Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[yknot 1338]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yes, there will be. BUT unlike in the past, BSA is in a much better position. Remember: the whole point of these lawsuits and claims is that BSA did nothing or next to nothing to prevent the abuse. They were negligent. Now, however, it is much harder to push such a case (not impossible, just harder) against BSA thanks to YPT, Guide to Safe Scouting, and other things.

Moreover, ALL abuse take took place prior to February 2020 is covered in the bankruptcy (it is why the Future Claims Representative exists).

Lawsuits will never go away, but it will be harder to demonstrate BSA failed to protect that abused scout.

I'm kind of with 1980Scouter on this.  The safety thresholds that parents demand only go up over time, not down. I'm always bemused by scouters who will deflect present day abuse cases by saying they will always happen because they happen in society. That may be true, but I think the public and parental tolerance for more cases in scouting is about nil going forward. I think organizations willing to sponsor a unit will also have minimal tolerance for seeing more headlines. And I think insurance is going to be harder to get. Whether or not BSA is in an OK position to handle futurepay outs may not be the most relevant issue. 

 

[ThenNow 1373]

5 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Moreover, ALL abuse take took place prior to February 2020 is covered in the bankruptcy (it is why the Future Claims Representative exists).

Though I’m frequently wrong, but never in doubt, I believe it was suggested to me by an insider that BSA’s goal is to loop in all claims that arose/arise prior to discharge. As it was relayed, that was part of discussions. I haven’t seen such a provision. Love to receive a confirmation or slap down. 

[CynicalScouter 1434]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Though I’m frequently wrong, but never in doubt, I believe it was suggested to me by an insider that BSA’s goal is to loop in all claims that arose/arise prior to discharge. As it was relayed, that was part of discussions. I haven’t seen such a provision. Love to receive a confirmation or slap down. 

At the very least all claims pre-February 2020 would be covered.

I would have to check if they are looking to get February 2020 to discharge date covered as well.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

1 hour ago, yknot said:

And I think insurance is going to be harder to get

I have see the opposite argument, namely, the post-bankruptcy BSA will have all prior claims settled and may find it is easier to get insurance since the insurance companies won’t be as worried. Moreover if BSA really does have best in world YPT and has the TCC plan in place to put all YPT up for an independent review then it may prove easier and cheaper than before. Finally and frankly BSA numbers have collapsed it may be cheaper to cover fewer people.

[yknot 1338]

24 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I have see the opposite argument, namely, the post-bankruptcy BSA will have all prior claims settled and may find it is easier to get insurance since the insurance companies won’t be as worried. Moreover if BSA really does have best in world YPT and has the TCC plan in place to put all YPT up for an independent review then it may prove easier and cheaper than before. Finally and frankly BSA numbers have collapsed it may be cheaper to cover fewer people.

Let's hope you are right. All I know from a business persepctive is that insurance is more of a problem and an expense every year no matter what your safety record or training credentials. You might be able to get insurance but what if it requires doubling fees. Fewer scouts means fewer paying. I think a lot also will depend on the status and importance of the CO relationship when this is done. BSA may be able to get insurance, but COs may not care.

 

 

[ThenNow 1373]

3 minutes ago, yknot said:

Let's hope you are right. All I know from a business persepctive is that insurance is more of a problem and an expense every year no matter what your safety record or training credentials. You might be able to get insurance but what if it requires doubling fees. Fewer scouts means fewer paying. I think a lot also will depend on the status and importance of the CO relationship when this is done. BSA may be able to get insurance, but COs may not care.

This one of area of the insurance matters my wife commented on. From her view, there may very well be a high threshold of premiums at least until they have a “wait and see what happens” period. She was dubious about it being easier *poof* after discharge. 

[CynicalScouter 1434]

On 8/20/2021 at 8:34 PM, CynicalScouter said:

Remember how BSA said it needed to be out by August for cash flow?

Remember how BSA said it needed to be out by September for recruitment?

The next one will be "need to be out by December for recharter"

I just want to loop back on this. This recharter season may be an absolute mess precisely because there will not be a resolution to the question of CO coverage by December 31.

Last year when things were unclear a few COs failed to recharter. Now we have entire groups of Catholic diocese and Methodist regions telling or actively encouraging them NOT to recharter.

If BSA sticks to its guns and says It never insured the COs pre-1978 and they get paid last in any event? Wow.

[MYCVAStory 687]

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

I have see the opposite argument, namely, the post-bankruptcy BSA will have all prior claims settled and may find it is easier to get insurance since the insurance companies won’t be as worried. Moreover if BSA really does have best in world YPT and has the TCC plan in place to put all YPT up for an independent review then it may prove easier and cheaper than before. Finally and frankly BSA numbers have collapsed it may be cheaper to cover fewer people.

