In the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Andrew Samuels alleges for a putative class of LDO purchasers that Lido DAO sold unregistered securities. The court held in 2024 that the DAO is plausibly a general partnership whose venture backers could be liable, and discovery closed in May 2026. Summary-judgment oppositions are due September 24, 2026, and the hearing is set for November 19, 2026.
Latest development May 15, 2026
On May 15, 2026, expert discovery closed under the case schedule, completing discovery. Summary-judgment motions were due August 6, and oppositions are due September 24, 2026. The court has set the hearing on dispositive motions for November 19, 2026.
Why it matters
The case tests whether a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), and the venture funds active in its governance, can bear unlimited general-partnership liability. The answer affects DAOs with U.S. ties that lack a liability wrapper and funds that take part in DAO governance.
Background
Andrew Samuels bought LDO governance tokens on Gemini in April–May 2023 and sold them at a loss. In December 2023, he filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that LDO is an unregistered security. He sued not a corporation but Lido DAO itself, along with venture backers Paradigm, Andreessen Horowitz, and Dragonfly.
In an order dated November 18, 2024, Judge Vince Chhabria denied dismissal as to Lido DAO, Paradigm, Andreessen Horowitz, and Dragonfly. He held that Samuels plausibly alleged Lido DAO is a general partnership under California law, an entity run by people rather than autonomous software. The court held that the three funds, as active participants in governance, could be liable as general partners. It dismissed Robot Ventures, against which the allegations were thinner. The court also read Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act to reach solicited secondary-market purchases on exchanges.
A stipulated schedule entered in January 2025 set class-certification briefing through late 2025. Fact discovery closed on February 26, 2026, and expert discovery closed on May 15, 2026.
Summary-judgment motions were due August 6, 2026, and oppositions are due September 24, 2026. The court has set a hearing on dispositive motions for November 19, 2026, in San Francisco. At that stage, the partnership-liability theory will be tested on the evidentiary record for the first time.
Timeline 4 events
-
OrderFact and expert discovery close
Fact discovery closed February 26 and expert discovery May 15, 2026, moving the case to summary-judgment briefing due August 6, 2026.
-
OrderCase schedule set through dispositive motions
The stipulated schedule set class-certification briefing for late 2025, discovery cutoffs in early 2026, and a summary-judgment hearing for November 19, 2026.
-
JudgmentCourt holds Lido DAO is plausibly a California general partnership
The court denied dismissal for the DAO, Paradigm, Andreessen Horowitz, and Dragonfly as alleged general partners. It dismissed Robot Ventures and held that Section 12(a)(1) reaches solicited secondary-market purchases.
-
FilingSamuels files class action over LDO token sales
Samuels, who bought LDO on Gemini in April–May 2023, alleged that the token is an unregistered security and sued the DAO and its major venture backers.
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will the court resolve summary judgment on the claims against Paradigm, Andreessen Horowitz, and Dragonfly by June 30, 2027?
- Court grants funds summary judgment31%
- Split ruling on the funds’ motions22%
- Still pending on June 30, 202718%
- Court denies funds’ motions16%
- Samuels settles with the funds13%
- Resolves by
- Jun 30, 2027in 8 months
- Record confidence
- Low
The most likely single result is summary judgment for the three venture funds, at 31%, by June 30, 2027. Proof that each fund solicited class purchases on exchanges and ran the DAO as a partner is a heavier burden on a full record than at the pleading stage. Split and adverse rulings together remain more likely than a clean defense win.
How it resolves. Resolves on the first qualifying public docket event by June 30, 2027. “Funds win” if the court grants summary judgment ending all claims against all three funds. “Motions denied” if the court denies the funds’ motions in full, leaving all three facing claims. “Split ruling” if the court grants summary judgment for some funds or on some claims but not others. “Settlement” if a settlement with, or a stipulated dismissal of, all three funds is publicly filed or announced before any ruling. A proposed settlement counts, whether or not approved. “Still pending” if none of these has occurred by June 30, 2027.
Reasoning
Starting point. Defense summary-judgment motions in federal securities class actions that survived a motion to dismiss: Roughly 30–40% of such motions are granted in full and about 20% in part. Many cases settle before a ruling.
Defense summary-judgment motions in securities class actions that survive dismissal are granted in full perhaps 30–40% of the time, and in part about 20% of the time. The November 18, 2024, order sustained the partnership and secondary-market theories only as plausibly pleaded, so the full evidentiary record now controls. Section 12(a)(1) requires proof that each defendant was a statutory seller that solicited the purchase, which is fact-intensive and may differ by fund. That fund-by-fund variation makes a split ruling a strong second outcome. Governance participation may raise genuine factual disputes, which supports a denial that would send the partnership claims toward trial. Settlement pressure is real because each fund faces precedent risk from an adverse partnership ruling. However, the record shows no mediation or class-certification ruling, and funds often litigate to obtain favorable precedent. The hearing is set for November 19, 2026, and rulings often issue within a few months, but complex motions can slip past mid-2027.
Evidence each fund solicited class members’ exchange purchases · Proof of fund governance control supporting partnership liability · Fund-by-fund differences favoring a split ruling · Precedent risk pushing funds toward settlement or a full ruling · Unrecorded class-certification status and timing of the ruling
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Sep 24, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made