September 25, 2020 - A second amended complaint was filed.

July 27, 2020 - An order granting defendants' motion to dismiss was issued by the court. The plaintiffs were given leave to amend the complaint.

February 24, 2020 - A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed.

January 8, 2020 - An amended complaint was filed.

September 16, 2019 - An investor in shares of DXC Technology Company (NYSE: DXC) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by DXC Technology Company in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements.

Tysons, VA based DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides information technology services and solutions primarily in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.

In April 2017 Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company’s Enterprise Services segment was spun off and merged with Computer Sciences Corporation, Inc. to form DXC Technology Company.

On February 6, 2019, a civil complaint was filed, alleging that certain officers of DXC Technology Company were heavily focused on using cost-cutting efforts and layoffs to inflate short-term financial metrics and that these efforts substantially impaired the Company’s ability to deliver contractually required services to clients.
On August 8, 2019, after the market closed, DXC Technology Company lowered its fiscal 2020 guidance, expecting revenue between $20.2 billion and $20.7 billion, representing a $500 million shortfall from previously-issued guidance.

According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.

More specifically, the plaintiff claims that the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the planned “workforce optimization” plan involved implementing arbitrary quotas, that the plan would cut thousands of jobs at the Company, that jobs that were particularly at risk of being cut were held by longer-tenured, knowledgeable, and highly compensated senior personnel, that these job terminations were selectively timed to artificially inflate reported earnings and other financial metrics, that, at the time of the Merger, defendant Lawrie had forecasted plans for a $2.7 billion workforce reduction in the first year, that, as a result of these workforce terminations, the Company was unlikely to deliver on client contracts, that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s clients would be dissatisfied and the relationships would be impaired, and that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.