In proceeding to resolve disputes over terms of settlement agreement that defendant and govt. entered into as part of forfeiture order entered against defendant, who had been convicted on mail fraud and racketeering charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in rejecting defendant’s claim that govt. improperly failed to give him fair opportunity to purchase life insurance policies. Terms of settlement agreement provided defendant with 6-month period in which to inform govt. of his intention to purchase said policies, and defendant failed to give govt. such timely notice. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that 6-month period was too short to reasonably allow him to obtain funds to purchase said policies, and Ct. noted that option to purchase was not contingent on govt.’s release of other funds to defendant. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in failing to allow defendant to re-purchase at its appraised price govt.’s interest in Chicago Bulls (that had previously belonged to defendant) pursuant to right of first refusal clause in settlement agreement, even though govt. had received timely higher offer to purchase said interest from third-party that defendant had failed to match. Third-party’s offer was not “commercially reasonable,” where third-party could and did withdraw said offer at third-party’s discretion, and thus, in absence of any commercially reasonable offer to purchase said interest, defendant had right to purchase said interest at appraised price.