The fun begins - SCA now asking for money back...

[BillytheKid]

What are you talking about?

So SCA just shelled out 12 million for the fun of it. They are investors. What return on it did they make before the 2006 settlement? Do we have a figure? What was their cut? I may have missed it, but I have not seen what their returns were. I assume that they sought the agreement based on an actual loss or that after he retired, they were taking avantage of what was then rumor to get out of demenishing returns.

VN '"The settlement, in which SCA agrees to pay Armstrong $7.5 million, says in part that “no party may challenge, appeal or attempt to set aside the arbitration award.”'

If that language is correct, and they settled, would that not be final?

 

[Oldman]

So SCA just shelled out 12 million for the fun of it. They are investors. What return on it did they make before the 2006 settlement? Do we have a figure? What was their cut? I may have missed it, but I have not seen what their returns were. I assume that they sought the agreement based on an actual loss or that after he retired, they were taking avantage of what was then rumor to get out of demenishing returns.

VN '"The settlement, in which SCA agrees to pay Armstrong $7.5 million, says in part that “no party may challenge, appeal or attempt to set aside the arbitration award.”'

If that language is correct, and they settled, would that not be final?

Like we said; that ship has sunk. You must be the last intern with a life preserver and no clue. Read thread from start...

 

[Benotti69]

<will the last intern please switch the light off>

SCA are an isurance company. Tailwind took out a policy on Armstrong's wins.

 

[zebedee]

So SCA just shelled out 12 million for the fun of it. They are investors. What return on it did they make before the 2006 settlement? Do we have a figure? What was their cut? I may have missed it, but I have not seen what their returns were. I assume that they sought the agreement based on an actual loss or that after he retired, they were taking avantage of what was then rumor to get out of demenishing returns.

VN '"The settlement, in which SCA agrees to pay Armstrong $7.5 million, says in part that “no party may challenge, appeal or attempt to set aside the arbitration award.”'

If that language is correct, and they settled, would that not be final?

What they received, presumably, was a premium in exchange for a policy. Far less than what they happened to pay out subsequently, I imagine.

 

[Race Radio]

So SCA just shelled out 12 million for the fun of it. They are investors. What return on it did they make before the 2006 settlement? Do we have a figure? What was their cut? I may have missed it, but I have not seen what their returns were. I assume that they sought the agreement based on an actual loss or that after he retired, they were taking avantage of what was then rumor to get out of demenishing returns.

VN '"The settlement, in which SCA agrees to pay Armstrong $7.5 million, says in part that “no party may challenge, appeal or attempt to set aside the arbitration award.”'

If that language is correct, and they settled, would that not be final?

You really should read the thread before posting as you are making no sense. SCA did not make money on the deal. They are not Nike or Trek who sold millions of $$ of garbage to clueless groupies.

Most states allow settlements based on fraud to be overturned

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You really should read the thread before posting as you are making no sense. SCA did not make money on the deal. They are not Nike or Trek who sold millions of $$ of garbage to clueless groupies.

Most states allow settlements based on fraud to be overturned

Remember the Alamo.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

So SCA just shelled out 12 million for the fun of it. They are investors. What return on it did they make before the 2006 settlement? Do we have a figure? What was their cut? I may have missed it, but I have not seen what their returns were. I assume that they sought the agreement based on an actual loss or that after he retired, they were taking avantage of what was then rumor to get out of demenishing returns.

VN '"The settlement, in which SCA agrees to pay Armstrong $7.5 million, says in part that “no party may challenge, appeal or attempt to set aside the arbitration award.”'

If that language is correct, and they settled, would that not be final?

Read SCA's complaint. This is about extrinsic fraud, not fraud that induced the settlement agreement.

The claims are that Armstrong procured his Tour wins through fraud, and that the operative part of the contract is that it was to pay funds to an "Official Winner" of the Tour. Last time I checked, Lance was not one of those.

