/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/111019.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 19, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 207


ALLIED HEALTHCARE: Signs MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Suits
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Injunction Bid in "Gaines" Suit Now Moot
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Securities Suit Deal Effective on Aug. 23
BANK OF AMERICA: Subprime Loan Suit Fails to Win Certification
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Sued Over False Claims on Flea & Tick Products

BLUFF CITY, TN: Faces Class Action Over Traffic Camera
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Four Shareholder Class Actions Consolidated
COVENTRY HEALTH CARE: Judge Rejects Class Action Settlement
EATON CORP: Truck Transmission Antitrust Suit Can Proceed
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Settles Propane Tank Class Action

GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Labels
HENRY GORDY: Agrees to $1-Mil. Penalty Over Toy Dart Gun Sets
MEDASSETS INC: Faces Data Theft Class Action in Illinois
MLS REALCOMP: Supreme Court Ruling Won't Hit Class Action
NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL: Disputes Class Action Over Job Rates

NVIDIA: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
SA HAJJ: May Face Class Action over Hajj Visa Scam
SATYAM COMPUTER: Edinburgh Dragon Trust to Pursue Legal Action
SIFY TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Order Pending
STERLING CHEMICALS: 5th Cir. Flips Ruling in Retirees' Lawsuit

WINDSTREAM CORP: Settles Class Action Over Paetec Merger


ALLIED HEALTHCARE: Signs MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Suits
Allied Healthcare International Inc., in an October 13, 2011, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
disclosed that it entered into a memorandum of understanding
regarding the settlement of certain litigation relating to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of
July 28, 2011, by and among the Company, Saga Group Limited, a
corporation organized under the laws of England and Wales
("Parent") and AHL Acquisition Corp., a New York corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Acquisition Sub"), providing
for the merger (the "Merger") of Acquisition Sub with and into the

As previously disclosed on the Definitive Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A filed with the SEC by the Company on September 21,
2011 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement"), five substantially
similar putative class action complaints were filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York for the County of New York naming
the Company, the members of the Company's board of directors,
Saga, and Acquisition Sub as defendants.  The complaints alleged
that the members of the board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving the merger agreement
and in particular alleged that the merger consideration negotiated
under the merger agreement is inadequate; that certain of the
defendants have improper conflicts of interest by reason of the
retention agreements with the Company's executive officers; and
that the terms of the merger agreement improperly impose deal
protection devices that will preclude competing offers.  The
complaints further alleged that the Company, Saga, and Acquisition
Sub aided and abetted the members of the board in their alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.  On August 31, 2011, amended
complaints were filed in four of the cases.  In the amended
complaints the claims, relief sought, and defendants remained the
same, but after having reviewed the preliminary proxy statement
filed by the Company, the plaintiffs added details regarding
information that they allege should be disclosed to Company
shareholders for them to make a fully informed decision whether to
vote in support of the proposed transaction.  On September 2,
2011, the court consolidated all of the cases into one action
identified as In Re Allied Healthcare International Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 652188/2011 (the "Action").

On October 12, 2011, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") with the plaintiffs providing for the
settlement of all claims in the Action.  Under the MOU, and
subject to court approval and such confirmatory discovery as the
parties may agree or as shall be ordered by the court, and
definitive documentation, the plaintiffs and the putative class
settle and release, against the named defendants and their
affiliates and agents, all claims in the Action and any potential
claim related to (i) the Merger and/or the Merger Agreement, or
any amendment thereto; (ii) the adequacy of the consideration to
be paid to the Company's shareholders in connection with the
Merger; (iii) the fiduciary obligations of any of the defendants
or other released parties in connection with Merger and/or the
Merger Agreement, or any amendment thereto; (iv) the negotiations
in connection and process leading to the Merger and/or the Merger
Agreement, or any amendment thereto; and (v) the disclosures or
disclosure obligations of any of the defendants or other released
parties in connection with the Merger and/or the Merger Agreement.

While the Company believes that no supplemental disclosure is
required under applicable laws, in order to avoid the risk of the
putative stockholder class actions delaying or adversely affecting
the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending such actions,
the Company has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make
certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger.
Subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery, the MOU
contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement.  The stipulation of settlement will be subject to
customary conditions, including court approval following notice to
the Company's stockholders.  In the event that the parties enter
into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at
which the Supreme Court of New York will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.  If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all
claims in all actions that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to
final approval of the settlement.  In addition, in connection with
the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel
will file a petition in the Supreme Court of New York for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by the Company or its
successor.  The settlement, including the payment by the Company
or any successor thereto of any such attorneys' fees, is also
contingent upon, among other things, the Merger becoming effective
under New York law.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the Supreme Court
of New York will approve the settlement contemplated by the MOU.
In the event that the settlement is not approved and such
conditions are not satisfied, the defendants will continue to
vigorously defend against the allegations in the Action.

AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Injunction Bid in "Gaines" Suit Now Moot
Ira Gaines' motion for preliminary injunction is now moot after
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. supplemented certain disclosures in its
proxy statement/prospectus in an October 13, 2011, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On September 20, 2011, plaintiff in the Ira Gaines v. Michael
Narachi, et al. matter, pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
filed a Verified Amended Class Action Complaint.  This amended
complaint generally alleges that the members of the AMAG Board
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
merger with Allos Therapeutics, Inc., by: (i) failing to "shop"
AMAG and maximize shareholder value; (ii) ignoring procedural
safeguards in negotiating the proposed merger with Allos; (iii)
negotiating an acquisition in which Allos shareholders will
allegedly receive excess consideration and AMAG stockholders will
suffer dilution; (iv) rejecting an allegedly superior buy-out
proposal from MSMB Capital; and (v) disseminating a supposedly
false and misleading proxy statement.  This amended complaint
seeks damages and injunctive relief, including to enjoin the
acquisition of Allos by AMAG, and an award of attorneys' and other
fees and costs, in addition to other relief.  AMAG and Allos
believe the plaintiffs' allegations lack merit and will contest
them vigorously.  On September 21, 2011, plaintiff Gaines filed a
motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for preliminary
injunction.  Defendants opposed this motion on September 26, 2011,
and a telephonic hearing was held with Vice-Chancellor Noble on
September 27, 2011.

On September 30, 2011, Vice-Chancellor Noble issued an order
denying plaintiff's request for expedited proceedings.  On
October 3, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of
the September 30 order.  Defendants opposed plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration on October 5, 2011.  On October 6, 2011, Vice-
Chancellor Noble granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
In granting plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, the court
scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing for October 17, 2011,
to consider the sole issue as to whether the free cash flow
projections used by Morgan Stanley in its discounted cash flow
analysis should be disclosed.  On October 11, 2011, plaintiff
filed a motion for preliminary injunction.  The sole request for
relief the plaintiff sought was the disclosure of the free cash
flow projections that Morgan Stanley utilized in connection with
its discounted cash flow analysis.   Because those projections
have been disclosed in the Company's Form 8-K Filing, plaintiff's
preliminary injunction motion, and request for relief thereunder,
is now moot.

AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Securities Suit Deal Effective on Aug. 23
Authentidate Holding Corp.'s settlement resolving a consolidated
securities lawsuit became effective on August 23, 2011, according
to the Company's October 13, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended June 30,

Between June and August 2005, six purported shareholder class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "District Court") against the
Company and certain of its current and former directors and former
officers.  Plaintiffs in those actions alleged that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The
securities law claims were based on the allegations that the
Company failed to disclose that the Company's August 2002
agreement with the USPS contained certain performance metrics, and
that the USPS could cancel the agreement if the Company did not
meet these metrics; that the Company did not disclose complete and
accurate information as to the Company's performance under, and
efforts to renegotiate, the USPS agreement; and that when the
Company did disclose that the USPS might cancel the agreement, the
market price of the Company's stock declined.  On October 5, 2005,
the Court consolidated the class actions under the caption In re
Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation., C.A. No. 05
Civ. 5323 (LTS), and appointed the Illinois State Board of
Investment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.

The plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on
January 3, 2006, which asserted the same claims as the prior
complaints and also alleged that Authentidate violated the federal
securities laws by misrepresenting that it possessed certain
patentable technology.  On July 14, 2006, the District Court
dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety; certain claims
were dismissed with prejudice and plaintiff was given leave to
replead those claims which were not dismissed with prejudice.  In
August 2006, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which did
not assert any claims relating to the company's patents or under
the Securities Act of 1933, but which otherwise was substantially
similar to the prior complaint.  The second amended complaint
sought unspecified monetary damages.  The company moved to dismiss
the second amended complaint on November 13, 2006.  On March 26,
2009, the District Court dismissed, with prejudice, the second
amended complaint.  The lead plaintiff filed an appeal.  On
March 12, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
issued an order affirming in part and vacating and remanding in
part the March 26, 2009 order of dismissal.  On December 23, 2010,
the company and certain of its current and former directors and
former officers entered into a settlement of the consolidated
class actions with the lead plaintiff.  As set forth more fully in
the Stipulation of Settlement, upon final approval of the
settlement by the District Court, among other things: (i) the
class will consist of all persons who purchased the company's
shares between July 16, 2004, and May 27, 2005; (ii) all claims of
all class members (whether class, individual direct or
derivatively) arising out of or related to the plaintiffs'
allegations will be dismissed with prejudice and released; and
(iii) a payment of $1.9 million will be made for the benefit of
the settlement class, which will be funded by the company's
insurance carrier.

On February 2, 2011, the District Court entered an order that
preliminarily approved the Stipulation of Settlement;
preliminarily certified a settlement class of all persons who
purchased the company's common stock between July 16, 2004, and
May 27, 2005, inclusive; and scheduled a hearing for July 20,
2011, to determine whether to grant final approval of the
settlement.  The court granted final approval of the settlement
and certification of the class at the hearing and the settlement
was effective as of August 23, 2011.

BANK OF AMERICA: Subprime Loan Suit Fails to Win Certification
Heather Johnson at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge rejected class certification for more than 500,000 borrowers
who say predatory lending schemes made them fall victim to "toxic"
adjustable-rate or subprime-mortgage loans offered by Countrywide
and Bank of America.

In their consolidated class action, which alleges Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violations, unfair
competition and other claims, homeowners say that Countrywide and
other lenders engaged in a scheme to steer borrowers into
"inherently toxic and unaffordable" loans that were then bundled
and sold as investments on the secondary market as "mortgage-
backed securities."

These "pay option" negative amortization loans "unconscionably
increased the debt burden and costs associated with the mortgage,"
according to the complaint, because they offered either interest-
only payments or minimum-monthly payments that were less than the
amount of interest owed.

The plaintiffs also claim that the subprime loans were also
"inherently unaffordable," exceeding 31% for the front-end debt-
to-income ratio, a term that describes the ratio for housing
payment, including principal, interest, taxes and insurance
compared to gross monthly income.  And the loans exceeded 45% for
the back-end debt-to-income ratio, which covers total outstanding,
recurring obligations including mortgage payments, credit cards,
child support or alimony, and car payments compared to gross
monthly income.

Countrywide sold these loans in mass quantities by loosening
underwriting standards and convincing borrowers that qualifying
for loans meant they could afford them, according to the

Employees and brokers executed the scheme since they had an
incentive to put more customers into subprime loans; they used
standardized sales scripts that assured borrowers that they were
receiving the "best" loans available; and they failed to disclose
risks, future rate increases and underwriting standards, the
plaintiffs claimed.

While all 500,000-plus class members fell victim to the underlying
"scheme," U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego found
that the dissimilarities in the victims' cases are so widespread
that class resolution is not workable.

Regarding the RICO claim, Judge Sabraw noted that Countrywide made
loans through four divisions, two of which worked through 30,000
independent brokers who had no contact with the bank.  These
brokers issued almost half of the class loans and used no
Countrywide-provided script.  Loan officers in a third division
used scripts, while a fourth division did not.  For this and other
reasons, the RICO and unfair-competition claims fail due to lack
of a "common course of conduct."

Countrywide and Bank of America, which acquired the company in
2008, already agreed to a $624 million settlement in another class
action filed by a group of pension funds that had said Countrywide
misled investors about their reliance on subprime and option-
adjustable-rate mortgages.  The complaint also claimed the bank
had falsely assured investors about surviving the housing downturn
during the heart of the crash.

In January of this year, Bank of America took another hit when it
paid Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac $2.8 billion to settle claims over
Countrywide's questionable loans.

A copy of the Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in In re: Countrywide Financial Corp. Mortgage
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case Nos. 08-md-01988,
08-cv-01888, 08-cv-01957, 08-cv-01972 (S.D. Calif.), is available


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Sued Over False Claims on Flea & Tick Products
Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli Co., L.P.A. has filed
a class action lawsuit on behalf of dog and cat owners in Ohio
alleging, among other things, that Bayer HealthCare, LLC and
Merial Limited regularly make false and deceptive claims in
advertisements for their flea and tick pet products.

Bayer is the manufacturer of the family of products made for dogs
and cats under the trade names Advantage(R), Advantage(R) II,
Advantix(R), Advantix(R) II, K9 Advantix(R), K9 Advantix(R) II,
Advantage Multi(R), and Advocate(R). Merial is the manufacturer of
the family of products made for dogs and cats under the trade
names Frontline(R), Frontline(R) Plus, Frontline Top Spot(R), and
Certifect(TM).  These products are sold as treatments for dogs and
cats suffering with fleas, ticks, adult flea eggs, larvae,
mosquito, heartworm, ear mites, and sarcoptic mange.  While each
one of individual products targets only a limited subset of the
pet aliments, all of the products target fleas and their larvae.

As fully set forth in Plaintiff's complaint, Bayer and Merial
collectively sell approximately $2 billion of the products
annually under the allegedly false and/or misleading assertions
claiming that the products: are self-dispersing and cover the
entire surface area of the dog or cat's body when applied in a
single limited spot; are effective for one month and require
monthly application to continue to be effective; do not enter the
blood stream of the pet and instead move across the pet's skin to
cover the pet; and are waterproof and remain effective following
shampoo treatments, swimming, or after exposure to rain or

Plaintiff seeks to prevent Bayer and Merial from continuing to
allegedly misrepresent these products and seeks to recover damages
on behalf of all those who purchased the products.

   About Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli Co., L.P.A.

Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli Co., L.P.A. --
http://www.climacolaw.com-- is a full-service law firm.  The firm
has practice groups in Class Actions, Litigation, Business Law,
Employment Law and Government and Public Finance.

BLUFF CITY, TN: Faces Class Action Over Traffic Camera
Jamie Satterfield, writing for Knoxville News Sentinel, reports
that an Upper East Tennessee town's already troubled traffic
camera enforcement program has hit another speed bump -- a federal
proposed class-action lawsuit.

Attorney Dan Stanley has filed on behalf of motorists Chris Cawood
and Jonathan Kelly Proffitt a $6 million proposed class-action
lawsuit against Bluff City and its mayor, Irene Wells, and the
Arizona-based traffic camera firm American Traffic Solutions Inc.

The lawsuit alleges the city and the firm are conspiring to
violate the Fair Debt Collections Act, state law and the city's
own ordinances by imposing an administrative fee of $40 on top of
the $50 fine imposed for motorists allegedly captured on the
city's two speed enforcement cameras on Highway 11E.  The
plaintiffs further allege the city and firm are "threatening
criminal prosecution for contempt of court and suspension of
driver's licenses" if the fees and fines aren't paid.

The action also alleges the city created a "speed trap" on the
section of Highway 11E under enforcement by the city's cameras by
dropping the speed limit from 55 mph to 45 mph less than a mile
from where the cameras are posted.

The city's traffic enforcement program was already embroiled in
controversy in two separate instances involving a new law that
took effect in July and imposes limitations on red light and speed
camera enforcement programs.

In the first incident, the Bluff City Police Department fired an
officer who allowed a reserve officer to review and approve
hundreds of tickets after the law took effect.  The law requires
potential violations captured on camera to be reviewed and
approved by an officer who is certified under the state's Peace
Officers Standards and Training Commission.

The city estimated it would have to refund some $12,000 in
collections as a result.

The second incident came when the city was hit with complaints,
similar to those in the lawsuit, that one of its two cameras was
positioned less than a mile from a sign that signaled a drop in
the speed limit from 55 mph to 45 mph.  The new state law bars the
placement of speed cameras within a mile of any 10-mph drop in the
speed limit.

City officials have said they believed their program was
grandfathered, giving them until 2015 -- when the contract with
American Traffic Solutions expires -- to make the change.
However, an August state Attorney General's opinion opined that no
such grandfather provision was included in the new law.

Bluff City last month shut down the offending camera and began the
process of tallying refunds.  Records showed that more than 1,300
tickets had been issued by that camera, which monitors the
southbound side of the section of Highway 11E.  Of those, 640 had
already been paid.

The lawsuit alleges Bluff City dropped the speed on the section of
Highway 11E that is subject to the speed camera enforcement
program without performing "an engineering and traffic
investigation pursuant to statute and, therefore, was negligent in
assessing the need for (a) speed reduction on Highway 11E.  Such
reduction was much lower than required, thus creating a 'speed

Bluff City and American Traffic Solutions have until Oct. 27 to
file a formal response to the lawsuit.  Neither attorney J. Paul
Frye, who represents Bluff City, and attorney C. Crews Townsend,
who represents American Traffic Solutions, responded to requests
for comment on Oct. 13.

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Four Shareholder Class Actions Consolidated
Bryant Ruiz Switzky, writing for Washington Business Journal,
reports that four similar class-action lawsuits have been
consolidated in cases alleging that Computer Sciences Corp. and
some of its executives concealed information and misled
shareholders about the company's financial challenges.

One of the consolidated suits was filed in July by Hilary Kramer,
a frequent media commentator, although the court named Ontario
Teachers' Pension Plan Board as the lead plaintiff.  The move is a
significant milestone in the quest of shareholders who want to get
back some of the money they say was invested in Falls Church-based
CSC at a time when its stock price was allegedly artificially

COVENTRY HEALTH CARE: Judge Rejects Class Action Settlement
Paul Koepp, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports that
a federal judge rejected the $1.4 million settlement of a class-
action lawsuit against Coventry Health Care of Kansas that alleged
the insurer charged copayments improperly.

In a Sept. 26 order, U.S. District Judge Greg Kays said he was
concerned the settlement would only actually compensate the tiny
fraction of class members who submitted claims, to the tune of
about $346,000.

EATON CORP: Truck Transmission Antitrust Suit Can Proceed
Truckinginfo reports that plaintiffs cleared another hurdle in
their antitrust lawsuit against truck manufacturers -- Wallach v.
Eaton Corp -- when a Delaware federal judge ruled that claims
alleging the trucking giants conspired to create a monopoly should

The class action lawsuit was filed by the trustee for Performance
Transportation Services Inc., the second-largest transporter of
new vehicles and light trucks in North America before its
bankruptcy in 2007.

The lawsuit charged that Daimler Trucks North America LLC, Mack
Trucks Inc., Peterbilt Motors Co. and Volvo Trucks North America
conspired to create a monopoly and used exclusionary contracts to
maintain a monopoly by Eaton Corp. in the market for transmissions
used in large trucks.  The lawsuit charged that conspiracy
violates the Sherman Antitrust Act and Clayton Act.

U.S. District Judge Sue L. Robinson recently ruled that all claims
under the Sherman Act should proceed.  Defendants had filed
motions to dismiss the complaint.

The judge ruled that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that
the trucking manufacturers conspired with Eaton to form and
continue the illegal scheme to put Eaton's competitors out of
business and raise prices for truck purchasers.  The effect of the
agreements was to expand Eaton's monopoly and permit "all
defendants to share in the profits resulting from this monopoly,"
the judge said.

The evidence shows that Eaton gave discounts and rebates to the
trucking manufacturers in exchange for their agreement to
exclusively use Eaton's transmissions, Judge Robinson said.  "The
allegations suggest that each party needed to fully participate in
order for the conspiracy to succeed," the judge ruled.

The plaintiffs contend the conspiracy resulted in higher prices
and less innovation in the trucks they purchased.

The case will next move to the discovery phase, where plaintiffs
will have to prove the merits of their case.  Much of the current
action appears to be based on the ZF Meritor case, in which Judge
Robinson recently rejected Meritor's damages case in its entirety
and entered a final judgment of $0 damages.  Both sides are
appealing that decision.

Speaking for Eaton, James W. Parks, manager of business
communications, said, "Eaton believes that it has, at all times,
competed fairly and lawfully, and consistent with company policy,
will not comment further on pending litigation."

Similar Action in Kansas

In October 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of a nationwide class
of Class 8 truck purchasers which alleged that Eaton cut deals
with truck makers to keep other transmission makers out of the
market, particularly ZF Meritor, which was forced out of the

ZF Meritor is a joint venture of ArvinMeritor and ZF
Friedrichshafen AG formed in 1999.  Although ZF Meritor still
exists as a legal entity, ArvinMeritor has said it was forced to
stop selling transmissions because of Eaton's actions.

Because of this, the suit claims, truck buyers paid more than they
would have if there had been serious competition.

A year earlier, a jury determined that Eaton's exclusivity
agreements with the OEMs "constituted a contract, combination, or
conspiracy that unreasonably restrained trade," the complaint
notes, in the case ZF Meritor LLC and Meritor Transmission
Corporation v. Eaton Corporation.  ArvinMeritor prevailed in that

FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Settles Propane Tank Class Action
Paul Koepp, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports that
Ferrellgas Partners LP will pay as much as $25 million to settle a
class-action suit alleging that it shortchanged customers by
under-filling propane tanks and fixing prices with a competitor.

The Overland Park company will pay at least $10 million in claims
and related settlement costs.  Each plaintiff will get $7.50 a
tank to a maximum of $150.

Any of the initial $10 million left over after claims are paid
would go toward low-income home energy assistance programs in 10
states.  Tens of thousands of consumers bought the tanks at 43,000
locations nationwide.

GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Product Labels
Something is mostly missing from Fruit Roll-Ups, Fruit by the
Foot, and Fruit Gushers: fruit, according to a complaint filed on
Oct. 14 in federal court in California.

Labels state those General Mills snacks are "fruit flavored,"
"naturally flavored," a "good source of vitamin C," and low in
calories, fat, and gluten, according to the complaint filed on
behalf of a California mother by the nonprofit Center for Science
in the Public Interest and the consumer protection law firm Reese
Richman LLP.  But obscured on labels is the fact that the so-
called fruit snacks are mostly sugars (some from fruit concentrate
and some from corn syrup), artificial additives, and potentially
harmful artificial dyes.

Strawberry Fruit Roll-Ups are made from pears from concentrate,
corn syrup, dried corn syrup, sugar, partially hydrogenated
cottonseed oil, citric acid, acetylated monoglycerides, fruit
pectin, dextrose, malic acid, Vitamin C (ascorbic acid),
unspecified "natural flavor," and Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, and
Blue 1.  Even with the pear ingredient, the product provides
little of the beneficial fiber or nutrients associated with real
strawberries.  While labels tout the naturalness of the added
flavorings, CSPI says that many of the ingredients are artificial
by anyone's definition, including the partially hydrogenated
cottonseed oil and the acetylated monoglycerides.  The side panels
on some General Mills "fruit" candies read "Made With Real Fruit."
At least one variety of Fruit Roll-Ups has pictures of
strawberries and oranges on the box.  But despite the names of the
products, there are no strawberries in Strawberry Fruit Roll-Ups,
nor watermelon in Fruit Gushers Watermelon Blast.  The bright
colors of those products come from synthetic, petroleum-based dyes
that can impair some children's behavior.

"General Mills is basically dressing up a very cheap candy as if
it were fruit and charging a premium for it," said CSPI litigation
director Steve Gardner.  "General Mills is giving consumers the
false impression that these products are somehow more wholesome,
and charging more.  It's an elaborate hoax on parents who are
trying to do right by their kids."

According to the complaint, filed in United States District Court
in the Northern District of California, the presence of partially
hydrogenated oil in "fruit" snacks marketed as healthy and
wholesome is deceptive.  The artificial trans fat in partially
hydrogenated oil lowers HDL, or "good" cholesterol, raises LDL, or
"bad" cholesterol.  CSPI states that the amounts of trans fat are
small, but that they have no place in a product marketed as if it
were healthful and a source of fruit.

"Defendant is conveying an overall message of a healthful snack
product to parents when, in fact, the Products contain dangerous,
non-nutritious, unhealthy partially hydrogenated oil, large
amounts of sugar, and potentially harmful artificial dyes," the
complaint states.

The complaint contends that the labeling of fruit-flavored snacks
violates various state laws, including Minnesota's Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and several California laws
governing misleading and deceptive advertising and fraudulent
business practices.  General Mills is based in Golden Valley,

General Mills has a habit of skirting the truth with its marketing
and advertising, according to CSPI.  In 2009, the Food and Drug
Administration took enforcement action against the company for
making misleading cholesterol-lowering and cancer-prevention
claims on Cheerios packages.  Before resorting to litigation, CSPI
had privately urged General Mills to change its "fruit" snacks
labels, but without success.

HENRY GORDY: Agrees to $1-Mil. Penalty Over Toy Dart Gun Sets
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that
Henry Gordy International, Inc. (Henry Gordy), of Plainfield,
N.J., has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,100,000.  The
penalty agreement has been provisionally accepted by the
Commission (5-0).

The settlement resolves CPSC staff's allegations that Henry Gordy
knowingly failed to report the safety defect and hazard with the
"Auto Fire Target Set" immediately to CPSC, as required by federal
law.  CPSC staff also alleges that the firm made a material
misrepresentation to CPSC staff in the course of staff's
investigation into the target sets.

CPSC staff alleges that Henry Gordy knew on or about May 2006 that
the target set was defective and could cause harm but failed to
report this to CPSC.  CPSC staff alleges that the target set is
defective because if a child places the soft, pliable, plastic toy
dart into his or her mouth, the toy can be inhaled into the throat
and can prevent the child from breathing.

CPSC staff also alleges that Henry Gordy made a material
misrepresentation to the staff in the course of the staff's
investigation into the target sets in May 2009 by not reporting
all of the information Henry Gordy was then aware of.

In May 2010, Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and CPSC announced the
recall of about 1.8 million Auto Fire Target Sets because Henry
Gordy refused to conduct the recall
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10234.html]. By that
time, there were three deaths associated with the target set.
Auto Fire Target Sets were sold exclusively by Family Dollar
between September 2005 and January 2009 for about $1.50 each.
Each set came with a toy gun; soft, pliable, plastic toy darts and
a small target.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12010.html

Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors and retailers to
report to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaining
information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product
contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard,
creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or fails
to comply with any consumer product safety rule or any other rule,
regulation, standard or ban enforced by CPSC.

Companies also must specifically report to CPSC choking incidents
involving small balls, latex balloons, marbles, or toys or games
containing these items or other small parts.  Companies that
receive information about children choking on any of these items
and, as a result, dying, suffering serious injury, ceasing
breathing for any length of time or being treated by a medical
professional must report this information to CPSC immediately.

In agreeing to the settlement, Henry Gordy denies CPSC staff
allegations as to the existence of a defect or that it knowingly
violated the law.

Pursuant to the Consumer Product Safety Act, CPSC must consider
the appropriateness of the penalty to the size of the business of
the person charged, including how to address undue adverse
economic impacts on small businesses.

MEDASSETS INC: Faces Data Theft Class Action in Illinois
Brandon Worix, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MedAssets, Inc., Case No. 2011-CH-35609 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Cook Cty., October 13, 2011) arises from a June 2011 incident
wherein a computer hard drive was stolen from a MedAssets
employee's car.  The hard drive, which was neither encrypted nor
password-protected, had the confidential, personal information of
over 82,000 individuals, 32,000 of which were patients within the
Cook County Health & Hospitals System.

The Plaintiff asserts that MedAssets didn't notify him and the
other patients of the theft for nearly 2 months.

The Plaintiff alleges that MedAssets deliberately and negligently
failed to implement and maintain reasonable procedures to
safeguard its patients' highly sensitive information, including
names, birthdates and social security numbers.  He argues that
MedAssets' actions and inaction fail the requirements of the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, and
constitute violations of the Federal Stored Communications Act and
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Mr. Worix is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.  He was, at all
relevant times, a patient of Cook County Health.

MedAssets is a Delaware corporation, licensed to do business in
Illinois.  MedAssets describes itself as a "financial improvement
partner for health care providers."

A copy of the Complaint in Worix v. MedAssets, Inc., Case No.
11CH35609 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Aleksandra M. S. Vold, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 588-1440
          Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com

MLS REALCOMP: Supreme Court Ruling Won't Hit Class Action
Daniel Duggan and Chad Halcom, writing for Crain's Detroit
Business, report that the nearly 10-year fight involving a policy
by Farmington Hills-based MLS Realcomp II Ltd. is officially over
after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take the case.

The group has spent close to $2 million fighting a 2006 complaint
by the Federal Trade Commission, which found that Realcomp's 2001
policy of treating some real estate listings different than others
was anti-competitive.

"We're disappointed," said CEO Karen Kage.  "We have taken this as
far as we can, we took it to the top, and now it's time to move

But while it ends one legal fight, a class action case related to
the policy continues, with a 2013 trial set.

At issue is how a multiple listing service should handle the new
breeds of real estate listings.

Under a traditional brokerage contract, called an "exclusive right
to sell," a real estate agent is the exclusive agent for selling a
home.  When that broker sells the home, he or she keeps a portion
of the commission, which is usually 6% to 7%.

Particularly with the rise of the Internet, business models have
emerged where an agent charges a flat fee to list the home on the
MLS, then gives the seller the option to sell the home on his or
her own -- with no commission given to a broker.

The company is called an "exclusive agency" listing.

Realcomp policy has always allowed exclusive agency listings on
its MLS.  But when Realcomp feeds public Web sites such as
realestate.com or trulia.com with homes for sale, Realcomp tried
to exclude the exclusive listing agencies' clients.

The worry is that consumers will use the MLS, through Web sites,
to complete deals without the use of real estate agents.

Realcomp lost its fight in the FTC's internal appeal process and
then lost an appeal in the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in

In a class action suit filed in October 2010, a group of consumers
who hired real estate agents asked for financial damages, saying
the Realcomp policy forced them to pay more than they needed to in
real estate commissions because the policy gave the traditional
firms an advantage.

"Plaintiffs paid more for real estate brokerage services than they
would have paid had Realcomp, its Board of Governors, its
shareholders, and its members not illegally restrained competition
in the Southeastern Michigan MLS Service area by developing,
implementing, and facilitating unlawful Realcomp MLS rules,
policies and procedures," they wrote in the complaint.

In June, U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy III denied a motion to
have the case dismissed and a jury trial has been set for Jan. 10,

Attorney Norman Lippitt of Birmingham-based Lippitt O'Keefe PLLC,
who represented Realcomp in the Supreme Court petition and is
defending the MLS in the class action case, said the full impact
remains to be seen.

"You know the odds with the Supreme Court.  We took our chances
and knew this might happen," Mr. Lippitt said.  "It's the end of
the line for the FTC case, but it's a little foggy to me at this
point about what this does or what the impact of the rule will be
on the other (class action) case."

It's unlikely the Supreme Court action will have any impact on the
class action case, said Todd Mendel and attorney with Detroit-
based Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker PLLC, one of the attorneys
representing plaintiffs in the class action case.

"The likelihood of the Supreme Court taking the case was so low,
that for all practical purposes the 6th Circuit opinion was
expected to be the last word," Mr. Mendel said.

NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL: Disputes Class Action Over Job Rates
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that New York Law School
is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit accusing it of misleading students
about their post-graduation employment prospects, calling the
plaintiffs' claims a baseless attempt to vilify the entire law
school industry.

The law school was hit in August with a putative class-action suit
in New York state court filed by three former students, asking for
as much as $200 million in tuition refunds on behalf of all recent
graduates, and an order forcing it to be more transparent in how
it reports post-graduate employment and salary information.

In a motion to dismiss the complaint filed on Oct. 14, the law
school said the plaintiffs relied on "broad generalities" instead
of concrete facts to back up their claims that the school massaged
its post-graduation statistics to lure prospective students.

"The allegations are not only baseless, but also belied by the
plaintiffs' own complaint, which demonstrates this case has
nothing to do with New York Law School and everything to do with a
crusade against the entire law school industry," Michael Volpe, an
attorney with Venable representing the school, said in a

The school, which is located in lower Manhattan and has no
affiliation with New York University School of Law, argued that it
is in full compliance with American Bar Association procedures for
reporting post-graduation employment data.  If plaintiffs have a
problem with that, the school argued in its motion, they should
target the ABA.

"These attacks on the ABA rules are wholly insufficient to state
claims for the three individual plaintiffs against NYLS," the
motion stated.

                     Targeting 15 Law Schools

Jesse Strauss, an attorney with Strauss Law representing the
plaintiffs, said the school failed to address the plaintiffs'
primary allegations in its motion.

"The fact remains that when our clients paid the annual tuition of
over $40,000 to attend New York Law School, they did so based on
New York Law School's misleading representation that they had an
over 90% chance of getting a job, and that those jobs paid certain
salaries," Mr. Strauss said.  "That representation is demonstrably

Mr. Strauss is helping to represent plaintiffs suing Thomas M.
Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan, over similar claims.  He
and co-counsel David Anziska recently announced they were planning
to file class-action lawsuits against 15 additional schools in
seven states over their reporting of post-graduation employment

Congress has also turned its scrutiny on law schools' career
statistics.  In a letter sent on Oct. 13, Republican Senator Tom
Coburn of Oklahoma and California Senator Barbara Boxer, a
Democrat, asked the inspector general of the U.S. Department of
Education for a report focusing on the "confluence of growing
enrollments, steadily increasing tuition rates and allegedly
sluggish job placement" at American law schools.

The case is Gomez-Jimenez et al v. New York Law School, in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, index
no. 652226/2011.

For the plaintiffs:

          David Anziska, Esq.,
          305 Broadway, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Tel. No: (914) 216-3540
          E-mail: david@anziskalaw.com

                    - and -

          Jesse Strauss, Esq.
          305 Broadway, 9 FL
          New York, NY 10007
          Tel. No. (212) 822-1496
          E-mail: Jesse@strausslawpllc.com


          Michael Volpe, Esq.
          Edmund O'Toole, Esq.
          Michael Hartmere, Esq.
          Julia Davis, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          Washington, DC
          575 7th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 344-4000
          E-mail: mjvolpe@Venable.com

NVIDIA: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge dismissed a class action alleging NVIDIA committed
securities fraud by propping up share prices through false and
misleading statements that concealed problems with its computer

The lead plaintiff claimed in the action that NVIDIA's customers,
including HP and Dell, complained that there were problems with
its computer chips.

Almost 80% of NVIDIA's revenue comes from its graphics-processing
units and media and communications processors, and the plaintiffs
said a "mismatch in thermal properties" caused the alleged

As a result of the computer failures, NVIDIA's stock prices
dropped 31% in 2008, from $18.78 to $12.98 per share, which led to
the securities fraud action.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said on Oct. 12 that
shareholders could not prove that NVIDIA took "extraordinary,
secret steps" for at least 11 months before telling investors
about the problem.

The company's switch to high-lead solder in products suggests that
it knew its materials contributed to the defects, but that
response "does not create or contribute to a strong inference that
NVIDIA knew the scope of its potential financial liability at the
time it was redesigning the chips and hoped to hide that fact,"
the judge found.

"While NVIDIA omitted discussion of the alleged defect from its
public statements until the May 2008 quarterly report, a more
reasonable, competing inference is that the company was
investigating the scope of the issue," Judge Seeborg wrote.

NVIDIA might have underappreciated the likelihood of "incurring
extraordinary financial liability," despite the possibly
misleading nature of the partial disclosure, the judge found.

"Such behavior, at worst, reflects recklessness in the ordinary
sense of the word with respect to customer relations and potential
financial risk," the 17-page decision states.

A copy of the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Second Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint in In re NvIDIA Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 08-cv-04260 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:


SA HAJJ: May Face Class Action over Hajj Visa Scam
Warda Meyer, writing for IOL News, reports that the Muslim
Judicial Council (MJC) has slammed agents and individuals who have
purchased and sold Hajj visas outside of the established
accreditation framework.

This follows claims of corruption in the Hajj industry from a
newly-formed group calling themselves Friends of the Hujjaj, who
say they plan to bring a class action lawsuit aimed at disbanding
the SA Hajj and Umrah Council (Sahuc).

In a statement issued on Feb. 14, secretary general of the MJC
Moulana Abdul Khaliq Allie said Sahuc had assured the MJC that it
had already embarked on an investigation to ensure those
responsible were brought to book.  Mr. Allie appealed to allow
Sahuc to conduct its investigation and report back to the

Mr. Allie also expressed the MJC's gratitude to Saudi Arabian
ambassador to South Africa, Mohammed bin Mahmoud bin Ali Al-Ali,
for issuing an additional 107 visas to those accredited pilgrims
who became stranded as a direct result of the visa debacle.

