Opinion ID: 625397
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unfairness to Citigroup.

Text: The second basis of the court's reasoning, as noted, was that the settlement was unfair to Citigroup because it imposed on Citigroup substantial relief on the basis of mere allegations . . . that are neither proven nor acknowledged. ___ F.Supp.2d at ___, 2011 WL 5903733, at . The imposition of such a judgment on Citigroup, which did not rest on facts . . . established either by admissions or by trials, was characterized by the court as simply an engine of oppression. Id. In the first place, we have difficulty reconciling the court's concern for the substantiality of the relief being imposed on Citigroup with the court's earlier observation that the penalties imposed on Citigroup amounted to no more than pocket change or a mild and modest cost of doing business. Id. at ___, 2011 WL 5903733, at . But a more important concern is whether it is a proper part of the court's legitimate concern to protect a private, sophisticated, counseled litigant from a settlement to which it freely consents. We doubt that a court's discretion extends to refusing to allow such a litigant to reach a voluntary settlement in which it gives up things of value without admitting liability. Cf. Janus Films, Inc. v. Miller, 801 F.2d 578, 582 (2d Cir.1986) (in consent judgment, [t]he court makes no determination of the merits of the controversy). And there is no suggestion in the materials we have received that Citigroup's settlement was anything other than voluntarily given, and, as the district court acknowledged, in the interests of Citigroup. [4]