CynicalScouter

Does not matter if they left or not. If the abuse occurred while they were CO, they are on the hook.

One more thing: if it seems like my most recent posts are goddy and gleeful? They are. Want to know why? Because this is actually a positive development. Wha? Hear me out. BSA was and is prepared to go round and round the mulberry bush with TCC, trying to wear it down and get to the point of BSA forcing TCC and the victims to accept a pittance on the theory that by summer they'll be completely out of cash and honestly be able to say "$6000 is the best we can do. There's nothing left." Moreover, BSA no doubt was expected "fire from the front". Of course they knew TCC would object

One more point (on a roll tonight) and I'm taking it from Kosnoff (credit where credit is due). How soon until we start to see formal filings from councils that are going to read, in effect "BSA and the Ad Hoc Committee do not represent us and we object to this plan, too." Keep in mind this is more than rank speculation. Several councils (Circle Ten in particular comes to mind) have already had their own lawyers admitted into the case pro hac vice and filed motions on their own behalf/in their own right. DocketNo DocketPartNo

I like this one objection, mostly because it cuts right to the chase. Rather than saying (as every other objection did) that BSA didn't give enough information/disclosure to even GUESS if this was a good plan or not, this objection simply asks 8 questions and (in effect) dares BSA to answer (it won't, of course). Oh, and they are asking on behalf of 4,000 claimants. That's about 5% of the total votes needed to sink any BSA org plan, so no, these are not rhetorical. What information should victims know about The Hartford settlement? Does my local council have assets to contribu

This is what is going to ring alarms, pulling of hair, and gnashing of teeth. The #1 sponsor for BSA units prior to 2020? LDS. The #2 (now #1)? United Methodists. So, what's got the Methodists upset? Answer: BSA is planning to throw them under the bus. That beep beep sound? Its the BSA backup the bus to run over the Methodists again. And remember: the Methodist churches ALL (almost all?) filed claims against BSA because they knew or suspected BSA was going to do this to them. But, let us not forget the former #1 CO: the LDS. They are hop snorting mad as

Agreed: Forget even trying to get this to a vote which instead of getting 66% in favor among sexual abuse victims it could result in a lopsided 66% AGAINST. This just massively increased the probability that the judge will reject BSAs exclusivity period and the TCC (and FCR and Coalition or some combo) will be invited to submit a plan.

I haven’t had a chance to look at them all but I’m going to bet every single one of them contain some version of “Insufficient information regarding the assets and commitments of BSA, LC, or both upon which to determine whether the plan is or is not acceptable.”

Something in the motion today made something I had already sensed clear. For all the motions filed and money spent, we still have had almost zero actual litigation. The only real contested matter that has reached a conclusion was setting the bar date for claims. As for the rest? So, $100+ million and there's...nothing? Someone once said that mediation and negotiation is fine, but sometimes you just got to litigate it out. We are long, long past the point where the parties need to brief the motions and the judge needs to start ruling on these motions. If May 19 turns

THAT is an interesting question that a judge is going to have to crack open at some point.

This isn't DISSOLUTION of the LC. This is failure to recharter. The LC, as a separately incorporated entity, can live long after BSA is dust. But the minute the BSA charter gets revoked, they forfeit all property to BSA National. This is in both the Bylaws of BSA National as well as the LCs. As for this The moment they did so, BSA National and/or the sexual abuse claimants will be in court demanding either a) any such change be voided or b) declaring a BSA charter breach, in which case BSA claims the property "upon termination of a local council." The LCs are going to

As I said previously, I see this stonewalling and refusal (or inability) of BSA and the LCs (and let's not forget the COs we have heard absolutely nothing from) ending this way The BSA plans (global, toggle, whatever) will be a) voted on by the sexual abuse victims and rejected OR b) will be so opposed by TCC/FCR/Coalition that the judge simply does not send the plan out for a vote because she knows it will never be approved. BSA's right to come up with its own reorg plan will be deemed forfeit and the "Exclusivity period" will end. This may happen sooner rather than later. The TCC

Let's look at this in the best light possible. In February 2020 the plan was for a quick (1 year) bankruptcy involving ~10,000 claims that also settled claims against local councils but did NOT involve LCs contributing anything. To quote Luke Skywalker: Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong. It wasn't quick It ballooned to 80,000+ claims It is (or isn't) going to settle claims against local councils LCs are most certainly going to pay It got out of control and so too did the legal bills.

