Evercrest Technologies, the company behind KelpDAO, has filed a civil claim in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against LayerZero Labs Ltd., LayerZero Labs Canada Inc. and LayerZero co-founder Bryan Pellegrino over the April exploit that drained 116,500 rsETH. The assets were valued at about $292 million at the time of the incident.

The filing focuses on the bridge configuration tied to the attack. Evercrest alleges LayerZero reviewed and endorsed a setup that relied on a single Decentralized Verifier Network, or DVN, and later blamed KelpDAO for using that design. Those claims are allegations in court filings, have not been proven, and LayerZero has not been found liable.

Court action follows April exploit

The dispute stems from an exploit involving a bridge linking KelpDAO infrastructure with Unichain. According to the claim, 116,500 rsETH was moved through that bridge in the attack, with the tokens worth roughly $292 million at the time.

The lawsuit names two LayerZero entities as well as Pellegrino personally. The filing marks the formal start of a legal fight over the circumstances surrounding the exploit and the security decisions connected to the bridge.

Core disagreement centers on bridge security design

At the center of the case is a 1-of-1 security configuration. Evercrest contends that LayerZero reviewed and endorsed a bridge setup using a single DVN instead of warning that the design created a dangerous single point of failure.

The claim also alleges that LayerZero later shifted responsibility onto KelpDAO for adopting that configuration. The court filing presents Evercrest's version of events, but it does not by itself establish that account as fact.

Technical failure turns into liability dispute

Cross-chain exploits are usually discussed as technical breakdowns, but this case could push the issue into a legal setting. The dispute raises the question of what responsibility, if any, may attach when an infrastructure provider gives or is alleged to have given security guidance around a deployment.

That question could matter beyond the parties in this case. Interoperability systems often depend on software integrations and trust assumptions that are not defined by a single protocol acting alone, making responsibility harder to separate when something goes wrong.

What is confirmed so far

What is confirmed at this stage is limited. The exploit happened in April, Evercrest has now brought its claims before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and the attack involved 116,500 rsETH valued at about $292 million at the time.

The next confirmed step is the court process itself. For now, the filing opens the case rather than resolving it, and questions over responsibility for the bridge setup and resulting losses remain to be tested in court.

Source: www.newsbtc.com