Attorney Advertising. Notice is hereby given that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Aetna Inc. ("Aetna" or the "Company") (NYSE: AET) between October 27, 2005 and April 27, 2006, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Stull, Stull & Brody has substantial experience representing employees who suffered losses from purchases of their employer's stock in their 401(k) plans. If you bought Aetna securities through your Aetna retirement account and have information or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact us.

The Complaint charges Aetna and certain of its officers and directors with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the second half of 2005 Aetna touted its expanding membership rolls as a primary reason for an increase in operating income.

During the Class Period, defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose the rise in Aetna's medical cost ratio ("MCR"), which is the percentage of dollars a company spends on healthcare, including physician reimbursement, and is the key number for health plans in terms of their level of profitability. Unbeknownst to investors, however, from at least as early as September 2005 defendants had in their possession information that contradicted, or rendered false, statements made by the defendants throughout the Class Period.

On April 27, 2006, the Company shocked the market when it disclosed a rise in its MCR relative to the prior year. This higher MCR coupled with large membership growth meant that the Company was under-pricing its health plans in order to speed up enrollment. This fact, which the defendants knew by September 2005, was conspicuously absent from defendants' public disclosures between October 27, 2005 and April 27, 2006. From April 26, 2006 to April 27, 2006, Aetna's shares fell from $46.43 per share to $37.00 per share, a decline of $9.43 per share, or more than 20 percent, representing a loss in market capitalization of $5.4 billion.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Aetna securities during the Class Period, which is between October 27, 2005 and April 26, 2007, inclusive. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Aetna securities during the Class Period, and either lost money on the transactions or continue to hold the securities, you may wish to serve as a lead plaintiff. If you purchased Aetna securities during the Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by no later than December 24, 2007.

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 proposed lead plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the other class members, and that the proposed lead plaintiff 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 Stull, Stull & Brody, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. Stull, Stull & Brody has litigated many class actions for violations of securities laws in federal courts over the past 30 years and has obtained court approval of substantial settlements on numerous occasions. Stull, Stull & Brody maintains offices in New York and Los Angeles.

"We stay his execution pending the Supreme Court's resolution of Baze vs Rees," the court said, referring to the high court's decision last month to review whether lethal injections cause unacceptable pain.

Siebert's lawyers had argued that the drug combination used for lethal injection might interact with his medication for pancreatic cancer and hepatitis C and cause undue pain.

Siebert was convicted of the 1986 strangling deaths of Sherri Weathers, her two young sons and Weathers' friend Linda Jarman. Also convicted of murdering another woman, Siebert claims to have murdered others in various U.S. states.

Bryan Stevenson, director of the Equal Justice Initiative, which helped bring the suit on Siebert's behalf, said: "It would grossly inappropriate to carry out executions that may soon be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court."

Louella Kelley, Jarman's sister, lamented the ruling. "He's beaten the system again," she said in an interview. "He got himself educated in law while he's been in prison and his lawyers are very, very good. But all along he's been smarter than our justice system."

Alabama Gov. Bob Riley had said on Monday the execution would go ahead. It would have been the first since the beginning of a "creeping moratorium" that has halted executions in at least six U.S. states. 

In a 6-3 split decision, the court refused to grant Ryan or co-defendant Larry Warner the so-called "en banc" hearing.

Ryan, a Republican who gained national prominence as governor for his opposition to the death penalty, was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in federal prison after his conviction. But the sentence had been put on hold and he remained free while the request for another hearing was pending.

It was not clear from Thursday's ruling whether Ryan would now be required to report to prison. Ryan did not return a message left on his cell phone, and the office of his attorney James R. Thompson said it had had no immediate comment. Thompson, himself a former governor, had said earlier that the case would be fought to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

Ryan was convicted of taking payoffs from political insiders in exchange for state business while he was secretary of state from 1991 to 1999 and governor from 1999 to 2003.

In 2000, Ryan declared a moratorium on executions after 13 Illinois death row inmates were found to have been wrongly convicted. Then, days before he left office, he emptied out the state's death row, commuting the sentences of all 167 inmates to life in prison.

But the federal investigation of the secretary of state's office under Ryan eventually ensnared him. It had been speeded up after six children died in 1994 in a fiery accident involving a truck driver who got his license illegally.

Authorities eventually found that unqualified truck drivers had obtained licenses through bribes. Federal prosecutors began convicting his employees and friends, moving closer and closer to Ryan.

Thursday's order from the six majority judges was just one paragraph long and gave no explanation for their refusal to hold a hearing.

Ryan's request for a new trial cited problems that had surfaced during the jury's lengthy deliberations, including the dismissal of a juror who had allegedly snored and another who failed to disclose her arrest record. His lawyers argued that the questioning of jury panel members about the problems had intimidated them and affected their impartiality. Prosecutors scoffed at the notion.

