Judge dismisses Burwick Law's LIBRA lawsuit against Hayden Davis with prejudice

A US judge dismissed Burwick Law's case against Hayden Davis regarding the LIBRA and M3M3 token launches, ending the matter with prejudice.

Judge Jennifer Rochon entered her ruling on Tuesday. She refused to let plaintiffs Omar Hurlock and Anuj Mehta submit another amended complaint, describing the request as "futile."

In place of that, Rochon approved three motions from the group labelled the "Kelsier Defendants" – Davis, Kelsier Labs, Gideon Davis, Charles Thomas Davis, Benjamin Chow, and intervenor plaintiff Dynamic Lab.

The motions argued that Burwick Law:

• Failed to establish that Meteora could be sued as an entity.
• Could not show that Chow acted fraudulently.
• Could not demonstrate that New York had personal jurisdiction over the Kelsier defendants.
• Did not prove a consistent racketeering pattern within the six-month period of token launches.

Rochon's decision largely rested on the fact that Burwick Law's claims failed to satisfy particular legal standards.

Crypto law firm founder Ariel Giver observed that the ruling does not mean "memecoins are legal" – rather, the plaintiffs "sued the wrong thing, under the wrong statute, with the wrong facts."

LIBRA token led to over $250 million in investor losses

The defendants faced allegations of a coordinated insider trading scheme related to the launch of M3M3 in December 2024 and LIBRA – the token publicly introduced by Argentine President Javier Milei in February 2025.

The plaintiffs themselves lost tens of thousands of dollars. Meanwhile, Nansen Research stated that 86% of LIBRA investors suffered losses exceeding $250 million.

Efforts to stop LIBRA-related funds from being anonymised during the case were unsuccessful.

Rochon stated that Davis and the other defendants had pledged to record every transaction for traceability purposes, and that Burwick Law had failed to prove "irreparable harm" to the plaintiffs.

An unusual website named Libra Trust appeared minutes before the hearing on the motion. It had been set up five days after an earlier freezing order was removed, and at one point it directed visitors to a "pure nudism" blog.