CAR_Public/070815.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, August 15, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 160

                            Headlines


ALLIED WASTE: Court Considers Appeal for Dismissed Ariz. Suit
ASTEA INT'L: Penna. Court Junks Securities Fraud Complaint
CARRIER ACCESS: Colo. Court Mulls OK for $7.4M Suit Settlement
COST PLUS: Recalls Folding Chairs with Faulty Rivets
GREAT PLAINS: Faces Suit Over Aquila-Gregory Acquisition Merger

IKANOS COMMS: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Complaint
INTUIT INC: Customer Alleges Fraud in QuickBooks Upgrade
MORTON’S RESTAURANT: Former Worker Appeals Calif. Suit Nixing
MUTUAL BENEFITS: Former Pres. Settles Fraud Charges for $1.5M
NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in Calif.

NEWPARK RESOURCES: Awaits Approval of La. Securities Suit Deal
NISOURCE INC: Parties Reach Settlement in N.Y. Royalties Lawsuit
NISOURCE INC: Expects 2007 Judgment in W.Va. Royalties Lawsuit
NISOURCE INC: Ky. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in Royalties Suit
ORVIS CO: Recalls Toys with Small Parts that can Detach

PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Disconnected Prepaid Subscribers Sue
PPL CORP: Subsidiary Sued Over 2006 Ill. Power Supply Contracts
PPL CORP: Suit Over Martins Creek Fly Ash Release Dismissed
RELIANT ENERGY: Calif. Antitrust Suit Over Natural Gas Stayed
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Court Refuses to Vacate Dismissal of “Colon”

SOLUTIA INC: Sept. Certification Hearing Set in Pension Suit
STRATEGIC ENERGY: Plaintiffs in Pa. PSCSA Suit to Revive Claims
STUBBEN NORTH: Recalls Stirrups with Hinges that can Break
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Settles Lawsuit Over Tank Barges Coating

UNITED STATES: Workers File Suit Over Unprotected Work in Iraq
WAL-MART STORES: S.C. Judge Certifies Lawsuit by Employees


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN HOME: Harwood Feffer Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Paskowitz Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPUETICS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Suit


                            *********


ALLIED WASTE: Court Considers Appeal for Dismissed Ariz. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has yet to rule on plaintiffs'
appeal regarding the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class
action filed against Allied Waste Industries, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona.

A consolidated amended class-action complaint was filed against the company
and five of its current and former officers on March 31, 2005, consolidating
three lawsuits previously filed on Aug. 9, 2004, Aug. 27, 2004 and Sept. 30,
2004.   

The amended complaint asserted claims against all defendants under Section 10
(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and claims against the officers under Section 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange  
Act.

The complaint alleged that from Feb. 10, 2004 to Sept. 13, 2004, the
defendants caused false and misleading statements to be issued in the
company's public filings and public statements regarding the company's
anticipated results for fiscal year  
2004.  The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount of damages.  

The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 2, 2005.  On Dec.
15, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted the
company's motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.   

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the 9th
Circuit.  On Oct. 6, 2006 the plaintiffs filed their opening appellate
brief.  

The company and four individual defendants filed their brief in opposition on
Dec. 15, 2006, and the plaintiffs filed their reply brief on Jan. 24, 2007.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 2, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Steven Zack, et al. v. Allied Waste Industries,  
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01640-MHM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona under Judge Mary H. Murguia.   

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stuart L. Berman, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Rd.
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706
         Fax: 610-667-7056
         E-mail: ecf_filings@sbclasslaw.com

              - and -

         Richard Glenn Himelrick, Esq.
         Tiffany & Bosco, PA
         Camelback Esplanade II, 2525 E. Camelback Rd., 3rd Fl.
         Phoenix, AZ 85016
         Phone: 602-255-6021
         Fax: 602-255-0103
         E-mail: rgh@tblaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         David Hennes and Shahzeb Lari, Esq.
         Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson
         1 New York Plaza
         New York, NY 10004
         Phone: (212) 859-8000

              - and -

         Doug C. Northup, Esq.
         Fennemore Craig, P.C.
         3003 N. Central Ave., Ste. 2600
         Phoenix, AZ 85012-2913
         Phone: 602-916-5000
         Fax: 602-916-5562
         E-mail: dnorthup@fclaw.com


ASTEA INT'L: Penna. Court Junks Securities Fraud Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed,
without prejudice, an amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud
class action against Astea
International, Inc.

On and shortly after April 6, 2006, certain purported shareholder class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against the company and certain of its directors and officers.

The lawsuits, alleging that the company and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws and state laws, relate to the
company's March 31, 2006 announcement of the accounting restatement for
overcapitalized software development costs during the first two quarters of
2005 and undercapitalized software development costs during the third quarter
of 2005.  

Pursuant to a stipulation and order of the court entered July 12, 2006, the
putative class actions were consolidated, certain persons were appointed as
lead plaintiffs, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on Sept. 11,
2006.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on Oct. 26, 2006.  The briefings for the motion were completed Jan. 24, 2007
(Class April 23, 2007).

The Court's decision to dismiss the Complaint is based on several grounds,
including plaintiffs' failure to set forth particularized facts giving rise
to a strong inference that defendants acted with an improper motive or with a
conscious disregard of the truth or recklessness.

In the Court's dismissal without prejudice, the plaintiffs were granted leave
to file an amended Consolidated Amended Complaint within 30 days.

John Tobin, President and General Counsel of Astea commented, "We are pleased
that the Court has ruled in our favor. The lawsuit attempted to equate the
discovery and correction of an error in financial reporting with intentional
wrongdoing, which was never the reality.

Astea is committed to presenting its shareholders with full and accurate
disclosure of all material information about our business and our financial
results. We would like to commend the efforts of our external counsel on this
matter, Pepper Hamilton, LP, in effectively representing us before the Court.
We have no information as to whether the plaintiffs plan further filings."

The suit is "Shanahan v. Astea International Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-
01467-WY," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania under Judge William H. Yohn, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          David Felderman
          Spector, Roseman & Kodroff
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-496-0300
          E-mail: dfelderman@srk-law.com

          Andrew N. Friedman
          Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld, and Toll
          1100 New York Avenue
          N.W., West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005-3964
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699

          - and -

          Michael D. Gottsch
          Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Phone: 610-642-8500
          E-mail: michaelgottsch@chimicles.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Robert L. Hickok
          Pepper Hamilton, LLP
          3000 Two Logan Sq., 18TH & Arch Sts.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Phone: 215-981-4583
          E-mail: hickokr@pepperlaw.com


CARRIER ACCESS: Colo. Court Mulls OK for $7.4M Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has yet to approve a
proposed settlement of a securities-related class action filed in June 2005
against Carrier Access Corp., and certain of its executive officers and
directors upon the company's announcement that it would restate financial
statements.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Carrier Access would pay $7.4
million in satisfaction of the claims, all of which would be funded by
proceeds of the company's directors and officers insurance policy.

                        Case Background        

Beginning on June 2, 2005, three purported shareholder class actions were
filed against the company and certain company officials.  

The cases were:

      -- "Croker v. Carrier Access Corp., et al., Case No.  
         05-cv-1011-LTB,"  

      -- "Chisman v. Carrier Access Corp., et al., Case  
         No. 05-cv-1078-REB," and  

      -- "Sved v. Carrier Access Corp., et al, Case No.  
         05-cv-1280-EWN."

