Federal Judge Rejects Binance Arbitration Bid in Token Lawsuit, Allowing Customers to Pursue Claims in Court

By

-

February 28, 2026

A federal judge in Manhattan on Thursday, February, rejected Binance’s request to force arbitration on claims by customers who accused the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange of illegally selling unregistered tokens that later lost much of their value.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter ruled that Binance failed to adequately notify users of changes to its terms of use that included an arbitration clause and class-action waiver, allowing affected customers to proceed with litigation for claims arising before February 20, 2019. In his decision, Carter found no evidence that Binance “announced” the arbitration provision or clearly directed customers to where they could find it in the 2019 terms of use. He also deemed the alleged class-action waiver ambiguous and unenforceable.

Customers had agreed in November 2025 to dismiss claims arising after February 20, 2019, narrowing the case to earlier periods.

“Binance will vigorously defend the limited claims that remain in this meritless case,” a Binance spokesperson said in response.

Lawyers for Binance founder and former CEO Changpeng Zhao — also a defendant — did not immediately comment.

Background of the Dispute

The lawsuit centers on seven tokens — ELF, EOS, FUN, ICX, OMG, QSP, and TRX — that customers allege Binance sold without proper disclosures of “significant risks” required under federal and state securities laws. Plaintiffs seek to recover their investments after the tokens’ value declined sharply.

Carter initially dismissed the case in 2022, but a federal appeals court revived it in 2024. Binance then moved to compel arbitration based on updated terms of use it claimed users had accepted. Judge Carter rejected that motion, ruling the exchange did not sufficiently communicate the changes or ensure users had reasonable notice.

Why This Matters: Arbitration vs. Litigation

Defendants often prefer arbitration because it can remain confidential, limit discovery (making evidence gathering harder for plaintiffs), and generally cost less than court proceedings. By denying arbitration, Carter has kept the case in open court, where plaintiffs can pursue class-action certification and broader discovery — potentially increasing pressure on Binance and Zhao.

The ruling is a setback for Binance in U.S. litigation, where the exchange has faced multiple lawsuits over token listings, regulatory compliance, and alleged securities violations. It also highlights the challenges crypto platforms face in enforcing post-hoc arbitration clauses when users may not have clear notice of term changes.

Binance has been under intense regulatory and legal scrutiny since 2023, including a $4.3 billion settlement with U.S. authorities in November 2023 over money laundering and sanctions violations. Zhao pleaded guilty to related charges and stepped down as CEO. The exchange has since worked to rebuild compliance frameworks and regain trust in key markets.

The current lawsuit is one of several ongoing cases alleging that Binance facilitated unregistered securities sales. The survival of pre-February 2019 claims means plaintiffs can continue seeking damages for losses on the seven tokens during a period when Binance was rapidly expanding its token offerings.

Binance’s U.S. affiliate, Binance.US, has seen limited impact from the ruling so far, as it operates under stricter domestic compliance rules. However, the decision could influence other crypto platforms relying on similar arbitration clauses in user agreements. Crypto stocks and related equities showed a muted response Thursday, with broader market attention focused on earnings season and macroeconomic data.

The case remains ongoing, with discovery and potential class certification now likely to proceed in federal court. A final resolution — potentially years away — could set an important precedent for how crypto exchanges notify users of material changes to terms of service and whether arbitration clauses can be enforced retroactively in consumer-facing digital asset platforms.

However, for now, Judge Carter’s ruling ensures that Binance must defend the early-period claims in open court — a venue far less favorable to defendants than private arbitration.

U.S. moves to take ownership of seized oil tanker Skipper and 1.8mb of Venezuelan crude, alleging Iran sanctions evasion

By

Samuel Nwite

-

February 28, 2026

0

The U.S. Department of Justice has moved to take permanent ownership of the oil tanker Motor Tanker Skipper and roughly 1.8 million barrels of crude oil supplied by Venezuela’s state-run Petróleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA), alleging the vessel was part of a sanctions-evasion network designed to benefit Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

In a civil forfeiture complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, prosecutors allege that since at least 2021, the Skipper participated in a scheme to facilitate the shipment and sale of petroleum products tied to the IRGC, which Washington has designated under terrorism and sanctions authorities. The complaint states the vessel transported crude from both Iran and Venezuela and used tactics including location spoofing, false flagging, and other deceptive shipping practices to conceal its routes.

