Lieff Cabraser Announces Class Action Litigation Against L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. - LLL
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces that class action litigation has been brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc.
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces that class action litigation has been brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. (“L-3” or the “Company”) (NYSE: LLL) between April 25, 2013 and July 30, 2014, inclusive (the “Class Period”). If you purchased or otherwise acquired L-3 securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than September 30, 2014. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. L-3 investors who wish to learn more about the action and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the L-3 Securities Class Litigation The action charges L-3 and certain of its senior officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. L-3 is a prime contractor in aerospace systems and national security solutions. L-3 also provides communication and electronic systems and products used on military and commercial platforms. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) L-3’s financial statements contained errors related to the improper deferral of cost overruns on a fixed-price maintenance and logistics support contract that resulted in overstatement of operating income; (2) L-3’s net sales with respect to the fixed-price maintenance and logistics support contract were overstated; and (3) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting.