Recently in class action Category

The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Cell Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: CTIC) ("Cell Therapeutics" or the "Company"), who purchased or otherwise acquired Cell Therapeutics' securities between May 5, 2009 and March 19, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including purchasers of the securities issued pursuant or traceable to the Company's public offering on or about July 23, 2009.

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 Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@btkmc.com.

The Complaint charges Cell Therapeutics and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Cell Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing novel agents that seek to improve the safety and efficacy of existing standard-of-care chemotherapies, and those that may have unique, new mechanisms to kill cancer cells. During the Class Period, defendants misled investors concerning the results of a Phase III clinical study ("PIX-301") of a drug the Company was developing called pixantrone for the treatment of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma ("NHL"), as well as other cancers.

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) the Company's Special Protocol Assessment for pixantrone was invalidated by the fact that the study was terminated before fully enrolled and a planned interim analysis was not conducted; (2) the FDA had not approved the early termination of Study PIX-301 or the statistical analysis defendants intended to apply to the results of the study; (3) the Company enrolled large numbers of patients who didn't suffer aggressive NHL as the study protocol required; and (4) patients taking pixantrone in Study PIX-301 suffered more deaths, serious adverse events, and grade 3-4 adverse events than patients taking the comparator drug, including three deaths from heart failure in the pixantrone group compared to one in the comparator group.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country.  Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check 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 Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, or for additional information about participating in this action, please visit www.btkmc.com.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than May 11, 2010, 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.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  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. 

The law firm of McCuneWright, LLP has filed for a preliminary injunction in United States District Court, Central District of California seeking an immediate order requiring Toyota to expand the Sudden Unintended Acceleration recalls.  

McCuneWright, which filed the first and leading class action lawsuit against Toyota to force the automaker to remedy the sudden unintended acceleration defects in all affected makes and models, is asking the court to issue a specific order requiring Toyota to provide a brake over-ride system on all Toyota models equipped with Electronic Throttle Control System -- intelligent ("ETCS-i") that have experienced significant numbers of sudden acceleration events.

The brake override system is a failsafe system that enables the onboard computer to detect when both the throttle and the brake are being activated simultaneously, recognize that there is an error in the signals it is receiving, and immediately return the throttle to idle.  It is an important failsafe system used by other vehicle manufacturers to keep a sudden unintended acceleration event from turning into a runaway vehicle with resulting crashes, injuries, and deaths.

Toyota has recently announced that it will install this important safety device on all new Toyota and Lexus vehicles.  In its November 26, 2009, recall, Toyota also announced that it would retroactively install this important safety device on just six existing models and further limited the recall to only recent model years -- 2007 -- 2010 Toyota Camry, 2005 -- 2010 Toyota Avalon, 2007 -- 2010 Lexus ES 350, 2007 2010 Lexus GS 350, 2006 -- 2010 Lexus IS 250, and 2006 2010 Lexus IS 350.

The preliminary injunction motion asserts that by limiting this brake over-ride system recall to recent model years for just six vehicle models, Toyota has left more than 75 percent of the affected models and model years out of this important recall.

"Toyota cannot justify limiting this important recall to models and model years that include less than 25 percent of the reported sudden acceleration problems," says Richard McCune, a partner at McCuneWright, LLP. "Toyota has identified an important solution to this problem and it has a duty to its customers and to public safety the apply it to all the Toyota vehicles. Toyota shouldn't wait until there's another deadly crash."

On November 5, 2009, McCuneWright filed the first and leading class action on sudden unintended acceleration, Choi, et. al. v. Toyota Motor Company, et. al. CV 09-08143 AHM (FMOx), in United States District Court, Central District of California.  The preliminary injunction and supporting exhibits can be found on the Court's website or is available at www.mccunewright.com/toyota.

SOURCE McCuneWright, LLP

Sixteen new lawsuits allege that KBR, Inc. (NYSE: KBR) jeopardized the health and safety of tens of thousands of American soldiers and private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan by burning vast quantities of unsorted waste in enormous open-air burn pits with no safety controls.

The lawsuits were filed during the past week in federal courts throughout the nation by Burke O'Neil LLC and co-counsel on behalf of military veterans and private contractors. The suits allege that round-the-clock hazardous emissions from the burn pits caused illnesses such as multiple cancers, respiratory disease, pulmonary complications, chronic coughing, debilitating headaches, and neurological and skin disorders.

