Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by SNEScouter

  1. 7 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

    I have heard anecdotes from Scouters across the country relating instances where councils have sold properties under such restrictions, after waiting a few decades until people forget or donors have passed away, but I have never seen such restrictions in writing on a deed in order to verify those claims. 

    Can anyone here provide concrete examples of that practice?

    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 get rid of the land via sale or donation to a land trust, for example.

    • Thanks 2
  2. 3 minutes ago, curious_scouter said:

    They bring no value to units or Scouts/Scouters. 

    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.

    • Haha 2
  3. 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 wait for the Third Circuit to rule on the stay requests in the coming days (weeks?).  If stay motions are denied, expect the plan to go effective & BSA to emerge from Chapter 11 shortly after.


    • Thanks 2
    • Upvote 2
  4. 23 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

    Based on the townhall, it seems like the 1st option above is very unlikely.  There seemed to be a bit of hedging if a temporary stay would be granted ... so there could be a week or two delay in plan effective date. I don't think that would be a shock based on the townhall.

    The big unknown and perhaps big shock would be if the if the appeals court issues a stay until they rule.  If that occurs, we could be looking at a long delay (for example, it has been over a year waiting on the appeal ruling of Purdue Pharma).  Plan goes effective Wednesday if no action is taken.

    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 condition precedent to the effective date is that "no request for a stay of the occurrence of the Effective Date shall be pending").  All of the relevant parties would have to agree for the plan to "go effective" while a stay request is pending and that includes includes Hartford, Century, JP Morgan, etc.

    In other words, the effective date will likely be delayed until the Third Circuit denies all stay requests, assuming that are eventually denied.  Of course, if it grants a stay (or if the District Court does), then the effective date will be delayed for a long time.

  5. On 4/7/2023 at 8:23 PM, Eagle1993 said:

    Now we wait.  If the District court denies a stay we are down to the appeals court ordering a stay pending their review.  If they don't issue a stay, the plan becomes effective April 12th.  Then, the TCC disappears, the appeal will continue but likely be moot and the trust ramps up big time.  Post bankrupt BSA would emerge and who knows what is on the other side...

    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's anyone's guess how quickly the Third Circuit will act.....

    • Upvote 1
  6. 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 of law for the district court to consider and adopt after de novo review.  To the best of my knowledge, that's not what happened here, as Judge Silverstein ultimately found that she had authority to enter the confirmation order in its final form, which was then appealed to District Court.  Still it's a useful read.


    • Upvote 3
  7. 58 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

    On one of these Chapter 11 Threads, there is a link to a court document that lists 2 to 3 appraisal prices, if memory serves.

    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.

    • Thanks 1
  8. 1 minute ago, Eagle1993 said:

    What claim do they now have?  A potential claim IF they win in appeals and then IF that appeal goes back to district and then IF they win there.  

    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.


    • Upvote 1
  9. 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 seem like a waste of money at this point.  Moreover,  as a practical matter, the loss in the trial court could cause Judge Silverstein to give less weight to GSA objections to the plan, if only tacitly. 

    GSA objected to being placed in Class 7 with wrongful death / tort / other miscellaneous litigation claims.  BSA can now point to the recent judgment, state that GSA's claim is worth zero, and argue "who cares" about classification of a zero dollar claim.

  10. 5 hours ago, ThenNow said:

    Question for Scouters: If you made a list of the top 5 things National needs to do to implement transformational change, what would be on it? No need to include elements of YPT. 

    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.  Colleges have Scouting orgs within them that help maintain the connection to Scouting.  BSA could benefit from this.

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 2
  11. Just now, ThenNow said:

    Thanks for this.

    Do you mean put into envelopes “in error” or “incorrectly,” such that COs are getting what was intended to go to the LC? Regardless, this leads me to believe something must be going to the COs at some point. Am I misunderstanding? Again, I’m trying to figure out where/how my CO might be engaged or not. Thanks.

    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.

  12. 17 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

    Apparently charter organizations are being mailed something by the BSA asking for donations to the survivors fund.  This was mentioned before, but now more and more updates are coming confirming something was mailed out.

    Some charter orgs seem to be confused as they are sending it to the unit (Pack/Troop).

    Some have indicated it is asking about Charter Org, Troop/Pack assets.  I'll post more info if anyone actual scans in what is being sent.

    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.  

    • Thanks 1
  • Create New...