Expectations and Misconceptions of Retail Investors Regarding Class Actions Under the New Securities Law, and Lawyers’ Recommendations

Of course, another extreme possibility is that the listed company refuses to cooperate entirely—so uncooperative that only a class action can quell public outrage. In such a scenario, factors like the number of shareholders or market capitalization would be disregarded; instead, defendants in the class action could include not only the company’s directors, supervisors, and senior management (D-S-M), but also securities firms, accounting firms, law firms, appraisal agencies, and credit rating agencies—all intermediaries involved in the company’s operations. Ultimately, the listed company may face not merely delisting, but bankruptcy liquidation; all intermediaries and their professionals could suffer total financial ruin. Such landmark cases would enter legal history. Class actions do not ‘discriminate’—they are not aimed solely at listed companies. Under the new Securities Law, every stakeholder must tread carefully and proceed with utmost caution: listed companies risk delisting or bankruptcy; D-S-M personnel and intermediaries may bear joint and several liability. Therefore, companies contemplating an IPO must think thrice before proceeding; individuals considering serving as D-S-M of listed or pre-IPO companies must likewise reconsider; and professionals providing legal, auditing, appraisal, or credit-rating services to listed companies must also pause and reflect. The once-lucrative practice of accepting fees without due diligence may no longer be viable—even absent a class action, if a listed company lacks funds to compensate investors, the ever-present threat of joint and several liability will impose enormous pressure on D-S-M and intermediaries. V. Recommendations from Securities Litigation Lawyers First, judicial interpretations concerning special securities class actions and detailed rules issued by investor protection institutions should provide adequate buffer and transition periods. Although class actions fall under civil procedure, they carry strong punitive implications—potentially even more severe for listed companies than criminal liability. Prior to the promulgation of the Securities Law, relevant judicial interpretations, and investor protection institution guidelines, non-compliant listed companies had no forewarning of such consequences and thus no ability to anticipate potential legal liabilities. Whether newly enacted rules should retroactively apply to all eligible claims warrants careful discussion and balanced deliberation. Every detail implicates enormous interests—and directly affects the survival of listed companies, their shareholders, D-S-M, and intermediaries. Extreme prudence is essential: rules must comply not only with statutory law, but also with legal principles and broader human considerations and common sense. Second, insurance companies should launch a dedicated class-action liability insurance product. To prevent listed companies from facing delisting or bankruptcy liquidation upon being sued in a class action, all listed companies should be mandated to purchase such insurance. Upon initiation of a class action, insurers would first compensate investors; subsequently, insurers could pursue subrogation against responsible parties, where feasible. This approach would sustain listed companies’ operations, introduce a novel financial product, alleviate pressure on D-S-M and intermediaries, and protect the rights of innocent minority shareholders. Otherwise, many listed companies may soon find it impossible to recruit qualified D-S-M or auditing and other intermediary service providers—leading them to delist even before any class action materializes. In short, special securities class actions must advance constructively, with full consideration given to all possible impacts and unintended side effects. Third, listed companies represent exemplary enterprises; therefore, protection must be balanced between listed companies and retail investors. After all, investors participate in the stock market precisely to earn returns. While corporate governance and information disclosure quality are still gradually improving, overzealous investor protection measures may paradoxically undermine investor interests.

Class Actions: A Group of People Filing Lawsuits Like Qiu Ju

Recently, I read news about the Apple class action lawsuit. Several years ago, numerous media outlets accused Apple of deliberately slowing down older iPhone models after users upgraded to new iOS versions. Subsequently, lawyers organized a class action against Apple—and Apple has now agreed to settle, paying at least $310 million to $500 million. Estimates suggest affected device owners may receive approximately $25 each—but only U.S. consumers qualify. As someone who has participated in dozens of class actions, let me share my perspective on what it means for ‘a group of people filing lawsuits like Qiu Ju’. What is a class action? Simply put, it is a lawsuit filed by lawyers on behalf of all victims. When numerous plaintiffs share identical claims, U.S. class action law permits consolidation of individual claims into a single case, allowing one or several representative plaintiffs to litigate on behalf of all others. Thus, a single judge can adjudicate multiple claims simultaneously, and all parties can reach settlement collectively—significantly saving judicial time and litigation costs. If a court certifies a case as a class action, all class members enjoy equal rights. What are the benefits of class actions? First, there are no attorney’s fees, no evidence-gathering costs, and no court appearance expenses—and the lawyers handling your case are top-tier attorneys. Why? Because class-action attorneys typically receive 30% of the total settlement as their fee. In major U.S. class actions, settlement amounts often range from tens of millions to hundreds of millions—or even billions—of dollars. In the Apple case alone, law firms stand to earn roughly $100 million in fees. Consider some landmark settlements: Equifax paid $380 million; opioid manufacturers settled for nearly $1 billion. Naturally, elite law firms eagerly take on such cases—and prosecute them far more vigorously than Qiu Ju ever could, since individual claimants may recover only a few hundred or thousand dollars, whereas attorneys’ fees start in the millions. Second, class actions are significantly more likely to succeed. Large corporations fear not ten thousand individual lawsuits—but rather ten thousand victims uniting under one law firm to file a single class action. Corporations routinely wear down, placate, or intimidate individual victims—dividing and conquering until cases quietly fade away. Examples include Samsung’s battery scandal in China and domestic smartphone manufacturers’ memory chip scandals. Yet when confronted with a class action, corporations almost invariably agree to settle. Settlement agreements contain a comical standard clause: ‘The defendants have not admitted any wrongdoing but have agreed to settle in $XX.’ In other words: ‘We did nothing wrong—but we’ll pay up anyway.’

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against The Chemours Company (CC)

Oct 19, 2026

Levi & Korsinsky filed a securities class action against Chemours alleging fraud regarding Opteon product demand and 2026 financial guidance. Shareholders are urged to contact the firm before December 7, 2026.

ACCESS Newswire

2026-10-09

Chemours Company Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Over Opteon Demand Claims

2026-10-11

Chemours Faces Securities Lawsuit Over Disclosures and Guidance

2026-10-11

Chemours Company Faces Class Action Lawsuit Alleging Investor Harm

2026-10-12

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Chemours for Misleading Investors on Product Demand and Financial Guidance.

2026-10-12

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Chemours Over Overstated Demand and Lowered 2026 Guidance