In a letter posted to EMC's Web site, Joe Tucci, the company's chairman, president and CEO strongly denied that discrimination or harassment happened or continue to occur at the company. "EMC has long been committed to maintaining a workplace free of discrimination and harassment, with significant opportunities for every employee to succeed and grow," he wrote.

He said that during the four years covered by the case, women sales reps at the company in the U.S. earned, on average, more than their male counterparts. Since 2001, the number of women at the vice president and senior vice president levels has more than doubled and the number of women at the director level has nearly tripled, he wrote.

However, the suit filed by former sales representatives Tami Remien and Debra Fletcher paints a very different picture. At the time they filed the suit, they said just one of EMC's most senior executives was a woman and that the Chicago sales office of 30 had at most six women.

Remien's managers, according to the suit, denied her the engineering and managerial support that her male counterparts received, took accounts that she had begun selling products to and gave them to less successful male sales people, and was told that she couldn't take on certain accounts because she didn't tolerate strip clubs, hunt, fish, drink or smoke. She claims that when she complained to human resources, her managers retaliated by taking away essentially all of her accounts and continued to deny her support.

She also claims that her boss often shouted gender-based obscenities at her and called her stupid.

Fletcher had similar experiences under the same manager. She also once made a large sale but her commission was given to a male co-worker because he had a family, according to the suit. One account was taken away from her after she was falsely accused of having a sexual relationship with the client, the suit claims.

Both women were let go from their jobs at EMC after being left with no accounts or with accounts that didn't generate revenue.

A Tarragon spokesman said it's the company's policy not to comment on pending litigation.

The complaint claims Tarragon stock traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a high of $26.76 a share on July 22, 2005, as a result of defendants' false statements. The stock then fell, reaching 94 cents a share on Aug. 9, when Tarragon said its quarterly report would be delayed to give the company time to evaluate more than $125 million in property impairment charges and other write-downs made necessary by its decision to sell properties under adverse market conditions.

Tarragon and its subsidiaries are active in the Northeast, Florida, Texas and Tennessee.

Fort Lauderdale-based subsidiary Tarragon South is the developer of Las Olas River House, a high-rise in downtown Fort Lauderdale that was completed last year, but still has at least 22 units up for sale; and a planned mixed-use project with a condo tower on the site of the Gay & Lesbian Community Center on Andrews Avenue in Fort Lauderdale.

Tarragon is also an equity partner with Coscan Homes in Orchid Grove, a condo and townhouse community under construction in Pompano Beach.

Shirley Williams originally filed the discrimination case after she and several other employees were laid off in October 2001. Layoffs occurred again in March 2003.

The plaintiffs accused the company of using a computerized performance management system to determine which employees to let go. The plaintiffs contended that the system unfairly singled out employees older than 40.

A Sprint Nextel Corp. spokesman said at the time of the settlement agreement in May that the company settled the case to move on with business.

A Sprint Nextel representative was not immediately available for comment on Monday.

Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC ("KGS") has filed the first class action lawsuit against China Sunergy Co. Ltd. ("China Sunergy" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CSUN) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of China Sunergy in connection with the Company's IPO on or about May 17, 2007, or who purchased shares thereafter in the open market. No class has yet been certified in this action.

UNLESS A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT PERSONALLY REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN AN ATTORNEY.

China Sunergy, certain of its officers and directors, and the Company's underwriters are charged with including, or allowing the inclusion of, materially false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

Particularly, the Complaint charges that China Sunergy raised over $107.52 million through the issuance of 9.775 million shares, despite the Registration Statement's false and misleading statements that the Company: (1) was a "leading manufacturer of solar cell products, as measured by production capacity" that was experiencing remarkable revenue growth; and (2) had secured a sufficient supply of polysilicon, a raw material necessary to the continued production of its solar cell products. Yet at the time of the IPO and unbeknownst to shareholders, the Registration Statement failed to disclose that China Sunergy was already having difficulty obtaining a sufficient supply of polysilicon, which foreseeably would have a near-term adverse impact on earnings.

