Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[ChewbaccaD]

Most likely. But SCA at least had a judge underwrite the sanction. It looks like the actual settlement agreement with it's clauses is way too hard to untie. Armstrong protected this eventually but didn't bank on the sanction being so high.

Armstrong will always have a hard time getting around the fact that the original settlement only exists because he lied the first time around. If he didn't there would have been no settlement in his favour.

Fun & Games to follow.

(This is a sincere and earnest response)

That is the point I have been making, but it's really unclear how much they felt they could rely on that fact. They hammer on about it in their ruling for sanctions, but the dissent counters with the smell test, suggesting that all of the dramatic rhetorical flourish in describing Armstrong's actions is cover for a decision that was basically "Armstrong did something bad in subverting justice, and while we don't have a traditionally precedent based jurisdiction to enact our sanction, Armstrong did something bad so he should pay regardless."

I don't know if that argument will win or not, but on a smell test, he has a point. As others have pointed out, the reasoning for the sanction doesn't cite much authority for the imposition.

I have also thought a little more about what little I know about challenge of arbitration, and generally, the original process is fiercely protected by courts if there is a valid arbitration clause. What they do many times balk at, and MarkvW has consistently pointed to this, is that overturning DECISIONS of arbitrators is much harder to do, and essentially, this entire process has been about overturning the original, final decision, which evidently, they didn't feel they could do at this time.

A court could very well look at what the arbitrators wrote, decide that the arbitration clause was valid, and validly allowed for the decision (which is why they two or three times quote the contractual provisions of the clauses in the original arbitration agreement included in the original contract). The court might just walk away, and call it over...then again, this is a unique situation, and could certainly affect other arbitration decisions in a way that the court would not like to see happen. They want less court action as related to arbitration (that's the whole point of having arbitration), and a ruling that the arbitration sanction was valid might open a HUGE can of worms, because others might look at what happened, and try to use it as precedent to do the same for their finalized arbitration decisions.

Then again, the levels to which Armstrong went to create a completely fraudulent process in this particular case, are quite extraordinary.

It should be fun to watch.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Most likely. But SCA at least had a judge underwrite the sanction. It looks like the actual settlement agreement with it's clauses is way too hard to untie. Armstrong protected this eventually but didn't bank on the sanction being so high.

Armstrong will always have a hard time getting around the fact that the original settlement only exists because he lied the first time around. If he didn't there would have been no settlement in his favour.

Fun & Games to follow.

I agree the settlement agreement looks way too hard for SCA to untie. The arbitrators do seem to have boxed Mr. Armstrong into a corner though. He can't appeal based on the legitimacy of the arbitration board (done and done). I did read the entire decision. Even Ted Lyon acknowledges that Mr. Armstrong committed perjury. His argument that the arbitration panel is "doing the right thing" in making up SCA's losses rather than following Texas law appears prima facie persuasive.

The challenge to Mr. Armstrong and his lawyers will be keeping A JUDGE from reopening the original settlement. Mr. Armstrong's argument is going to have to be that SCA accepted the possibility of perjury to protect themselves from sanction for selling insurance without a license, which means the settlement was entered into by SCA based on perjury AND blackmail, the question will inevitably be asked, "Did you lie under oath?" Even if Mr. Armstrong pleas the 5th, the judgment of the panel's majority will not appear excessive as I see it.

This doesn't seem much like it's about the money for SCA. I think they welcome an appeal. Mr. Herman may be wondering about it, though, because he now ought to have some suspicion that his client may have lied to him, despite the arbitrators specifically holding him blameless for Mr. Armstrong's lies to this point.

 

[Digger]

I putting it out there for anyone to conform or deny...has ted Lyon represented lance prevously...I have unconfirmed reports that he did. If he did then that's significant in light of his role on the arbitration panel. So if anyone knows for sure...

 

[skippythepinhead]

(This is a sincere and earnest response)

I have also thought a little more about what little I know about challenge of arbitration, and generally, the original process is fiercely protected by courts if there is a valid arbitration clause. What they do many times balk at, and MarkvW has consistently pointed to this, is that overturning DECISIONS of arbitrators is much harder to do, and essentially, this entire process has been about overturning the original, final decision, which evidently, they didn't feel they could do at this time.

