Chapter 11 Announced - Part 5 - RSA Ruling

[Gilwell_1919 42]

@CynicalScouterSo... based on your opinion... how long to do think this will drag out? 2023 and beyond? If so, how long can BSA hold out (financially) before they have to cry out for mercy and are forced to switch to chapter 7?

[Muttsy 137]

49 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

We have never, ever, had a Congressionally Chartered org go into Chapter 7.

To my knowledge this is true. There have been numerous Congressional Charters issues to various civic and patriotic groups over the past century. 
 

The Congressional Charter to BSA granted it IP rights. Other perks to BSA are also littered throughout the US Code.  IF BSA liquidates in a Ch 7, I think the Charter becomes a legal nullify and it has no IP protection. It is a valuable asset which the Ch 7 liquidation trustee would have to decide how, if possible, to monetize it for the trust. But Congress would have to sign off on any transfer of the IP rights to a new scouting entity. If nothing was done then I suppose any group could use it with a lot of ensuing confusion amongst the scouting public. If there is no BSA to enforce it, then I don’t know. Perhaps the best thing would be to retire the name, let new scouting orgs emerge and see which ones do the best job of rebuilding the movement. That was the state of scouting prior to 1913. The idea of nationalizing scouting back then was to ensure high standards and uniformity. Maybe granting a single scouting organization the BSA that monopoly power was not the best idea as things turned out. I believe there is great potential in a movement that has the autonomy to reimagine how scouting should be run. The BSA mutated in to a top down autocratic bureaucratic monster that placed the interests of the executives and the commercialization of scouting above scouts and scouting itself. 
 

It is a good omen for the future of scouting that people on this forum are starting that process of reimagining scouting. 

[ThenNow 1373]

1 hour ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

... but something about this whole AIS structure doesn't smell right. I guess time will tell what comes of all of this. 

I keep checking Ancestry.com to see if they’ve listed the lineage. So far, no dice. I even bought a subscription and signed up for notices. Don’t wanna miss it. I’ll post the family tree with color commentary when it lands.  

[CynicalScouter 1434]

3 hours ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

@CynicalScouterSo... based on your opinion... how long to do think this will drag out? 2023 and beyond? If so, how long can BSA hold out (financially) before they have to cry out for mercy and are forced to switch to chapter 7?

Chapter 7 won't happen. The judge has made it pretty clear that's not in the cards.

If BSA wanted out of bankruptcy tomorrow, it could happen.

Let me repeat that: if BSA wanted out of bankruptcy tomorrow, it could happen. Even Stang earlier on admitted that.

The main reason for this entire knock down drag out fight is that BSA wants the LCs and COs covered, too.

If the only issue was BSA leaving (what was called the "toggle plan") I fervently believe they could be out of bankruptcy by December 2021 (optimistic) or March 2022.

It would, of course, leave the LCs and COs absolutely up a creek without paddles.

If it gets to the point of BSA being completely out of cash and resources, I would expect at that point BSA to submit a BSA/LC or BSA/LC/CO plan to the claimants with the proviso that, should that be rejected, BSA will ask the court for a cramdown anyway for BSA only and that absent that, BSA will request Chapter 7. This was already pretty much BSA plan 3.0, except no veiled threat of a Chapter 7.

• If it got the 2/3rds needed, done. BSA's out of bankruptcy along with the LCs and COs.
• If it failed to get the 2/3rds needed, rather than watching as BSA dies, the judge would order a cramdown. BSA comes out of bankruptcy, and 1/4 to 1/3 of councils will be in bankruptcy the next day. Yes, I know, that's never happened in an abuse bankruptcy case before. You know what also never happened? 82,500 claims and the possibility of an institution like BSA being pushed out of existence. Given a choice between the two (a dead BSA vs. a cramdown), I suspect the judge would order the cramdown.

This is my wild speculation. Take with copious grains of salt.

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[CynicalScouter 1434]

3 hours ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

I used to do interviews with bad guys in Afghanistan... the loudest and most adamant were generally the most guilty.

Two things can be true at the same time:

1. Kosnoff may be the biggest jerk in the world
2. Kosnoff's signature may have been misused/used without his permission

#1 has no bearing on #2. #2 has no bearing on #1.