On July 3, 2007, only weeks after the IPO, China Sunergy issued a press release announcing preliminary results for 2Q:07 well below guidance, and claimed that it could suddenly not obtain critical raw materials necessary for production and its revenue goals. The Company's press release stated that "the relatively tight supply of polysilicon affected the quality, quantity and delivery of wafers and drove up overall wafer prices in the spot market, resulting in increased pressure on China Sunergy's margins."

On this news, shares of China Sunergy fell nearly 25% in a single trading day, from a high of $14.90 on July 2, 2007, to a close of $11.28 the following day, on exceedingly high volume of 3.659 million shares. As the impact of China Sunergy's belated disclosures resonated in the market, shares of the Company continued to decline, to about $7.50 per share by August 23, 2007. Shares fell significantly lower days later, to below $5.00 per share -- on news that the Company's CFO was resigning -- after China Sunergy revealed a loss of at least $.14 per share for 2Q:07. In all, China Sunergy shares fell from $16.70 per share from the highs following the IPO, to a low of below $5.00 per share -- all within approximately 10 weeks.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than November 9, 2007. 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. If you would like to discuss your legal rights, you may e-mail or call KGS Managing Partner Lewis Kahn, without obligation or cost to you, toll free 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100, or by email at lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com. To learn more about this case or KGS, you may visit http://www.kgscounsel.com/case/case.asp?lngCaseId=5014. KGS focuses its practice on securities class action litigation, and has been appointed lead counsel in numerous federal securities class actions.

The state's highest court, reversing two lower court decisions, ruled that a nationwide class was not appropriate for the lawsuit. The suit had been brought by a union health plan on behalf of all insurance plans that paid for Vioxx prescriptions, or about 80 percent of all Vioxx sold.

A lawyer for the New Jersey union said that because the state's consumer fraud law allows for triple damages, the case could have cost Merck $15 billion to $18 billion. The company's annual revenue last year was $22.6 billion.

Had the class action been allowed to proceed, it also would have been a major setback to the company's strategy of fighting the Vioxx lawsuits individually. Of the cases that have reached verdicts, Merck has won nine and lost five. A new trial was ordered in one case, and two others ended in mistrials this year.

Shares of Merck, which is based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., rose more than 2 percent, to $50.47, Thursday.

"We were thrilled with the decision," said John Beisner, who argued the case for Merck.

Christopher A. Seeger, lead lawyer for the plaintiff, the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 68 in West Caldwell, N.J., said he would pursue separate claims on behalf of individual health plans. He said that the high court did not rule that the state's consumer fraud law could not be applied to health plans from other states, so those claims could still be pursued in New Jersey, with the possibility of triple damages.

"Merck temporarily dodged a bullet," he said. "Merck didn't totally dodge the bullet."

Had the class action been allowed to proceed, it also would have been a major setback to the company's strategy of fighting the thousands of Vioxx lawsuits one by one. Merck shares rose 95 cents, or 1.9 percent, to $50.35 in early trading Thursday.

The Whitehouse Station, N.J.-based company said it was pleased with Thursday's ruling.

Merck pulled Vioxx from the market three years ago after research showed it doubled risk of heart attacks and strokes.

Chris Seeger, lead lawyer for the West Caldwell, N.J.-based union that sued, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 68, said that given the ruling, he will now pursue separate claims on behalf of individual unions.

"Merck temporarily dodged a bullet. Merck didn't totally dodge the bullet," he said.

Mr. Seeger sued the drug maker on behalf of the union in October 2003, arguing that if Merck had disclosed those risks earlier, prescription plans would have favored other painkillers. A state judge and then an appeals court approved the class action, but Merck appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The high court reversed the appellate court's decision on multiple grounds. It wrote that it would be inappropriate to apply New Jersey's consumer fraud law to claims by third-party payers around the country and that while Merck ran a uniform marketing campaign for Vioxx, insurance plans made individual decisions about covering the drug.

The judges also wrote that the engineers' union and the other third-party payers "are well-organized institutional entities with considerable resources," and that it was unlikely their claims were too small to pursue individually.

Five judges had heard oral arguments on a case in March, and all five sided with Merck on the ruling.

"The Supreme Court recognized that a class action was improper because each insurance company and HMO considered different types of information in deciding whether to reimburse patients for Vioxx, and they all went through varied processes with different experts in making those decisions," said Merck attorney Ted Mayer.