On Jan. 17, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed.
The action is purportedly brought on behalf of those who purchased the
company's publicly traded securities between Oct.
21, 2003 and May 20, 2005.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements,
purported to assert claims for violations of the federal securities laws, and
sought unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

The complaint was primarily based upon allegations of wrongdoing in
connection with the company's announcement of the company's intention to
restate previously issued financial statements for the years ended Dec. 31,
2003 and 2004 and certain interim periods in each of the years ended Dec. 31,
2003 and 2004.

On March 17, 2006, the company moved to dismiss on numerous grounds,
including:

      -- failure to state a claim;

      -- failure to adequately plead a claim based upon
         purported failure to disclose "saturation" and product
         development delays;

      -- failure to plead specific facts giving rise to a strong  
         inference that defendants knew or were reckless in not  
         knowing that the 2003 and 2004 Annual Reports on Form
         10-K and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q contained
         materially false financial statements; and

      -- failure to plead motive for defendants to commit fraud  
         and failure to plead a violation of Section 20A of the  
         Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. Section 78t-1(a)).

On July 18, 2006, the Court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

On Feb. 6, 2007, the parties reached an agreement to settle the consolidated
class actions for a payment of $7.4 million.  The settlement will be funded
in its entirety by the proceeds of the Company’s directors and officers’
insurance policy.  

The parties’ agreement must be documented and submitted to the court for its
approval.

The suit is “Croker v. Carrier Access Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01011-
LTB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under
Judge Lewis T. Babcock.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Kip Brian Shuman, Esq.
         Dyer & Shuman, LLP
         801 East 17th Avenue
         Denver, CO 80218-1417
         Phone: 303-861-3003
         Fax: 303-830-6920
         E-mail: Shuman@DyerShuman.com

         Matthew M. Wolf, Esq.
         Allen & Vellone, P.C.
         1600 Stout Street, #1100
         Denver, CO 80202     
         Phone: 303-534-4499
         E-mail: mwolf@allen-vellone.com
      
              - and -
  
         Karen Jean Cody-Hopkins, Esq.
         Charles Walter Lilley, Esq.
         Lilley & Garcia, LLP
         1600 Stout Street #1100
         Denver, CO 80202
         Phone: 303-293-9800
         Fax: 303-298-8975
         E-mail: kcody-hopkins@lilleygarcia.com
                 clilley@lilleygarcia.com

Representing the company is:
      
         Karen Thomas Stefano, Esq.
         Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
         Phone: 650-493-9300
         Fax: 650-493-6811
         E-mail: kstefano@wsgr.com


COST PLUS: Recalls Folding Chairs with Faulty Rivets
-----------------------------------------------------
Cost Plus Inc., of Oakland, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 24,500 Bistro Chairs.

The company said the chairs can collapse due to faulty rivets, posing a fall
hazard to consumers.  Cost Plus is aware of seven incidents in which the
chairs collapsed, including one report of a minor injury.

The metal painted folding chairs were sold in four colors, red, blue, white
and green. SKU numbers 390225, 390228, 390229 and 390230 are printed on the
sales receipt.

These recalled bistro chairs were manufactured in Taiwan and are being sold
at Cost Plus World Market stores nationwide from January 2007 through June
2007 for about $50.

Picture of recalled bistro chairs:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07265.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled chairs immediately and
return them to any Cost Plus World Market store for a full refund.

For additional information, contact Cost Plus Inc. toll-free at (877) 967-
5362 between 7 a.m. and 12 midnight ET any day, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.worldmarket.com


GREAT PLAINS: Faces Suit Over Aquila-Gregory Acquisition Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Great Plains Energy, Inc. has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action originally filed against Aquila, Inc., in the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Missouri in relation to its merger with Gregory Acquisition Corp., a
wholly owned subsidiary of Great Plains.

The purported class action was filed against Aquila and certain of its
individual directors and officers on Feb. 8, 2007, in Jackson County,
Missouri, Circuit Court seeking, among other things, an injunction against
the consummation of the proposed transaction.  

In July 2007, an amended lawsuit was filed to include Great Plains Energy as
a defendant, alleging that Great Plains Energy aided and abetted alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by the named Aquila directors and officers.  

Great Plains Energy has not been served with this amended complaint,
according to the company’s Aug. 3, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

Great Plains Energy, Inc. -- http://www.greatplainsenergy.com/-- a public  
utility holding company and does not own or operate any significant assets
other than the stock of its subsidiaries.


IKANOS COMMS: Seeks Dismissal of N.Y. Securities Fraud Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ikanos Communications, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of an amended complaint
in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In November 2006, three putative class actions were filed against the
company, its directors, an executive officer and a former executive officer.  

These lawsuits allege certain misrepresentations by the company in connection
with its initial public offering in September 2005, the follow-on offering in
March 2006, and thereafter concerning its business and prospects.  The
lawsuits seek unspecified damages.  

The lawsuits were consolidated and an amended complaint was filed on April
24, 2007.

The amended complaint alleges certain material misrepresentations and
omissions by the Company in connection with its initial public offering in
September 2005 and the follow-on offering in March 2006 concerning its
business and prospects, and seeks unspecified damages.

On June 25, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, according to the company’s Aug. 3, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July
1, 2007.

The suit is “Panther Partners Inc., et al. v. Ikanos Communications, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-12967-PAC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Paul A. Crotty.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         58 South Service Road, Suite 200
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: (631) 367-7100
         Fax: (631) 367-1173
         E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendant is:

         James N. Kramer, Esq.
         Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
         The Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Phone: (415)-773-5700
         Fax: (415)-773-5759
         E-mail: jkramer@orrick.com


INTUIT INC: Customer Alleges Fraud in QuickBooks Upgrade
--------------------------------------------------------
Intuit, Inc. is facing a class action filed Aug. 8 in the Superior Court of
the state of California accusing it of cheating thousands of customers in
relation to “upgrades” to QuickBooks Financial Software for Small Business
that actually disabled programs, CourtHouse News reports.

Named plaintiff Tracy DeFatta, d/b/a/ Bookkeeping Unlimited, claims Intuit’s
upgrades “automatically locked out, blocked, deactivated or precluded from
use the basic do-it-yourself manual of manual entry payroll feature or
components previously available to QuickBooks consumers financial software
installed prior to the fourth quarter of 2006.”

Intuit never warned customers who bought QuickBooks 2007 or “upgraded” the
2006 version that the “upgrade” would force them to subscribe to a fee-based
service to regain access to key elements of the software, the suit states. In
fact, Intuit promised it would not do that, according to the complaint.

The new, annual fee-based service costs $150 to $199 a year: ”50% to 100% of
the original cost of the QuickBooks financial software.”

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons and entities in the
U.S. who owned QuickBooks, financial software, Versions 2004 through 2006, on
or before Oct. 1, 2006 and who purchased and installed QuickBooks 2007
Software or downloaded and installed an automatic upgrade to QuickBooks 2006
Software on or after Oct. 1, 2006.