[CynicalScouter 1434]

Boy Scouts Insurance Fight Complicates Deal to Pay Victims

[Gilwell_1919 42]

14 hours ago, Muttsy said:

It is a good omen for the future of scouting that people on this forum are starting that process of reimagining scouting. 

I couldn't agree more.

[Gilwell_1919 42]

11 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Chapter 7 won't happen. The judge has made it pretty clear that's not in the cards.

If BSA wanted out of bankruptcy tomorrow, it could happen.

Let me repeat that: if BSA wanted out of bankruptcy tomorrow, it could happen. Even Stang earlier on admitted that.

The main reason for this entire knock down drag out fight is that BSA wants the LCs and COs covered, too.

If the only issue was BSA leaving (what was called the "toggle plan") I fervently believe they could be out of bankruptcy by December 2021 (optimistic) or March 2022.

It would, of course, leave the LCs and COs absolutely up a creek without paddles.

If it gets to the point of BSA being completely out of cash and resources, I would expect at that point BSA to submit a BSA/LC or BSA/LC/CO plan to the claimants with the proviso that, should that be rejected, BSA will ask the court for a cramdown anyway for BSA only and that absent that, BSA will request Chapter 7. This was already pretty much BSA plan 3.0, except no veiled threat of a Chapter 7.

• If it got the 2/3rds needed, done. BSA's out of bankruptcy along with the LCs and COs.
• If it failed to get the 2/3rds needed, rather than watching as BSA dies, the judge would order a cramdown. BSA comes out of bankruptcy, and 1/4 to 1/3 of councils will be in bankruptcy the next day. Yes, I know, that's never happened in an abuse bankruptcy case before. You know what also never happened? 82,500 claims and the possibility of an institution like BSA being pushed out of existence. Given a choice between the two (a dead BSA vs. a cramdown), I suspect the judge would order the cramdown.

This is my wild speculation. Take with copious grains of salt.

 

While a "cramdown" would be bad PR (or at least a stain) for BSA... I hope discovery/deposition of the claims aggregators highlights impropriety, or...at the very least... helps answer any looming questions/speculation out there. I think it would be bad for all parties if it goes unanswered. Again, I am glad the judge saw merit in granting that motion. 

[Gilwell_1919 42]

11 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Two things can be true at the same time:

1. Kosnoff may be the biggest jerk in the world
2. Kosnoff's signature may have been misused/used without his permission

#1 has no bearing on #2. #2 has no bearing on #1.

Definitely a valid point. Hopefully the discovery process opens the curtains and we get to see the wizard(s). 

Like I said... if Tim K. is proven innocent... I'll eat my words with a big slice of humble pie. But, I still take exception to his stated goal of making BSA go away. That would hurt the kids that are currently in the program. For someone who is rattling the saber and frothing at the mouth about bringing justice to thousands of innocent kids... he doesn't seem to be giving a modicum of consideration for current kids ("scouts") and how this will affect their lives. He needs to be "thinking locally" and "acting nationally"... meaning, hold BSA accountable... but don't try to destroy it because that would have severe ramifications for "the kids on Main St. USA". The program, at the local level, is still one of the greatest programs ever envisions (*hat tip to Baden Powell and William Hillcourt - and so many others). 

I am not saying BSA didn't need to be forced to address this issue... but all of us know BSA doesn't me "scouts". You know... the little kids in our communities that just want to go camping in the outdoors and make s'mores around campfires. If, and only if, Tim K. started to show some consideration for them, and how completely destroying BSA would do more harm than good... maybe I'd be inclined to change my mind. But... none of that is really applicable to the case, so I'll step down from my soapbox. 

I appreciate your grain-of-salt analysis. Thank you!

[fred8033 1593]

15 hours ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

... the loudest and most adamant were generally the most guilty. ...

That's why I'm saying something doesn't smell right.  

