CynicalScouter

What BSA produced is also consistent with what Grand Canyon Council filed as its IRS 990 forms. Here is their 2019 filing (there's no 2020 filing yet or at least not online) and the end-of-year 2019 balance sheet is very, very close to BSA's reported balance sheet for that Council as of February 2021. https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/view_990/860101295/6c4248997200abade969959f2d1bba99 So, unless Grand Canyon Council's lying both to the court and the IRS, it is being upfront with its balance sheet.

Friday was the deadline for Councils to vote on how much they will contribute to the settlement. I believe under the Third Amended Plan BSA was going to have the LCs file a document detailing who was contributing what by July 19, so I would imagine individual LC contributions will be filed with the court in the next two weeks.

One more point about the math: $650,000,000 (what LCs promised) / 82500 (claims) = $7878 on average per claim Grand Canyon is paying out almost double that ($14,085 on average per claim), but that is likely because they are getting claims from an open state (Arizona) and a Gray 1 state (New Mexico).

I wanted to post this here as well as it gets at what LCs are contributing. This may be the first council to announce a specific number (well, close to specific "over $7 million") about how much they have to pay. It is also a BIG deal in that GCC was a member of the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils. It also likely had a ton of LDS claims. It is made up of parts of Arizona (an open state) and western New Mexico (Gray 1 = 50%-70% valuation of claims) Let's break that down. All data from the 4th amended plan https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ee5156a3-0c08-4833-a600-8256c44c8a56_5485.pdf Balance Sheet Assets Cash & Equivalents 2,166,111 Land, Buildings, and Equipment 5,752,921 Long-Term Investments 6,233,695 Other Assets 115,989 TOTAL ASSETS 14,258,716 Liabilities Debt 448,968 Other Liabilities 589,200 TOTAL LIABILITIES 1,038,168 Unrestricted Net Assets 9,582,089 Restricted Net Assets 3,638,459 TOTAL NET ASSETS 13,200,548 Asset lists R-C Scout Camp $2,250,000 Unrestricted Asset (U) Camp Geronimo $4,641,300 Unrestricted Asset (U) Camp Raymond $3,810,443 Restricted Asset (R) Heard Scout Pueblo $7,350,000 OR $8,140,000 Unrestricted Asset (U) Little Grand Canyon Ranch $1,510,000 Unrestricted Asset (U) Total Property $19,561,743 OR $20,351,743 Total Unrestricted Property $15,751,300 OR $16,541,300 Claims All Unique & Timely Abuse Claims = 497 (plus some shared with other councils) All Not-Barred, Unique & Timely Abuse Claims = 475 Bottom Line $7 million represents: 73% Unrestricted Net Assets (based on balance sheet) 53% TOTAL NET ASSETS (based on balance sheet) $14,085 per claim on average ($7,000,000/497) 34-36% of property 42-44% of all unrestricted property

Right, that's the other factor. In a civil proceeding you'd have a lower evidence threshold (preponderance of the evidence) whereas in a criminal it's beyond a reasonable doubt. I just do not see a wave of state AGs coming in and prosecuting BSA or councils.

But here's the thing: to my knowledge NONE of the Catholic Dioceses have ever been criminally prosecuted. And not only did they hide the abuse, they actively moved priests around. And in the case of the Pennsylvania investigative grand jury and even the prior work in Michigan by that state's AG there was never criminal indictments of dioceses, only individuals. The reason I suspect is that Many/most states have criminal statutes of limitations (44 states) on felony sex offenses. Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming appear to be the exceptions https://www.rainn.org/state-state-guide-statutes-limitations Everything else amounts to some version of criminal conspiracy and/or accessory after the fact of a crime. Again, criminal statutes of limitations apply I just do not see criminal charges against BSA happening in light of the above, especially after the lack of criminal prosecutions in the Diocesan cases.

My guess is the claim is going to be some form of Child sexual abuse (as aiding and abetting, not actually committing). Either its state equivalents or 18 U.S. Code § 2251 Sexual exploitation of children https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2251 Criminal conspiracy (as in agreement to commit or assist in the commission of a criminal act, that act being child sexual abuse). Either its state equivalents or 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 Accessory after the fact of a crime (that crime being child sexual abuse). Either its state equivalents or 18 U.S. Code § 3 - Accessory after the fact https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3 Child endangerment. Under state equivalents 18 U.S. Code § 2423(a) - Transportation of minors Transportation With Intent To Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2423 Etc.

That is up to Century. I suppose perhaps Kosnoff or his lawyers could also pay for a copy and post.

