Jump to content

Chapter 11 announced


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

One thing I've been puzzling through, and haven't seen a good explanation of is whether or how a universal settlement now prevents currently unknown time barred claims in non look back states from being opened in the future if a state changes its SOL and does a look back period.

If anyone has seen a good explanation please share it.

Part of the bankruptcy notice was that if you have ANY claim against BSA you had until November 2020 to speak up/file your claim. I suspect that would be used as res judicata: you had your chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What is legally right is not always morally right.

I would encourage everyone to not ask @ThenNow to rehash particular circumstances. They can be found by patiently browsing his posts. From what I read, they were far from legal. His claim would have b

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, elitts said:

And while I imagine a judge trying to rope in the LCs would cause even more years of legal fighting, it would be entirely within their purview to order the sale of everything but the trademarks and absolute bare minimum of equipment necessary to keep the offices functioning.

That's my own theory as well. In the end, I don't see BSA holding on to anything other than as a hollowed out shell: liquidation in all but name and allowed to keep on that which Congress specifically granted in the charter: the trademarks, names, and that's it.

I'm going to be real curious, but so far other than JPMorgan Chase, I believe every party to this is going to oppose the plan either because they thing BSA is holding out (the HA bases are going bye-bye folks and the shell game they played with Summit is going to come back on them), the LCs are holding out, or the Kosnoff-types who simply want the watch BSA burn.

One thing that keeps gnawing the back of my head though is the pensions. If everyone screws around enough that BSA really runs out of money/goes into Chapter 7, it is my understanding Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's $1.1 BILLION dollar claim takes primacy over all other claims against BSA and since BSA only has about $1 billion in assets it would mean all other parties are left with $0 to fight over (from BSA, the LCs and insurance companies could still be on the hook for who knows what).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2021 at 10:44 AM, ThenNow said:

2) Continuing with the next verse of, "I heard it through the grapevine," apparently National has until Monday at 4PM ET to satisfy the TCC that they are working on and will produce the requested asset data from the LC's. If that doesn't happen, I'm told, the TCC will formally oppose the BSA's motion to extend the protective injunction shielding the LC's from lawsuits. Joinders to that opposition are expected.

Forgive me if this is duplicative. The TCC and BSA reached an agreement for the production of rosters.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/877749_151.pdf

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I just do not see how BSA is going to get 66% OR a federal judge to "cramdown" against sexual abuse victims/claimants. The optics would be horrific.

USA Gymnastics' bankruptcy judge is (I believe) currently considering a motion on whether to order a cramdown after 99% of claimants REJECTED that organization's Chapter 11 plan.

100% agree.  Note the USA Gymnastics' case was a $250M offer for 500 victims in January 2020.  The judge is pushing back hard against the USA OC and said don't use your insurance companies as a crutch ... dig into your wallet.  See that date ... January 2020 for nearly $500K per victim.  BSA's offer is $6K per victim.  No judge is going to use a cramdown with that low.

 If BSA doesn't simply give up, I expect this to last well into 2022 or 2023.  There is 0% chance this ends this year unless BSA files Chapter 7. 

The big question ... will LC lawsuits be on hold until 2022 or 2023.  I doubt it ... if the judge rules they are separate entities (National & LCs) and doesn't see fast progress to a settlement, its hard to see how she can continue to bar the lawsuits against LCs from proceeding.  There is already pressure to lift the hold now ... I cannot imagine she bars lawsuits beyond this year.

My one, slight fear right now....  The summer camp we use and love is owned by a council that would likely be sued into bankruptcy (just a guess as it is in a populated area in a state with a generous SOL law).  Those are the lawsuits that will really hit our units.  Right now, its just interesting forum discussions and has no impact in my unit operations.  It gets real with LC and/or CO lawsuits.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

One thing I've been puzzling through, and haven't seen a good explanation of is whether or how a universal settlement now prevents currently unknown time barred claims in non look back states from being opened in the future if a state changes its SOL and does a look back period.

If anyone has seen a good explanation please share it.

I think it makes sense vs National as the old National BSA is gone.  Good question about local councils as they technically didn't go bankrupt.  There would be a settlement for the 95,000 claimants ... but if someone wasn't part of the national bankruptcy could they still sue the local council?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Forgive me if this is duplicative. The TCC and BSA reached an agreement for the production of rosters.

Yeah, I still am thinking LCs will continue to play shell games with assets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

but if someone wasn't part of the national bankruptcy could they still sue the local council?

The plan calls for all "protected parties" including National, local councils, even Contributing COs (listed on Exhibit B, right now that is noting more than a blank piece of paper) to be covered from "ALL abuse claims" including "FUTURE Abuse Claims" (emphasis mine).

So, if the abuse occurred prior to February 18, 2020 it is covered by this plan (if approved).

Those terms are defined in pages 5-35 https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/876518_2293.pdf

Protected Parties

Quote

174.“Protected Parties” means the following Persons: (a) the Debtors; (b) Reorganized BSA; (c) the Related Non-Debtor Entities; (d) the Local Councils; (e) the Contributing Chartered Organizations; (f) the Settling Insurance Companies; and (g) all of such Persons’ Representatives; provided, however, that no Perpetrator is or shall be a Protected Party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Contributing Chartered Organization shall be a Protected Party only with respect to Abuse Claims that arose in connection with the Contributing Chartered Organization’s sponsorship of one or more Scouting units.

Abuse

Quote

17.“Abuse” means sexual conduct or misconduct, sexual abuse or molestation, sexual exploitation, indecent assault or battery, rape, pedophilia, ephebophilia, sexually related psychological or emotional harm, humiliation, anguish, shock, sickness, disease, disability, dysfunction, or intimidation, any other sexual misconduct or injury, contacts or interactions of a sexual nature, including the use of photography, video, or digital media, or other physical abuse or bullying or harassment without regard to whether such physical abuse or bullying is of a sexual nature, between a child and an adult, between a child and another child, or between a non-consenting adult and another adult, in each instance without regard to whether such activity involved explicit force, whether such activity involved genital or other physical contact, and whether there is or was any associated physical, psychological, or emotional harm to the child or non-consenting adult.

Abuse Claim

Quote

18.“Abuse Claim” means a liquidated or unliquidated Claim against a Protected Party that is attributable to, arises from, is based upon, relates to, or results from, in whole or in part, directly, indirectly, or derivatively, Abuse that occurred prior to the Petition Date, including any such Claim that seeks monetary damages or other relief, under any theory of law or equity whatsoever, including vicarious liability, respondeat superior, conspiracy, fraud, including fraud in the inducement, any negligence-based or employment-based theory, including negligent hiring, selection, supervision, retention or misrepresentation, any other theory based on misrepresentation, concealment, or unfair practice, public or private nuisance, or any other theory, including any theory based on public policy or any act or failure to act by a Protected Party or any other Person for whom any Protected Party is alleged to be responsible. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to any Contributing Chartered Organization, the term “Abuse Claim” shall be limited to any Claim that is attributable to, arises from, is based upon, relates to, or results from, Abuse that occurred prior to the Petition Date and that arose in connection with the Contributing Chartered Organization’s sponsorship of one or more Scouting units. Abuse Claims include any Future Abuse Claims, any Indirect Abuse Claims, and any Claim that is attributable to, arises from, is based upon, relates to, or results from, Abuse regardless of whether, as of the Petition Date, such Claim is barred by any applicable statute of limitations.

Future Abuse Claim

Quote

106.“Future Abuse Claim” means any Direct Abuse Claim against any Protected Party that is attributable to, arises from, is based upon, relates to, or results from, in whole or in part, directly, indirectly, or derivatively, Abuse that occurred prior to the Petition Date but which, as of the date immediately preceding the Petition Date, was held by a Person who, as of such date, (a) had not attained eighteen (18) years of age, or (b) was not aware of such Direct Abuse Claim as a result of “repressed memory,” to the extent the concept of repressed memory is recognized by the highest appellate court of the state or territory where the claim arose. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to any Contributing Chartered Organization, the term “Future Abuse Claim” shall be limited to any Direct Abuse Claim that arose in connection with the Contributing Chartered Organization’s sponsorship of one or more Scouting units.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

That's my own theory as well. In the end, I don't see BSA holding on to anything other than as a hollowed out shell: liquidation in all but name and allowed to keep on that which Congress specifically granted in the charter: the trademarks, names, and that's it.

 

Well, that wouldn't happen.  What I mean is that a cram-down would take anything the judge didn't find critical to the functioning of the organization, but it would leave the organization functioning, not a non-functional shell.  But this could easily leave the BSA with significant assets as long as they aren't effectively saleable.  So they could theoretically keep Philmont (even independent of any claims that it's deed restricted) if the liquidation price less fees and taxes are less than the amount of the mortgage on it.  (but I agree Bechtel is a potential problem given the recentness of the financial maneuvering there) The whole point of a reorganization is that the creditors get more with the organization functioning than they would if it was liquidated because the organization can be required to continue making payments over a period of years.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DavidLeeLambert said:

 

I don't think local government liability will be a significant factor in halting the trend to longer or weaker Statutes of Limitation.  Nor will massive liability against the LDS church or against Catholic dioceses. Enough people are distrustful of government, and enough people consider those churches "the other".

 

Oh, I don't think local government liability will sway public opinion on the issue, I think that when state governments start seeing local Cities and Towns and School Districts being sued into bankruptcy and they have to start bailing them out (because cities going through bankruptcy is awful all-around) they will decide that maybe opening up the window wider might not be a good plan.

And while they could pass laws barring lawsuits specifically against government entities (beyond what already exists) the politics of THAT would be so so so much worse than tightening up SoL laws (or not loosening them in the first place).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, elitts said:

Well, that wouldn't happen. 

