CAR_Public/040216.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Monday, February 16, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 32

                        Headlines                            

21st CENTURY: Consumer Lawsuit Consolidated for Discovery in CA
21st CENTURY: Discovery To Proceed in Consumer Fraud Suit in CA
AMERITRADE HOLDING: NV Court To Decide on Summary Judgment Move
AMERITRADE HOLDING: Asks NV Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
ARIBA INC.: CA Court To Hear Dismissal Motion on March 29,2004

AT&T WIRELESS: Faces Unfair Trade Practices Lawsuit in CA Court
BLACK BOX: Asks PA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
EMULEX CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: CA Investors Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Reaches $67.5M Settlement For CA Stock Lawsuit

ICR CORPORATION: Puerto Rico Court Freezes Officers' Assets
IRVINE SENSORS: Reaches Settlement for CA Securities Fraud Suit
LAMSON & SESSIONS: Recalls Floor Boxes For Electrocution Risk
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Antitrust Suit in MN Court
QUANTUM CORPORATION: CA Court Asked To Grant Suit Certification

SONUS NETWORKS: Investors File Securities Fraud Lawsuits in MA
ST. JUDE: Silzone Valve Victims File MN Medical Monitoring Suit
TELXON CORPORATION: OH Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
UNITED STATES: Court Orders Grant of Residency to Asylum Holders
UNITED STATES: Law Foundation Hails MN Court's Order in Lawsuit

VIXEL CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For WA Stockholder Lawsuit

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AGCO CORPORATION: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
AMERICAN BUSINESS: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit in PA
DATATEC SYSTEMS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NJ Securities Suit
DATATEC SYSTEMS: Cauley Geller Launches Securities Lawsuit in NJ
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in CA

INTERPOOL INC.: Hoffman & Edelson Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
MOBILITY ELECTRONICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files AZ Stock Suit
NETWORK ENGINES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in MA
SONUS NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
SONUS NETWORKS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in MA

WAVE SYSTEMS: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
WAVE SYSTEMS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in MA
WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in IL
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Federman & Sherwood Lodges FL Securities Suit

                         *********

21st CENTURY: Consumer Lawsuit Consolidated for Discovery in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit filed against 21st Century Insurance Company, styled
"Bryan Speck, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 21st Century Insurance Company, 21st Century
Casualty Company, and 21st Century Insurance Group, was
consolidated with similar actions against other insurers for
discovery and pre-trial motions in the Los Angeles Superior
Court.

Plaintiff seeks national class action certification, injunctive
relief, and unspecified actual and punitive damages.  The
complaint contends that the Company uses "biased" software in
determining the value of total-loss automobiles.  Plaintiff
alleges that database providers use improper methodology to
establish comparable auto values and populate their databases
with biased figures and that the Company and other carriers
allegedly subscribe to the programs to unfairly reduce claim
costs.  

The Company will fight the suit with other defendants in the
coordinated proceedings, the Company revealed in a filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.


21st CENTURY: Discovery To Proceed in Consumer Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is due to commence in the class action filed against
21st Century Insurance Company, styled "Thomas Theis, on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 21st
Century Insurance," in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Plaintiff seeks national class action certification, injunctive
relief and unspecified actual and punitive damages.  The
complaint contends that after insureds receive medical
treatment, the Company uses a medical-review program to adjust
expenses to reasonable and necessary amounts for a given
geographic area.  Plaintiff alleges that the adjusted amount is
"predetermined" and "biased," creating an unfair pretext for
reducing claim costs.

This case is consolidated with similar actions against other
insurers for discovery and pre-trial motions.  The Company
intends to defend the suit with other defendants in the
coordinated proceedings.


AMERITRADE HOLDING: NV Court To Decide on Summary Judgment Move
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Douglas County, Nevada has yet to decide
on Ameritrade Holding Corporation's motion for summary judgment
in the class action charging it with not being able to handle
the volume of subscribers to its Internet brokerage services.

The complaint, as amended, seeks injunctive relief enjoining
alleged deceptive, fraudulent and misleading practices,
equitable relief compelling the Company to increase capacity,
and unspecified compensatory damages.

In May 2001, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment in
the matter, which the plaintiffs opposed.  The Court granted
summary judgment for the Company on January 2, 2002, and the
plaintiffs appealed.  On August 1, 2003, the Nebraska Supreme
Court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment
and remanded the case to the district court for further
proceedings.  The Nebraska Supreme Court did not decide whether
the plaintiffs' claims have merit.

On October 8, 2003, the Company filed with the District Court a
renewed motion for summary judgment.  The District Court held a
hearing on the summary judgment motion on December 5, 2003.  


AMERITRADE HOLDING: Asks NV Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameritrade Holding Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada to dismiss the class action
filed against it, Knight Trading Group, Inc. and certain
individuals on behalf of persons who became clients of the
Company during the period from March 29, 1995 through September
30, 2003.

As it pertains to the Company, the principal allegations of the
complaint are that:

     (1) the Company had an indirect and direct equity interest
         in Knight, to which it directed most of its orders for
         execution;

     (2) the Company failed to accurately disclose the nature of
         its relationship with Knight and the consideration it
         received from Knight for directing order flow to
         Knight; and

     (3) clients of Ameritrade did not receive best execution of
         their orders from Knight and the Company.

The plaintiff claims that the Company's conduct violated certain
provisions of the federal securities laws, including Sections
11Ac, 10(b) and 3(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
Exchange Act"), and SEC Rules promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiff
further claims the individual defendants, including a present
director and a former director of the Company, are liable under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as "controlling persons" for
the claimed wrongs attributed to the Company and Knight.  

In his prayer for relief, plaintiff requests monetary damages
and/or rescissionary relief in the amount of $4.5 billion
against all defendants, jointly and severally.  On January 16,
2004, the Company, Knight and the individual defendants filed
motions to dismiss the complaint and to deny class certification
or strike the class action allegations.  

The Company and the defendant directors of the Company believe
they have adequate legal defenses and they intend to vigorously
defend against this action, the Company revealed in a filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


ARIBA INC.: CA Court To Hear Dismissal Motion on March 29,2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California will hear on March 29,2004 Ariba, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
it and certain of its current and former officers and directors.

The suit, filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock in the period from January 11, 2000 to
January 15, 2003, brings claims under the federal securities
laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
relating to the Company's announcement that the Company would
restate certain of its consolidated financial statements, and,
in the case of two complaints, relating to the Company's
acquisition activity and related accounting.

Specifically, these actions allege that certain of the Company's
prior consolidated financial statements contained false and
misleading statements or omissions relating to its failure to
properly recognize expenses and other financial items, as
reflected in the then proposed restatement.  Plaintiffs contend
that such statements or omissions caused the Company's stock
price to be artificially inflated.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages as well as other relief.   

In a series of orders issued by the Court in February and March,
2003, these cases were deemed related to each other and assigned
to a single judge sitting in San Jose.  On July 11, 2003,
following briefing and a hearing on related motions, the Court
entered two orders that together consolidated the related cases
for all purposes into a single action captioned "In re Ariba,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-03-00277 JF," appointed a
lead plaintiff, and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of
counsel.

On September 15, 2003, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint, which restates the allegations and claims
described above and adds a claim pursuant to Section 14(a) of
the Exchange Act, based on the allegation that the Company
failed to disclose certain payments and executive compensation
items in its January 24, 2002 Proxy Statement.  On November 17,
2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action for
failure to state a claim.  


AT&T WIRELESS: Faces Unfair Trade Practices Lawsuit in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Wireless (NYSE:QWE) faces a class action filed by the Law
Offices of Roger R. Ellis of Westlake Village, California in Los
Angeles Superior Court and on behalf of all allegedly defrauded
AT&T Wireless customers in California.
    
The class action alleges, numerous offenses.  First, AT&T
Wireless has used false and deceptive advertising to bait
customers with one plan and then, intentionally, switches
customers to other more expensive and intentionally confusing
plans without their knowledge or consent.  

Second, AT&T Wireless is allegedly double billing customers when
family shared lines should not be billed at all, the law firm
said in a statement.  Unresponsive customer service
representatives allegedly have claimed to fix these problems
only to have them show up again and again on subsequent bills.  
AT&T Wireless then sends these allegedly fraudulent bills
which are not owed to collections to ruin their best customers
credit.

Attorney Roger Ellis believes any prospective buyer of AT&T
Wireless stock or services should be aware of these outrageous
and illegal practices which he claims, "will undoubtedly cost
AT&T Wireless and their new purchaser countless millions of
dollars.  And unless these fraudulent billing offenses are
corrected immediately AT&T Wireless is finished."

Mr. Ellis also stated, "These actions on the part of AT&T
Wireless are a desperate attempt to quickly grab millions of
dollars not really owed from loyal customers so a few executives
can take the money and run.  This is unconscionable and will be
stopped."

Mr. Ellis warns any prospective bidder of AT&T Wireless, "Buyer
Beware.  You may be buying a once great company now desperately
trying to sell before a huge wave of lawsuits hit."
    
For further information, please contact Roger R. Ellis by Phone:
1-818-353-8830, by Fax: 1-818-353-5377 or by E-mail:
attclassaction@aol.com.


BLACK BOX: Asks PA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Black Box Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the securities
class action filed against it, styled "In Re Black Box
Corporation Securities Litigation (Civil Action No. 03-CV-412)."  
The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the suit, which the
plaintiffs opposed.  The Company filed its response to
plaintiffs' opposition on February 9, 2004.  The Company
believes that the claims are without merit, it revealed in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


EMULEX CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted approval to the settlement of the securities
class action filed against Emulex Corporation and certain of its
officers and directors.

The plaintiffs in the actions represent purchasers of the
Company's common stock during various periods ranging from
January 18, 2001, through February 9, 2001.  The complaints
alleged that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors made misrepresentations and omissions in violation of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.  The complaints generally seek compensatory damages,
costs and attorney's fees in an unspecified amount.

In addition, the Company has received inquiries about events
giving rise to the lawsuits from the SEC and the Nasdaq Stock
Market.  On April 22, 2003, the Company entered into two
Memoranda of Understanding agreeing to terms of settlement for
both the class action and derivative litigation.  During the
three months ended December 28, 2003, the settlement was
approved and $39.5 million held in escrow was paid to the
plaintiffs.

The Company is currently seeking to recover a portion of this
amount from the Company's insurance carriers.  The final amount
collected for the Company's receivable from its insurance
carriers related to the tentative settlements of securities
class action and derivative lawsuits may be materially different
from the receivable amount.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: CA Investors Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mutual fund firm Franklin Resources, Inc. faces another class
action filed in the United States District Court in San
Francisco, charging fund managers of failing to disclose to
investors that certain favored clients were allowed to "time"
transactions in the funds' securities, iWon.com reports.

Prominent law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach filed
the lawsuit after the Company revealed federal probe into claims
that the fund allowed favored investors to engage in market
timing.  The suit purports to represent the interests of
investors who bought into Franklin and Templeton funds between
February 6, 1999 and February 4, 2004.

The suit alleged the Company took extra fees from favored
clients and, in exchange, allowed their timing activities.  
Market timing involves quick-paced trading that most funds
prohibit in their prospectuses, as it diminishes the return of
long-term investors.

Similar suits were filed against Franklin in Nevada.  The
California action also echoed accusations made against Security
Brokerage Inc. by Massachusetts officials, who said Las Vegas
investor Daniel Calugar and his company Security Investors Inc.
invested $10 million in a Franklin hedge fund for the right to
time at least $45 million in Franklin funds.

The Milberg Weiss lawsuit was one of several filed since
Franklin announced on Monday that federal regulators are
considering an action against one of its units and two senior
officers related to timing allegations, iWon.com reports.


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Reaches $67.5M Settlement For CA Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gemstar-TV Guide reached a $67.5 million settlement in cash and
securities for several securities class actions filed against it
and certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court in California, TheStreet.com reports.

The suits allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the 1934 Act) and the Securities Act of 1933 (the 1933
Act).  The alleged claims were brought under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the 1934 Act, Section 11 of the 1933 Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 and seek unspecified monetary damages, over alleged
accounting misdeeds of previous management.

The settlement is the latest effort of the turnaround team lead
by major shareholder News Corporation to spring back from a
plunge that started during the tenure of longtime CEO Henry
Yuen.  Mr. Yuen stepped down in 2002 under pressure from News
Corporation, amid a spate of governance and financial issues.

Gemstar has twice restated past results to fix accounting
issues, and last June the Securities and Exchange Commission
sued Mr. Yuen and former financial chief Elsie Leung, alleging
they engaged in "a widespread and complex scheme to inflate
Gemstar's licensing and advertising revenues," TheStreet.com
reports.

Under the settlement, the Company said it will pay the
plaintiffs $42.5 million in cash and issue 4.1 million common
shares valued at $25 million.  The company also set a big
writedown of its struggling TV Guide magazine.

"This settlement is a significant step in Gemstar-TV Guide's
efforts to resolve the legal issues that have faced the
company," CEO Jeff Shell told TheStreet.com.  "As we put the
issues related to past management behind us, the new executive
team can focus more completely on maximizing the opportunities
for growth and development in front of us."

Gemstar-TV Guide said it will take a fourth-quarter $67.5
million pretax charge on the settlement.  It also plans a $400
million charge to write down goodwill and intangible assets
related to its bubble-era acquisition TV Guide.  Gemstar noted
Thursday that its settlement doesn't resolve related shareholder
derivative suits or non-consolidated securities fraud cases
pending against it.


ICR CORPORATION: Puerto Rico Court Freezes Officers' Assets
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on
February 11 a federal court in Puerto Rico, on the basis of
allegations brought by the SEC, issued an order freezing the
assets of San Juan resident Carlos H. Soto and two companies he
controlled.  The order, issued by Judge Jaime Pieras, Jr., of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico,
provides for interim, emergency relief as to Mr. Soto and
corporate defendants Basle Advisers and ICR Corporation (ICR),
pending a preliminary injunction hearing set for February 19,
2004.
     
The SEC's civil complaint, filed with the application for
emergency relief, alleges that Mr. Soto, a stock broker at
Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., raised at least $50 million by telling
investors that he would invest their funds in low risk mortgage-
backed securities issued by the Government National Mortgage
Association.

According to the complaint, contrary to his representations, Mr.
Soto diverted the investors' money to accounts in the names of
Basle Advisers and ICR.  He then used the funds for personal use
and to engage in speculative and risky trading, including short
sales.  Mr. Soto, 59 years old, is a resident of San Juan,
Puerto Rico.  Basle and ICR, upon the SEC's information and
belief, are Puerto Rican corporations under the exclusive
control of Mr. Soto.
     
The SEC's complaint charges Mr. Soto with violations of the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws,
specifically Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Among other things, the SEC seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctions against Soto prohibiting further
violations of the antifraud provisions, and requests that Mr.
Soto, Basle Advisers, and ICR disgorge their ill-gotten proceeds
and that Mr. Soto pay a civil monetary penalty for his
misconduct.  

