Qfin Holdings (NASDAQ: QFIN) Securities Class Action: Investor Rights and November 27, 2026 Lead Plaintiff Deadline

Qfin operates an AI-empowered consumer-credit technology platform in China.

The new securities lawsuit alleges that Qfin and certain senior executives made overly optimistic statements about the company's ability to withstand significant changes in China's consumer-finance regulatory environment.

The complaint alleges that defendants repeatedly described Qfin's business as resilient, stable, well positioned relative to competitors, and successfully adapting its underwriting and risk-management strategy.

Plaintiff alleges that those statements understated the extent to which regulatory tightening and related liquidity pressures were already negatively affecting Qfin's business and financial performance. These allegations have not been proven.

Qfin operates the Qifu Jietiao consumer-credit platform in China. The company uses data analytics, machine learning, and other technology to help financial institutions and consumers with borrower acquisition, credit assessment, funding matching, loan facilitation, post-loan servicing, and related financial-technology services.

Qfin describes itself as an AI-empowered Credit-Tech platform. Its 2025 Form 20-F describes Qfin as a Cayman Islands holding company that conducts substantially all of its China operations through subsidiaries and contractual arrangements with variable-interest entities (VIEs).

QFIN securities traded on Nasdaq are American depositary shares (ADSs). Each QFIN ADS represents two Class A ordinary shares of Qfin Holdings, a Cayman Islands company.

The underlying Class A ordinary shares also trade on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange under stock code 3660.

Because U.S. investors generally own ADSs rather than directly registered ordinary shares, QFIN investors have rights under the ADS deposit agreement in addition to the economic interest represented by the underlying ordinary shares — a distinction that matters for any corporate-governance or derivative analysis discussed below.

The alleged class period begins March 18, 2026, following Qfin's announcement of fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 results after the market closed on March 17.

Management acknowledged that China's consumer-finance sector was experiencing significant regulatory change and funding pressure. At the same time, Qfin told investors that it had tightened credit standards, adjusted its business mix, improved risk management, strengthened its balance sheet, and maintained resilient business performance.

CEO Haisheng Wu told investors that Qfin expected to emerge from the regulatory restructuring as a stronger and more resilient industry leader. CFO Alex Xu emphasized the company's financial position, and Chief Risk Officer Yan Zheng stated that risk-tightening measures had begun to show favorable results.

The securities plaintiff alleges that these statements overstated Qfin's ability to avoid the negative financial consequences affecting the broader sector.

Yes. Qfin repeatedly acknowledged that the regulatory and macroeconomic environment was difficult, and it reported strong full-year 2025 figures — including approximately RMB19.2 billion in total net revenue and approximately RMB5.98 billion in net income.

This is important. The securities lawsuit is not simply alleging that Qfin failed to mention regulation. Instead, plaintiff alleges that Qfin acknowledged general risks while understating how severely those risks were already affecting Qfin's own operations and financial performance.

Whether Qfin's warnings were sufficient will likely be an important issue in the case.

On May 26, 2026, Qfin reported first-quarter results. CEO Wu stated that the industry continued to undergo deep regulatory adjustments but said Qfin had "withstood the pressure" and demonstrated "strong resilience." Chief Risk Officer Yan Zheng stated that asset quality had improved in the first quarter and remained stable in recent months.

Qfin nevertheless issued cautious second-quarter guidance, forecasting substantial year-over-year declines in quarterly net income. These statements matter because they occurred much closer to the alleged August corrective disclosure.

The plaintiff alleges that, even so, management overstated Qfin's underlying resilience and risk performance.

The complaint identifies August 25, 2026 as the principal alleged corrective disclosure. After the market closed, Qfin announced second-quarter and interim 2026 results.

Total net revenue fell approximately 31.6% year over year, from approximately RMB5.22 billion to approximately RMB3.57 billion. Net income fell approximately 76.8% year over year, from approximately RMB1.73 billion to approximately RMB401.4 million.

Qfin also recorded an unexpected tax-related expense of approximately RMB500 million, which it attributed to an updated interpretation of tax regulations by tax authorities and described as non-recurring.

On the earnings call, CEO Haisheng Wu described a difficult market environment involving continued industry contraction, tighter regulatory oversight, and a sudden industry-wide liquidity shock in late June.

Management explained that an unexpected event involving another industry participant had caused financial institutions to become more risk-averse and funding supply across the consumer-credit sector to tighten sharply.

Qfin also described a nationwide regulatory campaign affecting debt collection that, according to management, produced a shortage of collection capacity, higher collection costs, lower collection efficiency, and additional near-term operating pressure.

Qfin projected third-quarter non-GAAP net income of approximately RMB400–RMB500 million, representing an expected year-over-year decline of roughly 67%–73%.

The company said it would take a more cautious approach to growth, risk, and capital deployment, attributing the outlook to persistent macroeconomic uncertainty and regulatory pressure. The complaint treats this guidance as part of the August revelation concerning the severity of the pressures facing Qfin.

No. Qfin remained profitable. In the same release, the company also reported approximately RMB1.1 billion in operating cash flow, approximately RMB10.6 billion in cash and short-term investments, an operating margin of about 32.6%, continued improvements in certain risk metrics, a semi-annual dividend, and continuing share repurchases.

