MacRoadie said:
Do we know if Trek would have donated that money to that specific charity in the absence of the settlement? It's not too far-fetched that Lemond directed the money be paid to the charity as a final eff you..
I would assume Lemond got to pick the charity. 1in6.org is a website devoted to education and support for men who were victims of sexual abuse as children. I'm willing to bet that Trek didn't just happen to pick that charitable cause at random. This sort of payment method in a settlement isn't all that unusual. I've had clients who have done the same sort of thing, i.e., the defendant makes a donation to the charity of the plaintiff's choice. It's not something you see every day, but I've been involved in cases where it's been done.
MacRoadie said:
Do we know if the money was offered to Lemond and he then directed it to be paid to the charity of his choice?
No, I don't think we know that. I've not read any published reports about that one way or the other.
MacRoadie said:
Do we know if Lemond "enjoyed" or derived any benefit other than monitarily from the donation (peace of mind, success of a charity dear to his heart)?
I don't recall Lemond ever making any published statements about that one way or the other. I assume he received some amount of pleasure and pride though in benefitting a cause in which he has some interest in promoting, in this case, recovery from a history of childhood sexual abuse, something he's spoken about recently.
MacRoadie said:
At the end of the day, semantics aside, as a result of the settlement, Lemond enjoyed a greater benefit than Trek did. Win, lose or draw.
Maybe, maybe not. As I said in my original post, and as MacRoadie has alluded to here as well, the costs of civil litigation, particularly in a complex business suit in which allegations of attempting to prove or defend against claims of lost profits as a result of allegations that Trek either didn't exert its best efforts to promote Lemond's line of bikes, or worse, that there was some sort of conspiracy or collusion between Trek and Armstrong to tortiously interfere with Lemond's contracts or his prospective economic advantages, is a very, very costly and time-consuming enterprise, which can take on a life of its own. Document production and collection is expensive; forensic accounting and expert costs can be astronomical, and legal fees can break a company, even one the size of Trek. Lemond I believe was using the same attorneys in that case that he was rumored to have now allowed to represent Landis (e.g., Wilson, Sonsini, et.al.) as well as his long time attorneys, and I don't know who Trek's lawyers were, but you can bet that both sides were using very high-priced legal talent, and that each side was looking at multiple millions of dollars in legal fees by the time the case went to trial. So a settlement which results in either side saving substantial fees and costs actually is a monetary benefit, and a settlement, because it usually represents a final resolution and disposition of a dispute, with each side signing releases and waivers of claims, works as a sort of "insurance policy" if you will, insuring that neither side will have to revisit the matters encompassed in and surrrounding the dispute again once the releases are signed.
Do we know the details of any of these settlements, really, and what else may have been received by a party? I don't. But I also don't think it's fair to describe any case that settles, at least not objectively speaking, as a "win" for anyone. There are so many economic and personal reasons that go into why parties settle cases that it's literally impossible to say which side "won" or "lost" when a case is settled. Either side may want to characterize it to their own benefit and advantage, and that happens all the time. Witness what's happening here in this thread. Everyone wants to claim that each other's favorite's "won" while the other side, because they paid something, "lost". And that's just silly, on so many levels.
BTW. I never said I knew why either the SCA vs. Tailwinds nor Lemond vs. Trek cases settled. I'm not an insider, nor do I claim to be. I merely object to the use of the term "win" when describing a settlement and that applies to both cases. All we know for sure is that the parties to each case, like thousands of litigants every day in other cases do, decided that settling made more sense than continuing to litigate. As I said, I would say the same thing about any settlement, no matter who was involved. As for motivations, I was not purporting to describe what the parties in either of these cases
actually considered or negotiated, but merely describing the reasons why litigants settle cases, and sometimes its for reasons that don't immediately spring to mind, including the simple fact of the outrageous cost of litigation.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram