CAR_Public/011126.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
             Monday, November 26, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 230

                          Headlines


AT HOME: Prevails as California District Court Dismisses Antitrust Suit
AUTOZONE INC.: Settles Two Overtime Wages Suits In CA State Court
AUTOZONE INC.: Sued For Robinson-Patman Act Violations in E.D. NY
AZURIX CORPORATION: Delaware Court Approves $2.25 Million Settlement
BIKEE CORPORATION: Recalls 700 Bikes Due To Defective Steerer Tube

BLACK HAWK: Shareholders File Suit Challenging Stock Purchase in CO
CANDLEWICK PRESS: Recalls 78T Children's Books For Choking Hazard
CONOPCO INC: Cosmetics Division Sued For Antitrust Violations in CA
CSX CORPORATION: $36M Rail Car Fire Suit Settlement Reached in LA
FLEMING COMPANIES: Court Refuses Rehearing on Securities Suit Dismissal

GRANT GEOPHYSICAL: Texas Estate Owners File Suit For Seismic Surveys
HAMILTON BEACH: Recalls 2.4M Juice Extractors Due To Faulty Strainer
HERCULES INC: Nine Carbon Fiber Antitrust Suits To Be Consolidated
IBM CORPORATION: Court Panel Affirms Certification of Pension Suit
IMPSAT FIBER: Sued For Securities Laws Violations in S.D. New York

JA-RU INC.: Recalls 43T "Blast Balls" Toys After Reports of Injuries
LITTLE TIKES: Recalls 250T Swings After Reports of Injured Children
MAINE: Parents of Mentally-Ill Children Sue Alleging Inadequate Care
PACIFIC CYCLE: Recalls 2,500 Bike Accessories For Causing Injuries
PARADYNE NETWORKS: Motion To Dismiss Suit Still Pending in M.D. FL

PHARMACEUTICAL FIRMS: Sued By Advocacy Groups For Inflating Drug Prices
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 12,000 ATVs Due To Faulty Transmission
SASSY INC.: Recalls 455,000 Rattles After They Pose Choking Hazard
SOUTH CAROLINA: Georgetown School District Sued For $28 M Surplus Tax


                             *********


AT HOME: Prevails as California District Court Dismisses Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed with prejudice the antitrust class action against At Home
Corporation.

The suit was commenced last November 1999 against the Company, majority
stockholder, AT&T Service Corporation LLC, and entities affiliated with
eight other cable companies.  

The suit alleged violations of federal antitrust laws.  The court later
denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which the
plaintiffs promptly appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling but remanded the
case on other grounds, setting the stage for its dismissal last
November 5, 2001.


AUTOZONE INC.: Settles Two Overtime Wages Suits In CA State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Auto parts chain Autozone, Inc. settled for an undisclosed amount two
class actions seeking overtime wages in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.

The first suit, captioned "Melvin Quinnie v. AutoZone, Inc., and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive" alleges that the company:

     (1) failed to pay overtime to store managers as required by
         California law; and

     (2) failed to pay terminated managers in a timely manner as
         required by California law.

In April 2000, the court certified the class as consisting of all
AutoZone store managers, and chief managers who became AutoZone
employees in standardized stores on January 1, 1999, for their
claims since January 1, 1999, only.

The Company and the plaintiffs' attorneys have reached a settlement
that is subject to the execution of a mutually acceptable settlement
agreement and court approval.  In the event that final settlement is
not reached or appealed by the court, the Company will continue to
vigorously defend against this action.  The potential damages
recoverable by any single plaintiff are minimal. However, if the
plaintiff class were to prevail on all of its claims, the aggregate
amount of damages could be substantial.

The second suit was filed against the Company and its wholly owned
subsidiary, Chief Auto Parts Inc., pending in the same court.  The
plaintiffs claim that the defendants have failed to pay their store
managers overtime pay from March 1997 to present. The Company has also
reached a court-approved settlement agreement with the plaintiffs'
attorneys.


