CAR_Public/070823.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, August 23, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 167

                            Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal Against $75M Settlement Withdrawn
CORN PRODUCTS: Ill. Court Okays $6M Securities Suit Settlement
EBAY INC: Customers File Lawsuit Over Alleged Auction Fraud
FIRST DATA: Settles Consolidated Lawsuits Over “Omaha” Merger
FORD MOTOR: Former Engineer Testifies in Suit Over Explorers

HAMPTON DIRECT: Recalls Magnetic Train with High Levels of Lead
HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Fla.
HILB ROGAL: Court Junks Va. Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal
INDONESIA: Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Anti-Terror Squad
LIGGETT GROUP: Decertification of Tobacco Ad Lawsuit Appealed

LIGGETT GROUP: Sept. Hearing Set in “Cleary” Tobacco Ad Suit
LLOYDS TSB: Settles Suit Over Midland Euro Fiasco for $17M
MATTEL INC: Recalls Barbie, Tanner Toys Over Loose Magnets
MISSOURI: Students File Suit Aiming to Block MOHELA Asset Sale
OHIO: Hamilton County Settles Suit Over Morgue Photos for $8M

PHARMOS CORP: Nov. Hearing Set for $7M N.J. Securities Suit Deal
PHILLIPS PETROLEUM: Appeals Court Upholds Class in Okla. Suit
SANDISK CORP: Cal. Flash Memory Suit Settlement Under Appeal
SANDISK CORP: Still Faces Calif. Suits by msystems Shareholders
SEALED AIR: Seeks Dismissal of Claims in N.J. Securities Lawsuit

SIX FLAGS: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Labor-Related Litigation
SOUTHERN COPPER: Still Faces Del. Suit Over Minera Mexico Merger
TENNESSESSE VALLEY: Settles “Economy Surplus Power” Suit for $8M
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Motion to Junk Minn. Securities Suit Denied
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Hearing on Bid to Junk 401(k) Suit Set Sept.

UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Settles Tenn. Securities Fraud Suit for $40M
UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Tenn. 401(k) Suit Settlement Awaits Approval


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HIMAX TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit
LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
RAIT FINANCIAL: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit

THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Lawsuit


                            *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal Against $75M Settlement Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------
A group appealing a $75 million settlement of a suit over alleged hidden
fees charged by American Express Co. for converting foreign currencies has
dropped their motion, according to Josh Gerstein of New York Sun.

Amex agreed to pay the group more than $3 million to drop appeals claiming
that the deal shortchanged consumers, the report stated.

According to the report, legal experts say the resolution highlights two
potential abuses in class action litigation:

“Objecting lawyers can obtain legal fees by standing in the way of a
settlement, whether or not their gripes about the deal have merit. And
when a settlement is legally flawed, businesses can avoid having an
appeals court review the matter simply by offering extra cash to those
diligent enough to pursue an appeal.”

The appeal was led by Texas lawyer Michael Caddell of Caddell & Chapman in
Houston.  The appeal was filed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
11th Circuit.

The company was named in several purported class actions in various state
courts alleging that the company violated the respective state's laws by
wrongfully collecting amounts assessed on converting transactions made in
foreign currencies to U.S. dollars and/or failing to properly disclose the
existence of such amounts in its Cardmember agreements and billing
statements.

The plaintiffs in the actions seek, among other remedies, injunctive
relief, money damages and/or attorneys' fees on their own behalf and on
behalf of the putative class of persons similarly situated.

In December 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted final approval of a nationwide class action settlement to
resolve all lawsuits and allegations with respect to the company's
collection and disclosure of fees assessed on transactions made in foreign
currencies in the case, "Lipuma v. American Express Bank, American Express
Travel Related Services Co., Inc. and American Express Centurion Bank,"
which was filed in August 2003.

The settlement approved by the court calls for the company to:

      -- deposit $75 million into a fund that will be used to
         reimburse class members with valid claims, make certain
         contributions to charitable organizations to be
         identified later and pay attorneys' fees; and

      -- make certain changes to the disclosures in its
         Cardmember agreements and billing statements regarding
         its foreign currency conversion practices (which it has
         already done).

The company had previously established reserves to cover the payment that
will be made to reimburse class members and pay attorneys' fees.

The court's approval order enjoins all other proceedings that make related
allegations pending a final approval hearing including, but not limited to
these cases:

     (1) Environmental Law Foundation, et al. v. American
         Express Co., et al., Superior Court of Alameda
         County, California (filed March 2003);

     (2) Rubin v. American Express Co. and American Express
         Travel Related Services Co., Inc., Circuit Court of
         Madison County, Illinois (filed April 2003);

     (3) Angie Arambula, et al. v. American Express Co., et
         al., District Court of Cameron County, Texas, 103rd
         Judicial District (filed May 2003);

     (4) Fuentes v. American Express Travel Related Services
         Co., Inc. and American Express Co., District
         Court of Hidalgo County, Texas (filed May 2003);

     (5) Wick v. American Express Co., et al., Circuit Court
         of Cook County, Illinois (filed May 2003);

     (6) Bernd Bildstein v. American Express Co., et al.,
         Supreme Court of Queens County, New York (filed June
         2003);

     (7) Janowitz v. American Express Co., et al., Circuit
         Court of Cook County, Illinois (filed September 2003);

     (8) Paul v. American Express Co., et al., Superior
         Court of Orange County, California (filed January
         2004); and

     (9) Ball v. American Express, et al., Superior Court of San
         Joaquin, California (filed August 2004).

American Express Co. on the Net:
https://home.americanexpress.com/.


CORN PRODUCTS: Ill. Court Okays $6M Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois gave
preliminary approval to a proposed settlement of a consolidated securities
class action filed against Corn Products International, Inc. and certain
of its officers.

Between May and June of 2005, the company, Samuel Scott and Cheryl Beebe
were named as defendants in five purported securities class actions filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The
plaintiffs are:

       -- Monty Blatt
       -- Dale Anderson
       -- Adam Shapiro
       -- Neil Hildebrand, and
       -- Philip Brust

The complaints, alleging violations of certain federal securities laws,
seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
company's common stock between Jan. 25, 2005 and April 4, 2005.

Plaintiffs alleged that the company made false and misleading statements
and omissions of material facts based on its disclosure regarding earnings
projections and operating margins, claiming alleged violations by each
named defendant of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleged
violations by certain of the company's officers of Section 20A of U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In August 2005, all of these class actions were consolidated in the matter
of "Monty Blatt v. Corn Products International, Inc.
(N.D. Ill. 05 C 3033)."

In November 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
containing essentially the same legal claims.  Cheryl Beebe was not named
as a defendant in the consolidated amended complaint.

In August 2006, the company answered the consolidated amended complaint
and in October 2006 the plaintiffs moved for class certification.  A
limited amount of discovery has taken place to date.

On June 19, 2007, the court preliminarily approved an agreement to settle
this case.

Under the terms of the settlement we agreed to make payments to claimants
and counsel totaling $6.6 million, most of which we expect to be covered
by insurance.

The suit is "Blatt v. Corn Products International, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-03033," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois under Judge James B. Zagel.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: (631) 367-7100

Representing the defendants are:

          Nathan P. Eimer, Esq.
          Eimer Stahl Klevorn & Solberg, LLP,
          224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 660-7600
          E-mail: neimer@eimerstahl.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Kopecky, Esq.
          Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
          200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 6100
          Chicago, IL 60601,
          Phone: (312) 861-2000
          E-mail: rkopecky@kirkland.com


EBAY INC: Customers File Lawsuit Over Alleged Auction Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP filed a class action against online
auction site eBay on behalf of customers whose auctions did not start when
their listing was submitted, and paid for but did not receive the full
duration of auction time that they selected.

"eBay has been deceiving millions of consumers over the years by claiming
their auctions start when submitted, when in reality they do not begin for
at least several hours, and up to 24 hours," said John Fabry, the Williams
Kherkher attorney who is leading the litigation. "However, the clock
starts running on your selected auction time even though eBay hasn't
posted it yet."

The suit focuses on violations of various provisions of California
statutes intended to protect consumers, as well as common law. The suit
seeks injunctive relief and damages for the class. It is estimated that
there are millions of eBay consumers that have been affected by eBay's
course of conduct.

