Shirley Williams originally filed the discrimination case after she and several other employees were laid off in October 2001. Layoffs occurred again in March 2003.

The plaintiffs accused the company of using a computerized performance management system to determine which employees to let go. The plaintiffs contended that the system unfairly singled out employees older than 40.

A Sprint Nextel Corp. spokesman said at the time of the settlement agreement in May that the company settled the case to move on with business.

A Sprint Nextel representative was not immediately available for comment on Monday.

Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC ("KGS") has filed the first class action lawsuit against China Sunergy Co. Ltd. ("China Sunergy" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CSUN) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of China Sunergy in connection with the Company's IPO on or about May 17, 2007, or who purchased shares thereafter in the open market. No class has yet been certified in this action.

UNLESS A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT PERSONALLY REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN AN ATTORNEY.

China Sunergy, certain of its officers and directors, and the Company's underwriters are charged with including, or allowing the inclusion of, materially false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

Particularly, the Complaint charges that China Sunergy raised over $107.52 million through the issuance of 9.775 million shares, despite the Registration Statement's false and misleading statements that the Company: (1) was a "leading manufacturer of solar cell products, as measured by production capacity" that was experiencing remarkable revenue growth; and (2) had secured a sufficient supply of polysilicon, a raw material necessary to the continued production of its solar cell products. Yet at the time of the IPO and unbeknownst to shareholders, the Registration Statement failed to disclose that China Sunergy was already having difficulty obtaining a sufficient supply of polysilicon, which foreseeably would have a near-term adverse impact on earnings.

On July 3, 2007, only weeks after the IPO, China Sunergy issued a press release announcing preliminary results for 2Q:07 well below guidance, and claimed that it could suddenly not obtain critical raw materials necessary for production and its revenue goals. The Company's press release stated that "the relatively tight supply of polysilicon affected the quality, quantity and delivery of wafers and drove up overall wafer prices in the spot market, resulting in increased pressure on China Sunergy's margins."

On this news, shares of China Sunergy fell nearly 25% in a single trading day, from a high of $14.90 on July 2, 2007, to a close of $11.28 the following day, on exceedingly high volume of 3.659 million shares. As the impact of China Sunergy's belated disclosures resonated in the market, shares of the Company continued to decline, to about $7.50 per share by August 23, 2007. Shares fell significantly lower days later, to below $5.00 per share -- on news that the Company's CFO was resigning -- after China Sunergy revealed a loss of at least $.14 per share for 2Q:07. In all, China Sunergy shares fell from $16.70 per share from the highs following the IPO, to a low of below $5.00 per share -- all within approximately 10 weeks.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than November 9, 2007. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you would like to discuss your legal rights, you may e-mail or call KGS Managing Partner Lewis Kahn, without obligation or cost to you, toll free 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100, or by email at lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com. To learn more about this case or KGS, you may visit http://www.kgscounsel.com/case/case.asp?lngCaseId=5014. KGS focuses its practice on securities class action litigation, and has been appointed lead counsel in numerous federal securities class actions.

The state's highest court, reversing two lower court decisions, ruled that a nationwide class was not appropriate for the lawsuit. The suit had been brought by a union health plan on behalf of all insurance plans that paid for Vioxx prescriptions, or about 80 percent of all Vioxx sold.

A lawyer for the New Jersey union said that because the state's consumer fraud law allows for triple damages, the case could have cost Merck $15 billion to $18 billion. The company's annual revenue last year was $22.6 billion.

Had the class action been allowed to proceed, it also would have been a major setback to the company's strategy of fighting the Vioxx lawsuits individually. Of the cases that have reached verdicts, Merck has won nine and lost five. A new trial was ordered in one case, and two others ended in mistrials this year.

Shares of Merck, which is based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., rose more than 2 percent, to $50.47, Thursday.

"We were thrilled with the decision," said John Beisner, who argued the case for Merck.

Christopher A. Seeger, lead lawyer for the plaintiff, the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 68 in West Caldwell, N.J., said he would pursue separate claims on behalf of individual health plans. He said that the high court did not rule that the state's consumer fraud law could not be applied to health plans from other states, so those claims could still be pursued in New Jersey, with the possibility of triple damages.

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

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.

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

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.