AUTOZONE INC.: Sued For Robinson-Patman Act Violations in E.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Autozone, Inc. faces a billion dollar class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging
violations of the Robinson-Patman Act, a statute against price and
service discrimination.  The suit, entitled "Coalition for a Level
Playing Field LLC, et al., v. AutoZone, Inc., et al.," was filed by
over 100 plaintiffs, which are principally automotive aftermarket
warehouse distributors.

The suit names seven other automotive after-market parts retailers as
defendants and allege that the defendants have knowingly received the
following, in violation of the Act:

     (1) volume discounts,

     (2) rebates,

     (3) slotting and other allowances,

     (4) fees,

     (5) free inventory,

     (6) sham advertising and promotional payments,

     (7) a share in the manufacturers' profits, and

     (8) excessive payments for services purportedly performed for
         the manufacturers

Plaintiffs seek approximately $1 billion in damages (including
statutory trebling) and a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants
from committing further violations and from opening up any further
stores to compete with plaintiffs as long as defendants continue to
violate the Act. The Company believes this suit to be without merit.


AZURIX CORPORATION: Delaware Court Approves $2.25 Million Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court in and for New Castle County approved the
$2.25 million dollar settlement for the securities class actions
pending against Azurix Corporation.

The suits were commenced in October 2000 on behalf of the Company's
public shareholders against the Company, Enron Corporation, and certain
of both companies' officers and directors. The suits were designed to
enjoin a transaction proposed by Enron for taking the Company private
at a price of $7.00 for each of Azurix's publicly held shares.

The suit generally alleged that:

     (1) the buy-out price of $7.00 per share was unconscionable,
         unfair and grossly inadequate; and

     (2) that the defendants breached their duties of loyalty and care
         with respect to the Company's public shareholders.

Six similar actions were subsequently filed in the same court and were
later ordered consolidated into a single action. Certain of the actions
filed in the Delaware court have added Atlantic Water Trust as a
defendant.

In addition, a similar action was filed in the 55th Judicial District
Court of Harris County, Texas.  On December 13, 2000, the parties to
the litigation executed a Memorandum of Understanding that settled both
the Delaware and Texas actions in principle.  Under the proposed
settlement, the defendants acknowledged that the prosecution of the
litigation was a material factor in causing Enron to increase the
merger consideration from $7.00 to $8.375 per share. The proposed
settlement provides that the defendants will not oppose plaintiffs'
application for attorneys' fees and expenses up to $2.25 million, which
the Company has agreed to pay.


BIKEE CORPORATION: Recalls 700 Bikes Due To Defective Steerer Tube
------------------------------------------------------------------
BikeE Corporation of Corvallis, Oregon is cooperating with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 700
recumbent tandem bicycles.

The steerer tube on the front forks can separate, causing the rider to
lose control of the bicycle, fall, and possibly suffer serious
injuries.  BikE has received three reports of steerer tubes beginning
to separate although, no injuries to riders have occurred.

The recalled bikes were manufactured in 2000 and 2001. These bikes have
two handlebars and two seats, which are in a lowered, horizontal riding
position. The name "BikeE" appears on both sides of the main frame.  
The serial numbers for the E2 models is located on the bottom of the
frame between the foot crank and front wheel. The serial numbers appear
as follows: BX000000X or T00000, with X representing a letter and 0
representing a number. The Company's authorized dealers sold the
bicycles from March 2000 through October 2001 for about $2,200.

Consumers should stop using these bicycles immediately and return them
to the nearest Company authorized dealer for a free fork replacement.
For more information, contact BikeE by Phone: (800) 231.3136 (between 8
am and 5 pm PT Monday through Friday) or visit the Company's Website:
www.bikee.com.


BLACK HAWK: Shareholders File Suit Challenging Stock Purchase in CO
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Casino operator Black Hawk Gaming and Development Company, Inc. faces
two shareholder class actions challenging the stock purchase agreements
between the Company and Diversified Opportunities Group, Inc.

The first suit, was commenced on February 2001 in the Colorado District
Court for the County of Gilpin, names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Timothy Knudsen,

     (2) Robert H. Hughes,

     (3) Jeffrey P. Jacobs,

     (4) Stephen R. Roark,

     (5) J. Patrick McDuff, and

     (6) Frank B. Day

The suit alleges that:

     (i) the price offered for Company stock is unconscionable, unfair
         and grossly inadequate;

    (ii) that there is no adequate process to insure that shareholders
         will receive the highest price attainable; and

   (iii) that the defendants, acting in concert and utilizing non-
         public information, are violating their fiduciary duties.

In March 2001, another purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
same court against the Company and:

     (a) Jeffrey P. Jacobs,

     (b) Stephen R. Roark,

     (c) Frank B. Day,

     (d) J. Patrick McDuff,

     (e) Robert H. Hughes,

     (f) Timothy Knudsen, and

     (g) Stephen P. Owendoff

The allegations in this case are essentially the same as those
described in the first case.

The Company's board of directors believes that it and the special
committee it has appointed have met and will continue to meet their
respective fiduciary obligations. It further stated in a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission that they believed both suits
are without merit and that they will vigorously contest the suits.


CANDLEWICK PRESS: Recalls 78T Children's Books For Choking Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Candlewick Press of Cambridge, Massachusetts is cooperating with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by recalling about
78,670 "Bunny My Honey" children's board books printed in Italy.

The plastic lamination on the board book may peel off, posing a choking
hazard for young children. CPSC and the Company have not received any
reports of injuries or incidents involving these board books. The
recall is being conducted to prevent the possibility of injuries.

The board books have thick, cardboard-like pages covered with a thin
plastic laminate. The title "Bunny My Honey" is printed on the front
cover of the books. Only books with "Printed in Italy" on the back
cover are included in this recall. Books printed in Mexico are not
included in this recall.

Bookstores, children's specialty stores and gift shops nationwide sold
these books from December 2000 through September 2001 for about $7.
To receive a free replacement, contact the Company by calling: (800)
883.0009 or visit the firm's Website: www.candlewick.com  


CONOPCO INC: Cosmetics Division Sued For Antitrust Violations in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Unilever United States subsidiary Conopco, Inc. faces an amended
antitrust class action pending in the Superior Court of California for
Marin County. The suit was filed on behalf of all residents of the
State of California who purchased cosmetics from the defendant's
California department stores from 1994 to 1998.

The suit was originally filed against Unilever United States, Inc.,
Conopco's parent company, and other cosmetic manufacturers.  The
plaintiff later amended the suit to name Conopco, Inc. instead of
Unilever as a defendant.  Conopco, Inc. operates cosmetics giant,
Elizabeth Arden.

The suit alleges that several cosmetics companies and large California
department stores in California violated the California State antitrust
law and the provisions of the California Unfair Business Practices
statute. The amended suit alleges that the Companies conspired with
each other and with the department stores to fix retail prices for
"high-end" cosmetics.
           

The Company denied the allegations in the suit. However, it revealed in
a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission that an adverse
development in the suit could have a material impact on the net sales
of the Elizabeth Arden Business.


CSX CORPORATION: $36M Rail Car Fire Suit Settlement Reached in LA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation and thousands of Louisiana residents have agreed to
settle the class action suit commenced when a 36-hour fire broke out
after a chemical tank car exploded in 1987, according to Associated
Press.  8,000 residents joined the suit against CSX and eight other
Companies, saying the fire, which started when the chemical butadiene
leaked from a rail care, affected their health and property.

