Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, MattR said:

How can you tell if it's restricted? I couldn't find the description of letter codes that went with each camp.

[2] U: Unrestricted - No restriction on the property was asserted or confirmed

[2] L: Limitations - Documents support existence of use limitations or sale limitations such as conservation easements which may impact the value of the property

[2] R: Restricted - Assertion of or documents supporting legal restrictions including donor restrictions to the sale of property and/or requiring the reversion of property or proceeds to an unrelated party.

[2] TBD: Assertion of restriction remains subject to review and/or additional documentation

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • 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

2 hours ago, Muttsy said:

The judge is going to end BSA exclusivity, probably on Monday.

Kosnoff Law just tweeted the same.  He indicated that (he believes) the BSA judge will end BSA exclusivity and allow victims to file a plan and that is essential to progress and BSA's survival.  

This is the first time, I can remember, where Kosnoff is mentioning that BSA survives.  He has been a liquidation or bust guy.

The more comments I read from others, I really think we should open it up to the TCC and the TCC alone to submit alternate plans.  Clearly BSA hasn't been able to come up with one yet and they are running out of time.

 

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

I'm curious to know if the awards will be adjusted for time for those people who were abused decades ago.  It would seem like they probably should, but who knows.

Just curious what you mean by this....adjusted up or down?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RobertCalifornia said:

Makes sense....who wants to own a restricted old camp on the beach if you can sell it for a windfall and build a modern camp to meet your needs. 

That’s not quite how unrestricted funds are used. Nicer camps are built with newer unrestricted donations. New restricted donations are often turned down. Old unrestricted properties are used as collateral for new capital or sold to pay pensions or fund a new program.

There’s not that much selling of old camps to purchase new. Units love old camps. Without knowing that they were restricted, my scouts sought them out because they were typically primitive, “gently used”, and the rangers were generally very welcoming of whatever service project the scouts would perform.

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

I kind of thought this drive to pass look-backs would fade fairly quickly when people started connecting the dots and imagined what could happen when school districts and state governments started getting sued.  It's only a matter of time until someone tries suing a state government over "campus rapes allowed by permissive, state-run schools, who abdicated their duty to protect their students".

From my involvement in advocacy, which is admittedly limited to the last year plus, the fight against the state Child Victims Act(s) has been historically consistent from the RCC, BSA and others. I'm not aware of the private school involvement, but CHILDUSA would know. Culturally, and I'm not saying it's all good by any means, this trend of "accountability" doesn't appear to have reached any zenith. My take. I think it continues for a bit.

44 minutes ago, elitts said:

I have to think that most LCs have insurance policies of their own to protect against losses due to lawsuits. (I know mine does)  I mean, they are poorly enough run that I can easily believe some Councils don't, because they thought "they were covered by national", but I have to hope that would be a rarity.

Excellent point. I think part of the ruination I see in my head and didn't express, beyond potential cash liability, is the impact on Scouting of one or many CSA cases in the hometowns, Districts and LCs across the country. Bringing these cases to the light of the courtroom is big time different than this bankruptcy. As I said, 16 current zeros is going to be a dwindling number when the 39,100 claims land in an their respective LC column. What will be the impact on registrations, fundraising, COs, staffing and volunteers when those things are reported on a daily basis in the Local Gazette, in addition to Reuters, WSJ, LA Times, AP, Bloomberg, and etc.?

 

47 minutes ago, elitts said:

Yes, This has been repeated ad nauseam by another poster.  The problem with this little saying is that we aren't talking about some mountain of past precedent spanning the last 50 years that would need to be set aside; rather, pretty much all you are talking about are a couple dozen Catholic Church bankruptcies since 2004. Given the scope of this one, it would be a pretty easy thing for a judge to say "This is a functionally different situation than the past CSA bankruptcies".

