CynicalScouter

Exactly. LCs paying out only 4% of assets? Seriously? One good year of a bull market and they will be back to status quo ante.

And the MINIMUM base payouts estimated by both BSA and the TCC ($600,000). He's at or near lowballing BSA's low ball.

I'm sorry, but your definition of how to compensate for pain and suffering is based NOT on the person's pain and suffering but on median household income? Wha? So a victim can only receive compensation if he demonstrates to YOUR satisfaction that he is actively seeking out others to sue? Sorry, this makes me sick to my stomach. These are VICTIMS. They don't have to prove a THING to your satisfaction about seeking out others. How absolutely arrogant to suggest they have to.

EDIT: I retract my question: @skeptic answer this one instead, if you can or would that be "pure insanity"? https://www.scouter.com/topic/32769-bankruptcy-everything-but-the-legalese/?do=findComment&comment=534113

I agree. There's plenty of room between "nothing" and "not much" to pick a number from.

I would imagine there is a number between 0 and 100B that would be fair and balanced (nice phrase) in his eyes. Guess which end of the number line?

Right, and the point Not really insanity. Based on prior sexual abuse settlements, the numbers they are VALUING are accurate. That's why I said I bolded the word this time to make it clearer. And yes, if you look, $600,000 for a Tier 1 form of sexual abuse (not going to say what that is, but figure it out) is completely reasonable and if anything undervalued: they are using value MINIMUM here. That is as I said BEFORE adjustments. Now. you may also think $22 billion - $102 billion is also "pure insanity". I also happen to think BSA's attitude and demeanor, the horrific way it has treated a) these boys as boys and b) these men as victims has been "pure insanity". So, there.

You read it right. The TCC is valuing all 82,200 claims at MINIMUM Base VALUE of $22 trillion. That assumes EVERY claim is valid, there are NO mitigating circumstances, and there are NO statutes of limitations anymore The math is as follows (roughly) using the number of claims from https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/2e1a8c44-7812-46a0-8a93-5aa5621dc7b2_6431.pdf Base Min Total Number of Claims Base * Number of occurrences Tier 1 $600,000 24539 $14,723,400,000 Tier 2 $450,000 18856 $8,485,200,000 Tier 3 $300,000 13022 $3,906,600,000 Tier 4 $150,000 17138 $2,570,700,000 Tier 5 $75,000 1879 $140,925,000 Tier 6 $3,500 1294 $4,529,000 Unknown or Data Missing ??? 5481 ?? 82,209 29,831,354,000 When you factor in statutes of limitations (Gray 1/2/3, Closed) that number drops to $102 billion or so.

So, let's parse that out a second. Total BSA value is $1.2 billion Total LC is $4-5 billion. Total liquidation will never get you there. So, what next? Hartford has total assets of $70 billion. Chubb $197 billion. Century around $1.9 billion.

That number being around the GDP of the entire United States in 2020, give or take a trillion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)#Table

NO sexual activity of ANY kind should be happening on a BSA outing regardless of age or marital status. Code of Conduct, point #6

Also, let's keep in mind back in April, it wasn't just the LCs: the TCC wanted to reopen/go after BSA a lot harder. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/884771_2506.pdf They value the claims at over $103 billion. This is before any efforts at addressing statutes of limitations, which they do NOT do at all. BSA values the claims at $2.4 billion – $7.1 billion when adjusted for statutes of limitations and other things. While BSA came up with its valuation for each Local Council and its assets, so did the TCC. While the BSA's valuations were filed (and in Plan 5.0 remain: LCs $1,870,754,935 in unrestricted assets, $1,432,473,515 in restricted), we never saw the TCC's. Suffice to say that TCC's definition of "Restricted" differed greatly from BSAs. So too did the TCC's understanding of how many camps the LCs needed and money they needed to function. Right now the BSA's Plan 5.0 calls for $500 million from LCs + $100 note/loan. TCC has said they want at least "over a billion dollars" more (so, $1.5 billion) The TCC had been prepared to move/make demands on Summit Bechtel and the other HA bases. Expect that to come back into a TCC plan. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/868464_1.pdf The FCR, TCC, and Coalition had started a process to have the total value of all claims estimated by the U.S. District Cour. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/883734_1.pdf

I am NOT saying that is the current TCC plan or if that will be what comes out when the TCC plan gets filed October 16, but that was what it looked like in May. Generally, broadly.

Here is Stang on the TCC plan (May 13 Townhall) http://www.pszjlaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/BSA Town Hall Transcript 5-13-21.pdf "I want to just build on that for a moment. Every analysis that we did, which includes a proposed contribution of money and camps to a settlement fund, is premised, first, on that each local council will keep two years of operating money. We know how much it costs to operate your local council, we have all of that financial information. So, we didn’t zero out the bank accounts, two years of operating money and whatever else you raise--or I should say, the local councils raise, by donations or otherwise, is in addition to that. So, there’s that buffer we put in there. It underscores what John just said. These proposals do not seek to liquidate local councils. The other thing we did was we looked at camp utilization. There are numerable reports coming from BSA and individual local councils that the camps are underutilized. So, we mapped out the location of every camp in the country, every scout store in the country, and we drew a circle around each camp to see what other camps were nearby. What was the utilization of those camps, ‘cause, frankly, while we hear every camp is essential, if you take away a single camp it’ll destroy our local council, the fact of the matter is, in lots of parts of the country, there are so many camps so close to one another that if you were efficiently using them, there’s probably about 40 percent or 50 percent of the camps that you could dispose of and not affect a kid’s ability to go camping."

As I understand it, again broadly speaking, but the TCC plan outlined in April/May was Determine OPERATING expenses for 2 years. Determine camps that are highly or mostly utilized in the AREA (that may mean some LCs keep all camps and some next door neighbors will lose a lot) Determine what assets are truly, truly restricted (such as those that are in historic parks or buildings that cannot be sold or liquidated because there is some government or other entity with a superior claim) And whatever is left goes into the Settlement Trust. Thus, just looking at my and other smaller councils for a second, our council might be better off under such a plan whereas the megacouncils that right now are only putting in 4-7% are going to see their numbers go up 10x.

So fair = BSA toggle plan?

Fair, if we want to define fair as "the same abuse claims values AND PAYMENTS as in similarly situated abuse cases) would be at least $100 billion, likely more. BSA doesn't have that kind of money. LCs don't either. Insurers may, but even THAT is debatable (because of issues related to statutes of limitations, claims caps, annual aggregation limits, etc.) So, "fair" was never in the cards in that sense. So, as was asked by others, what is "fair" here that BSA should be pursuing?

I totally missed this. Thanks for pointing it out. Yeah, this really gets at the heart of it: BSA just does NOT agree with the assessment of assets. Also, most councils are missing

No, it isn't fair. Nothing but full restitution would be. Outside a government bail out (akin to the 9/11 fund) would be. Too many victims not enough cash. Do I believe the LCs can put up more? Maybe? We don't know. I can say that my council (without giving it away, although I suspect people can deduce it after all these posts) is offer over 25% of total assets. We are small, We have no camp. We have a little over 100 claims, but only 5 are inside the statute of limitations. We are Gray 3 (10-25%). So, is it "fair" that my council is getting slammed 25% of total assets? I don't know. There are too many variables. I've had people tell me it is not fair for the council to pay a dime for victims that have no legal claim (that could NOT walk into our state court today and file a lawsuit). Etc. So, what is "fair"? What is "enough"?

No, but that is where the TCC and Kosnoff and other voices come in. If local news affiliate runs a story "LCs are not reporting their balance sheets", that is one thing. The theory is that the TCC and/or Kosnoff saying it is different. Is it enough? Remember that the threshold is 2/3rds of voters (not all 82,500, just those that vote) are required to approve the plan. You don't need a majority No, you need a large enough minority to say No and the plan goes down in flames. THAT is where these news articles, buttressed and supported by voices that victims will listen to (over their own lawyers advice to say yes) are key.

I think this in the end is key. For the thousands of what I will call Tier 1-3 victims who were expecting payments akin to those found in the Catholic Abuse and similar cases getting $10,000 and being told “that is all BSA and the LCs have to offer” seems absurd. I have read numerous victim letters where claimants say (almost verbatim) that the local scout camp down the road is worth millions and I am being offered thousands? BSA can give me more. The victims, and I cannot blame them in the least, fail to grasp that even if that camp gets sold the money is getting divided 10, 100, 300 ways. And of course statute of limitations issues.

I can think of three reasons why "no comment" is the best of the bad options. 1) Defend the LC offering on its own merits. "We believe this amount is fair." 2) Defend the LC offering based on survival of BSA: We believe this amount represents the most we can offer while still maintaining scouting for young people today and into the future, which is BSA National's official line (“ongoing efforts to reach a global resolution that will equitably compensate survivors and ensure Scouting’s future by resolving past abuse cases for both the national organization and local councils.”) 3) No comment. Which would you pick?

What specifically is misleading? What is factually inaccurate? Not a difference of opinion: factually inaccurate?

That’s your opinion. The TCC has a far different opinion. this is why we have a first amendment: Kosnoff is protected in expressing his opinion the LCs are not paying enough. and based on that you think a federal judge should order him gagged for “half truths”. you may disagree with his opinion on the financial situation of councils but it’s just that: his opinion versus yours. And no federal judge is it about to order him into silence

What do you think the judge is supposed to do: issue an order prohibiting him from speaking? the first amendment kinda gets in the way of that. It is called prior restraint.