CAR_Public/111024.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, October 24, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 210

                             Headlines

AGFEED INDUSTRIES: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action
AMERICAN INVSCO: Nev. Ct. Denies Certification of Taddeo Suit
ARMTEC INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Securities Class Action in Quebec
BBG COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Exorbitant Call Fees
CORNERSTONE EXTERIORS: Engages in Deceptive Practices, Suit Says

DRUG RETAILERS: Judge Remands Class Action to Minnesota Court
EL PASO: Being Sold to Kinder for Too Little, Texas Suit Claims
ENTRUST GROUP: Sued Over Indemnification Clause in IRA Agreements
FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Over In-State College Tuition Policy
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action

LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: NJ Dist. Ct. Dismisses Securities Suit
MEIJER: Recalls 3,200 Units of Roman Shades and Roll-Up Blinds
PILKINGTON NORTH AMERICA: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
REEBOK: Consumer Law Group Files Class Action Over Toning Shoes
RESEARCH IN MOTION: May Face Lawsuits Over BlackBerry Outages

SAFELITE SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs' Bid to Expand Class Action Fails
SOTHEBY'S: Faces Class Action Over Artwork Resale Royalties
SUPERSHUTTLE INT'L.: 8th Cir. Affirms Arbitration, Flips Dismissal
TEXTRON INC: Dist. Ct. Rules on Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit




                          *********

AGFEED INDUSTRIES: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Umeda LLP disclosed that it commenced a class action
lawsuit on October 18, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of AgFeed Industries, Inc. between March 16, 2009 and
August 2, 2011.  The action is against the Company and certain of
the Company's officers for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

AgFeed is an international agribusiness that deals in animal
nutrition products and commercial hog production in the United
States and China.  During the Class Period, the Company's
principal executive offices were located in Hendersonville,
Tennessee.  However, the Company's executive offices are currently
located in Grand Junction, Colorado.

The complaint alleges that beginning on March 16, 2009, the
Company, along with certain officers and directors at AgFeed,
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements to
investors about its financial health that were designed to deceive
the market and cause shares of AgFeed to trade at artificially
high prices.

In particular, the complaint alleges that officials at the Company
failed to disclose to investors material adverse facts that: (1)
AgFeed's collection efforts and credit dealings with its animal
nutrition customers were not working because the "formula based
analysis" the Company relied on in determining accounts receivable
and reserves for doubtful accounts was flawed; (2) allowances for
doubtful accounts were wildly undervalued; (3) accounts were
overvalued and bad debts were undervalued, causing reported asset
values to be overstated and expenses to be understated; and (4)
AgFeed exaggerated its market edge as the combination of
overstated assets and understated expenses resulted in creating an
illusion of heightened profitability and failed to provide a
"long-term picture" of the Company's value.

On August 2, 2011, the Company announced preliminary financial
results for the second quarter of 2011 that showed that the
Company was performing well below expectations and that AgFeed
expected to post a loss of $17 million, as it added $5 million in
allowances for its bad debt expenses.  Additionally, on August 9,
2011, AgFeed disclosed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission the true nature of its finances and the Company's
decision to withdraw the Registration Statement for its animal
nutrition business.  Since these revelations have emerged, shares
of AgFeed have lost over 72% of their value.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired AgFeed stock during the
Class Period and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than 60 days from October 18, 2011.  To discuss
your shareholder rights, please contact attorney Gregory E. Del
Gaizo at 800-350-6003 or via the shareholder information form.

Robbins Umeda LLP -- http://www.robbinsumeda.com-- represents
individual and institutional shareholders in derivative, direct,
and class action lawsuits.


AMERICAN INVSCO: Nev. Ct. Denies Certification of Taddeo Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kent J. Dawson of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada denied the motion to certify as a class action the
complaint captioned as Frank Taddeo, et al. v. American Invsco
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:08-CV-01463-KJD-RJJ (D. Nev.)

The plaintiffs proposed to name Amelia Taddeo, Frank Taddeo, Marcy
Heldt and Victor Heldt as class representatives.  They sought to
certify a class of "512 owners of the Meridian Condominium Units"
who purchased units in 2005 to 2007.

The Court found that the proposed class representatives are
inadequate to prosecute that action because the Taddeos' agreement
was different from other class members, and the Helts do not
appear to be parallel to other class members in that they are the
only members who financed their purchase on their own.

The Court also expressed doubts as to the qualifications of the
class counsel.  "The conduct of Plaintiffs' counsel in this
proceeding, including failure to timely respond to discovery
requests, inadequacy in framing their complaints, failing to name
Class representatives with claims against all defendants, and lack
of decorum during depositions do not inspire confidence in the
ability of Plaintiffs' counsel to adequately represent the
interests of the Class," Judge Dawson said.

Judge Dawson allowed the plaintiffs to amend only the requests for
admission that the claims of the class representatives are not
typical and that common questions of law or fact do not
predominate over individual questions.

A copy of the District Court's Sept. 7, 2011 Order is available at
http://is.gd/leyKqZfrom Leagle.com.


ARMTEC INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Securities Class Action in Quebec
--------------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds, Desmeules on Oct. 19 announced the filing in the Quebec
Superior Court of a proposed class action against Armtec
Infrastructure Inc., and certain of Armtec's senior officers and
directors.

The proposed class includes all persons and entities resident in
Quebec who acquired securities of Armtec from March 30, 2011, to
June 8, 2011, including those who purchased Armtec shares in the
April 2011 prospectus offering, and those who purchased Armtec
securities in the secondary market during the Class Period.

The action alleges, among other things, that the defendants failed
to disclose in the prospectus or on a timely basis that the
performance of Armtec's engineered solutions business in the first
quarter of 2011 was adversely affected by deteriorating margins,
and that the performance of Armtec's construction and
infrastructure applications business in the first quarter of 2011
was adversely affected by unprecedented weather conditions.

