CynicalScouter

Throughout the entire process, I have not gotten one single thing from my Council other than the Townhall Zoom in January. There is no way any LC is sending out updates about a status conference that many/most didn't even know happened. All I do know is that the Ad Hoc Local Council Committee does send communications to the Council Key-3 (that I was able to get confirmed by my Key-3) who are then told not to share the info in that email with anyone.

Yes, BSA's play games with victims: oh we just have to rush this plan through because we are running out of cash...but maybe not.

If he is forced to disclose? Sure. But the question would be whether or not that would delay proceedings. It may or may not.

What the insurance companies want from Kosnoff and the Coalition (the Rule 2019 motion). 2. Abused in Scouting and Kosnoff Law PLLC must separately produce the following information pursuant to Rule 2019: A. A list of the names and addresses of all creditors (including creditors for whom the filing counsel is acting as co-counsel) represented by Abused in Scouting and Kosnoff Law PLLC. The list should indicate whether each creditor has opted in to be part of the Coalition B. A complete copy of each form of agreements authorizing Abused in Scouting and Kosnoff Law PLLC/Tim Kosnoff to act on behalf of a creditor in this case and their representation of multiple parties. C. A list and explanation of any co-counsel, consultant, or fee-sharing relationships and arrangements in connection with this bankruptcy case or claims against any of the Debtors, and attachment of copies of any documents that were signed in conjunction with creating that relationship or arrangement. D. A list of the persons or entities with an equity interest in the claims of any creditor represented by Abused in Scouting and Kosnoff Law PLLC/Tim Kosnoff other than the claimant. E.All other information and disclosures required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2019. 3. The Coalition must produce the following information pursuant to Rule 2019: A. A list of the names and addresses of all creditors represented by the Coalition, including the law firm that represents each creditor. The list should indicate whether each creditor represented by Abused in Scouting and/or Kosnoff Law PLLC/Tim Kosnoff has opted in to be part of the Coalition. B. A list of the persons or entities with an equity interest in the claims of any creditor represented by the Coalition other than the claimant. C. All other information and disclosures required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2019.

So, big take aways: 1) The COs are pissed, no other way to put it, they are pissed that they are getting thrown under the bus. The fact that the Ad Hoc Local Committee and BSA went out of their way to try to mend fences right there in the middle of the hearing tells you how big a deal this is. 2) Kosnoff and AIS and Coalition are now going under the microscope. The Rule 2019 motion, if approved, would require them to disclose all their creditors and what the exact precise relationship(s) are see page 26-27 of this https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/872699_2030.pdf 3) There's no way BSA emerges from bankruptcy in time for fall recruiting. Even if by some miracle the August 17 hearing results in a disclosure statement that can go to a vote, it will take 90-120 days to vote on the disclosure statement and confirm that is November 15-December 15 before BSA emerges. 4) The RSA is going to be a much bigger fight that people imagined. 5) This doesn't end with the disclosure. The judge has said at least twice that these arguments are for the confirmation hearing. That means EVEN IF the plan is voted approved, she's still not ruling yet whether or not certain things are legal, especially I take it with respect to the insurance company concerns. And remember folks: BSA said it was out of cash in August.

Linder for BSA: There is opposition to the RSA motion on the timeline and the disclosure timeline. Response to Anker/Hartford, sounds like Hartford already has its brief written. We don't think Hartford needs to be an adversary proceeding. Judge: Debtor wants me to make in RSA a finding that Hartford wants discovery on. This isn't a purely legal issue. So, what about need to take discovery? Linder: Discovery is needed, but it can be done quickly and narrowly. More Linder: Insurance companies were at the mediation in a meaningful way. No one was shut out of the mediation. Judge: "I am not going to be able to resolve that dispute." "I think there has been a significant achievement." "But it is also clear not everyone was involved." "Move on." Linder: BSA did not just turn over the pen to the TCC. This was collaborative. As for COs: appreciate the concerns, just say that w/r/t LDS is unique in that LDS has put indirect abuse claim (garbled)? But these are all confirmation issues. As for other COs, we do value them. Lifeblood of scouting. We are happy to engage with this. Judge: "That's how I read it" that it abridged the COs rights and subordinated their claims. Are they wrong? Linder: He is not wrong. Judge: I noted the same issues expressed (by the COs). I just note that. You speak as of LDS mischaraterised the plan, but I don't think he did. Linder: RSA is a "gating" matter, goes before plan. Judge issued rulings: RSA will be heard first and appropriately briefed. RSA scheduled for July 29-30 (may not take 2 days). Also like to hear 29-30, response to Rule 2019 motion that insurers brought vis-a-vis Abused in Scouting. Mr. Wilks or whoever represents Mr. Kosnoff needs to be noticed. Response on Rule 2019 to address what was brief but also whether the numerous letters received from their clients is the basis to require a Rule 2019 statement to be filed. Mr. Wilks: We are here and will be prepared. Most of the letters appear to be from clients of Abused in Scouting. Briefing on disclosure, some issues sound more like confirmation issues, but parties should have meaningful chance to weigh in on disclosure statement and because RSA is gating, so disclosure hearing has to be delayed to August 17. BSA now wants to do RSA and disclosure July 29-30, but judge won't budge. October/November are full. Talk about doing confirmation discovery NOW, prior to even disclosure statements. "We'll move some things". Judge: I think the RSA, whether I approve or don't, the agreement is significant achievement. Hope the delay allows for discovery and comprehensively brief two issues listed above. Hope time is also bring others into fold or to continue discussions. Consensus plan is preferable. Most if not all issues raised today are not easy ones. Consensus plan is preferable. Survivors get paid sooner. BSA emerges sooner. More definitive resolution. Will note: non-monetary provisions that were "very appropriate" to address safe scouting and how BSA will ensure past abuse does not continue into future. As I read survivor letters, that is an aspect often in letters and is compelling. Nason for Ad Hoc Committee of LCs: Agree that Chartered Partners are essential. They will work on CO issues. Offer to Chartered Partners, Ad Hoc committee happy to engage. US Trustee: Request for debtors to send out notices. BSA: Yes, we will.

Sitting in on Zoom status conference: Parties in opposition continued: LDS Goldberg for LDS: Join to adjourn hearings. The RSA leaves out the COs. The LDS is one of the COs. There are over 41,000 COs. Top 20 COs include Methodist Church, Catholic Church, LDS, etc. The plan does not have the support of ANY COs and NONE have gotten advance notice. Only a few COs have been mediation parties. "Highly prejudicial" to COs. COs will never recover anything on indemnity claims or if they did it would be years down the road. The plan also strips CO property rights. It prohibits COs from insurance rights to seek out against LCs and others. These are extraordinary terms without precedent. The RSA and new Plan and its removal of the toggle plan impacts COs and the toggle plan would have been better for COs. More time needed for COs. Many of the tens of thousands of COs are starting to wake up as to what this plan is doing to them. Ryan for United Methodist and Roman Catholic Ad Hoc Committees: The Roman Catholic Ad Hoc committee was just formed, the Methodists have been since the start. The dioceses/archdioceses are just now come onboard. "The future of scouting relies on our support." They are also creditors that have indemnity claims against BSA and the LCs. The plan strips all the property rights and the court's jurisdiction to do this. This plan prejudices the COs. It is a plan designed to pressure COs into accepting TCC claims. Every CO will have to decide: how do we continue to do business with BSA with the way BSA plans to treat COs? It will make the decision self-fulfilling. COs want to be part of the solution. COs had sat back and let the negotiations happen, but this is not going to jam the COs. What should happen is a pause to see if COs want to be incorporated and go forward with scouting. There are 40,000 COs, none of them are getting due process and the whole process is violating local rules. It will threaten the future of Boy Scouts. Linder for BSA back up

Sitting in on Zoom status conference: Parties in opposition: Hartford, Balkin (sp?)/Balkin lawfirm on behalf of various victims and lawfirms of victims Hartford: Is important to get BSA out of bankruptcy. Important for legitimate claimants. Also important for parties with substantial rights (insurers) to have due process. Filing substantial response that is going to oppose RSA. BSA wants declaratory relief and that requires adversary proceeding. Putting that aside, BSA is seeking a victim value and determination. "We will recite facts." BSA is going back on their word. BSA told us and told the court one thing (toggle plan was the backup) and is now trying to back out of the deal. Hartford has sought discovery and will seek discovery. The deposition and document requests Hartford has already made Hartford has been warned by BSA that they will rely entirely on mediation confidentiality to produce not much. Hartford wants disclosure hearing on a day SEPARATE from from the RSA date/hearing. Eric Green's appointment as Trustee is big issue; he was rejected previously as mediator. Green is now going to be the judge for BSA's liability "and then stick it to us." Everything is meant to "stick it to the insurers." BSA is seeking insurance coverage determinations and obligations as part of this plan without giving the insurance companies a chance. TCC lawyers and coalition lawyers are out there telling media plan binds insurance companies. Hartford wants discovery. Balkin (sp?)/Balkin lawfirm on behalf of various victims and lawfirms of victims: Been litigating sexual abuse claims for years, San Diego Diocese, etc. 50 lawfirms have looked at these documents and we have serious concerns and objections. Serious issues with channelling injunction where the subject matter jurisdciton over LCs, are LCs making substantial contributions, can bankruptcy court enforce claims that are not enforceable (due to SoL), should claimants without valid claims in state courts get to vote on this plan? Whether/why LC contributions are only 1/3 of unrestricted assets. Are insurance liabilities of non-debtor third parties capped for insurance companies at the levels the LCs have paid? What is happening with future claims? The FCR is only the FCR for under 18 and repressed memories, but California allows for delayed discovery claims. What about future claims against the LCs? Is this a "litigated plan"? Is this bankruptcy plan a judgement enforceable against the insurers? TCC is out there telling people it is. Law firms are unable to tell claimants/clients how much they are really going to be getting. Just want to alert court to what is coming. We need time. Rosenthal/AIG companies: Insurers don't think this is success. This deal is half a loaf and it will not result in the end of the case or survivors getting money soon. We were excluded for the most part. PBS news quote from yesterday: the plan was to go after insurance next. Debtors only giving us 7-8 days for insurers to respond. This is not an insurance neutral plan. These are absolutely essential. Judge is being asked to make liability adjudications. Judge did not know what insurance neutrality meant. You cannot confirm such a plan. Claimants cut a deal with the debtor and let the the claimants take over the plan/take over the case. Many/most/all documents are going to be held by BSA to be mediation privileged. Two week delay is reasonable. Judge: WRT insurance neutrality, Rosenthal, what issues of fact need to be developed vs. a position of law? That the judge simply cannot make the findings? Rosenthal response: most are matters of law, not fact. What did the debtors consider to abandon the toggle plan? Many of the issues related to insurance neutrality are issues of law. Scavani (sp?) for Century: There were limits under these insurance policies that made BSA have to pay. The RSA changes it, so that the insurance companies have to pay EVERY dollar. Changes insurance policies relationship so that BSA gets to walk away and requires the insurance companies have to fund the defense of the BSA. Focus on scheduling, joins everything Rosenthal said. Good process results in good decisions. Century got the plan 20 minutes before midnight before 4th of July holiday. Excluded from all meetings involving the TCC and the BSA and the drafting of the TDP. The message was clear from the TCC and BSA and the mediation: the insurance companies were able to participate in but were excluded at every step. BSA has turned this process over to the TCC regarding what claims are allowed is off the rails. No one had a counter-interest. Not trying to poison the well, but... They are seeking findings that the negotiation was in good faith and all mediation parties included, etc. Some of these findings in the RSA are designed to prejudice the insurance companies and prevent them from later claiming the RSA and plan was simply collusion between the BSA and the TCC. We need discovery. Nothing about the merits of the claims. ALL claimants get paid something. Even if SoLs are in place are getting paid $3500. In essence, everyone is paid to vote. No vetting of the claims. Still asking for discovery as to the claims. There was no effort to work with insurance companies, the assumption is that every claim is going to be held valid and approved. It drops all protections for the COs/sponsor organizations. All the COs and sponsor organizations are going to be hit with lawsuits this fall. Some of the sponsors are on the call and will address this issue. Abused in Scouting and social media. Kosnoff has said he objects to the RSA. Kosnoff claims to speak with the victims, but Rosenoff (sp?) signing on RSA. Who exactly is it that control the votes and can therefore sign the RSA? Also, plan calls for big payments to TCC professionals. TCC wants a finding that the mediation was OK, but won't disclose what happened behind closed doors. Going to make a new post for the next set of objectors.

