Overview
- The appeals court issued a not-for-publication memorandum on January 27, 2026, upholding a June 2024 Northern District of California ruling.
- The panel rejected the argument that Ripple’s 2017 monthly XRP releases were a separate offering that could restart the filing window.
- Record evidence cited early public availability of XRP and sales exceeding 500 million tokens on the XRP Ledger’s built-in exchange in 2013.
- The ruling was procedurally narrow due to Rule 54(b) certification and did not decide whether XRP is or is not a security.
- Lead plaintiff Bradley Sostack bought XRP in January 2018 and sued later that year, but the court found the federal class claims barred under Section 13’s statute of repose.