CynicalScouter

AT THE TIME OF THE ABUSE, National HQ was in New York? NY law applies. AT THE TIME OF THE ABUSE, National HQ was in New Jersey? NJ law applies. Etc. There's also an argument that place of incorporation doesn't matter. 1) Boy Scouts of America (HQ) was registered as a not for profit operating in the state? That grants jurisdiction. And many states require that if you operate at charity/not for profit in the state, you register as a "foreign" not for profit annually. For example, BSA has registered with the South Dakota Secretary of State since at least 2006. 2) Boy

The counter argument is what is called "Race for the courthouse door". First abuse victim/case that goes to verdict/settles gets paid out. But the second? Third? Any BSA plan that does NOT include LCs results in at least two dozen councils going into their own Chapter 11s the day that BSA's plan is given final approval. Thus we could have a "partial" toggle? A plan that a) covers BSA and b) covers participating councils but c) allows the other LCs to go it alone.

Maybe? The point is that BSA is asking you to give up any claim you have today OR MAY HAVE IN THE FUTURE regarding your sexual abuse. So, even if NOW, TODAY you have no actionable claim (no SoL lookback) someday, you may. If this plan closes the door on ANY claim against BSA, now (Sol lookback states) or in the future (state legislature approves a SoL lookback), you get a vote. At least, that is how I read it.

https://scoutingwire.org/keeping-the-cub-scout-adventure-program-relevant-for-todays-families/ May 11, 2021 Every year, Cub Scout Adventures are reviewed to identify trends and determine interests of our youth, den leaders and Cub Scout families. In our ongoing efforts to keep the Cub Scouting Adventure program relevant to today’s families, Cub Scout elective Adventures are reviewed for both content and popularity. The most recent review has identified 19 elective Adventures that do not meet the standards of youth and den leader engagement, with the lowermost being earned by less t

I agree with 90%. BSA is here to get BSA out bankruptcy (Toggle Plan). Trying to get fancy and get the COs and LCs and Insurance covered as well is just not possible. Timelime is "easy": briefs can be done in 2 months if fast, 3 if slow (BSA in support of its positions, TCC and others in opposition, BSA in reply, then oral argument. Then, BSA doesn't need to submit a plan as much as it simply amend the existing "Toggle Plan" to put in specific numbers (Philmont, valued at XX) and let it go to the abuse victims for a vote.

Past a certain point (the expiration of the exclusivity period) BSA loses that seat. Then it is open to TCC, the U.S. Trustee, any creditor to come up with a plan. And if that plan can get 67% of the sexual abuse victims, BSA has to just lump it.

I think it "helps" in the sense that BSA's effort to try and shove all of this into a Settlement Trust to be fought out over the next decade is over. I think it "helps" in the sense that it makes it much more likely that, after 1+ year and $100+ million things will start to get litigated and decisions made OR I think it "helps" in the sense that TCC will put together a plan that will get approved, fast(er). No more shell games with assets (Summit, Middle Tennessee). No more screwing around with maybe councils are/are not covered. No more screwing around with maybe COs

There is no evidence that Biden personally ordered the U.S. Trustee to intervene or had anything to do with this decision.

It isn't. If you want this over and done by Thanksgiving, handing the keys over to the TCC is the smart play. If you want this dragging out for another 2+ years (and that's what happened with some of these Catholic dioceses), let BSA keep driving.

I guess my question is what that claim exposure is when adjusted for the lack of a statute of limitations lookback window. In other words, the math looks different in New Jersey, North Carolina, and New York (where there are look backs) vs. say Maryland where there is not. So, if I am a council with $100 million in claims exposure based on 100 claims (just to keep this easy), I start making adjustments. 25% chance of a SoL lookback window happening. If a lookback window does occur, not all claims turn into lawsuits. Say, 50% do. And of those, say 80% the council loses.

