Securities & Exchange Commission v. Banc de Binary Ltd.

Filing 31

ORDER that 6 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Order 28 is VACATED. FURTHER ORDERED that 29 MOTION to Reconsider is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 8/5/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Banc de Binary Ltd.

Doc. 31

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BANC DE BINARY LTD.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________________ )

2:13-cv-00993-RCJ-VCF
ORDER

12
13

This case arises out of the alleged trading of unregistered securities. The Court has

14

granted a Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6). For the reasons given herein, the

15

Court vacates the previous order, replaces it with the present Order, and denies Defendant’s

16

Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 29).

17

I.

18

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Defendant Banc de Binary, Ltd. is a Cypriot company with a license to operate in Cyprus

19

under supervision of the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as licenses to

20

operate in Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom, but it has no license from Plaintiff

21

Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to operate in the United States. (See Compl.

22

¶¶ 7–8, June 5, 2013, ECF No. 1). Defendant operates an “online trading platform,” selling

23

“binary options.” (Id. 9). A customer can go to Defendant’s website and purchase a binary

24

option, for example in stock of XYZ, Inc. (Id.). The customer selects the amount of the binary

25

option (between $1 and $3000) and bets whether the stock of XYZ, Inc. will rise or fall from the

Dockets.Justia.com

1

current price as of a given time and date in the future. (Id. ¶ 14). Defendant’s website then

2

determines the percentage payout the customer will receive if correct. (Id. ¶ 15). If the customer

3

is correct, he receives back the initial amount he paid for the binary option plus his winnings (the

4

initial bet multiplied by the percentage payout); if the customer is incorrect, he loses much or all

5

of the price he paid for the binary option. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 16). The wagers are called “binary” options

6

because there are only two possible outcomes.

7

Defendant has never registered with the SEC. (Id. ¶ 8). Defendant solicits customers

8

within the United States. (See id. ¶¶ 19–23). Although Defendant claims to have stopped

9

soliciting U.S. customers, existing U.S. customers can still use their accounts to purchase binary

10

options. (Id. ¶ 24). The SEC has sued Defendant in this Court for violations of § 5 of the

11

Securities Act of 1933 and § 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and has asked the

12

Court to issue a preliminary injunction.

13

II.

14
15
16
17
18
19

LEGAL STANDARDS
The Court of Appeals has used two separate sets of criteria for determining whether to

grant preliminary injunctive relief:
Under the traditional test, a plaintiff must show: (1) a strong likelihood of success
on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury to plaintiff if preliminary
relief is not granted, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the plaintiff, and (4)
advancement of the public interest (in certain cases). The alternative test requires
that a plaintiff demonstrate either a combination of probable success on the merits
and the possibility of irreparable injury or that serious questions are raised and the
balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor.

20

Taylor v. Westly, 488 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 2007). “These two formulations represent two

21

points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as the

22

probability of success decreases.” Id.

23

The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that a plaintiff seeking an injunction must

24

demonstrate that irreparable harm is “likely,” not just possible. Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7,

25

19–23 (2008) (rejecting the Ninth Circuit’s alternative “sliding scale” test, at least as to the
Page 2 of 14

1

irreparable harm element). The Court of Appeals has explicitly recognized that its “possibility”

2

test was “definitively refuted” in Winter, and that “[t]he proper legal standard for preliminary

3

injunctive relief requires a party to demonstrate ‘that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he

4

is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of

5

equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’” Stormans, Inc. v.

6

Selecky, 586 F.3d 1109, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 129 S. Ct. at 374) (reversing a

7

district court’s use of the Ninth Circuit’s pre-Winter “sliding-scale” standard and remanding for

8

application of the proper standard).

9

A later panel ruled that the sliding scale test remains viable when there is a lesser

10

showing of likelihood of success on the merits amounting to “serious questions,” just not when

11

there is a lesser showing of likelihood of irreparable harm. See Alliance for the Wild Rockies v.