For more information, contact:

          Sean O'Connell
          Williams Kherkher Hart Boundas, LLP
          Phone: +1-713-230-2263
          E-mail: soconnell@williamskherkher.com
          Website: http://www.williamskherkher.com


FIRST DATA: Settles Consolidated Lawsuits Over “Omaha” Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Data Corp. and other defendants have reached a settlement for two
consolidated class actions related to a merger agreement with New Omaha
Holdings L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, and its wholly-owned
subsidiary Omaha Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation, according to
First Data Corp.'s Aug. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.

On April 1, 2007, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
with New Omaha and Omaha Acquisition Corp.  New Omaha is controlled by
affiliates of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.

Four purported class actions were filed against the Company and its
directors challenging the process.

On May 23, 2007, one additional purported class action was filed in the
District Court for Arapahoe County, Colorado.  It was filed by Feivel
Gottlieb against:

     -- Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., LLP,
     -- Henry C. Duques,
     -- Daniel P. Burnham,
     -- David A. Coulter,
     -- Alison Davis,
     -- Peter B. Ellwood,
     -- Courtney F. Jones,
     -- Richard P. Kiphart,
     -- James D. Robinson III,
     -- Charles T. Russell,
     -- Joan E. Spero,
     -- Arthur F. Weinbach,
     -- First Data Corp.

The complaint generally alleges that the Company and members of the
Company’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company’s stockholders by approving a merger agreement with an affiliate
of KKR that provides inadequate consideration to stockholders.

The complaint also alleges that the members of the Board of Directors have
conflicts of interest with respect to the pending merger; that the
termination fee provided for in the merger agreement is improper; and that
KKR aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties.

The complaint generally seeks, among other things:

       -- class certification;

       -- an order enjoining consummation of the merger under
          the present terms or rescinding it;

       -- imposition of a constructive trust upon any improper
          benefits received by defendants; damages and costs;
          and

       -- any other relief the court may deem appropriate.

On May 8, 2007 and June 14, 2007, respectively, “Morton Smith Trust v.
First Data Corp., et al.,” and “Gottlieb v. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
et al.” were consolidated with “Pappas v. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co, et
al.” for all purposes.

On May 25, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss or stay the consolidated
cases.

On June 22, 2007, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin
consummation of the Merger and the dissemination of a definitive proxy
statement and for expedited discovery.

On May 10, 2007, “Larson v. First Data Corp., et al.,” and “Ex rel. Will
of Rosenman v. First Data Corp., et al.” were consolidated for all
purposes.

On June 25, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended compliant that alleged that
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Company stockholders by
disseminating a preliminary proxy statement with material omissions.

On July 30, 2007, the parties to these two consolidated cases entered into
a memorandum of understanding.

Under the terms of the memorandum, the Company, the other named
defendants, and plaintiffs have agreed to settle the consolidated actions
subject to court approval.

The Company and the other defendants deny the allegations in both
consolidated actions, and deny having committed, or having aided and
abetted, any violation of law or breach of duty.

The memorandum provides for dismissal of the Colorado actions with
prejudice upon approval of a stipulation of settlement by the Colorado
court, to be followed by consensual dismissal with prejudice of the
Delaware actions.

Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum, the Company acknowledged that the
consolidated actions resulted in a decision to provide additional
information to shareholders in the definitive proxy statement concerning
the pending merger, and agreed to pay certain attorneys’ fees, costs, and
expenses incurred by plaintiffs.

First Data Corp. -- http://www.firstdatacorp.com-- operates electronic
commerce, payment services and customer account management businesses.
FDC has four main business segments:
First Data Commercial Services Segment, First Data Financial
Institution Services Segment, First Data International Segment and
Integrated Payment Systems Segment, and a fifth segment, known as All
Other and Corporate.


FORD MOTOR: Former Engineer Testifies in Suit Over Explorers
------------------------------------------------------------
An automotive engineer from Houston who helped Ford Motor Co. design the
Explorer when he was still with the company has testified before the
Sacramento that the Explorer was a safe vehicle, The Sacramento Bee
reports.

Mr. Tandy presented video tapes of tests performed that showed the cars
careening and skidding but never flipping.  It tipped up on two wheels
only when outfitted with oversized tires and the front and rear tires were
inflated to different pressures, according to the report.

"The Explorer has a high resistance to rollover and will perform very well
if used in a reasonable way," Tandy testified under questioning by Ford
lawyer Edward Stewart of Denver.

Arkansas lawyer Tab Turner also questioned Mr. Tandy.  He suggested the
company had discarded valuable evidence.  He said the prototype vehicle
was sent to a test tract, but the company later reverted to computer
simulations to approve the Explorer as safe and ready for production.  He
wanted to know why the data used in those simulations had been deleted,
making it impossible for anyone to know what criteria, such as tire sizes,
had been used in the computer models, according to the report.

Mr. Turner said the test track conditions used by Mr. Tandy did not
simulate the real-world emergency conditions that had caused Explorer
rollovers with deaths and injuries.

                        Case Background

The class action was brought on behalf of all people and entities residing
in California who bought, owned or leased, a new or used 1991-2001 model
year Ford Explorer in California between 1990 and August 9, 2000, and who
either still own their Explorer or who sold, ended their lease, or
otherwise disposed of it after August 9, 2000.

Filed in 2003, plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed that defendant,
Ford Motor Co., violated California's statutory Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.

Plaintiffs say that Ford knew about a dangerous design flaw that made the
Explorer unsafe and too likely to roll over, yet concealed it, and instead
marketed and sold the Explorer as a safe vehicle.

The plaintiffs want class members to get compensation from Ford for the
excess money they say they paid for their Explorers, as well as money from
the profits Ford earned on California Explorer sales, and other legal
costs.

Sacramento Superior Judge David De Alba is hearing the case without a jury.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers are urging Judge Alba to rule on their motion to
recover some $2.135 billion once he finds that the company’s behaviors are
"reprehensible and highly profitable."

On April 23, 2007 class counsel requested that the court voluntarily and
permanently dismiss, with prejudice, the claims against Ford for
violations of the CLRA.

Ford continues to deny all the claims and allegations in the lawsuit.

Ford Explorer Cases on the net: http://www.explorercasuit.com

Copies of the 2003 Complaint, the detailed notice and an updated notice
are available free of charge at:

               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?202a
               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?202b
               http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?202c

The case is "Ford Explorer Cases, JCCP Nos. 4226 and 4270."

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Henry Rossbacher, Esq.
          The Rossbacher Firm
          611 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1650
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (213) 895-6500
          Fax: (213) 895-6161
          E-mail: hhr@rossbacher.xhost.com
          Web site: http://www.rossbacherlaw.com


HAMPTON DIRECT: Recalls Magnetic Train with High Levels of Lead
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hampton Direct, of Williston, Vermont, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 27,000 magnetic toy
train sets.

The company said the paint on the trains contains excessive amounts of
lead, posing a risk of lead exposure to young children. No injuries have
been reported.

This recall involves Magnetic Alphabet and Number train sets. The train
sets include a wooden engine, caboose, letters and numbers. The miniature
train sets are sold in a rainbow of colors and have either a letter or
number attached to the top of a base with four wooden wheels. The alphabet
train set contains 28 pieces, and the number train set contains 12 pieces.
Each car in the train set is 2 1/2 x 2 1/2 x 2 inches in size.

These recalled magnetic toy train sets were manufactured in China and are
being sold by Johnson Smith Company, The Paragon Gifts Inc., and Starcrest
Products of California catalogues nationwide from December 2005 through
July 2007 for about $30.

Picture of recalled magnetic toy train sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07570.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using and dispose of the recalled trains.
Consumers of record will receive a free replacement train.

For additional information, contact Hampton Direct at (800) 208-4050
between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.hamptondirect.com- consumers can also e-mail the firm at
trainrecall@hamptondirect.com.


HEALTH MANAGEMENT: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
Health Management Associates, Inc. is facing a purported securities fraud
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.

On Aug. 2, 2007, the Company and three of its senior executive officers
and directors were named as parties to a putative class action lawsuit,
styled, “Florence Cole et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et
al.”

The action purports to be brought on behalf of all similarly situated
persons who purchased the Company’s securities during the period Jan. 17,
2007 through July 30, 2007.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations and/or
omitting to disclose material information during the Class Period, thereby
artificially inflating the price of the Company’s securities.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things:

       -- a determination that the action is a proper class
          action and

       -- awards for damages and interest, reasonable costs and
          expenses.

