Jump to content

Chapter 11 Announced - Part 7 - Plan 5.0 - Voting/Confirmation


Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

More objections are coming in.  Sounds like they are due in 15 mins.

a6eadea4-101c-4c41-b171-e4659b3d8f08_8748.pdf (omniagentsolutions.com)

I found the above interesting.  This is a claim that BSA does not own the Norman Rockwell artwork and therefore, cannot give it to the trust.

Not quite that they don't own it, rather that they share ownership of it in some way with Brown and Bigelow, a publishing company.  The filing goes on to say that there is a 1991 written agreement in which BSA acknowledged the joint ownership AND agreed that neither party could assign its ownership interest to anyone without the permission of the other party.

If this is true it is another example, in my opinion, of how both sloppy, arrogant, and presumptuous BSA has operated all these years.  They just never felt like they were ever going to have to answer to anyone but themselves about anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 563
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As the time that a vote total approaches, I encourage everyone to repeat the Scout Oath and Law several times to remind us how to treat one another.  There are victims here who wish for the plan

I just finished reading Bates' report.  Now I have a headache.  It's well-written, but a bunch of spin.  So we're too old to deserve a decent settlement?  While I get the sol issue, if a suit is valid

66% is the threshold for a bankruptcy.  However, WSJ was reporting even BSA admitted they needed 75% which they didn't reach.  There are two issues that the 73% causes. One will be with Silverste

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

The filing goes on to say that there is a 1991 written agreement in which BSA acknowledged the joint ownership AND agreed that neither party could assign its ownership interest to anyone without the permission of the other party.

How can an attorney pledge an asset that is jointly held or otherwise encumbered without written consent? Um. Did BSA not have that document on file somewhere? Did the firm that did the asset appraisal not know? Due diligence? What about the professionals on the survivor side who rummaged through the assets? Something's hinky. Pah-lease. Maybe this is bogus. Meh. More trauma, er, drama.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

How can an attorney pledge an asset that is jointly held or otherwise encumbered without written consent? Um. Did BSA not have that document on file somewhere? Did the firm that did the asset appraisal not know? Due diligence? What about the professionals on the survivor side who rummaged through the assets? Something's hinky. Pah-lease. Maybe this is bogus. Meh. More trauma, er, drama.

I forgot to add to my post that they didn't attach the supposed agreement.  Very few agreements truly prevent any alienation.  Clearly there are various levels of value to the paintings, I've purchased a couple of prints of "The Scoutmaster" and not from BSA.  Likely whoever buys the paintings buys them with whatever encumbrances there may be.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

I forgot to add to my post that they didn't attach the supposed agreement.  Very few agreements truly prevent any alienation.  Clearly there are various levels of value to the paintings, I've purchased a couple of prints of "The Scoutmaster" and not from BSA.  Likely whoever buys the paintings buys them with whatever encumbrances there may be.  

There appears to be two points.  The copyright and the actual paintings.  It would be interesting if the agreement clearly stated dual ownership of the paintings vs just the copyright to reprint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last I knew, the BSA owned all but one of the Norman Rockwell paintings that were on the front of Boy's Life.  There were volunteers trying to secure that last painting and I do not know whether they were successful.  

That said, the Rockwell paintings were acquired over many years as gifts and, I think, a few were purchased.  They did not come as a set.  Where Brown and Bigelow fit into this scenario, I do not know.  The Rockwell paintings are on loan to an art gallery in Ohio right now.  So maybe Brown and Bigelow have a role in loaning the collection.  If Brown and Bigelow have an ownership stake, I have never heard about that.  So that does not mean that they have an ownership stake, but it is not clear to me how it came about.  It would be an interesting story.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

The last I knew, the BSA owned all but one of the Norman Rockwell paintings that were on the front of Boy's Life.  There were volunteers trying to secure that last painting and I do not know whether they were successful.  

That said, the Rockwell paintings were acquired over many years as gifts and, I think, a few were purchased.  They did not come as a set.  Where Brown and Bigelow fit into this scenario, I do not know.  The Rockwell paintings are on loan to an art gallery in Ohio right now.  So maybe Brown and Bigelow have a role in loaning the collection.  If Brown and Bigelow have an ownership stake, I have never heard about that.  So that does not mean that they have an ownership stake, but it is not clear to me how it came about.  It would be an interesting story.

Brown & Bigelow published the boy scout calendar and were the ones who hired Rockwell to paint them. It's interesting that in some places, some paintings appear with a copyright line to Brown & Bigelow. It's possible that people that gifted them were unaware that some of them had encumbrances. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the earliest Rockwells also were published in the Redcross Magazine.  Also, a few were on the Saturday Evening Post, and one or two other peiodicals.  He was a prolific illustrator in his prime, and so some there was a wide variety of periodicals that on occasion has something from him, though The Post and BSA publications had the most due to his early connection when just starting out.

