PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records)
Although PACER is available to the public, the records are not free (the cost is $0.08 a page, capped at $2.40 per document - however, usage of less than $10 per month is waived). To access court records, you must register  to obtain an account. Public access is also logged to determine who accessed the records. That being said, attorneys representing records to the Court also certify that the information is true and correct and offer supporting testimony for the legal arguments being made.
Due to not knowing the rules of law regarding publishing court docket materials, I direct you to inquire under your own registered account (which, being public access, is permissible). News sources are permitted to publish information obtained from court records; however, as a citizen activist acting on my own accord without the umbrella of protection, I will direct inquiries to follow the registration links to discover the world of federally filed United States District Court (federal courts of each individual state) and Bankruptcy case proceedings for themselves.
After registering for a PACER account (which normally takes 24 hours to verify your credit card and identity information), follow this link for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia  and enter your newly registered login and password information.
The following case inquiry is for In re: Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Litigation found on Capital One’s most recent SEC Quarterly Statement  filed August 2011. Under the section “Litigation,” Capital One claims an estimated loss of $75M - $225M for various violations of provisions covered by Dodd-Frank (most notably relating to mortgages, auto loans, credit cards, and interchange fees). Since the topic of discussion for the article that spun this HubPage relates to credit cards (75% of Capital One's business), searches were limited to “Rubio” (which is now on Federal appeal for a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and federal question on the applicability of the judgment based on legal precedence) and “In re: Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Litigation” (which is currently ongoing). Note that the dispute claims Capital One has already reported $880M in additional profits the first year of implementing an unwarranted interest rate hike and profits are projected to be in the MULTIBLE BILLIONS. Capital One has under-reported its estimated loss to the SEC in that clawing back profits obtained in violation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) for this single issue could cost Capital One significantly more.
Once you have logged into PACER, go to the top of the page and click “Query.”
Under “Search Clues” type in the case number: "1:10-md-02171" and click “Find Case” then click “Run Query.”
You should then be looking at the docket header to locate all information relating to the case (including counsel for both sides for comments should a news source be so interested).
[ ** NOTE: all “clicks” on any docket item to locate information comes with a fee. Again, those fees are $0.08 per page, capped at $2.40 per document - and any month's usage below $10 is waived. **]
To locate the information of interest in the associated article, click “Docket Report.”
[Optional: at the bottom of the page, under “Sort by” use the dropdown menu to select “Most recent date first” then run query].
Plaintiffs' Statement of Additional Undisputed Material Facts in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is document number 55. The argument states that Capital One knew that the CARD Act was likely to pass and for fear of Obama using an executive order to prevent repricing prior to the full implimentation of ts provisions, Capital One moved agressively to reprice all accounts EXCEPT the "politically powerful” (Metropolitan Washington, D.C. assuring exclusion of legislative regulators and congressional staffers). The Capital One internal emails regarding “repricing” existing accounts prior to the CARD Act are Exhibits Numbers 2, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 to document number 55.
For related topics, please see the author’s other HubPages articles.
If you've found this information to be useful, I would appreciate your “like-ing” on Facebook, “Twitter-ing” the link, “+1-ing” on Google, “follow-ing” the writer for spinoff discussions on this topic, and leaving your comments below – most importantly, please click on some advertiser links (as that is what pays for HubPages' website to have provided the forum to distribute this information to you for free). Thank you!
DISCLAIMER: The information on this page is provided by a freelance consumer advocate who has not solicited the opinions of the HubPages directors. HubPages only provides the platform to make this information easily available to users of the internet. The information on this page is the copyrighted intellectual property of Perry Fender and the opinions expressed are solely those of the author.