Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 1-23-cv-01599-ABJ-ZMF
BINANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED,
BAM TRADING SERVICES INC.,
BAM MANAGEMENT US HOLDINGS
INC., AND CHANGPENG ZHAO,
Defendants.
JOINT STATUS REPORT
Pursuant to the Court’s September 18, 2023 Minute Order, all Parties to this litigation
respectfully submit this Joint Status Report.
I.
BAM-Related Discovery
A. SEC’s Position
1. SEC’s Position Concerning Document Discovery
Following the Court’s guidance at the September 18 hearing, on September 21, 2023,
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) sent Defendants BAM Management US
Holdings Inc. and BAM Trading Services Inc. (collectively, “BAM”) a list of specific documents
(or related categories of documents) it requested that BAM produce (“September 21 Requests”),
all of which are responsive to the SEC’s First Requests for Production of Documents to BAM.
Ex. 1. The SEC had already requested many of these documents on the record of depositions Page 2 where BAM witnesses readily revealed their existence, but that BAM had not produced. See id.,
Attachment A, Section I Nos. 4-28; Section 2 Nos. 3-19.
On September 26, 2023, the SEC and BAM held a call on these requests. On that call,
BAM’s counsel was not prepared to state its definitive position on any of the September requests. Instead, BAM identified various categories for which it could likely identify and
produce documents, voiced general objections on burden and scope on some of requests, and
stated its belief (but did not confirm) that it had satisfied some requests with prior productions.
BAM’s counsel agreed to state its position as to each of the requests in writing, including
whether it believed it had already satisfied any requests. The SEC twice followed up on these
discussions on September 27 and on September 29. Ex. 2 (Emails from E. Murphy and J. Farer
dated September 27 and 29).
On October 2, 2023, BAM’s counsel responded that it was “working through those
requests and will provide you our position and productions on a reasonable timeframe.” Id. (M.
Laroche email dated October 2). With the deadline for the Joint Status Report approaching, the
SEC followed up asking for a call to discuss specific requests again, which the parties held on
October 6. 1 Once again, BAM counsel declined to say on that call whether it would search for
and produce documents in response to the vast majority of the requests. On Saturday, October 7,
BAM for the first time gave a definitive position, but only as to six of the September Requests, which it objected to in their entirety. Id. (M. LaRoche email dated October 7).
The upshot is that as of today, almost four months after the Consent Order was entered,
and three weeks following the last hearing, BAM has only produced approximately
On October 4, BAM sent its first discovery production since the September 18 hearing. In the
cover letter to that production, BAM identified documents it had produced in response to certain
of the September 21 Requests. Page 3 documents and refuses to provide its position on the whether it will even agree to search for
responsive documents that should have been produced long ago.
The SEC respectfully submits that this is entirely consistent with BAM’s pattern of
conduct during discovery under the Consent Order: i.e., asserting conclusory objections as an
excuse not to search for any documents and communications responsive to certain requests,
while refusing to engage on other more specific requests. 2 The SEC has consistently attempted
to meet and confer with BAM throughout this expedited discovery process, including pursuant to
the Court’s guidance after the recent hearing. These efforts have been unsuccessful.
Accordingly, the SEC believes that Court intervention is necessary and respectfully requests that
the Court order BAM to immediately search for and produce documents in response to the
September 21 Requests.
Further, this Court should reject BAM’s general assertions that the six requests identified
in its October 7 email (Document Request Nos. 1,3, 23, 30, 31, Communications Request No.2)
are “substantially overbroad, unduly burdensome, and go far beyond the scope of the Consent
Order and the guidance provided by Judge Faruqui at our last hearing.” Ex. 2 (M. Laroche email
dated October 2).
Specifically, Document Requests Nos. 1-2 and Communication Request 2 seek
documents to provide more clarity on the issue of which entity is actually providing BAM’s
wallet software and related services, such as documents “sufficient to identify all wallet custody
software and related services provided by any Binance entity including Ceffu.” Ex 1. These
BAM’s counsel has also made various iterations of a request that the SEC agree that responses
to the September 21 requests will satisfy all of BAM’s document discovery obligations under the
Consent Order. The SEC believes this condition (if it is one) is inconsistent with the Court’s
guidance concerning the iterative process of discovery and generally inappropriate, especially
given that BAM refuses to say whether it will actually respond to many of the requests. Page 4 issues strike at the heart of the Consent Order’s expedited discovery provisions, and substantial
questions remain outstanding such that this discovery remains critical. If, as BAM now asserts,
Ceffu has nothing to do with BAM’s wallet custody practices, it should be simple to produce
evidence of their recent representations on this issue (which documents are specifically requested
in Document Request No. 2), as its counsel’s representations have proven unreliable. See, e.g.,
Mot. to Compel, at 9-13. And BAM should be able to produce reliable documentary evidence as
to who does provide those services, including the extent, if any, of Binance’s role (which
documents are specifically requested in Document Request No. 1).
Similarly, Request 23 seeks notes of meetings with BAM’s auditors concerning the
security, custody, and control of assets and reconciliation of assets. Id. This is an extremely
tailored request concerning relevant documents discussed at depositions and that relate to key
representations made to a third party on the issue of custody.
Finally, Requests 30 and 31 seek source code and other technical documentation to clear
up ongoing confusion by BAM witnesses on what Binance is doing (and able to do) behind the
scenes in connection with crypto asset wallets, especially as it relates to the TSS protocol and
PNK system, both of which BAM touts as the key control preventing Binance from transferring
customer assets. Id. From the start of expedited discovery, the SEC has endeavored to work with
BAM to get the diagrams and other technical information necessary to evaluate the controls upon
which BAM relies in claiming it has exclusive possession, custody, and control over company
and Customer Assets—to the exclusion of Binance. Among other things, the SEC has
consistently stated that it is open to reasonable alternative means of obtaining this evidence, such
as conducting an inspection. Instead of productively engaging with the SEC, BAM has simply
claimed that diagrams and technical documentations don’t exist (which was later determined to Page 5 be inaccurate, see Mot. to Compel at 13), and raised various, ever-changing objections to related
requests and proposed alternatives, without proposing any alternatives themselves.
