Patrick Ryan, the chairman and managing partner of the law firm Quarles & Brady LLP, died Wednesday at the age of 63 after a brief illness, the firm has announced.

Ryan joined Quarles & Brady in Milwaukee in 1970 after graduating from Marquette University Law School, where he served as editor-in chief of the Law Review. His practice at Quarles included extensive experience in private equity, capital markets transactions, acquisitions and commercial lending, particularly in the paper industry.

He was elected as the firm's managing partner in 2002 and had been involved with the management side of Quarles & Brady since 1985.

In a tribute on its Web site, the firm credits Ryan with helping to build a distinguished practice by providing knowledgeable legal counsel and a high level of personal service to a variety of corporate clients.

Under his leadership as chairman and managing partner, the firm has grown to its current size of approximately 440 attorneys and 520 support staff in six offices in Wisconsin, Illinois, Arizona and Florida. It was ranked by the National Law Journal as the 95th largest law firm in the nation in 2006.

Ryan is survived by his wife, Holly, and their four children and son-in-law: Brendan, Lucas, Abigail, Rebeccah and her husband Keith Martin. In addition, he had great pride in his five grandchildren: Joseph and Henry Martin, Daijah and Calia Stanley, and Beyonce Williams.

In lieu of flowers, contributions can be made to Marquette University Law School-Patrick M. Ryan Scholarship Fund designed to assist minority law students at Marquette University.

"My rights are mine, and I am entitled to waive them just as is any other defendant," Chapman wrote.

His lawyers argued that his wish to waive appeals showed he was not competent. But the court ruled Thursday that "our review of the record in this case ... shows that Chapman's plea was competently, knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made."

The Supreme Court ruling, written by Justice John D. Minton Jr., rejected the argument made by Chapman's defense attorneys that his guilty plea amounted to state-assisted suicide.

"Furthermore, the death penalty is not a disproportionately sentence for Chapman's heinous offenses," Minton wrote. "So Chapman's plea is not an impermissible 'suicide by court.'"

Chief Justice Joseph Lambert said Chapman's "volunteerism" played no part in his decision to uphold the death sentence.

"The wishes of a defendant, whether motivated by sincere remorse, desire to escape life imprisonment or to assert control should play no part in a death penalty determination," Lambert wrote in a concurring opinion.

Chapman admitted to killing 6-year-old Cody Sharon and 7-year-old Chelbi Sharon, and attacking their mother, Carolyn Marksberry, and their sister, Courtney Sharon. Chapman said he deserved to die for the Aug. 23, 2002 attack at Marksberry's home in Gallatin County.

The trial judge, Tony Frohlich, said at the time that he could find no legal reason not to grant Chapman's request.

Despite his request to be put to death, Chapman's court-appointed attorneys, Donna Boyce and Randall Wheeler, appealed the sentence. They argued before the Supreme Court that Frohlich shouldn't have gone along with Chapman's request for a death sentence, saying a defendant who seeks the death penalty is inherently incompetent. For that reason, the attorneys said, Chapman's guilty plea should be set aside and he should be treated for depression before a new plea hearing is held.

Chapman said in the affidavit that sending his case back to the trial court would invalidate his rights, as well as the rights of other inmates who choose to plead guilty.

The Supreme Court, in Thursday's ruling, reaffirmed that the death penalty is constitutional and that neither lethal injection nor electrocution are cruel and unusual punishments.

Despite the ruling, it could be years before an execution date is scheduled, said Allison Connelly, a University of Kentucky law professor. Defense attorneys still could appeal the case to the federal level, even asking the U.S. Supreme Court for review, she said.

Connelly said the state attorney general's office typically won't ask for an execution date until all appeals are exhausted.

The defense lawyers declined to comment, as did the attorney general's office.

Volunteering for a death sentence is not new. Since 1977, when Gary Mark Gilmore waived his appeals and was killed by firing squad in Utah, 124 inmates in 26 of the 38 states with a death penalty law have waived appeals and asked to die, according to the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C.

A second Kentucky Death Row inmate, Shawn Windsor, is also attempting to expedite his own execution. Windsor pleaded guilty in 2006 to killing his wife and son. He is on Kentucky's Death Row, but Chapman's case is further along in the automatic appeals process granted in death penalty cases.

The Supreme Court on Thursday also upheld the death sentences of Leif Halvorsen and Mitchell Willoughby who were convicted in 1983 of murdering three people in a Lexington apartment, and Fred Furnish who was convicted of murdering a Kenton County woman during a burglary in 1998.

Separately, Michael Hoffman, 44 years old, who founded Ilytat, agreed to pay a $100,000 civil penalty and accepted an 18-month ban on working for an investment adviser. Both men settled without admitting or denying wrongdoing.

The SEC had accused Federighi of fraud in connection with "late trading" the practice of buying mutual fund shares after the 4 p.m. close of trading while receiving that day's closing price. The SEC found that Hoffman aided and abetted Bear Stearns & Co., which had allegedly processed the improper trades over a two-year period starting in 2000. Bear Stearns more than a year ago agreed to pay $250 million to settle related SEC charges, including a $90 million civil penalty that was the biggest imposed on a brokerage firm under SEC Chairman Christopher Cox.

