• The US court has recently denied a third-party entity’s motion to intervene in the SEC’s lawsuit against Binance.
• The decision was drawn upon key responses from Binance and the SEC, with ripple case being a major influence.
• SEC vs Ripple Labs precedent set that private cross-claims, counter-claims and third-party claims in SEC enforcement actions were not allowed.
SEC vs. Binance Legal Battle
A US court recently denied a third-party entity’s motion to intervene in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)’s lawsuit against Binance. Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s decision drew upon key responses from Binance and the SEC, which were influenced by the Ripple case.
Ripple Case Influences Legal Drama
The Ripple case has had an influence on the legal drama between the SEC and Binance. The court issued an order rejecting a motion from a third-party entity, Eeon, to intervene in the lawsuit and seek counterclaim relief after considering responses from both parties opposing such intervention.
Precedent Set by SEC vs Ripple Labs
The precedent set by previous cases like SEC vs Ripple Labs barred private cross-claims, counter-claims, and third-party claims without consent of the Commission in SEC enforcement actions. This was taken into consideration when Judge Jackson denied Eeon’s request to intervene in the action against Binance based on Section 21(g) of Exchange Act stating that consolidation or coordination of actions for equitable relief brought by Commission without its consent is prohibited even if there are shared factual questions .
Binance And The SEC Oppose Intervention
Binance Holdings and Changpeng “CZ” Zhao submitted three reasons in opposition of Eeon’s motion before Judge Jackson made her decision. Both parties urged her to deny Eeon’s petition citing provisions in Exchange Act that prevent consolidation of private action with an SEC initiated one without Commission’s consent as per precedents set by cases such as Ripple Labs .
Implications Of Denial Of Motion
This denial might have far reaching implications for other cryptocurrency companies as well since it sets a precedent for similar situations where parties try to intervene or claim something under an ongoing enforcement action initiated by the commission .