CAR_Public/050201.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, February 1, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 22

                          Headlines

120194 CANADA: US, Canada Enforcers Starts Campaign Against Scam
4049705 CANADA: Held in Contempt Of Court Over Consumer Fraud
AUTO INSURANCE: Suit Filed in CA Over "Contingent Commissions"
BETTER BUDGET: FTC Launches Suit Over Fraudulent Credit Scheme
CANADA: Manitoba Appeals Ruling On Abortion Clinics' Funding

CENTRAL PARKING: Shareholders Reach Stock Suit Settlement in TN
CONAGRA FOODS: Reaches Settlement in Lawsuit Over UAP Accounting
ELI LILLY: Canadian Files Consumer Suit Over Zyprexa Advertising
FLOWER FOODS: Reaches Final Settlement in NC Kosher Pie Lawsuit
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 262,113 Ford Escape SUVs for Crash Hazard

FORD MOTOR: Recalls 283 Ford GT Passenger Cars For Crash Hazard
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 717,302 Minivans Due To Injury Hazard
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recalls 9,501 Motorcycles Due To Crash Hazard
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recalls Motorcycles, Parts Due To Crash Hazard
HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE: FL Court Refuses To Make Accutane Docs Public

KENTUCKY: Plaintiffs Launch Suit Over $200M Fen-Phen Settlement
MAZDA NORTH: Recalls Sport Utility Vehicles Due To Crash Hazard
MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: Firm Asks Ceplene Testers To Come Forward
MICHELIN NORTH: Recalls 4,000 XDE Tires Because of Crash Hazard
OHIO: Residents Sue B&H, American Electric Over Property Damages

PARADIGM MEDICAL: Reaches Agreement To Settle Consolidated Suit
PROZAC: British Journal Retracts Report on Documents on Prozac
UNUMPROVIDENT: Ex-Employees Win Ruling in Suit Over Denied Pay

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ASTRAZENECA PLC: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MA
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Shapiro Haber Files Securities Fraud Suit in MA
CITADEL SECURITY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
EPIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in MA
EPIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Shapiro Haber Lodges Securities Suit in MA

GANDER MOUNTAIN: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
HUFFY CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in OH
LINSCO/PRIVATE LEDGER: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files CA Stock Suit
PHARMOS CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges NJ Securities Suit
PHARMOS CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in NJ

SHURGARD STORAGE: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in WA
SILICON STORAGE: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
SIPEX CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in CA
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in AZ


                           *********


120194 CANADA: US, Canada Enforcers Starts Campaign Against Scam
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States and Canadian law enforcers have joined forces to
target a scam that affects millions of consumers a year, bilking
each of them out of hundreds of dollars or more, for loans they
never get.  The "loans" are promoted by Ontario-based
telemarketers who target U.S. citizens by running ads in U.S.
newspapers that they pay for with stolen or compromised credit
cards.

The three-prong initiative, advanced by the Toronto Strategic
Partnership, a group of law enforcement agencies in the United
States and Canada that shares information and collaborates to
combat cross-border fraud, involves law enforcement cooperation,
an alert to consumers, warning them about these scams, and an
effort to enlist newspapers across the country to check out
questionable ads with law enforcers before running them. The FTC
also announced an advance-fee credit card case developed through
work with the Partnership. Since the Partnership was created in
2000, it has worked to bring 16 FTC cases and over 380 Canadian
criminal charges.

"Our recent consumer fraud survey showed that advance-fee loan
scams were the most frequently reported type of consumer fraud,"
said Deborah Platt Majoras, Chairman of the Federal Trade
Commission. "Four-and-a-half million consumers - 2.1 percent of
the U.S. adult population - paid advance-fees but did not
receive the promised loan or card."

Advance-fee scams are launched from "boiler rooms" in Canada
that advertise loans in the classified ad sections of newspapers
or use telemarketing to market major credit cards to consumers
for an advance-fee. The sales pitches entice consumers with
promises of "guaranteed" loans or credit cards regardless of a
consumer's credit history. When applying for these services,
consumers often are asked to wire hundreds - or even thousands -
of dollars to Canadian addresses.

"Consumer fraud is going global at a rapid pace; with our
strategic law-enforcement partnerships, so are we," Majoras
said.

The Toronto Strategic Partnership works to identify and locate
advance-fee scammers and shut down their operations. Today, the
FTC and the Partnership issued a new consumer alert with tips to
avoid advance-fee scams, and has sent letters to 28 state press
associations urging them to let their members know that ads that
guarantee loans, even to consumers with poor credit histories,
may be fraudulent.

The FTC announced a law enforcement action against Prime One
Benefits, a Canadian-based company that falsely claimed that
consumers who paid a fee ranging from $159 to $236 would be
guaranteed a low-interest rate, high-credit limit, and no-
annual-fee MasterCard or Visa credit card. The FTC charged that
since August 1999, Prime One Benefits has operated boiler rooms
in Toronto, targeting U.S. consumers, often the elderly or
university students. After paying the fee, consumers did not
receive credit cards. Instead, they received packages containing
coupons and discounts for travel, recreation, auto, medical
plans, satellite service, and cellular telephones.

"The FTC's Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) prohibits
telemarketers from charging an advance-fee for credit or loan
services," Majoras said. "Legitimate lenders, banks, and credit
card companies never charge consumers in advance."

The FTC's complaint names 120194 Canada Limited, doing business
as Veritech Communications, Veritech Communication Services,
Veritech, Prime One Benefits, Prime One Financial, Prime One,
First National Credit Service, and U.S. National Credit, Prime
One Financial Group, Inc., d/b/a Prime One Benefits, Prime One
Financial, Prime One, First National Credit Service, and U.S.
National Credit, Marketing Directives, Inc.

The FTC complaint also alleges that this group of companies is
owned and operated by individual defendants Paul Price and
Elissa R. Price, also known as Lisa Price and Lisa Wells. The
FTC received substantial assistance in this case from the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Illinois. The
Commission vote authorizing staff to file the complaint was 5-0.
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on November 8,
2004.

The Toronto Strategic Partnership was created in 2000 as part of
a broad initiative by the U.S. and Canadian government to
enhance cooperation between the two countries in fighting fraud.
The members include the FTC, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service,
the Toronto Police Service, the Ontario Ministry of Consumer and
Business Services, the Ontario Provincial Police, and the
Canadian Competition Bureau.

Copies of the consumer alert "Alert Scammers Impersonate
Legitimate Lenders, Promote A Loan for a Fee; Then Take the
Money and Flee," are available at
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/tmarkg/loans.pdf. The alert
tells consumers how they can spot a scam and avoid losing their
money. Rule number one: Legitimate lenders never "guarantee" or
say that you are likely to get a loan or a credit card before
you apply, especially if you have bad credit, no credit, or a
bankruptcy.

For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center,
Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580
by Phone: 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov. Also contact Jennifer Schwartzman or
Claudia Bourne Farrell, Office of Public Affairs by Phone:
202-326-2180 or C. Steven Baker or Karen Dodge, Midwest Region
by Phone: 312-960-5634.


4049705 CANADA: Held in Contempt Of Court Over Consumer Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. district court judge has held two Canadian corporations
and their principal in contempt of court, and ordered that the
individual be jailed for violating a court-ordered asset freeze.
The parties held in contempt are defendants in an FTC lawsuit
filed in July 2004, in federal district court in Chicago.

In entering its contempt order, the court found that the
defendants had violated a court-imposed asset freeze when they
transferred five real estate properties in Welland, Ontario,
Canada, to another corporation, which then listed them for sale.
The court fined the defendants $5,000 per day and ordered that
the individual defendant, Terrence Croteau, be arrested and
confined in a federal prison until the defendants comply with
the court's order.