Another great point. However, on the nose precedent is legit and that's what she has staring her in the face. 17 years and a couple dozen cases creating a consistent, unwavering precedent is not chump change. Honestly, that seems like a ton to me, especially with the culture of 2021 vs 2004. Also, in my view, the "functionally different situation," combined with the sheer magnitude of the case, in fact further mitigates against her breaking with precedent. Lastly, and equally important in light of those things, there is a competing Plan burning a hole in the shared briefcase of the TCC and Coalition counsel. Add those things up and cramdown would be another catastrophe for many BSA victims. If the BSA Toggle B cramdown stood as the single option, maybe. With the TCC/Coalition Option C, which can actually pass, I don't think so. Just my take, of course. Who knows what will happen. Only Judge Silverstein and then maybe not her as of this moment.

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

I really think we should open it up to the TCC and the TCC alone to submit alternate plans. 

Do you mean the TCC without the Coalition? Assuming and hoping not to presume, that's not going to happen. Mr. Stang stated in open court that they are exchanging terms and coming to agreement on a Plan. If it's two weeks from file ready, that means they're well into it. Notably, Mr. Molten did not deny it and was tossed the ball if he wanted to bat it down. If it is co-sponsored, it's better able to get a ready thumbs up by the survivors, as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Do you mean the TCC without the Coalition? 

I just mean 1 between the two.  I think it would be a mess if various law firms, groups, etc. start filing their own plans.  I would say the judge should not allow a free for all ... just 1 plan from the TCC/Coalition.

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

I assume that the camps listed in the document above are the camps that the claimants want. The two largest camps in my Council are listed but the two smallest are not suggesting they are not in play. Not whining just stating a fact. The two camps that are left will not service a council of our size. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

I just mean 1 between the two.  I think it would be a mess if various law firms, groups, etc. start filing their own plans.  I would say the judge should not allow a free for all ... just 1 plan from the TCC/Coalition.

When the Debtor's exclusivity period ends,  cannot any creditor submit a plan?

Edited by RememberSchiff
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RememberSchiff said:

When the Debtor's exclusivity period ends,  cannot any creditor may submit a plan?

Regardless if they can, which I don't know, I highly doubt anyone else has one locked, loaded and nigh on ready to launch. She wouldn't tolerate more scrambling and shambling and delay. Well, I hope not...

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, tnmule20 said:

The two camps that are left will not service a council of our size.

The scary thing is, maybe they don’t need to. Are their camps in surrounding councils that can? Then that may be the path forward. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

The scary thing is, maybe they don’t need to. Are their camps in surrounding councils that can? Then that may be the path forward. 

I hope that any plan includes how far scouts are from these camps and how many scouts they can hold. The furthest council camp from my house is about 7 hrs and it's mostly interstate.

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

Regardless if they can, which I don't know, I highly doubt anyone else has one locked, loaded and nigh on ready to launch. She wouldn't tolerate more scrambling and shambling and delay. Well, I hope not...

Let's see a creditor

  1. with strong motive: BSA trademark litigation, TCC objection to their stay request, and BSA reorg plan

  2. has been legally represented and involved since beginning of this Chapter 11

  3. more marketing/selling experience than the TCC/Coalition

  4. better YP record than some youth organizations

  5.  a scouting organization with the same motto as BSA

 What do they have to lose in submitting a plan?

Hmm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

What do they have to lose in submitting a plan?

Money. Time. Frustrating the judge. Muddling the process. Angering the tort claimants. Hastening the threatened "decent into chaos." And, is this Plan guaranteed to pass muster with 84,000 victim claimants? Isn't that one of the most compelling practical considerations fifteen months in, as opposed to a technical or legal ability to file a Plan? Having qualifications to file, knowledge of the case and a pathway to file, I'll assume that to be true, but why? For their benefit alone? Do they have a better track on unraveling the knot? The ear of the Coalition or TCC? Maybe. Haven't heard tell of such.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how any Chapter 11 reorg plan that doesn't seriously address YP issues going forward can be valid. Without better standards it's clear any continuing scouting entity will face additional claims and be unable to pay anything meaningful into any future settlement trust let alone survive. I have also not seen where any plans have addressed the issue of affordable liability insurance. Who will insure any kind of scouting endeavor post bankruptcy reorg at an affordable rate? The assumption that there will be 1 million scouters in 2025 doesn't address this issue. What if registration fees have to be $500 to cover insurance? 

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