A federal judge has granted class-action status for a lawsuit over wages filed by two former Dell Inc. customer service employees in Roseburg.

The order signed July 10 by U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin in Eugene covers Dell customer service employees in Oregon, Texas, Idaho, Tennessee and Oklahoma from February 8, 2004, to the present.

More than 80 people have already joined the lawsuit that could include as many as 5,000 current and former workers for the Round Rock, Texas, computer manufacturer.

The two Roseburg workers, David Norman and Walter Romas, claim in a lawsuit filed in February 2007 that Dell failed to pay overtime or keep accurate records.

Coffin said in his order that Norman and Romas "submitted evidence indicating a significant degree of commonality among the experiences" of Dell customer service workers.

Dell closed the Roseburg center last August, five years after it opened, laying off about 200 workers. Dell spokesman David Frink said the closure was part of worldwide reductions announced in May 2007 and had nothing to do with the lawsuit.

Frink said Wednesday the company has since closed service centers in Ottawa and Texas. He said the company does not comment on pending litigation but noted that Dell has said in its response to the lawsuit that the claims are inaccurate.

A jury in Rio Grande City, Texas, in April 2006 awarded $32 million to the widow of 71-year-old Leonel Garza, a short-term Vioxx user who died of a heart attack in 2001. That award — $7 million for compensatory damages and $25 million for punitive damages — later was cut to about $7.75 million under Texas law limiting damages.

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the Texas 4th Court of Appeals overturned the verdict, ruling in favor of Merck. The opinion was signed by Justice Sandee Bryan Marion.

The judges wrote that Garza's family did not prove his brief use of Vioxx caused two blood clots that the family's attorneys argued triggered his heart attack. The judges also concluded the family did not provide sufficient evidence to rule out his long-standing heart disease as the cause of his fatal heart attack.

Garza had a prior heart attack and heart bypass surgery, smoked for nearly 30 years and died of the second heart attack after taking Vioxx for less than a month.

Merck lawyers had argued that heart attack was the end result of his 23 years of heart disease.

"There was simply no reliable evidence Vioxx caused Mr. Garza's heart attack," Travis Sales, one of the attorneys who represented Merck during the trial, said in an interview.

David Hockema, one of the Garza family attorneys, said they had just read the opinion and had not decided on their next move. Possible next steps would be a motion for a rehearing before the same court of appeals or a petition to the Texas Supreme Court, he said.

"I think the decision is clearly wrong and sets an impossible burden for the plaintiff to show the offending instrument (Vioxx) was the sole cause of their injury," Hockema said.

After the trial, a juror admitted previously borrowing more than $12,000 from Garza's widow, Felicia, an issue that Merck also raised in its appeal, Sales noted. However, that was not mentioned in the three-page appellate court decision.

Whitehouse Station, N.J.-based Merck pulled Vioxx from the market in September 2004 after research showed the painkiller doubled risk of heart attacks and strokes. That triggered an avalanche of lawsuits against Merck, which has a $4.85 billion settlement pending to end the bulk of the personal injury suits.

The Garzas and others whose cases went to trial before the settlement agreement in November are not eligible to participate.

Wednesday's ruling gives Merck 10 victories and four losses in the trials that reached verdicts, with retrials pending in a few cases.

Merck shares rose 66 cents, or 1.7 percent, to $39.83 in regular trading Wednesday, and rose another 23 cents in after-hours trading. Shares have traded between $36.80 and $61.62 over the past 52 weeks.

Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Cbeyond, Inc. ("Cbeyond" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CBEY) between November 1, 2007 and February 21, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating the price of Cbeyond.

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 are a Cbeyond shareholder you have certain rights. 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 want to discuss your legal rights, you may e-mail or call the law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC who will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your questions. You may contact Evan J. Smith, Esquire or Marc L. Ackerman, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by e-mail at clients@brodsky-smith.com, or by calling toll free 877-LEGAL-90.

Under the agreement, Parmalat will issue to class members 10.5 million existing shares "in full satisfaction of any and all claim asserted against it in the class action, worldwide," the company said in a statement. Those shares would be valued at $36.8 million at the current market price.

Parmalat will also pay up to 1 million euros ($1.55 million) of the cost of notifying the class members of the settlement, the statement said.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of former Parmalat shareholders and other investors, who claimed they were damaged by Parmalat's 2003 collapse.

The settlement removes the threat of a suit that had been weighing on the Italian company's stock. Parmalat shares jumped on the news and by late morning they were trading up 2.6 percent at 2.25 euros ($3.50), outperforming an overall positive market.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Coughlin Stoia at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@csgrr.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.csgrr.com/cases/arbitron/. 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 complaint charges Arbitron and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides media and marketing information services in the United States and internationally. The Company's Portable People Meter ratings service is purportedly capable of measuring radio, broadcast television, cable television, Internet broadcasts, satellite radio and television audiences, and retail store video and audio broadcasts.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to disclose: (i) that the Company's scheduled implementation of its Portable People Meter ratings service in certain major markets was not performing according to internal expectations and the Company was experiencing significant difficulties such that it would have to delay its implementation; and (ii) as a result, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the timing of the implementation of Arbitron’s Portable People Meter ratings service and the Company's prospects and future earnings.

On November 26, 2007, Arbitron announced that "it [would] delay the commercialization of its Portable People Meter (PPM) radio ratings service in nine markets" and that the Company would be revising its financial guidance for 2007 and its outlook for 2008. In response to this announcement, the price of Arbitron common stock declined $7.21 per share, or over 14.74%, to close at $41.70 per share, on unusually high trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Arbitron common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

Coughlin Stoia, a 190-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The Coughlin Stoia Web site (http://www.csgrr.com) has more information about the firm.