Key Highlights:
- A U.S. court has dismissed the class-action lawsuit over the LIBRA and M3M3 token launches.
- The judge found that several claims did not meet the legal requirements needed for the case to continue.
- The ruling does not confirm whether fraud or market manipulation actually happened during the token launches.
A U.S. federal court has dismissed a class-action lawsuit involving the LIBRA and M3M3 tokens, bringing the case against Kelsier Ventures, Hayden Davis, former Meteora CEO Ben Chow and related parties to a close. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the plaintiffs’ amended complaint and declined to allow them to file another version of the lawsuit.
The case had alleged fraud, conspiracy, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and other claims connected to the two token launches. However, the dismissal was based on whether the claims met the legal requirements needed to proceed. The ruling did not make a factual finding that market manipulation or fraud did or did not occur during the LIBRA or M3M3 launches.
Several Claims Did Not Meet Legal Requirements
The court’s September 29 opinion addressed multiple arguments from the defendants and rejected the plaintiffs’ request to file a second amended complaint. The court granted motions to dismiss filed by the Kelsier defendants, Ben Chow and Dynamic Labs, which intervened in relation to claims against Meteora. One issue concerned Meteora itself. The plaintiffs had described Meteora as an unincorporated association that could be sued. The court disagreed, finding that the complaint did not sufficiently establish Meteora as an unincorporated association or partnership with the legal capacity to be sued.
The court examined how Meteora was described in the complaint and its own documentation. The filing described Meteora as a set of smart contracts deployed on Solana, while the plaintiffs argued that it should instead be treated as an organization operated by multiple individuals and entities. The court found that the allegations did not adequately establish the required organizational structure or joint control.
The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ RICO claims against the Kelsier defendants and Chow. The opinion found that the complaint failed to adequately state a substantive RICO violation, which also meant that the related RICO conspiracy claim could not proceed. The fraud allegations against Chow were separately dismissed. The court said the complaint did not sufficiently support an inference of fraudulent intent based on the allegations concerning his conduct and motive. The related conspiracy-to-defraud claim also failed after the underlying fraud claims were dismissed.
These findings concern the legal sufficiency of the claims rather than a determination of whether the conduct alleged by the plaintiffs actually took place. The court opinion states that the allegations in the complaint are treated as true for purposes of evaluating the motions to dismiss, while the court separately assesses whether those allegations are legally sufficient.
The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ request to submit another amended complaint, concluding that the proposed changes would not cure the deficiencies identified in the existing claims. The court therefore dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice and ordered the case closed.
Lawsuit Connected the LIBRA and M3M3 Token Launches
The lawsuit stemmed from allegations surrounding the launches of M3M3 and LIBRA, two tokens connected to activity on the Solana blockchain. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were involved in schemes that affected token trading and caused losses for investors.
According to Burwick Law, which represented the plaintiffs, the class action was filed in the Southern District of New York in April 2025 on behalf of investors who purchased M3M3 or LIBRA. An amended complaint was filed in July 2025 and named Kelsier Ventures, Hayden Davis, Gideon Davis, Charles Thomas Davis, Ben Chow and Meteora among the defendants. The case had already gone through several stages before the latest dismissal. In August 2025, Judge Rochon denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and dissolved an earlier temporary restraining order. The court later denied additional motions seeking changes to that ruling in October 2025.
The latest decision is therefore separate from the earlier question of whether the plaintiffs could obtain preliminary relief. It addresses whether the claims in the amended complaint were sufficient to continue as a lawsuit.
The court’s ruling now closes the federal case. While the plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the LIBRA and M3M3 launches formed the basis of the litigation, the dismissal itself does not establish a factual conclusion about whether the launches involved fraud or market manipulation. Instead, the decision turns on the legal requirements the plaintiffs needed to satisfy to pursue their claims in court.
Be the first to comment