I kept refreshing the docket like a person waiting on a delayed flight. Not because I held the token. Because the story had all the ingredients that usually drag on for years: a celebrity post, a price that peaked and then fell off a cliff, a protocol in the middle, and a class action that promised to pin a name on the wreckage. On September 29, 2026, a federal judge in Manhattan ended that particular fight. The Libra lawsuit against Meteora, its former chief executive Benjamin Chow, and the Kelsier defendants was dismissed. With prejudice. Case closed. If you blinked, you might have missed how narrow the victory actually was.
Dismissal is not a medal. It is a door shutting on one set of pleadings, in one courthouse, under one set of rules. Investors who bought into the February 2025 launch still lost money. Argentine investigators are still tracing wallets. And anyone who builds or uses a liquidity protocol just got a reminder that software can be hard to sue, while the people behind a launch can still be hard to reach from New York. That combination is awkward. It is also, if you sit with it, the most useful part of the ruling.
Why This Dismissal Landed Harder Than A Simple Win
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the motions to dismiss. Dynamic Labs, the entity tied to the software, walked away from the claims aimed at Meteora. Chow’s motion succeeded under the rule that lets a court throw out a complaint that does not state a legally sufficient case. The Kelsier side, including Hayden Davis, Gideon Davis, and Thomas Davis, saw the racketeering counts fail and the remaining state claims fall for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs Omar Hurlock and Anuj Mehta asked for another chance to amend. The judge said no. The proposed fixes would not cure what was wrong.
With prejudice means the amended complaint cannot be refiled in that form. The clerk was told to close the file. Litigation that opened in March 2025, weeks after the token’s chaotic first day, is over in the United States. I have watched enough of these filings to know how rare a clean ending is. Most memecoin suits limp along on jurisdictional fights, or settle in the shadow of an injunction. This one did not.
The accusations were broad. Fraud. Conspiracy to defraud. Violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. New York consumer protection claims. Unjust enrichment. The complaint tried to tie Kelsier Labs, the Davis defendants, Meteora, and Chow into one story about misleading buyers and liquidity that did not behave the way retail traders expected. That story may still feel true to people who sold into a collapsing chart. Feeling true and pleading a claim that survives a motion to dismiss are different jobs.
A Protocol That The Court Would Not Treat As A Person
The sharpest cut in the opinion, at least to me, is the one about legal existence. Plaintiffs described Meteora as an association of Chow and others who developed and operated programs on Solana. They pointed to a team, governance talk, job postings, and a multisignature process used to change the software. Dynamic Labs answered that Meteora was software, not an unincorporated association and not a partnership.
Rochon agreed the complaint did not establish an unincorporated association under New York law or federal law. Coordinated membership and a common purpose have to be more than a vibe and a GitHub-shaped workflow. The partnership theory failed too. Without a defendant that legally exists in the way the claims required, the counts aimed at the protocol itself had nowhere to land.
A brand, a team page, and a multisig are not the same thing as a suable association. Courts still want a defendant with legal bones.
That finding will travel. Plenty of onchain products are marketed as if they were companies, while the entity that actually employs people sits one step to the side, and the pools themselves are just code. Plaintiffs’ lawyers like the brand name on the caption. Defense lawyers like the argument that code is not a partnership. Here, the brand name lost.
Is that fair to someone who clicked a pool because the interface looked institutional? Fair is not the standard at this stage. Plausibility is. The court wanted allegations that showed membership, shared purpose, and the kind of structure the law already knows how to sue. Job listings and a signing ceremony for upgrades did not get there. I suspect future complaints will name the company, the founders, and the treasury signers with much more precision, and spend less ink treating the protocol ticker as a defendant.
What The Court Said Was Not Enough Against Chow
Chow’s dismissal came on a different track. Plaintiffs tried to link him to an earlier project, M3M3, and to Libra. The story, stripped of heat, was that he worked with Kelsier on a launch platform, offered technical help around token launches, commented on a liquidity curve, and assisted with verification after Libra went live. Fees flowed through the protocol. He knew, the complaint said, that Kelsier would use Meteora for the launch.
Knowledge plus technical help plus fees did not equal fraudulent intent. That sentence is the whole case against him, compressed. Rule 12(b)(6) does not ask whether a reader feels uneasy. It asks whether the facts, taken as true, plausibly show the state of mind the claim needs. Rochon found they did not. Conspiracy to defraud and unjust enrichment went out with the fraud counts.
