No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Libra Bank Limited v. Banco Nacional de Costa Rica. S.A. 570 F.Supp. 870
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Judicial Decisions
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1984
References
1 566 F. Supp. 1440 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), appeal docketed, No. 83–7714 (2d Cir. Aug. 18, 1983).
2 The court declined to order defendant to return the funds it had previously withdrawn from its New York bank accounts, since there was no proof that defendant had deceived the court into vacating attachment of its assets.
3 376 U.S. 398 (1964). ‘
4 570 F. Supp. 870, 877 (quoting Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. at 428).
5 570 F. Supp. at 877.
6 353 F.2d 47 (2d Cir. 1965), cert, denied, 382 U.S. 1027 (1966).
7 570 F. Supp. at 877 (quoting Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Chemical Bank of New York, 658 F.2d 903, 908 (2d Cir. 1981)).
8 570 F. Supp. at 878.
9 The court cited the following factors as evidence that the property was located in New York: (1) the court had personal jurisdiction over the debtor based on defendant’s prior consent to jurisdiction under the loan agreement; (2) the defendant had agreed that New York law was applicable; (3) the debt repayments were to be made to a New York bank; and (4) defendant had substantial assets in New York City bank accounts at the time of the Costa Rican decrees. Id. at 881–82.
10 Id. at 882.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 884.
13 See, e.g., Menendez v. Saks & Co., 485 F.2d 1355 (2d Cir. 1973), summarized in 68 AJIL 325 (1974); United Bank, Ltd. v. Cosmic Int’l, Inc., 542 F.2d 868 (2d Cir. 1976), summarized in 71 AJIL 351 (1977); Vishipco Line v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 660 F.2d 854 (2d Cir. 1981), summarized in 76 AJIL 385 (1982).