12

Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir. 2011). Cottrell presents some difficulty in light of Winter

13

and Selecky. As an initial matter, to the extent Cottrell’s interpretation of Winter is inconsistent

14

with Selecky’s interpretation of the same case, Selecky controls. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d

15

889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (holding that, in the absence of an intervening Supreme Court

16

decision, only the en banc court may overrule a decision by a three-judge panel). In any case, the

17

Supreme Court stated in Winter that “[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish

18

that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence

19

of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the

20

public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20 (citing Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689–90 (2008);

21

Amoco Prod. Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987); Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456

22

U.S. 305, 311–12 (1982)) (emphases added). The test is presented as a four-part conjunctive test,

23

not as a four-factor balancing test, and the word “likely” modifies the success-on-the-merits

24

prong in exactly the same way it separately modifies the irreparable-harm prong, indicating that

25

in an appropriate case, the Court would require a movant to show that he is more likely than not
Page 3 of 14

1

to succeed on the merits. In rejecting the sliding-scale test, the Winter Court emphasized the fact

2

that the word “likely” modifies the irreparable-injury prong. See id. at 22 (emphasis in original).

3

The word “likely” also modifies the success-on-the-merits prong. See id. at 20.
In summary, to satisfy Winter, a movant must show that he is “likely” to succeed on the

4
5

merits. “Likely” means “having a high probability of occurring or being true.” Merriam–Webster

6

Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/likely. This colloquial, lay definition of

7

“likely” may be too stringent. Though it could be read consistently with Winter,

8

Merriam–Webster’s definition of “likely” would appear to require a showing corresponding to

9

the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, because something with a “high probability” of

10

being true has more than a mere greater-than-not chance of being true. Black’s Law Dictionary,

11

a more contextual reference work, defines the “likelihood-of-success-on-the-merits test” more

12

leniently as “[t]he rule that a litigant who seeks [preliminary relief] must show a reasonable

13

probability of success . . . .” Black’s Law Dictionary 1012 (9th ed. 2009). The Court must

14

reconcile the cases by interpreting the Cottrell “serious questions” requirement to be in harmony

15

with the Winter/Selecky “likelihood” standard, not as being in competition with it. “Serious

16

questions going to the merits” must mean that there is at least a reasonable probability of success

17

on the merits. On its face, the phrase “serious questions” appears to focus on the gravity of the

18

issues, but appears silent on the probability of the truth of the proffered proposition, which is the

19

focus of the success-on-the-merits prong. The gravity of the issues is separately considered

20

under the balance-of-hardships prong. The Cottrell court must have meant something like

21

“reasonable probability,” which appears to be the most lenient position on the sliding scale that

22

can satisfy the requirement that success on the merits be “likely.” If success on the merits is

23

merely possible, but not at least reasonably probable, no set of circumstances with respect to the

24

other prongs will justify preliminary relief.

25

///
Page 4 of 14

1

///

2

III.

ANALYSIS

3

The Court grants the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court will, however,

4

discuss whether and why binary options, as described in the Complaint, are “securities” the SEC

5

may regulate, because they are not the kind of transaction that one typically thinks of when one

6

thinks of securities.1 “Security” is defined under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the

7

“Act”), as amended, as:

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

any note, stock, treasury stock, security future, security-based swap, bond, debenture,
certificate of interest or participation in any profit-sharing agreement or in any oil,
gas, or other mineral royalty or lease, any collateral-trust certificate, preorganization
certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting-trust
certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, any put, call, straddle, option, or
privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities
(including any interest therein or based on the value thereof), or any put, call,
straddle, option, or privilege entered into on a national securities exchange relating
to foreign currency, or in general, any instrument commonly known as a “security”;
or any certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for,
receipt for, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase, any of the foregoing; but
shall not include currency or any note, draft, bill of exchange, or banker's acceptance
which has a maturity at the time of issuance of not exceeding nine months, exclusive
of days of grace, or any renewal thereof the maturity of which is likewise limited.

