CynicalScouter

They mentioned at every step of the way, in all the fireside chats and main business meeting, that the bankruptcy is almost over, etc. They don't view this bankruptcy as anywhere close to "walls crashing down." They are convinced (or trying to convince others) we are at or near the end of the bankruptcy process. They also, TO A PERSON, view this as "past history", that YP made everything better, and that all the bad things happened prior to them showing up and had nothing to do with them/current leadership. But keep in mind their target audience is Council-level Key-3 and above. These are NOT unit level people trying to put dens together or ASMs putting together a hike. I also note that for the main business meeting at least EVERY single word was no doubt reviewed by legal counsel and that NO major changes would be taking place in the middle of the bankruptcy. They were NOT about to say or do something that would or could be used by the victim's attorneys, the TCC, or anyone in the midst of the bankruptcy. And imagine if they did. What would you want them to say or do? Mosby hasn't got the power to terminate the Board (only the Board can eliminate itself, thanks to the way the charter reads). So, from a legal perspective, this was all fluff. This was a show to try and cheer up the dedicated faithful, preaching to the choir if you will. NOTHING of legal significance was going to be mentioned or done. Even the proposed changes to the bylaws and electing new board members were shelved pending the conclusion of the bankruptcy.

Right, the assumption there is that the bankruptcy + LDS leaving + COVID has caused an "artificial" decline in membership and that, once those are eliminated AND the new BSA branding(tm) is released, all will be well again. And oh yeah, there will be a flood of new girls. These are the projections (assuming a global settlement) 2021 = 1,050,000 2022 = 994,000 2023 = 978,000 2024 = 984,000 2025 = 1,011,000 One thing I will say that was emphasized over and over at the NAM sessions was reaching out to NEW parents/those who had NEVER heard of BSA or were even aware of BSA. That tells me that those a) who were in the program or b) are aware of BSA have negative views. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/213bd53f-b44f-45c9-97fc-246bcb7ca06b_4108.pdf Membership Levels – Membership levels are assumed to decrease in 2021 by 13%, primarily due to the impact of COVID-19 on programing, but are forecasted to stabilize between 2023 to 2024 and achieve modest growth in 2024 and 2025 driven by the following factors: Adjustments to programming and operations to account for reduced membership, including the departure of Scouts affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Channeling all Abuse Claims to the Settlement Trust, which will remove a significant impediment to the Debtors’ continued operational success. Broadening program access for girls and young women, thus potentially doubling total potential participants in Cubs Scouts and Scouts BSA age groups. Reimaging public relations campaign to bolster positive visibility and move the organization past bankruptcy, which can generate new interest in Scouting and generate increased donations. Improving the organization’s online registration system. Improving the rechartering system for Local Councils and Chartered Organizations. Expanding delivery methods that make it easier for individuals who might not have access to a local Scouting unit to participate through lone Cub Scouting and increasing these Scouts’ virtual experience. Gradual restoration of Local Council resources / refocus on membership growth.

There's nothing much to say at this point that hasn't already been said. Everything comes down to what the mediation Monday-Thursday holds and what the Friday court hearing does. I imagine Century/Chubb will continue to fight document production for the rest of the week regardless, but if the real conversation/mediation is between BSA (and LCs?) and the TCC/FCR/Coalition, then the Chubb/Century fighting becomes a side show/to be fought out later.

Yes, and the concern I have with the "independents" is that there is no verification off of National's data. I cannot tell you the number of times I found scouts being sent to MBC who were "unit registered" (whatever that means) and never bothered to take YPT. We use an "independent" for calendaring and email purposes, plus document storage, but otherwise rely on Scoutbook.

Problem is that it does NOT replace for the annual renewal for purposes of going online.

"In approximately 18 States and Puerto Rico, any person who suspects child abuse or neglect is required to report. Of these 18 States, 15 States and Puerto Rico specify certain professionals who must report but also require all persons to report suspected abuse or neglect, regardless of profession.13 The other three States—Indiana, New Jersey, and Wyoming—require all persons to report without specifying any professions. In all other States, territories, and the District of Columbia, any person is permitted to report. These voluntary reporters of maltreatment are often referred to as “permissive reporters.”" https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/manda.pdf https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/manda/ The 15 states mentioned above where "require all persons to report suspected abuse or neglect, regardless of profession." Delaware Florida Idaho Kentucky Maryland Mississippi Nebraska New Hampshire New Mexico, North Carolina Oklahoma Rhode Island Tennessee Texas Utah

Random internet claim "Bsa released details on its payment restructuring....parties asked time to review and counter" https://www.facebook.com/groups/411673765684707/permalink/1782215741963829?comment_id=1782241981961205

Official amended agenda for June 11; just repeats the June 4 agenda and adds last minute filed documents to the list of relevant docs. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/36b5aeaa-b5f3-4756-8e1f-e4344d476e67_5221.pdf

Yes, but as I noted elsewhere, the Ad Hoc Local Councils Committee was running around telling LCs this spring they only needed to pay in XX in order to participate in the settlement. Then TCC showed up and put out its number which I will bet all the money in the world was MUCH, MUCH higher than the number that the Ad Hoc Committee came up with. If I just spent the last 3-4 months thinking I only need to sell 1 out of 3 camps to get out of this and now the TCC says I have to sell 2 out of 3 camps PLUS the council offices, I might decide that's not a plan I'm willing to accept.

It may or it may only include select LCs. Try to keep in mind that the LCs were already told by the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils, based on a formula they/BSA had come up with, how much each LC was going to have to pay for any settlement. They've had that number since January or February. Several councils had already sold or announced the sale of camps to that end. The TCC also sent its formula to each LC to tell it exactly what the TCC felt each council should pay for any settlement. We don't know either number, we I will bet the BSA/Ad Hoc Committee number was really low and the TCC number really high. In the last 2-3 weeks the LCs leadership/Key-3 have had those numbers. If the Ad Hoc Committee's number was close to the TCCs number, then the council may have decided to take the TCC deal. Smaller councils with fewer assets may have been attracted to this. If the numbers far apart, the LC may have just decided to suck it up and come close to the TCC number. If the numbers are far apart, the LC may have just decided to tell TCC go to heck, opted out, and dared the individual claimants/victims to sue in state court. So we come out of this with the BSA and some/many/most LCs voting to opt into a settlement trust, and the rest operating out there on their own.

Yeah, I absolutely agree. I am trying to figure this out. It's hard. All I can think is that 1) If I was a victim in a state with no lookback window TODAY, would I vote to let BSA and the LCs out TODAY on the chance that TOMORROW my state legislature approves a lookback window? Expected value: is $12,000 guaranteed TODAY more or less valuable than a possible $1 million payoff down the road that involves hoping the legislature creates a lookback window AND filing a lawsuit AND going through months if not years of civil litigation AND hoping I can convince a jury? 2) Those without a named council will eventually have to be attributed to a council. Now, conversely, I can see councils refusing to pay into any settlement that serves to float/bankroll other councils. What I was told by my Key-3 is that there was a formula, likely VERY close to the one that BSA/White Case used to create its abuse matrix, that looked at councils INDIVIDUALLY and, like TCC, balanced the need for the council to survive. So, for example, the amount Michigan Crossroads has to pay into any settlement (1,550 claims of which only 58 are not time-barred, $48.3 million in net assets) is going to look at LOT different than what Three Rivers pays (153 claims of which only 1 is not time-barred, $4 million in net assets). If I'm Michigan Crossroads Council I may decide to climb onto the plan. If I'm Three Rivers Council (again, only $4 million in assets) I may decide to roll the dice and take my chances.