The FTC's complaint charges defendants 4049705 Canada Inc.,
d/b/a Pinacle; 3782484 Canada Inc., d/b/a M.D.S.C. Publishing;
and Croteau with billing consumers in the United States for
business directory listings that they had not ordered and did
not want. The defendants used an in-house collections department
to harass consumers with dunning notices and threats to sue them
and damage their credit ratings if they did not pay for the
unordered listings.

The district court entered a temporary restraining order with an
asset freeze against the defendants on July 27, 2004, and a
preliminary injunction on September 9, 2004. In October 2004,
the U. S. Department of Justice filed criminal charges against
Croteau as part of Operation Roaming Charge, a cross-border law
enforcement crackdown on telemarketing fraud.

In the FTC's case, the court found that the defendants had
violated the court-imposed asset freeze by transferring five
real estate properties that they owned or controlled in Canada
to a corporation named 1609685 Ontario Limited. The properties
are located in Welland, Ontario, Canada at the following
addresses: 30 Jackson Court West, 185 Denistoun Street Unit 54,
185 Denistoun Street Unit 107, 91-93 East Main Street, and 78
Jackson Court West. The court found that after the transfer to
1609685 Ontario Limited, the properties were then listed for
sale.

The court held the defendants in contempt for violating the
asset freeze and ordered:

     (1) the defendants to take all steps necessary to prevent
         any further sale of the real estate that is subject to
         the court's asset freeze;

     (2) the defendants immediately to deposit the proceeds from
         the sale of any of the properties into the Court's
         Registry;

     (3) the defendants to be fined $5,000 per day for each day
         they remain in contempt; and

     (4) the arrest and jailing of Terrence Croteau until he
         complies with the court order.

For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center,
Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580,
by Phone: 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov. Also contact Claudia Bourne Farrell, Office
of Public Affairs, by Phone: 202-326-2181 or contact Todd M.
Kossow or Katherine R. Schnack, Midwest Region, by Phone:
312-960-5634


AUTO INSURANCE: Suit Filed in CA Over "Contingent Commissions"
--------------------------------------------------------------
An amended lawsuit has been filed against Bay Area-based Auto
Insurance Specialists, which does business throughout Southern
California, claiming that California's largest auto insurance
broker is putting its own financial interests ahead of those of
its customers by collecting undisclosed "contingent commissions"
on policies written for Mercury General Corp., a top-selling
auto insurer, the Los Angeles Times reports.

As state regulators probe alleged misconduct in the insurance
industry, the suit according to some observers, is the first in
California to extend allegations leveled against commercial
insurance brokers to so-called personal-lines brokers, which
sell individual auto and homeowner policies.

In October, New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer filed suit against
Marsh & McLennan Cos., claiming that sales personnel at the
world's largest insurance brokerage received secret commissions
in return for steering business policies to certain insurers.

The widely publicized move by the New York attorney general
sparked a wake of investigations by insurance regulators in at
least half a dozen states, including California, where Insurance
Commissioner John Garamendi's department is monitoring the suit
against Auto Insurance Specialists.

However, insurance industry executives characterize the suit,
which was filed by three auto insurance buyers, as baseless
grandstanding. They point out that it's not illegal in
California for insurers to pay contingent commissions based on
the volume or profitability of business that a broker brings,
and that state law doesn't require that brokers tell customers
about such payments. "They're trying to take advantage of the
existing publicity," Mike Mattoch, an insurance industry
lobbyist in Sacramento, told the LA Times.

The lawsuit against Auto Insurance Specialists, which is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Chicago-based Aon Corp., was filed in
San Francisco County Superior Court in September 2003. At that
time, the plaintiffs' claim was that Auto Insurance Specialists
had illegally charged broker fees to customers buying auto
coverage.

This month, however, the suit was amended to include allegations
about the commissions. Plaintiffs' attorney Norman Goldman told
the Times, he learned about the commissions when he questioned
Auto Insurance Specialists executives during discovery
interviews. He pointed out, "This case is important because
Mercury and Aon have an extremely close working relationship
that they both have kept hidden from California automobile
insurance consumers."

The lawsuit claims that the commissions were paid on more than
$150 million of policies sold by Los Angeles-based Mercury
General since 1990. As a broker, Auto Insurance Specialists was
obligated to shop around to make sure its customers were getting
the best possible coverage for their money, instead of simply
directing business to Mercury, Mr. Goldman said.

The plaintiffs, who are seeking class-action status for their
suit, are asking the court to bar Auto Insurance Specialists
from accepting commissions. They also want the company to return
profit earned from commission-related business.


BETTER BUDGET: FTC Launches Suit Over Fraudulent Credit Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
An operation billing itself as a debt negotiation company that
promised to reduce consumers' debt, negotiate with creditors,
and stop harassment from debt collectors in exchange for various
fees instead pocketed the fees and plunged consumers deeper into
debt, according to the Federal Trade Commission.

The FTC charges that Better Budget Financial Services (BBFS) and
its principals, John Colon, Jr. and Julie Fabrizio-Colon, have
defrauded consumers out of hundreds or thousands of dollars
each, causing many to be sued by their creditors and forcing
others into bankruptcy.  The FTC has asked the court to award
consumer redress to the victims of this scam.

On November 3, 2004, the court entered a temporary restraining
order halting the defendants' illegal business practices,
freezing their assets, and appointing a temporary receiver
pending a preliminary injunction hearing. The FTC received
substantial assistance in bringing this case from Massachusetts
Attorney General Tom Reilly's Consumer Protection and Antitrust
Division.

"This scam has had devastating consequences for consumers who
thought they were taking the right steps to get out of debt,"
said Lydia Parnes, Acting Director of the FTC's Bureau of
Consumer Protection.  "They signed up for the defendants'
services in good faith and expected the company to act
accordingly. Now the defendants have learned that reneging on a
promise to help people settle their debt has serious
consequences, too."

According to the FTC, Massachusetts-based BBFS has advertised
its services through Internet advertising and on its Web sites
since at least August 2000. The defendants' Web sites,
www.betterbudget.net and www.termidebt.net, claim that BBFS can
negotiate with consumers' creditors to reduce their debt by 50
percent. Consumers who contact the defendants are promised that
the defendants will negotiate with consumers' creditors for a
non-refundable retainer fee, monthly administrative fees of
$29.95 to $39.95, and 25 percent of any savings realized by a
debt settlement. According to the FTC, consumers typically paid
the defendants hundreds or even thousands of dollars in fees.

The FTC's complaint states that consumers who sign up with BBFS
provide the defendants with a list of all their creditors and
the total amount of their debt. The defendants then tell
consumers to set up a special bank account and deposit a
calculated sum into the account, which will be used to pay
creditors and pay BBFS its monthly fee. The defendants allegedly
tell consumers to stop paying their creditors directly, claiming
that consumers' failure to pay their creditors will demonstrate
a "hardship" condition that will enable BBFS to negotiate on
their behalf. The defendants claim they will settle each
creditor's account once the consumer saves half the amount they
owe on each debt.

According to the FTC, BBFS also tells consumers to sign power of
attorney forms, claiming that the forms will enable BBFS to
contact creditors on the consumers' behalf and instruct debt
collectors to stop calling consumers directly. The consumers are
instructed not to talk to any creditors who contact them
directly. Further, the defendants allegedly tell consumers that
negative information may appear on their credit reports while
they are working with BBFS, but that the information is
temporary and that BBFS will direct consumers to a company to
get assistance repairing their credit.

