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

[MarkvW]

No such thing as a "badly worded" contract. Contracts are between two or more parties and signed in good faith. Contracts can be 2 lines long if they want. Most contract don't stipulate for unforeseen events such as this - how can they?

Back in 2005 sent letters to Armstrong to clarify points in the contract in regards to doping and asked for evidence that he was clean and had not deceived them.

Armstrong took action against SCA not the other way around.

That is key. Not only Armstrong deceived them with the contract but he then took action and stacked an arbitration hearing.

Its very simple. Their money should be returned. Its not difficult.

Hogwash from the Hog.

There is such a thing as a badly worded contract. That point is so obvious it is not even worth discussing.

And we all don't know what the contract says. The contract could spell doom for either Lance or SCA. We're all just guessing.

It may not be that simple. SCA wants to unwind a deal, and you need to know just exactly what the deal was before you can evaluate the chances of unwinding it.

 

[zebedee]

I'm with you on this. Courts generally-speaking will not, cannot, look behind a contract to read into them clauses that are not there. The contract will be interpreted on its face.

 

[thehog]

Hogwash from the Hog.

There is such a thing as a badly worded contract. That point is so obvious it is not even worth discussing.

And we all don't know what the contract says. The contract could spell doom for either Lance or SCA. We're all just guessing.

It may not be that simple. SCA wants to unwind a deal, and you need to know just exactly what the deal was before you can evaluate the chances of unwinding it.

Bigging it up again Mark? You basically repeat my post and claim you know all about it?

We do know what the contract states. Its freely available.

It is simple. Just like the USADA case. You went on and on and on about SOL etc. and nothing. It was a simple case of doping or not doping. Doping = sanction. Simple.

This is exactly the same. SCA were deceived. Their money should be returned. They attempted clarity back in 2005 and were again deceived by litigation.

Simple. Just so simple.


Edit: I will add. Premeditated "deception" is far worse than deception by "opportunity". SCA will get their money back and some.

 

[MarkvW]

Bigging it up again Mark? You basically repeat my post and claim you know all about it?

We do know what the contract states. Its freely available.

It is simple. Just like the USADA case. You went on and on and on about SOL etc. and nothing. It was a simple case of doping or not doping. Doping = sanction. Simple.

This is exactly the same. SCA were deceived. Their money should be returned. They attempted clarity back in 2005 and were again deceived by litigation.

Simple. Just so simple.

You've got the settlement contract? Where can it be found?

And the SOL was a serious issue for USADA Tygart admitted it. Lance probably could have settled with USADA for a sanction that only covered the past 8 years, but Lance wasn't willing to admit doping.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

It is an open question whether or not the SCA settlement was "based on fraud." It certainly arose out of a hotly contested case where the issue of fraud was in dispute.

The settlement agreement may have language like this:

"This settlement is the full and final resolution of all claims between the parties, known and unknown, arising out of the TdF contract. Neither party in entering into this present contract is relying upon anything that the other party said or did."

That kind of language could ultimately be devastating to a later fraud claim made by SCA. How can SCA say that Lance defrauded them, when SCA said that they didn't rely on anything Lance said or did when they entered into the settlement agreement?

If Lance can make that kind of an argument, he'll likely ultimately win. Any person (SCA) has a right to bargain away their fraud claims against another person (Lance) and courts are going to respect that bargain.

SCA's argument will probably be based around a doctrine called "fraud in the inducement." In google-lawyer terms, that means that one guy lied to the other guy to get the other guy to sign the contract.

SCA will argue fraud in the inducement and Lance will argue that each of the parties, as evidenced by the express language of the contract, explicitly did not intend to induce the other to sign the contract.

That may eventually have to be decided by a judge.

But before any decision is made by the judge, the parties are usually entitled to do discovery. That means Lance getting deposed. And Lance does not want to get deposed. Lance is going to try to get the trial judge to protect him from getting deposed, and SCA is going to fight to depose Lance. That's where I expect the real battle in that case to be. Avoiding a deposition may be worth big settlement money to Lance.

This, of course, is speculation.

Just spitballing here, so don't shoot at me too strongly, but the grounds for setting aside settlement agreements are contractual ones, and mutual mistake (cannot be unilateral) is one included along with fraud as you discussed.

Here is the mutual mistake: Both parties entered into the settlement agreement based on the belief that Armstrong won the Tour de France. Armstrong did not win the Tour de France.

EDIT: There was a clear mistake of fact. A mistake of fact renders a contract void, and settlements statements are governed by contractual defenses.

 

[thehog]

Edit: I will add. Premeditated "deception" is far worse than deception by "opportunity". SCA will get their money back and some.

I will agree with Mark that Lance does not want to be deposed. This will end up in court but he'll settle just prior. Criminally, theft by deception is very serious. He could also be arrested but I doubt it.

Further to my points; Armstrong "engaged" SCA. He approached them. He entered into the contract with them. ie he knew the deception and engaged SCA in that deception.

When they asked questions in 2005 he litigated to conceal the deception.

SCA never withheld th payment. They were seeking clarity on the doping and his results. They were litigated. Again to conceal the deception.

There will be much manovouring prior to a payout.

The money belongs to SCA. All they are asking is to have it returned.

Simple.

 

[zebedee]

That is just not so. Armstrong won the TDF. SCA paid out accordingly.

There's many things I'd like to do differently in life were I able to go back with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

That is just not so. Armstrong won the TDF. SCA paid out accordingly.

There's many things I'd like to do differently in life were I able to go back with the benefit of hindsight.

No, he did not win the Tour de France. See yesterday's decision by the UCI to allow his removal of his titles. He was not the winner, and that reality was in existence at the time of the settlement though the process for removing him as champion only just happened. The law is a precise thing. The fact that he was thought to be champion during that time does not alter the reality that he was actually not the champion during that time. His win's ceased to exist from the moment they were given. They did not cease to exist yesterday upon the UCI's approval. I don't think you understand the the legal significance here at all.

This isn't about hindsight. Look up the term "relate back" and get back to me.

 

[Microchip]

USADA stripped his titles.
UCI recognized what USADA did.
ASO supports the removal of titles.
Time to give back the bonuses.

 

[MarkvW]

Just spitballing here, so don't shoot at me too strongly, but the grounds for setting aside settlement agreements are contractual ones, and mutual mistake (cannot be unilateral) is one included along with fraud as you discussed.

Here is the mutual mistake: Both parties entered into the settlement agreement based on the belief that Armstrong won the Tour de France. Armstrong did not win the Tour de France.

EDIT: There was a clear mistake of fact. A mistake of fact renders a contract void, and settlements statements are governed by contractual defenses.

It seems like a good idea. The discovery rule would appear to protect SCA from SOL problems.

 

[MarkvW]

USADA stripped his titles.
UCI recognized what USADA did.
ASO supports the removal of titles.
Time to give back the bonuses.

Has that ever happened, with any race?

 

[MarkvW]

That is just not so. Armstrong won the TDF. SCA paid out accordingly.

There's many things I'd like to do differently in life were I able to go back with the benefit of hindsight.

If I cheat you out of your house, and you don't discover it until fifteen years later, you're still going to want your house back from me.

The law would generally favor you over me in a situation such as that.

 

[thehog]

If I cheat you out of your house, and you don't discover it until fifteen years later, you're still going to want your house back from me.

The law would generally favor you over me in a situation such as that.

Similar to a "contract note" for stock purchase. Withheld financial information (doping) would cause for money to be returned.

House purchase is a good one. If you're sold a house and the seller does not 'declare" on the sale forms that the house is full "rot" then there would be cause for the house to be returned at its original value. The hard part is proving the "rot" was a pre-existing condition and did not gestate after purchase.

The SCA case is much more simpler than the above two examples.

 

[Cloxxki]

Has that ever happened, with any race?

This is basically insurance fraud, not prize money.
No-one ever took an insurance to win a race like that. No-one ever was so sure to win, or fearful a win would not be sufficiently profitable.

 

[zebedee]

I doubt that.

There will be a prescriptive period for bringing a claim of fraud.

I'm not saying SCA don't have a case. It's not as cut and dried as you may believe though and courts are reluctant to look behind the straightforward interpretation of a contract.

 

[D-Queued]

That is just not so. Armstrong won the TDF. SCA paid out accordingly.

There's many things I'd like to do differently in life were I able to go back with the benefit of hindsight.

I doubt that.

There will be a prescriptive period for bringing a claim of fraud.

I'm not saying SCA don't have a case. It's not as cut and dried as you may believe though and courts are reluctant to look behind the straightforward interpretation of a contract.

Do you live in a cave with outbound internet capability only?

Armstrong did not win the Tour, ever. He has to pay back all 'winnings' provided to the Tour.

Can I suggest you take a read of the SCA Contract?

Especially to the section on Exclusions:

4. Exclusions

We will not pay for prize indemnification resulting directly or indirectly from:


A. Any dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or malicious act committed by you or any of your Directors, Officers, Employees, Agents or representatives.

B. Any contravention of the contest rules and regulations or any other condition of warranty of this policy by any contest participant making a claim for the insured prize.


