at trial. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 34. The representations of Savoy and Ms. Billingsley constitute promises and/or representations which were relied upon by the Debtors to their detriment. 35. At the hearing, Savoy argued that these representations were an inadmissible part of settlement negotiations. However, the Court ruled that evidence of these representations is not excluded under Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. While Rule 408 excludes evidence “to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount,” Rule 408 allows the admission of evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations when “the evidence is offered for another purpose” such as, in this case, estoppel. Fed. R. Evid. 408; Starter Corp. v. Converse, Inc., 170 F.3d 286, 292 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Bankcard America, Inc. v. Universal Bancard
holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting highly probative and relevant evidence of other crimes holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting gangrelated evidence holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting settlement evidence for the limited purpose of proving converses estoppel claims