7. August 2023

SEC vs. Binance Legal Battle Cited in Ripple Case: Judge Denies Intervention

Von admin

• The US Court has denied a third-party entity’s motion to intervene in the SEC’s lawsuit against Binance.
• The decision was based on responses from both Binance and the SEC, as well as the Ripple case.
• Judge Jackson ordered the motion to be denied based on Section 21(g) of the Exchange Act prohibiting consolidation or coordination of actions for equitable relief without the Commission’s consent.

SEC vs. Binance Legal Battle

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is currently engaged in a legal battle with cryptocurrency exchange Binance. A third-party entity, Eeon, had requested to intervene in this lawsuit but recently their motion was denied by Judge Amy Berman Jackson taking into consideration responses from both parties involved and drawing upon key responses from the previous Ripple case.

Ripple Case Echoes in Binance’s Legal Win Over Eeon

Binance Holdings and Changpeng “CZ” Zhao have submitted three arguments opposing Eeon’s intervention in this enforcement action citing provisions under the Exchange Act which prevents consolidation or coordination of actions brought by the Commission with other actions without its consent – a precedent set by cases such as SEC vs. Ripple Labs .

No Room for Counterclaims in SEC Enforcement Actions

Judge Jackson agreed with these arguments put forth by Binance and the SEC stating that Section 21(g) of the Exchange Act explicitly prohibits consolidating or coordinating a private action with an SEC-initiated one without their consent, even if there are shared factual questions between them. This ruling effectively barred any private cross-claims, counter-claims or third-party claims in this enforcement action against Binance.

Implications

This decision carries significant implications for other cryptocurrency companies who may find themselves facing similar legal battles with regulatory authorities like The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It sets a strong precedent that countersuits will not be allowed within such proceedings unless they are initiated by The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) itself.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Eeon’s request to intervene in this enforcement action has been rejected due to applicable statutes as well as precedents set by cases like Ripple Labs; resulting in no room for counterclaims within such proceedings without explicit consent from The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).