Last Updated: August 7, 2023
• The US court recently denied Eeon’s motion to intervene in the SEC’s lawsuit against Binance.
• The shadow of the Ripple case influenced this decision, as precedent set by Ripple barred private cross-claims and counter-claims in SEC enforcement actions.
• Judge Amy Berman Jackson ultimately sided with Binance and the SEC’s arguments, leading to the denial of Eeon’s motion.
Recent Legal Battle Between SEC and Binance
A U.S. court has recently denied a third-party entity’s motion to intervene in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit against cryptocurrency exchange giant Binance. Judge Amy Berman Jackson considered responses from both Binance and the SEC before deciding to deny Eeon’s request for intervention and counterclaim relief.
Ripple Case Influences Court Decision
The shadow of the Ripple case was present throughout this legal drama between the SEC and Binance, as a previous ruling from a similar case — SEC vs. Ripple Labs — had barred private cross-claims, counter-claims, and third-party claims in such enforcement actions without consent from the Commission itself.
Binance & The SEC Oppose Intervention Request
As such, both Binance Holdings and Changpeng “CZ” Zhao submitted reasons to oppose Eeon’s motion, citing provisions in the Exchange Act that prevent consolidation or coordination of private action with an SEC initiated one without its consent. The judge took these arguments into consideration while assessing whether or not Eeon had met requirements for a counterclaim, ultimately deciding that it was unnecessary due to applicable statute forbidding said consolidation or coordination without permission from the Commission itself.
Precedent Set By Denial of Motion
This denial of Eeon’s motion could have far reaching implications for other crypto cases involving attempts at intervention or seeking equitable relief via counterclaims from private entities without consent from relevant authorities such as regulators like the SEC or CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission).
Overall, considering prior precedent set by cases likeSEC vs. Ripple Labs , Judge Jackson ruled in favor of both Binance Holdings and Changpeng “CZ” Zhao , leading to a major victory that could influence other crypto legal battles moving forward when it comes to seeking intervention or counterclaim relief from private entities without approval from official regulatory bodies like those mentioned above