CAR_Public/050224.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, February 24, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 39

                         Headlines

APPLE COMPUTER: Firms Barred From Suit For Conflict Of Interest
BANK OF AMERICA: Civil Litigation V. Former Executive Dismissed
B.C. EAR BANK: Lawyer Launches Suit Due To Contaminated Tissues
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: NJ A.G. Disputing New "No Late Fees" Policy
CELLULAR PHONES: Committee Forges Agreement To Study Health Risk

CHOICEPOINT INC.: To Inform MI Residents of Unauthorized Access
CONSUMER PROMOTIONS: MO A.G. Launches Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
DELL INC.: Lerach Coughlin Launches Consumer Fraud Suit in CA
EQUIFAX CREDIT: Bad Credit Report Prompts MI Woman To File Suit
ERNST & YOUNG: Latham & Watkins Prevails in Clarent Audit Case

FAY'S FOODS: Recalls Food Products Due To Listeria Contamination
FEMINA INC.: FTC Authorizes Amended Deceptive Claims Complaint
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 9,402 Passenger Cars Due To Crash Hazard
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 7,194 SUVs For Accident, Injury Hazard
GLOBAL VENTURES: LA A.G. Foti Launches Consumer Fraud Suit

HEAD USA: Recalls 181 Computers Due To Improper Calibration
HKS USA: Recalls 16 Super Charger Kits Because of Product Defect
ILLINOIS: Madison County Judge Shifts Pfizer Case To Cook County
ILLINOIS: Peace Activists Sue City For Denying March Permits
MAMMA.COM: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

MISSOURI MARKETING: To Pay $50T Over Fraudulent Leasing Scheme
PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Recalls 32T Hip Hammocks Due To Injury Hazard
RENTCO PUBLISHING: Ordered To Halt Illegal Rental Services
SEALY MATTRESS: IL Resident Launches Consumer Fraud Complaint
SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Firm Wants Federal Judge To Hear Blankets Case

UNITED STATES: FDA Committees To Study Cox-2 Inhibitors' Safety
UNITED AIRLINES: IL Judge Allows Stock Ownership Suit To Proceed
VALENVALLS INVESTMENT: Court Enters Judgment in $6M Stock Fraud
VISION MOTOR: Recalls HID Bulb Sets For Standard Non-compliance

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

51JOB INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION: Marc Henzel Researching Possible Suit
ATHEROGENICS: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
AXONYX INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
AXONYX INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY

ESPEED INC.: Roy & Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
GANDER MOUNTAIN: Marc S. Henzel Lodges MN Securities Fraud Suit
INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Stock Suit in NC
IPASS INC.: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
KRISPY KREME: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NC

KRISPY KREME: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Suit in NC
MAMMA.COM INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in NY
MAMMA.COM INC.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MAMMA.COM INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NY
PHARMOS CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in NJ

PHARMOS CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in NJ
PHARMOS CORPORATION: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
SIERRA WIRELESS: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in NY
SINA CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
SIPEX CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in CA

TASER INTERNATIONAL: Kirby McInernery Lodges AZ Securities Suit
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY


                            *********


APPLE COMPUTER: Firms Barred From Suit For Conflict Of Interest
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern California firms of Westrup Klick & Associates and
its longtime co-counsel, Law Offices of Allan A. Sigel, were
disqualified from a class action lawsuit against Apple Computer
Inc. by the 2nd District Court of Appeal for a striking conflict
of interest: the class representative is attorney Lawrence
Cagney, an attorney with one of the firms, The Recorder reports.

In his ruling, Justice Robert Mallano wrote, "We conclude that
the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to
disqualify the firms, because an insurmountable conflict of
interest exists between the class representative and class
counsel, on one hand, and the putative class, on the other
hand."

Justice Mallano further wrote that as class representative, Mr.
Cagney was obligated to seek the highest recovery for the
putative class, but he and the firms may have had a clashing
interest in maximizing their attorney fees. Justice Vaino
Spencer and L.A. County Superior Court Judge Steven Suzukawa,
assigned to the case, concurred.

Pillsbury Winthrop partner Richard Ruben, who represents Apple
in the case, expressed delight in the decision and said, "It's
obviously the right result. These law firms have filed an awful
lot of these cases in which they are naming one of their own
lawyers as the plaintiffs, and we didn't think that was
appropriate."

Mr. Cagney is the named plaintiff in a class action alleging
that Apple Computer collected excess sales tax from consumers in
connection with a rebate program. The suit claims Apple violated
the state's unfair competition law and seeks attorney fees under
a state statute that permits them if the prevailing party's
action "resulted in the enforcement of an important right
affecting the public interest."

In support of its motion to disqualify the firms, Apple Computer
established that from 2003 to 2004, the two firms jointly filed
10 other class actions under the UCL in which an attorney for
Westrup Klick or a relative was the named plaintiff, the court
noted. From 2000 to 2002, there were three such cases, including
one whose named plaintiffs were three Westrup Klick attorneys
and a spouse.

In addition, Justice Mallano wrote, "Here, we are dealing with
more than speculative conflicts and the appearance of
impropriety. Mr. Cagney and Westrup Klick have placed themselves
in a position of divided loyalties their own financial interest
in recovering attorney fees versus their obligation to the
putative class to maximize the recovery of damages and other
relief."

Apple Computer had estimated that if it were found liable, each
consumer would be entitled to only $8.

The appeal court noted that the Long Beach, California-based
Westrup firm's interests -- as well as those of the Los Angeles-
based Sigel firm -- "reach beyond this case to the 13 other
actions in which Westrup Klick and the Sigel firm serve or
served as co-counsel; six are still active."

The court also dismissed Mr. Cagney from the case. It held,
"Because Cagney, as an attorney at Westrup Klick, may benefit
from attorneys fees recovered in the other litigation. He is not
sufficiently independent to serve as the class representative in
this one."

The case is Apple Computer Inc. v. Superior Court (Cagney),
B177857.


BANK OF AMERICA: Civil Litigation V. Former Executive Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Judge Andre M. Davis dismissed all
remaining civil charges against former Bank of America executive
Charles D. Bryceland in the mutual fund timing and late trading
cases. The dismissal was entered in United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, which is hearing the multi-
district litigation for all such cases across the country.

Mr. Bryceland was previously dropped as a defendant from other
civil cases in which it was alleged he had a role in mutual fund
timing at Bank of America. Mr. Bryceland has never been charged
with any wrongdoing by the Securities and Exchange Commission,
NASD or the New York State Attorney General's office.
Additionally, Mr. Bryceland's attorney, Chadbourne & Parke LLP
Counsel John G. Moon, noted that he is not aware that Mr.
Bryceland was ever the target of any inquiry. Mr. Chadbourne
represented Mr. Bryceland in all matters relating to the market
timing and late trading probes.

"We are pleased to have helped Chuck defend himself against
these allegations, to begin the process of repairing his
reputation in the securities industry, and to give him back his
good name," said Mr. Moon. "During the past 18 months, it was
hard to see Chuck lumped together with hundreds of other
executives in these class action suits and mentioned by name in
the news media in connection with this scandal. In fact, Mr.
Bryceland was a highly regarded executive at Bank of America and
is an example of the collateral damage inflicted upon honest
executives due to backlash in the post-Enron environment."

Contrary to news media reports that said he had been fired over
the market timing probe with other Bank of America executives,
Mr. Bryceland had resigned his management positions in January
2003 for reasons unrelated to the market timing probe and eight
months before the alleged firing by the bank.


B.C. EAR BANK: Lawyer Launches Suit Due To Contaminated Tissues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vancouver lawyer David Klein initiated a class action suit
against the B.C. Ear Bank over fears that some tissues supplied
by the bank could have been contaminated with diseases like HIV
or hepatitis, the Broadcast News reports.

The suit, which grew out of a Health Canada report that accused
the bank of not keeping proper records to confirm that
appropriate screening of tissue donors had been done, says as a
result of the report, unused tissue was recalled and patients,
who had been given tissue were urged to be tested for HIV and
hepatitis.

One of those patients is Margaret Birrell, who had an ear
operation at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver in 1994 and
received tissues supplied by the ear bank. She is now the lead
plaintiff in the class action.

Named as defendants in the suit are the University of B.C.,
which helped oversee the ear bank, Providence Health Care
Society, which operates St. Paul's, and the Vancouver Coastal
Health Authority.


BLOCKBUSTER INC.: NJ A.G. Disputing New "No Late Fees" Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Attorney General Peter C. Harvey filed suit today
against Blockbuster, Inc., alleging that the movie and game
rental chain violated New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act and
Merchandise Advertising Regulations by failing to disclose key
terms of its new "No More Late Fees" policy.

The Attorney General and Division of Consumer Affairs filed a
complaint in Superior Court in Mercer County alleging that
Blockbuster failed to disclose in its advertisements that
overdue rentals are automatically converted to a sale on the
eighth day after the due date; and that if customers return the
overdue items within 30 days after the "sale" date, Blockbuster
will reverse the sale charge, but charge a restocking fee. The
complaint also alleges that Blockbuster fails to prominently
disclose that some of its stores do not participate in the "No
More Late Fees" policy and continue to charge late fees.

"Blockbuster boldly announced its `No More Late Fees' policy,
but has not told customers about the big fees they are charged
if they keep videos or games for more than a week after they are
due," Attorney General Harvey said. "Blockbuster's ads are
fraudulent and deceptive. They lead people to believe that an
overdue rental will cost them absolutely nothing when, in fact,
customers are being ambushed with (a) late fees in some stores,
(b) so-called `restock fees,' and (c) credit card or membership
account charges equal to the purchase price of the video."

The State is seeking restitution for Blockbuster customers whose
overdue rentals were converted to a sale, were charged
restocking fees and/or charged late fees by a non-participating
store. The State also seeks civil penalties of up to $10,000 for
each violation of the Consumer Fraud Act.