This is, I think, Kosnoff's point: IN HIS VIEW (not mine, HIS) the 9 men who are the TCC are in over their heads and being manipulated by Strang, Coalition lawyers, and other attorneys. who are looking to cash in a) for their own personal benefits and b) the repay Wall Street backed loans. Kosnoff's made the clear in his Twitter feed already and I suspect will be what is deposition looks/sounds like.

One more note from yesterday: Zalkin (I typed Balkin, my bad) brought up a point that he is in an open state (California) representing open state victims and that, among other things, he will be objecting to victims who have no valid claims (due to SoLs) from voting. ("should claimants without valid claims in state courts get to vote on this plan?") He posed it as more of a question, but it gets back at a point that the insurance companies have also brought up over and over: before the 82,500 claimants get to vote, should there be some way to ensure they are really entitled to a vote? To hear a victims lawyer start to say the same things indicates that maybe we will see a skirmish when it comes time to voting about who is allowed to vote.

There are two, somewhat overlapping issues as near as I can tell. 1) What, precisely, are the financial ties and legal roles of Kosnoff, his lawfirm, "Abused in Scouting", and the Coalition? And what are their legal authorities to speak on behalf of victims? Going back to at least August 2020, Century insurance has filed a series of "Rule 2019" motions and demands to demand a clear understanding of what Kosnoff's role is, what his firm's role is, and what the Coalition's role is and "Abused in Scouting" is The August 2020 motion: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/842905_1164.pdf For the specific order they want, see 2) Kosnoff has alluded to the idea that he left the Coalition and the TCC based on his belief that they sold out to Wall Street money in order to mass produce tort claims, etc. Since he's likely still under confidentiality agreements regarding his role in the Coalition and TCC, he cannot just blurt this out. HOWEVER if he is being deposed pursuant to an ongoing proceeding related to the bankruptcy, he can answer questions posed to him. He's indicated he's anxious to do so. This may also include his ongoing accusations that a) the TCC, the Coalition, or both, are in the pockets of Wall Street money who are simply looking to cash in at the expense of the victims and b) that the claims were mass produced so quickly and so questionably as to be impossible.

And when did they? You indicated that something "politically correct" thing or things in the last 20 years caused the big donors to flee. What was it/what were they?

My objections were a) the broad brush that all lawyers were vultures just in it for money and/or to destroy BSA and b) that somehow victims shouldn't be allowed to hire lawyers. If the argument is "this particular lawyer named John Smith is a vulture, here's why" that's a different argument.

That is due to federal law and has nothing to do with BSA's wishes. In short, all pensions are guaranteed by the federal government (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation). You cannot attack the pension via bankruptcy and even if the pension became part of the bankruptcy in the event of a liquidation the pension program gets paid out first/near the top. So no, you cannot attack the pension. No. The decision is the Council's. Precisely because Councils ARE independent entities, the decision on their assets belongs to the Council, not National and not the Council/Scout Executive. Right now, as I type, all 250 or so Councils are voting or have voted on whether or not to participate. The deadline is July 9. That is a Council vote. The SE/CEs do NOT get to unilaterally decide this. Frankly, at least in the case of Summit, it isn't clear that selling would do any good. Summit is such a debt sink/money loser that even if sold it isn't clear that it would pay off the debts it had on it even prior to the bankruptcy.

And the reason I picked Dale and 2000 is because that was "the last 20 years" give or take a few months.

I think BSA's counsel walked in thinking this was going to truly be just a status conference. It (degenerated?) into a on-the-merits sneak preview followed by counsel for three major current (Methodists, Catholic Dioceses) or former (LDS) CO groups twist the knife into BSA. They are not pleased. I know at least one Diocese threw out Scouting (Dallas) and the New Orleans diocese was on the verge and in fact told parishes NOT to but was talked down off the ledge. BSA's back-up counsel did well in the sense of "did not screw anything up" and he did try to get the judge to schedule things faster (failed, but he did try).

That is almost, verbatim, what Kosnoff just tweeted.

I'm going to give counsel the benefit of the doubt and assume major family or personal emergency.

