ThenNow

Docket page 19 or page 19 of the filing? Sorry. Just want to be sure. Oops. I looked. They're concurrent this time...my bad.

Does anyone know if the entity or entities said to hold these restrictive interests/reversionary rights gave notice of appearance of counsel to assert those rights to prevent sale or encumbrance? If I gave some mack daddy property and wanted it back if x or y happened, or if z was no longer going to happen, I would've been asserting those rights from the jump.

Given the BSA's assertion that the properties/assets are restricted and the TCC's exasperation over not receiving timely documentation which fueled the need to file the lawsuit, I say the restrictions are legal fictions. They look legit, but back to my previous quip: they are a ride with a V12 badge on the side but a Volt e-engine. If these were ironclad and locked down, why wouldn't they have handed them over pronto? I could be 100% wrong, but if that were the case, this tap dancing pee-pee dance wouldn't have been necessary. The TCC has given them more time to figure out how they're gonna spin, sell and keep the Fred & Ginger show on the road... (One more encoded wink to the old guys.)

I guess there's something to be said for consistency. Well, it may be misapplied here.

Per the statement from the TCC, I believe the answer is an emphatic, "No!" If an artificial structure was used to restrict the property in question, it is the same sort of thing that's been going on with transferring real property and liquid assets to trusts, as called out over the summer. You know I am on the "side" of claimants, though not seeking the demise of Scouting, but this sort of stuff was bound to bite back and damage the entire process. The transfers are particularly obvious and onerous, smack in the middle of the reorganization and in the nick of time before the mediation/negotiations started. All this went on in front of God, country and the judge, not to mention the TCC and claimants. It not only looks terrible, but makes us suspicious and mindful that games are being played for the obvious purpose of hiding asset, regardless the reasons given. Ack. Posted by MYCVAStory, I believe: The plan seeks to force abuse survivors to release the Boy Scouts Local Councils even though not a single local council has filed its own bankruptcy. Throughout the BSA bankruptcy case, the TCC, as a fiduciary for all abuse survivors, has sought complete disclosure of the local councils’ assets and liabilities to ensure they provide, as they must, adequate compensation in exchange for release of the sexual abuse they are trying to avoid. “Getting information from the local councils has been an uphill fight” observed Douglas Kennedy, co-chair of the TCC, adding “they want to force us to release the local councils but have not provided the financial transparency that is necessary for survivors to make an informed decision on whether to release the local councils where the majority of the abuse occurred.”

Exactly. Thanks for this.

Not being an NGO attorney, but having been an Executive Director of one and an associate pastor of another, this is a sticky wicket of issues and mechanisms. For this purpose and often with this type of thing, it's by way of a restricted deed or reversionary clause, though the latter may negate the gift as tax deductible. Not my area, to restate. Maybe another member is better educated in this. One thing that muddles the area of earmarking and directing funds is there are "advised" donations and "restricted." Back when, we used to call the former "allocated" donations. This may help with these two categories: Donors advising on the use of their donation sounds relatively the same as donors restricting the use of their donation, doesn’t it? These are actually very different concepts. Donor advised funds are separately identified accounts that are maintained by a public charity. After the donor makes an unrestricted donation to the donor advised fund/account, the charity has legal control over it. However, an arrangement or agreement has been made between the charity and the donor, where the donor retains advisory privileges on how those funds should be used throughout the existence of that separate account. A donor advised fund tends to be more of a long lived account that receives donations and from which disbursements are periodically made. Even though the donor can advise on the use of the funds, the charity still has the ultimate authority on the use, with the responsibility of ensuring that the use meets the tax exempt mission of the charity. Donor advised funds are carefully watched by the IRS due to past abuse with these funds where the donor essentially has control over the use of the funds, and then uses those funds in a way that results in an economic personal benefit to the donor, while the donor still receives a tax deduction. A charity can actually lose its tax exempt status if an individual uses the charity in some way in order to attain a personal benefit. A restricted donation relates to a specific donation, rather than relating to a separate account set up specifically relating to one individual donor’s donations. A donor places either a time or purpose restriction on one specific donation, which is received by the charity and usually pooled into the general operating or investment accounts of the organization. The charity has the responsibility to use the donation in accordance with the donor’s wishes, but after the donor makes the donation, the donor generally does not have any further involvement and does not have any ongoing advisory privileges. There is sometimes a misconception that a restricted donation can be made to a tax exempt entity, with the donor-restricted purpose naming an individual to benefit from the donation. Under IRS rules, no tax deduction is allowed if there is a direct personal benefit to the donor or any other person. Also, as mentioned above, a tax exempt entity is at risk of losing its tax exempt status if a personal benefit transaction occurs. For example, if a charity has a scholarship program, there should be an unbiased selection process as well as a conflict of interest policy to prevent personal benefit transactions from occurring. https://www.hhcpa.com/blogs/non-profit-accounting-services/what-is-the-difference-between-donor-advised-funds-and-restricted-donations/

