Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 04/13/2005 (Other)

Filing Date: March 18, 2003

As disclosed by the Company’s FORM 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, on and after March 18, 2003, several purported class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaints allege that between October 22, 2002 and March 14, 2003, the defendants made, or were aware of, false and misleading statements which had the effect of inflating the market price of the Company's common stock, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints were consolidated into a single class action on September 13, 2003. The class action was dismissed by the District Court on January 28, 2004. The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on September 30, 2004. Oral arguments on the appeal were held on December 2, 2004, and on March 18, 2005, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court. In addition, shortly after the class action complaints were filed, a stockholder's legal counsel sent a letter of demand that the Board of Directors investigate the same charges addressed in the class action suit. In late 2003 the Board concluded, after its investigation and based on its business judgment, to reject the demand letter.

The complaint alleges defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's business, operations and prospects. The Complaint alleges
that these statements were materially false and misleading when made as
they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others: (a) that the Company was experiencing declining demand for
its products and services as the failure of Congress to approve a budget
for 2003 was causing governmental agencies to delay projects; (b) that
the Company was experiencing material problems with certain of its
biometric identification contracts and would not be generating the
revenue that it had anticipated from those contracts; and (c) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company was materially overstating the
strength of its pipeline of projects and its prospects.
On March 14, 2003, after the close of the market, as alleged in the
complaint, PEC Solutions shocked the market when it issued a press
release announcing that it was revising its guidance for the first
quarter 2003 and for the year ending December 31, 2003. In response to
this announcement, the price of PEC Solutions common stock declined
precipitously falling from $15.80 per share to $9.81 per share, a
decline of more than 37%, on extremely heavy trading volume. During the
Class Period, prior to the disclosure of the true facts, the Individual
Defendants and other PEC Solutions insiders sold their personally-held
shares of PEC Solutions common stock to the unsuspecting public reaping
proceeds of more than $13 million.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PECS
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: E.D. Virginia
DOCKET #: 03-CV-00331
JUDGE: Hon. Gerald Bruce Lee
DATE FILED: 03/18/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/22/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/14/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brian Felgoise
    230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 , Brian Felgoise, PA 19102
    215.735.6810 215/735.5185. ·
  2. Bull & Lifshitz
    18 East 41st St., Bull & Lifshitz, NY 10017
    212.213.6222 212.213.9405 ·
  3. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  4. Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran
    1050 30th Street, NW, Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, DC 20007
    202.337.8000 202.337.8090 · contact@ftllaw.com
  5. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  6. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: E.D. Virginia
DOCKET #: 03-CV-00331
JUDGE: Hon. Gerald Bruce Lee
DATE FILED: 07/24/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/22/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/14/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  3. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date