Webull (NASDAQ: BULL) Securities Class Action: China Ties, Customer Data, and December 7, 2026 Lead Plaintiff Deadline

The lawsuit alleges that Webull understated how deeply its technology and operations depended on the People's Republic of China (PRC). Webull repeatedly told investors that:

• its principal business operations were based in the United States;
• its mainland-China operations were limited to research, development, and technical support;
• U.S. customer personally identifiable information (PII) was stored in the United States; and
• non-U.S. employees could not access that data without permission and oversight from U.S. personnel.

Plaintiff alleges those statements were misleading because Webull's core software development, engineering, data pipelines, technology infrastructure, financing, ownership, and compliance structure allegedly remained substantially tied to China. In securities terms, this is a case about Webull's China-related and regulatory-risk disclosures — not a claim that Webull had no connection to China. The allegations have not been proven.

The answer requires some nuance. Webull Corporation itself is incorporated in the Cayman Islands, with principal executive offices in St. Petersburg, Florida, and its U.S. broker-dealer is Webull Financial LLC. At the same time, Webull maintains a major technology subsidiary in mainland China (Hunan Weibu Information Technology Co., Ltd.).

The securities case is not about whether Webull is 'American' or 'Chinese' in the abstract — it is about whether Webull accurately characterized the importance of those China operations to its core platform and the handling of U.S. customer data.

Webull became publicly traded through a business combination with SK Growth Opportunities Corporation, a special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC). The transaction closed April 10, 2025, and Webull securities began trading on Nasdaq on April 11, 2025 — Class A ordinary shares as BULL and public warrants as BULLW (a separate class of incentive warrants, BULLZ, was redeemed in June 2025).

This history is useful background, but the current case is an Exchange Act disclosure case; it is not presently pleaded as a Section 11 claim about the SPAC registration, and should not be described as a 'SPAC fraud' lawsuit.

No — and this is the most important nuance in the case. Webull publicly disclosed substantial China staffing. Its July 2025 registration statement disclosed approximately 731 employees, or about 61% of its workforce, at its mainland-China subsidiary, and its April 2026 annual report (Form 20-F) disclosed approximately 863 employees, or about 62% of the workforce.

Plaintiff's theory is more specific than concealment of a headcount. Plaintiff alleges Webull misleadingly characterized those employees as performing only research, development, and technical-support functions, when the company's core platform and technology allegedly depended much more heavily on PRC personnel and infrastructure than investors understood.

Webull told investors that U.S. customer personally identifiable information was stored on U.S. servers, could not be transmitted outside the United States, and could not be accessed by non-U.S. employees without permission and oversight from U.S. personnel.

The lawsuit alleges those assurances were misleading because Webull's technology infrastructure and data-routing systems were allegedly more tied to China than disclosed.

No. The complaint does not allege an actual theft or confirmed transfer of Webull customer PII to Chinese authorities, that China seized customer assets, or that Chinese employees improperly accessed U.S. customer data.

The lawsuit instead concerns whether investors were adequately informed about Webull's technical infrastructure, potential access, cross-border data architecture, exposure under Chinese law, and the resulting national-security and regulatory risk. The dispute is about structure, access risk, and disclosure — not a proven data breach.

Yes. In April 2024, attorneys general from 14 states questioned Webull about the security of U.S. customer data and its China operations. In December 2024, the bipartisan House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party sent Webull a detailed inquiry concerning PRC ownership and operational ties, customer data, Chinese personnel, technology relationships, and regulatory compliance. Webull publicly disclosed those inquiries in its SEC filings.

So the lawsuit does not allege that investors knew nothing about government scrutiny. Instead, plaintiff alleges Webull downplayed the concerns — telling investors they were 'largely based on outdated and inaccurate information,' while continuing to describe its operations as U.S.-based and its China activities as limited to R&D and technical support.

Before the market opened on October 7, 2026, news organizations reported findings from the House Select Committee's investigation. According to the complaint, the Committee concluded there was a 'profound gap' between Webull's presentation of itself as an American company and its actual control and operating structure, and that Webull's ownership, technical workforce, technology infrastructure, cross-border data routing, financing, and compliance systems were structurally tied to the PRC. According to the complaint, BULL fell $1.39 per share — approximately 19% — to close at $5.89 that day.

The complaint also alleges the Committee reported that Webull had initially told it that it had no offices or employees in China — a response the Committee contrasted with the roughly 863-employee China subsidiary. Importantly, Webull's own April 2026 Form 20-F had already publicly disclosed that 863-employee figure, so the alleged new information was the Committee's characterization of what those employees did and how Webull had responded to Congress — not the mere existence of China employees.

Webull disputes the Committee's conclusions, describing the report as containing significant inaccuracies and unsupported conclusions. The company maintains that U.S. customer data is stored domestically (on U.S.-based systems using Amazon Web Services), that China-based employees do not have access to U.S. customer PII, and that U.S. customer assets are not held in China.

The securities case will ultimately concern whether Webull's earlier investor disclosures were materially misleading — not whether the congressional report itself is correct.

No. A congressional investigative report is not a court judgment. The House Select Committee is an investigative body, not a court, and its report does not itself establish a Rule 10b-5 violation — just as Webull's disagreement does not itself resolve the underlying factual dispute.

To prevail, plaintiff must still establish the elements of the federal securities claims, including falsity, materiality, scienter, loss causation, and damages, and Webull is entitled to contest the allegations.

Webull disclosed that founder and CEO Anquan Wang beneficially owned approximately 16% of its ordinary shares but controlled approximately 79% of the total voting power (as of March 31, 2026) because of Webull's dual-class share structure. Webull therefore qualifies as a Nasdaq 'controlled company,' and it is also a foreign private issuer — meaning it reports on Form 20-F and Form 6-K rather than the domestic 10-K / 10-Q / 8-K regime.

This concentrated voting control is relevant context for corporate governance. It is not itself unlawful, but it matters to board independence and controller oversight, discussed below.

No. Unlike many Cayman-incorporated issuers, BULL is not an American depositary share (ADS). BULL is a Class A ordinary share issued directly by Webull's Cayman Islands parent company. (That is a difference from issuers such as QFIN, whose Nasdaq-listed security is an ADS.)

BULLW is Webull's publicly traded warrant — a contractual right to acquire a Webull Class A ordinary share under the warrant terms. The proposed securities-class definition refers broadly to purchasers of publicly traded Webull securities during the class period, and separately identifies both BULL ordinary shares and BULLW warrants as Nasdaq-traded securities.

Investors who purchased BULLW during the alleged class period should preserve their transaction records and consult counsel about whether their warrants fall within any ultimately certified class — the precise class scope will be resolved in the litigation.

No. Webull entered October 2026 with substantial scale, not an obvious operating collapse. For the second quarter of 2026 it reported approximately 28.2 million registered users, approximately 5.13 million funded accounts, approximately $28.5 billion in customer assets, and adjusted net income of approximately $43.2 million.

The case is not that Webull's business had secretly failed. It is about whether investors accurately understood where core operations were located, the company's dependence on PRC personnel and systems, customer-data risks, and the resulting regulatory and geopolitical exposure.

Yes, though it is separate from the current China/data allegations. Webull's SEC filings disclose that its U.S. broker-dealer previously paid a $3 million FINRA fine relating to options supervision and related issues, $500,000 to settle a Massachusetts Securities Division matter concerning compliance resources during a period of rapid account growth, and $125,000 following SEC findings regarding deficient suspicious-activity reports.

These matters predate the current class period or involve different issues, and they do not establish the current allegations.

Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5

The complaint asserts federal securities-fraud claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against Webull and the individual defendants.