The Swiss successfully defended the America's Cup off Valencia, Spain, in July and immediately accepted a Spanish yacht club as the challenger of record for a 33rd Cup in 2009.

While other countries can enter, the challenger of record runs the sail-off series to select the boat that will meet the defender in the America's Cup finals and negotiates the ground rules with the defender.

BMW-Oracle has challenged the validity of the Spanish club, saying it doesn't meet the requirements of the 1887 Deed of Gift that sets the basic rules for the America's Cup.

BMW-Oracle's challenge specifies a race in boats with a maximum waterline length and beam (width) of 90 feet. That could only be a huge catamaran or trimaran, which would approach the 50 m.p.h. mark.

Most sailing experts agree that BMW-Oracle is right. The Spanish club was formed only two weeks before the last cup ended, giving it a shaky hold on the requirement that it be an established yacht club. Nor has it held an "annual regatta," as the deed requires.

It's clear that the Spanish club was set up as Alinghi's puppet, in return for which the Swiss agreed to keep the America's Cup -- and the massive tourism dollars it earns -- in Valencia.

The Spanish club is so pliant that it has allowed Alinghi to design a new, 90-foot-waterline boat that would be used in the 33rd Cup in secret. So far, Alinghi has refused to reveal the design parameters to potential challengers, giving the Swiss a head start of several months in the crucial technological challenge of building the fastest boat.

"This is not the best time I've ever had in 27 years with the America's Cup," said Ehman, who is the spokesman for San Francisco's Golden Gate Yacht Club (the official challenging organization) and negotiates with other syndicates as the head of external affairs for BMW-Oracle Racing.

Ehman may have more history with America's Cup controversies than any living sailor. In 1983, when America lost the cup for the first time in 132 years, he was involved with Dennis Conner's Liberty syndicate in the battle over the legality of Australia II's radical wing keel. (The Aussies won.)

And closer to this case, in 1987, he warned the San Diego Yacht Club early on that an unexpected challenge by New Zealand with a 135-foot monohull was probably going to be upheld in court.

He was right, and the Americans met the challenge with a 60-foot catamaran in an event that saw San Diego retain the America's Cup but lose support from sailors in the United States and worldwide over what those sailors viewed as cheating.

"Just about every lawyer I talked to who has read the deed thinks (Alinghi) is wrong. But will they lose in court? You don't know. It's up to a judge, one guy," Ehman said. "After listening to the arguments in court and the judge's questions, I came away even more confident, but you can't be 100% sure."

If the Swiss lose, they can negotiate with the Americans. Ehman said that rather than have two syndicates race giant catamarans, BMW-Oracle would prefer to involve all of the challengers and the defender in selecting a new monohull design for a Cup off Valencia in 2010.

"But if they lose and won't negotiate, then we are ready to build the multihull and race next September. We have a design team and a build facility, and we are ready to push the button," Ehman said. He added, "That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for the America's Cup. I think a lot of people would love to watch giant multihulls" dicing around the turn marks at 30-40 miles per hour."

If it comes to a multihull event this time around, the atmosphere toward BMW-Oracle should be much different than it was toward Dennis Conner's San Diego entry in the 1987 debacle.

That's because both Oracle and Alinghi will have equal chances to build the fastest racing yacht ever designed, which could be the key to making the America's Cup a big television draw among non-sailors.

She says her complaints to ethics authorities about Sasso's allegedly unjust behavior and her cooperation in an FBI inquiry about Sasso's handling of a case caused a backlash among her superiors because the judge was a "political ally, friend and crony" of the firm.

As for sexual harassment, the suit says D'Onofrio and other women complained about unwelcome sexual comments and touching by DiFrancesco, but no corrective action was taken.

D'Onofrio recently underwent reconstructive surgery after a diagnosis of breast cancer in 2006. Before the surgery, DiFrancesco "asked her if she was planning on ‘getting really big boobs,'" the suit says.

In a telephone interview after the suit was filed, DiFrancesco said of that allegation, "It's absolutely not true. I can't recall saying those things and I know I would not have said things in those ways."

As for the rest of the personal charges against him, "a couple of things were fabricated," he says.

"It's not something I like to read, and I'm very unhappy about it and I'm very angry about it," says DiFrancesco, who was acting governor in 2001 at the end of a 25-year career in the state Legislature.

The suit names the firm, not individual partners, one of whom is Assemblyman Christopher Bateman, R-Somerset.

According to the complaint, DiFrancesco once asked D'Onofrio if she planned to wear a bathing suit to a professional function. In 2002, he asked her to stay a night in his hotel suite in Atlantic City after a League of Municipalities meeting and then go to a Beach Boys concert with him.