CAR_Public/070821.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, August 21, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 164

                            Headlines

AK STEEL: Jan. 2008 Trial Set for Ohio Healthcare Litigation
AK STEEL: June 2008 Trial Set for Ohio Racial Bias Litigation
AK STEEL: Seeks Full Sixth Circuit Review of "West" Judgment
ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: In Talks to Settle Colo. Securities Lawsuit
AMERICAN TOWER: Seeks Dismissal of Mass. Securities Fraud Case

APPLE COMPUTER: Faces 2nd Suit Over iPhone Batt Replacement Fee
APPLE COMPUTER: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
ARCHSTONE-SMITH: Agrees to Settle Colo. Lawsuit Over Merger
AUSTRALIA: Irrigators File Suit Over Lost Water Entitlements
BIG 5: Continues to Face Store Managers' Suit in California

CALIFORNIA: DAs File Brief to Intervene in Overcrowding Suit
CINGULAR WIRELESS: Lawsuit Over AT&T Merger Allowed to Proceed
D.R. HORTON: Faces Ga. Suit Over Alleged RESPA Violation
EAGLE HOSPITALITY: Settles Ken. Lawsuit Over Corporex Proposal
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: No Trial Date Set for N.J. Securities Suit

FIRST BANCORP: Deposits $61M to Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuit
GIFTCO INC: Recalls Pine Cone Candle Sets Due to Fire Hazard
HERBALIFE INT'L: Settles W.Va. TCPA Violation Lawsuit for $7M
HERBALIFE INT'L: Still Faces Calif. Unfair Trade Practices Suit
LAMPS PLUS: Settles Calif. Suit Over Customers Info Request

MATTEL INC: Cal. Lawsuit Seeks Lead Poisoning Test for Children
MURPHY OIL: Aug. 28 Hearing Set for Suit Over 2003 Fire in La.
STANDARD PACIFIC: Executive Accused of Securities Laws Violation
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Sued Over “Elite” Doctor Classification Plan
WILLIAMS COS: Colo. Royalty Interest Owners' Suit Still Stayed
WMG ACQUISITION: Seeks to Junk Suit Over Music Download Prices

* Intel Urged to Withdraw California Ballot Initiative


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Lawsuit
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********


AK STEEL: Jan. 2008 Trial Set for Ohio Healthcare Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
A Jan. 14, 2008 trial is set for a class action filed against AK Steel Corp.
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio over changes the
company implemented in existing healthcare insurance benefits plan for
certain employees.

On June 1, 2006, AK Steel notified approximately 4,600 of its current
retirees who formerly were hourly and salaried members of the Armco Employees
Independent Federation (AEIF) that AK Steel was terminating their existing
healthcare insurance benefits plan and implementing a new plan more
consistent with current steel industry practices which would require the
retirees to contribute to the cost of their healthcare benefits, effective
Oct. 1, 2006.

Subsequent to that notice, the AEIF stated publicly that it would file a
legal action against AK Steel challenging its right to modify the retirees'
healthcare benefits.

On July 18, 2006, a group of nine former hourly and salaried members of the
AEIF filed a separate purported class action in the, alleging that AK Steel
did not have a right to make changes to their healthcare benefits.

The named plaintiffs in the suit seek injunctive relief (including an order
retroactively rescinding the changes) and unspecified monetary relief for
themselves and the other members of the putative class.

On Aug. 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction
seeking to prevent AK Steel from implementing the previously announced
changes to healthcare benefits with respect to the AEIF-represented hourly
employees.

AK Steel opposed that motion, but on Sept. 22, 2006 the trial court issued an
order granting the motion.  On that same day, AK Steel filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit seeking a reversal
of the decision to grant the preliminary injunction.

To date no discovery has been commenced in the suit.  The trial in that
action is scheduled to commence Jan. 14, 2008.

The company reported no development in the case at its Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://researcharchives.com/t/s?dfa

The suit is "Bailey et al. v. AK Steel Corp., Case No. 1:06-cv- 00468-MRB,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under
Judge Michael R. Barrett.

Representing the plaintiffs are:
       
         David Marvin Cook, Esq.
         Stephen A. Simon, Esq.
         22 West Ninth Street
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-721-6500 and 513-721-7500
         E-mail: dcook@dmcllc.com
                 ssimon@dmcllc.com


AK STEEL: June 2008 Trial Set for Ohio Racial Bias Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A June 2008 trial is scheduled for a racial discrimination class action filed
against AK Steel Holding Corp. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Seventeen individuals filed the suit on June 26, 2002.  As subsequently
amended, the complaint alleges that the company discriminates against African-
Americans in its hiring practices and that it discriminates against all of
its employees by preventing its employees from working in a racially
integrated environment free from racial discrimination.

The plaintiffs seek various forms of declaratory, injunctive and unspecified
monetary relief, including back pay, front pay, lost benefits, lost seniority
and punitive damages, for themselves and unsuccessful African-American
candidates for employment at the company.  

Defendants have responded to the complaint and discovery is ongoing.  

On Jan. 19, 2007, the Court conditionally certified two subclasses of
unsuccessful African-American candidates.  The trial of this matter has been
scheduled for June 2008.

The company reported no development in the case at its Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Bert, et al. v. AK Steel Corp., Case No. 1:02-cv-
00467-SSB-TSH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio under Judge Sandra S. Beckwith with referral to Judge Timothy S. Hogan.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         David Donald Kammer, Esq.
         Paul Henry Tobias, Esq.
         Tobias, Kraus & Torchia
         Phone: 513-241-8137
         Fax: 513-241-7863
         E-mail: davek@tktlaw.com
                 tkt@tktlaw.com

         Allison W. Lowell, Esq.
         Wiggin Childs Quinn & Pantazis
         301 19th Street N.
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Phone: 205-314-0575
         Fax: 205/254-1500
         E-mail: awl@wcqp.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Lawrence James Barty, Esq.
         Patricia Anderson Pryor, Esq.
         Gregory Parker Rogers, Esq.
         Taft Stettinius & Hollister
         1800 Firstar Tower, 425 Walnut St.
         Cincinnati, OH 45202-3597
         Phone: 513-381-2838, 513-357-9409 and 513-357-9344
         Fax: 513-381-0205
         E-mail: barty@taftlaw.com
                 Pryor@Taftlaw.com
                 Rogers@Taftlaw.com


AK STEEL: Seeks Full Sixth Circuit Review of "West" Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Corp. is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to
review a decision handed down in the class action, “West v. AK Steel
Retirement, et al.,” wherein the company was ordered to pay more than $46
million to plaintiffs in the case.

On Jan. 2, 2002, John D. West, a former employee, filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against the AK Steel
Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan, or AK RAPP, and the AK
Steel Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee.

Mr. West claims that the method used under the AK RAPP to determine lump sum
distributions does not comply with the Employment Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA) and resulted in underpayment of benefits to him and the
other class members.

