CAR_Public/041007.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, October 7, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 199

                          Headlines

AMY'S KITCHEN: Recalls Whole Meals Enchilada Due To Mislabeling
BEST BUY: Plaintiffs Launch Consolidated Securities Suit in MN
BRADY FARMS: Migrant Workers File MI Suit V. Violation of Rights
CALIFORNIA: Proposition 64 Opponents Call Governor A "Hypocrite"
CANADA: Banks, Retailers Face Consumer Suit On Credit Card Fees

CANADA: Prep School Teacher Denies Sexual Molestation Charges
CONNECTICUT: Court Dismisses 9 Claims in Billing Practices Suit
COUNTRY COACH: Recalls 349 Motor Homes Because of Fire Hazard
CWN MANAGEMENT: Asks Appeals Court To Reverse Suit Certification
DETROIT DIESEL: Recalls 323 Transit Buses Due To Injury Hazard

GEORGIA: Suit V. Resident Does Not Comply With Legal Necessities
GEORGIA: Veterans Launch Suit V. Companies' Cash Advance Scams
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recalls 2828 Motorcycles Due To Fire Hazard
HOME AND PARK: Recalls Spare Tire Carriers For Accident Hazard
HOME AND PARK: Recalls 1,001 Motorhomes Due To Accident Hazard

HOPKINS MANUFACTURING: Recalls Plunger Pins For Product Defect
MERCK & CO.: Hendler Law Firm Lodges Consumer Fraud Suit in IL
MERCK & CO.: Israeli Lodges $314 Billion Suit Over Vioxx Recall
MERCK & CO.: Kenneth B. Moll Lodges Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in IL
SHERATON NATIONAL: EEOC Lodges Suit Over English Fluency Policy

SPAM LITIGATION: FL Court Shuts Down Illegal Get Rich Quick Scam
TICKETMASTER: NY Court Allows Jackson Fan Lawsuit To Proceed
UBS WARBURG: NY Court Allows Shareholder Fraud Suit To Proceed
UNITED STATES: Canada, US Sign Antitrust Cooperation Agreement
WINDOW ROCK: FTC Sues Over Deceptive Advertising For Supplements

*Report States US Firms File More Frivolous Suits Than Consumers

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BELO CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in TX
CONVERIUM HOLDING: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NY
CONVERIUM HOLDING: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in NY
CONVERIUM HOLDING: Murray Frank Lodges Stock Fraud Lawsuit in NY
DIGIMARC CORPORATION: Schffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in OR

LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Stoll Stoll Lodges Securities Suit in OR
NEW YORK: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
STAAR SURGICAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges CA Securities Suit
STONEPATH GROUP: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in PA
STONEPATH GROUP: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in PA

                         *********


AMY'S KITCHEN: Recalls Whole Meals Enchilada Due To Mislabeling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amy's Kitchen is voluntarily recalling, from distribution in the
Eastern time zone and certain states in the Midwest, a small
amount of Whole Meal Enchilada with Spanish Rice and Beans due
to possible mislabeling.

These whole meals bear the lot # F174C.  Some retail packages
may actually contain Cheese Enchilada Whole Meals (undeclared
cheese), which are wholesome and safe, but can cause allergic
reactions if consumed by any individuals allergic to milk.
Consumers without milk allergies can consume the product and
rest assured that the meal meets Amy's Kitchen high standards of
quality.

The issue came to the company's attention when two consumers
called about the possibility that the product contained cheese.
No illnesses have been reported.  The company will also issue an
alert via the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network.

The 10 ounce frozen product comes in a retail package labeled
Whole Meal Enchilada with Spanish Rice and Beans (UPC 42272
00051), with lot number F174C embossed on a side panel.  The
packages were packed in June of 2004.

Distribution was to two Amy's East Coast distribution centers
only.  It is estimated that fewer than 350 meals (retail
packages) of the 24,444 produced on that day may actually
contain mislabeled product.  To be cautious, Amy's is
withdrawing 4,800 meals of the product from all states in the
Eastern time zone in addition to Alabama, Arkansas, Minnesota,
Illinois, Missouri and Kansas.

For instructions and/or questions, consumers may call the
company collect: 1-707-578-7753.  Alternatively, consumers can
call 1-707-578-7270.


BEST BUY: Plaintiffs Launch Consolidated Securities Suit in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Company, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class
action filed against it, its chairman, chief executive officer,
chief operating officer and chief financial officer in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The suit, styled "In Re Best Buy Company, Inc. Securities
Litigation," was filed on behalf of persons who purchased
Company securities between January 9, 2002, and August 7, 2002.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by making material misrepresentations between
January 9, 2002, and August 7, 2002, which resulted in
artificially inflated prices of the Company's common stock.  The
plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs and expenses.


BRADY FARMS: Migrant Workers File MI Suit V. Violation of Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Migrant Legal Assistance Project initiated a class
action against Brady Farms of Grand Haven Township, alleging
labor law violations, the Holland Sentinel reports.

The group, who filed the suit on behalf of 19 field workers, is
hoping to turn the case into a class-action lawsuit that will
potentially involve more than 3,000 field workers who may have
worked for the grower between 1999 and 2004.

The suit accuses owner Robert L. Brady and several of his
supervisors of failing to pay the blueberry pickers minimum
wage, keep accurate pay records, and provide adequate access to
water, bathrooms and washing facilities.

The workers' attorney, Robert Alvarez of the Migrant Project
also adds that workers would be transported from field to field
and have the cost of that transportation deducted from their
pay. Furthermore Mr. Alvarez adds that the workers would also
have their rent deducted from their wages in a single apartment
that housed as many as 25 people. While in the fields, crew
leaders and their families were the only people allowed to sell
food and to provide transportation for them.

Based in Grand Haven Township at 14786 Winans St., Brady Farms
has fields in Holland and Olive townships, as well as near the
company's base in Grand Haven Township and in the Nunica area.


CALIFORNIA: Proposition 64 Opponents Call Governor A "Hypocrite"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents of Proposition 64, a November 2 ballot measure that
would limit unfair competition suits labeled California Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger a hypocrite for supporting such a measure,
the Associated Press reports.

According to the Proposition 64's opponents, Gov.
Schwarzenegger, who is backing the campaign to limit lawsuits
filed under the state's unfair competition law, has used the
same law to file suits to stop the use of his image in ads and
bobblehead dolls.

The 71-year-old California law allows individuals, interest
groups, other companies and prosecutors to sue to stop practices
that allegedly give a business an unfair advantage over
competitors or defraud consumers.  However, critics say that the
law has also been used by unscrupulous lawyers to shake down
businesses to settle lawsuits filed because of minor violations,
such as failing to post a business license or using the wrong
print size in ads.

Gov. Schwarzenegger's legal affairs secretary, Peter Siggins,
pointed out that his endorsement of Proposition 64 is an attempt
to head off frivolous lawsuits, not to prevent people with
legitimate complaints from filing unfair competition cases.

Proposition 64 would bar anyone other than the attorney general
or a local prosecutor from filing an unfair competition lawsuit,
unless they could show they had been injured or lost money or
property because of the business's conduct. It will also require
a group of people who filed competition suits through someone
other than the attorney general or another prosecutor qualify as
class-action cases.

This year the governor cited the unfair competition law in a
lawsuit filed to stop an Ohio Discount Merchandise Inc. from
selling bobblehead dolls depicting him holding an assault rifle.
The suit eventually ended in a settlement that required the
Ohio-based company to produce the bobbleheads without the gun
and to donate a portion of the sales to the governor's after-
school program.


CANADA: Banks, Retailers Face Consumer Suit On Credit Card Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
14 Canadian financial institutions and retailers faces a class
action filed by Quebec consumers group Option consommateurs,
alleging they improperly charged service fees on cash advances
from their credit cards, canoe.ca reports.  The suit names as
defendants:

     (1) Bank of Montreal,

     (2) Royal Bank,

     (3) National Bank,

     (4) CIBC,

     (5) Laurentian Bank,

     (6) TD Bank,

     (7) Citibank Canada,

     (8) ScotiaBank,

     (9) HSBC Canada,

    (10) Amex Canada,

    (11) Federation des caisses Desjardins du Quebec,

    (12) MBNA Canada,

    (13) Canadian Tire and

    (14) the Weston Group, which includes Maxi, Provigo and
         Loblaw stores under its banner

Option consommateurs alleged that institutions offering credit
cards are tacking on fees ranging from $1 to $10 on top of
service charges when cash advances are made with the cards.  The
plaintiff in the case, Monique Desjardins Emond, and the
consumers' group said the credit card suppliers have violated
the consumer protection law.

If a cardholder makes four cash advances during a month, "he
will be charged fees four times for the cash advance," Louise
Rozon, director of Option consommateurs told canoe.ca.  The fees
are above normal charges on a card, which are applied every 30
days, he added.

He further said that the fees raise the credit charges above
what the cardholder agreement states.  According to the law, the
cash advance fee should be covered by regular service fees.  Mr.
Rozon told canoe.ca the lawsuit, if it goes ahead, would likely
take one to two years.  The goal would be to have to fees
repealed and money already paid reimbursed.


CANADA: Prep School Teacher Denies Sexual Molestation Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
A former Upper Canada College (UCC) preparatory school teacher
denied charges that he molested seven students from 1975 to
1980, in his testimony in Toronto, Canada court, the National
Post reports.

Six former students charged Douglas Brown, 55, of coming into
their dormitory cubicles in the school residence and attempting
to fondle or perform oral sex on them.  The students were
between 11 and 13 years old when the assaults occurred.  His
alleged seventh victim testified that he was 17 when Mr. Brown
attempted to grab his penis in the teacher's apartment at the
school after they had gone out and gotten drunk.

Mr. Brown taught mostly Grade 7 and Grade 8 students at UCC
between 1975 and 1993.  As a house master, his duties included
supervising study sessions and evening baths by the young
boarding students in what the court has heard described as
"giant washrooms."  He lived for 10 years in a sparse apartment,
"without even a kitchen sink," on the second floor of the school
residence.  He was arrested in August 2001, and is currently out
on bail and living with his elderly mother.

Mr. Brown indignantly denied the charges, responding "No, sir"
more than two dozen times during his first day of testimony in a
Toronto courtroom, as his lawyer went through the allegations
against the former UCC preparatory school teacher, The National
Post reports.

"I am just trying to live day to day," said Mr. Brown, who added
he has been unemployed since his arrest.  He further suggested
that witnesses who testified that he provided them with beer or
drugs were lying.  He also suggested many of the students were
troubled and said one of the complainants was prone to violence
and exhibited signs in 1975 of having fetal alcohol syndrome,
The National Post stated.

He also testified that bullying was rampant at the school
residence when he started working there in 1975.  He testified
that the Grade 8 boarding students would regularly attack
younger students in the dormitories in raids in which they would
be "eight-balling people."  Mr. Brown said the students put bars
of soap in socks to swing at the heads of younger boys.

UCC stopped boarding prep school residents in 1980 because "they
were having difficulty filling the spots," Mr. Brown said, the
Post reports.  He said boarders also appeared to have more
"academic difficulty" than the day students.

Last December, a Canada court certified a class action filed
against Mr. Brown and UCC.  A $1.5-million lawsuit by a former
student of Mr. Brown's was settled on the eve of trial this
spring. Neither Mr. Brown nor UCC have made any admission of
wrongdoing in the lawsuits, the Post reports.  A $19-million
lawsuit has also been filed against Mr. Brown and three former
colleagues about alleged misconduct in the late 1980s.  Two of
the colleagues were arrested last spring.  None of the
allegations has been proven.


CONNECTICUT: Court Dismisses 9 Claims in Billing Practices Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Connecticut Superior Court dismissed nine of the fifteen
counts in the class action filed against Yale-New Haven
Hospital, challenging the hospital's billing practices, the Yale
Daily News reports.

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) filed the suit
as part of the long-term conflict between the union and the
hospital.  The suit is similar to Connecticut Attorney General
Richard Blumenthal's suit filed a year and a half ago.

State law prohibits a hospital from collecting more than the
cost of care from uninsured patients.  The suit alleged that the
hospital was in violation of the law simply by billing for more
than the cost of care. Connecticut Superior Court Judge Carl J.
Schuman, however, dismissed some of the counts because poor
patients did not actually pay above cost.

According to SEIU attorney David Livingston, Superior Court
Judge Carl J. Schuman's ruling left the central claims of the
case intact, even if many of the union's counts were dismissed.
"The judge refused to dismiss the case," he said, according to
Yale Daily News.  "He left the core of the complaint, which is
about the mistreatment by the hospital of indigent patients,
under the free bed statute and the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act."

"The judge adopted a highly technical reading of the word
'collected,' saying you can't bring a cause of action under that
(law), unless you allege that he person has actually paid the
money that hospital is trying to bill," Mr. Livingston
continued.  He asserted, however, that some poor patients have
paid more than the cost of care.

However, Yale-New Haven spokesman Vincent Petrini said the
dismissal of many of the union's charges was a positive result
for the hospital, the Daily News reports.  "Generally speaking,
the court significantly limited the scope of the suit filed by
the SEIU -- and questioned the union's standing in the suit," he
said.

Mr. Petrini added that the hospital has changed its billing
practices in response to the suits.  It has revised its
collection practices, closed many accounts and removed 92
percent of liens against former patients' properties.

Mr. Livingston said the judge indicated that the union could
still pursue its concerns over this specific count under the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, but dismissed the issue
as a separate complaint.  The union's next goal will be to
pursue the case as a class action suit, he told the Daily News.
"We'll be seeking to have the suit class-certified, so we can
speak on behalf of the thousands of people who have been
mistreated," Livington said.


COUNTRY COACH: Recalls 349 Motor Homes Because of Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Country Coach, Inc. is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling
349 motorhomes, namely:

     (1) COUNTRY COACH / ALLURE, model 2004

     (2) COUNTRY COACH / INSPIRE, model 2004-2005

On certain motor homes, liquid propane (LP) gas cook tops were
installed using a flexible rubber hose that could burn or melt.
If undetected, the hose could burn through and result in an LP
Gas fire.

Dealers will replace the cook top rubber hose with copper
tubing.  The recall is expected to begin on October 15,2004.
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-541-998-3720
or contact NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-DASH-2-DOT
(1-888-327-4236).


CWN MANAGEMENT: Asks Appeals Court To Reverse Suit Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
CWN Management Inc., operator of the Claim Jumper Restaurants,
intends to ask the Court of Appeal to immediately reverse a
recent class certification ruling made in the Orange County
Superior Court.

The court certified a class of Claim Jumper assistant kitchen
managers in a lawsuit filed by a former employee, despite the
overwhelming opposition to the lawsuit by assistant kitchen
managers themselves who do not wish to participate. Claim Jumper
is also exploring the possibility of filing suit against the
attorneys who represent that individual, if it determines that
the attorneys have made false statements about it.

Despite reports in the media that Claim Jumper "employees" had
filed suit alleging that assistant kitchen managers had been
misclassified as exempt employees, in fact only a single
disgruntled former employee filed suit. Forty-eight assistant
kitchen managers have already unequivocally said that they have
no interest in participating in the suit. Additionally, nearly
one-third of the assistant kitchen managers have already
testified under oath that they spend well over 50% of their time
engaged in managerial activities and, therefore, were properly
classified as exempt employees.

Bill Hustedt, chief financial officer for Claim Jumper
Restaurants, stated, "I attended the hearing where the court
certified a class, and I could not have been more shocked by the
ruling. The court ignored the fact that the overwhelming
majority of our assistant kitchen managers testified under oath
that they had no interest in participating in the lawsuit. I
simply do not understand how a class could possibly be certified
when the majority of the class doesn't wish to be a part of it."

Claim Jumper's Chief Operating Officer Robert Ott said, "The
fact that so few assistant kitchen managers wanted to
participate in this case is a testament that our assistant
kitchen managers are an integral part of the management of our
restaurants. The assistant kitchen managers are proud to be part
of our management team. Although their duties vary from
restaurant to restaurant, they spend the great majority of their
time engaged in managerial activities. Many have already
confirmed that in sworn testimony in this case. The suggestion
that they are not really managers, or that we do not pay them
properly, is simply wrong. Claim Jumper has been recognized as
having the lowest industry average turnover in the full service
restaurant category for both management and hourly employees as
reported by People Report. That wouldn't happen if we
misclassified or mistreated employees."

"I don't believe this lawsuit has nothing to do with the way our
assistant kitchen managers are treated," said Vice President of
Human Resources Sandra Friend. "In my opinion, this lawsuit is
all about lawyers trying to make more money for themselves. The
plaintiff's lawyers could care less about our employees. They
couldn't even be bothered to spell his client's name right in
the lawsuit. I was there and watched him insult our employees,
suggesting that they can't understand or read English because
they have Hispanic surnames."

"When all is said and done," Ott said, "even if the Court of
Appeal doesn't reverse this decision, we have every confidence
that a jury in Orange County will determine that Claim Jumper
has not violated any laws, particularly when they hear the facts
from the assistant kitchen managers themselves. At that time, we
will ask that we recover all of our attorneys' fees in this
case."

For further comment on this matter, or to obtain copies of the
48 sworn statements from class members, please contact: Robert
Ott, COO at roberto@claimjumper.com or Bill Hustedt, CFO at
billh@claimjumper.com


DETROIT DIESEL: Recalls 323 Transit Buses Due To Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit Diesel Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Agency by voluntarily recalling 323
Gillig/Phantom model 1998 - 1999 transit buses manufactured with
the Detroit Diesel Series 50 Engine.