15
15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(10).
16
Traditional stock options are securities because they are in fact “option[s] . . . on [a]
17
security,” i.e., they are option contracts to purchase or sell stock itself at a predetermined value.
18
See Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 750–51 (1975).2 With a binary
19
20
1

21
22
23

It may be the case that binary options are in fact simply gambling bets. See generally
Gordon Pape, Don’t Gamble on Binary Options, Forbes (July 27, 2010),
http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2010/07/27/dont-gamble-on-binary-options. The Court
finds that they are in fact almost certainly gambling bets, but also that the SEC may regulate
them.
2

24
25

For the reader unfamiliar with the operation of stock options, the Court will briefly
explain. Assume XYZ stock currently sells at $5 per share, and that an option to buy one share
of XYZ stock for $6 on or before January 1, 2014 currently sells at $0.10 (a typical price). An
investor might buy the stock directly and hope the price rises or that it pays dividends.
Page 5 of 14

1

option, however, the purchaser receives neither the stock itself nor the right to purchase the stock

2

in the future. Binary options are in substance pure gambling bets. They are also unlike options

3

in that they do not require exercise by the owner. They are simply wagers that will pay (or not)

4

automatically upon a certain date. The condition upon which the bets turn are the price of

5

stock—more accurately, whether a stock has increased or decreased in value as of the time and

6

date of the wager, not by what amount it has increased or decreased in value—and the binary

7

option purchaser receives no putative interest in the stock whatsoever, i.e., no option to purchase

8

or sell it at a given price. Regardless of their name, then, binary options are in substance not

9

option contracts at all, but wagering contracts. Compare Black’s Law Dictionary 375 (9th ed.

10

2009) (“wagering conract. 1. A contract the performance of which depends on the happening of

11

an uncertain event, made entirely for sport.”); with id. 1203 (“option . . . 4. The right (but not the

12

obligation) to buy or sell a given quantity of securities, commodities, or other assets at a fixed

13

price within a specified time . . . .”). The concept of binary options is relatively new—Black’s

14

Law Dictionary has no entry for them. Black’s does, however, have an entry for the closest thing

15

to binary options heretofore encountered apart from the entry for “wagering contract.” See id.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Alternatively, an investor could buy options to buy the stock. An investor in this situation with
$1000 to spend could purchase: (1) 200 shares of XYZ stock at $5 per share; or (2) options to
buy 10000 shares of XYZ stock at $6 per share on or before January 1, 2014. If XYZ stock does
not reach $6 per share by January 1, 2014, the investor’s options will be worthless, because it
makes no sense to purchase stock at above market price. But if the stock has become worth more
than $6 before the options expire, the options could be very profitable, because the investor has
the right to purchase 10000 shares of XYZ stock at below market price, guaranteeing an instant
profit. Assume that in our example XYZ stock has risen to $10 per share before the options have
expired. If the investor bought 200 shares of XYZ stock directly, he could sell it for a profit of
$1000 (200 shares bought at $5 and sold at $10), but if the investor bought options to buy 10000
shares of XYZ stock at $6 per share, his profit will be $39,000 (10000 shares bought at $6 and
sold at $10, minus the $1000 price of the options). In summary, stock options are a way to
multiply the power of investment funds, but they are risky because they are not sales of stock but
sales of options to purchase stock; they expire and are worth nothing if the price of the
underlying stock doesn’t increase (or decrease) to the extent the investor has anticipated. It is
very similar to gambling, but because stock options are in fact option contracts to trade securities,
they are clearly “securities” under the Act.
Page 6 of 14

1

1204 (naked option. A call option that grants another the right to buy stock even though the

2

option-giver does not own the stock to back up that commitment.”). A naked option is different

3

from a binary option in a critical regard, however, because a naked option is still an option to

4

purchase stock. The fact that the naked option giver does not in fact own the stock to back up the

5

option if exercised is relevant to breach of the option contract and perhaps even fraud, but the

6

transaction is still a transaction of securities, because the naked option giver has in fact promised

7

to deliver the securities if the option is executed. The naked option purchaser may have no

8

practical ability to obtain stock through the exercise of the option because the option giver has

9

defrauded him (or at least seriously risked an inability to perform under the option contract), but

10

the binary option giver has made no promise of the binary option purchaser’s ability to obtain the

11

stock. He has made no pretense of being anything other than a bookmaker. Both parties to a

12

binary option are well aware that the transaction includes no present, future, vested, or contingent

13

interest in the stock itself. Binary option givers and buyers do not purport to trade interests in

14

securities any more than tellers and gamblers at a racetrack purport to trade interests in horses. In

15

these transactions, the securities and the horses, respectively, are neither part of the consideration

16

for nor the subject matter of the contract, but rather the securities’ and horses’ respective

17

performance is simply a remote condition precedent triggering the obligations of the parties.