The District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff class and on March 29,
2006 entered an amended final judgment against the defendants in the amount
of $37.6 in damages and $7.3 in prejudgment interest, for a total of
approximately $44.9, with post judgment interest accruing at the rate of 4.7%
per annum until paid.

The defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  
On April 20, 2007, a panel of the Court of Appeals issued an opinion in which
it affirmed the decision of the District Court.

On May 4, 2007, the defendants filed a petition seeking a rehearing by that
panel or the full Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The suit is "West v. AK Steel Retirement, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-00001-SSB-
TSB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
under Judge Sandra S. Beckwith with referral to Judge Timothy S. Black.   

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Thomas R. Theado, Esq.
         Gary, Naegele & Theado, LLC
         446 Broadway
         Lorain, Ohio 4405
         Phone: 216-244-4809
         Fax: 440-244-3462

Representing the company is:
         Robert Wick, Esq.
         Covington & Burling
         1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
         Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2401
         Phone: 202-662-6000
         Fax: 202-662-6291


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: In Talks to Settle Colo. Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allos Therapeutics Inc. is still in discussions to settle a purported
securities class action filed against the company and one of its former
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in May 2004.

An amended complaint was filed in August 2004.  The lawsuit was brought on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's securities during
the period from May 29, 2003 to April 29, 2004.  

It sought unspecified damages relating to the issuance of allegedly false and
misleading statements regarding the cancer drug EFAPROXYN during this period
and subsequent declines in the company's stock price.

On Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.  In an opinion dated Oct. 20, 2005, the
District Court concluded that the plaintiff's complaint failed to meet the
legal requirements applicable to its alleged claims.

On Nov. 20, 2005, the plaintiff appealed the District Court's decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

In October 2006, the parties held discussions to settle the matter, although
the terms of any such potential settlement remain subject to negotiation and
no binding agreement has been reached.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

The suit is "Noble Asset Mgmt LLC v. Allos Therapeutics, et al.,  
Case No. 1:04-cv-01030-RPM," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado under Judge Richard P. Matsch.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Jeffrey Allen Berens, Esq.
          Dyer & Shuman, LLP
          801 East 17th Avenue
          Denver, CO 80218-1417
          Phone: 303-861-3003
          Fax: 303-830-6920
          E-mail: jberens@dyershuman.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Tara L. Acton, Esq.
         Berenbaum, Weinshienk & Eason, P.C.
         370 - 17th Street, Republic Plaza #4800
         Denver, CO 80202-5698
         Phone: 303-825-0800
         Fax: 303-629-7610
         E-mail: tacton@bw-legal.com

              - and -

         Paul Howard Schwartz, Esq.
         Cooley Godward, LLP
         380 Interlocken, Crescent #900
         Broomfield, CO 80021-8023
         Phone: 720-566-4000
         Fax: 720-566-4099
         E-mail: schwartzph@cooley.com


AMERICAN TOWER: Seeks Dismissal of Mass. Securities Fraud Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Tower Corp. is seeking for the dismissal of a securities fraud class
action filed against it and certain of its current officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

John S. Greenebaum filed the suit.  Also named plaintiff in the case is
Steamship Trade Association-International Longshoremen's Association Pension
Fund.

The complaint names the company, James D. Taiclet, Jr. and Bradley E. Singer
as defendants.  It alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws in connection with public statements made relating to the company's
stock option practices and related accounting.  

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.  Plaintiff seeks monetary relief.

In December 2006, the court appointed the Steamship Trade Association-
International Longshoreman's Association Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff.

On March 26, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, which
includes additional current and former officers and directors of the company
as defendants.

In May 2007, the company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the securities class action filed in May 2006 against the Company and certain
current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

In July 2007, the plaintiff filed a brief opposing that motion, and the
company and individual defendants responded by filing a reply brief.  

The company moved to dismiss the federal action based on the plaintiffs’
failure to make demand of the company's Board of Directors prior to filing
these actions.  

The suit is "Greenebaum v. American Tower Corp. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
10933-MLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Mark L. Wolf.

Representing plaintiff is:

         Jason B. Adkins
         Adkins, Kelston and Zavez, P.C.
         90 Canal Street, 5th Floor
         Boston, MA 02114
         Phone: 617-367-1040
         Fax: 617-742-8280
         E-mail: jadkins@akzlaw.com

              - and -

         David J. Goldsmith, Esq.
         Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
         100 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10017-5563
         Phone: 212-907-0700

Representing the company is:

         Michael T. Gass, Esq.
         Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP
         111 Huntington Avenue
         Boston, MA 02199
         Phone: 617-239-0100
         Fax: 617-227-4420
         E-mail: mgass@eapdlaw.com


APPLE COMPUTER: Faces 2nd Suit Over iPhone Batt Replacement Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer and AT&T, Inc. are facing a second class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California that alleges the
companies fraudulently concealed an annual fee of $85.95 that all Apple
iPhone purchasers must pay for battery replacement, Matt Hamblen of the
Computerworld Australia reports.

The complaint was filed on behalf of Sydney Leung by Oakland-based attorney
H. Tim Hoffman.  It argues that Apple and AT&T committed fraud by not fully
informing customers about the costs and procedures for replacing the battery.

The complaint argues that the battery "must" be replaced after 300 charges,
anticipating a replacement at one year or less by a qualified technician,
since the battery sits inside a sealed compartment.

The suit seeks answers to whether Apple and AT&T "should have known that the
time and expense of replacing the iPhone battery would affect initial sales
of the iPhone."  It seeks more than US$5 million in compensatory and punitive
damages.

In its defense, Apple has stated on its Web site that the lithium-ion battery
when properly maintained will hold up to 80 percent of its full charge at 400
charge and discharge cycles.  Also, Apple covers replacement of the battery
for a full year and also has a protection plan for US$69 for two years of
repair coverage for the iPhone including the battery.  Replacing a battery
out of warranty costs US$79, plus US$6.95 for shipping.

In July, a similar suit "Jose Trujillo et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al,
Case No. 07CH19744," was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
(Class Action Reporter, July 31, 2007).

A court conference for the latest suit is set for Nov. 28.

The suit is “Leung v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-04143-
SBA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.

Representing plaintiffs are:

          Max Folkenflik, Esq.
          Margaret McGerity, Esq.
          Folkenflik & McGerity, Esq.
          1500 Broadway, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Phone: (212) 757-0400
          Fax: (212) 757-2010

          - and -

          H. Tim Hoffman
          Arthur William Lazear
          Morgan Matthew Mack
          Hoffman & Lazear
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1550
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: 510-763-5700
          Fax: 510-835-1311
          E-mail: hth@hoffmanandlazear.com or
                  awl@hoffmanandlazear.com or
                  mmm@hoffmanandlazear.com


APPLE COMPUTER: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer Inc. is facing a class action in Florida federal court
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Thomas Claburn of
InformationWeek reports.

