Any person seeking to serve as lead plaintiff must move the Court no later than September 20, 2010. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Matt Miller, Esq. at Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca at 202-789-3960, or via e-mail at mmiller@cuneolaw.com. Any member of the 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.

The Complaint charges DJSP and certain of its officers with violations of the Exchange Act. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made material misrepresentations and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company made positive representations concerning its present and future business prospects, when it knew or recklessly disregarded that (1) one of its largest clients would be drastically reducing its need for the Company's services, and (2) the federal government's efforts to slow down real estate foreclosures would also reduce demand for the Company's services. According to the complaint, on May 27, 2010, the Company shocked the market by lowering its guidance for adjusted net income by $15 million to $17 million, and the price of the Company's stock has fallen dramatically.

Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, a firm with offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Los Angeles and Alexandria, Va., specializes in the representation of plaintiffs in consumer, antitrust, civil rights and securities class actions and is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States. The Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca website (http://www.cuneolaw.com) has more information about the firm.

Liddle & Robinson, based in New York, represents individuals and financial services firms, hedge funds and other businesses in high-stakes, cutting-edge employment, securities and commercial litigation matters. The Liddle & Robinson website (http://www.liddlerobinson.com) has more information about the firm.

Law firm Shapiro & Fishman has accused Attorney General Bill McCollum of pre-election grandstanding and “abuse of power” in connection with McCollum’s recent announcement that his office is conducting a foreclosure fraud investigation into that firm and two others.

The allegations are in response to a coordinated investigation announced by McCollum during an Aug. 10 press conference. McCollum said his office is looking at whether the three South Florida firms engaged in unfair and deceptive actions in their handling of foreclosure cases.

The other firms were the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson in Fort Lauderdale and the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. in Plantation.

The firm’s response came Friday in a motion to quash a subpoena in Palm Beach County Circuit Court.

Armstrong Teasdale LLP announces the arrival of associates Irina Sandler, Lauren Ashley Smith, and Adam R. Wuller.

“The subtle shift in the economy has brought about additional business and afforded us the opportunity to add talent,” said Michael A. Chivell, Armstrong Teasdale’s managing partner. “As we position Armstrong Teasdale as a premier firm in this region, we’ll continue to place a premium on attracting exceptional attorneys in key practice areas.”

Former legal counsel at the affiliate of Emerson Electric in Moscow, Irina Sandler joins the firm’s International practice group and will focus on international trade, import and export controls, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and antitrust compliance. She earned her LL.M. in Intellectual Property and Technology Law from Washington University School of Law, was an Edmund S. Muskie Graduate Program Fellow at the University of Illinois College of Law, and received her Degree in Law from Russian Law Academy of the Russian Ministry of Justice.

Lauren Ashley Smith, a recent law school graduate, is a member of the firm’s Public Finance and Real Estate, and Financial Services practice groups. Drawing on her research and scholarship in land use, and state and local government law, she will focus on public/private real estate development and municipal finance. Additionally, Smith will assist lenders and other creditors seeking to maximize their recovery against debtors in litigation, liquidation, reorganization, and bankruptcy including all aspects of post-judgment collection efforts. She earned her J.D. from Washington University School of Law and her B.A. from Marquette University.

Adam R. Wuller, also a recent graduate, is a registered patent attorney with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and joins the firm’s Intellectual Property practice group. The majority of his work will involve the preparation and prosecution of U.S. and foreign patent applications in a wide range of technical disciplines, including mechanical and medical devices. Wuller received his J.D. from Saint Louis University School of Law and his B.S. in engineering physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v NAB curbs the extra-territorial operation of US securities laws.

The extra-territorial operation of US securities laws has been curbed by the United States Supreme Court in Morrison v National Australia Bank (08-1191), by requiring the purchase or sale of the security to be made in the United States, or involve a security listed on a domestic exchange.

The facts in Morrison v NAB

The plaintiffs are residents of Australia, who purchased National Australia Bank Limited's ("NAB") ordinary shares on an Australian exchange.

In February 1998, NAB acquired HomeSide Lending Inc., an American mortgage service provider. HomeSide calculated the present value of the fees it would generate from servicing mortgages in future years using a valuation method, booked that amount on its balance sheet as an asset called a Mortgage Servicing Right ("MSR"), and then amortised the value of the MSR over its expected life.

In 2001, NAB revealed that the interest assumptions and the valuation model used by HomeSide to calculate the MSR were incorrect and resulted in an overstatement in the value of its servicing rights. When NAB disclosed the error its share price fell.

Notwithstanding that they were Australian residents trading securities in an Australian company in Australia, the plaintiffs commenced their class action against NAB in the Southern District of New York.

They relied on section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which prohibits any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered.

The trial judge, upheld on appeal, dismissed the claims on the basis that the court did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the appeal.

Supreme Court upholds decision but substitutes new test

The Supreme Court relied on the longstanding principle of American law that legislation of Congress is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, unless a contrary intent appears. The Court found that section 10(b) is not extra-territorial.

The US Supreme Court therefore adopted a transactional test for the application of section 10(b): whether the purchase or sale is made in the United States, or involves a security listed on a domestic exchange.

This replaced the previous tests for the application of section 10(b) that required either (1) an "effects test," ie. "whether the wrongful conduct had a substantial effect in the United States or upon United States citizens," or (2) a "conduct test," "whether the wrongful conduct occurred in the United States."

The Supreme Court's application of the presumption against extra-territorial operation was bolstered by the amicus briefs from a number of other countries, including Australia, which led the Court to observe:

Like the United States, foreign countries regulate their domestic securities exchanges and securities transactions occurring within their territorial jurisdiction. And the regulation of other countries often differs from ours as to what constitutes fraud, what disclosures must be made, what damages are recoverable, what discovery is available in litigation, what individual actions may be joined in a single suit, what attorney's fees are recoverable, and many other matters."

The law firm of Brodsky & Odeh, the legal practice behind several of Chicago's biggest cases, is splitting up, partners Reem Odeh and Joel A. Brodsky jointly announced today.

"We have grown in different directions and our expertise is now in very different areas of law," says Brodsky. "After some soul searching and discussion it became obvious to both of us that it simply makes more sense to be in separate law firms."

Odeh, who teamed with Brodsky six years ago, says she is looking forward to forging ahead with developing her own practice.

"I learned a lot from practicing criminal law with Joel over the last six years, and now it is time for me to develop my own identity as an attorney," says Odeh.

Brodsky and Odeh are probably best known for their representation of former Bolingbrook police officer Drew Peterson.

Reem says that despite the breakup of the firm, she will remain a part of Peterson's defense team.