Court record · 2 of 3
Allegations and rulings
What the plaintiffs claim, beside what the judge decided.
The complaint
Allegations
Plaintiffs allege insiders bought selected tokens early and sold into coordinated hype.
Details
Plaintiffs allege that Pump.fun insiders took positions in selected tokens before public availability and used coordinated promotion to sell into retail demand, and that the platform was designed to maximise addictive trading. They plead RICO claims, Securities Act claims and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs estimate retail losses of $4–5.5 billion. That is their estimate, as the opinion recounts on page 2. It is not a finding.
How the complaint uses the chats (R-A04)
The decision
Rulings
At this stage a court assumes the complaint's factual allegations are true and asks only whether they state a legal claim. Some RICO claims passed that test and continue. Many other claims did not. The ruling does not decide what actually happened, and the court said that 12(b)(6) dismissals were with prejudice.
Receipt R-A05 · Conclusion, p. 77
Holdings, claim by claim
| Claim | Parties | Outcome | Pages | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Counts I–II: substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d)) | Carnahan and Okafor v. Baton Corporation Ltd., Alon Cohen, Dylan Kerler, Noah Tweedale | Allowed to proceed | 3, 77 | Motions to dismiss denied as to these plaintiffs and defendants. The claims remain pending, which is not a finding of liability. |
| All claims by Diego Aguilar | Aguilar v. every moving defendant | Dismissed | 3, 77 | The court found Aguilar had not adequately alleged a domestic RICO injury. |
| All claims against the Solana defendants | Solana Labs, Solana Foundation, Yakovenko, Gokal, Albert, Federa, Liu | Dismissed | 3, 44, 77 | No RICO claim was adequately pleaded against them, and the unjust-enrichment theory was too attenuated. |
| Gambling predicates (18 U.S.C. § 1955; N.Y. Penal Law §§ 225.05, 225.10) | All moving defendants | Predicate rejected | 45–50 | The court held that the transactions alleged are not 'gambling' under New York law. The holding is limited to those transactions and does not rule on all memecoin activity. |
| Wire-fraud and § 1960 unlicensed money-transmission predicates | Baton, Cohen, Kerler, Tweedale | Adequately pleaded (pleading stage only) | 44, 50–53 | These predicates were adequately pleaded against the Baton defendants. That is a pleading-stage ruling, not a finding that fraud or unlicensed transmission occurred. |
| Counts III–IV: Securities Act §§ 5, 12(a)(1), 15 | Plaintiffs v. Baton defendants | Dismissed | 3, 77 | Dismissed on the merits as to FRED and GRIFFAIN, for lack of a pleaded common enterprise, and for lack of class standing as to the other eighteen tokens. |
| Count V: unjust enrichment (New York law) | Every moving defendant | Dismissed | 3, 76–77 | Duplicative as to Baton. No personal benefit alleged as to the officers. Too attenuated as to the Solana defendants. |
| Claims against Lead KOL Doe defendants 1–25 | Unidentified, unserved promoters | Order to show cause | 78–79 | Plaintiffs were ordered to show cause by 10 September 2026 why these claims should not be dismissed for failure to identify and serve. UNREPOST has not verified what happened next. |
On gambling
The court held that the memecoin purchases and sales as alleged are not “gambling” under New York Penal Law. It expressly limited that holding to the transactions alleged (p. 47 n.6). The ruling neither says that memecoin trading is lawful everywhere nor that it is gambling anywhere.