The company is accused of printing credit card expiration dates on Apple
Store online receipts in violation of the 2003 amendment to the FCRA which
states: "No person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the
transaction of business shall print more than the last five digits of the
card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the card
holder at the point of sale or transaction."

Matthew S. Sarelson, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, says the case does not
seek any damages related to actual identity theft.  Rather, it raises the
issue of the risk of identity theft and Apple's failure to comply with the
law.

In June, a Supreme Court ruling said companies do not have to willfully
violate the FCRA to be held liable for violations.

The suit was filed by Angely Maria and Todd Narson against Apple Computer on
Aug. 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under
Judge Adalberto Jordan.  

The case is “Maria et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. 1:2007cv22040.”

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John Elliott Leighton, Esq.
          Leesfield Leighton & Partners
          2350 S Dixie Highway  
          Miami, FL 33133
          Phone: 305-854-4900
          Fax: 854-8266
          E-mail: Leighton@Leesfield.com

          Jay Mitchell Levy, Esq.
          Jay M. Levy, P.A.
          9130 S Dadeland Boulevard
          Suite 1510 Two Datran Center
          Miami, FL 33156
          Phone: 305-670-8100
          Fax: 670-4827
          E-mail: jay@jaylevylaw.com

          Matthew S. Sarelson, Esq.
          Sarelson & Associates, P.A.
          1680 Michigan Avenue
          Suite 1000
          Miami Beach, FL 33139
          Phone: 3056743353
          Fax: 8004219954
          E-mail: msarelson@sarelson.com


ARCHSTONE-SMITH: Agrees to Settle Colo. Lawsuit Over Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Archstone-Smith Trust has agreed in principle with various shareholder
plaintiffs to settle all of the previously disclosed separate shareholder
class actions that challenged a proposed merger with an entity jointly
controlled by affiliates of Tishman Speyer Real Estate Venture VII, L.P. and
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

Earlier, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class-action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf
of all persons, other than the defendants, who own the securities of
Archstone-Smith Trust (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 17, 2007).

The Complaint alleges that the defendants have:

     (i) violated their fiduciary duties owed to the public
         shareholders of Archstone; and

    (ii) issued a false and misleading proxy statement with the
         U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission concerning the
         merger agreement among defendant Archstone, and non-
         defendants Tishman Speyer and Lehman Brothers
         (including its Private Equity group) (collectively, the
         "Partnership"), to take Archstone private by purchasing
         all of its outstanding shares in exchange for $60.75
         per share (the "Agreement").

As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading statements in
the proxy statement concerning the Agreement as set forth above, the market
price of Archstone has been artificially capped, and Archstone shareholders
have been deprived of certain material information concerning the negotiation
of the Agreement and the adequacy of the consideration to be provided by the
Agreement.  

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, all claims relating to the merger
agreement and the proposed merger will be dismissed on behalf of the
settlement class. The settlement is subject to court approval. In connection
with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will
petition the court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by
Archstone-Smith, up to an agreed-upon limit. No amounts would be payable
under the proposed settlement unless the mergers are completed.

In addition, pursuant to the proposed settlement, Archstone-Smith has agreed
to make certain additional disclosures to its definitive proxy statement
dated July 12, 2007.

A special meeting of Archstone-Smith's common shareholders has been scheduled
for Tuesday, August 21, 2007 at 12:00 noon, local time, at The Hyatt Regency
Denver Tech Center, Business Plan Lounge, 7800 East Tufts Avenue, Denver,
Colorado, for the purpose of voting on the proposed Archstone-Smith merger
and the other transactions contemplated by the merger agreement. Neither
Archstone-Smith nor any of its affiliates can give any assurance that the
merger will be approved by its common shareholders or that any of the other
conditions to the closing of the mergers will be met.

For more information, contact:

          Lawrence P. Kolker, Esq
          Derek Behnke
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          Phone: 800-575-0735
          E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Website: http://www.whafh.com


AUSTRALIA: Irrigators File Suit Over Lost Water Entitlements
------------------------------------------------------------
Around three quarters of 185 irrigators in Murray Valley have registered
interest in a class action against the Land and Environment Court, ABC
reports citing Greg Sandford from the Murray Valley Groundwater class action
group.

They are suing over their lost water entitlements. The case is against the
New South Wales and Commonwealth Governments.  Mr. Sandford says the
irrigators want fair compensation from the New South Wales Government for the
loss of their water entitlements.

"The reduction package they have given us now, is of the 187,000 megalitres
the government has taken off us, 20,000 megalitres are receiving $300 a
megalitre which is well undervalued. The other 167,000 don't receive any
compensation at all," he said.


BIG 5: Continues to Face Store Managers' Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. remains a defendant in a purported class action
filed in California Superior Court in the County of Orange over alleged
violations of California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The complaint, "Jack Lima v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp., et al., Case No.
06CC00243," was served on the company on Dec. 1, 2006.

It was brought as a purported class action on behalf of the company's
California store managers.  The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that
the company improperly classified store managers as exempt employees not
entitled to overtime pay for work in excess of forty hours per week and
failed to provide store managers with paid meal and rest periods.

Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, back pay for overtime
allegedly not paid, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties including an
additional thirty days' wages for each employee whose employment terminated
in the four years preceding the filing of the complaint, an award of
attorneys' fees and costs and injunctive relief to require the company to
treat store managers as non-exempt.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 1, 2007.

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. -- http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/-- is a  
sporting goods retailer in the U.S., operating 343 stores in 10 states under
the Big 5 Sporting Goods name at Dec. 31, 2006.  The Company provides a line
of product offering in a traditional sporting goods store format that
averages approximately 11,000 square feet.  Its product mix includes athletic
shoes, apparel and accessories, as well as selection of outdoor and athletic
equipment for team sports, fitness, camping, hunting, fishing, tennis, golf,
snowboarding and in line skating. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation conducts
its business through Big 5 Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary.  The Company
conducts its gift card operations through Big 5 Services Corp., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Big 5 Corp.  


CALIFORNIA: DAs File Brief to Intervene in Overcrowding Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The California State Sheriff's Association filed court documents discouraging
a three-judge panel of a district court from ordering the early release of
some inmates to ease prison overcrowding, Steven Harmon of The Mercury News
reports.  

They warned of the possible threat to public safety as a result of such an
order and dissuaded the judges from making any decisions on releasing
prisoners until reform measures have been fully implemented.

"We urge the panel to allow AB 900 to begin implementation so that when
offenders are released back to their communities, they have the tools they
need to succeed," said Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith, the president
for the California State Sheriffs' Association.

The reform measures include a $7.8 billion bond to build 53,000 new prison
and jail beds, and plans for developing stronger rehabilitation programs.  It
was approved by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in
May.  Without the reform, the state corrections system could be subject to
federal takeover.