Question: by "original, final decision" are you referring to the agreed-upon settlement between the parties? I recall reading that the arbitrators were not given a chance to rule originally. Or something else that I missed? Thanks.

 

[thehog]

Question: by "original, final decision" are you referring to the agreed-upon settlement between the parties? I recall reading that the arbitrators were not given a chance to rule originally. Or something else that I missed? Thanks.

Correct. There was a settlement between the parties which the panel "endorsed". In theory it was a decision which they underwrote.

Arbitration is really this very point. To bring both parties to agreement without the need for the courts. Cheaper, less formal and not time consuming.

 

[wirral]

Armstrong needs to learn the concept of a stop loss. It seems to be all or nothing with him. Everything is an all out war.

 

[jam pants]

Armstrong needs to learn the concept of a stop loss. It seems to be all or nothing with him. Everything is an all out war.

He also makes terrible decisions on his own, and seems like the type who would choose an action with higher potential risk based solely on the fact that it came from his own brain. What a job it must have been for those around him to convince him that their ideas were his own.

 

[D-Queued]

I putting it out there for anyone to conform or deny...has ted Lyon represented lance prevously...I have unconfirmed reports that he did. If he did then that's significant in light of his role on the arbitration panel. So if anyone knows for sure...

It wouldn't be much of a speculation that Lyon was the arbitrator selected by Lance.

Even if he wasn't hired previously, one would expect some bias towards Lance.

Dave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Question: by "original, final decision" are you referring to the agreed-upon settlement between the parties? I recall reading that the arbitrators were not given a chance to rule originally. Or something else that I missed? Thanks.

Yea, that's correct. I was sloppy, by decisions, I was referring to finality. The settlement precluded an actual decision...

Sorry, I really should just stop writing while I'm studying...I'm sloppy and all over the place because my attention is elsewhere. I'll check back in a couple of weeks...

If they examiners give the hardest bar exam in the history of mankind, it will be because they include the topics being discussed here today, and I doubt that will happen.

Black letter law is all that I need to be concerned with.

 

[D-Queued]

Yea, that's correct. I was sloppy, by decisions, I was referring to finality. The settlement precluded an actual decision...

Sorry, I really should just stop writing while I'm studying...I'm sloppy and all over the place because my attention is elsewhere. I'll check back in a couple of weeks...

Go for it!

We wouldn't want contributions from a lawyer who failed their bar exams. Especially if the reason was the Lance distraction. Given what a great contributor he is to the profession, and all.



Dave.

 

[TANK91]

Im far from an Armstrong fan but i do think he should keep his GT wins. What do you lot think?. Anyone thought weather he stayed on things may have been diff like i was watching 2005 TDF on youtube and there is not a chance in hell Armstrong loses to Landis and Perreiro he would have destroyed them. He could have probably won 2006, 2007, 2008. That would have been 10 TDF lol. You have to admit the TDF were not that strong in 06,07,08. Contador would have destroyed him in 09 i think though.

 

[Bluenote]

Yea, that's correct. I was sloppy, by decisions, I was referring to finality. The settlement precluded an actual decision...

Sorry, I really should just stop writing while I'm studying...I'm sloppy and all over the place because my attention is elsewhere. I'll check back in a couple of weeks...

If they examiners give the hardest bar exam in the history of mankind, it will be because they include the topics being discussed here today, and I doubt that will happen.

Black letter law is all that I need to be concerned with.

Good luck, Chewie.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Thanks guys...I may need some luck this time...

Anyway, I leave with this, from an attorney of many years: If you're going to enact a vendetta in the courts, be sure to dig two graves.

This may be a win by SCA or not, but the reality is that, on cost, I doubt anyone will have come out in the black when all is said and subtracted.

 

[thehog]

Armstrong needs to learn the concept of a stop loss. It seems to be all or nothing with him. Everything is an all out war.

He's still got the money. Its SCA who has to keep going to get it. Apparently he offered $10m so perhaps he was trying to slow the bloodletting. I'm not sure anyone would give up the cash without some form of fight. He's fairly routine in this department. GM motors probably worse by a few percentage points.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Thanks guys...I may need some luck this time...