18

Although stock investments, and particularly stock options, may also be fairly described as

19

“gambling” in a colloquial sense, binary options constitute gambling in a more profound and

20

essential way, because the purchaser of a binary option receives no present or future interest

21

whatsoever in any security.

22

Next, binary options resemble European-style options in one way. That is, European-

23

style options, unlike American-style options, may only be executed at the time of expiration. But

24

unlike binary options, European-style options still include the right to obtain the security via

25

execution at that time.
Page 7 of 14

1

Finally, the binary options at issue here may be “cash-settled options” that the SEC may

2

regulate. See Caiola v. Citibank, N.A., N.Y., 295 F.3d 312, 326–27 (2d Cir. 2002). The

3

Caiola court ruled that the fact that options are cash-settled rather than settled by delivery is not

4

important to whether they qualify as “securities” under the statute. See id.3 The Court agrees in

5

part but respectfully disagrees that cash-settled options are “options” under the meaning of

6

§ 78c(a)(10) even in cases where the “option” gives the purchaser no pretense whatsoever to the

7

right to obtain the underlying security. The Court agrees that the Act does not distinguish

8

between regulated and “over-the-counter” (private, unregulated) options. See id. at 325. There is,

9

as the Second Circuit noted, no language expressing or implying such a distinction in the statute.

10

The Court also agrees that the Act does not distinguish between physically-settled and

11

cash-settled options per se. See id. The Act does not speak in terms of how the parties settle their

12

options contracts. But the statute, as broad as it is, only lists certain items, and the Court believes

13

there is a critical distinction between: (1) cash-settled options under which the purchaser has a

14

legal right to obtain the security but where the parties in practice agree to settle the option with

15

cash, whether or not that intention or expectation existed when the option was given (“potentially

16

cash-settled options”); and (2) cash-settled options under which there is no putative right to

17

obtain the security (“necessarily cash-settled options”). The Court simply cannot agree that a

18

contract under which the purchaser has no putative right to obtain the security is an “option.”

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

3

Cash-settled options are those settled with cash, rather than by delivery, either because
the option buyer does not care to keep the security, does indeed wish to exercise the right to
purchase the security but does not wish to experience the hassle of obtaining physical possession
of it due to transport costs or other considerations, or because the security cannot be physically
delivered because it involves an interest in something that cannot be delivered in physical form.
Rather, the investor “settles” the option by having the option giver transfer cash to him in an
amount equal to the market value of the securities at the time of settlement minus the price at
which he has the right to purchase the securities under the option contract. The investor simply
takes his expected profit in cash. In some cases, it is known ahead of time that cash settlement
will be used, and not physical delivery.
Page 8 of 14

1

There is no good reason to read more than the common definition of “option” into the statute.

2

An “option” is the right, but not the duty, to do something, i.e., the possibility of exercising the

3

right to a particular course of action. Binary options simply do not contain this characteristic.

4

They do not even give the purchaser the right to determine whether or when to execute the

5

supposed “option.” They give the purchaser no putative right to choose any future course of

6

action whatsoever. Binary options, like necessarily cash-settled options, are wagering contracts

7

regardless of their title.

