Jump to content

Chapter 11 announced


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Wait, it had the same Scoutmaster for 67 years? Was it like, 87?

He joined the troop in 1933, became the SM in 1945 and died in 2011 at age 89, still the SM.

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

12 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

While 11,000 is large, the trend is dramatically decreasing and the percentage of the members is small over the last 30 years.  Using the same TCC supplied table, there were 480 claims in the last 10 years which is 480/2,000,000 = 0.00024 or 0.024%.

For context, the generally accepted stat is at least 1 in 6 men have been sexually abused or sexually assaulted. (This includes during adulthood, btw.) Even if the 11,000 number shouldn’t be taken as fully accurate, if there such a thing, this is a very good sign. I hope the downward trend continues.

https://1in6.org/get-information/the-1-in-6-statistic/

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Here is an Excel plot (with no alterations except to add the title so I cannot be accused of manipulating the graph) of the last 30 years of claims that the TCC was discussing as being so terrible.

First, keep in mind the number of CLAIMS is not the same as the amount of ABUSE or even REPORTED ABUSE (e.g. someone may have reported the abuse but simply did not want to proceed with the bankruptcy claims).

That said, here's my question: to what extent does the decline in claims correlate to a decline in membership? In other words, run a Pearson correlation test and see what happens.

I know in 1990 the number of youth was around 4 million and today (2020) was 1.2 million, a 70% decline.  BUT the number of abuse claims saw a 99% decline (1,125 vs. 10)

This is horrible math and my old stats professors would collectively pummel me for doing this (I should at least be running a Pearson's test I know) but that would SEEM to indicate that the decline in the number of abuse claims is NOT simply a function of a decline in membership.

Of course, it is impossible to parse out how much of that decline in the number of claims can be attributed to YPT without running regressions and controlling for a whole host of factors, but still. Interesting.

 

Edited by CynicalScouter
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

image.png.f179a84a41a1bcd327d324128fe05cd0.png

Here is an Excel plot (with no alterations except to add the title so I cannot be accused of manipulating the graph) of the last 30 years of claims that the TCC was discussing as being so terrible.  Certainly, any occurrence of child abuse is too many but the trend is certainly dramatically decreasing.  There have been over 2 million members during most of the time of this graph and those members were not static so that every year some join while others leave.  Since I do not have actual tenure information, let us assume that the membership turns over every ten years (it is more frequent than that but let's consider a worse case scenario) then there would have been a three turnovers in 30 years or ~6 M individual Scouts.  So 11,000/6,000,000 = 0.00183 or 0.183%.  The trend is decreasing that number so the TCC seems to be picking only the facts that are flashy and do not clearly reflect the entire situation.

While 11,000 is large, the trend is dramatically decreasing and the percentage of the members is small over the last 30 years.  Using the same TCC supplied table, there were 480 claims in the last 10 years which is 480/2,000,000 = 0.00024 or 0.024%.

Seems to me that the BSA is combating child abuse effectively though it must continue to drive that number down.  The real vigilance must come from the parents.

True ... and I expect it should be better.  But as mentioned previously individuals youth may not report until their 30s or 40s.  So if the assault occurred on a 12 yo and in 1998 they would likely report it until 2020 on the early side.  I believe that would be part of the argument to not overestimate the reduction.  I still think YPT helped. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Second, the other aspect is that BSA claims even if they WANTED to sell Summit they can't because it was already promised to JPMorgan Chase as a loan or other credit agreements and oh shucks isn't that too bad.

The TCC is calling BS and claiming BSA purposefully and fraudulently put Summit under JPMorgan Chase in order to dodge potential sale as part of the bankruptcy.

Personally, I’m watching the disposition of this as a possible indicator of Judge Silverstein’s inclination toward finding the LC assets to be separate or within reach. I know, I know. They are technically very different. I’m talking about where her head is at on cutting through what some assert are smoke and mirror games to get on with it. Are these merely protective facades meant to insulate and isolate or are legitimate and separate? “Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?”Yes. I’m mind reading and putting a wet finger in the air, not hazarding a legal opinion. For the record.

Edited by ThenNow
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ThenNow said:

Personally, I’m watching the disposition of this as a possible indicator of Judge Silverstein’s inclination toward finding the LC assets to be separate or within reach.

I think there are two separate issues and Silverstein can really put the screws to BSA and the LCs with either decision

1) BSA National's control of (on paper) "independent" entities. If the judge determines that Arrow WV really is under BSA National's command and control, that argument/mindset could carry over to the LCs and all their assets.

2) BSA National using JPMorgan Case notes and credit agreements to play hide-the-assets. If the 2019 credit financing scheme gets proven to be fraudulent/intended to deny creditors assets then Philmont's next on the chopping block (they had a similar note created just before the bankruptcy). That will also mean any Councils who in 2019 or 2020 shuffled camps off to "Trusts" or got mortgages thrown on to properties to shield them will be getting a real, real hard look.

