COURT REJECTS BID TO CENTRALIZE CRYPTO TOKEN SUITS
Three separate suits against Anthony Motto and his crypto token now face different judges after a federal panel refused to combine them. The move leaves the cases scattered across Illinois, California, and Pennsylvania, forcing Motto’s defense to fight on three fronts at once.
The litigation began when buyers in each district claimed Motto’s token was sold as an unregistered security. Each complaint recites the same facts—token launch, aggressive social-media marketing, and rapid price collapse—yet the buyers filed in their home courts rather than one forum. Motto asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to centralize the actions in Chicago, arguing overlapping discovery and common legal questions. The Panel denied the request in a short order signed by Chair Sarah S. Vance, finding that the number of cases was too small and the factual overlap insufficient to justify the administrative burden of transfer.
With the cases now proceeding independently, each court will set its own schedule, entertain its own motions to dismiss, and potentially reach different conclusions on whether the token meets the Howey test. Plaintiffs gain the tactical advantage of keeping Motto’s counsel stretched thin, while defendants lose the efficiency of a single discovery record. For exchanges and market makers holding the token, the splintered litigation raises the specter of inconsistent rulings on secondary-market liability and could chill liquidity if judges issue conflicting asset-freeze orders.
The decision underscores how early-stage crypto enforcement remains fragmented: the SEC’s nationwide theories collide with a judicial system built for local disputes. Traders should watch each docket for the first ruling on the token’s status; whichever court moves fastest may set de-facto precedent that ripples through DeFi liquidity pools and CEX listings long before any appeal reaches a circuit court.