State Supreme Court Justice Thomas Farber said he would not release Colliton until he had imposed the sentence. The judge scheduled sentencing for Oct. 11.

Colliton, 43, admitted he had sex numerous times with one girl younger than 15 and another under 17 between Dec. 25, 2000, and March 1, 2005. He also admitted he visited a prostitute younger than 17 between August 2000 and February 2004.

Colliton's lawyer, Howard Greenberg, said his client faced 30 years in prison if he had been convicted at trial on a 43-count indictment that charged him with numerous counts of rape and sodomy.

Prosecutor Rachel Hochhauser said she was ready for trial but Colliton had agreed to "take responsibility for his actions" and plead guilty. She said the victims were told of the disposition of the case and "supported it."

Colliton, formerly of the prestigious Manhattan law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore, fled the country in February 2006 after learning that police wanted to talk to him.

The 38-year-old mother, whose name was withheld to protect her daughters' identities, pleaded guilty in April 2006 to endangering the welfare of a child. She admitted she allowed her girls to have sex with Colliton and knew he was giving them money and gifts.

Granting class-action status allows blind people throughout the country who have tried to access Target.com to become plaintiffs in the suit, which alleges violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel also on Friday approved a separate class, made up of blind California residents who have attempted to use the site, to address the suit's charges that Target is violating state laws governing civil and disabled rights.

"This is a tremendous step forward for blind people throughout the country who for too long have been denied equal access to the Internet economy," said Dr. Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind. "All e-commerce businesses should take note of this decision and immediately take steps to open their doors to the blind."

The federation filed the suit - which originally was filed in California state court in February 2006 and moved at Target's request to San Francisco federal court the following month - on behalf of federation member and northern California resident Bruce Sexton. The suit alleged that "blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to Target stores" and the "service and benefits offered to the public through Target.com."

Judge Patel's order Friday noted that Target has modified its Web site some since the suit's filing to make the site more accessible to the blind. Target claimed the suit should therefore be dismissed, but Judge Patel ruled against that argument.

Analysts said the spat, which revived European fears over stability of gas flows, was politically motivated. Moscow issued the threat as votes were being counted from a parliamentary election in Ukraine that showed gains for pro-Western parties.

"We have reached an agreement to avoid such problems in the future," Dmitry Medvedev, Russian First Deputy Prime Minister and chairman of gas export monopoly Gazprom, said after meeting Ukraine Energy Minister Yuri Boiko.

Gazprom said Boiko had pledged to repay the debt before November to avoid a reduction in supply and to guarantee stable deliveries to Europe.

"European consumers won't suffer. European customers are in an absolutely comfortable situation," Medvedev was quoted by Russian agencies as saying. Gazprom's stock fell by 0.7 percent, in line with the broader market.

Sales at Ford fell 18.2 percent in September, closing out its 2007 model year on a disappointing note, and analysts say the carmaker's immediate future does not look much brighter. Its biggest new product, the Edge, is already on sale, and its most critical redesign, the F-series pickup, is still a year away from arriving at dealerships.

The Edge, a crossover vehicle that executives said would lead Ford through its turnaround, has surpassed expectations, but almost everything else seems to be coming up short. The chief sales analyst at Ford, George Pipas, said September sales fell short of targets in the company's overhaul plan, known as "the way forward."

"We're not where we want to be," Pipas said Tuesday. But he insisted that the shortfall "doesn't throw us off track for the full year."

Ford's sales have been down every month this year, largely because of planned cutbacks in deliveries to rental car companies. But sales at dealerships have fallen off, too, raising questions about whether the carmaker needs to speed up its turnaround.

"Their market share levels are disappointing," said Bruce Clark, an analyst with Moody's Investors Service in New York. "2008 is going to be challenging from an operating standpoint, and their cash burn will not be inconsequential."

September sales of the Ford Taurus sedan, which Ford introduced this summer with high expectations, were 30 percent lower than those of its predecessor, the Five Hundred. And sales of Ford's sport-utility vehicles have fallen so sharply that the Edge outsold them all last month.

Yet the Edge is not winning many new customers for Ford, because nine out of 10 vehicles most commonly traded in for it are other Ford models, said Tom Libby, senior director of industry analysis at the Power Information Network of J.D. Power and Associates.

Ford is preparing to resume contract talks this week with the UAW, which reached a tentative deal with GM last week after a two-day nationwide strike. The deal, which workers are voting on through Oct. 10, is expected to make GM significantly more competitive with foreign manufacturers like Toyota and Honda.

But as details of the GM deal continue to emerge, analysts are increasingly concerned that a similar deal may not go far enough to help Ford and, to a lesser extent, Chrysler.

GM is in a much healthier position than Ford, Libby said, as September sales illustrated. GM's sales rose 4.5 percent, and its market share jumped to 25.3 percent, from 24.4 percent a year ago, according to the Autodata Corp., an industry statistics firm. Ford's market share fell to 13.3 percent, from 16.5 percent.

The complaint charges Harman and several of its officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). It is alleged that defendants omitted or misrepresented material adverse facts about the Company's financial condition, business prospects, and revenue expectations during the Class Period. Harman claims to be a leading manufacturer of high-quality, high fidelity audio products and electronic systems for the automotive, consumer and professional markets in the Americas, Europe, and Asia. The Company operates under the brands names Harman Kardon, JBL, Revel, Mark Levinson, Infinity, Lexicon, Soundcraft-Studer, AKG, Becker, and QNX, and is traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

The complaint alleges that on April 26, 2007, the Company announced that it had entered into a contract in which two investment funds affiliated or sponsored by private investment companies, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. ("KKR") and GS Capital Partners VI Fund, L.P. ("GSCP") (KKR and GSCP are collectively referred to as the "Purchasing Companies" herein), would merge with Harman (the "Merger"). According to the complaint, the Merger was valued at approximately eight billion dollars ($8,000,000,000).

Specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued numerous materially false and misleading statements which caused Harman's securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had breached the Merger agreement with KKR and GSCP and thus placed the Merger in serious doubt; (2) the Company needed to sustain higher research and development ("R&D") costs primarily related to its automotive platform awards; (3) the Company's inventory was greater than disclosed and was negatively impacting its cash flows; (4) its relationship with DaimlerChrysler had materially worsened; (5) a material adverse change in Harman's business had occurred which related to capital spending; (6) the Company's financial health had generally deteriorated; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being, earnings, and future prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis when made.

According to the complaint, on September 21, 2007, the Company shocked the market and announced that the Purchasing Companies "no longer intend to complete the previously announced acquisition....KKR and GSCP have informed Harman that they believe that a material adverse change in Harman's business has occurred, that Harman has breached the merger agreement and that they are not obligated to complete the merger." The complaint alleges that this news caused the Company's share price to fall from a closing price of $112.25 on September 20, 2007, to close at $85.00 on September 21, 2007, on unusually heavy volume. Then, on September 24, 2007, the complaint alleges that the Company announced that it would fail to meet its financial guidance for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, and needed to significantly reduce its estimates for the FY 2008. According to the complaint, this news caused the Company's share price to fall to $80.31 on extremely high volume of over 14.5 million shares.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Harman International common stock during the Class Period, which is between April 26, 2007 through and including September 24, 2007. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Harman International common stock during the Class Period, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the securities, you may wish to join in the action to serve as lead plaintiff. If you purchased Harman International common stock during the Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff no later than November 30, 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 class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member 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.