Coinbase Cites Binance Case for Interlocutory Appeal in SEC lawsuit

by

As an analyst with a background in law and experience in the crypto industry, I find the current situation between Coinbase and the SEC concerning. The inconsistent rulings from different district courts on whether crypto transactions qualify as securities transactions is a significant issue that needs to be addressed.

Recently, Coinbase, a prominent crypto exchange, has filed for an interlocutory appeal following a notice, referencing Judge Jackson’s ruling in the Binance case. Last week, Judge Jackson determined that Binance’s sale of BNB tokens on secondary markets did not classify as securities. Consequently, Coinbase raises concerns over the disparity between how two different exchanges are regulated based on this decision.

Coinbase CLO Raises Question on District Court Judgments

As a researcher studying the legal landscape of cryptocurrencies in the United States, I’ve come across an intriguing discrepancy in judicial treatment of seemingly identical crypto transactions. The Chief Legal Officer of Coinbase, Paul Grewal, brought attention to this issue when he pointed out that two distinguished district courts arrived at diametrically opposed conclusions regarding the securities status of transactions on the two largest US cryptocurrency exchanges.

As an analyst, I’ve observed that the SEC’s regulatory approach towards cryptocurrencies has been heavily focused on litigation. This perspective, in my opinion, results in conflicting rules for market participants across various jurisdictions. I’ve noted this disparity, observing that “different rules now apply to market participants not only within distinct courts in this district but also in different federal courts nationwide.”

As a researcher studying liability in the context of digital asset exchanges, I would like to stress the importance of consistency in legal expectations. It is crucial that liability isn’t contingent upon the specific court handling the case or the assignment of a particular judge.

Liability should not be influenced by which court you face a lawsuit in or which judge is handling your case. Today, we filed a notice in our enforcement action against the SECgov regarding Judge Jackson’s ruling in the Binance case. This ruling explicitly contradicted the SEC’s position on the matter.

— paulgrewal.eth (@iampaulgrewal) July 1, 2024

Some Background to the Notice

In April 2024, Coinbase asked Judge Failla to put the SEC lawsuit against them on hold. They requested an intermediate appeal, stating that there are significant disagreements among parties regarding the application of the Howey Test to cryptocurrency transactions occurring within the secondary market.

In the past, Coinbase referred to Judge Torres’ ruling in the Ripple vs. SEC lawsuit stating that XRP transactions on secondary markets do not meet the Howey Test’s criteria. However, Coinbase expressed concern over conflicting opinions from different district judges, making it challenging to determine the definitive law.

As a researcher studying the regulatory landscape of cryptocurrencies, I’ve come across an interesting development. Coinbase recently received a response from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding their request for clarity on certain aspects of crypto regulations. The SEC stated that no court has adopted the Ripple case’s approach when applying the Howey Test to secondary market sales. In simpler terms, courts have not yet agreed with the way Ripple’s sale of XRP was classified under securities law when it comes to transactions in the secondary market.

AlsoRead: ConsenSys Responds to SEC Lawsuit Over Metamask

Read More

2024-07-02 06:47