According to the Complaint, Maximus provides business process services to government health and human services agencies in the United States, Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom (“UK”). On October 29, 2014, the UK Department for Work and Pensions awarded Maximus a significant contract to carry out health and disability benefits, called the Health Assessment Advisory Service (“HAAS”), over a period of three and a half years.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) in obtaining the HAAS contract, Maximus set an unattainable target number of healthcare professionals to recruit and an unattainable target number of assessments; (ii) throughout the HAAS contract, Maximus was struggling to recruit, train and ramp-up new health care staff to perform the assessments; (iii) the inability to meet its target number of healthcare recruits and target number of assessments meant Maximus would not earn the performance-based incentive fees from the HAAS contract; and (iv) consequently, Defendants’ statements about the Company, its financial condition, and the outlook for its business, including statements about the HAAS contract and the amount of revenue the Company expected the contract to contribute, lacked a reasonable basis when made.

On November 3, 2017, Lead Plaintiff and Counsel were appointed. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended Complaint on December 4. On January 8, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended Complaint. The Court issued an Order on August 27 granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended Complaint with prejudice. On September 24, Lead Plaintiff filed a Notice appealing the Court's decision and final judgment of August 27, 2018. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's Dismissal Order on June 14, 2019.