Muttsy

I’m wondering if the TCC approach requires 2/3rds. It is a consensual plan for those who consent. The non-participating entities don’t get released. I think it gives the trustee much more leverage. It puts some money in survivors’ pockets now and preserves the prospect of much larger insurance contributions down the road. 

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Outline of the proposed TCC plan (quotations from https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/88e3df3e-384a-4c17-8bdd-fa2aaf44875a_6225.pdf)

Every single thing they agreed to in the RSA, they now opposed, right down to the settlement trustee. No Gray 1/2/23. The LC contributions are now too low. The entire settlement trustee system and channeling injunction gets reworked.

Again: this is a complete reputation of the RSA.

What follows are the main points of the TCC plan outline (I converted to numbered points, but otherwise no changes)

1. the TCC Plan does not include a fire-sale settlement with Hartford; instead, the TCC Planwill preserve the Hartford policies so that true value can be realized by survivors
2. the TCC Plan does not include the proposed $600 million settlement with the Local Councils; instead, if the Local Councils want protection from the childhood sexual abuse claims each Local Council will need to make a substantial contribution that is commensurate with the liability that implicates each Local Council
3. the TCC Plan will not provide a release for Chartered Organizations unless each such Chartered Organization makes a substantial contribution that is commensurate with the liability that implicates each Chartered Organization
4. Non-settling insurance carriers will not be insulated by a channeling injunction; instead, the settlement trust, or survivors who have a direct right of action, may sue the non-settling insurance carriers until such carriers have settled with the settlement trust and purchased back their policies in exchange for adequate consideration
5. any global settlement with an insurance carrier, Local Council, Chartered Organization, or any other party seeking a non-consensual third party release and protection by the channeling injunction will need Court approval
6. the TCC Plan includes modified TDPs that allow survivors to pursue and liquidate their claims in the tort system, enabling them to trigger the payment provisions under the applicable insurance policies
7. the settlement trust will be overseen by a disinterested settlement trustee that has experience with sexual abuse.

I like the TCC Plan. A LOT. Quite an about face. It is a much clearer path. I’m sorry it has taken so long to roll out. It could well be a game changer. 

22 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yes, but it is a giant leap from "incorporate in DE because of the bankruptcy court" (which OK, I might buy) to "incorporate in DE because of THIS PARTICULAR JUDGE".

I know federal court clerks, I've worked with and for them when they were but state court clerks and before they went over to the dark side, I mean federal side. The assignment of judges uses a literally bingo spinner or other random name puller.

So, for Kosnoff's konspiracy to work, BSA in 2019

1. Looked up the list of bankruptcy judges in 2019. In Delaware, there were 6 and Silverstein was NOT the chief judge.  https://web.archive.org/web/20190116175550/https://www.deb.uscourts.gov/judges-info-0
2. Having access to a crystal ball, they incorporated in Delaware knowing that their 1 in 6 chance to get Silverstein in a random draw in 2020 (two judges were added, so the odds went up to 1-in-8) was going to happen because the DE Bankruptcy Clerk was in on the conspiracy (konspiracy) as well.

Ok then.

 

I think the point of his Tweet is that DE is in the Third Federal Circuit which recognizes third party releases. TEXAS is the Fifth Circuit which does NOT. They used their DE shell corp to get it into the 3rd Circuit. We’ll see what she does here but she has a record not substantially different from Judge Drain. Maybe BSA just got lucky at the roulette wheel when it landed on green. 

Please tell us what assets and separate insurance coverage exists for the Methodists, Catholic dioceses, LDS and or the 56000 other chartering organizations. 
 

Until then, what you say is unsubstantiated hooey. 

4 minutes ago, Muttsy said:

In his defense, I saw and heard things that sounded very much like the RSA/4.0 framework was a done deal. 

The Trust Distribution aspects were affirmed by Lucas and Stang with certitude. 
 

Will I get a vote? Yes

Will I get less if I was abused in a state with a bad statute? Yes

How much less will I get? There are tiers depending on how bad the statute is in you abuse state  

Lots of talk about the 3500 dollar benefits and how quickly those men could get the cash to pay their bills  

The body language was telling as was the gratuitous comments by Chambers and Kennedy.  Paraphrasing …Money isn’t everything, ya know, and wait until you see the non-monetary conditions and safeguards that will be put in place.

She’s a real cream puff AND we will throw in a pair of floor mats.

Personally I’ve seen this movie before.

They are trying to goose up the Hartford settlement a little and get Century to pay some. Some charters will kick in but the remaining assets and insurance coverage not only BSA but all the separate coverage owned by the CO’s will get a pass in exchange for complete immunity.

