The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. today announced that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of
SAIC, Inc. during the period between April 11, 2007 and September 1,
2011, and is seeking to recover investors' damages from violations of
federal securities laws.
To join the SAIC class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com, or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jon Horne,
toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email or pkim@rosenlegal.com or
jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS
CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU
MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS
MEMBER.
The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws against
SAIC and its officers and directors for issuing false and misleading
information to investors about the Company's true financial and business
condition. 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; and (5) the Company's financial statements were not
fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles and were materially false and misleading.
When the truth concerning SAIC's financial condition was disclosed publicly, its share price dropped, damaging investors.
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. If you
wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The
Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com. You may also visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com.
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder
derivative litigation.
www.rosenlegal.com
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Court: California can force inmates to submit DNA
A divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday that California law
enforcement officials can keep collecting DNA samples from people
arrested for felonies.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement’s interest in solving cold cases, identifying crime suspects and even exonerating the wrongly accused outweigh any privacy concerns raised by the forced DNA collections.
The 2-1 ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by four Californians who were arrested on felony charges but never convicted.
The arrestees sought a court order barring collection of DNA from people who are arrested but not convicted, arguing the process is an unconstitutional search and seizure since some suspects will later be exonerated.
The DNA samples are obtained with a swab of the cheek and stored in the state’s DNA database, which contains 1.9 million profiles. Arrestees who are never charged with a felony can apply to have their samples expunged from the database.
The state Department of Justice said it has had roughly 20,000 “hits’’ connecting suspects with previous crimes since it began collecting the DNA profiles.
Judge Mylan Smith Jr., writing for the two-judge majority, said the useful law enforcement tool wasn’t any more intrusive than fingerprinting.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement’s interest in solving cold cases, identifying crime suspects and even exonerating the wrongly accused outweigh any privacy concerns raised by the forced DNA collections.
The 2-1 ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by four Californians who were arrested on felony charges but never convicted.
The arrestees sought a court order barring collection of DNA from people who are arrested but not convicted, arguing the process is an unconstitutional search and seizure since some suspects will later be exonerated.
The DNA samples are obtained with a swab of the cheek and stored in the state’s DNA database, which contains 1.9 million profiles. Arrestees who are never charged with a felony can apply to have their samples expunged from the database.
The state Department of Justice said it has had roughly 20,000 “hits’’ connecting suspects with previous crimes since it began collecting the DNA profiles.
Judge Mylan Smith Jr., writing for the two-judge majority, said the useful law enforcement tool wasn’t any more intrusive than fingerprinting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)