Tron founder Justin Sun secured a partial procedural victory in his lawsuit against World Liberty Financial on Aug. 20, according to his account of a California federal court hearing.
Sun said U.S. District Judge James Donato ruled that his individual claims would remain in public court. The judge reportedly declined World Libertys request to send every company related claim to arbitration.
The court instead instructed both parties to negotiate which claims brought by Justin Suns companies should remain in court. Other claims could still move into private arbitration.
Court records confirm that World Liberty filed a motion in June seeking to compel arbitration and pause the federal case. The publicly accessible docket had not displayed a written order reflecting the Aug. 20 hearing when reviewed.
Justin Suns individual claims will remain public
“All of my individual claims will remain in open court,” Sun said in a statement following the hearing. He described the decision as a victory for public access to the dispute.
Today, my counsel appeared in California federal court to oppose World Liberty Financial's @worldlibertyfi efforts to force our dispute into secret arbitration proceedings and seal documents from public view.
We argued forcefully that this case belongs in open court—and the…
— H.E. Justin Sun ???????? ???? (@justinsuntron) August 20, 2026
Sun also said the judge rejected World Libertys argument that all claims involving his companies belonged in arbitration. Blue Anthem Ltd. and Black Anthem Ltd. joined Justin Sun as plaintiffs when the case was filed on April 21.
The ruling represents a partial procedural victory rather than a decision on Justin Suns allegations. It does not establish that World Liberty committed fraud, improperly seized tokens or breached an agreement. It also does not award Sun damages.
The parties must now complete the court ordered discussions over the company claims. The judge may need to intervene again if they cannot agree on which claims are covered by arbitration provisions.
The World Liberty lawsuit concerns frozen WLFI tokens
Sun invested $45 million in World Liberty during its early token sales, according to the complaint and reporting on the case. He later filed a federal lawsuit after his WLFI holdings were frozen.
The complaint alleges World Liberty used administrative controls in the WLFI smart contract to freeze Suns tokens and restrict his governance rights. Sun characterizes those controls as an undisclosed “backdoor” that permits the project to freeze, restrict or burn tokens.
Those assertions remain allegations. World Liberty denies wrongdoing and says its token sale documents authorized restrictions under certain circumstances. It has accused Sun linked entities of violating the applicable terms through token transfers and other alleged conduct.
World Liberty later responded with a defamation lawsuit in Florida. That complaint accuses Sun of spreading false statements and organizing a campaign intended to damage the company and WLFI token.
Sun disputes those accusations and has called the Florida case “a meritless PR stunt.” Neither court has issued a final ruling establishing the truth of the competing allegations.
What happens next in the World Liberty case
Sun and World Liberty must identify which claims belong in federal court and which may be subject to arbitration. Any agreement would likely be submitted to Judge Donato for approval or reflected in a later court filing.
If the parties disagree, they may submit competing positions for the judge to resolve. Justin Suns individual claims would continue before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under his description of the oral ruling.
Earlier docket entries show that briefing on World Libertys separate dismissal request was paused pending further direction. The court could issue a new schedule after resolving the arbitration question.
Keeping claims in federal court generally makes filings and hearings publicly accessible. However, either party may still request that specific documents or commercially sensitive information be sealed. The judge would decide whether those requests meet the applicable legal standard.
No trial date or damages award has been announced. The next verified development should come through a written court order, a joint filing explaining the parties agreement or further submissions addressing the unresolved company claims.