CynicalScouter

Right, that will tell us what BSA paid out for prior, similarly situated victims. That helps determine whose matrix is closer to reality: BSA's (haha, of course it is), TCCs (off, because no one is perfect), or both.

The problem is that there is no external source or pressure (with one possible exception) that can change this. As was pointed out earlier, if this was a poorly run company with shareholders, they could rebel and put in a new board. They cannot in BSA. And even if they did, who would they get replaced with? During the NAM, it was pointed out that one of the biggest internal fights for years has been council-leaders vs. National HQ. It was pointed out that almost 2/3rds of the National Board are current or former Council leaders. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. You want change? Real, systemic change? You are NOT going to get it form promoting the same old same old up the chain. Well, maybe, but it would be be accident. Not design. The idea of hiring Mosby was he was the first non-insider in decades (ever?) to be in that position. Welp, that did no good. We are getting more of the same because they hired more of the same. Now, here's the exception. I suppose, theoretically, the bankruptcy judge could order a bench clearing that removes all the board and appoints receivers at least temporarily. But that's theoretical and not something anyone (TCC, Coalition, etc.) is asking for.

As a matter of law: a cramdown doesn't require the consent or support of the survivors/claimants. As a matter of practicality: no judge has ever ordered a cramdown where sexual abuse victims are involved.

Yep. We've already seen the premium spikes, which lead to the fee spikes, which lead to the membership declines. Etc.

I understand, but my question still stands. All other things being equal, do you want to see BSA survive or not? I've read through many of the victim statements/letters to the judge. ALL (or effectively all) say they want BSA to pay/be held accountable. SOME letters say "and BSA needs to end." SOME letters say "BSA needs to survive" SOME letters are simply silent on the subject Etc.

So, I'll ask you the same question: is it your view the BSA should simply be ended?

True. Is that what you want? If so, then it appears the answer to the previous question of what is "adequate compensation" from BSA is "no such number exists."

Yes, but the point is the judge has said she is NOT going to let BSA die, and BSA cannot be forced to liquidate (it may voluntarily do so), so what is the solution? Or do you simply want BSA to die?

The Congressional Charter gives it "perpetual existence", for one. And here again is where the Congressional Charter gets in the way: the National Executive Board selects all future members of the National Executive Board. So, it was literally impossible for any rebellion.

Right, this has ALWAYS been a two-part quote: adequate or equitable compensation that allows BSA to continue its mission. And BSA has said that for it, that number is $500 million.

First, keep in mind that the mods have asked us not to be graphic, so rather than describing the sexual acts list in the BSA matrix and the TCC matrix, I am going to use something else, ok? So, I don't know what the right answer is between the value of, say, losing an eye and losing an arm. Or losing a finger vs. losing 3 fingers. Clearly there has to be some kind of matrix that in fact lays this out. The difference is in terms of valuation of the claim: yes, I lost 3 fingers and so should get roughly 3 times as much as the person who lost 1 finger. But that just gets us back to the value of the loss of a finger over a lifetime/50 years. I just don't think any of us can come up with that number, although obviously TCC and BSA have come up with their versions. This is so far outside my depth I couldn't even fathom how you calculate that number. So, I don't think I'll ever know or answer what I think losing a finger costs vs. losing an eye. And even if I did have my own answer, it would be amateur speculation and pulling random numbers out of the air. In other words, useless and likely hurtful/insulting to victims.

And if the voting survivors decide no amount of money that BSA puts up (forget about the LCs, the COs, and the insurance companies for a second) is enough, then BSA should die? That's the key problem the judge is facing: it may be that NO amount the BSA offers will EVER get 2/3rds vote (again, $1.4 billion/82,500 claims = $17,000).

Which one? The TCC or the BSA?

Not exactly. What BSA is saying is 1) They disagree with the TCC matrix and believe that the number is closer to $7 billion vs. $103 billion. 2) They argue that of the $7 billion, BSA should NOT be the sole entity to pay and 3a) BSA should put what money it can into a settlement trust ($500 million) TODAY plus the LCs ($450 million) TODAY and let the Insurance companies fight out for the next decade who pays the rest (global plan) OR 3b) BSA should put what money it can into a settlement trust ($500 million) TODAY and walk out of the bankruptcy with the LCs, the COs, and the insurance companies fight out for the next decade who pays the rest (toggle plan).

One final note on "adequately compensated". The TCC has put out its "marker" for what adequate compensation looks like: $103 billion for 84,000 claims. And the BSA has put out its marker for what adequate compensation looks like: $2.4 billion – $7.1 billion (page 24). How did BSA come up with that? Pages 76-78 lays it out. Here's the summary