Next big question: will the U.S. Trustee make an appearance at the hearing next week? The U.S. Trustee has a standing invitation to address the court anytime it believes a bankruptcy is flawed. They already filed paperwork to that effect; if they show up in person (well, in Zoom), what is BSA going to say? The Department of Justice is wrong? That will not sell well. If I am the TCC lawyers, I'm finalizing the draft of my (and FCR and Coalition) alternate reorg plan. 75%+ of council assets seized. 3 if not all 4 HA bases seized (which negates the need to determine if the JP Mor

I know I've said "wow" before, but this latest/last filing is a WOW among WOWs. The U.S. Trustee has now come in and filed an objection to the BSA plan. Who is the U.S. Trustee? Basically, the Federal Government and specifically a division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The short version is that the U.S. Trustee is not even sure if the plan of funneling 84,000+ sexual abuse claims into a settlement agreement is even LEGAL. Let me repeat that: the U.S. Trustee/Department of Justice is arguing that the entire premise of this entire process (that BSA, the LCs, the COs,

At this point any council still saying it knows it is a bald faced lie.

But wait, here comes the Future Claims Rep who, you guessed it, opposes the BSA plan and wants to submit an alternative plan.

And not to be left out, last but not least: Girl Scouts of the United States of America is objecting to this plan as well for failure to fully disclose info regarding the trademark lawsuit GSUSA has against them.

By the way, the Coalition of Abused Scouts has filed its objections to BSA being given more time to come up with plan(s) and want to make it clear: the global settlement plan is not going anywhere and the "toggle" plan could actually be worse. And the Coalition wants to put forth its plan now. And, and frankly this is stunning and even the Coalition admits this is atypical, the Coalition wants the judge to find that BSA has not been acting in good faith. This is nice, gentle legalese for "BSA is lying/misleading the court" .And they come back to: let the TCC/FCR/Coa

That was more directed at the lurkers and people I see in FB groups who act as if this is all going to go away OR to the folks being told by their LCs that they just have to pay a little it of money and everything is going to be fine.

The projection (based on BSA's own numbers/projection) is that that the 13,472 will drop down to 8,869 by December 2021. That's another thing: BSA is saying, at least for this council, it expects the decline to keep going through 2021. And while you may not think you can, TCC does. In the event BSA cannot get its plan approved by the abuse claimants, TCC will submit its plan and we now know (for that council) exactly what it will look like.

The most critical part of this data is that it gives sexual abuse claimants an exact amount they can see to approve/reject what an LC has to offer. Take the redacted council for a second. A ~$40 million council. It has three camps and an office building combined, between $19 and $21 million. They also have cash and investments of $20.5 million. TCC wants two out three camps sold along with the office building, leaving the smallest camp alone, for a total of $16 million going to abuse victims. TCC wants $13.625 million of out the $20.5 million in cash/investments. This is

Page 46 of TCC's objection alludes to the atom-bomb for LCs. The TCC has been spending big bucks to get financial analyses of all the LCs, including and especially those camps. And they brought receipts. An example is offered as Exhibit A using a redacted Council. This is micro-level data for every council. Just wow. Appraised values. Total council expenditures. Cash on hand. Everything. Just wow.

More take aways from the TCC objections, alluding to what TCC wants. Bottom line up front: "As things stand now, the Tort Claimants’ Committee will recommend rejection of the Plan." 1) Remember how BSA and/or LCs lied, saying that local funds would stay local? Nothing would go to be part of the bankruptcy? TCC's taking them to the woodshed for that. 2) Members of the TCC have now put their sexual abuse experiences into the record and WITHOUT the judge redacting. 3) They want all four HA bases on the table. ALL FOUR. 4) The pension plan is overfunded. 4) The LCs

TCC just filed its objections. It exceeded the max page length, so they are asking the judge permission to exceed the page length. Reading through now. Quick, quick glance. 1) All the expected objections: the BSA 2.0 plan provides NO details on ANYTHING about how much the LCs will pay, insurance will pay, how much COs will pay, etc. 2) TCC wants details about that sweetheart Hartford deal and it wants them now. 3) The plan is unconfirmable. Key graph: don't even bother sending this to a vote, because no one is going to vote for this.

As we await the TCC objection, keep in mind that that FCR and Coalition have already filed their objections to BSA trying to extend their time period in which BSA gets the exclusive right to proposed a reorg plan. And they were angry. They were also alluding to the creation of a TCC/FCR/Coalition reorg plan.

All the more reason why this week's TCC town hall will be very interesting. Even if they cannot say what happened in mediation, I'd be curious to see their tone/tenor.

Purely curious. Why not two patrols of 6? That's closer to the Scouts, BSA patrol standard.