And contrary to MarkvW's continued assertion that the integration clause (the clause that says that the settlement agreement is a complete measure of the terms, superseding all others), that integration clause refers only to preclude extrinsic evidence about other documents that relate to the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement itself did not supersede the original insurance policy. It couldn't have as the settlement agreement does not contain sufficient terms to render the actual insurance policy void. So, the fact is that SCA still paid Armstrong because of the insurance policy, which is a contract that was still operative.<- now, Lance's attorneys will claim otherwise because they have to, but if you read the settlement agreement carefully, you will see that there are some large holes that cannot be filled by only the words contained in the settlement agreement. MarkvW's assertion is that the funds were to be paid to the settlement winner. That is a nice theory, but ignores the abject fact that there were Tour de France wins that were operative in moving money from SCA to Armstrong. Those wins are no longer operative, and are material to that movement of funds. The problem with the settlement agreement is that it contains no terms related to those wins. Because it didn't, all the settlement agreement says is that the funds that were due because of the original insurance policy, SCA refused to give them because of a question about the terms, and Lance said that question was not relevant to whether they paid. Thus, the settlement agreement only relates to that argument, as that was the substance of Lance's complaint that led to the settlement. The question of whether he was an "Official Winner" was never addressed, but that does not render the question irrelevant (which is MarkvW's assertion). I disagree, and I think a court will too. As I keep telling him, if his theory is so waterproof, this complaint cannot survive a motion to dismiss. When it does (because after that, this suit will be settled and will never see the light of a courtroom), he will need to come in here and once again explain why he cannot seem to discuss a legal topic competently.

I realize what I have just written may sound a bit like Greek, but if you read SCA's complaint carefully, you will see that this lawsuit has nothing to do with SCA being defrauded into signing a settlement agreement. It has to do with a man who fraudulently obtained titles. If he legitimately was an "Official Winner" he was thus entitled to the funds in the insurance agreement. If he is not, and he isn't and legally never was, he is not entitled to those funds.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

What they received, presumably, was a premium in exchange for a policy. Far less than what they happened to pay out subsequently, I imagine.

That's the nature of insuring this type of risk. SCA would presumably have charged a premium based on the expected losses (plus a hefty margin, to cover expenses, profit and the inherent undertainty of the underlying risks) on a portfolio of unusual risks.

Thus, any policy where there was a claim would represent a loss to SAC, though if the underwriters had done their job, the losses would be more than offset by premiums on policies where there were no losses.

 

[MarkvW]

There is no way we can reasonably say that the SCA-Armstrong settlement agreement was based on fraud. Lance was surely lying about the doping, but Lance's lies did not induce the settlement agreement. SCA wasn't believing a word coming out of Lance's mouth at the time the settlement agreement was signed. And the agreement itself announced that neither party was relying on the representations of the other.

A lot of money was paid pursuant to that settlement agreement--to get that particular money back, SCA is going to have to come up with a way to invalidate the agreement that doesn't involve fraud.

I'm not quite so sure about any funds paid by SCA that weren't addressed in the arbitration and settlement agreement. SCA might still have a good shot at that money.

 

[BillytheKid]

You really should read the thread before posting as you are making no sense. SCA did not make money on the deal. They are not Nike or Trek who sold millions of $$ of garbage to clueless groupies.

Most states allow settlements based on fraud to be overturned

Sure thing. I realize that, but what, then was the loss? I can't seem to find a figure. Even if so, it would be my opinion that his retirement had more to do with it. The rumors proved out, but SCA made a bad deal I think. In hindsight it looks good for them, but I think they might have been more at-odds as I said of the deminishing returns. The 2006 settlement should be in-force if the above clause was part of it. But any more, who knows?

Sorry, to post off the cuff on a thread like this. I not here on a regular basis. It is not my passion, but I did back read enough to see a post: "The vultures are circling over a dead body."

Armstrong took himself down, but there is also the confluence of corruption, EPO, the fame, etc. to factor in.

Money does strange things to people. I'll try to find a link to a story recently read about the fate of lottery winners. It often goes bad for them.

 

[BillytheKid]

Read SCA's complaint. This is about extrinsic fraud, not fraud that induced the settlement agreement.

The claims are that Armstrong procured his Tour wins through fraud, and that the operative part of the contract is that it was to pay funds to an "Official Winner" of the Tour. Last time I checked, Lance was not one of those.