Last June, the state 4th Circuit Court of Appeal upheld an $850 million
punitive damages verdict against CSX. Company officials denied
wrongdoing and promised to appeal the case to the Louisiana Supreme
Court, according to an Associated Press report. The settlement, which
could cost the Company about $36 million or 17 cents a share, must be
filed in Civil District Court in New Orleans, and subjected to a
fairness hearing and court approval. A partial $215 million settlement
announced in November 1999 with six other defendants went through the
same process.

Company officials and lawyers for the residents declined to discuss the
amount of payments by the Company's insurers or any other details,
citing a confidentiality agreement.


FLEMING COMPANIES: Court Refuses Rehearing on Securities Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant a rehearing on
Oklahoma federal court's decision to dismiss a consolidated stockholder
suit against wholesale food distributor Fleming Companies, Inc.  The
consolidated suit arose from nine suits filed in 1996 against the
Company, and certain of its present and former officers and directors,
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma.

The consolidated suit alleged that the Company implemented "deceptive
business practices," and failed to properly account for and disclose
the contingent liability created by the David's Supermarkets case.  The
supermarket case accused the Company of overcharging for products, but
was later settled in April 1997.

The plaintiffs claimed that the Company's alleged deceptive business
practices:

     (1) led to the supermarkets case and to other material contingent
         liabilities;

     (2) caused the Company to change its manner of doing business at
         great cost and loss of profit; and

     (3) materially inflated the trading price of the Company's common
         stock.

During 1999, the court dismissed the consolidated stockholder case but
gave the plaintiffs the opportunity to restate their claims.

The Company filed an amended complaint, but the court later dismissed
the suit, this time with prejudice - a decision that the plaintiffs
appealed in the Tenth Circuit appellate court.  Last September 2001,
the appellate court affirmed the district court decision. That same
month, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a full bench rehearing with
the Tenth Circuit.


GRANT GEOPHYSICAL: Texas Estate Owners File Suit For Seismic Surveys
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Geophysical, Inc. faces a class action pending in the 229th
Judicial District Court in Starr County Texas.  The suit, which also
names as defendant Millenium Seismic, Inc., was filed on behalf of all
owners of any mineral estate located in Texas from which three-
dimensional (3-D) geophysical information was extracted by either or
both of the defendants. The suit generally alleges that the defendants
conducted 3-D seismic surveys in Texas without obtaining permission
from the mineral estate owners and sold the information obtained from
those surveys to third parties.

Since the inception of the lawsuit, one of the plaintiffs, Marta G.
Garza, has removed herself from the lawsuit and the lawsuit has been
amended to reflect this change.

The two companies have answered the plaintiffs' complaint, denying all
liability. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the case at this
time, but believes that the claims are without merit.


HAMILTON BEACH: Recalls 2.4M Juice Extractors Due To Faulty Strainer
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamilton Beach of Glen Allen, Virginia cooperated with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling
about 2.4 million juice extractors.

The Company has received 35 reports in the U.S. and Canada of strainer
baskets breaking apart, including four incidents where consumers
required stitches after being struck by broken metal and plastic. The
juice extractor's strainer basket and lid can break apart, posing a
risk of injury to nearby consumers, who can be struck by metal or
plastic. The recalled juice extractors are white plastic, about 12
inches in height, and have the name "Hamilton Beach" printed on the
side of the unit. The juice extractors have the following model
numbers, which can be found under each unit:

     (1) 67150,

     (2) 67180,

     (3) 67180W,

     (4) 395WS,

     (5) 67199 and

     (6) 3920JS

Mass merchandise stores nationwide sold these juice extractors between
1992 and October 2001 for between $30 and $40.  Consumers with models
for which replacement parts are available (models 67150, 67180 and
67180W) will receive a free replacement strainer basket.  Consumers
with models for which replacement parts are not available (models
395WS, 67199 and 3920JS) will receive their choice of a new juice
extractor or a $10 refund.

For more information contact the Company by Phone: (800) 298.9955
(between 8 am and 8 pm ET Monday through Friday) or visit the firm's
Website: www.hamiltonbeach.com


HERCULES INC: Nine Carbon Fiber Antitrust Suits To Be Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical company Hercules, Inc. is taking steps to consolidated nine
antitrust class actions filed in California state court on behalf of
indirect purchasers of carbon fiber.

Six of these actions have been brought in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County, and are captioned:

     (1) Alden W. Badal v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc.,

     (2) Sean Connolly v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc.,

     (3) Perry Proiette v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc., et
         al.,

     (4) Gary Regier v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc., et al.,
     
     (5) Todd Simon v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc., et al.,
         and

     (6) Jonathan Yolles v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc., et
         al.

Two of these actions have been filed in the Superior Court of
California, San Francisco County, and are captioned:

     (i) Jubal DeLong v. Amoco Polymers, Inc., et al.,

    (ii) Elisa Langsam v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc., et
         al.,

The last of these actions was filed in the Superior Court of
California, San Joaquin County, Stockton Branch, and is captioned as
Louis V. Ambrosio, Jr. v. Amoco Polymers, Inc., et al.

These actions all allege violations of the California Business and
Professions Code relating to alleged price fixing of carbon fiber
and unfair competition. The Company denies the allegations in the
suits.


IBM CORPORATION: Court Panel Affirms Certification of Pension Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Chicago Federal Court panel affirmed the class action certification
granted to the pension lawsuit filed against computer giant, IBM
Corporation. Previously, the Chicago Federal Court granted
certification to the suit, but the Company petitioned to appeal the
certification.

The IBM Employees Benefits Action Coalition filed the suit, which could
affect 140,000 people employed in 1995 and 1999.  The suit claimed that
the Company shortchanged employees by making changes to its pension
plan. Janet Kruger, coalition leader, hailed the decision, telling the
Poughkeepsie Journal the settlement was "Good news, and worth being
thankful about."

An IBM spokeswoman could not be reached for comment late Wednesday,
according to the Journal report.


IMPSAT FIBER: Sued For Securities Laws Violations in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Impsat Fiber, Inc. denies allegations of federal securities violations
in the securities class action pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of IMPSAT
Fiber Networks Inc. between February 1, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
names the Company and defendants:

     (1) Ricardo A. Verdaguer (CEO, President and Director),      

     (2) Enrique M. Pescarmona (Chairman),

     (3) Guillermo Jofre (CFO)
     (4) Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.,
     (5) Goldman Sachs & Co.,
     (6) Salomon Smith Barney Inc., and
     (7) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In February 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
11,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $17
per share.  In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration
statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC.  The
complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and
misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (i) the underwriter defendants had solicited and received
         excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors
         in exchange for which the underwriter defendants allocated to
         those investors material portions of the restricted number of
         Company shares issued in connection with the IPO; and

    (ii) the underwriter defendants had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the underwriter defendants agreed to
         allocate Company shares to those customers in the IPO in
         exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
         shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices

The Company expects that other similar suits will be filed and will
later be consolidated into one action and claims to have meritorious
defenses against them.


JA-RU INC.: Recalls 43T "Blast Balls" Toys After Reports of Injuries
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JA-RU Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida cooperated with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 43,000
"Blast Balls" toys, after they received six reports of injuries
including minor burns to hands and fingers. The recalled toys are
packaged as "Super Bang.Blast Balls" and are sold two in a pack, in a
variety of colors.  Convenience and novelty stores nationwide sold
these toys from June 2001 through October 2001 for about $2.

When struck together, the toys create a cracking sound similar to that
of a cap gun. The directions instruct consumers to strike one ball
against the other in the palm of hand to create the cracking sound.
When consumers strike the "Blast Balls" together, sparks can ignite,
posing a burn hazard.

Consumers should immediately stop using the "Blast Balls" and contact
the Company for a refund by Phone: (800) 231.3470 between 9 am and 5 pm
ET Monday through Friday.


