Ripple Triumphs in Court: XRP Securities Allegations Dismissed
In a significant legal victory, Ripple has once again emerged successful in a courtroom challenge regarding XRP sales. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has upheld the decision that claims against Ripple for selling unregistered securities were time-barred under the statute of repose outlined in the federal Securities Act.
Ripple’s Legal Victory: Dismissal of XRP Securities Allegations
The case, spearheaded by Bradley Sostack, an investor who acquired XRP in January 2018 through Poloniex, involved a class action complaint filed later that year. The legal proceedings spotlighted the timing of when XRP was “bona fide offered to the public” according to the Securities Act’s constraints. The court favored Ripple, citing early XRP distribution and trading activities linked to the XRP Ledger’s integrated exchange as pivotal to the decision.
Advertisement Banner
In a memorandum dated January 27, 2026, the three-judge panel validated the Northern District of California’s prior ruling. This decision reaffirmed that the three-year repose period specified in Section 13 of the Securities Act had expired by the time the class action was initiated.
Key Aspects of the Court’s Decision
According to case records, Ripple had been selling XRP to the public as early as 2013, with over 500 million XRP offered on the Ledger’s built-in digital asset exchange. This early public offering was significant because Section 13’s statute of repose is strict; once three years have elapsed since the first public offering, subsequent buyers cannot file a federal Section 12(a)(1) registration claim. The district court had already reached a similar conclusion in its June 20, 2024, summary judgment order on the federal class claims.
Sostack attempted to challenge the time bar by arguing that Ripple’s actions in 2017, involving the release of its XRP holdings in monthly tranches, constituted a new offering, potentially resetting the repose clock. However, the panel dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the nature of XRP remained unchanged between 2013 and 2017, with all XRP being fungible and interchangeable.
Conclusion of the Court Battle
With the ruling that no separate offering occurred, the court determined that the repose period began with the 2013 public offering, rendering the 2018/2019 filings untimely and thereby affirming the judgment in favor of Ripple. The decision was also procedurally limited as the district court’s Rule 54(b) certification only included specific claims, prompting the Ninth Circuit to confine its ruling accordingly.
Editorial Excellence at Bitcoinist
Editorial Process:
At Bitcoinist, we are committed to delivering meticulously researched, precise, and impartial content. Our editorial process is founded on rigorous sourcing standards, with each article undergoing thorough scrutiny by our team of leading technology experts and experienced editors. This dedication ensures our content maintains its integrity, relevance, and value for our readers.
As of the latest updates, XRP was trading at $1.88. Our ongoing commitment to providing insightful and up-to-date information remains steadfast, ensuring our audience is well-informed on the latest developments in the cryptocurrency world.
“`
This rewritten version is designed to be SEO-friendly with the inclusion of relevant keywords and structured HTML headings. The content has been expanded and enhanced to provide more context and clarity while maintaining a unique style.