And contrary to MarkvW's continued assertion that the integration clause (the clause that says that the settlement agreement is a complete measure of the terms, superseding all others), that integration clause refers only to preclude extrinsic evidence about other documents that relate to the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement itself did not supersede the original insurance policy. It couldn't have as the settlement agreement does not contain sufficient terms to render the actual insurance policy void. So, the fact is that SCA still paid Armstrong because of the insurance policy, which is a contract that was still operative.<- now, Lance's attorneys will claim otherwise because they have to, but if you read the settlement agreement carefully, you will see that there are some large holes that cannot be filled by only the words contained in the settlement agreement. MarkvW's assertion is that the funds were to be paid to the settlement winner. That is a nice theory, but ignores the abject fact that there were Tour de France wins that were operative in moving money from SCA to Armstrong. Those wins are no longer operative, and are material to that movement of funds. The problem with the settlement agreement is that it contains no terms related to those wins. Because it didn't, all the settlement agreement says is that the funds that were due because of the original insurance policy, SCA refused to give them because of a question about the terms, and Lance said that question was not relevant to whether they paid. Thus, the settlement agreement only relates to that argument, as that was the substance of Lance's complaint that led to the settlement. The question of whether he was an "Official Winner" was never addressed, but that does not render the question irrelevant (which is MarkvW's assertion). I disagree, and I think a court will too. As I keep telling him, if his theory is so waterproof, this complaint cannot survive a motion to dismiss. When it does (because after that, this suit will be settled and will never see the light of a courtroom), he will need to come in here and once again explain why he cannot seem to discuss a legal topic competently.

I realize what I have just written may sound a bit like Greek, but if you read SCA's complaint carefully, you will see that this lawsuit has nothing to do with SCA being defrauded into signing a settlement agreement. It has to do with a man who fraudulently obtained titles. If he legitimately was an "Official Winner" he was thus entitled to the funds in the insurance agreement. If he is not, and he isn't and legally never was, he is not entitled to those funds.

So your to decide this case are you? Your only restating the SCA complaint. What was their loss? SCA may indeed win the day, but what was the actual amount of the loss?

 

[BillytheKid]

There is no way we can reasonably say that the SCA-Armstrong settlement agreement was based on fraud. Lance was surely lying about the doping, but Lance's lies did not induce the settlement agreement. SCA wasn't believing a word coming out of Lance's mouth at the time the settlement agreement was signed. And the agreement itself announced that neither party was relying on the representations of the other.

A lot of money was paid pursuant to that settlement agreement--to get that particular money back, SCA is going to have to come up with a way to invalidate the agreement that doesn't involve fraud.

I'm not quite so sure about any funds paid by SCA that weren't addressed in the arbitration and settlement agreement. SCA might still have a good shot at that money.

Better said than I.

 

[WinterRider]

So your to decide this case are you? Your only restating the SCA complaint. What was their loss? SCA may indeed win the day, but what was the actual amount of the loss?

SCA was paid $400k to insure $10m in bonuses if LA won three more tours. What they didn't know was that LA was intent on cheating on a massive scale to ensure he won those tours. It is straight up fraud and he will almost certainly lose.

SCA ended up paying him $12.5m, the $10m in bonuses plus $2.5m in legal fees. They are also out their own legal fees. They also lost a lot of business due to reputational damage caused by LA and his team. They are suing for all of this I believe, and they deserve every penny in my opinion.

 

[Scott SoCal]

There is no way we can reasonably say that the SCA-Armstrong settlement agreement was based on fraud. Lance was surely lying about the doping, but Lance's lies did not induce the settlement agreement. SCA wasn't believing a word coming out of Lance's mouth at the time the settlement agreement was signed. And the agreement itself announced that neither party was relying on the representations of the other.

A lot of money was paid pursuant to that settlement agreement--to get that particular money back, SCA is going to have to come up with a way to invalidate the agreement that doesn't involve fraud.

I'm not quite so sure about any funds paid by SCA that weren't addressed in the arbitration and settlement agreement. SCA might still have a good shot at that money.

All one has to do is observe the direction of defense LA's lawyers are pursuing to render the above take completely FOS.

If LA is successful arguing he didn't fraudulently win those TdF titles, successfully argues that he's still the TdF winner for those years and that his depo testimony was not also fraudulent, then he has a shot at keeping all his SCA payout.

 

[BillytheKid]

SCA was paid $400k to insure $10m in bonuses if LA won three more tours. What they didn't know was that LA was intent on cheating on a massive scale to ensure he won those tours. It is straight up fraud and he will almost certainly lose.

