Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 08/04/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: August 04, 2017

According to the Complaint, Maximus provides business process services (“BPS”) 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 (“DWP”) 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 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.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MMS
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: E.D. Virginia
DOCKET #: 17-CV-00884
JUDGE: Hon. Anthony J Trenga
DATE FILED: 08/04/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/30/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/03/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Labaton Sucharow LLP
    140 Broadway, Labaton Sucharow LLP, NY 10005
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
  2. Law Offices of Susan R. Podolsky
    1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600, Law Offices of Susan R. Podolsky, VA 22314
    571.366.1702 703.647.6009 ·
No Document Title Filing Date