The FTC charges that, rather than negotiating with consumers'
creditors as promised, the defendants in numerous instances fail
to contact creditors and debt collectors. Instead, consumers
continue to be contacted by their creditors, receive repeated
phone calls from debt collection agencies, and incur late fees
and penalties on their credit accounts, increasing their debt
and worsening their financial situation. The FTC's complaint
states that the defendants in numerous instances fail to
negotiate with creditors even after consumers call to let them
know they have sufficient funds set aside to pay a settlement.
In many cases, consumers have been sued by their creditors,
resulting in them paying substantial legal fees. According to
the FTC, as a result of the defendants' scam, many consumers
have been forced to file for bankruptcy.

The FTC's complaint charges that the defendants have violated
the FTC Act by falsely claiming that:

     (1) they will enable consumers to pay off their debts for a
         reduced amount;

     (2) they will settle each creditor's account once the
         consumer accumulates half the amount owed to the
         creditor; and

     (3) they will contact creditors on consumers' behalf to
         ensure that consumers stop receiving phone calls from
         debt collectors.

The FTC thanks its partners: the Beverly, Massachusetts Police
Department; and the Better Business Bureau Serving Eastern
Massachusetts, Maine & Vermont, for their invaluable assistance
in bringing this case.  The FTC's complaint names Better Budget
Financial Services, Inc.; John Colon, Jr., president of BBFS;
and Julie Fabrizio-Colon, treasurer, clerk, and director of
BBFS, as defendants.

The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the complaint was
5-0. The complaint was filed under seal in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on November 2, 2004. The
temporary restraining order was entered by the court on November
3, 2004.  The FTC has established a consumer hotline for this
case. For up-to-date information, consumers may call
212-510-6080.

For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center,
Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580,
by Phone: 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov. Also contact Jen Schwartzman, Office of
Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2674 or Barbara Anthony or
Carole A. Paynter, FTC Northeast Region by Phone: 212-607-2829.


CANADA: Manitoba Appeals Ruling On Abortion Clinics' Funding
------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitoba government is appealing a court decision that
forces the province to pay for abortions performed in private
clinics, the Winnipeg Sun reports.  Health Minister Tim Sale
told the Sun, "we just can't let this ruling go unchallenged."

Queen's Bench Associate Chief Justice Jeffrey Oliphant ruled in
December that forcing women to pay for abortions carried out in
private clinics is a violation of their rights as defined by the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. According to legal experts,
Justice Oliphant's ruling opens the door to a class-action suit
being launched by thousands of women forced to pay for abortions
at Morgentaler's abortuary. If successful, the suit would force
the province to reimburse the women.

The Province started publicly funding abortions performed at
private institutions when it began paying for those performed at
"Jane's Clinic," the not-for-profit abortuary turned over to the
charitable group by Morgentaler last year.

Currently Manitoba and New Brunswick are the only Canadian
provinces that still do not fund privately run abortuaries. New
Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord said he stands behind the
Province's decision not to fund privately operated abortuaries.


CENTRAL PARKING: Shareholders Reach Stock Suit Settlement in TN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Central Parking Corporation reached a settlement in principle
with a group of shareholders, who accused the Nashville-based
company of misleading them into buying stock at inflated prices,
the Nashville City Paper reports.

According to the Company, its primary liability insurance
carrier will pay the shareholders $4.8 million to clear the
class action lawsuit, consolidated from four actions filed in
federal court in Nashville in the summer of 2003.  The
shareholders alleged they bought the stock at inflated prices,
since the company had misrepresented information in financial
statements during 2002.

Subject to various conditions and approval by the court, the
federal settlement implies no wrongdoing on the part of Central
Parking officials, the Company stated in a first-quarter
earnings release.

In related developments, another consolidated lawsuit from two
other shareholders was dismissed in Davidson County Chancery
Court. In that case, two shareholders had filed suits in October
accusing some officers and board members of breaching fiduciary
duties.

Central Parking operates more than 3,400 parking facilities
containing more than 1.5 million spaces at locations in 37
states, the District of Columbia and several other countries.


CONAGRA FOODS: Reaches Settlement in Lawsuit Over UAP Accounting
----------------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Foods Inc. (NYSE:CAG) reached an agreement to settle a
class action lawsuit, brought in 2001 by shareholder plaintiffs,
principally related to accounting matters at a former ConAgra
Foods subsidiary, United Agri Products Inc (UAP), following the
company's June 2001 restatement of earnings in connection with
UAP for fiscal years 1997-2001. ConAgra Foods sold UAP in
November of 2003.

The $14 million settlement, which is largely covered by
insurance, is without any admission of liability or wrongdoing.
The settlement generally resolves all claims that could be
asserted relating to ConAgra Foods financial matters during the
August 28, 1998 to May 23, 2001 class period. The settlement has
been preliminarily approved by the court, and following notice
to the class and completion of the other steps incident to the
settlement process, will be submitted to the court for final
approval. The Company commented that it is pleased to have the
uncertainty and expense of the lawsuit behind it.

ConAgra Foods Inc. (NYSE:CAG) is one of North America's largest
packaged food companies, serving consumer grocery retailers, as
well as restaurants and other foodservice establishments.
Popular ConAgra Foods consumer brands include: ACT II, Armour,
Banquet, Blue Bonnet, Brown 'N Serve, Butterball, Chef Boyardee,
Cook's, Crunch 'n Munch, DAVID, Decker, Eckrich, Egg Beaters,
Fleischmann's, Golden Cuisine, Gulden's, Healthy Choice, Hebrew
National, Hunt's, Kid Cuisine, Knott's Berry Farm, La Choy, Lamb
Weston, Libby's, Life Choice, Lightlife, Lunch Makers, MaMa
Rosa's, Manwich, Marie Callender's, Orville Redenbacher's, PAM,
Parkay, Pemmican, Peter Pan, Reddi-wip, Rosarita, Ro*Tel, Slim
Jim, Snack Pack, Swiss Miss, Van Camp's, Wesson, Wolf, and many
others.


ELI LILLY: Canadian Files Consumer Suit Over Zyprexa Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
A British Columbia (B.C.) resident launched a class-action
lawsuit against drug maker Eli Lilly Canada Inc. over its
medication Zyprexa, claiming the company "minimized" the health
risks of taking the anti-psychotic drug, the Canadian Press
reports.

Filed in the B.C. Supreme Court, the suit alleges Vancouver's
Marc Estrin developed diabetes as a result of taking the drug to
treat schizophrena.  Jim Poyner, the lawyer behind the lawsuit,
told the Canadian Press, "We say basically that the use of
Zyprexa leads to diabetes."

In a statement issued to The Canadian Press, Laurel Swartz,
senior manager of communications at Eli, said there is a risk
that publicity around the case may cause some patients to stop
using their medication without talking to their doctors first
and that's why plans to "vigorously defend the lawsuit." The Eli
spokeswoman further pointed out, "This can have tragic
consequences. Like all medications, Zyprexia can have side
effects in some patients and information about these side
effects has been appropriately communicated to regulatory
authorities and health-care professionals throughout the life
cycle of the product."

Zyprexa was approved by Health Canada last year for treatment of
bipolar disorder and manic depressive illness. The drug has been
marketed for the sale and treatment of schizophrenia in Canada
since 1996.

Though the class-action lawsuit against the firm still needs to
be certified by a judge, if it is approved, the current
plaintiffs named in the lawsuit, Mr. Estrin and his father,
Aaron, would then become the representative plaintiffs on behalf
of the class.

The lawsuit claims that Mr. Estrin was prescribed Zyprexa for
schizophrenia several years ago until he was diagnosed with
diabetes. Furthermore, the lawsuit claims, "Had he been made
aware of the serious adverse health complications . . . he would
not have taken the drug."

