Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

I wish they were losers.  Losers are much easier to get rid of.  The BSA board members and executives are very effective at protecting their own interests over the well-being of everyone else.  They rarely lose.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 918
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I also was abused at home. Best thing my father ever did was leave. Scouting was my safe place, and all of the adults were positive role models who i can never thank enough. They showed me positive wa

Sir, I find your comments juvenile, vile and disgusting. You certainly disgrace the few decent people I have personally spoke with who are still trying to defend the organization as being still worth-

@David CO Sometimes, things end up being what you weren't trying to do. You may not think that your troop was a safe place, that you didn't adopt any of the scouts, and that it wasn't a big brother pr

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Boy Scouts get approval but judge rejected two key provisions

This is Andrew Scurria at WSJ? I think he’s the top reporter of the lot, honestly. He’s the Deputy Chief of the Bk Division, I believe. Recently promoted. All of them are solid, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, David CO said:

Losers are much easier to get rid of.  The BSA board members and executives are very effective at protecting their own interests over the well-being of everyone else. 

Under the terms of the Congressional Charter, the board decides how the board is selected. If they want to put in protections, they can.

Moreover, as the judge noted, having a 72 member Board is absurdly large. Like ridiculously. It only happens in not for profit land where you buy-a-board-seat.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew Scurria - BSA can press ahead with proposed settlement while requiring certain provisions be removed.  Status of $650m settlement with Hartford? Unclear

A Bankruptcy Professor (Prof. Jacoby) at North Carolina tweeted there was "no surprise that the judge challenged significant elements for the agreement" ... went on to tweet "...probably means a change in direction of strategy for the plan?"

@MariaChutchian tweeted that the Boy Scouts got approval to move ahead with a deal but ... "The deal isn't set in stone yet, though, and the fight with insurers isn't over."

Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI ... I just got an email from Bay-Lakes Council

".... One of the biggest pieces of information that we have known and unable to communicate is the total amount that Bay-Lakes Council is being asked to contribute.  The attached video, aand this letter, mean that we are now authorized to share this information."

".... Bay-Lakes Council's portion to contribute is just under $3 million for the settlement trust."

"... Recentely, our Executive Board took action to commit to funding our portion..."

I wonder if councils are being released from NDAs today based on the judge's ruling???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bay-Lakes doesn't plan to sell any resident camps or use donor-given funds. (so where is the money for their portion of the settlement coming from?)

The email from Bay-Lakes Council also includes information on 2 zoom meetings being held next week to "share additional details and answer questions you might have."

Not bad. I mean, they're communicating.  I know some councils play it so close to the vest that it would take a court order requiring this kind of public disclosure before they would share anything with their volunteers (or possibly even with District Executives).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

FYI ... I just got an email from Bay-Lakes Council

".... One of the biggest pieces of information that we have known and unable to communicate is the total amount that Bay-Lakes Council is being asked to contribute.  The attached video, aand this letter, mean that we are now authorized to share this information."

".... Bay-Lakes Council's portion to contribute is just under $3 million for the settlement trust."

"... Recentely, our Executive Board took action to commit to funding our portion..."

I wonder if councils are being released from NDAs today based on the judge's ruling???

@Eagle1993  First, I sincerely hope if that is not a copy and paste with such poor spelling.  Second, if there is a release, I have not been contacted.  Unless authorized by the council's legal council, I will assume that the NDA is in force.

Also, I read this to be in some ways a defeat for the BSA (yes, not sports but it is not necessarily favorable).  So in my mind, the amount and general terms to which the council agreed is not necessarily any longer part of an agreement.  Certainly, Kosnoff wishes to destroy all Scouting. 

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

First, I sincerely hope if that is not a copy and paste with such poor spelling

May have been my typing ... it wasn't copy/paste but a quick attempt to transcribe a few points between my phone & PC. 

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

".... Bay-Lakes Council's portion to contribute is just under $3 million for the settlement trust."