This may help explain restrictions, at least a bit. I don't understand the history and structure of the entity created to hold the property or the deal with the note. It goes to the argument for and against it being restricted and assume it is at the center of the push/pull between the BSA and TCC. On the creation of the entity and note, I'm wondering if both were a strategic mechanism to distance the BSA from imposing the restriction on their own, through a legal structure that looks like the "donor" imposed the restriction. Again, I am shooting in the dark... Generally, funds are ‘restricted” when a donor places restrictions on their use. Typically, there are two types of restrictions—permanent or temporary. Permanently restricted funds are those for which the donor says the recipient must retain the assets permanently but may spend some or all of the income for specified purposes. The Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act, adopted in some form in all states except Pennsylvania as the successor to the Uniform Management of Institutional Funds Act, has separate rules for handling this type of funds, which it calls “endowment.” (See Ready Reference Pages: “UMIFA Sets Rules for Charitable Endowments” and “New UPMIFA Sets Rules for Management of Charitable Funds.”) Temporarily restricted funds are those for which the donor says they must be used only for a specific purpose or after a certain period of time. The income from permanently restricted funds will be considered temporarily restricted if the donor requires that it be used for certain purposes. Your question implies that the funds solicited at the event will be temporarily restricted for a certain purpose. The key to restriction is that it must be donor-placed. Boards, acting alone, cannot normally create legally enforceable restrictions. If, however, a charity solicits funds for a specific purpose, it is generally believed that gifts made for that purpose become restricted for that purpose because the donor, by contributing for the purpose, has adopted the restriction. Most charitable solicitation registration laws (and other state consumer protection laws) require a charity to use funds for the purpose for which they are solicited. That is one reason why solicitations ought to include broad charitable use language as well as specific intent. If you get more than you can use, or if the project changes, you can still use the funds for general charitable purposes. https://www.nonprofitissues.com/to-the-point/what-court-cases-or-irs-rulings-if-any-define-restricted-funds

This may seem odd for an attorney to say, but I can count on one hand (hyperbole) the number of docket notices I've seen that don't contain at least one "Monthly Application for Fee Application and Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses." It's staggering. If I recall correctly, several are in the $1500 per hour range. (I am retired and never saw that kind of money, whatever that may mean or not.)

I immediately noted that the word "all" has been deleted from the reiteration of the first prong of the two-part goal: "Our Scouting Movement—the national organization and local councils alike—has a moral responsibility to compensate victims of past abuse and to continue Scouting’s mission. We understand the gravity of meeting these imperatives, and we are taking the necessary steps to get there."

I know. Truth hurts, right? I errantly left off the plural 's' on guy. We can't be the only ones...

Yeah. That's a clearer and better defined way to say it, but what I was trying to say by "defer and let the fight happen down the road."

Although not overtly stated, the Ad Hoc Committee statement seems to indicate they believe it demonstrates real "progress is being made" and all their hard work is paying off. I guess they go behind Door #4 where Carol Merrill is standing. (A familiar reference for the other old guy.)

That is correct. The Coalition and Abused In Scouting attorneys, with others chiming in, argued there is no precedent for the court to grant this kind of motion. Insurers countered with, "unless there are unusual/extraordinary circumstances," which they and others believe to be the case. (I tend to agree, given the exponential curve in the number of claims and all the shady business that drove it.) The judge has not been thrilled with them, having "defied" her admonition against, "seeing 100's of claims signed by an attorney." Many of them did that and more. It's possible, just like on her ruling that they could sign on behalf of clients, though she warned against it because they could be called as "fact witnesses," she may feel constrained to grant it or defer and let the fight happen down the road. Many hope she finds the will and a way to grant it now.

I don't necessarily, in fact literally, mean publicly. It would be beneficial even to have strategic input on things like the properties, for example. That said, in monitoring press from various local outlets, politicians, business and community leaders continue to be involved in and advocate for their constituent BSA entities. I haven't seen this wane in those specific markets. This may amount to a group of anomalies, but I assumed it was not. I have no idea if it is completely isolated and unique, I admit.

Day Late-Dollar Short is my very long middle name.

I wouldn't necessarily trust the "government" to do it correctly, but the BSA may have missed a perfect opportunity to help the internal crisis, as well as advance the cause of protecting children generally. I do understand why it didn't happen, including protecting the brand/reputation, participation, funding and all.

I'm on the outside looking in, but as an attorney, former high achieving Scout and abuse victim, I would long ago have added several solid men who were abused as Scouts to advise on the Youth Protection Program. If you're serious about rooting out fraud and data breaches - for an apples to oranges example - government agencies and private companies have hired expert fraudsters and hackers. I certainly wouldn't hire sexual predators, but many of us could add tremendous insight into how to craft and implement protection measures, not to mention speak to leaders about what this looks like in real life. Some, like me, have experienced other sorts of abuse, like physical and emotional, as well. All of that could add to the clear picture of what should be being taught and implemented in YPT. I would be involved in such a program in a minute.

I don't know the detail or if there is anything substantive involved, but doesn't National present an annual report to Congress on the state of Scouting? (I've often wondered why/how the matter of the abuse has been avoided in that discussion, but that's another point.) Does Scouting have a champion or sponsor in Congress or someone with whom it has a liaison relationship? It seems like there are great options to explore and discuss, if there are such relationships. Scouting has man people in high places and I would think these discussions could be had. That said, I understand no one was wanting/expecting to be in the position of considering "alternatives" for HA and other key properties. Just wondering out loud. In 2016 for example, 10 US Senators were Eagle Scouts.

I couldn't afford Philmont when I was in Scouting. It would be a joy to experience it before I croak.

To reinforce, what the insurers are hoping to do now is find pockets of invalidity, like duplicates, obvious fraud, complete lack of identifying information or 100's of claims signed by an attorney that look to have come off a copier, so they can lop off a chunk with a sickle right quick. The actual examination of claims to assess legitimacy and gauge severity, which feed into the metric of valuation, is the long process CynicalScouter mentions as belonging to the Settlement Trustee. Maybe that helps.

There will almost certainly be a phase of lump sum "walkaway money" offered to claimants who just want to get something and be done with it. I don't know how that will work or how values will be calculated, but believe it will be deployed here as it has been in other cases. This will allow a reduction in the numbers, but how much and to what effect on the overall process, who knows. Not me, for sure.

I know some are unable to access WSJ articles. If it is of any help, attached is a good one briefly summarizing some of the key points raised in the insurers' discovery motion mentioned above. Apologies if I am duplicating what someone else already provided. Coalition WSJ 1.25.2021 PDF.pdf

Which is wise. I feel iffy about questioning claims, too. Having managed a class action case on an unrelated matter, witnessing the meteoric rise in claims, the public presentations and representations by the "firms," and then reading how this all came to be, how can one not question? By the by, the case I refer to certified its class based on contacts made with potential members via historic records. The class was not built by gill-netting prospects through advertising or claims aggregators.

That is the case here. The link below will take you to the insurers' Rule 2004 Discovery Motion. You can scroll to page 7 on the docket file, page 1 of the motion, and begin reading from there. Of course, this is what the insurers "allege" and the respondent groups deny many elements, especially the negative characterization. Several great news stories were written related to this internal battle, as well. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870566_1975.pdf