RTB Digital, Inc.
For the period ended Mar 31, 2025. Filed May 20, 2025.
View on SEC.govAbout this filing
A company's report for each of its first three quarters. The financial statements are not audited. It shows how the business has moved since the last annual report, and what management says changed.
Mar 31, 2025 · Filed May 20, 2025
RTB$5.78-5.5%Stored close · as of Nov 10, 2026
Extracted filing text, with the paragraph anchors used by the comparison.
See the whole filing, with its images and exhibitsContents
Legal Proceedings
From time-to-time, the Company is involved in legal proceedings. The following is a summary of our current outstanding litigation. Note that references to GreenBox POS are for historical purposes. GreenBox POS changed its name to RYVYL Inc. on October 13, 2022.
| ● | On November 8, 2022, the Company filed a complaint against its former Chief Operating Officer Vanessa Luna, Luna Consultant Group, LLC and Does 1 through 50 in San Diego Superior Court (the “Company Filing”). The Company alleged that Ms. Luna abused her position for additional compensation, failed to follow proper protocols and breached her fiduciary duties and duty of loyalty by secretly maintaining alternative employment. The action sought damages, including interest and costs of suit incurred. On November 10, 2022, Ms. Luna filed her own complaint against the Company and Fredi Nisan in San Diego Superior Court (the “Luna Filing”). Ms. Luna alleged that Mr. Nisan used contract negotiations to coerce her, that the Company improperly coded transactions and misled investors, and that when her concerns were reported to management, she was wrongfully terminated, resulting in a number of claims. Ms. Luna also alleged sexual misconduct on the part of Mr. Nisan. Ms. Luna sought damages including compensatory damages, unpaid wages (past and future), loss of wages and benefits (past and future), and other damages to be proven at trial. The Company and Mr. Nisan deny all allegations of the Luna Filing. In April 2023, Ms. Luna sought and was granted permission to add Coyni, Inc. as a defendant with regard to her claims. In addition, in August 2024, the Company and Mr. Nisan were granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add additional claims against Ms. Luna, including securities fraud. After vigorously defending against all claims asserted by Ms. Luna and vigorously prosecuting its own claims against Ms. Luna, on October 17, 2024, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement. On February 4, 2025, the parties filed with the San Diego Superior Court Requests for Dismissal, dismissing their respective cases with prejudice. The request was rejected and resubmitted on April 29, 2025. |
| ● | On December 12, 2022, Jacqueline Dollar (aka Jacqueline Reynolds), former Chief Marketing Officer of the Company, filed a complaint against the Company, Fredi Nisan, and Does 1-20 in San Diego Superior Court. Ms. Dollar is alleging she was undercompensated compared to her male counterparts and retaliated against after raising concerns to management resulting in sex discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA. Ms. Dollar is also claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress. Ms. Dollar is seeking an unspecified amount of damages related to, among other things, payment of past and future lost wages, stock issuances, bonuses and benefits, compensatory damages, and general, economic, non-economic, and special damages. As the Company cannot predict the outcome of the matter, the probability of an outcome cannot be determined. The Company intends to vigorously defend against all claims. The parties are currently in the discovery phase. |
| ● | Since December 2022, the Company has been cooperating with an ongoing investigation by the SEC regarding possible violations of the federal securities laws, which in its course has included a review of the Company’s blockchain technology and first-generation product, known as QuickCard. During the investigation, the Staff of the SEC shared its concerns regarding certain disclosures in the Company’s Form S-1 filed on December 23, 2020 (“2020 S-1”), as well as subsequent periodic reports. The disclosures at issue primarily concerned the Company’s description of its use of blockchain technology and QuickCard processing for cannabis merchants. None of the disclosures impacted our previously reported revenues, expenses, earnings, cash balances, or other financial measures. Based on our review of the facts and circumstances, the Company has determined to provide the following additional disclosures. |
| The Company has been discussing with the Staff of the SEC the possibility of reaching a settlement of potential charges arising from the investigation. We have been informed that, provided the Company makes a sufficient disclosure addressing the concerns regarding the Company’s 2020 S-1 and subsequent reporting, the Staff will recommend that no civil monetary penalties be imposed on the Company. See Item 2, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Recent Developments, of this Report for management’s disclosures in response to the SEC’s concerns. | |
| ● | On February 1, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit titled Cullen v. RYVYL Inc. fka GreenBox POS, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00185-GPC-AGS, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against several defendants, including the Company and certain of our current and former directors and officers (the “Cullen Defendants”). The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s publicly traded securities between January 29, 2021 and January 20, 2023. The complaint alleged that the Cullen Defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company’s financial controls, performance and prospects. On June 30, 2023, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 1, 2024, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motions to dismiss, which included dismissing all Securities Act claims and narrowing the potential class period. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on April 30, 2024, which alleges claims against the Cullen Defendants under Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) only and a class period of May 13, 2021 through January 20, 2023. The Company filed its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on July 1, 2024. On October 21, 2024, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants’ motions to dismiss. The scope of the remaining claims is consistent with the Court’s last motion to dismiss decision dated March 1, 2024. On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint, which asserts the same legal causes of action and proposed class period as the previous complaint. On February 28, 2025, the Parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) that reflects their agreement in principle to settle the claims asserted in this class action. Lead Plaintiff has begun the process of drafting the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and exhibits thereto, which, after negotiation and execution by the Parties, will be filed with the Court in connection with Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Parties intend to move for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement as soon as practicable after the final settlement agreement is executed. There is no assurance, however, that the settlement will be completed and/or that the Court will approve it. The Cullen Defendants continue to deny any and all liability and allegations set forth in the pending Third Amended Complaint. |
| ● | On June 22, 2023, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against certain of the Company’s current and/or former officers and directors (the “Hertel Defendants”), Christy Hertel, derivatively on behalf of RYVYL Inc., f/k/a GreenBox POS v. Ben Errez et al., Case No. 3:23-CV-01165-GPC-SBC. On August 4, 2023, a second shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the Hertel Defendants, Marcus Gazaway, derivatively on behalf of RYVYL Inc., f/k/a GreenBox POS v. Ben Errez et al., Case No. 3:23-CV-01425-LAB-BLM. Both derivative complaints generally allege that the Hertel Defendants failed to implement adequate internal controls that would prevent false and misleading financial information from being published by the Company and that controlling shareholders participated in overpayment misconduct resulting in violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20 of the Exchange Act and breached their fiduciary duties and, purportedly on behalf of the Company. On April 2, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion for an order consolidating the Hertel and Gazaway cases under the caption In re RYVYL Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:23-CV-01165-GPC-SBC (S.D. Cal.). On May 6, 2024, the Court issued an order staying the action until after the final resolution of any motion to dismiss the securities class action detailed above. On May 1, 2024, a third nearly identical shareholder derivative complaint was filed in Clark County, Nevada by plaintiff Christina Brown, derivatively on behalf of RYVYL, Inc., v. Ben Errez et al., Case No. A-24-892382-C. The Complaints seeks damages and contribution from the Hertel Defendants and a direction that the Company and the Hertel Defendants take actions to reform and improve corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws. The Hertel Defendants deny all allegations of liability and intend to vigorously defend against all claims. On May 8, 2025, all parties reached an agreement in principle to fully resolve and settle all claims alleged in the lawsuits. The pending settlement is subject to documentation by the parties and approval by the District Court. However, unless and until the settlement is approved, and given the uncertainty of litigation and the legal standards that must be met for success on the merits, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the cases at this time. |
| ● | On October 1, 2023, the Company filed a demand for arbitration against Sky Financial with the American Arbitration Association in San Diego, California (the “Arbitration”). In the Arbitration, the Company seeks to recover for breach of contract and Sky Financial’s failure to perform its obligations On October 2, 2023, the Company filed a complaint against Sky Financial in San Diego Superior Court asserting the same claims asserted in the Arbitration, solely to toll any applicable statutes of limitations pending the Arbitration and, if necessary, provide jurisdiction for the court to compel arbitration. The action seeks damages, including interest and costs of suit incurred. The parties agreed to proceed in the Arbitration and to implement the steps needed to extend the current stay of the San Diego Superior Court action pending the Arbitration. Subsequently, the parties agreed to stay the Arbitration and attend mediation. A mediation was scheduled but then vacated by stipulation of the parties. The stay of the Arbitration has been lifted. A new third arbitrator was recently selected to the panel to replace an arbitrator who withdrew for personal reasons. The parties await the scheduling of a status conference to set dates. |
| ● | On June 25, 2024, J. Drew Byelick, a former Chief Financial Officer of the Company, filed a complaint against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. ’24CV1096 JLS MSB. Mr. Byelick alleged breach of contract, fraudulent inducement of employment, along with intentional misrepresentation and concealment. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and for other violations of the federal rules of civil procedure. The Court granted that motion on December 20, 2024, but permitted Mr. Byelick to file an amended complaint. Mr. Byelick filed his first amended complaint on January 19, 2025, asserting the same core claims. The Company moved to dismiss the first amended complaint for similar reasons as its motion to dismiss the original complaint. The Court granted that motion, in part, on April 18, 2025, ruling that Mr. Byelick was incapable of pleading certain claims (and dismissing those claims) but adequately pled others for purposes of a motion to dismiss only. The Company denies all allegations of liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims. However, given the preliminary stage of the lawsuit, the uncertainty of litigation, and the legal standards that must be met for success on the merits, the Company cannot predict the outcome at this time or estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action. |
The text of this filing, as the company filed it with the SEC, without its images or exhibits. This is not investment advice.