- A US court has denied a third-party entity’s motion to intervene in the SEC’s lawsuit against Binance.
- Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s decision has drawn upon key responses from Binance and the SEC
- The shadow of the Ripple case has influenced the legal drama between the SEC and Binance.
There has been a noteworthy development In the ongoing legal battle between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Binance. Recently, the court issued an order rejecting a motion from a third-party entity, Eeon, to intervene in the lawsuit and seek counterclaim relief.
Ripple Case Echoes in Binance’s Legal Win Over Eeon
This decision came after the federal judge considered responses from both Binance and the SEC, who opposed Eeon’s intervention in the enforcement action. Additionally, the court considered a previous case, SEC vs. Ripple Labs, as part of its decision-making process.
Sponsored
According to the court filing, Judge Amy Berman Jackson denied Eeon’s request to intervene in the SEC’s enforcement action against Binance. The defendants, Binance Holdings and Changpeng “CZ” Zhao, had submitted three key reasons to the court in opposition to Eeon’s motion.
Binance and the SEC urged the court to deny Eeon’s petition, citing provisions in the Exchange Act that prevent the consolidation of a private action with an SEC-initiated one without the Commission’s consent.
No Room for Counterclaims in SEC Enforcement Actions
This aligns with precedents set by cases such as SEC vs. Ripple Labs, which barred private cross-claims, counter-claims, and third-party claims in SEC enforcement actions.
Judge Jackson concurred with the arguments put forth by Binance and the SEC, noting that Section 21(g) of the Exchange Act explicitly prohibits the 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 the Commission’s consent.
In light of these considerations, Judge Jackson ordered the motion to be denied based on the applicable statute and deemed it unnecessary to assess further whether Eeon had met the requirements for a counterclaim.
On the Flipside
- The precedent set by the denial of Eeon’s motion might have far-reaching implications for other cryptocurrency-related cases.
- Eeon claims that its intervention in the SEC vs. Binance Holdings’ lawsuit is essential to ensure fair and transparent regulatory proceedings in the cryptocurrency industry.
Why This Matters
The court’s denial of Eeon’s motion to intervene in the SEC vs. Binance Holdings lawsuit reinforces the importance of regulatory compliance and the significance of seeking the SEC’s consent in enforcement actions.
To learn more about Ripple’s legal victory paving the way for US market expansion, read here:
XRP’s Legal Victory Clears Path for Ripple’s U.S. Market Expansion
To find out about the recent downturn that wiped off $1.6 billion from XRP’s market cap, read here:
