• The US court has denied a third-party entity’s motion to intervene in the SEC’s lawsuit against Binance.
• Judge Amy Berman Jackson considered responses from both Binance and the SEC, as well as precedents set by previous cases such as SEC vs. Ripple Labs, when making her decision.
• Judge Jackson ultimately ordered the motion be denied due to Section 21(g) of the Exchange Act which prohibits consolidation or coordination of private actions with an SEC-initiated one without consent.
SEC vs. Binance Legal Battle
The ongoing legal battle between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Binance has seen a noteworthy development recently; a US court has denied a third-party entity’s motion to intervene in the lawsuit and seek counterclaim relief.
Ripple Case Relevant
Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s decision was based on key responses from both Binance and the SEC, while also taking into consideration precedents set by previous cases such as SEC vs. Ripple Labs, which barred private cross-claims, counter-claims, and third-party claims in SEC enforcement actions.
Section 21(g) of the Exchange Act explicitly prohibits consolidation or coordination of actions for equitable relief brought by the Commission with other actions not initiated by the SEC, even if there are shared factual questions, without consent from the Commission itself. Taking this into account along with arguments put forth by Binance and the SEC, Judge Jackson ordered that Eeon’s request for intervention be denied.
Implications for Other Crypto Companies
This precedent could have far reaching implications for other cryptocurrency companies dealing with legal battles against regulatory entities like the SEC in future proceedings.
In summary ,the recent decision made by Judge Amy Berman Jackson serves to reiterate that cryptocurrency companies must adhere to laws set out by regulatory bodies like The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), otherwise they risk facing serious consequences.