Mr. Estrin had no predisposition or family history of diabetes
and Mr. Poyner, who's the same lawyer who initiated a class
action lawsuit for the arthritis drug Vioxx, said the illness
has been difficult for his client to cope with. According to the
attorney, "It increases the care and the loss of lifestyle; it's
devastating."

The allegations, yet to be proven in court, say Zyprexa has been
associated with "increased risk of developing diabetes,
hyperglycemia, pancreatitis, ketoacidosis and other injuries."
The statement of claim alleges Eli Lilly "minimized and
understated health hazards and risk associated with Zyprexa." It
also accuses the company of "manipulating statistics to suggest
widespread acceptability."

The lawsuit accuses Eli Lilly of failing to warn patients and
physicians of the risks, misrepresenting the research around the
benefits of the drug, and showing "reckless disregard for the
well-being of the public."

The plaintiffs are asking for damages for medical expenses, home
care, loss of income, loss of opportunity, pain and suffering.
The lawsuit claims six million prescriptions for Zyprexa were
issued in Canada over 12 months ending in October 2003, with
sales valued over $4 billion worldwide in the same year.


FLOWER FOODS: Reaches Final Settlement in NC Kosher Pie Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods (NYSE: FLO) reached a final settlement of the
nationwide class action lawsuit, Schiller, et al. v. Flowers
Foods Inc., in Wake County, N.C.

Under the terms of the settlement, Flowers will donate $1
million in cash and $1.5 million in bread products to charitable
organizations. The costs related to this settlement were
provided for in the Company's first quarter fiscal year 2004
financial statement. In addition, as part of this settlement,
Flowers Foods sincerely apologizes to all individuals who
purchased kosher pie shells that were manufactured at Flowers'
Pembroke, N.C., plant.

Flowers Foods acknowledges and regrets that on a few occasions
during 2000 and 2001, the Company ran some non-kosher product on
its kosher pie shell line at its Pembroke, N.C., plant. The
Orthodox Union was not advised of these practices at the time
and did not approve of them. Flowers Foods also regrets that it
did not inform the Orthodox Union earlier of these occurrences
and that it did not provide complete information to its
customers.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 262,113 Ford Escape SUVs for Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by recalling 262,113 Ford
Escape sport utility vehicles, models 2001 to 2005.

Certain 2004-2005 sport utility vehicles and certain 2001 - 2003
sport utility vehicle having rear liftgate components serviced
with 2004 equivalent components fail to comply with the
requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 206,
"door locks and door retention components."  The rear liftgate
latching system does not meet the inertia load requirement in
one direction.  If the liftgate is left unlocked, there is the
potential that it may open during a crash.

Dealers will replace the rear liftgate latch release rod, the
release rod attachment clip and the door handle return spring.
The recall is expected to begin on January 24,2005.  For more
details, contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline:
1-888-327-4236.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 283 Ford GT Passenger Cars For Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling 283 Ford
GT passenger vehicles, model 2005.

On certain passenger vehicles, the upper and lower control arms
may have casting imperfections at the end of each arm that may
result in the arm fracturing.  Under certain circumstances, the
fracture may affect vehicle handling characteristics, which
could result in a crash.

Dealers will replace the front and rear upper and lower control
arms and fasteners.  Beginning December 15,2004, Ford contacted
customers by telephone to advise them of this condition and
request that they not operate their vehicles until this service
action has been performed.  The recall owner notification
mailing is expected to begin on January 15,2005.  Owners should
contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-392-3673 or contact the
NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 717,302 Minivans Due To Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by recalling 717,302
minivans, namely:

     (1) CHEVROLET / VENTURE, models 1997-2005

     (2) OLDSMOBILE / SILHOUETTE, models 1997-2004

     (3) PONTIAC / MONTANA, models 1997-2005

     (4) PONTIAC / TRANS SPORT, models 1999

     (5) PONTIAC / TRANSPORT, models 1997-1998

On certain minivans equipped with second-row bucket seats or
captain's chairs and a power sliding door on the passenger side
of the vehicle, a passenger using the interior handle to open
the power sliding door could be injured.  If a passenger uses
the interior handle to open the power sliding door and holds
onto the handle while it is being opened by the motor, the
passenger's arm may be pushed into the seat back or armrest and
a wrist or lower arm injury may result.

Dealers will replace the power sliding door interior handle on
the passenger-side.  If the vehicle is equipped with a power or
manual sliding door on the driver-side, the interior handle will
also be replaced for appearance reasons.

Note: before the vehicle is serviced, the Company advises owners
to not use the interior door handle to open the door.  The
driver can open and close the door from switches at the driver's
position or by using the remote key fob.  The driver should tell
passengers to use the switch located in front of the door to
open or close it.  The driver should use the override switch to
prevent operation of the power door by children or by others who
are not familiar with its use.  The recall is expected to begin
in March 2005.

For more details, contact Chevrolet by Phone: 1-800-630-2438;
Pontiac by Phone: 1-800-620-7668; or Oldsmobile by Phone:
1-800-630-6537.  Customers can also contact the NHTSA's auto
safety hotline: 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recalls 9,501 Motorcycles Due To Crash Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harley-Davidson Motor Company is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 9,501 motorcycles, namely:

     (1) HARLEY DAVIDSON / DYNA, model 2005

     (2) HARLEY DAVIDSON / SOFTAIL, model 2005

     (3) HARLEY DAVIDSON / SPORTSTER, model 2005

     (4) HARLEY DAVIDSON / TOURING, model 2005

Certain motorcycles may have been produced with defective fuel
shut-off valves.  The functionality of the `on' position and the
`reserve' position of the valve may have been reversed.  If the
bike were operating with the valve in the `on' position, the
bike could run out of fuel, the expected fuel reserve will not
be available.  This could lead to the driver running out of gas
without warning, increasing the risk of a crash.

Dealers will inspect the fuel valve and replace it, if
necessary.  The recall is expected to begin during January 2005.
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-414-342-4080
of the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Recalls Motorcycles, Parts Due To Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harley-Davidson Motor Company is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 364 motorcycles and motorcycle parts, namely:

     (1) HARLEY DAVIDSON / DYNA

     (2) HARLEY DAVIDSON / SOFTAIL

     (3) HARLEY DAVIDSON / SPORTSTER

     (4) HARLEY DAVIDSON / TOURING

     (5) HARLEY-DAVIDSON / 61338-02

     (6) HARLEY-DAVIDSON / 61338-94-D

     (7) HARLEY-DAVIDSON / 62169-02A

     (8) HARLEY-DAVIDSON / 62169-95C

Certain fuel shut-off valves used as replacement equipment,
P/Nos 61338-02, 62169-02A, 61338-94D, and 62169-95C for use on
certain 2005 Carbureted Sportsters, Dyna, Softail and Touring
model motorcycles.  These valves may have been produced with the
functionality of the "on" position and the reserve position of
the valve may have been reversed.

If the bike were operating with the valve in the `on' position,
the bike could run out of fuel, the expected fuel reserve will
not be available.  This could lead to the driver running out of
gas without warning, increasing the risk of a crash.

Dealers will inspect the fuel valve and replace it, if
necessary.  The recall is expected to begin during January 2005.
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-414-342-4080.
If you have had or installed a replacement fuel shut-off valve
in your motorcycle, please take your vehicle to your dealer to
have the valve inspected for proper operation as soon as
possible.  For more details, contact the NHTSA's auto safety
hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE: FL Court Refuses To Make Accutane Docs Public
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Florida refused to allow
lawyers suing the makers of acne drug Accutane to share the
Company's internal memos and other documents with the public or
federal regulators, the Associated Press reports.