I am not so sure. Lest we forget about double dip ("Chapter 22") and even triple dip ("Chapter 33") bankruptcies that come out of organizations that are so crippled they simply come out of bankruptcy only to go right back in again. 20% of Chapter 11 entities slip back into Chapter 11.

I said previously in this thread that until BSA unveiled its Reorg plan I had hoped it would survive. I don't see that happening now. With massive declining membership and universal opposition to the plan (other than JPMorgan Chase) this ends with Chapter 7 now, or a crippling Chapter 11 that results in a hollowed out shell that limps into Chapter 7 in a few years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, elitts said:

when state governments start seeing local Cities and Towns and School Districts being sued into bankruptcy and they have to start bailing them out (because cities going through bankruptcy is awful all-around) they will decide that maybe opening up the window wider might not be a good plan.

Yep, But by that point there's going to have to be some liquidated organizations and bankrupt localities before people start to rethink this.

Since the Catholic Church isn't going anywhere, that leaves BSA to take the hit/be liquidated.

Both the Catholic Church and BSA warned that opening up these SoLs were going to lead to this and they were castigated for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, elitts said:

Well, that wouldn't happen.  What I mean is that a cram-down would take anything the judge didn't find critical to the functioning of the organization, but it would leave the organization functioning, not a non-functional shell.  But this could easily leave the BSA with significant assets as long as they aren't effectively saleable.  So they could theoretically keep Philmont (even independent of any claims that it's deed restricted) if the liquidation price less fees and taxes are less than the amount of the mortgage on it.  (but I agree Bechtel is a potential problem given the recentness of the financial maneuvering there) The whole point of a reorganization is that the creditors get more with the organization functioning than they would if it was liquidated because the organization can be required to continue making payments over a period of years.

You guys have an excellent grasp on all of this as to the BSA itself, what's needed to sustain programs, assets overall, and the relationship of the BSA and LC's contribution to the insurance side. When you look at the $6100 in Plan as proposed, overall assets - assuming the large property restrictions don't hold - what do you think would be fair to direct to each claimants. I know there is tremendous disagreement even among you, in part because it is so speculative and subjective. I am very curious and would welcome your opinion. Well, I'm most interested to hear from those who agree that the current offer is unreasonable. As we know and you've reported, many agree $6100 does not respect the abused nor represent the BSA being earnest about what it can give. Others are clearly frustrated, saying there is no way to say what's fair or will satisfy the attorneys. "If $6000 isn't enough, is $50,000? $100,000 even if it crushes the organization...?" (paraphrasing).

Thoughts?

Edited by ThenNow
Oops.
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

"If $6000 is enough, is $50,000? $100,000 even if it crushes the organization...?" (paraphrasing).

As I said before, without knowing for sure the numerator (assets) or denominator (claimants) for sure/judicially recognized, we are just guessing here.

But to speculate it out.

Scenario 1 - Liquidate National: claimants get $0 since the pension programs would, by law, have to be secured/paid out first to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and they already put in a $1.1 BILLION dollar claim. Total to each claimant: $0

Scenario 2 - $1 Billion in Settlement from BSA + LCs, Non-Time Barred Claimants Only: Here, BSA is forced to sell Summit ($300 million) and half of all remaining assets ($300 million) PLUS somehow gets LCs to kick in $300 million, PLUS $100 million just kind gets found along the way. BUT BSA and the LCs tell all time-barred claimants to go away. That leaves at most, 30,000. Total to each claimant: $33,333

Scenario 3 - $1 Billion in Settlement from BSA + LCs, ALL Abuse Claimants:  Same as scenario 2, but BSA and the LCs pay out to all 87,000 claimants. Total to each claimant: $11,494

Scenario 4 - $525 Million in Settlement from BSA + LCs, ALL Abuse Claimants: Pretty much the current plan: BSA National puts in $225 million, LCs $300 million. 87,000 claimants. Total to each claimant: $6,034

Scenario 5 - The "$1.5 billion Settlement Fund", ALL Abuse Claimants: Last fall at least some lawyers/claims collectors advertised that a $1.5 BILLION settlement fund had been set up. Where this number cam from is not clear to me, but I am going to use it. Somehow, BSA and the LCs get to $1.5 billion. 87,000 claimants. Total to each claimant: $17,241

So, to my way of thinking (and anyone is free to correct me if I am wrong) if you want a scenario where ALL abuse claimants are paid out, regardless of time-barred or not, $11,500 is probably as high as you can possibly go for BSA/LC contributions. What was advertised was as high as $17,241 but that appears to have just been speculation and TV ads.

TWO GIANT CAVEATS HERE:

1) LCs are still playing shell games with assets. $300 million from LCs may be incredibly low or just right. There's no way to know.

EDIT: I am seeing reports LCs have somewhere between $1.6 billion in assets and $3.3 billion in assets.

2) This does NOT include whatever the insurance companies are forced to chip in.

 

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...