The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Office Depot's business and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Office Depot securities.

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 Office Depot common stock between April 26, 2007 and October 26, 2007, you have certain rights, and have until January 4, 2008, to move for Lead Plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. 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 Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847

The settlement is part of a class-action lawsuit brought by direct purchasers, the company said.

Under the proposal, all claims will be dismissed and the class action lawsuit will be terminated for a cash payment of $9 million.

The deal is still subject to negotiation.

Shareholders of Office Depot Inc. (ODP) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Florida against the company seeking class-action status and damages for alleged violations of federal securities laws.

Saxena White P.A., representing shareholders that acquired Office Depot securities between April 26, 2006 and Oct. 26., said an announcement concerning the delayed release of the 2007 third-quarter report due to an independent review of vendor program funds led to a falling stock price.

A company spokesperson declined to comment on the suit.

Attorney Advertising. Notice is hereby given that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Aetna Inc. ("Aetna" or the "Company") (NYSE: AET) between October 27, 2005 and April 27, 2006, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Stull, Stull & Brody has substantial experience representing employees who suffered losses from purchases of their employer's stock in their 401(k) plans. If you bought Aetna securities through your Aetna retirement account and have information or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact us.

The Complaint charges Aetna and certain of its officers and directors with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the second half of 2005 Aetna touted its expanding membership rolls as a primary reason for an increase in operating income.

During the Class Period, defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose the rise in Aetna's medical cost ratio ("MCR"), which is the percentage of dollars a company spends on healthcare, including physician reimbursement, and is the key number for health plans in terms of their level of profitability. Unbeknownst to investors, however, from at least as early as September 2005 defendants had in their possession information that contradicted, or rendered false, statements made by the defendants throughout the Class Period.

On April 27, 2006, the Company shocked the market when it disclosed a rise in its MCR relative to the prior year. This higher MCR coupled with large membership growth meant that the Company was under-pricing its health plans in order to speed up enrollment. This fact, which the defendants knew by September 2005, was conspicuously absent from defendants' public disclosures between October 27, 2005 and April 27, 2006. From April 26, 2006 to April 27, 2006, Aetna's shares fell from $46.43 per share to $37.00 per share, a decline of $9.43 per share, or more than 20 percent, representing a loss in market capitalization of $5.4 billion.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Aetna securities during the Class Period, which is between October 27, 2005 and April 26, 2007, inclusive. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Aetna securities during the Class Period, and either lost money on the transactions or continue to hold the securities, you may wish to serve as a lead plaintiff. If you purchased Aetna securities during the Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by no later than December 24, 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 proposed lead plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the other class members, and that the proposed lead plaintiff 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.

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.