The turbocharger compressor wheel can break, resulting in shaft
imbalance and lubricating oil passes into the exhaust system.
This can result in an engine compartment fire, possible
resulting in personal injuries.

Detroit Diesel is conducting the owner notification and remedy
for this campaign.  Dealers will install an exhaust temperature
sensor and reprogram the EMC calibration.  For more details,
contact Detroit Diesel by Phone: 313-592-3708 or contact Gillig
by Phone: 510-785-1500.  Customers can also contact the NHTSA's
auto safety hotline: 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).


GEORGIA: Suit V. Resident Does Not Comply With Legal Necessities
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. has failed to comply with
appropriate jurisdictional requirements in initiating its
lawsuit against Charles Rehberg, an Albany resident.
Accordingly, a Motion to Dismiss has been filed in Dougherty
County Superior Court," Robert Mulholland, lead attorney for Mr.
Rehberg announced.

Phoebe Putney filed its lawsuit last August against Mr. Rehberg,
even holding a press conference to promote the lawsuit, because
information had been disseminated to the Albany community many
months earlier, raising issues and concerns about how Phoebe
Putney operates and how Phoebe Putney's Board and administration
conduct Phoebe's operations.

The Phoebe Putney lawsuit against Rehberg has been described by
his legal counsel as "without merit," and several parties have
been quoted in the media asserting that the lawsuit is an
attempt by Phoebe Putney to intimidate Rehberg and others in
Albany from questioning Phoebe Putney's practices and the agenda
of both its Board and administration. The lawsuit also has been
viewed as retaliation by Phoebe Putney's Board and
administration for Phoebe being charged in a class action
lawsuit in Federal court for failing to fulfill its government
obligation to provide charitable care to uninsured patients.
Based on this government obligation, Phoebe reaps hundreds of
millions of dollars in tax exemption from the Albany community.
Mr. Rehberg has been consulting on a voluntary basis with
lawyers on the class action litigation.

Commenting on the Motion to Dismiss the Phoebe Putney lawsuit,
Mr. Mulholland, stated, "Georgia law O.C.G.A. ss 9-11-11-1 is
quite clear. It prohibits any party from asserting claims
against individuals who exercise their constitutional right of
free speech and the right to petition the government for redress
of grievances. Charles Rehberg and Dr. John Bagnato have
exercised those rights to expose Phoebe Putney's abusive billing
and collection practices. As a result, Phoebe Putney launched a
lawsuit in an attempt to stop their further exercise of
constitutional rights and claim damages arising out of their
actions. As Phoebe Putney well knows or should have known, under
Georgia law, Phoebe Putney is required to verify, with its
original complaint or within ten days after receiving notice of
the omission, that it believes its claims are well founded.
Since Phoebe Putney has failed to file any such verification,
Phoebe Putney's complaint is expected to be dismissed, with
attorney's fees awarded to the defendants.

"Phoebe Putney first tried to harass Charles Rehberg through the
goon-like tactics of its so-called private investigators and,
not succeeding, then through an attempt to manipulate the
judicial system by filing a meritless lawsuit. The lesson for
Phoebe Putney's Board and administration is that they are
accountable to the Albany community for their conduct at Phoebe
and their use of the public's funds.

"Effective September 27, 2004, Chief Judge Loring Gary of the
Dougherty County Superior Court has appropriately recused
himself and all judges of the Dougherty Judicial circuit. The
case is expected to be assigned to a judge from another judicial
administrative district shortly" Mr. Mulholland said.

For more details, contact Robert Mulholland, Esq. of Savell &
Williams by Phone: (404) 614-3522


GEORGIA: Veterans Launch Suit V. Companies' Cash Advance Scams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Amos, a master gunnery sergeant that retired in 1992
after 20 years in the Marines and two other military veterans
initiated a lawsuit, which accuses two financial companies of
swindling veterans out of their pensions and benefits in
"advance funding" scams, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, seeks class
action status and a court order against Advanced Funding Inc. of
Glen Burnie, Maryland, and C&A Financial Programs Inc. of
Stuart, Florida.  The lawsuit states that the companies, which
had advertised in national military publications, tried to give
potential customers the impression they are endorsed by the
armed forces.

The plaintiffs are seeking a federal court order prohibiting the
financial companies from continuing a "deceptive scheme" of
high-interest loans to retired and disabled veterans without
providing cost-of-credit information. Under the federal Truth in
Lending Act, the suit also seeks unspecified damages and
attorney's fees.

Lynn Drysdale of Jacksonville Area Legal Aid in Florida, one of
the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit,
told the Post-Dispatch she is trying to get Mr. Amos' case moved
to courts in Georgia.

The lawsuit also contains allegations similar to those lodged
against payday loan companies. The short-term loans, usually for
$500 or less, carry "fees" of as much as $25 per $100, a
practice that has grown and spread around Georgia military
bases.

Deborah Birdsall, a disabled U.S. Navy veteran from Edgemont,
S.D., and Elliott, a former technician for guided-missile
launching systems and missile maintenance who served more than
20 years in the Navy, joins Mr. Amos in the suit. They are also
are represented by the National Consumer Law Center in Boston.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recalls 2828 Motorcycles Due To Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Harley Davidson is cooperating with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling 2828
motorcycles, namely:

     (1) HARLEY DAVIDSON / DYNA, model 2004-2005

     (2) HARLEY DAVIDSON / DYNA GLIDE, model 2004

     (3) HARLEY DAVIDSON / DYNA WIDE-GLIDE, model 2004

     (4) HARLEY DAVIDSON / ROAD KING, model 2004

     (5) HARLEY DAVIDSON / SOFTAIL, model 2004-2005

     (6) HARLEY DAVIDSON / TOURING, model 2005

     (7) HARLEY DAVIDSON / V-ROD, model 2005

     (8) HARLEY DAVIDSON / XL, model 2005

A condition occurs that could allow pressure to build up in the
fuel tank.  On fuel injected vehicles, this condition could
cause fuel to spray out unexpectedly when the fuel cap is
removed.  On carbureted vehicles, excessive fuel could be
transferred to the carburetor, which would eventually allow fuel
to drip from the air cleaner.  These situations could cause
serious personal injury or create a fire hazard for persons or
property on or near the motorcycle.

Dealers will test each canister for blockage, then replace as
necessary.  The recall is expected to begin on October 11,2004.
Owners should contact the Company by Phone: 1-414-343-4056 or
contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-DASH-2-DOT
(1-888-327-4236).


HOME AND PARK: Recalls Spare Tire Carriers For Accident Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home and Park is cooperating with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling 150
Aftermarket Continental Kit Spare Tire Carriers, H&P P/N
02010001/02044500.  These are designed for use on Class B
Motorhomes Roadtrek 170, 190 and 210 models, built on Chevrolet
2500/3500 van chassis.

Due to the design of the spare tire carrier, vibration/stress
can fatigue the bracket and lead to fracture.  If the bracket
breaks, continuous vibration may cause the carrier to slowly
slide out of the trailer hitch crosstube and fall on the road,
possibly resulting in a vehicle crash.

Home and Park will notify its customers and repair the carries
by solidly welding them to the crosstube.  For more details,
contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-DASH-2-DOT
(1-888-327-4236).


HOME AND PARK: Recalls 1,001 Motorhomes Due To Accident Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home and Park is cooperating with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling 1001
motorhomes, namely:

     (1) ROADTREK 170, build years 2002-2004

     (2) ROADTREK 190, build years 2002 2004

     (3) ROADTREK 210, build years 2002-2004

On certain motor homes, the spare tire carrier bracket can
fatigue and lead to fracture.  If the bracket breaks, continuous
vibration may cause the carrier to slowly slide out of the
trailer hitch crosstube and fall on the road, which could cause
a vehicle crash.

Dealers will inspect and replace the spare tire carrier bracket
by welding it to the trailer hitch crosstube, eliminating all
vibration.  The recall is expected to begin this month.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-888-762-3873
or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-DASH-2-DOT
(1-888-327-4236).


HOPKINS MANUFACTURING: Recalls Plunger Pins For Product Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hopkins Manufacturing is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling several
plunger pins sold separately as model numbers 20009 and 20012,
as well as being included as part of various break-away kits
with the model numbers 20001, 20002, 20003, 20004, 20005, 20010,
20014, 20019, 20099, 20100, 20102, 20103, 20300, 20303,
17120009, 1170200001, 1170200005, 1170200099, 1530200003,
1530200004, 1540201000, 1550200003, 1580200004, 1590200004,
1610200003, 1700200003, 1770200003, 1800201000, 7020200001,
7020200002, 7020200003, 7020200004, 7020200005, 7020200009,
7020200010, 7020200012, 7020200013, 7020200099, 7020201000,
7020201001, 7020201002, 7020201003, 7020201004, 7020201007,
20005A, 20009A, S2000L, S20002, S20003, S20005, S20009, AND
S20099.

