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.