A federal judge in New York has allowed plaintiffs to broaden their class-action lawsuit against Pump.fun, its parent company Baton Corporation, Solana Labs, the Solana Foundation, and Jito Labs, marking an important procedural step in one of the most closely watched legal disputes tied to Solana’s memecoin launch ecosystem. The ruling does not decide the merits of the case, but it gives investors permission to file a Second Amended Complaint that adds new factual allegations and expands the legal theories already before the court.
A procedural win for plaintiffs
The case, Aguilar v. Baton Corporation Ltd. et al. (No. 1:25-cv-00880), is centered on Pump.fun, a Solana-based platform known for enabling rapid token creation and launch through an automated bonding-curve pricing model. Plaintiffs allege they suffered losses connected to memecoin launches on the platform and argue that the launch environment was presented as fair and broadly accessible while favored insiders may have enjoyed a material execution advantage.
According to the court’s order, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York ruled on Dec. 9, 2025 that plaintiffs could proceed with a second amended filing. The judge found that the investors acted diligently after obtaining new evidence in September 2025, including roughly 5,000 internal chat messages reportedly supplied by a confidential informant. The court also said that allowing the amendment would not unduly prejudice defendants because discovery had not yet begun and motions to dismiss were still pending.
What the expanded complaint is expected to argue
The central theory behind the expanded complaint is that certain infrastructure and transaction-ordering mechanisms within the Solana ecosystem may have enabled selected participants to gain access to newly launched tokens at the lowest prices before ordinary retail users’ transactions were processed. Plaintiffs point specifically to allegations involving validator infrastructure on Solana and transaction-ordering tools associated with Jito.
In practical terms, the complaint suggests that while token launches were marketed as open and accessible, participants with privileged positioning may have been able to buy first and benefit from the pricing dynamics of early-stage launches, especially on a platform using automated curves to determine token prices. That theory is significant because it ties the dispute not only to Pump.fun’s launch design, but also to the broader ecosystem around execution, ordering, and market access on Solana.
The plaintiffs are also expected to preserve prior claims under federal securities law and RICO, while adding further causes of action under the Lanham Act and New York state law. The court rejected defense arguments that procedural shortcomings alone should block the amendment outright.
Background of the litigation
The lawsuit was first filed in January 2025 by investors Diego Aguilar and Kendall Carnahan, with Michael Okafor later joining as lead plaintiff. The broader dispute concerns losses linked to token launches conducted through Pump.fun’s system. By July 2025, related cases had been consolidated, and earlier amendments had already expanded the matter beyond straightforward investor-loss allegations by introducing racketeering-related claims.
This litigation has drawn unusual attention because Pump.fun became one of the most recognizable venues in the memecoin sector, and because Solana’s high-throughput architecture has made it a preferred environment for fast-moving token launches. Any legal challenge that connects launch mechanics, validator behavior, and transaction ordering can therefore attract scrutiny well beyond a single platform.
What the ruling does — and does not — mean
It is important to distinguish between a procedural ruling and a final legal conclusion. Judge McMahon’s order does not mean the court has found Pump.fun, Solana Labs, the Solana Foundation, Jito Labs, or any named executive liable for misconduct. Instead, the ruling means plaintiffs will be allowed to formally incorporate new evidence and refined legal arguments into the case.
That distinction matters in crypto litigation, where early procedural victories are often interpreted online as decisive outcomes. In reality, the next phase of the case will depend on how the amended complaint is framed, how defendants respond, and whether the court concludes that the allegations are legally sufficient to survive dismissal.
Next steps in court
Under the court’s schedule, plaintiffs must file the Second Amended Complaint by Dec. 19, 2025. Defendants’ motions to dismiss are due by Jan. 23, 2026, and reply briefs are expected in February 2026. Those deadlines set up the next major stage of the litigation, where the court will evaluate whether the newly expanded allegations can continue moving forward.
Because discovery has not yet started, the case remains in a relatively early posture despite the attention it has received. If the claims survive dismissal, the litigation could move into document discovery and potentially expose more details about internal communications, platform operations, launch practices, and ecosystem relationships relevant to token distribution and execution priority.
Why the case matters for Solana and memecoin markets
The lawsuit has sparked wide discussion on social media, with some commentators framing it as a major challenge to confidence in Solana-linked launch activity. Others within the Solana community have pushed back, arguing that the allegations are directed at the practices of a specific memecoin launchpad and should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of a structural failure in the blockchain itself.
Supporters of that view also note that transaction-ordering disputes, MEV-style behavior, and concerns over execution fairness are not unique to Solana. Similar debates have appeared across permissionless blockchain networks, including Ethereum, without necessarily proving systemic collapse or legal invalidity at the protocol level.
Still, the case could become important for a different reason: it sits at the intersection of token launch design, infrastructure advantages, investor protection, and market fairness. If the court eventually engages deeply with claims around validator positioning and transaction-ordering tools, the litigation may influence how future disputes are framed across crypto markets, especially where retail traders participate in highly volatile launch environments.
For now, the takeaway is narrower but still meaningful. Plaintiffs have won the right to expand their complaint using newly obtained evidence, and the defendants now face a more detailed case than before. Whether those claims survive the next round of motions remains the key question for the months ahead.