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

How can an attorney pledge an asset that is jointly held or otherwise encumbered without written consent? Um. Did BSA not have that document on file somewhere? Did the firm that did the asset appraisal not know? Due diligence? What about the professionals on the survivor side who rummaged through the assets? Something's hinky. Pah-lease. Maybe this is bogus. Meh. More trauma, er, drama.

If BSA knew about this situation prior to the settlement being voted on it would also cast more doubts on the voting.  How could they say vote yes and you will get paintings?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's late on the 9th.  No objections from the TCC or any updates really from mediation parties.  The only mediation party that objected is the Roman Catholic Church.  No updated plan.  Status conference in about 40 hours.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When National Scouting Museum was next door to the National Service Center in Irving, Texas, I was able to tour it a few times.  I was told that the collection was only the Norman Rockwell paintings of Scouting that had been on the cover of Boy's Life.  Some were later used in calendars.  From what I was told, the BSA has never owned any Norman Rockwell paintings other than those commissioned by Boy's Life.  Unfortunately, I cannot claim to have definitive information, but I have been told the same multiple times by people who are knowledgeable.  

As to the ownership issue, I believe that the BSA believed that they had the ownership of the paintings.  If the ownership is claimed to not be solely the BSA, it might be contested.  I sincerely doubt that the leadership would have concealed that fact.  

It is a shame for the BSA to lose the paintings for future Scouts to see and it is a shame that the paintings will likely be worth less sold within a short time of one another rather than over many years.  What must be must be accepted and we must move on.  It would be difficult to make the case that the paintings are essential to the core mission of Scouting so are an asset.

Hopefully, this will be settled quickly.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

When National Scouting Museum was next door to the National Service Center in Irving, Texas, I was able to tour it a few times.  I was told that the collection was only the Norman Rockwell paintings of Scouting that had been on the cover of Boy's Life.  Some were later used in calendars.  From what I was told, the BSA has never owned any Norman Rockwell paintings other than those commissioned by Boy's Life.  Unfortunately, I cannot claim to have definitive information, but I have been told the same multiple times by people who are knowledgeable.  

As to the ownership issue, I believe that the BSA believed that they had the ownership of the paintings.  If the ownership is claimed to not be solely the BSA, it might be contested.  I sincerely doubt that the leadership would have concealed that fact.  

It is a shame for the BSA to lose the paintings for future Scouts to see and it is a shame that the paintings will likely be worth less sold within a short time of one another rather than over many years.  What must be must be accepted and we must move on.  It would be difficult to make the case that the paintings are essential to the core mission of Scouting so are an asset.

Hopefully, this will be settled quickly.

They were commissioned early and used on the cover of Boys' Life first to help promote the calendar. They are linked. 

It's possible BSA didn't know, but the incompetency of that would be beyond belief. 

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

They were commissioned early and used on the cover of Boys' Life first to help promote the calendar. They are linked. 

It's possible BSA didn't know, but the incompetency of that would be beyond belief. 

It is fascinating how people on this and so many other threads always assume the worst about the BSA.  I know most of the upper management and National Executive Board personally.  They are bright, hard-working, dedicated to Scouting, and honorable.

My guess is that the contracts were executed long ago - in the 19 teens or twenties.  That the contracts have been misplaced or lost over the many decades and many moves of the national service center.  I would further posit that volunteers who wish to see the BSA retain the Norman Rockwell collection have been scouring the landscape for a way to do so.  They could have asked Brown and Bigelow to search their files for anything that might allow the collection to be removed from sale due to Chapter 11.  I would further posit that Brown and Bigelow did not know that they had the agreement.  Clearly, this is only conjecture based on no information.  However, incompetence or dishonesty are not in my opinion as likely as other explanations by knowing the people involved.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, yknot said:

They were commissioned early and used on the cover of Boys' Life first to help promote the calendar. They are linked. 

It's possible BSA didn't know, but the incompetency of that would be beyond belief. 

I would be shocked if the BSA only found out about this today thru the objection. 

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

It is fascinating how people on this and so many other threads always assume the worst about the BSA.  I know most of the upper management and National Executive Board personally.  They are bright, hard-working, dedicated to Scouting, and honorable.

My guess is that the contracts were executed long ago - in the 19 teens or twenties.  That the contracts have been misplaced or lost over the many decades and many moves of the national service center.  I would further posit that volunteers who wish to see the BSA retain the Norman Rockwell collection have been scouring the landscape for a way to do so.  They could have asked Brown and Bigelow to search their files for anything that might allow the collection to be removed from sale due to Chapter 11.  I would further posit that Brown and Bigelow did not know that they had the agreement.  Clearly, this is only conjecture based on no information.  However, incompetence or dishonesty are not in my opinion as likely as other explanations by knowing the people involved.

Would this be the same great group of guys and gals who want to keep the rest perversion files from seeing the light of day?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...