CynicalScouter

A) Take ALL 80,000 claims currently pending. B) How much is the AVERAGE cost for each claim going to be? That is going to require the court to go through either a sampling or all claims. Probably just a sampling (e.g. 800 out of 80,000). This will be almost like a mini-trial. Victims may be required to testify. Experts brought in to discuss pain, suffering, loss of income, etc. Multiply A*B = How much needs to go into the Settlement Fund when all this is over. Then the next part: who pays for what parts of that number. BSA? Local Council? COs? Insurance companies? THAT comes later down the road. But at least at the point you've got a number to work with.

I have no idea because the only people with access were Council Key-3. But as was described to me by our Key-3 in a Council Zoom town hall, and confirmed in conversations I had with a friend in the "next door" council where it was called an "Algorithm" Number of claims * Average claim cost * How likely are those claims going to showing up in a courtroom (Statute of Limitations, likelihood that all claims will convert to lawsuits) = Total amount due. Then there was an adjustment to consider the fourth variable: what assets does the Council have to offer? The big confusion was the question of average claim cost AND probability of claim converting to lawsuit. Obviously in SOME states that percentage is going to be higher than other states. And claim cost? Who knows. The average payment in the Catholic abuse scandals was around $200,000. Is that too high? Too low? This is ALL we were told at the unit level. EVERYTHING else, the Key-3 were told to shut their yaps about given that this was active pending litigation and that the formula was at the time still being worked on. So who knows? I do know this. And it is my Magical Math time again. The AVERAGE council has about 170 claims. The AVERAGE Catholic abuse claim was around $200,000 170*200,000 = $34,000,000 Now if you are a council, you have to figure out the probability those 170 claims turn into cases. If there's LITTLE chance (statute of limitations closes most cases, lack of desire by claimant to pursue case in civil court reduces the rest) then let's say 5% 170*200,000*5% = $1,700,000 But if those 170 claim are in a state where the statute of limitations is not an issue? Let's say 25% chance of converting a claim into a lawsuit. 170*200,000*25% = $8,500,000 But again, this is just random wild numbers here. Then you have to adjust for assets. If you are Aloha Council (171 claims) with reported UNRESTRICTED assets of $6 million in 2018 (Part X, Line 27) $1.7 million is tough but doable. $8.5 million, not so much.

Might have a point there. From 1989 to 2019, Cubs dropped 45% from 2,155,976 to 1,176,119. Boy Scouts/Scouts, BSA dropped "only" 21% (1,007,871 vs. 798,516)

There was a formula circulated by the Ad Hoc Committee at least as early as last fall to all LCs. It was suppose to let LCs know that if they WANTED to VOLUNTARILY participate and get all abuse claims in their councils closed, they had to just plug in some numbers and out would come an answer. Now, however, a lot of those councils are starting to realize (or perhaps be told, who knows) that it is "voluntary" but if they don't BSA will NOT be able to come out of bankruptcy and LCs are on next on the menu (there's already 870 suits). As you've described it, this is the "missiles are set to fly" motif. LCs are being invited to come in and help, or else. No one has to my knowledge ORDERED LCs to pay into anything, but if they don't it all comes crumbling down. TCC's latest agreement means I'd expect to see another 1 to 2 THOUSAND suits filed based on just NY, NJ, and NC alone. Even if your council is in a state with no lookback window, the pressure will be on to offer SOMETHING in order to keep BSA alive and to ensure no future lookback windows occur. The question is how much. LCs that are pleading poverty/we have only restricted assets better have a good, hard look at things. I know some very tiny Councils for which that is likely true. But some of these other councils are looking around at camps, office buildings, and the like and asking "How much and how soon" can we sell this.

Ah ok, yeah. I've already said there are three options. Chapter 7 is just one of the options if no settlement happens. Option 1) A failed bankruptcy. BSA emerges with no reorg plan and immediately faces at LEAST 800 already filed lawsuits, plus thousands more. Spends the next decade making individual settlements. Past a certain point BSA goes back into either Chapter 11 or Chapter 7. Option 2) A Chapter 7 liquidation. As noted elsewhere, because BSA is a not for profit, it cannot be forced by the judge or creditors into liquidation: it has to select this for itself. Option 3) A judge-ordered cramdown. The judge ORDERS a settlement as defined by her over the objections of the sexual abuse claimants. That has never happened before.