The proceeding in Quebec will be coordinated with a parallel case
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by Siskinds LLP,
with which Siskinds Desmeules is affiliated.


BBG COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Exorbitant Call Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that the company
with the pay-phone concession in the secured military area at a
German airport used by U.S. troops in transit to and from combat
zones rigged the phones to charge a minimum of $41 per call, even
for a call that lasts just a few seconds, an Army sergeant and his
wife say in a federal class action.

Sgt. Richard Corder claims BBG Communications and its affiliate
BBG Global AG target U.S. troops on their way to or from Iraq and
Afghanistan, who are unlikely to have cash or any other method to
call home.

Sgt. Corder says BBG programmed the phones to accept only cash,
credit and debit cards, and does not warn of the exorbitant fees
it charges.

"There is not so much as a simple sign to warn the troops what
will happen once they use a credit card to make a call home,"
Sgt. Corder says in his complaint.

He adds: "BBG instructed individuals to rig this phone bank so
that it could not accept any calling cards, either pre-paid or
even ones purchased by military personnel on military bases, or to
permit military personnel to access 1-800 numbers to contact long
distance carriers such as AT&T.  It was a deliberate move to prey
on the troops.  Thus, as set up by BBG, service personnel's only
realistic option was to use a credit or debit card to pay to use
the phone banks to contact their families.  Based on how BBG
intentionally programmed these phones, military personnel had no
realistic alternative available to them other than not call their
loved ones to tell them they were on the way to military combat or
shortly returning home.  Nowhere on these phones does BBG disclose
that it will automatically charge military personnel over $40.00,
simply to leave a message of for a 4-second telephone call, using
a credit or debit card."

BBG and its affiliates are part of a group of companies owned and
operated by the Galicot family based in San Diego and Tijuana.

According to the complaint, BBG took over the operation of most
phones in the military-restricted zone of the Leipzig airport in
2008, after Leipzig became the main refueling stop for most troops
in transit to or from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sgt. Corder says BBG Communications uses Switzerland-based BBG
Global as "a front organization designed to avoid being held
responsible for such unconscionable practices."

Both companies are 95% owned by Gregorio and Rafael Galicot, who
operate them from San Diego.

The complaint states: "Since 2007 tens if not hundreds of
thousands of U.S. troops have been at the Leipzig, Germany airport
where U.S. troop flights refuel, many of them overcharged for
phone calls, even though they are United States military personnel
both going to and coming back from military combat in Iraq and
Afghanistan and this is their only opportunity to contact their
relatives.  The defendants operate or provide services for a bank
of a significant number of pay telephones located in the secured
military lounge area at that airport.  Because this is a secured
military area, it can only be accessed by military personnel.  BBG
has rigged the phones so that troops who use the phones are
charged $41 at a minimum for calls, even if the call only lasts a
matter of seconds.  This scheme has allowed the Galicot family
that owns BBG to pocket millions of dollars from our troops. The
troops want their money back.

"Defendants have intentionally programmed the pay telephones
located in this secured military area so that they cannot accept
forms of non-cash payment other than credit and debit cards,
including military-sold calling cards.  Because these servicemen
and women are just coming back from or heading out to long tours
of duty, they in all likelihood have no change to make a coin-
operated telephone call.  Thus, there is only one phone bank they
can use to call their loved ones and tell them they are leaving or
coming home, and they have no viable option other than to use a
credit or debit card to pay for the call.

"Defendants are responsible for preparing the art work on these
phones and either do so or approve its use from their offices in
the United States.  Nowhere do defendants disclose on the
telephones the fees they impose, or warn servicemen and women in
advance the exorbitant amounts they will be charged, even for a
call lasting just a few seconds, or even clearly and conspicuously
tell them how to find out the fees.  The plaintiffs, for example,
were charged over $41.00 for a four-second telephone call -- a
charge that works out to a fee of over $615.00 a minute! Moreover,
BBG has instructed the agent operator representatives, including
Centris Information Services ('Centris') out of Longview, Texas,
not to disclose automatically the amount of fees charged, unless
affirmatively asked to divulge what the charge may be -- even
though they know at the outset the minimum charge to make a call
from this phone bank will be over $40.00.  This illegal and
unconscionable conduct is in violation of the laws stated herein.

"BBG specifically targeted this bank of phones, previously
operated by one of its joint venture partners, so that they could
control them, direct their conduct at military personnel and
charge the outrageous fees they unilaterally impose.  BBG knew
these troops were vulnerable as few if any would have proper coins
much less cell phones that would work in the area upon returning
from combat zones.  Even within BBG this conduct was challenged as
improper.  But putting profits over any sense of responsibility,
duty or fairness, BBG's officers including the Galicot family
members and others chose to impose unconscionable fees on military
personnel on what was likely to be their first or last direct
American contact in months, if not years.  Defendants have made
millions from this scheme, allowing their officers and directors
to live in mansions while soldiers from Ft. Hood and elsewhere
were forced to use their limited incomes and resources while
serving our country on multiple deployments to make such calls."

Sgt. Corder, who is based at Fort Hood, says he called his wife in
May from the Leipzig airport, on his way to Iraq, and paid more
than $41 for a 4-second call.

"Sgt. Corder made a call to his wife Dharma from the Leipzig,
Germany waiting lounge as he was heading off to military combat in
Iraq in May 2011.  He used his family's joint account Visa debit
card to make that telephone call, as he had no option but to use a
credit or debit card.  The call lasted four seconds, as he reached
his wife's cell phone voicemail.  BBG charged them $41.14 for that
four-second telephone call.  There were no disclosures on the
phone that indicated the outrageous fees BBG would impose on
military personnel that used those phones."