Blockbuster, which operates approximately 170 stores in New
Jersey, implemented its "No More Late Fees" policy on January 1.  
The State's complaint alleges, in part, that Blockbuster engaged
in fraudulent and/or unconscionable business practices by:

     (1) Failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose the terms
         of the "No More Late Fees" policy in its
         advertisements, in-store signage and through store
         personnel;

     (2) Failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose to
         consumers that rentals would automatically be converted
         to a sale and charged on the customer's credit card or
         membership account after a certain period of time,
         which varied from store to store;

     (3) Failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose to
         consumers that although the sale charge would be
         reversed if an overdue video were returned within 30
         days after the "sale" date, there would be a $1.25
         restocking fee for such overdue items at corporate-
         owned stores and the restocking fee varied among
         franchise stores;

     (4) Failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose that some
         franchise stores were not participating in the "No More
         Late Fees" policy; and

     (5) Prominently displaying in-store signage that simply
         refers the consumer to a store associate for details,
         then providing consumers, through store personnel, with
         incomplete, inaccurate and/or inconsistent information
         about the "No More Late Fees" policy.

"We expect businesses to completely and clearly tell their
customers about all relevant terms and conditions regarding
their policies," Acting Consumer Affairs Director Jeffrey
Burstein said. "We will not tolerate the withholding of such
important information from consumers, especially when it results
in unexpected out-of-pocket expenses."

Deputy Attorney General Cathleen O'Donnell is representing the
State. Investigator Taryn Rucinski is investigating this matter.  
To view the complaint, visit the Website:
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/newsreleases05/0218complaintag.pdf.


CELLULAR PHONES: Committee Forges Agreement To Study Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) has brokered
an agreement in an attempt to help authorities study the
potential health risks facing mobile phone users, the Associated
Press reports.

Several scientists in Sweden and Germany have suggested that
radiation from mobile phones - which causes human tissue to heat
up - could raise the likelihood of brain tumors, although other
experts have dismissed those and similar studies as
inconclusive.  The wireless industry has always maintained there
is no link between mobile phones and cancer, but has said more
research is needed.

The IEC said its new guidelines would make it easier for phone
manufacturers and officials to compare research conducted in
different countries on mobile phone radiation.  "Scientists are
still debating the long-term effects of this, particularly in
the brain," the commission said, according to AP.

IEC Technical Officer Remy Baillif told AP phone manufacturers
had pushed the commission to issue a standard. Among other
things, it sets the positioning of the cell phone used in tests
and defines the way to log findings.


CHOICEPOINT INC.: To Inform MI Residents of Unauthorized Access
---------------------------------------------------------------
ChoicePoint, Inc. will inform Michigan residents that their
personal information may have been accessed by unauthorized
persons, Attorney General Mike Cox announced in a statement.

ChoicePoint's actions are in response to a letter Cox sent to
the Company last week asking it to proactively inform Michigan
residents about any possible breaches of their personal
information, rather than waiting until breaches are uncovered.  
"I am concerned that Michigan residents could have been
compromised by this incident and I'm thankful that ChoicePoint
is taking immediate corrective action," said Attorney General
Cox.  "If a house sitter knew criminals broke into the home they
were watching, they would notify the homeowner right away rather
than waiting to see if anything was stolen later on. It's only
right that ChoicePoint notify those persons whose information
could have been compromised."

ChoicePoint, based in Alpharetta, Georgia, sells consumer data
to credit providers, government agencies, landlords and others
looking to make business decisions based on a person's credit
history and other factors.  The Company has announced it will
send letters to 2,318 Michigan residents by February 25.  
Approximately 145,000 notices will be sent nationwide to
consumers whose information might have been obtained through
fraud.

Additionally, ChoicePoint is setting up a toll-free number to
assist consumers with questions about the current situation.
Detailed instructions will be provided in ChoicePoint's letters
to those consumers. Consumers may check the ChoicePoint Web site
at www.choicepoint.com  for more information.

"I also want to warn consumers not to respond to emails claiming
to originate from ChoicePoint," said Attorney General Cox. "We
are sure to see some scams and consumers should be cautious to
not provide their personal information to an unsolicited email."

Whether or not they are one of the consumers potentially
affected by ChoicePoint, all Michigan consumers should check
their credit reports for suspicious transactions.  Starting
March 1, 2005, Michigan residents are entitled to free credit
reports from each of the three national credit-reporting
agencies and from certain specialty agencies, including
ChoicePoint.

The Attorney General's office has prepared a comprehensive
consumer alert, "Free Annual Credit Reports - What Consumers
Should Know." Consumers can obtain the alert online at
www.michigan.gov/ag or can request a copy from the Attorney
General Consumer Protection Division toll- free hotline at
1-877-765-8388.  The annual free reports are available only
through the centralized source set up by the three credit
reporting agencies. If consumers contact the companies directly,
they will still be charged for their credit reports.  To obtain
the free reports beginning March 1, consumers can call
1-877-322-8228, order online at www.annualcreditreport.com, or
complete the Annual Credit Report Request Form, which is
available online with the Attorney General's free credit report
consumer alert, or from the Federal Trade Commission at
www.ftc.gov/credit.  Consumers can also request a free credit
report via mail by writing to: Annual Credit Report Request
Service, P.O. Box 105281, Atlanta, GA 30348-5281.


CONSUMER PROMOTIONS: MO A.G. Launches Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
A promotional scheme that promises consumers rebates - yet makes
the qualifications almost impossible for the consumers to meet -
violates Missouri law against misleading and deceptive
practices, Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon said in a
statement.

Attorney General Nixon is suing to stop the "cashable voucher
program," which is being marketed by a Kansas City-area business
and operated out of England. Today he obtained a court order in
Jackson County freezing approximately $10 million in two
Missouri bank accounts held by the defendants.

The Attorney General said consumers nationwide have bought items
such as cars, hot tubs, carpeting, swimming pools and even
cosmetic surgery in the hopes of getting a rebate for the full
or a significant portion of the purchase price after three
years. Those hopes are being dashed, Attorney General Nixon
said, when the claims are rejected by the English-based
Consumers Trust, which operates the cashable voucher program.
The scheme is marketed to merchants in Missouri and other states
by Consumer Promotions Inc., of Lee's Summit. Both organizations
are defendants in the Attorney General's lawsuit.

"The whole program is set up to frustrate claims, pure and
simple," Attorney General Nixon said at a news conference today
in Kansas City. "The wording in the rules is intentionally
vague, and consumers have had their claims arbitrarily rejected,
without any recourse. In some cases after the three years are
up, the consumers even have been told there is not enough money
to immediately satisfy their particular claim. This scheme
violates the law and needs to come to halt right now."

Attorney General Nixon explained how the scheme works: Consumer
Promotions markets the voucher program to merchants as a way to
increase sales. The program induces consumers to make purchases
- often for expensive items or services - with the promise that
the consumers will get the full face value of the voucher in
three years.

Merchants pay 15 percent of the voucher value to Consumers Trust
and are told that the money will be held exclusively for the
payment of consumer claims. Consumers Promotions convinces the
merchants that the voucher program is fair and that consumers
who make valid claims will be paid. In reality, the money paid
by the merchants is not held for the payment of consumer claims;
most of it is wired to international bank accounts owned by the
various defendants named in the Attorney General Nixon's
lawsuit.

What Consumer Promotions and the Consumers Trust fail to inform
consumers and merchants, Nixon said, is that the terms of
compliance for making claims are extremely vague, intimidating
and cumbersome - virtually ensuring that consumers' claims will
be rejected.

For instance, consumers are told to submit "third-party proof of
payment," but that term is never defined for them. One consumer
who complained to the Attorney General's office submitted a
photocopy of the receipt from the merchant showing she had paid
for the item in full, yet her claim was rejected. One of the
more onerous terms of the voucher warns consumers that their
vouchers will be invalidated if anyone reminds them to file a
claim or assists them with the claims process.

"Hundreds of consumers in Missouri and elsewhere are being
induced to make purchases by the promise of a full rebate, but
they eventually find out the fine print puts significant hurdles
in the way of getting the rebate," the Attorney General said.
"When the purpose of a promotional program is to frustrate
consumers, that's not a promotion - that's a fraud."

In addition to obtaining the asset freeze, Attorney General
Nixon is asking the Jackson County Circuit Court to order that
Consumer Trust and Consumer Promotions immediately cease
violating Missouri consumer protection laws. He also is seeking
a court order to pay restitution to all consumers affected, a
civil penalty of $1,000 per violation and 10 percent of total
restitution, and to reimburse the state for legal and
investigative costs. Attorney General Nixon also is asking the
court to appoint a receiver to safeguard the assets and provide
for their disbursal to consumers.

For a copy of the complaint, visit the Website:
http://www.ago.state.mo.us/lawsuits/2005/021605consumerstrust.pd
f.


DELL INC.: Lerach Coughlin Launches Consumer Fraud Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in San Francisco against
Dell Inc. that accuses it of allegedly pushing consumers into
high-interest financing schemes, as well as other aggressive
sales practices, CNN reports.

The suit specifically accuses the world's largest personal
computer maker of false advertising and bait-and-switch
practices, fraud and deceit in its sales and advertising
representations, and breach of contract by unilaterally
modifying terms and conditions of sales and financing.

According to Jeff Friedman, a lawyer with Lerach Coughlin, the
lawsuit can be broken down into two separate consumer rights
violations.

The first of this is the bait-and-switch accusation, which
according to a statement from the law firm given to Reuters, was
filed on behalf of a San Francisco nurse who claims that in 2003
she was led to believe that she was buying a Dell notebook
computer listed at $599 and an $89 printer, but was later billed
$1,352. In addition, Mr. Friedman states that Dell is also being
accused of switching parts in the computers it sells.

