CynicalScouter

What is crazy is that in January Bryan on Scouting did a whole thing about just this idea. https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2021/01/29/achievement-unlocked-how-to-organize-a-videogame-tournament-for-your-scouts/

That's Kosnoff's claim as well: the Settlement Trustee under the BSA version 4.0 is going to value claims and sit as a mini-judge to value all 82,500 claims and make binding determinations as to value. The insurance companies are going to argue no trustee has that authority OR can be granted such authority by the court.

From the TCC Townhall, the factors appear to have been the professional judgements of the attorneys who were part of the mediation. Stang discusses it at 29:20-31:30 in this Townhall Video "States where it is extremely difficult, and I am saying this based on the collective experience of trial lawyers who literally have hundreds of years, collectively, hundreds of years of experience litigating sexual abuse claims. And those states in that category get highly, highly discounted. And then there is the inbetween and the chart is what the chart is. I want to make clear the chart has the support of the plaintiffs groups. I won't say it has the support of every plaintiff's lawyer, because that would be untrue. But that is where we came out collectively." https://www.dropbox.com/s/bv6jlthb1b95s6m/BSA Town Hall 7-1-2021.mp4?dl=0

I'm just thinking like in any tort it is the place of occurrence. So, and I am really trying to be gentle here, if the abuse occurred in a Gray 1, then continued at summer camp in an Open state, then the instances would be parsed out. The Settlement statements/detailed documents and interviews are likely going to get very, very specific about what happened where and when, not only for this reason, but among them.

It's based on a) the comments made by the TCC during its Zoom town hall describing the tiers and b) this assessment by the National Conference of State Legislatures regarding Mississippi that found https://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/state-civil-statutes-of-limitations-in-child-sexua.aspx

Not necessarily. Under the RSA document released by BSA, even those in SoL states are going to get SOMETHING. They put states into categories ranging from Open (=100% of claim value) to Gray 1, Gray 2, and Gray 3 (depending on how strict that state's SoL is and how insurmountable it is) and Closed (for the states that in the opinion of the TCC and Coalition lawyers it is effectively impossible to get out from under the lack of a SoL window). Open 1.0 Gray 1 .50-.70 Gray 2 .30-.45 Gray 3 .10-.25 Closed .01-.10 So even in a "Gray 3" state like Mississippi in which trying to get out of the SoL on the basis of fraudulent concealment is almost impossible, you are still looking at anywhere from 10%-25% of your claim value or, for a $1 million claim, $100,000-$250,000. This is why as others have said you need to get legal counsel. The ORIGINAL plan was to simply say there were open states/closed states and closed states = 1%. But this system at least allows for SOME kind of payment for those even in truly, utterly closed states. State Tier Alabama Closed Kansas Closed Oklahoma Closed Puerto Rico Closed South Dakota Closed Utah Closed Wyoming Closed ZZ / Federal Closed Connecticut Gray 1 DC Gray 1 Delaware Gray 1 Georgia Gray 1 Illinois Gray 1 Massachusetts Gray 1 New Mexico Gray 1 Oregon Gray 1 Pennsylvania Gray 1 Washington Gray 1 Iowa Gray 2 Minnesota Gray 2 New Hampshire Gray 2 North Dakota Gray 2 Ohio Gray 2 South Carolina Gray 2 Tennessee Gray 2 West Virginia Gray 2 Alaska Gray 3 Florida Gray 3 Idaho Gray 3 Indiana Gray 3 Kentucky Gray 3 Maryland Gray 3 Michigan Gray 3 Mississippi Gray 3 Missouri Gray 3 Nebraska Gray 3 Nevada Gray 3 Rhode Island Gray 3 Texas Gray 3 Virgin Islands Gray 3 Virginia Gray 3 Wisconsin Gray 3 Arizona Open Arkansas Open California Open Colorado Open Guam Open Hawaii Open Louisiana Open Maine Open Montana Open New Jersey Open New York Open North Carolina Open Vermont Open

Some kind of impleader? Victim sues BSA (or the Trust). If BSA sued, BSA brings names Trust/Trustee as real party in interest (since BSA's bankruptcy settles all claims against it and transfers to Trust) and steps aside. Trustee then impleads/third party complaints the insurance company and demands insurance company indemnify?