Yes, because TCC would RATHER have the LCs turn over the assets directly vs. do this the "hard way" in which BSA National revokes all the LC charters (either voluntarily or as directed by the court), seizes all LC assets (per the BSA Bylaws, as I noted above), and BSA turns over the assets.

Especially given the shell games some councils played (hello, Middle Tennessee) in trying to hide assets. The other item is that it opens some eyes. I can imagine that some LCs think "Well, there's no way we'll ever be forced to sell Camp XYZ." Or "Well, Camp XYZ is only worth $100, and the TCC thinks it is worth $1,000? Huh?" The other key is proportionality and equity in terms of ongoing operations. Say you are a local council with $1 million in assets. Based on that 70% of those assets ($700,000) are core essential in the form of two camps. There's just NO WAY we can give up

I am going to quibble just a touch here. BSA, to my knowledge, did not say "you cannot talk to our LCs". They said "you cannot talk to our LCs using our Zoom platform Q&A thing, today, here, now." I don't think BSA has formally told TCC to route all requests to LCs through BSA. In other words, TCC could pick up the phone right now and call the Scout Exec (paid professional) or Council President (volunteer) and try to start up a chat since they are NOT represented by counsel. Of course, no council level person in his/her right mind would take that call, instead forwarding it

Century has filed a motion against the TCC, the FCR, and the UCC for burning through over $100 million with nothing (much) to show for it. And they are angry. Under the current Compensation Order, estate professionals are paid 100% of their requested fees every three months. The Debtors, TCC, UCC, and FCR have all failed to exercise any oversight of fees. The appointment of a fee examiner has not amelioratedthe issue of disproportionately high fees in this case. This massive spending occurred largely in the absence of litigation. A shocking number of professionals

On the contrary, it demonstrates it pretty clearly. Remember, there are two claims here. The first is that BSA controls the LCs OPERATIONS. The second is that BSA controls LCs PROPERTY. The property argument is incredibly strong and is why this meeting happened. In short: 1) BSA charters each LC annually and can revoke those charters at any time. In other words, LCs exist at the will and the whim of BSA National. 2) Immediately upon terminating a LC charter, ALL LC assets get turned over to National. This is in both the Bylaws of BSA National as well as the LCs. 3)

By the way, this has now run far, far afield of the original topic and should be put into the Toggle plan thread. Exactly. All the councils know right now is a number based on the formula the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils came up with (along with BSA) as the what THEY (Committee and BSA) think the LC should pay. Now the TCC is giving its number based on what assets it thinks the LC can contribute. IF (like my council) you have no camp and no real property, I would think that the BSA/Ad Hoc Committee number is going to be close to the TCC number. If, however, you are

Yes, there was a big blowup over this involving claims that the ads put together by the mass tort groups were deceptive and confused would be claimants.

There is simply no way any Council Exec is going to share this info. None.

And that to me is fine. I mean, I get that some of this is confidential data. I put the odds of any council allowing volunteers (other than the Council Key-3) to see this information at precisely 0% Thank you for this. It has been EXTREMELY helpful

And the LCs will be right behind, or else.

We "stack" in July - half go to HA, half during the same week go to summer camp. But I also like the approach you take: space them out.

Yep. Again, I feel like a broken record here. This is NOT going to go before a jury. These claims will be going before a settlement trustee who will be asking for proof. Not just "sure, just take that big bag of money over there with the dollar sign! No questions asked!"

Right, that's my point. Yes, I understand MOST will come from insurance. But still, even given the amount of resources that BSA has access to AND the fact that the same reorg plan LITERALLY HAD BLANK PAGES for the sections related to LC contributions, that plan was not even worthy of being called a "first draft" by a first year associate to a partner at a law firm. The $6100 was simply indicative of the fact that BSA reorg plan version 1.0 was insulting every which way.