The 15 district attorneys also filed a brief to intervene in the class action
filed by inmates Ralph Coleman and Marciano Plata against Gov. Schwarzenegger
and the state.  The lawsuit led to the appointment of the three-judge panel
to examine the effects of the overcrowding to prison operations.

The district attorney offices are Contra Costa, Riverside, San Diego, Santa
Barbara, Orange, Sacramento, San Bernardino, Placer, Colusa, Amador, Solano,
Tehama, Butte, Kern and San Luis Obispo counties.


CINGULAR WIRELESS: Lawsuit Over AT&T Merger Allowed to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed to
proceed as a class action a lawsuit alleging that AT&T Inc.'s cell phone
customers received inferior service after the company's wireless division was
sold to Cingular Wireless, the AP WorldStream reports.

The case was filed as a national class action lawsuit in 2006 by Kennith
Shroyer of Porterville, California. Mr. Shroyer claimed he had switched his
AT&T cell phone accounts to Cingular after Atlanta-based Cingular's $41
billion acquisition of AT&T Wireless Services Inc. in October 2004.  

AT&T -- whose $86 billion acquisition of BellSouth Corp. last year gave it
full control of Cingular -- has since rebranded the cell phone provider under
the AT&T name.

Mr. Shroyer further claimed Cingular let AT&T's service deteriorate in a
scheme to force AT&T customers to switch to Cingular under less favorable
contract terms.

At issue was a clause in old Cingular contracts that forced customers to
litigate their grievances independently, instead of grouping together for a
class action.

Last year, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
ordered the case into individual arbitration because of the class action
waiver in Mr. Shroyer's contract.

The appeals court ruled that the contract was a violation of California law.
The ruling is further condemnation of so-called "class action waivers," which
other courts have ruled illegally shield companies engaged in potentially
harmful conduct.

One of the plaintiffs' lawyers is Bill Weinstein.


D.R. HORTON: Faces Ga. Suit Over Alleged RESPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
A customer of homebuilder D.R. Horton Inc. is suing the company for alleged
violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.  

The plaintiff claims he was forced to use the company's affiliated mortgage
service to buy his home so that the company could get discounts and
incentives.

The suit was filed by John R. Yeatman in June.  It was filed against D.R.
Horton and its mortgage company, DHI Mortgage Co.  Mr. Yeatman is seeking
class-action status for the suit.  

D.R. Horton -- http://www.drhorton.com/-- is engaged in the construction and  
sale of high quality single-family detached homes, town homes, duplexes,
triplexes and condominiums with sales prices ranging from $90,000 to over
$900,000.  D.R. Horton also provides mortgage financing and title services
for homebuyers through DHI Mortgage and DHI Title.

The suit is “Yeatman et al. v. D.R. Horton, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-
00081-BAE-GRS,” filed in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Georgia
under Judge B. Avant Edenfield with referral to G. R. Smith.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Thomas A. Withers, Esq.
          Gillen, Cromwell, Parker & Withers, LLC
          P.O. Box 10164
          Savannah, GA 31412
          Phone: 912-447-8400
          Fax: 912-233-6584

Representing the defendants is:

          David M. Souders, Esq.
          Weiner, Brodsky, Sidman & Kider, PC
          1300 19th Street, NW
          Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: 202-628-2000
          Fax: 202-628-2011


EAGLE HOSPITALITY: Settles Ken. Lawsuit Over Corporex Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Hospitality Properties Trust, Inc. settled a purported class-action
complaint filed on Feb. 28, 2007 in the Commonwealth of Kentucky Kenton
Circuit Court.  

The suit was filed against the company and each of its directors and Corporex
Companies, LLC.  It was brought by the City of Pontiac General Employees’
Retirement System, on behalf of itself and behalf of all holders of the
Company’s stock, excluding the named defendants and their affiliates.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors are in breach
of their fiduciary duties to shareholders in connection with the previously
announced exploration of strategic alternatives by the Special Committee of
the Company and, in particular, in connection with a letter received from
Corporex Companies, Inc., an affiliate of William P. Butler, the Chairman of
the Company, regarding a potential acquisition of the outstanding common
stock of the Company not currently owned by Corporex or its affiliates.

The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified damages on behalf of the
Company, including attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and injunctive relief
against the Company from consummating any buyout between the Company and
Corporex.

On July 20, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint which alleges,
among other things, that the directors have breached their fiduciary duties
to shareholders in connection with the previously announced acquisition of
the Company pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated April 27,
2007, by and among the Company, AP AIMCAP Holdings LLC, AP AIMCAP Corp., and
EHP Operating Partnership L.P. Contemporaneously with the amended complaint,
the Company received a settlement offer from the plaintiff.

The principal claims in the amended complaint are the following:

       -- that in pursuing and approving the acquisition, the
          directors failed to satisfy their fiduciary duties of
          care, loyalty, good faith, candor and independence
          owed to the shareholders of the Company, and

       -- that the disclosures about the acquisition, including
          the information contained in the Definitive Proxy
          Statement filed by the Company, omitted or
          misrepresented material information about the
          transaction, alleged conflicts of interests of the
          directors, and the financial prospects of the Company.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief against
the Company from consummating the transaction contemplated by the Merger
Agreement, and unspecified damages on behalf of the Company, including
attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses.

On July 25, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for temporary injunction to
prevent the Company and other defendants from holding a shareholder vote on
the proposed acquisition contemplated by the Merger Agreement.

On July 31, 2007, Eagle Hospitality Properties Trust, Inc. agreed on a
settlement in principle with the plaintiff in the previously announced action
in the Commonwealth of Kentucky Kenton Circuit Court brought by the City of
Pontiac General Employees’ Retirement System.

The Settlement remains subject to appropriate documentation by the parties,
approval by Eagle’s board of directors and approval by the court.

Covington, Kentucky-based Eagle Hospitality Properties Trust, Inc. --
http://www.eaglehospitality.com/-- is a self-advised real estate investment  
trust formed to pursue investment opportunities in the full service and all-
suites hotel industry.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: No Trial Date Set for N.J. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet to set a trial
date for the consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Exide
Technologies, Inc.

In June 2005, the company received notice that two former stockholders, Aviva
Partners LLC and Robert Jarman, separately filed purported class actions
against the company and certain of its current and former officers, alleging
violations of certain federal securities laws.

The cases were filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the company's stock between Nov.
16, 2004 and May 17, 2005.  

The complaints allege that the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20
(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with
certain allegedly false and misleading public statements made during this
period by the company and its officers.  The complaints did not specify an
amount of damages sought.  

On Aug. 29, 2005, Judge Mary L. Cooper consolidated the Aviva Partners and
Jarman cases as, "Aviva Partners v. Exide Technologies, Inc. Case No. 05-3098
(MLC)."  

