Jump to content

Chapter 11 announced - Part 3 - BSA's Toggle Plan


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Century Ins filed a motion to delay the hearing (due to BSA’s document dump yesterday).  I hope the judge denies the request.  We need this hearing so we can see the court rule on this proposal.   Is it even close to good enough to go to a vote?  What is the impact to this case from the DOJ objection?  Time to make progress in court... no more delays.  

I should also note that late last week (before BSA's Sunday document dump) Century put in supporting documents for its request for a 2 month delay in the proceedings. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/1c756a66-b424-4724-a2e0-09abe5b649d2_4113.pdf

They also announced their plans to call witnesses for the May 19 hearing. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/968e781f-fbf7-40eb-827c-17bcf313afbc_4093.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Forums work well in many ways, but it is probably not the best way to discuss the difficult feelings of this bankruptcy while also discussing the impact to child sex abuse survivors.  However, there a

The mental fallout from my abuse was mostly dormant prior to the current lawsuit. It would still torment me in idle moments. Or at night sometimes when I lay in bed trying not to blame myself after so

I would like to not lock the thread but we seem to be in a rut that we need to get out of before any progress can be made. Here are some observations that might help. First, human dignity is the

Posted Images

I don't know what is going on. But I heard a figure my council needs to contribute the bankruptcy. Have no Idea how they came up with it. I do know at a meeting in the fall, selling property was discussed. And the camp had some visitors that looked like "suits."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

oh, by the way, all LC funds (or almost all) are restricted ("with the bulk of many Local Councils’ assets legally restricted and unavailable to fund any contribution").

For those who are keenly aware, even pretty much aware, of the state of your LC's assets, how does/will this feel if the AHC is saying the "bulk" of the assets are legally restricted and you know that not to be the case for your LC? Admittedly, their language is intentionally very squishy -- "all (or almost all") and "many," so I guess they can wiggle it however they want. Convenient. I just want to see the BRG dashboards next to the internal financial statements for the LCs implicated in my claim. I've previously brought up the point of the actual constituency of the AHC and still wonder whose voice they truly are. I guess they represent "all (or almost all") or maybe just "many" of the LCs?

Edited by ThenNow
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

They also announced their plans to call witnesses for the May 19 hearing.

Curious to see how this is done. I guess they will have to be sworn in and all, with the opportunity for others to examine them? If the hearing is on, and I hope it is, this will be a "bring your toothbrush" event, I reckon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I need a little help in understanding why the BSA is throwing a hail Mary.  It seems to be quite clear that the proposed settlement if it goes to a vote will not pass.  If the toggle plan is put into place and passes the LC's and the insurers will be left blowing in the wind per se.  The line of lawyers at state courts will be very long filing suits against LC's (lets say 30% of claimants or approximately 25,000 individual claims).  The cost of litigation would be in itself would be astronomical (lets say 250K per case times 25,000 = $625,000,000).  The amount paid out to those who get judgements in their favor (lets say 25% of filed cases at $10,000,000 per = $6.25 Billion) and yes the insurers would have to pick up a lot of the payouts and i might be low or high in my estimations. The cases that go to jury trial would generate much unneeded publicity which BSA does not need at this point of time.  How will the LC's feel about being put into such a vulnerable situation?  Feedback would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, MattR said:

Unfortunately, any feedback is just speculation. We don't know. 

Yes, both sides could be very close to a mediated settlement and this is signaling that the BSA will deliver on certain things or both sides could be far apart and this is positioning for the next phase in this Chapter 11.  While all of us would hope that this is heading to a resolution soon, the second possibility is the more likely the case.

The contention on this forum is likely partly due to from our point of view, there has been nearly nothing decided and it seems to proceed with little changing except pointing fingers at one another and some polite name calling.  We want some things decided.  Perhaps that will happen today.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Yes, both sides could be very close to a mediated settlement and this is signaling that the BSA will deliver on certain things or both sides could be far apart and this is positioning for the next phase in this Chapter 11.  While all of us would hope that this is heading to a resolution soon, the second possibility is the more likely the case.

Based on the TCC's town hall last week and the new fairly oblivious filings over the weekend, I see no evidence, smoke signals or cloud formations indicating there is any prospect of a pending mediated settlement. I supposed there is always a very, very remote possibility, but I highly doubt it.

