CynicalScouter

Hearing officially cancelled https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/a226316f-f7bb-497c-818b-b3af85847bf0_5288.pdf

Right, I thought that part of the BSA plan was...cute. Only PROponents of the reorg plan would get to put something in the packet. BSA wanted to keep out anything neutral or negative.

Right, I'm expecting a TCC statement. What I guess I was wondering is if it would be joint (FCR and Coalition) or the TCC alone? And how strong a statement is made.

New mediation report https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/562a5663-2140-4815-a2c4-13de110eedda_5287.pdf Cancel June 11 altogether. The Mediators, having conferred today with certain of the Mediation Parties, including the Debtors, the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils, the Tort Claimants’ Committee, the Coalition, the Future Claimants’ Representative and insurers, suggest that the status conference scheduled for Friday, June 11, 2021, be cancelled to permit discussions among the Mediation Parties to continue without interruption.

Yes, which is why I'm very interested to see if TCC/FCR (maybe Coalition?) adds into the ballot packet a statement to the effect of "This in our opinion is the best BSA can offer." or even something as far as "We encourage a yes vote."

The LDS already left, so not so much worried there. But the Methodist Churches? Yeah, there's a reason they showed up and objected.

Under the plan, the Victims Compensation Trustee appointed by the court would review all claims and determine value based on a abuse matrix established/approved as part of the plan. The insurance companies would/could demand that each claimant provide proof, but it would be the Trustee who decided things. EDIT: decided things such as whether there was sufficient proof to allow the claim, how much the claim is valued at, and how much will actually be paid out. FOR EXAMPLE (again, being very gentle here and using examples of physical harm rather than sexual because there are young people on these boards) Let's say three claims are filed against BSA for loss of a leg at an HA camp. Based on the abuse matrix, loss of a leg = $800,000 to $1,000,000. 1) Claim 1 did NOT provide enough proof or evidence. The Insurance companies object, the claimant provides additional evidence, and the Trustee finds in favor of the Claimant, BUT finds that because it was not a whole-leg amputation, the victim is awarded $800,000 MINUS what they were already promised/paid by BSA/LC, so the insurance company pays $800,000-BSA/LC contribution. If the insurance company can prove it had some kind of cap per incident (e.g. $500,000) then there may be a max payout from insurance. 2) Claim 2 did NOT provide enough proof or evidence. The Insurance companies object, the claimant cannot provide ANY more information. The Trustee finds against claimant for failure to provide sufficient proof. 3) Claim 3 DID provide enough proof or evidence. The insurance companies object anyway, and the Trustee finds in favor of the Claimant. Because it was a full leg amputation, $1,000,000-BSA/LC contribution. Multiply this process over 82,500 claims, and this is going to take years.

I don't think it is that BSA won't honor it IN THE LONG RUN. I think the point is that National and the LCs walk away from the bankruptcy now IN THE SHORT TERM, and the COs will be covered by insurance for future legal claims in the regular tort system down the road. I'm just thinking about the hundreds of Catholic parishes, the VFW halls, many/most of which have never even shown up as a parties or filed notices of appearance here. LDS and the Methodists are obviously the two biggest COs, but what about the rest? It's going to get messy, quick if there is a BSA/LC deal. It would just look really, really bad.

Possibly. I guess my question was, regardless of what that BSA number is ($XXX million does/doesn't include HA bases), would that be enough information for a vote to go forward and be approved? In other words, will victims vote for a number (insurance contribution to the settlement fund) that is unknown at this time/to be litigated later? Or will they hold that against BSA and demand that number be decided before they vote yes?

Could the following plan a) go to a vote and b) be approved with ballot language to the effect of: BSA will put in $XXX million Local councils will put in $YYY million (or better still, a list of how much EACH council puts in, so ABC Council puts in $1 million, DEF Council puts in $2 million) ALL insurance rights are placed into the Settlement Trust (which is almost verbatim the current language of the plan), specific amounts TBD? This plan does NOT pertain to COs and they are NOT listed as "Protected Parties" or "Released Parties"? That would absolutely be throwing all the insurance companies and the COs under a big, giant bus. The insurance companies, meh. But if the COs aren't covered as part of this, oh my.

Only 2 signatures on that document. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/faeb7741-2d46-4c37-b696-d10629348ddd_5285.pdf You may be right, it was just the third mediator was absent. Kosnoff's making a point of 2/3rds

"Own" was never in the agreement. However, the text and context made it clear that the CO was owner of the unit.

The failure of COs to oversee the program is precisely why so many COs are being sued as well. Remember: every leader in a unit was approved of by the CO. They own the problems of these units. I'm sorry then, but they are in PDF form. You cannot open the PDF?

That is 100% not true. Districts are geographic areas of a Council. They do NOT own troops. Chartered Organizations own the troops. Until 2020, COs were all entities independent of BSA National or Councils (e.g. Masonic lodges, Catholic parish churches, etc.) In 2021 there was a second option introduced where the CO was your local Council (not district, Council). That is the EXCEPTION, the vast, vast, VAST majority of units are still "owned" by COs. independent of BSA National or Councils.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The current BSA charter agreements are at https://www.scouting.org/resources/forms/ There are now TWO types (there used to only be one) Annual Council Unit Registration Agreement (new this year) Annual Charter Agreement English What precisely are you looking for?

No. Each year National issues charters to 1) Individual units to operate 2) Councils to operate Districts are merely geographic areas of Councils that are intended to provide support and services for scouting in that area

All of the main financial data is available online. The problem is that there is no one, single reason for the increase. Insurance premiums have skyrocketed in the last 10 years, but that may be due to the sexual abuse cases, summer camps, some combination, etc. https://www.scouting.org/about/annual-report/financial-statements/ https://www.scouting.org/about/annual-report/

Right an un-returned ballot is simply not counted.

He represents ~20% of all total claimants (17000/82500). Even if you don't like him or what he does, from a purely legal perspective you have to account for him. If he can persuade the bulk of his clients to reject any BSA deal, it makes it that much harder. Especially when you consider that it is not 2/3rds of ALL claimants, it is 2/3rds of VOTES CAST. If he can both persuade those 17,000 claimants to not only oppose the BSA plan BUT to also mail in their ballots, look out.

He does bring up two good points. 1) Only 2/3 mediators asked for this. 2) Only BSA is on record asking for this. Could mean nothing. Could mean everything.

It will be real interesting about those HA bases. My understanding is Summit is such a cash losing mess that the other 3 HA bases prop it up with their profits. Nuke Sea Base, for example, and where's the revenue going to come from?

And the court agrees: the June 11 event is now only a status conference https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/faeb7741-2d46-4c37-b696-d10629348ddd_5285.pdf Please take notice that at the direction of the Court, the hearing originally scheduled for June 11, 2021, has been adjourned, and will go forward only as a status conference.

New Mediators Update https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/5f6aab30-8bb9-4ec6-870b-f4acfbf4e412_5284.pdf Looking more and more like a deal. But references to "a Chartered Organization" (which I took to mean LDS) are not present. The Mediation Parties are currently engaged in ongoing in-person and virtual mediation sessions in New York City, which sessions have included the Debtors, the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils, the Tort Claimants’ Committee, the Coalition, the Future Claimants’ Representative, and the Insurance Companies. The Debtors have requested that, in light of the Mediation Parties’ settlement discussions, all matters scheduled for hearing on Friday, June 11, 2021 be adjourned to a date to be determined and that the June 11, 2021 hearing be treated as a status conference. The Mediators support the Debtors’ request.

Right. Our problem isn't getting along; it is that they are all too busy running their units to then turn around and dedicate time to district (and council) related issues.

There are now two because there are two types of charters. Both are at https://www.scouting.org/resources/forms/t Traditional: The unit is chartered by a CO. Annual Charter Agreement English New: The unit is charted by your Local Council. Annual Council Unit Registration Agreement