Here's the other aspect of this. Keep in mind we cannot just parse out COVID. Putting on my old statistics course hat, we cannot control all the variables for the decline and oh, there are so many. In no particular order and certainly not an exhaustive list COVID A 20-year decline in all youth organizations and activities. A 20-year decline in long term membership for ANY organization (in very short, the millennials are having kids and they are used to hoping from cause-to-cause or organization to organization; the days of the lifetime member of the Sierra Club are over) Fee increases Bad press over the bankruptcy Bad press over sexual abuse The rise of alternatives (Trail Life, travel sports, etc.) The perception BSA is too "conservative" (not letting homosexual leaders, not letting in girls, too "religious") The perception BSA is too "liberal" (letting in the homosexual leaders, letting in the girls, etc.) The perception BSA is outdated/antiquated. BSA is something grandpa did, not you And on and on. The fact is that we don't know what happens next. BSA has had rebounds before (1977-1986 was a little uptick) but the last time BSA saw more scouts today vs. 10 years prior was 1991 (3,501,233) vs. 1982 (3,425,000). The last time we had a 5 year uptick was 1999 (3,742,852) vs. 1994 (3,460,795). The overall trendline was already down. The real question is what can BSA stabilize at in the next 1-3 (assuming it survives)? As I said above BSA is looking at PRE-WORLD WAR 2 membership numbers. It would take a DOUBLING of membership just to get back to where we were in 2014 (2.4 million) and a TRIPLING to get back to 2000 (3.6 million).

Like I said, I shouldn't be trying to crawl into his head, but that was my best stab at how he can thread that ethical needle.

No, in other words think of the pot. TOTAL assets for BSA National is $1.4 billion. Local Councils = $3 billion (yes, there some quibble here, but bear with me). Kosnoff looks at the ENTIRE pot as $4.4 billion in assets. Not $1.4 billion. Thus, he'll happily let Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation have the $1.2-$1.4 billion if he can get access to that $3 billion. If you are Kosnoff and thinking the prize is $3 billion, a $300 million offer from LCs + $300 million more from BSA is chump change. From an ethics standpoint, he's fine. He's attempting to maximize his client's interest because $3 billion > $600 million. And it has the added "benefit" in his mind of fulfilling his own personal agenda: liquidation of BSA

I cannot crawl into his head. I know from his Twitter and other statements that he wants liquidation of national AND LC assets. Thus, in his twisted logic, let the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation have BSA National, he'll reap the $3 billion on LC assets.

BSA's Reorganization Plan involves BSA AND the LCs AND the insurance companies paying into the Settlement Fund. That Reorg plan literally spells out, in black and white, that LCs and Insurance Companies will be paying along with BSA. Only, that's the problem. 1) LC's are being asked for "voluntary" contributions equaling $300 million by BSA and they ain't volunteering much if at all. The TCC is insisting that LCs be MANDATED to give SPECIFIC amounts that far exceed $300 million. And by the way, this BSA reorg plan concludes with both BSA National AND THE LOCAL COUNCILS having all abuse claims prior to 2020 ended. Meanwhile, the LCs are still palying games/being coy about how much they'll pay, if at all. And the Ad Hoc Committee does NOT legally speaking speak for all 200+ LCs. From a technical standpoint, they only speak or 8 of them. 2) Insurance Companies are not keen to just hand over cash by the bushel. First, they don't think they have to pay a DIME to cover the sexual abuse claims against BSA because (they say) BSA lied to get the insurance policies. But even if the insurance companies DO have to pay, they insist many/most of the 80,000 claims are B.S. So no, cutting a deal with BSA alone is not going to mean anything if MOST of BSA's deal consists of "Go get money out of the LCs and Insurance Cos". That's not going to fly at all.

