SNEScouter

I'd be a little surprised if councils just "waited until people forgot" to then sell land with transfer restrictions. Buyers and their title insurers generally make sure they are getting good title before paying real money for land. But it is common for councils to try and transfer such land and, if necessary, to seek court approval under what is known as the "cy pres" doctrine. I've run into that on several occasions. People tend to donate small, low-value parcels to councils and impose transfer restrictions on them. It becomes a burden rather than a benefit, so it often makes sense to g

I disagree. Every council is different, and I'm sure all councils can do better. However, council employees are necessary to train leaders, implement programs, and supervise and support units. They do not work for free. Personally I'd rather pay a fee than deal with Friends of Scouting presentations.

This is happening more and more. Councils are moving towards a user-fee model because Friends of Scouting / other fundraising isn't pulling in the dollars that are needed.

Full press release from BSA on emergence from bankruptcy, including hiring of Mr. Pounder as YP executive: https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/press-releases/the-boy-scouts-of-america-bsa-announces-confirmation-of-plan-of-reorganization-and-emergence-from-chapter-11-bankruptcy-to-equitably-compensate-survivors-while-ensuring-scouting-continues-across-the/

BSA filed a Notice of the Effective Date in the bankruptcy court. It is over. BSA has emerged from bankruptcy. The Settlement Trust can begin its work. Edit to include link to notice: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/5bdd7d51-2fcc-451e-8ed1-4ac76fc4341e_11119.pdf

Lots of movement in the District and Circuit Courts today. First, Judge Andrews denied the stay motions. In the Third Circuit, stay motions were filed by the Lujan & D&V claimants, and the Certain Insurers. BSA & plan supporters filed opposition briefs almost immediately. Later in the day, a single judge of the Third Circuit entered a temporary stay “… for the sole purpose of allowing the Court an opportunity to review the requests for a stay pending appeal. Nothing herein constitutes a ruling about the merits or a need for more than a temporary stay.” Now we w

It is not clear to me whether the plan will "go effective" on Wed. 4/12 if a request for a stay is pending to the Third Circuit but has not been ruled upon. I thought David Moulton suggested at the Town Hall (but memory may be failing me) that even the mere pendency of a stay request would delay the effective date for a little while, even if no court has actually ordered a stay. That would make sense because by its terms, the plan cannot go effective while a stay request is pending unless all of the plan supporters & settling parties agree. That's in Art. IX.B(1)(c) of the plan (a condit

At the end of the insurer's reply brief, they said something interesting. "Because their appellate rights are at risk, the Certain Insurers respectfully state that, absent a stay, notices of appeal will be filed no later than 12:00 pm ET on Monday, April 10, followed by an expedited stay relief request thereafter in the Third Circuit." Essentially, they are saying that because it is so time sensitive, they can't wait forever for Judge Andrews to rule on the stay requests. Presumably this is headed for the Third Circuit today barring a ruling in the next few minutes/hours. Of course it

For those following along at home, it seems like a good time for a look at Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_8

Omni created a new docket for the appeals here: Consolidated Appeals of Confirmation Order Lengthy scheduling order is here: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e4a87bc5-4d56-40e5-bff6-4bcc044476c2_22.pdf TL;DR on scheduling order - look for briefs from plan opponents by Monday Nov. 7. Response brief of Debtors (and maybe other plan supporters) on Dec. 7. Replies on Dec. 21. Oral argument date TBD.

The allocation of authority between a bankruptcy court and a district court, and the standard of review that applies, are very complicated legal questions in an already-complicated bankruptcy case. Here's a somewhat relevant article co-authored by ... you guessed it.... Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein. https://www.potteranderson.com/newsroom-publications-14.html. This article mostly addresses the situation where a bankruptcy court does not have authority to enter a final order on a particular matter. In that event the bankruptcy judge issues proposed findings of fact and conclusions o

That is all I meant to imply - that the confirmation order is signed. I'll defer to others about where we go from here, but clearly a new phase of the proceedings is before us. Almost time for a new thread....

It's done. Judge Silverstein signed the order moments ago. I'm sure it will hit the Omni website in a few minutes.

Plan confirmation appears imminent. At 4:34 p.m., the Debtors filed a Certification of Counsel containing the proposed confirmation order. I have to assume the judge will sign it shortly. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/30d9864f-e690-4bbf-bafd-5aa47f0aa12e_10310.pdf

Also it was the only matter on the judge’s calendar on a Friday before a 3-day weekend.

The document you want is Exhibit D-2 to the Disclosure Statement. The Solicitation version (Docket No. 6445) is linked here: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/da60d7ce-df85-45e9-9737-4dd1a5d50014_6445.pdf Relevant section starts on Page 353.

Yes, that's all they can argue. For bankruptcy purposes, it technically remains an active claim (albeit disputed) because in theory GSA can appeal, have it sent back to district court for trial, & eventually win. But I wouldn't expect Judge Silverstein to spend much time on the GSA objection to plan confirmation.

To recap, according to the voting report (Docket 8141), Class 7 (Non-Abuse Litigation Claims) had 6 voting claims of which 4 voted to accept the plan and 2 voted against. Presumably the Girl Scouts of America (GSA) was one of the "no" votes. Each claim was estimated for voting purposes at $1.00 and so the class as a whole accepted the plan with exactly 2/3s voting in favor. According to the linked story, GSA will appeal. If so, it may not have much effect on their right to participate in the bankruptcy until appeals are exhausted. GSA can continue to object, although it sure does see

Anyone watching the confirmation trial ... have they said anything about scheduling? Do they expect to wrap up testimony any time soon?

Similar to the TCC but instead of survivors, this committee represents other miscellaneous / trade creditors with claims against BSA. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/804598_141.pdf

I attended the World Scout Jamboree in 2019. I got a very small glimpse of what Scouting is like in other countries. Based on those observations, I’d suggest two areas of improvement: 1) Reduce barriers to entry. As discussed elsewhere, with registration fees are going up. There probably is not much we can do about that, but do Cub Scouts really need to spend so money on uniforms? A t-shirt and jeans/shorts are enough. 2) Other countries have very active Scouting programs for 18-25 year olds, and they leverage those 18-25 y/os to provide leadership to the younger Scouts. Colleg

It appears that the Form Council Letter of Intent was intnended to be included for reference purposes. However, it may have been at the top of a 20-page stack of documents, when it really was intended to be an exhibit at the bottom of the pile. When the LOI is the first thing that the CO reads, it is easy for that CO to conclude that someone is asking them to contribute assets, when that isn't the case. If your CO gets this package, they should just focus on the FAQ document first.

I just saw the package that was mailed to Charter Orgs. It included an FAQ document, Notice of Confirmation Hearing, and a sample Form Of Letter of Intent from Councils in which the Councils commit to contributing to the Settlement Trust. That Form LOI (which as I recall is in the approved Disclosure Statement) also calls for Councils to disclose real estate assets, etc., relating to the real estate portion of the Council contributions. My sense is that the documents might have been put into envelopes out of order, leading to some confusion.