Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 6 - Plan 5.0/TCC Plan TBD


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

It would be good to see the total asset look as well. 

Total asset avoids the problem of councils declaring "restricted" assets that clearly are not. For example, San Diego Imperial claims, based on "restricted" it has  net unrestricted assets of -$566,856 and yet somehow they are contributing $2,661,800

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is Doug Kennedy, a member of the TCC.  First, I want to thank all of you for your comments over the past 18 months.  Your comments and those in other forums, whether I disagree with them or not,

A few months ago, one of the posters here offered some great advice I thought.  Type what you intend  to say. Set it aside for a few minutes and look at it again before you press "post". Does it

Normally I wouldn't discuss user issues, but given his profile pic and signature I'm going to make an exception: Regardless of the impression given by his profile picture and signature line, Cyni

Posted Images

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

Total asset avoids the problem of councils declaring "restricted" assets that clearly are not. For example, San Diego Imperial claims, based on "restricted" it has  net unrestricted assets of -$566,856 and yet somehow they are contributing $2,661,800

 

Yes ... I think sometimes "unrestricted" is a grey area.  I know my council has listed a bunch of properties as restricted but are looking at selling them anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night was the Plan and Disclosure Statement.

This morning is proposed (note: proposed) confirmation scheduling and solicitation procedures

Confirmation schedule: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/08ca3188-198e-4ccc-93cf-bb50a4680f40_6216.pdf

Solicitation procedures: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/ce88d5fe-54e9-4b60-a100-584d8909acec_6215.pdf

40 days to vote

Voting Record Date

Tuesday, September 21, 2021

Solicitation Date

Monday, October 4, 2021

Rule 3018(a) Motion Deadline

Tuesday, October 19, 2021

Publication Deadline

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

Plan Supplement Deadline

Tuesday, November 2, 2021

Voting Resolution Event Deadline the Court

Tuesday, November 16, 2021

Voting Deadline

Tuesday, November 16, 2021

Preliminary Voting Report Deadline

Friday, November 19, 2021

Plan Objection Deadline

Tuesday, November 23, 2021

Final Voting Report Deadline

Tuesday, November 30, 2021

Confirmation Brief/Plan Reply Deadline

Thursday, December 2, 2021

Confirmation Hearing

Thursday, December 9, 2021

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The problem is no one has asked for it. In USA Gymnastics the victims demanded the entire board resign, organizational and structural changes, etc.

No one has so far filed ANYTHING about demanding changes to BSA National's internal structure. And I doubt the judge is sua sponte going to demand, for example, the NEB be reduced down to 12.

The TCC's demands have all been focused on a single aspect: sexual abuse claims of the past (IV Files released) and the future (committee to review YP, independent expert brought in to review, etc.)

No one has even mentioned the massively bloated Board.

As I recall, the Judge commented on the size of the 72 member National Executive Board. IMHO the National Executive Council (15 member?) and National Executive Board (72 member) should be merged into 16-24 (new) member Board with clear responsibilities and powers defined in new bylaws, e.g., as USA Gymnastics has done.

IMHO, National's goal going into bankruptcy was to maintain control during and after and they have - kept their executives and their camps (HA). So have as many review committees and independent experts as you want and National will see you back in court.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

IMHO I see little real organizational change in the BSA. New boss is the old boss.

I agree 100%.

I've been mulling your "Bankruptcy will not end Scouting" tag for a long time.

Existing (and prior) management, they may well kill Scouting-unless they go.  The corporate culture that got Scouting to this point has to change-and that is only accomplished by a clean sweep.  Will the shamed senior management remain in place to shout down junior level management's "we-told-you-so's?"

National's management has been a catastrophic moral failure. That alone is reason enough for the clean sweep.

Never mind the disastrous financial consequences, and the gutting of relationships with active volunteers (who understand all of this), CO's, and insurers.

"You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?"  Attorney Joseph Welch to Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Time for retirements and resignations.

 

But the greatest damage done is National's denial and debasing of the principles it espouses.

