THLD closed Friday's regular trading session at $1.18, down $0.06 or 4.84%. However, in after hours trading, shares grew $0.0147 or 1.25%, trading at $1.1947.

Notice is hereby given that Finkelstein Thompson LLP has filed a Class Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Telik, Inc. ("Telik" or the "Company") between March 27, 2003 and June 4, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including purchasers in the Company's November 5, 2003 and January 28, 2005 stock offerings.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Finkelstein Thompson LLP. Please contact us by phone to discuss this action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (202) 337-8000 or Toll Free at (877) 337-1050, by email at info@finkelsteinthompson.com, or visit our website at http://www.finkelsteinthompson.com.

The Complaint charges Telik and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and prospects caused Telik's stock price to become artificially inflated, causing damage to investors. Telik is a biopharmaceutical company that engages in the discovery and development of small molecule therapeutics for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases. The Company's lead product candidate is TELCYTA, a small molecule cancer drug product candidate designed to be activated in cancer cells. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants misled investors about the effectiveness and safety of TELCYTA and the conduct of certain clinical trials for TELCYTA.

Specifically the Complaint alleges that when the Company issued preliminary results from its Phase III clinical trials of TELCYTA, defendants materially misled the investing public by concealing that patients in those trials were dying much sooner than patients receiving the standard chemotherapy treatment.

On June 3, 2007 the Company announced additional details concerning the negative results of the Phase III clinical trials of TELCYTA. This news caused the Company's stock to open on Monday, June 4, 2007 more than 15% lower than the previous trading day's closing price. By the end of trading that day, the stock had dropped even further. The Company further announced on June 4 that the FDA had initiated a clinical hold on the New Drug Application for TELCYTA, causing Telik stock to fall more than 25% on June 5, 2007.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members and is represented by Finkelstein Thompson LLP. Finkelstein Thompson LLP has spent almost three decades delivering outstanding representation to institutional and individual clients in connection with securities and other finance-related litigation, and has been appointed as lead or co-lead counsel in dozens of shareholder class actions. Indeed, in the past decade, the firm has served in leadership roles in cases that have recovered over $1 billion for investors and consumers.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than August 6, 2007, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a class member appointed by the Court to direct the litigation on behalf of the class. Although a class member need not be appointed as a lead plaintiff to receive a proportionate share of any proceeds of the litigation, lead plaintiffs make important decisions that could affect the prosecution of the class claims, including decisions concerning settlement. The securities laws create a rebuttable presumption that the plaintiff with the largest financial interest in the litigation is the most adequate to serve as a lead plaintiff.

If you are a Telik shareholder and wish to discuss the case or have information relevant to the investigation, please contact our Washington, DC office toll-free at (877) 337-1050, or by email at contact@ftllaw.com.

A San Diego Superior Court judge has granted class-action status to a lawsuit accusing Scripps Health hospitals of overcharging uninsured patients.

The suit alleges that uninsured Scripps patients pay as much as four times more than patients covered by Medicare or private insurance for the same procedures.

Judge Steven Denton made the class-action designation.

The suit seeks refunds that may exceed $100 million for 100,000 uninsured patients who allege they were overcharged by Scripps' five San Diego hospitals since 2002.

The suit also seeks penalties.

Scripps spokesman Don Stanziano said the company strongly objects to the accusations.

"Scripps is proud of our service to the community," Stanziano said.

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. If you purchased Plexus shares between January 25, 2006 and July 27, 2006, you have certain rights, and have until August 24, 2007, to move for Lead Plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice.

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 Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)638-4847, Toll-Free at (888)638-4847, by email to howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.

A Manhattan federal judge has rejected Parmalat SpA's (PLT.MI: Quote, Profile , Research) request to dismiss an investor class-action lawsuit stemming from the company's December 2003 collapse in an accounting scandal.

The ruling is a defeat for the Italian dairy company and Chief Executive Enrico Bondi. Both have been trying to distance themselves from prior management, and are seeking billions of dollars of damages from the company's former bankers.

Parmalat had filed Europe's largest bankruptcy under about 14 billion euros ($19.07 billion) of debt, after uncovering a 4 billion euro ($5.45 billion) hole in its accounts.

In a June 28 ruling, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan concluded that the reorganized Parmalat "expressly agreed" when it emerged from insolvency proceedings in 2005 to assume the old Parmalat's liabilities for fraud alleged by the investors.

"New Parmalat asserts that it did not assume the pre-insolvency acts," Kaplan wrote in a 30-page opinion. "But the issue is not the assumption of acts. It is the assumption of liability for those acts."

Kaplan also rejected Bondi's contention that the investors waited too long after learning of the alleged fraud to file claims, saying procedural developments in the case pushed back the filing deadline.

Stuart Grant, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, in a statement said Kaplan's decision paves the way for a "substantial recovery" against Parmalat. 

Scripps “strongly objects” to the accusations, company spokesman Don Stanziano said yesterday. “Scripps is proud of our service to the community.”

He said the class-action designation, made Wednesday by Judge Steven Denton, did not represent a decision on the appropriateness of the bills under scrutiny. The ruling allows the plaintiff's attorneys to represent all the uninsured patients who might have been affected by the hospitals' practices.

“What happened today was expected. It's part of the process,” Stanziano said.

The case is similar to other suits filed in recent years in California and other states alleging that nonprofit health care systems such as Scripps have failed to live up to their legal obligation to provide free care to the needy in exchange for a tax-exempt status.

In the most recent case in California, Catholic Healthcare West agreed to pay $423 million in refunds and bill reductions to hundreds of thousands of uninsured patients who received care at the nonprofit's 35 hospitals in California. The San Francisco-based health care system did not admit any wrongdoing.

The Scripps case was filed last year by Franklin, of Solana Beach, who was referred to a collection agency after failing to pay a $2,900 bill for a visit to the emergency room at Scripps Memorial Hospital Encinitas in October 2004. Franklin was unemployed at the time because of a work-related disability and couldn't pay the charges, Dermody said.

Franklin went to the hospital with severe kidney pain and was diagnosed with a kidney stone. He was given urine and blood tests, a CT scan and pain medication, according to the suit, and was referred to a urologist.

The hospital was unwilling to let Franklin pay his bill in installments, Dermody said. The bill collector that later pursued the charges filed a lawsuit against Franklin in January 2006.

The rates at which Scripps bills uninsured patients – known as chargemaster prices – were, on average, 412 percent above the rates the hospitals charge when caring for patients covered by Medicare, the federal government's health care program for people who are elderly or have disabilities, according to the suit.

Government and private health plans routinely negotiate discounts for hospital services by using the leverage of being able to direct large numbers of patients to health care providers.

A recent article in the journal Health Affairs found growing evidence that uninsured patients are being charged considerably more – often as much as two and a half times – for hospital services than those with insurance.

The trend is a dramatic reversal from conditions 50 years ago when the poor and uninsured were often charged the lowest prices for medical services, wrote article author Gerard Anderson, a professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

Stanziano said that Scripps already offers a number of options for uninsured patients who need help paying their bills, including extended payment plans and discounts for those making less than 350 percent of the federal poverty rate or $72,275 a year for a family of four.