Embed Notice

@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).