CACI INTERNATIONAL INC /DE/

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

Al Shimari, et al. v. L-3 Services, Inc. et al.

Reference is made to Part I, Item 3, Legal Proceedings in the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2025 for the most recently filed information concerning the suit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The lawsuit names CACI International Inc, CACI Premier Technology, Inc. and former CACI employee Timothy Dugan as Defendants, along with L-3 Services, Inc. Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. On March 8, 2013, the District Court granted a motion to dismiss CACI International Inc from the case, leaving CACI Premier Technology, Inc., as the sole Defendant.

In 2015, 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 rehearingen banc. CACI then filed a motion to stay issuance of the mandate pending the filing of a petition for a writ ofcertiorari. 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 ofcertiorari. 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 ofcertiorariin 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 ofcertiorari 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 Nestleand Cargill did not effectively eliminate the claims in Al Shimari, then the Supreme Court should grant CACI’s petition for a writ ofcertiorari. On June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Nestleand 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 ofcertiorari.

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 Nestleand 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. 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 second motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on recent decisions by the Supreme Court. 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. The Company will file a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc and asking 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.

Abbass, et al v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc. and CACI International Inc, Case No. 1:13CV1186-LMB/JFA (EDVA)

Reference is made to Part I, Item 3, Legal Proceedings in the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2025 for the most recently filed information concerning the suit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The lawsuit names CACI International Inc and CACI Premier Technology, Inc. as Defendants. Plaintiffs seeks, inter alia, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.

Since the filing of Registrant’s report described above, the case remains stayed pending the outcome in the Al Shimari appeal.

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.