If the O-ring is not properly sealed in the groove provided, the
resin plunger pin could be placed under continuous tensile
loading conditions.  This could result in stress cracking the
plunger pin over time.  The plunger pin could fail to activate
the trailer brakes during trailer/tow vehicle separation.

The Company will notify its customers and replace all original
plunger pin assemblies with new plunger pin assemblies free of
charge.  The recall is expected to begin this month.  Owners who
take their vehicles to an authorized dealer on an agreed upon
service date and do not receive the free remedy within a
reasonable time should contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline:
1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).


MERCK & CO.: Hendler Law Firm Lodges Consumer Fraud Suit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hendler Law Firm, P.C. and Bilbrey & Hylla P.C. initiated a
consumer fraud class action lawsuit against Merck & Co., Inc.,
maker of the pharmaceutical drug Vioxx. The lawsuit, filed on
behalf of a resident of Madison County, IL, alleges that Merck
defrauded consumers by marketing Vioxx as a safe, breakthrough
pain medication, for which they charged a premium, when in fact
the drug wasn't significantly better than existing pain relief
medications and posed a much greater health risk. The plaintiff
claims that Merck has unfairly profited by overstating the
superiority of Vioxx, while downplaying its dangers.

"Consumers paid excessively high prices for a drug that not only
didn't deliver better results than over-the-counter painkillers,
but also put them at risk for serious side effects. Merck has
been aware of these dangers since at least 2000, but continued
to aggressively market the drug until they could simply no
longer get away with it," said Scott Hendler, founder of The
Hendler Law Firm. "Merck has unjustly profited from this drug,
and should be held responsible."

Since Vioxx was introduced to the market in 1999 over 105
million prescriptions have been filled for about 20 million
consumers worldwide as a result one of the most ambitious
direct-to-consumer marketing campaigns ever launched in the
pharmaceutical industry.

"This is just another example of how overly zealous certain
players in the industry have become in recent years, and it
underscores some of the problems inherent in advertising
pharmaceutical drugs directly to the public," commented Mike
Bilbrey of Bilbrey &Hylla. "This lawsuit is an attempt to hold
one of the leading members of the pharmaceutical industry
accountable and to deter this kind of conduct in the industry as
a whole."

For more details, contact Jill Langevin - Director of Strategic
Planning at The Hendler Law Firm, P.C. by Phone: 512-439-3213 or
by E-mail: jlangevin@hendlerlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.HendlerLaw.comOR Bilbrey & Hylla, P.C. by visiting
their Web site: http://www.BilbreyHyllaLaw.comOR for more
information about Vioxx and resources for heart attack and
stroke recovery, please visit http://www.vioxx-advice.org


MERCK & CO.: Israeli Lodges $314 Billion Suit Over Vioxx Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nina Ohana, 71, filed an NIS 1.4 billion ($314 B) lawsuit,
together with an application for the suit to be recognized as a
class action in Tel Aviv District Court against U.S. drugmaker
Merck and its Israeli distribution arm, MSD Israel, several days
after wonder drug Vioxx was recalled from shelves worldwide,
Ha'aretz, Israel reports.

Mrs. Ohana, claims she took the medicine for two years for joint
pain and was shocked to discover a few days ago that taking the
drug could boost her chances of a cardiovascular problem.

She alleges that Merck knew of the health risks inherent in
long-term consumption of Vioxx as early as the year 2000, but
did not act on the information and instead boosted marketing
efforts and concealed the information from the public.

According to legal experts, the NIS 1.4 billion compensation
demand is based on the calculation that patients who have taken
the drug since 2000 constitutes around 75,000 people in Israel.

The drug, which accounted for $2.5 billion in annual sales for
Merck, and was taken by 70-80 million arthritis and acute pain
sufferers worldwide was recalled due to a three-year clinical
trial that revealed a 50 percent increased risk for
cardiovascular events, such as heart attack and stroke,
beginning after 18 months of taking the medication.


MERCK & CO.: Kenneth B. Moll Lodges Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago law firm of KENNETH B. MOLL & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
initiated the first worldwide class action lawsuit against
Merck, on behalf of all persons who were prescribed the
potentially deadly arthritis drug rofecoxib, also known as Vioxx
(Ceoxx outside the United States). The law firm has already
received inquiries from persons who believe they were injured by
Vioxx in China, South Africa, Italy, Canada, the United States,
and other countries. Merck estimates that over 24 million
patients have been prescribed the drug worldwide.

The lawsuit, known as the "VIOXX Class Action," was filed in the
Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On September 30, 2004, Merck officially announced a voluntary
withdraw of Vioxx from all markets worldwide in light of
unequivocal results from a clinical trial demonstrating that
Vioxx almost triples the risk of heart attack and stroke for
those who take the product long term. The company's decision is
based on three-year data from a prospective, randomized,
placebo-controlled clinical trial, the APPROVe (Adenomatous
Polyp Prevention on VIOXX) trial.

The APPROVe study followed the 1999 VIGOR (Vioxx
Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research Study) study. In the VIGOR
study, analysis of the cardiovascular data by the Safety
Monitoring Board focused on "the excess deaths and
cardiovascular adverse experiences in (the Vioxx group) compared
to (the Naproxen group).

Attorney Kenneth Moll said, "a primary goal of the Vioxx Class
Action is to inform consumers and physicians worldwide of the
potentially deadly side effects of Vioxx." Mr. Moll said he is
concerned that thousands of people have been injured by the
drugs and are not aware of their injuries.

The lawsuit will request that a medical monitoring fund be
established to enable people who have taken Vioxx to monitor the
existence of dangerous side effects. The firm will also seek to
recover damages for those who have been injured or died as a
result of their use of Vioxx.

For more details, visit http://www.kbmoll.com


SHERATON NATIONAL: EEOC Lodges Suit Over English Fluency Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission initiated a class
action lawsuit against the Sheraton National Hotel in Arlington,
claiming that the hotel discriminated against a former
dishwasher by failing to rehire him due to his inability to
speak fluent English, the Washington Post reports.

The class action alleges that the companies imposed unnecessary
English fluency requirements to prevent Hispanic workers from
being hired or transferred into better-paying jobs. The suit
seeks back pay and reinstatement, as well as compensatory and
punitive damages.

Under EEOC policy, a fluency requirement is permissible in
workplaces only if needed "for the effective performance of the
position for which it is imposed."

The dishwasher in question is Jesus Romero, who was temporarily
laid off in September 2001 while the hotel remodeled its
restaurant. The suit states that at the time of temporary lay-
off, the employees were advised they would be rehired less than
a year later. However, Mr. Romero, who worked for the hotel for
16 years, was denied the job because of a newly implemented
English fluency requirement.

According to Denise L. Gilman, Mr. Romero's attorney and
director of the Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project for the
Washington Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights and Urban
Affairs, "Where an employee has performed the job successfully
for many years, and when it's a job that doesn't require
English, it's hard to justify." Stacey Caldwell, a senior trial
attorney with the EEOC who is working on the national-origin-
discrimination suit also added that Mr. Romero's position, as a
dishwasher "did not require a lot of public interaction."


SPAM LITIGATION: FL Court Shuts Down Illegal Get Rich Quick Scam
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in the Middle District of
Florida, Jacksonville Division shut down an operation that used
illegal spam to promote a bogus get-rich-quick scheme at the
request of the Federal Trade Commission.  The suit was filed
against:

     (1) Gregory Bryant, Jr.,

     (2) Nadira Bryant,

     (3) Gregory Bryant & Associates,

     (4) Dove Marketing Corporation,

     (5) GBA Publishing,

     (6) GBA Financing,

     (7) Network Marketing,

     (8) Miracle Moms, and

     (9) DM Marketing services

The FTC alleged the spammers violated federal laws by using
deceptive header information and subject lines in their spam
solicitations, making bogus earnings and refund claims, and
withdrawing funds from consumers' checking accounts without
authorization. The FTC will seek to shut down the operation
permanently and will seek redress for consumers.

According to the FTC, the operation spammed consumers with e-
mail that claimed that they could make substantial income by
signing up for the spammers' work-at-home business opportunity.
The e-mail contained claims like, "Do you think you would be
interested in becoming a permanent home-based worker for our
company and earning an extra Guaranteed $30k to $100,000 A
Year?"  In their e-mail, the defendants represented that
consumers could obtain a "home mailing kit" for a "shipping and
handling" fee of $24.77; that the defendants would pay consumers
$4 for each envelope they stuffed and mailed; and that the offer
was backed by a 30-day, money back "NO QUESTIONS ASKED"
guarantee.

According to documents filed with the court, however, the "kit"
received by most consumers was a two-page letter and a CD-ROM
showing consumers how to perpetuate the defendants' scam.
Consumers who tried to get the defendants to honor the "30-day,
money-back guarantee," were ignored, falsely told that the
returned material was damaged, or told they failed to act within
the 30-day trial period. One consumer was told he would be
reported to the police for harassment if he contacted the "call
center" again.