Sitting in on Zoom status conference: Parties in support first. So far (in order), BSA, Ad Hoc Committee of Local Counsels, Coalition, TCC, FCR, UCC. "Significant progress" "Major agreement" "Timeline" important "Expeditiously" "Get compensation to victims faster" TCC did not say much but made "two primary points" There's an agreement among all primary constituencies We need to get the plan confirmation process rolling FCR: "Resist calls for further delay" Parties in opposition next.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/boy-scouts-failing-after-losing-focus-on-boys-trail-life-ceo.html “It’s not the pandemic or social trends away from the outdoors that is hurting the Boy Scouts,” Hancock, who heads the leading alternate scouting program founded in 2014 after controversial changes at BSA, said in a statement shared with The Christian Post Tuesday. “When an organization with a remarkable past that provided us with Presidents and astronauts and generals and civic leaders for over 100 years decides to abandon its laser focus on boys and its commitment to the core strengths that made them and this country great, what would you expect?”

PBS: Understanding the Boy Scouts’ sexual assault settlement and whether it’s adequate John Yang: Have you talked to any of the survivors that you have been — you represent? And what is their reaction to what they're hearing about this? Kenneth Rothweiler: Yes, I talk to survivors every day. And I always get their opinion as to how they're feeling and how they perceive the whole bankruptcy going. I wouldn't say they're overjoyed, but they feel satisfied because the Boy Scouts have acknowledged what they have done. And now they have come to the table, and compensation is coming to the survivors... This settlement with the BSA and the locals is just the first step. And that has always been the plan, to get the settlement with those two entities, and then to get the insurance rights, which have now assigned to the trust, so that we can go after the insurance companies. And that's where, actually, most of the money is. So, I predict that, in the end, this is going to be a multibillion-dollar settlement... Different amounts to different claimants, depending upon what state they're in, the severity of the abuse, the longevity of the abuse. There's a lot of factors that go into it. It's called a TDP, so trust distribution protocol, which is basically guidelines for the trustee to assess how much each individual claimant will get. John Yang: And there are — as I noted in the introduction, there are some attorneys who are not thrilled about this, who say it's too small, who say that you can't really judge how equitable it is until you know how much the local councils really have. What's your response? Kenneth Rothweiler: Well, my response to that is, those lawyers don't know what the plan was from the beginning. The plan always was to get a settlement with the BSA National and then the locals and then move on to the insurers. And as I told you, John, in the beginning, there's billions of potential dollars that could come from the insurance companies, also from chartering organizations, like the LDS Church, and — I mean, from sponsoring organizations like the LDS Church, and also from chartering organizations. So, there's a lot of potential money that can come the way of the survivors. We now have to be aggressive, as the lawyers, to go after it.

You are right. I'm sorry.

Not really. The idea is that in a bankruptcy ALL claims from EVERYWHERE are settled as to the debtor, regardless of what state the claim originated from. A bankruptcy court was not going to say "sure, this will settle claims in these states, but debts incurred in those states are not covered." This gets back to a larger point which is that using the bankruptcy process to try and settle a mass tort is insane. But this is a bankruptcy proceeding; you cannot custom cut a bankruptcy to only affect claims from certain states.

No, it is because as part of the bankruptcy BSA was required to notify ALL potential claimants that they needed to file a claim and the language the BSA ads used were approved by the court. The other ads pushed by lawyers/lawyers groups were much different.

As a reminder: there is a status conference set for today 2pm Eastern. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/8ebaef0b-e909-47d8-a8a7-4c748427ff3d_5483.pdf

The insurance companies have filed new docs regarding their previous efforts to have the July 20 hearing postponed to give them time to review things. And they want to know why Eric Green is the Settlement Trustee. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/76971764-d131-4c5b-85f7-310e833051dc_5512.pdf They are also indicating BSA will produce Mosby on July 9 but BSA is delaying others and are not allowing Ownby to be deposed. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/fa070d16-8b6a-48b8-a937-00b6edeae8a2_5514.pdf We also get to see the Coalition's responses to some of Century's discovery demands https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/fa070d16-8b6a-48b8-a937-00b6edeae8a2_5514.pdf In short, it looks as if Century is demanding to know who is paying the Coalition, what loans were taken out to fund it, any and all documents and emails between the Coalition and the BSA, etc. The Coalitions response was to reject entirely any/all requests from Century.