2. SEC’s Position Concerning Depositions
At the September 18 hearing, the SEC understood the Court to suggest that it should be
entitled to depose all of the witnesses identified in Exhibit 31 to the SEC’s Motion to Compel
and other current BAM’s shardholders, but that it would defer for now the depositions of BAM’s
CEO and CFO. Since that time, the SEC has tried to meet and confer on scheduling these
depositions. BAM did not even provide any proposed dates until October 3, and still has not
provided dates for two of these witnesses. As of now, BAM and the SEC have confirmed the
next deposition for October 18, with several to follow through the rest of October and into
November.
But the parties have reached an impasse as to the scope of the depositions of BAM’s
remaining shardholders. BAM acknowledges that this Court agreed that the SEC is entitled to
depose BAM’s shardholders, but BAM believes that these depositions (1) should be limited in
scope to their personal knowledge relating to their status as a BAM shardholder, and (2) should
be limited to 3.5 hours on the record.
The SEC’s position is that these limitations are unwarranted and do not align with the
Court’s guidance at the September 18 hearing. First, the Consent Order already provides the
scope of permissible discovery, and in the September 18 hearing, the Court did not give any
further limiting instructions as to the scope of the shardholder depositions. Many of these
shardholders have other roles at BAM that gives them significant personal knowledge
concerning Customer Assets and the other topics permitted under the Consent Order, and the
SEC should be entitled to ask about that personal knowledge. Indeed, the SEC acknowledged at Page 6 the hearing that the duration for each deposition would depend on the witness’s role and scope of
relevant knowledge (if any) beyond that which relates to the role of shardholder.
Second, BAM’s attempt to limit the SEC’s deposition time is inconsistent with Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and BAM raises no grounds to deviate from that rule.
At this time, the SEC does not know if it will need the full seven hours to depose these
witnesses, but it sees no basis to arbitrarily agree to such a limitation before the depositions
commence, and before BAM complies with the SEC’s document requests that could further
inform the need for time to depose these witnesses. The SEC also does not believe that any time
limitation will significantly reduce any claimed burdens, but instead could increase those
burdens if the SEC later has a basis to seek a second deposition of any of these witnesses because
it did not have sufficient time or documents to fairly question them in the first instance.
B. BAM’s Position
BAM has worked in good faith but believes that the SEC’s requests since the September
18 hearing are unreasonable. Since the hearing, the SEC has demanded that BAM agree to nine
additional depositions, including depositions of six current shardholders, one former shardholder,
BAM’s Head of Product, and a deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6).
The SEC also served BAM with over 60 document requests, including 42 requests for documents
(three of which have multiple subparts) and 19 requests for communications (some of which have
no date range and are virtually unlimited in scope). When BAM sought reasonable concessions
through the meet-and-confer process, such as time and subject matter limitations on shardholder
depositions or some reasonable assurance that expedited discovery will end if BAM complies with
the foregoing requests, the SEC rejected them. Page 7 BAM does not believe that the SEC’s approach is consistent with the Consent Order; the
Court’s guidance at the hearing, including that the SEC make limited and targeted requests to
BAM; or the SEC’s representations at that hearing, including that shardholder depositions would
be limited. 3 The SEC’s expansive requests are particularly unwarranted against the backdrop of
everything BAM produced over the past three months of expedited discovery and, prior to that,
over the many years of the SEC’s underlying investigation. The SEC’s approach to discovery
has produced no evidence of the dissipation or misuse of assets, yet continues to significantly
disrupt BAM’s business operations.
Nevertheless, BAM has agreed to take, and has already taken, significant steps toward
meeting the SEC’s demands in an effort to address the SEC’s concerns about BAM’s asset
custody practices. In fact, BAM is essentially giving the SEC everything it wants—it agreed to
conduct reasonable searches for targeted documents and communications in response to almost
all the SEC’s requests and agreed to nine additional depositions (with a modest request that the
SEC agree to limit the length and subject matter of shardholder depositions). The SEC, on the
other hand, has not agreed to a single accommodation requested by BAM.
1.
BAM’s Position Concerning the SEC’s Document Requests
Contrary to the SEC’s description of the record, BAM provided clear guidance to the SEC
concerning its position with respect to the SEC’s document requests and worked swiftly to
respond to them. 4 As BAM informed the SEC during calls and in email correspondence, BAM’s
general approach to those requests is to search for documents that were specifically identified by
BAM understands that a transcript of the hearing is unavailable.
The SEC omitted key portions of the meet-and-confer process, including that BAM (i)
immediately proposed a global resolution on September 21, 2023, in which BAM agreed to the
SEC’s proposed depositions subject to reasonable conditions concerning the end of expedited Page 8 the SEC and to conduct targeted searches to the SEC’s more limited communications requests.
BAM has already made two document productions and will continue making productions on a
rolling basis. To date, BAM believes it has satisfied 11 of the SEC’s requests (16 counting
subparts).
BAM does not, however, believe it is obligated to fully comply with all the SEC’s requests
as drafted. Many of the SEC’s requests are substantially overbroad, unduly burdensome, and go
far beyond the scope of the Consent Order and the guidance provided by the Court during the
hearing. BAM understood the Court’s guidance to the SEC was to serve document requests that
were limited and targeted to the topics, documents, and issues of most concern to the SEC.
Instead, the SEC served over 60 requests many of which are not targeted, have no date restriction,
contain multiple subparts, and cover topics far beyond those raised at the hearing.
Although BAM believes that many of the requests are inappropriate, with few exceptions,
BAM is seeking to respond to the requests, including by conferring with its client and searching
for documents, and will continue to make productions on a rolling basis to the extent BAM
identifies responsive documents. The exceptions are Document Request Nos. 1, 2, 23, 30, and
31, and Communication Request No. 2, which include requests with no date range, that are
substantially overbroad on their face, or that seek highly sensitive source code. BAM does not
agree to conduct any searches specific to those requests (though we believe many of the SEC’s
other requests overlap with them) or that it is BAM’s obligation to propose how to limit them.
discovery, which the SEC rejected; (ii) consistently stated that it planned to search for documents
responsive to the SEC’s more limited requests and would respond to all of the requests on a
reasonable timeframe; and (iii) objected to being forced to respond to 60-plus requests in less than
two weeks. Page 9 The SEC’s position concerning those specific requests largely misstates the record or
misstates what BAM has agreed to produce. As to Document Request Nos. 1 and 2 and
Communications Request No. 2, which relate to Ceffu and have no date restrictions, BAM agreed
to search for any documents (beyond those already produced) that would further demonstrate that
BAM licenses wallet custody software from BHL and has no relationship with Ceffu. However,
BAM does not agree to conduct a broad ranging search without any date restriction for any
conceivable document concerning Ceffu or BHL’s wallet custody services, which is what those
requests seek on their face. BAM’s position is particularly appropriate given that the SEC has
already secured sworn testimony confirming that BAM has always licensed its wallet custody
software from BHL; BAM does not have any relationship with Ceffu; and BAM’s use of the term
Ceffu was based on a mistaken understanding that Ceffu was the name of the BHL wallet custody
software. The SEC has not identified any information beyond BAM’s mistaken use of the term
“Ceffu” that would suggest any other state of affairs.
As to Document Request No. 23, which seeks notes of meetings with FGMK, BAM’s
outside auditor, the SEC has already obtained thousands of documents from FGMK, including
detailed notes of meetings with BAM personnel, and deposed FGMK’s lead audit partner for
BAM. The SEC has not explained why it needs BAM to conduct a far-ranging search for
additional documents, which at best, relate to BAM’s historical asset custody practices, not to the
current custody and control of such assets. Moreover, BAM has already agreed to provide the
SEC with numerous documents concerning the security, custody, and reconciliation of assets
through other of the SEC’s 60-plus requests. Indeed, last week, BAM produced 122 spreadsheets
showing daily reconciliation of the balances reflected in BAM’s PNK system and its on-chain
wallets for the period of June 1, 2023 through September 30, 2023. Page 10 As to Document Request Nos. 30 and 31, which seek source code concerning the TSS
portal and cold wallets, the SEC has not explained why it needs source code to evaluate the
custody and security of BAM’s assets. To the extent the SEC is seeking data logs reflecting who
has access to programs involved in the custody of assets, BAM has agreed to produce them and,
in fact, has already produced access logs for the AWS environment and PNK system. Moreover,
contrary to the SEC’s assertions otherwise, BAM is open to an “inspection” on reasonable terms,
but the SEC has never proposed any.
2.
BAM’s Position Concerning Depositions
BAM agreed to the SEC’s nine requested depositions, has begun preparing witnesses, and
has proposed dates for most depositions beginning as early as October 12, 2023. BAM’s position
is that shardholder depositions (except for the deposition of one shardholder who holds a position
at BAM that is separately relevant) should be limited to 3.5 hours concerning their role as
shardholders. These conditions are reasonable for several reasons:
First, by agreeing to nine additional depositions, BAM is already going far beyond the
“limited” expedited discovery contemplated by the Consent Order. Indeed, after the foregoing
depositions are complete, the SEC will have conducted 13 depositions in expedited discovery,
which is more than what the SEC is entitled to in regular discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(a)(2)(A)(i) (limiting a party to 10 depositions absent stipulation). In these circumstances,
providing BAM with a modest accommodation on the length and subject matter of shardholder
depositions is reasonable, especially given that BAM is preparing nine witnesses for depositions
that will take place within the next 30 to 45 days and the SEC has stated that it intends to seek
even more depositions in the future. Page 11 Second, the SEC’s position that it is entitled to seven hours for each shardholder and is
not limited to questioning them about their role as shardholders is inconsistent with their position
at the last hearing. During the hearing, BAM raised that the one deposition of a shardholder to
date took almost seven hours. In response, the SEC sought to assure the Court and the parties
that the other shardholder depositions would be shorter and more limited. The SEC has now done
an about face, which materially changes the scope and nature of the additional depositions
contemplated at the hearing. The point of allowing the SEC to depose the shardholders is to
provide the SEC with comfort that the shardholders are appropriately performing their role as
shardholders; it was not to provide the SEC with carte blanche to ask them about any potential
topic related to customer assets. Indeed, the SEC has not provided any justification for its need
to question shardholders on unlimited topics other than a conclusory and unsupported assertion
that they may have “personal knowledge” concerning customer assets.
Finally, questioning shardholders about unlimited topics would be inefficient and is
unnecessary. The SEC has already deposed BAM’s outside auditor, Chief Information Security
Officer, Clearing Team Lead, and a shardholder (who testified about other relevant aspects of
BAM’s operations) on a variety of topics related to customer assets. Moreover, BAM agreed to
the SEC’s requested 30(b)(6) deposition, which also will cover numerous topics concerning the
custody, control, and availability of customer assets. The SEC does not need a third bite at the
apple to ask shardholders about the same topics explored in prior depositions and to be explored
during the 30(b)(6) deposition.
If the Court is inclined to allow the SEC to depose shardholders for seven hours without
any subject matter limitations, BAM reserves the right reschedule depositions so that it may
appropriately prepare witnesses on any conceivable topic relating to customer assets. Page 12 ***
BAM respectfully submits that it is appropriately addressing the SEC’s requests in good
faith and consistent with the guidance provided by the Court during the hearing. BAM believes
that once the foregoing document productions and depositions are complete, expedited discovery
should end absent a showing of new information demonstrating good cause for such a request.
BAM will be prepared to address these issues during the hearing on October 13, 2023.
II.
Interrogatories to BAM
A. SEC’s Position
In response to the SEC’s Motion to Compel, BAM agreed that it would supplement its
prior interrogatory response. Resp. Mot. to Compel, at 16, Dkt. No. 107. It still has not done so.
B. BAM’s Position
BAM has already provided the SEC with the information that supplements its prior
interrogatory response in letters provided by counsel. The SEC is requesting that BAM provide
updated certifications from a BAM employee or employees with respect to that information. BAM
will do so but has prioritized responding to the SEC’s recent document and communications
requests and preparing witnesses for depositions.
III.
Consent Order Part IV
A. SEC’s Position
On July 10 and August 7, 2023, BAM produced materials responsive to Part IV of the
Consent Order, which required BAM to, among other things, provide information about “each”
wallet and account holding company or Customer Assets, and corresponding balances. Consent
Order, IV. At this time, BAM has produced, inter alia, only aggregate data concerning customer
accounts and balances. The SEC’s position is that this level of data is inadequate. Without Page 13 individualized wallet and account data, the SEC cannot determine, among other issues, whether
the represented customer balances are accurate, whether there are sufficient assets to cover
customer balances for immediate withdrawal (including to evaluate the discrepancy BAM
identified when it produced the accounting information) or whether the list of Zhao or Binanceassociated individuals with accounts on Binance.US that was provided by BAM is complete. B. BAM’s Position
The SEC raised this issue for the first time with BAM on October 6, 2023. As BAM
informed the SEC in its cover letter to the verified accounting, dated August 7, 2023, BAM
provided deposit wallet information in the aggregate rather than by each individual or unique
deposit wallet because there are almost 1.5 million such wallets on BAM’s platform. Nevertheless,
BAM agreed to discuss this issue internally and will respond to the SEC. As a result, this issue is
premature.
IV.
Binance/Zhao-Related Discovery
A. SEC’s Position
In accordance with the Court’s guidance in the September 18 hearing, on October 5, the
SEC sent Defendants Binance Holdings Limited (“Binance”) and Changpeng Zhao a targeted list
of specific documents it requested that Binance and Zhao produce during the ongoing
discussions with BAM (while reserving the SEC’s right to seek additional documents responsive
to the SEC’s First Requests for Production of Documents to BAM). The SEC, Binance, and
Zhao will meet and confer on these requests, and will also confer on the SEC’s requests for
The SEC has also repeatedly requested general ledger, trial balance, and related financial
information to facilitate this analysis. Page 14 depositions of Zhao and other Binance personnel, and promptly bring any unresolved disputes to
this Court. B. Binance and Zhao’s Position
The SEC sent new document requests to BHL and Mr. Zhao after the close of business on
October 5. Thus, at the time of this report, BHL and Mr. Zhao have had minimal time to consider
the SEC’s requests. Counsel to BHL and Mr. Zhao are reviewing these requests with their clients
and intend to meet and confer with the SEC regarding them in good faith and in consideration of
the appropriate scope of expedited discovery into the security of BAM customer assets.
V.
Proposed Protective Order
On September 11, 2023, the Parties filed a joint motion that the Court enter a proposed
protective order to govern the treatment and disclosure of certain confidential information during
the course of the litigation. (Dkt. No. 106). For the reasons stated in that motion, the parties
respectfully request that this Court enter the protective order.
The SEC continues to reserve the right to seek further relief from the Court if the parties are
unable to resolve pending issues regarding Binance’s productions in response to Section IV of
the Consent Order. See Mot. to Compel Memo at 15 n.4. Page 15 Dated: October 10,
/s/ Michael Celio
Michael Celio (pro hac vice)
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-MCelio@gibsondunn.com
Daniel W. Nelson (D.C. Bar #433415)
Jason J. Mendro (D.C. Bar #482040)
Stephanie Brooker (pro hac vice)
M. Kendall Day (pro hac vice
forthcoming)
Richard W. Grime (pro hac vice
forthcoming)
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-DNelson@gibsondunn.com
JMendro@gibsondunn.com
SBrooker@gibsondunn.com
KDay@gibsondunn.com
RGrime@gibsondunn.com
Attorneys for Defendant Binance
Holdings Limited
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Matthew Scarlato
Matthew F. Scarlato (D.C. Bar No. 484124)
Jennifer L. Farer (D.C. Bar No. 1013915)
David A. Nasse
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
100 F Street, NE
Washington, DC 20549-(202) 551-3749 (Scarlato)
nassed@sec.gov
farerj@sec.gov
scarlatom@sec.gov
John Emmett Murphy
Jorge G. Tenreiro
Elisa Solomon
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
100 Pearl Street
New York, NY (212) 336-0078 (Murphy)
murphyjoh@sec.gov
tenreiroj@sec.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff Securities and
Exchange Commission Page 16 /s/ Abid Qureshi
Abid R. Qureshi (D.C. Bar No. 459227)
William R. Baker, III (D.C. Bar No.
383944)
Erik S. Volkman (D.C. Bar No. 490999)
Michael E. Bern (D.C. Bar No. 994791)
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite Washington, DC Tel: (202) 637-Fax: (202) 637-abid.qureshi@lw.com
william.baker@lw.com
eric.volkman@lw.com
michael.bern@lw.com
Douglas K. Yatter (pro hac vice pending)
Benjamin Naftalis (pro hac vice pending)
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY Tel: (212) 906-Fax: (212) 751-douglas.yatter@lw.com
benjamin.naftalis@lw.com
Heather A. Waller (pro hac vice pending)
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite Chicago, IL Tel: (312) 876-Fax: (312) 993-heather.waller@lw.com
/s/ George S. Canellos
George S. Canellos
Matthew Laroche
MILBANK LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001-212-530-gcanellos@milbank.com
mlaroche@milbank.com
Matthew T. Martens
William R. McLucas (pro hac vice pending)
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
DORR LLP
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC (202) 663-Fax: (202) 663-matthew.martens@wilmerhale.com
william.mclucas@wilmerhale.com
Tiffany J. Smith (pro hac vice pending)
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY tiffany.smith@wilmerhale.com
Attorneys for Defendants BAM Trading Services
Inc. and BAM Management Holdings
US Inc.
Melanie M. Blunschi (pro hac vice pending)
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite San Francisco, CA 94111-Tel: (415) 391-Fax: (415) 395-melanie.blunschi@lw.com
Attorneys for Defendant Changpeng
Zhao
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cv-01599-ABJ-ZMF Document 146 Filed 10/11/23 Page 1 of 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 1-23-cv-01599-ABJ-ZMF
BINANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED,
BAM TRADING SERVICES INC.,
BAM MANAGEMENT US HOLDINGS
INC., AND CHANGPENG ZHAO,
Defendants.
JOINT STATUS REPORT
Pursuant to the Court’s September 18, 2023 Minute Order, all Parties to this litigation
respectfully submit this Joint Status Report.
I.
BAM-Related Discovery
A. SEC’s Position
1. SEC’s Position Concerning Document Discovery
Following the Court’s guidance at the September 18 hearing, on September 21, 2023,
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) sent Defendants BAM Management US
Holdings Inc. and BAM Trading Services Inc. (collectively, “BAM”) a list of specific documents
(or related categories of documents) it requested that BAM produce (“September 21 Requests”),
all of which are responsive to the SEC’s First Requests for Production of Documents to BAM.
Ex. 1. The SEC had already requested many of these documents on the record of depositions
1
PDF Page 3
Case 1:23-cv-01599-ABJ-ZMF Document 146 Filed 10/11/23 Page 2 of 16
where BAM witnesses readily revealed their existence, but that BAM had not produced. See id.,
Attachment A, Section I Nos. 4-28; Section 2 Nos. 3-19.
On September 26, 2023, the SEC and BAM held a call on these requests. On that call,
BAM’s counsel was not prepared to state its definitive position on any of the September 21
requests. Instead, BAM identified various categories for which it could likely identify and
produce documents, voiced general objections on burden and scope on some of requests, and
stated its belief (but did not confirm) that it had satisfied some requests with prior productions.
BAM’s counsel agreed to state its position as to each of the requests in writing, including
whether it believed it had already satisfied any requests. The SEC twice followed up on these
discussions on September 27 and on September 29. Ex. 2 (Emails from E. Murphy and J. Farer
dated September 27 and 29).
On October 2, 2023, BAM’s counsel responded that it was “working through those
requests and will provide you our position and productions on a reasonable timeframe.” Id. (M.
Laroche email dated October 2). With the deadline for the Joint Status Report approaching, the
SEC followed up asking for a call to discuss specific requests again, which the parties held on
October 6. 1 Once again, BAM counsel declined to say on that call whether it would search for
and produce documents in response to the vast majority of the requests. On Saturday, October 7,
BAM for the first time gave a definitive position, but only as to six of the September 21
Requests, which it objected to in their entirety. Id. (M. LaRoche email dated October 7).
The upshot is that as of today, almost four months after the Consent Order was entered,
and three weeks following the last hearing, BAM has only produced approximately 382
1
On October 4, BAM sent its first discovery production since the September 18 hearing. In the
cover letter to that production, BAM identified documents it had produced in response to certain
of the September 21 Requests.
2
PDF Page 4
Case 1:23-cv-01599-ABJ-ZMF Document 146 Filed 10/11/23 Page 3 of 16
documents and refuses to provide its position on the whether it will even agree to search for
responsive documents that should have been produced long ago.
The SEC respectfully submits that this is entirely consistent with BAM’s pattern of
conduct during discovery under the Consent Order: i.e., asserting conclusory objections as an
excuse not to search for any documents and communications responsive to certain requests,
while refusing to engage on other more specific requests. 2 The SEC has consistently attempted
to meet and confer with BAM throughout this expedited discovery process, including pursuant to
the Court’s guidance after the recent hearing. These efforts have been unsuccessful.
Accordingly, the SEC believes that Court intervention is necessary and respectfully requests that
the Court order BAM to immediately search for and produce documents in response to the
September 21 Requests.
Further, this Court should reject BAM’s general assertions that the six requests identified
in its October 7 email (Document Request Nos. 1,3, 23, 30, 31, Communications Request No.2)
are “substantially overbroad, unduly burdensome, and go far beyond the scope of the Consent
Order and the guidance provided by Judge Faruqui at our last hearing.” Ex. 2 (M. Laroche email
dated October 2).
Specifically, Document Requests Nos. 1-2 and Communication Request 2 seek
documents to provide more clarity on the issue of which entity is actually providing BAM’s
wallet software and related services, such as documents “sufficient to identify all wallet custody
software and related services provided by any Binance entity including Ceffu.” Ex 1. These
2
BAM’s counsel has also made various iterations of a request that the SEC agree that responses
to the September 21 requests will satisfy all of BAM’s document discovery obligations under the
Consent Order. The SEC believes this condition (if it is one) is inconsistent with the Court’s
guidance concerning the iterative process of discovery and generally inappropriate, especially
given that BAM refuses to say whether it will actually respond to many of the requests.
3
PDF Page 5
Case 1:23-cv-01599-ABJ-ZMF Document 146 Filed 10/11/23 Page 4 of 16
issues strike at the heart of the Consent Order’s expedited discovery provisions, and substantial
questions remain outstanding such that this discovery remains critical. If, as BAM now asserts,
Ceffu has nothing to do with BAM’s wallet custody practices, it should be simple to produce
evidence of their recent representations on this issue (which documents are specifically requested
in Document Request No. 2), as its counsel’s representations have proven unreliable. See, e.g.,
Mot. to Compel, at 9-13. And BAM should be able to produce reliable documentary evidence as
to who does provide those services, including the extent, if any, of Binance’s role (which
documents are specifically requested in Document Request No. 1).
Similarly, Request 23 seeks notes of meetings with BAM’s auditors concerning the
security, custody, and control of assets and reconciliation of assets. Id. This is an extremely
tailored request concerning relevant documents discussed at depositions and that relate to key
representations made to a third party on the issue of custody.
Finally, Requests 30 and 31 seek source code and other technical documentation to clear
up ongoing confusion by BAM witnesses on what Binance is doing (and able to do) behind the
scenes in connection with crypto asset wallets, especially as it relates to the TSS protocol and
PNK system, both of which BAM touts as the key control preventing Binance from transferring
customer assets. Id. From the start of expedited discovery, the SEC has endeavored to work with
BAM to get the diagrams and other technical information necessary to evaluate the controls upon
which BAM relies in claiming it has exclusive possession, custody, and control over company
and Customer Assets—to the exclusion of Binance. Among other things, the SEC has
consistently stated that it is open to reasonable alternative means of obtaining this evidence, such
as conducting an inspection. Instead of productively engaging with the SEC, BAM has simply
claimed that diagrams and technical documentations don’t exist (which was later determined to
4
PDF Page 6
Case 1:23-cv-01599-ABJ-ZMF Document 146 Filed 10/11/23 Page 5 of 16
be inaccurate, see Mot. to Compel at 13), and raised various, ever-changing objections to related
requests and proposed alternatives, without proposing any alternatives themselves.
2. SEC’s Position Concerning Depositions
At the September 18 hearing, the SEC understood the Court to suggest that it should be
entitled to depose all of the witnesses identified in Exhibit 31 to the SEC’s Motion to Compel
and other current BAM’s shardholders, but that it would defer for now the depositions of BAM’s
CEO and CFO. Since that time, the SEC has tried to meet and confer on scheduling these
depositions. BAM did not even provide any proposed dates until October 3, and still has not
provided dates for two of these witnesses. As of now, BAM and the SEC have confirmed the
next deposition for October 18, with several to follow through the rest of October and into
November.