This is the operative part This is NEW language. It was NOT there before. See page 110 it is in blue, indicating it was added in the latest amendments/Fourth Plan. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/7082572a-2eeb-4a35-bc9b-e515925846fd_5486.pdf That said, there is also a "ARTICLE XII TORT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE" still listed where the Trustee acts as the judge and jury.

Modified FIFO: First In, First Out. Those with "Exigentn Health Circumstances" get pushed to the front. Otherwise, it if FIFO. See page 141 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1d5f346b-47b8-43d3-b4cf-4a0393aa8256_5466.pdf

Probably more subtle, like upping the cost by $100 for all HA fees but not explaining why. I've been told by mine they cannot release the information on advice of legal counsel/per an NDA.

And I think the answer would be that BSA's entire reorganization strategy is predicated on income from those HA bases paying off the $80 million loan they are having to take out. "The BSA Settlement Trust Note to be issued on the Effective Date to the Settlement Trust by the Reorganized BSA in the principal amount of $80 million, which will bear interest at a rate of 5.5% per annum and be payable semi-annually. Principal payments under the BSA Settlement Trust Note shall be payable in annual installments due on February 15 of each year during the term of the BSA Settlement Trust Note, commencing on February 15 with certain minimum payment requirements. (footnote 15) The BSA Settlement Trust Note may be prepaid at any time without penalty; (footnote 15) In accordance with the Plan, such annual principal payments shall be equal to the sum of the following calculation: (a) $4.5 million; 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 forecast set forth in the Debtors’ five-year business plan; plus (e) $150 multiplied by the aggregate number of High Adventure Base Participants 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 forecast for years after 2025 shall be deemed to be the forecast for calendar year 2025."

I think the point for me is that victims were told to expect big pots of money in the billions if not tens or hundreds of billions and that BSA (and the LCs) were never, ever in a position to offer those kinds of numbers even if they were completely liquidated. So, the question becomes are victims now going to vote against a plan that is "only" $850 million (with insurance TBD) in a fit of anger and confusion that they are being short changed? Or will the message get through that $850 million is really the best/most that can be gotten out of the BSA and LCs and that the next fight against the insurance companies is where the "real" money is?

Here's the problem: a LOT of the challenge has been that the LCs were being told by national and the Ad Hoc Local Committee that This bankruptcy won't cost LCs a dime. It will only cost $100-$200 million We are now up to $600 million Additionally, based on TCC townhalls and BSA's financial statements, we also know there are a LOT of properties that the LCs insisted were "Restricted" that probably were not really "restricted" or were restricted but in a way that did not preclude them from being sold. I think Kosnoff's nuts when he throws around numbers like 20 billion in Local Council assets. But 4-7 billion sure. How much of that is restricted and how much of that is "restricted"? I know the TCC gave each Council a very detailed and precise version of what it felt was what in terms of assets that would be sold. Let's see what happens. The other possibility is that enough LCs will balk/refuse to pay that the plan falls apart. I would imagine National is, as someone else put it, making the LCs offers they cannot refuse: pay or else.

My Key-3 confirmed that in a town hall in January and that the SoLs played a role (for example I live in a closed state). There was a formula BUT that number was based on what the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils was telling Councils they needed to pay back when it was only 100-200 million. We are now up to $600 million. I am sure that formula is now very, very different. I also confirmed LCs have until next week (my Council is voting on the 7th but the deadline for all councils is the 9th) to vote to approve or reject their contributions.

There seems to be two different claims here For LCs COLLECTIVELY, 600 million is chump change/not "substantial" enough. There's no way of telling how much EACH INDIVIDUAL Council is coughing up to determine if that particular council is making a "substantial" payment. I think the first is wrongheaded: there's no way for example one council should be on the hook for some other council's costs. The second I think he has a point but it is going to be 250 or so answers. For example, you have some smaller councils whose TOTAL assets (restricted and unrestricted) isn't even $1 million. How "substantial" does this have to be? Also recall that Kosnoff's main thrust has always been he wants BSA dead and gone at the end of this, therefore his understanding of "substantial" is probably going to be different than that of others.