With respect to 4.A., Lance perjured himself with respect to his role with Tailwind (i.e. he was in fact a part owner, an Officer, and an employee). He committed dishonest and fraudulent acts, which we have only just received a definitive conclusion on.

With respect to 4.B., we have only just learned that Lance officially contravened the contest rules.

So whatever your argument is with respect to the prescriptive period, the clock started last Monday.

Oh, and just to remind everyone, the original action was with Lance and Tailwind as Claimants as SCA had not paid as promptly as the contract outlined.

This is kind of the other way around now. Thus, if rules like double-jeopardy were being counted on, they should not apply here.

Darn.

Dave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I doubt that.

There will be a prescriptive period for bringing a claim of fraud.

I'm not saying SCA don't have a case. It's not as cut and dried as you may believe though and courts are reluctant to look behind the straightforward interpretation of a contract.

The straight forward interpretation of the contract is that SCA only pays if Armstrong wins. He didn't win. Period.

The straight forward interpretation of the application of contract defenses used to set aside a settlement includes mutual mistake. Both parties were mutually mistaken about the fact that Armstrong won. He didn't.

SCA doesn't even have to get into the messy argument of whether or not there was fraud by taking that path. They avoid Lance on the stand and any issues of possible perjury in the previous case completely.

The only real issue is whether the SOL is tolled, and there is a strong case for that to be the case.

Of course, you will have to deal with the prospect of a friendly Texas judge, but that was always going to be a consideration. Taking the most direct route (my contention is that of mutual mistake of fact which voids any contract) alleviates much of that concern, but not all.

The row you are trying to hoe is much tougher than the one I am suggesting. Good luck with that.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

This is basically insurance fraud, not prize money.
No-one ever took an insurance to win a race like that. No-one ever was so sure to win, or fearful a win would not be sufficiently profitable.

I disagree. This is:

1. A case of mutual mistake of contract which is grounds for vacating a settlement agreement, which is governed by the law of contracts based on my review of case law. (admittedly, that was only about 20 min of work, but the several references to that fact make me feel pretty certain I am on solid ground with that assertion.)

2. Armstrong not fulfilling his part of the contract. He never won the Tour de France. Ever. No insurance fraud needed.

Going down the road of fraud/perjury is a tough road. It is more time consuming, more expensive, and much tougher to pursue.

The path I suggest is much more easier.

Of course, I am only a student, so I could be missing something.

 

[MarkvW]

Similar to a "contract note" for stock purchase. Withheld financial information (doping) would cause for money to be returned.

House purchase is a good one. If you're sold a house and the seller does not 'declare" on the sale forms that the house is full "rot" then there would be cause for the house to be returned at its original value. The hard part is proving the "rot" was a pre-existing condition and did not gestate after purchase.

The SCA case is much more simpler than the above to examples.

SCA is about a settlement contract. Settlement contracts are primarily about finality. At the time that they entered into the settlement contract, both SCA and Lance wanted the dispute to be over, forever.

This settlement was between very hostile parties who plainly did not trust each other--and where SCA plainly asserted that Lance doped, and then lied about it afterward. It's going to be hard for SCA to prove that Lance duped them into this settlement deal, when it is clear that at the time the agreement was executed SCA believed that Lance was a big fat liar.

I'm not picking sides. Mutual mistake (Chewbacca's argument) or maybe fraud in the inducement, can get SCA the win. But this thing is by no means simple.

The interesting battle for me will be SCA's fight to get Lance under oath (again).

 

[MarkvW]

I disagree. This is:

1. A case of mutual mistake of contract which is grounds for vacating a settlement agreement, which is governed by the law of contracts based on my review of case law. (admittedly, that was only about 20 min of work, but the several references to that fact make me feel pretty certain I am on solid ground with that assertion.)

2. Armstrong not fulfilling his part of the contract. He never won the Tour de France. Ever. No insurance fraud needed.

Going down the road of fraud/perjury is a tough road. It is more time consuming, more expensive, and much tougher to pursue.

The path I suggest is much more easier.

Of course, I am only a student, so I could be missing something.

I'd bet that SCA is going to throw mutual mistake into the complaint. This looks like the kind of case for the law books (or the kind of case that gets settled to avoid big expensive litigation).

At the time of the SCA litigation, there was no mutual mistake, because Lance was the winner. The mutual mistake arose only later--when ASO and the UCI both vacated that win.

That is really interesting. Balancing the finality of the settlement agreement against the apparent mutual mistake.

 

[thehog]

SCA is about a settlement contract. Settlement contracts are primarily about finality. At the time that they entered into the settlement contract, both SCA and Lance wanted the dispute to be over, forever.

