---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, December 16, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 248


                           Headlines

ADAMS GOLF: Appeals Court Affirms in Part Stock Suit Dismissal
AETNA LIFE: Boeing Employees File Suit Over Mishandled Claims
ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS: Court Grants Settlement Approval
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: MI Seeks Lead Plaintiff Status in Suit
CERNER CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal

CONNECTICUT: NAACP Calls For Investigation, Plans Legal Action
COOKER RESTAURANT: Suit Filed in TN Court V. Restaurant Closures
DOVER INVESTMENTS: Reaches Settlement For Suit V. Trust Proposal
ECHOSTAR DBS: CA Court Hears Certification For Consumer Lawsuit
FIRST TEAM: Recalls 7.6T Basketball Hoops Due To Injury Hazard

G&L REALTY: CA Court Approves Settlement For Stockholders Suit
HOME DEPOT: Discovery Proceeds In Overtime Wage Lawsuit in NJ
HOSPIRA INC.: Faces ERISA Fraud Suit Over Abbott Spin-off in IL
IBASIS INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
IDS LIFE: Dropped As Defendant in Amended Consumer Lawsuit in AZ

INFONET SERVICES: Shareholders Launch Fiduciary Duty Suit in CA
INFONET SERVICES: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consolidated Stock Lawsuit in FL
MAINE: Judge Delays Ruling In Lawsuit Over Mental Health System
MATRIXONE INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Suit Settlement

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: SRC Urges CA Court To Allow Nonprofits
MID-ATHLETIC ASSOCIATES: Faces Charges Of Overcharging Taxpayers
MOTOROLA INC.: DC Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
MOTOROLA INC.: Plaintiffs To Appeal Dismissal of Consumer Suit
MOTOROLA INC.: Appeal of Product Liability Suit Dismissal Heard

OHIO: Lawsuit Over Conditions At Mahoning County Jail Under Way
PACIFIC PREMIER: Working on Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
PSION TEKLOGIX: Recalls 683 Adaptors Because Of Fire Hazard
REGISTER.COM: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
REGISTER.COM: DE Court Dismisses Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suits

SBC YELLOW: Reaches $5M Settlement For Deceptive Marketing in CT
STAAR SURGICAL: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in CA, NM
TELECOM COMPANIES: Court Throws Out Settlement, Lifts Injunction
TEXAS: A.G. Abbott Continues Support of Public Access Law
UNITED STATES: IL Counties, Top Jurisdictions For Civil Lawsuits

WE THE PEOPLE: Agrees To Settle FTC Fraudulent Practices Suit
WIRELESS FACILITIES: CA Court Orders Stock Lawsuits Consolidated
YODER FORD: Vehicle "Bait" Ad Pact Reached With Texas A.G. Abbot

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ANCHOR GLASS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL
ANCHOR CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in FL
ANCHOR GLASS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in FL
GEOPHARMA, INC.: Roy Jacobs Amends NY Securities Lawsuit
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in CA

ROYAL GROUP: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY


                            *********


ADAMS GOLF: Appeals Court Affirms in Part Stock Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals affirmed in part the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware's dismissal
of the consolidated securities class action filed against Adams
Golf, Inc., certain of its current and former officers and
directors and the three underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering.

Beginning in June 1999, the first of seven class action lawsuits
was filed, alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with
the Company's IPO.  In particular, the complaints alleged the
Company's prospectus, which became effective July 9, 1998, was
materially false and misleading in at least two areas.
Plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that
unauthorized distribution of the Company's products (gray market
sales) threatened the Company's long-term profits.  Plaintiffs
also alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that the
golf equipment industry suffered from an oversupply of inventory
at the retail level, which had an adverse impact on the
Company's sales.

On May 17, 2000, these cases were consolidated into one amended
complaint, and a lead plaintiff was appointed.  The plaintiffs
were seeking unspecified amounts of compensatory damages,
interests and costs, including legal fees.  On December 10,
2001, the Court dismissed the consolidated, amended complaint.
Plaintiffs appealed.  On August 25, 2004, the appellate Court
affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs claims relating to
oversupply of retail inventory, while reversing the claims
relating to the impact of gray market sales and remanding those
claims for further proceedings.

The suit, styled "In Re: Adams Golf, et al v., et al, Court of
Appeals Docket No. 03-395," is currently in the US Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The suit was originally
designated Petrongolo v. Adams Golf Inc., et al., case no. 99-
cv-00618, under Judge Kent Jordan.

Lawyer for the plaintiffs is Carmella P. Keener of Rosenthal,
Monhait, Gross & Goddess, Mellon Bank Center, Suite 1401, P.O.
Box 1070, Wilmington, DE 19899-1070, Phone: (302) 656-4433


AETNA LIFE: Boeing Employees File Suit Over Mishandled Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class of Boeing employees filed a lawsuit against
Aetna Life Insurance Company (NYSE: AET) and The Boeing Company
(NYSE: BA), claiming that Aetna instituted claims-handling
practices which improperly and systematically denied and
terminated valid disability claims.

The suit, filed in United States District Court in Seattle,
charges that Aetna mishandled countless short-term and long-term
disability claims by failing to adequately review them, instead
dismissing them, often arbitrarily. According to the complaint,
Aetna also implemented a review process, which placed an
emphasis on certain evidence that supported a denial of
disability, while dismissing evidence that strengthened the
claim.

Fred Langer, attorney for the plaintiffs, said that Aetna's
handling of disability claims was an intentional, company-wide
approach motivated by a desire to increase profits.  "We intend
to show that in an effort to avoid paying disability claims and
increase profits, Aetna implemented a sham claims-review
procedure to justify numerous wrongful denials and
terminations," Langer said.

As stated in the complaint, Aetna breached numerous statutory
duties in the administering of its short-term and long-term
disability plans to Boeing employees, including failing to
provide a full and fair review of disabled employees' claims,
and breaching fiduciary duties owed to members of the plan.
According to the suit, breaches included heightening the
requirements needed to prove disability; failing to collect all
of the claimant's medical records; disregarding the assessments
of the claimant's treating physicians in favor of those by
Aetna's paid claims reviewers; and ignoring prior social
security disability awards.

According to Langer, Aetna's alleged egregious mishandling of
evidence is the crux of the proposed action against the company.

"One of the most disturbing aspects of this case is Aetna's
discriminatory treatment of evidence," Langer said. "Aetna's
claims handlers would routinely cherry-pick pieces of subjective
evidence in the claimant's file to support a denial of benefits,
while turning a blind eye to objective evidence and the
testimony of numerous doctors which corroborated a legitimate
disability," said Langer.

Bonnie Biery, the suit's named plaintiff, is a classic example
of Aetna's accused systematic claims-handling procedures and
denial of benefits. According to the complaint, Biery, whose
disabling conditions include chronic fatigue syndrome and
fibromyalgia, presented a myriad of evidence from treating and
independent physicians, which attested to her inability to work.
However, despite the compelling evidence, Aetna used their own
arbitrary review process to deny her long-term disability claim,
the complaint states.

"Bonnie Biery is just one example of an innocent person who is
at the mercy of an unlawful claims-handling process that is
intended to disadvantage disabled persons," said Langer.
"However, this suit is a wake-up call for Aetna demanding that
it give an account for its predatory dealings with
policyholders."

The Boeing Company is the sponsor of short- and long-term
disability benefits, which are determined and administered by
Aetna. As plan sponsor, Boeing is named as a defendant in the
proposed class action, because of its willful or negligent
participation in Aetna's wrongful denials of disability
benefits.

The proposed class includes Boeing employees who have been
denied disability benefits by Aetna, since 1998. The suit seeks
the reopening of administrative claims that were previously
denied, the appropriate reinstatement of disability benefits
owed to plaintiffs, change in of Aetna's unlawful claims-
handling practices, and additional damages owed to the class.


ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS: Court Grants Settlement Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
The Alaska Superior Court, Third Judicial District granted
preliminary approval to the settlement of a class action filed
against Alaska Communications Group, Inc., styled "Turner et al.
v. ACS Long Distance, Inc. ("ACS-LD") and Alaska Communications
Group, Inc. ("ACS Group")."

The case was a class action lawsuit brought by Dewana Turner,
Bonita Hixson, and Yolanda Monroe on behalf of a class of
individuals who subscribed to ACS-LD's Infinite Minutes
interstate long distance calling plan in 2000 and 2001. The
Infinite Minutes Plan provided flat-rate unlimited residential
interstate long distance calling for $20 per month.

The plaintiffs alleged that ACS-LD breached its contract with
plan members and violated consumer protection laws when it
modified the Infinite Minutes Plan in May 2001 by imposing a 600
minute per month cap on long distance calling. ACS-LD denied
that it breached its contracts with subscribers or improperly
modified the plan, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(October 20, 2004) states.

The parties have agreed to settle the matter for a combination
of:

     (1) 12 ten dollar per month coupons, to be applied against
         the Company's services;

     (2) 100 free interstate long distance minutes per month for
         12 months; and

     (3) $950 in cash for plaintiff's legal fees.

On October 27, 2004, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement and final approval is expected in February 2005.

The suit is styled "DEWANA G. TURNER, BONITA H. HIXSON and
YOLANDA P. MONROE v. Alaska Communications Systems Long
Distance, and Alaska Communications Systems Groups, Inc., case
no. 3AN-01-07208 CI, pending under William F. Morse, Judge.
Plaintiffs' counsel in the case were Peter Maassen of the law
firm of Ingaldson Maassen and Fitzgerald, and Paul Adelman of
the Law Office of Paul Adelman. The defendants were represented
by Jeff Feldman and Ruth Botstein of the law firm of Feldman &
Orlansky.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: MI Seeks Lead Plaintiff Status in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to protect Michigan's pension holders and pursue
potential securities fraud claims, Michigan is seeking Lead
Plaintiff status in the class action lawsuit against American
International Group, Inc. (AIG), according to Attorney General
Mike Cox and Treasurer Jay B. Rising.

As Lead Plaintiff, Michigan would identify defendants, explain
the grounds on which the suit is being carried out, as well as
manage the course of the litigation, define potential settlement
terms, and seek to maximize the recovery for the members of the
class. And should the case go to a jury, the Lead Plaintiff
would make all strategy decisions.

