XRP continues to demonstrate resilience as regulatory clarity around long-running legal disputes involving Ripple Labs improves. The latest development addresses investor claims tied to XRP transactions and statutory deadlines, according to a memorandum by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Jan. 27, 2026. The ruling reinforces legal certainty around early XRP distributions.

The appeal was filed by lead plaintiff Bradley Sostack, who acted on behalf of himself and proposed federal and California state securities classes after purchasing XRP in January 2018 on the Poloniex cryptocurrency exchange. Sostack pursued claims against Ripple Labs Inc., XRP II LLC, and Ripple chief executive Brad Garlinghouse, alleging violations of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 for the sale of unregistered securities. The class action originated in 2018, followed by Sostack’s appointment as lead plaintiff in 2019 and the filing of a consolidated and amended complaint.

In reviewing the district court’s summary judgment order, the Ninth Circuit focused on whether those federal claims were brought within the act’s three-year statute of repose. After analyzing the undisputed record on when XRP was first made available to the public, the panel concluded:

“His federal securities claims are time-barred, and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees.”

The court explained that the statute of repose operates as an absolute cutoff, designed to provide certainty and finality by preventing claims from being revived based on later conduct or evolving market conditions.

Read more: It’s Happening: Ripple Says XRP Is the Heartbeat of the Internet of Value

The memorandum expanded on the factual and legal reasons Sostack’s arguments failed. The judges reviewed evidence showing that the XRP Ledger launched publicly around 2012 and that Ripple sold hundreds of millions of XRP through the ledger’s built-in exchange, activity the panel determined qualified as bona fide public offerings under securities law.

In rejecting claims that Ripple’s escrow program and monthly releases beginning in 2017 amounted to a new offering, the court filing details:

“Because no material issue of fact was raised that the 2017 offering of XRP was a separate offering, the three-year statute of repose began to run when XRP was first offered to the public in 2013.”

The panel further underscored that timing alone defeated the case, noting, “The original complaint was not filed until 2018, and Sostack did not file his complaint until 2019.” It also dismissed attempts to rely on integration tests or broader economic reality theories, warning that such approaches would undermine the predictability statutes of repose are meant to ensure. By limiting its decision to the federal claims certified under Rule 54(b), the court left related state-law claims outside the appeal, while the ruling strengthens market confidence by affirming that early, transparent token distributions carry lasting legal significance.

• Why did the Ninth Circuit reject the XRP investor claims?
  The court ruled the claims were time-barred under the Securities Act’s three-year statute of repose.
• When did the court determine XRP was first offered publicly?
  Judges found XRP was publicly available through the XRP Ledger around 2012.
• Did Ripple’s 2017 escrow releases reset the legal clock?
  The court said the escrow program did not constitute a new securities offering.
• What does the ruling mean for XRP’s regulatory outlook?
  It reinforces legal certainty for early XRP distributions and limits future federal claims.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。