Chow had already said, in public comments before this ruling, that Meteora’s role was technical. Comments on a curve. Help verifying the token after launch. He said he sometimes referred projects that wanted deployment help toward Kelsier, and he denied building Libra. He resigned from the project in February 2025 once the relationship became the story. Resignation is not a confession. It is also not nothing. Reputational damage and legal liability parted ways in this opinion, which is exactly how these episodes often end for operators who sat near the blast and not inside it.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect is how ordinary the alleged conduct sounds if you work around decentralized exchanges. Curve design. Verification. Referral of teams that want a launch partner. Protocol fees that accrue because volume showed up. None of that is exotic. The court’s point is that ordinary infrastructure work does not become fraud just because the token that used the infrastructure later collapsed, unless you can plead facts that show the helper meant to deceive. Thin intent allegations die at this stage. They should.
Racketeering Needs A Pattern, Not Two Bad Months
The RICO counts against the Kelsier defendants were the swing for the fences. Plaintiffs wanted M3M3 and Libra read as one continuing enterprise. The alleged span was roughly six months. Rochon held that was not continuity.
RICO is not a synonym for “this felt organized.” Plaintiffs have to show a pattern. Closed-ended continuity means related criminal conduct over a substantial period. Open-ended continuity means the conduct threatens to keep going. Related misconduct, even if you believe every word of it, is not automatically a pattern. Six months of alleged launch activity did not clear either bar on these pleadings.
I have found that RICO gets bolted onto crypto complaints because the word sounds like the harm people feel. Judges have been unimpressed by that instinct for years. A short sequence of token launches, without a pleaded threat that the same enterprise will keep extracting in the same way, reads as a finite episode. Finite episodes belong in fraud statutes if they belong anywhere, not in a racketeering statute built for longer enterprises.
The rest of the claims against those defendants failed for a more basic reason. The court found it lacked personal jurisdiction. A conspiracy theory of jurisdiction, the one plaintiffs offered, did not hold. State-law counts were dismissed on that basis. You can have a dramatic token chart and still be in the wrong courthouse.
The Night The Chart Broke, Without The Mythology
Libra launched on Solana on February 14, 2025. Argentine President Javier Milei then posted about the project, linking a site framed around entrepreneurship and including the contract address. Trading rushed in. The price collapsed within hours. He deleted the post and said he had not known the details. The original framing was a private initiative meant to support Argentine businesses. That framing did not survive the first evening.
Wallets described by critics as insider-linked were accused of buying early and pulling liquidity as the price fell. Onchain observers traced activity through Meteora pools during the first wave of trading. The complaint that followed in March alleged that insiders held back a large share of supply and extracted funds once the market opened. Those are allegations. The New York case never reached a trial where a jury would test them.
Milei’s call logs and the politics around the post have kept the story alive in Argentina. This article is not about scoring that political fight. It is about what a U.S. district judge did with the pleadings in front of her, and what a trader should take from a closed docket.
The Freeze That Came And Went
Before the dismissal, the same case produced a very tangible number. In May 2025, Circle froze roughly $57 million in USDC tied to wallets at issue in the litigation. A later order lifted the freeze after the defendants agreed not to move the disputed funds and the plaintiffs withdrew their request for a preliminary injunction. Money sat still, then the emergency posture eased, then the case itself ended.
Freezes feel like justice to people who are down on a trade. They are provisional. They depend on a plaintiff who can keep the injunction alive and on a defendant willing, or ordered, to leave assets where they are. When the injunction request goes away, the freeze goes away. When the complaint is dismissed with prejudice, the U.S. vehicle for chasing those dollars is gone. That does not erase Argentine proceedings. It does erase the theory that a New York class action was about to become the collection mechanism.
| Issue | What the court did | Practical read |
| Meteora as a defendant | Not shown to be an association or partnership | Protocol brands are weak captions |
| Claims against Chow | Intent not plausibly pleaded | Technical help is not fraud by itself |
| RICO against Kelsier side | No continuity for a pattern | Short launch arcs rarely fit RICO |
| Other Kelsier claims | No personal jurisdiction | Conspiracy jurisdiction is a hard sell |
| Second amendment | Denied, dismissed with prejudice | U.S. class case is finished |
| Argentine probe | Outside this ruling | Wallet freezes there can still bite |
Argentina Did Not Close Its File
The New York dismissal resolves the class action. It does not resolve the launch. In August 2026, a federal judge in Argentina ordered 25 crypto wallets frozen and sought account-holder identities, transaction records, IP addresses, and know-your-customer data. The order focused on wallets believed to have handled funds that remained with the creators after the February 2025 launch. Court papers in those proceedings identified eight wallets investigators described as belonging to the team behind the token, and linked them to creation and later movement of investor funds.
