Platinum Shield Association, a group that represents current and former franchisees seeking class-action status, alleges that the shipping company intentionally misled store owners into believing a new concept - The UPS (nyse: UPS - news - people ) Store - would be more profitable than their existing stores.

UPS acquired the Mail Boxes Etc. chain in 2001 and later renamed most of the stores as The UPS Store.

A copy of the decision was provided to The Associated Press by the group.

"This is a huge win for our organization," Howard Spanier, president of the association and a former franchisee, said in a statement. Spanier said franchisees were not given adequate information about the rebranding, which he said was "unavoidable and disastrous for many."

Franchisees involved in the suit are seeking damages and the chance to rescind their UPS Store contracts, the group said.

A call seeking comment from Atlanta-based UPS was directed to an attorney involved with the case. A voicemail message was not immediately returned.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court no later than December 7, 2007 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class. A Lead Plaintiff is a representative chosen by the Court, who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP and its predecessor firms have devoted its practice to shareholder class actions and complex commercial litigation for more than fifteen years and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders in class actions throughout the United States. You may visit our website at www.murrayfrank.com. If you would like to discuss this action, this announcement, or your rights and interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel Brian D. Brooks of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP.

In June 2003, the state gave class-action status to the case which grew to include 1.7 million people who bought similar computers.

H-P is a major employer in Roseville.

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Opteum Inc. ("Opteum" or the "Company") pursuant or traceable to the Company's September 17, 2004 Initial Public Offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering") or the Company's December 16, 2004 Secondary Offering, and including those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between November 3, 2005 and May 10, 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 Opteum and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's IPO and Secondary Offering, defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that the Company's interest costs at the time of the IPO and Secondary Offering were substantially increasing; (2) that as a result, the Company's various approaches to risk management did not provide investors reasonable protections against losses; and (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls.

Additionally, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose additional material adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being, business relationships, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that the Company's integration of Opteum Financial Services, LLC ("OFS") was not proceeding according to plan; (2) that the Company's risk management controls and procedures were incompatible with OFS' risk management controls and procedures; (3) that OFS' loans were designed to produce short-term financial results, which would subject the Company to unreasonable long-term risk and expenses; (4) that the Company had improperly valued and monitored collateral; (5) that the Company had underreported its loan loss reserves; (6) that the Company's book value and projected cash flows were materially overstated; (7) that the Company had failed to adequately hedge its exposure to losses; (8) that the Company and OFS lacked adequate internal and financial controls; (9) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (9) that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were false and misleading at all relevant times; and (10) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's guidance about its 2007 financial and operational results were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On May 10, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it reported its first quarter 2007 financial and operational results. The Company reported $12.2 million in negative fair value adjustments to OFS' mortgage servicing rights, $1.3 million in negative fair value adjustments to OFS' residuals, and $8.8 million in asset write downs at OFS. Additionally, the Company revealed that nearly 50 percent of the Company's first quarter loss, or $37.4 million, was attributable to a valuation allowance on OFS' deferred tax assets, nearly 17.5 percent of the loss was attributable to negative fair value adjustments to OFS' mortgage servicing rights and retained interests in securitizations, and slightly more than 10 percent of the loss was attributable to asset write downs at OFS, due in part to the Company's decision to exit the mortgage origination business. Also, the Company revealed that its quarterly loss included $14.1 million in negative fair value adjustments to mortgage loans held for sale and interest rate lock commitments, and hedging losses of $4.6 million. On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $1.37 per share, or over 25 percent, to close on May 11, 2007 at $4.08 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 http://www.sbtklaw.com.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than November 19, 2007, 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. 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 Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

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.

A Target official couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday morning.

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.