Pharmaceutical firm Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. faces numerous suits
over Accutane, which has been blamed for increased rates of
suicide and gastrointestinal diseases in some users and birth
defects in babies born to mothers who used the drug.

The Company has asserted that the drug, which has been dispensed
in the United States since 1982, is safe, although it recommends
that users be screened for depression.  The Company also noted
that teenagers and young adults, the groups most likely to use
the drug, have higher suicide rates than the general population.

Among the Accutane cases is a $70 million lawsuit brought by the
mother and grandmother of Charles Bishop, the 15-year-old who
stole a small airplane and crashed into a Tampa high rise in
January 2002. His family blames his use of the drug for bringing
on the dramatic suicide, but the Company contends that he was a
troubled young man and it is not to blame, AP reports.

Lawyers petitioned the court for permission to make public as
many as 1 million documents produced by the Company, saying the
disclosure was needed as Accutane's safety comes under increased
scrutiny by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

U.S. District Judge James Moody rejected the request, saying
attorneys could ask the court to open up records if they
discover a matter of public safety as they prepare their cases.
However, in a victory for the plaintiffs, he said the drug maker
cannot redact documents before handing them over to the
attorneys, AP reports.

The documents at issue include internal Company discussions
about the safety of the drug and how to handle allegations of an
increased suicide risk.

Hoffman-La Roche attorney Ed Moss said the Company fought the
release of the documents mostly out of concern for protecting
Accutane's "recipe," and that federal officials already have
internal documents relating to the drug's safety.  "We are not
trying to hide documents from the public," Mr. Moss told AP.
"We have given everything in the world to the FDA."

FDA scientist David Graham testified before Congress last year
that Accutane was one of five dangerous drugs that should be
restricted or removed from the market. In November, federal
regulators toughened rules on Accutane, requiring doctors and
pharmacists who dispense the drug to register patients on a
central database, AP reports.


KENTUCKY: Plaintiffs Launch Suit Over $200M Fen-Phen Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thirty-six plaintiffs in a fen-phen class action settlement that
was reached in Boone Circuit Court have filed a lawsuit against
their lawyers in Fayette Circuit Court, demanding an accounting
of how the 200 million dollars in settlement funds were
disbursed, the Associated Press reports.

The key questions in the complaint surround the Kentucky Fund
for Healthy Living, a nonprofit, charitable corporation created
and controlled by the lawyers. Some prominent Lexington
attorneys - Melbourne Mills Jr., Shirley Allen Cunningham and
William Gallion - and a Northern Kentucky trial consultant, Mark
Modlin, manage the fund.

In their lawsuit, some of the plaintiffs said they were not told
that leftover settlement funds were going to a charitable
corporation. Others said the amount of money going to charity
was misrepresented. The plaintiffs also maintain that they never
approved their attorneys' creation of a charitable fund with
some saying that they had specifically opposed the idea. The
plaintiffs are also alleging that the charity created is holding
up to 18 million dollars left over from the fen-phen settlement.


MAZDA NORTH: Recalls Sport Utility Vehicles Due To Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mazda North American Operations is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 49,800 Mazda Tribute sport utility vehicles, model
2001-2005.

Certain 2004-2005 sport utility vehicles and certain 2001 - 2003
sport utility vehicle having rear liftgate components serviced
with 2004 equivalent components fail to comply with the
requirements of federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 206,
`Door locks and door retention components.'  The rear liftgate
latching system does not meet the inertia load requirement in
one direction.  If the liftgate is left unlocked, there is the
potential that it may open during a crash.

Dealers will replace the rear liftgate latch release rod, the
release rod attachment clip and the door handle return spring.
The recall is expected to begin during January 2005.  For more
details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-222-5500 or contact
the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: Firm Asks Ceplene Testers To Come Forward
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP and
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, co-lead counsel for lead plaintiffs
in a federal securities fraud action pending in California are
seeking information about Maxim Pharmaceutical's business
practices during the time frame of November 11, 2002 through
September 17, 2004 regarding the so-called success of its
leading drug candidate, Ceplene (formerly called Maximine). The
suit alleges that Maxim released fraudulent public statements
regarding the prospects of FDA approval of Ceplene to treat
advanced malignant melanoma patients with liver metastases.

Attorney Louis Gottlieb of Goodkind Labaton, stated "We believe
this is an example of a drug company concealing information from
the investing public about the true findings of the drug in
order to ensure that the Company's stock price did not take a
beating. Overall, it is our opinion that this case is a prime
example of a drug manufacturer attempting to defraud investors."

On September 19, 2004, Maxim announced that its confirmatory
M104 Phase 3 trial of Ceplene in combination with IL-2 for the
treatment of advanced malignant melanoma patients with liver
metastases failed to demonstrate an improvement in overall
patient survival. When this information was made public, the
stock immediately lost nearly half its value.

Mr. Gottlieb is asking former Maxim employees, or those involved
in the testing of Ceplene, with any information about
misrepresentations regarding the drug to contact us. According
to Mr. Gottlieb, "with the assistance of conscientious former
Maxim employees or those who have testing information, we can
continue to work towards a successful resolution of the lawsuit
and to prevent future fraudulent measures."

Counsel asks that any former employees with information contact
them at 212-907-0700 or 800-753-2796. For more information,
please contact Louis Gottlieb or Hollis Salzman. The law firms
of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP and Schiffrin &
Barroway LLP represent the plaintiffs.


MICHELIN NORTH: Recalls 4,000 XDE Tires Because of Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelin North America, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling
4,000 Michelin XDE Tires.  These commercial truck tires, size
10R22.5 LRG and LRF, manufactured between May 23 and October
24,2004, can experience rapid air loss due to an irregularity of
the inner liner.  Rapid air loss can result in loss of vehicle
control and a vehicle crash can occur.

Michelin will notify its customers and replace the tires free of
charge.  The recall is expected to begin during December 2004.
Owners who do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable
time should contact Michelin by Phone: 888-622-2306 or contact
the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-DASH-2-DOT
(1-888-327-4236).


OHIO: Residents Sue B&H, American Electric Over Property Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against B&H Towing and
American Electric Power, the two parties thought to be
responsible for the landslides that are occurring along the Ohio
River and its tributaries due to the situation at the Belleville
Locks and Dams, the WTAP News reports.

The suit was filed in Wood County Circuit Court with the
residents who have experienced property damage, being
represented by former Wood County Prosecuting Attorney Harry
Deitzler.  According to Mr. Deitzler, dozens of concerned
citizens have already added their names to the lawsuit and more
calls continue to come in as word gets out. Once served, the
defendants will have 30 days to answer the complaint.


PARADIGM MEDICAL: Reaches Agreement To Settle Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc. (OTCBB: PMED.OB/PMEDW.OB)
revealed that a written agreement has been completed to settle a
lawsuit that Innovative Optics, Inc. and Barton Dietrich
Investments, L.P. brought against the Company and its former
executive officers, Thomas F. Motter, Mark R. Miehle, and John
W. Hemmer. The lawsuit was filed on July 10, 2003 in the Third
District Court for Salt Lake County, State of Utah.

Under the terms of the settlement, U.S. Fire Insurance Company,
which issued a Directors and Officers Liability and Company
Reimbursement Policy to Paradigm Medical for the period from
July 10, 2002 to July 10, 2003, has agreed to pay Innovative
Optics, Inc. and Barton Dietrich Investments, L.P. the sum of
$367,500. Payment of this amount by U.S. Fire is contingent,
however, upon the settlement of a federal court class action
lawsuit and a state court class action lawsuit against Paradigm
Medical and its former executive officers.

