In a recent development, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the Columbian District Court has acted decisively ahead of an essential hearing in the SEC vs. Binance saga. She has addressed several lingering motions in the case against Binance, the prominent crypto exchange, brought forth by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Significantly, among the actions taken, the judge greenlighted an amicus brief by Circle, the issuer of the USD Coin (USDC) stablecoin. Circle’s entry into the fray was on September 29, where they presented their stance that assets anchored to the U.S. dollar, especially USDC, shouldn’t be viewed as securities. Circle emphasized that no profit expectation exists for stablecoin purchasers. Moreover, they firmly asserted that such payment stablecoins lack the defining attributes of an investment contract.
However, it’s noteworthy that Judge Jackson allowed Circle’s participation as amicus curiae, essentially neutral, neither favoring Binance nor the SEC. Additionally, the court underscored that Circle would only engage in oral discourse with the court’s explicit consent.
For those less familiar, an amicus curiae is an entity or individual not directly involved in the legal dispute. Their primary role is to lend the court specialized insights or provide additional information to enrich its understanding of the matter. The court retains the authority to either embrace or disregard an amicus brief.
The SEC’s contention against Binance commenced on June 5, with 13 charges against the crypto exchange. Key among these charges were allegations of unregistered securities sales, particularly of BNB and BUSD tokens. The SEC further claims Binance’s operations in the U.S. were without the necessary broker-dealer clearing service registration, making its operations illegal.
However, Binance and its CEO, Changpeng Zhao, did not remain passive. On September 22, they sought the court’s intervention to discard the SEC’s lawsuit. In their defense, Binance and Zhao’s legal representatives argued that the SEC retrospectively imposed its jurisdiction without setting clear norms for the crypto industry beforehand.