Sgt. Corder says his wife tried to dispute the charge, but BBG
would not cooperate.  He says she went online and found a phone
number, and "hundreds and hundreds of complaints" about BBG's
practices.

When Sgt. Corder's wife finally reached BBG, a representative
asked for Sgt. Corder's debit card number and refused to take
further action without it.  In July, Sgt. Corder's wife sent a
demand letter to BBG, who failed to respond, according to the
complaint.

"This is not an isolated circumstance, but is the practice
undertaken by BBG targeted at those who serve our country with
distinction.  BBG has received similar calls from service
personnel and their families nationwide complaining of such
charges, but has consistently refused to fully refund such
amounts," the complaint states.

Sgt. Corder says he represents thousands of military personnel
members who, since at least 2008, used the BBG-operated phones in
the secure military area at Leipzig and were overcharged.

Sgt. Corder says BBG charges a $15 "connection fee" and a minimum
charge of $25 for 5 minutes, regardless of call duration.  He says
BBG does not post these uniform charges anywhere on its phones and
instructs its representatives not to disclose them unless directly
asked about them.

Sgt. Corder adds: "As a result of programming the phones in this
way, defendants have been able to charge unconscionable price
premiums and drain money from the bank accounts of military
personnel who have limited incomes.  Defendants are aware of
numerous complaints over this practice, since, as noted above,
they have received similar calls and complaints about these
charges, both internally and from military personnel and their
families.  Defendants thus have had the above material information
in their possession for years, but have not stopped such practices
so they can continue to support their personal extravagance at the
expense of our troops, being unjustly enriched in the process."

The 30-page complaint includes statements from a dozen other GIs
and spouses, complaining of the "insulting" treatment.  The final
excerpt, from a mother whose son was charged $151 for a phone call
on his first deployment, concludes: "More people need to step up
and write their senators . . . and let them put an end to this
fraudulent scam."

The Corders seek class certification, restitution and damages for
breach of contract, fraud and unjust enrichment, and they want BBG
enjoined from deceptive business practices.

A copy of the Complaint in Corder, et ux. v. BBG Communications,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-00264 (W.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/19/VetCalls.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jim Dunnam, Esq.
          DUNNAM & DUNNAM, L.L.P.
          4125 West Waco Drive
          P.O. Box 8418
          Waco, TX 76714-8418
          Telephone: (254) 753-6437

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058-2610
          Telephone: (281) 488-8854
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com

               - and -

          Scott E. Poynter, ESq.
          Chris D. Jennings, Esq.
          William T. Crowder, Esq.
          Corey D. McGaha, Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          500 President Clinton Ave., Ste. 305
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 907-2555
          E-mail: scott@emersonpoynter.com
                  cjennings@emersonpoynter.com
                  wcrowder@emersonpoynter.com
                  cmcgaha@emersonpoynter.com

               - and -

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER LAW GROUP
          9466 Black Mountain Rd., Suite 225
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          E-mail: alan@clgca.com

               - and -

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
          380 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 447-7070
          E-mail: psheehan@wdklaw.com

               - and -

          John Mattes, Esq.
          1666 Garnet Avenue, #815
          San Diego, CA 92109
          Telephone: (858) 412-6081
          E-mail: investigativeguy@gmail.com


CORNERSTONE EXTERIORS: Engages in Deceptive Practices, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andriy Klymenko, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cornerstone Exteriors, LLC, an Illinois
limited liability company, Jason Chi, individually, Case No. 2011-
CH-36137 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., October 18, 2011) is brought
on behalf of customers of Cornerstone, who contracted for certain
home repair services provided by the Defendant.

Mr. Klymenko asserts that Cornerstone engaged in deceptive and
fraudulent practices when it acted as a public insurance adjuster
under contracts, without a valid license in the state of Illinois.

Mr. Klymenko is a resident of Illinois.

Cornerstone is an Illinois limited liability company headquartered
in Schaumburg, Illinois.  Jason Chi is a managing member of
Cornerstone, and is a resident of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nazar Kashuba, Esq.
          DEMCHENKO & KASHUBA, LLC
          2338 West Belmont, 2nd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60618
          Telephone: (773) 360-8805
          Facsimile: (773) 360-8809
          E-mail: nkashuba@dk-attorneys.com


DRUG RETAILERS: Judge Remands Class Action to Minnesota Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
magistrate judge has suggested that a class action brought by a
West Virginia law firm that drew the ire of the judge who formerly
presided over the case should be heard in a state court.

Magistrate Judge Janie Mayeron issued her report and
recommendation on Oct. 13 in a lawsuit brought against
prescription drug retailers that allegedly did not pass savings on
generic drugs to consumers.  In suggesting remand to Hennepin
County, she followed a decision by a Michigan federal court in
similar cases.

Former U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum, in dismissing the
complaint in 2009, called the allegations "laughable."  He allowed
Bailey & Glasser of Charleston, W.Va., to amend the complaint, and
the dispute over remand ensued.

The defendants -- which include CVS, Target and Wal-Mart -- argued
the remand motion was untimely because it took the plaintiffs more
than 100 days from the time the suit was removed to federal court.

"(T)he court is satisfied that plaintiffs and their counsel did
not know that they had a reasonable basis for pursuing a remand
until after the Michigan court issued its remand decision on
Dec. 1, 2009," Judge Mayeron wrote.

"In fact, the evidence before this court establishes that
plaintiffs did not believe that the (Class Action Fairness Act)
local controversy exception applied to this case, even after the
Michigan court raised the issue at the pretrial conference."

The defendants had appealed Judge Rosenbaum's remand order to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which overturned the
order and directed the district court to determine if the
plaintiffs' remand motion was made within a "reasonable" time
frame.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis was assigned the case after
Judge Rosenbaum retired.

