RYVYL Inc.
For the period ended Sep 30, 2025. Filed Nov 14, 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.
Sep 30, 2025 · Filed Nov 14, 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
ITEM 1. 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 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. |
| ● | As previously disclosed in the Company’s 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2025, as filed on May 20, 2025, since December 2022, the Company has been cooperating with an ongoing investigation by the SEC regarding possible violations of the federal securities laws. Following discussions with the Staff of the SEC, the Company made certain disclosures addressing the concerns regarding the Company’s 2020 S-1 filed on December 23, 2020 and subsequent reporting, which are contained in the Company’s 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2025 under Note 15, Commitments and Contingencies, Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Recent Developments, and under section Legal Proceedings. We have been informed that the disclosures sufficiently addressed the Staff’s concerns. To resolve the potential charges arising from the SEC’s investigation, the Company has consented, without admitting or denying any wrongdoing, to entry of a judgment permanently restraining and enjoining the Company from violating certain provisions of the federal securities laws. The judgment will not require the Company to pay a monetary penalty and will resolve the SEC’s claims regarding these matters with respect to the Company. |
| ● | On February 1, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit titled Cullen v. RYVYL Inc. fka GreenBox POS, 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. On July 9, 2025, the Parties executed the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (“Stipulation of Settlement”). On July 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed its Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, which is scheduled for hearing on August 15, 2025. The Stipulation of Settlement provides for the full resolution and release of all claims against the Cullen Defendants in exchange for $300,000 in cash (“Cash Settlement Amount”), 700,000 freely tradable shares of the Company’s common stock (“Settlement Shares”), and a put option that, together with the Cash Settlement Amount and Settlement Shares, requires that the combined value of the settlement consideration shall be no less than $1,000,000. On August 20, 2025, the Court issued an Order Provisionally Approving Certification of the Proposed Settlement Class and Granting Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. The Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement is scheduled for hearing on December 19, 2025. 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 September 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, and on September 30, 2025 they filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. The parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement on October 7, 2025, and it is scheduled for hearing on November 14, 2025. 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. After vigorously prosecuting its claims against Sky and Mr. Haller and vigorously defending against all claims asserted by Sky and Mr. Haller, on September 26, 2025, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement. On October 16, 2025, the Company filed with the San Diego Superior Court a Request for Dismissal, dismissing the case with prejudice. |
| ● | 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. Mr. Byelick subsequently filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which the Court denied in full as premature. The parties are currently engaged in responding to written discovery requests. 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. |
| ● | On July 2, 2025, Plaintiff Kapcharge USA Inc. commenced a lawsuit against Defendants Ryvyl Inc., FFS Data Corporation, CML Management, LLC and Cynthia Lambert in San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 25CU035045C. This lawsuit stems from a dispute between Kapcharge on the one hand and FFS Data Corporation (“FFS”), and CML Management, LLC on the other hand, related to a payment processor agreement between Kapcharge and FFS. Kapcharge alleges causes of action for Conversion, Money Had and Received, Violation of Penal Code § 496, Restitution, Breach of Contract (against FFS, CML, and Lambert), and Unfair Competition in Violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. 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. |
| ● | On July 15, 2025, Plaintiff Rachael Mora filed a complaint against the Company, Fredi Nisan, and Does 1-20 in San Diego Superior Court. Ms. Mora is alleging sex discrimination and sexual favoritism in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), and failure to prevent discrimination in violation of FEHA. Ms. Mora is also claiming retaliation and negligent supervision/negligent retention. Ms. Mora 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 text of this filing, as the company filed it with the SEC, without its images or exhibits. This is not investment advice.