CACI — what changed in the latest 10-Q
A section-by-section comparison of CACI's newest periodic SEC filing (10-K/10-Q) against the prior same-form filing: paragraphs added and removed per section, with verbatim excerpts. Purely a deterministic text diff — no similarity scores, no directional read, not investment advice.
Comparing 10-Q · 2026-10-22 vs the prior 10-Q · 2026-04-23
| Section | Outcome | Added | Removed | Minor | Unchanged |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD&A | Text added/removed | +24 | −23 | ~15 | 28 |
| Market risk (Item 3) | Text added/removed | 0 | 0 | ~2 | 0 |
| Controls & procedures | Text added/removed | 0 | 0 | ~3 | 0 |
| Legal proceedings | Text added/removed | +7 | −2 | ~2 | 15 |
| Risk factors | No material changes reported (points to the 10-K) | — | — | — | — |
| Other information | Text added/removed | +10 | 0 | ~1 | 0 |
Counts are paragraphs; added/removed means text added or removed vs the prior filing — no direction or judgement implied.
Representative excerpts
Up to 5 excerpts of about 300 characters per section, quoted verbatim from the two SEC filings.
MD&A
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-10-22
•Expertise – CACI delivers talent with the specific technical and functional knowledge to support agency operations.
We closely monitor U.S. federal budget, legislative and contracting developments, and we adjust our business strategies to account for these trends. Although future levels of defense and non-defense spending are difficult to predict, we believe there continues to be bipartisan support for defense an…
While we view the current budget environment as constructive, the timing and passage of annual appropriations remain uncertain in any given government fiscal year (GFY). During periods when Congress has not enacted full-year appropriations, federal agencies operate under a continuing resolution (CR)…
The scope and duration of CRs can negatively affect our business by delaying new programs, contract awards, or other customer decisions. If a CR expires without the enactment of full-year appropriations or an extension via a new CR, the federal government must cease non-essential operations (a “gove…
On May 2, 2025, the President submitted the GFY26 Presidential Budget Request (PBR), which proposed holding defense spending at the GFY25 enacted (full-year CR) level of $893 billion. On July 4, 2025, the President signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a reconciliation bill providing additi…
Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-04-23
•Expertise – CACI delivers talent with the specific technical and functional knowledge to support agency operations. Examples include individuals with talents such as software development, data and business analysis, operations support, naval architecture, engineering, life cycle support, intelligen…
We carefully follow federal budget, legislative and contracting trends and activities and evolve our strategies to take these into consideration. While future levels of defense and non-defense spending may vary and are difficult to project, we believe that there continues to be bipartisan support fo…
While we view the budget environment as constructive and believe there is bipartisan support for continued investment in the areas of defense and national security, it is uncertain when (and if) in any particular government fiscal year (GFY) that appropriations bills will be passed. During those per…
Depending on their scope, duration, and other factors, CRs can negatively impact our business due to delays in new program starts, delays in contract award decisions, and other factors. When a CR expires, unless appropriations bills have been passed by Congress and signed by the President, or a new …
On May 2, 2025, President Trump submitted the GFY26 Presidential Budget Request (PBR) to Congress, which held defense spending at the GFY25 enacted level (a full-year CR) of $893 billion. On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which provides additional fundin…
Legal proceedings
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-10-22
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 ma…
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 Noti…
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.
On August 28, 2026, the Court of Appeals issued its decision granting CACI’s petition for rehearing, vacating the March 12, 2026 decision, reversing the Court of Appeals prior entry of judgment for plaintiffs, and remanding the case to the District Court with directions to dismiss the case. The Cour…
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 affect on the Al Shimari action.
Text removed vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-04-23
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 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 Noti…
Other information
Text added vs the prior filing · source: 10-Q · 2026-10-22
John S. Mengucci, the CEO, adopted a new Rule 10b5-1 trading arrangement on September 14, 2026, that will terminate no later than August 31, 2027. Under the trading arrangement, up to an aggregate of 18,400 shares of common stock are available to be sold by the broker upon reaching pricing targets d…
On October 20, 2026, the Board of Directors (the Board) of the Company changed the Company’s fiscal year end from June 30 to December 31. In connection with the change in fiscal year, and to align the Company’s governance calendar with the new fiscal year, the Board amended the Company’s By-Laws to …
The Board has set April 15, 2027 as the date of the Company’s 2027 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the 2027 Annual Meeting), to be held at 9:30 a.m., local time, in a virtual meeting format. The Board has fixed the close of business on February 16, 2027 as the record date for the determination of sh…
New Deadlines for Shareholder Proposals and Director Nominations
As the date of the 2027 Annual Meeting has changed by more than 30 calendar days from the first anniversary of the Company’s 2026 annual meeting of shareholders (held on October 15, 2026), the deadlines for the submission of shareholder proposals and director nominations previously disclosed in the …
How to read Risk Factors (Item 1A) in a 10-Q
A 10-Q risk-factor section usually takes one of three forms; this page classifies it as one of:
- Pointer — the filer states there have been no material changes and points back to the annual 10-K risk factors; there is no own risk text to compare this quarter.
- Partial update — the filer carves out specific updated risks ("except as set forth below"); the excerpts show exactly what is new this quarter.
- Restated in full — the quarter carries the complete risk-factor text. When the prior quarter was only a pointer there is no prior full text to diff against, so the page flags the section as restated instead.
This describes the filing structure only — it is never a judgement on whether risk went up or down.
Source: text-level diff of the two SEC EDGAR filings · deterministic (no AI-generated content) · for reference only · not investment advice