Additional similar actions have been brought subsequently and other
similar actions may be brought in the future against the Company and its
officers and directors, 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 “Cole v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-00484-MMH-SPC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under Judge Marcia Morales Howard with referral to
Judge Sheri Polster Chappell.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          Roy Jacobs & Associates
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 212/867-1156
          Fax: 212/504-8343

          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
          Abbey & Gardy, LLP
          2l2 E. 39th St.
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: 212/889-3700

          Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
          Paskowitz & Associates
          60 E. 42 nd St., 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 212/685-0969

               - and -

          Maya S. Saxena, Esq.
          Saxena White P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431-7781
          Phone: 561/394-3399
          Fax: 561/394-3382
          E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com


HILB ROGAL: Court Junks Va. Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed plaintiffs'
appeal against the dismissal of the purported class action, "Iron Workers
Local 16 Pension Fund v. Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. et al., Case No.
1:05-cv-00735-GBL-TCB."

The purported securities fraud class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co.
and certain of its officers.

The Iron Workers Local 16 Pension Fund has filed a putative class action
complaint against the company and Andrew L. Rogal, Martin L. Vaughan, III,
Timothy J. Korman, Carolyn Jones, Robert W. Blanton, Jr. and Robert B.
Lockhart.

The plaintiff alleges violations by each of the defendants of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and violations by the individual defendants of
Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In October 2005, the appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended putative
class action complaint.

On April 27, 2006, an order was entered granting the defendants’ motion
and dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice.

On May 23, 2006, the plaintiff appealed this order to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

On May 22, 2007, the Fourth Circuit entered an order dismissing the
plaintiff’s appeal, 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 "Iron Workers Local 16 Pension Fund v. Hilb Rogal &
Hobbs Co. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00735-GBL-TCB," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, under
Judge Gerald Bruce Lee.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Benjamin Joseph Weir, Esq.
         Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran
         1050 30th St NW, Washington, DC 20007, Phone:
         (202) 337-8000

              - and -

         Harvey B. Cohen, Esq.
         Miles & Stockbridge, PC
         1751 Pinnacle Dr., Suite 500
         McLean, VA 22102-3833
         Phone: (703) 903-9000

Representing the defendant is:

         Terence James Rasmussen, Esq.
         Hunton & Williams, LLP
         951 E. Byrd St., Riverfront Plaza
         Richmond, VA 23219
         Phone: (804) 788-8200


INDONESIA: Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Anti-Terror Squad
------------------------------------------------------------
An Indonesian court dismissed a class action asking the government to
dissolve a special anti-terror team that has taken into custody hundreds
of terrorist suspects in the country, Mike Rosen-Molina of the JURIST
reports.

In June, a team for the Defense of Muslims attorneys and militant cleric
Abu Bakar Ba'asyir filed the suit in the South Jakarta District Court
alleging that the U.S.-funded counter-terrorism squad Detachment 88, made
arbitrary arrests.  It demanded the court to “declare the actions of the
antiterrorism squad ... against the law and as gross human rights
violations” (Class Action Reporter, June 29, 2007).

The suit alleges discrimination by the squad, with only Muslims targeted,
alongside claims Detachment 88 members have tortured suspects.

One of the attorneys who filed the suit said many of the arrested
terrorist suspects claimed to have been tortured in order for them to
confess and gather information.

The detachment had allegedly broken Article 28 of the 1945 Constitution
which guaranteed every citizen's right to be free of torture in physical
or mental sense and classified it as an inalienable right.

Detachment 88 had breached the law because it had resorted to physical and
mental violence in its actions to arrest terror suspects and, in fact,
committed gross human right violations, Mr. Munarman, a member of the
Special Detachment 88 Prisoners Advocacy Team, said.

In July, Indonesia's National Police attempted to have the lawsuit out of
court on technical grounds (Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2007).

Lawyer Rudy Heriyanto handed up the National Police Chief's written
argument to the South Jakarta District Court, arguing the case didn't meet
the technical requirements of a class action.

The court dismissed the class action, ruling that the allegations that the
department violated human rights by targeting Muslims and torturing
suspects were too vague to proceed.

The court said that Mr. Ba'asyir’s lawsuit against the anti-terror unit
did not meet the legal requirements to go forward.

LIGGETT GROUP: Decertification of Tobacco Ad Lawsuit Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on a petition to review the decertification of “Brown v. The
American Tobacco Co., Inc.,” which names Liggett Group LLC, a subsidiary
of Vector Group Ltd., as a defendant, is now complete.

The suit was filed on April 2001 in a California state court.    It was
later be granted class-action status.  In essence, the court certified a
class comprised of adult residents of California who smoked at least one
of defendants’ cigarettes “during the applicable time period” and who were
exposed to defendants’ marketing and advertising activities in California.

In March 2005, the court granted defendants’ motion to decertify the class
based on a recent change in California law.

In October 2006, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the
California Supreme Court, which was granted in November 2006.  Briefing is
complete, 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.

Vector Group Ltd. -- http://www.vectorgroupltd.com/-- is a holding
company for a number of businesses through its wholly owned subsidiary,
VGR Holding Inc.  Vector Group is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes in the United States through its subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC;
and the development and marketing of the low-nicotine and nicotine-free
QUEST cigarette products and the development of reduced risk cigarette
products through its subsidiary, Vector Tobacco Inc., and the real estate
business through its subsidiary, New Valley LLC (New Valley), which owns
50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC.  Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC operates
as a residential brokerage company in the New York metropolitan area.


LIGGETT GROUP: Sept. Hearing Set in “Cleary” Tobacco Ad Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 6, 2007 hearing is scheduled for the purported class action,
“Cleary v. Philip Morris, Inc.,” which names Liggett Group LLC, a
subsidiary of Vector Group Ltd., as a defendant.

The suit was filed on June 1998 in Illinois state court.  It was brought
on behalf of persons who have allegedly been injured by:

       -- the defendants’ purported conspiracy pursuant to which
          defendants allegedly concealed material facts
          regarding the addictive nature of nicotine;

       -- the defendants’ alleged acts of targeting their
          advertising and marketing to minors; and

       -- the defendants’ claimed breach of the public’s right
          to defendants’ compliance with laws prohibiting the
          distribution of cigarettes to minors.

The plaintiffs request that the defendants be required to disgorge all
profits unjustly received through their sale of cigarettes to plaintiffs,
which in no event will be greater than $75,000 each, inclusive of punitive
damages, interest and costs.

In July 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.
Merits discovery is stayed pending a ruling by the court on class
certification.

A class certification hearing is scheduled for Sept. 6, 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.

Vector Group Ltd. -- http://www.vectorgroupltd.com/-- is a holding
company for a number of businesses through its wholly owned subsidiary,
VGR Holding Inc.  Vector Group is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
cigarettes in the United States through its subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC;
and the development and marketing of the low-nicotine and nicotine-free
QUEST cigarette products and the development of reduced risk cigarette
products through its subsidiary, Vector Tobacco Inc., and the real estate
business through its subsidiary, New Valley LLC (New Valley), which owns
50% of Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC.  Douglas Elliman Realty, LLC operates
as a residential brokerage company in the New York metropolitan area.


LLOYDS TSB: Settles Suit Over Midland Euro Fiasco for $17M
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.K. bank LLoyds TSB, Man Financial, and accounting firm Kaplan, Swicker &
Simha reached an out of court agreement to settle for $17 million (EUR12.3
million) a class action over their roles in the Midland Euro Exchange
trading scheme, William Wright of Financial News Online reports.

The settlement includes $12.5 million from Lloyds and $4.14 million from
Man, according to Reuters.

The settlement had already been preliminarily approved by the court, with
final approval expected in October.

Ralph Gonzales, who purports to represent the investors who had lost $95
million in Midland Euro, brought the suit in 2006, alleging that the
companies helped Midland Euro commit fraud at the expense of the investors
and continued to do so despite knowledge of the scheme.

The court did not rule in favor or against the plaintiff.

The report cited a statement by the US attorney’s office in California
that states “Midland Euro typically claimed to its investors that the
company would generate guarantee monthly returns of between 2% and 4%, and
that between 40% and 85% of the initial investment was guaranteed against
losses.”

“Instead, less than 20% of the fund was invested in foreign currencies,
and the rest was used by the two principals at Midland Euro, Zvi Leichner
and his father Moshe, to fund their extravagant lifestyle,” it said.

In May 2005, Zvi Leichner was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison,
and his father was sentenced to 20 years in prison.


MATTEL INC: Recalls Barbie, Tanner Toys Over Loose Magnets
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mattel Inc., of El Segundo, California, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 683,000 Barbie and
Tanner play sets.

The company said a small magnet inside the “scooper” accessory can come
loose. Magnets found by young children can be swallowed or aspirated. If
more than one magnet is swallowed, the magnets can attract each other and
cause intestinal perforation or blockage, which can be fatal.

The firm has received three reports of magnets coming loose. No injuries
have been reported.

The recall involves Barbie and Tanner play sets -- model numbers J9472 and
J9560. The toys include a “scooper” accessory with a magnetic end.
Recalled scoopers have a visible, silver-colored, disc-shaped magnet on
the end of the scooper. Scoopers with a white material covering the magnet
and products manufactured after January 31, 2007 are not recalled.

These recalled Barbie and Tanner play sets were manufactured in China and
are being sold at toy stores and various other retailers nationwide May
2006 to August 2007 for about $16.

Pictures of recalled Barbie and Tanner play sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07271a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07271b.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away from
children and contact Mattel to receive a free replacement toy.

For additional information, call Mattel toll-free at (888) 597-6597
anytime or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.service.mattel.com


MISSOURI: Students File Suit Aiming to Block MOHELA Asset Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two former students who used the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority
to help pay for a college education have filed a class action against the
agency seeking to block the state legislature's decision to sell off
MOHELA assets, Columbia Daily Tribune.

The plan to sell the assets to construct $335 million worth of new
buildings around the state is allegedly a breach of the MOHELA
philosophical and fiduciary mission to provide loans to low-interest loans
to Missouri students going to college.

John Lichtenegger, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said
the fiduciary duty of the MOHELA board members is to provide loans, not
build buildings.  The lawsuit claims a new capital appropriations program
called the Lewis and Clark Discovery Fund should be funded, if at all, by
Missouri taxpayers, not just college students, according to the report.

In May, Gov. Matt Blunt signed a proposal to sell a portion of the loan
portfolio to fund college construction projects.

Michael McGennis and Aaron Izadi-Moghadam filed the lawsuit in Cole County
Circuit Court against MOHELA and its board.  They are seeking a
declaration that MOHELA's conduct was unlawful.  They also want an
injunction against the plan, and appropriate compensatory and punitive
damages.

MOHELA has a history of using excess funds to forgive a portion of
students' loans, the report said.

"The gist of the suit is that MOHELA as a low-cost provider of loans in
this state amassed $350 million and is about to give it away to the state
of Missouri, and according to their charter and statutory mission and
according to all the founders of MOHELA..." Mr. Lichtenegger said.

Gov. Blunt’s bill is to take effect Aug. 28.


OHIO: Hamilton County Settles Suit Over Morgue Photos for $8M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hamilton County agreed to pay $8 million to 532 families of people whose
bodies were photographed by an artist at the county morgue, Travis Gettys
of WLWT.com reports.

The suit was filed six years ago by attorney Stan Chesley on behalf of the
families.  It was supposed to go to trial next month.

The photographer at the center of the case is Thomas Condon.  He was
convicted in October 2001 on eight counts of gross abuse of a corpse for
taking pictures of bodies with various objects.  Former deputy coroner
Jonathan Tobias, who was accused of letting Mr. Condon take the
photographs, was also found guilty of gross abuse of a corpse, but that
conviction was thrown out for lack of sufficient evidence.

Under the agreement, Hamilton County Coroner O’Dell Owens will reopen a
morgue viewing room, offer grief counseling and establish a memorial at
the morgue in memory of the deceased family members.  As for the
photographs, they will be transferred to the families’ attorneys and
destroyed, officials said.

The settlement will go before federal Judge Arthur Spiegel in about a
month for a fairness hearing.

                        Case Background

In 2001, Jaqueline Chesher and other named plaintiffs initiated a class
action against Hamilton County, several individuals employed at the
Hamilton County Morgue, and Mr. Condon.  The suit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The substance of Ms. Chesher's claims arises from the heavily publicized
discovery in January 2001 of at least 317 allegedly improper photographs
of dead bodies taken at the Hamilton County Morgue without the knowledge
or consent of the decedents' relatives.

According to court documents, the employee defendants allegedly engaged in
a civil conspiracy and inflicted emotional distress on the class members
by facilitating the project and later covering up their involvement.

Generally, the suit accused county officials of not doing enough to
prevent Mr. Condon's pictures and causing them emotional distress when
they learned the bodies of their loved ones had been photographed.

In March of 2002, Ms. Chesher filed an amended complaint, naming as
defendants Hamilton County, Mr. Condon, and employee defendants:

      -- Terry Daly,
      -- Rhonda Gros,
      -- Carl Parrott,
      -- Robert Pfalzgraf,
      -- Jonathan Tobias, and
      -- Gary Utz.

The amended complaint asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
and state-law claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional
distress, as well as for a civil conspiracy to inflict such harm.

In May 2003, the district court issued an order that conditionally
certified the class under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Subsequently, in response to a motion by the defendants to decertify the
class, the court split the class into two subclasses.

Subclass One consists of the family members of all the deceased whose
remains, for other than a proper government purpose, were photographed by
Messrs. Condon or Tobias or one of their agents between August 2000 and
January 2001 (inclusive) while such bodies were in custody of the Hamilton
County Coroner's office, without permission from the legal representatives
of the deceased.

Subclass Two consists of a corresponding group of family members of the
deceased whose remains were not photographed, but were instead only
"accessed, viewed or manipulated" by Messrs. Condon or Tobias.

The suit is "Chesher, et al. v. Neyer, et al., Case No. 1:01-cv-
00566-SAS-TSH," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio under Judge S. Arthur Spiegel with referral to Judge
Timothy S. Hogan.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein, Esq.
          Gerhardstein Branch & Laufman Co. LPA
          617 Vine Street # 1409, Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 513-621-9100
          E-mail: agerhardstein@GBfirm.com

          Stanley Morris Chesley, Esq.
          Waite Schneider Bayless & Chesley Co LPA
          1513 Fourth & Vine Tower, One West Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Phone: 513-621-0267
          E-mail: stanchesley@wsbclaw.cc

Representing the defendants are:

          Louis Francis Gilligan, Esq.
          Keating Muething & Klekamp – 1
          One E Fourth Street, Suite 1400
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-579-6400
         Fax: 513-579-6523
         E-mail: lgilligan@kmklaw.com

         -- and --

         Stephen James Patsfall, Esq.
         Patsfall Yeager & Pflum LLC
         1, One W Fourth Street, Suite 1800
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Phone: 513-721-4500
         E-mail: spatsfall@pyplaw.com


PHARMOS CORP: Nov. Hearing Set for $7M N.J. Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold on
November 13, 2007 at 10:00 a.m a hearing for a $7,000,000 settlement of a
consolidated securities class action filed against Pharmos Corp. and
certain of its current officers.

The class consists of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Pharmos Corp. during the period from Feb. 10,
2000 through Dec. 17, 2004.

Deadline to file for exclusions and objections is on October 23, 2007.
Deadline to file claims is on February 11, 2008.

Beginning in January 2005, the company along with other defendants was
named in several purported shareholder class actions alleging violations
of federal securities laws.

These lawsuits assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The complaints allege generally that the defendants knowingly or
recklessly made false or misleading statements regarding the effectiveness
of dexanabinol in treating Traumatic Brain Injury, which had the effect of
artificially inflating the price of the company's common stock.

The complaints seek unspecified damages.  These class actions were
consolidated by an order of the court and lead plaintiffs and lead
plaintiffs' counsel have been appointed.  An amended complaint was filed
in September 2005.

In November 2005, the company moved to dismiss the litigation, and the
motion was fully briefed on Feb. 10, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 2,
2007).

Pharmos Corp.’s counsel, on May 31, 2007, entered into an agreement with
plaintiffs' legal counsel to settle the consolidated securities class
action (Class Action Reporter, June 8, 2007).

The settlement, which is covered in its entirety by Pharmos' insurance,
has been reached with no admission of liability by any party and has been
entered into to avoid costly and time consuming litigation by all parties.

The parties agreed to seek the required court approvals of the settlement
and filed the settlement documents with the Court on June 4, 2007.

The suit is "Cohen, et al. v. Aviv, et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-00338-KSH-PS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey under Judge Katharine S. Hayden with referral to Judge Patty
Shwartz.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Pamela E. Kulsrud, Esq.
          Joanne M. Cicala, Esq.
          Kirby Mcinerney & Squire, LLP
          830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-371-6600
          E-mail: pkulsrud@kmslaw.com and jcicala@kmslaw.com

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Seeger Weiss, LLP
          550 Broad Street
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Phone: (973) 639-9100
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

          - and –

          Jean-Marc Zimmerman, Esq.
          Zimmerman, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
          226 St. Paul Street
          Westfield, NJ 07090
          Phone: (908) 654-8000
          E-mail: jmzimmerman@zlk.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Douglas S. Brierley, Esq.
          Schenck, Price, Smith & King, Esqs.
          10 Washington St., CN-905
          Morristown, NJ 07963-0905
          Phone: 973-539-1000
          E-mail: dsb@spsk.com


PHILLIPS PETROLEUM: Appeals Court Upholds Class in Okla. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals upheld an order of the District Court
of Beckham County certifying a class of plaintiffs suing 10 oil and
natural gas companies in Oklahoma, including Phillips Petroleum Co.,
Janice Francis-Smith of The Journal Record reports.

In 1957, Phillips conveyed to El Paso Natural Gas Co. all rights to
natural gas produced from several of its oil and gas leases for mineral
interests in the South Erick Field in Oklahoma’s Beckham and Greer
counties.  It, however, retained all rights to the oil produced after each
well reached payout as well as the obligation to pay its royalty owners
for their share of the oil produced.

In 2000, Philips sued El Paso saying it and other defendants had failed to
abide by the terms of 1957 agreement.  It asserted claims for accounting,
conversion, fraud and punitive damages for itself and its royalty owners.
It claimed that for 40 years, El Paso defendants had sold oil produced
from the lease wells without paying Phillips or its royalty owners.

The El Paso Defendants include: El Paso Production Co., Meridian Oil Inc.,
Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Co., Magnum Hunter Production Inc.,
Conmag Energy Corp. and Gruy Petroleum Management Co.

Lariat Petroleum Inc., which later merged into Newfield Exploration
Mid-Continent Inc., was also named defendant because Phillips had conveyed
its rights and interest in the agreement to Lariat.  Newfield Exploration
is also a defendant in the case.

The trial court granted summary judgment to the El Paso defendants “based
on the applicable statute of limitations and Phillips’ failure to pursue
its claims for 50 years.”

In 2004, royalty owners filed a suit against the El Paso defendants and
Phillips, based on the same facts Phillips had alleged in its failed
lawsuit.  The suit was certified, and defendants filed an appeal to the
Court of Civil Appeals.

The courts rejected the defendants’ claim that the fact that individual
plaintiffs will recover different amounts shows an absence of commonality.
It also rejected the defendants’ challenge to the applicability of
Oklahoma law to all fraud claims involved, saying that since all the wells
in question are located in Oklahoma, Oklahoma law will apply.

The class as upheld includes “all persons or entities who own interests
subject to oil and gas leases” involved in the agreement between Phillips
and the El Paso Defendants.  It includes both working interest owners “and
others whose interests conflict with the interests of working interest
owners.”

The class of royalty interest owners is represented by Carmikeal Dodson,
as guardian of Michael D. Strickland.


SANDISK CORP: Cal. Flash Memory Suit Settlement Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Two objectors have filed separate appeals against a final approval of a
settlement of a purported class action filed against Sandisk Corp. and a
number of other manufacturers of flash memory products.

The consumer class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the City and County of San Francisco, under the caption,
"Willem Vroegh, et al. v. Dane Electric Corp. USA, et al."

Filed on Feb. 20, 2004, the suit alleged false advertising, unfair
business practices, breach of contract, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation
and violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of flash memory
products and claims that the defendants overstated the size of the memory
storage capabilities of such products.   It sought restitution, injunction
and damages in an unspecified amount.

The parties have reached a settlement of the case, which is pending final
court approval.  In April 2006, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.

In August 2006, the court held a hearing to consider final approval of the
settlement, and on Nov. 20, 2006, the court issued its formal written
order of approval.

Two objectors to the settlement have filed separate appeals from the
court's order granting final approval.

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.

SanDisk Corp. -- http://www.sandisk.com/-- designs, develops, markets and
manufactures products and solutions in a variety of form factors using its
flash memory, controller and firmware technologies.  The Company sources
the vast majority of its flash memory supply through its significant
venture relationships with Toshiba.

SanDisk’s products are used in a range of consumer electronics devices,
such as digital cameras, mobile phones, Universal Serial Bus drives (USB)
drives, gaming consoles, Moving Picture Experts Group Layer-3 Audio (MP3)
players and other digital devices.  Its products are also embedded in a
variety of systems for the enterprise, industrial, military and other
markets.  Flash storage allows data to be stored in a compact format that
retains the data for an extended period of time after the power has been
turned off.  On Jan. 13, 2006, SanDisk acquired Matrix Semiconductor, Inc.
On Nov. 19, 2006, the Company acquired msystems, Ltd., an Israeli-based
semiconductor company.


SANDISK CORP: Still Faces Calif. Suits by msystems Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corp. continues to face purported class actions filed by
shareholders of msystems Ltd., a venture partner of the company, in the
Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County, California.

The company and msystems each own 50% of U3, LLC, or U3, an entity
established to develop and market a next generation platform for universal
serial bus flash drives.

On Aug. 7, 2006, two purported shareholder class and derivative actions
were filed in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County,
California.  They are:

       -- "Capovilla v. SanDisk Corp., No. 106 CV 068760," and

       -- "Dashiell v. SanDisk Corp., No. 106 CV 068759,"

On Aug. 9, 2006, and Aug. 17, 2006, respectively, two additional purported
shareholder class and derivative actions were filed, namely:

       -- "Lopiccolo v. SanDisk Corp., No. 106 CV 068946," and

       -- "Sachs v. SanDisk Corp., No. 1-06-CV-069534."

These four lawsuits were subsequently consolidated as, "In re: msystems
Ltd. Shareholder Litigation, No. 106 CV 068759. "  On Oct. 27, 2006, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed that supersedes the four original
complaints.

The lawsuit is brought by purported shareholders of msystems.   It names
as defendants the company and each of msystems' directors, including its
president and chief executive officer, and its former chief financial
officer (now its chief operating officer), and names msystems as a nominal
defendant.  The lawsuit asserts purported class action and derivative
claims.

The alleged derivative claims assert, among other things, breach of
fiduciary duties, abuse of control, constructive fraud, corporate waste,
unjust enrichment and gross mismanagement with respect to past stock
option grants.

The alleged class and derivative claims also assert claims for breach of
fiduciary duty by msystems’ board, which the Company is alleged to have
aided an abetted, with respect to allegedly inadequate consideration for
the merger, and allegedly false or misleading disclosures in proxy
materials relating to the merger.

The complaints seek, among other things, equitable relief, including
enjoining the proposed merger, and compensatory and punitive damages.

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.

SanDisk Corp. -- http://www.sandisk.com/-- designs, develops, markets and
manufactures products and solutions in a variety of form factors using its
flash memory, controller and firmware technologies.  The Company sources
the vast majority of its flash memory supply through its significant
venture relationships with Toshiba.

SanDisk’s products are used in a range of consumer electronics devices,
such as digital cameras, mobile phones, Universal Serial Bus drives (USB)
drives, gaming consoles, Moving Picture Experts Group Layer-3 Audio (MP3)
players and other digital devices.  Its products are also embedded in a
variety of systems for the enterprise, industrial, military and other
markets.  Flash storage allows data to be stored in a compact format that
retains the data for an extended period of time after the power has been
turned off.  On Jan. 13, 2006, SanDisk acquired Matrix Semiconductor, Inc.
On Nov. 19, 2006, the Company acquired msystems, Ltd., an Israeli-based
semiconductor company.