"We are excited to see the finalization of this settlement
agreement and look forward to the conclusion of these suits,"
said Paradigm Medical's Chief Executive Officer, John Y. Yoon.

Verbal agreements have been made to settle the federal court and
state court class action lawsuits. Paradigm Medical and U.S.
Fire and their respective counsel are in the process of
completing written settlement agreements of these lawsuits.

The federal court class action lawsuit was originally filed on
May 14, 2003 by Richard Meyer, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, against Paradigm Medical and its
former executive officers in the United States District Court
for the District of Utah, which was consolidated into a single
action on June 28, 2004 with two other class action lawsuits--
the class action filed by Michael Marone on June 2, 2003 and the
class action lawsuit filed by Lidia Milian on July 21, 2003
against Paradigm Medical and its former executive officers in
the same court. The consolidated action is captioned: In re:
Paradigm Medical Industries Securities Litigation, with lead
plaintiffs Rock Solid Investments of Miami, Inc., Brito & Brito
Accounting, Inc., and Joseph Savanjo.

The state court class action lawsuit was filed on October 14,
2003 by Albert Kinzinger, Jr., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, against Paradigm Medical and its
former executive officers in the Third District Court for Salt
Lake County, State of Utah.

As a condition to the settlement agreement with Innovative
Optics, Inc. and Barton Dietrich Investments, L.P., the courts
in the federal and state class action lawsuits must have entered
orders granting final approval of the settlements reached in
those respective actions, and such orders must have become final
and non-appealable. Paradigm Medical and its former executive
officers also agree to execute a policy release in favor of U.S.
Fire Insurance Company. The policy release is to be in the form
agreed to by the parties.

As a further condition, the settlement agreement provides that
U.S. Fire Insurance Company must not have exercised its option
to terminate the settlement agreement. U.S. Fire has the option
to terminate the settlement agreement if the cumulative dollar
value of the claims held by individuals or entities that "opt
out" of the federal court and state court class action lawsuits
exceeds $250,000. If such "opt outs" exceed $250,000, however,
plaintiffs in the federal court and state court class action
lawsuits will have five days to cure by reducing the amount of
"opt outs" to less than $250,000.

If U.S. Fire exercises its option to terminate the settlement
agreement, then all parties to the settlement agreement will be
restored to their respective positions in the various actions as
of the date of the settlement agreement, and the terms and
provisions of the settlement agreement will have no further
force and effect on the various parties and will be deemed null
and void in their entirety.

Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc., currently develops,
manufactures and markets surgical and diagnostic high-tech,
proprietary equipment and consumable products for the medical
industry. The Company's corporate offices are located at 2355
South 1070 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84119. Call (801) 977-8970
or visit us at http://www.paradigm-medical.com.


PROZAC: British Journal Retracts Report on Documents on Prozac
--------------------------------------------------------------
The British Medical Journal retracted a published report on
Prozac that alleged that Eli Lilly and Co. documents suggesting
a link between the anti-depressant drug and a heightened risk of
suicide attempts and violence have gone missing for years, the
Associated Press reports.

The journal alleged that it gave U.S. regulators Company
documents it received from an anonymous source that indicated
the pharmaceutical firm was aware in the 1980s that the anti-
depressant could have potentially troubling side effects.  The
journal reported the documents had formed part of a 1994 lawsuit
against Eli Lilly on behalf of victims of a workplace shooting
in Louisville, Kentucky.  Joseph Wesbecker, the gunman who
killed eight people and himself in 1989, had been prescribed
Prozac a month before the shootings.  The Company won the case,
but later disclosed it had settled with the plaintiffs during
the trial.

On January 4, the Company clarified that the records were the
same that had been given to the Food and Drug Administration and
other investigators more than a decade ago and had not gone
missing during a 1994 lawsuit as the journal reported, AP
reports.

As a result, the journal issued an apology and correction that
appeared Thursday on the journal's Web site.  "The BMJ accepts
that Eli Lilly acted properly in relation to the disclosure of
these documents in these claims," the journal said, AP reports.
"The BMJ is happy to set the record straight and to apologize to
Eli Lilly for this statement, which we now retract, but which we
published in good faith."

After further investigation, the journal said it had determined
that Lilly had in fact disclosed the documents during the
lawsuit.  "The BMJ did not intend to suggest that Eli Lilly
caused these documents to go missing," the retraction said,
according to AP.

In a statement, Sidney Taurel, Lilly's chairman and chief
executive, told AP the retraction was an "important step in
gaining closure on this unfortunate event."  "It is Lilly's
policy to be honest in our dealings with the public, the media,
regulatory bodies and our customers," he said.

The editor of the BMJ said the apology was limited to the issue
of whether the documents were missing from the court case.
"Whether or not Eli Lilly made all of the information available
to the FDA at the appropriate times is a question for the FDA to
answer. That is why we sent the documents to the FDA and we
await their response," acting editor Kamran Abbasi said,
according to AP.

Morry Smulevitz, a spokesman for Lilly, said the company also
awaited the FDA's finding.  "We do consider the retraction and
the apology as an important first step in gaining closure on
this unfortunate event," Mr. Smulevitz said, AP reports.


UNUMPROVIDENT: Ex-Employees Win Ruling in Suit Over Denied Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cumberland County Superior Court Justice Thomas E. Delahanty has
ruled that employees who left UnumProvident after January 1,
2000, may be entitled to some money, Portland Press Herald
reports.

The decision by the Superior Court judge comes after a lengthy
court argument between the insurance company and a number of
employees, who claimed that they were not paid, earned vacation
money after they quit their jobs. The ensuing suits and counter
suits between UnumProvident and employees basically boiled down
to one question: Was the company required by law to pay
departing employees earned vacation time based on terms of its
policy, which was enacted when the company merged in 1999?

According to Judge Delahanty's ruling, the answer is yes. The
judge stated in his ruling, "The court determines that the
language of (UnumProvident's) policy is ambiguous. The policy
does not clearly state that unused PTO (paid time off) days will
not be paid upon termination of employment. It could have
reasonably created confusion in the minds of the employees as to
whether the PTO vesting conditions violated the (state)
statute."

Attorneys Peter Kraft and Adam Taylor, co-counselors in the
legal dispute who defended the former employees, told the
Portland Press Herald that the ruling is fair. They pointed out,
"The judge agreed 100 percent with our position that under Maine
law and under UnumProvident's policy our group is entitled to
receive the paid time off, which UnumProvident hasn't paid to
date. We feel the judge's ruling today was warranted and there
was justice."

The case came to the courts when two former employees of
UnumProvident, Barbara Russell of Windham and Joan Davis of
Scarborough, who resigned voluntarily in 2002, threatened to sue
the company for unpaid vacation time. In September 2003,
UnumProvident sued the two women instead, not asking for
damages, rather for clarification of whether they were really
owed payment for vacation time they earned but did not use when
they worked for the Company. In response, the two women along
with 25 other employees filed a class-action counterclaim
against the Company.

Though individually the payouts would not be large, an average
of $1,000 per employee, the overall sum could be significant for
UnumProvident, according to the plaintiffs' attorneys, as
Company records show the decision could include at least 1,400
former employees who have left the Company since January 1, 2000
with earned but unpaid PTO.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who purchased
American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") of AstraZeneca, PLC (NYSE:
AZN) ("AstraZeneca") between April 2, 2003 and October 11, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included are investors who
acquired securities on foreign markets.