SCA ended up paying him $12.5m, the $10m in bonuses plus $2.5m in legal fees. They are also out their own legal fees. They also lost a lot of business due to reputational damage caused by LA and his team. They are suing for all of this I believe, and they deserve every penny in my opinion.

In 2006 they where acting on rumor: The facts of today were not know then. $400k in insurance is good to know, but what was their total take or loss?

But let's lighten up a little because "It's a Barnem and Bailey World. It's as phony as it can be."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMCJ3FuMYCU

And look to today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IP9h40z0sk

 

[BroDeal]

I get enough flicker over at VeloNews' forum. Do we really need it here.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

There is no way we can reasonably say that the SCA-Armstrong settlement agreement was based on fraud. Lance was surely lying about the doping, but Lance's lies did not induce the settlement agreement. SCA wasn't believing a word coming out of Lance's mouth at the time the settlement agreement was signed. And the agreement itself announced that neither party was relying on the representations of the other.

A lot of money was paid pursuant to that settlement agreement--to get that particular money back, SCA is going to have to come up with a way to invalidate the agreement that doesn't involve fraud.

I'm not quite so sure about any funds paid by SCA that weren't addressed in the arbitration and settlement agreement. SCA might still have a good shot at that money.

Again, you either haven't read their complaint or don't understand it. Either way, they are not claiming that they were fraudulently induced into signing the settlement agreement. I guess maybe you can't read?

They are claiming, and rightly so, that the Tour wins (you know, the operative event in the original contract) were procured by fraud. Please read the complaint and address the actual causes of action rather than making up ones you think are operative. The entire basis upon which the contract was formed was predicated upon fraud. You might not think that is a big deal, but I think if you actually study contract law, you'll see courts seem to think it is.

How many eggs do you want?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

So your to decide this case are you? Your only restating the SCA complaint. What was their loss? SCA may indeed win the day, but what was the actual amount of the loss?

It's "you're."

Secondly, stop posting on LSD. I suggest putting on Alpine Valley '89 and remembering that you will come down. Just keep saying "I will come down, I will come down, I will come down."

 

[ChewbaccaD]

All one has to do is observe the direction of defense LA's lawyers are pursuing to render the above take completely FOS.

If LA is successful arguing he didn't fraudulently win those TdF titles, successfully argues that he's still the TdF winner for those years and that his depo testimony was not also fraudulent, then he has a shot at keeping all his SCA payout.

Thank you Scott. I was beginning to wonder if anyone really gets what the question is here, and you obviously do. The funny thing is that all it takes is actually READING the SCA complaint. They never mention being fraudulently induced into signing the settlement agreement. Not once. They do however go into great detail about the fraud that procured the Tour wins for Armstrong. That's extrinsic fraud, and that is a completely different thing from fraudulent inducement. Completely.

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

It's "you're."

Secondly, stop posting on LSD. I suggest putting on Alpine Valley '89 and remembering that you will come down. Just keep saying "I will come down, I will come down, I will come down."

No no no, Irvine Meadows, '85!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Better said than I.

You don't seem to realize just how sad that statement is, do you?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

No no no, Irvine Meadows, '85!

Dude, we need to mellow his high. Nobody does "coming down" better than The Dead. The Power Station is going to increase the cycle of his psychotic flashes.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

No no no, Irvine Meadows, '85!

I was just after that era, so am still more of a fan of those 88-89 shows. Can we agree that maybe the Warlocks at Hampton in 89? Come on, work with me here.

Sure, after 89, Jerry hit the smack again, and the quality diminished pretty quickly, but that Warlocks show was something special.

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

I was just after that era, so am still more of a fan of those 88-89 shows. Can we agree that maybe the Warlocks at Hampton in 89? Come on, work with me here.

Sure, after 89, Jerry hit the smack again, and the quality diminished pretty quickly, but that Warlocks show was something special.

Granted.
When you get a chance you might enjoy this read: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/11/26/121126fa_fact_paumgarten

P.S. The Supreme Nozzle is eventually going to write some big, big checks...lotsa zeroes.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You don't seem to realize just how sad that statement is, do you?

He should just put it in his sig. line.

Isn't a large part of the case simply that Armstrong ultimately didn't win those races that he was paid the bonus for, so therefore Tailwind should have never collected any money? If so, then seems like Tailwind owes SCA and Lance owes Tailwind. No?