SEALED AIR: Seeks Dismissal of Claims in N.J. Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp. is seeking the dismissal of claims in the purported
securities fraud class action, "Senn v. Hickey, et al., Case No.
03-CV-4372," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

The suit was filed on Sept. 15, 2003.  It seeks class-action status on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of
the company from March 27, 2000 through July 30, 2002.

It names the company and five current and former officers and directors of
the company as defendants.  The company is required to provide
indemnification to the other defendants, and accordingly, the company's
counsel is also defending them.

On June 29, 2004, the court granted plaintiff Miles Senn's motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of his choice of lead
counsel.

The plaintiff's amended complaint makes a number of allegations against
the defendants.  The principal allegations are that during the above
period, the defendants materially misled the investing public,
artificially inflated the price of the company's common stock by publicly
issuing false and misleading
statements and violated U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles by
failing to properly account and accrue for the company's contingent
liability for asbestos claims arising from past operations of W.R. Grace &
Co.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief.  The company is
vigorously defending the lawsuit, since the company believes that it
properly disclosed its contingent liability for Grace's asbestos claims
and properly accounted for its contingent liability for such claims under
U.S. GAAP.

On March 14, 2005, the company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in "Senn" for failure to state a
claim.

On Dec. 19, 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss.  The court determined that the complaint failed
adequately to allege scienter as to the four individual defendants other
than T.J. Dermot Dunphy, and therefore dismissed the lawsuit with respect
to these four individual defendants, but adequately alleged scienter as to
Mr. Dunphy and the company.

Mr. Dunphy is a current director of the company and was formerly chairman
of the board and chief executive officer of the company.

On Dec. 28, 2005, the defendants requested that the Court reconsider the
portion of the Dec. 19, 2005 order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss
with regard to the Company’s arguments other than scienter, or, in the
alternative, that the Court certify the matter for interlocutory appeal.

On Feb. 13, 2006, the defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint.
  On April 7, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on defendants’
reconsideration motion, and on July 10, 2006, the Court denied the motion
on the ground that issues of fact prevent the Court from granting a motion
to dismiss based on the Company’s arguments other than scienter.

On Nov. 22, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended motion for class
certification, seeking to withdraw as a class representative and to
substitute a new class representative, the State of Louisiana Municipal
Police Employees Retirement System (MPERS).

On March 26, 2007, the Court entered an order permitting Miles Senn to
withdraw as Lead Plaintiff and permitting MPERS to be substituted as Lead
Plaintiff.

On March 29, 2007, MPERS, as Lead Plaintiff, filed a motion to certify a
class of all persons or entities that purchased Sealed Air Corp.
securities during the period from March 27, 2000 through July 30, 2002,
both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby.

On July 25, 2007, the Company and Mr. Dunphy filed their memorandum of law
in opposition to MPERS’s motion for class certification.

On July 25, 2007, the Company and Mr. Dunphy also filed a motion for
reconsideration or for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Supreme
Court’s recent decisions in “Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights,
Ltd.,” and “Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,” require dismissal of MPERS’s
claims.

The suit is "Senn v. Hickey, et al., Case No. 03-CV-4372," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Dennis M.
Cavanaugh with referral to Judge Mark Falk.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
         Squitieri & Fearon, LLP
         26 South Maple Avenue, Suite 202
         Marlton, NJ 08053
         Phone: (856) 797-4611
         Fax: (856) 797-4612,
         E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Gregory B. Reilly, Esq.
         Lowenstein Sandler, PC, 65 Livingston Avenue
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
         Phone: (973) 597-2500
         E-mail: greilly@lowenstein.com


SIX FLAGS: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Labor-Related Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in a purported class action alleging labor-related
violations by Six Flags, Inc. in California, according to the company's
Aug. 3 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2006.

On Nov. 7, 2005, certain plaintiffs filed a complaint on behalf of a
purported class of current and former employees against the company in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County.

In the complaint, plaintiffs allege 10 causes of action for, among others,
unpaid wages and related penalties, and violations of California law
governing employee meal and rest breaks with respect to Six Flags Magic
Mountain, Six Flags Hurricane Harbor Los Angeles, Six Flags Discovery
Kingdom (formerly Six Flags Marine World), Waterworld USA/Concord and
Waterworld USA/Sacramento.

On April 5, 2006, the company moved for summary judgment with respect to
some of the plaintiffs' purported claims and to dismiss all claims against
those parks and individuals who were improperly named in the complaint.

Since that time, the plaintiffs have amended their complaint to include
several additional purported class members.  Discovery is proceeding with
respect to the company's summary judgment motion and the class
certification issue.

Six Flags, Inc. on the Net: http://www.sixflags.com/.


SOUTHERN COPPER: Still Faces Del. Suit Over Minera Mexico Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Copper Corp. remains a defendant in a consolidated class action
derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, New Castle
County, Delaware over the acquisition of
Minera Mexico S.A. de C.V.

Late in December 2004 and early January 2005, several actions were filed
against the company.  On Jan. 31, 2005, three actions were consolidated
into one action under the caption, "In Re Southern Copper Corporation
Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 961-N."

Those suits are:

     -- "Lemon Bay, LLP v. Americas Mining Corp., et al., Civil
        Action No. 961-N,"

     -- "Therault Trust v. Luis Palomino Bonilla, et al., and
        Southern Copper Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 969-N,"
        and

     -- "James Sousa v. Southern Copper Corp., et al., Civil
        Action No. 978-N."

The complaint filed in "Lemon Bay" was designated as the operative
complaint in the consolidated lawsuit.  The consolidated action purports
to be brought on behalf of the company's common stockholders.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the transaction is the result of
breaches of fiduciary duties by the company's directors and is not
entirely fair to the company and its minority stockholders.

It seeks, among other things, a preliminarily and permanent injunction to
enjoin the transaction, the award of damages to the class, the award of
damages to the company and such other relief that the court deems
equitable, including interest, attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

The company reported no development in this matter in its Aug. 3 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 30, 2006.

Southern Copper Corp. on the Net: --
http://www.southernperu.com/.


TENNESSESSE VALLEY: Settles “Economy Surplus Power” Suit for $8M
---------------------------------------------------------------- The
Tennessee Valley Authority agreed to pay $18 million to settle claims that
the utility overcharged industrial customers during a heat wave in 1998,
Associated Press reports.

The lawsuit, captioned, "Johns Manville, Inc. v. Tennessee
Valley Authority, Case No. 2:99-cv-02294-VEH-HGD," contended that
customers of TVA's "Economy Surplus Power" program were over billed as
much as $100 million in the summer of 1998.

The suit was originally filed in 1999 by Birmingham Steel Corp., which was
replaced by Johns Manville in 2004 after the former filed for bankruptcy
protection.  It originally sought more than $100 million.

The plaintiffs contended that instead of distributing cheaper power
generated by TVA to the industrial customers on hot summer afternoons, TVA
delivered more expensive power bought from other producers and charged the
economy surplus power customers higher rates.

More than 400 businesses will share in the settlement. Lawyers who brought
the class action will receive about $6.8 million.

The settlement administrator is Tighman & Co.

The suit is "Johns Manville, Inc. v. Tennessee Valley Authority,
Case No. 2:99-cv-02294-VEH-HGD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for Northern District of Alabama under Judge Virginia Emerson
Hopkins with referral to Judge Harwell G. Davis, III.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Julie Wilson Pittman, Esq.
          Burr & Forman, LLP
          3100 SouthTrust Tower
          420 North 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: 205-458-5239
          Fax: 205-458-5100
          E- mail: jpittman@burr.com

Representing the defendant is:

          A. Jackson Woodall, Esq.
          Tennessee Valley Authority
          400 West Summit Hill Drive
          Knoxville, TN 37902-1401
          Phone: 1-865-632-4301
          E-mail: ajwoodall@tva.gov


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Motion to Junk Minn. Securities Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota denied a motion
seeking for the dismissal of an amended complaint in a consolidated
securities fraud class action pending against UnitedHealth Group, Inc.

On May 5, 2006, the first of seven putative class actions alleging a
violation of the federal securities laws was brought by an individual
shareholder against certain of our current and former officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On Dec. 8, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed consolidating
the actions into a single action.  The action is captioned, “In re
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated PSLRA Litigation.”

