Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Accretive Health, Inc. (“Accretive Health” or the “Company”) (NYSE: AH) between March 2, 2011 and April 24, 2012, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).

If you purchased shares of Accretive Health during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Accretive Health, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Scott J. Farrell, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rigrodskylong.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/accretive-health-inc-ah.

Accretive Health, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, provides revenue cycle management services for hospitals and healthcare providers in the United States. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Accretive Health failed to disclose that the Company was violating health privacy laws, state debt collections laws and state consumer protection laws. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On March 29, 2012, Accretive Health announced that in an ongoing effort to resolve its outstanding issues with the Minnesota Attorney General, the Company, along with Fairview Health Services (“Fairview”), had decided to amend their revenue cycle operations agreement to transition the management of those operations to Fairview leadership. Further, Accretive Health expected the revenue impact of the new revenue cycle operations agreement with Fairview to be in the range of $62 million to $68 million, or approximately 6% of the company’s expected 2012 revenue. On April 24, 2012, the Minnesota Attorney General released a report that highlighted aggressive practices used by Accretive Health, including demanding payment from people seeking care in emergency rooms, cancer wards and delivery rooms. Following the release of this report, stock in Accretive Health fell nearly $8 per share on April 25, 2012, a one-day decline of approximately 40% on heavy trading volume of nearly 1.7 million shares.

The Complaint also alleges that these true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company was violating privacy standards under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act by, among other things, (i) failing to provide appropriate safeguards to prevent the misuse or disclosure of protected health information; (ii) failing to keep all protected health information strictly confidential; and (iii) failing to develop, implement, maintain and use appropriate technical and physical safeguards to preserve the integrity, confidentiality and availability of protected health information and to prevent non-permitted use or disclosure of the information; (b) the Company failed to encrypt protected patient health information; (c) the Company was violating terms of its contract with Fairview by failing to limit access of protected health information to the persons or classes of persons in its workforce who needed access to it in order to carry out their duties; (d) the Company was violating Minnesota state debt collection laws by, among other things, failing to provide patients with required disclosures identifying itself as a debt collection agency; (e) the Company was violating Minnesota consumer protection laws by, among other things, failing to disclose to patients the extent of the Company’s access to data and the manner in which it utilizes such data; and (f) the effect the Company’s violations of health privacy laws, state debt collection laws and state consumer protections law would have on its future earnings and on its relationship with Fairview.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 25, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.