The securities complaint does not allege that Qfin's business was collapsing. It alleges instead that management had previously overstated Qfin's resilience and understated the financial consequences of regulatory and liquidity pressures.

According to the complaint, QFIN closed at approximately $11.53 per ADS on August 25 and approximately $9.35 per ADS on August 26 — a decline of approximately $2.18, or about 18.91%.

The complaint also notes that several analysts (including J.P. Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Jefferies, and Deutsche Bank) downgraded QFIN or reduced price targets following the announcement, citing regulatory pressure, liquidity conditions, asset quality, collection constraints, the unexpected tax charge, and weaker loan volumes — indicating the decline followed several pieces of negative information rather than a single disclosure.

Whatever portion of the market reaction is ultimately attributable to information allegedly concealed during the class period, as opposed to new company-specific or industry-wide developments, may be addressed as the litigation proceeds.

Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5

The complaint asserts federal securities-fraud claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against Qfin and the individual defendants.

Section 20(a)

The complaint asserts controlling-person claims against Wu, Xu, and Zheng.

Item 303 of Regulation S-K

The complaint also alleges that Qfin failed to adequately disclose known adverse regulatory trends and uncertainties that were reasonably likely to materially affect revenue or income. Whether the company's disclosures satisfied applicable SEC requirements will be determined as the case proceeds.

The current alleged class period is March 18, 2026 through August 25, 2026, inclusive.

Investors should preserve complete brokerage statements and trade confirmations, including purchase and sale dates, ADS quantities, and prices.

The current published PSLRA lead plaintiff deadline is November 27, 2026, published by plaintiff's counsel in connection with the September 28 filing. Some third-party pages show November 30; that appears inconsistent with the 60-day period and counsel's notice, so this page uses November 27, 2026 unless a court order or authoritative notice changes it.

Do I Have to Become Lead Plaintiff?

Generally, no. Most investors remain passive class members. An investor does not ordinarily need to seek lead-plaintiff appointment merely to remain potentially eligible for a later class recovery.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline ≠ Settlement Claim Deadline

These are different dates. An investor's ability to share in a possible future recovery generally does not depend on seeking lead-plaintiff status.

No. Qfin was previously known as 360 DigiTech. A prior securities class action, In re 360 DigiTech, Inc. Securities Litigation (No. 1:21-cv-06013, S.D.N.Y.), concerned a 2020–2021 class period and alleged disclosures relating primarily to Chinese data regulation, data collection, and cybersecurity/privacy compliance. It was dismissed in July 2022 and closed in September 2022 after the plaintiff did not file an amended complaint.

The new Kassam lawsuit concerns a different period and different allegations — China's consumer-credit regulatory environment, liquidity, risk management, and Qfin's financial performance.

Qfin has operated under several English company names: 360 Finance, then 360 DigiTech, then Qifu Technology, and — since June 2025 — Qfin Holdings. The Nasdaq ticker has remained QFIN throughout.

Investors searching under an older company name may therefore be referring to the same corporate issuer.

Yes, after the alleged class period ended. Qfin announced that Haisheng Wu would step down as CEO effective September 21, 2026 to focus more heavily on the company's international business, and the board appointed former Chief Risk Officer Yan Zheng as the new CEO.

Zheng is a named defendant in the securities complaint based on statements and responsibilities during his tenure as Chief Risk Officer. The company has not stated that the leadership transition was caused by the securities litigation.

Generally, no. An investor who sold QFIN may still potentially have a securities claim depending on purchases, sales, recognized losses, and other securities-law requirements.

Current ownership is a separate issue that matters when evaluating corporate-governance or derivative claims, discussed next.

Potentially, but Qfin is different from a typical Delaware-company case. Qfin is incorporated in the Cayman Islands, and most U.S. investors hold QFIN through American depositary shares rather than directly registered Cayman ordinary shares.

Julie & Holleman LLP is investigating whether current QFIN investors may have separate corporate-governance or shareholder derivative rights under Cayman Islands law arising from the conduct alleged in the securities complaint and any resulting injury to the company. Under Cayman law the company itself is generally the proper plaintiff for a wrong done to the company, though Cayman courts may permit minority-shareholder derivative proceedings in certain limited circumstances.

Any such claim would require separate analysis of Cayman Islands law, shareholder standing, the ADS structure, the deposit agreement, and the particular challenged conduct — rather than the Delaware contemporaneous-ownership rules that apply to U.S.-incorporated issuers.

Julie & Holleman LLP is investigating allegations concerning Qfin Holdings, QFIN, Qifu Technology, 360 DigiTech, Chinese consumer-credit regulation, liquidity conditions, funding costs, asset quality, collections, risk management, tax exposure, financial disclosures, and corporate governance. We are interested in hearing from:

Investors With Securities Losses

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Qfin securities from March 18, 2026 through August 25, 2026 and suffered losses, including investors considering whether to seek lead-plaintiff appointment before November 27, 2026.

Current QFIN Investors

Current QFIN ADS holders or underlying ordinary shareholders interested in evaluating whether separate Cayman-law corporate-governance rights may exist. Any potential derivative analysis will depend on the investor's ownership structure and applicable Cayman Islands law.