UnitedHealth Group received multiple bids for Latin American operations
Investing.com -- UnitedHealth Group (NYSE:UNH) is considering several offers for its Latin American operations, according to a Reuters report on Monday. The move comes as the largest U.S. health insurer faces challenges that include the departure of its CEO and an alleged criminal accounting investigation.
The insurer has been attempting to leave Latin America since 2022, with the sale of its Banmedica subsidiary becoming more urgent in recent months due to increasing pressures on multiple fronts, the report said.
So far, UnitedHealth has reportedly received four preliminary bids for Banmedica, which operates in Colombia and Chile, with an estimated value of about $1 billion.
In May, UnitedHealth's shares dropped 25.5%, and the year-to-date decline stands at 40%. The company withdrew from Brazil in 2023 and from Peru in March 2025. It aims to secure around $1 billion for Banmedica's operations in Colombia and Chile.
The company anticipates setting a deadline for final proposals as early as July. The bids reportedly include offers from Washington, D.C.-based private equity firm Acon Investments, Sao Paulo-based private equity firm Patria Investments, Texas non-profit health organization Christus Health, and Lima-based healthcare and insurance provider Auna. The report mentioned that Auna is currently in discussions with a financial partner.
Related articles
UnitedHealth Group received multiple bids for Latin American operations
Tesla shares slip after double downgrade amid Trump feud fallout
What are the three big things in markets now? RBC weighs in
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
44 minutes ago
- Forbes
250 Million Acre Public Land Sale Would Ruin The Off-Road Industry
Ford Performance at the 2025 King of the Hammers in Southern California's Johnson Valley. Since President Trump took office in January, the amount of threats to anything considered public—from a large slice of our nation's workforce to the media—have been unrelenting. Earlier this month, these threats took on a new form: potentially robbing the American people of millions of acres of public land. Unveiled on June 11th and revised on the 14th, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's budget reconciliation bill outlines over 250 million acres, to be slightly more exact, that could be offered up for sale to private business. As reported on by Jonathon Klein of Ride Apart, this could have a tremendous negative impact on not just our natural resources, but every corner of the outdoor industry as well. For those amongst us who enjoy off-road driving (or hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, cycling, climbing, etc.), the possibility of being cut-off from lands where we savor such activity is very real. Klein points out one particular swath of land in Southern California, Johnson Valley—home to one of the world's top off-road racing events, King of the Hammers—is on the chopping block, which would not only be detrimental to this event, but every single industry that's involved in it. Automakers, the aftermarket performance and racing industries, tourism, general outdoor equipment industries; the list goes on. Take that same scenario and multiply it by every other parcel of land that outdoor enthusiasts could lose access to, and the damage would be extensive. For a good overall picture of what's on the chopping block, The Wilderness Society has created a handy map. Competitors at the 2020 King of the Hammers in Johnson Valley, California. But why is all of this land potentially for sale? As stated in the bill itself, as much as $15 billion in revenue could come from expanded oil, gas, coal, and geothermal leasing. Other aims include increased housing production, domestic energy security and timber production, as well as, in the bill's summarized words, 'ensuring states and counties benefit from energy projects on federal lands.' The Wilderness Society has also outlined a handful of counter arguments. In its words, 'research suggests that very little of the land managed by the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) and USFS (US Forest Service) is actually suitable for housing.' It also explains that the federal government can revoke national monument status and that certain changes would negatively impact sovereign Tribal Nations. We can't forget the fact that increased energy production carries its own environmental hazards, too. It's all bad and very unnecessary. One thing that truly makes America great is its beautiful natural land that's here for all of us to savor, and this bill could cut off a very significant portion of it. And again, there's the immense adverse effect on every single outdoor industry, especially off-road driving and racing, and the massive amount of American companies that feed it. Contact your US senator and let them know how you feel. Especially if you live in Utah, which is Senator Mike Lee's turf. He's Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the creator of this bill—ironically, as many as 18 million acres of his state's land could potentially be up for sale. That's a lot of territory for off-road driving, hunting, shooting, fishing, climbing, camping, hiking, mountain biking, and so on.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court delivers another blow to California's imperiled emissions standards
The Supreme Court reinstated legal challenges by oil and gas companies Friday to California's strict emissions standards for motor vehicles, standards that the Trump administration is likely to halt on its own in the near future. Federal law allows California to set tighter limits on auto emissions than the national standard, and since 1990 has allowed other states to adopt California's rules, an option taken by 17 states and the District of Columbia. But fuel companies affected by the increasing use of electric vehicles contend the state's standards are too restrictive and have sued to overturn them. Lower federal courts ruled that companies had failed to show they were being harmed by the standards, and therefore lacked legal standing to sue, because electric car sales are increasing for other reasons. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 7-2 decision. 'The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. 'The government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court.' But dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said lawyers in the case had told the court that the Environmental Protection Agency, under President Donald Trump, was about to withdraw its approval of California's waiver from nationwide standards, 'which will put an end to California's emissions program.' The EPA took that action during Trump's first administration, which was reversed under President Joe Biden. Meanwhile, legislation passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Trump would prevent California from banning sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles in 2035, a law the state has challenged in court. The Supreme Court 'is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests,' and Friday's ruling 'will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act,' said Jackson, a Biden appointee. In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court should have returned the case to a lower court to await the EPA's action. Kavanaugh, however, said fuel companies affected by California's current standards could seek to prove in court that they were arbitrary and unlawful. His opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, said it was not a full-scale rejection of the state's emissions standards. 'This ruling does not change California's Advanced Clean Cars rulemaking, nor does it dispute what data has shown to be true: vehicle emissions are a huge source of pollution with grave health impacts, consumer adoption of zero emission vehicles continues to rise, and global auto manufacturers are committed to an electric future,' she said in a statement. But attorney Brett Skorup of the libertarian Cato Institute said the ruling was 'a welcome rebuke to judicial gatekeeping' and affirmed that 'predictable economic harms from government regulation' entitle 'injured parties (to) have their day in court.' The case is Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, No. 24-7.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump administration orders California to remove ‘disturbing gender ideology' from sex ed program
The Trump administration has given California 60 days to strip all references to gender identity from a federally funded sex education program or risk losing its funding. In a letter sent Friday to the California Department of Public Health, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families called the state's Personal Responsibility Education Program 'noncompliant' with federal law. The agency cited 'disturbing gender ideology content,' including passages explaining that gender identity can differ from biological sex and that some individuals identify as transgender or nonbinary. 'The Trump Administration will not tolerate the use of federal funds for programs that indoctrinate our children,' said Andrew Gradison, ACF's acting secretary, in a statement. 'The disturbing gender ideology content in California's PREP materials is both unacceptable and well outside the program's core purpose.' PREP, which receives approximately $6 million in federal support, is designed to educate youth on contraception, abstinence and preventing sexually transmitted infections. California officials said the program targets vulnerable populations, such as youth in homeless shelters and juvenile justice facilities. Among the flagged content were educational materials describing gender identity as a 'deep-seated, internal sense' and including terms such as 'cisgender,' 'transgender' and 'genderqueer.' The agency stated that such material exceeds the scope of PREP's authorizing statute. A spokesperson for California Gov. Gavin Newsom told The Hill that the state was first made aware of the directive through Fox News. 'To be clear: this is NOT California's K-12 sex education curriculum,' the spokesperson noted, calling it an 'effective, evidence-based program model.' The latest announcement comes just days after the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming medical care — such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy — for transgender minors.
