2mo ago

This month in capitalism: UnitedHealthCare sued by shareholders because backlash prevented the company from pursuing “aggressive, anti-consumer tactics it would need to achieve” earnings goals

www.cnbc.com

UnitedHealthcare sued by shareholders over reaction to CEO's killing

It’s ghouls all the way down, folks

Luigi Mangione @lemmy.world

Five @slrpnk.net

2mo ago

UnitedHealthcare sued by shareholders over reaction to CEO's killing

www.cnbc.com /2025/05/08/unitedhealthcare-sued-by-shareholders-over-reaction-to-ceos-killing.html

20 comments

1000 more
's wouldn't be enough to cleanse this land
- Brother, do we have to Luigi everyone?
  
  Shareholders say yes
  
  What do you think
  is?
- Basically everyone who has retirement savings is a shareholder
What else can you say except death to amerikkka, death to capitalism, and death to the shareholders?
Orphan crushing machine sued by orphan crushing machine shareholders for not crushing enough orphans
They are suing because UHC didn't tell them they weren't going to make as much money. Seems the bean counters doubted the power of
These jokers love to pat themselves on the back saying they're so brave and take risk with stocks, but then they throw temper tantrums like when they don't get their "guaranteed returns"
Damn who are these shareholders? Is there a list?
- Nearly 92% owned by Institutions
  Top 10 Institutions Below
  Vanguard | 9.35%
  Blackrock | 8.16%
  State Street | 5.01%
  FMR | 3.31%
  JP Morgan | 2.68%
  Wellington Management | 2.57%
  Capital World Investors | 2.36%
  Price (T.Rowe) Associates | 2.35%
  Morgan Stanley | 2.35%
  Geode Capital Management | 2.19%
  When you invest in an ETF or mutual fund, you're basically handing your power in decision making to these large institutions.
  There's a reason companies like BP and Exxon don't divert to renewables, and one of those reasons is because institutions like these own a majority share in these companies, and get to make the decisions to drill as much as possible for that short term revenue.
  It makes sense under a capitalist society because if some old fart has their money tied up into a retirement plan, it's in their institution's best interest to appease them. They don't care about long term profits because they'll be dead before they can reap the benefits! And if that's the case they'll take their money elsewhere.
  
  This very clear representation of the dictatorship of finance capital, most if not all publicly traded companies are structured this way.
- Are we tired of winning folks?
Hilarious to even try this. Fiduciary responsibility demands extracting every single cent from every drop of blood or you lose your job as CEO, but we get to sue now if they do it in a way that's too icky- buddy wait'll you hear about how all labour is exploitation
- My understanding of the language of the suit is that the investors expected either a continuation of the icky business as usual or maybe a reduced profit forecast.
Since it's worded a little weirdly in tbe title, and equally-weirdly in the article, I believe what they're saying is....
"UHC didn't lower their profit goals after Thompson's murder, even though achieving those goals requires aggressive anti-consumer tactics, and they should have known that they wouldn't be able to implement those, after the murder highlighted how anti-consumer the company is."
So, in case it wasn't clear, no, the plaintiff position doesn't really give a shit about the anti-consumerism itself.

20 comments