ThenNow

39 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Both. It is both core and it is restricted.

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

16 minutes ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

(at $1000/hour for many of them, of course)

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.)

4 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

https://scoutingwire.org/an-important-milestone-in-the-bsas-chapter-11-case/

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."

7 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Ouch.

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

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I also wonder if the court will kick the can down the road: sure there may have been shady claims, but we'll leave it for the Fund Trustee to figure this mess out?

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."

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Abbreviated version:

1. We insurers hate it.
2. The abuse claimants (or at least their lawyers) hate it.
3. General public hates it.
4. The only parties that appear to like it are JPMorgan Chase and BSA and we really don't care if JPMorgan Chase likes it or not because they are not a "significant" party to the case.

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.)

21 minutes ago, swilliams said:

So that sounds like a 'no' to my question.  Having followed a couple court cases on other issues (as best I can without any real legal knowledge), I'm aware that court proceedings are never quick.  Are there other issues standing in the way of the insurer's motion being denied or granted?

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.

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

As for champions in Congress, think optics. Right now, all the public knows is 95,000 sexual abuse claims against BSA. No one is going to rush in to be BSA's salvation or to try and protect BSA assets (which will then almost certainly be spun as BSA and the bad politician trying to deprive sexual abuse victims of what is due to them).

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.

2 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

The BSA has engaged the nation's foremost experts in child abuse, experts from law enforcement, attorneys, and victims of abuse to develop and inform the new Youth Protection program that has dramatically decreased abuse.

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

1 minute ago, ParkMan said:

Seems to me that it would be in the interest to the US to take this category of organizations and give it additional oversight.  I think we all would welcome an inspector general as well to oversee the operation and youth protection programs to make sure that they are operating in the best way possible.

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.

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

At this point, BSA is looked upon as a major insurance liability/risk. It just went through a bankruptcy and will wind up costing its insurers at least 1 billion and possibly more in claims.

Any insurance company is going to demand high(er) premiums to cover BSA for at least the near future, if not longer.

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.

20 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

It would be a fascinating idea for the NPS to develop some sort of new youth category - be able to use places like Philmont for their intended purpose under the auspices of the ownership of the NPS.  Expand Philmont and the other main HA bases so that they can be used by any similar youth organization. 

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.

1 minute ago, fred8033 said:

While I love BSA has this property for high adventures, making it available to the nation's youth and young adults as an adventure option is very useful.

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

27 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

So no, the judge won't settle the Abuse Claims. the Settlement Trustee will

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.

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The Trustee and Committee would then spend the next few years (I say decade because it could take that long) going through claim by claim.

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

25 minutes ago, swilliams said:

The last thing anyone needs is a bunch of current scouters seeming to be shrugging away or minimizing the damage that was done.

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. 

14 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

I don't have access, but being business is right. I have heard of hedge funds looking at different cases, such as this one,  and then providing the funds to a law firm (making an investment) with the goal being a true ROR. Seems wrong to me.

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

8 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

Lawyers expressing the goal of litigation as destruction of the defendant(s) would seems to have conflict of interest issues with their clients, unless they have been uniformly instructed by the clients that destruction of the defendant(s), not monetary payment, is their goal. 

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I truly wonder what is going on in the conversations within the claims mining entities who have thousands of claimant clients under their tent. When you have that many, they must be keeping a directed focus. It appears that for some of them, definitely the group headed by he who shall not be named, that focus is "burn it all down" and we'll sort through the rubble and ash for for the good stuff. Personally, I see that direction as against the interest of most claimants. The complexity and implications of converting to a liquidation, with its varied impacts on creditors and classes, asset valuation and distribution, the much discussed reversion of LC properties upon revocation/dissolution of Charter(s), and how to handle these tort claims is beyond my knowledge and pay grade. I will do some research, though.

4 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I'm truly sorry that you felt so hurt by the offer. 

$50,000 for 85,000 claimants is $4.25 billion dollars.  I can't imagine that with 85,000 claimants a settlement that high is even possible.

Thank you. Sincerely.

I do not want to discount any valid claims from others like me, but I deeply question the validity of that many claims flooding in, especially knowing how they were solicited. Having read the discovery motions, the banter and blather from the so-called Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice (which name is so presumptuous and pretentious it makes me ill) and he who shall not be named, I think the number will go down if the judge allows the vehicle to be inspected with the sniffer dogs.