KBR is accused of allowing thick, noxious smoke, coming off of flames sometimes colored blue or green by burning chemicals, to hang over U.S. bases and camps across Iraq and Afghanistan since 2004.

According to the complaints, the burn pits are so large that tractors are used to push waste onto them and the flames shoot hundreds of feet into the sky. KBR allegedly burned waste such as biohazard materials including human corpses, medical supplies, paints, solvents, asbestos, items containing pesticides, animal carcasses, tires, lithium batteries, Styrofoam, wood, rubber, medical waste, large amounts of plastics, and even entire trucks.

Susan L. Burke, Elizabeth M. Burke, and Susan M. Sajadi, of Burke O'Neil LLC, in Washington, D.C., and co-counsel represent the more than 200 veterans, KBR employee-contractors and families in the cases which are pending in 37 states.

Elizabeth M. Burke, of Burke O'Neil LLC, stated, "KBR utterly disregarded the safety of the troops when they chose to use open air burn pits and failed to use incinerators and other safer methods of waste disposal. The hazards of operating large open-air burn pits were well known, and KBR promised to minimize the environmental effects of the burn sites they operated in Iraq and Afghanistan. KBR willfully endangered these men and women who honorably served their country in military service or in support of the military."

The legal team for the plaintiffs intends to seek class certification of the lawsuits to cover costs of medical monitoring, future medical expenses, and other damages for other individuals exposed to KBR burn pit emissions.

The new cases were filed in federal courts in Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington. Earlier this year, dozens of other current and former military personnel, private contractors and families of men who allegedly died as a result of exposure to toxic emissions from KBR burn pits brought similar claims.

A settlement in excess of $36 million has been reached in the litigation related to the catastrophic, August 13, 2008 Riverwalk at Millennium Apartment Complex fire in suburban Conshohocken, attorneys for the residents, their insurance companies, and the defendants jointly announced today.

Robert J. Mongeluzzi of Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky PC, interim lead counsel for the plaintiffs, and J. Brian O'Neill, the Conshohocken real estate developer, said at a news conference that the $36.25 million global settlement concludes all outstanding litigation on behalf of the fire victims, together with the litigation related to the cost of re-building the two destroyed apartment buildings at Riverwalk. The settlement also concludes the claims brought by the Law Offices of Robert A. Stutman, PC, of Ft. Washington, PA, which served as liaison counsel on behalf of the subrogated insurance company plaintiffs who provided coverage to many of the tenants.

Mongeluzzi said the victims are relieved and generally satisfied with the settlement. "They can finally get on with their lives," he said on behalf of the victims. "While the financial reimbursement does not come close to replacing cherished belongings and memories, the amount recovered is substantial, fair and just. Attorney Stutman, defense counsel, Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge Gerald Corso, and U.S. District Court Judge Petrese B. Tucker, and the court-appointed mediator, the Honorable James Melinson (Ret.), are to be commended for working to help reach this conclusion in very complex litigation. They were diligent, creative and saved valuable time and expense for our citizens."

Robert A. Stutman, Esq., whose law firm concentrates its national practice on insurance company representation in property and worker's compensation matters, teamed on this complex, catastrophic case with Mongeluzzi and SMBB. He noted, "This is an example of an excellent outcome as a result of the pooled resources of our respective attorneys and experts."

The former residents of the apartment complex, located along the Schuylkill River, filed a class action complaint (08-23265, Court of Common Pleas Montgomery County) that alleged negligence on the part of welders employed by an Aston, Delaware County contractor. That contractor was named as a defendant along with others responsible for various roles in the construction, management and development of the complex. O'Neill's company, O'Neill Properties, was the developer of the complex.

On the one-year anniversary of the fire, Mongeluzzi publicly reported little movement toward a settlement. He said Judge Melinson, the mediator, was instrumental in helping to bring the sides together to resolve the matter and avoid what surely would have been a long and costly jury trial. "The mediator helped all of the defendants realize that the risk of going before a jury was much greater than reaching a fair and reasonable settlement," Mongeluzzi explained.

"This has been an incredibly emotional ordeal for our family and we're just happy that there is some closure," said Dr. Irwin Becker, a family doctor whose apartment was destroyed in the fire. "We lost valuables but we've always known that nothing is more valuable than our loved ones, and our knowledge that some good might come from the lessons learned from this horrible tragedy."

The SMBB firm in recent years has successfully represented victims of numerous construction disasters, including the collapses of the Tropicana casino garage, Pier 34, and the Kimmel parking garage.

In addition to Mr. Mongeluzzi, the SMBB counsel team includes Patrick Howard and Larry Bendesky. Mr. Stutman's co-counsel included Michael Hopkins and Daniel Hogan from his firm.

The Stutman firm has represented major insurance companies on large fire losses and mass torts throughout the country, including the 2007 California wildfires, a $50 million refrigeration plant fire in Kentucky, and the catastrophic fire which destroyed the "White Building" at 12th and Sansom Streets in Philadelphia.

SOURCE Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, PC

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge today gave final approval to a class action settlement involving Lowes Home Improvement which calls for a maximum payment of $29.5 million. Two former Lowes employees alleged that they, and thousands of other hourly Lowes workers were required to work "off the clock" before and after their normal shifts, for which they were not paid. The action was litigated by Stanley Saltzman, Louis Marlin, Mark Bradley and Christina Humphrey of Marlin & Saltzman, and by R. Rex Parris and Robert Parris of the R. Rex Parris Law Firm. Lowes denied all of the claims raised in the lawsuit.

The case was originally filed in October of 2001. It was litigated for over 7 years, and raised legal issues that were twice resolved by the California Court of Appeal. In one decision, the Court of Appeal confirmed the right of the plaintiffs in a proposed class action to have contact with potential class members in order to obtain information that would assist in the prosecution of the action. That 2003 published decision, Parris vs. Superior Court (Lowes HIW) 104 Cal.App.4th 285, became important precedent in California. The second decision by the Court of Appeal came after the trial court had denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. Not only did the Court of Appeal reverse the decision by the trial court but, in an unusual move, rather than ordering the lower court to reconsider the issue, actually ordered that the case be granted class certification status.

As the case was preparing for trial, the parties were able to reach a settlement. Today, the final step of the class action settlement approval process took place, with the trial court granting full approval to the settlement on behalf of thousands of class members. It is anticipated that settlement proceeds will be sent to claimants by the end of this year.

SOURCE Marlin & Saltzman, LLP

Class Action Status Requested To Benefit All Persons Who Reside in the State of Louisiana and who Sustained Damages as a Result of the Dow Chemical Leak.

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, together with the Law Office of Robert M. Becnel, Salas & Co., L.C., and Herman Herman Katz & Cotler LLP, announces that it has filed suit on behalf of several Louisiana residents who sustained personal injuries and / or property damage as a result of a release of the chemical ethyl acrylate at the Dow Chemical Company's St. Charles Operation facility in Hahnville, Louisiana on July 7, 2009. The lawsuit, which was filed in the Twenty-Ninth Judicial District Court in the State of Louisiana, St. Charles Parish, seeks class action status to benefit all Louisiana residents who sustained residents who sustained personal injuries and / or property damage as a result of this incident.

The lawsuit alleges that the ethyl acrylate released during the accident is hazardous to both people and property. The plaintiffs claim they suffered physical, property, financial and psychological damages as a result of the ethyl acrylate leak, and that those damages were the result of Dow Chemical's negligence.

The lawsuit alleges that Dow Chemical knew or should have known that the tank and equipment were faulty, and that the substance they released was harmful. The lawsuit also charges that Dow Chemical failed to take necessary action to mitigate the danger from the spill, or provide adequate and timely warning of the leak. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the court.

The Dow Chemical ethyl acrylate leak occurred when a vent on a 640,000 gallon storage tank malfunctioned, releasing ethyl acrylate into the surrounding community. The release of ethyl acrylate produced an acrid odor that could be detected as far away as New Orleans and St. Bernard Parish. People living around Dow Chemical's St. Charles Operations facility were forced to evacuate, and dozens of people were treated in the hospital for ailments typical of exposure to ethyl acrylate fumes, including eye, nose and throat irritation.

SOURCE Parker Waichman Alonso LLP

A notice program authorized by the Los Angeles County Superior Court began over the weekend to alert those who purchased Cold MD dietary supplement from March 26, 2004 through May 29, 2009 about a proposed settlement against Iomedix Cold International SRL ("Defendant"). The notice is a result of the Court certifying, on May 29, 2009, a plaintiff class in a lawsuit alleging that Defendant made misleading or false statements about Cold MD dietary supplement.