The defendants claimed that in addition to the initial "shipping
and handling" fee of $24.77, consumers would be charged a $24.95
"registration fee" only after their 30-day trial period expired.
Consumers who signed up for the home mailing program, however,
often found their bank accounts debited for the entire $49.72
amount immediately. In other instances, the defendants withdrew
this amount twice. Consumers who complained about these
unauthorized withdrawals rarely succeeded in obtaining refunds.

The FTC alleged that the defendants' spam contained altered or
"spoofed" header information falsely indicating that the message
had been transmitted "from" either the recipient's own e-mail
account or the account of an unrelated third-party. Other
messages contained "reply-to" fields with e-mail addresses
registered to unrelated third parties, or with e-mail addresses
that the defendants got using phony names and addresses. The FTC
also alleged that the defendants' e-mail messages contained
deceptive subject lines to induce recipients to open them.

The FTC alleges that these practices violate the FTC Act, the
Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and
Marketing Act of 2003, and the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The FTC
has asked the court to bar the illegal practices permanently and
to order redress for consumers.

For more details, contact Claudia Bourne Farrell of the Office
of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2181 or contact Daniel R.
Salsburg of the Bureau of Consumer Protection by Phone:
1-202-326-3402


TICKETMASTER: NY Court Allows Jackson Fan Lawsuit To Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Manhattan Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit filed by a
disgruntled Michael Jackson fan against Ticketmaster to proceed
as a class action.  The suit is styled Gross v. Ticketmaster,
600504/02, Law.com reports.  The suit also names Madison Square
Garden and the show's dual promoters Entertainment Inc. and
World Events.

New York resident Dana Gross paid $98.50 apiece for six tickets
to a Michael Jackson 30th anniversary concert at Madison Square
Garden in 2001.  To her dismay, she found out that she and her
group were seated directly behind what apparently were sets for
the show.  The sets completely obstructed the stage, according
to Ms. Gross' attorney, Manhattan solo practitioner Peter M.
Agulnick.  The stage could only be seen on a TV.

"She wrote a letter to Ticketmaster -- 'Hey, you guys sold me
these tickets and they were behind a wall,'" Mr. Agulnick told
law.com.  Ticketmaster wrote back and essentially said, "Tough
luck," he said.

Ms. Gross alleged that the concert was not enjoyable to them, so
their tickets were of little or no value.  The complaint further
alleged that there "... were a multitude of other concert goers
sitting in her part of Madison Square Garden" who "also had no
view of the stage, or who had a partially obstructed view of the
stage."  The suit makes claims under four causes of action -
deceptive business practices, breach of contract, fraud and
unjust enrichment - as Ticketmaster did not disclose the
obstructions in advance.

The defense moved to dismiss three of four stated causes of
action.  Judge Cahn dismissed the fraud cause of action and
upheld the rest.  The defendants' "alleged failure to afford
plaintiff and her guests the ability to view the concert,
without prior disclosure, states a claim for breach of
contract," he wrote.  Additionally, because the "plaintiff is
entitled to seek relief in the alternative," he refused to
dismiss the unjust-enrichment action, law.com reports.  The
fraud claim, however, "adds nothing to the breach of contract
claim," Cahn wrote.

On the motion for class certification, Justice Cahn found that
it satisfied the five criterion required by CPLR Section 901[a].
He said the class could reach upwards of 7,840 concertgoers and
held the class to be "so numerous as to make joinder
impracticable."  Defining the class as "ticket holders who
received no advance notice that their seats were inadequate for
viewing purposes," Judge Cahn ruled that the motion also
satisfied the requirements of sharing common questions of law or
fact, as well as of having common claims, law.com reports.

"Finally, the class action would be superior to a large number
of individual claimants having to pursue their respective rights
to small refunds," he wrote.

Ticketmaster and Madison Square Garden, represented by Sidley
Austin Brown & Wood, declined to comment on the ruling, law.com
states.


UBS WARBURG: NY Court Allows Shareholder Fraud Suit To Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Manhattan Federal Judge Richard M. Berman has ruled that buyers
of stock issued by Interspeed, a now-defunct corporation that
developed internet DSL technology, could proceed with a class-
action lawsuit against UBS Warburg LLC and former UBS Warburg
Senior Telecommunications Analyst Anton Wahlman. Co-lead
counsels for the Plaintiff Class are Marc I. Gross of Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, and Brian P. Murray of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP.

The lawsuit alleges, among other matters, that between January
3, 2000 and July 20, 2000, UBS Warburg distributed research
reports written by Wahlman that were false and misleading
because they maintained a "buy" rating on Interspeed stock
while, at the same time, Wahlman was privately sending e-mails
to UBS personnel indicating that he believed that Interspeed
stock should be shorted. The lawsuit also charges that Wahlman's
research reports were false and misleading because Wahlman
failed to disclose to the investing public his belief that
Interspeed was engaging in "creative accounting."

According to the Complaint, for example, On January 3, 2000, UBS
Warburg issued a research report by Wahlman that rated
Interspeed a "buy." Just two days later, Wahlman privately e-
mailed a member of UBS Warburg's sales force, "(d)on't put
people into Interspeed -- very risky." Fifteen minutes later,
the recipient of the e-mail responded, asking "so why is
(Interspeed) a short?" Wahlman replied, "(j)ust lumpy revenue,
some stuffing of channel, creative accounting."

The lawsuit charges that UBS Warburg's and Wahlman's motive for
issuing the fraudulent analyst reports was the desire to garner
investment banking fees from Interspeed. The Complaint alleges
that UBS Warburg earned $700,000 for underwriting Interspeed's
1999 initial public offering.  The lawsuit also charges that if
UBS Warburg had published truthful reports by Wahlman, the stock
price of Interspeed would have plummeted.

Plaintiffs will now have the opportunity to seek discovery from
UBS Warburg, Wahlman and others, and to prepare the case for
trial.  For more details, contact Marc I. Gross of Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP by Phone: (212) 661-1100, ext.
239 by E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com or contact Brian P. Murray of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (212) 682-1818 or by E-
mail: BMurray@murrayfrank.com.


UNITED STATES: Canada, US Sign Antitrust Cooperation Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Representatives of the United States and Canada signed an
agreement enhancing the process under which they will refer
cases of anticompetitive activities to each other's authorities
for appropriate law enforcement action.  Federal Trade
Commission Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras and U.S. Attorney
General John Ashcroft represented the United States and Canadian
Ambassador to the United States, Michael Kergin, represented
Canada at the signing ceremony.

Also attending the signing ceremony were Susan Creighton,
Director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, FTC General Counsel
William E. Kovacic, R. Hewitt Pate, Assistant Attorney General
in charge of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, and
Sheridan Scott, Commissioner of Canada's Competition Bureau.

"Today's agreement builds on the strong cooperative relationship
between the U.S. and Canadian antitrust authorities," said
Chairman Majoras. "The agreement seeks to promote our shared
goal of more efficient and effective enforcement in certain
cross-border cases, based on the high level of trust and
confidence between our agencies."

Positive comity agreements, such as the agreement, allow
antitrust enforcers in one country to request that the other
country's antitrust agency investigate and take appropriate law
enforcement action against anticompetitive conduct that
adversely affects the interests of the country requesting the
investigation and violates the laws of the country responding to
the request.  The agreement builds on the positive comity
provision in the 1995 antitrust enforcement cooperation
agreement between the U.S. and Canada, and provides for more
efficient application of the two countries' enforcement
resources, the FTC said in a statement.

The agreement is very similar to the agreement signed by the
U.S. and the European Communities in 1998, and establishes
conditions under which the requesting country will normally
agree to defer initiating its own enforcement activity.  The
enhanced agreement aims to reduce the likelihood of duplicate
enforcement actions in cases where positive comity requests are
made. Nothing in the agreement, however, prohibits the party
making the request from bringing its own enforcement action if
the requesting party believes doing so is necessary to protect
consumers in its country, the statement continued.

The new agreement identifies the types of cases one party will
normally refer to the other and lists the obligations the
competition authorities will undertake in handling these cases.
Specifically, the agreement, in cases where it is invoked,
provides that the "requesting" party will defer or suspend its
enforcement activities in favor of a positive comity referral to
the other country in cases where the foreign anticompetitive
activities do not directly or principally affect the requesting
party's consumers.

Under the agreement, each side pledges to devote its best
efforts and resources to investigate referred matters and inform
the other side's competition authorities on the status of the
cases resulting from a referral. Both sides also have agreed
that some circumstances will justify parallel investigations -
although neither side waives its authority to initiate its own
antitrust enforcement actions. Additionally, the new agreement
does not apply to merger or cartel investigations. Finally, the
agreement stipulates that confidential information may be shared
only where the source of the information has consented.

For more details, contact Jen Schwartzman of the Office of
Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2674 or contact Russell Damtoft
of the Bureau of Competition by Phone: 202-326-2893


WINDOW ROCK: FTC Sues Over Deceptive Advertising For Supplements
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission charged marketers of two dietary
supplements with claiming, falsely and without substantiation,
that their products can cause weight loss and reduce the risk
of, or prevent, serious health conditions.