This settlement was between very hostile parties who plainly did not trust each other--and where SCA plainly asserted that Lance doped, and then lied about it afterward. It's going to be hard for SCA to prove that Lance duped them into this settlement deal, when it is clear that at the time the agreement was executed SCA believed that Lance was a big fat liar.

I'm not picking sides. Mutual mistake (Chewbacca's argument) or maybe fraud in the inducement, can get SCA the win. But this thing is by no means simple.

The interesting battle for me will be SCA's fight to get Lance under oath (again).

I get what you're saying. Your focusing on the settlement contract not the original contract between the two parties. Which makes sense.

However the deception began with the first contract, continued when SCA requested clarity on the doping provisions and ended up Armstrong taking action and continued the deception.

Goes without saying that from start to finish the original contract and the subsequent settlement was theft by deception.

I also wouldn't say the parties were hostile. Armstrong was hostile by taking action and then he was extremely evasive during arbitration and intimidated other witnesses.

The fraud and deception began from day 1 and continued through to settlement.

There's only one conclusion to this story.

 

[skimazk]

step 1 for SCA will be to hold their breath until wednesday the 31st and then nov 22, when the dates for appealing at CAS run out for other partys and WADA respectivly. After nov 22, if there is no appeal they are in a better position as he will be definitly stricken from the books. If there is an appeal they are probably better of waiting for CAS to reach a decision, because if CAS sticks to the SOL LA gets to keep his victory's until 2005 just like Riis got to keep his title and jersey due to passing the SOL date.

 

[zebedee]

Does a statute of limitation or a prescriptive period for bringing a civil case in a fraud matter, not affect SCA's claim?

 

[Tubeless]

It is an open question whether or not the SCA settlement was "based on fraud." It certainly arose out of a hotly contested case where the issue of fraud was in dispute.

The settlement agreement may have language like this:

"This settlement is the full and final resolution of all claims between the parties, known and unknown, arising out of the TdF contract. Neither party in entering into this present contract is relying upon anything that the other party said or did."

That kind of language could ultimately be devastating to a later fraud claim made by SCA. How can SCA say that Lance defrauded them, when SCA said that they didn't rely on anything Lance said or did when they entered into the settlement agreement?

If Lance can make that kind of an argument, he'll likely ultimately win. Any person (SCA) has a right to bargain away their fraud claims against another person (Lance) and courts are going to respect that bargain.

SCA's argument will probably be based around a doctrine called "fraud in the inducement." In google-lawyer terms, that means that one guy lied to the other guy to get the other guy to sign the contract.

SCA will argue fraud in the inducement and Lance will argue that each of the parties, as evidenced by the express language of the contract, explicitly did not intend to induce the other to sign the contract.

That may eventually have to be decided by a judge.

But before any decision is made by the judge, the parties are usually entitled to do discovery. That means Lance getting deposed. And Lance does not want to get deposed. Lance is going to try to get the trial judge to protect him from getting deposed, and SCA is going to fight to depose Lance. That's where I expect the real battle in that case to be. Avoiding a deposition may be worth big settlement money to Lance.

This, of course, is speculation.

We are all speculating, but can infer a few conclusions from the actions of the parties:

1. SCA has determined it's in their financial interest to bring action against Armstrong. This fact suggests the settlement language is not tight enough that it could not be challenged.

2. Armstrong does not want to be deposed and have to answer a question about doping - even as that would be a side-show to the whole dispute (the arbitration judge ruled doping was not germane to the original insurance contract). This is the main concern by team Armstrong.

It's clear Armstrong's legal team will try to get the lawsuit (once filed) tossed out. But if a judge allows the case to continue to the discovery phase, it would seem likely Armstrong would quickly settle.

Given that the facts of the case are well known:

- Armstrong quite obviously lied in the original case deposition
- Armstrong is not a Tour de France winner any more
- Had Armstrong admitted to doping when deposed, he quite likely would have been stripped of his victories already back in 2005

it would be surprising that a judge would dismiss the case simply based on settlement language nuances and not permit discovery. There have been both an apparent attempt to deceive the original judicial process plus a change on the key facts that determined the outcome of the insurance contract arbitration. A fair-minded judge would see an obvious injustice and induce the parties to settle, once again.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Does a statute of limitation or a prescriptive period for bringing a civil case in a fraud matter, not affect SCA's claim?

Continuing conspiracy to defraud right up to the present. The S of L is likely tolled for Armstrong from the beginning of his doping right to the present. Lance is like most criminals/malfeasors, to wit, stupid, arrogant, egocentric and self-destructive. He really is an extreme case.