The Complaint alleges that AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical
research company, and certain of its officers and directors
issued materially false statements concerning the results of the
clinical trials of the Company's investigational oral
anticoagulant Exanta, and the status and likelihood of the
approval of the New Drug Application for Exanta. These
statements caused the Company's stock/ADR prices to rise until
September 9, 2004, when the U.S. Food & Drug Administration
("FDA") posted briefing documents on the FDA's website which
raised previously unheard-of problems with Exanta. Then, on
October 11, 2004 AstraZeneca issued a press release stating,
that they received an Action Letter from the FDA for Exanta. The
release stated that "the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
did not grant approval for the investigational oral
anticoagulant EXANTA(R) (ximelagatran)." On this news,
AstraZeneca stock fell to $38 per share. During the Class
Period, AstraZeneca traded as high as $51.20 per share on March
9, 2004.

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


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Shapiro Haber Files Securities Fraud Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP initiated a securities
fraud class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against AstraZeneca PLC ("AstraZeneca"
or the "Company") (NYSE: AZN) and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of persons who purchased AstraZeneca
publicly-traded securities, including AstraZeneca securities on
foreign markets and/or AstraZeneca's American Depository
Receipts ("ADRs"), during the period between April 2, 2003 and
October 11, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants issued
numerous materially false and misleading statements concerning
the results of the clinical trials of the Company's
investigational oral anticoagulant Exanta, and the status and
likelihood of obtaining U.S. Food & Drug Administration ("FDA")
approval of the New Drug Application ("NDA") for Exanta, which
caused the Company's stock price to be artificially inflated. On
September 9, 2004, staffers at the FDA posted briefing documents
on the FDA's website which raised serious, previously
undisclosed concerns about Exanta. Then, on October 11, 2004,
the Company issued a press release stating that it had received
an Action Letter from the FDA rejecting the Company's NDA for
Exanta. Following the October 11 press release, the Company's
stock price declined to $38 per share, erasing millions of
dollars in market capitalization from the Class Period high of
$51.20 per share reached on March 9, 2004 on the NYSE, ú2,894
per share reached on October 28, 2003 on the London stock
exchange, and SEK 380.50 per share reached on October 29, 2003
on the Stockholm exchange.

For more details, contact Ted Hess-Mahan, Esq., or Alyssa
Petroff, Paralegal of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP by Mail: 53
State Street, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 287-8119 by Fax:
(617) 439-0134 by E-mail: cases@shulaw.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.shulaw.com.


CITADEL SECURITY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Citadel Security Software Inc. ("Citadel" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq: CDSS) between February 12, 2004 and December 16, 2004,
inclusive, (the "Class Period") seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas against defendants Citadel,
Steven B. Solomon (CEO, President) and Richard Connelly (CFO).

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous, highly positive statements
concerning its business and reported to the market that its
business would continue to grow and that full-year 2004 revenues
were expected to be between $18.5 million to $21 million, while
pre-tax income for the second half of the year was expected to
be between $1 million to $2 million. These projections were
repeatedly reiterated during the Class Period. Unbeknownst to
the investing public, however, but well known to defendants, the
demand for the Company's Hercules product was not growing, that
the much-touted pipeline of potential contracts had not
materialized, and that, as a result, the Company's aggressive
statements regarding its growth and expected results were
lacking in any reasonable basis when made. During the Class
Period, Citadel insiders sold their personally held Citadel
stock at artificially inflated prices.

The truth was revealed on December 17, 2004, when defendant
issued a press release announcing that the Company would miss
its previous guidance by a wide margin. In response to this
announcement, the price of Citadel common stock plummeted,
falling from $4.29 per share to $2.49 per share in a single day,
a drop of 42%, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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


EPIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of EPIX
Pharmaceuticals (Nasdaq: EPIX) ("EPIX") between July 10, 2003
and January 14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that EPIX, a developer of targeted
contrast agents designed to improve the diagnostic quality of
images produced by magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI"), and
certain of its officers and directors concealed clinical quality
issues with the underlying data for their MS-325 Phase III
program. MS-325 is designed to provide visual imaging of the
vascular system through a type of MRI known as magnetic
resonance angiography. These issues made difficult, if not
impossible, the proper control of their clinical test results
and statistical analysis of the data and results. On December
16, 2003, defendants announced the submission of their New Drug
Application ("NDA") for MS-325. Defendants continued to conceal
the serious problems with their clinical program, specifically
the poor quality of the underlying clinical data and problems
with the statistical analysis. Defendants instead made positive
and encouraging remarks about their "extensive scientific and
clinical development" activities and prospects for product
approval.

On January 14, 2005, EPIX reported that the FDA had determined
that problems with the Phase III clinical trials for MS-325 were
so serious that it was impossible for them to come to a
conclusion about its efficacy. Worse, the FDA noted problems
with the underlying data itself, problems that could not be
resolved simply on the basis of re-analysis of the data. On this
news, the price of EPIX stock plunged 27%, to close at $10.67.

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


EPIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Shapiro Haber Lodges Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP initiated a securities
fraud class action against EPIX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("EPIX" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: EPIX) and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of EPIX securities
during the period between July 10, 2003 and January 14, 2005
(the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants were aware
of clinical quality issues with the underlying data for their
MS-325 Phase III program which made the proper control of their
clinical test results and statistical analysis of the data and
results difficult, if not impossible. On December 16, 2003,
defendants announced the submission of the Company's New Drug
Application ("NDA") for MS 325 to the U.S. Food & Drug
Administration ("FDA") for approval. Defendants continued to
conceal the serious problems with the clinical tests and
analysis of MS 325, and instead made positive and encouraging
remarks about their "extensive scientific and clinical
development" activities and prospects for product approval.
Then, on January 14, 2005, as alleged in the Complaint, the
Company reported it had received an action letter from the FDA,
in which the FDA had determined that problems with the Phase III
clinical trials were so serious that it was impossible to come
to a conclusion about the efficacy of MS-325. In addition, the
FDA noted problems with the underlying data that could not be
resolved simply on the basis of re-analysis. Based on this news,
the price of EPIX stock plunged 27%.

For more details, contact Ted Hess-Mahan, Esq., or Alyssa
Petroff, Paralegal of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP by Mail: 53
State Street, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 287-8119 by Fax:
(617) 439-0134 by E-mail: cases@shulaw.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.shulaw.com.


GANDER MOUNTAIN: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of
purchasers of Gander Mountain Company ("Gander Mountain")
(NASDAQ:GMTN) common stock pursuant to the Company's Initial
Public Offering ("IPO") and on the open market between April 20,
2004 and January 13, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Gander Mountain and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. Gander
Mountain is a specialty retailer offering an assortment of
merchandise that caters to outdoor lifestyle enthusiasts, with a
particular focus on hunting, fishing and camping.

The complaint alleges that prior to going public (and even
afterward) Gander Mountain was controlled by the Erickson family
(including certain of the defendants named in the complaint)
through their individual ownership in the Company as well as
their holdings in the Company's major shareholders. Defendants
knew that unless the Company went public, their shares in the
Company would remain illiquid, and virtually worthless. Further,
defendants were also keenly aware that unless the Company went
public prior to revelations of lowered earnings expectations in
November 2004 and January 2005, the Company would be prevented
from going public altogether. This possibility would not only
jeopardize defendants' ability to infuse value and liquidity
into their shares via the IPO, but also would jeopardize the
Company's ability to repay a $9.8 million debt owed to a company
owned by the Erickson family.

On April 26, 2004, Gander Mountain closed its IPO of 6,583,750
shares of its common stock and converted existing preferred
stock to common stock, raising in excess of $105 million. On
November 9, 2004, the Company announced it had "lowered its
outlook for pretax income for fiscal 2004 to a range of $8
million to $13 million, compared with the company's prior
guidance of $16 million to $21 million." Then, on January 14,
2005, the Company issued a press release lowering its outlook
for pretax income for fiscal 2004 even further, "to a range of
$2.0 million to $4.0 million, compared with the company's prior
guidance of $8 million to $13 million." On this news, the
Company's shares plunged to an all time low of $9.30 per share,
more than a 60% drop from the Class Period high of $24.65 on
June 7, 2004.

According to the complaint, the truth, known to each of the
defendants during the Class Period and concealed from the
public, entailed:

     (1) the Company's co-branded credit card program was
         faltering;

     (2) the value of the Company's inventory was overstated,
         requiring massive reductions and causing the Company's
         future margins to be negatively impacted as a result;

     (3) the Company's debt capacity was jeopardized and was
         inconsistent with defendants' own growth plans;

     (4) the Company was actually experiencing average trends
         with respect to its sales; and

     (5) as a result of the above, defendants' own projections
         of positive comparable sales growth of 3%-5% and pretax
         income of $8-$13 million were materially false and
         misleading.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 by E-
mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/gandermountain/.


HUFFY CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Huffy Corp.
(OTC: HUFCQ) securities between April 16, 2002 and August 13,
2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, against the Company and certain key
officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net.


LINSCO/PRIVATE LEDGER: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files CA Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP, initiated a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Variable
Annuity Insurance Products ("Variable Annuities") from
Linsco/Private Ledger Corp. (.LPL.) between January 1, 1990 and
January 26, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, LPL made
false and misleading statements and omitted material facts
concerning its undisclosed financial interests with third party
suppliers of annuity contracts. The third parties paid monies
and other incentives to have Variable Annuities steered to them
by LPL without properly disclosing the preexisting arrangement
to its customers.

A variable annuity is an insurance contract with characteristics
causing it to be treated as an "investment" under the Securities
Act of 1933. A Variable Annuity contract generally provides that
the purchaser agree to a simple "lump sum" premium or scheduled
fixed premiums for a pre-set number of years. The premiums are
deposited into a separate account after deducting expenses, fees
and charges specified in the contract. The premiums thus
collected in the annuitant's separate account are available for
tax deferred investment in one or more portfolios (called sub-
accounts). Upon maturity of the annuity, the annuitant receives
payment from the accumulated value in such amounts and upon the
terms specified in the underlying investment contract.

Rather than providing independent and unbiased services for
clients wanting to purchase Variable Annuities, LPL maintained
secret contingent fee sharing agreements with a number of
insurance company underwriters of annuity contracts. These
activities cause insurance companies to collect higher premiums
than would be paid absent these arrangements and result in LPL
customers paying inflated premiums for the Variable Annuities.

For more details, contact Amy Lepine, Esq. of Finkelstein &
Krinsk, LLP by Phone: 877-493-5366 by Fax: 619-238-5425 or by E-
mail: ajl@classactionlaw.com OR Ronald A. Marron, Esq. of the
Law Office of Ronald A. Marron, APLC by Phone: 619-685-6969 by
Fax: 619-690-0983 or by E-mail Ron.Marron@cox.net OR Frederick
Schenk, Esq. of Casey, Gerry, Reed & Schenk by Phone: 619-238-
1811 by Fax: 619-544-9232 or by E-mail: fschenk@cglaw.com and
Stephen Basser, Esq. of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine by Phone:
619-230-0800 by Fax: 619-230-1874 or E-mail:
sbasser@barrack.com.


PHARMOS CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges NJ Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Pharmos
Corp. (NASDAQ: PARS) securities between August 23, 2004 and
December 17, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net.


PHARMOS CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court of New Jersey
against Pharmos Corp. (Nasdaq: PARS).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from August 23, 2004 through December 17, 2004.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. If
you are a member of the Class as described above, you may move
the Court no later than March 25, 2005, to serve as a lead
plaintiff for the Class. However, in order to do so, you must
meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK
73102 by Phone: (405) 235-1560 by Faz: (405) 239-2112 by E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.


SHURGARD STORAGE: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Shurgard
Storage Centers, Inc. (NYSE: SHU) securities between May 9, 2001
and March 26, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period), including
purchasers in the July 10, 2003 and June 25, 2002 stock
offerings and the March 24, 2003 debt offering.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, against the company and certain
key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net.


SILICON STORAGE: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. ("Silicon Storage" or the
"Company") (NasdaqNM: SSTI) between March 22, 2004 and December
20, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period") seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The action, case number C 05 0408, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against defendants Silicon Storage, Bing Yeh (Chairman,
President and CEO), Yaw Wen Hu (COO), and Jack K. Lai (CFO).

The Complaint against Silicon Storage alleges that, at all
relevant times, Silicon Storage purported to be a leading
supplier of flash memory semiconductor devices, including so-
called Nor flash memory devices, commonly used in personal
computers, digital cameras and other consumer products, which
store small amounts of specific software code (8 Mb and 16 Mb).

In the 2003 fourth quarter preceding the Class Period,
defendants heralded the end of the downturn in the semiconductor
market, predicted increasing demand, and invested $33 million in
the equity of a Chinese chip foundry called Grace Semiconductor
to ensure a ready supply of the silicon wafers used in
production of the devices. The complaint further alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants stated that Intel Corp.
("Intel"), Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ("AMD") and other large
suppliers had withdrawn from the market for low density flash
devices, that SSTI now had a leading position in this market and
that growing sales of its low density memory devices would fuel
increasing revenues and earnings. Defendants also stated that
the Company's profit margins were increasing.

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because, in fact, the Company was facing
intense competition from Intel and AMD and other suppliers and
this competition was reducing sales, earnings and Silicon
Storage's profit margin. As a consequence, the Company
accumulated excess inventory that it did not write-down as
required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP")
and this failure to write-down contributed to the artificial
inflation of the Company's reported earnings. The Company made
these disclosures just after the market closed on December 20,
2004 and, on this news, the Company's shares, which had closed
at $7.01 before the announcement, fell by 22.5% to a low of
$5.43 the next day. During the Class Period, when the Company's
shares were trading at artificially inflated prices, defendants
sold their personally held shares for proceeds in excess of $2.9
million and, on January 18, 2005, the Company disclosed that the
SEC was investigating trading in SSTI shares by an executive and
a director.

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


SIPEX CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. announces that a
securities class action has been commenced on behalf of
shareholders who acquired Sipex Corporation (NASDAQ: SIPX)
securities between April 10, 2003 and January 20, 2005,
inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, against the company and certain
key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net.


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
initiated a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Taser International, Inc.
(Nasdaq:TASR) ("Taser" or the "Company") between October 18,
2004 and January 6, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

The Complaint charges Taser and certain executive officers of
Taser with violations of federal securities laws. Among other
things, the Complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
statements describing the safety of its products that were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
and/or misrepresented the following facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company's Taser M26 and X26 "stun" guns are
         unsafe;

     (2) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that severe safety concerns existed with regard to the
         Company's Taser M26 and X26

      (3) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
          fact that the safety concerns with the Company's Taser
          M26 and X26 were likely to limit the long-term
          marketability of the Taser M26 and X26; and

      (4) that the defendants failed to warn the public of the
          potential harm of the Taser M26 and X26, in order to
          preserve the Company's profits from the "stun" guns.

On January 6, 2005, after the market closed, the Company issued
a press release entitled "Taser International, Inc. Cooperates
with SEC Informal Inquiry." In the press release, the Company
disclosed that the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
had begun an inquiry into claims and statements made by Taser on
the safety of its stun guns. The Company further disclosed in
the press release that the SEC is also looking into an end of
year order totaling $1.5 million.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Robert Smits
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W. West Tower - Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005
By Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 or by E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

Copyright 2005.  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  * * *