The suit is styled "SEC v. Carlos H. Soto, et al., Case No. 04-
1105JP (USDC/D. Puerto Rico)."


IRVINE SENSORS: Reaches Settlement for CA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irvine Sensors Corporation forged a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California against
it, certain of its current and former officers and directors,
and an officer and director of its former subsidiary Silicon
Film Technologies, Inc.

The amended complaint alleged that defendants made false and
misleading statements about the prospects of Silicon Film during
the period January 6, 2000 to September 15, 2001, inclusive.  
The amended complaint asserted claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5, and sought damages of an
unspecified amount.

Defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond to the amended
complaint was September 2002, at which time the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  This motion was heard
on May 5, 2003, at which time the Court dismissed the amended
complaint, but granted the plaintiffs leave to further amend
their complaint within 20 days.  The plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint on May 27, 2003, reasserting the claims made
previously, primarily on the basis of purported greater
particularity.  

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on June 24, 2003.  This motion was denied on September
22, 2003, and the defendants filed their answer to the second
amended complaint on October 6, 2003, denying all of the
substantive allegations of that complaint.  The Court
established a schedule for discovery related to the second
amended complaint, with the hearing of any summary judgment
motions resulting therefrom to be heard by May 3, 2004.   

In January 2004, the lead plaintiffs and defendants entered into
a memorandum of understanding to settle the litigation for a
monetary payment, without admissions as to the merits of either
defendants' or plaintiffs' position.  The amount of the proposed
settlement payment, $3.5 million, is within the Company's
insurance coverage limits and, if the settlement is approved and
consummated, will be paid entirely by the Company's insurance
carrier.  The settlement is subject to approval by the Court and
other procedural matters.   

Although the Company continues to believe that it has
meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs' allegations, the
existence of a settlement proposal within insurance policy
limits has caused the Company to agree to the settlement
proposal to mitigate the costs and risks of the litigation.
Failure by the Company to obtain a favorable resolution of
claims set forth in the second amended complaint could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations and financial condition.  

Currently, the amount of such material adverse effect cannot
reasonably be estimated. Because of that uncertainty and the
existence of the settlement agreement, the accompanying
consolidated financial statements do not include any accrual for
potential loss, if any, related to these claims, the Company
asserted in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.


LAMSON & SESSIONS: Recalls Floor Boxes For Electrocution Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lamson & Sessions is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 7,000 Drop-In
Floor Boxes.  The recalled floor boxes contain undersized wires
and are wired with the polarity reversed.  These problems
present a risk of shock or electrocution and a possible fire
hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.  These Drop-In
Floor Boxes are used to provide an extra electric outlet in the
floor.  The floor boxes are pre-wired electrical receptacles to
be installed in the floor.  They were sold under the Carlon
brand name as Model No. B112FBB.  The product was sold as a kit
that includes the floor box, wired receptacle, hole saw, and
optional mounting plates.

The Home Depot sold these items from December 2003 through
January 2004 for about $30.

For more details, contact Lamson & Sessions by Phone:
(800) 505-5159 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Antitrust Suit in MN Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation faces another antitrust class action filed
in Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota, alleging the
software giant overcharged Minnesotans for its Windows software,
Pioneer Press reports.

A hearing was held in court last week, to examine evidence that
could be used in the lawsuit, which could net Minnesota's
Microsoft users as much as $425 million.  The hearing discussed
allegations that the Company, maker of the Windows operating
system on 90 percent of the U.S. desktop computers used its
monopoly to violate state antitrust laws.

Attorneys for Microsoft deny the allegations, but the company
has settled similar lawsuits in nine states and the District of
Columbia, with the largest settlement in California for $1.1
billion, Pioneer Press reports.  The Minnesota case would be the
first state class action suit to go to trial.

Attorneys for the two sides declined to comment on whether
they've been negotiating a settlement.  Lead attorney for
Microsoft, New York attorney David Tulchin, told Pioneer Press
that "there's always a chance, but my feeling is the chances are
quite low" the two sides will settle.

District Judge Bruce Peterson has set aside 60 days for the
trial.  Damages could range from $283 million to $425 million,
the lead plaintiff's attorney Richard Hagstrom of Minneapolis
told Pioneer Press.


QUANTUM CORPORATION: CA Court Asked To Grant Suit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the lawsuit filed against Quantum Corporation asked
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Francisco to grant class certification for the suit.  The
suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.,

     (2) Maxell Corporation of America,

     (3) Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., and

     (4) Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.

The plaintiff, Franz Inc., alleges violation of California
antitrust law, violation of California unfair competition law,
and unjust enrichment and charges, among other things, that the
defendants entered into agreements and conspired to monopolize
the market and fix prices for data storage tape compatible with
DLT tape drives.

The Company denies the allegations of the complaint and intends
to fight the Franz claims.  Franz seeks an order that the
lawsuit be maintained as a class action and that defendants be
enjoined from continuing the violations alleged in the
complaint.  Franz also seeks compensatory damages, treble
damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and
interest.


SONUS NETWORKS: Investors File Securities Fraud Lawsuits in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc. faces a shareholder class action filed in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, on behalf of shareholders who bought stock
between June 3, 2003 and February 11, 2004, boston.com reports.

The suit alleges the Company lied about its financial condition.  
Last week, the Company disclosed that revenue for some contracts
may have been booked in the wrong quarter, which could result in
the restatement of financial results for 2003, and possibly
earlier periods.  Following the discovery, certain non-executive
Sonus employees were fired and a further audit is ongoing, the
company said Wednesday.

Prominent law firm Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman LLP filed the
suit, charging the Company with violating accounting rules and
the company's own internal policies regarding the timing of
revenue recognition, resulting in false and misleading financial
reports.

A Sonus representative wasn't immediately available for comment,
boston.com reports.


ST. JUDE: Silzone Valve Victims File MN Medical Monitoring Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. faces a medical monitoring and
restitution class action filed in Minnesota State Court, Ramsey
County (Ramsey County) on behalf of Silzone victims who are
citizens of the European Economic Union (EEU) comprised of
sixteen countries.

This class of approximately 10,000 to 14,000 Western European
patients with defective Silzone products still implanted in them
rounds out the other major populations of Silzone victims across
the world who are suing St. Jude for the defective toxic silver
coating on St. Jude's flagship prosthetic heart valve products
between 1997 and January 2000.  The valve was removed from the
market by St. Paul-based St. Jude for safety reasons.

According to Steven E. Angstreich, an attorney with the
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania law firm of Levy, Angstreich, Finney,
Baldante, Rubenstein & Coren, P.C., who is serving as co-lead
counsel for Shane O'Neill, a Silzone heart valve implantee,
says, "The evidence developed in the United States class action
indicates that St. Jude used the European Countries as its human
test site to determine if the valves were safe for use, indeed
referring to it in one internal document as `the Guinea pig
continent of Europe."

St. Jude's corner cutting in the development of the Silzone
products, its withholding of critical information and its
callous attitude towards the Silzone patients," Mr. Angstreich
said in a statement, "provide the reason why at an appropriate
time in Mr. O'Neill's suit, an application will be to the
presiding state court judge asking for permission to assert a
punitive damages claim against St. Jude on behalf of the class."

Much of this evidence has already been presented to the Federal
Court in the American class action pending in Minneapolis, and
supported the United States District Court's recent decision to
deny St. Jude's attempt to have that case against it dismissed
on January 5th, 2004.  That record is presently under seal
pursuant to a case management order.

