Had the class action been allowed to proceed, it also would have been a major setback to the company's strategy of fighting the thousands of Vioxx lawsuits one by one. Merck shares rose 95 cents, or 1.9 percent, to $50.35 in early trading Thursday.

The Whitehouse Station, N.J.-based company said it was pleased with Thursday's ruling.

Merck pulled Vioxx from the market three years ago after research showed it doubled risk of heart attacks and strokes.

Chris Seeger, lead lawyer for the West Caldwell, N.J.-based union that sued, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 68, said that given the ruling, he will now pursue separate claims on behalf of individual unions.

"Merck temporarily dodged a bullet. Merck didn't totally dodge the bullet," he said.

Mr. Seeger sued the drug maker on behalf of the union in October 2003, arguing that if Merck had disclosed those risks earlier, prescription plans would have favored other painkillers. A state judge and then an appeals court approved the class action, but Merck appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The high court reversed the appellate court's decision on multiple grounds. It wrote that it would be inappropriate to apply New Jersey's consumer fraud law to claims by third-party payers around the country and that while Merck ran a uniform marketing campaign for Vioxx, insurance plans made individual decisions about covering the drug.

The judges also wrote that the engineers' union and the other third-party payers "are well-organized institutional entities with considerable resources," and that it was unlikely their claims were too small to pursue individually.

Five judges had heard oral arguments on a case in March, and all five sided with Merck on the ruling.

"The Supreme Court recognized that a class action was improper because each insurance company and HMO considered different types of information in deciding whether to reimburse patients for Vioxx, and they all went through varied processes with different experts in making those decisions," said Merck attorney Ted Mayer.

Starting today, Thompson will spend the next week in the key early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.

He's betting he can make up for lost time and convince skeptics in his party that he's neither lazy nor underprepared, but instead methodical and getting in just as voters are ready to pay attention. All of his major competitors have spent months courting voters, raising money and refining their stances.

"He could catch fire and take off," said Cary Covington, an associate professor of political science at the University of Iowa. "But, historically, candidates who rely in Iowa on television ads and commercials don't do well. It takes organizing at the grassroots level and that takes time, and Thompson just doesn't have much of that time left now. He can't afford any mistakes. He has to hit hard and charge hard and really be running full blast."

Thompson has strengths going in. He's got celebrity and a homespun appeal as well as experience in national politics. He's also got a socially conservative message and reputation that could appeal to his party's base.

So far, Republicans have yet to solidify around any single competitor, be it former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney or any of the others.

Recent polls in early primary states show Thompson in second or third place among GOP candidates, in some combination with Giuliani and Romney.

Yet with his announcement, Thompson is off to mixed reviews.

Thompson's timing allowed him to avoid participating, literally by a few hours, in a televised Wednesday night candidate debate in New Hampshire. But his campaign bought time on Fox to air a 30-second Thompson spot during the debate.

That prompted New Hampshire's Republican Party chairman to accuse Thompson of wanting it both ways.

"I think New Hampshire voters and voters elsewhere would be forgiven for thinking he's skipping the debate because he isn't ready to have a substantive debate on the issues," chairman Fergus Cullen said. "And voters also could be forgiven for thinking, 'Well, what the heck was he doing all summer if he wasn't preparing?' There's a genuine interest here in Sen. Thompson and curiosity. But he seems to be getting off on the wrong foot."

Thompson's communications director Todd Harris defended the strategy. "We're not skipping debates," Harris said. "We're going to be present at a number of debates" in New Hampshire and other states in the weeks and months ahead.

"It's a question of how we've decided to roll out our campaign. And this is how we've decided to do it.

"Jay Leno is one of the highest-rated shows on television, and Sen. Thompson's message is going to be about bringing the country together under a banner of mainstream conservative change," Harris said. "You can't talk about unifying the country without talking to the entire country."

Harris describes Thompson as "the best communicator of the mainstream conservative message" in the GOP. "And our party needs a good communicator at a time when many in the public are not as high on the Republican Party as they used to be," he said.

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all purchasers of securities of ValueClick, Inc. ("ValueClick" or the "Company") from November 1, 2006 through July 27, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbtklaw.com.

The Complaint charges ValueClick and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. ValueClick provides online advertising campaigns and programs for advertisers and advertising agency customers in the United States and Europe. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that certain of the Company's lead-generation practices violated the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 ("CAN-SPAM") and Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") Guidelines; (2) that the Company's use of long surveys to generate email addresses for resale violated industry standards; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On May 18, 2007, the Company disclosed that the FTC was conducting an inquiry to determine whether the Company's "lead generation" activities violated the FTC Act or the CAN-SPAM Act. Specifically, the FTC was investigating certain of ValueClick's websites which promised consumers a free gift of substantial value, and the manner in which the Company diverted traffic to such websites, in particular through their use of email. On May 22, 2007, the Company disclosed that its lead generation activities accounted for more than 60 percent of the Company's quarterly Media segment revenue, and that the promotion-based sub-category of lead generation, the subject of the FTC inquiry, accounted for approximately 30 percent of its quarterly Media segment revenue.