The point is that we'll know in the next week or so exactly how much each cooperating council is paying into the Settlement. There's no need for me to ask my council today when I can just wait and find out then as well as finding out all the other councils.

And here's the other concern: the re-traumatization is not over. Any victim who thought (or were told) they would be able to just file the Proof of Claim last November and be paid out is sadly in for a rude awakening (unless they take the $3500 not-questions-asked payout). Even in the best case scenario, there will be a new document the victims have to fill out asking for even more details about the abuse and its impact. And the Settlement Trustee (or the people he hires) will conduct interviews and ask for more information. Etc.

Because the alternative is what, exactly? Under the plan, if you are in a closed state, you could get up to 10% of your claim's value. So, if it is $1 million, that means $100,000. The alternative is you get nothing because the plan fails. If you are in a closed state, that means you then have have to hire a lawyer and somehow fight in court to have the statute of limitations somehow waived (fraudulent concealment, whatever). Even if you can do it, that will be years from now.

Yep. It becomes a race for the courthouse door, first come, first paid. And if there's nothing left by the time your case gets to the court? Too bad.

And this was part of the negotiation, because the argument cuts the other way: why should an abuse victim in a closed state get money to which he has no legal claim under his state laws? Etc. This is the area of mass confusion and the reason why this is tricky. The Insurance Companies are going to say absolutely not no. And Kosnoff is claiming that the NO it doesn't cover insurance carriers. But those advocating sure do seem to think that they can somehow bind the insurance companies to pay out under the this plan somehow down the road. And is sure does read as if the Settlement Trustee can value claims and therefore enter judgments.

I didn't ask about insurance carriers. I asked about BSA and, separately, the BSA and LCs. Nothing about these SoL machinations is going to change the fact that, past a certain point (and arguably we are there with BSA or getting there) there is no more money to be had. BSA's already having to take out a loan to put money towards the settlement. And is a bankruptcy judge really going to drag this out for another 1-2 years litigating whether a DC or NJ statute allows a South Dakota (closed state) council to be sued, watching as what little BSA has (in general and in particular to pay into any settlement) dwindles to $0?

Because I think for several reasons: Does it in any way affect how much BSA is going to be able to offer here? Let's say that you are able to somehow get every SoL lifted/erased after months if not years of litigation. Does that in any way change that fact that a) BSA is running out of money (we can debate when it will run out, but it will eventually) NOW and/or b) somehow magically conjure up more for BSA to contribute to a victims settlement fund? Even if you can get the SoL lifted for claims against BSA, that doesn't translate into claims against an LC. A claim against BSA National may be able to be shoehorned into DC or NJ, but that would NOT apply to any claims against a local council since the local council was HQed and operated in some other state. A Wisconsin council is not subject to DC law or claims arising out of DC or NJ statutes. Even if you could again somehow shoehorn in BSA National AND somehow assert a DC statute of limitations window applies to, say, a Wisconsin Council (and every other council, including those based overseas like Transatlantic) see item 1(b): does that fact in any way somehow magically conjure up more for BSA to contribute to a victims settlement fund? Or LCs?

This is what Greater Hudson Valley posted to FB. https://www.facebook.com/GHVBSA/posts/10158711920823375?comment_id=10158711940903375&reply_comment_id=10158712014783375

My Council is not the only one that was told that in order to participate in the settlement/bankruptcy tals they had to sign a NDA. Moreover, I know for a fact and this is in the court record that anything coming out of the mediation talks is covered by a mediation NDA as well. https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/2021/07/06/boy-scouts-properties-listed-sale-dutchess-putnam-and-rockland/5350976001/ "Greater Hudson Valley Council officials have said in a Facebook post that they were required to sign a nondisclosure agreement regarding the national organization's bankruptcy, so specific financial figures, such as the precise dollar amount the council looks to contribute to the compensation trust, can’t be shared at this time. “However, we can say that our Council has been assigned to pay a non-negotiable multi-million-dollar payment,” the Facebook post on June 25 said." That said, the BSA plan contemplates a document being filed in the next few weeks indicating how much each LC has committed to contributing to the settlement. We'll know then precisely how much each Council is on the hook for.