Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 08/19/2019 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: December 23, 2016

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Universal Health admitted patients based on its own financial considerations and not upon the medical necessity of the patient; (2) Universal Health would keep patients admitted until their insurance payments ran out in order to ensure the maximum payment for its services; (3) as a result, Universal Health’s revenues from inpatient care relied on unsustainable practices; (4) in turn, Universal Health lacked effective internal control concerning its practices and policies of admitting patients; and (5) as a result, Universal Health’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On December 7, 2016, Buzzfeed published an investigative story on Universal Health alleging, among other things, that Universal Health put profits ahead of people. On this news, shares of Universal Health fell $15.01 per share, or nearly 12%, from its previous closing price to close at $111.36 per share on December 7, 2016, damaging investors.

This case was transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 20, 2017. Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on September 29. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on December 6. On August 19, 2019, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.


Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Healthcare Facilities
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: UHS
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data

"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 16-CV-09499
JUDGE: Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez
DATE FILED: 12/23/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/07/2016
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: E.D. Pennsylvania
DOCKET #: 17-CV-02817
JUDGE: Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez
DATE FILED: 09/29/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/25/2017
  1. Profy Promisloff & Ciarlanto, P.C.
    100 N. 22nd Street, Unit 105 , Profy Promisloff & Ciarlanto, P.C. , PA 19087
    215-259-5156 215-600-2642 ·
  2. Saxena White PA (Boca Raton)
    2424 N. Federal Highway, Suite 257, Saxena White PA (Boca Raton), FL 33431
    561.394.3399 561.394.3399 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available