In November 2009, Judge Rosenbaum was annoyed that the complaint,
filed against 13 defendants on behalf of unions that provide
health care for their members, contained specific pricing
information about only two of them.

"(T)his Complaint utterly fails to state a cause of action on any
basis.  There are no, none, factual allegations touching any
defendant other than CVS and Walgreen's," Rosenbaum said.

"There being no facts from which a fact finder could infer any
liability concerning (the other defendants), and you asked me to
sustain a complaint based upon that.  It's not only laughable,
it's absolutely reprehensible.

"There's not a lawsuit here.  There is not a claim.  There is not
an allegation.  I've got words on a page."

The lawsuits in Michigan were dismissed by a state judge because
the only specific pricing information was obtained by a West
Virginia whistleblower who worked at Kroger.

The firm is also representing West Virginia Attorney General
Darrell McGraw's office in a suit filed in the Mountain State.
Currently, the two sides are fighting over whether the lawsuit
should be heard in federal court, with the drug stores claiming it
is a class action.  They have appealed a Fourth Circuit ruling to
the U.S. Supreme Court.


EL PASO: Being Sold to Kinder for Too Little, Texas Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that El Paso Corp. is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Kinder Morgan, for
$26.87 a share, or $38 billion, shareholders say.

A copy of the Complaint in Johnson v. El Paso Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 2011-62339 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/19/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thane Tyler Sponsel III, Esq.
          SCHWARTZ, JUNELL, GREENBERG & OATHOUT, LLP
          Two Houston Center
          909 Fannin, Suite 2700
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 752-0017
          E-mail: tsponsel@sjgolaw.com

               - and -

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058

               - and -

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: nespole@whafh.com


ENTRUST GROUP: Sued Over Indemnification Clause in IRA Agreements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Keller, Individually and on Behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Entrust Group, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-05098 (N.D.
Calif., October 17, 2011) asserts money damages, injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief on behalf of those who have
opened an Individual Retirement Account ("IRA") with Entrust
Group.

Mr. Keller alleges that in its standard form account agreements,
Entrust Group requires that it be indemnified against losses,
which causes premature distributions under the regulations of the
Internal Revenue Service.  Mr. Keller contends that the
indemnification provisions are designed to benefit Entrust Group
by permitting it to take assets in satisfaction of debts incurred
in the IRA.

Mr. Keller is a resident of Sacramento, California.  He opened an
IRA in October 2010, which is administered by Entrust Group.

Entrust Group provides self-directed retirement plan consulting
services and trust, pension administration, and recordkeeping
services to individuals and corporations, who wish to include non-
traditional assets as part of their tax-deferred and tax-free
portfolios.  Entrust is headquartered in Oakland, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Bakhtiari, Esq.
          AIDIKOFF, UHL & BAKHTIARI
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 274-0666
          Telecopier: (310) 859-0513
          E-mail: rbakhtiari@aol.com

               - and -

          Mark E. Maddox, Esq.
          MADDOX HARGETT & CARUSO, P.C.
          10100 Lantern Rd., Suite 150
          Fishers, IN 46037
          Telephone: (317) 598-2040
          Telecopier: (317) 598-2050
          E-mail: mmaddox@mhclaw.com

               - and -

          Tim Berry, Esq.
          TIM BERRY P.C.
          2200 E. William Field Road, Suite 200
          Gilbert, AZ 85295
          Telephone: (602) 652-2875
          E-mail: tim@iraideas.com


FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Over In-State College Tuition Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
FlaglerLive reports that a class action is challenging Florida's
in-state college tuition restrictions.

Wendy Ruiz is an American citizen, a native of Miami, where she
was born in 1992.  She has a Florida birth certificate.  She has a
Florida high school diploma.  She has a Florida voter registration
card, a Florida driver's license and a Florida bank account.  She
is an honor student in her second year at Miami Dade College -- as
an out-of-state student.

Ms. Ruiz is paying $377 per credit hour, instead of the $105.50
afforded in-state residents.  That works out to an annual tuition
and fees bill of $9,000 instead of the $2,500 in-state residents
pay.  Ms. Ruiz can't afford the normal, 12-credit-per-semester
load, though that's what she'd rather take.  So she'll end up
taking three years to finish her two-year degree.

Why? Because her parents cannot show proof of her parents' legal
immigration status.  Florida's college and university system's
rule is unbending.  A student's residency status is irrelevant no
matter how American, no matter how Floridian.  Ms. Ruiz could have
been Miss Florida for all the university system cares.  It's her
parents' residency status that counts, which also means that for
countless students whose parents are being forced to move out of
the state for economic reasons, they take their child's in-state
rate away with them.

Or take Noel Saucedo.  He, too, is an American citizen.  He's old
enough to vote.  He was born in Miami in 1996, and has lived
continuously in the state since 2006.  He has all the documents
Ruiz has.  He was also a good student.  He was awarded a full
scholarship to attend Miami Dade College.  But unable to provide
proof of his parents' legal residency in Florida, he had to pay
the out-of-state tuition rate, which negated most of the advantage
of his scholarship and preventing him, too, from taking a full
load at the school.  Last March, he tried to enroll at Florida
International University.  He was asked for his parents' lawful
immigration status.  He didn't have it.  He wasn't even allowed to
go on with his application.

American citizens, Florida residents, denied their right to an
education on terms equal to their equals.  The stories go on,
student after student.

On Oct. 19, in federal district court, the Southern Poverty Law
Center filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the students
against Gerard Robinson, the Florida Commissioner of Education and
Frank Brogan, chancellor of the State University System (and
former education commissioner), challenging Florida's rule as it
applies to legal Florida residents whose parents have no similar
proof.  The suit charges that Florida's rule is unconstitutional
under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, and that it is
in conflict with federal law, which recognizes the students as
legal residents -- and overrides state rules.

