Unlock stock picks and a broker-level newsfeed that powers Wall Street.

In a Landmark Decision, Mullen Defeats Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in Its Entirety, Allowing the Federal Spoofing Lawsuit to Combat Artificially Deflated Stock Prices to Proceed

In This Article:

Mullen Automotive, Inc.
Mullen Automotive, Inc.

In a significant victory for Mullen and other emerging companies who have alleged losses due to stock manipulation, a federal judge denied IMC, Clear Street, and UBS’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, finding Mullen’s claims were adequately pled.  The litigation will now move forward into full discovery

In the Federal Court’s decision, received after the close of trading on March 28, 2025, Mullen won on all contested issues

BREA, Calif., March 31, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- via IBN -- Mullen Automotive Inc. (NASDAQ: MULN) (“Mullen” or the “Company”), an electric vehicle (“EV”) manufacturer, successfully overcame a motion to dismiss brought by defendants IMC Financial Markets, Clear Street Markets LLC,  UBS Securities, LLC and Does 1-10 (“Defendants”).

In the lawsuit, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Mullen alleges that between November 5, 2021 and November 15, 2023, Defendants used high-frequency algorithmic trading to manipulate and spoof Mullen shares in violation of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5(a) and (c), and Section 9(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and New York common law fraud.

FINRA has characterized spoofing as an insidious form of market manipulation that undermines the transparency and integrity of the markets by distorting the true nature of supply and demand. Spoofing involves the submission and cancellation of non-bona fide buy and sell orders that have no legitimate economic purpose and are not intended to be executed. With “Baiting Orders,” for example, Defendants allegedly placed sell orders meant to create a false signal that Mullen’s share price was trending downward, tricking other market participants into entering their own orders to sell. The spoofers then executed buy orders—now at artificially low prices—and promptly canceled their Baiting Orders.

In rejecting Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court held, among other things, that Mullen had “identif[ied] a number of actions that differentiate the Defendants from typical market participants. Defendants placed far more orders for sell-side shares that were subsequently canceled and then purchased far more shares at depressed prices following spoofing episodes[.]” In particular, “Defendants placed and then cancelled a high volume of Baiting Orders within seconds and even milliseconds, repeating this pattern thousands of times, often with multiple episodes per trading day.” In turn, the Court determined that Mullen’s complaint “outlines Defendants’ efforts to artificially depress the price of Mullen securities and the subsequent effects on the market.”