The second violation is the accusation that the computer maker
and its partners CIT Bank and Dell Financial Services (DFS) used
false promises of low-cost financing to trick buyers with
installment payment hikes. In a statement to the press, Reed R.
Kathrein, a Lerach partner who filed the suit said, "Dell
promises 'easy' credit but no one qualifies. It then charges
unconscionable high interest rates." The statement also said
that at the urging of a Dell sales person, the nurse financed
her purchase through DFS at an undisclosed interest rate that
turned out to be 27.74 to 38.82 percent.

Furthermore, Mr. Friedman said, "Customers are urged to finance
their order through Dell and given special promotional offers
like no payments for a year. But they are told after the
purchase is made that they don't qualify for the terms of the
promotion and are stuck with higher rates and terms than what
they had agreed to."

The firm, known for its aggressive Silicon Valley securities
class action lawsuits, is led by William Lerach, a lead player
in many of the biggest shareholder class action suits of the
past two decades.


EQUIFAX CREDIT: Bad Credit Report Prompts MI Woman To File Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit has been filed in Bay City federal court
by 55-year-old Kathryn Gilson against the Equifax credit-
reporting agency alleging that Equifax confused her name with
someone else in Michigan with a similar name, ABC12.com reports.

According to the suit, when Ms. Gilson, who was denied a
mortgage because of a bad credit report supplied by Equifax,
discovered there was false information in her credit file, she
tried to get Equifax to make corrections, but her requests were
ignored.

Her attorneys, Dale Bock and Valdemar Washington, who are
actively searching for others who may become part of the
lawsuit, say that thousands of others have had problems with
Equifax and that's why the lawsuit has been given class action
status.

For more details, contact Dale Bock by Phone: 810-733-0600 OR
Valdemar Washington by Phone: 313-393-0100 or by E-mail:
equifaxclass2005@aol.com.


ERNST & YOUNG: Latham & Watkins Prevails in Clarent Audit Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit where popular opinion seems to be
overwhelmingly against them, Latham & Watkins partner Peter Wald
and his trial team scored a major victory on behalf of client
Ernst & Young in Northern District court in New York, The
Recorder reports.

Mr. Wald defended the Big Four accounting firm in a securities
fraud class action that was filed by Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann in connection with audit work at Clarent Corp., a
Redwood City-based computer networking company.

In a victorious mood, Mr. Wald told The Recorder, "My takeaway
is that it's possible in 2005 to put on a merit-oriented defense
and ask jurors to grapple with auditing issues, even though
fraud has occurred."

Shareholders had filed the class action after accounting
irregularities first came to light in 2001 accusing Clarent of
overstating revenue by $130 million. Their suit was originally
against the firm and its corporate officers, but when the
company filed for bankruptcy, proceedings were stayed.

Ernst & Young was dragged into the case in 2003, as was Cooley
Godward. Former Cooley partner Deborah Ludewig, who is now a
partner in Pillsbury Winthrop's Palo Alto office, had served as
Clarent's corporate counsel. The law firm, represented by Keker
& Van Nest, settled with plaintiffs before the start of trial
under confidential terms.

Mr. Wald's victory came Wednesday when a unanimous, nine-person
jury found Ernst & Young wasn't liable for any fraud at Clarent.


FAY'S FOODS: Recalls Food Products Due To Listeria Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fay's Foods inc. 10650 Burbank Blvd. North Hollywood California,
is recalling it's individually packaged sandwiches and salads
because they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled sandwiches and salads were distributed in Southern
California in retail stores.

The products are packaged in clear film or plastic containers,
under the labels of Fay's and Just For You with Julian codes
05003 through 05049 stamped on the bottom.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing
revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in the clear
film or plastic containers of sandwiches and salads.

The production of the products have been suspended while the
California Department of Health Services Food And Drug Branch
and USFDA and Fay's Foods Inc. continue to investigate the
source of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased the clear film, or plastic
containers of sandwiches and salads under the labels of Fay's
and Just For You are urged to return them to Fay's Foods at
10650 Burbank Blvd. North Hollywood California, or the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with any questions may
contact Fay's Foods Inc. at (818) 508-8392.


FEMINA INC.: FTC Authorizes Amended Deceptive Claims Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has authorized its staff to
file an amended complaint in the matter currently pending
against Femina, Inc., et al.

The complaint in this matter, filed on November 8, 2004, as part
of the FTC's Big Fat Lie weight-loss sweep, alleged the
defendants deceptively marketed three weight-loss products
called "1-2-3 Reduce Fat," "Siluette [sic] Patch," and "Fat
Seltzer Reduce." In filing the amended complaint, the Commission
has added Ines Arroyo as a defendant in this matter.  The
Commission vote authorizing the staff to amend the complaint was
5-0. (FTC File No. X050008; the staff contact is Harold E.
Kirtz, FTC Southeast Region, 404-656-1357.)

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available
from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the  
FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free:
1-877-FTC-HELP.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 9,402 Passenger Cars Due To Crash Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling
9,402 passenger vehicles:

     (1) CHEVROLET / CLASSIC, model 2005

     (2) PONTIAC / GRAND AM, model 2005

Certain passenger vehicles equipped with rear suspension knuckle
bolts that are not to specification and could fracture under
high loads that can occur in some driving conditions.  If the
bolt fractures, the rear suspension linkage could detach from
the knuckle and the rear wheel would be able to turn inboard or
outboard.  The sudden changes in vehicle handling could occur,
particularly at higher speeds and the driver may not be able to
control the vehicle.  A crash could occur without warning.

Dealers will replace both rear suspension knuckle bolts.  The
recall is expected to begin February 16,2005.  For more details,
contact Cheverolet by Phone: 1-800-630-2438 or Pontiac by Phone:
1-800-620-7668, or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline:
1-888-327-4236.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 7,194 SUVs For Accident, Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 7,194 sport utility vehicles:

     (1) CADILLAC / ESCALADE, model 2005

     (2) CADILLAC / ESCALADE ESV, model 2005

     (3) CADILLAC / ESCALADE EXT, model 2005

     (4) CHEVROLET / AVALANCHE, model 2005

     (5) CHEVROLET / SILVERADO, model 2005

     (6) CHEVROLET / SUBURBAN, model 2005

     (7) CHEVROLET / TAHOE, model 2005

     (8) GMC / SIERRA, model 2005

     (9) GMC / YUKON, model 2005

    (10) GMC / YUKON XL, model 2005

Certain sport utility vehicles equipped with an automatic
transmission, failed to comply with the requirements of federal
motor vehicle safety standard no. 102 "transmission shift lever
sequence, starter interlock and transmission braking effect."  
Under certain vehicle starting conditions, the shift lever
position indicator located in the instrument panel cluster may
not illuminate.  If the shift lever position indicator does not
illuminate, the driver may not know which gear the vehicle is
in.  The vehicle may move in an unintended direction resulting
in possible injury to others outside of the vehicle.

Dealers will reprogram the instrument panel cluster.  The recall
is expected to begin February 18,2005.  For more details,
contact Cadillac by Phone: 1-866-982-2339, Chevrolet by Phone:
1-800-630-2438, and GMC by phone: 1-866-996-9463 or contact the
NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


GLOBAL VENTURES: LA A.G. Foti Launches Consumer Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr.'s office filed a
petition for a preliminary and permanent injunction against a
Florida company that scammed at least one Louisiana resident out
of $11,980. A hearing has been set for February 28, 2005 in the
19th Judicial District Court.

Global Ventures, Inc. of Miami, Florida sells business
opportunity systems in which the business opportunity owner, the
buyer, sells prepaid services such as prepaid internet access
cards, prepaid long distance phone cards and prepaid home long
distance. The business opportunity units are sold as one of five
packages. The minimum package costs $11,980. Global Ventures,
Inc. also sells a membership in the "Global Association" and
charges the business opportunity buyer a monthly fee. Membership
in the "Global Association" is for making the business
opportunity a hands-off investment for the business opportunity
owner in that the Association will handle all logistical aspects
of the business, such as finding retail locations to sell the
prepaid services.

According to Attorney General Foti, Global Ventures, Inc. sold a
business opportunity package to a retired resident of
Alexandria, Louisiana in April 2003 for $11,980 and persuaded
the victim to join the association for an additional monthly
fee. Once the victim paid for the business opportunity system,
he reported he had trouble getting assistance from the company.
For example, Global Ventures, Inc. did not deliver the products
to the retail locations as promised and failed to help the
victim find five retail locations to sell the product, as was
promised when the victim became a member of the association. At
one point, Global Ventures, Inc. told the victim it had set up
sales for him at a prominent grocery store chain. When the
victim contacted the grocery store about his product, he was
told not only was his product not being sold, but the grocery
store had never heard of Global Ventures, Inc.

Global Ventures, Inc. is accused of violating the Louisiana
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Specifically, (1)
selling a business opportunity in the State of Louisiana while
failing to maintain a surety bond in favor of the State; (2)
selling a business opportunity in the State of Louisiana without
appointing the secretary of states as its agent and (3) failing
to deliver goods and services purchased by a Louisiana consumer.

This enforcement action is part of a massive criminal and civil
crackdown on promoters of illegal business opportunity and work-
at-home programs by the Louisiana Attorney General's Office, the
Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, the
U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and state law enforcement
agencies from 14 states that have charged more than 130
operations with violating consumer protection laws and/or
engaging in fraud. This enforcement sweep is known as "Project
Biz Opp Flop."

For more information on how to spot and avoid business
opportunity scams, visit the Federal Trade Commission's website
at www.ftc.gov/bizopps or www.ftc.gov/workathome. Consumers who
think they have been victims of a business opportunity scam
should contact the Attorney General's Consumer Information
Hotline at 1-800-351-4889.


HEAD USA: Recalls 181 Computers Due To Improper Calibration
-----------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Head USA Inc., of Norwalk, Conn. is recalling about 181
SCUBA Diving Computers.

The dive computers were improperly calibrated, resulting in
incorrect calculations. Diving with an improperly calibrated
dive computer can provide inaccurate "No Decompression (no stop)
Time," "Decompression Time," "Desaturation Time" and "No Fly
Time." This could result in divers suffering serious injuries,
including decompression sickness. Head USA received one report
of a computer malfunction. No injuries were reported.