It will make even the Sacklers blush  

 

The one positive when 5.0 is announced is that all the RSA promoters and their fellow travelers won’t be able to proclaim that “sure you’lll get pennies now but they’ll be gazillions in insurance later.” 
 

Because there won’t be. You’ll maybe get 20k before attorneys fees and that’s it. 

Best we could do. Take it or leave it. 

In his defense, I saw and heard things that sounded very much like the RSA/4.0 framework was a done deal. 

The Trust Distribution aspects were affirmed by Lucas and Stang with certitude. 
 

Will I get a vote? Yes

Will I get less if I was abused in a state with a bad statute? Yes

How much less will I get? There are tiers depending on how bad the statute is in you abuse state  

Lots of talk about the 3500 dollar benefits and how quickly those men could get the cash to pay their bills  

The body language was telling as was the gratuitous comments by Chambers and Kennedy.  Paraphrasing …Money isn’t everything, ya know, and wait until you see the non-monetary conditions and safeguards that will be put in place.

She’s a real cream puff AND we will throw in a pair of floor mats.

Personally I’ve seen this movie before.

They are trying to goose up the Hartford settlement a little and get Century to pay some. Some charters will kick in but the remaining assets and insurance coverage not only BSA but all the separate coverage owned by the CO’s will get a pass in exchange for complete immunity.

It will make even the Sacklers blush  

I guess relevant to me. I care what people really think when they are asked the hard question. The rest is just noise and banter “sound and fury signifying nothing.”

9 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

 

Then the judge will have a choice: order a cramdown (I know, I know, never happened before in a sexual abuse related bankruptcy) or let BSA die.

I don’t know. I really don’t know. 
This may be an inappropriate request to the moderators but here goes. 
 

This forum embodies a wide spectrum of views, which is its strength. It shares a shallow or deep or middling attachment to BSA as a company from persisting. Accept that with or without BSA, scouting will go on, and perhaps thrive or not. I don’t know. 
 

So, moderators, I request a straw poll be done here, on Plan 4.0. I want to know whether this forum continues to be relevant to anyone. 

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

This has come up in the past and I know it is part of Kosnoff's big plan/idea.

In short, it is NOT clear that can happen, for a host of reasons.

The BSA Charter and Bylaws theoretically require that all LCs include in their local articles of incorporation a statement that, on dissolution of the council, assets revert to national. HOWEVER, I've been made aware of at least two dozen councils that have simply refused to put that language in. Moreover, a host of state not-for-profit laws make it clear that such a move would and could be contested in state court as an unlawful transfer of charity or not-for-profit assets. Finally, even absent these two, I am sure that if BSA National make such an attempt they might get away with it with smaller councils but larger ones with bigger war chests would fight it tooth and claw.

I don’t understand why LC’s assets are off limits to BSA. In every charter I’ve read it states that BSA has the absolute right to terminate a charter. For any reason or no reason.  The transfer of assets from one charitable org to another pursuant to a contract does not appear to be an unlawful transfer. It appears to be a lawful transfer. 
 

Second, BSA owns all the IP rights. LC’s could be enjoined by a state court if they use BSA’s name, insignias, everything. 
 

Third, under the Congressional Charter the local councils existence deriveS directly from BSA. 
 

Fourth, there is overwhelming evidence that the LC’s are alter egos of BSA based on the degree of control and financial interconnectedness. 
 

it was a mistake not to have pursued substantive consolidation. If it had happened the whole problem of third party releases (the Sackler victim screw over issue) and the 2/3rd voting required could have been avoided. But BSA and the LC’s didn’t want the TCC digging that deep in to LC assets. Instead the TCC had use guesswork to come up with an approximation of LC asset values. 
 

So here we are. No releases for LC’s or CO’s and a BSA National that probably cannot meet the financial viability test to get a BSA only plan confirmed.  
 

Finally, the level of mistrust and rancor generated by BSA’s machinations throughout the case have poisoned the well that ardent supporters of BSA have become disillusioned.  

56 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Then the judge bypasses a second vote and simply orders BSA only bankruptcy discharge. You could argue that’s a cram down. You can also argue it’s not a cram down since victims/claimants did NOT reject a BSA only plan, just the BSA/LC/CO plan.

Technically you could be right. But what then for BSA? She has to find the BSA only discharge leaves it with what financially to start over? No cash, the bases and a donor base spigot it could turn on. It could close LC’s or merge them and grab their assets. Then it could quickly file another Ch 11 to discharge any other liabilities it carries out of Ch 11 1.0. 
 

Not sure how it operates without chartering orgs. I’m sure they have a plan for that.

Or maybe the mountain of blunders, bad legal advice and rank incompetence make the situation not resolvable.

