Federal Court Ends $LIBRA and $M3M3 Class Action
A U.S. federal judge has dismissed with prejudice a class-action lawsuit involving the $LIBRA and $M3M3 token launches, bringing the case against Hayden Davis, Kelsier Labs, Meteora and Benjamin Chow to a close at the district-court level.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued the opinion and order on September 29, 2026, in Hurlock v. Kelsier Labs. The plaintiffs, Omar Hurlock and Anuj Mehta, had alleged fraud, conspiracy to defraud, violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, New York consumer-protection violations and unjust enrichment.
The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss on several grounds and denied the plaintiffs’ request to file a second amended complaint. The order states that the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the case.
Why the Court Dismissed the Case
The lawsuit centered on allegations surrounding the $LIBRA and $M3M3 token launches and the roles allegedly played by Kelsier Ventures, members of the Davis family, Meteora and its former executive Benjamin Chow.
The plaintiffs attempted to pursue RICO and other claims based on alleged coordinated conduct surrounding the token launches. However, Judge Rochon concluded that the claims did not satisfy the legal requirements necessary for the causes of action asserted. The court specifically granted the Kelsier defendants’ motion to dismiss the RICO-related counts for failure to state a claim and also granted their motion concerning personal jurisdiction over the remaining counts.
A significant part of the ruling concerned the alleged pattern of racketeering. The court considered the time period covered by the alleged conduct and concluded that the allegations did not establish the required continuity for a civil RICO claim. The decision therefore addresses whether the complaint adequately stated legally actionable claims; it should not be presented as a factual finding that every allegation made by the plaintiffs was proven false.
The court also dismissed the claims against Benjamin Chow under the applicable legal standards. Separately, Dynamic Labs, which intervened in the proceedings, successfully moved to dismiss the claims against Meteora. The court accepted arguments concerning Meteora's legal status and the sufficiency of the claims asserted against it.
What Happened to the Proposed $MELANIA, $ENRON and $TRUST Claims?
The plaintiffs also sought permission to submit another amended complaint. That proposed filing would have expanded the litigation beyond $LIBRA and $M3M3 to include additional token-related allegations involving $MELANIA, $ENRON and $TRUST.
Judge Rochon denied that request. As a result, the plaintiffs were not given another opportunity in this case to amend their complaint and pursue those additional allegations. The court ultimately ordered the amended complaint dismissed with prejudice and closed the proceedings.
The ruling is significant for the specific civil case because a dismissal with prejudice prevents the plaintiffs from bringing the same claims again in the same manner. It does not, however, amount to a blanket judicial determination that the broader controversies surrounding the tokens or their launches never occurred.
For crypto users following the dispute, the distinction is important. A motion to dismiss generally tests whether the complaint contains legally sufficient claims under the applicable rules. It is different from a trial verdict determining liability after evidence has been fully presented.
Why the Decision Matters for Solana’s Memecoin Market
The case attracted attention because it involved several high-profile Solana-based token launches and allegations concerning how token supply, liquidity, promotion and trading activity were handled.
The lawsuit named Meteora, a Solana-based decentralized finance platform, alongside Kelsier Ventures and members of the Davis family. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were involved in schemes surrounding $LIBRA and $M3M3. Those allegations were disputed in the litigation, and the September 29 order resolved the claims through dismissal rather than a trial on the merits.
The broader episode also highlights a recurring legal issue for crypto projects: determining when conduct involving decentralized protocols, token issuers, promoters and individual developers creates liability under existing financial and consumer-protection laws.
For builders and traders in the Solana ecosystem, the case illustrates how token-related disputes can move beyond blockchain transactions and into questions of jurisdiction, corporate structure, consumer law and federal statutes.
Other Crypto Lawsuits Face Similar Contract and Legal Challenges
The $LIBRA and $M3M3 litigation is part of a wider wave of legal disputes involving crypto platforms, token issuers and digital-asset users.
The outcome demonstrates how the precise legal structure of a claim can determine whether a lawsuit proceeds. In this case, the court examined issues including personal jurisdiction, the sufficiency of the allegations and the requirements for establishing a RICO claim.
For participants in decentralized markets, that makes the legal terms surrounding a platform particularly important. Users interacting with protocols, wallets, exchanges or token platforms may be subject to contractual provisions governing disputes, liability and available legal remedies.
The dismissal therefore does not end broader questions surrounding the $LIBRA or $M3M3 controversies. Instead, it closes this particular federal civil action and leaves any separate proceedings or claims to be evaluated independently under their own facts and legal standards.
What the Ruling Means for Crypto Market Participants
The immediate result is straightforward: the Hurlock v. Kelsier Labs case has been closed after Judge Rochon dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice and denied the plaintiffs’ request to file another amended complaint.
For crypto users, the case also shows why allegations involving token launches should be distinguished from established court findings. Blockchain data, investigative reports and accusations can form part of a legal dispute, but a court’s dismissal on procedural or pleading grounds does not necessarily determine whether every underlying factual allegation is true or false.
The ruling may nevertheless become a reference point for future crypto litigation involving memecoins, decentralized exchanges and alleged coordinated trading or promotional activity. As digital-asset markets continue to develop, courts will increasingly have to apply existing laws to business structures and technologies that do not always fit traditional financial models.
The full federal court opinion provides the most complete account of the court’s reasoning and the claims asserted by the plaintiffs.