Anyway, I leave with this, from an attorney of many years: If you're going to enact a vendetta in the courts, be sure to dig two graves.

This may be a win by SCA or not, but the reality is that, on cost, I doubt anyone will have come out in the black when all is said and subtracted.

yes thanks Chewie..
and good luck.

see you later :wave

 

[thehog]

He's still got the money. Its SCA who has to keep going to get it. Apparently he offered $10m so perhaps he was trying to slow the bloodletting. I'm not sure anyone would give up the cash without some form of fight. He's fairly routine in this department. GM motors probably worse by a few percentage points.

The plot thickens.

The majority consisted of Chairman Richard Faulker and SCA-appointed arbitrator Richard Chernick. The dissent was from defendant-appointed arbitrator Ted Lyon, who wrote the $10 million award "is not based on the law."

"The final decision by the panel reminds me about the 'do right rule," Lyon wrote. "It doesn't matter what the law is, let's just do what is right. Arbitrators, like judges, don't have that luxury, and the panel exceeded its authority by indulging itself here."

Lyon said SCA "has been found by the panel to have engaged in the business of selling insurance in Texas without a license," exposing SCA to possible liability for treble damages and attorney fees.

"Armstrong was seeking $10 million in damages and attorneys fees, opening SCA up to a potential liability of over $22 million," Lyon wrote. "No party in this case came here with clean hands."

The sources prove correct. SCA not squeaky clean here

http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/02/17/lance-armstrong-takes-spills-in-two-courts.htm

 

[D-Queued]

The plot thickens.



The sources prove correct. SCA not squeaky clean here

http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/02/17/lance-armstrong-takes-spills-in-two-courts.htm

Using the excellent memory that you told us about in the 2008 thread, can you advise as to why this matter wasn't material to the original SCA arbitration?

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

Pretty good article by Macur in the NY Times:

"...Armstrong might have started out on a road to redemption two years ago, but that he took an early exit..."

Dave.

 

[thehog]

Pretty good article by Macur in the NY Times:

"...Armstrong might have started out on a road to redemption two years ago, but that he took an early exit..."

Dave.

A bridge player who bet on Armstrong in the first place. And who sells insurance illegally.

Not sure I'd be backing SCA in this one! Armstrong and SCA are almost on par with each other... in normal life people wouldn't support an insurance company, they only do so because of their dislike for Armstrong.

Fairly straight forward stuff.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Using the excellent memory that you told us about in the 2008 thread, can you advise as to why this matter wasn't material to the original SCA arbitration?

Dave.

Yes, Lyon makes it perfectly clear that the licensure issue was known to all parties, meaning Mr. Armstrong placed getting paid at the top of his hierarchy of needs, above the proper exposure and potential adjudication of SCA's violation and subsequent liability. I'm not surprised Lyon ignores this in his dissent, but I do note he provided no case law to support his idea that everyone's hands have to be equally germ-free before equity can be achieved.

What WAS unknown was the extent of Mr. Armstrong's perjury and fraud, meaning equity was not achieved by the prior settlement.

However, if a court can be convinced that profiting from perjury is the same as being willing to meet your contractual obligations regardless of the state of your corporate licensure, I am certain that court will be located in Texas.

 

[D-Queued]

Yes, Lyon makes it perfectly clear that the licensure issue was known to all parties, meaning Mr. Armstrong placed getting paid at the top of his hierarchy of needs, above the proper exposure and potential adjudication of SCA's violation and subsequent liability. I'm not surprised Lyon ignores this in his dissent, but I do note he provided no case law to support his idea that everyone's hands have to be equally germ-free before equity can be achieved.

What WAS unknown was the extent of Mr. Armstrong's perjury and fraud, meaning equity was not achieved by the prior settlement.

However, if a court can be convinced that profiting from perjury is the same as being willing to meet your contractual obligations regardless of the state of your corporate licensure, I am certain that court will be located in Texas.

Thanks Skippy.

Seems thehog's memory has failed him, as has logic.

To enforce its obligation, the original arbitration would have needed to find the contract valid, n'est-ce pas?

If Armstrong argues the contract was invalid, then isn't he arguing:

1. That the original arbitration, that caused SCA to payout in the first place, was invalid?
2. That the funds received should not have been?

Silly argument.

Even if the sky is falling, the world is flat, and the earth stops spinning, and Armstrong were to win an argument for an invalid contract, then the basis for any damages would be related to the premiums paid for the contract in the first place. Treble that (3 * $1.95m), and Armstrong would still need to pay SCA back money.

Lose. Lose. Lose.

Finally, I wonder if Lyon read Paragraph 3 of the SCA Contingent Prize Contract #31122:

"3. ...Sponsor* shall indemnify SCA for any claims against SCA initiated as a result of Sponsor's implementation or conduct of said PGA Cyclist Incentive Bonus Program."

Moreover, forget about treble damages:

"1. ...SCA's liability is limited to the actual cost to Sponsor* of the performance award(s) scheduled under this contract ..."

Finally, as to Chewie's and Kennf1's comments above on the arbitration clause:

"9. Sponsor agrees that any dispute arising under this contract shall be resolved by binding arbitration between Sponsor* and SCA, and supercedes any prior agreement, oral or written. Any modification hereto must be in writing and signed by the parties."

*Sponsor = Tailwind

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

Oh, and one other thing that may have slipped thehog's memory:

The original arbitrators were:

The Honorable Richard Faulkner, Richard Chernick and Ted Lyon.

Yes, the same Ted Lyon.

Dave.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Oh, and one other thing that may have slipped thehog's memory:

The original arbitrators were:

The Honorable Richard Faulkner, Richard Chernick and Ted Lyon.

Yes, the same Ted Lyon.

Dave.

Yep.

One other small note: the recently stated fact that Mr. Armstrong made an offer to pay the full amount--even if the offer was a non-guaranteed $1.00 per month for 10,000,000 months--provides at least an inkling of what his attorneys really think of his chances in further proceedings.

 

[MarkvW]

The Arbitration Panel's "Final Arbitration Award" is a mere piece of paper unless and until SCA is able to convince the Texas courts to enter an order confirming that Award.

The dissent's argument isn't silly at all. If Texas buy's SCA's argument then it would appear that in Texas a company can feloniously enter into an insurance contract, settle that contract with a confidentiality clause to cover up the crime, then years later--after waiting for the statute of limitations for its crime to expire--reopen the ostensibly settled litigation and recover damages and attorney fees "under the rubric" of sanctions for fraud.

Or, to put it a different way, no arbitration in Texas could ever be fully and finally settled short of a hearing because the losing party will always have the opportunity to raise a fraud claim at a later date. (Insurers will LOVE that).

There is no dispute that the Arbitration panel's action was unprecedented. That indicates that both sides will eventually get a full hearing in the appeals courts.

I'm not saying that Armstrong is going to win. I'm just saying that the arguments available to Armstrong are not "silly" by any means.

 

[thehog]

The Arbitration Panel's "Final Arbitration Award" is a mere piece of paper unless and until SCA is able to convince the Texas courts to enter an order confirming that Award.

The dissent's argument isn't silly at all. If Texas buy's SCA's argument then it would appear that in Texas a company can feloniously enter into an insurance contract, settle that contract with a confidentiality clause to cover up the crime, then years later--after waiting for the statute of limitations for its crime to expire--reopen the ostensibly settled litigation and recover damages and attorney fees "under the rubric" of sanctions for fraud.

Or, to put it a different way, no arbitration in Texas could ever be fully and finally settled short of a hearing because the losing party will always have the opportunity to raise a fraud claim at a later date. (Insurers will LOVE that).

There is no dispute that the Arbitration panel's action was unprecedented. That indicates that both sides will eventually get a full hearing in the appeals courts.

I'm not saying that Armstrong is going to win. I'm just saying that the arguments available to Armstrong are not "silly" by any means.

I tend to agree. No wonder SCA refused to pay the first time around. I should add that Armstrong used 3rd party for the initial contract and did not negotiate with SCA direct.

Where this will go is anybody's guest. Fraudantly supplying insurance contracts, refusing to pay, being sued, having to pay by settlement, now trying to unwind the whole mess whilst portraying that that you've been ripped off. Hardly.

I don't think Armstrong should keep the money but SCA, dear god.