I’m just not seeing the path, just the Road to Perdition  

14 hours ago, yknot said:

Thanks. There was a period of time where my council said it was doing criminal background checks but didn't do them. They believed anyone with a problem would balk at signing the waiver and they would self screen, so why spend the money. 

There is a significant pile of further anecdotal evidence mounting in this forum that demonstrates how child molesters could so easily enter scouting, undetected and unvetted, even during the early days of YP. Anyone remember the 3Rs program? 
 

The reality of a criminal background check, while itself inadequate, is nonetheless an important “barrier to entry.”

The BSA had the audacity to testify to Congress that in addition to the administrative burdens, and checking about prior convictions or accusations would also deter adults from volunteering. BSA understood exactly what it was doing. It wasn’t interested in excluding ANYBODY except gays and atheists. 

19 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

My recollection is that there was huge BSA membership fraud. Way back to A. G. Barber's day.

The United States Postal Marshalls raided Circle Ten's offices seeking membership records, and the Atlanta Council, I believe, agreed to strike somewhere around 14,000 names from its membership role.  Mames aybe c. 2000±?

Whichever council it was, struck more names than registered in my council.

A huge scandal.

And BSA gets a "pass."

"Well, anyone can make a mistake."

The day of BSA getting a "pass" has passed.

There have been multiple BSA membership fraud scandals. There was one in the early 2000’s. The FBI opened an investigation.  It ended with some kind of consent decree with BSA that they wouldn’t do it again. The fraud is connected to the fact that large charities like United Way make donations in relation to the number of people, here scouts, actually serve. 
 

BSA fought criminal background checks until around 2006. In the 1990’s BSA testified before Congresss that it should not be required to do them because of the administrative burden despite the fact that the FBI did not charge not for profits to do them. 
 

Note: This is in the epilogue to Boyle’s book Scouts Honor. 

Of course you should volunteer. As a volunteer I believe you are or were an additional insured on BSA’s policies. If you are volunteering for any group you should be covered on it’s policies or it should be a deal-breaker for you. 

5 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I’m not sure what you’re referring to I do recall that during the May hearing the judge brought up the point that the individual current scouts have an interest in seeing scouting survive that is separate and independent and needs to be considered. I interpret her comments not as being “enamored” with BSA but as is recognizing that there are hundreds of thousands of scouts in the United States it could potential see their program collapse and that those current children have to be a factor as well as the victims.

As for “overwhelming objection”: there is a vast vast difference between 60% of victims voting no (which would be an “overwhelming objection”) and 60% of victims voting yes BUT the plan failing for lack of 66%

Fair points. But to be clear I don’t see this being a plan encompassing LC’s. With a Toggle plan or the TCC’s yet to be unveiled Toggle plus plan, a simple majority is all that’s needed. But even that assumes she would ever approve a plan that doesn’t meet the “best interests of the creditors test which means the Crown Jewels of some of them would need to be sold. 

43 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

As I said before: he's loud. He's the "public face". But the idea that parents of scouts know who he is? Nope.

Trump tweeted his way to the Presidency. What matters is how he advises the AIS law firms’ 16000+ clients about the present or future Plan. As it stands now, does he really need to be very persuasive? Take 3k now before attorneys fees and we can’t say whether the insurance carriers have any money or ability to pay anything close to a reasonable settlement despite their massive exposure. Century may have little or nothing; Hartford’s obligation is ratcheted to a Century 1.3B payment, which it probably doesn’t have.  And Chubb who owns Century has no obligation to infuse it with more cash as per the 1996/99 transactions the details of which are in a black box that judge says must stay there. And then the installment of a valuation special master to determine claim values binding on the carriers is a road to years of appellate litigation. 
 

There are many other law firms that will recommend a no vote. Who knows where the TCC and 2/3rds of AIS will stand when it gets down to it? 
 

Kosnoff doesn’t need to be influential or Twitter-powerful.  Most survivors know how to count. 
 

If BSA escapes with a cram down, how much will it escape with? How viable is a Reorganized BSA without its COs and LCs, most of whom will probably just fold their tents. Some will file Ch 11’s.

Is the judge still so enamored of the BSA that she would cram down over the overwhelming rejection of the survivors? She seemed different at last Monday’s hearing  I sensed she was disgusted at how badly BSA played it’s hand in this bankruptcy. And she is borderline hostile to the Coalition who have only been “constructive” in terms of larding their own pantry  

Wow! You guys are true blue. You buy insurance coverage for yourselves just to volunteer to serve?  Are your wives on board with it? If I was your best friend I’d take you out for a beer and a heart to heart. 

My point is that if your church gets sued under a “should have known of the hazardous potential” theory or any theory, your church has already lost. It’s lost money for lawyers. To even get to a summary judgment dismissal stage, it has endured discovery and motions practice - easily 100k in defense costs depending on prevailing law firm billing rates. 
 

it’s also suffered reputational damage in the community. A single lawsuit could crush a small church or civic organization. 

22 minutes ago, skeptic said:

If the church or school does not offer the "place", the predator will find one if possible, as it is their nature and no manner of barriers will stop them all. 

Barriers to entry do work and are the most effective. Your argument seems illogical. If YP actually works as a barrier to entry, then logically the perpetrator will go elsewhere. 
 

Sex crimes laws on the state and federal level have gotten much tougher over the past thirty years. To your point, the pedophiles have gone elsewhere and in the process created a huge offshore child sex tourism industry to places like Thailand, Romania and Mexico to name a few. 

All I’m saying is that they could still get sued and possibly held liable depending on the facts. The cost of defense could be prohibitive. 
 

I also question whether BSA could obtain insurance that does not contain an exclusion for sexual abuse which has been standard since beginning in the late 1980’s.  If it could it would probably require a huge deductible. 
 

Hey Skeptic, don’t shoot the messenger because you don’t like the message.  

Very illuminating post. Thank you. 
 

Something I don’t understand is why any COs believe that a facilities use agreement will protect them. Landlords/lessors can be held liable if the sexual assault happened on church property under a variety of theories. Many of the fact patterns in the IV files occurred at meetings in the church, school, Kiwanis basements. It wasn’t the chartering agreement that established their liability, it was the facts.  

You can’t let crimes be committed on your property, when you knew or should have known they could occur. You must do something. To do nothing is unreasonable. I suspect these CO’s will have difficulty getting their own liability insurance once they disclose on the renewal application that it is hosting a scout troop. 
 

And assuming the FUA has an indemnity provision requiring BSA to indemnify, what’s the value of that now? Fool me once…

11 hours ago, Muttsy said:

It is a good omen for the future of scouting that people on this forum are starting that process of reimagining scouting. 

Not endorsing TrailLifeUSA. Just observing that alternatives are popping up. https://www.traillifeusa.com/
 

70% growth in past 12 months. 

49 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

We have never, ever, had a Congressionally Chartered org go into Chapter 7.

To my knowledge this is true. There have been numerous Congressional Charters issues to various civic and patriotic groups over the past century. 
 

The Congressional Charter to BSA granted it IP rights. Other perks to BSA are also littered throughout the US Code.  IF BSA liquidates in a Ch 7, I think the Charter becomes a legal nullify and it has no IP protection. It is a valuable asset which the Ch 7 liquidation trustee would have to decide how, if possible, to monetize it for the trust. But Congress would have to sign off on any transfer of the IP rights to a new scouting entity. If nothing was done then I suppose any group could use it with a lot of ensuing confusion amongst the scouting public. If there is no BSA to enforce it, then I don’t know. Perhaps the best thing would be to retire the name, let new scouting orgs emerge and see which ones do the best job of rebuilding the movement. That was the state of scouting prior to 1913. The idea of nationalizing scouting back then was to ensure high standards and uniformity. Maybe granting a single scouting organization the BSA that monopoly power was not the best idea as things turned out. I believe there is great potential in a movement that has the autonomy to reimagine how scouting should be run. The BSA mutated in to a top down autocratic bureaucratic monster that placed the interests of the executives and the commercialization of scouting above scouts and scouting itself. 
 

It is a good omen for the future of scouting that people on this forum are starting that process of reimagining scouting. 

I think it’s been said the coalition has about 5000 claimants total of various firms who signed consents to be represented as a whole not as individuals by Brown Rudnick.
 

The judge said earlier that attorneys would not be allowed to vote their clients’ ballots without express written authority. Is anybody here a Coalition member? If so, were you asked to sign a proxy to have your lawyer vote your ballot? 
 

i don’t understand why these Coalition lawyers statements to the media that they represent 70 000 men means they control their votes. I don’t think they actually have much if any client control. It’s misleading and the brainless MSM report it has real. 

Did you read the joint AIS 2019? It couldn’t be clearer. His firm DOES represent those clients. So do AVA and Eisenberg.  Jointly. 

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Kosnoff Law represents 15,103 Abuse Victims. Of that group, 3,054 are also members of the Coalition.

All three firms jointly represent 15,103 clients. They are all correct. 
 

Their clients will vote their own ballots after receiving the perspectives of the three law firms that represent them.  The question is who will make the most sense to their collective clients about the pros and cons of a plan that it is presented to them. That’s what happens in joint representation. 
 

Presidents have advisors and cabinet secretaries who strongly sometimes violently disagree with each other. They make their respective cases to the President and he decides. Same thing here. Not mysterious. Client decides.