The recall includes the Dacor Darwin Air dive computer with
serial number 3265 through 3415, and the Dacor Darwin Console
dive computer with serial numbers 8503 through 8592. The serial
number will appear on the dive computer screen after removing
and reinserting the batteries. The Darwin Air is a completely
integrated dive computer and pressure gauge with "Dacor Darwin
Air" written on the front. It is encased in gray on black heavy-
duty plastic. The Darwin Console is a dive computer with a
compact submersible pressure gauge bearing the word "Dacor" on
the front. It is encased in black heavy-duty plastic.

Manufactured in Italy by HTM Sports S.p.A. were sold at all dive
shops nationwide from March 2004 through December 2004 for about
$700 for the Darwin Air and $400 for the Darwin Console.

Consumers should immediately stop using these recalled diving
computers, and return the computers to an authorized Dacor
dealer for a free repair.

Consumer Contact: Call Head USA at (800) 874-3236 between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.divedacor.comOR Firm's Media Contact: Karin  
Flood at (203) 855-8666, Ext. 1212.


HKS USA: Recalls 16 Super Charger Kits Because of Product Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
HKS U.S.A., Inc. is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling 16
HKS/Rotrex super charger kits, models 12001-XN001.

The cap bolt on the idler pulley assembly may become loose
during operation.  The belt on the idler assembly will slip or
break, causing in turn, the loss of power to the supercharger
and the vehicle's driven belt accessories (power steering and
the alternator).  

HKS will notify its customers and replace the idler pulley
assembly installed on the kit free of charge.  The recall is
expected to begin February 19, 2005.  Owners who take their
vehicles to an authorized dealer on an agreed upon service date
and do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time
should contact the Company by Phone: 310-491-3310 or contact the
NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


ILLINOIS: Madison County Judge Shifts Pfizer Case To Cook County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Under orders from the Illinois Supreme Court, 3rd Circuit Court
Judge Nicholas Byron transferred a consumer fraud class action
lawsuit against drug giant Pfizer from Madison County to Cook
County, where it will be consolidated with a similar case, the
Madison County Record reports.

Granite City resident Carol Lee Chiappa Burgess had sued the
pharmaceutical firm on May 28, 2004, claiming that she suffered
financial harm by paying for products that had been
misrepresented to her.

In her suit, Ms. Burgess is accusing its subsidiary, Warner
Lambert, of charging too much for the drug known as Neurontin,
which is typically prescribed to help epileptic adults prevent
seizures, but widely known in the medical community as effective
in treating other illnesses.

According to her complaint, Ms. Burgess, who is represented by
Robert Rowland and Aaron Dickey of the Edwardsville law firm of
Goldenberg, Miller, Heller & Antognoli, says she was prescribed
Neurontin for one of those "other" illnesses but it didn't work,
thus she alleges that she and class members are victims of a
marketing conspiracy between doctors and the defendant.

Specifically, the complaint states, "Because their authorized
use of the product limited its potential for commercial
exploitation and profit, defendants intentionally and willfully
engaged in a campaign of systematic misrepresentations regarding
the benefits of the drug."

In May 2004, Ms. Burgess' lawsuit came on the heels of a Warner
Lambert guilty plea and $430 million fine paid to settle charges
it deceptively marketed Neurontin. A former Neurontin sales
representative pocketed $26 million of that fine for turning
"whistleblower" in the case.


ILLINOIS: Peace Activists Sue City For Denying March Permits
------------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago Coalition Against War and Racism, a group of peace
activists, who had been twice denied Chicago city permits to
march along Michigan Avenue on the second anniversary of the
Iraq invasion, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court seeking to
overturn the city's decision, the Chicago Tribune reports.

In addition, the peace activists, are also asking a judge to
declare unconstitutional the city's permit appeal process, which
requires a ruling by a hearing officer of the Mayor's License
Commission before the matter can be appealed in court.

According to Charles Nissim-Sabat, one of two attorneys who
filed the suit, "That's the formal name, the mayor's commission.
It doesn't even have a semblance of independence." He also adds,
"They have an in-house judicial procedure that is not impartial,
and that has to be overturned."

In its suit, the coalition accused city officials of denying a
permit for the March 19 anti-war rally because they disapproved
of "the content of the coalition's speech." The coalition also
noted that each year the city approves a permit for the Greater
North Michigan Avenue Association's Festival of Lights Parade, a
kickoff celebration to the holiday season that takes place on
North Michigan Avenue. Andy Thayer, a plaintiff in the case
points out, "The city can't be picking and choosing which free-
speech messages get heard on Michigan Avenue and which ones
don't."

Furthermore, the suit also alleged the city did not provide an
alternate route of "comparable public visibility," as city
ordinances require, when it denied the permit. Though the city
said that it would allow the march along Clark Street activists
contend that Clark would offer far lower visibility.

The marchers initially sought a permit to march south on
Michigan from Oak to Randolph Streets, then south along State
Street to Adams Street, and from there to Federal Plaza at
Dearborn Street and Adams; and when that was denied, to march
south on Michigan from Walton Street to Adams, then west to
Federal Plaza.

However, the city officials denied both permits and suggested a
route along Clark Street south from Bughouse Square at Walton
Street to Adams, then east to Federal Plaza. They cited the
potential disruption to traffic, CTA buses, pedestrians and
businesses of the Michigan Avenue routings as reasons for
denying the permits. Officials also pointed out that such a
march would require a fairly large police presence.

Brian Steele, a spokesman for the Chicago Department of
Transportation, which denied the permits, said the decisions
were based on city efforts to balance the rights of marchers and
those affected by them. "It's not based on the content of the
event," Mr. Steele said. He also noted that the Festival of
Lights parades takes place in the evening rather than the
afternoon, runs solely along Michigan and involves many police-
trained traffic-control volunteers.

The coalition wants to march on Michigan to commemorate the day
two years ago when hundreds of marchers protesting the invasion
of Iraq were arrested near Michigan and Chicago Avenues.


MAMMA.COM: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mamma.com, Inc. faces a securities class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from
May 12,2004 to February 16,2005.

According to a press release dated February 22, 2005, a class
action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Mamma.com Inc. The complaint charges Mamma.com
and certain of it officers with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Mamma.com provides information retrieval
on the Internet through its metasearch engine,
http://www.mamma.com. The Company derives its revenues from two  
sources, including search services and banner advertising
services, with customers located in the United States and
Canada.

Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendants failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that Irving Kott, a legendary Canadian stock promoter
         with a long history of stock manipulation, had a
         significant undisclosed interest in the Company;

     (2) that Kott and his associates were manipulating the
         Company's stock price by engaging in a classic "pump
         and dump" scheme to defraud; and

     (3) that the Company itself was manipulating its financial
         results in order to maintain its artificially inflated
         share price so that the "pump and dump" scheme would
         endure.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, and with its stock trading at artificially inflated
levels, the Company was able to acquire Digitalarrow LLC and
High Performance Broadcasting Inc. (collectively "Digital
Arrow") for $1,050,000 and the issuance of 90,000 common shares
of Mamma.com, and was able to enter into a letter of intent
("LOI") whereby Mamma.com would acquire all of the shares of
Copernic Technologies for a combination of cash and shares of
Mamma.com. Moreover, the Company was able to raise $16.6 million
through a private placement while its shares traded at
artificially inflated levels.

On or around February 16, 2005, shares of Mamma.com were halted.
Shortly thereafter, Mamma.com announced that it had been unable
to reach an agreement on the terms of the audit engagement with
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PWC") for the year ended December
31, 2004. Accordingly, PWC would not act as the Company's
independent auditor for the audit of the Company's financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2004. News of this
sent the stock into a downward spiral. As a result, shares of
Mamma.com fell $2.02 per share, or 32.27% to close at $4.25 per
share.

The suit is styled "Kevin Montoya, et al. v. Mamma.com Inc., et
al."  The law firm for the plaintiffs is Schiffrin & Barroway,
LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone:
610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


MISSOURI MARKETING: To Pay $50T Over Fraudulent Leasing Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Kansas City business will pay $50,000 for hatching a scheme
that took advantage of hundreds of consumers by purporting to
buy their televisions and stereos, then leasing the equipment
back to them at exorbitant rates, Missouri Attorney General Jay
Nixon announced in a statement.

The business, Missouri Marketing Enterprises (MME), has agreed
to comply with Missouri law and pay $50,000 to the Merchandising
Practices Revolving fund. MME operated two offices in Missouri
under the name Cash-2-U Leasing in Kansas City and in St. Ann,
Mo. Nixon filed a lawsuit in Jackson County Circuit Court in
July, alleging that the company hatched the leaseback scheme to
circumvent Missouri laws governing unsecured loans.

"MME attempted to circumvent Missouri's consumer lending laws
and in the process, attempted to take advantage of cash-strapped
Missourians by charging exorbitant interest rates to keep their
own property," Nixon said. "This agreement hopefully will put an
end to those who think they can skirt the law to take advantage
of Missouri citizens."

The lawsuit stated that MME ran the Cash-2-U Leasing offices
without a license to operate a small loan business, failed to
disclose interest rates and fees, charged accumulated interest
and fees in excess of 75 percent of the initial loan amount,
failed to reduce the principal amount of the loan by at least 5
percent of the original loan amount, and renewed loans more than
six times - all violations of Missouri laws regarding small
business loans.


PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Recalls 32T Hip Hammocks Due To Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Playtex Products Inc., of Westport, Conn. is recalling
about 32,000 Playtex Hip Hammocks.

The shoulder strap support can detach from the hammock, posing a
fall hazard to the baby. The company has received two reports of
the shoulder strap detaching from the infant carrier. No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled infant carriers were sold under the name "Playtex
Hip Hammock," which is sewn into the front of the carrier. The
model number is sewn into the inside panel below the
instructions for use. The model numbers are:

     (1) 05300 - Basic Black Hip Hammock

     (2) 05301 - Deluxe Black Hip Hammock

     (3) 05302 - Deluxe Navy Blue Hip Hammock

Manufactured in China, the hammocks were sold at all juvenile
product stores, discount stores nationwide, catalog and internet
sites from June 2004 through February 2005 for about $40 (Basic
model) and $60 (Deluxe model).

Consumers should stop using the carrier immediately and contact
Playtex Products Inc., for instructions on returning the carrier
for a replacement.

Consumer Contact: Consumers should contact Playtex Products
Inc., at (800) 522-8230 between 8:30 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET, Monday
through Friday.


RENTCO PUBLISHING: Ordered To Halt Illegal Rental Services
----------------------------------------------------------
Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran, Jr.'s Consumer
Protection Division has ordered a Baltimore company, Rentco
Publishing, L.L.C., 5726 Harford Road, Baltimore, formerly known
as "Rentoday," and its owner, David Werner, 581 Central Drive,
Lake Orion, Michigan, to cease offering illegal rental referral
services. The Company was ordered to pay $264,000 in restitution
to consumers harmed by its practices, as well as $365,718 in
civil penalties and costs.

Rentco advertised apartments and houses for rent at attractive
prices in Baltimore newspapers. When consumers contacted Rentco
to rent the advertised properties, they were told they needed to
pay $75 to $85 for a rental listing service, through which the
properties were available. However, consumers who paid for this
rental listing service were unable to rent the advertised
properties. In fact, the Division found that consumers were
unable to rent houses in the areas that Rentco advertised in the
newspapers or at rents that were as attractive as advertised
because those properties did not exist. Rather, they were made
up by Rentco in order to get consumers to pay Rentco's fees. The
Division also found that Rentco's rental listing service did not
offer exclusive listings as Rentco had claimed, but rather was
composed of ads taken from local newspapers.

The Division found Rentco's advertising to be deceptive and
ordered it to stop offering properties for rent that did not
exist or that it did not have the actual ability to rent. The
Division also found Rentco's 100% satisfaction guarantee and
refund policies to be deceptive because the company made it
impossible for consumers who were dissatisfied with its service
to obtain refunds. The Division estimates more than 3,500
consumers were harmed by Rentco's practices.

"Rentco preyed on people who were having difficulty finding
affordable rental properties," said Curran. "When a business
offers an apartment or a house for rent, it must have the
ability to actually rent the property, at the advertised price."

The Division has ordered Rentco and its owner to return $264,000
in payments it collected from consumers. Consumers with
complaints against either Rentco or David Warner should contact
the Consumer Protection Division by Phone: 410-576-6569.


SEALY MATTRESS: IL Resident Launches Consumer Fraud Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prairietown's David Rook initiated a class action lawsuit
against Sealy Mattress Company and Famous Barr, charging they
refused to honor a warranty to replace his sagging bed because
it has a stain, the Madison County Record reports.

In 2002, he says he paid $1,000 for a Sealy queen pillow top at
Famous Barr in Alton with a ten-year warranty, however two years
later the bed sagged thus Sealy had it replaced, this time with
a Crown Jewel mattress. Now Mr. Rook claims his Crown Jewel is
sagging and he wants another replacement but Sealy has refused,
citing a stain that voids his warranty.

According to his complaint, Mr. Rook and potential class members
were deceived and would not have purchased the mattress, if they
knew a stain would void the warranty.

Mr. Rook, who is represented by Bob Perica of Alton, is seeking
damages under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Practices Act of "less than $50,000" per class member, including
all compensatory damages, attorney fees and costs.

Founded in Sealy, Texas near Houston in 1881, Sealy is the
largest bed maker in North America. The Company is currently
based in Trinity, North Carolina.


SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Firm Wants Federal Judge To Hear Blankets Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Officials of Sunbeam Products Inc. are asking that a federal
judge hear allegations in a lawsuit, which alleges that the
firm's electric blankets were unsafe, according to court
documents, the Texarkana Gazette reports.

Customers, led by Bobbie Fay Grammer, filed the lawsuit against
Sunbeam, which maintains that its blankets are safe, on December
30 in Miller County.

Since then the lawsuit has been revised twice. In its second
incarnation, American Household Inc. was dropped from the
lawsuit. Then in the third version of the lawsuit, Sheryl Larey,
a customer, was added with Ms. Grammer as the customers leading
the class action.

Just recently Sunbeam has moved the lawsuit from the county to
federal district court in Texarkana, Arkansas. By its right,
Sunbeam can move the lawsuit to federal court.

But, in the same vein, the customers who bought the products
with the heating elements can ask U.S. District Judge Harry F.
Barnes to send the case back to circuit court in Miller County.

Sunbeam is moving the lawsuit to federal court because of a
jurisdiction issue: Sunbeam is a Delaware company with its main
offices located in Florida. On the other hand, the customers
named in the lawsuit are based in Arkansas.

Furthermore, Sunbeam argues that the amount in question rises to
the federal damages benchmark or $75,000 or more. That,
according to the firm, doesn't mean each customer is due
$75,000, instead, it means that collectively, the lawsuit's
value is more than $75,000.


UNITED STATES: FDA Committees To Study Cox-2 Inhibitors' Safety
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committees are
studying the safety of popular painkillers called Cox-2
inhibitors, after the recall of the popular arthritis drug Vioxx
from the market due to links to heart problems, the Associated
Press reports.  Recently, concerns have also been raised over
related drugs Celebrex and Bextra.

In September 2004, Vioxx manufacturer Merck & Co. pulled Vioxx
from the market after a long-term study indicated an increase in
heart attacks and strokes among its users.  Since then, similar
questions have been raised about Pfizer Inc.'s Celebrex and
Bextra, though both remain on sale.  These prescription drugs,
called Cox-2 inhibitors, have become popular for people with
chronic pain, particularly since they help patients avoid the
stomach and intestinal problems than can result from many
commonly used over-the-counter pain medications.

The FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research called an
advisory committee meeting Wednesday this week, saying that may
consumers and scientists have asked whether any Cox-2 drugs
should be allowed to remain on sale.  "What is your view? Is
there a patient population for whom the risk is warranted, given
the known potential for benefit?" the agency asked the advisory
committees on arthritis and drug safety and risk management,
according to AP.

Earlier, the Health and Human Services Department announced
Tuesday that the FDA will establish a new Drug Safety Oversight
Board to monitor medicines once they're on the market and will
update physicians and patients with emerging information on
risks and benefits.

The editor of a leading medical journal questioned whether
patients should continue using the drugs.  "Because there are
well-established options for treatment of all the approved
indications for these drugs, it is reasonable to ask whether the
use of the drugs can now be justified," Dr. Jeffrey M. Drazen,
editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said in an
editorial published online Tuesday, AP reports.

Dr. Mark Fendrick, an internal medicine specialist at the
University of Michigan, told AP the decision on using the drugs
"should be considered one of competing risk and benefits."  "It
comes down to the individual and his or her clinician to assess
the risks and make the best informed choice," he said.  "Until
we know for sure about the cardiological safety of the Cox-2
inhibitors, I believe they should be limited to those
individuals who have a risk of stomach injury and those who are
at low risk for cardiac problems."

People who have a heart risk or who take aspirin to protect the
heart should consider a traditional painkiller, he said.  Many
people who take the Cox-2 drugs to avoid stomach problems also
take aspirin to protect the heart, he noted, which cancels the
gastrointestinal protection of the Cox-2 drugs, AP reports.

The advisers will also be trying to determine what it is about
these drugs that could cause an increase in heart problems.

On Monday, a paper in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine
reported on a new analysis that indicates Cox-2 inhibitors raise
blood pressure more than conventional pain medications.  A
second possibility is that Vioxx directly affects endothelial
cells, which line the heart and blood vessels.


UNITED AIRLINES: IL Judge Allows Stock Ownership Suit To Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan in Chicago granted
class-action status to a lawsuit filed two years ago on behalf
of United Airlines workers who contend the now-defunct employee
stock ownership plan was mismanaged, costing them billions of
dollars, thus clearing the way for the case to proceed against
State Street Bank and Trust, the plan's trustee, the Associated
Press reports.

According to the suit, the employee stock ownership plan
committee at United parent UAL Corp. and Boston-based State
Street Bank held onto UAL's stock despite knowing it was
unstable, watching it plunge even before the 2001 terrorist
attacks.

After the ruling was given, managing partner Steve Berman of
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, the Seattle-based law firm that
filed the complaint told AP, "We intend to show that had State
Street and the plan trustees done their jobs responsibly,
employees would have escaped financial devastation."

State Street attorney Randall Sunshine though just called the
judge's decision "another step in the litigation process." He
also said, "State Street fulfilled its obligations under ERISA
(the Employee Retirement Income Security Act) on behalf of the
UAL ESOP participants. We will vigorously defend our position in
court."

For their part, UAL through its spokeswoman Jean Medina said the
ruling does not affect the Company and pointed out that United's
employee stock ownership plan committee reached a settlement in
the case last June that limits the plaintiffs to recovering
funds from the company's insurers.

UAL's stock, which was de-listed from the New York Stock
Exchange in 2003, fell 2.5 cents to close at $1.20 a share
Tuesday on the OTC Bulletin Board. Worth over $100 apiece at
their peak in 1997, the shares are expected to be worthless when
the company emerges from Chapter 11 bankruptcy.


VALENVALLS INVESTMENT: Court Enters Judgment in $6M Stock Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Dale S. Fischer, U.S. District Judge for the
Central District of California, entered a Default Judgment
against defendants Mary Patten and her company Valenvalls
Investment Corporation, Ltd.  The Commission's complaint alleged
that Patten and Valenvalls -- along with co-defendants Scott
Hamilton and Harold Miller -- acted as the primary brokers of
the "VV-PP," a purported "high-yield" trading program, through
which the defrauded investors lost at least $6 million.
     