LITTLE TIKES: Recalls 250T Swings After Reports of Injured Children
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Little Tikes Company of Hudson, Ohio is cooperating with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling
about 250,000 "2-in-1 Snug 'n Secure" swings.

CPSC and Little Tikes have received 14 reports of problems with the
swings. Five injuries to children included abrasions, bruises, cuts and
bumps to the head. The buckles on the swing can break and the shoulder
restraint straps can pull out of the back of the seat, causing young
children to fall. The swings are made of molded plastic and have a blue
seat with a red T-shaped restraint front, with the model number 4117-00
is molded underneath the seat.

The "little tikes" logo is written on the T-shaped restraint bar on the
front of the swing, and the swing is suspended with four yellow ropes.  
The swings were sold for children ages9-months through 4-years old.
Only swings with blue or white buckles are included in this recall.
Juvenile product and toy stores nationwide sold the swings from
December 2000 through September 2001 for about $20.

For more details, contact Little Tikes by Phone: (800) 815.4820 anytime
to receive a repair kit, or visit the firm's Website:
www.littletikes.com  


MAINE: Parents of Mentally-Ill Children Sue Alleging Inadequate Care
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A Maine Trial Court has certified a class action against the Maine
Department of Human Services and the Main Department of Mental Health,
Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services.  Parents of mentally
impaired children filed the suit, alleging the state violated the Early
and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) provisions of
the federal Medicaid Act by failing to provide adequate in-home mental
health services to eligible children.

The suit was filed on behalf of over 500 children under the age of 21
who are recipients of Medicaid in Maine and who failed to receive in-
home mental health services from the state. The suit further alleges
that the State has failed to provide adequate and reliable screening,
case management and in-home mental health services to children
suffering from a broad range of disabilities, including Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder, speech and language difficulties and fetal alcohol
syndrome. Delays in screening and case management services has
allegedly either forced parents to use out-of-home mental health
services or resulted in children receiving no care at all.


PACIFIC CYCLE: Recalls 2,500 Bike Accessories For Causing Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Cycle LLC is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling to repair about 2,500 Ally
Cat tandem bicycle accessories. Pacific Cycle has received one report
of the tandem bicycle accessory connection failing, resulting in
abrasions to the rider of the tandem.

The hitch connecting the tandem accessory to the host bicycle can fail,
causing the tandem accessory to become unstable, which poses the risk
of injury to riders.  The "Ally Cat" tandem bicycle accessory consists
of a wheel, seat, pedals, and handlebars, and attaches to the host
bicycle by a hitch.

The recalled "Ally Cat" has the model number AC 100, AC 200, or AC 300,
which is located on the top tube in products sold by independent
bicycle retailers or LL Bean Inc. The accessories were sold at Wal-Mart
Stores under the name "Mongoose Ally Cat," with the Mongoose name
appearing on the down tube of the accessory. There is an aluminum
sleeve on the hitch between the host bicycle and the accessory.

Bicycle stores and retailers nationwide, including Wal-Mart, sold these
bicycle accessories from March 2000 through July 2001 for between $80
and $130.  Consumers who bought these bicycle accessories will receive
a free replacement hitch and instructions.  In addition, LL Bean Inc.,
which sold these bicycle accessories by catalog, will contact each of
their known purchasers to provide needed replacement parts. "Ally Cat"
bicycle accessories with nylon or plastic sleeves on the hitch are not
included in this recall.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 626.2811
(between 8 am and 5 pm CT Monday through Friday) or access the Mongoose
Website: www.mongoose.com



PARADYNE NETWORKS: Motion To Dismiss Suit Still Pending in M.D. FL
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division has yet to decide on Paradyne Networks' motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action against them.
The suits, filed on behalf of investors during a purported class period
of September 28, 1999 through September 28, 2000, were commenced in
October 2000 against the Company and:

     (1) Andrew May, Chief Executive Officer and President at the time,

     (2) Patrick Murphy, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice
         President; and

     (3) Thomas Epley, Chairman of the Board

The Company's current president and Chief Executive Officer, Sean E.
Belanger was later added as a defendant in April 2001.

These actions were later consolidated into one case and the Court
appointed Frank Gruttadauria and Larry Spitcaufsky as the lead
plaintiffs and the law firms of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach
LLP and Barrack Rodos & Bacine as the lead counsel.  The amended
consolidated suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

It further alleges that the individual defendants are liable under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as "control persons of
Paradyne."  The suit specifically alleges that the defendants
fraudulently or recklessly inflated the market price of the Company's
common stock by allegedly erroneously reporting that:

     (i) the Company was performing well;

    (ii) its inventories were properly stated; and

   (iii) its customer base and product demand were solid.

The defendants filed a motion on May 25, 2001, asking the court to
dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, after which the plaintiffs filed
a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion on July 2, 2001. The
Company believes the case is without merit.


PHARMACEUTICAL FIRMS: Sued By Advocacy Groups For Inflating Drug Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Five pharmaceutical firms face a group of antitrust laws in the United
States District Court in Philadephia, accusing the companies of raising
the price of drugs sold to Medicare.

Named in the suits are:

     (1) GlaxoSmithKline,

     (2) Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.,

     (3) Pharmacia Corporation,

     (4) Abbott Laboratories, and

     (5) Dey Inc.

Two advocacy groups filed the suit, according to the Associated Press,  
the Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia, the
United Food & Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health
Benefits Fund of Chicago.

The Companies allegedly artificially inflated the "national average
wholesale price", which is the figure the government uses to calculate
how much it will pay for drugs covered by Medicare Part B.  The
Companies' actions allegedly resulted in financial losses to
individuals. It also allegedly gives doctors an incentive to prescribe
inappropriate drugs. The suit seeks to stop this practice.

Marc H. Edelson, lawyer for the plaintiffs, asserted "If that
(practice) can be stopped, that's really the most important aspect of
this litigation."  He alleged that the prices paid by consumers and
insurers were inflated and that the higher reimbursement rates could
give doctors an incentive to administer a drug made by one of those
five companies even when a patient might be better served by another
drug.

According to an Associated Press report, GlaxoSmithKline spokeswoman
Nancy Pekarek said Wednesday the Company had no immediate comment
because officials hadn't seen the court papers.  However, after
congressional hearings last year, company officials said the company's
pricing practices were legal and compared the average wholesale price
to the sticker price of a car.

Abbott Laboratories spokeswoman Kathleen O'Neil denied the charges and
said the company would fight the suit.  The Associated Press said
spokespeople for the other companies couldn't be reached.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 12,000 ATVs Due To Faulty Transmission
------------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Industries, Inc. of Medina, Minneapolis cooperated with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in voluntarily recalling
about 12,000 all-terrain vehicles (ATVs).

CPSC and the Company has received reports of seven incidents, three of
which have resulted in accidents involving injuries when the
transmissions failed on the ATVs.  The accidents resulted in injuries
that involved multiple broken bones, internal injuries, abrasions and
bruises.

Screws in the ATV's manual transmission can loosen, causing the rear
wheels to lock. This can cause the driver to lose control of the ATV
and crash, possibly resulting in injury or death.

The recalled ATVs are the 2000, 2001 and 2002 model year "Xpedition
425" with 5- speed manual transmissions. They are either red or a tan
metallic, and have "Xpedition 425" and "Polaris" written on both sides
of the bodywork. They also have the words "5-speedP on the left-hand
side of the ATV on the clutch cover, near the footrest.  Polaris
dealers sold these ATVs nationwide from February 1999 through October
2001 for about $6,300.  Consumers should stop using these ATVs
immediately. Polaris ATVs with automatic transmissions (belt drive) and
Xpedition 325 ATVs are not included in this recall.

