World Liberty Financial CEO Zach Witkoff publicly disputed TRON founder Justin Sun’s statement that Sun secured a partial procedural victory in their ongoing legal battle. Witkoff said on X that the court had not issued a ruling on the day Sun celebrated a purported win. He explained that the court agreed with WLFI’s position that multiple claims brought by Sun-owned companies are subject to arbitration, adding that Sun’s own lawyers acknowledged those claims were not matters for the court.
Sun described the outcome as a “major victory” because his individual claims were not sent to arbitration. According to Sun, U.S. District Judge James Donato ruled that his personal claims would remain in public court. Witkoff countered that WLFI had never argued those personal claims should be arbitrated; instead, WLFI asked the court to dismiss all of them, and the court has not yet ruled on that request.
The dispute traces back to Sun’s $45 million investment in WLFI’s early token sales. Sun alleges World Liberty Financial used administrative controls in the WLFI smart contract to freeze his tokens and restrict his governance rights, calling the controls an undisclosed “backdoor.” World Liberty denies wrongdoing and says its token sale documents authorized restrictions under certain circumstances. The company has accused Sun-linked entities of violating the applicable terms through token transfers and other alleged conduct.
Court records show World Liberty filed a motion in June seeking to compel arbitration and pause the federal case. Sun’s companies Blue Anthem Ltd. and Black Anthem Ltd. joined as plaintiffs when the case was filed on April 21. Following the Aug. 20 hearing, the judge reportedly directed both sides to negotiate which company claims belong in federal court and which may move to private arbitration. The publicly accessible docket had not displayed a written order reflecting the hearing when reviewed.
Witkoff also claimed Sun is avoiding service of a defamation complaint WLFI filed in Florida. Sun has called that case “a meritless PR stunt.” Neither court has issued a final ruling on the fraud, defamation or breach-of-agreement allegations. The procedural outcome does not establish wrongdoing or award damages, and the parties must now complete court-ordered discussions over the company claims.
