U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has reportedly issued several orders addressing outstanding motions in the ongoing legal battle between the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and crypto trading platform Binance in preparation for an upcoming pivotal hearing. One of the significant orders Judge Jackson gave was the approval of an amicus brief submitted by USD Coin (USDC) issuer, Circle.
This brief was presented ahead of the crucial Oct. 12 hearing. On Sept. 29, Circle intervened in the SEC vs. Binance case, contending that assets tied to the U.S. dollar, like USDC, shouldn’t be classified as securities. Circle further elaborated that those purchasing such stablecoins aren’t anticipating any financial gains from their acquisition. They emphasized that these payment stablecoins lack the characteristics typically associated with investment contracts.
Judge Jackson recognized Circle‘s role as an amicus curiae, indicating that they aren’t siding with either Binance or its CEO, Changpeng Zhao (CZ), in their efforts to have the lawsuit dismissed. The court also highlighted that an amicus curiae can only partake in verbal discussions with the court’s approval.
For clarity, an amicus curiae is an individual or entity not directly involved in the legal conflict but is granted permission to offer the court valuable insights, expertise, or information relevant to the case. The decision to consider an amicus brief rests with the court.
In related news, the SEC experienced a temporary delay in its request to access software from Binance.US. The SEC initiated legal proceedings against Binance on June 5, presenting 13 charges. These charges encompassed the unauthorized sales of securities, specifically BNB and Binance USD (BUSD) tokens. The SEC further alleged that Binance neglected to register as a broker-dealer clearing agency and unlawfully operated within U.S. borders.
On Sept. 22, both Binance and CZ approached the court, seeking the dismissal of the SEC’s lawsuit. They claimed the SEC had exceeded its authority. The legal representatives for Binance and CZ argued that the SEC did not provide clear guidelines for the industry prior to taking legal action against the exchange. They unjustly asserted their authority over the company’s operations.