Similar class actions on behalf of American and Canadian Silzone
implantees are pending in Minnesota Federal Court and the
Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario and have already
been certified to proceed as class actions against St. Jude.
Recently, on January 5th, 2004, in the class action in the U.S.,
the court denied St. Jude's request for judgment in its favor
based on FDA approval of Silzone coating for prosthetic heart
valve devices. The Court's examination of the evidence against
St. Jude showed there are questions that requires a trial.

This suit, filed by Shane O'Neill, the Silzone heart valve
implantee who is both a citizen of Ireland and Canada, claims
that the Silzone products were defective because of the toxic
properties of the silver coating that St. Jude put on the valves
to hopefully prevent endocarditis from occurring. Endocarditis
is a very small but serious risk following valve replacement
surgery.

Mr. O'Neill had two Silzone valves implanted when he lived in
Ireland. An initial Silzone valve was implanted in him in March
of 1998. That valve had to be removed and replaced approximately
nine months later, on December 23, 1998 because it had developed
a paravalvular leak. Because his surgeon was unaware of the
problems associated with St. Jude's Silzone coating, it was
replaced with another Silzone coated valve. That second Silzone
valve is still implanted in him and causes him great concern and
requires, according to medical consultants, that he (as well as
other current Silzone implantees) undergo enhanced medical
examinations.

Mr. O'Neill seeks in the suit to recover the costs of
establishing court-supervised trust funds to provide ongoing
medical examinations and scientific research into Silzone's
long-term toxic effects. The suit also seeks restitution from
St. Jude for the costs of the defective valves and the medical
care associated with its implant and its explantation. On an
individual basis, his suit also seeks personal injury damages
for himself and his wife related to the explantation surgery he
underwent after his initial prosthetic valve failed.

In his class action complaint, Mr. O'Neill alleges that:

     (1) Silzone's silver comes off the valves' sewing cuffs at
         dangerous levels;

     (2) the silver coating is toxic to heart tissue;

     (3) the silver is responsible for causing serious and
         potentially fatal complications such as paravalvular
         leaks (leakage between the implanted valve and the
         heart tissue);

     (4) improper healing of the prosthetic valve into the heart
         and thromboembolic events (strokes, TIA's heart
         attacks); and

     (5) St. Jude withheld critical information relating to its
         safety and efficacy from both regulatory authorities
         and the medical profession.

For more information contact the law firm of Levy, Angstreich,
Finney, Baldante, Rubenstein & Coren, P.C. by Phone:
800-601-1616 or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.levyangstreich.com.


TELXON CORPORATION: OH Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in the Northern District of
Ohio gave final approval to the settlement of the pending
shareholder class action against Telxon Corporation, and two
former officers of Telxon.

Under the settlement agreement, which in November 2003 was
tentatively agreed to and announced and today was approved,
Telxon will pay $37 million to the class.  As a result of
anticipated contributions by Telxon's insurers, Telxon expects
that its net payment will be no more than $25 million.

Telxon has not settled its lawsuit against its former auditors,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, and, as part of the approved settlement
of the class action announced today, Telxon has agreed to pay to
the class, under certain circumstances, up to $3 million of the
proceeds of that lawsuit.

The lawsuits were initially filed in 1998, more than one year
before Symbol Technologies acquired Telxon Corporation on
November 30, 2000.

For more information, contact Patricia Hall by Phone:
631-738-5636 or by E-mail: hallp@symbol.com.  For financial
information, contact Nancy Tully, by Phone: 631-738-5050 or by
E-mail: tullyn@symbol.com  


UNITED STATES: Court Orders Grant of Residency to Asylum Holders
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Minneapolis ordered the
United States government to grant permanent resident status to
nearly 22,000 people nationwide who've been granted asylum but
faced years of bureaucratic delays, guardian.co.uk reports.

The class action, filed by the American Immigration Law
Foundation of Washington, D.C. on behalf of asylum holders,
challenged the delays in getting permanent residency to
refugees, which meant in turn meant delays in getting
citizenship.

Under federal law, the government can give permanent resident
status to 10,000 refugees each fiscal year.  From 1994 to 2002,
the government failed for various reasons to use all the
allotted slots, leaving nearly 22,000 applicants stuck on the
waiting list.  The government claimed that the unused slots
expired at the end of each fiscal year.

Judge Richard Kyle criticized the government, saying it had
"botched" its legal obligation to do that, saying its violations
were "so widespread, so egregious, and so plainly harmful . as
to constitute nothing short of a national embarrassment."

Judge Kyle also ordered the government to make sure that all
asylum holders in the country have proper documents showing they
are eligible to work.  Judge Kyle's decision means nearly 22,000
asylum holders who are at the top of the waiting list should get
green cards soon, and a shorter wait for approximately 130,000
applicants who will remain on the list, Nadine Wettstein of the
foundation's Legal Action Center told the Associated Press.  She
estimated it will still take 12 to 13 years to clear the backlog
unless Congress changes the law.

"We think it's a very strong opinion and should send a message
to the government," she added.  A Justice Department spokesman
in Washington said the agency hadn't seen the decision and would
have to review it before deciding what its next step would be,
AP reports.

On the work permits issue, the judge said the law clearly
requires the government to issue them to all asylum holders,
that it can't require them to reapply for those documents
annually at a cost of $120 as it now does, and that the permits
must remain valid as along as a person has asylum.  Kyle gave
both sides 60 days to negotiate a schedule for complying with
his order, or he'll set the deadlines himself, AP reports.


UNITED STATES: Law Foundation Hails MN Court's Order in Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The American Immigration Law Foundation hails judge Richard H.
Kyle's ruling, condemning the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service for "widespread," "egregious" and
"plainly harmful" violations of law that "constitute nothing
short of a national embarrassment."

The judge ruled in a national class action filed on behalf of
more than a 150,000 asylees in the United States filed by the
American Immigration Law Foundation in Washington, D.C., the
Massachusetts Law Reform Institute in Boston, and the law firm
Dorsey and Whitney in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  The case is
Ngwanyia vs. Ashcroft, No. 02-502(RHK/AJB) (D. Minnesota).

The case was brought on behalf of immigrants who were granted
asylum in the United States but who are waiting in a long queue
to become lawful permanent residents of the United States (to
obtain "green cards.")  Plaintiffs successfully argued that over
the last decade, the INS - now known as the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services within the Department of Homeland Security
- unlawfully failed to adjust the status of almost 22,000
asylees through simple mismanagement.  The INS's failures
lengthened the individuals' wait before they can become U.S.
citizens and extended the waiting list for all asylees in the
queue by more than two years.

U.S. District Judge Richard H. Kyle, of the District Court of
Minnesota, today ordered the government to adjust the status of
nearly 22,000 waiting asylees now that plaintiffs have uncovered
the INS's past failures.

In his order issued today, Judge Kyle also railed against the
INS's "Kafkaesque" procedures for asylees to obtain work
permits.  He held that the defendants improperly required
individual asylees to reapply for a work permit every year at a
cost of $120.  Months of delay and mounds of unnecessary
paperwork resulted.  The law requires the government to grant a
work permit automatically and to keep it valid as long as an
asylee remains an asylee: "not a minute shorter, and not a
minute longer" the Judge held.


Judge Kyle condemned the INS for their "one-law-for-Tuesdays-
and-another-law-for-Wednesdays" mismanagement, including
practices that varied office-by-office and day-by-day. He
criticized a liberalized but "stealth" policy regarding work
permits, as a policy announced for the litigation but never
communicated to anyone in the field.


"We are gratified that the judge saw the issues as we did,"
Nadine Wettstein, director of the Legal Action Center for the
American Immigration Law Foundation said in a statement.  "This
decision will help thousands of hardworking people to stabilize
and improve their lives and sends a clear message to the USCIS
that they are accountable to the public."


VIXEL CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For WA Stockholder Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vixel Corporation reached a settlement for the class action
filed in King County Superior Court of the State of Washington
against it and each of its directors and certain unnamed
Individuals, entitled "Russell Fink v. Vixel Corporation, et
al., Case No.03-2-37226-9SEA."

The complaint made general allegations that, among other things,
the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Vixel
stockholders in connection with the approval of the merger with
Emulex and sought to enjoin the tender offer and have the merger
agreement declared unlawful, among other forms of relief.

On November 7, 2003, the Vixel Parties entered into a memorandum
of understanding for a $0.7 million settlement with the
plaintiff in the class action pursuant to which the parties have
agreed to settle the action, subject to court approval.  The
$0.7 million was recorded as general and administrative expense
for the three months ended December 28, 2003.

The consummation of the settlement is subject to:

     (1) the drafting and execution of formal settlement
         documents;

     (2) the completion by plaintiff of reasonable discovery as
         agreed to by the parties; and

     (3) final court approval (as defined by law) of the
         settlement and dismissal of the action with prejudice.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AGCO CORPORATION: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. initiated
a securities class action in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of AGCO Corporation (NYSE:AG) between February 6,
2003 and February 5, 2004, inclusive.

It has been alleged that AGCO, Robert J. Ratliff and Andrew H.
Beck violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market. These
misstatements have had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of AGCO's securities.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants'
statements during the Class Period were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented
the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company improperly recorded revenue on its
         ``bill and hold'' transactions where risk did not pass
         to the customer;

     (2) that the Company recklessly disregarded its own
         policies regarding recognizing revenue; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's net income
         and earnings per share published during the Class
         Period were not in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles and were therefore materially
         false and misleading.

On February 5, 2004, the Company shocked the market when it
issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and year-
end results for fiscal 2003, the period ended December 31, 2003.
At that time, the Company also disclosed that AGCO received an
informal inquiry from the SEC asking AGCO for its policies and
related information with regard to AGCO's accounting for revenue
recognition (particularly bill and hold transactions), sales and
sales returns and allowances, plant and facility closing costs
and reserves, and personal use of corporate aircraft. Upon this
news, shares of the Company's stock fell approximately 16%, or
$3.10 per share, to close at $16.25 per share on extremely high
trading volume.

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone:
(800) 470-6824 or by e-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com


AMERICAN BUSINESS: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of institutional investors in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
on behalf of purchasers of American Business Financial Services,
Inc. (NASDAQ:ABFI) publicly traded securities during the period
between January 27, 2000 and June 12, 2003.

The complaint charges American Business and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. American Business is a diversified
financial services organization operating predominantly in the
eastern and central portions of the United States.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
represented that American Business would continue to have
earnings per share growth as it had in most every quarter.
Defendants assured investors that American Business would
improve its net income.

However, the complaint alleges the statements made by defendants
during the Class Period were false and misleading. The true but
concealed facts were that:

     (1) the Company's reported income and accounts receivables
         were grossly overstated during FY2000 through FY2003 as
         the direct result of defendants' scheme to artificially
         inflate the Company's earnings by entering into "side
         forebearance" agreements with its customers instead of
         pursuing foreclosure or appropriate remedies for
         delinquent mortgages;

     (2) the Company's default and foreclosure rates were
         grossly understated; and

     (3) as early as fall of 1999, the Company's true net income
         was being negatively impacted by higher loan
         prepayments due to borrower refinancings as a result of
         low interest rates and defendants' failure to properly
         adjust the Company's prepayment assumptions in order to
         hide the impact to net income.

On June 13, 2003, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
wherein it revealed that American Business had received a civil
subpoena requesting that it provide documents and information
with respect to American Business and its lending and/or primary
subsidiaries for the period from May 1, 2000 to May 1, 2003.

For more details, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-490-4900
or by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com


DATATEC SYSTEMS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NJ Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Datatec
Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: DATCE) between June 26, 2003 and December
16, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Datatec, Isaac J. Gaon and Mark J.
Hirschhorn 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,
throughout the Class Period, defendants issued numerous
statements to the market concerning the Company's financial
results, which failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that Datatec, in violation of Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles (GAAP), was improperly valuing
         certain of its long-term contracts, thereby overstating
         its revenues and assets;

     (2) that Datatec had no viable plan for the
         commercialization of the Asset Guardian software;

     (3) that Datatec had deficient and inadequate internal
         controls and financial systems; and

     (4) that based on the foregoing, Datatec lacked a
         reasonable basis for its financial and operational
         guidance for fiscal 2004.

On December 5, 2003, Datatec announced that defendant Gaon had
"stepped down as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer." In
addition, the Company reported that Mark Berenblut had resigned
as a Board member.  Following release of this news, Datatec
stock fell more than 33% on extremely heavy trading.

On December 16, 2003, before the opening of trading on December
17, 2003, Datatec further shocked the investing public when it
announced that it expected a loss of $10 million for the first
quarter ended October 23, 2003. On news of this, Datatec stock
fell an additional 14% on extremely heavy volume.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


DATATEC SYSTEMS: Cauley Geller Launches Securities Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Datatec Systems, Inc.
(Nasdaq: DATCE) publicly traded securities during the period
between June 26, 2003 and December 16, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Datatec, Isaac J. Gaon and Mark J.
Hirschhorn with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  

More specifically, the complaint alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants issued numerous statements to the
market concerning the Company's financial results, which failed
to disclose and/or misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that Datatec, in violation of Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP"), was improperly valuing
         certain of its long- term contracts, thereby
         overstating its revenues and assets;

     (2) that, contrary to its Class Period representations,
         Datatec had no viable plan for the commercialization of
         the Asset Guardian software;

     (3) that Datatec had deficient and inadequate internal
         controls and financial systems; and

     (4) that based on the foregoing, Datatec lacked a
         reasonable basis for its financial and operational
         guidance for fiscal 2004.

On December 5, 2003, Datatec surprised investors with the news
that CEO Gaon had been thrown out and replaced by a new CEO,
Raul Pupo. On December 17, 2003, Datatec told investors it would
suffer a $10 million loss for the fiscal quarter ended October
31, 2003, and that Datatec's Audit Committee had hired outside
counsel to review Datatec's valuation of its long- term
contracts. IBM Credit has since refused to waive Datatec's non-
compliance with financial covenants. Datatec's stock price fell
substantially on large volume.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld,
Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Chandra West by Mail: P.O. Box
25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by
Fax: 1-501-312-8505 or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP launched a securities class action in
the United States District of the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Franklin Aggressive Growth
Fund (Nasdaq:FRAAX), (Nasdaq:FKABX), (Nasdaq:FKACX),
(Nasdaq:FKARX); Franklin Biotechnology Discovery Fund
(Nasdaq:FBDIX); Franklin DynaTech Fund (Nasdaq:FDNBX),
(Nasdaq:FDYNX); Franklin Global Communications Fund
(Nasdaq:FRGUX); and other securities of the Franklin family of
funds (the ``Funds'') operated by Franklin Resources, Inc.
(NYSE:BEN) and its subsidiaries between February 6, 1999 and
February 4, 2004, inclusive, seeking remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The action, case number C 04 0598, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against defendants Franklin Resources, Inc.; Franklin Advisers,
Inc; Templeton/Franklin Investment Services, Inc.; Franklin
Private Client Services, Inc.; Franklin Mutual Advisers, LLC;
Williams Post; Security Brokerage, Inc. (``SBI''); Daniel G.
Calugar (``Calugar''), DCIP, L.P. (``DCIP''); Franklin Templeton
Strategic Growth Fund, L.P.; each of the Franklin mutual funds
and their registrants, and John Does 1-100.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period, certain
of the defendants failed to disclose that they improperly
allowed certain favored investors, including Calugar, SBI, and
DCIP, to engage in ``timing'' of the Funds' securities. Timing
is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a quick
profit and which ordinary investors are told that the funds
police.  Timing injures ordinary mutual fund investors -- who
are not allowed to engage in such practices -- and is
acknowledged as improper practices by the Funds.

In return for receiving extra fees from Calugar, SBI, and DCIP,
and other favored investors, Franklin Resources and its
affiliates allowed and facilitated timing activities in the
Funds, to the detriment of class members who paid, dollar for
dollar, for the improper profits made by Calugar, SBI, and DCIP.
These practices were undisclosed in the prospectuses of the
Funds, which falsely represented that the Funds actively police
against timing and that premature redemptions will be assessed a
charge.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:

     (1) Franklin AGE High Income Fund AGEFX, FAHAX,
         FHIBX, FRAIX, FAHRX
    
     (2) Franklin Adjustable U.S. Government Securities Fund
         FISAX, FCSCX
    
     (3) Franklin Aggressive Growth Fund FGRAX, FRAAX, FKABX,
         FKACX, FKARX
    
     (4) Franklin Alabama Tax-Free Income Fund FRALX, FALEX
    
     (5) Franklin Arizona Tax-Free Income Fund FTAZX, FBAZX,
         FAZIX
    
     (6) Franklin AGE High Income Fund AGEFX, FAHAX, FHIBX,
         FRAIX, FAHRX
    
     (7) Franklin Adjustable U.S. Government Securities Fund
         FISAX, FCSCX
    
     (8) Franklin Aggressive Growth Fund FGRAX, FRAAX, FKABX,
         FKACX, FKARX
    
     (9) Franklin Alabama Tax-Free Income Fund FRALX, FALEX
    
    (10) Franklin Arizona Tax-Free Income Fund FTAZX, FBAZX,
         FAZIX
    
    (11) Franklin Balance Sheet Investment Fund FRBSX, FBSAX,
         FBSBX, FCBSX, FBSRX
    
    (12) Franklin Biotechnology Discovery Fund FBDIX

    (13) Franklin Blue Chip Fund FKBCX, FKBBX, FBCCX,
         FBCRX
    
    (14) Franklin California High Yield Municipal Fund FCAMX,
         FBCAX, FCAHX
    
    (15) Franklin California Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FRCIX,
         FRCBX, FRCAX
    
    (16) Franklin California Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income
         Fund FKCIX
    
    (17) Franklin California Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund
    
    (18) Franklin California Tax-Exempt Money Fund FCLXX
    
    (19) Franklin California Tax-Free Income Fund FKTFX, FCAVX,
         FCABX, FRCTX
    
    (20) Franklin Capital Growth Fund FKREX, FEACX,
         FKEQX, FREQX, FKIRX
    (21) Franklin Colorado Tax-Free Income Fund FRCOX, FCOIX
    
    (22) Franklin Connecticut Tax-Free Income Fund FXCTX, FCTIX
    
    (23) Franklin Convertible Securities Fund FISCX, FROTX
    
    (24) Franklin Double Tax-Free Income Fund FPRTX, FPRIX
    
    (25) Franklin DynaTech Fund FKDNX, (Nasdaq: FDNBX, FDYNX
    
    (26) Franklin Equity Income Fund FISEX, FBEIX,
         FRETX, FREIX
    
    (27) Franklin Federal Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income Fund
         FKITX
    
    (28) Franklin Federal Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund    
         FFTFX
    
    (29) Franklin Federal Money Fund FMNXX
    
    (30) Franklin Federal Tax-Free Income Fund FKTIX, FAFTX,
         FFTBX, FRFTX
    
    (31) Franklin Flex Cap Growth Fund FKCGX, FKCBX,
         FCIIX, FRCGX
    
    (32) Franklin Floating Rate Daily Access Fund FAFRX, FBFRX,
         FCFRX
    
    (33) Franklin Floating Rate Trust XFFLX
    
    (34) Franklin Florida Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FFLTX
    
    (35) Franklin Florida Tax-Free Income Fund FRFLX, FRFBX,
         FRFIX
    
    (36) Franklin Georgia Tax-Free Income Fund FTGAX, FGAIX
    
    (37) Franklin Global Aggressive Growth Fund
    
    (38) Franklin Global Communications Fund FRGUX
    
    (39) Franklin Global Growth Fund
    
    (40) Franklin Global Health Care Fund FKGHX, FGHBX,
         FGIIX
    
    (41) Franklin Gold and Precious Metals Fund FKRCX, FGADX,
         FAGPX, FRGOX
    
    (42) Franklin Growth Fund FKGRX, FCGAX, FKGBX,
         FRGSX, FGSRX
    
    (43) Franklin High Yield Tax-Free Income Fund FRHIX, FYIBX,
         FHYIX
    
    (44) Franklin Income Fund FKINX, FRIAX, FBICX,
         FICBX, FCISX, FISRX
    
    (45) Franklin Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FTFIX, FBITX,
         FRITX
    
    (46) Franklin Kentucky Tax-Free Income Fund FRKYX
    
    (47) Franklin Large Cap Growth Fund FKGAX, FRGAX,
         FKGCX, FRLGX
    
    (48) Franklin Large Cap Value Fund FLVAX, FBLCX,
         FLCVX, FLCRX
    
    (49) Franklin Louisiana Tax-Free Income Fund FKLAX, FLAIX
    
    (50) Franklin Maryland Tax-Free Income Fund FMDTX, FMDIX
    
    (51) Franklin Massachusetts Insured Tax-Free Income Fund     
         FMISX, FMAIX
    
    (52) Franklin Michigan Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FTTMX,
         FBMIX, FRMTX
    
    (53) Franklin MicroCap Value Fund FRMCX
    
    (54) Franklin Minnesota Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FMINX,
         FMNIX
     
    (55) Franklin Missouri Tax-Free Income Fund FRMOX, FMOIX
    
    (56) Franklin Money Fund FMFXX
    
    (57) Franklin Natural Resources Fund  FRNRX, FNRAX
    
    (58) Franklin New Jersey Tax-Free Income Fund  FRNJX,
         FNJBX, FNIIX
    
    (59) Franklin New York Insured Tax-Free Income Fund  FRNYX,
         FNYKX
    
    (60) Franklin New York Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income    
         Fund FKNIX
    
    (61) Franklin New York Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund
    
    (62) Franklin New York Tax-Exempt Money Fund  FRNXX
    
    (63) Franklin New York Tax-Free Income Fund  FNYTX, FNYAX,
         FTFBX, FNYIX

    (64) Franklin North Carolina Tax-Free Income Fund  
FXNCX,      
         (Nasdaq: FNCIX)
    
    (65) Franklin Ohio Insured Tax-Free Income Fund  FTOIX,
         FBOIX, FOITX
    
    (66) Franklin Oregon Tax-Free Income Fund  FRORX, FORIX
    
    (67) Franklin Pennsylvania Tax-Free Income Fund  FRPAX,
         FBPTX, FRPTX
    
    (68) Franklin Real Estate Securities Fund  FREEX, FRLAX,
         FBREX, FRRSX
    
    (69) Franklin Rising Dividends Fund  FRDPX, FRDBX,
         FRDTX, FRDRX
    
    (70) Franklin Short-Intermediate U.S. Government Securities  
         Fund FRGVX, FSUAX
    
