Cases 1 - 9 of 9
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nadel et al
as 1:2010mc00065
Plaintiff:
Securities and Exchange Commission
Defendant:
Arthur Nadel, Scoop Capital, LLC and Scoop Management, Inc.
Riches v. Merkin, et al
as 10-2185
Plaintiff - Appellant:
IRVING PICARD, DBA Jonathan Lee Riches, AKA Baker & Hostetler, LLP
Defendant - Appellee:
J. EZRA MERKIN, BERNARD MADOFF, STANLEY CHAIS and others
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Nadel et al
as 2:2009mc00522
Plaintiff:
Securities & Exchange Commission
Defendant:
Arthur Nadel, Scoop Capital, Scoop Management and others
Receiver:
Burton W. Wiand
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 0754 Receiver of Property in Different Districts
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nadel et al
as 5:2009mc00408
Plaintiff:
Securities and Exchange Commission
Defendant:
Arthur Nadel, Scoop Capital, LLC, Scoop Management, Inc. and others
Receiver:
Burton W. Wiand
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nadel et al
as 6:2009mc00108
Plaintiff:
Securities and Exchange Commission
Defendant:
Arthur Nadel, Scoop Capital, LLC, Scoop Management, Inc. and others
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nadel et al
as 1:2009mc00036
Plaintiff:
Securities and Exchange Commission
Defendant:
Arthur Nadel, Scoop Capital, LLC, Scoop Management, Inc. and others
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nadel et al
as 4:2009mc00017
Plaintiff:
Securities and Exchange Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission
Defendant:
Arthur Nadel, Scoop Capital, LLC, Scoop Management, Inc. and others
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nadel et al
as 2:2009mc00041
Plaintiff:
Securities and Exchange Commission
Defendant:
Arthur Nadel, Scoop Capital LLC, Scoop Management Inc and others
Picard v. Merkin et al
as 1:2009cv00488
Plaintiff:
Irving Picard
Defendant:
J Ezra Merkin, Bernard Madoff, Stanley Chais and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
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.
