On or around 05/15/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)
Filing Date: December 27, 2018
According to the Complaint, DXC Technology Company ("DXC" or the "Company") purports to be a leader in the information technology (“IT”) services space, focusing on helping clients decrease IT infrastructure costs and advance to digital technology. DXC was formed by the merger of Computer Sciences Corporation (“CSC”) and the enterprise services business of Hewlett Packard Enterprises (“HPE”) on April 3, 2017. The merger created one of the largest IT services companies in the industry.
The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that the Company had changed or planned to change the operations of its sales teams, deploying generalized sales teams as opposed to the specialized teams that were better capable of delivering specialized services to its clients; that the Company’s workforce optimization strategy of sharply reducing staff while reducing costs was resulting in a shortage of sales personnel who could execute on demand for services, thereby risking and ultimately losing sales and revenue opportunities; and that, as a consequence, the Company’s revenue and financial performance guidance for fiscal 2019 was without a reasonable basis.
On March 26, 2019, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated Complaint on April 15.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: DXC Technology Company
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States
Ticker Symbol: DXC
Company Market: New York SE
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.
First Identified Complaint
City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System, et al. v. DXC Technology Company, et al.