U.S. v. Segal

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to modify his 2013 settlement agreement that served to satisfy forfeiture order that required defendant to pay govt. $15 million plus his entire interest in entity that was involved in racketeering and wire and mail fraud charges that formed basis of his conviction. Instant action was essentially civil in nature, where defendant sought injunctive relief via immediate transfer of property at issue in contract between himself and govt. However, defendant could not prevail on his claim that agreement was either procedurally or substantively unconscionable, where: (1) agreement was product of intensive negotiation between govt. and defendant; (2) agreement contained language indicating that defendant accepted terms of settlement’s property division in lieu of any prior claims to properties mentioned in agreement; and (3) defendant had previously obtained favorable ruling by seeking strict enforcement of language in agreement. Ct. similarly rejected defendant’s ex-wife’s appeal of denial of her motion to intervene in defendant’s action for purposes of asserting her own rights to properties at issue in defendant’s settlement agreement, where: (1) ex-wife had her own 2010 settlement agreement with govt. that awarded her $7.7 million arising out of said properties; and (2) terms of her own settlement precluded her from asserting rights to properties at issue in defendant’s settlement agreement until govt. had asserted no further interests in said properties, and record showed govt. was still asserting its interests in said properties at time of ex-wife’s motion to intervene.