Then on July 30, 2007, the Company announced disappointing quarterly financial results. The Company stated that its revenue results were negatively impacted by the Company's promotion-based business, which "suffered a downturn that began in late May and became more pronounced in June." As a result, the Company was forced to lower its yearly revenue guidance from $655 million to $665 million down to $645 million to $660 million. Additionally, the Company was forced to lower its earnings-per-share guidance for the year, from $0.79 to $0.81 down to $0.74 to $0.76. Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined $5.00 per share, or 19.2 percent, to close on July 30, 2007 at $21.01 per share, on unusually heavy trading.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler or to sign up to participate in this action online, please visit www.sbtklaw.com

The District argues in its petition for review that its law--one of the toughest handgun bans in the nation--should be upheld regardless of whether the court sides with the so-called "individualist" or "collective" legal theories.

"It is eminently reasonable to permit private ownership of other types of weapons, including shotguns and rifles, but ban the easily concealed and uniquely dangerous modern handgun," states the petition, filed by District Attorney General Linda Singer. It adds: "Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die."

"We're going to fight to uphold a law that . . . has public support," Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) said at a news conference outside D.C. police headquarters. "The only possible outcome of more handguns in the home is more violence. Our appeal will help the District of Columbia be able to continue to reduce gun violence."

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit split 2-1 last March in throwing out the District's law, which prohibits handgun ownership except by active and retired law enforcement officers. It also struck down a law requiring that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded and disassembled or bound by trigger locks.

The court ruled that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms" and that "once it is determined--as we have done--that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them."

The appeals court acknowledged that its decision was groundbreaking; only one other appeals court--the Fifth Circuit based in New Orleans--has recognized an individual's right to gun ownership, and it nevertheless upheld the federal gun-control law at issue. Nine other circuits around the country have endorsed the "collective" right.

That split is what makes it likely the justices will accept the case, and the lawyers who brought the case on behalf of six District residents who wanted to overturn the gun ban also want the court to take the case.

"We support the court granting [review] and plan on responding very quickly," said attorney Alan Gura, one of the lawyers who brought the case.

Singer said the city expects to hear by November whether the high court will hear the case. The District would be represented in court arguments by Alan B. Morrison, special counsel to Singer's office.

"This is more than an intellectual or ideological argument. It's real," Singer said. "For the residents of the District of Columbia, it's a matter of life and death."

The Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the gun rights guarantees of the Second Amendment since 1939, when it upheld a federal gun control law and seemed to side with the "collective" right argument.

The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The appeals court's decision to focus on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"rather than "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State'' reflects a growing trend in the legal and academic community.

So while the District argues in its petition that the appeals court decision ignored the "obvious military character" of the Second Amendment's language, it spends more time making the case that its law should be upheld even if a majority of the justices embrace the individual rights theory.

Its legal filing contends that the Second Amendment was meant to protect the states from federal intervention, not to restrict their legislative decisions. "States remain free to regulate arms within their boundaries so long as they do not thereby deprive the United States of the ability to obtain the assistance of an armed citizenry in time of need," the petition states.

And the petition says the high court should recognize that banning handguns, which it calls the criminal's "weapon of choice," was a reasonable response in an urban area marked by high crime rates.

District lawyers argue that the ability to own shotguns and rifles satisfied the desire of the law's challengers for a means of self-protection. The appeals court found that argument "frivolous."

The petition also includes a long list of statistics it says bolsters its claims that the availability of handguns increases the number of suicides and endangers children and police officers. "No other provision of the Bill of Rights even arguably requires a government to tolerate serious physical harm on anything like the scale of the devastation worked by handguns," it states.

Although the case decided by the appeals court was called Parker v. District of Columbia, District lawyers have filed their petition as District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller. That is because the appeals court found that Heller, a security guard, was the only one of the six plaintiffs who had legal standing to challenge the law. His application for a handgun permit was denied by the government.

A pipeline that the company owned ruptured about six miles west of Kingman in October 2004. More than a million pounds of liquid ammonia was released.

U.S. Attorney Eric Melgren says the ruptured pipe created a vapor cloud that was a half-mile wide and 1.5 miles long. The ammonia flowed into a 10-mile stretch of a tributary of Smoots Creek, killing the fish, including several endangered ones.

The company will also pay for the cost of setting up the trust and will work with the retiree committee to explore offering life insurance conversions when and if the underlying policies allow for conversions.