The lawsuit, Eduardo Salcido, et al. v. Iomedix Cold International SRL, Case No. BC 387942, claims Defendant made false and misleading statements in their labeling and advertising of Cold MD dietary supplement. The settlement includes only the Cold MD dietary supplement, which was packaged as "Cold MD" and had the words, "Dietary Supplement" printed on the lower right corner of the box it was sold in. The Settlement does not mean that Defendant did anything wrong, and the Court has not decided that Defendant did anything wrong.

All Class Members can submit claims online at: www.ColdMDSettlement.com or via U.S. mail. Each Class Member who provides a valid receipt or credit card statement showing they purchased Cold MD dietary supplement will be sent a check in the amount of $10.00 for each bottle purchased during the Class Period. Each Class Member who does not have a valid receipt or credit card statement showing they purchased the Cold MD dietary supplement, but who submits the Declaration included in the Claim Form saying that they purchased the product, will be sent a check in the amount of $5.00 for each bottle purchased during the Class period (up to a maximum of three bottles if the Claim Form is submitted online at www.ColdMDSettlement.com and up to a maximum of six bottles if the Claim Form is sent via U.S. mail).

Notices informing Class members about their legal rights are appearing in national newspaper supplements and a consumer publication leading up to the hearing on October 20, 2009.

The Court appointed the law firm of Milstein, Adelman, & Kreger, LLP to represent the Class as Plaintiffs' Lead Class Counsel.

In addition to submitting a claim form to ask for payment, Class members can ask to be excluded from, or object to, the settlement. Claim forms must be postmarked no later than September 22, 2009. The deadline for exclusions and objections is August 24, 2009.

A toll-free number, 1-888-266-9438, has been established in this case along with a website, www.ColdMDSettlement.com, where notices, claim forms, the settlement agreement, and the Court's preliminary approval order may be obtained. Those affected also may write to: Cold MD Settlement Administrator, PO Box 3518, Portland, OR 97228-3518.

SOURCE Cold MD Class Action Notice Administrator, Epiq Systems Inc.

Persons who purchased or paid for (in whole or in part) Paxil CR(R) and insurance companies and other entities that reimbursed for (in whole or in part) Paxil CR(R) in the United States and its territories may be eligible for relief as part of a $28 million Proposed Settlement. The lawsuit claims that the Paxil CR(R) tablets GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") manufactured between April 1, 2002 and March 4, 2005 contained a manufacturing defect that caused some of the tablets to split apart. GSK denies all of these claims and any liability.

If approved, the Proposed Settlement will provide up to $28 million to settle the claims in the lawsuit. Some of this money will be paid to insurance companies and other entities that made reimbursements for (in whole or in part) Paxil CR(R) and some of this money will be paid to consumers who purchased or paid for (in whole or in part) Paxil CR(R). The recovery available to insurance companies and other Third-Party Payors ("TPPs") will be based on their number of covered lives as of December 31, 2004. Consumer class members' recovery will be based on the number of Paxil CR(R) tablets that they paid for or purchased, up to $150, that were defective in that they were split before they were removed from the container in which they were purchased.

Potential Class Members do not need to do anything to stay in the class. However, they must submit a Claim Form if they wish to obtain money from the Proposed Settlement. Claim Forms are available by visiting the website www.SimonetPaxilCRSettlement.com or by calling 1-866-458-3186. Claim Forms must be postmarked by August 10, 2009.

Class Members wishing to exclude themselves from or object to the Proposed Settlement must do so as outlined in the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement, available by visiting the informational website www.SimonetPaxilCRSettlement.com or by calling 1-866-458-3186. Those wishing to exclude themselves from the Proposed Settlement must do so no later than May 15, 2009. Those wishing to object to the Proposed Settlement must do so no later than July 1, 2009. A Class Member must remain in the Class in order to object.

The Court has appointed the law firms Strange & Carpenter and Salas & Co., L.C. to represent the proposed Class. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on July 10, 2009. At that time, the Court will consider the motion for attorneys' fees and expenses, and it will decide whether the Proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.

SOURCE Simonet Paxil CR(R) Settlement Administrator.