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. How much and to what was TBD. But this is "fire from the rear". I cannot image BSA thought it was going to be getting shots taken at it by LDS, the Methodists, the Knights of Columbus, etc. And I suspect it is not going to stop. So far the only entities expressing anything vaguely approaching support for this are Hartford and JP Morgan. The rest are frankly objecting to BSA not giving a darn bit of details of how it plans to pay, what it plans to pay, who or what is getting thrown under which particular bus, etc. And TCC has already stated on the record in a court filing it was working on its own reorg plan. One that no doubt could get the 66% of abuse victims onboard. I feel somewhat better now. If this was more complex (the COs and others backed the BSA plan) I'd be more nervous about what may/may not happen. But now? Yeah, BSA's plan is toast. There's no way the judge even lets this go to a vote. The question is will BSA get a plan to introduced Reorg plan 3.0? Amend the disclosure statement to provide more info (Reorg plan 2.1?) Or simply let TCC introduced its plan and be done with this.

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 Title 1421 Objection of Circle Ten Council to Motion of the Official Tort Claimants' Committee Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004 and Local Rule 2004-1 for an Order Authorizing the Issuance of Subpoenas for Discovery from Debtors and Certain Local Councils (related document(s)[1379]) Filed by Circle Ten Council (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A: July 31 Letter # (2) Exhibit B: September 4 Letter # (3) Exhibit C: BSA Bylaws # (4) Certificate of Service) (Bowden, William) And, oh yes, Hartford technically sued Circle Ten and a cluster of other councils as part a related adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy. Hartford wanted all insurance policies they had for those LCs declared void. The deal Hartford cut, as I understand it, covers BSA's hide. NOT THE COUNCILS. But maybe it does? We don't know because BSA is not precisely forthcoming here. So, yeah. There's that.

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 contribute and, if so, how much? How much is my local council contributing in exchange for its release of liability? Does my charter organization have assets and, if so, how much? How much is my charter organization contributing in exchange for its release of liability? How many claims are there against my local council and charter organization? Does my claim have insurance to cover it and, if so, how much? How is my claim being treated in a distribution procedure? Now, in truth, Question 8 is probably answered generally and broadly (e.g. there will be a settlement trustee appointed to review all claims and distribute funds) even though it doesn't name that person ("John Smith") or set dates, times, etc. But I can understand why the question is there. It's reasonable to say BSA may not have that level of detail. But 1-7? Oh absolutely, BSA is going to hide, shuffle and do whatever it can to NOT answer and just punt/kick the can as far down the road as it can. It could get those details, or TCC can shove them down BSA and the LC's throats. But wow. This is direct, on point, a devastating.

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 well and filed both a redacted and sealed/unredacted version of their objection. Hoo-boy then. Let's take a look. All of which is a roundabout legal way of saying "BSA is trying to get out from under ensuring our insurance and selling us out. No, thanks." But there's more. Or rather, there isn't more. Let me translate: BSA's disclosure statement has so many holes and provides so little detail, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE for us (LDS) or anyone else to determine whether or not this is a good deal for LDS. Move over Methodists, BSA wants to put the LDS under the bus next. And so on. And we are 13 days from the next hearing date. I know there is a mediation next week in NY thanks to @MYCVAStory The remaining potential large CO "Groups" left are Catholic Church (although I will note that the quasi-independent Knights of Columbus has filed its own objection) Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Lutheran Churches The question would be do they object together, or as individuals (e.g. the Diocese of Arlington, the Diocese of Des Moines). The Diocese of Dallas already thew all BSA units out last year because of this mess. I won't be shocked to see some filings from that corner/those corners.

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 into another "kick the can down the road" it will simply be insane. SO FAR it looks like the May 19 agenda will be (could be?) 2445: TCC et al. motion to allow them to challenge the Summit/JP Morgan shell game, er, promissory note 2475: TCC et al. motion to force a trial court to come up with an estimate of abuse claims 2655: BSA's motion to extend the time in which BSA has the exclusive right to come up with a reorganization plan 2719: Settlement for a lesser/minor creditor 2720: Extending period regarding removal of state actions against BSA 3161: Century's newly filed motion to hold back 20% of the professional fees until there's a final settlement DocketNo Title DateFiled 2445 Notice of Hearing // Re-Notice of Joint Motion of the Official Tort Claimants' Committee and Future Claimants' Representative for Entry of an Order Granting Standing and Authorizing the Prosecution of Certain Challenge Claims on Behalf of the Bankruptcy Estates (related document(s)[2364]) Filed by Future Claimants' Representative, Tort Claimants' Committee. Hearing scheduled for 5/19/2021 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #2, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 4/29/2021. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service) (O'Neill, James) 03/24/2021 2475 Notice of Hearing re Motion of the Future Claimants' Representative, the Official Committee of Tort Claimants, and the Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice for Entry of an Order, Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 502(c), (I) Authorizing an Estimation of Current and Future Abuse Claims and (II) Establishing Procedures and Schedule for Estimation Proceedings (related document(s)[2391]) Filed by Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice, Future Claimants' Representative, Tort Claimants' Committee. Hearing scheduled for 5/19/2021 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #2, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 4/15/2021. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service) (O'Neill, James) 03/29/2021 2655 Amended Notice of Hearing of the Debtors' Motion for Entry of Order (I) Scheduling Certain Dates and Deadlines in Connection with Confirmation of the Debtors' Plan of Reorganization, (II) Establishing Certain Protocols, and (III) Granting Related Relief (related document(s)[2618]) Filed by Boy Scouts of America. Hearing scheduled for 5/19/2021 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #2, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 5/12/2021. (Moats, Eric) 04/21/2021 2719 Motion to Approve Debtors' Motion for Entry of an Order (I) Approving Lehr Settlement Agreement and (II) Modifying the Automatic Stay, to the Extent Necessary, to Permit Payment of Settlement Amount by Applicable Insurance Filed by Boy Scouts of America. Hearing scheduled for 5/19/2021 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #2, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 5/12/2021. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A-Proposed Order # (2) Exhibit B-Settlement Agreement # (3) Notice) (Moats, Eric) 04/28/2021 2720 Motion to Extend Debtors' Fourth Motion for Entry of an Order Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1452 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b) and 9027, Extending the Period Within Which the Debtors May Remove Civil Actions and Granting Related Relief Filed by Boy Scouts of America. Hearing scheduled for 5/19/2021 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #2, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 5/12/2021. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A-Proposed Order # (2) Notice) (Moats, Eric) 04/28/2021 3161 Motion to Amend THE COURTS ORDER (I) APPROVING PROCEDURES FOR (A) INTERIM COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES OF RETAINED PROFESSIONALS AND (B) EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR OFFICIAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND (II) GRANTING RELATED RELIEF [DKT. NO. 341] Filed by Century Indemnity Company. Hearing scheduled for 5/19/2021 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #2, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 5/12/2021. (Attachments: # (1) Declaration of Stam Stamoulis # (2) Proposed Form of Order # (3) Notice of Motion) (Stamoulis, Stamatios) 05/05/2021

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 have to pay. There is no getting around it. I really, really which BSA had been more honest about that from the start.

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 along with the FCR and Coalition or some combination will come up with their own reorganization plan that is approved by the court. That TCC/FCR/Coalition plan will then go to the sexual abuse victims who will approve it. BSA emerges from bankruptcy under the TCC/FCR/Coalition plan.

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 those camps! (Putting aside that lots of councils don't have their own camps). TCC comes in and with their experts says: you can part with one, or both. Lots of councils don't have camps. Pay up (or transfer the camp to the settlement fund). Now it isn't esoteric fights about big giant numbers ($400 million! $1 billion!) this is now trench war. Line by line. Property by property. Asset by asset. LCs are not going to be able to just say "All assets are core essential and restricted" and leave it at that. They'll have to prove/demonstrate. There's also equity: Go back to that $1 million council for a second. If 70% of its assets are those two camps, forcing the sale of both takes out 70% of total assets. Even if the camps are not "core essential", taking out that much of a council's asset structure could leave it dead or dying. Therefore TCC (or the court) could force the sale of one camp, but not both. Again, contrary to the belief of some people here TCC is NOT here to kill off BSA and the LCs. The judge is NOT going to approve a plan that kills off BSA and the LCs (this is a Chapter 11, not a Chapter 7). Where the line is between a) a crippled but alive BSA or LC forced to sell XX% of assets vs. b) a dead one is pure math.

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 on to a) BSA's counsel or b) their own local LC counsel c) the lawyers for the Ad Hoc Committee of Local Councils or d) a combo platter.

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 are billing at top-of-the-market rates without any regard to the proportionality of the services rendered. The enormous rates and the incredible number of lawyers are out of sync with othersexual abuse bankruptcies. The TCC and Coalition professionals are generating enormous duplicative costs. The estate has been billed for over $1 millionfor parties to prepare their fee applications. What does Century want? Hold back some of the fees at least for now until a final settlement or closure is reached.

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) Therefore, while for day to day operations the LCs exist/are independent, ULTIMATELY their assets belong to National. So, the threat (or message) to LCs is this: A) Cooperate now with TCC and hand over the properties. B) Don't, have the court order BSA to terminate all LC charters, the LC assets are turned over to BSA, and the BSA will be forced to turn them over to the Settlement Fun. Or, as was put in a recent court filing. Now, the point is NOT that people are looking for Chapter 7. But that threat is out there and they want to make it clear to the LCs: turn it over now

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 a council with multiple camps you may think based in the BSA/ad Hoc committee number you only need to sell 1 camp or even no camps whereas the TCC number is maybe closer to 2 camps, etc.

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.