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.

The shareholders, led by the giant bond fund Pacific Investment Management Co., indicated for more than a year that they aimed to go after Mayer Brown, but previously refrained from identifying the firm in a class-action lawsuit against alleged perpetrators of the fraud that led to Refco's collapse. Last year, the shareholders said in court documents they expected to reach a settlement with Mayer Brown.

In their suit, filed with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the shareholders also listed Joseph Collins, a Mayer Brown partner, as a defendant. Mayer Brown employs about 1,400 lawyers in six countries. Collins is head of its derivatives group.

Collins wasn't available to comment Monday. In a statement, Mayer Brown said it intended to defend itself "with vigor" and is "confident of a positive resolution." It said it believes securities laws don't allow lawsuits to be brought "against an outside adviser where the company allegedly misrepresented its financial position."

Refco was once one of the biggest commodity brokerages in the United States. It collapsed in October 2005 - just two months after its IPO - amid allegations that its chief executive hid $430 million in bad debt. Federal prosecutors charged the executive, Philip Bennett, with fraud. Bennett, who was ousted from the company, pleaded not guilty. The company sold its key assets and has gone out of business.

Since then, a court-appointed official responsible for collecting funds on behalf of Refco's creditors has sued about dozen investment banks, accounting firms and other "insiders" that played a role in the company's IPO. The official, Marc Kirschner, has sought more than $1 billion in damages from those defendants, including Mayer Brown.

The Refco shareholders' allegations against Mayer Brown are similar to those in Kirschner's lawsuit. The shareholders said Refco's relationship with Mayer Brown began in 1994, when Collins brought the "Refco account" with him from a previous law firm. Because Mayer Brown billed Refco about $5 million a year, Refco was an "extremely lucrative" account.

The importance of that account led Collins to participate in a cover-up of "hundreds of millions of dollars" in bad debt at Refco, the shareholders' lawsuit said. Revealing those debts, by properly accounting for them, would have "threatened the company's survival" - and Collins' fees, the lawsuit said.

Collins became Bennett's "go-to guy" at Mayer Brown, working with him in "devising, documenting and concealing the massive fraudulent scheme that was intended to, and did, result in the false financial statements on which investors innocently relied."

"In return for tens of millions of dollars in legal fees from Refco, Collins and Mayer Brown abandoned their responsibilities as honest professionals and became willing participants in a fraudulent scheme that cost innocent investors hundreds of millions of dollars," the lawsuit said.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased this stock during the above referenced class period you have certain rights. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice.