A federal appeals court ruled Monday that a group of FedEx Corp. employees who claim the company failed to pay them for all hours worked cannot form a class action group.

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday upheld a federal judge's decision to block the hourly employees from filing a class action lawsuit.

The judge had ruled that the court inquiries into each employee's individual situation would "swamp" any of the group's common issues.

The employees contend that FedEx has engaged in a "pervasive and long-standing policy" of failing to pay hourly employees for all time worked.

FedEx hourly employees are required to manually enter their scheduled start, end and break times into a hand-held tracker. But employees also use time cards as a backup tracking method.

The group claims they frequently worked during unpaid breaks. They also say they weren't paid for the gap periods between punching in or out on a time clock and when they actually started or finished work.

For example, if an employee punched in at 7:45 a.m. but entered a start time of 8 a.m. into the tracker, there would be a 15-minute gap for which the employee would not be paid.

A spokesman for FedEx wasn't immediately able to comment on the ruling Monday.

The Supreme Court will decide whether shareholders can sue pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. because of the failure of its former blockbuster painkiller Vioxx.

The high court agreed Tuesday to review Merck's challenge to a federal appeals court's reinstatement of a class-action securities lawsuit.

Investors had charged Merck with providing misleading information or omitting information about the risks of Vioxx. A U.S. District judge dismissed the November 2003 lawsuit, ruling that all the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred under the statute of limitation.

But the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided to allow the lawsuits and Merck appealed to the Supreme Court.

Vioxx was pulled from the market Sept. 30, 2004, because it doubled risks of heart attack, stroke and death. That day alone, stockholders lost a collective $28 billion.

Consumers have the right to sue as a group over advertising they believe misled them into buying products, a divided state Supreme Court ruled Monday in reinstating a massive suit against the tobacco industry.

The 4-3 decision rejected business arguments that, if accepted, would have virtually prohibited class-action suits for false advertising by requiring proof that every plaintiff - millions of them, in some cases - had seen an allegedly deceptive ad and relied on it to make a purchase. The court majority said that evidence is required only for the single plaintiff or small group that represents the entire class.

"This gives the consumers rights to protect themselves from fraudulent advertising," said Mark Robinson, a lawyer for the smokers who sued tobacco companies in 1997.

The ruling could make California "the class-action capital of the country," retorted William Stern, a lawyer for business organizations and a co-author of Proposition 64, a 2004 ballot measure at the heart of the case.

The suit accused the companies of waging a long advertising campaign that concealed cigarettes' addictive and harmful effects. Unlike individual suits over illnesses allegedly caused by tobacco company deception, the current suit seeks reimbursement of money spent by every Californian who bought cigarettes during the period covered by the case: June 10, 1993, to April 23, 2001.

The case was filed under California's unfair-competition law, a far-reaching statute that lets private citizens sue on behalf of the general public over illegal business practices, including deceptive advertising. The law was narrowed by the business-sponsored Prop. 64, which requires a plaintiff to show that he or she had actually been harmed by the business practice.

Prop. 64 did not say, however, how the new requirement would affect class actions, in which an individual or a small group sues on behalf of consumers in the same circumstances. The crucial question Monday was whether every member of the class must show harm from the challenged business practice, a virtual impossibility in most cases.

Former Vioxx users getting part of a $4.85 billion settlement ending most personal injury suits over the withdrawn painkiller will get a bigger piece of the pie, thanks to an unusual settlement Thursday with their health insurers.

Insurers who paid medical expenses for claimants in the settlement — one of the largest ever in the pharmaceutical industry — have been trying to recoup their expenses from the claimants. The insurers placed liens against any amounts recovered by thousands of former Vioxx users or their survivors, and unsuccessfully tried to make plaintiff lawyers disclose identities of all Vioxx claimants.

Under an agreement approved Thursday by U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon in New Orleans, the amount the more than 100 private insurers participating in the deal can recover from liens will be reduced by at least half. There's also a sliding scale that limits the total an insurer can recover from each claimant, attorney Christopher Seeger, who negotiated the agreement, told The Associated Press in an interview.

Insurers could get at most 15 percent of a $100,000 settlement, or $15,000, and 10 percent of any settlements worth more than $250,000. It's the first such settlement with insurers in a mass litigation case, Seeger said.

"It's a great deal for the (insurance) carriers. It's a very good deal for the claimants," said Seeger, co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the consolidated federal Vioxx cases.

Drugmaker Merck & Co., based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., pulled Vioxx off the market in September 2004 amid mounting evidence it greatly increased the risk of heart attack, stroke and death. That triggered tens of thousands of lawsuits from Vioxx users who claimed they were harmed.

A class action in Manhattan Federal Court claims Tremont Market Neutral Fund was grossly negligent in handing over 27% of its money to Bernard Madoff for his alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme.
    Here are the defendants in the Tremont Funds case: Tremont Market Neutral Fund LP, Tremont Partners Inc., Tremont Group Holdings Inc., Oppenheimer Acquisition Corp., Oppenheimer Funds Inc., Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., and Ernst & Young LLP.     

    A class action in Manhattan Federal Court claims these defendants handed over investments in the Rye Select Broad Market Fund to Bernard Madoff for his alleged Ponzi scheme: Rye Select Broad Market Fund LP, Tremont Partners Inc., Tremont Group Holdings Inc., Rye Investment Management, Jim Mitchell, and Robert Schulman.
    
    Three members of the Sciremammano family sued Bernard Madoff, saying he took more than $2 million from them, in Manhattan Federal Court.