SEC and Binance seek compromise on US assets freeze
2 min read
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and BAM Trading (Binance’s U.S. arm) recently filed a request for a consent order that would ease some of the restrictions from a previous SEC request to freeze the company’s assets.
The proposed new consent order would offer more assurances for the SEC and allow BAM Trading to make payroll and other financial commitments. Per the document:
“BAM Trading and BAM Management may continue to make payments for the purchase of goods and services, salaries for BAM Trading and BAM Management personnel, including preexisting benefits, professional fees, and other similar ordinary-course expenditures for the operation of their businesses.”
The main stipulation that would allow the thawing of assets would be that Binance may not, in any circumstances, make payments or transfer any assets to or for the benefit of any Binance entity or individual or entity acting on behalf of Binance.
The order further states that Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao, specifically, can not have access to any BAM Trading or Binance.US assets.
In the wake of the SEC’s lawsuit against Binance and Zhao, the commission filed an emergency request with the court to have BAM Trading’s assets frozen.
Related: ‘All of the SEC’s claims fail’ — Binance.US rebuts motion to freeze funds
BAM Trading responded by filing an opposition argument, which essentially stated that it was the belief of the company and its lawyers that the SEC’s underlying rationale for requesting the freeze didn’t meet the burden of proof required by the court.
The court hasn’t yet approved the proposed consent order as of the time of this article’s publishing. There appears to be a disagreement between the SEC and Binance concerning the details, and the court has asked for further clarification.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson has, per a filing Cointelegraph viewed on the Public Access to Court Electronic Records website, requested both parties weigh in by 1:00 pm Eastern Time on June 13 with any changes the court should consider before it makes a decision concerning the proposed consent order.
