Whiting
Whiting v. Applied Signal Technology, Inc.
Opinion
Opinion
Facts
Plaintiffs bought stock in Applied Signal Technology, Inc., during the six months before the company revealed that its revenue had fallen 25% from the preceding quarter. Immedi- ately following this disclosure, the stock price dropped 16%. Plaintiffs sued the company and two of its officers under Securities Exchange Act § 10(b), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5.
Applied Signal’s customers are almost all agencies of the federal government. Two civilian agencies together account for 80% of the company’s revenue; military agencies account for most of the rest. According to plaintiffs, these government customers can, at any time and for any reason, order the com- pany to stop working on existing contracts for up to 90 days. Compl. ¶ 26; see 48 C.F.R. § 52.242-15(a) (model contract provision); id. § 42.1305(b)(1) (agencies “may” use this pro- vision). The company only gets paid for work it actually per- forms, so when the government issues a “stop-work order,” Applied Signal immediately ceases to earn money. And, because stopped work often is eventually cancelled altogether, 6392 WHITING v. APPLIED SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY a stop-work order signals a…