CynicalScouter

Right, I would suspect the 82,500 victims will be told "You are in a Grey 1 state" or "You are in an Open State" or be given that list of states and have to figure out for themselves "I am in a Gray 1 state." That's why I still remain concerned this will never get 2/3rds vote because victims have been told for over a year about billions and tens of billions or hundreds of billions with the whole "subject to statutes of limitations" part left out.

Yes, BSA provided a list based on the dates and locations of the abuse for Open vs. Closed and using that plus figuring out what state the Council is in you can kinda figure out how many are Closed/Gray/Open but no one has published the exact math (e.g. 10,000 Gray 1, $12,345 are Gray 2, etc.)

Yes, generally, generally, VERY generally. But as anyone in legal settlement talks knows: it means nothing until it is finalized, signed, and approved by the judge (and even then, appeals happen). There are numerous ways this can still derail: 1) BSA cut a deal with Hartford subject to approval by the judge for Hartford to pay out a certain amount. The TCC/FCR/Coalition has said they will never accept that deal. So BSA has to convince the judge to allow it to back out of the Hartford deal (by her not approving it). Hartford is going to argue that a deal's a deal and BSA cannot back out now. If the judge rules in Hartford's favor, the entire $850 million setlement is off and TCC/FCR/Coalition and BSA go back into negotiations/mediation. 2) Aside from the Hartford issue, the insurance companies can convince the judge (or an appellate court) this violates their rights in that it commits them to specific amounts with very little input 3) Some of the insurance companies have also argued that it isn't fair to give 82,500 votes to 82,500 people who CLAIM to be victims but may not be, therefore there should be determinations as to who is/is not a true victim before deciding who gets to vote 4) The victims or some may argue that this violates or interferes with their right to independently sue the LCs. 5) The U.S. Trustee, who is a DoJ appointee, may weigh in on behalf of DoJ and tell the judge the deal's unlawful for any or all of the above reasons. They already hinted at this in a prior filing, and it isn't unprecedented but it is rare. While the U.S. Trustee's position and views are not binding on the judge, judges will take their views very, very seriously. 6) The LCs have to come up with $500 million in cash and properties + $100 million in a promissory note. However, each Council gets to vote on how much they'll actually pay into the settlement. It is possible that there will not be enough LCs voting in support of this plan to get to those numbers. 7) This can go to a vote, and fail to get 2/3rds. In which case, the judge either lets this go back to Square One or orders a cramdown. Etc. So yes, there is a broad outline of a broad path towards a settlement. But there are at least 7 different ways (if not more) this can still wind up in a ditch.

And the counter will be that 99.9% of victims cannot deprive that 0.1% of victims from suing their LC. Moreover, my argument would be, why do victims around the COUNTRY get to decide or have anything to do with whether I can or cannot sue my LC?

It would be equally unfair to insurance companies, and I am sure a judge will agree, to tell insurance companies that all SoLs are suspended. BSA is at least willing to make some kind of payments, even if they are not legally required to do so. Insurance companies will likely dig in their heels. Because the alternative is what? BSA originally wanted 1% of claim vale in closed states. That number is now up, but I guarantee you as I noted the insurance companies are going to fight that in court. If BSA wants to voluntarily give more than it is legally require to do so (in closed or "gray") states, fine. But no court is going to force-by-order the insurance companies to pay when they are not legally required to do so. So the alternative to agreeing to this is nothing. No one gets a dime. BSA stays in bankruptcy or simply runs out of money. During the Zoom call last night the TCC attorneys mentioned that the issue of SoLs left people "bloody". It was obvious that it was the hardest part of the negotiation. 100% valuation of claims that are OUTSIDE the SoLs is simply not going to happen. There is no scenario here where victims in SoL states get 100% of value. But 1% was absurd. This is the best that can be gotten.

One additional item worth noting here and that is the Proof of Claim vs. "Trust Claim Submission" In short, and as was laid out last night in the TCC Zoom call, the Proof of Claim document was just the start. The Trust Disbursement Plan (TDP) calls for two tracks: 1) Expedited: Your Proof of Claim gets you $3500 but you waive any and all rights. That's it. Done. No questions asked. 2) Trust Claim Submissions: You need to submit a brand new document with lots more information and be subject to interviews. "In order to properly make a Trust Claim Submission, each submitting Abuse Claimant must (i) complete under oath a questionnaire to be developed by the Settlement Trustee and submitted to the STAC and the Future Claimants’ Representative for approval; (ii) produce all records and documents in his or her possession, custody or control related to the Abuse Claim, including all documents pertaining to all settlements, awards, or contributions already received or that are expected to be received from a Protected Party or other sources; and (iii) execute an agreement to be provided or made available by the Settlement Trust with the questionnaire (1) to produce any further records and documents in his or her possession, custody or control related to the Abuse Claim reasonably requested by the Settlement Trustee, (2) consent to and agree to cooperate in any examinations requested by the Settlement Trustee (including by healthcare professionals selected by the Settlement Trustee) (a “Trustee Interview”); and (3) consent to and agree to cooperate in a written and/or oral examination under oath if requested to do so by the Settlement Trustee. The date on which an Abuse Claimant submits (i), (ii) and (iii) above to the Settlement Trust shall be the “Trust Claim Submission Date”. The Abuse Claimant’s breach or failure to comply with the terms of his or her agreement made in connection with his or her Trust Claim Submission shall be grounds for disallowance or significant reduction of his or her Abuse Claim. To complete the evaluation of each Abuse Claim submitted through a Trust Claim Submission (each a “Submitted Abuse Claim”), the Settlement Trustee also may, but is not required to, obtain additional evidence from the Abuse Claimant or from other parties pursuant to the Document Obligations and shall consider supplemental information timely provided by the Abuse Claimant, including information obtained pursuant to the Document Obligations. Non-material changes to the claims questionnaire may be made by the Settlement Trustee with the consent of the STAC and the Future Claimants’ Representative."

You are the one who made the assertion that BSA "gives in to any whim or idea expressed by anyone with a voice." Such as what? Girls in Scouts BSA? Cub Scouts? Homosexual leaders? Bankruptcy? Letting Webelos wear tan uniforms? No longer allowing segregated units (which BSA did not prohibit until 1974)? 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"?

That's exactly what the U.S. Trustee is asking: how is the LC release/releases even legal in the context of BSA's bankruptcy? Though styled as a Channeling Injunction, the releases described in Section X.J.3 of the Plan are simply a specialized form of a non-consensual third-party release: nondebtor holders of Abuse Claims will be permanently enjoined from pursuing tort claims against nondebtor Protected Parties, even though their claims are not property of the Debtors’ estate and are not claims which the Debtors would have authority to assert or settle. Furthermore, affected abuse victims are given no opportunity to opt out of the Channeling Injunction. The circumstances in which this Court has permitted involuntary third-party releases are rare. (citations omitted by me). The Disclosure Statement should be amended to explain why the Debtors believe this Court has the authority and jurisdiction to order the involuntary release of the personal claims of creditors—claims the Debtors could not bring—against the Protected Parties and their non-estate assets.

Such as?

True, but the minute you use a BSA trademark or copyrighted item, BSA gets to decide yes/no.

No. But there's a vast difference between "Oops, I didn't know that was a BSA rule" and "I know it's a BSA rule but I'm going to do it my way anyway."

Subject to approval by the court and a vote by the victims. There's a lot of field left to plow, but it is on the path towards a settlement.

A scout is obedient...until it gets in the way of what they want, then they should stop asking and just do what they want. I wonder how I'd react to a scout telling me "I know, not the way we're supposed to do it, but I want what I want and I'm not going to ask for your approval anymore."

If the patch design uses the BSA's copyrighted/trademarked materials like the word Scout or BSA or the logos associated with them, then it while it may infringe on speech and expression, it is constitutionally permissible.

Schedule 1 Mitigating Scaling Factor Ranges for Statues of Limitation or Repose as Mitigating Scaling Factors By State Legend Tier Scaling Factor Open 1.0 Gray 1 .50-.70 Gray 2 .30-.45 Gray 3 .10-.25 Closed .01-.10 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

Regarding Hartford: BSA wants out of the deal, but if the judge decides to require the Hartford deal (because BSA signed that deal) is part of the settlement, then the RSA falls apart. RSA says LCs are paying $500 million. The TCC Zoom says $600 million.

Listening to Zoom: Green was approved by the Coalition, TCC, and BSA

Ok, so is worry you don't think the trustee will believe claimants?

Here's my question: at this point does it matter in the sense that the Settlement Trustee will be focused on a) determining validity of claims and b) value of claims and therefore c) the only entities that will have to worry about his determinations are the victims, the insurance companies, and possibly the COs? In other words, his determinations will have zero bearing on BSA. They're out of the settlement process at that point. And he must have been agreed to by the others or else his name wouldn't be in the RSA.

Mosby files a declaration in support of the RSA https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/08ab09c5-ad26-4294-91f3-c597a4c50022_5469.pdf He confirms that the Hartford deal is out and will be put before the judge.

Sorry, I thought you meant light as in "no previous experience in handing child sexual abuse claims and cases." I know that was a concern some people had: that whoever is involved forward has some background in child sexual abuse. This guy...isn't that.

THIS is the Cleary-type reporting I was hoping for. Annual data on how often BSA is failing at protecting youth.

It reads like something a little less than a compliance monitor but more than just a "write a report and BSA can ignore it."

This is the section on what BSA will do better on YP. This is NOT formatted well in the document, so I put in some indents. The Amended Plan shall provide for the following nonmonetary commitments: (A) The BSA forms a Child Protection Committee (“Committee”) of members from the BSA, Local Councils, the TCC, and the Coalition (including survivors). (1) No later than six months after the Effective Date, the BSA will present to the Committee on the BSA’s current Youth Protection Program (the “Program”). The BSA will report to the Committee regarding the Program and any changes thereto on an annual basis for a period of three years following the Effective Date. (2) Following that presentation, the BSA and Committee will work with an entity engaged by the BSA that is selected with the consultation of the Committee that is not currently affiliated with the BSA to evaluate the Program (the “Evaluating Entity”). The Evaluating Entity will have expertise in the prevention of youth sexual abuse. (i) Any evaluation will be comprehensive in nature and include input from current BSA volunteers and professionals, survivors of sexual abuse while involved with Scouting, the members of the Committee, and the Evaluating Entity. (ii) The Evaluating Entity will report to the Committee assessing the current Program and make specific recommendations for reasonable improvements to the Program that may include mechanisms for the elimination of abuse and accurate and annual reporting regarding the results of the Program, including confirmed instances of sexual abuse that is made available to the public (the “Prospective Reporting”). (iii) The BSA will engage with the Evaluating Entity, and the Committee, and will take appropriate steps as necessary to improve the Program. Changes to the Program will be reported on the BSA’s Program website and training will be reasonably adjusted to reflect changes. (3) The BSA will propose and the Committee will consider a protocol for the review and publication of information in the Volunteer Screening Database and the Prospective Reporting, which will take into account factors including: (1) the desire to make public credibly identified perpetrators of sexual abuse in Scouting; (2) adequate protections for survivor identities; (3) consideration regarding the protection of third parties, including survivor family members and volunteers; (4) a notification process regarding any publication; (5) issues related to privacy and liability related to publication; and (6) the potential appointment or retention of an appropriate neutral party to supervise (the “Neutral Supervisor”) the evaluation and review of the Volunteer Screening Database. If the BSA and Committee are unable to reach an agreement on the above protocol, the Neutral Supervisor shall mediate the dispute to resolution. In accordance with the process outlined above, information from the Volunteer Screening Database and Prospective Reporting shall be published annually after agreement among the parties or determination by the Neutral Supervisor. (4) After consultation and recommendations from the Evaluating Entity, the Committee may propose and the BSA will in good faith consider other issues relating to Child Protection, including but not limited to: (A) special BSA Scouting programs for survivors; and (B) participation and leadership in a comprehensive reporting program to include other youth-serving organizations. (5) The BSA will engage with the Committee and consider all appropriate measures proposed by the Committee to improve transparency and accountability with respect to any future instances of sexual abuse, including the dissemination of information relating to abuse statistics, consistent with practices of other youth-serving organizations, including what information may be publically available on the BSA’s website. (B) The BSA shall turn over to the Settlement Trust the Volunteer Screening Database and all Troop Rosters in the Debtors’ possession, custody, or control, in a manner permitting access to the same extent as in typical litigation discovery by the holder of a Direct Abuse Claim to the Volunteer Screening Database and Troop Rosters, if any, that relate to such holder or the Direct Abuse Claim asserted thereby, subject in each case to appropriate protection against the unauthorized dissemination of such documents and materials; (C) The BSA shall provide the Settlement Trust reasonable go-forward discovery support regarding records and documents related to Abuse Claims (D) The BSA shall assign to the Settlement Trust a secured ownership interest (as designated in the Amended Plan by the Coalition, the TCC, and the Future Claimants’ Representative) in any proceeds of insurance rights and insurance receivables; and (E) The BSA shall agree to cooperate in taking all steps reasonably necessary to facilitate the Local Council Settlement Contribution as set forth below.

The plan to disallow (or only allow 1%) of a time-barred claim has been re-written. There are now "tiers" Tier Scaling Factor Open 1.0 Gray 1 .50-.70 Gray 2 .30-.45 Gray 3 .10-.25 Closed .01-.10 Which I believe translates as: Claim from an open state = 100% Claim from states in a "Gray 1" 50-70%, etc. And what state is in what category is listed. So, if you are in Alabama ("closed") you are only getting 1-10% of the claim value. Connecticut 50-70% *Gray 1" Iowa 30-45% "Gray 2" Virginia 10-25% "Gray 3" New York 100% "Open" The insurance companies are going to completely and totally bonkers. This basically says that, despite the fact that there is no SoL lookback in Virginia and likely will not BE one enacted by Virginia, the insurance companies are on the hook for 10-25% of a victim's claim anyway. They are going to flip the heck out.