[fred8033 1593]

16 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Well, intellectual property rights are no different in legal concept than owning a building or Philmont.  In a Ch 7 liquidation, all would be sold, and the proceeds distributed to creditors  Those assets will not simply pass down by some process to the LC's.  The LC's are separate legal corporations.  The LC's might pool their assets and purchase National's intellectual property rights, but it will not be a gift to them. The new owner could simply discontinue publication of the Scout Handbook.  If I buy a car, I don't have to drive it. The inventory of Scout Handbooks already published and on the market would remain, until consumed, and then there would be no more.

I don't know what the likelihood is that someone would buy those rights and do nothing with them, but my point is that control might be lost to an entity not holding the same beliefs as those in the Movement.

I was not inferring ownership as much as rights to use continue.  Your analysis of IP being similar to a building is correct.  BUT, it's not about ownership.  It's about rights to use and continuing current agreements.

Analogy --> Strip mall owners can go bankrupt, but that does not mean Great Clips and Ace Hardware are tossed to the curb.  Their leases continue (generally with some exceptions).  Another company will end up owning the strip mall, but the current tenants have their rights to continue.  If their lease is broken, then they can submit their own claims in the bankruptcy.  

Similar ... if BSA were to liquidate, then LCs could file suit for damages due to breach of contract.  One medication could be continued right to use IP.  

[Gilwell_1919 42]

6 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Similar ... if BSA were to liquidate, then LCs could file suit for damages due to breach of contract.  One medication could be continued right to use IP.  

I think that would be good for some councils... definitely not others. In this scenario, it would be the Balkanization of scouting after years of independent LCs doing their own things. It could be, however, a better way to re-envision BSA national. No longer a separate entity, but a sort of "council of councils" wherein each SE gets to vote on policies, procedures, et cetera. They could even do a bi-annual vote of officer positions. Basically, decentralize power, give more power back to the LCs, but provide oversight. Hummm, where have I heard that before? (***the original U.S. Constitution wherein any powers not enumerated were kicked back to the states to determine for themselves***). Oh, what a perfect BSA that could be. 

[Gilwell_1919 42]

14 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I keep checking Ancestry.com to see if they’ve listed the lineage. So far, no dice. I even bought a subscription and signed up for notices. Don’t wanna miss it. I’ll post the family tree with color commentary when it lands.  

🤣 Thanks... I needed a good LOL this morning.

[fred8033 1593]

 

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

One medication could be ...

medication ???  ... I wrote that.   Dang.   I need to go sit in a dark room and be quiet.  mediation.

Edited September 1, 2021 by fred8033

[CynicalScouter 1434]

Attorneys for Insurance companies file papers indicating they are moving ASAP on depositions of the claims aggregators. The TCC/FCR/Coalition all agree on the way the depositions will happen, they just need the judge to sign the formal order.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/dac4ce83-d67a-4634-9260-e6346451675f_6162.pdf

Quote

On August 30, 2021, the Court granted the Motion, in part, for the reasons set forth
on the record of such hearing. Thereafter, the Court directed counsel to Century and Hartford to
confer with the parties regarding a form of order and submit an agreed form of order granting the
Motion in part. On September 2, 2021, Century provided a draft of the proposed order to the
Official Tort Claimants’ Committee (“TCC”), the Future Claimants’ Representative (“FCR”) and
the Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice (the “Coalition”). Accordingly, counsel to Century,
Hartford, and the parties have agreed as to the form of the proposed order attached hereto as
Exhibit A (the “Proposed Order”).

1) Insurers get to issue subpoena demands on Verus Claims Services LLC, Consumer Attorney Marketing Group, Archer Systems, and Stratos Legal.

2) They also get to depose, but guess who else get to show up for THAT party (THOSE parties)?

Quote

all insurers, the TCC, the Coalition, and the FCR shall have the right to attend and participate in any depositions authorized under this Order.

This is big. The ORIGINAL order for depositions simply had the insurance companies there. See page 38-39.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870566_1975.pdf

The TCC/FCR/Coalition have asked to be there.

Why is that relevant? Remember that the accusation is that the aggregators were working/doing slimy stuff on behalf of the Coalition and their lawyers.

So, are the Coalition there to ask questions of the aggregators? Or to advise them to shut their yaps if there are questions that come up that may implicate the Coalition lawyers?