Sallie Mae, which a week ago obtained new financing and ended its court battle over a failed $25 billion buyout of the student lender, is now the subject of a class-action suit.

Law firm Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP said it filed a suit against Reston, Va.-based Sallie Mae in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Sallie Mae common stock between Jan. 18, 2007, and Jan. 3, 2008.

The firm said the complaint charges Sallie Mae and certain officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Sallie Mae's business and financial results.

We believe the complaint is meritless," said Tom Joyce, a spokesman for Sallie Mae, formally known as SLM Corp.Sallie Mae said on Jan. 28 that the lawsuit it filed in October against four proposed acquirers of the company would be dismissed, as would all counterclaims, and the merger agreement was terminated.

In conjunction with that action, Sallie Mae would receive commitments for $31 billion of 364-day financing from a group of banks led by Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC), New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co.and others.

Last year the investors backed away from the merger, pointing to the credit crunch that has made it more difficult to land money to finance large deals and a new federal law that slashes subsidies to student lenders.

Sallie Mae recently cut 3 percent of its work force and warned that more layoffs are likely to occur as it tries to cut costs.

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of securities of American Dental Partners, Inc. ("ADPI" or the "Company") between August 10 2005 through December 13, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbtklaw.com.

The Complaint charges ADPI and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. ADPI is a business partner and provider of services to dental group practices. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company engaged in tortious and unlawful conduct towards Park Dental Group ("PDG"); (2) that as a result of this conduct, the Company booked a large portion of earnings and revenue which materially inflated financial figures; (3) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Beginning on January 1, 1999, ADPI subsidiary PDHC, Ltd. ("PDHC") entered into a Service Agreement (the "Service Agreement") with PDG. The Service Agreement was amended January 1, 2001 and again on August 10, 2005. According to the Company's financial statements, the relationship with PDG accounted for approximately 30% of the Company's consolidated net revenue between 2004 and 2006. No other customer of ADPI accounted for more than 10% of the Company's consolidated net revenue.

On December 12, 2007, investors were shocked to learn that a judgment had been awarded in favor of PDG, against PDHC and ADPI. The jury in the case awarded PDG $88,290,647 in damages, broken down as follows: $9,413,397 in compensatory damages for breach of the Service Agreement; $11,500,000 for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing; $200,000 for breach of fiduciary duty; $67,000,000 for tortious interference with contract or prospective advantage; and $177,250 for defamation. Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined $5.36 per share, or 27.21 percent, to close on December 12, 2007 at $14.34 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The following day, as the public continued to learn of the December 12, 2007 judgment against ADPI, investors were further shocked and appalled to learn that due to ADPI's egregious conduct and actions, the jury had awarded PDG $42,250,000 in punitive damages. Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined $9.72 per share, or 67.78 percent, to close on December 13, 2007 at $4.62 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler or to sign up to participate in this action online, please visit www.sbtklaw.com

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than March 31, 2008, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. 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 class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. 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.

As part of a settlement to a federal antitrust suit, the NCAA agreed Tuesday to make available $10 million that will provide supplemental money above the standard athletic grant-in-aid to athletes who have competed in Division I-A football and in 16 Division I men's basketball conferences between Feb. 17, 2002, and the present. The agreement, subject to approval by a U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, is in response to a class-action suit filed in February 2006 on behalf of former football players Jason White of Stanford and Brian Polak of UCLA, former San Francisco basketball player Jovan Harris and Chris Craig, a former Texas-El Paso basketball player.

The suit argued that restricting a scholarship to the cost of tuition, books, housing and meals was an unlawful restraint of trade because of the billions of dollars the NCAA earned through broadcast and licensing deals. NCAA general counsel Elsa Cole said she expects the court to approve the agreement.

The settlement says the $10 million will be made available over a period of three years to qualifying student-athletes — which the NCAA says could number 12,000 — to reimburse them for "bona fide educational expenses hereafter incurred, such as tuition, fees, books, supplies and equipment."

An NCAA study estimated athletes on full scholarships averaged $2,500 a year in out-of-pocket expenses. The settlement allows athletes to apply for as much as $2,500 a year for up to three years.

Cole said the $10 million will come from the NCAA's reserve fund. "That's money that's been set aside for emergency uses or unanticipated contingencies … maybe something like this," she said.

Stephen Morrissey, who represented White in the case said, "We think $2,500 is a significant chunk of the educational cost.

"We wanted terms defined as broadly as we could so even a kid who didn't graduate could pursue something like culinary school if he wants to, and this can allow him to get reimbursed. And teachers can pursue continuing education."

Morrissey said the case got within "a couple of months" of trial.

"This was a hard-fought case," he said. "They have really good lawyers, and a lot of them, and they were fighting every step of the way."

Athletes also will have easier access to another $218 million of existing funds with the settlement.

Yogurt company The Dannon Company has refuted the class-action lawsuit filed against it in Los Angeles, California.

The company has said the complaint does not have any support for the generalizations made in the lawsuit and the publication cited in the lawsuit does not disprove the company's scientific substantiation for its product benefits. The report cited in the lawsuit, published by the American Academy of Microbiology, does not refer to any Dannon products, the company added.

The company also said it makes all scientific studies about its products available to the public and follows the method of peer-review and publication and regularly consults independent experts in the field of probiotics about the science behind all its probiotic claims.

The company has claimed that the scientific journals which have reviewed and published the findings on its products and the consumers who use the products have confirmed the benefits.

The case has dragged in the courts since it was filed in March 2003.

"This appeal took two years," said Kathy Henry, one of the plaintiffs. "We're glad about the appeals court ruling, but it's been cruel to make residents wait this long."

A spokesman for Dow said the company is reviewing the opinion.

"We continue to believe that the trial court erred in granting class certification," Scot Wheeler said. "Among other things, the trial court ignored evidence that upwards of one-third of the residential properties sampled showed no contamination."

Since the lawsuit was filed, hot spots of dioxin have been found in the Saginaw River.

An earlier ruling in the case dismissed the residents' demand to make Dow pay for medical monitoring for potential health problems.

Dow contends a University of Michigan study shows that people who live in contaminated areas do not show higher levels of dioxin in their blood than people who don't live near the river.