Pump Fun Hires Top Lawyers to Defend Against Burwick Lawsuit: Legal Battle Insights

Pump Fun, the buzzing Solana-based memecoin platform, is gearing up for a fierce legal battle against Burwick Law’s class-action lawsuit. By hiring top-tier lawyers from Brown Rudnick, Pump Fun is signaling it’s ready to fight tooth and nail to defend its reputation and operations. Here’s a breakdown of this high-stakes crypto courtroom drama, from the legal heavyweights involved to the allegations shaking the memecoin world.

Want to trade crypto? Head over to Bitrue and explore your options today!

Pump Fun’s Legal Dream Team

To tackle Burwick Law’s accusations, Pump Fun’s parent company, Baton Corporation, has enlisted a powerhouse trio from Brown Rudnick: Daniel L. Sachs, Kyle P. Dorso, and Stephen D. Palley. These legal eagles bring serious credentials to the table.

• Daniel L. Sachs: A “white collar” defense expert, Sachs previously served as counsel for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), leading securities fraud probes. 

• Kyle P. Dorso: A commercial litigator with a knack for crypto disputes, Dorso helped Atomic Wallet dodge a $100 million hack-related lawsuit.

• Stephen D. Palley: As chair of Brown Rudnick’s Digital Commerce Group, Palley is a seasoned pro in crypto and insurance litigation. 

This trio’s expertise in crypto, securities, and high-stakes litigation positions Pump Fun to mount a robust defense against Burwick Law’s claims.

Why Brown Rudnick?

Brown Rudnick, a globally recognized law firm, is known for tackling “bet the company” disputes with creative, cutting-edge strategies. With a track record of success in litigation, bankruptcy, and digital commerce, the firm has represented big names like Johnny Depp and Gloria Trevi, proving it can handle high-pressure cases. Pump Fun’s choice of Brown Rudnick underscores its determination to fight back hard.

Read more: PLUSHIFY Coin Surges on Pump.fun: What Is This New Memecoin All About?

Burwick Law’s Allegations Against Pump Fun

The “Pump and Dump” Accusation

Burwick Law, led by founder Max Burwick and joined by Wolf Popper, is suing Pump Fun on behalf of investors like Kendall Carnahan and Diego Aguilar. The lawsuit claims Pump Fun operates a “pump and dump” scheme, raking in nearly $500 million in fees by selling “highly volatile unregistered securities” disguised as memecoins. 

These tokens, including Peanut the Squirrel (PNUT) and others like Fwog and Griffain, allegedly surge in price due to manipulative marketing before crashing, leaving investors with heavy losses.

Compliance Concerns

The suit also accuses Pump Fun of lacking proper compliance measures, potentially enabling serious crimes like terrorist financing and drug trafficking. Burwick Law argues that Pump Fun’s platform, which allows users to create and trade memecoins in minutes, rigs the odds against everyday investors while profiting massively.

Personal Attacks and IP Violations

The legal feud has taken a darker turn. Burwick claims Pump Fun allowed tokens like “Dog Shit Going NoWhere” (DOGSHIT2) and others targeting his family, including his cognitively disabled sister, to harass and intimidate him. 

A cease-and-desist letter demanded the removal of over 200 tokens infringing on Burwick Law’s intellectual property, accusing Pump Fun of refusing to act despite the legal risks.

Read more: How to Promote My Choda Chodi Meme Coin? Lessons from Pump.Fun

Pump Fun’s Scramble to Lawyer Up

When Burwick Law served Pump Fun’s creators, Alon Cohen, Dylan Kerler, and Noah Bernhard Hugo Tweedale, they were unprepared, lacking a legal team. They secured Brown Rudnick’s representation on April 7, 2025, just one day before the deadline to respond, forcing them to request an extension. This late start put Pump Fun on the back foot, but their new legal lineup suggests they’re now ready to fight.

Social Media Backlash

The lawsuit’s timing raised eyebrows, as Burwick Law promoted its case on the same day Pump Fun’s X account was mysteriously suspended in early 2025. This sparked backlash from Pump Fun’s fans, who accused Burwick of opportunism. Despite the criticism, Burwick Law remains undeterred, representing over 500 investors seeking compensation.

Read more: Is Pump.Fun Banned? Looking at Its Twitter Account

The Road Ahead

The lawsuit, filed in a New York federal court, is still in its infancy, with no trial date set. Burwick Law is pushing for a jury trial, seeking to rescind token purchases, secure monetary damages, and cover litigation costs for affected investors. Meanwhile, Pump Fun’s legal team is likely preparing to challenge the “pump and dump” and securities claims, leveraging their crypto and regulatory expertise.

Conclusion

The Pump Fun vs. Burwick Law legal battle is shaping up to be a blockbuster in the crypto world. With Brown Rudnick’s elite lawyers in Pump Fun’s corner and Burwick Law’s aggressive pursuit of justice for investors, both sides are locked and loaded for a fierce fight. As allegations of fraud, manipulation, and harassment fly, this case could redefine accountability in the memecoin space. Keep your eyes peeled, this courtroom drama is just getting started, and its ripples could shake the entire DeFi landscape.

FAQ

Q1: Why did Pump Fun hire Brown Rudnick?

A1: To go head-to-head with Burwick Law, Pump Fun brought in legal giants from Brown Rudnick, experts in crypto, securities, and high-stakes litigation.

Q2: What is Burwick Law accusing Pump Fun of?

A2: They claim Pump Fun ran a $500M pump-and-dump scam, sold unregistered securities, and failed to stop IP violations and user harassment.

Q3: What’s at stake for the crypto industry in this case?

A3: Everything. This trial could decide how memecoin platforms are regulated and whether DeFi needs tighter compliance controls.

Bitrue Official Website: 

Website: https://www.bitrue.com/

Sign Up: https://www.bitrue.com/user/register

Disclaimer: The views expressed belong exclusively to the author and do not reflect the views of this platform. This platform and its affiliates disclaim any responsibility for the accuracy or suitability of the information provided. It is for informational purposes only and not intended as financial or investment advice.