The main Mullen Automotive lawsuit is a securities class action filed in May 2022 in the Central District of California, which accused the electric vehicle company, its CEO David Michery, and related parties of inflating the stock through false statements about the company’s EV production, battery technology, and business partnerships. The parties settled for $7.25 million, Judge Dolly M. Gee granted final approval on June 20, 2025, and the claims administrator sent initial payments to eligible claimants on May 8, 2026.1Bloomberg Law. Mullen’s $7.25 Million Investor Settlement Gets Court Approval2Mullen Securities Settlement. In Re Mullen Automotive Securities Litigation – Settlement
What Investors Accused Mullen Of Doing
The consolidated complaint in In Re Mullen Automotive, Inc. Securities Litigation (No. 2:22-cv-03026) alleged that Mullen and its leadership made materially false and misleading statements to prop up the share price around the company’s November 2021 reverse merger with Net Element.3CourtListener. In Re Mullen Automotive, Inc. Securities Litigation Investors claimed Mullen overstated its EV production capabilities and timelines, exaggerated its battery technology, and inflated the significance of partnerships including arrangements with Qiantu Motors and Rapid Response Defense Systems.4Rosen Legal. Mullen Automotive Inc
The complaint also alleged that delays around the Dragonfly K50 sports car were not solely a product of the pandemic as represented, that Net Element failed to conduct proper due diligence before the merger, and that the company withheld material information about its financing agreements and about an associate, Lawrence Hardge, who had prior convictions for financial crimes.4Rosen Legal. Mullen Automotive Inc
The Hindenburg Report Behind The Case
The lawsuit followed an April 6, 2022, report by short-seller Hindenburg Research that called Mullen an “EV hustle” and challenged the company’s public claims point by point.5Hindenburg Research. Mullen Automotive
On battery technology, Hindenburg reported that EV Grid CEO Tom Gage, whose firm Mullen credited with impressive test results on its solid-state battery, said his firm “never would have said that” and “never did say it,” describing the battery as “ugly” and “misshapen.” Hindenburg said a purported joint venture with NextMetals Ltd. “didn’t exist at all” according to a senior executive familiar with the deal, and that Mullen’s licensing agreement with the Chinese company Linghang Boao collapsed after Mullen made a single $390,000 payment on a $2.196 million commitment.5Hindenburg Research. Mullen Automotive
On vehicles, the report identified Mullen’s “Class 1” and “Class 2” vans as rebranded Chinese imports, citing records showing only two vehicles brought in shortly before the company said it was ready for U.S. manufacturing. Hindenburg noted Mullen lacked EPA Certificates of Conformity and that a photo on the company’s site depicting “advanced manufacturing equipment” was a stock image from Adobe Stock. Two headline orders came in for scrutiny: a $500 million order for 10,000 EV SUVs from a South Florida contractor that owned 11 vehicles, none electric, and a $60 million order for 1,200 vans from a single-location cannabis retailer.5Hindenburg Research. Mullen Automotive
Who Qualifies For The Settlement And What Claimants Receive
The settlement class covers anyone who purchased or acquired Mullen Automotive or Net Element common stock, or who traded call or put options on that stock, between June 15, 2020, and April 17, 2022, and who suffered economic losses.2Mullen Securities Settlement. In Re Mullen Automotive Securities Litigation – Settlement The claim filing deadline was extended to April 25, 2025.6Mullen Securities Settlement. File Online Claim Form
The gross settlement is $7.25 million. The court awarded lead counsel Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP $2.05 million in fees plus $85,000 in expenses, and lead plaintiff Mejgan Mirbaz received $25,000.1Bloomberg Law. Mullen’s $7.25 Million Investor Settlement Gets Court Approval One estimate placed potential recovery at roughly $0.03 per share if all eligible members filed, though actual payouts depend on each claimant’s recognized loss relative to the total.7Claim Depot. Mullen Automotive Securities Settlement
A.B. Data, Ltd. is the claims administrator. The initial distribution to eligible claimants went out on May 8, 2026.2Mullen Securities Settlement. In Re Mullen Automotive Securities Litigation – Settlement The claim deadline has passed. If you filed a timely claim and haven’t received payment or a deficiency notice, the administrator is the point of contact.
What Happened To Mullen And Its Stock
Anyone searching for MULN today won’t find it under that ticker. Outstanding shares grew from about 23.4 million in late December 2021 to more than 1.69 billion by early January 2023, and the company ran a string of reverse splits to hold Nasdaq’s $1.00 minimum bid:
- May 2023: 1-for-25
- August 2023: 1-for-9
- December 2023: 1-for-100
- September 2024: 1-for-100
- June 2025: 1-for-100
The June 2025 split was reportedly the seventh since early 2023. It cut outstanding shares from about 80 million to roughly 800,000, and the stock fell more than 32% on its first adjusted trading day. Market capitalization had gone from a peak above $600 million to under $10 million. As of March 31, 2025, Mullen reported $2.3 million in cash and had burned $52.4 million in the previous six months, and its auditor had issued a going-concern opinion as far back as December 2022.8Barchart. A Reverse Stock Split Gives Mullen Automotive a Lifeline, but MULN Stock Is Down Nearly 100% in 2025
On July 28, 2025, Mullen renamed itself Bollinger Innovations, Inc. and switched its Nasdaq ticker from MULN to BINI.9Stock Titan. Mullen Automotive Press Releases10SEC. Bollinger Innovations Form 8-K11Yahoo Finance. Bollinger Innovations Announces Move to OTC As of 2026, Bollinger Innovations trades on the OTC Expert Market tier and is classified as delinquent in its SEC reporting.12OTC Markets. BINI News
Other Mullen Lawsuits You May Have Seen
Three other Mullen-related cases circulated in the news and are separate from the investor class action.
Mullen’s spoofing suit against trading firms. On December 6, 2023, Mullen sued IMC Financial Markets, Clear Street Markets LLC, and UBS Securities, LLC in the Southern District of New York, alleging the firms used high-frequency algorithmic trading between November 2021 and November 2023 to place and rapidly cancel large “Baiting Orders” that depressed the share price, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 9(a) of the Exchange Act and New York common law fraud.13Yahoo Finance. Mullen Provides Securities Litigation On March 28, 2025, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in full.14The Globe and Mail. Mullen Defeats Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss The docket, recaptioned Bollinger Innovations, Inc. v. Clear Street Markets LLC, was terminated on March 17, 2026, with no further activity recorded.15CourtListener. Bollinger Innovations, Inc. v. Clear Street Markets LLC
Bollinger Motors receivership. On March 21, 2025, Bollinger Motors founder Robert Bollinger sued in the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging Mullen breached repayment terms on a $10 million loan he made to the subsidiary in late 2024.16Automotive News. Bollinger Mullen Litigation17Detroit News. Oak Park EV Maker Stays Alive After Recent Cash Issues and Lawsuit18CourtListener. Bollinger v. Bollinger Motors, Inc.
GEM Group settlement. To satisfy a federal court judgment for GEM Yield Bahamas Limited and GEM Global Yield LLC SCS, Mullen transferred full ownership of its 650,000-square-foot Mishawaka, Indiana manufacturing facility to GEM. The settlement, finalized June 10, 2025, resolved all outstanding disputes with prejudice.19GlobeNewswire. Mullen Automotive Finalizes Settlement With GEM Group
None of these three cases pay former shareholders. The investor recovery route is the class action settlement above, and that claim window has closed.