    (71) Franklin Small Cap Growth Fund II  FSGRX, FSSAX,
         FBSGX, FCSGX, FSSRX
    
    (72) Franklin Small Cap Value Fund FRVLX, FVADX,
         FBVAX, FRVFX, FVFRX
    
    (73) Franklin Small-Mid Cap Growth Fund  FRSGX, FSGAX,
         FBSMX, FRSIX, FSMRX
    
    (74) Franklin Strategic Income Fund  FRSTX, FKSAX,
         FKSBX, FSGCX), FKSRX
    
    (75) Franklin Strategic Mortgage Portfolio  FSMIX
    
    (76) Franklin Tax-Exempt Money Fund  FTMXX
    
    (77) Franklin Technology Fund  FTCAX, FRTCX,
         FFTCX, FTERX
    
    (78) Franklin Templeton Conservative Target Fund  FTCIX,
         FTCCX, FTCRX
    
    (79) Franklin Templeton CoreFolio Allocation Fund  FTCOX
    
    (80) Franklin Templeton Founding Funds Allocation Fund    
         FFALX, FFABX, FFACX
    
    (81) Franklin Templeton Growth Target Fund  FGTIX, FTGTX,
         FGTRX
    
    (82) Franklin Templeton Hard Currency Fund  ICPHX
    
    (83) Franklin Templeton Moderate Target Fund  FMTIX, FTMTX,
         FTMRX
    
    (84) Franklin Templeton Money Fund  FMBXX, FRIXX,
         FMRXX
    
    (85) Franklin Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund  FRTIX
    
    (86) Franklin Texas Tax-Free Income Fund  FTXTX, FTXIX
    
    (87) Franklin Total Return Fund FKBAX, FBDAX,
         FBTLX, FCTLX, FTRRX
    
    (88) Franklin U.S. Government Securities Fund FKUSX, FUSAX,
         FUGBX, FRUGX, FUSRX
    
    (89) Franklin U.S. Long-Short Fund FUSLX
    
    (90) Franklin Utilities Fund   FKUTX, FRUAX,
         FRUBX, FRUSX, FRURX
    
    (91) Franklin Virginia Tax-Free Income Fund  FRVAX, FVAIX
    
    (92) Templeton China World Fund  TCWAX, TACWX
    
    (93) Templeton Developing Markets Trust  TEDMX, TDADX,
         TDMBX, TDMTX, TDMRX
    
    (94) Templeton Foreign Fund  TEMFX, TFFAX, TFRBX,
         TEFTX, TEFRX
    
    (95) Templeton Foreign Smaller Companies Fund  FINEX,
         FTFAX, FCFSX
    
    (96) Templeton Global Bond Fund  TPINX, TGBAX,
         TEGBX
    
    (97) Templeton Global Long-Short Fund  TLSAX, TLSBX
    
    (98) Templeton Global Opportunities Trust   TEGOX, TEGPX
    
    (99) Templeton Global Smaller Companies Fund, Inc.  TEMGX,
         TGSAX, TESGX
    
   (100) Templeton Growth Fund, Inc.  TEPLX, TGADX,
         TMGBX, TEGTX, TEGRX
    
   (101) Templeton International (Ex EM) Fund   TEGEX, TGEFX
    
   (102) Templeton Latin America Fund  TELAX, TLAAX,
         TLAIX
    
   (103) Templeton Pacific Growth Fund  FKPGX, FPGCX
    
   (104) Templeton World Fund  TEMWX, TWDBX, TEWTX
    
   (105) Mutual Beacon Fund  TEBIX, TEBBX, TEMEX,
         BEGRX
    
   (106) Mutual Discovery Fund  TEDIX, TEDBX, TEDSX,
         TEDRX, MDISX
    
   (107) Mutual European Fund  TEMIX, TEUBX, TEURX,
         MEURX
    
   (108) Mutual Financial Services Fund  TFSIX, TBFSX,
         TMFSX, TEFAX
    
   (109) Mutual Qualified Fund TEQIX, TEBQX, TEMQX,
         MQIFX
    
   (110) Mutual Recovery Fund  FMRVX
    
   (111) Mutual Shares Fund  TESIX, FMUBX, TEMTX,
         TESRX, MUTHX

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


INTERPOOL INC.: Hoffman & Edelson Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hoffman & Edelson, LLC initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Interpool, Inc.
(Other OTC:IPLI.PK) between May 8, 2000 and March 6, 2003,
inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading
statements concerning, among other things, its reported
financial results. As a result of the Company's numerous
accounting improprieties, Interpool had overstated its net
income and its shareholders' equity during the Class Period.
Accordingly, its reported financial results did not fairly
present the results of its operations and were not prepared in
accordance with GAAP.

On March 6, 2003, defendants revealed that Interpool's financial
statements were not prepared in accordance with GAAP, were not
reliable and did not reflect the true financial condition of the
Company. The Company was forced to restate reported and
announced financial results for the first three quarters of 2002
as well as the full, audited years of 2000 and 2001.

For more details, contact Jerold B. Hoffman by Mail: 45 W. Court
Street, Doylestown, PA 18901 by Phone: 877-537-6532 (toll free)
by Fax: 215-230-8735 or by E-mail: jhoffman@hofedlaw.com.


MOBILITY ELECTRONICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files AZ Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Mobility
Electronics, Inc. (Nasdaq: MOBE) from September 2, 2003 through
January 5, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Mobility Electronics, Inc., Charles R.
Mollo and Joan W. Brubacher 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 throughout the
Class Period, defendants repeatedly represented that it expected
Mobility to earn $15 million in revenues for the fourth quarter
of 2003, which was attributable in large part to the Company's
agreement with Fellowes, Inc. whereby Fellowes would globally
market and distribute a line of Fellowes- branded power products
from Mobility, as well as custom products based on Mobility's
market-leading combination AC/DC technology, through its vast
worldwide distribution network, encompassing nearly 30,000
retail stores (the "Fellowes Agreement").

In truth and in fact, however, unbeknownst to investors, by the
start of the Class Period, Fellowes was not meeting its sales
forecasts and, accordingly, Mobility was not generating the
revenues and earnings it had anticipated from the Fellowes
Agreement.

Prior to disclosing these adverse facts to the investing public,
Mobility completed a $15 million private placement, purchased
assets from InVision Software and InVision Wireless using its
artificially inflated stock as currency and Mobility insiders
unloaded more than $6 million of their personally-held shares to
the unsuspecting public.

Then, on January 5, 2004, Mobility shocked the market when it
announced that it expects revenue for the fourth quarter of 2003
to be approximately $1.0 million to $1.3 million less than the
Company's previous guidance of about $15 million.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


NETWORK ENGINES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of all persons who acquired securities of
Network Engines, Inc. (NasdaqNM:NENG) between November 6, 2003
and December 10, 2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
against Defendants Network Engines, John Curtis, Douglas G.
Bryant, and Lawrence A. Genovesi.

The Complaint charges that Network Engines and certain of its
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations
to the market during the Class Period, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Network Engines' securities.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that by November 6, 2003,
Defendants knew, but failed to disclose, that Network Engines
was in the process of renegotiating its distribution contract
with EMC Corp. ("EMC"), and that EMC was demanding price
reductions, which, if agreed to, would negatively impact the
Company's future financial results.

Nevertheless, throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued
statements highlighting the Company's strong financial
performance, continued growth and the success of its
relationship with EMC, its largest customer.  Defendants failed
to disclose, however, that:

     (1) the Company was in the process of renegotiating its
         distribution contract with EMC;

     (2) EMC was demanding price concessions to bring its
         agreement with Network Engines in line with the pricing
         that Network Engines was providing to other customers;

     (3) the new distribution contract with EMC would negatively
         impact the Company's future financial performance; and

     (4) the Company would not be able to sustain the growth in
         its gross margins as a result of the amended contract.

The truth was revealed, on December 10, 2003, when the Company
announced, among other things, that it had renegotiated its
distribution contract with EMC and the amended contract would
negatively impact the Company's gross profit. Following this
announcement, shares of Network Engines common stock fell $3.92
per share, or 39%, to close at $6.10 per share, on
extraordinarily high trading volume.

For more details, contact the Shareholder Relations Department
at Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or
(212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: NENG@bernlieb.com.


SONUS NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Sonus Networks, Inc.
(Nasdaq: SONS) publicly traded securities during the period
between June 3, 2003 and February 11, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Sonus Networks, Inc., Hassan Ahmed and
Stephen Nill 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,
throughout the Class Period, defendants issued numerous
statements to the market concerning the Company's financial
results, which failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that defendants had improperly and untimely recognized
         revenue on certain of the Company's customer
         transactions;

     (2) that defendants violated Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles and the Company's own internal policies
         regarding the timing of revenue recognition; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's revenues,
         net income and earnings per share published during the
         Class Period were materially false and misleading.

On February 11, 2004, after the close of regular trading, Sonus
shocked the market when it announced that the Company had
identified certain issues, practices and actions of certain
employees relating to both the timing of revenue recognized from
certain customer transactions and to certain other financial
statement accounts, which may affect the Company's 2003
financial statements and possibly financial statements for prior
periods. Prior to disclosing these adverse facts, Sonus
completed a $126.14 million public offering, and Sonus insiders
sold approximately $2 million of their personally-held shares to
the unsuspecting public.

The next morning, when the market opened for trading, shares of
the Company's stock fell as low as $5.02 per share, a decline of
$1.67 per share, or 24.9%, on extremely high trading volume.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld,
Chandra West, Jackie Addison or Heather Gann by Mail: P.O. Box
25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by
Fax: 1-501-312-8505 or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com


SONUS NETWORKS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Sonus Networks, Inc.
(Nasdaq: SONS) publicly traded securities during the period
between June 3, 2003 and February 11, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Sonus, Hassan Ahmed and Stephen Nill 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, throughout the
Class Period, defendants issued numerous statements to the
market concerning the Company's financial results, which failed
to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

     (1) that defendants had improperly and untimely recognized
         revenue on certain of the Company's customer
         transactions;

     (2) that defendants violated Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles and the Company's own internal policies
         regarding the timing of revenue recognition; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's revenues,
         net income and earnings per share published during the
         Class Period were materially false and misleading.

On February 11, 2004, after the close of regular trading, Sonus
shocked the market when it announced that the Company had
identified certain issues, practices and actions of certain
employees relating to both the timing of revenue recognized from
certain customer transactions and to certain other financial
statement accounts, which may affect the Company's 2003
financial statements and possibly financial statements for prior
periods. Prior to disclosing these adverse facts, Sonus
completed a $126.14 million public offering, and Sonus insiders
sold approximately $2 million of their personally held shares to
the unsuspecting public.

The next morning, when the market opened for trading, shares of
the Company's stock fell as low as $5.02 per share, a decline of
$1.67 per share, or 24.9%, on extremely high trading volume.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


WAVE SYSTEMS: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Wave Systems, Inc.
(Nasdaq: WAVX) common stock during the period between July 31,
2003 and December 18, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Wave Systems, Steven Sprague and Gerard T.
Feeney 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
throughout the Class Period, the defendants issued a series of
material misrepresentations to the market concerning the
Company's business agreements with Intel Corporation ("Intel")
and IBM.

In truth and in fact, however, unbeknownst to investors, the
defendants' statements during the Class Period were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that Intel would not be entering into a revenue
         producing licensing agreement with the Company;

     (2) that the Intel contract did not require Intel to
         purchase any software;

     (3) that IBM was not embedding Wave Systems' software into
         IBM computers; and

     (4) that the IBM transaction would provide no direct
         revenue to the Company.

On December 18, 2003, Wave Systems reported that the SEC had
commenced a formal investigation into certain matters relating
to Wave Systems. The SEC's investigative order, received by Wave
Systems on December 17, 2003, related to certain public
statements made by Wave Systems during and around August 2003,
as well as certain trading in Wave Systems' securities during
such time. News of this shocked the financial market. Shares of
Wave Systems fell 17.13%, or $0.31 per share, to close at $1.50
per share on extremely high volume on December 19, 2003.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld,
Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Chandra West by Mail: P.O. Box
25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by
Fax: 1-501-312-8505 or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com


WAVE SYSTEMS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Wave Systems Corporation (Nasdaq: WAVX) from July 31, 2003
through December 18, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Wave Systems, Steven Sprague and Gerard T.
Feeney 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
throughout the Class Period, the defendants issued a series of
material misrepresentations to the market concerning the
Company's business agreements with Intel Corporation ("Intel")
and IBM.

In truth and in fact, however, unbeknownst to investors, the
defendants' statements during the Class Period were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that Intel would not be entering into a revenue
         producing licensing agreement with the Company;

     (2) that the Intel contract did not require Intel to
         purchase any software;

     (3) that IBM was not embedding Wave Systems' software into
         IBM computers; and

     (4) that the IBM transaction would provide no direct
         revenue to the Company.

On December 18, 2003, Wave Systems reported that the SEC had
commenced a formal investigation into certain matters relating
to Wave Systems. The SEC's investigative order, received by Wave
Systems on December 17, 2003, related to certain public
statements made by Wave Systems during and around August 2003,
as well as certain trading in Wave Systems' securities during
such time. News of this shocked the financial market. Shares of
Wave Systems fell 17.13%, or $0.31 per share, to close at $1.50
per share on extremely high volume on December 19, 2003.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of an institutional investor in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Whitehall Jewellers, Inc.
(NYSE:JWL) common stock during the period between November 19,
2001 and December 10, 2003.

The complaint charges Whitehall and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Whitehall is a specialty retailer of fine jewelry offering
an in-depth selection in the following key categories: diamond,
gold, precious and semi-precious jewelry.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Whitehall's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. As a result of this inflation, defendants were able
to complete an insider trading scheme, raising proceeds of $5.3
million.

On November 6, 2003, it was announced that Whitehall had
received "a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission as part of a formal investigation into a complaint
that Whitehall aided a former supplier in an accounting fraud."
On December 11, 2003, it was announced that Whitehall had fired
its Chief Financial Officer and would delay reporting results
for its fiscal third quarter, and later that month that
Whitehall would be restating its "financial statements for
fiscal 2000, 2001 and 2002, including the 2002 quarters then
ended, and the first two quarters ended July 31, 2003."

For more details, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900
or by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com


WINN-DIXIE STORES: Federman & Sherwood Lodges FL Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class action against
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WIN ) in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida Jacksonville
Division.

The suit alleges that throughout the class period of October 9,
2002 through January 30, 2004, the Company issued materially
false and misleading statements thereby artificially inflating
the securities of the Company.  

For more details, contact William B. Federman by Mail: 120 N.
Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 by Phone:
(405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 or by E-mail:
wfederman@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.  The Asbestos Defendant Profiles is backed by an
online database created to respond to custom searches. Go to
http://litigationdatasource.com/asbestos_defendant_profiles.html

                        *********


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.  Roberto Amor, 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  * * *