CynicalScouter

He's a professional mediator for looks like the last 30-40 years. His bio from his company: http://www.resolutionsllc.com/principals.htm He was the trustee/monitor in some major mortgage cases involving the Great Recession, DOJ, and the banks. On August 20, 2014, Professor Green was named as the independent Monitor of the Consumer Relief portion of the settlement agreement between the United States Department of Justice, six states and Bank of America, resolving, among other issues, claims related to the Bank’s practices concerning residential mortgage-backed securities. In addition to the foregoing, on February 11, 2016, Professor Green was named as the independent Monitor of the Consumer Relief portion of the settlement agreement between the State of New York and Morgan Stanley, and on April 11, 2016, Professor Green was named as the independent Monitor of the Consumer Relief portion of the settlement agreement between the United States Department of Justice, the States of California and Illinois, and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

Oh, ok. Sorry. Misunderstood.

Big takeaways: Nothing has changed: BSA is still only putting in $250 million. Non-Monetary Commitments The BSA shall make certain non-monetary commitments, including, without limitation, youth protection measures, reporting, formation of a Child Protection Committee, and information sharing related to Abuse Claims, as set forth in full in the Term Sheet. Local Councils remain at $500 million. The COs are not covered under this, but "The Parties shall work in good faith to develop a protocol for addressing participation by Chartered Organizations in the benefits of the Channeling Injunction. Such settlements may occur prior to the Effective Date with the consent of all Parties." The judge will rule on the Hartford deal ("In connection with this request, the Debtors shall seek a determination of the Bankruptcy Court that the Debtors have no obligations under the Hartford Settlement.") The Settlement Trustee shall be Eric D. Green and will be appointed by the Bankruptcy Court. I assume it is this Eric D. Green. http://www.acctm.org/egreen/ I'm failing to see what the TCC got out of this versus the BSA plan from June. Maybe this will be discussed at the call tonight, but this doesn't look any different than what BSA was offering a month ago.

Nothing has changed: BSA is still only putting in $250 million.

The RSA is now live https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1d5f346b-47b8-43d3-b4cf-4a0393aa8256_5466.pdf

All the policies are listed in the THIRD AMENDED CHAPTER 11 PLAN OF REORGANIZATION FOR BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA AND DELAWARE BSA, LLC. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/75cad6f2-cc34-4b0c-896f-0d26815b1189_5368.pdf SCHEDULE 2 BSA INSURANCE POLICIES SCHEDULE 3 LOCAL COUNCIL INSURANCE POLICIES That data includes most of what you are asking for at least as to BSA and the LCs going into the 1930s. the BSA policies list Carrier Name Policy Number Start End Council data is the same, but also includes some slightly different info because of the name changes and mergers (Current Council: Predecessor Council)

Do you mean this? https://childusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Analysis-of-Victims-of-Abuse-in-Scouting-Part-1-1.pdf In other words, the claim is that it is impossible to conduct Scouting safely or "reasonably" safely. Does that surmise it?

Just FYI and as a frame of reference for if/when the RSA comes out: The latest BSA plan was for BSA to pay in about $250 million as “BSA Settlement Trust Contribution” page 19 of this: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/b631204d-b4d8-46b7-8912-2b81c5090688_5372.pdf Net Unrestricted Cash and Investments $90,000,000 BSA Global Resolution Note (loan to be paid off by BSA over the next several years) $80,000,000 Artwork $59,000,000 Warehouse $11,600,000 Oil & Gas interests $7,600,000 Scouting University building $1,962,000 $250,162,000

I don't see anything in the documents filed to date about it, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. The only thing I saw was the $80 million promissory note already listed.

In order to get out of bankruptcy and survive, BSA is in effect giving a promissory note (the "BSA Global Resolution Note") worth $80 million into the trust which it will pay off over the course of the next several years. In addition, BSA in order to have operating cash will borrow from the National Boy Scouts of America Foundation a loan valued at around $42 million, payable the day it leaves bankruptcy. I'm not sure where the $500 million number came from; there is no $500 million loan that I am aware of.

BSA just filed an amended notice: 1) The July 20 hearing is still on but 2) Objections are now due July 13, not July 8. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/11fcc1f7-9cd2-4182-b350-f7698fab3b94_5463.pdf

Great. But what does that have to do with BSA? In other words, is there any advantage to NOT allowing BSA out of bankruptcy if the real focus on who needs to bleed is the insurance companies? So, if there was a plan similar to what is on the table as a toggle plan that covers only BSA (or BSA and LCs) and leaves the question of insurance carrier liability to be determined later, what is the point of voting to object to such a plan?

One more: the more and more I read this from the Insurance companies and what they let slip out about the draft RSA and plan(s), the more it looks like the plan is going to be: 1) BSA and the LCs are released, so a quasi-toggle plan (BSA and LCs) 2) BSA and the LCs plan on letting the insurance companies and COs twist in the wind. The COs are not going to be covered and the insurance companies are being put on the hook far more than they are comfortable with. Now I am starting to wonder if the BSA lawyers are going to be smart or "smart" and wait until literally 5pm the Friday before the 4th of July holiday to file the RSA and all the assorted paperwork.

I agree. Which is why the idea that she is going to order the insurance companies to pay, regardless of the SOL in place in the state where the abuse took place, is a non-starter. And I could very easily see a situation where the insurance companies, facing hundreds of billions in liability, would drop $500 million in defending against 50,000 cases. Of course, not all 50,000 will press it.