I agree, but I think the difference between this and any other civil suit I've seen is MOST of the parties do not even concede they should be at the table. 1) The Ad Hoc Committee represents precisely NO ONE (or nearly so) in terms of Local Councils outside of the 8 listed LCs. 2) The Insurance Companies are still on record as claiming/contesting that they owe one thin dime based on their claim BSA lied to get the insurance policies (and insurance doesn't cover criminal acts) 3) BSA concedes it should be at the table, and both is (and isn't) prepared to bargain on behalf of the other two ("Asking" LCs to contribute to a settlement fund, sticking insurance for the rest?) 4) Meanwhile, out in the ether somewhere, are the COs. I know the Methodist church en masse filed claims against BSA to protect themselves, but again maybe they are operating under the assumption that National and the LCs will protect them? And in reading the chartered organization agreements of the past, I can see how they could conclude that. But this isn't just trash the "BSA" side, lets look at abuse claimants 1) TCC is the official group of record. Fantastic. But.. 2) The Coalition/AIS/Kosnoff/whomever: there is a large and very vocal contingent who are acting as if TCC is either an impediment or actively working against claimant interests (up to demanding a Trustee be placed on BSA and that the Trustee force a liquidation, which is now the new Kosnoff plan. So, here's my question and where it differs from any other civil mediation or case I've seen. When this mediation session happens: 1) Literally WHO is sitting at the table/Zoom session? 2) Of the people listed in #1, WHAT parties do they, or do they not, represent? Or, put another way, what is the authority of the people in that room to negotiate of behalf of BSA, LCs, COs, Insurance Companies, and/or Abuse Claimants? I can very easily see another round of "Well, I'm here, but only on behalf of X, but not Y." and "No, you don't represent X's interests, I do!" and a half a dozen hours of fighting over that.

No, that answer has precisely 0% to do with safety it simple says Scouts, BSA is a "youth led program." Program. Let me say it again. PROGRAM. How is my tenting with my son a safety issue? A protection issue? And my S.E. told me "Ask national". And when I emailed I was given the above. When I asked the follow up, the email was ignored/I received NO response. Not a boilerplate response. Not the response you just gave (which is to blow me off and not answer the question). Simply IGNORED. So, as I said, I'll start to believe BSA is serious about Safe Scouting when it starts to answer some questions.

It is possible. In the past few years BSA has pushed quarterly reports out, but I'm sure for internal consumption there's monthly. And the February 2021 report would be the first real indication of current conditions. The report I posted was 2020 or 2020 recharter year (so December 2019-December 2020 maybe) showing how many units did/did NOT recharter in December 2020. To put this into perspective: 1) The last time BSA youth totals were below 1.2 million was in 1941 2) The last time BSA youth totals were below 950,000 was 1938 Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/BSA/comments/gres82/youth_membership_graph_1911_2019/

I agree, every major thing (are LCs appendages of National and thus LC assets = National; how many claimants officially? How much? Can Insurers depose and document demand claimants, etc.) has been kicked down the road and/or sent to mediation which appears to have been useless and involved people not even showing up. Here's the problem from a judicial perspective: she is not checking in on progress DAILY or even WEEKLY. It is (at best) MONTHLY. We are now 12 months in and still pretty much no closer to any of the questions than before. Thus, her strong suggestion/order to get back into the mediation room and come out with some answers.

I would, if I could even once get a straight answer out of ANYONE at National regarding YPT questions I've posed in the past only to be ignored (as in emails never followed up on). I'll start taking Safe Scouting seriously when BSA does and starts to answer unit questions. FOR EXAMPLE and the example I never, ever, EVER got an answer on. Why is it a YOUTH PROTECTION violation for a parent to tent with their scout (outside of Cub Scouts). I know the PROGRAM answer I still have never, ever, EVER gotten the YOUTH PROTECTION answer. How is my tenting with my son a YOUTH PROTECTION problem?

Yes, last year. And it is now past proposal. It's a go.

So, this is interesting 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 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) AND BANKRUPTCY RULE 5011(a), WITHDRAWING THE REFERENCE OF PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE ESTIMATION OF PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS This, as I interpret it, this is the official Motion to shove the Estimation process down (over?) to District Court.

To quote from Peter Gabriel, Lord, here comes the flood.

Right, the judge has been clear she wants a BSA to emerge. My concern this whole time has been that won't happen because of a) inability to get 66% of abuse claimants to agree to a plan and b) Kosnoff driving for liquidation and c) Local Councils not willing to cough up the money needed to get to a settlement. In other words, it may be that MOST parties involved (other than the Kosnoff team) want to see the Boy Scouts mission continue, but no one can agree on a way forward, so it dies anyway.

Best case scenario: This is part of the BSA/National Camp Accreditation Program. Worst case: Appraisal as a lead up to a sale.

