and conclusions contained in the OIPs was in manifest disregard of the law and therefore requires that the award be vacated. It is incorrect. Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides for exclusion of otherwise admissible evidence where: 1) that evidence is of a specific character, namely “of furnishing or offering or promising to furnish, or accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise a claim which was disputed as to either validity or amount ... [or] of conduct or statements made in compromise ^negotiations;” and 2) if that evidence is offered “to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount.” See Fed. R.Evid. 408; see also Starter Corp. v. Converse, Inc., 170 F.3d 286, 293 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). First, the discussion and conclusions
holding that an insurer lacked standing to raise the issue of the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement to which it was not a party holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt holding that if governmental entity agrees to settle lawsuit from which it is not immune it cannot claim immunity from suit for breach of settlement agreement holding that rule 408 exclusion does not apply to evidence of a settlement agreement if it is offered for another purpose ie for a purpose other than to prove or disprove the validity of the claims that the agreement was meant to settle holding that where one party had received a written agreement and conformed his conduct to that agreement for an extended period of time but failed to sign the agreement he was equitably estopped from denying the validity of the agreement