According to the FTC's complaint, Los Angeles-area marketers
Window Rock Enterprises, Inc. and Infinity Advertising, Inc.,
their principals, Stephen Cheng and Gregory Cynaumon, and
business partner and product formulator Shawn Talbott have sold
"CortiSlim" and "CortiStress" through a number of widely aired
infomercials and short TV commercials, as well as radio and
print advertisements and Internet Web sites.

"The Window Rock defendants' weight-loss and disease-prevention
claims fly in the face of reality," said Lydia B. Parnes, Acting
Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection.  "No pill
can replace a healthy program of diet and exercise."

The FTC's complaint alleges that the Window Rock defendants
violated the FTC Act by making deceptive efficacy claims for
CortiSlim and CortiStress.  In addition, the complaint alleges
that the defendants violated the FTC Act by using a deceptive
format in at least two of their infomercials to suggest falsely
that the infomercials were independent television programs,
rather than paid commercial advertising.  The complaint seeks
permanent injunctive relief, including redress for consumers who
purchased the products.

According to the FTC, the defendants began marketing CortiSlim
in August 2003, through nationally disseminated infomercials
featuring Cynaumon and Talbott that aired on anumber of
television channels, including Access Television, Travel
Channel, and Discovery Channel.  The FTC alleges that the
defendants promoted cortisol control as "the answer" for
anyone who wants to lose weight, especially abdominal weight.

According to the FTC's complaint, the defendants' broadcast ads,
print ads, and Web sites claimed that persistently elevated
levels of cortisol, the "stress hormone," are the underlying
cause of weight gain and weight retention and also claimed that
CortiSlim effectively reduces and controls cortisol levels and
thereby causes substantial weight loss.  The FTC alleges that
the defendants claimed that CortiSlim:

     (1) causes weight loss of 10 to 50 pounds for virtually all
         users;

     (2) causes users to lose as much as 4 to 10 pounds per week
         over multiple weeks;

     (3) causes users to lose weight specifically from the
         abdomen, stomach, and thighs;

     (4) causes rapid and substantial weight loss;

     (5) causes long-term or permanent weight loss; and

     (6) causes weight loss

The FTC also alleges that the defendants claimed that the
effectiveness of CortiSlim and its ingredients is demonstrated
by over 15 years of scientific research.  According to the FTC's
complaint, these claims are false or unsubstantiated.

According to the FTC, the defendants began marketing CortiStress
in September 2003, through a nationally disseminated
infomercial, also featuring Cynaumon and Talbott, that aired on
a number of television channels, including TVN Direct. The FTC
alleges that the defendants promoted cortisol control as
"perhaps the most important aspect" of reducing health and
disease risks.

According to the FTC's complaint, the defendants' infomercial
claimed that persistently elevated levels of cortisol are the
underlying cause of "every modern lifestyle disease that is
associated with this fast-paced 21st century lifestyle" and also
claimed that CortiStress controls cortisol and thus should be
taken "for as long as you want to have good health."  The FTC
alleges that the defendants claimed that CortiStress reduces the
risk of, or prevents, conditions such as osteoporosis, obesity,
diabetes, Alzheimers' disease, cancer, and cardiovascular
disease.  According to the FTC's complaint, these claims are
false or unsubstantiated.

The FTC's complaint also alleges that the defendants produced
their infomercials for CortiSlim and CortiStress to look like
episodes of a talk show called "Breakthroughs" that features
Cynaumon as the "host." According to the complaint, the
"Breakthroughs" logo appears in the lower right-hand corner of
the screen throughout one of the CortiSlim infomercials.
Cynaumon introduces Talbott as a "guest" he wanted on that
particular "program" to tell the "audience" about Talbott's
scientific breakthrough regarding cortisol and his related
product, either CortiSlim or CortiStress. The infomercials do
not indicate or otherwise reveal that Cynaumon and Talbott are
part of a joint venture to create, manufacture, and market
CortiSlim and CortiStress.

When a toll-free telephone number appears on-screen, Cynaumon
presents the number for "more information" and states that
callers who mention the "Breakthroughs" program will receive a
special discount.  According to the complaint, when the toll-
free number appears on-screen, no oral or written disclaimer is
provided to indicate that "Breakthroughs" is, in fact, a paid
advertisement for CortiSlim or CortiStress; rather, the paid
advertisement disclaimers appear only at the very beginning and
very end of the infomercials.

The complaint against the Window Rock defendants signals the
Commission's continuing concern about the use of deceptive
format in infomercials, and this is the second recent case to
include an allegation that the format of the infomercial
misleads consumers.  In July 2004, the Commission filed charges,
including a deceptive format charge, against the marketers of a
product called "Supreme Greens with MSM."  In that case, the
Commission won a preliminary injunction that prohibits efficacy
claims for the product and requires clear "paid advertising"
disclosures in any future infomercial advertising.

The Commission and the Window Rock defendants have also
submitted a stipulated interim agreement that, with the court's
approval, will become an order.  Under the agreement,
advertising for CortiSlim and CortiStress cannot make any of the
claims alleged in the FTC's complaint.  In addition, the
defendants agree to limit their future advertising to claims
that are supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence
and agree not to misrepresent that their products are supported
by scientific studies.  Finally, the defendants agree not to use
any advertisement that misrepresents itself as something other
than a paid advertisement, and they also agree to include
appropriate "paid advertisement" disclaimers in their
advertising.

In a related development, the FTC has begun sending warning
letters to more than 25 Web site operators and others who are
marketing products with claims that the products will affect
cortisol and thereby cause weight loss, reduce the risk of or
prevent disease, or produce other health benefits. In its
warning letters, the FTC states that it is not aware of any
competent and reliable scientific evidence to support those
claims and warns that unsupported claims are unlawful under the
FTC Act. Accordingly, the FTC's warning letters instruct the Web
site operators and other marketers to discontinue any false or
deceptive claims immediately.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also has taken
regulatory action against the marketers of CortiSlim. On August
19, 2004, the FDA sent a warning letter to Stephen Cheng and
Window Rock Enterprises, Inc., stating that the dietary
supplement CortiSlim is misbranded and violates the provisions
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act). According
to the FDA's letter, CortiSlim's label and accompanying
information make unsubstantiated claims that CortiSlim
"eliminates cravings," "controls appetite," "burn[s] calories
more efficiently and naturally through thermogenesis," and
"diminishe[s] hunger and stress eating."  The FDA also asserts
that claims that CortiSlim "supports healthy cortisol levels" or
"supports weight maintenance efforts" would be unsubstantiated.

FDA further expressed to the firm that if prompt action to
correct these violations was not taken, enforcement action may
be initiated without further notice. The Act provides for
seizure of illegal products and for an injunction against the
manufacturer and/or distributor of illegal products. For
additional information and a copy of the warning letter, please
visit the FDA's Web site, www.fda.gov.

"We will take appropriate enforcement action against firms that
promote dietary supplement products with unsubstantiated claims
about the benefits of the product," said Dr. Lester M. Crawford,
Acting FDA Commissioner. "Consumers rely on the claimed benefits
of the product, and we owe it to them that such claims be
supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence."

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint was
5-0. The complaint and the stipulated interim agreement and
order were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on September 30, 2004.

Copies of the complaint, the stipulated interim agreement and
order, and a sample warning letter are available from the FTC's
Web site: http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer
Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20580.  For more details, contact Brenda Mack,
Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2182 or contact
Heather Hippsley or Peter Miller of the Bureau of Consumer
Protection by Phone: 202-326-3285 or 202-326-2629


*Report States US Firms File More Frivolous Suits Than Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
American businesses file four times as many lawsuits as do
individuals represented by trial attorneys, and they are
penalized by judges much more often for pursuing frivolous
litigation, a report issued by advocacy group Public Citizen
states.

The report, titled Frequent Filers: Corporate Hypocrisy in
Accessing the Courts which can be accessed through the Website:
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?I
D=12369, surveyed case filings in two states (Arkansas and
Mississippi) and two local jurisdictions (Cook County, Illinois,
and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) in 2001.

The report discovered that businesses were 3.3 to 5.8 times more
likely to file lawsuits than were individuals.   This comes as
businesses and politicians are campaigning to limit citizens'
rights to sue over everything from medical malpractice damages
to defective products.  By way of comparison, the number of
American consumers (281 million) outnumbers the number of
businesses in America (7 million) by 40 times.  The report also
found that businesses and their attorneys were 69 percent more
likely than individual tort plaintiffs and their attorneys to be
sanctioned by federal judges for filing frivolous claims or
defenses.

"Corporations think America is too litigious only when they are
on the receiving end of a lawsuit," said Joan Claybrook,
president of Public Citizen in a press release.  "But when they
feel aggrieved, businesses are far more likely to take their
beef to court than are consumers."

