• finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    The premise of the lawsuit is literally the opposite of what the users here claimed was the premise of the lawsuit. If you wanted to insult Black Rock CEO and be honest you could just say he is suing them for not telling them about the denial rates and that he would have been fine if they had in fact told him.

    Their true motive is to punish people who inflated the stock price with unachievable forecasts, thereby receiving monetary compensation. They couldn’t be more opaque about it if they tried.

        • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Yeah the bit about “in other words” where you said the legal basis for the dispute is about a moral issue. You don’t see how that’s blatantly wrong?

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            I never said that, I explained very very very briefly that the source cited by this article above claims the basis for the lawsuit is that UnitedHealth made public earnings forecasts which were unachievable without artificially increasing the denial rate of claims, and they did not disclose this information to investors.

            Morality has nothing to do with Black Rock’s claims. They were promised more money return on investment than was physically possible to provide.