"These policies attack our most fundamental American values by
punishing children for the actions of their parents," said
Jerri Katzerman, director of educational advocacy for the Atlanta-
based Southern Poverty Law Center, a human rights and advocacy
organization.  "It's an unconscionable attack on students from
immigrant families that more than triples the cost of a college
education."

"These American students went to the same Florida high schools,
held down the same part-time jobs and participated in the same
after-school activities as their counterparts who are granted in-
state tuition," said Tania Galloni, managing attorney for the
SPLC's Florida office.  "We are simply asking that these students
be granted the same rights as all other Florida citizens."

The lawsuit is part of the center's effort to reform school
policies that unnecessarily push students out of school or
otherwise limit their opportunities for a successful future.  The
center's efforts are focused in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and
Mississippi.

A copy of the complaint, filed on Oct. 19 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami, is below.

http://flaglerlive.com/29742/in-state-tuition-lawsuit-florida


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
On October 19, 2011, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action
complaint against K-V Pharmaceutical Company and certain of the
Company's officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.  The action for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 is brought on behalf of those purchasing the
common stock of K-V between February 14, 2011, and April 4, 2011,
inclusive.

If you purchased the common stock of K-V during the Class Period
and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move
the Court no later than 60 days from Oct. 19.  Any member of the
investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action
or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please
contact:

          Scott+Scott LLP
          Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                     (860) 537-5537
          E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com

or visit the Scott+Scott K-V Pharmaceutical Web site for more
information:

http://www.scott-scott.com/cases/new/securities-fraud-litigation-
1533-k-v-pharmaceutical-company-kv-a.html

There is no cost or fee to you.

The complaint filed in the action charges that during the brief
Class Period, the Company issued false and misleading statements
claiming the Food and Drug Administration had granted K-V the
exclusive distribution rights over its "Makena," a drug compound
that had previously been prescribed by physicians for decades to
prevent miscarriages, and that the agency would enforce those
rights by preventing K-V's competitors from distributing generic
compounds of Makena.  The complaint also alleges that defendants
told investors K-V's Makena distribution program was designed to
"expand access" to the drug compound, including to low-income and
other at-risk groups, while concealing that the $1,500 list price
K-V was charging would actually reduce availability of the drug
compound to physicians and their patients.  As a result, based on
a fundamental misperception of K-V's sales and earnings potential,
the complaint charges that K-V's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, allowing K-V to sell $200
million worth of senior secured notes, with the proceeds used in
large part to pay down the Company's debts.

The complaint alleges that the truth began to come to light on
March 17, 2011, when two U.S. Senators publicly questioned the
bona fides of K-V's distribution program, stating "the financial
assistance is not sufficient and does not extend to certain groups
of women," and so that in reality, "KV Pharmaceutical's actions
will result in diminished access to appropriate health care for
women and result in increased preterm births."  It is alleged that
this partial disclosure caused K-V's stock price to fall
precipitously, removing some of the stock inflation.  Then,
following the FDA's own March 30, 2011 statement that the agency
did "not intend to take enforcement action against" K-V's
competitors for distributing the generic version of K-V's Makena,
K-V's stock fell further on extremely high trading volume.
Finally, following K-V's April 1, 2011 disclosure that K-V was
reducing Makena's list price by nearly 55% to $690 per injection
-- versus the previous list price of $1,500 -- the market learned
on April 4, 2011 that many physicians would never prescribe Makena
to their patients due to flaws in the distribution program.  On
this news, K-V's stock price fell an additional 9.5% in a single
trading session.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide.


LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: NJ Dist. Ct. Dismisses Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissed the securities fraud case styled
as In re Lincoln Educational Services Corp. Securities Litigation,
Civil Action No. 10-460 (SRC) (D. N.J.).

The class action was filed on behalf of shareholders who bought
the common stock of Lincoln Educational between March 3, 2010, and
August 4, 2010.  The alleged fraud in the case stems from the
defendants' projections about Lincoln's student start growth.

Lead plaintiff is Richard Arons.  The other named defendants are
David Carney, chairman of Lincoln's Board of Directors during the
Class Period; Shaun McAlmont, Lincoln's president and chief
executive officer; and Cesar Ribeiro, Lincoln's senior vice
president and chief financial officer.

The Court held that the defendants' alleged misrepresentations are
forward-looking statements immune from liability under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995's safe harbor provision.
"Plaintiff cannot salvage this action by snipping selective words
from conference calls and manipulating them in a way that would
suggest that a material falsehood was communicated to investors,"
Judge Chesler said.  Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to state a
claim for relief under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act.

A full-text copy of the District Court's Sept. 6, 2011 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/gcVeBQfrom Leagle.com.


MEIJER: Recalls 3,200 Units of Roman Shades and Roll-Up Blinds
--------------------------------------------------------------
   * Additional Retail Sales Prompt CPSC and Meijer to
     Re-announce Roman Shades and Roll-Up Blinds Recall

   * Strangulation Hazard Posed

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer/retailer, Meijer, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, and
manufacturer, Whole Space Industries LTD, of Centereach, New York,
announced a voluntary recall of about 3,200 units of "Innovations"
and "At Home with Meijer" roman shades and roll-up blinds; 240,000
units were originally recalled in March 2010
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10150.html].
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Hazard:

   Roman Shades -- Strangulation can occur when a child places
   his/her neck between the exposed inner cord and the fabric on
   the backside of the blind or when a child pulls the cord out
   and wraps it around his/her neck.

