In a victory for 3M Co., a judge ruled today that 67,700 residents of Washington County will not be considered as a a single group in a lawsuit against the company for damages allegedly suffered because of chemicals detected in their water.

The ruling The ruling by Washington County District Judge Mary Hannon denied class certification for the residents - which will greatly help 3M as it defends one of the biggest environmental lawsuits in state history.

"3M is pleased. The entire ruling is a victory," said company spokesman Bill Nelson.

Six county residents brought the lawsuit, which has been joined by another 1,000 people, according to the plaintiffs' lawyers.

Hannon's ruling means anyone wishing to sue the company for similar damages will have to do so in a separate legal action.

The chemicals detected in trace amounts are PFCs, or perfluorochemicals, made by 3M for such products as Teflon and Scotchgard stain repellant. They were legally disposed of by 3M in landfills in Washington County. In 2004, the chemicals were discovered in drinking water in Lake Elmo and Oakdale.

The discovery of a related chemical in drinking water in communities including Cottage Grove and Woodbury was announced in January.

Mega-doses of PFCs have caused cancer and other problems in rats. But state officials said they pose no short-term health risk to humans because they are in such minute amounts in the drinking water.

PFCs in water are measured in parts per billion - the equivalent of one second in 32 years. It is calculated that a Woodbury resident would have to drink 500,000 glasses of water a day to match the dose at which rats begin to show an effect. Longer-term studies of the effects of PFCs are under way.

The stakes in the case are potentially huge. If the case had gone to trial with the larger group certified as a class, no one could have predicted the amount of a potential settlement. But an Ohio case involving the same chemicals ended in 2005 with a settlement of $300 million.

In that case, the DuPont Company agreed to pay to remove chemicals from drinking water and monitor the health of water-drinking residents in the future. It did not pay for any alleged damages done to the water-drinkers.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs wouldn't comment Tuesday, but said in a written statement that their case would go forward without class certification.

But others suing 3M - or who may want to in the future - were disappointed.

"I think this is a setback," said Jon Archer, who noticed many neighborhood children with developmental disabilities when he lived in Oakdale.

He has blamed the water. "It shows you how big powerful attorneys manipulate the system," Archer said of today's ruling.

Mike Bradley, a Woodbury attorney with thyroid cancer, could have joined the lawsuit if the certification was allowed. Now, if he wants to sue 3M, he will have to take separate legal action.

"It's tremendously frustrating," said Bradley. "I am not sure what the judge was thinking. I am really concerned that corporate interests not be placed above families and children."

Earlier this month, former EBS Chief Operating Officer Kevin Hannon was sentenced to two years in prison and fined $125,000 for defrauding investors. Hannon also was sentenced subject to a plea deal, but was convicted of lesser crimes and was facing a maximum of 5 years in prison.

Thai Attorney General Phatchara Yutithamdamrong said Monday that he would seek a criminal trial against former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his wife regarding a 2003 land purchase by Pojamarn Shinawatra from the government-directed Financial Institutions Development Fund. Yutithamdamrong also recommended the seizure of the land, valued at approximately $23.7 million USD. The announcement came as the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) ordered the additional seizure of $245.7 million USD of Thaksin's family assets, saying that the funds had been shifted from accounts seized last week shortly before the seizure was ordered. The previous seizure amounted to approximately $1.6 billion USD, held by Thaksin and members of his family. Thaksin made his fortune after founding what is now the Shin Corporation in 1983, and is estimated to be worth in excess of $2 billion.

The AEC recommended that charges be brought against Pojamarn and other members of Thaksin's family in February for tax evasion in the sale of Shin Corporation stock. Investigators have been having difficulty linking Thaksin to corruption, which was the stated reason for last year's bloodless coup. Thaksin has complained that the charges against him amount to a persecution, and has called the AEC findings "libelous, unfair, and unethical."

The state argued that because Brendlin was not the driver of the car, he was not the subject of the illegal stop, and so did not have the right to have the evidence suppressed because of the stop's illegality. In the unanimous opinion written by David Souter, the Court found:

Brendlin was seized because no reasonable person in his position when the car was stopped would have believed himself free to "terminate the encounter" between the police and himself. Bostick, supra, at 436. Any reasonable passenger would have understood the officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission.

Knight is one of several people who were arrested and charged with drug-related offenses following an investigation of several months that was conducted by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Portsmouth Police Department and other law enforcement agencies. The investigation focused on the distribution of Ecstacy, cocaine and marijuana in the Portsmouth area.

Knight will be sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Joseph DiClerico next September. The maximum prison sentence for the offense to which Knight pleaded guilty is 20 years.

The case deals with alleged industry misconduct during the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s.

The outcome of the antitrust case was vital to Wall Street because damages in antitrust cases are tripled, in contrast to penalties under the securities laws.

The question was whether conduct that is the focus of extensive federal regulation under securities laws is immune from liability under federal antitrust laws.

An antitrust action raises "a substantial risk of injury to the securities market," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote. He said there is "a serious conflict" between applying antitrust law to the case and proper enforcement of the securities law.

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the securities laws contain language that preserves the right to bring the kind of lawsuit investors filed against the Wall Street investment banks.

In 2005, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the conduct alleged in the case is a means of "dangerous manipulation" and that there is no indication Congress contemplated repealing the antitrust laws to protect it.

Investors allege that the investment banks, including Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, agreed to impose illegal tie-ins, or "laddering" arrangements. Favored customers were able to obtain highly sought-after new stock issues in exchange for promises to make subsequent purchases at escalating prices. The investment banks allegedly conspired to levy additional charges for the stock.

As a result of the conspiracy, the investors say, the average price increase on the first day of trading was more than 70 percent in 1999-2000, 8 1/2 times the level from 1981 to 1996.

Private class-action lawsuits, say plaintiffs' attorneys, provide a significant supplement to the limited resources available to the Justice Department to enforce the antitrust laws.

Lawyers for Wall Street investment banks say it is a highly technical matter where the line is drawn between legal and illegal activity in the sale of newly issued stock. It must be left to highly trained securities regulators to decide, rather than to courtroom juries in antitrust lawsuits brought by investors, the industry says.

The Supreme Court concluded that "antitrust courts are likely to make unusually serious mistakes" that hurt defendants. As a result, investment banks must avoid "a wide range of joint conduct that the securities law permits or encourages."

In other action, the court also added one case to its calendar for next term. It will consider whether an investor in a large 401k retirement plan can sue to recover losses to his individual account that are the fault of the plan's manager.

Other Wall Street institutions in the case before the Supreme Court were Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.; Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Comerica Inc.; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; Fidelity Distributors Corp.; Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC; Fidelity Investments Institutional Services Co. Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.; Janus Capital Management LLC; Lehman Brothers Inc.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.; Robertson Stephens Inc.; Van Wagoner Capital Management Inc.; and Van Wagoner Funds Inc.