I don't know what the number should be. Ultimately, it will be larger than the BSA and LC portion, since the insurers know they have to contribute to put this to bed and head for the hills, never to write another BSA policy. At this stage, it was simply a matter of what they projected when they made an initial offer, both in the substance of the offer and the manner in which they conveyed it. Neither seemed appropriate to the gravity of the moment, the stage of the case or the amount of time spent in asset review and negotiations.

4 hours ago, ParkMan said:

Why is this a concern for you?

Initially, I thought about it related to the squeeze being put on you guys via reductions in revenue and all. I was hoping, I guess is the word, that it wasn't merely being felt at the street level. I retracted the question as somewhat irrelevant because COVID and otherwise declining revenue are intermingled with the impacts of the Chapter 11, so it's hard to tell which is having an impact on what and whom. Sounds like "hurt" is pretty much widely distributed, by whatever ripples are now in the pond from which rocks one can't say. When a company is going through crisis, laying off workers and freezing salaries, it always galls me when/if there are no such austerity measures being felt in the C-Suite. That's what I was pondering.

Toss in a select group of politicians and several technocratic “experts” and you might just have my vote.

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

Really - the only winners here are lawyers.  Everyone else here loses.  

Have there been salary and bonus freezes for the executives? Other perk and comp reductions? "Sacrifices at all levels," and whatnot. I guess that’s mostly irrelevant, given the magnitude and scale. Never mind...

2 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

I'm don't think $6000 is the right number. Let's say the right number is $1,00,000. What if the BSA doesn't have that? What if they only have $50,000 per legitimate claim?

As I've tried to be, I'm going to be very transparent. When I read the press coverage and looked at the Plan to confirm the $6000, I cried. If it had been $50,000 I would've felt very differently. I would've believed they were taking this seriously. Factor into that the non-commitment commitment of "asking for a voluntary contribution" from the LC's and you have a sucker punch to the gut (or front kick in the elsewheres). As in, "What they hell have the LC's been doing in mediation and negotiations all this time? They've been mucking around in the numbers, data, asset valuations and appraisals for months, and many of these Councils new full well this was coming back in early 2019. They have hundreds of abuse cases teed up against them and not a single one of them is committing anything...at all??"

3 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

What I fear is that regardless of what the BSA offers, the lawyers will continue to call it shameful. 

It is an accurate statement that plaintiffs' attorneys will come out of this with goodly coin and may be the only winners. Yes, they have seen a case pull down $19M and change. Cha-ching. All other beans are small potatoes. I get it. As said above by the trixy odd number wizard, there are layers of players. I am not a plaintiff's attorney. I am my attorney. I am a claimant. I did not want this. No way this is sliced will I make off with the a big fat chunk of the pie.

When I say, the it's "shameful," I am not looking at $500M, in the aggregate, and am not speaking as an attorney. I'm looking at the $6000 and the "I'm sorry" card. I am not looking at $500M as a payout from the sale of my startup. That's YUGE! I am looking at $500M compared to the value of an organization that has - whether on its own books or in conjunction with "franchises" or "affiliates" or "subsidiaries" or whatever - a great deal more assets than that. Everyone who has done any research into the LC's knows it to be true. I'm not talking about whether selling properties detracts from the future experience of Scouts. It does. Are there workarounds? Of course. Will they be as exceptional? Probably not. Will they be equally valuable in the experiential elements that matter. I bet they can be.

So, again, is it right to invite "all victims of past [sexual] abuse in Scouting" to file claims to receive equitable compensation and offer $6000 out of the gate? Regardless the intended negotiation strategy, which no one seems to be able to discern, this was a very bad idea. I haven't heard anyone but the Chair of the AHC, BSA and their attorneys that can say it is with a straight face.

If I had been advising them at the outset, I would have been sure to temper the language of their public statement to at least infer that there could be caveats, limitations or exceptions to the "all victims" call. I don't know if that can be understood without experiencing the impact of the "hope that sprang eternal" when we heard that call. For me, I thought, "This could be my measure of redemption and something to give my family for all they have lost because of me."