8
9

The Court also respectfully disagrees with the Second Circuit’s reasoning that the statute
would not include in the definition of “security” options on groups and indexes of securities if

10

the intent were not to regulate transactions under which it is known no physical representation of

11

the right to the security will be delivered, because one cannot deliver a share of an index or group

12

of securities. See id. at 325–26. The Caiola court’s reasoning here is persuasive until one closely

13

examines a critical premise upon which it is based. There have been such things as mutual funds

14

and index funds for quite some time, for at least as long as more exotic types of investments like

15

necessarily cash-settled options. Mutual funds are securities consisting of bundles of stocks

16

and/or other securities, and index funds are a subclass of mutual funds consisting of bundles of

17

stocks representing an entire stock index such that the value of shares of the index fund are

18

inherently tied to the value of the index itself. The Court is aware of no reason why instruments

19

representing shares of ownership in such funds cannot be physically delivered, whether regulated

20

or not. The Court agrees that in cases where the option agreement includes the right to obtain an

21

interest in a mutual fund or index fund, i.e., potentially cash-settled options, the option is in fact

22

an “option,” and therefore a “security” under the statute. But if the agreement is a pure wager,

23

with no putative right to obtain the security thereunder, as with necessarily cash-settled options

24

and binary options, the agreement simply does not fall under the commonly understood definition

25

of an “option,” which, critically, the Act does not separately define, and the transaction is simply
Page 9 of 14

1
2

a wagering contract.
The Complaint itself indicates that Defendant’s website contains classic indicia of a

3

gambling operation. For example, Defendant’s website determines the amount of the payout

4

based not upon the actual increase or decrease in the value of the underlying security but rather

5

upon a predetermined payout percentage depending only upon whether the price has gone up or

6

down as of a future date and time with respect to the date and time of purchase. (See Compl.

7

¶ 16). That is, like at a racetrack or sports book, the house determines how much the wagerer

8

wins or loses by adjusting the odds based upon the house’s estimation of the outcome of the bet

9

and/or the sums of other customers’ pending bets, so as to ensure a profit for the house. In this

10

case it is probably a computer algorithm, as opposed to a human odds maker, that makes the

11

calculations, but the principle is the same. Also, Defendant offers “trading bonuses” to

12

customers depositing money with Defendant in the same way that casinos entice customers to

13

gamble by offering gambling credits, knowing that the customer will spend the free credits and

14

then his own funds, as well. (See id. ¶ 22). That is the “economic reality” of these transactions.

15

See SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 298 (1946).

16

Defendants are not off the hook, however. Although they are not “options,” binary

17

options are “securities” under the statute. The Act includes in the definition of “security” “any

18

put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of

19

securities (including any interest therein or based on the value thereof) . . . .” 15 U.S.C.

20

§ 78c(a)(10) (emphasis added). It is this parenthetical text that makes clear Congress’ intent to

21

give the SEC the power to regulate both the trading of interests in securities directly and

22

wagering contracts turning on the value of securities, regardless of whether the latter are dressed

23

up as options contracts or given dissembling titles such as “cash-settled options.” Although

24

binary options are not “options” under the Act, they are “privileges . . . based on the value [of

25

securities]” because they give the purchaser a contractual right to the payment of money based
Page 10 of 14

1

upon the value of securities. They are probably also “puts” or “calls” because they are bets that

2

the price of the security will rise or fall. The Court agrees with the Caiola court that the

3

parenthetical phrase “including any interest therein or based on the value thereof” modifies the

4

entire preceding phrase “any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities,” not

5

only the final member of that list. See Caiola, 295 F.3d at 326. In summary, Congress has

6

empowered the SEC under the Act to regulate wagering contracts turning upon the value of

7

securities. That is what binary options are, and the SEC may therefore regulate them. The

8

standards for a preliminary injunction being satisfied, the Court grants the Motion for

9

Preliminary Injunction.4

10

The Court rejects Defendant’s argument that the present Motion is moot because

11

Defendant has both ceased soliciting and accepting new American customers and has, contrary to

12

Plaintiff’s allegations, frozen the accounts of existing American customers. Defendant’s

13

voluntary cessation of the alleged unlawful activity does not negate a justiciable controversy

14

under the mootness doctrine, because Defendant could begin soliciting and accepting new

15

American customers or permitting existing American customers to use their accounts again at

16

any time. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189

17

(2000). And Defendant is wrong that Plaintiff bears the burden of proving this exception under

18

the likelihood-of-success-on-the-merits prong of the preliminary injunction standard. The

19

mootness issue is a prudential jurisdictional question antecedent to the merits of the preliminary

20

injunction motion, not a merits question incorporated therein, and “[t]he heavy burden of

