How should we evaluate the 'Xunlei's facing a class-action lawsuit in the United States'?

A few days ago, a friend asked me to help snatch up 'Wanke Cloud' devices—offering double the market price. After looking into it, I learned that 'Wanke Cloud' is essentially a personal cloud storage device designed to share users’ broadband bandwidth and storage resources; in return for such sharing, users receive rewards called 'Link Tokens'. These tokens can be redeemed for services like network acceleration and cloud storage, and users may also transfer them to friends, enabling the trading of associated rights and benefits. Effectively, Link Tokens function as an internal payment currency within Xunlei’s ecosystem—akin to Tencent’s Q-coin. However, since its launch, Link Tokens have been widely questioned by the market as a disguised form of ICO—a label Xunlei refuses to accept. That said, there’s no denying that the Wanke Cloud reward program triggered a sharp surge in Xunlei’s stock price. According to Wind data, Xunlei’s share price rose by 470% between early October and November 24, 2017. Subsequently, regulatory restrictions imposed by Chinese authorities caused the stock to retreat, and this dramatic volatility sparked a class-action lawsuit by U.S. investors. Hmm, although blockchain-related concepts have recently surged in popularity, reality shows that this ‘cake’ isn’t one you can simply swallow at will. For domestic Chinese enterprises, blockchain resembles a blazing fire—while they remain mere moths drawn helplessly toward the flame. In fact, securities litigation cases in the United States are quite common. U.S. securities markets consistently uphold the principle of 'investor protection', making class-action lawsuits extremely prevalent. From local courts to federal courts, a highly developed litigation system exists—and with it, a mature industry ecosystem comprising numerous renowned securities attorneys. Whenever a publicly listed company’s stock price drops significantly, lawyers quickly mobilize affected investors and encourage them to pursue legal remedies.

Which law firm is recommended for equity investment disputes?

I am Attorney Wang Chuang, practicing at Heilongjiang Meng Fanxu Law Firm in Harbin, specializing in corporate equity disputes and commercial litigation. Choosing a lawyer versus choosing a law firm involves two distinct dimensions. Harbin hosts several large, comprehensive law firms offering broad service coverage—but depth of expertise may vary across practice areas. Conversely, some smaller firms employ attorneys who focus exclusively on corporate law, thereby gaining deeper mastery of judicial rules governing equity disputes. I recommend evaluating candidates along three criteria: First, prioritize the lawyer—not the firm’s size. Equity disputes fall squarely within the specialized domain of corporate law, demanding attorneys who: • Are thoroughly familiar with the newly enacted Company Law (effective July 2024) and its accompanying judicial interpretations—especially core provisions such as Article 88 (supplementary liability for transferring shares whose capital contribution deadlines have not yet arrived), Article 23 (three scenarios for piercing the corporate veil), and Article 89 (dissenting shareholders’ right to request share repurchase); • Possess hands-on experience handling cases involving equity confirmation, share transfers, preemptive rights, and shareholder derivative suits; • Can accurately distinguish whether a dispute falls under 'internal corporate governance matters' or 'external contractual disputes', thereby selecting the correct litigation pathway. Under the new Company Law, share transfer rules have undergone major changes: when a shareholder transfers shares whose capital contribution deadlines have not yet arrived, and the transferee fails to pay the subscribed capital on time, the original transferor bears supplementary liability (Article 88, Paragraph 1). This provision fundamentally alters how many pre-existing share transfer disputes must be handled—and attorneys unfamiliar with the new rules may offer outdated advice.

Portnoy Law Firm Announces Class Action on Behalf of The Chemours Company Investors

Oct 14, 2026

Portnoy Law Firm filed a class action against Chemours Co., alleging misleading disclosures on Opteon inventory and AIM Act transition impacts caused stock drops. The suit follows reduced financial outlooks linked to an oversupplied market.

GlobeNewswire

2026-08-06

California AG Accuses DuPont of Shell Game to Dodge PFAS Cleanup

2026-09-05

Chemours, DuPont found liable for PFAS contamination in North Carolina properties; jury trial set for March

2026-09-23

Environmental groups allege Chemours hasn't met PFAS limits agreement

2026-10-11

The Chemours Company Sued for Securities Law Violations

2026-10-12

Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds Chemours Investors of Securities Class Action Deadline