the social value in preserving precedents is not outweighed by equitable considerations.” Major League Baseball Properties v. Pacific Trading Cards, Inc., 150 F.3d 149, 151 (2d Cir.1998); see also Haley v. Pa-taki, 60 F.3d 137, 142 (2d Cir.1995) (“[V]a-catur is not required where mootness results from a voluntary settlement reached by the parties.”). Accordingly, the movant must demonstrate “equitable entitlement to the extraordinary remedy of vacatur.” Bancotp, 513 U.S. at 26, 115 S.Ct. 386. “This is not to say that vacatur can never be granted when mootness is produced” by settlement, id., as it was here. This Court will vacate a judgment or order mooted by settlement where the relief is equitably justified by exceptional circumstances. See Major League Baseball, 150 F.3d at 151 (<HOLDING>). Without undertaking to say what is
recognizing exception recognizing before bancorp the problems with allowing parties to contract around the existence of negative precedent through settlement and vacatur recognizing special circumstances exception holding that the exception is applied only in exceptional situations  recognizing under bancorp an exception could be made even for settled cases where exceptional circumstances counsel  in favor of vacatur