Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 08/24/2011 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: August 13, 2009

The original complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning Textron’s stability and profitability by repeatedly publicizing record “backlogs” of unfilled customer orders for aircraft generated primarily by Cessna and by making positive statements about the Company's finance segment. As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts, among others: (i) that Textron was accepting orders for business jets from a growing number of customers that were mere startup and/or financially distressed fleet operators who neither intended nor possessed the financial resources to pay for or take delivery of aircraft during 2008-09 and beyond, which materially inflated Textron’s “backlog” of unfilled orders for the Company’s Cessna segment, which in turn materially overstated the Company’s current financial condition and future prospects; (ii) that hundreds of orders reported as “backlog” at Cessna for future business-jet production were subject to deferral and cancellation causing the Company to overstate its projected fiscal 2008-09 business-jet production and to initiate costly production cutbacks and worker reduction programs, which eroded Textron’s revenues and earnings; (iii) that the Company’s Finance segment had incurred material losses in the fair market value of its finance receivables and other financial assets, and these unrealized market losses were omitted from or misrepresented in the Company’s periodic reports of earnings and income; and (iv) that Textron’s credit ratings were deteriorating in light of its Finance segment’s losses and the additional debt the Company would incur in connection with its Finance segment’s distressed asset base.

On January 29, 2009, the last day of the Class Period, Textron announced that an estimated $30 million of the $65 million in “restructuring” costs would be incurred by the Company’s Cessna segment due to production cutbacks and worker layoffs planned for the first quarter of 2009. After this announcement, Textron common stock traded to a new low of $8.83 per share before closing at $9.05 per share on volume of more than 26 million shares, a one day decline of $4.19, or 31%.

On December 4, 2009, Chief Judge Mary M. Lisi signed the Memorandum and Order appointing the Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund as lead plaintiff and approved the selection of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead counsel. On February 8, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On April 9, 2010, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

On August 24, 2011, Judge Paul J. Barbadoro granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. According to the Memorandum and Order, plaintiffs’ complaint does not state a viable claim for relief under § 10(b). Because plaintiffs’ § 20(a) claim is premised on the existence of an actionable claim under § 10(b), it too fails to state a claim for relief.

The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on September 23, 2011. The appeal is currently pending in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Conglomerates
Industry: Conglomerates
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TXT
Company Market: New York SE
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: D. Rhode Island
DOCKET #: 09-CV-00367
JUDGE: Hon. Lincoln D. Almond
DATE FILED: 08/13/2009
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/17/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/29/2009
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Barry J. Kusinitz
    155 South Main St., Suite 405 , Barry J. Kusinitz, RI 02903
    401.831.4200 401/831-7053 ·
  2. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@csgrr.com/
  3. VanOverbeke Michaud & Timmony, P.C.
    79 Alfred Street, VanOverbeke Michaud & Timmony, P.C., MI 48201
    313.578.1200 313.578.1200 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Rhode Island
DOCKET #: 09-CV-00367
JUDGE: Hon. Lincoln D. Almond
DATE FILED: 02/08/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/19/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/29/2009
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Boca Raton)
    120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Boca Raton), FL 33432
    561.750.3000 561.750.3000 ·
  2. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@csgrr.com/
No Document Title Filing Date