Similarly, the Court may not sanction an attorney for bringing a suit which ultimately fails; it may do so only for bringing one without a scintilla of merit. Monarch Ins. Co. v. Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd., 110 F.R.D. 590, 595 (S.D.N.Y.1986). Thus, an attorney's Rule 11 obligations are satisfied when the attorney brings a claim which has a colorable legal basis for success or which reasonably extends precedent.

Rule 11 requires that an attorney make a prefiling inquiry to establish reasonable grounds to believe that further investigation and discovery will prove his case. SeeMonarch Insurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd., 110 F.R.D. 590, 594-95 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (Carter, J.). Sanctions are only warranted where it is " patently clear that a claim has absolutely no chance of success under existing precedents," id. at 593 (quoting Eastway Construction Corp., supra 762 F.2d at 254) (emphasis in original), or when a plaintiff persists with a claim after it has become patently clear that it has no basis in fact or law.

Brasport and its counsel could have reasonably believed that information and documentation revealed through the discovery process would fully substantiate Brasport's claims. SeeMonarch Ins. Co. v. Insurance Corp. of Ireland, 110 F.R.D. 590, 594-95 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (Carter, J.). Resolving all doubts in favor of Brasport and its counsel, the court concludes that it was not completely unreasonable for them, at the time they filed the complaint, to believe that Brasport's initial claims against Celanese and Whittal were colorable.

" Rule 11 was not intended to shift the burden of litigation on a losing party merely because it lost and was unable to prove its opponent's duplicity." MonarchInsurance Co. v. Insurance Corporation of Ireland, Ltd., 110 F.R.D. 590, 595 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (Carter, J). While a party or counsel may be subject to sanction for filing a spurious complaint, discontinuing a claim after the pleading stage must be distinguished from those pressed after it has become clear that they have no chance of success. Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co, 112 F.R.D. 664 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (Carter, J.).

There was some documentary evidence that the Defendants shared common goals in 1986. Rule 11 requires that an attorney make a prefiling inquiry to establish reasonable ground to believe that further investigation and discovery will prove his case, See Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co., Inc., 112 F.R.D. 664, 667 (S.D.N.Y. 1986); Monarch Insurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd., 110 F.R.D. 590, 594-95 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), and where an attorney can get the information necessary to certify the validity of a claim in a public fashion and need not rely solely on his client, he must do so. Nassau-Suffolk Ice Cream, Inc. v. Integrated Resources, Inc., 114 F.R.D. 684, 689 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). Shea Gould relied not only on the story told by Robert and Grace, but on the court files in the 1986 Westchester Supreme Court action by the Town against the Talls and the 1987 Westchester Supreme Court action by Metro North against the Talls, correspondence between Metro North and Robert, newspaper articles and transcripts of news releases by the Town and Metro North.

Watch What DevelopsFranchise Concepts, Inc v Par Five, Inc, 110 FRD 243, 244 (ND Ohio, 1985). See also Monarch Ins Co of Ohio v Ins Corp of Ireland, Ltd, 110 FRD 590, 593 (SD NY, 1986). Also in contrast to its predecessor is the rule's application of an objective standard of reasonableness, since prior to the amendment courts would only award attorney fees on a finding that the attorney acted for vexatious or oppressive reasons in bad faith. Monarch Ins Co, supra at 593.