Based on my quick check of the financial and claims statements, this seems like a pretty sweet deal for them. They have roughly 10x that amount, right? I guess because they are Gray 3? They have well north of 100 claims and 5 that could be litigated in a quick minute. Is this illustrative of the percentages being contributed? Dunno.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

As the judge just said (quoting BSA attorney Lauria) we are heading into an epic fight when it comes time for disclosure and what victims will be voting on. That fight just got 10 times harder because the TCC/FCR/Coalition, who previously were willing to partner with the BSA on a deal THAT DID NOT INCLUDE HARTFORD, will now walk away because the Hartford deal is back in.

It means that the exit is either

  1. Delayed into 2022
  2. ONLY going to cover BSA (and leave LCs and COs high and dry)
  3. Something else

Keep in mind as well: the RSA agreement also put off or settled disputes over a) Sale of the HA bases b) valuing of claims, etc.

Thank you! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

probably means a change in direction of strategy for the plan?

I had this vision of Native Americans herding buffalo off a cliff.

There's a plan?

So, considering all of today's events, is National closer to its toggle plan?

 

I see all of this as a cascade of positions, each a fall-back to other positions in this order:

 

1.  Initial plan of little money from National.

2.-? Maybe a couple of iterations to PLAN 4 with RSA and Hartford.

3.  Plan 4 without RSA-seems unlikely to pass. (Now we know Hartford deal is OK with the Judge).

4. Plan 4, like #3 but with CO's agreeing to something via mediation and negotiation.

5.  Toggle Plan.  (National retreats to only lifeboat on the ship. Everyone else fends for themselves.)

6.  Chapter 7 conversion.

7.  All BSA intellectual property acquired by some entity-and where will Scouting be then?

 

I keep thinking about that Laurel and Hardy line about a "fine mess."

 

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

Bay-Lakes doesn't plan to sell any resident camps or use donor-given funds. (so where is the money for their portion of the settlement coming from?)

Well, let's take a look. It looks like they can get $3 million by selling their stocks/long-term investments.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ee5156a3-0c08-4833-a600-8256c44c8a56_5485.pdf

According to BSA data provided to the court, as of March Bay-Lakes had

Assets

Cash & Equivalents

667,003

Land, Buildings, and Equipment

8,083,634

Long-Term Investments

24,486,659

Other Assets

515,196

TOTAL ASSETS

33,752,492

Liabilities

Debt

1,965,457

Other Liabilities

688,011

TOTAL LIABILITIES

2,653,468

Totals

Unrestricted Net Assets

12,448,113

Restricted Net Assets

18,650,911

TOTAL NET ASSETS

31,099,024

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Well, let's take a look. It looks like they can get $3 million by selling their stocks/long-term investments.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ee5156a3-0c08-4833-a600-8256c44c8a56_5485.pdf

According to BSA data provided to the court, as of March Bay-Lakes had

 

 

 

Assets

 

Cash & Equivalents

 

667,003

 

Land, Buildings, and Equipment

 

8,083,634

 

Long-Term Investments

 

24,486,659

 

Other Assets

 

515,196

 

TOTAL ASSETS

 

33,752,492

 

 

 

Liabilities

 

Debt

 

1,965,457

 

Other Liabilities

 

688,011

 

TOTAL LIABILITIES

 

2,653,468

 

 

 

Totals

 

Unrestricted Net Assets

 

12,448,113

 

Restricted Net Assets

 

18,650,911

 

TOTAL NET ASSETS

 

31,099,024

 

(Insert long low whistle sound here)  Wow.   I can certainly understand why they would be willing to sell off a fraction of their long-term investments...  That's a lot of money invested. 

I remember a story of a council taking out a $150,000 loan to help cover "lights on" expenses.  I think asking them to contribute $3 million (regardless of open/closed/gray status or number of claims) would break the bank.

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