Final Paper Assignment:

1. Motion to Vacate
and Memorandum
in Support
2. Motion to UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Confirm and FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Memorandum in
Support )
SCA PROMOTIONS, INC., SCA )
3.
INSURANCE SPECIALISTS, INC. )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. 07-2018
)

LANCE ARMSTRONG and )

TAILWIND SPORTS CORP. )
)
Respondents )

MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

Petitioners (Movants) SCA Promotions, Inc., SCA Insurance Specialists, Inc.,

pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral

Awards (New York Convention"), 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4), move this court to vacate

February 4, 2015 Arbitration A ward rendered by the arbitration tribunal constituted

under Compromise Settlement Agreement ("CSA") in SCA Promotions, Inc., SCA

Insurance Specialists, Inc. v. Lance Armstrong and Tailwind Sports Corp.

This Motion is supported by the accompanying memorandum.

Respectfully Submitted

/s/
 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN

)
LANCE ARMSTRONG and )
TAILWIND SPORTS CORP. ) BEFORE AN ARBITRATION
) TRIBUNAL CONSISTING OF THE
Claimants, ) HONORABLE RICHARD
) FAULKNER, CHAIRMAN,
v. ) MR. RICHARD CHERNICK AND
) HONORABLE TED LYON,
) ASSISTED
SCA PROMOTIONS, INC., SCA ) BY TRIBUNAL SECRETARY
INSURANCE SPECIALISTS, INC. ) MR. CHARLES BENNETT
)
Respondents )

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD

This memorandum is submitted on behalf of Petitioner SCA Promotions, Inc.,

SCA, Insurance Specialists, Inc. in support of its motion, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)
(4), to vacate an arbitration award. This motion should be granted and the award
confirmed into a judgment because the arbitration was in all respects proper and the
award is final and binding.

Statements of Facts

On or about 2004, Petitioner and Respondent entered into Contingent Prize

Contract 31122 ("CPC") in connection with the Tour the France. Respondent
declined to pay Claimant in accordance to the terms of the awards, asserting Claimant
had won the 2004 Tour de France using prohibited means. The arbitration tribunal was
prepared to rule after review of evidence, but before it could rule the parties entered into
an agreement, the Compromise Settlement Agreement ("CSA") and the public "Consent"
arbitration award, which contemplated future disputes provided that SCA pay
$7,500,000 to claimants in satisfaction of their rights under the CPC. In addition, The
CSA maintained jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal over future disputes, named
each arbitrator, and waived any challenges to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The
parties did return to the arbitration tribunal to resolve additional disputes.

Procedural Background

Two arbitrations proceedings were held to address the issue whether Claimant won
fairly and within the rules the various "Tour de France," thus precluding him to claim
earning stipulated in the CPC. Claimant sought relief for SCA action claiming SCA's
conduct violated their rights, but neither disputes resulted in an award, since the parties
resolved their disputes before the tribunal reached the award stage.

A fourth arbitration was held to determine whether Claimants' rights were violated
after SCA had provided extensive information to the USADA. Claimant asserted such
action by SCA violated the confidentiality order issued by the tribunal in the first
arbitration.

The main issues presented to the tribunal were: 1) Whether the Arbitration Tribunal
had authority to decide and resolve the existing disputes between the named parties, 2)
Which parties were subject to the arbitration tribunal's jurisdiction, 3) What jurisdiction
the tribunal had in awarding the sanctions, and 4) If sanctions were appropriate, what
sanctions should the tribunal award.

The tribunal found that the tribunal had jurisdiction over all parties but Mr. William
Stapleton, who had acted as a corporate officer, or as an authorized agent for Mr.
Armstrong. The tribunal also found that by agreement of the parties and by the express
terms of the CSA and CPC, the tribunal had jurisdiction to determine and make a final
award resolving any disputes among, Tailwind Sports, Corp., Lance Armstrong, and SCA
Promotions, Inc. The tribunal also found that it had jurisdiction to determine SCA's
Request for Sanction and found that the defenses asserted by Claimants were estopped by
the agreement of the parties, language of the CSA, and the parties action in previous
proceedings with the tribunal.

The tribunal found Claimants, Tailwind Sports Corp. and Mr. Lance Armstrong
jointly and severally liable, and ordered them to pay Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00)
as Sanctions to SCA Promotions, Inc., and SCA Insurance Specialists, Inc. Petitioner now
moves to vacate this award.

Explanation

The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.A. § 9, provides that "within one year after the
award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order
confirming the award, and thereupon the court must grant such an order unless the award
is vacated, modified, or corrected." Accordingly, the court has the obligation to confirm
Petitioner's arbitration award into a judgment. unless vacation is appropriate. See
Doctors Doctor's Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 116 S. Ct. 1652, 1657 (1996) (stating the
purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act is to ensure that private agreements to arbitration are
enforced); AlliedBruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 115 S. Ct. 834, 838 (1995) ("[T]he basic
purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act is to overcome courts' refusals to enforce
agreements to arbitrate."); Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1984) (holding
the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law and state courts cannot apply state statutes
that invalidate arbitration agreements).
 The standard of review of an arbitrator's decision by the court is very narrow. The
scope of review is limited and the court will not examine the validity of the decision except
to the extent that the award exceeds the agreement of the parties. See Burchell v. Marsh,
58 U.S. 344, 349 (1854) (stating the appropriate scope of judicial review is whether the
award is the honest decision of the arbitrator, made within the scope of the arbitrator's
power, and that a court will not otherwise set aside an award for error, either in law or fact);
Coast Trading Co. v. Pacific Molasses Co., 681 F.2d 1195, 1197- 98 (9th Cir. 1982).

Here, the arbitrator(s), having considered the pleadings and other evidence
presented at the hearing, determined that Claimants were liable to Petitioner for $ Ten
Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00). There are grounds for vacating the award in
accordance with 9 U.S.C. §§ 10(a)(4) and Respondent have submitted a motion to vacate
the award.

Conclusion

Petitioner respectfully requests an order vacating the arbitration award in the

amount of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) for Respondent SCA Promotions,
Inc., SCA, Insurance Specialists, Inc against Claimant Lance Armstrong an Tailwind
Sports CORP.