   Roll-up Blinds -- Strangulation can occur if the lifting loops
   slide off the side of the blind and a child's neck becomes
   entangled on the free-standing loop or if a child places
   his/her neck between the lifting loop and the roll-up blind
   material.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves previously recalled "Innovations" and "At
Home with Meijer" Roman shades and roll-up blinds that were
redistributed to stores and sold to consumers after March 2010
without a repair kit.  The Roman shades are made with fabric or
bamboo and the roll-up blinds with bamboo.  A label reading
"Innovation" or "At Home with Meijer" can be found under the
headrail.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12012.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
discount retailers, dollar stores, flea markets and other retail
liquidators nationwide from March 2010 through September 2011 at
various prices.  Originally the products were sold at Meijer
stores between January 2004 and December 2009 for about $40 before
being recalled.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Roman shades and the
roll-up blinds and contact the Window Covering Safety Council for
a free repair kit at (800) 506-4636 anytime or visit
http://www.windowcoverings.org/. Consumers can also return the
products to any Meijer store for a full refund.  For additional
information about this recall, contact Meijer at (800) 927-8699
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday
or visit the company's Web site at http://www.meijer.com/

Note: Examine all shades and blinds in your home.  Make sure there
are no accessible cords on the front, side, or back of the
product.  CPSC recommends the use of cordless window coverings in
all homes where children live or visit.


PILKINGTON NORTH AMERICA: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
At a hearing held in Windsor, Ontario on September 12, 2011, the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a settlement of the
class action Court File No. CV-08-11573 (Windsor) in respect of
Construction Flat Glass against the defendants Pilkington North
America. Inc., Pilkington Glass of Canada Limited, Guardian
Industries Corp., Guardian Industries Canada Corp., Industries
Cover Inc., AGC Flat Glass North America, Inc., PPG Industries,
Inc. and PPG Canada Inc. for CDN$1,760,303.24.

Persons in Canada who purchased Construction Flat Glass directly
from a defendant in the period July 1, 2002, to December 31, 2006,
for delivery or pickup in Canada will be entitled to claim direct
compensation and should immediately review the full notice and
other relevant documents available online at
http://www.flatglassclaims.cato understand their legal rights and
take the steps necessary to make a claim for compensation before
January 20, 2012.

Persons in Canada who purchased Construction Flat Glass in the
period July 1, 2002, to December 31, 2006, for delivery or pickup
in Canada from persons other than the defendants will not be
entitled to claim direct compensation because of the cost and
difficulty of administering such claims.  Compensation for
indirect purchasers will be paid out through a distribution to the
not-for-profit organizations The Canadian Green Building Council
and Habitat for Humanity Canada for the general benefit of those
indirect purchasers.

THIS NOTICE IS APPROVED BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
FOR ONTARIO

For further information: please contact National Class Action
Services toll free at 1-866-329-7153 or by e-mail at
info@flatglassclaims.ca

The Web site for the Flat Glass Class Action settlement is:
http://www.flatglassclaims.ca


REEBOK: Consumer Law Group Files Class Action Over Toning Shoes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Law Group Inc. on Oct. 19 announced the filing in the
Quebec Superior Court of a proposed national class action lawsuit
against Reebok on behalf of individuals who have purchased the
footwear EasyTone and RunTone.

The class action involves Reebok's false and misleading
advertising of EasyTone and RunTone footwear as products that will
tone and strengthen the glutes (28%), thighs (11%), and calves
(11%) by a specific percentage more than walking in a regular
shoe.  In fact, the only independent and reliable scientific study
on the subject demonstrated that there is no evidence to support
these claims.

On September 28, 2011, the company reached a settlement with the
US Federal Trade Commission to pay $25 million in refunds to
consumers, as well as, stopping to make any health or fitness-
related efficacy claims for their toning shoes.

Nevertheless, these toning shoes remain on store shelves in Canada
with these same health and fitness claims on the packaging and no
refunds have been made available to Canadian consumers.

Anyone who has purchased Reebok EasyTone and RunTone footwear
should contact our law firm at info@clg.org or 1-888-909-7863.

Alternatively, please complete the form at

http://www.clg.org/Class-Action/List-of-Class-Actions/Reebok-
EasyTone-Shoes-Class-Action

For further information:

          Me Jeff Orenstein
          514-CONSUMER (266-7863) ext. 220
          E-mail: jorenstein@clg.org
          Web site: http://www.clg.org


RESEARCH IN MOTION: May Face Lawsuits Over BlackBerry Outages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moira Herbst, writing for Reuters, reports that law firms in the
United States and Canada are exploring possible consumer lawsuits
against Research In Motion Ltd. for BlackBerry outages, which for
three days crippled e-mail and messaging for tens of millions of
users around the world.

Consumer lawyers say they are looking at whether customers have
common claims against the BlackBerry manufacturer and might be
able to band together in a single lawsuit.

While the outage did not rise to the level of seriousness
comparable to a dangerous medication or tainted food, it
inconvenienced and angered customers.  Frustrated BlackBerry
users, turning to blogs, message boards, Twitter and Facebook,
complained about losing important e-mails and missing meetings.

Law firms are considering breach-of-contract or consumer-fraud
claims, attorneys said.

A breach-of-contract claim could argue the company failed in its
obligations to provide service and could include carriers for
BlackBerry service as additional defendants, said attorneys
exploring litigation against RIM.

A consumer-fraud claim could focus on whether customers were
misled about the reliability of RIM's networks.

But consumers could face hurdles to winning big damages. It will
likely be difficult to prove damages beyond loss of service and
varying state laws make the chances of bringing a nationwide
consumer-fraud class action remote.

Still, some customers may push forward.

"Here, you just have the loss of (BlackBerry) use, so tons of
class-action firms are not running to the courthouse steps," said
Jay Edelson, a partner with the law firm Edelson McGuire in
Chicago, who represents plaintiffs.  "But there are definitely
consumers motivated to lend their names to the case to make sure
these problems don't happen again in the future."

