Susquehanna Securities, a major financial firm, lost more than $70 million on a bet they didn't see coming. On June 29, 2026, they sued 100 unnamed defendants, claiming these traders knew about a Chinese government crackdown on brokerage firms before the public did — and used that secret knowledge to profit.

Here's how it worked. Between May 7 and May 21, 2026, someone purchased put options on two Chinese-founded U.S.-listed brokers: Futu Holdings (FUTU) and Tiger Brokers (TIGR). A put option is a contract that makes money when a stock price falls. Then, in late May, China's financial regulator announced a crackdown on these exact brokers. Stock prices in both companies dropped sharply. The put options became extremely valuable.

Susquehanna's problem: they were the counterparty. When you buy a put option, someone has to be on the other side of the bet — betting that the stock will go up. That someone was Susquehanna. They got the bet wrong because the traders who bought the puts knew something they didn't.

According to Law360, the traders bought these options through the same brokers the Chinese government was about to investigate. That made it easier for Susquehanna to trace what happened — but much worse for the firm's balance sheet.

Why this matters to ordinary investors: financial firms like Susquehanna exist partly to provide liquidity — to take the other side of trades so investors can buy and sell quickly. When someone has secret information, that system breaks down. The firm pricing the bet has no idea they're walking into a trap.

The legal case will be difficult to win, even though the timing looks suspicious. FA-Mag and The Straits Times report that Chinese regulatory decisions are not subject to U.S. disclosure rules. Information about a government crackdown might come from contacts in Beijing, Hong Kong, or Singapore — places where U.S. courts have limited power to force disclosure of records. Susquehanna will need to show the defendants had inside knowledge, not just lucky timing. The court will look at whether the options positioning was so specific and so well-timed that it couldn't be a coincidence.

The suit is still ongoing. No one has been named as a defendant, and no one has responded to the accusations.