Here's an interesting tidbit about sexual-abuse related bankruptcy.  POST bankruptcy, insurance is very very...wait for it....EASY to get.  Yep, that seems illogical but the reality is that there are companies that love that scenario because there are far fewer "unknowns" as in claimants waiting to come forward when SOLs change.  That said, if the abuse starts again (insert your opinion here) then the companies will adjust premiums accordingly.

 

[mrjohns2 581]

7 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

One more question that I doubt will go over very well: what happens for councils that pay nothing?

In other words, I'm thinking of very small councils with few assets may pay $0.

Note that the below is TOTAL assets BEFORE liabilities and BEFORE taking into account restricted vs. unrestricted.

Seems pretty clear, forced merger? How would you like to be on the council on receiving end of that bag o poop. 

[yknot 1338]

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

I just want to loop back on this. This recharter season may be an absolute mess precisely because there will not be a resolution to the question of CO coverage by December 31.

Last year when things were unclear a few COs failed to recharter. Now we have entire groups of Catholic diocese and Methodist regions telling or actively encouraging them NOT to recharter.

If BSA sticks to its guns and says It never insured the COs pre-1978 and they get paid last in any event? Wow.

What happens to the BSA restructuring plan if it starts to become clear in the next month that 700,000 scouts in 2021 will go far south of that in 2022? I think that's what you are alluding to? 

[ThenNow 1373]

10 hours ago, yknot said:

What happens to the BSA restructuring plan if it starts to become clear in the next month that 700,000 scouts in 2021 will go far south of that in 2022? I think that's what you are alluding to? 

Counsel for the Methodist and Catholic Ad Hoc Committees made this point very forcefully. He was nearly incredulous that BSA would be putting out any presumptive numbers for a business model, while simultaneously leaving the COs out of the current RSA. In effect, he asked, “Have you even considered how your business plan pencils if we go away? Have you lost your mind, as well as your calculator? You need us and, well, we really don’t ‘need’ you if it comes right down to it.”

[David CO 1783]

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

You need us 

I don't think BSA believes it needs or wants the religious CO's.  They have not lost their minds.  They have made a calculated decision.  They have long wanted to secularize scouting.  The bankruptcy has given them the means to do it.

[fred8033 1593]

5 minutes ago, David CO said:

I don't think BSA believes it needs or wants the religious CO's.  They have not lost their minds.  They have made a calculated decision.  They have long wanted to secularize scouting.  The bankruptcy has given them the means to do it.

I don't believe that's true at all.  BSA has been stuck walking a fine course between a long list of societal changes.  Though I could see a more secular future, I doubt anyone "wanted" that other than a few historical forum posters. 

[CynicalScouter 1434]

33 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

In effect, he asked, “Have you even considered how your business plan pencils if we go away? Have you lost your mind, as well as your calculator? You need us and, well, we really don’t ‘need’ you if it comes right down to it.”

I think the BSA was/is taking the COs for granted, in the following sense (and this is almost verbatim what counsel for the Ad Hoc Local Councils Committee said): this entire process is being dealt with in phases and now that they have a deal with the main victims groups (TCC/FCR/Coalition) that covers BSA and the LCs now they could turn their attention to the COs I should said had a deal because the RSA blew up, but anyway. And oh, this "phase" approach did nothing to stop them from being able to cut a deal with Hartford.

I think they may have a point in this sense: trying to figure out the COs is going to be an amazingly complicated mess even in the best of circumstances. But this is triage: what is the most important deal to be struck/cut in order to get out of bankruptcy? There are only but so many hours in a day, what do you want to dedicate them to: cutting a deal with the TCC/FCR/Coalition, or the COs? BSA's attorneys chose the TCC/FCR/Coalition and decided to kick the can down the road with the COs.

Here's the problem: that strategy, while it may have made legal sense, from an institutional perspective was a bad one. Now you have lots of COs who feel, as the attorney for the Methodists and Catholics put it, left out and abandoned. It certainly LOOKS on paper (in the form of the RSA and the Fourth Amended Plan) as if the COs are being left to fend for themselves. Now, that may not have been what BSA intended, but that's the message that go through.

Edited August 23, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter 1434]

15 minutes ago, David CO said:

I don't think BSA believes it needs or wants the religious CO's.  They have not lost their minds.  They have made a calculated decision.  They have long wanted to secularize scouting.  The bankruptcy has given them the means to do it.

If the only COs being left to twist in the wind were the Methodists and Catholics, I might agree with you. But thus far BSA has left ALL the COs left to twist. This isn't about "secularized scouting". It is about BSA pushing off certain conversations until later and just assuming the COs would be patient and wait. They aren't.