"Mr. Federighi is delighted to have this matter resolved," his lawyer, William Goodman, said. "He is looking forward to re-entering the industry once the terms of the injunction have been complied with."

Hoffman closed Ilytat in 2002. Shortly after, Federighi started Gage. Gage operated until September 2003, when allegations of widespread mutual-fund trading abuses surfaced.

A lawyer for Federighi declined to comment. Tarek Helou, a lawyer for Hoffman, said that "Mr. Hoffman put an end to these trading practices at his firm more than five years ago. He did so long before it became a public issue, and he cooperated fully with the SEC. He is pleased that this is now behind him and is focused on moving forward."

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of securities of GPC Biotech AG ("GPC" or the "Company") from December 5, 2005 through July 24, 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 GPC and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. GPC is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery, development and commercialization of new drugs to treat cancer. 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 the U.S. Federal Drug Administration ("FDA") had previously expressed disapproval regarding the Company's choice of methodology and a primary endpoint in the satraplatin studies; (2) that the Company continued to evaluate satraplatin using the disputed endpoint; (3) that the Company disregarded the FDA's previously expressed concerns about the disputed primary endpoint, and submitted the satraplatin study results to the FDA with the disputed primary endpoint supporting its satraplatin New Drug Application ("NDA"); (4) that the FDA's evaluators would be unable to determine disease progression from the Company's NDA submission; and (5) that the interim data submitted with the NDA would not allow the FDA to conclude that satraplatin was more effective than placebo in terms of overall survival.

Throughout the Class Period, the Company reported positive results from its satraplatin Phase 3 trial, and indicated that data from the trial would form the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") with the FDA. The Company reported a 40 percent reduction in risk of disease progression for study participants who received satraplatin, and reported that the study data showed that the results for PFS were highly statistically significant. The Company's investors were shocked on July 20, 2007, when the FDA released its "Briefing Document" in advance of the FDA's Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee's meeting to consider the satraplatin NDA. Therein, the FDA cited five "issues" that it had with the Company's satraplatin NDA. On this news, the Company's shares declined $7.80 per share, or over 24.5 percent, to close on July 20, 2007 at $24.00 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. On the following trading day, the Company's shares declined an additional $3.05 per share, to close on July 23, 2007 at $20.95 per share.

Then on July 24, 2007, the FDA's advisory panel voted 12-0 to recommend delaying a decision on satraplatin until the Company gathered additional data to determine whether satraplatin actually helped men with prostate cancer live longer. In response, the Company disclosed that it did not expect to have the necessary survival analysis for another year. On this news, the Company's shares declined an additional $7.19 per share, or 35.36 percent, to close on July 25, 2007 at $13.16 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than September 24, 2007, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

The suit is similar to one filed in 2004 by California gasoline station owners. That case was dismissed last year by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Plaintiffs' attorney Joseph M. Alioto of San Francisco said the top U.S. court rejected the former case because it sought to prove only that the three corporations agreed to fix prices. This time, Alioto said, he and his fellow attorneys will attempt to prove unfair competition laws were broken.

"All of this started at the Masters Golf Tournament," Alioto told Reuters on Wednesday. "The guy from Shell got a brainstorm while he was watching the pros hit those pebbled balls around and called the CEO of Texaco."

Heads of Shell Oil, Texaco and Saudi Refining began meeting monthly in 1996, the lawsuit says.

By late 1997, Shell and Texaco were ready to form an alliance but the Saudi representative was not, Alioto said, so Shell and Texaco in January 1998 formed Equilon to refine crude oil and to sell gasoline in 32 states, mainly in the U.S. West and Midwest.

By mid-1998, Alioto claims, the Saudis joined with Shell and Texaco and the three formed Motiva for refining crude and selling gasoline in 27 states, mainly in the U.S. Gulf Coast region and the eastern U.S.

The suit asks for class-action status. Some stations lost $10,000 or more a month because of what he alleged were practices that raised prices by cutting competition.

On Wednesday, Shell Oil representative Sarah Andreani said that Shell, Equilon and Motiva were "carefully and extensively reviewed by the (U.S.) Federal Trade Commission and by several state attorneys general prior to their formation -- and earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a decision that neither Shell nor the joint ventures violated any antitrust law."

In 1998, at a time when U.S. crude oil prices dipped to $10 a barrel -- they are near $70 now -- gasoline prices at Texaco and Shell stations rose.

"With inflation taken into account, in 1998, oil prices were at their lowest since The Depression," said Alioto. "Both Shell and Texaco (by their U.S. alliance) had substantially reduced their costs.

"In the face of these economic factors, they agreed to raise the prices" for gasoline, Alioto said.

Roche is seeking to acquire Tucson, Arizona-based Ventana, which makes diagnostic tests, for $75 a share. Ventana had wanted to apply an Arizona law that makes it harder for companies to be bought, but the judge ruled that it could not use that law, Roche said.

In a separate case, Roche is also contesting a so-called poison pill defense by Ventana, which would give Ventana shareholders rights to buy new shares at half price if Roche acquires 20 percent of the company.

Roche said on Tuesday it extended by four weeks the expiry of its tender offer to September 20 from August 23.