A confidential informant cited in the filing told U.S. authorities the tanker loaded approximately seven million barrels of Iranian-origin crude over the past two years. The Justice Department is seeking forfeiture of both the vessel and its most recent cargo, a legal process that would transfer ownership to the U.S. government without compensation if a court finds the property was used in violation of federal law.

The Skipper was seized near Venezuela in December while flying the flag of Guyana. The U.S. complaint alleges the tanker was not legitimately flagged to Guyana, a detail that may prove significant under maritime law. A vessel without a valid nationality can be treated as stateless on the high seas, potentially expanding the legal grounds for interdiction.

Crew members told U.S. authorities after the seizure that the supertanker was initially bound for Cuba but later received instructions to reroute immediately to an unspecified destination in Asia, according to the complaint. U.S. officials say the routing changes and other measures were consistent with efforts to obscure the cargo’s origin and intended buyer.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said the case signals a broader enforcement posture. “Under President Trump’s leadership, the era of secretly bankrolling regimes that pose clear threats to the United States is over,” she said in a statement. “This Department of Justice will deploy every legal authority at our disposal to completely dismantle and permanently shutter any operation that defies our laws and fuels chaos across the globe.”

The Skipper case sits within an expanding U.S. campaign targeting oil shipments linked to sanctioned jurisdictions, particularly Iran and Venezuela. According to a Reuters analysis, U.S. forces have intercepted 10 tankers since December and released at least two to Venezuela’s interim government. In the most recent action, the Pentagon said U.S. military forces seized a sanctioned oil tanker in the Indian Ocean after tracking it from Caribbean waters, marking the third such interdiction in that region.

The strategy underlines Washington’s focus on so-called “shadow fleets” — aging tankers often operating under complex ownership structures, frequent renaming and reflagging, and the disabling or manipulation of Automatic Identification System (AIS) signals to evade detection. These fleets have been central to sustaining oil exports from countries facing U.S. sanctions.

Oil revenue remains a critical source of Iran’s foreign currency. U.S. officials argue that disrupting maritime logistics chains tied to the IRGC constrains the group’s financial reach. For Venezuela, whose oil sector has struggled with underinvestment and sanctions, interdictions further complicate efforts to stabilize export flows and attract buyers willing to assume legal and reputational risk.

The case also intersects with U.S. policy toward Caracas following the January 3 U.S. military operation that resulted in the capture of Nicolás Maduro. Since then, Trump administration officials have pressed the interim government in Caracas to open the oil sector to U.S. firms and implement reforms. Control over seized cargoes and vessels adds leverage in negotiations over market access and restructuring of Venezuela’s energy industry.

Civil forfeiture in sanctions cases has become a prominent enforcement tool because it targets property rather than individuals, lowering evidentiary thresholds compared with criminal prosecutions. If successful, the forfeiture would allow the U.S. to dispose of the Skipper and its cargo, potentially through auction or sale, with proceeds directed in accordance with federal law.

The case may also influence maritime compliance practices. Shipping companies, insurers, port operators, and commodity traders face increasing due diligence expectations when dealing with cargoes that could have touched sanctioned supply chains. Insurers in particular have tightened underwriting standards for vessels suspected of AIS manipulation or opaque beneficial ownership.

Energy markets are unlikely to be immediately affected by the 1.8 million barrels at issue, a modest volume in global terms. But the cumulative effect of repeated interdictions can constrain the flow of discounted crude that has fed alternative trading networks in Asia and elsewhere. Tighter enforcement raises transaction costs and insurance premiums, and increases the risk premium embedded in trades involving sanctioned-origin oil.