21
4

22
23
24
25

The Court also notes that Defendant’s operation may constitute an illegal gambling
enterprise under 18 U.S.C. § 1955 et seq. Binary options likely qualify as gambling wagers
under the law of this state or any other. Binary options, because they are “securities” under the
Act, do not constitute “wagers” for the purposes of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement
Act of 2006 (“UIGEA”). See 31 U.S.C. § 5362(1)(E)(i). But the exclusion of binary options
from UIGEA’s definition of “wager” presumably has no effect upon whether such transactions
constitute gambling under state law, and the latter analysis is the basis for a RICO action if there
is a sufficient interstate nexus, which seems indisputable here.
Page 11 of 14

1

persuading the court that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to start up again

2

lies with the party asserting mootness.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

3

Defendant has not satisfied that burden.

4
5
6

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6) is
GRANTED.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Order (ECF No. 28) is VACATED.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 29) is DENIED.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Banc de Binary, and its officers, agents, servants,

10

employees, attorneys, subsidiaries and affiliates, and those persons in active concert or

11

participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Order, by personal service or

12

otherwise, and each of them, be and hereby are temporarily restrained and enjoined from, directly

13

or indirectly, in the absence of any applicable exemption, (a) offering and selling in the United

14

States binary options that are based on stock or stock indices and that are offered on Banc de

15

Binary’s website (www.bbinary.com), unless a registration statement is in effect as to such binary

16

options, or (b) otherwise:

17

(i) making use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in

18

interstate commerce or of the mails in the United States to sell a security through the use or

19

medium of any prospectus or otherwise, unless a registration statement is in effect as to such

20

security;

21

(ii) carrying or causing to be carried through the mails or in interstate commerce in the

22

United States, by any means or instruments of transportation, any security for the purpose of sale

23

or for delivery after sale, unless a registration statement is in effect as to such security; or

24

(iii) making use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in

25

interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to sell or offer to buy in the United States through the
Page 12 of 14

1

use or medium of any prospectus or otherwise any security, unless a registration statement has

2

been filed with the SEC as to such security, or while the registration statement is the subject of a

3

refusal order or stop order or (prior to the effective date of the registration statement) any public

4

proceeding or examination under Section 8 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77h; in violation of

5

Section 5 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77e.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Banc de Binary, and its officers, agents, servants,

7

employees, attorneys, subsidiaries and affiliates, and those persons in active concert or

8

participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Order, by personal service or

9

otherwise, and each of them, be and hereby are temporarily restrained and enjoined from, directly

10

or indirectly, unless Banc de Binary is registered with the SEC in accordance with Section 15(b)

11

of Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78o(b), and in the absence of any applicable exemption, acting as a

12

broker-dealer in the United States or otherwise making use of the mails or any means or

13

instrumentality of interstate commerce to effect any transactions in, or to induce or attempt to

14

induce the purchase or sale of, any security (other than an exempted security or commercial

15

paper, bankers’ acceptances, or commercial bills) in the United States, in violation of Section

16

15(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78o(a).

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, except as otherwise ordered by this Court, Banc de

18

Binary, and its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, subsidiaries and affiliates, and

19

those persons in active concert or participation with any of them, who receive actual notice of

20

this Order, by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, be and hereby are temporarily

21

restrained and enjoined from, directly or indirectly destroying, mutilating, concealing,

22

transferring, altering, or otherwise disposing of, in any manner, any documents, which includes

23

all books, records, computer programs, computer files, computer printouts, contracts, emails,

24

correspondence, memoranda, brochures, or any other documents of any kind in their possession,

25

custody or control, however created, produced, or stored (manually, mechanically, electronically,
Page 13 of 14

1
2
3

or otherwise), pertaining in any manner to Banc de Binary or its activities.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Preliminary Injunction shall remain in effect until
entry of a Final Judgment in, or other final disposition of, this action.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for

5

the purpose of implementing and carrying out the terms of all orders and decrees which may be

6

entered herein and to entertain any suitable application or motion for additional relief within the

7

jurisdiction of this Court.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated this 5th day of August, 2013.

10
11

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 14 of 14