Al Shimari, et al. v. L-3 Services, Inc. et al. On June 30, 2008, Plaintiff Al Shimari filed a twenty-count complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiff Al Shimari is an Iraqi who claimed that he suffered significant physical injury and emotional distress while held at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The lawsuit named CACI International Inc, CACI Premier Technology, Inc. and former CACI employee Timothy Dugan as Defendants, along with L-3 Services, Inc. The complaint alleged that the Defendants conspired with U.S. military personnel to engage in illegal treatment of Iraqi detainees. The complaint did not allege any interaction between Plaintiff Al Shimari and any CACI employee. Plaintiff Al Shimari sought, inter alia, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. On August 8, 2008, the court granted CACI’s motion to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Thereafter, an amended complaint was filed adding three plaintiffs. On September 12, 2008, Mr. Dugan was dismissed from the case without prejudice. On October 2, 2008, CACI filed a motion to dismiss the case. CACI also moved to stay discovery pending further proceedings. The court granted CACI’s motion to stay discovery. On March 18, 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part CACI’s motion to dismiss. On March 23, 2009, CACI filed a notice of appeal with respect to the March 18, 2009 decision. Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike CACI’s notice of appeal and a motion to lift the stay on discovery. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied both motions. On April 27, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit deferred any ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion and issued a briefing schedule. Plaintiffs filed a notice of cross-appeal, which CACI moved to dismiss. The Court of Appeals dismissed the Plaintiffs’ cross-appeal. On October 26, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard oral argument in the appeal and took the matter under advisement. On September 21, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and remanded the action with instructions to dismiss the action. On October 5, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a petition for a rehearing en banc, which the Court of Appeals granted. The Court of Appeals also invited the United States to participate in the en banc rehearing of the appeal as amicus curiae. The United States participated in that capacity in the en banc rehearing. On January 27, 2012, the Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, heard oral argument. On May 11, 2012, the Court of Appeals, in an 11-3 decision, held that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal and dismissed the appeal. The action returned to the district court for further proceedings. On October 12, 2012, the district court conducted a status conference at which the court asked the parties to prepare and submit a plan for discovery in the action. The parties subsequently filed a joint discovery plan, which the court approved. The Court also lifted the stay of discovery, and reinstated the claims arising under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) that the Court had previously dismissed. On December 26, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss several counts of the Second Amended Complaint. On March 8, 2013, the Court dismissed the conspiracy claims in the Second Amended Complaint, and dismissed CACI International Inc from the action. Subsequently, the Court allowed Plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint for the purpose of repleading the conspiracy claims. On March 28, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint, and on April 15, 2013, Defendant CACI Premier Technology, Inc. moved to dismiss the conspiracy claims in the Third Amended Complaint. On March 19, 2013, the Court granted a motion for reconsideration filed by Defendants with respect to the statute of limitations applicable to the common law tort claims of three of the four Plaintiffs, and dismissed those claims. Defendant CACI Premier Technology, Inc. also filed a motion for sanctions with respect to the failure of three of the four Plaintiffs to appear for depositions and medical examinations as ordered by the court. On April 12, 2013, the Court denied that motion but entered an order requiring the three Plaintiffs to appear for depositions and medical examinations no later than April 26, 2013 and stating that if the three Plaintiffs did not comply with the order their claims were subject to dismissal. Plaintiffs did not appear for depositions in the United States as of April 26, 2013. Defendant CACI Premier Technology, Inc. then renewed its motion for sanctions, seeking dismissal, for the three Plaintiffs’ violation of the Court order to appear for depositions and medical examinations. Defendant CACI Premier Technology, Inc. also filed a motion to dismiss the ATS claims of all four Plaintiffs for lack of jurisdiction in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s April 17, 2013 decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, and a motion to dismiss the common law claims of the single Plaintiff with those claims on various grounds. On June 26, 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant CACI Premier Technology, Inc.’s motions with respect to Plaintiffs’ ATS claims and Plaintiffs’ common law claims, and dismissing the Third Amended Complaint without prejudice. The Court also denied all other pending motions, including Defendant CACI Premier Technology, Inc.’s motions for sanctions and to dismiss the conspiracy claims, as moot. On July 24, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the district court’s June 26 decision. On March 18, 2014, a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ appeal and took the matters under advisement. On June 30, 2014, the three judge panel vacated the district court’s June 26, 2013 Order and remanded Plaintiffs’ claims for further proceeding. 17 On remand, Defendant CACI Premier Technology, Inc. moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims based upon the political question doctrine. On June 18, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting Defendant CACI Premier Technology, Inc.’s motion to dismiss, and on June 26, 2015 entered a final judgment in favor of Defendant CACI Premier Technology, Inc. On July 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the district court’s June 2015 decision. On October 21, 2016, the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the District Court’s judgment with instructions for the District Court to make further determinations regarding the political question doctrine. That same day, the District Court (Lee, J.) entered an Order recusing himself from further participation in the action. Subsequently, a new District Court judge (Brinkema, J.) was assigned to the action. The District Court conducted an initial status conference on December 16, 2016. On June 9, 2017, the District Court dismissed Plaintiff Rashid without prejudice from the action based upon his inability to participate. On July 19, 2017, CACI Premier Technology, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the action on numerous legal grounds. The Court held a hearing on that motion on September 22, 2017, and denied the motion pending issuance of a written decision. On January 17, 2018, CACI filed a third-party complaint naming the United States and John Does 1-60, asserting claims for contribution, indemnification, exoneration and breach of contract in the event that CACI Premier Technology, Inc. is held liable to Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs are seeking to hold CACI Premier Technology, Inc. liable on a co-conspirator theory and a theory of aiding and abetting. On February 21, 2018, the District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing with prejudice the claims of direct abuse of the Plaintiffs by CACI personnel (Counts 1, 4 and 7 of the Third Amended Complaint) in response to the motion to dismiss filed by CACI on July 19, 2017, and denying the balance of the motion to dismiss. On March 14, 2018, the United States filed a motion to dismiss the third party complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. On April 13, 2018, the Court held a hearing on the United States’ motion to dismiss and took the matter under advisement. The Court subsequently stayed the part of the action against John Does 1-60. On April 13, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to reinstate Plaintiff Rashid, which CACI opposed. On April 20, 2018, the District Court granted that motion subject to Plaintiff Rashid appearing for a deposition. On May 21, 2018, CACI filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on a recent Supreme Court decision. On June 25, 2018, the District Court denied that motion. On October 25, 2018, the District Court conducted a pre-trial conference at which the District Court addressed remaining discovery matters, the scheduling for dispositive motions that CACI intends to file, and set a date of April 23, 2019 for trial, if needed, to start. On December 20, 2018, CACI filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss based on the state secrets privilege. On January 3, 2019, CACI filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On February 15, 2019, the United States filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to CACI’s third-party complaint. On February 27, 2019, the District Court denied CACI’s motion for summary judgment and motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and on the state secrets privilege. On February 28, 2019, CACI filed a motion seeking dismissal on grounds of derivative sovereign immunity. On March 22, 2019, the District Court denied the United States’ motion to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity and CACI’s motion to dismiss on grounds of derivative sovereign immunity. The District Court also granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment with respect to CACI’s third-party complaint. On March 26, 2019, CACI filed a Notice of Appeal of the District Court’s March 22, 2019 decision. On April 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an Accelerated Briefing Order for the appeal. On April 3, 2019, the District Court issued an Order cancelling the trial schedule and holding matters in abeyance pending disposition of the appeal. On July 10, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard oral argument in Spartanburg, South Carolina on CACI’s appeal. On August 23, 2019, the Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion dismissing the appeal. A majority of the panel that heard the appeal held that rulings denying derivative sovereign immunity are not immediately appealable even where they present pure questions of law. The panel also ruled, in the alternative, that even if such a ruling was immediately appealable, review was barred because there remained disputes of material fact with respect to CACI’s derivative sovereign immunity defenses. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied CACI’s request for rehearing en banc. CACI then filed a motion to stay issuance of the mandate pending the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari. On October 11, 2019, the Court of Appeals, by a 2-1 vote, denied the motion to stay issuance of the mandate. CACI then filed an application to stay issuance of the mandate with Chief Justice Roberts in his capacity as Circuit Justice for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. After CACI filed that application, the Court of Appeals issued the mandate on October 21, 2019, returning jurisdiction to the district court. On October 23, Chief Justice Roberts denied the stay application “without prejudice to applicants filing a new application after seeking relief in the district court.” CACI then filed a motion in the district court to stay the action pending filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari. On November 1, 2019, the district court granted CACI’s motion and issued an Order staying the action until further order of the court. On November 15, 2019, CACI filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 27, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an Order inviting the Solicitor General to file a brief in the case expressing the views of the United States. On August 26, 2020, the Solicitor General filed a brief recommending that CACI’s petition for a writ of certiorari be held pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of Nestle USA, Inc. v. Doe, cert. granted, No. 19-416 (July 2, 2020), and Cargill, Inc. v. Doe, cert. granted, No. 19-453 (July 2, 2020). The United States’ brief recommended that if the Supreme Court’s decisions in Nestle and Cargill did not effectively eliminate the claims in Al Shimari, then the Supreme Court should grant CACI’s petition for a writ of certiorari. On June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Nestle and Cargill cases, holding that the allegations of domestic conduct in the cases were general corporate activity insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, the Supreme Court remanded the cases for dismissal. On June 28, 2021, the Supreme Court denied CACI’s petition for a writ of certiorari. On July 16, 2021, the District Court granted CACI’s consent motion to lift the stay of the action, and ordered the parties to submit status reports to the District Court by August 4, 2021. On July 23, 2021, CACI filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on, among other things, the recent Supreme Court decision in the Nestle and Cargill cases. On August 4, 2021, the parties submitted status reports to the District Court. On September 10, 2021, the Court conducted a hearing on CACI’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and took the motion under advisement. 18 The Court issued an Order directing the plaintiffs to provide the Court with a calculation of specific damages sought by each plaintiff. In response, plaintiffs advised the Court that, if the case is tried, they do not intend to request a specific amount of damages. On October 1, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an estimate of compensatory damages between $6.0 million and $9.0 million ($2.0 million to $3.0 million per plaintiff) and an estimate of punitive damages between $23.5 million and $64.0 million. On July 18, 2022, CACI filed a memorandum of supplemental authority in support of its motion to dismiss filed on July 23, 2021, asserting that a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding the test for extraterritoriality supported dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Also on July 18, 2022, CACI filed a second motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that three decisions issued by the Supreme Court in June 2022 demonstrate that courts should not recognize claims under the ATS that arise out of the United States’ prosecution of war. On September 16, 2022, the District Court conducted a hearing on that motion and took the matter under advisement. On July 31, 2023, the District Court denied the July 23, 2021 motion to dismiss and the July 18, 2022 motion to dismiss. On September 7, 2023, CACI filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, asserting that the District Court had disregarded binding precedent and asking the Court of Appeals to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On September 13, 2023, the Court of Appeals issued an Order requiring the plaintiffs to respond to the petition. On September 25, 2023, the plaintiffs filed their response to CACI’s petition, opposing the relief sought. On October 2, 2023, the District Court entered an Order setting the case for a jury trial on April 15, 2024. On November 2, 2023, the Court of Appeals denied without opinion the petition for a writ of mandamus. Trial commenced on April 15, 2024. During trial, the plaintiffs abandoned their claim of war crimes. On May 9, 2024, the jury notified the District Court that it was deadlocked and could not reach a unanimous verdict on any claim. The District Court then dismissed the jury and declared a mistrial. On May 16, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial, and CACI filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law. On June 14, 2024, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion, denied CACI’s motion, and proposed dates in October 2024 for a new trial. The District Court subsequently scheduled the new trial to start on October 30, 2024. A second trial commenced on October 30, 2024. At the conclusion of the presentation of the evidence, the District Court granted CACI’s motion to dismiss the aiding and abetting claims for lack of evidence. On November 12, 2024, the jury found for the plaintiffs on the sole claim remaining in the case, that CACI personnel had conspired with the military for the military to abuse the plaintiffs. The jury awarded compensatory damages of $3 million per plaintiff and punitive damages of $11 million per plaintiff. After the verdict was returned, the District Court disclosed a note sent by the jury on November 8, 2024, not at the time disclosed to counsel, asking if the jury could award punitive damages to a non-profit human rights organization, rather than to plaintiffs, dealing with abuses arising from Abu Ghraib. On November 25, 2024, CACI filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, asserting numerous grounds for setting aside the jury verdict and dismissing the action. On January 10, 2025, the District Court conducted a hearing on that motion and denied the motion. On January 10, 2025, CACI filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Court of Appeals established a briefing schedule, which concluded on July 25, 2025. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on September 9, 2025. On March 12, 2026, the Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the judgment of the district court against CACI. On April 24, 2026, the Company filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc and asked the Court of Appeals to stay action on that petition pending the Supreme Court’s expected decision in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, No. 24-856. On June 22, 2026, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Cisco case. The Supreme Court held that federal courts may not imply any causes of action under the ATS other than perhaps the three law of nations violations recognized at the time of ATS’s enactment—violation of safe conducts, infringements of the rights of ambassadors, and piracy. Both claims of conspiracy on which the judgment against CACI below rests were judicially implied under the ATS. On June 23, 2026, CACI filed a notice with the Court of Appeals apprising the Court of the Cisco decision. In that filing, CACI took the position that Cisco categorically precludes judicially-implied ATS claims beyond the three specific judicially-implied claims that might remain viable under Cisco, a holding that bars the only two claims on which the judgment against CACI rests. Accordingly, CACI requested that the Court reverse the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for lack of jurisdiction. On June 29, 2026, the Court of Appeals directed the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing their views on the effect of the Cisco decision. The parties subsequently filed briefs as directed. The matter is pending before the Court of Appeals. Abbass, et al v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc. and CACI International Inc, Case No. 1:13CV1186-LMB/JFA (EDVA) On September 20, 2013, fifty-five Plaintiffs filed a nine-count complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia styled Abbass, et al. v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc., et al. Plaintiffs are Iraqi nationals who assert that their allegations are essentially the same as those of the plaintiffs in Al Shimari. Plaintiffs claim that they suffered significant physical injury and emotional distress while in U.S. custody in Iraq. The lawsuit names CACI International Inc and CACI Premier Technology, Inc. as Defendants. The complaint alleges that Defendants conspired with U.S. military personnel to engage in illegal treatment of Iraqi detainees. The complaint does not allege any interaction between Plaintiffs and any CACI employee. Plaintiffs’ claims are brought pursuant to the ATS and the Torture Victims Protection Act. Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs’ action was originally filed in 2009 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, but was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in September 2011 after the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Saleh v. Titan Corp. and Ibrahim v. Titan Corp., 580 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009). The CACI Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint. Before deciding the motion to dismiss, the district court stayed the action pending a decision from the Court of Appeals in Al Shimari v. L-3 Services, Inc. 19 We are vigorously defending the above-described legal proceedings, and based on our present knowledge of the facts, believe the lawsuits are completely without merit. On September 13, 2021, the Court issued an Order directing plaintiffs’ counsel to file a report advising the Court of the status of each plaintiff, and indicating that any plaintiff whom counsel is unable to contact may be dismissed from the action. On October 4, 2021, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a memorandum stating that the action was brought by forty-six plaintiffs, and that plaintiffs’ counsel was in contact with many of the plaintiffs but needed additional time to provide the Court with a final report. On October 4, 2021, the Court entered an Order extending plaintiffs’ response to October 25, 2021. On October 25, 2021, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a memorandum stating that he was in communication with 46 plaintiffs or their representatives. On June 21, 2024, CACI filed a motion to lift the stay. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion on June 26, 2024. On June 28, 2024, the District Court denied CACI’s motion without prejudice. CACI subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, as well as a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in the Court of Appeals, asking the Court of Appeals to issue an order requiring the District Court to lift the stay. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, but subsequently issued a briefing schedule for CACI’s appeal. Briefing on the appeal concluded on December 6, 2024. On January 10, 2025, the District Court indicated that it will not activate the Abbass action while the Al Shimari action is on appeal. As a result of that representation, on January 13, 2025, CACI moved to dismiss the appeal, a motion that the Plaintiffs did not oppose. On January 14, 2025, the Court of Appeals granted that motion and dismissed the appeal. On July 9, 2026, CACI filed a motion to lift the stay so that CACI could file a motion to dismiss based on the Cisco decision noted above. The District Court denied that motion without prejudice, noting that the Court of Appeals had not yet determined Cisco’s effect on the Al Shimari action.