v. LeGall
Respondent: Terrence LeGall
Applicant: Securities and Exchange Commission
Case Number: 1:2017mc00291
Filed: August 7, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
Presiding Judge: Ronnie Abrams
Nature of Suit: Other
Cause of Action: M 18-304 Administrative Subpoena Proceedings

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
August 11, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER: In light of the fact that Mr. LeGall appears to have complied fully with the SEC's subpoena, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 8/11/2022) (ate)
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: v. LeGall
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Applicant: Securities and Exchange Commission
Represented By: Dugan William Edward Bliss
Represented By: Sanjay Wadhwa
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 ]
Respondent: Terrence LeGall
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?