Binance exchange.US has responded to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission‘s (SEC) motion to compel and reply, labeling the majority of the SEC’s requests “unreasonable” and “unduly burdensome.”
Attorneys for BAM Trading Services, which administers the Binance.US cryptocurrency exchange, submitted sealed opposition documents to the U.S. SEC on September 12, requesting additional information from Binance. U.S.
The defendants argued that the SEC’s requests for production and interrogatories “exceed the scope of the consent order” and are “unduly burdensome.”
Attorneys for BAM asserted that the SEC’s demand for certainty and requests for depositions of BAM’s CEO Brian Shroder and CFO Jasmine Lee were “unreasonable.”
The SEC’s motion “does not identify any evidence” that Shroder and Lee are involved in the day-to-day administration of Binance.US’s custody and transfer of customer assets, according to BAM’s attorneys.
“BAM’s CEO and CFO have no unique knowledge regarding facts relevant to the limited topics identified in the consent order’s expedited discovery provision,” the lawyers said.
In addition, according to the attorneys, BAM has presented numerous other witnesses with greater knowledge of the company’s operations, including BAM’s chief information security officer, Erik Kellogg. The attorneys noted:
“The burden imposed by these depositions far outweighs their potential benefit, and the discovery sought is disproportionate to the needs contemplated by the consent order.”
In addition, the attorneys argued that the SEC has “no evidence to support its unsubstantiated allegations,” insinuating that customer assets have been misappropriated. According to the defendants, the SEC’s allegations in its cross-motion to compel are “misleading and mistaken.”
In addition, according to the attorneys, there is a “complete disconnect” between the SEC’s “overbroad and abusive approach” and the limited expedited discovery to which it agreed in the consent order.
BAM responded shortly after the SEC, and Binance consented to a protective motion requiring parties to file confidential information under seal.
The plaintiff and defendants submitted a joint motion on September 11 in which they pledged to file confidential and non-public information as protected materials, restricting access to parties such as the judge, attorneys, plaintiffs, and defendants.
