Bitcoin Policy Institute Intervenes in $293B Wallet Suit

The Bitcoin Policy Institute filed to intervene as a defendant on July 10 in a New York County suit that seeks legal title to 39,069 bitcoin addresses, a group plaintiffs value at about $293 billion. A hearing before Justice Kathy J. King is scheduled for July 14 at 10:30 a.m. at 60 Centre Street.

In a sworn affirmation, Conner Brown, BPI’s managing director, described a Long-Term Reserve in the organization’s treasury held in self-custody with no plans to move the coins for years. Brown wrote that the reserve “has the same features as the so-called ‘Abandoned Wallets’” named in the complaint and warned that a ruling granting title to the plaintiffs could pressure holders who keep bitcoin in self-custody to use third-party custodians.

BPI filed a proposed answer along with its intervention motion that denies nearly every substantive allegation in the amended complaint and asserts 15 affirmative defenses. Those defenses include arguments that bitcoin addresses are not “property” under New York Personal Property Law, that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over anonymous, global wallet holders, and that the lead plaintiff identified as Noah Doe did not become a lawful “finder” merely by providing a list of public addresses to police. Counsel from White & Case, including Rachel Rodman and Prat Vallabhaneni, asked the court for permission to file a motion to dismiss before submitting a formal answer.

BPI confirmed the intervention on X and said it would post updates as the case proceeds. The filing appears in the case captioned ABC Company, XYZ Company, and Noah Doe v. John Does 1-39,069, Index No. 153119/2026.

Plaintiffs’ counsel separately asked the court on July 7 to deny attorney Ian Cohen leave to file an amicus brief and to lift the stay his filing triggered. The plaintiffs argued the thirty-five-page submission relies on policy arguments rather than legal authority, cites a limited number of judicial decisions, and includes exhibits the plaintiffs described as evidence of promotional activity. They also asked the court to strike an opposition brief Cohen filed on June 19 without permission.

Other parties have entered appearances. The Digital Chamber, a digital-asset trade group, filed a notice of appearance on July 9 through attorney Stephen D. Palley. A pseudonymous wallet holder identifying as John Doe 33 filed the first motion to dismiss on June 30.

On-chain activity has affected the case: several wallets named in the complaint moved bitcoin after the lawsuit drew public attention, including a 500 BTC transfer on July 2.

At the July 14 hearing Justice King is expected to consider BPI’s intervention request, the motion over Cohen’s amicus application and the related stay, and John Doe 33’s motion to dismiss. The hearing will not resolve the plaintiffs’ underlying declaratory judgment claim but will determine which parties may participate as the litigation proceeds.