Class action lawsuit filed by Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP for securities fraud

The law firm Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP has initiated a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, titled Hindlemann v. Molina Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-09461, on behalf of individuals and entities who acquired Molina Healthcare, Inc. (“Molina” or the “Company”) (NYSE: MOH) securities between February 5, 2025, and July 23, 2025 (the “Class Period”). The lawsuit is based on alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

Investors are advised that they have a 60-day window from the publication of this notice to petition the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the case.

On July 7, 2025, before the market opened, Molina released a press statement disclosing its financial results for the second quarter of 2025 and revising downwards the adjusted earnings per share guidance for the full year 2025. The press release indicated that the Company’s second-quarter 2025 adjusted earnings were around $5.50 per share, falling short of prior expectations due to “medical cost pressures in all three lines of business.” It was also stated that these medical cost pressures were expected to persist throughout the latter part of the year, prompting a reduction in the anticipated adjusted earnings per share by 10.2% at the midpoint, from “at least $24.50 per share” to a new range of $21.50 to $22.50 per share. Molina cited a “temporary earnings pressure” originating from a “discrepancy between premium rates and medical cost trend that has recently escalated.”

As a consequence of this announcement, Molina’s stock price declined by $6.97, or 2.9%, closing at $232.61 per share on July 7, 2025, with above-average trade volume.

Subsequently, on July 23, 2025, after the markets closed, Molina issued another press release detailing its financial results for the second quarter concluding on June 30, 2025, and made further adjustments to the Company’s full-year 2025 earnings forecast. The press release disclosed that the Company’s “GAAP net income was $4.75 per diluted share for the second quarter of 2025, representing an 8% decrease year over year.” Molina now anticipated that its full-year 2025 adjusted earnings would not fall below $19.00 per diluted share, constituting an additional 13.6% reduction in earnings per share guidance compared to the previous revision less than two weeks earlier. Furthermore, the Company downgraded its full-year 2025 GAAP net income by 27% to $912 million. Molina attributed its financial outlook for the year to a “challenging medical cost trend environment,” with particular emphasis on the “use of behavioral health, pharmacy, and inpatient and outpatient services.” The Company indicated that the rationale for the guidance revision included “new details discovered in the quarterly closing process.”

Following this update, Molina’s stock price plummeted by $32.03, or 16.84%, concluding at $158.22 per share on July 24, 2025, against an elevated trading volume.

The lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented material facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, failing to disclose adverse details. Defendants purportedly withheld information regarding Molina’s “medical cost trend assumptions,” the discrepancy between premium rates and medical cost trends, dependency on the reduced utilization of certain health services, and the likelihood of a substantial cut in financial guidance for fiscal year 2025. Consequently, the lawsuit claims that Defendants’ positive portrayals of Molina’s business, operations, and prospects were misleading and lacked a reasonable basis.

Individuals who procured Molina securities during the Class Period have the option to petition the Court within 60 days of the notice’s dissemination to seek the appointment as lead plaintiff.

Contact details for those interested in participating or seeking further information about the case are provided for direct communication with Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.