March 5, 2012
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
today announced that one week remains for Chemed Corporation ("Chemed" or the "Company") investors to make a motion for lead plaintiff with the Court.
Several weeks ago, a
securities class action
was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
on behalf of purchasers of Chemed (NYSE: CHE) common stock during the period between
February 15, 2010
November 16, 2011
(the "Class Period").
The complaint charges Chemed and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Chemed, through its subsidiaries, provides hospice care and repair and cleaning services in
the United States
. The Company operates in two segments: VITAS and Roto-Rooter.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that the Company engaged in a scheme to fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services for patients who did not qualify for hospice and fraudulently shifted the costs of those patients from health maintenance organizations that covered those patients prior to enrollment in hospice to the U.S. government; (b) that a significant portion of the Company's hospice enrollments, revenues and earnings were the direct result of defendants' scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare for hospice services; (c) that, in a complaint filed under seal, a former VITAS manager had accused the Company of engaging in a Company-wide scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice and fraudulently bill Medicare; (d) that the Company failed to maintain adequate internal controls and procedures with respect to hospice enrollments and Medicare billings; (e) that the Company's financial results were materially overstated as a result of defendants' fraudulent scheme to enroll ineligible patients in hospice; and (f) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.