Correct me if I am wrong (not if you think Lance / Greg is an a$$, that the case is baloney), but as far as I can see, the case from Lemond's side is this:
Lemond feels that Trek have dealt unfairly by him as a bike designer. According to him, this is possibly based on the comments he made in 2001 (which to be honest are fairly ambiguous, but could be played well to either side - nice word play that, Gregory), leading to Trek desiring to get rid of him, in favour keeping of the greater cash cow, i.e. Armstrong, happy and untarnished, as such protecting their investment. To this end, Lemond claims that the company had failed to adequately promote his line of bikes, up to a point where they could legitimately say "Greg, it ain't working, it's been fun, but time to move on."
So, the court case is essentially a case of constructive dismissal. The cause advanced for this by Lemond is that his comments on the drug issue were potentially damaging / defaming for Armstrong, and Trek / Armstrong moved based on this. Am I correct in this? If so, and Lemond wins, and Armstrong's reputation is brought down, rightly or wrongly, as a result (highly unlikely, but the way it is spoken of you would think it was the case), this would be the cycling equivalent to Capone being done for taxes.
What amazes me most (and I know it is the Clinic this is being discussed in, and this is therefore off topic, and liable to get the whole thread kicked off this part of the forum), is the low sales of Lemond's in France - no more than 12 or maybe 15 bikes in 5 years max. Any word I have of them is very positive, and Lemond is pretty popular in France, since 1990, at any rate. I would expect them to have done well with at least the aspirational bike rider there.