The Justice Department’s complaint will now proceed through federal court, where claimants, if any, may challenge the forfeiture. The outcome will test both the evidentiary strength of the U.S. sanctions case and the evolving boundaries of maritime enforcement against vessels accused of operating in the gray zones of global oil trade.

Venezuela suspends 19 Maduro-Era Production-sharing Oil and Gas Contracts as Upstream Overhaul Accelerates

By

Samuel Nwite

-

February 28, 2026

0

Venezuela’s oil ministry has suspended 19 oil production-sharing contracts signed under the administration of President Nicolás Maduro, four sources with knowledge of the move told Reuters.

The move appears to be the most sweeping review of private upstream agreements in years.

The contracts — awarded to a mix of Chinese, U.S., South American, Venezuelan, and offshore-registered firms — cover a wide spectrum of assets: recently activated projects in Lake Maracaibo, expansion ventures in the Orinoco Belt, and smaller mature oilfields requiring enhanced recovery techniques. Some of the companies that secured the deals are little known, and several contracts were signed at a time when U.S. sanctions constrained Venezuela’s access to capital and markets.

For now, the suspension has not disrupted production. State oil company Petróleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) continues to market and sell crude from the affected projects while the agreements are under review, according to the sources. Operational continuity suggests authorities are seeking to preserve output while reassessing contractual terms and counterparties.

Sanctions-era contracts under scrutiny

The review comes amid a joint reassessment by Caracas and Washington of contracts executed during the sanctions period. The two governments are examining the credentials of companies that secured production-sharing deals, and may recommend revoking some agreements.

During years of U.S. sanctions, Venezuela struggled to attract major international oil companies back into its upstream sector, particularly after prior waves of expropriations eroded investor confidence. As a result, production-sharing contracts were often signed with smaller or less established firms willing to operate in high-risk conditions. In some cases, companies outsourced field operations to contractors, according to two sources.

Production-sharing contracts were intended to provide a workaround to the traditional joint-venture structure dominated by PDVSA’s majority ownership. Yet the model yielded limited success in drawing large-scale capital. International oil majors largely stayed away, wary of sanctions exposure, legal uncertainty, and payment risks.

The current review coincides with a reform of Venezuela’s hydrocarbon law passed in late January. The revised legislation aims to facilitate foreign investment in a sector that has seen output collapse from more than 2 million barrels per day a decade ago to a fraction of that level in recent years. Under the new law, the government has six months to evaluate existing contracts, providing a formal framework for the suspensions now underway.

Geopolitical shift reshapes oil governance

The contract review also unfolds against an extraordinary geopolitical shift. The United States captured Maduro in January and assumed control of Venezuela’s oil exports and sales. Since then, the U.S. Treasury Department has issued general licenses allowing companies to trade Venezuelan oil and operate in its energy sector, subject to specific clearance from the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

That arrangement has altered the governance of Venezuelan crude flows. With U.S. oversight, the vetting of counterparties has intensified, raising questions about deals signed under opaque circumstances during the sanctions era. The scrutiny of the 19 contracts is therefore not only commercial but political, reflecting a broader attempt to reset the sector’s compliance architecture.

At the same time, PDVSA is in talks with traditional joint-venture partners, including Chevron, Repsol, and Maurel & Prom, to expand output from fields already assigned to them. Those negotiations point to a dual-track strategy: tighten oversight of sanctions-era entrants while deepening collaboration with established operators that have technical expertise and stronger balance sheets.

Investment dilemma and production outlook

The immediate production impact appears limited, but the medium-term implications are significant. Venezuela’s oil infrastructure remains severely degraded after years of underinvestment, mismanagement, and sanctions-related constraints. Reviving output in areas such as the Orinoco Belt — home to vast extra-heavy crude reserves — requires substantial capital, advanced technology, and reliable export logistics.

Suspending contracts may create short-term uncertainty for smaller operators and contractors. However, if the review leads to clearer legal terms and stronger counterparties, it could ultimately strengthen the sector’s investment case. Conversely, abrupt revocations without transparent compensation mechanisms could deter prospective investors at a time when the country urgently needs external capital.