So, a question came up in another thread that I think is better answered here: Since the start (February 2020) BSA has used the phrase "adequate compensation" or "adequately compensated" numerous times. In the recent National Annual Meeting (NAM) the phrase was "equitably compensate." That's the text but also recognize that was only PART of the BSA's commitment. The other part was "and continue the mission of scouting." So what is "adequate"? Of the $1.4 billion in total assets, BSA is putting forth the idea that $500 million (or so) is adequate when balanced against the need to keep BSA alive ("continue the mission of scouting".) Put it this way: even BSA 100% liquidated and simply went away, and all $1.4 billion were transferred to a settlement trust (pretend for a second there are no liabilities, liens, or debts) divided that against 82,500 claims (the most recent updated number) and you get just shy of $17,000. Clearly, when BSA is talking about "adequate compensation" they are NOT talking ONLY about BSA's contribution. Clearly $17,000 is under no one's definition "adequate". So, then here come the LCs. And the COs. And the insurance for all the above. That I think is the point, and I've made it before and why there will be a matrix regarding severity and number of instances of abuse. CLEARLY "adequate compensation" for losing an eye is different than "adequate compensation" for losing the tip of a finger. The same will apply in the sexual abuse claims. The BSA, however, cannot be expected to pay out everything for a victim to be "adequately compensated". There's just not enough BSA assets to make that work. Now, we can argue, and TCC has argued, that BSA can do a lot better than $500 million. But that's not with respect to "adequate compensation." That is a question of "who PAYS that adequate compensation."

Can I suggest this be asked in the Bankruptcy or other thread? You deserve an answer, but I know the mods like to keep certain questions in certain lanes.

Keep in mind that this entire NAM process was directed at council-and-above level leaders. It was not exactly advertised or promoted to unit leaders or scouts. There are numerous young people/faces in the Facebook side of BSA and the #trekat2 series. But the person who should be the "Face" of scouting and the person leading scouting don't have to be the same. Scouts UK and Bear Grylis was like hitting a gold mine: someone young (youngest ever at 34) Chief Scout, became synonymous with outdoor adventure. Etc. He's the exception here. Take a look and listen to the video/read the transcript. They acknowledge at least 5 times that they are NOT the faces who should be leading BSA into the future. There were two entire Fireside chats (Women in Leadership and Governance) where the participants acknowledge that it was too often pale, male, and stale as one person put it. But here's the problem: old white guys are the ones in charge for now and at least until the end of the bankruptcy are not going anywhere. That said, they are at least mouthing the right words (actions to be determined) to get younger, more diverse leaders into position for down the road.

That's the impression they are giving off: this is about marketing, rebranding. During the recruitment portion a lot of emphasis was placed on making people who were not even aware of Scouting, or knew that Scouting was in their area, aware. Any "systemic" changes would have had to have been approved by the Board. NONE were and the several that were proposed (especially plans to restructure the board, etc.) were shelved pending a survey to all Council Key-3 and emergence from bankruptcy. That means bylaws changes (such as nuking Sea Scouts, etc.) are off the table for 2021. https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Charter_Bylaws_Sept20.pdf Folks need to realize there's a reason I referred to this as a hostage video without the warmth. EVERY WORD (with the possible exception of the female Eagle Scout representing the inaugural class) was without a doubt reviewed, re-reviewed, and processed by legal counsel for BSA and the bankruptcy attorneys. NO big changes of ANY kind were going to be announced or take place at this point. Even the current Board, for legal reasons, was kept in place. They are not going to breath a word until a) they know exactly what they have left and b) in-house counsel and the bankruptcy attorneys tell them it is OK to speak.

That said, here are the broadest of broad strokes that BSA put into their bankruptcy filing/reorg plan. a. 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.

They are not going to give sneak previews of their rebranding. During the Safety Fireside chat they mentioned they paid a big PR firm to come up with a marketing campaign. The other thing they kept saying and over was smaller, smaller, smaller. And frankly, that is probably ALL they know right now. Until they know precisely how much BSA and LCs will have in terms of resources when this is over, putting out statements about how "We plan to operate all 4 HA bases" or "This is our exact plan" would be grossly premature.

Good to hear. I know that TCC has said it WAS cut out of some prior mediation sessions in Miami I believe, so I am glad they are "in the room" as it were.

They never really were. NC did it. So did GA (limited I believe to lookbacks against individuals and not corporations to protect the BSA and Catholic Church) and Arkansas. And they were enacted unanimously or nearly so in every state.

She keeps talking about balance of interests. Yes, I understand that the rule is 2/3rds. But this is where it comes a sliding scale. If BSA's plan goes to a vote and fails to get 2/3rds (66.7%), we are now deep into September (at best) with a failed plan and BSA claiming it is out of cash. If the vote was 66% does the judge quibble about a few dozen or hundred votes at the risk of BSA dying from bleeding out cash? Doubtful, based on her express desire to see BSA survive. If the vote was 6.6% does the judge overlook an overwhelming rejection? Of course not. So, somewhere in the middle there is a number that is close enough that the judge can justify a cramdown. The question is how close is she comfortable with.

Not every council is facing the same legal situation. For example, the NY councils are, by and large, screwed. Other councils in other states, with no lookback windows and few claims, not so much. We may very, very well have a situation where you have a mini-global or partial-toggle: of the 240 councils, XX agree to participate in the settlement trust, the other councils then basically dare the victims attorneys to come after them in their various state courts. For some councils, this may seem like a better bet especially if they think they won't have to worry about lookback windows. Such a plan, something between the toggle and the global, may be possible. The cramdown toggle only happens if a) the global plan fails and b) the judge agrees to get BSA out of bankruptcy rather than watch it bleed to death. Then, it is 242 different fights. As I said in #2, some councils would be perfectly happy with taking their chances in state courts possibly someday (if their state legislature opens up a lookback window) vs. having to definitely today sell their camp(s). It is a gamble some councils are going to want to take.