Boy Scouts Slams Victim Committee for Opposing $2.7 Billion Deal

A committee representing sex abuse victims in the Boy Scouts of America’s bankruptcy is acting against its constituents’ best interests by putting a $2.7 billion settlement at risk, the organization said.

The “overwhelming majority” of survivors supports the deal to establish a settlement trust and resolve approximately 82,500 sex abuse claims, the Boy Scouts said in a filing Tuesday. The Justice Department-appointed tort claimants’ committee is trying to derail that agreement, the organization said.

Preliminary voting results “demonstrate that individual abuse survivors heavily support the Plan, while certain plaintiffs’ firms—largely those aligned with the TCC,” remain opposed, the Boy Scouts told the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

The deal is anticipated to pay abuse claims in full, the organization added.

Advocating against a deal that garnered the support of 73% of abuse claimants shows disregard for the TCC’s fiduciary duty, the Boy Scouts said.

The TCC has opposed the plan’s liability releases for the Boy Scouts’ insurers, nationwide network of local councils, and groups that have sponsored scouting activities. The plan also undervalues the amount victims should be able to recover, it says.

The releases—offered in exchange for contributing to the settlement trust—likely need support from 90% of abuse claimants to pass muster in court, the committee added in a Jan. 7 court filing.

But defeating the plan means “virtually no recovery in these chapter 11 cases and the only ‘winners’ will be the TCC’s professionals and those state court lawyers that believe public destruction of the Debtors’ Plan will yield more for them in individual negotiations pertaining to their cases,” the Boy Scouts told the court.

The organization will continue mediating disputes and work to increase the size of the trust before seeking bankruptcy court approval of the plan next month, it said.

The case is In re Boy Scouts of America, Bankr. D. Del., No. 20-10343, response filed 1/11/22.