- 55 -
or belief about the harmlessness of the Thompson settlement does
not provide a basis for vacating their stipulated decisions.
When parties make a deliberate, strategic choice to settle, they
cannot be relieved of that choice merely because their assessment
of the consequences turns out to be incorrect. United States v.
Bank of N.Y., 14 F.3d at 759.
Petitioners also argue they settled because they feared
worse results if they did not settle. Any worries they may have
had about subsequent results, however, do not provide a basis for
vacating the decisions in their cases. Concern about the outcome
of litigation is not an extraordinary circumstance; it is a
factor affecting one’s evaluation of any settlement. The fact
that the ultimate outcome would have been more favorable to
petitioners than what they settled for is no reason to relieve
them of their settlement agreement. See id.
Petitioners also contend no settlement other than the
renewed 7-percent reduction settlement offer was available. That
situation, however, was not created by any fraud of respondent;
to the contrary, as far as the record shows, that contention is
correct. Respondent’s offer, made a few months after discovery
of Messrs. McWade’s and Sims’s misconduct, was the only one on
the table when petitioners accepted it in March 1993. That fact,
however, does not entitle them to relief from their agreement to
accept respondent’s offer. As explained above, when petitioners,
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011