Judge Grants Plaintiffs’ Motion To Include New Evidence in Pumpfun Lawsuit

A US court is once again being asked to weigh in on maximal extractable value (MEV) practices after a judge allowed new evidence to be added to a class-action lawsuit tied to a memecoin platform.

The judge granted a motion to amend and refile a class-action lawsuit to include new evidence against memecoin launch platform Pump.fun, MEV infrastructure firm Jito Labs, Solana Labs, the Solana Foundation and others.

The motion said over 5,000 pieces of evidence in the form of internal chat logs were submitted by a “confidential informant” in September that were previously unavailable. The filing said:

The lawsuit, originally filed in July, alleges that the Pump.fun platform deliberately misled retail investors by marketing memecoin launches as “fair,” but engaged in a scheme with Solana validators to front-run retail participants through maximal extractable value (MEV).

Maximal extractable value is a technique that involves reordering transactions within a block to maximize profit for MEV arbitrageurs and validators. 

The plaintiffs allege that Pump.fun used MEV techniques to give insiders preferential access to new tokens at a low value, which were then pumped and dumped onto retail participants, who were used as exit liquidity by insiders.

Cointelegraph reached out to Burwick Law, the legal firm representing the plaintiffs, as well as Pump.fun, Jito Labs and the Solana Foundation, but did not receive any responses by the time of publication.

The lawsuit could set a precedent for MEV cases in the United States, as the ethics of the practice continue to be debated within the crypto industry and legal bodies struggle to define proper regulations about the highly technical subject.

Related: Pump.fun co-founder denies $436M cash out, claims it was ‘treasury management’

The MEV bot trial leaves questions unanswered

Anton and James Peraire-Bueno, the brothers accused of using a MEV trading bot to make millions of dollars in profit, went to trial in November in the US.

Prosecutors argued that the brothers tricked victims out of their funds, but defense attorneys said that they were executing a legitimate trading strategy and did not do anything illegal.

The jury struggled to reach a verdict in the case, and several jurors requested additional information to clarify the complexities surrounding the technical specifics of blockchain technology.

The case ended in a mistrial after the jury was deadlocked and failed to reach a verdict, highlighting the complexity of adjudicating legal disputes surrounding the application of nascent financial technology.

Magazine: Meet the onchain crypto detectives fighting crime better than the cops