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

If the judge determines that Arrow WV really is under BSA National's command and control, that argument/mindset could carry over to the LCs and all their assets.

Yup. My thought exactly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I do not understand where the very real debt for the Summit Bechtel Reserve shows up in the accounting.  The BSA owed ~$400 M just a few years ago on the land and buildings.  There were payments on the property but I do not believe that debt has been paid off.  This is not from a note taken out recently (unless it was restructuring the debt) because it dates from the purchase of the property about a decade ago.  The $350 M would seem to be the value of the property and improvements but not the debt.  Where is that considered?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

This is not from a note taken out recently (unless it was restructuring the debt) because it dates from the purchase of the property about a decade ago.  The $350 M would seem to be the value of the property and improvements but not the debt.  Where is that considered?

They restructured the debt in 2019 to make it look more in debt than it really is. Again, remember, this is shell game time. BSA is doing everything it can to save Summit by making it look like it is 100% (or more) in debt to JPMorgan Chase.

So you are right. For unspecified reasons that lack ANY detail or support they decided to declare Arrow WV had $350 million in debt.

See paragraphs 30 and 31 and 38-39.

Quote

30. Over time, as BSA funded the acquisition, development, and operation of the Summit Property, the intercompany balance between Arrow and BSA grew significantly.  In fiscal year 2011, the intercompany balance was roughly $77 million.  By 2012, the balance exceeded $200 million.  In each fiscal year between 2013 and 2018, the balance exceeded $300 million.  Before March 2019, BSA never demanded that the original note be revised to match the then current amount of intercompany borrowings, nor did BSA ever demand payment on the note.

31. In March 2019, the Intercompany Note was amended to increase the outstanding principal balance to $350 million.  The amended Intercompany Note has a maturity date of March 31, 2029, and an interest rate of 0% per annum.  The amended Intercompany Note does not provide for any principal or interest payments prior to maturity.  The basis for the principal amount outstanding under the Intercompany Note, or the reasons why it was amended from $50 million to $350 million, lacks detailed support.

"Oh, I'm sorry, you can't have Summit because well JPMorgan Chase already has it."

And I absolute guarantee within 2-3 years of BSA emerging from bankruptcy all that debt is suddenly going to disappear off the books.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

They restructured the debt in 2019 to make it look more in debt than it really is. Again, remember, this is shell game time. BSA is doing everything it can to save Summit by making it look like it is 100% (or more) in debt to JPMorgan Chase.

So you are right. For unspecified reasons that lack ANY detail or support they decided to declare Arrow WV had $350 million in debt.

See paragraphs 30 and 31 and 38-39.

"Oh, I'm sorry, you can't have Summit because well JPMorgan Chase already has it."

And I absolute guarantee within 2-3 years of BSA emerging from bankruptcy all that debt is suddenly going to disappear off the books.

The SBR was very expensive and the BSA has continued to make improvements.  At one point in time, the debt was ~$400 M so I would not be surprised that the BSA actually owes ~$350 M on the property.  It does not make sense that it is worth $350 M when what is owed is subtracted from the total.  This is the one part of the assets that has not made sense.

Has anyone seen a valuation for the Norman Rockwell paintings?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sure the TCC knows, but is there any sense of the average liquid and real property asset value of the LC’s? I realize the Councils will be “called upon” to contribute based on SoL status and claims filed, but it might be informative. Does it range from squeaking by to 100’s of millions, property values included? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Has anyone seen a valuation for the Norman Rockwell paintings?

I wondered, as well, and recalled reading this NYT article. It states the obvious about the subjectivity of valuing fine art, as well as the fact that some of the pieces were constrained by BSA commission guidelines. The result being they cramped his style and therefore don’t represent his “best,” most collectible works. (I’m sure the TCC has that value, at least an appraisers best estimate. Not sure if the plan would be auction to maximize, use a broker or sell at “retail.”

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=value+of+boys+scouts+rockwell+collection&t=brave&ia=web

Edited by ThenNow
Addition
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I’m sure the TCC knows, but is there any sense of the average liquid and real property asset value of the LC’s? I realize the Councils will be “called upon” to contribute based on SoL status and claims filed, but it might be informative. Does it range from squeaking by to 100’s of millions, property values included? 

Some councils are financially sound but a fair number (maybe 30?) are insolvent and supported by the National BSA.  Often, land given or purchased many years ago were not great pieces of land.  They often have covenants on how the land can be used.  Our council has a primitive camp that has covenants that require it to be sold only to another non-profit for youth activities.  The property does not perk so development is not possible even if one could get around the covenant.  

Also, it has been said that a non-profit cannot be forced to give up things that are core to its mission.  Summer camps are core to the mission of Scouting.  This is severely punishing youth who had nothing to do with past events.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Also, it has been said that a non-profit cannot be forced to give up things that are core to its mission. 

I’ve never heard this before.  What law enforcers this?

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