It really boils down to the statutes of limitations. For the 50,000 victims in a closed state, this is possibly the best possible deal they are going to get unless they are prepared to individually hire lawyers and spend years in the state court systems trying to argue that the SoLs are tolled for fraudulent concealment or some other reason.

The insurance companies now want to take the deposition of Mosby and are making document and other demands of BSA Document and other discovery demands: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/72760396-90dc-4a4a-9619-eeef9695bbcc_5477.pdf Mosby deposition July 8: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/173b3c9c-e3f9-4dfb-b0f3-8c59e4a0ba50_5480.pdf They also want to depose Andrew R. Evans (Bates White, the folks who came up with BSA's abuse matrix and abuse consultant) and Brian Whittman (BSA's restructuring advisor)

Your opinion was that BSA (which is not a government entity) refusing to approve certain patches somehow violated the First Amendment and was "sensor"ing (I assume you mean censoring?) Given that the First Amendment prevents GOVERNMENT infringement of speech and GOVERNMENT infringement of expression (as opposed to that of a private entity such as BSA), your opinion is simply wrong. You may have sworn to uphold the Constitution, including the First Amendment, but it is clear you don't understand it.

Nope. I'm trying to understand what changes bother you and makes you think BSA in your words "gives in to any whim or idea expressed by anyone with a voice. " I see you still refuse to answer that question, so I'll ask again. What, exactly, is it you think is an example of BSA "giv[ing] in to any whim or idea expressed by anyone with a voice"?

I agree. I am not trying to say that the plan is a lock, or not a lock, only that there are a lot of ways this can still go wrong and the media of a "settlement" should have read "potential settlement" at best.

Here's the problem with fraudulent concealment and in federal court it's called FRCP 9b So you have to state with PARTICULARITY the circumstances in which BSA fraudulently concealed information regarding your PARTICULAR abuse (or the PARTICULAR person who abused you). BUT that knowledge can be ALLEGED "generally" if you can show a particular BSA individual's mind. Clear as mud? That's why this is so hard. Simply saying "BSA knew it had problems IN GENERAL with sexual abuse IN GENERAL or even sexual abuse at camps IN GENERAL" is probably not going to be enough. "John Smith, the Scout Executive for the XYZ Council, knew that the abuse had taken place and burned every record of the abuse" or "burned every record of this particular abuser"? Yep.

Ok, to be clear: that would be case by case. Over 50,000 times. Could it happen? Sure. But is it likely for 90-99% of claimants? No.

As of 2021 there are two Charter Agreements: 1) The first one is the traditional, classic one and is used when there is a chartered organization. https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Annual-Charter-Agreement-Charter-Organizations-.pdf Notice it says "The Local Council agrees to:" and lists things and "The Chartered Organization agrees to" and lists things. 2) The second one is where the Council (not the District, the COUNCIL) is the CO/owner and some other entity provides space but that is ALL they provide. This consists of two parts. Part 1 is the Charter Agreement in which the COUNCIL serves as the Chartered Organization. https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Annual-Registration-Agreement-Council-Units.pdf Notice it says "The Local Council agrees to:" and lists things and "The Unit agrees to" and lists things HOWEVER that list does NOT contain the same things as in Charter Agreement involving a Chartered Organization. Part 2 is the Short Form Facility Use Agreement (signed by the entity leasing its space to the unit) https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Short-Form-Facility-Use-Agreement-draft-10-21-2020.pdf The renting/leasing entity is NOT a Chartered Organization, is NOT functioning as a CO, and is NOT legally responsible in any way for that unit. So, if you have a CO and are continuing with your CO, you might never, ever have seen the new/second type of Charter Agreement. But if you lose your CO, you might have to use that new/second type until you can find a new CO.

BSA objects to the insurance companies efforts to delay the July hearing and they include email exchanges with the insurance companies showing that BSA's lawyers tried to and did give an extension to file objections, but the insurance companies are just trying to delay/stall. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/42ae4a68-fe18-4539-a3d7-2ea55e1a76bd_5472.pdf

If a claimant opts for Expedited/$3500 that will be (almost) true. For everyone else, nope.