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.

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 awa

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 “permissiv

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

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 na

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

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."

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"

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

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 cul

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 som