Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Tekniquelly correct (tek@freeradical.zone)'s status on Thursday, 21-Aug-2025 02:22:57 JST Tekniquelly correct

   UnitedHealthcare sued by shareholders over reaction to CEO’s killing

   > The group, which seeks unspecified damages, argues that the public backlash prevented the company from pursuing "the aggressive, anti-consumer tactics that it would need to achieve" its earnings goals.

   The investors actually said that. They demand UHC be more “aggressive, anti-consumer” to make more money for them, presumably by killing more Americans.

   It’s time to start building the guillotines.

   https://honeypot.net/2025/08/20/unitedhealthcare-sued-by-shareholders-over.html

   • Embed this notice
     Tekniquelly correct (tek@freeradical.zone)'s status on Thursday, 21-Aug-2025 02:22:56 JST Tekniquelly correct

     in reply to

     • Mark T. Tomczak

     @mark That’s good and reasonable nuance, but I’m not willing to let the class off that easily. The lawyers are doing what lawyers do; I get it. But it’s the class pushing for this.

     Millions of Americans live in fear of destitution if they get sick. This class paid a lawyer to say it should be more people with more fear. And for that, I think some of that fear should be shifted back toward the class paying someone to advocate that position.

     Linux Walt Alt (@lnxw37a2) {3EB165E0-5BB1-45D2-9E7D-93B31821F864} likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Mark T. Tomczak (mark@mastodon.fixermark.com)'s status on Thursday, 21-Aug-2025 02:22:57 JST Mark T. Tomczak

     in reply to

     @tek This is one of those situations where it's real important to get context. Here's the lawyers' call to action (https://www.morningstar.com/news/globe-newswire/9504764/unitedhealth-class-action-alert-bragar-eagel-squire-pc-reminds-investors-that-a-class-action-lawsuit-has-been-filed-against-unitedhealth-group-incorporated-and-encourages-investors-to-contact-the-firm).

     Things to remember:

     1. This is ambulance-chasing. A law firm decided that this is a good time to kick a piñata full of money. And they probably aren't wrong! But their statements don't directly reflect the beliefs of any class-members; it's court rhetoric.

     2. In context, the suit isn't saying UHC's previous tactics were good; it's saying the previous tactics were bad, but the only remedy the law gives this class is against possible unrealistic projections after circumstances changed. As far as the law is concerned: if a bunch of investors signed on to get money from Satan, and then that bet didn't pay off? Fuck 'em. The only recourse this lawyer can try to craft from whole cloth is that strategy should have paid off, and UHG knew it wasn't going to pay off after their CEO was murdered, and they weren't honest about their knowledge that the reality on the ground is different. It's deeply cynical writing to illicit an effect in the courtroom (and a hail-mary of a try at that).

     The entire idea that either UHG was executing on anti-consumer practices or that statements after their CEO died were materially false or misleading is just the plaintiff's theory.

     (And to be clear: I think UHG is a bunch of assholes. But if we're going to bust out guillotines over the writing of a sociopathic ambulance-chaser we've somewhat lost the thread. This is "first thing we do, kill all the lawyers" rabble-rousing).