"As Attorney General, I am committed to protecting Michigan's
citizens against fraud and financial abuse," Cox said. "Michigan
employees work hard for their pensions, and I will not allow
these Michigan workers to lose their hard-earned dollars because
of fraudulent behavior."

When it was recently alleged that AIG participated in bid
rigging, earnings manipulation, and the making of false and
misleading statements regarding governmental investigations,
their stock fell by 23%. Their stockholders were hurt --
especially the Michigan Retirement Systems, an institutional
investor, which suffered losses in excess of $30 million.

"Companies and corporations we invest in, on behalf of hard-
working employees and retirees, must be held legally responsible
for their conduct," said Treasurer Jay B. Rising. "In this case,
AIG's alleged misconduct has resulted in significant losses for
our four systems and many millions more in losses for other
investors."

These actions, currently on file in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, allege in part that
AIG and other insurers have designed and executed a business
plan under which insurance companies, including AIG, have agreed
to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in so-called "contingent
commissions" for insurance brokers to steer AIG and other
insurance companies' business and shield them from competition.
To date, two AIG executives pleaded guilty to participating in
the illegal conduct concerning bid rigging. This is the first
action taken with regard to securities fraud in Michigan by the
cooperative partnership of Attorney General Cox and State
Treasurer Rising.

"Today's action makes a very clear point: The security of
Michigan's pension funds is priority one," said Treasurer
Rising. "We will protect funds that belong to our employees and
retirees."

"With our nation moving toward an information and service-based
economy, it is essential that we make sure information provided
to the general public is reliable," Cox said. "For the long term
economic good of Michigan and its citizens, we intend to bring
AIG and any other company that takes advantage of our citizens'
hard-earned dollars to justice."

The State of Michigan Retirement Systems (SMRS) hold more than
$48 billion in assets, making the combined fund the 13th largest
public pension fund in the United States. The SMRS invests on
behalf of Michigan Public School Employees, State Employees,
State Police, and Michigan Judges.


CERNER CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the consolidated securities
class action filed against Cerner Corporation and five of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri.

The Company received notice in April 2003 that three shareholder
class action lawsuits were filed against it and five of its
officers.  Subsequently, five additional shareholder class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company.  All of these
lawsuits were filed after a decline in the Company's stock price
following the Company's announcement on April 3, 2003 that the
Company would not meet revenue and earnings estimates for the
first quarter of 2003.

On August 20, 2003, the Court ordered that all of the lawsuits
be consolidated under Case No.03-CV-00296-DW and appointed Phil
Crabtree as Lead Plaintiff.  On December 1, 2003, the Lead
Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  In
general, the consolidated complaint alleges that, during a class
period commencing as of July 17, 2002 and ending April 2, 2003,
the Company and individual named defendants misrepresented or
failed to disclose certain factors, which they allege impacted
the Company's business and anticipated revenue and earnings, all
allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5 thereunder.

On June 16, 2004 the Court granted the Company's and the
individual defendants' Motion To Dismiss and ordered the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint dismissed with prejudice
against re-filing.  The Lead Plaintiff appealed the District
Court's dismissal of the action to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  The parties have filed their
appellate briefs but the Court of Appeals has not yet scheduled
the appeal for oral argument.


CONNECTICUT: NAACP Calls For Investigation, Plans Legal Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Connecticut chapter of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People is calling for a state
investigation into why many government agencies are not
complying with laws on hiring minority and women contractors,
the Newsday reports.

Already criticizing the Commission on Human Rights and
Opportunities for not enforcing state laws on minority
contractors, the NAACP officials are calling on Attorney General
Richard Blumenthal and the governor's office to look into the
matter. They also want Mr. Blumenthal to determine whether any
minority or women-owned businesses were adversely affected by
alleged efforts by members of former Gov. John G. Rowland's
administration to steer state construction contracts to certain
companies.

The NAACP is also contemplating filing a class-action lawsuit,
since more than half the agencies CHRO oversees are not in
compliance.

According to civil rights attorney John Brittain, a lead
attorney in the state's school desegregation case, the state
NAACP has "a legitimate claim" and he has outlined a possible
course of legal action.

State agencies are required to award 25 percent of their
contracts to small businesses with 25 percent of those said
contracts must be awarded to businesses owned by women and
minorities. However, a recent CHRO figures revealed that just 23
of 48 agencies it oversees are in compliance.

Scot X. Esdaile, president of the Connecticut State Conference
of NAACP Branches, said he hopes to meet with Gov. M. Jodi Rell
to discuss the matter.


COOKER RESTAURANT: Suit Filed in TN Court V. Restaurant Closures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Wethington and his company River Capital Partners, of
Atlanta, a controlling partner who instigated the sudden closure
of 20 Cooker restaurants in April has been recently sued by the
chain's founder, a group of shareholders and former employees,
the Nashville City Paper reports.

According to Henry Hillenmeyer, former chairman and chief
executive officer of Nashville-based Cooker Restaurant Corp.,
and other shareholders, the defendants shuttered the restaurants
without a required vote of stockholders and without taking steps
to preserve corporate assets.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Nashville, the suit seeks
unspecified damages from the Company based on allegations
including breach of contract, interference with business
relationships and breach of fiduciary duty by controlling
shareholders and directors.

The suit is also seeking class-action status for 1,500 former
employees of Cookers in Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, who are
owed back pay for the last pay period before the restaurants
were closed on April 28.

The suit states that Mr. Hillenmeyer was working out a plan to
repay creditors from a 2001 Chapter 11 Bankruptcy when the board
of directors asked for his resignation. The plaintiffs claim
that Wayne Bradley, Mr. Wethington's attorney, wrongly informed
board members they could be liable for the company's practice of
tapping into an unsecured creditors' fund to pay operating
expenses as needed.

Mr. Hillenmeyer said he never got a hearing on his plan to pay
off Cooker's $27 million debt to its primary banker. The sale
and leaseback of several restaurants would have raised enough
money to replenish the creditors' fund, the suit states.


DOVER INVESTMENTS: Reaches Settlement For Suit V. Trust Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dover Investments Corporation reached a settlement for one of
the two class actions filed against it, the members of its board
of directors and The Lawrence Weissberg Revocable Living Trust,
styled "Chiarenza v. Dover Investments Corporation, et al.," in
connection with the Trust's proposal to take the Company
private.

Following the January 27, 2004 initial announcement of the
proposal, two putative class action lawsuits were filed by
stockholders of the Company.  The other suit is styled "Raider
v. Frederick M. Weissberg et. al."  Both suits are purported to
be brought on behalf of all of the stockholders of the Company
excluding the defendants and their affiliates.  The suits
generally allege breaches of fiduciary duty by the defendants,
and that the defendants, in connection with the Trust's
proposal, are pursuing a course of conduct designed to eliminate
the public stockholders of the Company in violation of the laws
of the State of Delaware.  The complaints seek to enjoin the
proposal or, in the alternative, damages in an unspecified
amount and rescission in the event that the proposal is
consummated.

On October 8, 2004, the plaintiff in the Chiarenza Litigation
filed an amended complaint and a motion for summary judgment in
the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The amended complaint alleges,
among other things, a breach of fiduciary duty by the Trust for:

     (1) failing to take any steps to establish entire fairness
         in either process or price in the Offer or the Merger
         (collectively, the "Squeeze-Out Transaction"),

     (2) failing to take steps to protect Dover's public
         stockholders from its domination and control, and

     (3) failing to instruct its purported nominees on the Dover
         Board of Directors to affirmatiSvely empower a truly
         independent Special Committee to negotiate with the
         Trust or implement defensive measures designed to stop
         the Trust from achieving the Squeeze-Out Transaction on
         terms that are not fair to Dover's public stockholders.

The amended complaint also alleges that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things:

     (i) failing to take such defensive measures or to negotiate
         with the Trust,

    (ii) remaining neutral in the face of advice from Houlihan
         that the Trust's offering price is purportedly unfair,
         and

   (iii) acting as the agent of the Trust throughout the entire
         course of the Trust's proposals.

The amended complaint, among other things, seeks a permanent
injunction of the Squeeze-Out Transaction and, in the event the
Merger is completed prior to the entry of the Court's judgment,
rescission or an award of damages to the plaintiff and the
class. The amended complaint further alleges that the structure
of the Squeeze-Out Transaction is inequitably coercive, any
appraisal remedy available in the Merger would be ineffective
and unreasonably expensive for stockholders such as the
plaintiff, and the fair value of the Dover Common Stock is
materially greater than the consideration the Trust unilaterally
has determined to pay.

On October 22, 2004, the Trust, the Purchaser and the other
defendants in the Chiarenza Litigation entered into a memorandum
of understanding with the plaintiff in such action to settle the
pending Chiarenza Litigation (the "Memorandum of
Understanding").  Under the terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding, the Purchaser has stated its intention to agree
to an offer price of no less than $31.30 per Share and to pay
and not object to an award of attorneys' fees and costs to
counsel to the putative plaintiff class in an amount not to
exceed $225,000.

Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, the
Chiarenza Litigation plaintiffs have stated an intention to have
the pending Chiarenza Litigation settled and dismissed as to the
plaintiff and the putative plaintiff class.  The proposed
settlement is not, and should not be construed as, an admission
of wrongdoing or liability of any defendant. The proposed
settlement is subject to, among other things, the approval of
the Delaware Court of Chancery.


ECHOSTAR DBS: CA Court Hears Certification For Consumer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California State Superior Court for Los Angeles, County
heard plaintiffs' motion for class certification of a lawsuit
filed against Echostar DBS Corporation, relating to the use of
terms such as "crystal clear digital video," "CD-quality audio,"
and "on-screen program guide," and with respect to the number of
channels available in various programming packages on December
7,2004.

David Pritikin and Consumer Advocates, a nonprofit
unincorporated association, filed the suit in 1999, alleging
breach of express warranty and violation of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq.,
and the California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500 &
17200.

A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
the Company's motion for summary judgment was held during 2002.
At the hearing, the Court issued a preliminary ruling denying
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  However, before
issuing a final ruling on class certification, the Court granted
the Company's motion for summary judgment with respect to all of
the plaintiffs' claims.  Subsequently, the Company filed a
motion for attorneys' fees which was denied by the Court.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Court's granting
of EchoStar's motion for summary judgment and EchoStar cross-
appealed the Court's ruling on EchoStar's motion for attorneys'
fees.  During December 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed in
part; and reversed in part, the lower Court's decision granting
summary judgment in EchoStar's favor.

Specifically, the Court found there were triable issues of fact
whether EchoStar may have violated the alleged consumer statutes
"with representations concerning the number of channels and the
program schedule."  However, the Court found no triable issue of
fact as to whether the representations "crystal clear digital
video" or "CD quality" audio constituted a cause of action.
Moreover, the Court affirmed that the "reasonable consumer"
standard was applicable to each of the alleged consumer
statutes.  Plaintiff argued the standard should be the "least
sophisticated" consumer.  The Court also affirmed the dismissal
of Plaintiffs' breach of warranty claim.  Plaintiff filed a
Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court and
EchoStar responded.  During March 2004, the California Supreme
Court denied Plaintiff's Petition for Review.  Therefore, the
action has been remanded to the trial Court pursuant to the
instructions of the Court of Appeals.


FIRST TEAM: Recalls 7.6T Basketball Hoops Due To Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Team Inc., Hutchinson, Kansas is cooperating with the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 7,600 Basketball Hoops.

The bolt attaching the arm to the vertical post can break,
causing the backboard to fall and injure someone standing below.
First Team received one report of a backboard falling. No
injuries were reported.

This recall involves First Team Attack, Force and Titan
basketball hoops. The hoops have a spring-loaded E-Z crank,
adjustable backboard that goes from 6-feet, 6-inches to 10-feet
tall. "First Team" is written on the bottom left corner of the
clear acrylic or tempered glass backboard. The heavy duty
basketball hoops are often professionally installed.

Manufactured in the U.S.A., the hoops were sold at all internet
sales, distributors, and independent retail stores from January
1996 through August 2004 for between $1,000 and $1,800.

Consumers should stop using their basketball hoops and contact
First Team Customer Service to receive a free repair kit.

Contact: Call First Team at (800) 649-3688 between 8 a.m. and 5
p.m. CT Monday through Friday.


G&L REALTY: CA Court Approves Settlement For Stockholders Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles has
approved the settlement agreement for the class action filed
against G&L Realty Corp. (NYSE: GLRPRA and GLRPRB), and entered
its final order dismissing with prejudice all claims against the
Company, its officers, directors and controlling stockholders
asserted in the class action case "Lukoff et al vs. G&L Realty
Corp et al." With this order, all actions growing out of the
acquisition by Messrs. Daniel M. Gottlieb and Steven D. Lebowitz
in 2001 of all of the Company's outstanding common stock not
already owned by them have been resolved.

Founded in 1976, G&L Realty Corp. is a growth-oriented health
care real estate investment trust currently specializing in the
development, ownership, leasing and management of medical office
buildings.


HOME DEPOT: Discovery Proceeds In Overtime Wage Lawsuit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action lawsuits filed
earlier this year against do-it-yourself giant Home Depot in
U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, which alleges
current and former "assistant store managers" were misclassified
as managers and denied millions in overtime pay and pension
benefits. According to plaintiffs' co-counsel Della Bahan of
Bahan and Associates, Pasadena, CA, the suits will now proceed
into the discovery phase and plaintiffs can move for class
action certification.

"The allegations are indeed true. These men and women have been
given the phony title of 'assistant store manager,' but in fact
have primarily been performing the work of hourly employees and
are, therefore, entitled to overtime pay."

The plaintiffs argue that Home Depot purposely misclassified
employees as assistant managers in violation of federal and
state overtime laws and forced employees to work more than 40
hours a week without receiving standard overtime pay as required
by law. Misclassifying them as "assistant store managers" also
reduced their participation in a Home Depot employee retirement
plan.

"We're dealing with the largest home improvement retailer in the
country. In order to boost profits, the company is bilking
hundreds of employees out of overtime pay and benefits that were
rightfully theirs," said Ms. Bahan. "They have manipulated the
system at the expense of the employees and it's wrong and
unlawful."

The lawsuits, one on behalf of current assistant store managers
and the other on behalf of former assistant store managers, were
filed by four co- counsels: Ms. Bahan; Joseph Fine (Reitman
Parsonnet, Newark, NJ); Gerald Jay Resnick (Deutsch Resnick,
P.A., Hackensack, NJ); and Lee Squitieri (Squitieri & Fearon,
LLP, Morristown, NJ). The suits were brought "on behalf of
individually named plaintiffs and all assistant store managers
employed by the Home Depot in similar situations." All assistant
store managers employed by Home Depot during the three years
prior to the filing of the suit are eligible to participate in
the class action. It is estimated that this number exceeds 500
current and former Home Depot employees nationwide.

A suit on behalf of former assistant managers Nick Aquilino and
Ahmed Elmagraby and others and a suit on behalf of Edward Novak
have been consolidated in U.S. District Court, District of New
Jersey, in Newark.

The suits, brought as class actions, claim that Home Depot
violated the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act as well as the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and statutory laws of Alaska,
Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Illinois,
Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington and
Wisconsin.

Federal wage and hour regulations and the New Jersey State Wage
and Hour Law define an employee as "exempt" (ineligible for
overtime pay) when their primary duty consists of management of
the company, or the department or subdivision of which they are
employed, when they regularly direct two or three other
employees, when they have the authority to hire or fire, they
have and use discretionary power, when they devote less than 40%
of their work to non-exempt activities and when their weekly
salary is a minimum of $400.00.

"Assistant store managers at Home Depot do not meet any of these
criteria," said Mr. Fine. "In many instances, the employees'
responsibilities and duties remained the same as before they
were given their new titles. Many so-called 'assistant store
managers' primary responsibilities are still mopping floors,
taking out the garbage and stocking shelves -- all tasks
traditionally assigned to hourly employees."

The plaintiffs also say that the misclassification deprived them
of benefits in the retirement benefit plan for Home Depot
employees. Misclassifying employees as assistant store managers
made them ineligible to receive the supplemental annual matching
contribution of 4.5% that 'non highly' compensated employees
were eligible to receive. It also delayed the employees'
eligibility for accrual of benefits in the plan.

Home Depot is the world's largest home improvement retailer and
second largest retailer in the United States. The company
employs over 300,000 workers and owns and operates over 1,700
stores in North America. Last year, Home Depot recorded $68.4
billion in net sales.


HOSPIRA INC.: Faces ERISA Fraud Suit Over Abbott Spin-off in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, styled
"Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott
Laboratories and Hospira, Inc."

Three employees filed the suit, alleging generally that the
spin-off of the Company from Abbott Laboratories adversely
affected employee benefits in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  The lawsuit
seeks class action certification on behalf of "All employees of
Abbott who were participants and beneficiaries of the Abbott
Benefit Plans whose employment with Abbott was terminated
between August 22, 2003 and April 30, 2004, as a result of the
spin-off announced by Abbott on August 22, 2003."


IBASIS INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
iBasis, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval to
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against it, certain of its officers, directors, former officers
and directors, and the investment banking firms that underwrote
its November 10,1999 initial public offering of the common stock
and its March 9, 2000 secondary offering of the common stock.

Beginning July 11, 2001, several suits were filed on behalf of
persons who purchased the common stock during different time
periods, all beginning on or after November 10, 1999 and ending
on or before December 6, 2000.  The complaints are similar to
each other and to hundreds of other complaints filed against
other issuers and their underwriters, and allege violations of
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 primarily based on the assertion that there was undisclosed
compensation received by the Company's underwriters in
connection with its public offerings and that there were
understandings with customers to make purchases in the
aftermarket.  The plaintiffs have sought an undetermined amount
of monetary damages in relation to these claims.

On September 4, 2001, the cases against the Company were
consolidated.  On October 9, 2002, the individual defendants
were dismissed from the litigation by stipulation and without
prejudice.  On June 11, 2004, the Company and the individual
defendants, as well as many other issuers named as defendants in
the class action proceeding, entered into an agreement-in-
principle to settle this matter, and on June 14, 2004, this
settlement was presented to the Court.  A motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement was filed and is pending.  Once the
Court preliminarily approves the settlement and notice has been
mailed, there will be an objection period, followed by a hearing
for final approval of the settlement.

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, in exchange
for a termination and release of all claims against the Company
and the individual defendants and certain protections against
third-party claims, the Company will assign to the plaintiffs
certain claims it may have as an issuer against the
underwriters, and its insurance carriers, along with the
insurance carriers of the other issuers, will ensure a floor of
$1 billion for any underwriter-plaintiff settlement.

The suit is styled "In re iBasis, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 10120 (Sas)," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300,

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com


IDS LIFE: Dropped As Defendant in Amended Consumer Lawsuit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDS Life Insurance Company was dropped as a defendant in the
amended class action filed against it and other insurance
companies in the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona, styled "John Haritos, et al. v. American Express
Financial Advisors, Inc. et al., No. 02 2255."

This action alleges that defendants violated the Investment
Advisors Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C., in the sale of financial plans
and various products including those of IDS Life Insurance
Company. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide
class, restitution, injunctive relief, and punitive damages.
The remaining defendants have moved to dismiss the action and
that motion is pending.


INFONET SERVICES: Shareholders Launch Fiduciary Duty Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Infonet Services Corporation, the members of its board of
directors and its chief executive officer face a purported class
action filed in California Superior Court, County of Los
Angeles.

The complaint alleges, on behalf of a proposed class of holders
of the Company's Class B common stock, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by
approving the merger agreement with British Telecommunications
plc.  The complaint seeks relief including an injunction
preventing the consummation of the proposed transaction,
rescission of the proposed transaction to the extent already
implemented, and reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.


INFONET SERVICES: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted final approval of the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action against Infonet Services
Corporation and several of its current and former officers and
directors, styled "In re Infonet Services Corporation Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 01-10456 NM."

The suit, filed on behalf of public investors who purchased our
securities during the period from December 16, 1999 through
August 7, 2001, names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Jose A. Collazo, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
         of the Board,

     (2) Akbar H. Firdosy, Chief Financial Officer,

     (3) Douglas Campbell,

     (4) Eric M. de Jong,

     (5) Morgan Ekberg,

     (6) Masao Kojima,

     (7) Joseph Nancoz,

     (8) Rafael Sagrario,

     (9) KDDI Corporation,

    (10) KPN Telecom,

    (11) Swisscom AG,

    (12) Telefonica International Holding B.V.,

    (13) Telia AB,

    (14) Telstra Corporation Ltd,

    (15) Merrill Lynch & Co.,

    (16) Warburg Dillon Read LLC,

    (17) ABN AMRO Inc.,

    (18) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

    (19) Lehman Brothers Inc. and

    (20) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.

The suit alleges that defendants made misrepresentations and
omissions regarding the AUCS channel in the Company's Form S-1
registration statement and the accompanying prospectus for its
initial public offering of Class B common stock and in other
statements and reports during the class period.  The plaintiffs
assert counts against the Company and its officers and directors
for violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and violations of Section 20(a) and 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The plaintiffs have requested a judgment determining that the
lawsuit is a proper class action, awarding compensatory damages
and/or rescission, awarding costs of the lawsuit and awarding
such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.  All of
the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated suit.

On August 12, 2003, the Court ruled on the motions to dismiss,
dismissing the underwriters and Class A stockholders without
leave to amend, and dismissing the Company and its officers and
directors with leave to file an amended complaint.  Plaintiffs
filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on October
3, 2003, to which defendants responded with a motion to dismiss
filed on December 5, 2003.

The parties have entered into a settlement of the federal
securities litigation, which is subject to approval by the
Court.  Under the settlement, all claims will be dismissed, the
defendants will obtain releases of liability, and the litigation
will be terminated in exchange for a cash payment of $18 million
by the defendants.  On April 16, 2004, the Court preliminarily
approved the settlement and certified a settlement class
including persons who purchased Infonet common stock between
December 16, 1999 through August 7, 2001, except for defendants
and certain other related persons.

The suit is styled "In Re: Infonet Svc Corp Sec, et al v. , et
al, 2:01-cv-10456-NM-CW," filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, under Judge Nora
M. Manella.  Lead counsel for the plaintiff is Milberg, Weiss,
Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), 600 West Broadway,
1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone:
800.449.4900, E-mail: support@milberg.com.


LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consolidated Stock Lawsuit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. and certain of its present and
former officers and directors face a consolidated amended class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under the caption "Primavera Investors v.
Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No.8:04-CV-919-T-
23EAJ."

Several suits were initially filed in the United States District
Courts for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, and
the Central District of California, Southern Division, alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The actions were originally brought on behalf of those who
purchased the Company's common stock between May 22, 2002, and
March 30, 2004, inclusive.  The complaints contain varying
allegations, but generally allege that the defendants engaged in
improper revenue recognition with respect to the Company's
transactions with Growell Metal Co., Ltd. and that the
defendants issued false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's business and operations, including unrealistic but
favorable information about market demand for Liquidmetal
products, with the result of artificially inflating the
Company's share price.  The complaints seek unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

In August 2004, four complaints were consolidated.  John Lee,
Chris Cowley, Dwight Mamanteo, Scott Purcell and Mark Rabold,
were appointed co-lead plaintiffs (the "Lead Plaintiffs").
Subsequently, in September 2004, the five complaints filed in
the Central District of California were transferred to the
Middle District of Florida for consolidation with the Primavera
Investors action.  The Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint is presently due on or before November 1, 2004, but
the Lead Plaintiffs have requested an enlargement of time until
30 days after the Company filed its Form 10-K with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Company and the other
defendants will have 45 days from the service date to move to
dismiss or otherwise respond to the Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint.

The suit is styled "Primavera Investors v. Liquidmetal Tech., et
al., 8:04-cv-00919-SDM-EAJ," filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge Steven D.
Merryday.

Lawyers for the defendants are:

     (1) Michael L. Chapman and Tracy A. Nichols, Holland &
         Knight, LLP, 100 N. Tampa St., Suite 4100, P.O. Box
         1288, Tampa, FL 33601-1288, Phone: 813/227-8500, Fax:
         813/229-0134, E-mail: michael.chapman@hklaw.com or
         tracy.nichols@hklaw.com

     (2) Tiffani G. Lee, Holland & Knight LLP, 701 Brickell
         Ave., Suite 3000, P.O. Box 015441, Miami, FL 33131-
         5441, Phone: 305/374-8500 ext: 7725, Fax: 305/789-7799
         (fax), E-mail: tiffani.lee@hklaw.com

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (i) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
         Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com

    (ii) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com

   (iii) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (D.C.),
         1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 730, Washington,
         DC, 20036, Phone: 202.822.6762, Fax: 202.828.8528, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com

    (iv) Marc S. Henzel, 210 West Washington Square, Third
         Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19106, Phone: 215.625.9999,
         Fax: 215.440.9475, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com

     (v) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL) 5355 Town Center Road - Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL,
         33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax: 561.367.8400

    (vi) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com

   (vii) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

  (viii) The Brualdi Law Firm, 29 Broadway - Suite 1515, New
         York, NY, 10006, Phone: 212.952.0602, Fax:
         212.952.0608,

    (ix) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, e-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com

     (x) Geller Rudman, PLLC, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite
         200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         888.262.3131, e-mail: info@geller-rudman.com


MAINE: Judge Delays Ruling In Lawsuit Over Mental Health System
---------------------------------------------------------------
To avoid a Court takeover of parts of Maine's mental health
system, state officials were given five months to prove to
Superior Court Justice Nancy D. Mills that they could develop an
"integrated and comprehensive community-based mental health
system," the Blethen Maine Newspapers reports.

The judge already had appointed a "receiver" to run the state
hospital, but the state also has been under her threat to
appoint a receiver who would control the community mental-health
services that aid nearly 4,000 Riverview Psychiatric Center and
former Augusta Mental Health Institute patients.

According to Brenda Harvey, the state deputy health and human
services commissioner, as soon as the judge's decision was
received her staff was shifted from planning to "implementation
development." She further adds, "Our staff has been waiting to
take the next steps and we're pleased we got approval of our
plan. We believe there is a fair amount of consensus on this
plan."

When Judge Mills rejected a modified state plan earlier this
year, she ordered both the State Department of Health and Human
Services and patients' lawyers to come up with recommendations
for improvements.

The judge said she initially tried to develop her own plan
combining parts of both plans. She said many of the proposals by
patients' lawyers may be preferable, but that the issues are so
complex she could not come up with a plan that would work, would
qualify for state and federal funding, and would avoid violating
contracts and licensing standards.

However, Judge Mills said further delays could not be allowed,
writing in her Court opinion that "The Court is unwilling to
delay approval of a plan in order to ask the defendants to
assess the feasibility and cost of an improved plan,
particularly because implementation of parts of the defendants'
plan will not begin until a plan is approved."

The AMHI consent decree was signed by state officials in 1990 to
settle a class-action lawsuit brought by patients over
deteriorated conditions and several deaths at AMHI. The state
originally promised to comply with the reforms outlined in the
decree by 1995. But after a seven-week trial in 2002-03 judge
Mills rejected the state's claim that it met the terms of the
decree and has promptly held state officials in contempt for the
third time since the consent decree was signed.

The judge said state officials have made progress, but that they
have still not proven to her they can meet the terms of the
consent decree.


MATRIXONE INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
MatrixOne, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval to
the settlement of the consolidated amended class action against
it, two of its officers, and certain underwriters involved in
the Company's initial public offering of common stock (IPO).

The complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock during the period from February 29,
2000 to December 6, 2000 and asserts, among other things, that
the Company's IPO prospectus and registration statement violated
federal securities laws because they contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the conduct of the
Company's IPO underwriters in allocating shares in the Company's
IPO to the underwriters' customers, and that the Company and the
two named officers engaged in fraudulent practices with respect
to the underwriters' conduct.  The action seeks damages, fees
and costs associated with the litigation, and interest.

Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the Company's two
named officers were dismissed from the lawsuit, without
prejudice, on October 9, 2002. On February 19, 2003, the Court
ruled on a motion to dismiss the complaint that had been filed
by the Company, along with the three hundred plus other
publicly-traded companies that have been named by various
plaintiffs in substantially similar lawsuits.  The Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss the claim filed against it under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but denied
the Company's motion to dismiss the claim filed against it under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as it denied the
motions under this statute for virtually every other company
sued in the substantially similar lawsuits.

In June 2003, the Company, implementing the determination made
by a special independent committee of the Board of Directors,
elected to participate in a proposed settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If ultimately approved by
the Court, this proposed settlement would result in a dismissal,
with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the
Company and against any of the other issuer defendants who elect
to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the
current or former officers and directors of participating
issuers who were named as individual defendants.  The proposed
settlement does not provide for the resolution of any claims
against the underwriter defendants, and the litigation as
against those defendants is continuing.  The proposed settlement
provides that the class members in the class action cases
brought against the participating issuer defendants will be
guaranteed a recovery of $1.0 billion by insurers of the
participating issuer defendants.  If recoveries totaling $1.0
billion or more are obtained by the class members from the
underwriter defendants, however, the monetary obligations to the
class members under the proposed settlement will be satisfied.
In addition, the Company and any other participating issuer
defendants will be required to assign to the class members
certain claims that they may have against the underwriters of
their IPOs.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers liability
insurance policy proceeds, as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.  A participating
issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of
the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were
insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the
settlement costs.  The Company expects that its insurance
proceeds will be sufficient for these purposes and that it will
not otherwise be required to contribute to the proposed
settlement.   Formal settlement documents, including a
stipulation of settlement and related documents, have now been
filed with the Court. The plaintiffs in the case against the
Company, along with the plaintiffs in the other related cases in
which issuer defendants have agreed to the proposed settlement,
have requested preliminary approval by the Court of the proposed
settlement, including the form of the notice of the proposed
settlement that will be sent to members of the proposed classes
in each settling case. Certain underwriters who were named as
defendants in the settling cases, and who are not parties to the
proposed settlement, have filed an opposition to preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement of those cases.

In mid-September, the Court asked lead counsel for the
plaintiffs and for the issuer defendants for additional
information concerning the adequacy of the settlement amount and
how plaintiffs intend to allocate any consideration paid under
the settlement among the more than 300 separate class actions
that are included in the settlement.  Counsel for the plaintiffs
and for the issuer defendants are in the process of providing to
the Court the information that it has requested.

Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon,
among other things, receipt of both preliminary and final Court
approval.  If the Court preliminarily approves the proposed
settlement, it will direct that notice of the terms of the
proposed settlement be published in a newspaper and mailed to
all proposed class members and schedule a fairness hearing, at
which objections to the proposed settlement will be heard.
Thereafter, the Court will determine whether to grant final
approval to the proposed settlement.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: SRC Urges CA Court To Allow Nonprofits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Settlement Recovery Center ("SRC") will ask a San
Francisco Superior Court Judge to stop Microsoft from
interfering with hundreds of nonprofit organizations that want
to participate in the $1.1 billion Microsoft class action
settlement in California.

SRC, a San Francisco-based company that helps businesses
participate in class action settlements, operates DonateDirect,
a program that lets claimants donate their recoveries to
qualified non-profit organizations. Microsoft has attempted to
block this program. SRC filed a motion on behalf of charitable
donors and SRC's nonprofit clients.

Californians have until Jan. 8 to claim their share of a $1.1
billion fund arising out of a 2003 class-action settlement.
Anyone who doesn't file by Jan. 8 will be out of luck.

Microsoft stands to save hundreds of millions of dollars if
eligible claims are not filed by the approaching deadline.

Only a small fraction of the qualified claims have been filed.
"Fourteen million people in California are eligible to share in
the Microsoft payout, but only around 600,000 claims have been
filed so far," says SRC's founder and CEO Howard Yellen.

Yellen says it's wrong to exclude non-profits from the
settlement benefits. "People should file to recover every dollar
they are entitled to from Microsoft, and no one should be
precluded from donating an entitlement to a non-profit where it
can do the most good."

SRC has been hired to file claims for over 600 leading companies
and nonprofits with millions of employees in the fields of
banking and financial services, healthcare, telecommunications,
technology, transportation, manufacturing, law, retail,
education and entertainment.

The public hearing commences at 3 p.m before Judge Paul Alvarado
in Department 305. Following the hearing, Howard Yellen, SRC's
founder and CEO will be available for press interviews on the
steps of the Superior Court House, located at 400 McAllister
St., San Francisco. Contact Craig Wolfson to arrange an
interview.


MID-ATHLETIC ASSOCIATES: Faces Charges Of Overcharging Taxpayers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental consultants charged with conspiring to rig bids
and overcharge taxpayers for work cleaning land around leaky
underground storage tanks must change their ways and pay more
than $250,000 to the state, North Carolina Attorney General Roy
Cooper announced in a statement.

"These groups cooked up a scheme to cheat taxpayers and make an
unfair profit off of cleaning up our land and water," said AG
Cooper.  "That isn't the way we want to do business in North
Carolina, and I hope this case sends a strong message to other
firms operating in our state."

According to agreements approved by North Carolina Business
Court Judge Ben Tennille late yesterday, Mid-Atlantic Associates
of Raleigh, its president and co-owner Darin M. McClure and its
vice-president and co-owner Thomas A. Proctor are barred from
rigging bids and submitting requests for reimbursement that fail
to disclose kickbacks.  Mid-Atlantic cannot bid on any contracts
with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for 18
months and will pay $180,000 to the state.  McClure will pay an
additional $60,000 and Proctor will pay $10,000.

The trade association North Carolina Environmental Service
Providers Association (NCESPA) also entered into a settlement
that bars it from helping firms conspire to rig bids and
requires the group to pay $5,000 to the state.  Individuals
named in Cooper's original suit against the defendants, or
employed by a firm named in the action, may not serve as
officers or directors of NCESPA.  In addition, both NCESPA and
Mid-Atlantic must develop programs to ensure that they comply
with state and federal antitrust and deceptive practices laws.

The agreements announced today resolve charges against Mid-
Atlantic, McClure, Proctor, and NCESPA first brought by Cooper
in a suit filed in April 2003.  Cooper and DENR alleged that
eight firms and their employees illegally conspired to rig bids
for a state contract in an effort to increase fees that the
state pays for clean up of sites contaminated by leaking
petroleum tanks.  The complaint also alleged that the firms also
formed the trade association NCESPA to direct either a boycott
of specific state project bids or a submission of inflated
rates, and that firms that bid also lied by swearing that they
had not colluded with other firms to peg prices.  An amended
complaint filed by Cooper in November of 2003 added claims that
Mid-Atlantic and McClure devised a secret kickback scheme to
overcharge the state for work done by subcontractors.

At the time of the original complaint, six firms and six
individual employees agreed to change their practices, cooperate
in the State's investigation, undergo ethics training and pay
$480,000 to settle charges that they colluded to fix prices and
lie on bids.  With the settlements announced today, the total
recovery for the state in this case is $735,000.

Approximately 10,000 sites across North Carolina have suffered
environmental damage from leaking petroleum tanks. In June of
1988, the General Assembly created a trust fund with a portion
of gasoline and kerosene taxes and tank fees to pay clean-up
costs. When tank owners disappear or fail to clean up, DENR
requests proposals from environmental consultants and the trust
fund covers the cost. Using the fund, which takes in $30 million
annually, the state also reimburses private landowners who clean
land and water spoiled by leaking underground tanks.

Defendants named in the complaint that continue to face charges
after the settlements announced today are: CBM Environmental
Services of Fort Mill, SC and its owner and CEO Catherine A.
Ross of Charlotte; and John A. Hill, a former director of
NCESPA.

For more details, contact Noelle Talley, Public Information
Officer, N.C. Department of Justice by Phone: (919) 716-6484 or
(919) 716-6413 by Fax: (919) 716-0803 or by E-mail:
ntalley@ncdoj.com


MOTOROLA INC.: DC Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action
filed against Motorola, Inc. and Iridium World Communications,
styled "Freeland v. Iridium World Communications, Inc., et al."

The consolidated suit arose out of alleged misrepresentations or
omissions regarding the Iridium satellite communications
business.  While the still pending cases are in various stages
and the outcomes are not predictable, an unfavorable outcome of
one or more of these cases could have a material adverse effect
on the Company's consolidated financial position, liquidity or
results of operations, the Company stated in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


MOTOROLA INC.: Plaintiffs To Appeal Dismissal of Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a petition for leave to appeal the dismissal of
the class action filed against Motorola, Inc., arising out of
its manufacture and sale of wireless telephones, styled "Jerald
P. Busse, et al. v. Motorola, Inc. et al."

The suit, filed October 26, 1995 in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division, alleges that defendants
have failed to adequately warn consumers of the alleged dangers
of cellular telephones and challenging ongoing safety studies as
invasions of privacy.

On October 9, 2002, the Circuit Court entered summary judgment
in defendants' favor.  On June 22, 2004, the Illinois Appellate
Court affirmed the lower Court's entry of summary judgment and
dismissal of the case.  On July 13, 2004, plaintiffs filed a
petition for rehearing with the Illinois Appellate Court.  On
August 3, 2004, the Illinois Appellate Court denied the petition
for rehearing.  On October 12, 2004, plaintiffs served
defendants with a Petition for Leave to Appeal to the Illinois
Supreme Court.


MOTOROLA INC.: Appeal of Product Liability Suit Dismissal Heard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral
arguments on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of a
consolidated lawsuit filed against Motorola, Inc. and other
cellular phone manufacturers, styled "In re Wireless Telephone
Radio Frequency Emissions Products Liability Litigation."

Five suits were initially filed with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, namely:

     (1) Naquin, et al., v. Nokia Mobile Phones, et al.,

     (2) Pinney and Colonell v. Nokia, Inc., et al.,

     (3) Gillian et al., v. Nokia, Inc., et al.,

     (4) Farina v. Nokia, Inc., et al., and

     (5) Gimpelson v. Nokia Inc, et. al.

The suits alleged that the failure to incorporate a remote
headset into cellular phones rendered the phones defective and
that cellular phones cause undisclosed injury to cells and other
health risks.  The suits were later consolidated and transferred
to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
for consolidated pretrial proceedings.

On March 5, 2003, the JPMDL dismissed with prejudice the five
cases consolidated during 2001.  In doing so, it stated the
subject matter is preempted and not appropriate for litigation,
but is entrusted by Congress to federal agencies.  On April 2,
2003, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal as well as the
jurisdictional ruling.


OHIO: Lawsuit Over Conditions At Mahoning County Jail Under Way
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge David D. Dowd said you don't have to be a
Rhodes scholar to figure out that when inmates share a jail cell
during prolonged lockdowns, there are bound to be problems, the
Vindy.com reports.

The judge offered his observation as a class-action lawsuit over
conditions at the Mahoning County jail got under way in Federal
Court. In a trial that could last all week testimony centered on
what the staffing should be to ensure the safety of guards and
inmates.

Fined in November 2003 on behalf of inmates, Akron lawyers
Robert Armbruster and Thomas Kelley, who had filed the suit,
called to the witness stand three experts who have analyzed the
jail staffing and sheriff's Capt. James M. Lewandowski, former
warden. In his testimony, Mr. Lewandowski stated that the jail,
which opened in 1996, was supposed to have 151 corrections
officers, a number that reflects all shifts and allows for
coverage of vacations and sick days. Mr. Lewandowski further
testified that when the jail opened the guards did not have
duties outside the facility.

In 1996 and continuing until November 2001, the jail was under a
federal consent decree that enforced an inmate-to-staff ratio.
That decree was the result of a lawsuit Mr. Armbruster and Mr.
Kelley won in the early 1990s.

Mahoning County, which is being defended by Columbus lawyers
Daniel T. Downey and Mark Landes, acknowledged that many inmates
are double bunked and inmates are locked-down when required to
protect their safety and the safety of the guards. However, the
defense lawyers pointed out that overcrowding and restricted
staff is not, in and of themselves, violations of constitutional
rights and that the understaffing is due, in part, to the
failure of a half-cent sales tax.

Meanwhile, Mr. Downey and Mr. Landes, objected to the use of
Lois Ventura, Ph.D., an assistant criminology professor at
Toledo University and former director of inmate services for the
Lucas County jail, as an expert witness claiming that she knew
only about inmate services and not about security. But Judge
Dowd stated that because there's no jury, he would hear her
testimony.

"Everything you do, you do with security in mind," Ms. Ventura
testified. Her analysis of the jail for 2003: Unsafe for inmates
and staff, an extraordinarily high risk of danger. For 2004, "It
continues to be unsafe and, in some cases, worse," she
testified.

She also pointed to the number of days when inmates are locked
down, unable to leave their cells because of a shortage of
guards and that it's not uncommon for inmates to be locked down
three or four days a week. She also testified that the increase
in the number of inmates over the past few years from 500 to
nearly 800 also creates a high risk of danger with so few
deputies to guard them.

The jail, which was designed to hold around 500 inmates, added
cots and expanded its population in the past year or so to
nearly 800, but was recently dropped to about 700.

Ms. Ventura, using Mahoning County Sheriff's Department records
for November 2003 stated that she had discovered that the number
of deputies who reported to work was substantially below the
number of posts assigned. She compared her figures with those
compiled by Licking County Sheriff Gerry Billy, another expert
witness.

Mr. Billy, who also testified, said that there should be 32
corrections officers on the day shift, 30 on the afternoon and
22 on the midnight shift, which was totally different from Ms.
Ventura testimony, which said that the average for November 2003
was 18 guards on the day shift, 21 on the afternoon shift and 12
on the midnight shift.

The third expert witness, Robert Pace, a former jail
administrator in Cuyahoga County, said Deputy Glen Kountz,
president of the union representing deputies, the Fraternal
Order of Police Lodge 141, to do a staffing analysis contacted
him. Mr. Pace is a consultant to the Geauga County Safety Center
and owns his own consulting company, Managed Confinement. In his
analysis, he stated that the three main concerns for a jail are
occupants' safety, security and operational matters. The latter
he called "making sure the trains run on time."

Under questioning by Mr. Armbruster, Mr. Pace gave a description
of the Mahoning County jail inmates' emotional state because of
lockdowns. He said they feel stress, anxiety and anger. Being
confined for so long - three to four days a week - leaves them
without access to the day area, which includes phones and
showers.


PACIFIC PREMIER: Working on Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: PPBI) (the "Company), has
received inquiries since the December 8, 2004 press release
issued by the law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP regarding
the Class Action Settlement, with respect to whether it will be
required to accrue for its share of the settlement in current or
future quarters. As previously disclosed in its 2003 10-K annual
report and its September 2004 10-Q quarterly report, the Company
has established a legal accrual, which Management believes is
sufficient to cover the Company's portion of the settlement and
its portion of the trial cost. Additionally, the Company
disclosed in the aforementioned annual and quarterly reports
that the Company's insurance carrier accepted the defendants'
claim with a customary reservation of rights. The Company's
liability will be 20% of the settlement.

Furthermore, Management suggests that all current and former
shareholders who purchased shares of the common stock of the
Company, formerly known as Life Financial Corporation, during
the period June 24, 1997 to March 3, 1999 complete and submit a
Proof of Claim. Information on how to obtain and submit a Proof
of Claim is contained in the December 8, 2004 press release.

The Company is a savings and loan holding company that owns 100%
of the capital stock of Pacific Premier Bank, F.S.B. (the
"Bank"), the Company's operating subsidiary. The Bank is a
federally chartered stock savings bank whose primary business is
community banking. The Bank currently operates three full-
service branches in Southern California located in the cities of
San Bernardino, Seal Beach and Huntington Beach.


PSION TEKLOGIX: Recalls 683 Adaptors Because Of Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Psion Teklogix Corp., a subsidiary of Psion Teklogix Inc., of
Ontario, Canada is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling about 682 AC
power adapters for Psion Teklogix notebook computers.

The adapters can overheat, posing a fire hazard to consumers.
Psion Teklogix has received nine reports of overheating, though
no injuries have been reported.

The recalled AC power adapters are used with Psion Teklogix
netpadr, netBookT, and NETBOOK PROT notebook computers. The
recalled adapters have a label on the back of the unit which
include the name "Sunpower (UK) Ltd," the part number
9NA0180300, and date code "D/C: 034810."

Manufactured in China, the computers were sold at all Psion
Teklogix corporate customers and through mobile computing
products distributors nationwide between December 2003 and
October 2004 for about $45.

Consumers should stop using the adapters immediately and contact
Psion Teklogix to receive a free replacement unit.

Consumer Contact: Call Psion Teklogix Corp. at (800) 387-8898
between 4 a.m. and 11 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or e-mail
the company at adapter.recall@psionteklogix.com to receive the
free replacement unit. For additional information, consumers can
view the adapter recall at www.psionteklogix.com


REGISTER.COM: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Register.com, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval
to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
filed against it, its former Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer Richard D. Forman and its former Vice
President of Finance and Accounting, Alan G. Breitman,
Goldman Sachs & and Lehman Brothers, Inc., two of the
underwriters in the syndicate for its March 3, 2000 initial
public offering.  Goldman Sachs & Co. and Lehman Brothers, Inc.
distributed 172,500 of the 5,750,000 shares in the initial
public offering.

The consolidated suit, captioned In re: Register.com, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation," seeks
unspecified damages as a result of various alleged securities
law violations arising from activities purportedly engaged in by
the underwriters in connection with our initial public offering.
Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering to
certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.

The action is being coordinated with approximately three hundred
other nearly identical actions filed against other companies
before one judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed
the Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice based
on Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the
Individual Defendants.  On February 19, 2003, the Court denied
the motion to dismiss the complaint against the Company. The
Company has approved a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) and related agreements which set forth the terms of a
settlement between the Company and the plaintiff class.

The suit is styled "In re Register.Com, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 10120 (Sas)," filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms
in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300,

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com


REGISTER.COM: DE Court Dismisses Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed without prejudice two
class actions filed against Register.com, Inc. and the members
of the Company's board of directors, styled "Lanza v. Morten, et
al, C.A. No. 20123" and "Norton v. Morten, et al., C.A. No.
20124."

On January 17, 2003, individual stockholders of the Company
filed complaints alleging, among other things, breaches of
fiduciary duty by the directors in connection with certain
publicly disclosed indications of interest in the acquisition of
Company and further alleged that the directors were not
fulfilling their fiduciary duties in connection with their
review and response to such indications of interest.

On January 9, 2004 the plaintiffs withdrew their complaints and
the Court approved the dismissal of the complaints, without
prejudice.  The plaintiffs have yet to re-file their suits.


SBC YELLOW: Reaches $5M Settlement For Deceptive Marketing in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Connecticut has reached a $5 million settlement
with SBC Yellow Pages for deceptive marketing of the company's
2001 Fairfield County Yellow Pages directories, the Stamford
Advocate reports.

At a recently held news conference, Attorney General Richard
Blumenthal stated, "SBC Yellow Pages deceived thousands of
businesses in Fairfield County," and adds, "Deceptive marketing
is the wrong call."

The settlement stems from a lawsuit filed by the attorney
general's office in June 2002, it was filed after dozens of
businesses complained that they had been told by SBC SNET, now
SBC, that small local Yellow Pages directories for surrounding
towns that they had been advertising in were being replaced by a
larger and more expensive Fairfield County-wide Yellow Pages.

The businesses would have to advertise in the countywide book,
at rate increases of 40 percent or more, or forgo yellow Pages
ads, business owners were told.

For example, one smaller directory covered Stamford, Darien, New
Canaan, Greenwich and two towns in Westchester County, N.Y. At
the time, the new rates in the regional Yellow Pages prompted
anger.

Don Chiappetta, owner of West High Service on West Main Street
in Stamford, a gas station, auto repair shop and snow removal
service, told The Advocate in February 2002: "The SNET rep told
me the (county) phone book would be the only one from now on. I
said, 'Who's going to come from Bridgeport to have me fix their
car?' "

Later on, the company did publish the local directories. Many
businesses believed their ads were lost to potential customers
in the larger book, then were compelled to take out ads in the
smaller books or faced losing business, according to Mr.
Blumenthal.

The attorney general further stated, "SBC Yellow Pages deceived
businesses, untruthfully telling them it was discontinuing its
less expensive local Yellow Pages, thereby conning them into
buying two ads instead of one, with little additional benefit."

Under the settlement terms, $3.5 million in refunds or vouchers
will go to local businesses that advertised in the 2001
Fairfield County Yellow Pages, the attorney general explains.
Although only 522 businesses have been identified so far, the
attorney general stated that about 11,000 businesses are
potentially eligible for reimbursements and SBC will notify them
under the settlement's terms.

SBC will also pay another $500,000 in fines to the state under
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and has also agreed
to forgive $1 million in unpaid or disputed charges to
businesses that advertised in the countywide directory.

However, companies that opt out of the settlement can pursue
their rights in a class-action lawsuit that is pending, Mr.
Blumenthal stated.


STAAR SURGICAL: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in CA, NM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Staar Surgical Co. faces multiple class action lawsuits filed in
the United States District Courts for the Central District of
California and the District of New Mexico on behalf of all
persons who acquired the Company's securities during various
periods between April 3, 2003 and September 28, 2004. The suits
also name as defendants the Company's chief executive officer.

The lawsuits generally allege that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing
false and misleading statements regarding the prospects of the
Company's ICL, thereby artificially inflating the price of the
Company's Common Stock.  The defendants generally seek to
recover compensatory damages, including interest.


TELECOM COMPANIES: Court Throws Out Settlement, Lifts Injunction
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal appeals court in Chicago has handed down a decision
that exposes Sprint, Qwest, Level 3, and Williams to more than
$3 billion of liability in numerous federal and state class
actions pending around the country. The decision reversed a
controversial nationwide class action settlement favored by the
telecom companies. The order also lifts an injunction to allow
other class action lawsuits to go forward. Several of those
class actions are certified and set for trial.

The appeals court decision renews the question of how much the
telecom giants must pay landowners for the right to install and
use fiber-optic cable on railroad rights of way. The four
defendant companies claim to have installed fiber-optic cable on
more than 36,000 miles of railroad rights of way, comprising
their core infrastructure. But according to landowners they are
trespassers. More than 30 class actions around the country claim
that the subsurface rights belong to the landowners and that the
telecom companies are intentional trespassers.

Landowners say Sprint faces the largest potential damage
judgment. "Our experts have pegged the value of the real estate
as greater than $20 per foot for future use alone," said Nels
Ackerson, one of the landowners' attorneys. "Sprint has 16,000
miles of fiber. Like the other telecom companies, Sprint will
have to pay for both past and future use, as well as punitive
damages," he continued.

Until this decision came down, some landowners' attorneys had
supported the settlement. Irwin Levin, an attorney who supported
the settlement, said, "We look forward to aggressively pursuing
the litigation across the country. All of the landowners'
attorneys agree that the defendants will have to pay much more
to landowners than they agreed earlier."

For more details, contact Nels Ackerson by Phone: 202-833-8833
or by E-mail: nackerson@ackersonlaw.com OR Eric Bolton,
202-833-8833 or by E-mail: ebolton@ackersonlaw.com OR Henry J.
Price by Phone: 317-633-8787 or by E-mail: hprice@price-law.com
OR Irwin B. Levin by Phone: 317-636-6481 or by E-mail:
ilevin@cohenandmalad.com.


TEXAS: A.G. Abbott Continues Support of Public Access Law
---------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott reaffirmed his commitment and
leadership in defending open government in Texas by supporting a
proposal that would usher in more accountability and disclosure
in the investment of public funds.

"Texans must be able to find out how their hard-earned money is
being managed by investment firms," said Attorney General
Abbott.  "Taxpayers should never be shielded from information
about the investment of their money. There is no proof that
secrecy will ensure sound investments, but we know that secrecy
can conceal bad investments."

Attorney General Abbott joined Rep. Dan Gattis (R-Georgetown) to
emphasize the importance of Gattis' proposed legislation
addressing these issues.  If passed, the bill, which will also
be filed today in the Senate by Sen. Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock),
would significantly improve the public's access to information
about investments by government pension programs and other
funds.

Rep. Gattis acknowledged the public's right of access to the
information. He further noted, "Investment of public funds has
grown rapidly and diversified widely in the 21st Century. My
legislation will bring Texas open government laws, written in
the 1970s, into the new century."

Sen. Duncan concurred, saying, "Hard-working Texans deserve to
know the fate of investments made with their money, and I am
proud to work with Attorney General Abbott on this open
government legislation."

As proposed, the legislation broadly views investments of public
funds as "investments of and for the people, and the people are
entitled to information regarding those investments. [The law]
shall be liberally construed to implement this policy."

The funds at the center of this controversy have maintained that
certain disclosures about their investments of the public's
money would unfairly expose proprietary information to
competitors. The legislation would acknowledge firms' right to
assert confidentiality of certain information, and balance that
with the public's right to know whether its money is being
invested wisely.

The Texas Attorney General's Office remains in a Court standoff
with the Texas Growth Fund over Abbott's ruling earlier this
year that the fund must release information about its
investments of Texas Teacher Retirement System funds. The
Attorney General noted that the fund had failed to show how such
disclosures could harm its marketplace interests.

The legislative proposal would require government offices to
publicly disclose information they possess relating to their
investments. This would include the name of any fund in which
the office is invested, the year the fund was created, the
dollar amount committed to the fund and the return on that
investment.  The law would also require government offices to
disclose the recusal of any governing board member on the basis
of his or her investments. Also disclosed would be fees,
expenses and other compensation assessed against the government
office.


UNITED STATES: IL Counties, Top Jurisdictions For Civil Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington-based American Tort Reform Association labeled
Madison County as the nation's No. 1 "judicial hellhole" for
defendants in civil suits for the second straight year, in its
"Judicial Hellholes 2004" report, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch
reports.  St. Clair County, which made the rankings for the very
first time, followed closely.

The annual report rips Madison County as the top "destination
for the litigation tourist," and faults the county's judges for
what it considers abuse of judicial venue and jurisdiction
provisions. The report further stated, "specifically, Madison
County judges allow claims to proceed in Madison County Courts
where the plaintiff and defendant are located out-of-state, the
plaintiff's exposure occurred out-of-state, medical treatment
was provided out-of-state, no witnesses live in Illinois, and no
evidence relates to the state."

However, Madison County Chief Judge Edward Ferguson dismissed
the report as the product of a biased interest group. "They put
out that hellhole label under the guise of some kind of
independent, rational study," Mr. Ferguson told the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch. "It's an interest group that knows ahead of time
the result they're going to come up with."

The American Tort Reform Association lists businesses, trade and
professional associations, and nonprofit organizations as its
sponsors. The report cites the medical malpractice crisis in St.
Clair County, as well as the increase in class-action suits
filed there from two in 2002 to 24 this year. The report further
cites that the rise was "reminiscent of Madison County, where
class actions rose from two in 1998 to 39 in 2000, and then
continued to rise."

Greg Shevlin, president of the St. Clair County Bar Association,
said he was not sure why St. Clair County would be dubbed a
judicial hellhole, since according to him it would be difficult
to respond without seeing the report. However, if the issue is
class-action suits, Mr. Shevlin said, the number filed means
little, since a case is worth nothing until it goes through
heavy scrutiny and a judge certifies it.

Mr. Shevlin added that he could recall only two such cases going
to trial in St. Clair County in recent years. One was mentioned
by the Tort Reform Association report and involved the safety of
Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors. Mr. Shevlin noted that
in that case the jury returned a defense verdict. In the other
class action that was tried this year, it was over whether
Allstate Insurance policyholders were entitled to compensation
for their cars losing value despite being repaired after
accidents, it too resulted in a jury returning a defense
verdict.


WE THE PEOPLE: Agrees To Settle FTC Fraudulent Practices Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A company that sells legal document preparation franchises has
agreed to pay a $286,000 civil penalty to settle Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) charges that it violated federal law by failing
to disclose lawsuits against it to prospective franchisees, the
FTC announced in a statement.

The FTC alleges that We The People Forms and Service Centers
USA, Inc., (We The People), which assists consumers in preparing
legal documents, including bankruptcy petitions, violated the
FTC's Franchise Rule. In addition to paying a civil penalty, the
defendant agrees to receive training to assist it in complying
with the Franchise Rule.

The FTC's Franchise Rule requires a franchisor to provide
prospective franchisees with a complete and accurate basic
disclosure document containing 20 categories of information,
including information about the franchisor and its principals,
the terms and conditions under which the franchise operates, and
certain pending or prior litigation.

According to the FTC, since 1996, the California-based company
sold legal document preparation franchises nationwide. We The
People franchises provide legal document preparation services to
consumers who choose to represent themselves in "basic,
uncontested legal matters." These legal disputes or transactions
are described as matters not opposed by another party to or
person interested in that legal matter - such as bankruptcy
petitions, divorce petitions, wills, and trusts. The defendant
assists franchisees in preparing legal documents by distributing
various workbooks. Consumers are instructed to insert required
information into the workbook designed for their particular
legal matter. The franchisees then forward the completed
workbook to a We The People documentation preparation center,
along with a purchase order. Using the workbook information, the
documentation preparation center prepares and returns a
completed legal document to the defendant's franchisees. The
customer can either pickup and file the legal documents with the
appropriate Court or purchase filing services from the
defendant's franchisees.

The complaint alleges that We The People failed to disclose the
existence of three lawsuits initiated against it by the United
States Trustee Program, a component of the Department of Justice
that supervises the administration of bankruptcy cases and
trustees. These lawsuits were filed in connection with the
preparation of bankruptcy petitions.

The proposed stipulated judgment and order for permanent
injunction to settle the charges requires We The People to pay
$11,000 per violation, for a total civil penalty of $286,000.
The order prohibits the defendant from violating the Franchise
Rule in the future. In addition, the order requires the
defendant to participate in the Franchise Rule compliance
training program offered by the International Franchise
Association. The program provides specific guidance on complying
with the Rule, and enables the FTC to monitor better the
defendant's compliance efforts.

Finally, the order contains various recordkeeping provisions to
assist the FTC in monitoring the defendant's compliance.

The Commission vote authorizing staff to send the complaint and
proposed stipulated judgment and order for permanent injunction
to the Department of Justice for filing was 5-0. The complaint
and proposed order were filed at the FTC's request by the
Department of Justice in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on December 10, 2004. The proposed order
is subject to Court approval.

For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center,
Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580
or visit the Website: http://www.ftc.gov. Also contact, Brenda
Mack, Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2182 or contact
Steve Toporoff, Bureau of Consumer Protection by Phone:
202-326-3135.


WIRELESS FACILITIES: CA Court Orders Stock Lawsuits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California ordered consolidated the securities class actions
filed against Wireless Facilities, Inc. and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.

In August 2004 and September 2004, as a result of the Company's
announcement on August 4, 2004 that it intended to restate its
financial statements for the fiscal years ended December31,
2001, 2002 and 2003, several suits were filed on behalf of those
who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the Company's common stock
between April 26, 2000 and August 4, 2004.

The lawsuits generally allege that, during that time period, the
defendants made false and misleading statements to the investing
public about the Company's business and financial results,
causing its stock to trade at artificially inflated levels.
Based on these allegations, the lawsuits allege that defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  These actions
seek unspecified damages.

The parties stipulated, and the Court ordered, that these
lawsuits be consolidated.  On December 2, 2004, the Court will
hear plaintiffs' motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and for
appointment of lead plaintiffs' counsel.  Plaintiffs will then
be required to file a consolidated complaint sixty days after
the Court enters an order appointing lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiffs' counsel and defendants will have forty-five days to
respond.

The suits are pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California, assigned to Judge John A.
Houston, and referred to Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes.  The
suits are styled:

     (1) Moubayed v. Wireless Facilities, case no. 3:03cv01627

     (2) Cole v. Wireless Facilities, case no. 3:04cv01589

     (3) Philipson v. Wireless Facilities, case no. 3:04cv01604

     (4) Guard v. Wireless Facilities, case no. 3:04cv01615

     (5) Manson v. Wireless Facilities, case no. 3:04cv01632

     (6) Pedicini v. Wireless Facilities, case no. 3:04cv01663

     (7) Salamon v. Tayebi, case no. 3:04cv01675

     (8) Hodgson v. Wireless Facilities, case no. 3:04cv01683

     (9) Norris v. Wireless Facilities, case no. 3:04cv01692

    (10) Anish v. Wireless Facilities, case no. 3:04cv01742

    (11) Miller v. Wireless Facilities, case no. 3:04cv01786

    (12) Shah v. Wireless Facilities, case no. 3:04cv01943


YODER FORD: Vehicle "Bait" Ad Pact Reached With Texas A.G. Abbot
----------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed an agreement with Yoder
Ford (also known as Hacienda Ford) of Edinburg that will yield
refunds for about 130 new vehicle buyers who were tricked into
paying for vehicle alarm systems that added about $800 to the
advertised vehicle price.

"Although a Yoder Ford representative wrongfully engaged in this
scheme, the Company uncovered the conduct and cooperated with my
office in resolving this matter with its customers," said
Attorney General Abbott.  "The business wisely chose to settle
to our satisfaction with consumers who deserve refunds for
overpayment."

From April through July 2001, Yoder Ford advertised sales prices
for certain vehicles in newspaper ads to lure prospective
customers to the showroom floor to inquire about the sale.
However, the dealer never intended to sell the vehicles at the
advertised sale prices. In the "bait" scheme at the close of the
sale, the dealer added the $800 price of the alarm system to the
advertised price, in many instances without the consent or
knowledge of the buyer and without disclosing that the purchase
was optional.

While the newspaper ads inconspicuously noted that a charge for
the alarm would be added to the advertised price, only tax,
title and license fees may be lawfully excluded from this price.
The scheme violates the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by
advertising the sale of vehicles with the intent not to sell
them as advertised.

In June 2002 the Attorney General also sued two other car
dealerships, Knapp Chevrolet of Harlingen and Burns Motors of
McAllen, for engaging in an identical bait advertising scheme.
These cases are pending in Court.

Consumers who purchased a new vehicle from Yoder Ford from April
through July 2001 may be eligible for refunds. These persons
will receive notice from the Attorney General by mail at the
address they gave the dealership when they purchased a vehicle.
Consumers who may have moved since then should call the Attorney
General's McAllen office at 956/682-4547 (ext. 106) to leave a
forwarding address.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ANCHOR GLASS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Anchor Glass Container Corporation ("Anchor" or "the
Company") (Nasdaq: AGCC) during the period of September 25, 2003
through and including November 4, 2004 (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action was filed in the Middle District of Florida (Tampa
division) against defendants Anchor Glass, Richard M. Deneau
(former CEO) and Darrin J. Campbell (CFO). According to the
complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Anchor went public
through an Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on September 25, 2003
and that throughout the Class Period, defendants touted Anchor's
increasing sales and profitability causing the stock price to
soar to over $17 per share. Insiders cashed out both in the IPO,
where their personal "Series C" preferred stock was redeemed for
cash, and after, when defendants and other Anchor insiders sold
over $4.4 million worth of stock at artificially inflated
prices.

The Complaint alleges that the statements issued by defendants
during the Class Period were materially false and misleading
because:

     (1) Anchor's production far exceeded demand and the Company
         had an excess of built-up inventory during the Class
         Period, resulting in the forced closure of the
         Connellsville facility;

     (2) Anchor had flooded the market with inventory during the
         Class Period which caused the Company to "curtail
         production selectively during the fourth quarter" to
         lower these inventory levels and align production with
         customer requirements; and

     (3) one of the Company's main production facilities, the
         Connellsville facility, was materially impaired during
         the Class Period resulting in a belated charge of at
         least $45 million.

On November 5, 2004, before the market opened, defendants
shocked the market by announcing a much greater than expected
net loss, a major company-wide revamping, including the closure
of a major container facility, the suspension of the quarterly
dividend, and the sudden resignation of CEO Richard Deneau. In
response to the unexpected news, Anchor stock plummeted by over
25%, on extraordinarily high volumes of over 2.6 million shares
traded - vastly higher than the average trading volumes of
approximately 130,000 shares. The news also prompted analyst
downgrades, including a downgrade to "sell" issued by Merrill
Lynch, noting that "the company's issues raise questions about
Anchor Glass management's intermediate-term credibility..."

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 by Mail: Tower I, 5200 Town Center
Circle, Suite 600, 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.


ANCHOR CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Anchor Glass
Container Corporation (NasdaqNM: AGCC) ("Anchor Glass
Container") between September 25, 2003 and November 4, 2004 (the
"Class Period"), including anybody who acquired shares in the
September 25, 2003 Initial Public Offering ("IPO").

The Complaint alleges that Anchor Glass Container violated
federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Anchor
Glass Container's statements touting its increasing sales and
profitability were false or misleading because its production
far exceeded demand, the market was flooded with its inventory,
and one of its main production facilities, the Connellsville
facility, was materially impaired.

On November 5, 2004, Anchor Glass Container announced a greater
than expected loss, a company-wide revamping, the suspension of
the quarterly dividend, and the sudden resignation of CEO
Richard Deneau. In response to this news, Anchor Glass Container
fell from a close of $7.94 per share on November 4, 2004, to
close at $5.80 per share on November 5, 2004.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton by Phone:
(800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.snlaw.net.


ANCHOR GLASS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Anchor Glass Container Corporation ("Anchor" or "the Company")
(Nasdaq: AGCC) from September 25, 2003 through November 4, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges defendants Anchor Glass, Richard M. Deneau
and Darrin J. Campbell with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) Anchor's production far exceeded demand and the Company
         had an excess of built-up inventory during the Class
         Period, resulting in the forced closure of the
         Connellsville facility;

     (2) Anchor had flooded the market with inventory during the
         Class Period which caused the Company to "curtail
         production selectively during the fourth quarter" to
         lower these inventory levels and align production with
         customer requirements; and

     (3) one of the Company's main production facilities, the
         Connellsville facility, was materially impaired during
         the Class Period resulting in a belated charge of at
         least $45 million.

On November 5, 2004, before the market opened, defendants
shocked the market by announcing a much greater than expected
net loss, a major company-wide revamping, including the closure
of a major container facility, the suspension of the quarterly
dividend, and the sudden resignation of CEO Richard Deneau. In
response to the unexpected news, Anchor stock plummeted by over
25%, on extraordinarily high volumes of over 2.6 million shares
traded - vastly higher than the average trading volumes of
approximately 130,000 shares.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: Three Bala
Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004 by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 OR by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com.


GEOPHARMA, INC.: Roy Jacobs Amends NY Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Roy Jacobs & Associates will amend its class
action lawsuit previously filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
purchasers who, on December 1, 2004, purchased GeoPharma, Inc.
(Nasdaq:GORX) securities. The lawsuit was filed against
GeoPharma, Inc. ("GeoPharma" or "the Company), and its
President, Kotha Sekharam to include purchasers of GeoPharma,
Inc. (Nasdaq:GORX) securities on both December 1, 2004 and
December 2, 2004.

The action arises out of representations that GeoPharma, a
pharmaceuticals company, was engaged in the development of a
"patent-pending" drug for the treatment of oral inflammation
suffered by cancer patients known as mucositis. The product was
dubbed Mucotrol. On December 1, 2004, GeoPharma announced that
Mucotrol had been approved by the FDA. On this news, GeoPharma
shares shot up on heavy volume, reaching $11.25 per share, but
sharply declined after questions were raised about Muctrol's
status as a "drug." On December 2, 2004, GeoPharma issued a
press release claiming "confusion" and announced that the
Company would hold a briefing after the close of the securities
markets. It was then conceded by the Company that Mucotrol was a
"device," not a drug. GeoPharma shares which closed at $7.37 on
December 2, 2004 dropped to $5.46 on December 3, 2004 and have
continued to decline.

For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates by Phone: (888) 884-4490 or by E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
(www.pomerantzlaw.com) initiated a class action lawsuit against
IMPAX Laboratories, Inc. ("IMPAX" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:IPXL) and individual defendants Barry D. Edwards (IMPAX
CEO and a Director) and Cornel C. Spiegler (IMPAX CFO), on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the securities
of IMPAX during the period from May 5, 2004 to November 3, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case, Civil Action Number 04
5252 in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, is assigned to Judge Charles R. Bryer.

IMPAX is a technology-based pharmaceutical company that develops
and markets generic and brand name prescription drugs. The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the individual
defendants caused IMPAX shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels by disseminating false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's finances and operations, and benefited
from the inflation by engaging in an insider trading scheme for
proceeds of more than $32 million.

The Class Period ends on November 3, 2004, when IMPAX shocked
the investing public by postponing its "release of 2004 third
quarter financial results to Tuesday, November 9, 2004 in order
to allow its independent auditors more time to complete their
review of the Company's third quarter financial statements,
including the timing of certain customer credits on buproprion
products marketed by a strategic partner." Investor reaction was
swift and negative, with IMPAX stock falling more than 22% on
November 4, 2004 on high trading volume.

For more details, contact Carolyn S. Moskowitz of the Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP by Phone: (888) 476-6529 or by
E-mail: csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com.


ROYAL GROUP: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Royal Group Technologies Limited
("Royal Group") (NYSE:RYG) common stock during the period
between February 11, 1999 and October 13, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Royal Group and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Royal Group is a vertically integrated manufacturer of
polymer-based home improvement, consumer and construction
products. Royal Group's operations are located primarily in
Canada and the United States, with international locations in
Mexico, South America, Europe and Asia.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Royal Group's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. The statements were materially false and misleading
because defendants knew, but failed to disclose that:

     (1) defendants were enjoined in a scheme to packet ill-
         gotten monies in violation of applicable law, including
         laws governing "fraud" and "conspiracy";

     (2) defendants used a resort partially owned by them as a
         vehicle to steal money from the Company;

     (3) the Company's inventory was overstated as defendants
         delayed the writedown of these assets to prevent
         further earnings erosion;

     (4) the Company's U.S. window business was not poised for
         growth but faltering, contrary to defendants'
         portrayal;

     (5) the defendants' margins were being eroded by the
         increase of higher raw material costs; and

     (6) as a result of (i)-(vi) above, defendants' projections
         for FY 2003-2004 were grossly overstated.

On October 15, 2004, Royal Group disclosed the first Royal
Canadian Mounted Police ("RCMP") production order for three
Royal Group current or former executives who faced allegations
of defrauding shareholders and creditors. The Court documents
named company founder, controlling shareholder and non-executive
chairman Vic De Zen, former CFO Gary Brown and then current
President and CEO Douglas Dunsmuir. The investigation relates to
allegations that De Zen, Brown and Dunsmuir violated sections of
the Criminal Code for fraud and conspiracy by circulating or
publishing a prospectus or statement or account which they knew
was false, for a period between January 1996 and July 2004. Upon
this news, shares of Royal Group fell $1.12 per share, or almost
15%, to close at $7.85 per share on the next trading day on
unusually heavy trading volume. On October 28, 2004, these
allegations widened to include current CFO Ronald Goegan and
large shareholders Domenic D'Amico and Fortunato Bordin, and
expanded the time period to between January 1996 to present.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800-449-4900 by E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/royalgroup/.


                            *********


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  * * *