AMIDAX TRADING GROUP v. S.W.I.F.T. SCRL

Docket No. 09-3293-cv.

671 F.3d 140 (2011)

AMIDAX TRADING GROUP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S.W.I.F.T. SCRL, S.W.I.F.T. Pan-American Inc., S.W.I.F.T., Inc., John Snow, in his personal capacity, Stuart Levey, in his personal capacity, David S. Cohen, in his professional capacity, United States Department of Treasury, George W. Bush, in his personal capacity, Barack Obama, in his professional capacity, Central Intelligence Agency, Richard Cheney, in his personal capacity, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., in his professional capacity, George Tenet, in his personal capacity, Michael Hayden, in his personal capacity, Leon E. Panetta, in his personal capacity, David Petraeus, in his professional capacity, Henry M. Paulson, Jr., in his personal capacity, and Timothy F. Geithner, in his professional capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Decided: December 19, 2011.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Carl J. Mayer , Mayer Law Group, LLC, Princeton, NJ, Steven E. Schwarz , Chicago, IL, Bruce I. Afran , Princeton, NJ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Andrew S. Marovitz ( Catherine A. Bernard , on the brief), Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago, IL, Andrew H. Schapiro , Scott A. Chesin , Mayer Brown LLP, New York, NY, Shawn J. Chen , Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.

Matthew L. Schwartz , Assistant United States Attorney ( Benjamin H. Torrance , Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), for Preet Bharara , United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Federal Appellees.

Before: LEVAL, B.D. PARKER, HALL, Circuit Judges.


PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant, Amidax Trading Group ("Amidax"), appeals from a February 17, 2009 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Castel, J.) dismissing its complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and from the district court's April 23, 2009 order denying Amidax's motion for reconsideration. On appeal, Amidax argues that the district court erred by holding that Amidax lacked standing, by denying...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases