CAR_Public/120724.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, July 24, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 145

                             Headlines

AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Turner" Suit Remains Pending in California
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Awaits 40 Opt-Out Claimants' Next Move
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action
BUONA VITA: Recalls 72,510 Lbs. of Frozen Meat & Poultry Products
BURLINGTON COAT: Recalls 6,000 Power Strips Due to Fire Hazard

CLUB CAR: Recalls 800 Golf & Transport Vehicles Due to Fire Risk
COMERICA INC: Overdraft Fee Class Action Can Proceed
COMVERSE INC: Response in Israeli Optionholders Suit Due Oct. 24
CREDIT SUISSE: Donaldson & Guin Files Securities Class Action
DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN: Employees File Class Action Over Pay

DOWNEAST CONCEPTS: Recalls 15,400 Children's Beach Chairs
FACEBOOK INC: Advertisers Can Appeal Class Action Dismissal
FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Sued by ANS for Mishandling SAN Upgrade
GEORESOURCES INC: Settles Merger-Related Class Suit in Colorado
HALCON RESOURCES: Settles Merger-Related Class Suit in Colorado

HONEYWELL INT'L: Awaits OK of Settlement of Claims in Allen Suit
HONEYWELL INT'L: Still Awaits Okay of Quick Lube Suit Settlement
HONEYWELL INT'L: "UAW" Class Suit Remains Pending in Michigan
HYDRO-QUEBEC: Class Action Over Billing System Authorized
SAFELITE SOLUTIONS: Ohio Court Approves Class Action Settlement

SATCON TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in Mass.
STRATASYS INC: Being Sold to Object Ltd. for Too Little, Suit Says
TENAHA, TX: City Council Accepts Proposed Class Action Settlement
UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies Discrimination Suit v. USMS
VIA RAIL: Judge Orders Disclosure of Class Action Settlement

WSFS FINANCIAL: Bank Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees Suit
VISA INC: Visa & MasterCard Signs $6-Bil. Deal Over Surcharges

* NZ Kiwifruit Postharvest Operator Mulls Class Suit Over Virus


                          *********


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Turner" Suit Remains Pending in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Turner v. American Airlines
Inc., et al., remains pending in California, according to the
Company's July 18, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On June 20, 2006, the U.S. Department of Justice served the
Company with a grand jury subpoena as part of an ongoing
investigation into possible criminal violations of the antitrust
laws by certain domestic and foreign passenger carriers.  At this
time, the Company does not believe it is a target of the DOJ
investigation.  The Company intends to cooperate fully with this
investigation.  On September 4, 2007, the Attorney General of the
State of Florida served the Company with a Civil Investigative
Demand as part of its investigation of possible violations of
federal and Florida antitrust laws regarding the pricing of air
passenger transportation.  In the event that this or other
investigations uncover violations of the U.S. antitrust laws or
the competition laws of some other jurisdiction, such findings and
related legal proceedings could have a material adverse impact on
the Company.

Approximately 52 purported class action lawsuits have been filed
in the U.S. against the Company and certain foreign and domestic
air carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust
laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges for
passenger transportation.  On October 25, 2006, these cases, along
with other purported class action lawsuits in which the Company
was not named, were consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California as In re
International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation,
Civ. No. 06-1793 (the Passenger MDL).  On July 9, 2007, the
Company was named as a defendant in the Passenger MDL.  On
August 25, 2008, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against the
Company in this action.

On March 13, 2008, and March 14, 2008, an additional purported
class action complaint, Turner v. American Airlines, et al., Civ.
No. 08-1444 (N.D. Cal.), was filed against the Company, alleging
that the Company violated U.S. antitrust laws by illegally
conspiring to set prices and surcharges for passenger
transportation in Japan and certain European countries,
respectively.  The Turner plaintiffs have failed to perfect
service against the Company, and it is unclear whether they intend
to pursue their claims.  In the event that the Turner plaintiffs
pursue their claims, the Company will vigorously defend these
lawsuits, but any adverse judgment in these actions could have a
material adverse impact on the Company.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Awaits 40 Opt-Out Claimants' Next Move
---------------------------------------------------------
Forty-five purported class action lawsuits have been filed in the
U.S. against American Airlines, Inc. and certain foreign and
domestic air carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S.
antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges on cargo shipments.  These cases, along with other
purported class action lawsuits in which the Company was not
named, were consolidated in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York as In re Air Cargo Shipping
Services Antitrust Litigation, 06-MD-1775 on June 20, 2006.
Plaintiffs are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive
relief.  To facilitate a settlement on a class basis, the Company
agreed to be named in a separate class action complaint, which was
filed on July 26, 2010.  The settlement of that complaint, in
which the Company does not admit and denies liability, was
approved by the court and final judgment was entered on April 6,
2011.

Approximately 40 members of the class have elected to opt out,
thereby preserving their rights to sue the Company separately.
Any adverse judgment could have a material adverse impact on the
Company.

                         Canadian Matter

Also, on January 23, 2007, the Company was served with a purported
class action complaint filed against the Company, American, and
certain foreign and domestic air carriers in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia in Canada (McKay v. Ace Aviation Holdings, et
al.).  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated Canadian
competition laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges on cargo shipments.  The complaint seeks compensatory
and punitive damages under Canadian law.  On June 22, 2007, the
plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims against the Company.

The Company says the dismissal is without prejudice and the
Company could be brought back into the litigation at a future
date.  If litigation is recommenced against the Company in the
Canadian courts, the Company will vigorously defend itself;
however, any adverse judgment could have a material adverse impact
on the Company.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 18, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Quad-City Times reports that a federal class-action lawsuit
has been filed in California against Bridgepoint Education, parent
company of Ashford University in Clinton, in response to the for-
profit private university's accreditation troubles.

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of people who bought Bridgepoint
common stock between May 3, 2011, and July 6, 2012.

The lawsuit, filed by Ryan & Maniskas law firm in Pennsylvania,
charges that Bridgepoint and certain officers and directors
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by concealing its
accreditation problems, which impacted stock prices.

After news surfaced about the Western Association of Schools and
Colleges' denial of accreditation for Ashford, Bridgepoint stock
plunged by $7.25 per share to close at $14.25, a decline of nearly
34 percent on heavy trading volume, Ryan & Maniskas reported in a
release about the lawsuit.

Marianne Perez, media relations manager for Bridgepoint, declined
to discuss the lawsuit, saying, "We do not comment on pending
legal matters."

The lawsuit claims that Bridgepoint did not disclose that the
company "had failed to implement plans, procedures and practices
to sufficiently assist students in staying with the programs they
enrolled in and complete the courses," along with failing to align
resources with education requirements to help them.

It also claims Ashford failed to maintain a sufficient core of
faculty and programs, which didn't help student completion rates,
and that Bridgepoint didn't identify and remedy the situation.

The lawsuit also states that Ashford failed to maintain an
independent and empowered governing board.


BUONA VITA: Recalls 72,510 Lbs. of Frozen Meat & Poultry Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Buona Vita, Inc., a Bridgeton, New Jersey establishment, is
recalling approximately 72,510 pounds of various frozen, ready-to-
eat meat and poultry products due to possible contamination with
Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall include:

   * 30-lb. case of Silver Lake ".5 oz Cooked Meatballs made with
     chicken and beef"

   * 30-lb. case of Buon Gusto ".5 oz Baked Italian Style
     Meatballs made with chicken and beef"

   * 10-lb. case of Buon Gusto "1/2 oz Baked Italian Style
     Meatballs made with chicken and beef"

   * 10-lb. case of Mamma Cacciatore "1/2 oz Mamma Cacciatore
     Baked Beef and Chicken Meatballs"

   * 10-lb. case of Buon Gusto "1/2 oz Baked Italian Style
     Meatballs made with chicken and beef"

   * 10-lb. case of Buon Gusto "2 oz Baked Italian Style
     Meatballs made with chicken and beef"

   * 10-lb. case of Mamma Cacciatore "1 oz Mamma Cacciatore Baked
     Beef and Chicken Meatballs"

   * 10-lb. case of Buon Gusto "1 oz Baked Italian Style
     Meatballs"

   * 10-lb. case of Pisa Brand "1 oz Baked Italian Style
     Meatballs made with chicken and beef"

   * 10-lb. case of Buon Gusto "1 oz Baked Italian Style
     Meatballs made with chicken and beef"

   * 10-lb. cases of Buon Gusto "1 oz Baked Italian Style
     Meatballs with Pepper and Onions"

   * 10-lb. cases of Buono Vita "1 oz Baked Gourmet Meatballs
     with Pork and Beef"

   * 30-lb case of Buono Vita's ".65 oz Baked Gourmet Meatballs
     with Pork and Beef"

   * 10-lb. case of Sapore Italiano "3 oz Baked Meatballs with
     Beef and Pork"

   * 10-lb. case of Buon Gusto "1/2 oz Baked meatballs with
     chicken and beef"

All the products were produced on June 26, 2012.  The packages
bear the establishment number "P-954" or "Est. 954" inside the
USDA mark of inspection.  The products were sold to distribution
facilities nationwide.  When available, the retail distribution
list will be posted on FSIS' Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/

The problem was discovered through microbiological testing by a
third party.  FSIS and the Company have not received reports of
illnesses due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned
about an illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Blake Christy, General Manager of Buona Vita, Inc. at (856) 453-
7972.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.  The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-
MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and
can be reached from l0:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.


BURLINGTON COAT: Recalls 6,000 Power Strips Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Lush Life, of LaJolla, California, and distributor,
Burlington Coat Factory, of Burlington, New Jersey, announced a
voluntary recall of about 6,000 Lush Life(R) power strips.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The power strips have undersized wiring which poses a risk of
shock to consumers.  In addition, the wiring and plastic strip
fail to meet fire resistance safety standards, posing a fire
hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves four designs of power strips.  The vibrantly
designed power strips come in four prints including, leopard,
rose, skull and zebra.  Model numbers 12256, 12257, 22563 and
22575 can be found on the six-outlet power strip.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12230.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Burlington Coat Factory, The Container Store and other retail
stores nationwide from July 2011 through March 2012 for about $10.

Consumers should immediately stop using the power strips and
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund or store
credit.  For additional information, please contact the firm toll-
free at (888) 223-2628 between 8:30 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. Eastern
Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/


CLUB CAR: Recalls 800 Golf & Transport Vehicles Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 800 golf cars and transport vehicles were voluntarily
recalled by Club Car LLC, of Augusta, Georgia, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.  Consumers should
stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The fuel hose can separate from the fuel tank, posing a fire
hazard.

Club Car has received one report of a fuel hose separating from
the tank.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled vehicles are various sizes, models and colors of 2012
gas-powered golf and transport vehicles used for short-distance
transportation.  The vehicles can be identified by model and
serial number.  The serial number is above and to the right of the
accelerator pedal.  Model names do not appear on the vehicles, but
models can be identified by two-letter prefixes on the serial
number.  Club Car is printed on the front of each vehicle.  A list
of recalled models and serial numbers is below.

     Model                       Serial Numbers
     -----              --------------------------------
     DS Gas Golf Car    AG 1232-298757 to AG 1238-314938
     Villager 4 Gas     TG 1232-299285 to TG 1237-312956
     XRT 850 Gas        JZ 1233-300104 to JZ 1238-314710
     XRT 800 Gas        XJ 1233-300372 to XJ 1238-313369
     Carryall 232 Gas   XL 1233-300113 to XL 1238-314964

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12741.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at authorized Club Car dealers nationwide from
March 2012 through May 2012 for between $5,000 and $7,000.

Consumers should stop using the recalled golf cars and transport
vehicles and contact Club Car for a free inspection and repair of
the fuel hose system.  The firm is contacting its customers
directly.  For more information, contact Club Car at (800) 227-
0739, ext. 3831, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.clubcar.com/


COMERICA INC: Overdraft Fee Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------
Susannah Nesmith, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
Comerica Inc. customers may sue the bank as a class over claims
that banks wrongly charged overdraft fees, a federal judge ruled.

More than 30 banks have been sued by customers claiming the banks
reordered their overdrafts to maximize the fees they paid.
Comerica is the sixth bank to lose a bid to force the customers to
pursue their claims individually.

"Surely you're not saying the bank would welcome 50,000 cases in
small claims court," U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King told
the attorney for Dallas-based Comerica in Miami federal court.
"This is a question of whether there's a suit or none at all."

The judge added that "there wouldn't be lawyers to take the cases
and it would just go away."

Several banks have already agreed to settle the claims, with Bank
of America Corp. agreeing to pay $410 million, the highest
settlement.  The cases have been consolidated in Miami for pre-
trial proceedings.

"I thought Comerica fell into class certification just as the
other five had and the banks that have settled have," said
Bruce Rogow, one of the lead attorneys for the bank customers.  "I
was pleased with the ruling."

Comerica spokesman Wayne J. Mielke said the bank anticipated the
ruling and will continue fighting the lawsuit.

The case is In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, 09-md-
02036, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami).


