Binance vs SEC: Joint Motion Filed for Protective Order

The legal dispute between Binance and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken a new turn, as both parties, alongside Binance.US and CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao, jointly file a motion for a protective order. This motion, filed on November 13, seeks court-approved guidelines on handling and disclosing confidential information outlined in a June consent order.

In a court filing late on November 13, Binance and the U.S. SEC have come together seeking a protective order to the June consent order. This motion aims to establish court-approved guidelines on how confidential information will be handled and disclosed throughout the ongoing lawsuit.

Clashing Views

As a result of this motion, any rule about keeping things secret should be more important than the rule set by Judge Jackson in September.

The joint motion follows a recent dispute between the SEC and Binance.US regarding document discovery and depositions. The SEC claims that Binance.US has produced a limited number of documents and is hesitant to disclose the remaining documents outlined in the consent order. Binance.US, in response, argues that the SEC’s post-September 18 requests are unreasonable and inconsistent with the terms of the consent order.

Simultaneously, the SEC opposes the latest efforts by Binance.US, Binance, and CEO CZ to dismiss the lawsuit. The SEC stands firm in its position to regulate the crypto industry, citing investor protection under existing securities laws.

Understanding Community Sentiment

Simultaneously, the U.S. SEC is opposing the latest efforts by Binance.US, Binance, and CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao to dismiss the lawsuit. The SEC is standing firm in its position to regulate the crypto industry, citing investor protection under existing securities laws.

As the legal drama unfolds, there’s a growing sentiment within the crypto community that lawsuits, including those against Coinbase and Ripple, should be dismissed. 

Critics argue that the SEC has not sufficiently explained how current rules apply to its claims, raising questions about the legitimacy of its arguments.