Lake Maracaibo projects, which involve complex redevelopment of aging fields, are particularly sensitive to financing continuity. Any disruption in field services or supply chains could affect incremental production gains.

The reform of the hydrocarbon law suggests policymakers are seeking a more flexible framework capable of attracting fresh capital under revised geopolitical conditions. But energy experts believe that making that ambition a sustained output growth will depend on contract stability, regulatory clarity, and the durability of the new U.S.–Venezuela arrangement governing oil exports.

Netflix Steps Aside in Warner Bros. Discovery Battle, Paramount-Skydance Bid Faces Employee Unease and Regulatory Hurdles

By

Samuel Nwite

-

February 28, 2026

0

The takeover saga surrounding Warner Bros. Discovery entered a new phase Thursday after Netflix said it would not raise its $27.75-per-share offer, effectively clearing the path for Paramount Global and Skydance Media to advance a revised $31-per-share all-cash bid.

The WBD board earlier determined that Paramount’s sweetened proposal represented a superior offer. Netflix had four business days to counter but declined, opting instead to collect a $2.8 billion breakup fee triggered by the higher bid.

Markets reacted decisively. Netflix shares surged more than 10% in extended trading, signaling investor approval of capital discipline over escalation. Paramount rose as much as 5%, while Warner Bros. Discovery slipped 1.39%, suggesting diminished expectations of a renewed bidding contest.

WBD Chief Executive David Zaslav said Thursday the Paramount agreement would create “tremendous value” for shareholders once formally adopted by the board. But inside Warner Bros. Discovery, the mood appears more complicated.

Shareholder Premium vs. Workforce Anxiety

While some investors — including employees who own WBD stock — may prefer the financial clarity of Paramount’s $31-per-share bid over Netflix’s lower offer, concerns are mounting internally about what a merger would mean operationally.

CNBC spoke to 10 Warner Bros. Discovery employees across various roles. Each expressed concern about possible job losses and uncertainty over who would ultimately lead divisions if Paramount and WBD are combined.

“It’s fair to say people are deflated by the news,” said one long-term WBD executive, who spoke anonymously.

The anxiety stems in part from overlap. Paramount and WBD both operate in news, sports, theatrical film, and streaming television — segments where consolidation typically produces cost synergies through workforce reductions and structural integration. By contrast, Netflix’s business model overlaps far less with WBD’s legacy cable networks and news divisions.

Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s co-CEO, had repeatedly indicated that under a Netflix deal, WBD’s theatrical studio would remain distinct and HBO Max would continue operating as an independent streaming service. Several employees told CNBC they preferred that scenario, viewing it as less disruptive to existing leadership structures and brand identities.

Paramount’s integration, by contrast, would almost certainly involve rationalizing duplicative operations across studios, marketing, distribution, and back-office functions — a process that typically results in headcount reductions.

Regulatory and Political Crosscurrents

Despite the board’s designation of Paramount’s proposal as superior, the transaction is far from certain.

“A WBD-Paramount merger is not a done deal,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Thursday, highlighting the regulatory scrutiny that would accompany such a consolidation.

The deal must secure approval from regulators in both the United States and Europe, where authorities have adopted a more assertive posture toward large media combinations. A merged Paramount–Warner Bros. Discovery entity would command a vast content portfolio spanning film studios, cable networks, broadcast television, and streaming platforms — raising potential antitrust questions around market concentration in content production and distribution.

Zaslav acknowledged that uncertainty during an all-hands meeting on Friday. According to leaked audio obtained by Business Insider, he told employees, “The deal may not close. If it doesn’t close, we get $7 billion, and we get back to work.”

He also expressed sympathy for staff experiencing what some described as whiplash — shifting from a potential Netflix acquisition to a Paramount merger within days.

The $7 billion figure refers to a termination fee structure embedded in the agreement, which would provide a financial cushion if regulators block the transaction.

The outcome of this contest will help shape the next chapter of media consolidation. Traditional studios are grappling with declining linear television revenue, plateauing streaming growth, and escalating content costs. Scale offers leverage in negotiations with advertisers, distributors, and talent, as well as cost efficiencies in production and technology.