Plaintiffs want the court to rule on whether:

     (a) defendant developed, distributed, marketed and/or sold          
         the QuickBooks 2007 Software Upgrades, for QuickBooks,
         Financial Software for Small Business, with the Basic
         Payroll Lockout Scheme;

     (b) defendant's conduct and/or business practices violates
         the Unfair Competition Law(UCL), Business & Professions
         Code Section 17200, et seq. and Section 17500, et. seq.
         Defendants' faults and/or misleading statements of fact
         about QuickBooks 2007 Software Upgrades, and its
         concealment for material facts relating to the Basic
         Lockout Scheme, were unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent
         (likely to deceive) the public;

     (c) defendant's conduct and/or business practices
         constitute breach of contract, unconscionable behavior
         and conversion;

     (d) plaintiff and the class members are entitled to relief,
         and the amount and nature of such relief, including
         relief in the form of an injunction and/or restitution.

This class action seeks relief for injuries sustained by plaintiffs as a
result of defendant's deceptive and wrongful conduct in developing,
distributing, marketing and selling software upgrades to QuickBooks,
Financial Software for Small Business. Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement
and an injunction.

The suit is "Tracy DeFatta d/b/a Bookkeeping Unlimited et al. v. Intuit, Inc.
et al., Case No. 107CV091687," filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, in the County of Santa Clara.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Walter L. Lack
          Paula A. Traina
          Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, P.C.
          10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 16th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-4107
          Phone: (310) 552-3800
          Fax: (310) 552-9434

          Andrew Sher
          The Sher Law Firm PLLC
          4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 435
          Houston, TX 77027
          Phone: (713) 626-2100
          Fax: (713) 626-2101

          - and -

          Alexander B. Klein, III
          The Klein Law Firm
          2000 The Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana
          Houston, TX 77002
          Phone: (713) 650-1111
          Fax: (713) 227-1121


MORTON’S RESTAURANT: Former Worker Appeals Calif. Suit Nixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a purported class action against a steakhouse of Morton’s
Restaurant Group, Inc. is seeking to appeal the dismissal of their case.

In March 2006, a former employee of the Burbank, California Morton’s
steakhouse, filed a class and collective action in Superior Court in Los
Angeles, California alleging that the sharing of tips with other restaurant
employees violates federal and state laws.

The case was brought on behalf of all current and former California servers
for a four-year period.

The plaintiff has not stated the amount of damages sought and, at this stage
of the proceedings, it is not possible to estimate the damages sought by the
plaintiff, or what the ultimate outcome of the appeal will be.

The Company moved to dismiss the action and its motion was granted.  The
plaintiff has appealed, according to the company’s Aug. 2, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 1, 2007.

Morton’s Restaurant Group, Inc. -- http://www.mortons.com/-- is engaged in  
the business of owning and operating restaurants under the names Morton's The
Steakhouse (Morton's) and Bertolini's Authentic Trattorias (Bertolini's).


MUTUAL BENEFITS: Former Pres. Settles Fraud Charges for $1.5M
--------------------------------------------------------------
The former Mutual Benefits Corp. president who was sentenced to 20 years in
federal prison earlier this year, agreed to pay at least $1.5 million to
settle a class action brought by investors, The Miami Herald reports.

Fort Lauderdale lawyer Anthony M. Livoti Jr., the former trustee for
thousands of insurance policies sold by Mutual Benefits, has also settled,
according to the report.

In 2004, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed an emergency
federal civil action seeking to halt an alleged billion dollar fraudulent
securities offering affecting 29,000 investors worldwide.  This action was
filed against defendants Mutual Benefits, consultant Joel Steinger, his
brother, Leslie Steinger, and Peter Lombardi.

The SEC's complaint alleges that the defendants raised over $1 billion from
more than 29,000 investors through a fraudulent, unregistered offering of
securities in the form fractionalized interests in viatical and life
settlements.  A viatical or life settlement is the sale of a life insurance
policy by a terminally ill person or senior citizen (the viator) at a price
discounted from the face value of the policy.  Investors pay the premiums and
receive the face value of the life insurance policy when the insured, or
viator, dies.  In turn, the viator receives a portion of the proceeds of his
life insurance policy as a lump sum.

The lawsuit resulted in Mr. Lombardi paying disgorgement in the amount of
$5,774,160, plus prejudgment interest of $105,840 and a civil penalty of
$120,000 in December 2005.

Mr. Lombardi’s settlement money in the recent settlement will come from
liquidating his assets.  That of Mr. Livoti will come from his malpractice
insurance, worth $90,000 and $50,000 from his personal assets.


NEUROCRINE BIOSCIENCES: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. was named as a defendant in two purported
securities fraud class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis filed the suit on
June 19, 2007, under the caption, “Construction Laborers Pension Trust of
Greater St. Louis v. Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.”

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and certain of
its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by making
allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the progress toward U.S.
Food and Drug Administration approval and the potential for market success of
indiplon in the 15 mg dosage unit.

On June 26, 2007, a second purported class action with similar allegations
was filed in the same court.  That case was, “Gopal Batra, Ph.D. v.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.”

Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. -- http://WWW.NEUROCRINE.COM-- discovers and  
develops drugs for the treatment of neurological and endocrine-related
diseases and disorders.  The Company's product candidates address
pharmaceutical markets in the world, including insomnia, anxiety, depression,
various female and male health disorders, diabetes, and other neurological
and endocrine related diseases and disorders.  

The Company has nine programs in various stages of research and development,
including seven programs in clinical development.  While the Company
independently develops many of its product candidates, it has entered into
collaborations for one of its programs.  The Company's lead clinical
development program, indiplon, is a drug for the treatment of insomnia.  Its
product candidates under clinical development are Indiplon, GnRH Antagonist,
CRF R1 Antagonist, CRF R2 Peptide Agonist (Urocortin 2), Selective
Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitor (sNRI) and GnRH Antagonist.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Awaits Approval of La. Securities Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana has yet to
approve a proposed settlement of a consolidated securities fraud class action
against Newpark Resources, Inc.

Between April 21, 2006 and May 9, 2006, five lawsuits asserting claims
against the company for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

All five lawsuits have been transferred to Judge Marcel Livaudais who has
consolidated these actions as “In re: Newpark Resources, Inc. Securities
Litigation.”

Following the filing of the Amendment No. 2 to the company’s Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A for 2005 (filed on Oct. 10, 2006), the plaintiffs filed (on Nov.
9, 2006) a Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Securities Fraud against
the company and the following directors and officers:

      -- James Cole,
      -- Matthew Hardey,
      -- Thomas Ballantine,
      -- David Hunt,
      -- Alan Kaufman,
      -- James Stone,
      -- Roger Stull, and
      -- Jerry Box.

The Consolidated Class Complaint alleges that the company and the individual
defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10
(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

These allegations arise from our disclosure of an internal investigation into
potential irregularities in the processing and payment of invoices at one of
our subsidiaries, Soloco Texas, LP, and alleged improper granting, recording
and accounting of backdated grants of our stock options to our executives.

The Consolidated Class Complaint does not specify the damages sought by the
Plaintiffs and no discovery has been conducted to date.

On April 13, 2007, the company announced that, subject to court approval, it
had reached a settlement of the case.  The settlement also resolves a related
derivative litigation filed against the company.

Under the terms of the settlement, Newpark will pay $1,550,000, and the
company's directors and officers' liability insurance carrier will pay
$8,300,000.  Both amounts include the cost of certain legal fees and
administration costs.

The company reported no development in the case at its Aug. 3, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is “In re: Newpark Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:06-cv-02150-ML-KWR,’ filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana under Judge Marcel Livaudais with referral to Judge
Karen Wells Roby.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:  

         Dawn M. Barrios, Esq.
         Barrios, Kingsdorf & Casteix, LLP
         One Shell Square, 701 Poydras St., Suite 3650
         New Orleans, LA 70139-3650
         Phone: (504) 524-3300
         E-mail: barrios@bkc-law.com

              - and -

         Lewis Stephen Kahn, Esq.
         Kahn Gauthier Law Group, LLC
         650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
         New Orleans, LA 70130
         Phone: 504-455-1400
         E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com

Representing the defendants are:  

         Robert B. Bieck, Jr., Esq.
         Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre
         Place St. Charles, 201 St. Charles Ave., 50th Floor,
         New Orleans, LA 70170-5100
         Phone: (504) 582-8000
         E-mail: rbieck@joneswalker.com

              - and -

         Donald Lucas Hyatt, II, Esq.
         Donald L. Hyatt, II, APLC  
         Energy Center, 1100 Poydras St., Suite 2960
         New Orleans, LA 70163
         Phone: 504-582-2466
         E-mail: hyattlaw@aol.com


NISOURCE INC: Parties Reach Settlement in N.Y. Royalties Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a purported class action filed against subsidiaries of NiSource,
Inc. have settled the matter before the Chautauqua County Court, New York,
according to the company’s Aug. 3, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

The litigation was over royalty payments.  Vivian K. Kershaw filed the suit
on behalf of people who own an interest in oil and gas leases.

Ms. Kershaw originally filed the complaint in 2000 against:

     -- Columbia Natural Resources, Inc., a former subsidiary;

     -- Columbia Transmission Corp.;
  
     -- Columbia Energy Corp.; and

     -- Columbia Energy Resources, Inc.  

The complaint alleges that plaintiffs own an interest in oil and gas leases
in New York and that the defendants have underpaid royalties on those leases
by, among other things, failing to base royalties on the price at which
natural gas is sold to the end-user and by improperly deducting post-
production costs.

Plaintiffs seek the alleged royalty underpayment and punitive damages.  The
complaint also seeks class-action status on behalf of all royalty owners in
oil and gas leases owned by the defendants.  

The parties have reached a settlement in principle and have begun preparation
of the documents necessary to obtain court approval of the proposed class-
wide settlement.

NiSource Inc. -- http://www.nisource.com/-- is an energy holding company  
whose subsidiaries provide natural gas, electricity and other products and
services to approximately 3.8 million customers located within a corridor
that runs from the Gulf Coast through the Midwest to New England.  

The Company is a natural gas distribution company operating east of the Rocky
Mountains.  Its business segments include Gas Distribution Operations; Gas
Transmission and Storage Operations; Electric Operations, and Other
Operations.

NiSource's principal subsidiaries include Columbia Energy Group, a vertically
integrated natural gas distribution, transmission and storage holding company
whose subsidiaries provide service to customers in the Midwest, the Mid-
Atlantic and the Northeast; Northern Indiana Public Service Company, a
vertically integrated gas and electric company providing service to customers
in northern Indiana, and Bay State Gas Company, a natural gas distribution
company serving customers in New England.


NISOURCE INC: Expects 2007 Judgment in W.Va. Royalties Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
NiSource, Inc. expects that the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County
will issue its final, appealable judgment in the purported class
action, “Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.,” late in the
third quarter of 2007.

Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in early 2003 against Columbia Natural Resources
(CNR) alleging that CNR underpaid royalties on gas produced on their land by
improperly deducting post-production costs and not paying a fair value for
the gas.  They also claimed that the defendants fraudulently concealed the
deduction of post-production charges (Class Action Reporter, July 3, 2007).

In December 2004, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to add NiSource, Inc.
and Columbia Energy Group as defendants.  CNR is a former NiSource
subsidiary, which was sold in 2003.

Although NiSource sold CNR in 2003, NiSource remains obligated to manage this
litigation and for the majority of any damages ultimately awarded to the
plaintiffs.

On Jan. 27, 2007, the jury hearing the case returned a verdict against all
defendants in the amount of $404.3 million; this is comprised of $134.3
million in compensatory damages and $270 million in punitive damages.

The defendants filed motions with the trial court challenging the punitive
damages award, and the trial court held a hearing in March on these motions.

On June 28, 2007 the trial court issued an order upholding the punitive
damages award.  

Several post-trial procedural steps remain before the defendants can perfect
their appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which may or may
not accept the appeal.

NiSource anticipates that the trial court will issue its final, appealable
judgment late in the third quarter of 2007, according to the company’s Aug.
3, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is “Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.,” filed in
West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County under Judge Thomas Evans III.

Representing the plaintiffs is:
       
         Marvin Masters, Esq.
         181 Summers Street
         Charleston, West Virginia 25301
         Phone: 304-342-3106
         Fax: 304-342-3189

Representing the defendants is:

         Timothy Miller, Esq.
         400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St., P.O. Box 1791         
         Charleston, West Virginia 25326
         Phone: 304-344-5800
         Fax: 304-344-9566


NISOURCE INC: Ky. Court Mulls Dismissal Motion in Royalties Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has yet to rule
on motions seeking the dismissal of the purported class action, "John
Thacker, et al. v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.," which names NiSource, Inc.
as a defendant.

On Feb. 8, 2007, John Thacker filed the purported class action, alleging that
Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C. failed to pay royalty owners the correct
amounts pursuant to the provisions of their oil and gas leases covering real
property located within the state of Kentucky.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 19, 2007, which, among other
things, added NiSource, Inc. as a defendant.  

All of the defendants’ motions to dismiss have been fully briefed and await a
ruling by the court, according to the company’s Aug. 3, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Thacker v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Case No.
7:07-cv-00026-GFVT," filed in the U.S. District Court of the
Eastern District of Kentucky under Judge Gregory F. Van
Tatenhove.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Thomas E. Meng, Esq.
         Stites & Harbison PLLC
         250 W. Main Street, 2300 Lexington Financial Center
         Lexington, KY 40507
         Phone: 859-226-2300
         Fax: 859-425-7902
         E-mail: tmeng@stites.com


ORVIS CO: Recalls Toys with Small Parts that can Detach
-------------------------------------------------------
The Orvis Company, of Manchester, Vermont, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 220 horses and 1,300
fairy dolls, imported by Carstens Inc., of Burlington, Washington.

The company said the plastic button eyes on the stuffed horse and the pompom
nose on the fairy doll toy can easily detach, posing a small parts choking
hazard to young children. No injuries have been reported.

The plush brown horse/pillow was sold as an accessory with the purchase of a
Horse Animal Sleeping Bag. The horse pillow has outstretched fore and back
legs, a bushy black mane and tail and attaches to the sleeping bag with a
hook/loop attachment on the belly of the horse. Stuffed horses with eyes
directly embroidered on the plush fabric are not included in the recall.

The Fairy Doll toy was sold as an accessory with the purchase of a Unicorn
Animal Sleeping Bag. The stuffed fairy doll has a sewn-on pompom nose, a pink
satin dress with glitter netting as a ruffled collar, sleeves and dress
apron. The doll attaches to the sleeping bag with a hook/loop attachment on
the bag and between the doll's wings. The fairy doll is one of three toys
that attach to the sleeping bag. Also included are a large unicorn pillow and
small flat unicorn. The unicorn attachments are not included in the recall.

These recalled children’s toys with sleeping bags have been manufactured in
China and are being sold through The Orvis Company mail-order catalogue and
the firm's Web site from September 2006 through December 2006 for about $70.

Pictures of the recalled children’s toys with sleeping bags:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07261a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07261b.jpg

Consumers are advised to take these toys away from young children immediately
and contact the firm to obtain a refund or replacement horse and fairy doll.
Consumers can continue to use the sleeping bags while waiting to receive
replacement toys.

For additional information, contact The Orvis Company toll-free at (866) 531-
6199 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.orvis.com/recall


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Disconnected Prepaid Subscribers Sue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Israeli mobile communications operator Partner Communications Co. Ltd.
(TASE:PTNR)(LSE:PCCD) is facing a lawsuit seeking class –action certification
with the District Court of Tel-Aviv.

The claim alleges that Partner disconnects the mobile lines of prepaid
subscribers who have not used it for more than 13 months, and resells such
lines to new subscribers. The plaintiff claims that this is against Partner's
license and the Consumer Protection Law.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount claimed from
Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS200 million ($47
million).

Partner is still reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and at this preliminary
stage, is unable to evaluate the probability of success of the lawsuit or the
extent of potential exposure, if any, with any degree of certainty.

Partner Communications Company Ltd. -- a subsidiary of Hutchison
Telecommunications International Limited -- is a leading Israeli mobile
communications operator providing GSM / GPRS / UMTS / HSDPA services and wire
free applications under the orange(TM) brand. The Company provides quality
service and a range of features to 2.733 million subscribers in Israel (as of
June 30, 2007). The Company launched its 3G service in 2004.

For more information, contact:

          Mr. Emanuel Avner
          Chief Financial Officer
          Partner Communications Company Ltd.
          Phone: +972-54-7814951
          Fax: +972-54-7815961
          E-mail: emanuel.avner@orange.co.il

          - or -

          Oded Degany
          Carrier, Investor and International Relations
          Phone: +972-54-7814151
          Fax: +972-54 -7814161
          E-mail: oded.degany@orange.co.il


PPL CORP: Subsidiary Sued Over 2006 Ill. Power Supply Contracts
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPL EnergyPlus, LLC, a subsidiary of PPL Corp., is among several defendants
in a class action alleging market manipulation in the auction for contract to
supply power in Illinois.

As a result of the Electric Service Customer Choice and Rate Relief Law of
1997, the Illinois General Assembly provided the opportunity for power
suppliers to compete to supply power to Illinois electric utilities to meet
the full requirements of all non-shopping Illinois electricity customers.  

The Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) conducted an auction for supply of up
to 25,474 MW of peak load and hired an independent Auction Monitor for this
purpose.  PPL EnergyPlus submitted bids in this Illinois auction process and,
as a result, in September 2006 entered into three agreements with
Commonwealth Edison Company to supply a portion of its full requirements
service.  These agreements commenced in January 2007 and expire after 17, 29
and 41 months.  

During peak hours, PPL EnergyPlus' obligation to supply Commonwealth Edison
may reach 700 MW.  At the conclusion of the auction process, the Auction
Monitor and the ICC Staff both concluded that the auction process was
competitive.

In March 2007, the Illinois Attorney General filed a complaint at the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) against all of the successful bidders in
this auction process, including PPL EnergyPlus and 15 other suppliers,
alleging market manipulation and requesting that the FERC investigate such
allegations, requesting refunds for sales at prices above just and reasonable
rates and seeking revocation of the FERC market-based rate authority for
certain of the suppliers.  PPL EnergyPlus is not identified in the complaint
as a supplier which allegedly engaged in market manipulation or which should
have its market-based rate authority revoked.

In June 2007, PPL EnergyPlus filed an answer requesting dismissal of the
complaint.  In July 2007, the Illinois Attorney General asked the FERC to
hold this proceeding in abeyance pending a possible settlement among the
Illinois parties, stating that such a settlement, if finalized, would result
in dismissal of its FERC complaint.

Subsequent to the Illinois Attorney General's complaint, two class actions
were filed in Illinois State Court in Cook County against all successful
bidders in the Illinois auction, including PPL EnergyPlus, alleging
violations of unfair trade practices laws.

The factual allegations appear similar to those in the Attorney General's
complaint.  While PPL and PPL Energy Supply do not currently believe that
these matters will have a material adverse impact on the financial condition
of PPL and PPL Energy Supply, they cannot predict the outcome of this matter.


PPL CORP: Suit Over Martins Creek Fly Ash Release Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
A court has granted plaintiffs request to voluntarily dismiss a suit filed
against PPL Corp. in relation to a 2005 release of water containing fly ash
at the company’s Martins Creek plant in Pennsylvania.

In August 2005, there was a release of approximately 100 million gallons of
water containing fly ash from a disposal basin at the Martins Creek plant
used in connection with the operation of the two 150 MW coal-fired generating
units at the plant.  This resulted in ash being deposited onto adjacent
roadways and fields, and into a nearby creek and the Delaware River.

The leak was stopped, and PPL has determined that the problem was caused by a
failure in the disposal basin's discharge structure.  PPL has conducted
extensive clean-up and is continuing to work with the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP) and other appropriate agencies and
consultants to assess whether the leak caused any environmental damage.  PPL
shut down the two units in September 2005 and placed the units back in
service in December 2005 after completing the repairs and upgrades to the
basin and obtaining the Pennsylvania DEP's approval.

The Pennsylvania DEP filed a complaint in Commonwealth Court against PPL
Martins Creek and PPL Generation, alleging violations of various state laws
and regulations and seeking penalties and injunctive relief.  The Delaware
Riverside Conservancy and several citizens have been granted the right,
without objection from PPL, to intervene in the Pennsylvania DEP's action.  

PPL and the Pennsylvania DEP have reached a tentative settlement for the
alleged violations.  The Intervenors have objected to this settlement.  

The proposed settlement requires PPL to pay $1.5 million in penalties and
reimbursement of the DEP's costs, and requires PPL to submit a report on the
completed studies of possible natural resource damages.  PPL has completed
the studies in conjunction with a group of natural resource trustees, along
with the Delaware River Basin Commission.

PPL expects the trustees and the Delaware River Basin Commission to seek to
recover their costs and/or any damages they determine were caused by the
leak.  PPL submitted the assessment report to the agencies in June 2007.  
Studies to date do not show damages attributable to the leak.  However, the
agencies may require additional studies.

In March 2006, several citizens (including some that have intervened in the
Pennsylvania DEP's lawsuit) and two businesses filed a lawsuit in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Warren County, alleging that the fly ash leak
caused damage to property along a 40-mile stretch of the Delaware River and
asserting that the named plaintiffs are representative of a class of citizens
and businesses along the 40-mile stretch of the Delaware River.

PPL exercised its right to move this lawsuit to federal court in New Jersey.  
The plaintiffs have since sought voluntary dismissal of this action without
prejudice.  This request was granted by the Court, subject to the condition
that the plaintiffs may not refile any class action.


RELIANT ENERGY: Calif. Antitrust Suit Over Natural Gas Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Gas Actions filed against Reliant Energy Inc. in California were
stayed pending a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in related
cases on appeal.

The company is party to 27 lawsuits, several of which are class actions, in
state and federal courts in California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri and
Wisconsin.  These lawsuits relate to alleged conduct to increase natural gas
prices in violation of antitrust and similar laws.  The lawsuits seek treble
damages, restitution and/or expenses.  The lawsuits also name a number of
unaffiliated energy companies as parties.  

In July 2007, the cases pending in California were stayed pending a ruling by
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in related cases on appeal.

One of the natural gas cases is a case filed by the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power (LADWP) in the California Superior Court in 2004.  The
lawsuit alleges that the company conspired to manipulate natural gas prices
in breach of its supply contract with LADWP and in violation of California’s
antitrust laws and the California False Claims Act.  

The lawsuit seeks treble damages for the alleged overcharges (estimated to be
$218 million) for gas purchased by LADWP, interest and legal costs.  The
lawsuit also seeks (a) a determination that an extension of the contract with
LADWP was invalid in that the required municipal approvals for the extension
were allegedly not obtained and (b) a return of all money paid by LADWP
during that period (estimated to be $681 million).


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Court Refuses to Vacate Dismissal of “Colon”
---------------------------------------------------------------
A New York state court denied a plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal
order in the purported class action, “Colon v. Thorn Americas, Inc.,” which
names Rent-A-Center, Inc. as a defendant.

The original plaintiff filed the class action in November 1997 in New York
state court.  The company, in connection with its
Thorn Americas, Inc. acquisition, assumed this matter.

The plaintiff acknowledges that rent-to-own transactions in New York are
subject to the provisions of New York's Rental Purchase Statute but contends
the Rental Purchase Statute does not provide the company immunity from suits
for other statutory violations.  

Plaintiff alleges the company has a duty to disclose effective interest under
New York consumer protection laws, and seeks damages and injunctive relief
for failure to do so.

The suit also alleges violations relating to excessive and unconscionable
pricing, late fees, harassment, undisclosed charges, and the ease of use and
accuracy of payment records.  

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requests class certification,
injunctive relief requiring the company to cease certain marketing practices
and price rental purchase contracts in certain ways, unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages, rescission of the class members contracts, an order
placing in trust all moneys received by the company in connection with the
rental of merchandise during the class period, treble damages, attorney's
fees, filing fees and costs of suit, pre- and post- judgment interest, and
any further relief granted by the court.  

Plaintiff has not alleged a specific monetary amount with respect to the
request for damages.  The proposed class includes all New York residents who
were party to the company's rent-to- own contracts from Nov. 26, 1994.  

In November 2000, following interlocutory appeal by both parties from the
denial of cross-motions for summary judgment, the company obtained a
favorable ruling from the Appellate Division of the State of New York,
dismissing the plaintiff's claims based on the alleged failure to disclose an
effective interest rate.  The plaintiff's other claims were not dismissed.

Plaintiff moved to certify a statewide class in December 2000. The court
heard the plaintiff's class certification motion on Nov. 7, 2001 and, on
Sept. 12, 2002, the court issued an opinion denying in part and granting in
part the plaintiff's requested certification.

The opinion grants certification as to all of the plaintiff's claims except
the plaintiff's pricing claims pursuant to the
Rental Purchase Statute, as to which certification was denied.  

The parties have differing views as to the effect of the court's opinion, and
accordingly, the court granted the parties permission to submit competing
orders as to the effect of the opinion on the plaintiff's specific claims.

Both proposed orders were submitted to the court on March 27, 2003, and on
May 30, 2003, the court held a hearing regarding such orders.  No clarifying
order has yet been entered by the court.

From June 2003 until May 2005, there was no activity in this case.  On May
18, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and to
decertify the class, based upon the plaintiff's failure to schedule her claim
in this matter in her earlier voluntary bankruptcy proceeding.  

Plaintiff opposed the motion and asked the court to grant it an opportunity
to find a substitute class representative in the event the court determined
Ms. Colon was no longer adequate.

On Jan. 17, 2006, the court issued an order denying that motion, but noted
that no motion to intervene to add additional class representatives had been
filed.

On March 14, 2006, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion seeking leave to
intervene Shaun Kelly as an additional class representative.

In response to plaintiffs’ motion, the court ordered the parties to confer
regarding a possible mediation and ruled that the company could depose Mr.
Kelly before filing any objection to his intervention.

Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond to the company repeated requests to
schedule Mr. Kelly’s deposition or schedule a mediation.

Accordingly, on Jan. 30, 2007, the company filed a notice pursuant to the
applicable rules requiring the plaintiff to serve notice of its intent to
proceed with its case within 90 days.

On April 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed a reply to the company’s notice, and
on that same date plaintiffs’ counsel offered to produce Mr. Kelly for
deposition.

In the reply to the company’s notice, the plaintiff moved the court for an
additional 180 days in which to conduct discovery before filing a formal
response to the notice, or in the alternative, the plaintiff asked to be
permitted to file its response immediately and to conduct some limited
discovery while awaiting a trial date.

Plaintiff’s motion resulted in a notice from the court, which the company
received on May 7, 2007, that the case had been dismissed on June 2, 2006,
due to the parties’ failure to appear at a court-ordered conference of which
neither the company, nor to its knowledge, plaintiff had notice.  The company
also did not have notice of the dismissal order.

On July 16, 2007, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to vacate the dismissal
order, according to the company’s Aug. 3, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.

Rent-A-Center, Inc. -- http://www.rentacenter.com/-- is a rent-to-own  
operator in North America.  At Dec. 31, 2006, Rent-A-Center operated 3,406
company-owned stores nationwide and in Canada and Puerto Rico, including 21
stores in Wisconsin operated by its subsidiary Get It Now, LLC under the name
Get It Now and seven stores located in Canada operated by its subsidiary Rent-
A-Centre, Ltd., under the name Rent-A-Centre. One of the Company's other
subsidiaries, ColorTyme, Inc., is a United States franchisor of rent-to-own
stores.  At Dec. 31, 2006, ColorTyme had 282 franchised rent-to-own stores in
38 states. On November 15, 2006, the Company acquired Rent-Way, Inc., which
operated 782 stores in 34 states.


SOLUTIA INC: Sept. Certification Hearing Set in Pension Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on motions to certify a class in a complaint that claims Solutia Inc.
Employees' Pension Plan discriminated against employees on the basis of their
age is expected to be held on Sept. 12, 2007.

Since October 2005, current or former  participants in the Solutia Inc.
Employees' Pension Plan have filed three class actions alleging that the
Pension Plan is discriminatory based upon age and that the lump sum values of
individual account balances in the Pension Plan have been, and continue to
be, miscalculated. None of the Debtors, and no individual or entity other
than the Pension Plan, has been named as a defendant in any of these cases.

Two of these cases:

     --  “Davis, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension
         Plan,” and

     -- “Hammond, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension
        Plan,”

are still pending in the Southern District of Illinois against Monsanto Co.
and Monsanto Co. Pension Plan,

     -- “Walker et al. v. The Monsanto Pension Plan, et al.,”
        and

     -- “Pharmacia Cash Balance Pension Plan, Pharmacia
        Corporation, Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc., and Pfizer Inc.
        (Donaldson v. Pharmacia Cash Balance Pension Plan, et
        al.).

The plaintiffs in the Pension Plan cases seek to obtain injunctive and other
equitable relief (including money damages awarded by the creation of a common
fund) on behalf of themselves and the nationwide putative class of similarly
situated current and former participants in the Pension Plan.
A Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed by all of the plaintiffs in
the consolidated case on September 4, 2006.

The Complaint alleged three separate causes of action against the Pension
Plan: (1) the Pension Plan violates ERISA by terminating interest credits on
prior plan accounts at the age of 55; (2) the Pension Plan is improperly
backloaded in violation of ERISA; and (3) the Pension Plan is discriminatory
on the basis of age.

Motions for class certification were filed in late 2006 by the plaintiffs
against each of the defendants. With respect to the Pension Plan, plaintiffs
moved to certify a class only on their first claim: i.e., that the Pension
Plan discriminated against employees on the basis of their age by only
providing interest credits on prior plan accounts through age 55.  Briefing
on the class certification motions was completed in January 2007 and a
hearing on the motions is expected to be held on Sept. 12, 2007.


STRATEGIC ENERGY: Plaintiffs in Pa. PSCSA Suit to Revive Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Energy, L.L.C., a subsidiary of KLT Energy Services, faces a
purported class action in the Pennsylvania over its Power Supply Coordination
Service Agreements (PSCSA).

In 2005, a class-action complaint for breach of contract was filed against
the company.  Plaintiffs purportedly represent the interests of certain
customers in Pennsylvania who entered into the agreement or a certain product
in Pennsylvania.  

The complaint seeks monetary damages, attorney fees and costs and a
declaration that the customers may terminate their agreement with the
company.  

In response to Strategic Energy’s preliminary objections, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in July 2006, and Strategic Energy filed its preliminary
objections in July 2007.  

Plaintiff’s counsel recently notified Strategic Energy that they intend to
activate the litigation, according to Great Plains Energy, Inc.’s Aug. 3,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Great Plains Energy, Inc. -- http://www.greatplainsenergy.com/-- a public  
utility holding company and does not own or operate any significant assets
other than the stock of its subsidiaries. Great Plains Energy has four direct
subsidiaries with operations: Kansas City Power & Light Company (KCP&L), KLT
Inc., Innovative Energy Consultants Inc. (IEC) and Great Plains Energy
Services Incorporated (Services).


STUBBEN NORTH: Recalls Stirrups with Hinges that can Break
----------------------------------------------------------
Stubben North America, Inc., of Troy, Virginia, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 500 Stubben Steeltec
SEQ Stirrups.

The company said the stirrup's hinges can break, posing a fall hazard to
riders.  Stubben has received two reports of the stirrups breaking. No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled stirrups are attached by straps to a saddle and are used by
horseback riders to help them mount a horse or for support while riding. They
are made of stainless steel and have a hinge on each side. "Stubben STEELtec"
is printed on the stirrups. They were sold in three sizes: 4 ½", 4 ¾", and
5".

These recalled horseback riding stirrups were manufactured in Pakistan and
being sold at Stubben authorized dealers nationwide from August 2006 through
May 2007 for about $100 per pair.

Picture of recalled horseback riding stirrups:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07264.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the stirrups immediately and return them
to Stubben to receive a full refund.

For additional information, contact Stubben North America, Inc. at (800) 550-
1110 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.stubbennorthamerica.com.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Settles Lawsuit Over Tank Barges Coating
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Trinity Marine
Products, Inc. (TMP), settled a purported class action over barges it sold
that were allegedly applied with defective coatings.

Waxler Transportation, Inc. filed the suit against Trinity companies and
certain material suppliers.  The plaintiff has petitioned the court for
certification of a class, which, if certified, could significantly increase
the total number of barges at issue.

The current class representative owns four tank barges on which allegedly
defective coatings were applied.  These four barges were sold at an
approximate average price of $1.4 million.

Legal counsel for the Company and TMP have each advised that factual disputes
exist regarding the legal merits of class certification.

Discovery is underway in the case but no date has been set for a class
certification hearing or trial, according to the company’s Aug. 2, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Independent experts investigating the claims for the Company and TMP have
opined that the plaintiff’s assertion that the coating applied to the barges
is a food source for microbiologically influenced corrosion is without merit.

While the Company and TMP have continued to vigorously defend the Waxler
Case, in order to avoid the commitment of management and executive time and
the legal, expert and transactional costs associated with litigating the
claims alleged, the Company and TMP have reached an agreement in principal
with the class representative and their counsel to resolve the litigation.

Trinity Industries, Inc. -- http://www.trin.net-- is a holding company of  
diversified industrial companies.  Trinity manufactures and sells railcars
and railcar parts, inland barges, concrete and aggregates, highway products,
beams and girders used in highway construction, tank containers and
structural wind towers.  


UNITED STATES: Workers File Suit Over Unprotected Work in Iraq
--------------------------------------------------------------
A pro se class-action complaint filed Aug. 6 in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York claims the president of the U.S. and Kellogg
Brown & Root exposed civilian contract workers in Iraq to being captured and
treated as “illegal enemy combatants” because of defendants’ practice of
mixing civilian workers with soldiers.

Named plaintiff Louis Edward Lutz, Jr. brings this complaint as a collective
action suit to recover damages and demand corrective action taken under The
Constitution of the U.S. especially Article VI and the treaty called "Geneva
Conventions of Aug. 12, 1949" with Protocol Additional Relating to the
Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict, adopted June 10, 1977.

Plaintiff seeks to represent the following classes:

     (a) all current and former employees and/or contractors of
         either or both of the above named defendants working,
         or who have worked, in Iraq and/or Afghanistan since
         Sept. 11, 2001 whether they be citizens of The United
         States of America or not;

     (b) all current and former employees and/or contractors of
         defendant, The President of The United States of
         America, would include all individual contractors or
         employees of any company or organization, foreign or
         domestic under the control or payment of The Government
         of The United States, working, or who have worked, in
         Iraq and/or Afghanistan since Sept. 11, 2001;

     (c) current and former civilian, government service
         employees of The United States of America, whether they
         be citizens of The United States of America or not
         working, or who have worked, in Iraq and/or Afghanistan
         since Sept. 11, 2001; and

     (d) who claim they, are being, and/or have been damaged as
         a result of the violation of law by defendants.

Plaintiff requests that the court grant the following relief:

     -- $50 billion in actual damages and $50 billion in
        punitive damages to be paid to plaintiffs by defendants;

     -- that the court order defendant, The President, to
        appoint a commission to immediately begin a process to
        formulate an amendments) to The Geneva Conventions and
        then negotiate with the other nations of the Earth to
        agree to the amendments. That, said amendment place on
        "civilians with the military in combat" the distinction
        of being "legal combatants" (and therefore legal targets
        for the enemy forces) and causing them to have the legal
        standing of "Prisoners of War' if captured. That every
        effort be made to make the provisions of the amendment
        retroactive to Sept. 11, 2001 thus removing the "black
        mark" from plaintiffs; and

     -- that plaintiff be appointed to said commission by
        defendant to monitor and participate in the process.

The suit is “Lutz v. The President of the United States of America et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-03280-NGG-LB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, under Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, with referral
to Judge Lois Bloom.


WAL-MART STORES: S.C. Judge Certifies Lawsuit by Employees
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Perry Buckner III in Walterboro, South Carolina allowed current and
former workers of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to sue as a group, Margaret Cronin
Fisk and Lauren Coleman-Lochner of Bloomberg News report.

Judge Buckner allowed the suit to go ahead on behalf of current and former
hourly workers of Wal-Mart from July 31, 1999 forward.  The workers claim the
company forced them to work through breaks and off the clock.  The suit was
filed in 2001. About 100,000 workers are involved.

Judge Buckner didn't rule on the merits of the case, only whether the workers
could sue as a group under South Carolina law.

"Wal-Mart, through understaffing, does not allow employees to have meal or
rest breaks that they've earned," workers' attorney Rodney Bridgers said.

Wal-Mart may appeal the S.C. ruling, said Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley,
according to the report.

The workers will ask Buckner for a trial in 2008, Mr. Bridgers said.


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

September 24-25, 2007
MEALEY'S BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
COMPLETE ANATOMY OF A BAD FAITH CASE: SHARPEN YOUR TRIAL SKILLS, CITE-WORTHY
CASE ANALYSIS, WINNING STRATEGIES
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 25, 2007
LEXISNEXIS® WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING, NEGOTIATING AND
COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 26-27, 2007
Positioning The Class Action Defense For Early Success
American Conference Institute
Phoenix
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480

September 26-28, 2007
MEALEY'S NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION SUPERCONFERENCE: EMERGING ISSUES, TRIAL
SKILLS, INSURANCE, MEDICINE, BANKRUPTCY AND FINANCIAL & RISK MANAGEMENT
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 1-2, 2007
MEALEY'S SUBPRIME MORTGAGE INSURANCE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The InterContinental Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 11-12, 2007
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

October 17-18, 2007
MEALEY'S INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
London, UK
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 18-20, 2007
2ND ANNUAL LEXISNEXIS CIC CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Sheraton Atlanta Hotel, Downtown
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 7-9, 2007
MEALEY'S CONSTRUCTION DEFECT SUPERCONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Casuarina Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 8-9, 2007
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT SECURITIES, TAX,
ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 14-15, 2007
MEALEY'S GLOBAL REINSURANCE FORUM
Mealeys Seminars
Elbow Beach, Bermuda
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 14-16, 2008
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
San Diego
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

August 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 1-31, 2007
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 1-31, 2007
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND TORT CASES IN
TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 8, 2007
MEALEY'S WRAP INSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 9, 2007
MEALEY'S TOXIC TORT TELECONFERENCE SERIES: VAPOR INTRUSION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 9, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: MANAGING INSURANCE LITIGATION COSTS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 9, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE SERIES: INSURANCE ISSUES REGARDING SUBPRIME MORTGAGES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 14, 2007
INSURANCE TELECONFERENCE SERIES: PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

August 15, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: D&O
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR
CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com  

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND
ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org


________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN HOME: Harwood Feffer Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Harwood Feffer LLP has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of its client and on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of American Home Mortgage Investment
Corp. (NYSE:AHM) between July 26, 2006 through July 27, 2007, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included are those who purchased the
shares of AHM in the Secondary Offering on April 30, 2007.

The Complaint, a copy of which can be obtained from the Court or can be
viewed on Harwood Feffer web site at www.hfesq.com, charges Michael Strauss,
the Chief Executive Officer of AHM, with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20
(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It is alleged that Defendant
Strauss and the Company omitted or misrepresented material adverse facts
about the Company's financial condition, business prospects, and revenue
expectations during the Class Period.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendant
Strauss and the Company issued numerous materially false and misleading
statements which caused AHM's securities to trade at artificially inflated
prices. As alleged in the Complaint, these statements were materially false
and misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company was experiencing an increasing level of
         loan delinquencies which was depressing its earnings;

     (2) the Company was experiencing increasing difficulties in
         selling its loans and, therefore, was required to
         decrease prices, thereby reducing margins and profits;
         and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was
         overstating its financial results by failing to write-
         down the value of certain loans in its portfolio as
         these loans had declined substantially in value.

According to the Complaint, on June 27, 2007, after the market closed, AHM
issued a press release announcing that it will take "substantial charges for
credit-related expenses in the second quarter." The Company reported that the
increase in losses was related to its practice of extending a three month
timely payment warranty that the Company granted to loan buyers who purchased
stated income loans. In response to this announcement, the price of AHM stock
declined from $20.91 per share to $18.38 per share on extremely heavy trading
volume.

Then, on July 27, 2007, after the close of the market, AHM issued a press
release announcing that its Board of Directors had determined to delay paying
its dividend. On the next trading day, July 30, 2007, before the marked
opened, the NYSE halted trading in AHM stock. In response to these events and
announcements, the Company's stock declined from $10.47 on July 30, 2007 to
close at $1.04 on July 31, 2007 on unusually high trading volume. On August
6, 2007, the Company filed for bankruptcy protection in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware under Chapter 11 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 1, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Craig Lowther
          Harwood Feffer LLP
          Shareholder Relations Department
          488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, New York 10022
          Phone: (877) 935-7400
          E-mail: clowther@hfesq.com
          Website: http://www.hfesq.com


LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Paskowitz Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Paskowitz & Associates has commenced a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class of all
persons who purchased or acquired securities of Limelight Networks, Inc.
between June 8, 2007 and August 8, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that defendants, including the Company's top executives
and the co-lead underwriters of its IPO, negligently violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a Prospectus in connection with its June 8, 2007
initial public offering that was materially misleading regarding adverse
business events that were affecting the Company, including:

     (a) that revenues were suffering due to greater reliance on
         television-related sales, which are seasonal; and

     (b) that Limelight Networks was being forced to resort to
         deep discounting its services in order to attract and
         maintain customers for its premier services because of
         those customers' resistance to paying adequate prices,
         a development that will impact the Company's June 30,
         2007 quarter, and will continue to adversely impact the
         Company going forward.

When the truth about these matters was revealed, Limelight Networks shares
dropped substantially.

Interested parties may move the court no later than August 8, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Paskowitz, Esq.
          Paskowitz & Associates
          Toll free: 1-800-705-9529


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPUETICS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP announces that a class action has been
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Northwest Biotherapeutics Inc.
between July 9, 2006 and July 16, 2007, inclusive seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges Northwest Biotherapeutics and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, Northwest
Biotherapeutics issued materially false and misleading statements. Northwest
Biotherapeutics issued a press release on July 9, 2007 entitled "World's
First Therapeutic Vaccine for Brain Cancer Commercially Available to Patients
in Switzerland."

The release stated that Northwest Biotherapeutics received an "authorization
for use" from the Swiss authorities and that "DCVax-Brain is the first
commercially available therapeutic vaccine for such cancers. The Company
intends to begin making the product available to patients in Q3 2007."

A week later, on July 16, 2007, Northwest Biotherapeutics issued another
press release explaining that the authorization it received was really just
for import/export purposes, and was conditional even for those limited
purposes. Northwest Biotherapeutics stated that the Swiss government has not
yet reviewed DCVax for neither safety nor efficacy. Northwest
Biotherapeutics's stock which traded up from $2.30 per share to as high as
over $7 per share during the Class Period has since dropped to below $3 per
share.

Northwest Biotherapeuticsis a development stage biotechnology company focused
on discovering, developing, and commercializing immunotherapy products that
safely generate and enhance immune system responses to effectively treat
cancer. NWBO has two basic technology platforms applicable to cancer
therapeutics; dendritic cell-based cancer vaccines, which are called DCVax(R)
and monoclonal antibodies for cancer therapeutics.

For more information, contact:

          Steve Berman
          Reed R. Kathrein
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          Phone: 888/381-2889
          E-mail: nwbo@hbsslaw.com
          Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.                        


                            *********


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.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, and Mary
Grace Durana, Editors.

Copyright 2007.  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  * * *