Home/S.D. New York/Copelco Capital, Inc. v. General Consul of Bolivia

Copelco Capital, Inc. v. General Consul of Bolivia

960 F. Supp. 42, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21253, 1996 WL 866443
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Copelco Capital, Inc. v. General Consul of Bolivia. Read the opinion of the Court — 940 F. Supp. 93 →
District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 25, 1996·No. 96 Civil 4565(LAK)·Published

Opinion

ORDER

KAPLAN, District Judge.

Although the Court disagrees with plaintiffs construction of the relevant portion of [43]*43the contract, there was a sufficient basis for counsel’s actions so that sanctions will not be imposed. Counsel would have been better advised to have quoted the language of the contract in full and to have made his argument. By failing to do so, he inadvertently created an unfortunate impression.

The order to show cause, contained in the Court’s October 8, 1996 memorandum opinion, is discharged.

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Copelco Capital, Inc. v. General Consul of Bolivia, 960 F. Supp. 42, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21253, 1996 WL 866443 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).

960 F. Supp. 42 (Copelco Capital, Inc. v. General Consul of Bolivia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.