COMVERSE INC: Response in Israeli Optionholders Suit Due Oct. 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
Comverse, Inc. and other defendants' deadline to respond to a
motion to certify a class of Israeli optionholders in a single
consolidated class action lawsuit is on October 24, 2012,
according to the Company's July 18, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 14, 2006, the Company's parent, Comverse Technology,
Inc., announced the creation of a Special Committee of its Board
of Directors (the "Special Committee") composed of outside
directors to review CTI's historic stock option grant practices
and related accounting matters, including, but not limited to, the
accuracy of the stated dates of option grants and whether all
proper corporate procedures were followed.  In November 2006, the
Special Committee's investigation was expanded to other financial
and accounting matters, including the recognition of revenue
related to certain contracts, errors in the recording of certain
deferred tax accounts, the misclassification of certain expenses,
the misuse of accounting reserves and the misstatement of backlog.
The Special Committee issued its report on January 28, 2008.
Following the commencement of the Special Committee's
investigation, CTI, certain of its subsidiaries and some of CTI's
former directors and officers were named as defendants in several
class and derivative actions, and CTI commenced direct actions
against certain of its former officers and directors.

CTI and certain of its subsidiaries, including Comverse Ltd. (a
subsidiary of the Company), were named as defendants in four
potential class action litigations in the State of Israel
involving claims to recover damages incurred as a result of
purported negligence or breach of contract that allegedly
prevented certain current or former employees from exercising
certain stock options.  The Company says it intends to vigorously
defend these actions.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI on
March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd.
employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee).
The Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case
Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover
damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of
CTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements,
which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by
certain employees and former employees.  By stipulation of the
parties, on September 30, 2009, the court ordered that these
cases, including all claims against CTI in Israel and the motion
to approve the class action, be stayed until resolution of the
actions pending in the United States regarding stock option
accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability to
investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in
these cases.

On April 4, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay based
on the resolution of the actions in the United States.  On May 7,
2012, the court lifted the stay, and the plaintiffs have filed an
amended complaint and motion to certify a class of plaintiffs in a
single consolidated class action.  The defendants' deadline to
respond is October 24, 2012.

On July 16, 2012, CTI was notified by the plaintiffs that a new
motion was filed with the court.  The motion is seeking an order
that CTI hold back $150 million in assets as a reserve to satisfy
any potential damage awards that may be awarded in this case, but
does not seek to enjoin the share distribution.  The Company does
not believe that the motion has merit.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by
plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both seek to approve class
actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred
as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly
prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees
of certain CTI and Verint Systems stock options, respectively.
The Katriel litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on
March 16, 2009, against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation
(Case Number 4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint
Systems Ltd.  The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks
jurisdiction, and both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court.  These cases have been consolidated with the Tel
Aviv District Court cases.

The Company did not accrue for these matters as the potential loss
is currently not probable or estimable.


CREDIT SUISSE: Donaldson & Guin Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donaldson & Guin, LLC on July 19 disclosed that it has filed a
securities class action against Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse
Securities (USA), LLC and certain officers and directors on behalf
of investors in VelocityShares Daily VIX 2x Short-Term Exchange
Traded Notes.

The case, captioned Grace Trading, LLC, et al. v. Credit Suisse
AG, et al., No. 12-CV-5475 (S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired VelocityShares Daily VIX 2x Short Term Exchange
Traded Notes, alleges that the VIX ETNs were intended to track the
level of volatility in the S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Index.
However, on February 21, 2012, Credit Suisse temporarily suspended
further issuance of the ETNs, purportedly due to internal limits
reached on the size of the ETNs.  As a result, the shares
increased dramatically in price, trading at prices uncorrelated to
the VIX Index.

On March 22, 2012, the VIX ETNs decreased in price by over 29% as
market rumors surfaced that Credit Suisse might begin reissuing
the shares.  That same day, even though volatility in the S&P 500
increased, Credit Suisse announced that it would begin reissuance,
and, on March 23, the VIX ETNs plummeted in price by another 30%,
resulting in disastrous losses to investors.  The Complaint
alleges that during the Class Period, Credit Suisse violated the
Securities Act by making material misstatements and omissions
regarding risks associated with the VIX ETNs in offering
materials.  A copy of the complaint is available at
http://www.dglawfirm.com

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the case, you must file
a motion with the Court no later than July 24, 2012.  Any member
of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the class.

The plaintiffs are represented by Donaldson & Guin, LLC, a firm
located in Birmingham and Chicago.  If you wish to discuss this
action, please contact David Guin at davidg@dglawfirm.com

Donaldson & Guin -- http://www.dglawfirm.com-- prosecutes class
actions and private actions on behalf of institutional investors
and individuals clients across the country.


DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN: Employees File Class Action Over Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Cass, writing for The Tennessean, reports that employees
of the Davidson County Sheriff's Office filed a class-action
lawsuit against their employer in federal court on July 18,
alleging that they weren't paid for all the time they worked.

The suit also says employees weren't compensated at the rates
required by the Metro Pay Plan, which governs compensation for
civil service workers.  Metro government also is named as a
defendant in the suit.

"Just like all of Metro's employees, those workers who run our
city's jails deserve to be paid in accordance with the law," said
David Garrison, a partner at Nashville law firm Barrett Johnston,
which is representing the employees.

Metro Law Director Saul Solomon, the government's top attorney,
declined to comment.  A spokeswoman for Sheriff Daron Hall, who
was first elected to the position in 2002, could not be reached
for comment on July 18.

The class-action complaint is an amendment to a federal suit filed
more than a year ago by Michael Murphy, a correctional officer at
the sheriff's office from 2005 until April of this year.  If U.S.
District Judge Kevin Sharp refuses to allow the amendment,
attorneys with Barrett Johnston say they plan to refile it as a
separate lawsuit.

The complaint says about 240 sheriff's employees -- just less than
45 percent of the potential class of 574 people contacted by
attorneys -- agreed to join the suit.  Attorneys hope to certify
all correctional officers who worked for the sheriff's office over
the past six years as part of the class.

Vonda Noel, who has worked at jails or detention facilities for
the sheriff's office since 2004, is now listed individually as a
plaintiff along with Mr. Murphy.

The employees allege that they frequently worked overtime without
getting paid during "clearing count," a process by which "the
incoming and outgoing Correctional Officer shifts work together to
verify that all inmates housed in each jail/detention facility are
accounted for."

"Defendants routinely require the members of the (Fair Labor
Standards Act) Class to work additional time after the end of
their paid shifts without providing them with any corresponding
additional compensation, in accordance with Defendants' common
business policies and/or practices," the complaint reads.

At the same time, the sheriff's office has routinely paid
employees at hourly rates below those mandated by the city's pay
plan, the employees allege.

The sheriff's office "uses two different sets of hourly rates to
pay its Correctional Officers: (1) hourly rates lower than the
Metro Pay Plan's hourly rates for regularly scheduled work, and
(2) the Metro Pay Plan's hourly rates for work recorded performed
in addition to regularly scheduled work," the suit reads.
"However, neither the Metro Charter, nor the DCSO's Compensation
Policies, authorize such deviations from the Metro Pay Plan."


DOWNEAST CONCEPTS: Recalls 15,400 Children's Beach Chairs
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Downeast Concepts Inc., dba Backyard and Beyond, of Yarmouth,
Maine, announced a voluntary recall of about 15,400 folding beach
chairs.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The recalled children's beach chairs have exposed, sharp metal
rivets, posing a laceration hazard.

The firm is aware of one injury to a 21-month-old girl who fell on
the chair's metal rivets and cut her forehead and had to have
stitches.

The recalled children's folding beach chairs have white aluminum
tube frames and pink, yellow, blue or purple fabric seats and
chair backs with fish, palm trees or mermaid decorations.  The
chairs measure 13 inches wide by 18 inches high by 20 inches deep.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12229.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Home
Goods and other stores nationwide from June 2011 through June 2012
for between $13 and $25.

Consumers should stop using the recalled beach chairs immediately
and return them to Downeast Concepts for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Downeast Concepts at (800) 343-
2424 between 8:30 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Thursday and between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.downeastconcepts.com/


FACEBOOK INC: Advertisers Can Appeal Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Gullo, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Facebook
Inc. cost-per-click advertisers won permission to appeal a ruling
denying their bid to proceed with a group lawsuit for alleged
overcharges by the world's largest social-networking Web site.

A three-judge panel of a San Francisco-based federal appeals court
said on July 17 the advertisers could seek review of an April 13
lower-court ruling that they hadn't shown their claims have enough
in common to justify certifying the case as a class-action suit.
The judges didn't give a reason for their decision.

Facebook was sued in 2009 over claims that advertisers, charged
based on the number of clicks or views they receive, were
wrongfully billed for nonexistent, fraudulent or invalid clicks.

The plaintiffs are advertisers that contracted with Menlo Park,
California-based Facebook through an automated self- service
process available to the general public.  They sought to represent
all cost-per-click advertisers that paid Facebook from May 2009 to
the present.

Larry Yu, a Facebook spokesman, didn't immediately reply to an e-
mail message seeking comment on the decision.

The lower-court case is In Re Facebook PPC Advertising Litigation,
4:09-cv-03043, U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California (Oakland).


FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Sued by ANS for Mishandling SAN Upgrade
------------------------------------------------------------
The national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP announced that Avazpour Networking Services, Inc.
("ANS"), a Kansas-based small business that provides information
technology services, together with its founders Jim and Kristy
Avazpour, filed a lawsuit late afternoon on July 18, 2012,
against Melville, New York-based FalconStor Software, Inc. -- the
self-described "market leader in disk-based data protection" -- in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.  The complaint alleges that ANS and the Avazpours suffered
significant damages -- including loss of revenues, customers, and
employees, as well as harm to the company's professional
reputation -- due to FalconStor's misconduct in preparing for and
performing an upgrade (at its recommendation) of ANS's storage
area network ("SAN") in July 2010.

Based in Overland Park, Kansas, ANS is an IT service provider for
small and medium-sized businesses that offers networking, cloud
computing, managed hosting, data protection, disaster recovery and
security services.  ANS relied on FalconStor's specialized
knowledge and expertise in the areas of data security and storage
virtualization to help protect the data ANS's clients entrusted to
the company in connection with its management of their networks.

The complaint alleges that FalconStor misrepresented the
technological capabilities of the hardware it recommended for the
upgrade, and recklessly handled the upgrade process -- including
by disregarding ANS's express instruction about how to properly
reboot its SAN.  Plaintiffs further allege that as a result of
FalconStor's improper actions, ANS clients experienced severe
interruptions of their ability to access important network
applications, as well as corruption of their data, leading to
numerous clients demanding credits to their accounts or altogether
terminating their relationships with ANS.  In the months and years
that followed, ANS saw its business -- which before the disastrous
events of July 2010 was strong, and growing -- virtually
disappear.

Jim Avazpour, who has witnessed the company he and his wife Kristy
founded collapse due to the July 2010 SAN failure, described
commencing this case as "the first step in what we hope will be a
path toward obtaining recovery for the devastating losses
FalconStor caused, including rehabilitating our professional
reputation."  Mr. Avazpour added, "Through this litigation, we are
attempting to vindicate the rights of our once-thriving small
business -- built through years of hard work and dedication to our
customers -- by holding FalconStor accountable for its misconduct,
which has driven my company, as well as Kristy and me personally,
to dire straits."

Lieff Cabraser partner Jonathan Selbin, counsel for plaintiffs,
stated, "This case is about holding FalconStor responsible for the
damage it did to a once-successful small business."  As alleged in
the complaint, Mr. Selbin continued, "FalconStor failed to inform
ANS that the hardware FalconStor recommended and used for the
upgrade did not support a critical feature of ANS's storage-area-
network capabilities.  FalconStor then recklessly mishandled the
upgrade process, including disregarding ANS's express instruction
-- which was consistent with standard practice in the data-
security and storage-virtualization industry -- that FalconStor
should refrain from rebooting ANS's storage area network until ANS
cleanly shut down its systems."

Plaintiffs assert claims for gross negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, for which they seek
compensatory and punitive damages.  The case is Avazpour
Networking Services, Inc., et al. v. FalconStor Software, Inc.,
No. 12-3574 (E.D.N.Y.).

Further Lawsuit Information

To obtain further information about this case, or to seek legal
advice with respect to potential claims against FalconStor arising
from work it has performed, please visit
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/falconstorlawsuitor contact Lieff
Cabraser attorneys Jonathan Selbin or Michael Miarmi at (212) 355-
9500.

Source/Contact

          Jonathan Selbin
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          Tel. No.: (212) 355-9500


GEORESOURCES INC: Settles Merger-Related Class Suit in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
GeoResources, Inc. disclosed in its July 18, 2012, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it has
reached a settlement agreement to resolve the class action lawsuit
styled Yost v. GeoResources, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:12-CV-01307-
MSK-KMT, pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado (the "Federal Action").

On April 24, 2012, GeoResources, Inc. ("GeoResources") entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), by
and among GeoResources, Halcon Resources Corporation ("Halcon"),
Leopard Sub I, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Halcon ("Merger
Sub") and Leopard Sub II, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Halcon
("Second Merger Sub") providing for the merger (the "Merger") of
Merger Sub with and into GeoResources and GeoResources becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Halcon, then the merger (the "Second
Merger") of GeoResources with and into the Second Merger Sub.

Several substantially similar stockholder lawsuits styled as class
actions were filed by alleged GeoResources stockholders
challenging the merger and naming as defendants GeoResources, its
board of directors and, in certain instances, Halcon, Merger Sub
and Second Merger Sub as aiders and abettors, and HALRES LLC
("HALRES") in one lawsuit. To date, such stockholder actions have
been filed in Harris County, Texas (the "Harris County Actions");
the District Court for the City and County of Denver (the "Denver
County Action"); and the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado.  On May 25, 2012, the Harris County Actions were
consolidated under the style Coyne v. Lodzinski et al.,
Consolidated Cause No. 2012-24423, in the 215th Judicial District
Court of Harris County, Texas.

Each lawsuit has been brought by a purported stockholder of
GeoResources and alleges, among other things, that the members of
the GeoResources board of directors, aided and abetted by
GeoResources, Halcon, Merger Sub and Second Merger Sub, and in one
lawsuit, HALRES, breached its fiduciary duties to the GeoResources
stockholders by entering into the merger agreement for merger
consideration the plaintiff claims is inadequate and pursuant to a
process the plaintiff claims to be flawed. The Federal Action
alleges that GeoResources and the board of directors of
GeoResources violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 14a-9 of the Exchange Act
by omitting material facts in the registration statement on Form
S-4 filed by Halcon on May 18, 2012.  Further, the Federal Action
alleges that the GeoResources board of directors violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The lawsuits seek, among other things,
to enjoin the defendants from consummating the merger on the
agreed-upon terms or to rescind the merger to the extent already
implemented, as well as damages, expenses, and attorneys' fees.
Halcon, GeoResources and all of the other defendants believe these
lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against
such claims.

On July 16, 2012, the defendants reached a settlement agreement
with the plaintiff in the Federal Action, subject to court
approval, to settle the class action lawsuit pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado. No agreement has been
reached with plaintiffs in the other cases. In connection with the
settlement agreement, certain additional disclosures are being
made to GeoResources' stockholders, which are contained in this
supplement to the joint proxy statement/prospectus. The settlement
agreement contains customary provisions and the parties further
agree that approval of the settlement must, and will, be sought
from the court following notice to the stockholders of
GeoResources and consummation of the merger. In connection with
the approval of the settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at
which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the settlement which, if finally approved by the
court, will resolve all of the claims that were or could have been
brought in the action being settled, including all claims relating
to the merger, the merger agreement and any disclosures made in
connection therewith. If approved by the court, the proposed
preliminary approval order in the Federal Action would enjoin
GeoResources stockholders from pursuing other litigation over
these claims, including but not limited to the Denver County
Action and the Harris County Actions. The proposed final judgment
in the Federal Action, if approved by the court, would likewise
permanently enjoin GeoResources stockholders from pursuing these
claims in any forum, including the Denver County Action and the
Harris County Actions. The settlement agreement provides
individual stockholders with the right to object to the settlement
and appear in person or by his, her or its attorney at the
settlement hearing and provide evidence or argument that may be
proper and relevant provided that such individual stockholder
follows the procedures set forth in the notice that will be
delivered to members of the settlement class. In addition, in
connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that
plaintiff's counsel in the Federal Action will petition the court
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by the
defendants in an amount not to exceed $450,000.  The Company says
it cannot be certain that the court will approve the settlement.
If the court does not approve the settlement, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the settlement agreement may be
modified or terminated.

The Company says the settlement will not affect the merger
consideration to be paid to stockholders of GeoResources in
connection with the Merger or the timing of the special meeting of
stockholders of GeoResources scheduled for July 31, 2012, at
GeoResources' headquarters located at 110 Cypress Station Drive,
Suite 220, Houston, Texas, at 10:00 a.m., local time, to consider
and to vote upon a proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement, among
other things.


HALCON RESOURCES: Settles Merger-Related Class Suit in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
Halcon Resources Corporation and other defendants entered into an
agreement to settle a merger-related class action lawsuit styled
Yost v. GeoResources, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:12-CV-01307-MSK-KMT,
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado (the "Federal Action"), according to the Company's July
18, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On April 24, 2012, Halcon Resources Corporation entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
GeoResources, Inc. ("GeoResources"), Leopard Sub I, Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Halcon ("Merger Sub"), and Leopard Sub
II, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Halcon ("Second Merger
Sub"), providing first for the merger (the "Merger") of Merger Sub
with and into GeoResources and GeoResources becoming a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Halcon, and then the merger (the "Second
Merger") of GeoResources with and into the Second Merger Sub.

Several substantially similar stockholder lawsuits styled as class
actions were filed by alleged GeoResources stockholders
challenging the merger and naming as defendants GeoResources, its
board of directors and, in certain instances, Halcon, Merger Sub
and Second Merger Sub as aiders and abettors, and HALRES LLC
("HALRES") in one lawsuit.  To date, such stockholder actions have
been filed in Harris County, Texas (the "Harris County Actions");
the District Court for the City and County of Denver (the "Denver
County Action"); and the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado.  On May 25, 2012, the Harris County Actions were
consolidated under the style Coyne v. Lodzinski et al.,
Consolidated Cause No. 2012-24423, in the 215th Judicial District
Court of Harris County, Texas.

Each lawsuit has been brought by a purported stockholder of
GeoResources and alleges, among other things, that the members of
the GeoResources board of directors, aided and abetted by
GeoResources, Halcon, Merger Sub and Second Merger Sub, and in one
lawsuit, HALRES, breached its fiduciary duties to the GeoResources
stockholders by entering into the merger agreement for merger
consideration the plaintiff claims is inadequate and pursuant to a
process the plaintiff claims to be flawed.  The Federal Action
alleges that GeoResources and the board of directors of
GeoResources violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 14a-9 of the Exchange Act
by omitting material facts in the registration statement on Form
S-4 filed by Halcon on May 18, 2012.  Further, the Federal Action
alleges that the GeoResources board of directors violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lawsuits seek, among other things,
to enjoin the defendants from consummating the merger on the
agreed-upon terms or to rescind the merger to the extent already
implemented, as well as damages, expenses, and attorneys' fees.
Halcon, GeoResources and all of the other defendants believe these
lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against
such claims.

On July 16, 2012, the defendants reached a settlement agreement
with the plaintiff in the Federal Action, subject to court
approval, to settle the class action lawsuit pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado.  No agreement has
been reached with plaintiffs in the other cases.  In connection
with the settlement agreement, certain additional disclosures are
being made to GeoResources' stockholders, which are contained in
this supplement to the joint proxy statement/prospectus.  The
settlement agreement contains customary provisions and the parties
further agree that approval of the settlement must, and will, be
sought from the court following notice to the stockholders of
GeoResources and consummation of the merger.  In connection with
the approval of the settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at
which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the settlement which, if finally approved by the
court, will resolve all of the claims that were or could have been
brought in the action being settled, including all claims relating
to the merger, the merger agreement and any disclosures made in
connection therewith.  If approved by the court, the proposed
preliminary approval order in the Federal Action would enjoin
GeoResources stockholders from pursuing other litigation over
these claims, including but not limited to the Denver County
Action and the Harris County Actions.  The proposed final judgment
in the Federal Action, if approved by the court, would likewise
permanently enjoin GeoResources stockholders from pursuing these
claims in any forum, including the Denver County Action and the
Harris County Actions.  The settlement agreement provides
individual stockholders with the right to object to the settlement
and appear in person or by his, her or its attorney at the
settlement hearing and provide evidence or argument that may be
proper and relevant provided that such individual stockholder
follows the procedures set forth in the notice that will be
delivered to members of the settlement class.  In addition, in
connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that
plaintiff's counsel in the Federal Action will petition the court
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by the
defendants in an amount not to exceed $450,000.

The Company says it cannot be certain that the court will approve
the settlement.  If the court does not approve the settlement, the
proposed settlement as contemplated by the settlement agreement
may be modified or terminated.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid
to stockholders of GeoResources in connection with the Merger or
the timing of the special meeting of stockholders of Halcon
scheduled for July 31, 2012, at Halcon's headquarters located at
1000 Louisiana St., Suite 6700, Houston, Texas 77002 at 10:00
a.m., local time, to consider and to vote upon the issuance of
Halcon common stock to GeoResources stockholders pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, among other things.

Halcon Resources Corporation is an independent energy company
engaged in the exploration, development and production of crude
oil and natural gas properties located in the United States.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Awaits OK of Settlement of Claims in Allen Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of the remaining claims in the class action lawsuit
commenced by Allen, et al., according to the Company's July 18,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Pursuant to a settlement approved by the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona in February 2008, 18 of 21 claims alleged
by plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned Allen, et al.
v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan were dismissed with
prejudice in exchange for approximately $35 million (paid from the
Company's pension plan) and the maximum aggregate liability for
the remaining three claims (alleging that Honeywell impermissibly
reduced the pension benefits of certain employees of a predecessor
entity when the plan was amended in 1983 and failed to calculate
benefits in accordance with the terms of the plan) was capped at
$500 million.  In October 2009, the Court granted summary judgment
in favor of the Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan with respect to
the claim regarding the calculation of benefits.  In May 2011, the
parties engaged in mediation and reached an agreement in principle
to settle the three remaining claims for $23.8 million (also to be
paid from the Company's pension plan).  Settlement documents have
been submitted to the court for classwide approval.  A preliminary
settlement order has been approved by the court and a fairness
hearing on the settlement was scheduled for July 20, 2012.  Upon
court approval of the settlement, all claims in this matter will
be fully resolved.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Still Awaits Okay of Quick Lube Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. is still awaiting court approval of
its settlement resolving a class action lawsuit filed against the
Company and other filter manufacturers, according to the Company's
July 18, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed a
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including Honeywell,
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S.
customers for aftermarket automotive filters.  This lawsuit is a
purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters
from the defendants.  Parallel purported class actions, including
on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by
other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United
States and Canada.  The U.S cases have been consolidated into a
single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of
Illinois.  In June 2011, plaintiff's principal witness pled guilty
to a felony count of having made false statements to federal
investigators.

On March 8, 2012, Honeywell entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve the multi-district litigation class action as to all
plaintiffs, subject to approval by the court.  The Company says
the settlement did not and will not have a material impact on the
Company's results of operations or operating cash flows in the
periods recognized or paid.  As previously reported, the Antitrust
Division of the Department of Justice notified Honeywell in
January 2010 that it had officially closed its investigation into
possible collusion in the replacement auto filters industry.


HONEYWELL INT'L: "UAW" Class Suit Remains Pending in Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2011, Honeywell International Inc. filed an action in
federal court (District of New Jersey) captioned Honeywell v.
United Auto Workers ("UAW") et. al. against the UAW and all former
employees who retired under a series of Master Collective
Bargaining Agreements ("MCBAs") between Honeywell and the UAW.
The Company is seeking a declaratory judgment that certain express
limitations on its obligation to contribute toward the healthcare
coverage of such retirees (the "CAPS") set forth in the MCBAs may
be implemented, effective January 1, 2012.  In September 2011, the
UAW and certain retiree defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
New Jersey action and filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of
Michigan alleging that the MCBAs do not provide for CAPS on the
Company's liability for healthcare coverage.  The UAW and retiree
plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for class certification and
a motion for partial summary judgment in the Michigan action,
seeking a ruling that retirees who retired prior to the initial
inclusion of the CAPS in the 2003 MCBA are not covered by the CAPS
as a matter of law.

In December 2011, the New Jersey action was dismissed on forum
grounds.  Honeywell has appealed the New Jersey court's dismissal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  In
the meantime, Honeywell has answered the UAW's complaint in
Michigan and has asserted a counterclaim for fraudulent
inducement.  Honeywell is confident that the CAPS will be upheld
and that its liability for healthcare coverage premiums with
respect to the putative class will be limited as negotiated and
expressly set forth in the applicable MCBAs.  In the event of an
adverse ruling, however, Honeywell's other postretirement benefits
for pre-2003 retirees would increase by approximately $150
million, reflecting the estimated value of these CAPS.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 18, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Given the uncertainty inherent in litigation and investigations,
the Company does not believe it is possible to develop estimates
of reasonably possible loss in excess of current accruals for
these matters (other than as specified).  Considering the
Company's past experience and existing accruals, the Company does
not expect the outcome of these matters, either individually or in
the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position.  Because most contingencies are
resolved over long periods of time, potential liabilities are
subject to change due to new developments, changes in settlement
strategy or the impact of evidentiary requirements, which could
cause the Company to pay damage awards or settlements (or become
subject to equitable remedies) that could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's results of operations or operating cash
flows in the periods recognized or paid.


HYDRO-QUEBEC: Class Action Over Billing System Authorized
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed by Paquette Gadler Inc. was authorized on
July 17, 2012, against the crown corporation Hydro-Quebec in the
name of Mrs. Chantal Maltais and Monique Charland regarding
billing problems that have transpired since Hydro-Quebec proceeded
with the integration of its new information technology system in
2008.

This is the second class action which has been authorized against
Hydro-Quebec relating to its billing system.  In effect, on
August 23, 2010, the Honourable Steve J. Reimnitz, of the Superior
Court of Quebec, authorized a first class action against Hydro-
Quebec seeking the recovery of interest and/or administration fees
in excess of the 5% annual rate prescribed by law as a result of
Hydro-Quebec's failure to indicate the annual interest rate in its
invoices.

The new information technology system created billing problems for
Hydro-Quebec's clients who were overbilled, underbilled or not
billed at all, in some cases over periods of several months.


SAFELITE SOLUTIONS: Ohio Court Approves Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katie O'Mara, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that an Ohio
court has officially approved the settlement terms in a class
action suit filed by a group of customer service representatives
against Safelite Solutions. The CSRs in the case have now received
their settlements checks.

"It is ordered and adjudged that the joint motion for final
approval of class action settlement is granted," read the decision
from the court.  "The settlement agreement is approved.
Plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of costs is granted.  Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of Ohio claims is terminated as moot."

The total settlement in the case was $455,000.  Attorneys fees and
costs were paid out of the settlement fund up to, but not
exceeding $235,000.

"No class member filed an objection to the settlement," read
settlement documents.  "In addition, the 16.37% return rate of
settlement claim forms is a strong showing of support for the
settlement.  Settlements with much lower percentage of class
members returning their claim form are frequently approved."

The CSRs, Rick Kritzer, Joshua Pursley, Richard Ruppert, Sharon
Ruppert, Jo McIntosh and Tom Walsh, alleged that the company had
failed to compensate them with overtime pay when they had worked
more than 40 hours per week, and that Safelite Solutions required
its CSRs to start their shifts each day by booting up their
computer systems, but then omit the time it takes the CSR to boot
up the system from its calculation of the hours the CSRs have
worked each week.  The suit, originally filed in August 2010, was
expanded to include sales representatives in both the company's
Columbus and Chandler, Ariz., facilities.

The amount of payment to each CSR is based on the four minutes
worked each day, as long as the CSR worked 39.67 hours or more
during the weeks included in the relevant period.


SATCON TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Satcon Technology Corporation continues to defend itself from two
purported securities class action lawsuits pending in
Massachusetts, according to the Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

In July 2011, two purported securities class action complaints
were filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its former Chief Financial Officer by the following plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, in
the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts: Allan Edwards
(filed July 19, 2011) and Larry Ziegler (filed July 21, 2011). The
virtually identical complaints are purportedly brought on behalf
of persons who acquired the Company's common stock during the
period of March 4, 2010 through July 5, 2011, and allege claims
against all defendants for violations under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well
as claims against the individual defendants for violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Putative plaintiffs claim that
the defendants caused the Company's common stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices through false and misleading
statements and/or omissions related to the Company's business. The
complaints seek compensatory damages for all damages sustained as
a result of the defendants' actions, including reasonable costs
and expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just and
proper. The Company believes these allegations are baseless and
the Company intends to defend against them vigorously. At this
time, the Company believes a loss is neither probable or
estimable.


STRATASYS INC: Being Sold to Object Ltd. for Too Little, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Stratasys is selling itself
too cheaply to Object Ltd., corporate parent of Oaktree Merger and
Seurat Holdings, in an all-stock deal worth $1.4 billion,
shareholders claim in Hennepin County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Askersrud v. Stratasys, Inc., et al.,
Case No. _____ (Minn. Dist. Ct., Hennepin Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/19/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
          Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 596-4097
          E-mail: ralockridge@locklaw.com
                  gmfishbein@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667-6200
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com
                  mackerman@brodsky-smith.com


TENAHA, TX: City Council Accepts Proposed Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flowers, writing for The Light and Champion, reports that
the Tenaha City Council held their regularly scheduled council
meeting on Monday, July 16 to discuss approval of a settlement
involving the class action suit against the City of Tenaha.

After approving the minutes of the previous meeting the council
went into executive session to discuss the settlement.  Upon
returning from executive session Mark Hixson made a motion to
accept the proposed settlement, and Fran Partin seconded the
motion.  The council then approved the motion.

The specifics of the proposal were not made public to those
present at the meeting, and Mayor Orinthia Johnson was unable to
be reached for comment regarding the settlement at press time.

In August 29, 2011, U.S. District Judge T. John Ward certified a
class who say they were subjected to racial profiling and had
their property taken by Texas law enforcement officers.  The class
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations
of their Fourth and 14th Amendment rights.  They claim officials
"have developed an illegal 'stop and seize' practice of targeting,
stopping, detaining, searching, and often seizing property from,
apparently non-white citizens and those traveling with non-white
citizens, including the plaintiffs and members of the proposed
class who travel in, through, or near Tenaha."  Judge Ward held
that the class will include "(1) people who are, or appear to be,
members of racial or ethnic minority groups and those in their
company, and (2) were, or will be, traveling in, through, or near
Tenaha at any time after November 1, 2006, and (3) were stopped,
or will be subject to being stopped, by one or more Defendant for
an alleged traffic violation."  Named as defendants in their
individual and official capacities are Tenaha Mayor George Bowers;
Deputy City Marshal Barry Washington; Shelby County District
Attorney Linda Russell; and Shelby County Precinct 4 Constable
Randy Whatley.  Shelby County District Attorney Investigator Danny
Green is named as a defendant in his individual capacity only.
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 9, 2011)


UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies Discrimination Suit v. USMS
----------------------------------------------------------
This month, David Sanford, a partner and founder at Sanford
Wittels & Heisler received a decision from the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on a class action appeal
filed in 2007.  The decision gives the green light for
certification of a class complaint originally filed in July 1994,
asserting that African-Americans are systematically discriminated
against based on race by the U.S. Marshall's Service (USMS).

According to Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP, the decision was a
long time coming, but appears to have been worth the wait.

Mr. Sanford represents the complainant and class representative
Matthew F. Fogg and the class in the matter, now cited as Matthew
F. Fogg v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Department of
Justice.  In 2010, Mr. Sanford was lead counsel in the nation's
largest gender discrimination class action to go to trial, which
settled, after winning a $253 million verdict from a federal jury
in New York.

"This is a very welcome outcome, given the serious nature and
pervasiveness of the racial discrimination within the USMS since
at least the mid-1990s.  We are prepared to move forward
immediately to ensure there are no further delays in securing
justice for the many African-American men and women whose
employment by the Service has been adversely affected by its
illegal practices."

The class includes all African-American U.S. Marshals between July
1994 and the present.  The 18-year period for determining
membership in the class is believed to be the longest ever
certified in an employment complaint in the U.S.

After a month-long trial in April 1998, a jury in Washington, D.C.
awarded Mr. Fogg four million dollars in his race discrimination
matter against the U.S. Marshals Service.  At that trial, numerous
witnesses described the Marshals Service as having labored in
substantial racial turmoil for at least a decade.

The EEOC's decision reversing the agency's previous denial of
class complaint certification is signed by Carlton M. Hadden,
Director of the EEOC's Office of Federal Operations.   It orders
the agency to notify potential class members of the accepted
claim, appoint a judge to hear the class claim, and submit a
report of compliance with the decision to the Commission.
Compliance with these orders within 30 days is mandatory.

               About Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP

Sanford Wittels & Heisler is a boutique class action law firm with
offices in Washington, D.C., New York, and San Francisco that
specializes in civil rights and general public interest cases
including employment discrimination, wage and hour, qui tam,
consumer and complex corporate class action litigation.  SWH has
represented thousands of individuals in major class action cases
in the United States, and also represents individual clients in
employment, employment discrimination, sexual harassment,
whistleblower, public accommodations, commercial, medical
malpractice, and personal injury matters.


VIA RAIL: Judge Orders Disclosure of Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Wong, writing for TheSpec.com, reports that an Ontario
Superior Court judge has ordered Via Rail to disclose to members
of a proposed class action the settlements it made with passengers
who were aboard a train that derailed in February.

Via Rail sent out letters offering C$3,000 to each commuter who
was on Train 92 on Feb. 26, when three Via engineers were killed
and 45 people were injured after the Toronto-bound train went off
the tracks in Burlington.

However, one of the lawyers representing a group of passengers
seeking a class action against Via Rail and the Canadian National
Railway Company said they were "shocked" to learn Via had
approached the train riders directly to settle.

"We went to court because we were concerned that Via would
continue in its efforts to communicate directly with the
passengers, which could considerably impact the viability of this
class action," said Ted Charney of Toronto-based Falconer Charney
LLP, one of the four law firms working together to pursue the
class action.

The ruling on July 13 orders Via to disclose its settlement offers
and signed agreements.  The decision allows for the completion of
the signed settlements and sets out regulations on how Via ought
to correspond with the passengers going forward.

Four passengers out of the 75 took Via's offer, said Harvey
Strosberg, of Windsor-based Sutts, Strosberg LLP.  Messrs.
Strosberg and Charney are working with the law firms Koskie Minsky
and Howie Sacks & Henry in the class-action lawsuit.

"(The ruling) is important in precedential value," Mr. Strosberg
said, adding the decision sets out guidelines for how future
defendants ought to communicate with potential class-action
members before a proposed class action has been certified.

Via's lawyer, John Campion, agreed.

"We are thrilled with the result," he said.

"It's got a broad application across any field where defense
counsel or defendants . . . (who) wish to make an offer to the
group now knows how to do it, and can do it legitimately."

While Campion called Via's $3,000 offer a "good corporate-citizen
response," Mr. Charney said it was "inadequate compensation."

Thirty-five passengers are currently part of the class action,
which is seeking $10 million in general damages.  Their motion for
certification, when the court will decide whether the lawsuit can
go ahead, will be heard Nov. 1 and Nov. 2.

In March, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB)
announced investigators had determined Train 92 had been
travelling four times faster than it should have when it changed
tracks at a crossover.

On July 18, TSB spokesperson Julie Leroux said that there were no
updates regarding their investigation and that there was no set
timeline regarding the release of information.


WSFS FINANCIAL: Bank Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
WSFS Financial Corporation's bank subsidiary continues to defend
itself from a purported class action lawsuit challenging its
assessment and collection of overdraft fees on checking accounts,
according to the Company's May 10, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2012.

On November 18, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the
Delaware Superior Court for New Castle County. The Complaint
challenges Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB's practices
relating to its assessment and collection of overdraft fees on
checking accounts. Damages are sought for the statute of
limitations period applicable to the claims made in the suit, and
include restitution of overdraft fees paid to WSFS Bank, actual
damages allegedly sustained by customers, punitive damages, and
attorney's fees. This case is nearly identical to numerous other
lawsuits that have been brought by a small handful of class action
litigators. The Company has discovered more than 120 other
overdraft suits that have been brought against U.S. banks. No
litigation reserve has been recorded as it is not yet possible to
establish the probability of, or reasonably estimate, a potential
loss. The Company strongly believes that its overdraft practices
are fair to its customers and comply fully with all applicable
laws and regulations. The Company believes this suit is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend the pending action.


VISA INC: Visa & MasterCard Signs $6-Bil. Deal Over Surcharges
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Wall Street Journal's Robin Sidel reports that Visa Inc. V
+1.18% and MasterCard Inc. MA +1.26% agreed to pay scores of
retailers more than $6 billion to settle a long-running lawsuit in
an agreement that also permits merchants to charge higher prices
to customers who pay for purchases with credit cards.

The settlement is expected to have wide-ranging implications for
consumers, retailers and the card industry.  It is also the latest
victory for merchants, who have recently logged some significant
wins in their efforts to reduce their cost of accepting plastic.

The agreement, which was reached after months of negotiations,
also calls for Visa and MasterCard to lower the fees -- for a
certain period -- that merchants pay to accept credit cards.  The
merchants valued the fee relief at $1.2 billion.


* NZ Kiwifruit Postharvest Operator Mulls Class Suit Over Virus
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sunlive.co.nz reports that Kiwifruit postharvest operator Seeka
Kiwifruit Industries is considering taking a class action on
behalf of growers over the arrival of the vine killing disease
Psa-V in New Zealand.

Seeka chief executive Michael Franks told the Zespri annual
general meeting in Tauranga on July 18 that a joint fund may be
established to take a court case over shortcomings highlighted in
the recent independent report into biosecurity and Psa's arrival.

"If any growers are interested I suggest they talk to their post-
harvest provider," says Mr. Franks.

After the meeting, New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers Incorporated
President Neil Trebilco said the organization has no plans to join
the Seeka initiative.

"We have engaged a Queen's Counsel to give a legal opinion on the
report.  We were aware of Seeka's intentions and while I can't
rule out joining with Seeka (in an action) it's not likely at this
stage."

NZKGI chief executive Mike Chapman says there is a significant
difference between seeking a legal opinion and planning to take a
court case.

Mr. Trebilco says at the time the report was released earlier this
month NZKGI was concerned enough about these failings that; "on
behalf of growers we seek legal advice to assess the review and
related information, to ascertain if we should take any further
action.

"Many growers have lost all, or part, of their livelihoods as a
result of Psa coming into New Zealand.  As the grower
representative organization, it is NZKGI's job to consider all
possible options for growers impacted by Psa."

Mr. Trebilco says NZKGI will now consider the review in more depth
and wait for subsequent legal advice before taking the next steps.


                           *********

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.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  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 Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.





                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *