The post Crypto Vs SEC: XRP Case Referenced in Binance vs. SEC Case by Judge appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News
A recent ruling in the legal battle between the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Binance Holdings has brought an unexpected twist, as the case involving XRP was cited by the presiding judge.
Third-Party Intervention Denied
A request to intervene in the SEC’s enforcement action against Binance was brought forth by an entity named Eeon. The court filing shows that both Binance and the SEC have jointly opposed this intervention. Judge Amy Berman Jackson subsequently denied the motion, referencing legal frameworks, including the previous U.S. SEC v. Ripple Labs case.
Binance’s rebuttal against Eeon’s petition consisted of three main points, asserting that the SEC had not consented, Eeon failed to identify itself as a real party in interest and did not meet the requirements for intervention as stipulated by the law. Moreover, Eeon’s counter-claim was dismissed for its vague allegations and lack of relevance to the lawsuit.
A Ripple Effect?
In her ruling, Judge Jackson agreed with the stance taken by Binance and the SEC. Her response emphasized that existing law prohibits the consolidation of private actions with those brought by the SEC without consent from the commission.
This legal boundary was further highlighted by citing cases like the SEC’s lawsuit against Ripple Labs, which set a precedent by preventing private cross-claims, counter-claims, and third-party claims in SEC enforcement actions.
Implications of Section 21(g) of the Exchange Act
The rejection of Eeon’s motion underscores the complexity of third-party interventions in legal actions initiated by the SEC. Section 21(g) of the Exchange Act clearly states that actions for equitable relief initiated by the Commission cannot be consolidated with others not brought by the Commission, except with its consent. This particular section was pivotal in Judge Jackson’s ruling, strengthening the legal framework that governs these interventions.
The denial of third-party intervention and the reference to previous SEC cases underline the complex relationship between regulatory authorities, crypto exchanges, and the legal system.