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

COs are covered for abuse that took place AFTER 1975

I really, really think this is a big deal. It addresses BSA's point that as far as they are concerned they NEVER agreed to cover COs prior to 1974-1976 time frame.

It also is interesting about number of claims. I know at one point there was a chart listing abuse claims by year, but I'd be curious how many were pre-1975 vs. post. I seem to recall about 50% of claims being pre and 50% post around then.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

Will the shamed senior management remain in place to shout down junior level management's "we-told-you-so's?"

Outside of a mass resignation, the NEB isn't going anywhere.

And the "senior" management have convinced themselves that "Well the abuse happened prior to MY tenure, therefore we are fine".

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

This morning is proposed (note: proposed) confirmation scheduling and solicitation procedures

I appreciate your putting in all the details, but there's no mention of YP or any other non monetary changes. So why not just get everyone in a room, hammer it all out, and put up a plan that has a chance of being accepted?

I appreciate that it's iterative but why not work multiple sections at the same time? 

This whole process has been piecemeal with lots of gnashing of teeth in between. Step 1 was just national. Teeth gnashing was TCC saying no way, councils are not independent. Step 2 was national & councils. Gnashing was throwing insurance companies and COs under the bus. Step 3 was national, councils & insurance companies. Gnashing was COs. Step 4 is national, councils, insurance companies & COs. I assume step 5 will include structural changes? The bsa is either inept or is controlling the discussion. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MattR said:

I appreciate your putting in all the details, but there's no mention of YP or any other non monetary changes. So why not just get everyone in a room, hammer it all out, and put up a plan that has a chance of being accepted?

I haven't seen particular, but that blows my mind. That was something from the RSA that could be added in with CLEARLY no objections from the TCC. Wow.

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

I appreciate that it's iterative but why not work multiple sections at the same time? 

My guess are two

1) "Only so many hours in a day". BSA has one set of lawyers. Having them simultaneously negotiating with multiple sets of lawyers for multiple sets of groups all at the same time becomes impossible.

2) Prioritization: Linked to #1: If you only have so many hours in a day, what is your priority? Pick what you think  is the hardest deal to cut? What is the most important deal to cut? Which is the easiest (hint; JP Morgan Chase as it turned out) Etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

It also is interesting about number of claims. I know at one point there was a chart listing abuse claims by year, but I'd be curious how many were pre-1975 vs. post. I seem to recall about 50% of claims being pre and 50% post around then.

965326560_ScreenShot2021-09-15at9_57_26AM.png.87cf4c9531ea253d8d02481e2f43d482.png

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Kosnoff's latest konspiracy: BSA incorporated in Delaware in 2019 so they could handpick SIlverstein to be the bankruptcy judge in their bankruptcy.

No, I'm not kidding.

Excellent. He keeps saying all these cool, outlandish things I'm sending him via mental telepathy. I need these plot points, intrigue and conspiracy theories for my screenplay. Well done, TK. Right on cue. Bravo.

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

Kosnoff's latest konspiracy: BSA incorporated in Delaware in 2019 so they could handpick SIlverstein to be the bankruptcy judge in their bankruptcy.

No, I'm not kidding.

 

If BSA only incorporated in 2019 I bet you he is correct (at least in terms of picking Delaware).  BSA knew they were in serious financial trouble for many years.

https://www.delawareonline.com/story/money/business/2014/09/19/companies-turn-delaware-survive-bankruptcy/15891887/

 

Quote

Companies can file for bankruptcy if they are incorporated in the state even if they don’t have operations here. According to the Department of State, Delaware is the legal home to more than 1 million business entities. More than half of all publicly traded U.S. companies, including 64 percent of Fortune 500 companies, are Delaware entities.

 

 

Edited by Eagle1993
updated as it is not clear they picked the judge
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Eagle1993 locked and unlocked this topic
  • Eagle1993 locked and unlocked this topic
  • Eagle1993 featured and unfeatured this topic
  • Eagle1993 locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...