The article is devoted to two major issues: the substantive nature of settlement agreement, and legal remedies available for a creditor under compromise which interest is not satisﬁed voluntarily. Both issues are covered from comparative perspective employing Russian and the United States statutes, case law and doctrine. First, the paper demonstrates that, while Russian doctrines has evolved a sui generis approach to substantial nature of settlement agreement, United States tend to consider it as special contractual type with consideration granted speciﬁcally for termination of a legal dispute. Second, the article analyzes scope of res judicata eﬀect invoked in course of Russian and U.S.-governed settlement, as well as common points and diﬀerences in granting creditors with relief in forms of speciﬁc performance and recovery of damages. Finally, the paper considers problem of rescission as remedy for material breach of compromise. Author comes to conclusion on desirability of employing this type of claim into Russian legislation.