Edited by ThenNow
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

How will the LC's feel about being put into such a vulnerable situation? 

Not good.  But there may not be a choice.  I'm sure BSA would love to provide protection to the CO/LCs ... but if the plan is rejected (either by the judge due to the long list of issues or votes) ... The only likely path is a National only settlement.

Also, I am interested in the judge's take on the DOJ objection.  It seems like the bankruptcy trustee from the DOJ believes that no settlement can be allowed legally that provides protection to COs or LCs (as they are non-debtors).  I hope to learn more during the May 19th hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Based on the TCC's town hall last week and the new fairly oblivious filings over the weekend, I see no evidence, smoke signals or cloud formations indicating there is any prospect of a pending mediated settlement. I supposed there is always a very, very remote possibility, but I highly doubt it.

I tend to agree; however, it does seems like the NY mediation was better than Miami.  The TCC in their townhall was almost offended from the Miami interaction, but seemed more positive about NY.  I don't expect it before May 19th, nor did they indicate they were close ... but perhaps they are making progress.  One could hope.

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

One could hope.

As to a mediated settlement, I have none. I think Jim Stang's comment about NY was more a matter of "less negative," since the TCC wasn't wholesale excluded from certain discussions, per the Miami runaround. 

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

For those who are keenly aware, even pretty much aware, of the state of your LC's assets, how does/will this feel if the AHC is saying the "bulk" of the assets are legally restricted and you know that not to be the case for your LC? Admittedly, their language is intentionally very squishy -- "all (or almost all") and "many," so I guess they can wiggle it however they want. Convenient. I just want to see the BRG dashboards next to the internal financial statements for the LCs implicated in my claim. I've previously brought up the point of the actual constituency of the AHC and still wonder whose voice they truly are. I guess they represent "all (or almost all") or maybe just "many" of the LCs?

So, one of the things alluded to in the Ad Hoc statement that is not widely known, is that not all by-laws and charter agreements are alike:  "any such contractual interest – and the defenses thereto – also varies with the terms of the myriad organizational documents of individual Local Councils, as well as with the particular laws of jurisdictions throughout the United States."

My council's agreement and by-laws don't use the widely quoted model language.  When national first introduced that reversionary provision, they and a collection of other councils, balked, and negotiated changes from the model. Our assets don't simply revert to national in the event of charter non-renewla/revokation, rather they must be used for the purposes of scouting in our area.  So on top of whatever "normal" restrictions there might be based on donor restriction, core purpose, etc. , it's also pretty certain that our assets are "restricted" from being grabbed by national to be put into a pool for paying national's creditors and claimants.

The BRG view of what constitutes my council's unrestricted assets is almost certainly different than what my council would say is their unrestricted assets.  Both parties are making their statements in good faith, but they are using very divergent assumptions to arrive at them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Also, I am interested in the judge's take on the DOJ objection.  It seems like the bankruptcy trustee from the DOJ believes that no settlement can be allowed legally that provides protection to COs or LCs (as they are non-debtors).  I hope to learn more during the May 19th hearing.

I intentionally avoided this question earlier.  It really inflates this debate drastically.  

I've always been wondered how legally LCs/COs could buy into bankruptcy protection of without going thru the bankruptcy process themselves.  Identifying and prioritizing creditors.  Establishing assets and revenue.  Confirming whether they can pay their existing debts.  etc, etc, etc   With prioritized debtors, now how much to pay to clear liens, old debt, new debt, etc.  

 

Edited by fred8033
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

My council's agreement and by-laws don't use the widely quoted model language.  When national first introduced that reversionary provision, they and a collection of other councils, balked, and negotiated changes from the model.

That's great to hear.  Negotiating demonstrates two separate entities.  Variance of the charter agreement / by-laws across LCs further demonstrates separate entities.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an odd thought, last night.  Since there will never be enough money to compensate victims for what we have gone through, how about if BSA sets aside and maintains a network of local and national campgrounds for the sole use of survivors?  I, for one, would eagerly enjoy the beauty of nature for a week or two per year at, say, Philmont-or even the local camps in my council (with 50 Amp full hookups, of course).  Actually, it would be somewhat healing for me AND would paint BSA in the light of acknowledging the facts and publicly welcoming the victims.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...