WILMINGTON, Del.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of SAIC, Inc. (“SAIC” or the “Company”) (NYSE:SAI) between April 11, 2007 and September 1, 2011 (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Complaint”).
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Scott J. Farrell, Esquire 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/saic-inc-sai.
SAIC describes itself as a scientific, engineering, and technology applications company that uses its deep domain knowledge to solve problems of importance to the nation and the world, in national security, energy & environment, health, and cybersecurity. The Complaint names SAIC and certain of the Company’s officers and/or directors as defendants, and alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) over a multi-year period, SAIC had overbilled New York City hundreds of millions of dollars on the CityTime project – an initiative associated with the modernization of New York City’s employee payroll system; (2) as a result of these overbilling practices, its operating results during the Class Period were materially misstated; (3) SAIC’s overbilling practices subjected the Company to numerous undisclosed risks, including monetary risks and risks to the Company’s reputation; (4) as a result of the foregoing, SAIC violated applicable accounting standards associated with the recognition of revenue and the disclosure and accounting for loss contingencies; (5) the Company’s financial statements were not fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and were materially false and misleading; (6) certifications associated with the Company’s internal and disclosure controls, issued by defendants Dahlberg and Sopp, were materially false and misleading; and (7) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its business and prospects.
Following the Company’s 2012 fiscal second quarter earnings announcement on August 31, 2011, defendants held a conference call with analysts and investors, and disclosed, for the first time, that the Company’s revenues were, in part, impacted by the “wind[ing] down” of the CityTime contract, and while the Company could not quantify the amount, it believed that it was “probable” that it would have to make restitution to New York City for wrongful conduct on CityTime.
As a result of the foregoing disclosures, the price of SAIC common stock fell approximately 14%, from $15.00 per share on August 31, 2011 to $12.97 per share on September 1, 2011.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 23, 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.