Lead plaintiff California Public Employees Retirement System brought the
action against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that defendants made
misrepresentations and omissions during the period between Jan. 20, 2005
and May 17, 2006, in press releases and public filings that artificially
inflated the price of the company’s common stock.

The complaint also asserts that during the class period, certain
defendants sold shares of the company's common stock while in possession
of material, non-public information concerning the matters set forth in
the complaint.

It alleges claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The action seeks unspecified money damages and
equitable relief.

Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on February
6, 2007.  The motion to dismiss was denied in an order filed on June 4,
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.

The suit is “In re UnitedHealth Group Incorporated PSLRA Litigation, Case
No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota under Judge James M. Rosenbaum with referral to
Judge Franklin L. Noel.

Representing the plaintiff is:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
         655 W. Broadway Ste. 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058
         E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Gretchen A. Agee, Esq.
         Dorsey & Whitney LLP
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-492-6741
         Fax: 612-340-8856
         E-mail: agee.gretchen@dorsey.com


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Hearing on Bid to Junk 401(k) Suit Set Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Sept. 17, 2007 hearing is scheduled for a motion to dismiss a 401(k)
breach of fiduciary duty class action filed against UnitedHealth Group,
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On June 6, 2006, a purported class action captioned “Zilhaver v.
UnitedHealth Group Inc., Case No. 06-CV-2237 (JNR/SRM)” was filed against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The suit was filed on behalf of participants in the company's 401(k)
defined contribution retirement plan (the UnitedHealth Group Inc. 401 (k)
Savings Plan) for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased and/or held
shares of UnitedHealth Group Inc. common stock at any time from Dec. 21,
2005 through May 24, 2006.

The case alleges that UnitedHealth Group Inc. and other Plan fiduciaries
concealed from Plan participants important information concerning:

      -- long-standing, improper practices at the company
         relating to executive stock options, including those
         awarded to former chief executive William McGuire and
         current chief executive Stephen Hemsley; and

      -- whether UnitedHealth Group Inc. common stock was a
         prudent and suitable retirement investment for the
         Plan.

On May 1, 2007, plaintiffs amended the complaint.  That amended complaint
alleges that the fiduciaries to the Company-sponsored 401(k) plan violated
ERISA by allowing the plan to continue to hold company stock.

Defendants moved to dismiss the action on June 22, 2007.  The motion to
dismiss will be heard on or after Sept. 17, 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.

The suit is "Zilhaver v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al., Case No.
0:06-cv-02237-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota under Judge James M. Rosenbaum with referral to Judge
Franklin L. Noel.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
         Stull Stull & Brody
         6 E. 45th St., Ste. 500
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-687-7230
         E-mail: ssbny@aol.com

              - and -

         James B. Hovland, Esq.
         David E. Krause, Esq.
         Krause & Rollins
         310 Groveland Ave.
         Mpls, MN 55403
         Phone: 612-874-8550
         Fax: 612-874-9362
         E-mail: jhovland@krauserollins.com
                 dkrause@krauserollins.com

Representing defendants are:

         Peter W. Carter, Esq.
         Thomas P. Swigert, Esq.
         Dorsey & Whitney LLP
         50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
         Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
         Phone: 612-340-2600
         Fax: 612-340-2868
         E-mail: carter.peter@dorsey.com
                 swigert.tom@dorsey.com

              - and -

         David M. Brodsky, Esq.
         Blair Connelly, Esq.
         Alexandra A. E. Shapiro, Esq.
         Latham & Watkins
         885 3rd Ave.
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-906-1628, 212-906-1658 and 212-906-1670
         Fax: 212-751-4864
         E-mail: david.brodsky@lw.com
                 blair.connelly@lw.com
                 alexandra.shapiro@lw.com


UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Settles Tenn. Securities Fraud Suit for $40M
----------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative settlement was reached in "In re UnumProvident Corp.
Securities Litigation," which is before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee.

On Feb. 12, 2003, the first of six virtually identical putative securities
class actions was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee.

In two orders dated May 21, 2003, and Jan. 22, 2004, the court
consolidated these actions as "In re UnumProvident Corp. Securities
Litigation."

On Jan. 9, 2004, the Lead Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of UnumProvident
stock between March 30, 2000 and April 24, 2003.

The amended complaint alleges that:

       -- the company issued misleading financial statements,

       -- improperly accounted for certain impaired investments,

       -- failed to properly estimate the company's disability
          claim reserves, and

       -- pursued certain improper claims handling practices.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  On March 19, 2004, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

On July 30, 2007, the company entered into a Stipulation of Settlement
with the plaintiffs to resolve the litigation, 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.

Under the terms of the settlement, which is subject to, among other
things, approval by the court, the company has agreed to pay $40.0 million
to settle all claims that were or could have been asserted by the class in
the action.

The suit is "In Re: UnumProvident Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
03-CV-00049," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee under Judge Curtis L. Collier.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
         Milberg, Weiss LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101-8590
         Phone: 619-231-1058

              - and -

         George E. Barrett, Esq.
         Barrett, Johnston & Parsley
         217 Second Avenue North
         Nashville, TN 37201-1601
         Phone: N615-244-2202
         E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com

Representing the defendants are:

         John P Konvalinka, Esq.
         Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, PC
         633 Chestnut Street, Suite 900 One Republic Centre
         Chattanooga, TN 37450
         Phone: 423-756-8400
         Fax: 423-756-6518
         E-mail: jkonvalinka@gkhpc.com

              - and -

         Michael A. Anderson, Esq.
         Horton, Maddox & Anderson, PLLC
         835 Georgia Avenue, Suite 600 One Central Plaza
         Chattanooga, TN 37402
         Phone: 423-265-2560
         E-mail: manderson@chattanooga-law.com


UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Tenn. 401(k) Suit Settlement Awaits Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee has yet to
approve a proposed settlement of a lawsuit against UnumProvident Corp.,
which was filed on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the
company's 401(k) Retirement Plan.

On April 29, 2003, the first of two identical putative class actions, "Gee
v. UnumProvident Corporation, et al.," was filed on behalf of participants
and beneficiaries of UnumProvident's 401(k) Retirement Plan (Plan), and
the actions were later consolidated.

On Jan. 9, 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint against
the company, several of the company's officers and directors, and several
alleged Plan fiduciaries on behalf of a putative class of individuals that
held UnumProvident stock in their 401(k) retirement accounts subsequent to
Nov. 17, 1999.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Employee Retirement Income
Security Act by making misrepresentations and omissions regarding
investment in UnumProvident stock and by acting imprudently in failing to
take action to protect participants from losses sustained from investments
in the Plan's UnumProvident Stock Fund.

On Feb. 26, 2004, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss contending that
the complaint failed to state a valid claim under ERISA.

On Jan. 13, 2005, the court denied that motion.  The defendants filed an
answer to the complaint denying all material allegations on Feb. 28, 2005.

On March 10, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class.
The defendants filed an opposition on June 10, 2005, and the matter is
under submission with the court.

On Nov. 30, 2005, the court entered a schedule providing for the
completion of pretrial discovery by Oct. 17, 2006.  No trial date has been
set for the action.

During the first quarter of 2007, the company executed a settlement
agreement resolving the case.   The settlement agreement, the net cost of
which is immaterial, is subject to notice to the proposed settlement class
and Court approval following a fairness hearing.

A motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement and notice to the
proposed settlement class was submitted to the court on May 31, 2007 and
is awaiting action by the court, 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 "Gee v. Unumprovident Corp., et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-00147,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
under Judge Curtis L. Collier with referral to Judge C. Clifford Shirley.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Tony R. Dalton, Esq.
         Woolf, McClane, Bright, Allen & Carpenter
         P.O. Box 900
         Knoxville, TN 37901-0900
         Phone: 865-215-1000
         Fax: 865-215-1001
         E-mail: daltont@wmbac.com

         Andrew L. Berke, Esq.
         Ronald J. Berke, sq.
         Berke, Berke & Berke
         P.O. Box 4747
         Chattanooga, TN 37405-4747
         Phone: 423-266-5171
         Email: andrew@berkeattys.com
                ronnie@berkeattys.com

              - and -

         Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
         Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
         Katherine Bornstein, Esq.
         Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
         Three Bala Plaza East Suite 400
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Email: eciolko@sbclasslaw.com
                jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com
                kbornstein@sbclasslaw.com

Representing the Company is:

         John P. Konvalinka, Esq.
         Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, PC
         633 Chestnut Street, Suite 900 One Republic Centre
         Chattanooga, TN 37450
         Phone: 423-756-8400
         Fax: 423-756-6518
         Email: jkonvalinka@gkhpc.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


HIMAX TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed a securities class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of Himax Technologies, Inc. during the period from
March 30, 2006 through May 9, 2007, including purchasers in the Company's
March 30, 2006 Initial Public Offering.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officer and directors
with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 for allegedly issuing false
and misleading statements in the Prospectus issued in connection with the
Company's March 30, 2006 IPO. In particular, the Complaint asserts that
the Company failed to disclose that its operations faced an imminent
reduction in customer demand due to unusually high inventory levels being
experienced by the Company's customers.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 3, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A
          Tel:  (212) 686-1060
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827
          Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com


LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. announced that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Limelight Networks, Inc.
(LLNW) in its initial public offering on June 8, 2007 and thereafter up to
August 8, 2007, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Act of 1933.

The complaint charges LLNW, Goldman Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co.,
Jeffrey Lundsford, Nathan Raciborski, Michael Gordon and William Rinehart
with violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, by issuing a
materially false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus.
Defendants sold over 16 million shares of LLNW common stock and failed to
disclose that the market for CDN services was mature, seasonal and
experiencing severe pricing pressures which would cause LLNW to sustain
increasing losses in Q2 2007.

On August 9, 2007, LLNW surprised the market and announced a staggering
net loss for the second quarter of $10.46 million compared to a net loss
of $4.7 million in the previous quarter. In response to this announcement,
the price of LLNW common stock declined from its offering price of $15 per
share to close at $7.94 per share on August 10, 2007 on extremely heavy
trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased
the common stock of LLNW in the IPO from June 8, 2007 - August 8, 2007.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 14, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Susan R. Gross, Esq.
          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
          100 Penn Sq. East, Suite 450
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600
          E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or
                  debbie@bernardmgross.com
          Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com


LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announces that a class
action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired the
common stock of Limelight Networks, Inc. pursuant to the Company's false
and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection
with its June 8, 2007 initial public offering, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint charges Limelight and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the 1933 Act. Limelight provides content delivery
network ("CDN") services for delivering live and on-demand digital media
online in the United States, Europe, and Asia Pacific.

The Company digitally delivers content for traditional and emerging media
companies, or content providers, including businesses operating in the
television, music, radio, newspaper, magazine, movie, videogame, and
software industries.
According to the complaint, on June 15, 2007, Limelight completed its IPO
of 18.4 million shares at $15 per share, including 14.9 million shares
sold by Limelight (including over-allotment) and 3.5 million shares sold
by stockholders for net proceeds of $207.8 million to the Company and
$48.8 million to the selling shareholders - mostly officers and directors
of the Company - pursuant to the Registration Statement.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement failed to disclose
that Limelight was then suffering a decrease in its growth rate and
customers and was experiencing pricing issues - which would adversely
affect second quarter and third quarter 2007 results.

The complaint further alleges that the true facts which were omitted from
the Registration Statement are as follows:

     (i) that the Company was then experiencing a drop-off in
         customer demand which would adversely affect revenues
         in the second and third quarter of 2007;
    (ii) that pricing pressures were adversely affecting the
         Company;
   (iii) that the Company was not well-situated as compared to
         its competitors as represented in the Registration
         Statement;
    (iv) that the significant sequential quarterly revenue
         growth shown in the Registration Statement was not
         continuing and would lead to a flattening or even a
         drop-off in future revenues; and
     (v) that the Company was experiencing a disastrous second
         quarter which would result in disappointing 2007
         results.

On August 9, 2007, Limelight issued a press release announcing its second
quarter 2007 results. On this news, Limelight's stock price collapsed in
one day from $14.80 per share on August 8, 2007, to open at $10.50 per
share on August 9, 2007, before dropping further to $8.60 per share, and
closing at $8.99 per share, on volume of 7.5 million shares (over 7 times
the average previous trading volume for the stock). Previously, the
Company's stock traded as high as $23.82 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons or entities
who acquired the common stock of Limelight pursuant to the Company's false
and misleading Registration Statement issued in connection with its June
8, 2007 IPO.

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman
          David A. Rosenfeld
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com


LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed a securities class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons that
purchased the common stock of Limelight Networks, Inc. during the period
from June 8, 2007 through August 8, 2007, including purchasers in
Limelight's Initial Public Offering.

The Complaint charges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors, along with the co-lead underwriters of the Company's Initial
Public Offering ("IPO"), violated the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a
Prospectus in connection with its June 8, 2007 IPO that was materially
misleading concerning certain adverse business events that were affecting
the Company, including:

     (a) that revenues were negatively impacted due to greater
         reliance on television-related sales, which are
         seasonal; and
     (b) that Limelight was being forced to apply deep discounts
         to its services in order to attract and maintain
         customers for its premier services.

The Complaint asserts that when the truth about these matters came to
light, the Company's securities dropped in value.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 12, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          Tel: (212) 686-1060
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email Contact
          Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com


RAIT FINANCIAL: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class
action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of the securities of RAIT
Financial Trust between June 8, 2006 and July 31, 2007, inclusive seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges RAIT and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Exchange Act. The Company operates as a self-managed and
self-advised real estate investment trust ("REIT") and provides a set of
debt financing options to the real estate industry.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed
to disclose:

     (i) that the Company was exposed to high risk debt
         instruments from distressed lenders and homebuilders;
    (ii) that the Company would be forced to write off a large
         portion of its portfolio as a loss;
   (iii) that the Company failed to adequately reserve for
         potential losses; and
    (iv) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's ability to
         pay out dividends to its shareholders and its ability
         to generate future revenue would be in serious doubt.

Moreover, the values of the Company's net income and earnings were
materially overstated at all relevant times.

On July 31, 2007, RAIT issued a press release announcing that "all issuers
of RAIT's trust preferred securities, other than American Home Mortgage
Investment Corp. ("AHM"), made their payments due on July 30, 2007. RAIT
has net equity exposure to AHM of approximately $95 million, or $1.56 per
share of book value, resulting from trust preferred financing provided to
AHM in 2005." In response to this announcement, the price of RAIT common
stock fell $5.72 per share, or approximately 36%, to close at $10.36 per
share, on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased
the behalf of purchasers of the securities of RAIT between June 8, 2006
and July 31, 2007, inclusive.

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

For more information, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman
          David A. Rosenfeld
          Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com


THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court, District of New Mexico, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. between October 6,
2005 and August 17, 2007, inclusive.

The suit was filed against the company and certain of its officers and
directors, alleging violations under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. ss.78j(b) and the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder by the SEC, including Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R.
ss.240.10b-5.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants issued
numerous, positive financial statements, annual and quarterly financial
reports filed with the SEC, press releases, and other public statements
that described the Company's financial performance. The Complaint further
alleges that these public statements were materially false and misleading
because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse
facts, among others:

     (a) that the Company was facing increasing margin calls;
     (b) that its available leverage had significantly
         diminished;
     (c) that its financial situation had deteriorated to the
         point where it must sell certain assets; and,
     (d) that as a result of the foregoing the Company reported
         overstated financial results.

As a result of defendants' false statements, TMI's stock traded at
artificially inflated price during the Class Period, reaching a high of
$30.64 per share on June 17, 2005.

On August 20, 2007, before the market opened, the Company published a
press release over the Business Wire detailing that it was forced to sell
$20.5 billion of its top-rated mortgage backed securities to boost its
liquidity. This announcement was made in the wake of the August 14
announcement that the Company had to stop funding loans due to the credit
crunch. The Company had been unable to repay nearly $8.4 billion of
commercial paper outstanding as of June 30, 2007 because buyers of the
paper demanded terms and covenants that the Company was either unwilling
or unable to satisfy.

As a result of these disclosures, the Company's price per share fell $1.73
by midday trading, a 9% decline over its previous close on extremely heavy
volume.

As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading statements
set forth in the complaint, the market price of TMI 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 TMI 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.

Interested parties may move the court no later than October 22, 2007 for
lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Rachel S. Poplock, 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
          Website: http://www.whafh.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, 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  * * *