remains as the result of prejudgment and postjudgment events. As noted above, on October 12, 2006, by the exchange of letters, the Governments of the United States and Canada finalized their mutually-agreed-upon settlement of this dispute. The terms of the Agreement provided for the issuance of liquidation instructions with respect to the enjoined entries upon the lifting of the West Fraser Mills injunctions. See Agreement, Art. III(2)(b). These instructions were issued on October 31, 2006. Thus, Plaintiffs gained complete relief in fact on October 31, 2006, by reason of the parties having entered into the Agreement before the judgment was issued. The facts of this case, then, are unlike those presented in U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 29 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Here, although the October 31 Liquidation
holding that absent exceptional circumstances mootness by reason of a postjudgment settlement does not justify vacatur of a judgment under review holding that the trial court erred in denying as untimely a postjudgment motion to intervene filed promptly after judgment and noting that this holding was consistent with several decisions of the federal courts permitting postjudgment intervention for the purpose of appeal holding as a mutter of law that divorce actions are civil actions within the meaning of the postjudgment interest statute and that the wife was entitled to postjudgment interest under the statute with respect to unpaid spousal support payments ordered under a divorce judgment holding that absent a timely postjudgment motion the trial court has no jurisdiction to alter amend or vacate a final judgment holding that vacatur of predicate conviction was fact necessary for filing  2255 motion based on such vacatur