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.

Election chiefs said last month Kasyanov could not run because signatures he submitted in support of his bid were forged. He accused the Kremlin of barring him to slant the vote in favor of front-runner Dmitry Medvedev.

Kasyanov, a former prime minister, had no chance of winning the March 2 election but his removal from the ballot has fuelled criticism that the Kremlin will brook little real opposition.

In a judgment after a one-day hearing, the Supreme Court said it had decided to leave the Central Election Commission decision to bar Kasyanov unchanged and to reject an appeal submitted by his lawyers.

Yelena Dikun, a spokeswoman for Kasyanov said: "The Central Election Commission ignored the views of citizens ... and now the Supreme Court, which is part of the same system, has also ignored the views of citizens."

Russian President Vladimir Putin is constitutionally barred from seeking a third consecutive term. He has endorsed Medvedev, a 42-year-old first deputy prime minister, to replace him.

It seeks sizable savings in government health care programs and puts the squeeze on much of the rest of government, but it would still generate near-record budget deficits over the next two years.

Even before receiving the document Monday, Democrats were attacking it for slashing programs to help the poor while protecting tax cuts for the wealthy.

"This is a budget that sticks it to the middle class, comforts the wealthy and has a set of priorities that are not the priorities of the American people," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

Democrats saw the plan as a continuation of failed policies that have seen the national debt explode under Bush. A projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion when Bush took office was wiped out by the 2001 recession, the increased spending to fight terrorism and, Democrats contend, Bush's costly tax cuts.

Bush's spending blueprint sets the stage for what will probably be epic battles in the president's last year in office, as both parties seek to gain advantages with voters heading into the November elections.

Bush, who was the first president to propose a $2 trillion budget, back in 2002, will leave office as the first president to hit $3 trillion with a spending plan.

His blueprint for the budget year that begins next October projects huge deficits, around $400 billion for this year and next, more than double the 2007 deficit of $163 billion. Private economists believe the deficit could easily surpass the previous record in dollar terms of $413 billion set in 2004, especially if the country does go into a recession.

The sharp jump in the deficits reflects, in part, a proposed economic stimulus plan of around $145 billion. Bush is urging Congress to pass it quickly as a way of getting tax rebates to households this summer in hopes of preventing a full-blown recession.

As in past years, Bush's biggest proposed increases are in national security. Defense spending is projected to rise by about 7 percent, to $515 billion, and homeland security money by almost 11 percent, with a big gain for border security. Details on the budget were obtained through interviews with administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity until the budget's release.

The bulk of government programs for which Congress sets annual spending levels would remain essentially frozen at current levels. The president does shower extra money on some favored programs in education and to bolster inspections of imported food, following last year's high-profile recalls of tainted products coming from China.

Bush's spending proposal would achieve sizable savings by slowing the growth in the major health programs — Medicare for retirees and Medicaid for the poor. There the president will be asking for almost $200 billion in cuts over five years, about three times the savings he proposed last year. The savings would come from freezing payments for hospitals and other health care providers.

Congress rejected last year's effort and Democrats are predicting Bush's new proposal will meet the same fate.

Class Actions for Non-Class Action Lawyers is the title of a CLE seminar being offered by the Los Angeles County Bar Association (LACBA).

The program will take place on Thursday, February 21 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the LACBA Conference Center, 281 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles. Registration begins at 8:30 a.m.

This program is designed for attorneys interested in helping individual and business clients understand when they have been victimized in a manner creating class-action claims, whether involving consumer-fraud schemes, price fixing or market allocations conspiracies, mass-tort injuries, or wage-and-hour schemes.

Speakers will include Alexander Barnett, The Mason Law Firm, LLP; Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C.; Valerie G. Esch, Wells Fargo Bank; Gregg A. Farley, The Farley Firm, and Daniel R. Karon, Goldman Scarlato & Karon P.C.

For details on registration fees and available CLE credits, see the Bulletin Board on The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel website at www.metrocorpcounsel.com.