Because consumers can hire lawyers on a contingency basis, they
would not have to fund the litigation, an added incentive, he
said.  Winning a class action case for BlackBerry users, in turn,
would raise the profile of a small or medium-sized law firm.

A U.S. Supreme Court consumer class-action ruling in April, in a
case known as Concepcion vs AT&T, could also limit any BlackBerry
outage lawsuits.  The decision made it more difficult for
consumers to sue if a contract they signed with a company demands
that disputes be settled through arbitration on an individual
basis.

"One of the major battles in any lawsuit against RIM will be
whether the claims against RIM are subject to the arbitration
clauses," said Jonathan Tycko, a partner with Tycko & Zavareei in
Washington who brings consumer class actions.  "If they are, then
that could make it quite difficult to bring a class action."

Still, lawyers are investigating whether plaintiffs could band
together and what claims they could file.

"We may end up pursuing consumer-protection statute class-action
cases in one or more states," said Mark Baumkel, a partner with
law firm Baumkel & Associates in Bingham Farms, Michigan.  "Given
the very short time of the disruptions in service, the damages for
consumers in each state may not add up to huge amounts of money."

RIM did not respond to messages seeking comment on potential
lawsuits.

Law firms in Canada, where RIM is headquartered, are also
considering lawsuits, said Paul Battaglia, managing director of
Toronto-based Trilogy Class Actions, a consulting firm that
connects consumers with class-action attorneys.

Mr. Battaglia said his firm is in discussions with other law firms
about potential lead plaintiffs.

The problems began with a failure in RIM's European data center
and spread across the world before it began to recover on Oct. 13.

BlackBerry devices have experienced similar, but more short-lived
outages each year since 2007.  The system failures came as RIM
struggles to hold on to market share for BlackBerry smart phones,
as more customers opt for Apple Inc's iPhone and Google Inc's
Android.

So far, RIM has not offered to compensate customers for the
outages.  The company said on Oct. 17 it would offer subscribers
access to premium apps "as an expression of appreciation for their
patience during the recent service disruptions."  The apps will be
available for four weeks and are worth more than $100 per
customer, RIM said.

The offer did not satisfy investors.  RIM's stock sank 6% on
Oct. 17 following the news.

If RIM were to pay back all affected customers and service
carriers for the days of service lost, the cost to the company
could be between $15 million and $26 million, BMO Capital Markets
analyst Tim Long said in a research note.

If consumers go to court, legal experts say it would be tough to
win damages beyond compensation for loss of service.

"It would be very hard to prove actual damages from a failure of
access to a smart phone," said David Logan, dean of Roger Williams
University School of Law and an expert in mass tort litigation.
"After all, for almost everybody there are alternative ways to
communicate in a pinch."

Mr. Edelson said consumer lawsuits are more likely to succeed in
changing RIM's practices than recovering large economic damages.
He said his firm received dozens of calls from BlackBerry users
and he will decide whether to bring a lawsuit by the end of the
week.

"Based on the investigation we've done, it looks like this is
something RIM could have prevented," said Mr. Edelson.  "They have
not come clean about why the outage occurred or what new steps
they have in place to prevent similar interruptions in the
future."


SAFELITE SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs' Bid to Expand Class Action Fails
----------------------------------------------------------------
glassBYTES.com reports that a federal court in Ohio has denied the
motion of several Safelite Solutions customer service
representatives who had motioned to expand a suit they filed last
August to be amended to include the company's sales
representatives.  The plaintiffs in the class action suit, who
claim they are owed overtime pay, had motioned to file an amended
complaint expanding the case, but had filed this motion four
months after the April 1 deadline for amendments, according to
court documents.

In its denial, the court notes that while the plaintiffs have
claimed that moving the deadline to amend -- and allowing them to
amend "is not undue when the delay results from securing
'supporting information . . . through discovery and investigation
and research' . . . plaintiffs do not identify what information
they obtained through discovery and only after April 1, 2011."

"This omission is particularly significant in light of the fact
that plaintiffs were on notice prior to April 1, 2011, that sales
representatives might be members of the class," writes the court,
adding that several sales representatives actually completed
opt-in forms for the class action suit in early May 2011, even
though they were not eligible to be part of the class.
"Therefore, although plaintiffs were on notice of this information
as early as may 2011, plaintiffs waited until four months after
the deadline had passed before filing the motion to amend."

In addition, the court held that if sales reps were added to the
suit, a new notification would need be sent out to potential
members of the class and the opt-in period would have to be
re-opened.

The CSR plaintiffs had further argued that they could file a
separate action on behalf of the sales representatives that
eventually would be consolidated with the current case, and so it
would make sense to amend this case.

"This court disagrees," writes the court.  "Although some overlap
between the two actions could exist, the court has discretion to
deny a request to consolidate if the schedules of the two actions
are incompatible."

While the original suit focused on the time CSRs spend booting up
their computers each day and the allegation that this time is not
calculated into their pay, the plaintiffs had also sought to seek
compensation for the time spent "locating a working computer in a
vacant cubicle, securing a headset or other equipment essential to
using that computer" with the recent motion.  The court denied
this request, along with the plaintiffs request to add claims of
spoliation -- "the intentional destruction of evidence that is
presumed unfavorable to the party responsible for the
destruction."  The CSRs had alleged that some documents imperative
to their case had been removed from the Safelite Solutions
computer system since the case was filed.  However, the court
ruled that the plaintiffs' argument is based on speculation.

The only portion of the plaintiffs' motion to amend accepted by
the court was the removal of one of the named plaintiffs, Patrick
Heaps, who claimed "he is no longer able to serve in that
capacity."


