- The pivotal legal battle between the SEC and Binance has taken an unexpected turn.
- An impartial ally has emerged in the ongoing SEC vs. Binance legal battle.
- The SEC’s 13 charges against Binance have ignited a debate over regulatory boundaries.
A senior judge within the Columbian district court has reportedly affixed her signature to multiple orders to expedite the resolution of pending motions in the ongoing lawsuit initiated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against the cryptocurrency exchange heavyweight Binance.
Circle’s Amicus Brief Gets Approval Ahead of Key SEC Hearing
Among the series of noteworthy orders, the judge has given the green light to an amicus brief submitted by Circle, the issuer of the USD Coin (USDC) stablecoin. This strategic move by Circle was made in anticipation of the crucial hearing scheduled for October 12.
Sponsored
Circle had formally filed a court motion on September 29 as part of their participation in the ongoing SEC vs. Binance lawsuit. In their motion, Circle passionately argued that assets closely tied to the U.S. dollar, such as USDC, should not be classified as securities.
In essence, Circle’s stance revolved around the assertion that purchasers of these stablecoins have no anticipations of financial gain due to their acquisition. According to Circle’s perspective, payment-oriented stablecoins lack the intrinsic attributes that would categorize them as investment contracts in their own right.
Circle Joins Binance Lawsuit as Neutral Advisor
Judge Amy Berman Jackson, presiding over the case, consented to Circle’s involvement as an amicus curiae, or a “friend of the court,” maintaining a neutral stance in support of neither the defendant, Binance, nor its CEO Changpeng Zhao’s efforts to dismiss the lawsuit.
For context, an amicus curiae is an individual or entity not directly involved in the legal dispute but authorized to provide valuable information, expertise, or insights pertinent to the case. The authority to admit an amicus brief ultimately rests with the court.
On the Flipside
- It’s worth noting that while Circle argues that USDC stablecoins aren’t securities, the SEC’s concern revolves around investor protection, especially in a rapidly evolving crypto market.
- Binance’s claim of retrospective jurisdiction imposition is challenged by those who argue that the SEC’s actions are a response to Binance’s alleged failure to adhere to existing regulations.
- As this legal battle unfolds, it underscores the complex interplay between the evolving cryptocurrency industry and existing regulatory frameworks.
Why This Matters
Accepting Circle as an amicus curiae in the SEC vs. Binance lawsuit is pivotal. It underscores the evolving regulatory landscape and the nuanced relationship between stablecoins and securities, shedding light on the future path that crypto may take.
To learn more about the Brazilian Congress’s call for the indictment of Binance’s CEO, click here:
Brazilian Congress Calls For Binance CEO’s Indictment
For insights into Israel’s recent crackdown on Binance crypto accounts linked to Hamas, read here:
Israel Cracks Down on Binance Crypto Accounts Tied to Hamas
