Binance and Zhao, more commonly known as “CZ,” filed a reply to the SEC, alongside Binance.US, which submitted its own separate, but similar, filing arguing that the SEC did not show that the exchanges’ U.S. customers had any contracts that would meet the definition of an “investment contract,” or that other elements of the Supreme Court case were met.
Related posts
-
Nigerian Prison Officials Deny Binance Employee Tigran Gambaryan is Seriously Ill
According to the prison authorities, Binance employee Tigran Gambaryan... -
Binance US Confident in Legal Battle Against SEC as Case Moves Forward
Binance US responded to the court’s decision to allow... -
U.S. Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit Against DraftKings and Its NFTs
In this recent ruling, a court agreed that DraftKings’ NFTs involved an investment of money, pooled...