I'm trying to work it out, too. So, let's say the victim had a finger cut off and that was valued at $1 million of which, based on the financial matrix, BSA would be responsible for $12000 (again, there's only so much money BSA has here and $1 billion divided by 82500 claims = around $12000). Scenario #1: Cooperating LC BSA ponies up its $1 billion money into the Settlement fund and the LC $1 million to pay for all prior claims within its council boundaries (let's use the TCC plan: the LC puts in everything into the Settlement fund except 2 years expenses and 1 camp; it is forced to sell 1 camp and the council offices). The BSA leaves bankruptcy and the claim against BSA is channeled into the settlement fund. The LC has the claim against it channeled into the Settlement fund The victim waits 1-3 years until the insurance company payout is decided to determine who pays what (e.g. the BSA contribution to that $1 million claim is $12000, that particular LC's contribution is $3000, and the remaining $985,000 comes out of insurance). Scenario #2: Noncooperating LC, lookback window in place BSA ponies up its money into the Settlement fund. The LC does not. The BSA leaves bankruptcy. The victim the immediately files suit against the LC for a $1 million judgement. The case then wanders through the courts, the insurance company for the LC is joined as a party to the lawsuit (victim vs. Local Council), and it takes years. Eventually the victim wins a judgement for $1 million MINUS what BSA already paid against the claim ($12000), leaving the LC and its insurer on the hook for $988,000. I think this would work? It just means that the victim would have to go into the tort/state courts and spend the next several years in litigation. Scenario #3: Noncooperating LC, no lookback window BSA ponies up its money into the Settlement fund. The LC does not. The BSA leaves bankruptcy. The victim receives whatever BSA pays out ($12000). The insurance companies likely will NOT be forced to pay for a claim that isn't even actionable in that Local Council's state courts and neither does the LC.

Right. I mean, as I said the big issue tomorrow was whether or not the judge would agree to extending exclusivity. Eventually exclusivity was going to end (20 months from February 2020 = October 2021) so the TCC was going to get its chance here along with the Coalition and FCR. But it was also clear the TCC already had a plan or the outlines of one and promised the judge they could have a plan in 2 weeks. I'm sure the BSA got a copy of either those broad outlines or perhaps even a draft plan with a note attached that read "This is coming in October. Deal now, or deal with this later." Of course if the judge DID decided to drop exclusivity tomorrow because, let's face it, it is clear as day BSA's plan(s) had NO chance of getting 66.7%, that speeds up the timeline. BSA likely doesn't want what TCC/Coalition/FCR have in mind. Therefore, deal now vs. deal with that later.

Note the parties to the mediation today the Debtors/BSA the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils the Tort Claimants’ Committee the Future Claimants’ Representative the Coalition the Insurance Companies and one of the Chartered Organizations. ONE of the COs. There are only really two CO groupings that matter a hill of beans in this: LDS and the Methodists. Here's the kicker: the Methodists are appearing as an Ad Hoc Committee, not as a "Chartered Organization" but as a grouping thereof. Reading between the lines: the "Chartered Organization" was LDS. And as for who "consented" to the delay Debtors/BSA Tort Claimants’ Committee the Coalition Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils Which is an interesting grouping in that it left out the FCR and the insurance companies. Put aside the FCR for a second (they may have just not been worked up enough to either support or actively oppose a 1 week delay), the fact that the insurers are not "consenting" could be a BSA/TCC/Coalition/LC deal. That looks an awful lot like a global deal that shoves the insurance company contributions to any settlement fund into future litigation. Or I am reading way too much into this.

That for me is the big indicator that something worthwhile is moving.

Yep. As the Ad Hoc Local Council Committee put it https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/60803144-4f8b-4d9d-98fd-e93ae9818079_4103.pdf Provisions in the Debtors’ Bylaws and Rules & Regulations do speak in terms of a “reversionary interest” in certain assets of Local Councils. However, these provisions clearly do not invest a hypothetical chapter 7 trustee with “responsibil[ity] for liquidating [a] Local Council’s assets,” as the TCC contends,6nor do they provide an apparent source of recoveries for holders of Abuse Claims against the National BSA.At most, these provisions may provide a contractual argument that the Debtors have a reversionary interest in Local Council assets, but any such interest is subject to, among other things, contract-law defenses as well as defenses under state franchise and charitable corporation laws. Importantly, as described further below, any such contractual interest –and the defenses thereto –also varies with the terms of the myriad organizational documents of individual Local Councils,as well as with the particular laws of jurisdictions throughout the United States. An effort by a hypothetical chapter 7 trustee to rely on these reversionary interests to seize Local Council assets to satisfy claims against the Debtors would inevitably spawn fierce Local Council opposition and litigation, and face insurmountable obstacles, including: •The contractual defense that attempted use of charter revocation or non-renewal to grab Local Council assets would constitute a lack of good faith and fair dealing. •State franchise law that would bar a chapter 7 trustee of the Debtors from unilateral revocation or non-renewal of a Local Council charter to seize Local Council assets. •The mandate under the terms of the very documents cited by the TCC that all obligations owed by a Local Council must be satisfied, or provision must be made for their satisfaction(including reserves for contingent claims against the Local Council), before any assets could even possibly revert to the Debtors.

