Class Period: March 14, 2022, – February 27, 2024 (Common Stock Only)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 16, 2024<\/p>\n\n\n\n
UnitedHealth is an American multinational health insurance and services company comprised of two distinct and complementary businesses: Optum and UnitedHealthcare. UnitedHealthcare provides health insurance to individuals, employers, and small businesses and is the largest insurance provider in the United States. Optum provides healthcare-related services, including software solutions, payment services, and data analytics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On January 6, 2021, UnitedHealth announced an agreement to acquire Change Healthcare (\u201cChange\u201d) and integrate it into its Optum business. Change is a healthcare technology company that provides data solutions aimed at improving clinical decision making and simplifying payment processes across the healthcare system. On February 24, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice (\u201cDOJ\u201d) filed a lawsuit challenging UnitedHealth\u2019s acquisition of Change. The DOJ alleged that the proposed acquisition would violate antitrust laws because the integration of Change and Optum would give UnitedHealth unparalleled access to information regarding nearly every health insurer, as well as health data on every single American. Ultimately, the court in the DOJ action permitted the acquisition, repeatedly crediting UnitedHealth\u2019s firewall policy and commitment to preventing the sharing of data between UnitedHealthcare and Optum as the rationale for allowing the deal to proceed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, UnitedHealth repeatedly assured investors that it had taken steps to avoid anti-competitive behavior, including by setting up \u201crobust firewall processes\u201d to prevent customer sensitive information (\u201cCSI\u201d) from being shared between UnitedHealthcare and Optum after the merger. Specifically, UnitedHealth explicitly stated that Optum \u201cinvests extraordinary time, money, and resources into safeguarding [CSI] and keeping it walled off from UnitedHealthcare\u201d and that \u201cUnitedHealth Group\u2019s existing firewalls and data-security policies prohibit employees from improperly sharing external-customer CSI.\u201d As a result of these misrepresentations, UnitedHealth stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The complaint further alleges that the truth emerged on February 27, 2024, when the Wall Street Journal reported that the DOJ had re-opened its antitrust investigation into UnitedHealth. In that article, the public learned for the first time that the DOJ was investigating the relationships between the Company\u2019s various segments, including Optum. As a result of this disclosure, the price of UnitedHealth stock declined by $27 per share, erasing nearly $25 billion in shareholder value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For more information on the UnitedHealth class action go to: https:\/\/bespc.com\/cases\/UNH<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Vestis Corporation (NYSE: VSTS)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Class Period: October 2, 2023 – May 1, 2024 (Common Stock Only)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 16, 2024<\/p>\n\n\n\n Based in Roswell, Georgia, Vestis is a provider of uniforms and workplace supplies in the United States and Canada. The Company was created as the result of its September 30, 2023 spinoff from food services and facilities management provider Aramark. Vestis began trading on the New York Stock Exchange on October 2, 2023, the first day of the Class Period, under the ticker symbol \u201cVSTS.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Leading up to Class Period before the spinoff, soon-to-be executives of Vestis claimed that \u201cinvestments are in place\u201d to deliver \u201c5% to 7% topline growth\u201d on compound annual growth rate (CAGR). They also assured investors that the Company\u2019s sales force had \u201creached their stride\u201d and were \u201cnow hitting productivity levels that we desire from them.\u201d As the Class Period progressed, Defendants highlighted the \u201creally, really great feedback\u201d that Vestis had received from its customer service initiatives and maintained that the Company\u2019s growth would continue to accelerate based on, among other things, Vestis \u201cproviding service excellence to our customers.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) Aramark had historically underinvested in the business that became Vestis; (2) Vestis operated with outdated facilities and an underperforming sales force; (3) Vestis\u2019s outdated facilities and underperforming sales force led to \u201cservice gaps\u201d that had impeded the Company\u2019s levers of growth and had resulted in customer attrition; and (4) as a result of the above, Defendants\u2019 statements about Vestis\u2019s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and\/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The class action further alleges that the truth was revealed before markets opened on May 2, 2024, when Vestis issued a press release announcing financial results for the second quarter of fiscal year 2024, ended March 29, 2024. Specifically, the Company disclosed that it had generated revenue of $705 million, a 0.9% increase over the same quarter in the prior year, and also had downwardly revised its revenue outlook for fiscal year 2024 to a range of negative 1% to 0%. During the corresponding earnings call with analysts that day, Chief Executive Officer (\u201cCEO\u201d) Kimberly Scott revealed the \u201cchallenges\u201d facing the Company related \u201cto sales productivity and deliberate moderated pricing actions,\u201d the latter of which CEO Scott explained were necessary to \u201cimprove[] retention\u201d and because \u201cservice gaps\u201d had \u201cdriven price sensitivity.\u201d During the same call, analysts pointed out that Vestis had pivoted from a recent announcement of a price increase to a price decrease and questioned Defendants about the reversal in pricing capabilities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n On this news, the price of Vestis stock plummeted 45%, from a closing price of $18.47 per share on May 1, 2024, to a closing price of $10.16 per share on May 2, 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For more information on the Vestis class action go to: https:\/\/bespc.com\/cases\/VSTS<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Teladoc Health, Inc. (NYSE: TDOC)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Class Period: November 2, 2022 – February 20, 2024<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 16, 2024<\/p>\n\n\n\n Teladoc provides online, direct-to-consumer health service services. BetterHelp is Teladoc\u2019s largest division and contributes the Company\u2019s greatest revenue share, contributing about 42% of overall revenue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Teladoc class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and\/or misleading statements and\/or failed to disclose that: (i) Teladoc continued to expand its marketing spend throughout 2023, despite public assurances that it would pull back its advertising spending; (ii) increased marketing spend on BetterHelp deteriorated Teladoc\u2019s revenue, with little return for that investment; (iii) despite Teladoc\u2019s acknowledgment that increased advertising spend would be marginally inefficient due to market saturation, it continued to grow its advertising spend in the BetterHelp business; and (iv) despite public statements that there remained \u201ca long runway\u201d for BetterHelp membership growth, BetterHelp\u2019s membership stagnated and then decreased in 2023, due to market saturation, largely due to BetterHelp\u2019s own marketing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Teladoc class action lawsuit further alleges that on February 20, 2024, Teladoc released its fourth quarter of 2023 earnings report on Form 10-K, which demonstrated substantially increased advertising costs \u201csubstantially driven by higher digital and media advertising costs related to BetterHelp.\u201d Teladoc also revealed that BetterHelp revenue fell $1 million compared to the year prior and fell about $10 million from the third to the fourth quarter of 2023; that BetterHelp lost members for two consecutive quarters, despite that increased advertising spend; and that Teladoc\u2019s revenue was flat compared to the prior year and down 3% sequentially \u2013 well below expectation, according to the complaint. On this news, the price of Teladoc\u2019s shares fell by more than 23%, according to the Teladoc class action lawsuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For more information on the Teladoc class action go to: https:\/\/bespc.com\/cases\/TDOC<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Direct Digital Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: DRCT)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Class Period: April 17, 2023 – March 25, 2024 (Common Stock Only)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 22, 2024<\/p>\n\n\n\n The suit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material facts, including that: (1) the Company\u2019s transition toward a \u201ccookie-less\u201d advertising environment was accelerated and would impact revenue in 2024; (2) the Company\u2019s alternatives to third-party cookies, including planned investments in AI and machine learning to build on first-party data sources, would not be viable alternatives to third-party cookies and similar tracking technologies; (3) the Company did not have adequate solutions to address the impending phase out of third-party cookies by Google; and (4) based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the effectiveness of Direct Digital\u2019s platform and related financial results, growth, and prospects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For more information on the Direct Digital class action go to: https:\/\/bespc.com\/cases\/DRCT<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com<\/u><\/a>. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Contact Information:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. NEW YORK, July 04, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1514,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1518","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blog","entry","has-media"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jwilsonpaving.ca\/wilsonfarms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1518","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jwilsonpaving.ca\/wilsonfarms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jwilsonpaving.ca\/wilsonfarms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jwilsonpaving.ca\/wilsonfarms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jwilsonpaving.ca\/wilsonfarms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1518"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/jwilsonpaving.ca\/wilsonfarms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1518\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1519,"href":"https:\/\/jwilsonpaving.ca\/wilsonfarms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1518\/revisions\/1519"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jwilsonpaving.ca\/wilsonfarms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1514"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jwilsonpaving.ca\/wilsonfarms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1518"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jwilsonpaving.ca\/wilsonfarms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1518"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jwilsonpaving.ca\/wilsonfarms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1518"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com<\/a>
www.bespc.com<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/ml.globenewswire.com\/media\/ZDliYzU1YTQtNzYyOS00YTBlLWFmZTctYTAwMTcwYzgwYzczLTExMTE5Njk=\/tiny\/Bragar-Eagel-Squire.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"Primary](\"https:\/\/ml.globenewswire.com\/media\/29481954-f2ff-4756-b5a9-d982a6497bd0\/small\/bes-mark-jpg.jpg\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"