The MJC statement came on the day that Friends of the Hujjaj held
a placard demonstration outside the Sahuc offices at the MJC's
building in Athlone.  Men and women held placards which read "Stop
Hajj Lottery" and "I'm Muslim, Why must I gamble with Hajj?"

Gigi Richards from Hanover park said the "poor Muslims of the Cape
are fed-up with the MJC and Sahuc".

"The MJC does not care or look out for our people.  They are part
of this Hajj mess."

Naziemah Lesch, from Lansdowne, said that as a former Sahuc
employee, she believed that the organization needed to throw out
its current accreditation system.

"They paid such a lot of money for the system yet the problems

Imraahn Mukaddam, of the National Consumer Forum and Friends of
the Hujjaj member, said Sahuc had to be replaced by a more
representative and accountable model.

"This (the current system) is a lottery model and if you throw
your R100 into the hat you must pray that you are chosen," said
Mr. Mukaddam, the whistleblower in the bread price-fixing scandal.

SATYAM COMPUTER: Edinburgh Dragon Trust to Pursue Legal Action
Gary Jackson, writing for Fundweb, reports that the GBP526.3
million Edinburgh Dragon trust is continuing with legal action to
recover losses caused by the 2009 Satyam scandal despite several
US investors settling with the Indian company.

Earlier this year, Satyam Computer Services informed the Bombay
Stock Exchange that it had reached a $125 million (GBP79.3
million) settlement in a class action suit launched by a number of
US-based plaintiffs.

The company added that the settlement does not cover the claim
made by Aberdeen Asset Managers on behalf of Edinburgh Dragon and
another trust.

Fundweb understands that Aberdeen has not agreed to any settlement
from Satyam as the group considers the payout made to the US
investors to be too small and hopes to win a larger settlement,
although it does not expect to recover the full loss made through
the scandal.

The Edinburgh Dragon trust sold out of Satyam Computer Services in
early 2009 after founder-chairman Ramalinga Raju admitted that the
firm's accounts had been falsified for several years.

The investment trust's annual financial report from August 2008
shows 2.2% of the Edinburgh Dragon portfolio, worth about GBP8.25
million at the time, was held in Satyam.

In its latest annual report, the trust's managers assure investors
that they are still attempting to recoup the loss more than two
years after the scandal broke.

"The manager, on behalf of the board, continues to pursue all
avenues, including potential legal action, to recover the losses
which were incurred from the investment in Satyam," the statement

Dubbed by some commentators as India's Enron, the scandal was the
biggest-ever example of corporate fraud in India.  A statement by
Mr. Raju at the time said about GBP650 million of the cash on
Satyam's books was made up in a bid to conceal the company's

Mr. Raju's resignation letter described the fraud as like "riding
a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten."

SIFY TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement Order Pending
Appeals from the final approval of a settlement resolving a
securities class action lawsuit against Sify Technologies Limited
remain pending, according to the Company's October 13, 2011, Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended March 31, 2011.

Sify technologies Limited and its subsidiaries (the "Group") and
certain of its officers and directors are named as defendants in a
securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  This
action, which is captioned In re Satyam Infoway Ltd. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, also names several of the
underwriters involved in the Sify's initial public offering of
American Depositary Shares as defendants.  This class action is
brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Sify's
American Depositary Shares (ADSs) from the time of the Sify's
Initial Public Offering ("IPO") in October 1999 through December
2000.  The central allegation in this action is that the
underwriters in the Sify's IPO solicited and received undisclosed
commissions from, and entered into undisclosed arrangements with,
certain investors who purchased the Sify's ADSs in the IPO and the
aftermarket.  The complaint also alleges that Sify violated the
United States Federal Securities laws by failing to disclose in
the IPO prospectus that the underwriters had engaged in these
allegedly undisclosed arrangements.  More than 300 issuers have
been named in similar lawsuits.

In July 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss all complaints against
issuers and individual defendants affiliated with issuers was
filed by the entire group of issuer defendants in these similar
actions.  In October 2002, the cases against the Sify's executive
officers who were named as defendants in this action were
dismissed without prejudice.  In February 2003, the court in this
action issued its decision on defendants' omnibus motion to
dismiss.  This decision denied the motion to dismiss the Section
11 claim as to Sify and virtually all of the other issuer
defendants.  The decision also denied the motion to dismiss the
Section 10(b) claim as to numerous issuer defendants, including
Sify.  On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs in the consolidated IPO
class action lawsuits currently pending against Sify and over 300
other issuers who went public between 1998 and 2000, announced a
proposed settlement with Sify and the other issuer defendants.
The proposed settlement provided that the insurers of all settling
issuers would guarantee that the plaintiffs recover $1 billion
from non-settling defendants, including the investment banks who
acted as underwriters in those offerings.  In the event that the
plaintiffs did not recover $1 billion, the insurers for the
settling issuers would make up the difference.  This proposed
settlement was terminated on June 25, 2007, following the ruling
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on
December 5, 2006, reversing the District Court's granting of class

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed Amended Master
Allegations.  On September 27, 2007, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion
for Class Certification.  Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
focus cases on November 9, 2007.  On March 26, 2008, the Court
ruled on the Motion to Dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs had
adequately pleaded their Section 10(b) claims against the Issuer
Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants in the focus cases.  As
to the Section 11 claim, the Court dismissed the claims brought by
those plaintiffs who sold their securities for a price in excess
of the initial offering price, on the grounds that they could not
show cognizable damages, and by those who purchased outside the
previously certified class period, on the grounds that those
claims were time barred.  This ruling, while not binding on the
Sify's case, provides guidance to all of the parties involved in
this litigation.  On October 2, 2008, plaintiffs requested that
the class certification motion in the focus cases be withdrawn
without prejudice.  On October 10, 2008, the Court signed an order
granting that request.  On April 2, 2009, the parties lodged with
the Court a motion for preliminary approval of a proposed
settlement between all parties, including Sify and its former
officers and directors.  The proposed settlement provides the
plaintiffs with $586 million in recoveries from all defendants.
Under the proposed settlement, the Issuer Defendants collectively
would be responsible for $100 million, which would be paid by the
Issuers' insurers, on behalf of the Issuer Defendants and their
officers and directors.