It really doesn't look like it. Councils listed in Summary of Sexual Abuse Claims in Chapter 11 Cases of Boy Scouts of America ABRAHAM LINCOLN ALABAMA‐FLORIDA ALAMO AREA ALLEGHENY HIGHLANDS ALOHA ANDREW JACKSON ANTHONY WAYNE AREA ARBUCKLE AREA ATLANTA AREA BADEN POWELL BALTIMORE AREA BAY AREA BAY‐LAKES BLACK HILLS AREA BLACK SWAMP AREA BLACK WARRIOR BLACKHAWK BLACKHAWK AREA BLUE GRASS BLUE MOUNTAIN BLUE RIDGE BLUE RIDGE MOUNTAINS BUCKEYE BUCKSKIN BUCKTAIL BUFFALO TRACE BUFFALO TRAIL CADDO AREA CALCASIEU CALIFORNIA INLAND EMPIRE CAPE COD & ISLANDS CAPE FEAR CAPITOL AREA CASCADE PACIFIC CATALINA CENTRAL ESCARPMENT CENTRAL FLORIDA CENTRAL GEORGIA CENTRAL MINNESOTA CENTRAL NEW JERSEY CENTRAL NORTH CAROLINA CHATTAHOOCHEE CHEROKEE AREA 469 CHEROKEE AREA 556 CHESTER COUNTY CHICKASAW CHIEF CORNPLANTER CHIEF SEATTLE CHIPPEWA VALLEY CHOCTAW AREA CIMARRON CIRCLE TEN COASTAL CAROLINA COASTAL GEORGIA COLONIAL VIRGINIA COLUMBIA‐MONTOUR CONNECTICUT RIVERS CONNECTICUT YANKEE CONQUISTADOR CORNHUSKER CORONADO AREA CRADLE OF LIBERTY CRATER LAKE COUNCIL CROSSROADS OF AMERICA CROSSROADS OF THE WEST DAN BEARD DANIEL BOONE DANIEL WEBSTER DE SOTO AREA DEL‐MAR‐VA DENVER AREA DIRECT SERVICE EAST CAROLINA EAST TEXAS AREA ERIE SHORES EVANGELINE AREA FAR EAST FIVE RIVERS FLINT RIVER FRENCH CREEK GAMEHAVEN GARDEN STATE GATEWAY AREA GEORGIA‐CAROLINA GLACIER'S EDGE GOLDEN EMPIRE GOLDEN GATE AREA GOLDEN SPREAD GRAND CANYON GRAND COLUMBIA GRAND TETON GREAT ALASKA GREAT RIVERS GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAIN GREAT SOUTHWEST GREAT TRAIL GREAT TRIAL GREATER ALABAMA GREATER LOS ANGELES GREATER NEW YORK GREATER NIAGARA FRONTIER GREATER ST. LOUIS AREA GREATER TAMPA BAY AREA GREATER TORONTO GREATER WYOMING GREATER YOSEMITE GREEN MOUNTAIN GREENWICH GULF COAST GULF STREAM HAWK MOUNTAIN HAWKEYE AREA HEART OF AMERICA HEART OF NEW ENGLAND HEART OF VIRGINIA HOOSIER TRAILS HOUSATONIC HUDSON VALLEY ILLOWA INDIAN NATIONS INDIAN WATERS INLAND NORTHWEST IROQUOIS TRAIL ISTROUMA AREA JAYHAWK AREA JERSEY SHORE JUNIATA VALLEY KATAHDIN AREA LAKE ERIE LAS VEGAS AREA LASALLE LAST FRONTIER LAUREL HIGHLANDS LEATHERSTOCKING LINCOLN HERITAGE LONG BEACH AREA LONGHORN LONGHOUSE LONGS PEAK COUNCIL LOS PADRES LOUISIANA PURCHASE MARIN MASON‐DIXON MASSUA COUNTY MAYFLOWER MECKLENBURG COUNTY MIAMI VALLEY MICHIGAN CROSSROADS MID‐AMERICA MIDDLE TENNESSEE MID‐IOWA MIDNIGHT SUN MINSI TRAILS MISSISSIPPI VALLEY MOBILE AREA MONMOUTH MONTANA MORAINE TRAILS MOUNT BAKER MOUNTAIN WEST MOUNTAINEER AREA MUSKINGUM VALLEY NARRAGANSETT NATIONAL CAPITAL AREA NEVADA AREA NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM NORTH FLORIDA NORTHEAST GEORGIA NORTHEAST ILLINOIS NORTHEAST IOWA COUNCIL NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA NORTHERN LIGHTS NORTHERN NEW JERSEY NORTHERN STAR NORTHWEST GEORGIA NORTHWEST TEXAS NORWELA OCCONEECHEE OHIO RIVER VALLEY OLD HICKORY OLD NORTH STATE ORANGE COUNTY OREGON TRAIL OVERLAND TRAILS OZARK TRAILS PACIFIC HARBORS PACIFIC SKYLINE PALMETTO PATHWAY TO ADVENTURE PATRIOTS' PATH PEE DEE AREA PENNSYLVANIA DUTCH PIEDMONT 042 PIEDMONT 420 PIKES PEAK PINE BURR AREA PINE TREE PONY EXPRESS POTAWATOMI AREA PRAIRIELANDS PUERTO RICO PUSHMATAHA AREA QUAPAW AREA QUIVIRA RAINBOW REDWOOD EMPIRE RIO GRANDE RIP VAN WINKLE ROCKY MOUNTAIN SAGAMORE SAM HOUSTON AREA SAMOSET COUNCIL SAN DIEGO ‐ IMPERIAL COUNCIL SANTA FE TRAIL SENECA WATERWAYS SEQUOIA SEQUOYAH SHENANDOAH AREA SILICON VALLEY MONTEREY BAY SIMON KENTON SIOUX SOUTH FLORIDA COUNCIL SOUTH GEORGIA SOUTH PLAINS SOUTH TEXAS SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA SOUTHERN SIERRA SOUTHWEST FLORIDA SPIRIT OF ADVENTURE SUFFOLK COUNTY SUSQUEHANNA SUWANNEE RIVER AREA TECUMSEH TEXAS SOUTHWEST TEXAS TRAILS THEODORE ROOSEVELT THREE FIRES THREE HARBORS THREE RIVERS TIDEWATER TRANSATLANTIC TUKABATCHEE AREA TUSCARORA TWIN RIVERS TWIN VALLEY VENTURA COUNTY VERDUGO HILLS VIRGINIA HEADWATERS VOYAGEURS AREA W.D. BOYCE WASHINGTON CROSSING WEST TENNESSEE AREA WESTARK AREA WESTCHESTER‐PUTNAM WESTERN LOS ANGELES COUNTY WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS WESTMORELAND‐FAYETTE WINNEBAGO YOCONA AREA YUCCA