The Court enjoined Ms. Patten and Valenvalls from further
violations of the anti-fraud and registration provisions of the
federal securities laws (Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder). The Final
Judgment against Ms. Patten and Valenvalls orders that they pay
disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties in an
amount that will be determined by the Court at a later date.
     
On November 29, 2004, and January 19, 2005, the Court entered
Final Judgments by Consent against defendants Scott Hamilton and
Harold Miller, respectively. Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Miller
consented to the entry of Final Judgments against them without
admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's
complaint. The Court enjoined Miller and Hamilton from further
violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities
Act, and Sections 10(b) and 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Final Judgment against Mr. Miller
requires him to pay a civil penalty of $39,999 and disgorgement
of $1.00. The Final Judgment against Hamilton waives payment of
disgorgement and did not impose a civil penalty, based on Mr.
Hamilton's sworn statement of financial condition and other
information furnished to the Commission.  Finally, in separate
administrative proceedings, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Miller also
consented to orders permanently barring them from association
with any broker or dealer.  
     
The Commission filed the complaint in this matter on June 6,
2003. The Commission's complaint alleged that Hamilton and
Miller -- through oral representations and written offering
materials distributed to investors through a network of brokers
-- falsely represented that:

     (1) investors' funds would be used to trade Medium Term
         Notes (MTNs) on a secret market;

     (2) MTN trading would yield returns averaging 100 percent
         per week;

     (3) investors' funds would be pooled at Valenvalls, an
         allegedly insured financial institution that would pay
         an additional 20 percent return (over and above the
         guaranteed 100 percent per week); and

     (4) the VV-PP was "fed controlled" and subject to
         International Monetary Fund rules and regulations.
     
According to the complaint, after having potential investors
referred from Hamilton and Miller, Patten sent the potential
investors promotional materials about Valenvalls, which falsely
represented that:

     (i) investors would receive individual accounts at
         Valenvalls, promoted as an `international financeria'
         that could trade bonds, currency, real estate, and
         securities, and

    (ii) Valenvalls would pay investors a 20 percent return on
         their investment (over and above the guaranteed 100
         percent per week).

The complaint also alleged that Patten sent investors account
statements falsely indicating that their funds were earning 20
percent in individual Valenvalls accounts. Ultimately, the
complaint alleged, the defendants lulled investors with
misrepresentations that the VV-PP was proceeding as planned,
when in fact Patten had diverted investors' funds to her
personal use. The action is titled, SEC v. Mary Patten, et al.,
No. CV 03-8619 DSF, JTLx, C.D. Cal. (LR-19095).


VISION MOTOR: Recalls HID Bulb Sets For Standard Non-compliance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vision Motor Sports, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by recalling 4,450 HID
Bulb sets, namely:

     (1) VISION / HID90048KBS       

     (2) VISION / HID90058KBS       

     (3) VISION / HID90068KBS       

     (4) VISION / HID90078KBS       

     (5) VISION / HIDH18KBS       

     (6) VISION / HIDH48KBS       

     (7) VISION / HIDH78KBS       

These lighting sources do not conform to the electrical
specifications that is required by federal motor vehicle safety
standard no. 108, "lamps, reflective devices and associated
equipment.  These lights produce excessive glare to oncoming
traffic.  A motorist could be temporarily blinded, possibly
resulting in a vehicle crash.

Vision will notify its customers and will repurchase the kits or
provide a full refund.  The recall is expected to begin during
February 2005.  Owners who do not receive the free remedy within
a reasonable time should contact the Company by Phone:
888-489-9820 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline:
1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


51JOB INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of 51Job, Inc. (Nasdaq: JOBS) between November 4,
2004 and January 14, 2005.

The Complaint alleges that 51Job violated United States
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that 51Job
failed to disclose the fact that it improperly recognized
recruitment advertising revenue in 3Q04. Moreover, the Complaint
alleges 51Job failed to disclose the fact that the drop in late-
December advertising suggested that many Chinese firms have
adopted a more Western schedule for hiring and, as a result of
this market shift, 51Job was forced to sharply lower its profit
outlook.

On January 18, 2005, 51Job announced softness in sales for the
latter part of the month of December 2004, the exit of the
peripheral stationery and office supplies business and updated
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2004. It disclosed that
fourth quarter total revenues are now expected to be between
RMB117 and RMB121 million, compared with RMB140 million, the
low-end of its previous forecasted range. On this news, shares
of 51Job fell from a close of $43.82 per share on January 14,
2005, to close at $28.32 per share on January 18, 2005, the next
trading day.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610.660.8000 or
888.643.6735, by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.       


ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION: Marc Henzel Researching Possible Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel is researching Advanced
Neuromodulation Systems (Nasdaq: ANSI.O) for possible action on
behalf of shareholders who purchased Company stock during the
period of April 24,2003 through February 16, 2005.

The Company on Thursday February 16, 2005 said it received a
subpoena from the government requesting documents related to
some of the company's sales and marketing practices. The company
said the inspector general at the Department of Health and Human
Services also asked for documents relating to reimbursement,
Medicare and Medicaid billing, and certain other business
practices. In a statement released with its quarterly financial
results, Advanced Neuromodulation said it was cooperating with
the government's investigation.

Advanced Neuromodulation shares fell $4.87, or 13 percent, to
$32.73 in afternoon trading on the Nasdaq.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, by telephone (888) 643-6735 or
(610) 660-8000, by facsimile (610) 660-8080, by e mail at
Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's website at
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


ATHEROGENICS: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
AtheroGenics Inc. securities ("AtheroGenics" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:AGIX) during the period from September 28, 2004 through
December 31, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges AtheroGenics and certain of its senior
officers with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The alleged violations stem from the dissemination
of false and misleading statements, which had the effect --
during the Class Period -- of artificially inflating the price
of AtheroGenics' shares.

Investors allege that during the Class Period, the Company hyped
the results of an inconclusive study of AGI-1067, one of the
Company's key products, and manipulated the study's results in
order to enter into a strategic partnership with a major
pharmaceutical company to complete the commercialization of AGI-
1067.

On January 3, 2005, the Company's stock price fell from $23.56
to $18.72 after the Company announced that it will increase the
number of patients in a study of its experimental AGI-1067
compound to 6,000 from 4,000, and that it is seeking a
partnership with a major pharmaceutical company. On January 5,
2005, the market learned that the Company was the target of
regulatory inquiries concerning the September announcements of
AGI-1067 study results and related trading.

For more details, contact Vivian Lee of KIRBY McINERNEY &
SQUIRE, LLP by Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY
10022 by Phone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 or by E-mail:
vlee@kmslaw.com.


AXONYX INC.: 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 Axonyx, Inc. ("Axonyx")
(NASDAQ:AXYX) common stock during the period between June 16,
2004 and February 4, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Axonyx and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Axonyx is a biochemical company that discovers, develops,
and acquires proprietary pharmaceutical compounds and new
technologies. The Company's compounds and technologies are used
to treat cognitive disorders, including Alzheimer's disease.
Axonyx owns a portfolio of central nervous system drugs that
includes several products in preclinical development.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements regarding the clinical
trials for the Company's drug Phenserine, which is used for the
treatment of Alzheimer's disease. As alleged in the Complaint,
these statements were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following
adverse facts known to defendants at all relevant times or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that since Alzheimer's disease is an organic disease of
         the mind, Phenserine clinical trials directed towards
         the study of cognitive function in patients with mild
         to moderate Alzheimer's disease were subject to a
         strong placebo effect;

     (2) that Phenserine could easily fail to demonstrate
         efficacy by cognitive measures in Phase III clinical
         trial patients with mild to moderate disease, while
         having a good chance of success in demonstrating the
         drug's efficacy using confirmed statistical measures
         for patients with progressive disease in the "beta
         amyloid" Phase IIB trial;

     (3) that the reasonably good prospects for a successful
         outcome in the "beta amyloid" Phase IIB trial coupled
         with reasonably good chances for failure in the
         cognitive function based Phase III trial presented an
         unusual and lucrative opportunity for insiders to
         profitably trade on the Company's stock;

     (4) that the timing of the completion and announcement of
         the results in the first quarter of 2005 for the Phase
         III study was uncoupled from that for the Phase IIB
         study to ensure an opportunity for insiders to engage
         in a form of "risk arbitrage" based on the relative
         risk of success presented by the two studies; and

     (5) that the timing of the completion and announcement of  
         the results of the Phase III and Phase IIB studies in
         the first quarter of 2005 were ordered to ensure that
         the study most likely to fail would be announced first,
         to ensure an opportunity for insiders to engage in a
         form of "risk arbitrage" based on the relative risk of
         success for the two studies.

On February 7, 2005, Axonyx shocked the market by announcing
that, despite all of its prior positive statements about
Phenserine's clinical trials, Phenserine did not achieve
significant efficacy in Phase III Alzheimer's Disease trial.
Upon this news, shares of Axonyx common stock fell $3.04 per
share, or over 60%, to close at $1.81 per share. Prior to the
disclosure of defendants' false statements, Axonyx's stock price
traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, increasing to
as high as $7.36 on November 30, 2004, whereby the Company's top
officers and directors sold more than $2.2 million worth of
their own shares.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
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/axonyx/.  


AXONYX INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of
Axonyx Inc. (Nasdaq: AXYX) between June 26, 2003 and February 4,
2005.

The Complaint alleges that Axonyx violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Axonyx misrepresented
or failed to disclose shortcomings with its experimental drug
Phenserine, a acetylcholinesterase ("AChE") inhibitor intended
to curb symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. On February 7, 2005,
Axonyx announced that Phenserine did not achieve significant
efficacy in Phase III Alzheimer's Disease trial. On this news,
Axonyx stock fell from a previous close of $4.85 per share, to
close at $1.81 per share.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610.660.8000 or
888.643.6735, by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.


ESPEED INC.: Roy & Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Roy Jacobs & Associates initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers who,
from August 12, 2003 to July 1, 2004, purchased eSpeed, Inc.
(Nasdaq:ESPD) securities.

The lawsuit, which alleges violations of sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 was filed
against eSpeed, Inc. ("eSpeed" or "the Company"), its top
executives, Howard Lutnick and Lee Amaitis, and eSpeed's
controlling shareholders. The civil case number is 05 CV 2091
(SAS), and the Judge assigned is the Hon. Shira Scheindlin.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period (August 12,
2003 to July 1, 2004), the defendants touted eSpeed as an
unmitigated success story, a company which had achieved record
revenues and earnings and, most importantly, a company that had
established its infrastructure and business model as an
unqualified success in the high volume automated trading of
government securities and foreign exchange. In repeated press
releases, the defendants represented that the eSpeed business
model was in place and performing as anticipated. The true facts
were that the business model was not working, and eSpeed was
losing market share to its principle competitor, ICAP Plc, and
its BrokerTec division. In fact, eSpeed did not have a viable
business model. This was revealed on July 1, 2004 when
defendants were forced to admit that revenues, earnings and
market share were decreasing, that its business plan was not
working, that it was being forced to develop a new business plan
and pricing structure, and its competitive efforts with respect
to ICAP were not successful. In the two trading days following
this announcement, eSpeed shares dropped more than $6 per share
on trading volume of over 9 million shares, a loss in market
value for the Company of almost $350 million. As a result of the
materially false positive statements made during the Class
Period, class members purchased eSpeed shares at inflated
prices, and as a result were damaged thereby.

For more details, contact Roy Jacobs & Associates by Phone:
888-884-4490 or by E-mail: CLASSATTORNEY@PIPELINE.COM.


GANDER MOUNTAIN: Marc S. Henzel Lodges MN Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of
purchasers of Gander Mountain Company (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 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 true facts, which were known to
each of the defendants during the Class Period and concealed
from the public, were as follows:

     (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 Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610.660.8000 or
888.643.6735, by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.


INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Stock Suit in NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Inspire
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ISPH) between June 2, 2004 and
February 8, 2005 inclusive, (the "Class Period"), seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is pending against defendants Inspire
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Christy L. Shaffer and Thomas R. Staab
II. The Complaint alleges that Defendants disseminated false and
misleading statements regarding the FDA mandated Stage III trial
of its dry eye drug, Diquafosol tetrasodium. Beginning with its
June 2, 2004 announcement of the initiation of its Stage III
trial, Study 109, the Company failed to inform investors that
the primary endpoint mandated by the FDA had changed from
corneal staining to a more stringent corneal clearing. In fact,
Defendant Shaffer, in responding to a Deutsche Bank analyst's
question during the November 4, 2004 conference call, stated
that the primary endpoint was "corneal staining." Investors,
including Piper Jaffray Senior Research Analyst Mark Karvosky,
believed that the drug had a very good chance of success because
it had met the corneal staining endpoint in the previous trial,
Study 105.

Had investors known the truth about the primary endpoint, the
value of Inspire stock would not have been artificially inflated
almost 81% to $16.00 per share at the end of the class period.
After the pre-market opening disclosure on February 9, 2005,
Inspire lost almost $300 million in market capitalization,
closing at $8.88 on trading volume of 17.4 million shares - a
staggering 65 times its average volume.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610.660.8000 or
888.643.6735, by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.


IPASS INC.: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all purchasers of iPass Inc. securities ("iPass" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:IPAS) during the period from April 22, 2004
through June 30, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges iPass and certain of its senior officers with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
alleged violations stem from the dissemination of false and
misleading statements, which had the effect -- during the Class
Period -- of artificially inflating the price of iPass' shares.

Investors allege that during the Class Period, the Company
failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company's "user base growth" had virtually
         vanished, trailing the previous quarter by 90%;

     (2) the Company's consolidation in the number of dial-up
         access numbers was resulting in less customer usage;
         and

     (3) as a result, the Company's financial projections for Q2
         2004 were false and misleading. The stock price fell
         from $10.59 to $6.91 on July 1, 2004 when the Company
         announced that its second-quarter earnings and revenue
         missed its forecasts.

For more details, contact Vivian Lee of KIRBY McINERNEY &
SQUIRE, LLP by Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY
10022 by Phone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 or by E-mail:
vlee@kmslaw.com.


KRISPY KREME: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NC
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP initiated a class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Krispy
Kreme Doughnuts Inc. (NYSE: KKD) in the period from May 7, 2004,
to January 4, 2005. The lawsuit was filed by Shalov Stone &
Bonner LLP (www.lawssb.com), and not by certain other law firms
issuing press releases about this lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions of material facts concerning
the company's business performance during the relevant time
period. According to the complaint, throughout the relevant time
period, the defendants misrepresented the financial condition of
the company by improperly accounting for the reacquisition of
certain of its franchisees, thus artificially inflating the
company's pre-tax income for fiscal year 2004 by as much as $8.1
million. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

Krispy Kreme investors interested in the lawsuit should be
careful to communicate with lawyers who have filed the lawsuit.
Investors should be advised that many law firms offering
"information" about a lawsuit have not in fact conducted an
investigation and have not filed the lawsuit about which they
are advertising.

For more details, contact Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr. of Shalov
Stone & Bonner LLP by Mail: 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New
York, New York 10018 by Phone: (212) 239-4340 or by E-mail:
tciarlone@lawssb.com.


KRISPY KREME: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Suit in NC
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
on behalf of all persons (the "Class") who purchased the
securities of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (Nasdaq: KKD)
("Krispy Kreme" or the "Company") during the period May 7, 2004
and January 4, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Krispy Kreme, Scott Livengood (Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer) and Michael Phalen (Chief
Financial Officer) with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that, during the Class Period, Krispy Kreme misrepresented its
financial condition to the investing public. The Complaint
further charges that the Company improperly accounted for its
reacquisition of certain of its franchisees, thereby
artificially inflating its pre-tax income for fiscal year 2004
by as much as $8.1 million.

In a press release dated January 4, 2005, the last day of the
Class Period, the Company conceded that it would have to make
$8.1 million in write- downs. The day prior to the release, the
Company stock traded at an intra-day high of almost $13 per
share. On the day after the release, KKD stock traded at an
intra-day low of $9.36 per share, down a full 28% from its
intra-day high just two days earlier.

For more details, contact James E. Miller, Esq. by Phone:
866-540-5505 or by E-mail: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com OR
James C. Shah, Esq. by Phone: 877-891-9880 or by E-mail:
jshah@classactioncounsel.com.  


MAMMA.COM INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in NY
------------------------------------------------------------
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 Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Mamma.com Inc. ("Mamma.com")
(NASDAQ:MAMA) publicly traded securities during the period
between March 2, 2004 and February 15, 2005 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Mamma.com and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Mamma.com provides information retrieval on the Internet
through its metasearch engine www.mamma.com. The Company is
focused on being a provider of online marketing solutions to
advertisers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Mamma.com's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. As a result of this inflation, Mamma.com was able to
complete a private offering, raising proceeds of $16.6 million
on the sale of stock and warrants in June 2004.

On February 16, 2005, the Company issued a press release
announcing that "it has been unable to reach an agreement on the
terms of the audit engagement with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
("PWC") for the year ended December 31, 2004. Accordingly, PWC
will not act as the Company's independent auditor for the audit
of the Company's financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2004.... As a result of these developments, it is
unlikely that the Company will file its audited financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2004 and related
disclosures within the timeframe prescribed by Canadian
securities rules." The stock dropped below $4 per share on this
news.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
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/mamma/.   


MAMMA.COM INC.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Mamma.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: MAMA)
("Mamma.com") between May 12, 2004 and February 16, 2005 (the
"Class Period"). Also included are all those who acquired
Mamma.com through its acquisition of Digital Arrow LLC.

The Complaint alleges that Mamma.com violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following
material adverse facts:

     (1) that Irving Kott ("Kott"), a Canadian stock promoter
         with a long history of stock manipulation, had a
         significant undisclosed interest in Mamma.com;

     (2) that Kott and his associates were manipulating the
         Company's stock price by engaging in a classic "pump
         and dump" scheme; and

     (3) that Mamma.com was manipulating its financial results
         so that the scheme would endure.

Additionally, as a result of its stock trading at artificially
inflated levels, Mamma.com was able to acquire Digital Arrow LLC
and entered into a letter of intent ("LOI") whereby Mamma.com
would acquire all of the shares of Copernic Technologies for a
combination of cash and shares of Mamma.com. Finally, Mamma.com
raised $16.6 million through a private placement.

On February 16, 2005, midday, trading of Mamma.com was halted.
Shortly thereafter, Mamma.com announced that it had been unable
to reach an agreement on the terms of its audit with
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PWC") for the year ended December
31, 2004. Accordingly, PWC would not act as the Company's
independent auditor. On this news, Mamma.com fell $2.02 per
share to close at $4.25 per share.

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


MAMMA.COM INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Mamma.com Inc. (Nasdaq: MAMA) ("Mamma.com" or
the "Company") from May 12, 2004 through February 16, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Mamma.com, Guy Faure, David Goldman, and
Daniel Bertrand with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. Mamma.com provides information retrieval on the
Internet through its metasearch engine, http://www.mamma.com.
The Company derives its revenues from two sources, including
search services and banner advertising services, with customers
located in the United States and Canada. According to the
complaint, the defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that Irving Kott ("Kott"), a legendary Canadian stock
         promoter with a long history of stock manipulation, had
         a significant undisclosed interest in the Company;

     (2) that Kott and his associates were manipulating the
         Company's stock price by engaging in a classic "pump
         and dump" scheme to defraud; and

     (3) that the Company itself was manipulating its financial
         results in order to maintain its artificially inflated
         share price so that the "pump and dump" scheme would
         endure.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, and with its stock trading at artificially inflated
levels, the Company was able to acquire Digitalarrow LLC and
High Performance Broadcasting Inc. (collectively "Digital
Arrow") for $1,050,000 and the issuance of 90,000 common shares
of Mamma.com, and was able to enter into a letter of intent
("LOI") whereby Mamma.com would acquire all of the shares of
Copernic Technologies for a combination of cash and shares of
Mamma.com. Moreover, the Company was able to raise $16.6 million
through a private placement while its shares traded at
artificially inflated levels.

