UnitedHealth Group Incorporated

Case Overview
60 Days Left to Seek Lead Plaintiff
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: | Lead Plaintiff Deadline: 07/07/2025 |
Status: | Status: Investigating |
Company Name: | Company Name: UnitedHealth Group Incorporated |
Court: | Court: Southern District of New York |
Case Number: | Case Number: 1:25cv03799 |
Class Period: | Class Period: 12/03/2024 - 04/16/2025 |
Ticker: | Ticker: UNG |
Related Attorneys: | Lead Attorneys: Thomas W. Elrod |
Related Practices: | Related Practices: Securities |
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (“UnitedHealth” or the “Company”) (NYSE:UNH) securities during the period from December 3, 2024, through April 16, 2025 (“the Class Period”). Investors have until July 7, 2025, to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On April 17, 2025, UnitedHealth shocked the market with revised full year guidance. UnitedHealth issued a press release in which it stated that its 2025 net earning outlook would be revised to $24.65 to $25.15 per share (as compared to the prior range of $28.16 to $28.65) per share, and adjusted earnings of $26 to $26.50 (as compared to the prior range of $29.50 to $30.00 per share). The press release indicated that UnitedHealth is allowing increased coverage and care for beneficiaries of Medicare Advantage. UnitedHealth announced that this outlook reflected two factors, including “[h]eightened care activity indications within UnitedHealthcare’s Medicare Advantage businesses, which became visible as the quarter closed, far above the planned 2025 increase[.]” The announcement stated that “[t]his activity was most notable within physicians and outpatient services. On this news, the price of UnitedHealth shares declined by $130.93 per share, or approximately 22%, from $585.04 per share, to close at $454.11 on April 17, 2025.
The complaint alleges that defendants, throughout the Class Period, failed to disclose that: 1) UnitedHealth had, for years, engaged in a corporate strategy of denying health coverage in order to boost its profits, and ultimately, its share price; (2) this anti-consumer (and at times unlawful) strategy resulted in regulatory scrutiny (as well as public angst) against UnitedHealth, which ultimately resulted in the murder of Brian Thompson (“Thompson”); (3) animus towards UnitedHealth was such that, subsequent to the murder of Thompson, many Americans openly celebrated his demise, expressed admiration for his accused killer, and/or otherwise demanded that UnitedHealth change its strategy even if they condemned Thompson's killing; (4) the foregoing regulatory and public outrage caused UnitedHealth to change its corporate practices; and (5) notwithstanding the foregoing, UnitedHealth recklessly stuck with the guidance it issued the day before Thompson's murder, which was unrealistic considering UnitedHealth's changing corporate strategies.
On April 17, 2025, UnitedHealth shocked the market with revised full year guidance. UnitedHealth issued a press release in which it stated that its 2025 net earning outlook would be revised to $24.65 to $25.15 per share (as compared to the prior range of $28.16 to $28.65) per share, and adjusted earnings of $26 to $26.50 (as compared to the prior range of $29.50 to $30.00 per share). The press release indicated that UnitedHealth is allowing increased coverage and care for beneficiaries of Medicare Advantage. UnitedHealth announced that this outlook reflected two factors, including “[h]eightened care activity indications within UnitedHealthcare’s Medicare Advantage businesses, which became visible as the quarter closed, far above the planned 2025 increase[.]” The announcement stated that “[t]his activity was most notable within physicians and outpatient services. On this news, the price of UnitedHealth shares declined by $130.93 per share, or approximately 22%, from $585.04 per share, to close at $454.11 on April 17, 2025.
The complaint alleges that defendants, throughout the Class Period, failed to disclose that: 1) UnitedHealth had, for years, engaged in a corporate strategy of denying health coverage in order to boost its profits, and ultimately, its share price; (2) this anti-consumer (and at times unlawful) strategy resulted in regulatory scrutiny (as well as public angst) against UnitedHealth, which ultimately resulted in the murder of Brian Thompson (“Thompson”); (3) animus towards UnitedHealth was such that, subsequent to the murder of Thompson, many Americans openly celebrated his demise, expressed admiration for his accused killer, and/or otherwise demanded that UnitedHealth change its strategy even if they condemned Thompson's killing; (4) the foregoing regulatory and public outrage caused UnitedHealth to change its corporate practices; and (5) notwithstanding the foregoing, UnitedHealth recklessly stuck with the guidance it issued the day before Thompson's murder, which was unrealistic considering UnitedHealth's changing corporate strategies.