Correct, BSA has to voluntarily go into Chapter 7. But he's made it clear he wants all 80,000 claims in state court (or as many as he can with statute of limitations) ASAP. That's option #1 I listed here. A failed bankruptcy. BSA emerges with no reorg plan, dies from the ensuing lawsuit tsunami. Think about it: if even 10% of the 80k are both valid and in states where the statute of limitations isn't an issue (or won't be soon with lookback windows) that is 8,000 cases over the course of the next 1-5 years with BSA as named defendant in all of them and Local Councils as well. So let's take it one step further. Of the 8,000 cases, BSA and local councils are found liable in only 10%. That's still 800. Reports indicate that the average settlement amount for victims of clergy sex abuse is somewhere around $200,000 - $300,000 (see this says $268,466, this $200,000, etc.) 800*200,000 = $160 MILLION. That's an absurdly low and you can easily see that increasing by a factor of 10. Kosnoff is going to get his liquidation either formally (Chapter 7) or with BSA under so many civil judgments it cannot operate.

I think there's enough people to say "burn it to the ground" that getting to 66% is impossible.

Abused in Scouting and the Coalition control/represent 33% of more of the claimants.

Depends if the cramdown includes LCs and COs. That is BSA's plan for the reorg/settlement fund. But I disagree with the premise, namely, a bankruptcy judge ordering a cram-down on sexual abuse victims. I just cannot believe that would happen in a million years. I know bankruptcy judges are "protected" from politics in the sense of their terms are 14 years, but I just cannot think of a judge over-ruling abuse victims. Maybe, maybe, MAYBE if instead of 66% yes it was 65/64/63 I could see her saying "close enough". But even that's a huge maybe.