8f19-4534-bf84-a7c42819b615_5711.pdf This gets at a larger question: other victims of BSA and councils that are of a non-sexual nature (such as the death of scouts due to BSA or Council negligence) are going to be pushed to the back or potentially completely out of the picture. 4) The TCC has filed its draft "plain English" summary for Abuse Victims. I'm going to discuss this in detail another post. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/5db3d4a6-7a56-4bca-9f64-75825121a3e4_5706.pdf 5) The Catholic dioceses are starting to come in and are absolutely livid about the BSA throw-the-COs-under-the-bus plan. 6) The Episcopal Churches are also showing up and joining in the various CO objections. 7) The US Trustee has come out against the RSA. I'll review that in a separate post. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/8eb26aec-4928-412c-836f-57ec9157c343_5685.pdf

Yep. I forget which filing (third amended plan I think) but that's exactly what caused the COs to absolutely freak out: they were told (or lead to believe) for years BSA had them 100% covered.

Two reasons, one legal one practical 1) I believe BSA's argument in its filings with respect to the COs is that BSA never promised COs 100% full coverage for everything, that there were limits and that the agreements did not promise the COs what the COs were lead to believe they promised: unlimited indemnification. This is going to be a point of contention for some time to come. 2) Practical: it is going to be hard enough to get an agreement involving BSA plus 250 local councils. Trying to get a global plan (including all the COs) is just not in the cards right now. The attorney for the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils talked about "phases" and that the first phase was focused on BSA and LCs but that now that those were settled (they aren't, but anyway) attention would turn to getting a plan/deal for the COs. As you can imagine, and what I was told by my Council with respect to the Catholic diocese in my area, the COs are not buying it.

To give some idea of how much the COs are not happy, in addition to the Methodists in at least 3 areas I know if telling their folks to stop rechartering plus the Catholic dioceses (two that I know if), the LDS has just Friday pro hac vice requested a new lawyer to their legal team from Latham & Watkins bankruptcy division. The COs are going to mutiny here, more than they already have. They are NOT happy with BSA throwing them under a bus.

Rio Texas Conference Methodist churches advised not to recharter units in 2021 The Methodists are going to be leaving en masse before this is over. And that disastrous status conference (where the COs confirmed they were being thrown under the bus) comes up.

But the point of the insurers, and I'd point out some of the victims lawyers now, is that it isn't the Trustee's job yet. The Trustee doesn't have a job until 2/3rds of (voting) claimants approve the plan and that at least some (many? most?) of those 82,500 voters shouldn't be voting in the first place. Some of this is just sloppy lawyering (mass approval of the claims in a frenzy of last minute signing) and some is 100% made up. The Coalition's objection basically agrees with you: challenging the claims is premature, let's just vote and fight it out at either the confirmation stage or through the trustee system.

Right. There are four key documents in this chain (Insurance Companies Rule 2004 motions) Document 1972 filed January 22, 2021 in which the insurers allege the proofs of claim on their face appear to be insufficient, fraudulent, or some combination. They ask for discovery and depositions from a sample of claimants ("Rule 2004 motion": https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870498_1972.pdf Document 2022 filed February 2, 2021 which re-alleges all the items in Document 1972 AND adds for the first time the document analysis indicating that the documents themselves were prepared fraudulently/not in keeping with Bankruptcy Court rules and statutes: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/872620_2022.pdf Document 2043 in which the Coalition objects to the Document 2022 Insurance Companies Rule 2004 motion: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/872931_2043.pdf Document 2048 in which the Coalition objects to Document 1972: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/872981_2048.pdf This is why I said the Rule 2019 motion (what is the legal and financial relationships of AIS, the Coalition, Kosnoff, and Kosnoff's lawfirm) is overlapping with the fraud accusation (the Rule 2004 motion). It appears (and let me be careful here, APPEARS) that many (not ALL, not MOST, but more than SOME) of these claims were improperly filed, improperly prepared, etc. The insurance companies point, and one that I noted some other abuse victims lawyers started to mention in the Status Conference, is that before those 82,500 claims each get 1 vote, the court should make sure that those are valid claims/valid voters.

Yeah the Rule 2019 motion that will be up at the July 29 hearing is looking at a variety of issues related to what precisely is the legal and financial status of AIS, Kosnoff, Kosnoff’s law firm, and the Coalition. https://www.scouter.com/topic/32676-chapter-11-announced-part-4-revised-plan/page/38/ There is a related motion that seeks to review specific lawfirms and lawyers for, in effect, mass forgery, falsification of the proof of claim documents, and/or failure to adequately review the proof of claim prior to the lawyer signing on behalf of his or her client. THAT matter is still pending and never brought to a hearing, but it involves many of the same players in the Rule 2019 motion

Right, that's why I said this seems off. I would suspect SOMETHING after the July 29 hearing since that's pretty big. If the judge nukes the RSA, the August 12 meeting is moot. If the judge approves the RSA, that's big.