According to a press release by the group, the four court
systems surveyed by Public Citizen, which are geographically
diverse and represent urban and rural areas of the nation,
appear to be the only jurisdictions that require attorneys to
provide sufficient detail to distinguish business-initiated
suits from trial attorney-initiated suits.  State-specific
findings for 2001 include:

     (1) Mississippi: In this state that the U.S. Chamber of
         Commerce has labeled a "judicial hell hole," businesses
         were 5.8 times more likely to file suit than were
         individuals.  There were 45,891 business lawsuits filed
         that year compared to 7,959 individuals lawsuits.

     (2) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Businesses there filed
         cases at a 3.3-to-1 ratio compared to individuals;
         there were 64,698 business lawsuits compared with
         19,751 individual lawsuits brought by trial attorneys.

     (3) Arkansas: Arkansas businesses filed four lawsuits for
         every one lawsuit filed by trial attorneys on behalf of
         individuals - 20,868 vs. 4,786 - a ratio of 4.4-to-1.

     (4) Cook County, Illinois: Businesses went to the
         courthouse 5.8 times more often than trial attorneys
         representing individuals. The number of business
         lawsuits filed was 137,890 compared with just 26,938 by
         individuals.

Public Citizen also found that federal judges punish businesses
far more often than trial attorneys representing plaintiffs in
tort claims for tying up the court with frivolous claims or
defenses.  Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rule of Civil
Procedures, judges can impose sanctions that range from
reprimands and denial of fees to fines, dismissal of claims and
injunction from further litigation.

In a separate survey of the 100 most recent cases of federal
judges imposing Rule 11 sanctions throughout the country, 27
were against businesses or their attorneys while only 16 were
against plaintiffs who brought tort cases or their attorneys.
Only individuals representing themselves without counsel were
sanctioned more often than businesses (35 cases).  The 100
sanctions occurred between 2001 and 2004.

Some of the loudest voices for restricting the legal rights of
consumers and patients also are the biggest users of the court
system, the statement asserts.  For example, claiming that it is
inundated with class action lawsuits, the insurance industry has
led the charge for federal legislation that would restrict the
rights of consumers to bring such cases.

However, Public Citizen discovered that in Cook County, Ill.,
insurance companies filed about 8,000 lawsuits in 2002 - 35
times the number of class actions filed there by individuals
that year.  In fact, insurers file so many suits- mostly
"subrogation" suits designed to recover the expense of covering
their own policy holders - that last year they asked to be
exempted from a model lawsuit "reform" law that would limit
citizen access to the courts and that they otherwise support.

"We see nothing wrong with anyone, whether an individual or a
business, taking a genuine dispute to court when it can't be
resolved amicably," said Jackson Williams, the Public Citizen
attorney who authored the study.  "We simply ask that
corporations stop demonizing a perfectly good legal system that
they regularly utilize."

The huge corporate campaign against consumer access to the
courts is approaching its 25th year.  This campaign has targeted
trial lawyers who represent consumers in fraud, medical
negligence and personal injury cases on a contingency basis,
being paid only if they win and paying up front for all the
costs.  This allows any consumer, poor or rich, to secure an
attorney if they have a good case because they do not have to
pay hourly fees, the press release states.

The harshly negative corporate campaign includes the creation of
new trade associations of companies pushing for state as well as
federal legislation to limit consumer rights, hundreds of
lobbyists pressuring congressional and state lawmakers, the
creation of front groups across the country called Citizens
Against Lawsuit Abuse (whose members are actually businesses),
new think tanks such as at the Manhattan Institute to hire
authors to write books and reports attacking the civil justice
system, and strategic television and radio advertising at the
state and national level, the statement continues.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

BELO CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired Belo Corp. (NYSE: BLC) ("Belo"
or the "Company") securities (the "Class") between May 12, 2003
and August 6, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material,
adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that defendants implemented a circulation sales rewards
         program designed to incentivise contractors to sell
         more of The Dallas Morning News newspapers to the
         general public;

     (2) that the contractors, in order to qualify for the
         circulation sales rewards, were overstating the true
         amounts of newspapers that were sold to the public;

     (3) that circulation managers failed to verify the
         contractors' sales in order to take advantage of the
         rewards program;

     (4) that as a consequence of the foregoing, Belo's reported
         audited circulation numbers were materially inflated,
         which in turn allowed Belo to sell more advertisements
         thereby achieving higher advertizing revenues for the
         Company; and

     (5) that Belo's reported financial results, as a result of
         the aforementioned scheme, were materially inflated at
         all relevant times.

On August 5, 2004, Belo announced that The Dallas Morning News,
a wholly owned subsidiary, reported a greater than expected
decline in its September 2004 circulation. Shares of Belo fell
$1.66, or 7.15%, on August 6, 2004, to close at $21.55 per
share.

For more details, contact Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by
Phone: (800) 217-1522 by E-mail: BLC@bernlieb.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com


CONVERIUM HOLDING: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Converium
Holding AG (NYSE:CHR) between December 11, 2001 and July 20,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036
or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com


CONVERIUM HOLDING: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Converium Holding AG ("Converium"
or the "Company") (NYSE:CHR) between December 11, 2001 and July
20, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against Converium, Dirk Lohmann and Martin Kauer ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the Company failed to disclose or misrepresented that Converium
maintained inadequate loss reserves in its Converium North
American subsidiary, that opposed to representations it did not
establish adequate loss reserves to cover claims by policy
holders of that division, and that reserve increases announced
by the Company during the Class Period were woefully
insufficient.

On July 20, 2004, Converium announced that its second quarter
financial results would be impacted by a reserve, strengthening
its U.S. casualty business and announced asset impairments on
the balance sheet of Converium Reinsurance. Shares reacted
negatively to the news, falling $11.12 per share, or 44.4% to
close at $13.90 per share. Since the end of the class period,
Standard & Poors and AM Best have lowered their ratings on
Converium.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 or by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com


CONVERIUM HOLDING: Murray Frank Lodges Stock Fraud Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
Converium Holding AG securities ("Converium") (NYSE:CHR) during
the period between December 11, 2001 through July 20, 2004 (the
"Class Period").

The complaint charges Converium, Dirk Lohmann, and Martin Kauer
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. 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 Converium maintained inadequate loss reserves in
         its Converium North America subsidiary;

     (2) that the Company, contrary to representations, did not
         establish adequate loss reserves to cover claims by
         Converium North America policy holders;

     (3) that reserve increases announced by the Company during
         the Class Period were materially insufficient; and

     (4) as a consequence of the understatement of loss
         reserves, Converium's earnings and assets were
         materially overstated at all relevant times.

On July 20, 2004, Converium announced that second quarter
results would be impacted by a reserve strengthening for US
casualty business and subsequent asset impairments on the
balance sheet of Converium Reinsurance. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of Converium fell $11.12 per share, or 44.44
percent, on July 20, 2004, to close at $13.90 per share. On
August 31, 2004, Converium announced that the Company had
completed external actuarial review of Converium's reserves. On
September 2, 2004, Converium announced that following the
announcement of the external reserve review's outcome and
resulting capital measures, Standard & Poor's and A.M. Best have
lowered their ratings on Converium and its subsidiaries. On this
news, shares of Converium fell an additional $1.04 per share, or
10.51 percent, to close at $8.86 per share.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com


DIGIMARC CORPORATION: Schffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in OR
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon on behalf of all who purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded securities of Digimarc Corporation
("Digimarc" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: DMRC) from April 17, 2002
through July 28, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Digimarc, Bruce Davis, and E.K. Ranjit
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. 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 had materially overstated its net
         income and earnings per share;

     (2) that defendants incorrectly accounted for software
         development costs and project capitalization at its
         Digimarc ID Systems business in violation of generally
         accepted accounting principles ("GAAP");

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

     (4) that as a result of this, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated at all relevant times.

On July 28, 2004, Digimarc revealed to the market that its
business and financial performance was not accelerating. In
fact, the Company announced that it had posted a loss of $0.10
per share for the period ending June 30, 2004, it expected a
loss in the third quarter of 2004, and was withdrawing all
guidance for earnings for the full year of 2004. In response,
Digimarc stock dropped more than 25% in one day from $12.07 to
$9.04.

Then on September 13, 2004, the Company announced that it was
reviewing certain accounting practices and previously reported
financial statements as a result of possible errors discovered
by management of the Company in the accounting for software
development costs and project capitalization at its Digimarc ID
Systems business unit. Management had presented its preliminary
findings to members of the Company's audit committee and, in
consultation with and under the supervision of the Company's
audit committee, would be continuing its review of the Company's
accounting for software development and project costs at ID
Systems. Moreover, management's preliminary assessment was that
certain software development costs had been improperly
capitalized. These possible errors were estimated to be in the
range of approximately $1.2 million to $2.0 million and may
require a restatement of prior period financial statements from
2002 to 2004.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Stoll Stoll Lodges Securities Suit in OR
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Portland, Oregon law firm of Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting &
Shlachter P.C. initiated a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock of Lattice Semiconductor
Corp. ("Lattice" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: LSCC) between April
22, 2003 and April 19, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5.