And I have to say, I think the Insurance Companies (this is NOT just Century, this looks like all the insurance cos) have a point for two reasons: 1) They are asking for at least 28 days from when BSA files whatever it is they are about to file to review and respond. I'm not sure I buy 28 days, but I sure think more than 7 days is in order (assuming something gets filed today). 2) That time frame also gives other interested parties, like the U.S. Trustee, time to come in and speak/file statements on whatever it is that BSA is about to put forth. That said, the insurer's statement also includes several key moves. I'll start by saying it is questionable ethics to put what is likely attorney work product (the draft RSA) into a public court document. 1) "In particular, the changes to the terms for the allowance and valuation of claims (i.e., the TDPs,of which there are now one set, instead of two), which are the heart of a mass tort case, represent a sea change in the direction of this case." That means that somewhere there was a meeting between the TCC's $102 billion estimate and BSA's $4-7 billion. 2) Insurers complain that after BSA and LCs cut their deal, the let TCC/FCR/Coalition write the rest of the RSA. Boo hoo. 3) The COs are confirmed to be uncovered by the plan (as of now) "it appears that changes to the Plan and TDPs are contemplated to leave the charitable organizations associated with scouting outside the protections afforded by the Plan making the releases offered by the plan illusory." 4) The role of the Settlement Trustee is being massively revamped. "The TDPs will now ask the Court to adjudicate BSA’s “liability” and any insurance coverage for the Abuse Claims." 5) The "Expedited Distributions" are upped from $1,500 to $3,500. Remember: these are the "take this and release your claim" payouts that require claimants to do nothing else.

And in the context of the bankruptcy, that is not going to happen. There is no way the insurance companies are going to be forced to pay the same for a claim that is timely and valid vs. one that is valid but time barred. Unjust? Unfair? Perhaps yes. But no bankruptcy judge is going to, in effect, put aside all state statutes of limitations.

I assume something's off with the clerk's office or Omni today because NOTHING has been filed or posted to Omni yet today. Not just the RSA, nothing at all.

I'm guessing this is to allow for something like "Claimant has made a plausible or prima facie case that the statute should be tolled, but not reached [LEVEL OF PROOF/BURDEN LEVEL] therefore rather than accepting the claim at 100% or 1% it will be accepted at [higher Scaling Factor]"

You would have to demonstrate, on a case by case and claim by claim basis, that it occurred. And in some states with such provisions "The standards for proving fraudulent concealment of a claim are so high as to be impracticable." https://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/state-civil-statutes-of-limitations-in-child-sexua.aspx So, maybe that works in a few cases, but you are still talking about years of litigation either in a court or before the Settlement Trustee. It is not going to blanket-cover 58,000+ claims

There are a litany of exceptions such as you mentioned, but we are talking generally time-barred means time-barred. You have until XX years from abuse or until you reach the age of YY. Now, of those 58,000+ time-barred claims, there may be SOME that can get around the time-bar. And the settlement plan BSA laid out even contemplates that the Settlement Trustee may be able to work that out on a CASE BY CASE basis, but that's not going to cover all 58,000+ people in time barred states and requires a lot of legal work. Here's the relevant section.

That's not how bankruptcy works. The idea in a bankruptcy is that ALL claims and ALL costs of the BSA are wrapped up and done and that there is no future payments coming. Something like counseling (which can go on for years/decades) is not going to be part of the bankruptcy. What COULD happen is that a separate agreement or something is reached.

The words "therapy" and "counseling" appear nowhere in either the latest Reorg plan or the disclosure statement.

So, time-barred claimants get 2%? 3%? I'm still struggling to see how 58,000 very disappointed people who were given visions of millions and billions are ever going to accept thousands.

In the end, this all boils down to the SOL lookback windows. The bankruptcy court is not empowered to make otherwise time-barred claims suddenly valued at 100% and the insurance companies are not charities who are going to just forgo the statutes of limitations and start writing billions in checks. The BSA plan is to value those 58,000+ claims at 1% of value. That might get bumped up a bit (2%? 3%?) but on a $1 million claim that's still only $20,000-$30,000 and that is BEFORE litigation/lawyer fees. This was what I had expressed worry about in the past: people were told (by some of the scuzzier TV ads last fall and the TCC's $102 billion number) that there was $100 billion in the mix. That's not happening, at least for 70% of claimants in non-lookback states. That's why I kept asking: if the "best deal" a deal that can get 2/3rds? I am not a victim, but if I was told/promised a $100 billion pot of money and suddenly that gets dropped for my particular case to mere thousands, what then? Would I simply vote no out of pain and suffering? I think the odds of a cramdown just jumped up, frankly, because the victims have expectations that are just not at all possible for BSA to achieve.

Because of the alternatives. Vote against, and then what? BSA stays in bankruptcy limbo forever, bleeding money out. The victims never see a dime and eventually BSA does go into some kind of Chapter 7 liquidation. BSA exits bankruptcy with no deal and is immediately subject to over 900 lawsuits. Then it is a race for the courthouse door: victims in lookback window states get first dibs on whatever BSA assets are left and insurance company claims. The litigation goes on for another decade. Victims in non-lookback states get absolutely nothing. I think this is what TCC meant when it talked about trying to avoid years and years of litigation.