Kosnoff points out something a little surprising to me. The TCC is not planning to do a town hall until August 12 until AFTER the plan disclosure statement hearing where the statement would be approved (or rejected). This seems...off.

Wondering how the deposition of Mosby is going. Wondering too how the Kosnoff deposition is going to go.

It was the very same AIS attorneys going on PBS and talking to CNN that said the deal was reached. OK. That is close to my guestimated timeline Event Guestimated Timeline Disclosure Statement Objection Deadline Tuesday, August 10, 2021 Disclosure Statement Hearing Tuesday, August 17, 2021 Voting Record Date Tuesday, August 17, 2021 Deadline to Mail Solicitation Packages and Related Notices Wednesday, August 25, 2021 Rule 3018(a) Motion Deadline Friday, September 10, 2021 Deadline to File Plan Supplement Friday, September 17, 2021 Voting Resolution Event Deadline Friday, October 1, 2021 Voting Deadline Friday, October 1, 2021 Preliminary Voting Report Deadline Wednesday, October 6, 2021 Plan Objection Deadline Tuesday, October 12, 2021 Final Voting Report Deadline Friday, October 15, 2021 Confirmation Brief/Reply Deadline Wednesday, October 20, 2021 Confirmation Hearing Monday, October 25, 2021

Joplin Globe Editorial: Selling scout camp another betrayal Also https://news.yahoo.com/editorial-selling-scout-camp-another-223100666.html and Of course, the editorial provides absolutely no information as to how else the Council's suppose to meet its legal obligations.

We are. I cannot speak to other councils but the two I am familiar with are agreeing to pay but other councils are "yes, with conditions" and it remains to be seen if those conditions are going to be something BSA can or cannot work with. So far, in my limited knowledge, I have not heard any outright "no" language. I also wonder if the next document we see won't be a council-by-council breakdown but will be something from the Ad Hoc Local Committee of Local Councils telling the court they have received sufficient letters of intent/statements to meet the $500 million cash/property requirements of the LCs. I really, really want to see the LC breakdowns.

Close. My understanding (spoke with people from my council and my next door neighbor council last night) is that these votes are not going well for BSA. 1) Non-binding letter of intent: lots of councils dong this. In short, they are only promising to pay out if and only if the plan is ultimately approved by the claimants and the court. 2) Councils putting in conditions: there have been councils that have put conditions on payment. Some wanted to try and put assurances their payments would only go to pay claims arising from their council. There is a big worry some councils will be bailing out other councils. This is apparently a sticking point.

Right. The asbestos (and Agent Orange) claims are famous/infamous for being forever because of people discovering illness due to exposure decades later and because of the litigation involved and because there were multiple companies. The BSA bankruptcy may be as bad not because of BSA (they'll either get out of this or be dead from a lack of money in short order) but because of trying to also add-on the LCs, the COs (now dropped of course and utterly, utterly furious), and of course the insurance companies.

Right that will be the key: you won’t be able to enter into SB if it violates Guide to Advancement

This is the Kosnoff claim thread The RSA lists 10 specific reasons why the RSA may be terminated by the Coalition, TCC, and Future Claimants’ Representative. Page 51-53. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1d5f346b-47b8-43d3-b4cf-4a0393aa8256_5466.pdf None seem relevant and none have anything to do with the TDP awards being "non-binding", the $600 million being a cap on insurance claims (this I believe came up in the Status Conference call last week), or any of this. There is an 11th reason the RSA terminates: run out the clock. The RSA by its terms ends July 28, 2021 (if RSA is not approved by the court by then) or May 31, 2022 (if the RSA is approved) All sides can agree to extend those deadlines. So, I guess the kill switch would be to somehow stall out proceedings until the RSA deadline hits and then the TCC and Coalition refuse to an extension. As I said previously: there are still tons of ways this whole thing blows up in everyone's faces and the $850 million deal completely falls apart. And remember that 2/3rds rule. Someone like Kosnoff may not have enough clients to approve a plan, but he might just have enough he can persuade to scuttle any plan.

It's not. It has specific legal meanings for tax and financial purposes under federal and state law.

The TCC lawyers said placement of states in Gray 1, 2, 3 vs. Closed was their professional expertise/opinion and that of other lawyers as to how likely a claim would fare in that state’s court system based in existing SoLs and their opinions in odds of success.

Depending on the council this is going to mean dipping into their endowments and long term investments. It is it NOT just cash sitting in a checking account for operational expenses. That means the x% interest the council gets each year is going to be lesser in the long run. That is why not for profits are NOT inclined to dip Into endowments unless they absolutely have to.