But the parties have reached an impasse as to the scope of the depositions of BAM’s
remaining shardholders. BAM acknowledges that this Court agreed that the SEC is entitled to
depose BAM’s shardholders, but BAM believes that these depositions (1) should be limited in
scope to their personal knowledge relating to their status as a BAM shardholder, and (2) should
be limited to 3.5 hours on the record.
The SEC’s position is that these limitations are unwarranted and do not align with the
Court’s guidance at the September 18 hearing. First, the Consent Order already provides the
scope of permissible discovery, and in the September 18 hearing, the Court did not give any
further limiting instructions as to the scope of the shardholder depositions. Many of these
shardholders have other roles at BAM that gives them significant personal knowledge
concerning Customer Assets and the other topics permitted under the Consent Order, and the
SEC should be entitled to ask about that personal knowledge. Indeed, the SEC acknowledged at
5
PDF Page 7
Case 1:23-cv-01599-ABJ-ZMF Document 146 Filed 10/11/23 Page 6 of 16
the hearing that the duration for each deposition would depend on the witness’s role and scope of
relevant knowledge (if any) beyond that which relates to the role of shardholder.
Second, BAM’s attempt to limit the SEC’s deposition time is inconsistent with Rule 30
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and BAM raises no grounds to deviate from that rule.
At this time, the SEC does not know if it will need the full seven hours to depose these
witnesses, but it sees no basis to arbitrarily agree to such a limitation before the depositions
commence, and before BAM complies with the SEC’s document requests that could further
inform the need for time to depose these witnesses. The SEC also does not believe that any time
limitation will significantly reduce any claimed burdens, but instead could increase those
burdens if the SEC later has a basis to seek a second deposition of any of these witnesses because
it did not have sufficient time or documents to fairly question them in the first instance.
B. BAM’s Position
BAM has worked in good faith but believes that the SEC’s requests since the September
18 hearing are unreasonable. Since the hearing, the SEC has demanded that BAM agree to nine
additional depositions, including depositions of six current shardholders, one former shardholder,
BAM’s Head of Product, and a deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6).
The SEC also served BAM with over 60 document requests, including 42 requests for documents
(three of which have multiple subparts) and 19 requests for communications (some of which have
no date range and are virtually unlimited in scope). When BAM sought reasonable concessions
through the meet-and-confer process, such as time and subject matter limitations on shardholder
depositions or some reasonable assurance that expedited discovery will end if BAM complies with
the foregoing requests, the SEC rejected them.
6
PDF Page 8
Case 1:23-cv-01599-ABJ-ZMF Document 146 Filed 10/11/23 Page 7 of 16
BAM does not believe that the SEC’s approach is consistent with the Consent Order; the
Court’s guidance at the hearing, including that the SEC make limited and targeted requests to
BAM; or the SEC’s representations at that hearing, including that shardholder depositions would
be limited. 3 The SEC’s expansive requests are particularly unwarranted against the backdrop of
everything BAM produced over the past three months of expedited discovery and, prior to that,
over the many years of the SEC’s underlying investigation. The SEC’s approach to discovery
has produced no evidence of the dissipation or misuse of assets, yet continues to significantly
disrupt BAM’s business operations.
Nevertheless, BAM has agreed to take, and has already taken, significant steps toward
meeting the SEC’s demands in an effort to address the SEC’s concerns about BAM’s asset
custody practices. In fact, BAM is essentially giving the SEC everything it wants—it agreed to
conduct reasonable searches for targeted documents and communications in response to almost
all the SEC’s requests and agreed to nine additional depositions (with a modest request that the
SEC agree to limit the length and subject matter of shardholder depositions). The SEC, on the
other hand, has not agreed to a single accommodation requested by BAM.
1.
BAM’s Position Concerning the SEC’s Document Requests
Contrary to the SEC’s description of the record, BAM provided clear guidance to the SEC
concerning its position with respect to the SEC’s document requests and worked swiftly to
respond to them. 4 As BAM informed the SEC during calls and in email correspondence, BAM’s
general approach to those requests is to search for documents that were specifically identified by
3
BAM understands that a transcript of the hearing is unavailable.
4
The SEC omitted key portions of the meet-and-confer process, including that BAM (i)
immediately proposed a global resolution on September 21, 2023, in which BAM agreed to the
SEC’s proposed depositions subject to reasonable conditions concerning the end of expedited
7
PDF Page 9
Case 1:23-cv-01599-ABJ-ZMF Document 146 Filed 10/11/23 Page 8 of 16
the SEC and to conduct targeted searches to the SEC’s more limited communications requests.
BAM has already made two document productions and will continue making productions on a
rolling basis. To date, BAM believes it has satisfied 11 of the SEC’s requests (16 counting
subparts).
BAM does not, however, believe it is obligated to fully comply with all the SEC’s requests
as drafted. Many of the SEC’s requests are substantially overbroad, unduly burdensome, and go
far beyond the scope of the Consent Order and the guidance provided by the Court during the
hearing. BAM understood the Court’s guidance to the SEC was to serve document requests that
were limited and targeted to the topics, documents, and issues of most concern to the SEC.
Instead, the SEC served over 60 requests many of which are not targeted, have no date restriction,
contain multiple subparts, and cover topics far beyond those raised at the hearing.
Although BAM believes that many of the requests are inappropriate, with few exceptions,
BAM is seeking to respond to the requests, including by conferring with its client and searching
for documents, and will continue to make productions on a rolling basis to the extent BAM
identifies responsive documents. The exceptions are Document Request Nos. 1, 2, 23, 30, and
31, and Communication Request No. 2, which include requests with no date range, that are
substantially overbroad on their face, or that seek highly sensitive source code. BAM does not
agree to conduct any searches specific to those requests (though we believe many of the SEC’s
other requests overlap with them) or that it is BAM’s obligation to propose how to limit them.
discovery, which the SEC rejected; (ii) consistently stated that it planned to search for documents
responsive to the SEC’s more limited requests and would respond to all of the requests on a
reasonable timeframe; and (iii) objected to being forced to respond to 60-plus requests in less than
two weeks.
8
PDF Page 10
Case 1:23-cv-01599-ABJ-ZMF Document 146 Filed 10/11/23 Page 9 of 16
The SEC’s position concerning those specific requests largely misstates the record or
misstates what BAM has agreed to produce. As to Document Request Nos. 1 and 2 and
Communications Request No. 2, which relate to Ceffu and have no date restrictions, BAM agreed
to search for any documents (beyond those already produced) that would further demonstrate that
BAM licenses wallet custody software from BHL and has no relationship with Ceffu. However,
BAM does not agree to conduct a broad ranging search without any date restriction for any
conceivable document concerning Ceffu or BHL’s wallet custody services, which is what those
requests seek on their face. BAM’s position is particularly appropriate given that the SEC has
already secured sworn testimony confirming that BAM has always licensed its wallet custody
software from BHL; BAM does not have any relationship with Ceffu; and BAM’s use of the term
Ceffu was based on a mistaken understanding that Ceffu was the name of the BHL wallet custody
software. The SEC has not identified any information beyond BAM’s mistaken use of the term
“Ceffu” that would suggest any other state of affairs.
As to Document Request No. 23, which seeks notes of meetings with FGMK, BAM’s
outside auditor, the SEC has already obtained thousands of documents from FGMK, including
detailed notes of meetings with BAM personnel, and deposed FGMK’s lead audit partner for
BAM. The SEC has not explained why it needs BAM to conduct a far-ranging search for
additional documents, which at best, relate to BAM’s historical asset custody practices, not to the
current custody and control of such assets. Moreover, BAM has already agreed to provide the
SEC with numerous documents concerning the security, custody, and reconciliation of assets
through other of the SEC’s 60-plus requests. Indeed, last week, BAM produced 122 spreadsheets
showing daily reconciliation of the balances reflected in BAM’s PNK system and its on-chain
wallets for the period of June 1, 2023 through September 30, 2023.
9
PDF Page 11
Case 1:23-cv-01599-ABJ-ZMF Document 146 Filed 10/11/23 Page 10 of 16
As to Document Request Nos. 30 and 31, which seek source code concerning the TSS
portal and cold wallets, the SEC has not explained why it needs source code to evaluate the
custody and security of BAM’s assets. To the extent the SEC is seeking data logs reflecting who
has access to programs involved in the custody of assets, BAM has agreed to produce them and,
in fact, has already produced access logs for the AWS environment and PNK system. Moreover,
contrary to the SEC’s assertions otherwise, BAM is open to an “inspection” on reasonable terms,
but the SEC has never proposed any.
2.
BAM’s Position Concerning Depositions
BAM agreed to the SEC’s nine requested depositions, has begun preparing witnesses, and
has proposed dates for most depositions beginning as early as October 12, 2023. BAM’s position
is that shardholder depositions (except for the deposition of one shardholder who holds a position
at BAM that is separately relevant) should be limited to 3.5 hours concerning their role as
shardholders. These conditions are reasonable for several reasons:
First, by agreeing to nine additional depositions, BAM is already going far beyond the
“limited” expedited discovery contemplated by the Consent Order. Indeed, after the foregoing
depositions are complete, the SEC will have conducted 13 depositions in expedited discovery,
which is more than what the SEC is entitled to in regular discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(a)(2)(A)(i) (limiting a party to 10 depositions absent stipulation). In these circumstances,
providing BAM with a modest accommodation on the length and subject matter of shardholder
depositions is reasonable, especially given that BAM is preparing nine witnesses for depositions
that will take place within the next 30 to 45 days and the SEC has stated that it intends to seek
even more depositions in the future.
10
PDF Page 12
Case 1:23-cv-01599-ABJ-ZMF Document 146 Filed 10/11/23 Page 11 of 16
Second, the SEC’s position that it is entitled to seven hours for each shardholder and is
not limited to questioning them about their role as shardholders is inconsistent with their position
at the last hearing. During the hearing, BAM raised that the one deposition of a shardholder to
date took almost seven hours. In response, the SEC sought to assure the Court and the parties
that the other shardholder depositions would be shorter and more limited. The SEC has now done
an about face, which materially changes the scope and nature of the additional depositions
contemplated at the hearing. The point of allowing the SEC to depose the shardholders is to
provide the SEC with comfort that the shardholders are appropriately performing their role as
shardholders; it was not to provide the SEC with carte blanche to ask them about any potential
topic related to customer assets. Indeed, the SEC has not provided any justification for its need
to question shardholders on unlimited topics other than a conclusory and unsupported assertion
that they may have “personal knowledge” concerning customer assets.
Finally, questioning shardholders about unlimited topics would be inefficient and is
unnecessary. The SEC has already deposed BAM’s outside auditor, Chief Information Security
Officer, Clearing Team Lead, and a shardholder (who testified about other relevant aspects of
BAM’s operations) on a variety of topics related to customer assets. Moreover, BAM agreed to
the SEC’s requested 30(b)(6) deposition, which also will cover numerous topics concerning the
custody, control, and availability of customer assets. The SEC does not need a third bite at the
apple to ask shardholders about the same topics explored in prior depositions and to be explored
during the 30(b)(6) deposition. 5
5
If the Court is inclined to allow the SEC to depose shardholders for seven hours without
any subject matter limitations, BAM reserves the right reschedule depositions so that it may
appropriately prepare witnesses on any conceivable topic relating to customer assets.
11
PDF Page 13
Case 1:23-cv-01599-ABJ-ZMF Document 146 Filed 10/11/23 Page 12 of 16
***
BAM respectfully submits that it is appropriately addressing the SEC’s requests in good
faith and consistent with the guidance provided by the Court during the hearing. BAM believes
that once the foregoing document productions and depositions are complete, expedited discovery
should end absent a showing of new information demonstrating good cause for such a request.
BAM will be prepared to address these issues during the hearing on October 13, 2023.
II.
Interrogatories to BAM
A. SEC’s Position
In response to the SEC’s Motion to Compel, BAM agreed that it would supplement its
prior interrogatory response. Resp. Mot. to Compel, at 16, Dkt. No. 107. It still has not done so.
B. BAM’s Position
BAM has already provided the SEC with the information that supplements its prior
interrogatory response in letters provided by counsel. The SEC is requesting that BAM provide
updated certifications from a BAM employee or employees with respect to that information. BAM
will do so but has prioritized responding to the SEC’s recent document and communications
requests and preparing witnesses for depositions.
III.