Midday, on February 16, 2005, shares of Mamma.com were halted.
Shortly thereafter, Mamma.com announced that it had been unable
to reach an agreement on the terms of the audit engagement with
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PWC") for the year ended December
31, 2004. Accordingly, PWC would not act as the Company's
independent auditor for the audit of the Company's financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2004. News of this
sent the stock into a downward spiral. Shares of Mamma.com fell
$2.02 per share, or 32.27% to close at $4.25 per share.

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


PHARMOS CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class
Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Pharmos Corporation ("Pharmos" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:PARS) between August 23, 2004 and December
20, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Pharmos, Haim Aviv and Gad Riesenfeld with
violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff claims
defendants' omissions and material misrepresentations during the
Class Period artificially inflated the Company's stock price,
inflicting damages on investors. Pharmos is a bio pharmaceutical
company that develops and commercializes novel therapeutics to
treat neurological disorders, including traumatic brain injury
(TBI) and post surgical cognitive impairment. The Complaint
alleges that defendants knowingly or recklessly misrepresented
and failed to disclose the following material adverse facts:

     (1) defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that Pharmos'
         flagship drug product - Dexanabinol - was ineffective
         for treating TBI;

     (2) defendants maintained the appearance that Dexanabinol
         was effective for the sole purpose of allowing Company
         executives to sell their own shares at artificially
         inflated prices; and

     (3) the Company's statements regarding the effectiveness of
         the drug were lacking in any reasonable basis when
         made.

On December 20, 2004, Pharmos announced top line results of its
pivotal Phase III trial of Dexanabinol as a treatment for severe
TBI. As measured by the primary clinical outcome endpoint, the
Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale, Dexanabinol did not demonstrate
efficacy. This news shocked the market. Shares of Pharmos fell
$2.32 per share, or 66.29 percent, to close on December 20,
2004, at $1.18 per share, on unusually high volume.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite
311, Los Angeles, California 90067 by Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.  


PHARMOS CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 District of New Jersey on
behalf of purchasers of Pharmos Corp. ("Pharmos") (NASDAQ:PARS)
common stock during the period between June 9, 2003 and December
17, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Pharmos and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Pharmos is a bio-pharmaceutical company that discovers and
develops new drugs to treat a range of neuro-inflammatory
disorders.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants touted the efficacy of Dexanabinol, a drug in
development to treat a range of neuro-inflammatory disorders,
which caused the Company's stock price to increase from $1.40
per share on June 9, 2003, and traded above $4 per share at
different times during the Class Period. Specifically,
Defendants led the market to believe that Dexanabinol was a less
potent blocker of glutamate, as compared to other drugs, and was
effective in preventing swelling in the brain following injury.

On December 20, 2004, defendants shocked the investing public
when they issued a press release announcing the results from
Pharmos' Phase III trial of Dexanabinol for Severe Traumatic
Brain Injury. According to the press release: Dexanabinol did
not show a neuroprotective effect in a comprehensive study of
861 patients that had begun more than a year prior to the
announcement and Dexanabinol was ineffective for treating
traumatic brain injuries. Upon this shocking news, shares of
Pharmos fell precipitously from $3.50 per share to $1.18 per
share, losing 66% of their value.

Prior to the disclosure of this adverse information, Pharmos
completed a December 2003 public stock offering, receiving over
$31 million in net proceeds, and an August 2004 private
placement, receiving $16.75 million in proceeds and obtained a
grant of $3.1 million from the Office of the Chief Scientist of
Israel purportedly to support development of Dexanabinol.
Moreover, between November 7, 2003 and December 1, 2004, Pharmos
Chairman Haim Aviv and President and Chief Operating Officer Gad
Riesenfeld, together sold more than 800,000 shares of Pharmos at
inflated prices, receiving proceeds equaling almost $3.3
million.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
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/pharmos/.


PHARMOS CORPORATION: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf
of all persons (the "Class") who purchased the securities of
Pharmos Corporation (Nasdaq: PARS) ("Pharmos" or the "Company")
during the period August 23, 2004 and December 20, 2004 (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint charges that Pharmos, Haim Aviv (CEO and
Chairman), Gad Riesenfeld (President and COO) and James A. Meer
(CFO) with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts known to Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that dexanabinol was ineffective in treating severe
         traumatic brain injury ("TBI");

     (2) that the Defendants maintained the appearance that
         dexanabinol was effective for the sole purpose of
         allowing the Company's executives to sell their own
         shares at artificially inflated prices; and

     (3) that the Company's statements regarding the
         effectiveness of the drug were lacking in any
         reasonable basis when made.

On December 20, 2004, before the market opened, Pharmos issued a
press release revealing disappointing results from the Phase III
trial of dexanabinol for the treatment of TBI. In the release,
the Company stated that "Dexanabinol did not demonstrate
efficacy as measured by the primary clinical outcome endpoint"
and that, as a result, "it is unlikely that (Pharmos) will
continue to develop dexanabinol for TBI." After hearing this
news, the price of Pharmos common shares fell $2.32 per share,
or 66%, from their closing price of $3.50 on the previous
trading day, December 17, 2004, to close at $1.18 per share on
December 20, 2004 on unusually high trading volume.

For more details, contact James E. Miller, Esq. by Phone:
866-540-5505 or by E-mail: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com OR
James C. Shah, Esq. by Phone: 877-891-9880 or by E-mail:
jshah@classactioncounsel.com.  


SIERRA WIRELESS: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Sierra Wireless, Inc. ("Sierra Wireless" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:SWIR) between January 28, 2004 and January 26, 2005,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against
Sierra Wireless, David B. Sutcliffe and David McLennan
("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the Company failed to disclose or misrepresented that the
introduction of the Company's Voq-branded professional phone had
placed it into direct competition with its biggest customer,
palmOne, that the Company's allocation of capital behind Voq
development would lead to a serious reduction in revenue as the
Company reduced spending behind existing, successful product
lines, and that the Company was facing intense competition in
the PC card market due to its last generation technology.

On January 26, 2005, after the market closed, Sierra issued a
press release announcing that its revenue for the fourth quarter
of 2004 was well below guidance and that it expected a steep
decline in revenue going forward. News of this shocked the
market. On January 27, 2005, Sierra shares fell $5.53 per share,
or 38% to close at $8.97 per share on very heavy volume.

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


SINA CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of
SINA Corporation (NasdaqNM: SINA) between October 26, 2004 and
February 7, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that SINA violated federal securities laws
by issuing false or misleading public statements. Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that SINA misrepresented or failed to
disclose the effect changes to China Mobile's multimedia
messaging billing processes would have on SINA's business. Also,
the Complaint alleges that SINA misrepresented or failed to
disclose the effect a government clamp-down on "fortune-telling"
advertising would have on SINA's revenue stream. On February 7,
2005, after SINA announced its financial results for the fourth
quarter and year 2004, SINA stock fell from a previous close of
$27.35 per share to close at $24.39 per share, on unusually high
trading volume.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610.660.8000 or
888.643.6735, by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.


SIPEX CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Sipex Corporation ("Sipex")
(NASDAQ:SIPX) common stock during the period between April 24,
2003 and January 20, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charged Sipex and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and alleged that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Sipex's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. On January 20, 2005, the Company issued a press
release announcing that it "may restate its financial statements
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 and the fiscal
quarters ended April 3, 2004, July 3, 2004, and October 2, 2004,
due to the possible improper recognition of revenue during these
periods on sales for which price protection, stock rotation
and/or return rights may have been granted." On this news, Sipex
shares fell to as low as $2.78 per share, or 27%, from a closing
price of $3.84 on January 20, 2005.

Then, on February 18, 2005, Sipex issued a release stating: "As
previously announced, Sipex Corporation has commenced an
internal investigation into the Company's financial and
transactional records with regard to revenue recognition for the
fiscal years ended December 31, 2003 and January 1, 2005. Today,
Sipex announced that the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) has commenced a formal investigation into the same
matters. The Company is cooperating with the SEC's
investigation."

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
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/sipexcorp/.  


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Kirby McInernery Lodges AZ Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of all purchasers of Taser
International Inc. securities ("Taser" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:TASR) during the period from October 19, 2004 through
January 10, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges Taser and certain of its senior officers with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
alleged violations stem from the dissemination of false and
misleading statements, which had the effect - during the Class
Period - of artificially inflating the price of Taser's shares.

Investors allege that during the Class Period, the Company
obscured the truth about the safety of its Taser's stun guns and
improperly accelerated certain transactions in the fourth
quarter of 2004, in order to give the appearance of revenue.

For more details, contact Vivian Lee of KIRBY McINERNEY &
SQUIRE, LLP by Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY
10022 by Phone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 or by E-mail:
vlee@kmslaw.com.


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Veeco Instruments, Inc. ("Veeco")
(NASDAQ:VECO) between April 26, 2004 and February 10, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Veeco violated federal securities
laws by issuing false and misleading public statements.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that it had improperly
valued the inventory and accounts payable at its TurboDisc
division, that it falsely recognized revenue at TurboDisc during
the Class Period, and that it improperly overvalued its deferred
tax assets. On February 11, 2005, Veeco announced that it was
postponing the results of its financial results for the fourth
quarter and full year 2004 pending completion of an internal
investigation of improper accounting transactions at its
TurboDisc division. On this news, Veeco stock fell from a close
of $18.86 per share on February 10, 2005, to close at $16.96 per
share on February 11, 2005.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212/490-2022 or by E-
mail: SSBNY@aol.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 Senorin, 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  * * *