For Paramount and Skydance — backed by Larry Ellison and David Ellison — acquiring Warner Bros. Discovery would create a diversified media powerhouse with global reach. For Netflix, walking away reinforces its strategic focus on organic growth, advertising expansion, and disciplined capital allocation.

Investors appear to favor that restraint. Employees, however, are weighing a different calculus — one shaped less by per-share premiums and more by organizational survival and leadership continuity.

Tether freezes $4.2bn in USDT tied to illicit activity as global scrutiny intensifies

By

Samuel Nwite

-

February 28, 2026

0

El Salvador-based stablecoin issuer Tether said it has frozen about $4.2 billion worth of its dollar-pegged crypto tokens over links to illicit activity, the bulk of it within the past three years.

Tether, which issues the world’s largest stablecoin, USDT, has more than $180 billion of its tokens in circulation, up sharply from roughly $70 billion three years ago. The company has the technical ability to remotely freeze tokens held in users’ crypto wallets when requested by authorities — a power that differentiates centrally issued stablecoins from decentralized cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin.

This week, Tether said it assisted the U.S. Department of Justice in freezing nearly $61 million in USDT linked to so-called “pig-butchering” scams, a form of fraud in which perpetrators cultivate personal relationships with victims before persuading them to invest in fraudulent crypto schemes. The action lifted Tether’s cumulative frozen assets tied to illicit activity to $4.2 billion, according to a company spokesperson. Of that amount, $3.5 billion has been frozen since 2023.

The scale of the freezes is a reflection of both the rapid expansion of stablecoins and the increasing use of crypto in cross-border fraud and laundering schemes. Tether has previously said it blocked wallets connected to human trafficking networks as well as activities linked to “terrorism and warfare” in Israel and Ukraine. Sanctioned Russian crypto exchange Garantex also said last year that Tether had blocked funds on its platform.

Stablecoins at the center of crypto enforcement

Stablecoins like USDT are primarily used as settlement and liquidity tools within the crypto ecosystem, allowing traders to move quickly between digital assets without exiting into traditional banking rails. Their transaction volumes have surged in recent years alongside broader crypto market growth.

That ubiquity, however, has drawn heightened scrutiny from regulators and enforcement agencies. Authorities worldwide have repeatedly raised concerns that crypto markets, which are generally less regulated than traditional financial systems, can be exploited for illicit finance.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global anti-money laundering watchdog, last year urged countries to intensify efforts to combat illicit finance in crypto markets. The group warned that inconsistent implementation of anti-money laundering standards across jurisdictions was creating vulnerabilities.

Blockchain researchers reported in January that money launderers received at least $82 billion in cryptocurrencies last year, a sharp increase from about $10 billion in 2020. The growth was attributed in part to the expansion of Chinese-speaking criminal networks and the rising sophistication of scam operations.

Tether occupies a unique position in this landscape. As the dominant stablecoin issuer, it serves as a critical liquidity backbone for global crypto trading. At the same time, its centralized control over USDT issuance allows it to intervene directly in suspicious transactions — a feature that some crypto purists view as antithetical to decentralization, but which regulators often regard as a compliance advantage.

The company’s ability to freeze funds has become an increasingly visible tool in enforcement actions. Tether is attempting to position itself as a responsible intermediary rather than a passive conduit for illicit flows by cooperating with authorities and blocking flagged wallets.

Yet the magnitude of frozen funds — $4.2 billion to date — highlights the scale of activity passing through stablecoin networks that later becomes subject to enforcement.

The figures reinforce concerns that rapid crypto adoption has outpaced regulatory frameworks in many jurisdictions. Against that backdrop, the pressure to strengthen compliance, enhance transaction monitoring, and cooperate with cross-border investigations is likely to intensify as volumes grow.

With more than $180 billion of USDT in circulation, Tether’s actions indicate that stablecoins are no longer peripheral instruments in digital finance. They sit at the core of the ecosystem — and increasingly at the center of the global effort to curb crypto-related crime.