National Credit Union Administration Board v. Barclays Capital, Inc.

Plaintiff: National Credit Union Administration Board
Defendant: Barclays Capital, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2013cv06727
Filed: September 23, 2013
Court: New York Southern District Court
Office: Foley Square Office
County: XX Out of State
Presiding Judge: Denise L. Cote
Nature of Suit: Securities/Commodities/Exchanges
Cause of Action: 15:77
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: National Credit Union Administration Board v. Barclays Capital, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: National Credit Union Administration Board
Represented By: Andrew N. Goldfarb
Represented By: David Charles Frederick
Represented By: Graeme Webster Bush
Represented By: Wan Joo Kim
Represented By: Shawn Patrick Naunton
Represented By: Gregory G. Rapawy
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Barclays Capital, Inc.
Represented By: David Harold Braff
Represented By: James Brendan Day
Represented By: Brian T. Frawley
Represented By: Jeffrey T. Scott
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.