On March 24, 2006, Judge Cooper appointed as co-lead plaintiffs:

     * the Alaska Hotel & Restaurant Employees Pension Trust
       Fund, and

     * Lakeway Capital Management.

The judge also appointed the law firms of Lerach Coughlin Stoja Geller Rudman
& Robbins LLP and Schatz & Nobel, P.C. as co-lead counsel for the putative
class.

On May 8, 2006 co-lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint
in which they reiterated the claims described above but purported to state a
claim on behalf of those who purchased the company's stock between May 5,
2004 and May 17,
2005.

On June 22, 2006, defendants filed their motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaints briefing.  The court has granted the
company's motion to dismiss the complaint and permitted the plaintiff to file
an amended complaint, which it did.  

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  On March 13, 2007, the
Court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss.  

Discovery in this litigation is proceeding and is expected to continue
throughout the remainder of 2007 and 2008.

No trial date has been set in this matter, according to the company's Aug. 7,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.  

The suit is "Aviva Partners LLC v. Exide Technologies, et al.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-03098-MLC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Mary L. Cooper, with referral to Judge
John J. Hughes.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Patrick Louis Rocco, Esq.
         Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP
         163 Madison Avenue, P.O. Box 1277
         Morristown, NJ 07962-1277
         Phone: (973) 775-8997
         E-mail: procco@lawssb.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Edward T. Kole, Esq.
         Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, Esqs.
         90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 - Box 10
         Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0958
         Phone: (732) 636-8000
         E-mail: ekole@wilentz.com


FIRST BANCORP: Deposits $61M to Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
First BanCorp said that on August 16, 2007 it deposited $61 million of the
settlement amount required by the "Preliminary Order" issued by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on August 1, 2007.

This previously announced order approved the stipulation of settlement filed
in connection with the proposed settlement of the class action brought on
behalf of First BanCorp's shareholders against the Corporation. The
Corporation is in the process of mailing notices to the shareholders with the
description of the settlement as required by the "Preliminary Order".

The court hearing for the final order of approval of the settlement has been
reset for November 28, 2007. The remaining settlement payment in the amount
of $13,250,000 will be paid before December 31, 2007.

An Aug. 7 issue of the Class Action Reporter reports that the effectiveness
of a final order to be issued for the $74.25 million proposed settlement is
subject to:

    -- the payment of $61 million to be deposited by First
       BanCorp in a settlement fund within fifteen calendar days
       of the date of issuance of the preliminary order; and

    -- the mailing of a notice to shareholders that describes
       the general terms of the settlement.

The suit is "In Re: First BanCorp Securities Litigations, Case No. 3:05-cv-
02148-GAG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
under Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Charles S. Hey-Maestre
          De Jesus, Hey & Vargas Law Office
          1060 Borinquena St.
          Santa Rita Bldg., Suite C-8
          San Juan, PR 00925
          Phone: 787-758-8950
          Fax: 787-758-8911
          E-mail: fedcases@djhv-derechopr.com

          Glenn Carl James-Hernandez
          James Law Offices
          PMB 501, 1353 Rd. 19
          Guaynabo, PR 00966-2700
          Phone: 787-763-2888
          Fax: 787-763-2881
          E-mail: jameslawoffices@centennialpr.net

          Andres W. Lopez
          Andres W. Lopez Law Office
          207 Del Parque St., Third Floor
          San Juan, PR 00912
          Phone: 787-406-9075
          Fax: 787-641-4544
          E-mail: andreswlopez@yahoo.com

          - and -

          PHV Kevin McGee
          Zwerling, Schachter & Swerling, LLP
          595 South Federal Highway, Suite 600
          Boca Raton, FL 33432, US
          Phone: 561-544-2500
          Fax: 561-544-2501
          E-mail: kmcgee@zsz.com

Representing the defendants are:

          PHV Joseph S. Allerhand
          Weil, Gotshal & Manges
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153, US
          Phone: (212) 310-8945
          Fax: (212) 310-8007
          E-mail: joseph.allerhand@weil.com

          - and -

          Eyck O. Lugo-Rivera
          Martinez Odell & Calabria
          P.O. Box 190998
          San Juan, PR 00919-0998
          Phone: 787-274-2903
          Fax: 787-764-5664
          E-mail: elugo@mocpr.com


GIFTCO INC: Recalls Pine Cone Candle Sets Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Giftco Inc., of Vernon Hills, Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 24,000 Gold Pine Cone Candle
Sets.

The company said the candles’ exterior paint and coating can ignite and catch
fire, igniting nearby combustibles.

CPSC has received one report of a flare-up with damage contained to the
candle. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Gold Pine Cone Candles (set of three), Item Numbers 1240
and R1240. The item number is located on the product’s packaging. The set
includes three candles of different sizes that sit on a gold plate.

These recalled gold pine cone candle sets were manufactured in Hong Kong and
are being sold at Christmas stores, school fundraisers, mail order, and
specialty stores nationwide from September 2001 through December 2006 for
between $4 and $25.

Pictures of recalled gold pine cone candle sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07274a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07274b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the candles and contact
Giftco for a full refund.

For additional information, call Giftco at (888) 448-6728 between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.


HERBALIFE INT'L: Settles W.Va. TCPA Violation Lawsuit for $7M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife International, Inc. and certain of its distributors reached a
settlement in a purported class action filed in the Circuit Court of Ohio
County in the State of West Virginia.

Filed on July 16, 2003, the complaint, "Mey v. Herbalife International, Inc.,
et al," alleges that certain telemarketing practices of certain company
distributors violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and seeks to hold
the company vicariously liable for the practices of its distributors.  

More specifically, the plaintiffs' complaint alleges that several of the
company's distributors used pre-recorded telephone messages and autodialers
to contact prospective customers in violation of the TCPA's prohibition of
such practices.

The company's distributors are independent contractors and, if any such
distributors in fact violated the TCPA, they also violated the company's
policies, which require its distributors to comply with all applicable
federal, state and local laws.

On Apr. 21, 2006, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification in West Virginia (Class Action Reporter, May 25,
2006).

The Company and the other defendants have reached a binding settlement with
the plaintiffs.  Under the terms of the settlement the defendants
collectively will pay $7 million into a fund to be distributed to qualifying
class members.

The settlement has received the preliminary approval of the Court and final
approval is expected to be received in January 2008, according to the
company's Aug. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Herbalife International, Inc. -- http://www.herbalife.com/-- is   known for  
its weight loss products.  Herbalife also makes dietary supplements as well
as skin and hair care products.  Its weight management products include
dietary shakes, protein snacks, energy enhancers, appetite suppressants, and
digestive supplements.  The company also offers a variety of supplements that
target men's and women's health, reduce stress, and support immune system
function.  Herbalife sells its plethora of products through a network of more
than 1 million independent distributors located in more than 60 countries.


HERBALIFE INT'L: Still Faces Calif. Unfair Trade Practices Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife International, Inc. and certain of its independent distributors
continue to face a class action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in
California.

On Feb. 17, 2005, a suit, "Minton v. Herbalife International, et al.," was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.  The suit
was served on the company on March 14, 2005.  The company moved to transfer
the case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The suit is challenging the marketing practices of certain Herbalife
International independent distributors and the company under various state
laws prohibiting "endless chain schemes," insufficient disclosure in assisted
marketing plans, unfair and deceptive business practices, and fraud and
deceit.

Plaintiff alleges that the Freedom Group system operated by certain
independent distributors of Herbalife International products places too much
emphasis on recruiting and encourages excessively large purchases of product
and promotional materials by distributors.

Plaintiff also alleges that Freedom Group pressured distributors to
disseminate misleading promotional materials.  Plaintiff seeks to hold the
company vicariously liable for the actions of its independent distributors
and is seeking damages and injunctive relief.

The plaintiff seeks to hold Herbalife International vicariously liable for
the actions of its independent distributors and is seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 6, 2007 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.

Herbalife International, Inc. -- http://www.herbalife.com/-- is known for  
its weight loss products.  Herbalife also makes dietary supplements as well
as skin and hair care products.  Its weight management products include
dietary shakes, protein snacks, energy enhancers, appetite suppressants, and
digestive supplements.  The company also offers a variety of supplements that
target men's and women's health, reduce stress, and support immune system
function.  Herbalife sells its plethora of products through a network of more
than 1 million independent distributors located in more than 60 countries.


LAMPS PLUS: Settles Calif. Suit Over Customers Info Request
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lamps Plus, Inc. (LPI) agrees to settle a proposed class action filed in San
Diego County Superior Court claiming that consumers were requested and/or
required by LPI to provide personal identification information in connection
with a credit card transaction in violation of California Civil Code Section
1747.08(a).

Personal identification information is information concerning the cardholder
other then information set forth on the card, such as address and telephone
number.

Named plaintiff Vincent Finch alleges that LPI unlawfully requested and/or
required this information from the members of the class. LPI denies this
claim.

On July 17, 2007, the settlement was preliminarily approved by the court and
a class was certified for settlement purposes only. The class consists of all
consumers in California who were requested and/or required to provide
personal identification information in connection with a credit card
transaction with Lamps Plus, Inc. between Nov. 9, 2002 and July 17, 2007.

The Settlement enjoins LPI from further requests of any Personal
Identification Information during a credit card transaction, other than a zip
code, and from the use of pre-printed forms containing spaces for the entry
of any Personal Identification Information during a credit card transaction,
however, this injunction shall not apply to LPI's requests for Personal
Identification Information in connection with a return of merchandise as such
requests are reasonable and proper under Civil Code section 1747.08(c)(4) of
the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, as reasonably required for a
special purpose incidental to the return of merchandise, that purpose being
loss prevention, fraud, and theft.

In connection with any such information obtained by LPI in connection with a
return of merchandise, LPI may only use such information for loss prevention,
fraud, and theft purposes, and LPI is further enjoined from maintaining any
such information in a manner that is not secure, from allowing access to or
use of such information except for the purposes stated herein, from selling,
using, or distributing the information except for the purposes stated herein,
and from maintaining the information for a period of time in excess of 12
months after the last day of the month the information was initially obtained
at the time of the return transaction.

Counsel for the settlement class intends to apply for an award of $250,000
for attorneys' fees and costs including a $15,000 incentive award for the
named plaintiff. LPI has agreed not to oppose this application.

Pending final determination of whether the Court should approve the Agreement
and the settlement set forth therein, all proceedings in the Action are
stayed until further order of the Court, except as may be necessary to
effectuate the settlement or comply with the terms of the Agreement.

Pending final determination of whether the Court should approve the
settlement and the Agreement, no person in the Settlement Class or any person
purporting to act on behalf of such persons may, directly, on a
representative basis or in any other capacity, commence or prosecute against
any of the Released Parties any action, arbitration or proceeding in any
court, arbitration forum, or tribunal asserting any of the Released Claims.

Deadline to file for objections and exclusions is on Oct. 1, 2007. Deadline
to file claims is on Oct. 17, 2007.

A final approval hearing will be held on Oct. 26, 2007 at 2 p.m. at the
Department 61 of the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of
California.

Upon court approval of the settlement, a judgment will be entered dismissing
with prejudice and fully and finally settling the action as to plaintiff and
all settlement class members.

The suit is “Vincent Finch et al. v. Lamps Plus, Inc., Case No. GIC 875385,"
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego, under the Honorable John s. Meyer.

For more information, contact:

          Norman B. Blumenthal
          Blumenthal & Nordrehaug
          Phone: 858-551-1223


MATTEL INC: Cal. Lawsuit Seeks Lead Poisoning Test for Children
---------------------------------------------------------------
The attorney whose lawsuit prompted a recall of defective Chinese tires is
filing a class action to compel Mattel Inc. to pay for the testing of
children who might have been lead- poisoned by 1.5 million toxic toys.

On August 14, Mattel recalled 436,000 "Sarge" die-cast vehicles from
its "CARS" line that had been painted with lead paint and offered replacement
products to consumers. Jeffrey Killino, of the Philadelphia firm of Woloshin
& Killino, is filing a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior court in the central
district of California to force Mattel to set up a fund that concerned
parents could access to have their children tested for lead poisoning.

"Recalling the toys is only a first step," Mr. Killino said. "Replacing them
costs Mattel pennies. If Mattel is really concerned about the safety of
children, then it should address the root of the issue -- determining how
many children were affected by these poisoned toys so that they can get
immediate treatment. Only then can parents have true peace of mind."

The Sarge recall affected toys from Mattel manufactured between May 2007 and
July 2007 in the U.S. and elsewhere, because they contained lead paint. This
follows the August 1 recall of 976,000 toys from its Fisher-Price division --
including Dora the Explorer and Sesame Street characters -- produced by Early
Light Industrial Co., Ltd, one of the American company's Chinese contractors.
According to Mattel, Early Light subcontracted the painting of parts of the
toy to another vendor, Hon Li Da (HLD), also in China.

Lead is especially toxic to the developing bodies and brains of children
under the age of seven. Even small amounts of lead can cause irreversible
injuries, including learning disabilities, brain damage, neuropsychological
deficits, hyperactive behavior, which may not appear until many years after
the exposure.

Mr. Killino has advocated for consumers affected by substandard Chinese
products before. In June, a death and injury lawsuit he filed on behalf of
three victims of a fatal rollover crash caused by a defective Chinese-made
tire prompted U.S. tire importer and distributor, Foreign Tire Sales, to ask
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for help in recalling
nearly half a million Chinese-made light truck tire.

When FTS said that it couldn't afford to collect, replace and dispose of the
tires, Mr. Killino filed a class action on behalf of those consumers.
(Eventually, FTS agreed to recall some of the tires. The campaign was
launched this month.)

Mr. Killino also requested members of Congress to make automotive defect
information public and to close a loophole in the regulations regarding
importers' ability to recall defective products.

For more information, contact:

          Jeffrey Killino, Esq.
          Woloshin & Killino
          Phone: +1-215-569-2711
                 +1-215-840-2020


MURPHY OIL: Aug. 28 Hearing Set for Suit Over 2003 Fire in La.
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Aug. 28, 2007 hearing is scheduled for a consolidated class action against
Murphy Oil Corp., relating to a June 10, 2003 fire that severely damaged the
Residual Oil Supercritical Extraction (ROSE) unit at the Company's Meraux,
Louisiana refinery.

The ROSE unit recovers feedstock from the heavy fuel oil stream for
conversion into gasoline and diesel.  

Subsequent to the fire, numerous class actions have been filed seeking
damages for area residents.  All the lawsuits have been administratively
consolidated into a single legal action in St.
Bernard Parish, Louisiana, except for one action filed in federal court.  

On May 5, 2004, plaintiffs in the consolidated action in St. Bernard Parish
amended their petition to include a direct action against certain of the
Company’s liability insurers.  

The St. Bernard Parish action has since been removed to federal court where a
class certification hearing is scheduled for Aug. 28, 2007, according to the
company's Aug. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

Murphy Oil Corp. -- http://www.murphyoilcorp.com-- is a global oil and gas  
exploration, and production company with refining and marketing operations in
North America and the United Kingdom.  The Company's operations are
classified into two business activities: Exploration and Production, and
Refining and Marketing.  

Murphy's exploration and production activities are subdivided into six
geographic segments, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom,
Ecuador, Malaysia and all other countries.  Its refining and marketing
activities are subdivided into geographic segments for North America and
United Kingdom.  The Company's exploration and production business explores
for and produces crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids worldwide.  
Murphy's refining and marketing businesses primarily consist of operations
that refine crude oil and other feedstocks into petroleum products, and
transport and market petroleum products.


STANDARD PACIFIC: Executive Accused of Securities Laws Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A claim has been filed August 16, 2007, in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:07-cv-05364 MMM, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased the common stock of Standard Pacific Corp.
between October 27, 2005 and August 2, 2007.

The Complaint charges Andrew H. Parnes, Executive Vice President of finance,
with violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff claims that defendant's
misleading statements or omissions concerning Standard Pacific's business and
prospects caused the Company's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Standard Pacific shareholders
and is represented by several law firms, including Lee Hong Degerman Kang &
Schmadeka.

For more information, contact:

          Joon M. Khang, Esq.
          Lee Hong Degerman Kang & Schmadeka
          660 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, California 90017
          Phone: (213) 623-2221


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Sued Over “Elite” Doctor Classification Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group is facing a suit aimed at stopping it from implementing a
classification program for affiliated doctors that a group of Connecticut
physicians say would be disadvantageous to non-affiliated doctors.

The suit was filed by the Fairfield County Medical Assoc. in Danbury Superior
Court against Cigna Corp., UnitedHealth Group, and Oxford Health Insurance, a
participant in the UnitedHealth program.

The suit says the companies plan to designate affiliated endocrinologists,
dermatologists, obstetricians and other specialists as elite, and charge
patients who see them lower copayments to cut costs.

The elite classification is damaging the reputations of physicians who are
not designated by the insurers, Stephen Singer reports for Forbes.  The
companies allegedly want to seek greater profits by steering patients to
specialists who provide care at a lower cost without regard to quality,
according to Mr. Singer.

"As such, the programs are a fraud upon the public and a libel against the
plaintiff physicians," the 1,800-member medical association said.

The lawsuit also seeks monetary damages yet to be determined.

Jeffrey Carton and Barry Cepelewicz, White Plains, N.Y., are lawyers who
represent the Fairfield County Medical Association.


WILLIAMS COS: Colo. Royalty Interest Owners' Suit Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A suit filed against The Williams Companies, Inc. over calculation of oil and
gas royalty payments to royalty interest owners in Garfield County, Colorado
continues to be stayed.

In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County, Colorado,
filed a class action in Colorado state court alleging that the company
improperly calculated oil and gas royalty payments, failed to account for the
proceeds that the company received from the sale of gas and extracted
products, improperly charged certain expenses, and failed to refund amounts
withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations.

The plaintiffs claim that the class might be in excess of 500 individuals and
seek an accounting and damages.  The parties have agreed to stay this action
in order to participate in ongoing mediation.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2007.  

Williams Companies, Inc. -- http://www.williams.com/-- is a natural gas  
company, which primarily finds, produces, gathers, processes and transports
natural gas.  It also manages a wholesale power business.  Its operations are
concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountains, Gulf Coast, Southern
California and Eastern Seaboard.  


WMG ACQUISITION: Seeks to Junk Suit Over Music Download Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
WMG Acquisition Corp., a subsidiary of Warner Music Group Corp., is seeking
for the dismissal of a consolidated class action in New York over the pricing
of digital music downloads.  

More than thirty putative class actions concerning the pricing of digital
music downloads have been filed.  

On Aug. 15, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated
these actions for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleges
conspiracy among record companies to delay the release of their content for
digital distribution, inflate their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital
downloads.  The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and
treble damages.

All defendants, including the Company, filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on July 30, 2007.  That motion, will likely be
argued during the latter part of 2007, according to the company.

Warner Music Group Corp. -- http://www.wmg.com--  is a music content company  
that classifies its business interests into two areas: Recorded Music and
Music Publishing.  The Recorded Music business produces revenue through the
marketing, sale and licensing of recorded music in various physical (such as
compact disc's, cassettes, long playings and digital versatile discs) and
digital (such as downloads and ringtones) formats.


* Intel Urged to Withdraw California Ballot Initiative
-------------------------------------------------------
More than a dozen civil rights leaders including Connie Rice with the
Advancement Project, SCLC's Reverend Eric Lee, Stewart Kwoh at the Asian
Pacific American Legal Center and Eva Patterson of the Equal Justice Society
called on technology giant Intel in a letter sent Aug. 16 to withdraw a
California ballot initiative that would devastate the class action system as
a tool for civil rights enforcement.

"Your initiative removes vital class action protections specifically intended
to allow U.S. citizens to defend their civil rights," wrote the civil rights
leaders. "We must view this initiative as an attack on the civil rights of
Californians."

Read the letter: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/intelltr.pdf

The letter followed Intel's withdrawal of an advertisement that drew fire for
being racially offensive. The ad features six African American men bowed at
the waist before a smiling white manager. Intel's apology for the ad noted
that the men, dressed as sprinters, were meant to represent speed.

"You recently recognized how an advertising campaign misusing the images of
African American athletes was insensitive and deserved to be withdrawn. We
hope you will again thoughtfully respond by recognizing the unintended
consequences of CJAC's proposed initiative and withdraw it," wrote the
activists.

See Intel's print ad: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporate/faxintel/

Watch the public respond in this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=c0FWLv0-82w

"The pending ballot measure proposed by the organization you now chair, the
so-called Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC), could virtually
eliminate the class action lawsuit as a tool for civil rights enforcement,"
said the letter.

"Class action lawsuits have played a fundamental role in civil rights
activism in America. The historic Brown v. Board of Education led to the
desegregation of American schools. The 1990s saw the Denny's restaurant chain
hire a civil rights monitor and require racial sensitivity training after a
lawsuit held it responsible for overcharging, ignoring and refusing to serve
African American patrons. Consumers in 2007 are using class action lawsuits
to take on the new front line in redlining -- the use of credit scores as a
proxy for race and income in insurance pricing and underwriting."

The letter was sent to Intel CEO Paul Otellini and the company's board of
directors by: Connie Rice, Advancement Project, Rev. Eric P. Lee, SCLC, Eva
Paterson, Equal Justice Society, Stewart Kwoh, Asian Pacific American Legal
Center, Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Community Coalition, Assembly Majority
Leader Karen Bass, Robert Rubin, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the
San Francisco Bay Area, Kevin M. Keenan, ACLU of San Diego & Imperial
Counties, Ramona Ripston, ACLU of Southern California, Brad Seligman, The
Impact Fund, Andrew Mudryk, Protection & Advocacy, Inc., John F. O'Toole,
National Center for Youth Law, Jamienne S. Studley, Public Advocates, Inc.,
and Alan Schlosser, ACLU of Northern California.

The ballot measure would limit civil rights, worker and consumer protections
by:

     -- Rigging the playing field in favor of big business by
        requiring evidence of wrongdoing before a case can move  
        forward, but taking away consumers' and employees'
        existing right to gather that evidence;

     -- Allowing lawsuits to be dismissed if a government agency
        is supposed to regulate the industry, even when the
        bureaucrats and political appointees responsible lack
        the resources, or simply refuse to take action to stop
        the wrongdoing;

     -- Permitting rich and powerful defendants to delay trials
        for years by allowing unjustified appeals at the
        beginning of a case;

     -- Delaying justice, costing taxpayers twice as much and
        clogging the courts by requiring plaintiffs to file two
        separate lawsuits if they want to both stop an   
        outrageous practice and receive refunds or be
        compensated for any damage they have suffered;

     -- Intimidating low-wage employees by requiring individual
        members of a lawsuit be identified and exposed to
        possible retribution by their employers for joining an
        action about working conditions, or refusing to abandon
        their complaints.

Read The Impact Fund's analysis of the initiative's impact on civil rights
litigation, as submitted to California state officials:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/seligmananalysis.pdf

Read FTCR's analysis of the initiative, also submitted to the California
Legislative Analyst's Office:

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/FTCR-Ltr-LAO_8-7-07.pdf.


                   Securities Fraud Cases


LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Limelight Networks, Inc. (LLNW) from the date
of the Company's initial public offering on June 8, 2007 through August 8,
2007, inclusive.

The suit was filed against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters of the IPO, alleging violations under Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. ss. 77k.

This Complaint asserts that Limelight's Prospectus contained both material
misstatements and omissions, which plaintiff and the Class relied upon to
their detriment. The representations made in the Company's Prospectus were
materially false and misleading because at the time of the IPO, Limelight was
already suffering from several adverse factors that were not revealed and/or
adequately addressed in the document.

These factors include, but are not limited to, that Defendants knew of but
did not disclose seasonal drop-offs in Limelight's business attributed to
television industry operations and the Company's need to deeply discount
prices because of customers' refusal to pay premium rates during those times
of the year. Both factors were already causing a material adverse affect on
Limelight's business and may continue to affect the Company's viability going-
forward.

The Director Defendants (as defined in the complaint) and Limelight's
underwriters could have - and should have - discovered the material
misstatements and omissions in the Company's Prospectus prior to its filing
with the SEC and distribution to the investing public. Instead, they failed
to do so as a result of a negligent and grossly inadequate due diligence
investigation. The adverse factors affecting Limelight's business were first
revealed on August 9, 2007, in a teleconference convened by Limelight
management and a Company issued press release announcing results for the
quarter ended June 30, 2007.

The August 9, 2007, announcements forecast a weak current quarter due to
seasonality and pricing pressure, which caused the price of Limelight's
common stock to plunge 40% in a single day, to close at $8.99 from the
previous day's price of $14.80. Limelight's stock continued its sharp decline
on August 10, 2007, closing at $7.94, culminating in a total loss of $6.86,
or a staggering 46%, in just two days.

As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading statements set
forth in the complaint, the market price of Limelight common stock was
artificially inflated during the Class Period. In ignorance of the false and
misleading nature of the statements described above, and the deceptive and
manipulative devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiffs
and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on the
integrity of the market price of Limelight common stock. Had plaintiffs and
the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased
said common stock, or would not have purchased them at the inflated prices
that were paid.

The case name is styled “Weernink v. Limelight Networks, Inc., et al.”  A
copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or
can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at
http://www.whafh.com.

Lead plaintiff deadline is October 12, 2007.

For more information, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Laurence J. Hasson, Esq.
          Derek Behnke
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
          Phone: (800) 575-0735
          E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com


LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Klafter & Olsen LLP filed a securities class-action complaint against
Limelight Networks, Inc. (LLNW) and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 07-CIV-
7394) on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of Limelight
during the period June 8, 2007 through August 8, 2007.

Lead plaintiff filing deadline is October 12, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that defendants, including the Company's top executives
and the co-lead underwriters of Limelight's initial public offering, Goldman,
Sachs & Co., and Morgan Stanley & Co., violated the federal securities laws
by issuing a materially misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus in
connection with Limelight's June 8, 2007 IPO.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus:

     (i) omitted that Limelight was experiencing a seasonal
         decline in sales in June and misrepresented that the
         Company had not "identified any seasonal fluctuations
         in [its] quarterly results"; and

    (ii) did not warn investors that Limelight had already been
         forced to heavily discount its service offerings and
         even had to walk away from sales because the requested
         discounts were too great thereby adversely impacting
         Limelight's business in the second quarter and beyond.

When the truth about these matters was revealed before the market opened on
August 9, 2007, Limelight Networks shares plummeted nearly 40% on more than
seven times its average volume. Limelight's shares have not recovered.

For more information, contact:  

          Kurt B. Olsen, Esq.
          Klafter & Olsen LLP
          Phone: +1-202-261-3553
          Web site: http://www.klafterolsen.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  * * *