The complaint names as defendants: Lattice; Cyrus Y. Tsui, who
was at all relevant times the Company's chairman and chief
executive officer; and Stephen A. Skaggs, who was at all
relevant times Lattice's chief financial officer and became
president in December 2003.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Lattice
artificially inflated its stock price by issuing false and
misleading financial statements.

On January 22, 2004, after the close of trading, Lattice
announced a delay in the release of its fourth quarter and
fiscal year 2003 financial results as a result of an
overstatement of the Company's Deferred Income Account.

Then, on March 18, 2004, the Company said in a press release
that it had not completed its deferred income accounting review,
which was being conducted at the direction of the Company's
Audit Committee. The Company announced that it would restate its
first, second and third quarter 2003 financials and that the
restatement would result in a reduction of 2003 year-to-date
revenue of approximately $10 to $11 million, a reduction of 2003
year-to-date cost of sales of approximately $1.5 to $2 million
and an increase of 2003 year-to-date net loss of approximately
$8.5 to $9.5 million.

Lattice issued the restatement on March 24, 2004 and said that
the correction had "resulted from inappropriate accounting
entries made by an individual in the company's finance
department and deficiencies in the design and operation of
internal accounting controls." The Company reduced previously
reported 2003 revenue by approximately 7% and increased its net
loss by $9 million.

As a result of these revelations, the price of Lattice common
stock dropped from a high of $12.42 per share on January 20,
2004 to close at $8.50 on April 20, 2004.

For more details, contact Scott Shorr of Stoll Stoll Berne
Lokting & Shlachter P.C. by Phone: 503-227-1600 or by E-mail:
sshorr@ssbls.com


NEW YORK: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased
common stock of New York Community Bancorp Inc. (NYSE:NYB)
("NYB" or the "Company") between June 27, 2003 and May 9, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period") against NYB, Joseph R. Ficalora,
and Michael P. Puorro.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. NYB serves as the holding company for
New York Community Bank (the "Bank"). The Bank's principal
business consists of accepting retail deposits from the general
public in the areas surrounding its branch offices and investing
those deposits, together with funds generated from operations
and borrowings, into multi-family, commercial real estate, and
construction loans. 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 defendants manipulated the Company's financial
         results in order to appear more attractive for
         potential merger deals;

     (2) that this was accomplished through leveraged growth
         funded by short-term funding;

     (3) the Company's projections about growth and interest
         rate sensitivity were lacking in any reasonable basis
         when made; and

     (4) that the Company's financial results were materially
         inflated at all relevant times.

On Sunday, May 9, 2004, NYB announced that its Board of
Directors had authorized the Company's management team to engage
Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., and
Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. to assist the Company in
undertaking a review of its strategic alternatives, including
remaining independent. Commenting on the announcement, defendant
Ficalora stated: "We have always been a company that has focused
on shareholder value, and this review is consistent with that
focus." News of the engagement of Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., and Sandler O'Neill & Partners,
L.P. shocked the market. For months, and in numerous interviews,
filings, and press releases, defendant Ficalora maintained that,
given the nature of the Company's business, assets, and
liabilities, NYB would not only do better than its rivals in its
sector, but even thrive in an environment of rising interest
rates. Furthermore, Ficalora stated that NYB's predictions were
based on lower interest rates, and that an interest rate
increase would be good for the company. However, the sudden
engagement of three financial firms to "review strategic
alternatives" was the market's and investors' first indication
that NYB's strategy may not be working as planned or advertised.

Following NYB's announcement, in intra-day trading on Monday,
May 10, 2004, NYB dropped over $2.53 per share from its previous
close, on May 7, 2004, of $24.13 per share, or 10.5% to close at
a low of $21.60 per share. At the close of trading, NYB had
fallen $1.33 per share, or 5.5%, to close at $21.80 per share on
volume of 9 million shares - nearly three times its usual
volume.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212/490-2022 or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com


STAAR SURGICAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges CA Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP announces
that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of Staar Surgical Co. ("Staar" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: STAA) between April 3, 2003 and September
28, 2004 inclusive, (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The action, case number CV 04-8263, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
against defendants Staar Surgical and David Bailey (Chief
Executive Officer).

Staar is a manufacturer of minimally invasive eye treatments. On
April 3, 2003 the Company announced the launch of its "dominant
revenue generator," an implantable lens ("ICL"). The Complaint
alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning
Staar Surgical's implantable lenses ("ICLs") were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose significant
problems with the manufacture of these lenses. Defendants also
hid material problems from the Federal Food & Drug
Administration ("FDA"), including malfunctions and injuries
related to the ICLs. These problems not only threatened the
Company's ability to get FDA approval for the ICLs, but were not
revealed to investors.

On January 6, 2004, the FDA Website posted a warning letter
detailing serious violations of manufacturing standards and the
failure of the Company to adequately report to the FDA the
existence of adverse events associated with Staar Surgical ICLs.
This news shocked the market and sent the price of Staar
Surgical shares plummeting, to fall almost 18% below the
previous day. However, defendants continued to represent that
the Company was well on its way to correct all the FDA's
concerns.

On September 28, 2004, the other shoe dropped when the Company
revealed that the FDA had issued a form "FDA 483" report,
detailing numerous ongoing quality control issues. The stock
priced dropped dramatically, more than 40%, on this news.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY 10119-0165 by Phone:
(800) 320-5081 by E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com OR Maya
Saxena or Joseph E. White III by Mail: 5355 Town Center Road,
Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL 33486 by Phone: (561) 361-5000 or by
E-mail: msaxena@milbergweiss.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com


STONEPATH GROUP: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Stonepath Group, Inc. ("Stonepath" or the "Company") (AMEX:STG)
between May 7, 2003 and September 20, 2004, inclusive, (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Stonepath, Dennis
L. Pelino, Bohn H. Crain and Thomas L. Scully ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented that it
understated its accrued purchase transportation liability and
related costs of purchased transportation. Through this
understatement, the Company's liabilities and expenses were
understated, thus overstating net income and earnings before
income, taxes, depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA"). As a
result, the Company's reported financial results were in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").

On September 20, 2004, the Company reported that it intended to
restate its fiscal 2003 and first and second fiscal quarters of
2004 financial statements. In reaction to this news, the share
price of Stonepath closed at $0.086 per share, representing a
46% decline from the previous day's closing price.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. by Phone:
800-321-0476 or visit their Web site:
http://www.glrs.com/get/?case=StonePath


STONEPATH GROUP: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Stonepath Group, Inc. ("StonePath" or the "Company")
(AMEX:STG) between May 7, 2003 and September 20, 2004 (the
"Class Period") seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against defendants StonePath,
Dennis L. Pelino (CEO), Bohn H. Crain (CFO) and Thomas L. Scully
(Principal Accounting Officer). The Complaint alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
between May 7, 2003 and September 20, 2004.

The complaint alleges that Stonepath provides logistical supply-
chain services to large-scale, complex operations in the oil and
energy, construction, manufacturing and entertainment
industries. Such services include freight forwarding services,
customs brokerage services, warehousing and time-definite
delivery services.

The complaint further alleges that, during the Class Period,
StonePath issued press releases and financial reports that
represented that its revenues and earnings were growing well. In
fact, unbeknownst to investors but well known or recklessly
disregarded by defendants, the Company engaged in accounting
improprieties that artificially boosted its reported EBITDA
(earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortization). More specifically, StonePath under-accrued for
certain transportation costs, deceiving investors about the
Company's true operational results and financial condition.
These materially false and misleading statements enabled
defendants to privately place 5,983,500 StonePath shares at
artificially inflated prices for proceeds of approximately $13
million.

On September 20, 2004, after the market closed, defendants
announced that the Company's domestic services unit had
materially understated accrued purchased transportation
liability and related costs of purchased transportation and
that, consequently, the Company intended to restate its
financial statements for 2003 and the first and second quarters
of 2004. Defendants stated that the amount of the under accrual
was estimated to be in the range of $4.0 million - $6.0 million
for 2003 and in the range of $500,000 - $1.0 million for the
first six months of 2004 and that, after giving effect to these
estimated accrual expenses, the Company's reported EBITDA would
be reduced to the range of $2.6 million - $4.6 million for 2003
and reduced to the range of $200,000 - $700,000 for the first
six months of 2004.

On this news, Stonepath shares, which had closed at $1.59 on
September 20, 2004 (before the announcement), fell 49.6% to a
low of $0.80 on September 21, 2004 before closing out the day at
$0.86 per share.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
or Andrei V. Rado by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New
York, NY 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 or by E-mail:
sfeerick@milbergweiss.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Se¤orin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2004.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *