Investors who bought Futu Holdings securities between May 24, 2023 and May 27, 2026 may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Futu, the parent of the moomoo trading app, hid that it was doing business in mainland China without required approvals. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Futu Holdings Limited has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
A securities class action filed June 26, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Tang v. Futu Holdings Limited, No. 1:26-cv-05453, alleges that Futu Holdings Limited misled investors by failing to disclose that it was conducting business in mainland China without the approvals required by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC). Futu operates the Futubull and moomoo online brokerage platforms, and its American depositary shares trade on the Nasdaq under the ticker FUTU.On October 15, 2026, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, the step that decides who runs the case for the proposed class under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The case has not reached a ruling on whether the claims can proceed.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
What the Complaint Alleges
According to the complaint, as summarized in the court’s October 15 order, Futu’s alleged failure to disclose its unapproved mainland China business came to light in two steps. Before the market opened on May 22, 2026, Reuters reported that the CSRC was cracking down on what it called illegal cross-border securities business and would penalize brokers including Futu for soliciting business in China without a license. The same morning, Futu disclosed that the CSRC had accused it of conducting securities business, public fund sales and futures business in mainland China without the necessary approvals, and proposed about $271 million in monetary penalties. The complaint says Futu’s stock fell 27.5% that day.On May 28, 2026, Futu reported its first-quarter 2026 results, which accounted for the penalties. Futu said the proposed penalties consisted of confiscation of illegal gains of about RMB 470 million and fines of about RMB 1.38 billion, for a total of about RMB 1.85 billion. The complaint says the stock fell another 4.8% that day. The plaintiff contends that investors who bought during the class period paid inflated prices and lost money when the regulatory risk was disclosed. Futu has not been found liable, and the court has not ruled on whether the complaint states a claim.
Who Is in the Proposed Class
The complaint proposes a class of everyone who purchased Futu Holdings securities between May 24, 2023 and May 27, 2026, inclusive, and was damaged as a result. The class has not been certified. Members of a proposed class are not required to take any action while a case is at this stage, and there is no claim form; one would exist only if the case later settled or produced a judgment.The Lead Plaintiff Ruling
Four individual investors asked to be appointed lead plaintiff. One withdrew, and another filed a notice of non-opposition, leaving the investor who filed the complaint and a second investor with a larger claimed loss. The investor who filed the complaint argued that his rival was subject to unique defenses because he bought more shares after the May 22 disclosure and had engaged in day trading on 32 days over the course of a year.Judge Kaplan rejected both arguments. He found that buying after a partial disclosure does not by itself undermine reliance on the market price, that the rival investor made roughly 71% of his purchases before May 22, and that courts in the Second Circuit have generally rejected day trading as a reason to disqualify a lead plaintiff. He appointed the investor with the larger claimed loss as lead plaintiff, denied the other three motions, and approved The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as lead counsel.
What Happens Next
In securities cases in this posture, the lead plaintiff and lead counsel typically file an amended complaint, and the company then moves to dismiss it. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, discovery is generally paused while that motion is pending. Open Class Actions will update this page when the court sets a schedule or rules.Questions
Who is covered by the Futu securities class action?
The complaint proposes a class of everyone who bought Futu Holdings securities between May 24, 2023 and May 27, 2026, inclusive, and was damaged as a result. No class has been certified.
What does the Futu lawsuit allege?
The complaint alleges that Futu failed to tell investors it was conducting securities, public fund sales and futures business in mainland China without the approvals required by the China Securities Regulatory Commission, and that investors lost money when the regulator's proposed penalties became public. These are unproven allegations.
How much did Futu stock fall?
According to the complaint as summarized by the court, Futu's stock fell 27.5% on May 22, 2026, after Futu disclosed proposed penalties of about $271 million, and another 4.8% on May 28, 2026, after its first-quarter results accounted for penalties of about RMB 1.85 billion.
Who is the lead plaintiff in the Futu case?
On October 15, 2026, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan appointed the individual investor with the largest claimed financial loss as lead plaintiff, rejecting objections from the investor who filed the original complaint, and appointed The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as lead counsel. Four investors had sought the role.
Is there a Futu settlement or claim form?
No. The case is at an early stage. Futu has not been found liable, the court has not ruled on the merits, and there is no settlement or claim form.
Sources
- Docket, Tang v. Futu Holdings Limited, No. 1:26-cv-05453-LAK (S.D.N.Y.)
- Memorandum and Order Appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel (ECF 31, October 15, 2026), including its summary of the complaint’s allegations, the disclosures and stock declines, and the proposed class period.