So, what are Century's folks going to testify to? Hinton will testify that many if not most claims are bogus/fail to make a valid prima facie claim. For a sneak preview of what that will look like: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/874031_2174.pdf Vanderbeek is unclear, but will likely be put in to show that BSA's claim it will run out of money in August is bunk and that there's plenty of time to review the 82,500 claims or at least a portion to demonstrate they are McKnight I think will repeat Vanderbeek: BSA can survive long enough for Century to cull through and yank what it alleges are false claims or those that don't have enough info to make a prima facie claim.

I know for a fact that while National's Charter and Bylaws say that all LCs must put that clause into the LC's local bylaws, dozens of councils have refused to do so, citing their independent status. National has not forced the issue and has issued charters to those LCs annually for years. This cuts in favor of the argument that National doesn't "control" LCs.

Again, use the example of the hiring of an Council Exec. Yes, National can ultimately pull the plug, but for day to day and operations, it is the local council board and local council president that are in charge of the SE. Just because National has the ultimate on/off switch doesn't mean it knows, on a daily basis, what the heck is going on or even controls what is going on. So as I say, let's litigate it out; so far the judge hasn't.

They aren't for numerous reason, but I agree this needs to be litigated. And it has nothing to do with "veil piercing" which has a very specific meaning in law.

Century's ready to call witnesses tomorrow to demonstrate that many if not most of the claims are bogus, therefore proceedings should stop until the 82,500 claims are investigated or at least a sampling of them before allowing those 82,500 claimants a vote on any reorg plan. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/56165724-aaf9-4833-a53d-fd81ae5f5481_5214.pdf

Corporate veils a) are NOT "pierced quite often" and b) refer to where an individual person, rather than the incorporated entity, is personally liable. It has nothing to do with the question of whether National "controls" the LCs or whether or not the LCs assets = Nationals.

I've also suggested a Global Settlement may not have to hit 66.7% What about 66%? 60%? 50%+1? Etc. I know the law says 66.7% but she may order a cramdown of the global plan if it comes in a little short.

I also think USA Gymnastics shot itself in the foot with offering bonuses to its executives. There's also a question of scope here: USA Gymnastics was 500 victims. This is easily 100 times that number. Dig deeper works, but only up to a point, especially if you expect the entity to survive. Of course if you are OK with killing it off, then sure the judge can keep saying "dig deeper" forever.

Let me describe to you just how absurdly complicated this process of control is with something very basic: who hires the local Council executive? The answer is National has a role: until 2-3 years ago ONLY "commissioned" professionals could be the Council Executive. That meant working your way up the ranks of the BSA (DE, etc.) and taking some BSA professional development courses. So, this means that National controls the Council Exec, right? Nope. Because the hiring, firing, salary, disciplining, etc. of the Council Exec was controlled by the Council President, Council Board, or some combination. So, that means that LC controls the Council Exec, right? Well, nope because while National could not and did not directly supervise the Council Exec, they had one trump card. Remember how I said to be Council Exec you had to be a "commissioned" professional? Well, National could revoke the commissioned status of anyone at any time. And since being a commissioned processional was a condition of employment, National could nuke any Council Executive at any time. So, if I asked you: who "controlled" the Council Executive, the chief paid professional for the LC, what would you answer? National, or the Local Council? This entire situation is not so clear cut as "LCs rule" or "National rules". Etc.