The settlement amount was listed at $7.2 billion, a sum that has been accruing interest since 2002 and includes $688 million plus interest in attorneys fees.

The deal, approved late Monday by U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon, and the attorneys fees are the largest in history in a U.S. securities fraud case.

"We're pleased that the court recognizes the tremendous amount of work, skill and determination required to overcome significant obstacles in this complicated case," said Patrick Coughlin, attorney for the regents of the University of California, the lead plaintiffs.

About 1.5 million individuals and entities will be eligible to share in the distribution under the settlement plan. The attorneys fees will go to San Diego-based Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, the law firm representing the university.

Besides the University of California, other plaintiffs who will share in the proceeds include pension plans from New York City and Hawaii, various investment firms and the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.

The distribution plan was part of a $40 billion lawsuit filed by shareholders and investors, who claim Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup and others participated in the accounting fraud that led to Enron's downfall.

Calculating shares of the $7.2 billion will be determined by a formula that factors in such things as the stock's purchase price and the type of stock bought.

At its height, Enron's common stock sold for as much as $90 per share, before plummeting to as low as $1 right before the company declared bankruptcy.

Under the plan, investors will get an average of $6.79 per share of common stock and an average of $168.50 per share of preferred stock.

To be eligible for the settlement, investors and shareholders needed to have bought Enron or Enron-related securities between Sept. 9, 1997 and Dec. 2, 2001.

Attorneys for several investors objected to the distribution plan and the attorneys fees.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who had previously filed court briefs in support of plaintiffs' claims, also objected to the attorneys fees.

"General Abbott continues to object to giving millions of dollars to plaintiff lawyers when that money should go to the hardworking men and women who suffered from Enron's demise," said Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for Abbott's office.

"This court reiterates that there is no way to allocate these proceeds that would not in some way favor or disfavor to some degree some of the class members," Harmon wrote in her order. "On the whole, the court finds that ... the chosen method is fair, adequate and reasonable."

Harmon also said the attorneys fees, which are 9.5 percent of the settlement, are "fair and reasonable."

Several financial institutions have not settled and remain as defendants in the Enron case, including Merrill Lynch & Co., Credit Suisse First Boston and Barclays Bank PLC. Several former Enron officers also remain as defendants, including former chief executive Jeffrey Skilling, now serving a criminal sentence of more than 24 years in federal prison in Minnesota.

But the lawsuit has been on hold since an appeals court last year ruled shareholders and investors could not sue as a class, which would have allowed them to sue as a group and have more leverage to settle the case out of court.

The U.S. Supreme Court in January refused to hear arguments in the lawsuit. The high court in a similar case gave a measure of protection from securities lawsuits to suppliers, banks, accountants and law firms that do business with corporations engaging in securities fraud.

Because of that ruling, Harmon is still deciding whether the financial institutions that remain as defendants will be dismissed from the lawsuit.

Enron, once the nation's seventh-largest company, entered bankruptcy proceedings in December 2001 after years of accounting tricks could no longer hide billions in debt or make failing ventures appear profitable.

The collapse wiped out thousands of jobs, more than $60 billion in market value and more than $2 billion in pension plans.

Enron founder Kenneth Lay and Skilling were convicted in 2006 for their roles in the company's collapse. Lay's convictions for conspiracy, fraud and other charges were wiped out after he died of heart disease in 2006.

"The main issue is that AT&T's 3G network isn't strong enough to support the millions of people who are iPhone 3G users," Michael Rott, a partner with the San Diego-based law firm Hiden, Rott & Oertle, LLP, told ABCNews.com. "Apple violated [California law] by misrepresenting the actual speed and performance of its 8G and 16G models."

Rott filed the suit in San Diego Superior Court on behalf of iPhone user William Gillis. Rott said Gillis, a former executive with Chicken of the Sea, purchased Apple's flagship 16G iPhone in California for personal use. Despite advertisements touting the new phone's ability to run on the 3G network, he found that the phone frequently regressed to the slower EDGE network, Rott said.

"We're stating that they falsely and deceptively represented their products and services -- both them and ATT," Rott said.

AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel told ABCNews.com that the company doesn't comment on pending litigation.

Apple representatives did not immediately respond to requests from ABCNews.com for comment. But previously, the company also hasn't commented on such suits.

Gillis' complaint asks for appropriate disclaimers to be provided by the companies and for money to be returned to iPhone customers, Rott said.

"The whole thing is by providing consumers with disclaimers -- essentially to disclose complete and accurate info about the product -- you let customers [decide to purchase] your product or another one. [Apple] didn't give that info -- neither did AT&T," Rott said.

A similar complaint was filed against California-based Apple by an iPhone customer in Alabama about two weeks ago.

In that U.S. District Court case, plaintiff Jessica Alena Smith alleged that despite aggressive marketing stating the 3G iPhone is "twice as fast for half the price," the device is actually much slower than advertised and prone to dropping calls.

Both lawsuits followed a string of highly publicized complaints -- from spotty service to dropped calls to slow data speeds.

Despite the onslaught of criticism, many industry observers maintain that Apple customers are a loyal breed willing to withstand the blips.