Not a shock. The Diocese of Dallas basically threw out all scouting units during the Fall 2020 recharter season as well. That's why, by the way, the 2021 Charter agreements got a massive re-write last October/November to put specifically claims and insurance limits in writing. Several COs were, in effect, refusing to recharter unless it was spelled out what BSA was promising to do in terms of CO indemnity. Compare, for example, the website in October/early November 2020 Site as of October 28, 2020: https://web.archive.org/web/20201028172138/https://www.scouting.org/resources/forms/ Recharter form as of October 28, 2020: https://web.archive.org/web/20201113235628if_/https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/membership/pdf/524-182_web.pdf Compare that to what got slammed together at the last minute in November 2020. Note now the existence of the new Council-chartered unit form (Annual Council Unit Registration Agreement) as well as the Short Form Facility Use Agreement and the new CO charter agreement with its new, very specific, insurance language https://web.archive.org/web/20201127015750/http://www.scouting.org/resources/forms/ The Local Council agrees to: Provide primary general liability insurance to cover the Charter Organization, its board, officers, Charter Organization Representative (COR), employees, and adult volunteers for authorized Scouting activities. Indemnify the Charter Organization in accordance with the resolutions and policies of the National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America. “The general liability policy issued to the Boy Scouts of America provides primary liability insurance coverage for all chartered organizations for liability arising out of their sponsorship of a traditional Scouting unit. Evanston Insurance Company provides the first $1 million per occurrence coverage. Additional policies, all providing primary coverageto the chartered organization, have been purchased so that more than $10 million in primary coverage is provided. There is no coverage for those who commitintentional or criminal acts. Liability insurance is purchased to provide financial protection in the event of accidents or injury that is neither expected nor intende

Yes. It is a fairly boilerplate facilities rental agreement. https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Short-Form-Facility-Use-Agreement-draft-10-21-2020.pdf

I see. So, Dale was decided by SCOTUS in 2000. You then think the solution to keep those alumni dollars rolling was to remain locked into banning homosexual scouts, homosexual leaders, and girls from Cub Scouts and Scouts BSA? What rejection of "political correction" is it that would have saved BSA from where it is today?

As I said, the COs do not appreciate being thrown under the bus and left to rot by BSA after BSA promised to protect them. Boy Scouts insurers secure more time to build settlement opposition Insurers, represented by lawyers at O’Melveny & Myers, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr and Gibson Dunn, say the settlement validates, and requires insurance coverage for tens of thousands of claims without proper vetting. They have repeatedly accused the Boy Scouts’ lawyers of leaving them out of critical mediation sessions that led to the deal with survivor groups. The Boy Scouts’ attorneys have denied that allegation. ... Certain chartered organizations, including churches, that run local Boy Scouts units have also challenged the settlement. The deal subordinates their indirect abuse claims, which typically seek indemnity for liabilities stemming from direct claims that would have otherwise been filed against the national organization, below those of the direct sex abuse claims.

Based on the Fourth Amended plan I tried to math-out how long until BSA can get out of bankruptcy now that the disclosure statement hearing is delayed until August 17. The answer: late October if they are very, very lucky. I'm sorry about the formatting, I just cannot make it work. I should also note this is a very compressed deadline: the Second Amended place gave victims 72 days to vote; this is down to 45 days. Event Fourth Amended Plan Date Days from Disclosure Hearing Adjusted Timeline Disclosure Statement Objection Deadline 7/13 -7 Tuesday, August 10, 2021 Disclosure Statement Hearing 7/20 0 Tuesday, August 17, 2021 Voting Record Date 7/20 0 Tuesday, August 17, 2021 Deadline to Mail Solicitation Packages and Related Notices 7/28 8 Wednesday, August 25, 2021 Rule 3018(a) Motion Deadline 8/13 24 Friday, September 10, 2021 Deadline to File Plan Supplement 8/20 31 Friday, September 17, 2021 Voting Resolution Event Deadline 9/3 45 Friday, October 1, 2021 Voting Deadline 9/3 45 Friday, October 1, 2021 Preliminary Voting Report Deadline 9/8 50 Wednesday, October 6, 2021 Plan Objection Deadline 9/14 56 Tuesday, October 12, 2021 Final Voting Report Deadline 9/17 59 Friday, October 15, 2021 Confirmation Brief/Reply Deadline 9/22 64 Wednesday, October 20, 2021 Confirmation Hearing 9/27 69 Monday, October 25, 2021

First media reports coming out about today. Boy Scouts to Give Insurers More Time to Review Victim Settlement The Boy Scouts of America must give its insurers and other interested parties more time to vet the organization’s $850 million settlement with sexual abuse victims, a ruling that likely delays the end of its bankruptcy proceedings. The Boy Scouts’ timeline to solicit and confirm a Chapter 11 reorganization plan must be pushed back to allow for depositions and comprehensive briefing on the nonprofit’s watershed deal filed last week, Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware said at a virtual hearing Wednesday.

That's not why they are angry. They are angry because the RSA and the plan called for COs to be put to the BACK in terms of indirect claims. In other words, under the BSA plan, if a victim sued the CO for abuse, the CO would then demand BSA indemnify the CO based on the insurance policies and other BSA assets. What the COs objected to as near as I can tell (and the judge read it the same way), BSA was a) walking away from ALL need to use its insurance to cover COs and b) putting the COs in the back of the line for such "indirect abuse claims." It wasn't that the COs were not part of the deal, it was that the deal absolutely hung the COs out to dry with NO insurance coverage, NO BSA coverage, NOTHING.