Citibank, N.A. v. Barclays Bank, PLC

Citibank, N.A. v. Barclays Bank, PLC

Plaintiff:	Citibank, N.A.
Defendant:	Barclays Bank, PLC
Case Number:	1:2013cv03063
Filed:	May 6, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	XX Out of State
Presiding Judge:	Lorna G. Schofield
Nature of Suit:	Contract: Other
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Account Receivable
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
November 22, 2013	Filing 80 OPINION AND ORDER re: 33 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Barclays Bank, PLC, 47 CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Citibank, N.A. For the reasons discussed above, this Court holds that: (1) Barclays' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Citibank's claims for Funding Losses is DENIED; (2) Citibank's motion for summary judgment that Citibank is entitled to recover its Funding Losses in amounts to be proved is GRANTED; (3) Citibank' s motion for summary judgment that Barclays is barred from contending that the Lehman Deposits provide a defense to Citibank's claims in this action is DENIED; (4) prejudgment interest will not be recoverable before the date Citibank demanded payment from Barclays; and (5) New York's statute providing for 9% prejudgment interest is constitutional. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 11/22/2013) (lmb)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 22, 2013

Filing 80 OPINION AND ORDER re: 33 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Barclays Bank, PLC, 47 CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Citibank, N.A. For the reasons discussed above, this Court holds that: (1) Barclays' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Citibank's claims for Funding Losses is DENIED; (2) Citibank's motion for summary judgment that Citibank is entitled to recover its Funding Losses in amounts to be proved is GRANTED; (3) Citibank' s motion for summary judgment that Barclays is barred from contending that the Lehman Deposits provide a defense to Citibank's claims in this action is DENIED; (4) prejudgment interest will not be recoverable before the date Citibank demanded payment from Barclays; and (5) New York's statute providing for 9% prejudgment interest is constitutional. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 11/22/2013) (lmb)

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: Citibank, N.A. v. Barclays Bank, PLC
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Barclays Bank, PLC
Represented By:	Hamish P.M. Hume
Represented By:	Jonathan David Schiller
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Citibank, N.A.
Represented By:	Conor Brendan O'Croinin
Represented By:	Steven M. Salky
Represented By:	Andrew E. Tomback
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| 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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?