Two tracks, two standards, two clocks. American plaintiffs needed a suable entity, a plausible intent story, a racketeering pattern, and jurisdiction over foreign defendants. Argentine investigators are following residual funds and identity data. If you only read the Manhattan headline, you will over-read the word dismissed. If you only read the Argentine freeze, you will under-read how much of the U.S. theory failed on pleading grounds rather than on a finding that nothing questionable happened.
Neither court has handed the public a full factual verdict in the sense people crave. One closed a complaint. The other froze wallets and asked questions. That gap is where rumor lives. It is also where careful readers should slow down.
How A Motion To Dismiss Actually Works
A quick detour, because the phrase gets abused. On a motion to dismiss, the judge assumes the factual allegations are true and asks whether they add up to a legal claim. She does not weigh credibility the way a jury would. She does not decide who is a good person. Evidence fights come later, if the case survives.
Fraud claims are pleaded with particularity. Who said what, when, why it was false, and why the speaker knew or was reckless. Intent can be inferred, but the inference has to be plausible, not a shrug. RICO adds elements on top of the underlying acts. Jurisdiction is its own gate. Fail any gate and the rest of the story never gets a hearing.
So when a judge writes that technical assistance and fee income did not show fraudulent intent, she is not issuing a character reference. She is saying the complaint, as written, did not cross the line. Plaintiffs who cannot fix that line do not get a third draft. That is what happened here.
- Association and partnership theories need structure, not just a public team.
- Fraud intent needs more than proximity to a launch and a fee stream.
- RICO continuity is a duration-and-threat problem, not a vibes problem.
- Personal jurisdiction does not follow a token across borders by itself.
- With-prejudice dismissal ends the U.S. class vehicle, not every foreign probe.
Liquidity Curves Are Not Neutral Furniture
Memecoin launches love a story about community and hate a story about inventory. The inventory story is the one that matters. Who held supply before the first public minute. Who could add or pull liquidity. What the curve did to price when size hit it. Whether a pool was deep enough to absorb the promotion that was about to land, or shallow enough to turn a single post into a trap.
Meteora’s pools became part of that debate because Libra traded through them at the open. Infrastructure is not destiny. A pool can be used cleanly or carelessly or, in the worst tellings, as a stage for extraction. The New York court did not adopt the worst telling against the protocol or against Chow. It also did not bless every pool design as harmless. It refused to treat the software brand as the actor, and it refused to treat curve comments as intent.
If you build these tools, the practical lesson is uncomfortable and useful. Document who the client is. Document what you refused to do. Keep the referral and the build in separate sentences, because plaintiffs will try to merge them. And do not assume the protocol name will absorb liability the way a corporate veil sometimes does. In this ruling, the protocol name absorbed nothing, because it was not a legal person at all.
Promotion, Presidents, And The Speed Of A Bad Hour
Celebrity and political promotion is a solvent. It dissolves the usual speed limits on attention. A contract address in a post from a head of state is not a prospectus, but it behaves like one for about fifteen minutes, which is long enough. People do not read the website. They paste the address. They buy the candle. They learn the supply distribution afterward, if they learn it at all.
Milei deleted the post and disclaimed detailed knowledge. Whether that sequence satisfies Argentine political and legal standards is being examined there. For a trader outside that process, the sequence is a case study in asymmetric information. The promoter can leave. The pool cannot. The chart keeps the receipt.
I do not think every political post about a token is a scheme. I do think the base rate on memecoins launched into a celebrity mention is ugly, and the base rate on recovering losses through a U.S. class action is uglier still after this opinion. Hope is not a legal theory. Neither is anger.
What Class Plaintiffs Would Need Next Time
Imagine a cleaner complaint. It would name operating companies and individuals with specific acts, dates, and statements. It would separate the software contributor from the party that set supply, seeded the pool, and sold into demand. It would plead jurisdiction with contacts that are real, not borrowed from a co-defendant through a thin conspiracy allegation. It would use RICO only if the conduct actually stretches, or actually threatens to continue, in the way the statute demands.
It would also pick its fraud statements carefully. A website slogan about entrepreneurship is weak tea unless someone can show who wrote it, who approved it, and why it was false when made. A president’s post may be powerful politically and still be a difficult anchor for a U.S. fraud claim against a Solana protocol and a foreign launch team. Distance is not a defense to everything. It is a defense to being sued in a court that cannot reach you.
Hurlock and Mehta did not get to file that cleaner version. Rochon looked at the proposed second amendment and decided the defects were structural. That is a harsh outcome for named plaintiffs, and it is a predictable one when the first amendment already had its shot.
Dismissal checklist from this opinion: Entity status of the protocol: failed Fraudulent intent as to Chow: failed RICO continuity: failed Personal jurisdiction over Kelsier defendants: failed Leave to amend again: denied Argentine wallet inquiry: unaffected
Fees, Referrals, And The Gray Zone Operators Live In
Protocol fees are the detail plaintiffs always reach for, because fees look like a motive. Motive is not intent to defraud. A liquidity venue earns money when people trade. A violent candle is, from the venue’s perspective, volume. That incentive is real. It is also the same incentive a stock exchange has on a wild day. Courts do not treat the exchange as a participant in every pump that prints there, absent more.
Referrals are murkier. Sending a team to a launch specialist can be ordinary business development. It can also be the moment a careful operator should have asked harder questions. The opinion does not invite that moral inquiry. It says the allegations on the page did not plausibly show Chow meant to join a fraud. In my experience reading these complaints, the gap between “this looks bad in a group chat” and “this is pleaded fraud” is where cases go to die. Screenshots help only if they show the right mind at the right time.
Chow’s resignation sits in that gap. Leaving a project after a scandal is rational self-preservation. Plaintiffs hoped it would read as proximity. The court wanted a pleaded plan. Proximity lost.
Stablecoins As The Only Asset Anyone Can Actually Hold
The $57 million figure mattered because it was dollars, not a dead memecoin. USDC can be frozen by its issuer when a court process points at specific wallets. That power is controversial, and it is also why plaintiffs chase stablecoin balances instead of the token that already went to zero. You cannot collect a judgment in a chart that has no bid.
The freeze’s later release, tied to an agreement not to move disputed funds and to the withdrawal of the injunction request, shows how provisional issuer freezes are. They are not findings of guilt. They are pauses. Once the case that justified the pause is dismissed, the pause has no U.S. class-action engine behind it. Parties may still have private agreements. Those are not the same as a live lawsuit.
If you custody size in a stablecoin, this episode is a quiet advertisement for understanding issuer controls. The same switch that can protect a victim can also lock a wallet that has not been found liable for anything. Both things happened, in sequence, around this docket.
Reading Onchain Trails Without Playing Judge
Public ledgers made Libra unusually legible. Pool creation, early buys, liquidity removal, and outbound transfers can be lined up on a timeline by anyone with patience and a block explorer. Legibility is not liability. A wallet that bought early might be a founder, a market maker, a lucky sniper, or a mislabeled cluster. Analysts argue about labels. Courts ask who owns the key.
Argentine requests for identities, IP addresses, and customer data are aimed at that last question. U.S. plaintiffs tried to skip some of it by pleading an association and a conspiracy. The skip did not work. Onchain narrative is a start. It is a bad substitute for jurisdiction and for a defendant that exists.
Still, the trails matter for anyone trading the next launch. If a large slice of supply sits in a handful of wallets that interact with the pool in the first hour, you are not early. You are exit liquidity with a slogan. That observation does not require a lawsuit. It requires a glance at the holders list before you size a position. Most people will not glance. The candle is faster than the glance.
A Practical Lens For The Next Promoted Token
None of this is a trading system. It is a filter I wish more people used when a contract address arrives wrapped in a famous name.
- Identify the operating company, not the protocol nickname.
- Map supply before the promotional post, not after the wick.
- Ask who can pull liquidity, and how fast, on that specific pool.
- Treat a political or celebrity mention as attention, not diligence.
- Assume a U.S. class action is a slow, narrow tool, especially against foreign teams.
- Watch stablecoin balances if you care about recoverable value.
- Separate a dismissal from a factual exoneration, and from a foreign probe.
The filter will not save you from a bad entry. It will stop you from confusing a closed New York case with a cleaned-up market. Those are different rooms.
Jurisdiction Is The Quiet Killer Of Crypto Complaints
Personal jurisdiction sounds procedural. It is the whole game when defendants live and operate elsewhere. A court in Manhattan cannot drag someone in just because a token traded on the internet and a plaintiff bought it from a laptop in New York. There has to be a contact with the forum that the law respects. Conspiracy allegations are a common attempt to borrow one defendant’s contacts for another. Rochon rejected that attempt here.
That outcome should humble forum shopping. It should also humble the social-media habit of declaring that a foreign founder has been “charged in New York” when what exists is a civil complaint that has not even cleared jurisdiction. Words matter. This docket ended without a finding on the merits against the Kelsier defendants, because the court never reached a point where those merits were its to decide.
For operators outside the United States, the lesson is double-edged. You may be harder to sue in SDNY than angry holders assume. You may be fully reachable at home, where the wallets, the banks, and the political heat actually sit. Libra is living that second edge in Argentina right now.
Consumer Claims And Unjust Enrichment Did Not Save The Case
State consumer-protection counts and unjust enrichment often get pleaded as a backstop, on the theory that even if fraud is hard, fairness might be easier. They still need a defendant the court can hear, and they still need facts that match the statute. Once jurisdiction failed for the Kelsier defendants, those counts failed with it. Once intent and entity status failed on the Meteora and Chow side, the backstops did not invent a new case.
Unjust enrichment sounds moral. In pleading practice it is a leftover claim, and leftovers do not rescue a complaint that cannot identify a proper defendant or a plausible wrong. I keep seeing retail threads treat “unjust enrichment” as if it were a refund button. It is not. It is a doctrine with elements, and elements can fail.
What Dismissal Does To The People Who Bought The Top
Nothing, in the wallet. A closed class action does not refill a bag. It removes one path that was always uncertain and, after this opinion, unavailable. Holders can still follow Argentine developments if their loss theory depends on creator wallets that investigators have frozen. They should not expect those developments to move on a New York calendar.
There is a psychological trap here. Litigation becomes a second trade. People who missed the exit stay for the docket, refreshing opinions the way they refreshed the chart. The opinion arrives. It is about associations and continuity and jurisdiction. It does not say the number they wanted. That mismatch produces a second wave of anger, aimed at the judge, the lawyers, the protocol, the president. Some of that anger is human. None of it changes the order.
A dismissed complaint is a closed door, not a repaired trade. The chart does not read opinions.
Builders, Fees, And The Reputation You Cannot Dismiss
Meteora can point to a with-prejudice dismissal. Chow can point to a finding that intent was not pleaded. Reputation does not update on PACER. The resignation already happened. The association with a presidential memecoin launch already happened. Future partners will ask about both, dismissal or not.
That is not a legal penalty. It is the market’s own continuity requirement, and it is stricter than RICO in some ways. Six months was too short for a racketeering pattern. It was long enough to mark a protocol in the memory of anyone who trades Solana launches. I would rather see teams publish plain descriptions of what they will and will not do for a launch client than watch another complaint try to turn a multisig into a partnership. Sunlight is cheaper than a motion to dismiss, and it arrives before the candle.
A Note On Names, And What This Piece Will Not Do
Court papers name people. Reporting names people. Naming is not a finding that someone committed a crime. The New York case was civil. It ended without a trial. Argentine proceedings are ongoing and have not, in the public record this article relies on, produced a completed judgment that this piece should pretend to summarize as guilt. Wallets can be frozen while investigators ask for identity data. Freezes are investigative tools.
If you came here for a villain edit, the docket will disappoint you. If you came here to understand why a loud case went quiet, the docket is oddly generous. It tells you exactly which legal hooks failed.
Solana Launches After A Precedent Like This
Will launch teams get bolder because a protocol brand was not suable and a technical contributor was dismissed? Some might. That would be a bad reading. The opinion rewards precise pleading against precise defendants, not sloppy launches. A team that controls supply, writes the promotional site, and sells into a celebrity candle is a much cleaner target than a pool interface. The next complaint, if there is a next launch of this shape, will probably aim there.
Traders should assume the opposite of comfort. A harder class action is not a safer token. It is a thinner safety net. The net was already thin. February 2025 showed how fast attention can be converted into exit liquidity. September 2026 showed how slowly, and how conditionally, a courthouse answers.