SOTHEBY'S: Faces Class Action Over Artwork Resale Royalties
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jori Finkel, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that New York
painter Chuck Close, L.A. artist Laddie John Dill and the estate
of L.A. sculptor Robert Graham are plaintiffs in a pair of class-
action lawsuits filed on Oct. 18 against the New York operations
of Sotheby's and Christie's, alleging that the auction houses
violated the California Resale Royalty Act.

The 1977 California statute, a rare attempt in the U.S. to provide
visual artists with a financial cut of appreciating artworks they
made but no longer own, grants artists 5% of the proceeds from the
resale of their artwork under certain conditions.  One is that the
seller lives in California or the sale occurs in California.  The
law applies only to one-of-a-kind examples of fine art -- defined
as "an original painting, sculpture, or drawing, or an original
work of art in glass."  Editioned photographs and prints are not
included.  The rights provided by the law extend to the artist's
heirs for up to 20 years after the artist's death.

Eric M. George of Browne George Ross LLP in L.A. filed the
complaints in federal court, charging the auction houses with
"failure to comply" with the law by not withholding this royalty
for the artists and by routinely going out of their way "to
conceal the fact of a seller's California residency."

Mr. George said the suits had their genesis in an $8.57-million
jury verdict he won while representing collector Halsey Minor
against Christie's last year.

After that, he began hearing from others who had assorted gripes
against auction houses.

"I spoke to a good number of artists," Mr. George said, and he
learned about frustrations over their inability to find out when
an auction seller was from California and therefore owed the 5%
royalty under state law.  The law went into effect in 1977.

"It's a wholesale systematic denial by Sotheby's and Christie's of
artists' rights," Mr. George said.  "How they've gotten away with
it for this long is a mystery."

He said that there does not appear to be a problem with two other
auction houses, Phillips de Pury & Company and Bonhams &
Butterfields.  "It's my understanding they follow the law," George
said.  With art dealers, he said, it appears that compliance is
"spotty at best."

Messrs. Close and Dill and Graham's estate are plaintiffs named on
both suits.  The foundation of L.A. painter Sam Francis, who died
in 1994, also appears as a plaintiff in the suit against
Christie's.

The law was inspired by European visual arts royalties like the
French "droit de suite" as well as the entertainment-industry
model of residuals.  The California Arts Council, which is in
charge of distributing royalties when auction houses or galleries
cannot locate artists, maintains information about the law on its
Web site, and a list of artists whom it is seeking for payment.

The Wall Street Journal quoted a spokeswoman for Sotheby's as
calling the claim meritless.  A spokeswoman for Christie's told
the paper that the auction house looks forward to debating the
validity of the law itself in court.

If successful, these suits could be more than a slap against
Christie's and Sotheby's: They could affect how galleries with
resale practices throughout California run their business -- or
shift business elsewhere.


SUPERSHUTTLE INT'L.: 8th Cir. Affirms Arbitration, Flips Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a
district court's order granting a motion to compel arbitration, as
well as enforcement of class action waivers, in the class action
styled as Mack Green, et al. v. SuperShuttle International, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 10-3310 (8th Cir.)

The Eighth Circuit also reversed and remanded the district court's
order dismissing the class action without prejudice.

The plaintiffs are current or former shuttle bus drivers at the
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.  The defendants own a
shared-ride shuttle service which operates at the Airport.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated the Minnesota
Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying its drivers as
franchisees rather than employees.

The Eighth Circuit held that by entering into unit franchise
agreements with the defendants, the plaintiffs agreed to the
incorporation of the rules of the American Arbitration Association
into their relationship with the defendants.

The Eighth Circuit added that the district court abused its
discretion in dismissing the action.  "In this case, it is not
clear all of the contested issues between the parties will be
resolved by arbitration.  The arbitrator may very well determine
the transportation worker exemption applies.  If such happens,
Green and the other drivers may be prejudiced by the dismissal of
the district court action because the statute of limitations may
run and bar them from re-filing complaints in state or federal
court."

The appellate panel is composed of Circuit Judges Roger Leland
Wollman, Kermit Edward Bye, and Bobby E. Shepherd.

A copy of the 8th Circuit's Sept. 6, 2011 decision is available at
http://is.gd/bVz7AZfrom Leagle.com.


TEXTRON INC: Dist. Ct. Rules on Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Paul Barbadoro of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Rhode Island granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in a
class suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 to the extent the plaintiffs base their breach of fiduciary
duty claim on alleged misstatements by the defendants.  In all
other respects, the motion to dismiss is denied, the Court ruled.

The case is In re Textron, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-
00383-PJB (D. R.I.).

Textron is a conglomerate that manufactures and sells helicopters,
light transportation vehicles, and lawn care machinery.  It also
has a large commercial finance business.

The Plaintiffs are participants in a retirement plan sponsored by
Textron that included as one of its investment options the Textron
Stock Fund.  In a three-count consolidated complaint filed in
February 2010, the Plaintiffs invoked the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 in asserting breach of fiduciary duty
claims against Textron, the committee that oversaw administration
of the Plan, and several individuals who were members of the
committee during the class period.  They claim that the defendants
are liable because they made misleading statements about Textron's
financial condition, failed to disclose material adverse
information about the company, and allowed class members to make
what the defendants knew or should have known were imprudent
investments in the Fund.

The Defendants seek dismissal contending that the complaint fails
to state a claim for relief. They argue that plaintiffs cannot
base a claim on the defendants' allegedly misleading statements
because the defendants were not acting as ERISA fiduciaries when
they made the statements. They contend that they cannot be held
liable for failing to disclose information because they did not
have a duty to disclose the omitted information. Finally, they
assert that plaintiffs' imprudent investment claim is a nonstarter
because the complaint does not sufficiently allege that the Fund
was an imprudent investment.

A copy of the District Court's Sept. 6, 2011 Memorandum and Order
is available at http://is.gd/x8ejamfrom Leagle.com.



                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *