Today, domain hunter Chris McElory chucked a federal class action lawsuit at Network Solutions, insisting that the Comcast of domain registrars uses "fraudulent and deceptive business practices to effectively trap consumers into paying its grossly inflated domain name registrations fees".

In the words of Brian Kabateck, one of McElory's lawyers, Network Solutions is guilty of "a very sophisticated form of price fixing". We take issue with the "very sophisticated" bit.

If you visit the Network Solutions website and show interest in a domain without actually putting your money down, the company will quickly register the address under its own name. For the next four days, you can still purchase the address from Network Solutions, but you can't purchase it from any other registrar.

Back in January, for instance, one loyal Reg reader searched the site for "network-solutions-registers-all-names-searched.com," and minutes later, he discovered that "network-solutions-registers-all-names-searched" belonged to none other than Network Solutions. Meanwhile, other readers have pulled this trick with domain names that describe the company's behavior in very different terms.

Though it won't speak to us, Networks Solutions tells others that by self-registering domains, it's protecting customers from cybersquatters on the lookout for highly marketable urls. "In response to customer concerns about Domain Name Front Running (domains being registered by someone else just after they have conducted a domain name search)," the company has said, "we have implemented a security measure to protect our customers."

So, Network Solutions is front running domains in an effort to prevent other outfits from front running. And judging from a recent ICANN study, those other outfits don't exist.

And even if they do exist, Network Solutions' little trick doesn't prevent them from front-running. It merely forces them to spend their dirty dollars with Network Solutions. Network Solutions claims that it would never sell domains to front runners, but we question its ability to identify front runners. After all, it has failed to identify itself.

The company claims that these mysterious front runners are also "domain tasters," those clever characters that temporarily register thousands of domains just to test their "marketability." And it wants the world to know that if ICANN would just prevent people from returning addresses within five days for a full refund, it will quit self-registering domains.

But this is merely stating the obvious. If ICANN removes the five-day full refund, Network Solutions couldn't self register domains without paying good money for them. And it won't pay good money for them.

As Chris McElory's suit says, Network Solutions' self-registering trick is merely an effort to make some extra dough. If customers search on a name but don't immediately buy, his complaint says, they "cannot register their domain name through any of Network Solutions' less expensive competitors because their chosen domain is unavailable through any other service - which (unbeknownst to the customer) is now held exclusively by Network Solutions - who is now offering to sell the domain to anyone willing to pay its grossly inflated registration fee."

The suit even goes so far as to say that Network Solutions isn't the only guilty party. ICANN is also named. "ICANN rules tacitly say that Network Solutions practice is acceptable," Kabateck told us. "We aren't seeking damages against ICANN. We just want a declaration from the court that its allowing this to go on."

What does Kabateck think of Network Solutions' claim that it's merely trying to destroy domain tasters? "Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't get," he says. And we can assure you he's not stupid.

It was only a matter of time. Most have known for a while now that Bluray players were designed in different phases. The problem is that the same goes for the discs themselves. This leads to a situation where some players play some movies while some players are unable to. Such is the case with the first generation player from Samsung. And now the BD01200 player is the center of a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer Samsung.

A man named Bob McGovern has filed a suit because his BluRay player is unable to play some of the newer Blu-Ray movies.  His Bluray was manufactured in 2006 and is unable to play the movies due to the lack of updated firmware for his particular machine.

Samsung has publicly stated that they have no intentions of providing the necessary firmware update for the machine. Why the company would do this and face a lawsuit is a curious decision indeed. The lawsuit is open to anyone facing the same dilemma as Mr. McGovern.

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.