Accordingly, any direct financial impact of the proposed
settlement is expected to be borne by the Sify's insurers.  On
June 12, 2009, the Federal District Court granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement.  On October 6, 2009, the
District Court issued an order granting final approval of the
settlement.  Subsequent to the final approval of Settlement
agreement by the District court, there are several notices of
appeal filed.  Most were filed by the same parties that objected
to the settlement in front of the District Court.  The Company
says these appeals will likely be consolidated into a single
appeal and briefing schedule will be provided shortly.  Any direct
financial impact of the preliminary approved settlement is
expected to be borne by the Sify's insurers.  Sify believes, the
maximum exposure under this settlement is approximately $338,983,
an amount which it believes is fully recoverable from its

STERLING CHEMICALS: 5th Cir. Flips Ruling in Retirees' Lawsuit
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said employers
generally are free under ERISA to modify or terminate plans, but
if the plan sponsor cedes its right to do so, it will be bound by
that contract.

On Feb. 21, 2007, three retired employees of Sterling Fibers,
Inc., one of Sterling Chemicals, Inc.'s former subsidiaries, sued
the Company, several of its benefit plans and the plan
administrators for those plans in a class action suit in the
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division (Case No. H-07-0625).  The plaintiffs allege that the
Company was not permitted to increase their premiums for retiree
medical insurance based on a provision contained in an asset
purchase agreement that governed the purchase by Sterling Fibers
of Cytec Industries Inc.'s acrylic fibers business in 1997.
During Sterling Chemical's bankruptcy case in 2002, the Company
and Sterling Fibers sought and obtained bankruptcy court authority
to reject the asset purchase agreement.  The plaintiffs claimed
that the Company violated the terms of its benefit plans, breached
fiduciary duties governed by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act and failed to comply with sections of the Bankruptcy
Code dealing with retiree benefits, and sought damages,
declaratory relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.  A trial
was held during the second week of November 2009 and, on July 1,
2010, the district judge ruled for the Company on the merits and
dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims.  The plaintiffs filed an
appeal on July 16, 2010.  Briefing for the appeal was completed in
the first quarter of 2011.

Circuit Judge Harold R. DeMoss, who wrote the opinion, held that
Sterling voluntarily ceded its right to modify the Plaintiffs'
premiums when it entered into the APA and approved of the Section
5.05(F) terms under the APA.

Section 5.05(F) of the APA provided in relevant part that
"[Sterling] shall continue to provide postretirement medical and
life insurance benefits for such [qualifying] Acquired Employee
that are no less favorable to such Acquired Employee than those
benefits provided by [Cytec] under the [Cytec benefit plans] as in
effect on the date hereof, and [Sterling] shall not reduce the
level of such benefits without the prior written consent of
[Cytec]; provided, that such consent shall not be withheld to the
extent that [Cytec] or Cyanamid has similarly reduced the level of
such benefits. . . . [A]n increase in premiums required to be paid
for postretirement benefits shall be considered a reduction in
such benefits. [Cytec] shall notify [Sterling] in writing to the
extent that [Cytec] becomes aware of a reduction in postretirement
medical and life insurance benefits under the [Cytec benefit]

According to Judge DeMoss, the rejection of the APA in bankruptcy
did not destroy Section 5.05(f)'s status as a valid plan
amendment, and that Section 5.05(F) was assumed in bankruptcy
pursuant to Sterling's Plan of Reorganization.

The Fifth Circuit relied on a prior ruling in Halliburton Co.
Benefits Committee v. Graves, 463 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2006), a case
where the Circuit Court found that a provision in a merger
agreement constituted a valid amendment to an ERISA plan, was

"Because Sterling was required to receive Cytec's prior written
consent before it raised Plaintiffs' premiums, something it
acknowledges it did not do, we reverse the order of the district
court and remand for additional proceedings consistent with this
opinion," the ruling held.

HARTHUN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STERLING CHEMICALS,
INCORPORATED, Individually and as successor-in-interest to
Sterling Chemicals Holdings Incorporated; STERLING CHEMICALS
Plan Administrator of the Sterling Chemicals Incorporated Medical
Benefits Plan for Salaried Employees and the Sterling Chemicals
Incorporated Prescription Drug Benefits Plan for Salaried
FOR RETIREES, Defendants-Appellees, No. 10-20493 (5th Cir.).

The Fifth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges E. Grady Jolly,
DeMoss, and Edward C. Prado.  A copy of the Fifth Circuit's Oct.
13, 2011 decision is available at http://is.gd/qYgvk4from

                    About Sterling Chemicals

Sterling Chemicals Holdings, a manufacturer of petrochemicals,
acrylic fibers, and pulp chemicals, filed for Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 01-_____) on July 16, 2001.
Lawyers at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, represented the
Debtors in their restructuring effort.  It emerged from bankruptcy
in December 2002.

WINDSTREAM CORP: Settles Class Action Over Paetec Merger
Will Astor, writing for Rochester Business Journal, reports that
Windstream Corp. has inked a memorandum of understanding laying to
rest a shareholder class action challenging its proposed takeover
of Paetec Holding Corp, Windstream officials said on Oct. 14.

Terms of the MOU call for new disclosures to be added to
information related to the merger revealed in previously filed
proxies.  All parties including Paetec and officers of Windstream
and Paetec to be released from liability and for the lawsuit,
filed in a Delaware state court, to be dismissed without the
possibility of the complaint being refiled.

"Windstream, Paetec and the other defendants deny all of the
allegations in the Consolidated Lawsuit and believe the
disclosures in the proxy statement/prospectus are adequate under
the law.  Nevertheless, Windstream, Paetec and the other
defendants have agreed to settle the consolidated lawsuit in order
to avoid costly litigation and reduce the risk of any delay to the
completion of the merger," Windstream official said in a

The Windstream statement makes no mention of financial terms.
Windstream officials on Oct. 14 could not immediately be reached.

Settlements in merger-related shareholder class actions such as
the Windstream suit often call for defendants to make additional
disclosures but no financial concessions outside of fees collected
by plaintiffs' attorneys and modest sums paid to a few would-be
lead plaintiffs.

Among new disclosures added as a result of the settlement are that
Paetec chairman and CEO Arunas Chesonis stated in a July 8 meeting
that he had no intention of joining Windstream after a merger and
that after entering an exclusivity agreement with Windstream,
Paetec was contractually prohibited from talking to another
suitor, identified in the proxy only as "Company B."


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  * * *