But some analysts say that though Apple's reputation is certainly strong, it is not impenetrable.

"The more this kind of thing happens, the more the image becomes tarnished," Rob Enderle, an independent technology analyst, told ABCNews.com.

"[Apple is] unique in that they have a fan base that will see them through almost anything," he said. But the word "almost" is important, he emphasized.

"It's getting to the point where it's going to do damage. ... There are enough people who are upset. But if it were anyone else it would have already done more," Enderle said.

When Apple released the first generation iPhone it also had to defend itself against lawsuits brought by dissatisfied customers.

In 2007, Apple was hit with complaints filed in Illinois and California over reported short battery life. The suit filed in California was ultimately withdrawn. The Illinois case is still pending. Apple has moved to dismiss the case but the judge has not yet issued a ruling.

In 2005, Apple compensated some owners of first- and second-generation iPods with $50 of in-store credit or $25 cash to settle yet another class action suit over the batteries in an earlier edition of the iPod.

To join the SemGroup class action, go to the website at http://www.rosenlegal.com or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The complaint asserts that the Company's parent was at high risk for financial problems due to its investment in risky crude oil hedge transactions during the Class Period. The complaint also asserts that the Company was engaged in improper self-dealing transactions with its parent in an effort to support the Company's parent. On July 17, 2008 it was revealed that the Company's parent filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code due to lack of available funds. As a result of these adverse disclosures the complaint asserts that SemGroup's investors were damaged.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed on behalf of SemGroup shareholders. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 19, 2008. If you wish to join the litigation or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com.

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation, focusing its practice in securities class actions.

More information on this and other class actions can be found on the Class Action Newsline at www.primenewswire.com/ca.

A federal judge has granted class-action status for a lawsuit over wages filed by two former Dell Inc. customer service employees in Roseburg.

The order signed July 10 by U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin in Eugene covers Dell customer service employees in Oregon, Texas, Idaho, Tennessee and Oklahoma from February 8, 2004, to the present.

More than 80 people have already joined the lawsuit that could include as many as 5,000 current and former workers for the Round Rock, Texas, computer manufacturer.

The two Roseburg workers, David Norman and Walter Romas, claim in a lawsuit filed in February 2007 that Dell failed to pay overtime or keep accurate records.

Coffin said in his order that Norman and Romas "submitted evidence indicating a significant degree of commonality among the experiences" of Dell customer service workers.

Dell closed the Roseburg center last August, five years after it opened, laying off about 200 workers. Dell spokesman David Frink said the closure was part of worldwide reductions announced in May 2007 and had nothing to do with the lawsuit.

Frink said Wednesday the company has since closed service centers in Ottawa and Texas. He said the company does not comment on pending litigation but noted that Dell has said in its response to the lawsuit that the claims are inaccurate.

A jury in Rio Grande City, Texas, in April 2006 awarded $32 million to the widow of 71-year-old Leonel Garza, a short-term Vioxx user who died of a heart attack in 2001. That award — $7 million for compensatory damages and $25 million for punitive damages — later was cut to about $7.75 million under Texas law limiting damages.

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the Texas 4th Court of Appeals overturned the verdict, ruling in favor of Merck. The opinion was signed by Justice Sandee Bryan Marion.

The judges wrote that Garza's family did not prove his brief use of Vioxx caused two blood clots that the family's attorneys argued triggered his heart attack. The judges also concluded the family did not provide sufficient evidence to rule out his long-standing heart disease as the cause of his fatal heart attack.

Garza had a prior heart attack and heart bypass surgery, smoked for nearly 30 years and died of the second heart attack after taking Vioxx for less than a month.

Merck lawyers had argued that heart attack was the end result of his 23 years of heart disease.

"There was simply no reliable evidence Vioxx caused Mr. Garza's heart attack," Travis Sales, one of the attorneys who represented Merck during the trial, said in an interview.

David Hockema, one of the Garza family attorneys, said they had just read the opinion and had not decided on their next move. Possible next steps would be a motion for a rehearing before the same court of appeals or a petition to the Texas Supreme Court, he said.

"I think the decision is clearly wrong and sets an impossible burden for the plaintiff to show the offending instrument (Vioxx) was the sole cause of their injury," Hockema said.

After the trial, a juror admitted previously borrowing more than $12,000 from Garza's widow, Felicia, an issue that Merck also raised in its appeal, Sales noted. However, that was not mentioned in the three-page appellate court decision.

Whitehouse Station, N.J.-based Merck pulled Vioxx from the market in September 2004 after research showed the painkiller doubled risk of heart attacks and strokes. That triggered an avalanche of lawsuits against Merck, which has a $4.85 billion settlement pending to end the bulk of the personal injury suits.

The Garzas and others whose cases went to trial before the settlement agreement in November are not eligible to participate.

Wednesday's ruling gives Merck 10 victories and four losses in the trials that reached verdicts, with retrials pending in a few cases.

Merck shares rose 66 cents, or 1.7 percent, to $39.83 in regular trading Wednesday, and rose another 23 cents in after-hours trading. Shares have traded between $36.80 and $61.62 over the past 52 weeks.