Section 20(a)

The complaint asserts controlling-person claims against Anquan Wang and H.C. Wang.

The currently alleged class period is April 26, 2025 through October 6, 2026, inclusive. Although Webull began trading on April 11, 2025, the class period starts April 26 — the day after Webull filed its 2024 Form 20-F (on April 25) containing the first statements challenged in the complaint.

Investors should preserve all brokerage statements and transaction records showing Webull (BULL shares, and BULLW warrants) purchases and sales during the class period.

The current published PSLRA lead plaintiff deadline is December 7, 2026, as identified in the PSLRA notices published by the Rosen Law Firm and Robbins Geller.

Do I Have to Become Lead Plaintiff?

Generally, no. The lead plaintiff is the court-appointed investor or investor group that actively supervises the securities action and proposed lead counsel. Most investors remain passive class members.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline ≠ Settlement Claim Deadline

These are different dates. A passive class member generally need not seek lead-plaintiff appointment merely to remain potentially eligible for a later class recovery.

Generally, no. A securities claim may depend on when shares were purchased, when they were sold, the investor's recognized losses, and the applicable damages rules; selling does not automatically eliminate a securities claim. Continued ownership presents different issues for derivative claims.

Potentially — but Webull is incorporated in the Cayman Islands, not Delaware, so the usual Delaware derivative framework does not apply. Webull's own Form 20-F warns that its corporate affairs are governed by Cayman Islands law, that Cayman shareholder remedies differ from U.S./Delaware law, that shareholders of Cayman companies may not have standing to pursue derivative claims in U.S. federal court, and that Cayman shareholders generally have no broad statutory right to inspect corporate records.

There is also a BULL-versus-BULLW distinction for governance claims: a BULL holder owns Class A ordinary shares, while a BULLW holder owns a warrant — a contractual right to acquire shares — and would not automatically be a Webull shareholder for derivative-standing purposes unless and until the warrant is exercised. Securities-class eligibility and derivative shareholder standing are evaluated separately.

Julie & Holleman LLP is investigating whether current Webull shareholders may have separate corporate-governance rights under Cayman Islands law arising from the alleged disclosures, the controller structure, the regulatory scrutiny, and any resulting corporate harm. Potential areas of investigation include:

• data-security oversight — how U.S. customer PII is segregated, who can obtain permission-based access, what controls apply to PRC personnel, and what the board received about data architecture;
• PRC operational dependence — what Hunan Weibu employees actually did, and whether their work was truly limited to R&D and technical support;
• congressional responses — what Webull told the Select Committee, how those statements were reviewed, and whether the board knew of the discrepancies later alleged;
• disclosure controls — how 'principal operations are U.S.-based' and 'limited to R&D and technical support' were defined and evaluated; and
• controller oversight — board independence where the founder/controller holds roughly four-fifths of the voting power and has substantial PRC connections.

Current public information does not establish that U.S. brokerage-account PII was transferred to Chinese authorities, that China seized customer assets, or that Chinese employees improperly accessed U.S. data; the governance questions concern structure, access risk, infrastructure, regulatory exposure, and disclosure. Counsel may evaluate whether any corporate-information or investigative remedies are available under Cayman law and Webull's governing documents. No determination has been made that viable derivative claims exist.

Julie & Holleman LLP is investigating allegations involving Webull Corporation, BULL, BULLW, Anquan Wang, H.C. Wang, Hunan Weibu, China operations, customer data, cross-border data routing, technology infrastructure, the House Select Committee disclosures, the state attorney-general inquiries, disclosure controls, and corporate governance. We are interested in hearing from:

Investors With Securities Losses

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Webull securities between April 26, 2025 and October 6, 2026 and suffered losses, including investors evaluating lead-plaintiff appointment before December 7, 2026.

Current BULL Shareholders

Current holders of Webull ordinary shares interested in evaluating potential Cayman-law corporate-governance rights.

A shareholder may potentially fall within both groups.