Between those dates, Circle froze and unfroze a large stablecoin balance, Chow was out of the project, and Argentine judges started naming wallets. The market moved on to other tickers. Dockets do not. That lag is why a dismissal in the fall of 2026 can still teach something about a Valentine’s Day launch in 2025.
How To Talk About This Without Spreading A False Ending
A few phrases are doing too much work on social feeds. “Cleared” can mean the claims were dismissed, which is accurate as to the U.S. complaint, and it can be heard as “the court found the launch was fine,” which is not what a motion to dismiss does. “Racketeering failed” can mean the pattern was not pleaded, which is accurate, and it can be heard as “there was no coordinated conduct,” which the court did not decide. “Meteora won” can mean the protocol was not a proper defendant, which is the actual holding, and it can be heard as an endorsement of every pool that carried the trade.
Precision is free. Use it. The amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Leave to amend again was denied. Personal jurisdiction over the Kelsier defendants was lacking. Fraudulent intent against Chow was not plausibly alleged. Meteora was not shown to be an unincorporated association or a partnership. Argentina continues. That is the whole result, and it is enough.
Where A Careful Reader Should Look Next
Not at a new U.S. class action. That door is shut. At the Argentine wallet orders, if public updates continue, and at how launch infrastructure describes its own role before the next promoted token uses it. Also at your own process. If a contract address in a famous post is still enough to make you size a position, the opinion will not save you. It was never written for that.
I keep coming back to the entity holding. We talk about protocols as if they were characters in a story, with motives and secrets. Sometimes the people behind them have both. Sometimes the name on the interface is a pile of contracts and a company standing nearby, and the law only knows what to do with the company and the people. Libra’s U.S. plaintiffs reached for the character. The court asked for a defendant. Those are not the same request.
The case number will fade. The habit will not. Promoted supply, shallow pools, early wallets, a deleted post, a class action, a freeze, a dismissal, a foreign probe. You can memorize that sequence. It is cheaper than learning it from a fill.
Questions The Ruling Leaves Open On Purpose
Who controlled the largest early wallets, in a way a court would accept? The New York pleadings did not get far enough to answer that with findings. Argentine investigators have asked for identity and customer data around wallets they associate with the team. Until those requests produce public, tested answers, labeling is still labeling.
Did anyone on the infrastructure side cross from help into a shared plan? The complaint said yes. The judge said the facts alleged did not plausibly show fraudulent intent by Chow, and did not make Meteora a suable association. That is an ending for those claims. It is not a documentary.
Will issuer freezes become the real remedy in the next blow-up, precisely because class actions against protocol brands are this fragile? They might, for dollars that sit in stablecoins and can be pointed at with specificity. They will not help anyone whose loss is entirely in a token that has no liquidity left. Remedies follow the asset that can still be held still.
And will political promotion of a contract address keep happening? Almost certainly, somewhere. The legal risk attaches more cleanly to the promoter’s own jurisdiction and to the people who set the supply than to the pool that happened to clear the trades. That allocation of risk is what this opinion, read cold, actually supports.
A Last Pass Through The Timeline
February 14, 2025: the token launches on Solana, a presidential post includes the contract address, price spikes and collapses, the post comes down. February 2025: Chow resigns amid questions about the protocol’s relationship to the launch and to Kelsier. March 2025: investors file the class action. May 2025: about $57 million in USDC is frozen, then the freeze is later lifted under an agreement not to move disputed funds and a withdrawn injunction request. August 2026: an Argentine federal judge freezes 25 wallets and seeks identity and transaction data, with court papers describing eight wallets as tied to the team. September 29, 2026: Rochon dismisses the amended complaint with prejudice and closes the U.S. case.
Eighteen months from launch to a shut docket. That is fast for federal class practice and slow for anyone who needed the money. Speed, in this setting, favored the defendants who could win on the papers. It did not favor a narrative clean enough for a headline without a qualifier.
So here is the qualifier, stated as plainly as I can. The Libra lawsuit in New York is over. Meteora was not held to be a legal person that plaintiffs could sue on these claims. Chow was not plausibly alleged to have intended a fraud. The Kelsier defendants were not brought within the court’s jurisdiction, and the racketeering pattern was not pleaded. None of that is a certificate of good conduct for the launch. None of that stops Argentina. If you trade the next one, trade it as if both sentences are true, because both sentences are true.