For more information, contact the local Polaris dealer to schedule a
free repair or Polaris Industries by Phone: (800) 765.2747 (toll-free)
between 7 am and 2 am ET Monday through Friday and between 8 am and 12
midnight on weekends, or visit the firm's Website:
www.polarisindustries.com.



SASSY INC.: Recalls 455,000 Rattles After They Pose Choking Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sassy Inc. of Northbrook, Illinois is cooperating with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by is voluntarily recalling,
for replacement, about 455,000 soft rattles. The sewn-on, spherical
shaped fabric eyes on the rattles can detach, posing a choking hazard
to small children.

The Company has received 129 reports of eyes detaching from the
rattles, including some incidents in which eyes were found in
children's mouths. One of these children started to choke on a detached
eye and a parent used the Heimlich maneuver to remove the eye.


The rattles involved in the recall include:

     (1) Lily Pad Rattle - A green frog with four plastic legs and a
         multi-colored belly;

     (2) "Bitty Kitty Rattle" - A clear, plastic tube filled with beads
         connects a purple, cat-like face to a purple ball. Three
         plastic pieces encircle the plastic tube and make a rattle
         sound when shaken.

     (3) "This Little Piggy Rattle" - A pink pig-like face is connected
         to a green ball by a yellow and pink arm and a blue arm. Beads
         inside the green ball make a rattle sound when shaken.

     (4) "Goo Goo Goldfish" - A multi-colored fish with pink lips, an
         orange fin, and a clear, plastic tube that connects the head
         to the tail. Beads inside the tube make a rattle sound when
         shaken;

     (5) "Smoochie Poochie Rattle" - A blue, puppy-like face with green
         spotted ears is connected to a blue and green spotted body.
         Five plastic pieces encircle the body and make a rattle sound
         when shaken.

     (6) "Crinkly Crown Dragon Rattle" - A green dragon with a scaled,
         curved tail. Three blue ridges protrude from the dragon's
         back.

A caretag attached to the head of each rattle reads in part "Sassy" and
"1999 Made in China." Rattles with the same appearance but embroidered
eyes are not involved in this recall.  Toy and mass merchandise stores
nationwide sold these rattles from August 1999 through mid-October 2001
for about $5.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 781.1080
(between 9 am and 5 pm CT Monday through Friday) for information on how
to receive a replacement or visit the firm's Website:
www.sassybaby.com.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Georgetown School District Sued For $28 M Surplus Tax
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Georgetown County school district will ask for the dismissal of a
taxpayers class action, asking the district to refund a $28 million
surplus, according to the Charlotte Observer.  A group of Waccamamaw
Neck residents filed the suit last week, saying the county over
collected taxes during the past 10 years, which exceeded the millage
rates authorized by law.  The county passed a new law in June requiring
a political body to certify that its millage rate "is in compliance
with laws limiting the millage rate imposed by that political
subdivision."

David Duff, attorney for Georgetown County, said there is no law
limiting the school district's millage rate, telling the Charlotte
Observer "I think they've just missed the mark here."  He emphasized
that the county had complete autonomy with regard to millage limits
imposed by law.  He also said the board's action shows it knows it is
wrong to keep that much surplus, but Duff said the move was in response
to public pressure.  Schools are entitled to have a reserve if the
board decides to do so, Duff said. Whether the surplus is too much or
not enough is a political question and not a legal one, he said.

Gene Connell, attorney for the plaintiffs, disputed his statements
saying the board can't collect more taxes than it needs year after
year.  Connell said the state's constitution forbids a local government
from levying unreasonable taxes, and the district's reserve fund has
been built up for 12 to 13 years.  He also said that the $28 million
surplus is more than any school district has.

County Attorney, Jack Scoville, said the suit is "preposterous.I
concede that they can keep a reasonable amount. But $28 million is not
a reasonable amount."

                             *********


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., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, Aurora Fatima
Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2001.  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  * * *