Class action lawsuit targets Webull after shares close at $4.81 amid allegations concerning China
Key Facts
A federal securities class action was filed against Webull and its co-CEOs, Anthony Wang and H.C. Wang, on October 8, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The case materials say the complaint concerns allegations related to the company’s operations in China, its technology infrastructure and data routing — allegations that have not been adjudicated. According to EL7 data, Webull shares, listed under the ticker BULL, closed at $4.81 on November 5, down from $5.39 in the previous session. The close follows a separate 19.1% decline on October 7, after a report on the findings of a U.S. House committee concerning the company’s ties to China. The lawsuit focuses on whether the company’s disclosures about its operations and risks reflected the facts alleged by the plaintiffs.
The case was docketed as a securities and commodities action and brought under Section 15 U.S.C. § 78m(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, according to the court docket. Case records show that Julian Ward filed suit against the company, Anthony Wang and H.C. Wang. Materials from the law firm handling the case cite allegations of China-linked operations, infrastructure and data pathways, while details of the complaint’s allegations are not available through the public court docket. The allegations therefore remain claims by the plaintiffs, not judicial findings or proof of corporate liability. The proposed investor class is defined by purchases during a specified period, and those seeking to lead the case have been invited to submit applications by December 7.
In its annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Webull said its activities in mainland China are limited to research and development and technical support. CEO Anthony Wang signed the report on April 8, 2026. The company also disclosed that its subsidiary Hunan Webull had 863 employees as of December 31, 2025, equivalent to 62% of its total workforce, and said the subsidiary is subject to the jurisdiction of the People’s Republic of China. These disclosures put the scale of the company’s employment presence in China at the center of the debate over the nature of its operations there. The lawsuit, meanwhile, attributes allegations about technology infrastructure and data routing to the plaintiffs, matters the court has not resolved.
Political scrutiny of the company’s China ties dates back to earlier correspondence cited by Webull in its annual report. The company said the House Select Committee on China requested information in a letter dated December 5, 2024, about Webull Financial’s connection to the company’s operations in China and the security of sensitive customer data. It also said attorneys general in 14 U.S. states raised concerns in April 2024 about the handling of personal and financial data and the possibility of exposure to the Chinese Communist Party, based on a letter they posted on a social media platform. These events provide a timeline for issues now intersecting with the lawsuit, without establishing the truth of its allegations. Webull says it has received no further requests from the state attorneys general or the committee for more than a year as of its annual report.
In a response cited by Reuters, a Webull spokeswoman said the company had made efforts to cooperate with the committee but had not heard from it for more than 20 months before the report was published. The spokeswoman described the findings as containing "inaccuracies and unsupported conclusions" and added that U.S. customer data is stored in the United States. Reuters also quoted John Moolenaar, who leads the committee with Ro Khanna, as saying that the use of mainland Chinese technology providers and a China-linked ownership structure "puts Webull’s data at risk." The statement represents the committee’s position and is not a judicial ruling in the lawsuit. Webull said in its annual disclosure that it believes some allegations were based on outdated and inaccurate information, and that it cooperated with government bodies that asked about its China ties.
Looking ahead, Reuters quoted Scotiabank analysts as saying the near-term question is whether the committee’s findings will prompt executive agencies or financial regulators to begin or expand their reviews. The available materials do not specify the outcome of any such reviews, while Webull said it warned in its annual report that it could receive inquiries or face further action that could adversely affect its business. The immediate court schedule points to December 7, when the deadline for applications to appoint a lead plaintiff expires. The shares closed at $4.81 on November 5, following a close of $5.39 on November 4. Those figures are separate from the October decline that followed the committee report.