Consent Order Part IV
A. SEC’s Position
On July 10 and August 7, 2023, BAM produced materials responsive to Part IV of the
Consent Order, which required BAM to, among other things, provide information about “each”
wallet and account holding company or Customer Assets, and corresponding balances. Consent
Order, IV. At this time, BAM has produced, inter alia, only aggregate data concerning customer
accounts and balances. The SEC’s position is that this level of data is inadequate. Without
12
PDF Page 14
Case 1:23-cv-01599-ABJ-ZMF Document 146 Filed 10/11/23 Page 13 of 16
individualized wallet and account data, the SEC cannot determine, among other issues, whether
the represented customer balances are accurate, whether there are sufficient assets to cover
customer balances for immediate withdrawal (including to evaluate the discrepancy BAM
identified when it produced the accounting information) or whether the list of Zhao or Binanceassociated individuals with accounts on Binance.US that was provided by BAM is complete. 6
B. BAM’s Position
The SEC raised this issue for the first time with BAM on October 6, 2023. As BAM
informed the SEC in its cover letter to the verified accounting, dated August 7, 2023, BAM
provided deposit wallet information in the aggregate rather than by each individual or unique
deposit wallet because there are almost 1.5 million such wallets on BAM’s platform. Nevertheless,
BAM agreed to discuss this issue internally and will respond to the SEC. As a result, this issue is
premature.
IV.
Binance/Zhao-Related Discovery
A. SEC’s Position
In accordance with the Court’s guidance in the September 18 hearing, on October 5, the
SEC sent Defendants Binance Holdings Limited (“Binance”) and Changpeng Zhao a targeted list
of specific documents it requested that Binance and Zhao produce during the ongoing
discussions with BAM (while reserving the SEC’s right to seek additional documents responsive
to the SEC’s First Requests for Production of Documents to BAM). The SEC, Binance, and
Zhao will meet and confer on these requests, and will also confer on the SEC’s requests for
6
The SEC has also repeatedly requested general ledger, trial balance, and related financial
information to facilitate this analysis.
13
PDF Page 15
Case 1:23-cv-01599-ABJ-ZMF Document 146 Filed 10/11/23 Page 14 of 16
depositions of Zhao and other Binance personnel, and promptly bring any unresolved disputes to
this Court. 7
B. Binance and Zhao’s Position
The SEC sent new document requests to BHL and Mr. Zhao after the close of business on
October 5. Thus, at the time of this report, BHL and Mr. Zhao have had minimal time to consider
the SEC’s requests. Counsel to BHL and Mr. Zhao are reviewing these requests with their clients
and intend to meet and confer with the SEC regarding them in good faith and in consideration of
the appropriate scope of expedited discovery into the security of BAM customer assets.
V.
Proposed Protective Order
On September 11, 2023, the Parties filed a joint motion that the Court enter a proposed
protective order to govern the treatment and disclosure of certain confidential information during
the course of the litigation. (Dkt. No. 106). For the reasons stated in that motion, the parties
respectfully request that this Court enter the protective order.
7
The SEC continues to reserve the right to seek further relief from the Court if the parties are
unable to resolve pending issues regarding Binance’s productions in response to Section IV of
the Consent Order. See Mot. to Compel Memo at 15 n.4.
14
PDF Page 16
Case 1:23-cv-01599-ABJ-ZMF Document 146 Filed 10/11/23 Page 15 of 16
Dated: October 10, 2023
/s/ Michael Celio
Michael Celio (pro hac vice)
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211
MCelio@gibsondunn.com
Daniel W. Nelson (D.C. Bar #433415)
Jason J. Mendro (D.C. Bar #482040)
Stephanie Brooker (pro hac vice)
M. Kendall Day (pro hac vice
forthcoming)
Richard W. Grime (pro hac vice
forthcoming)
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5306
DNelson@gibsondunn.com
JMendro@gibsondunn.com
SBrooker@gibsondunn.com
KDay@gibsondunn.com
RGrime@gibsondunn.com
Attorneys for Defendant Binance
Holdings Limited
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Matthew Scarlato
Matthew F. Scarlato (D.C. Bar No. 484124)
Jennifer L. Farer (D.C. Bar No. 1013915)
David A. Nasse
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
100 F Street, NE
Washington, DC 20549-9040
(202) 551-3749 (Scarlato)
nassed@sec.gov
farerj@sec.gov
scarlatom@sec.gov
John Emmett Murphy
Jorge G. Tenreiro
Elisa Solomon
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
100 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10004
(212) 336-0078 (Murphy)
murphyjoh@sec.gov
tenreiroj@sec.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff Securities and
Exchange Commission
15
PDF Page 17
Case 1:23-cv-01599-ABJ-ZMF Document 146 Filed 10/11/23 Page 16 of 16
/s/ Abid Qureshi
Abid R. Qureshi (D.C. Bar No. 459227)
William R. Baker, III (D.C. Bar No.
383944)
Erik S. Volkman (D.C. Bar No. 490999)
Michael E. Bern (D.C. Bar No. 994791)
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Tel: (202) 637-2200
Fax: (202) 637-2201
abid.qureshi@lw.com
william.baker@lw.com
eric.volkman@lw.com
michael.bern@lw.com
Douglas K. Yatter (pro hac vice pending)
Benjamin Naftalis (pro hac vice pending)
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Tel: (212) 906-1200
Fax: (212) 751-4864
douglas.yatter@lw.com
benjamin.naftalis@lw.com
Heather A. Waller (pro hac vice pending)
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60611
Tel: (312) 876-7700
Fax: (312) 993-9767
heather.waller@lw.com
/s/ George S. Canellos
George S. Canellos
Matthew Laroche
MILBANK LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001-2163
212-530-5792
gcanellos@milbank.com
mlaroche@milbank.com
Matthew T. Martens
William R. McLucas (pro hac vice pending)
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
DORR LLP
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 663-6921
Fax: (202) 663-6363
matthew.martens@wilmerhale.com
william.mclucas@wilmerhale.com
Tiffany J. Smith (pro hac vice pending)
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
AND DORR LLP
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
tiffany.smith@wilmerhale.com
Attorneys for Defendants BAM Trading Services
Inc. and BAM Management Holdings
US Inc.
Melanie M. Blunschi (pro hac vice pending)
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
Tel: (415) 391-0600
Fax: (415) 395-8095
melanie.blunschi@lw.com
Attorneys for Defendant Changpeng
Zhao
16
Back to 
