---

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

              Monday, January 31, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 21

                           Headlines

51JOB INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
AMERICAN HONDA: Firm, Banks Settle TN Racial Discrimination Suit
B.J. MARCHESE: PA Judge OKs $2.45 Mil Identity Theft Settlement
BEHR DAYTON: Employees Lodge Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CALIFORNIA: Insurance Commissioner Delivers Checks To Charities

COMMEND CO.: Recalls 600 Dining Sets Because of Injury Hazard
COMMERCE BANCORP: Shareholders Initiate Amended Complaint in NJ
CREDIT REPAIR FIRMS: FTC Files Illegal Business Practices Suit
FORD MOTOR: Recalls SUVs Because of Cruise Control Switch Defect
GOLD BANC: Court Dismisses Overcharging Suit V. Firm, Subsidiary

HUFFY CORPORATION: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suit in S.D. OH
IBM CORPORATION: Gypsy Holocaust Suit Allowed To Move Forward
INTERSTATE PHARMACY: Reaches $3.2M HI Consumer Suit Settlement
IT GROUP: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in W.D. PA
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Five Consumer Fraud Suits Over Splenda

JUMPKING INC.: Recalls Trampolines, Enclosures For Injury Hazard
LAKEWOOD ENGINEERING: Recalls 70,000 Heaters Due To Burn Hazard
MEDIA WORLD: Shareholders Commence $35 Mil Writ V. Adam Clark
NICOR INC.: Shareholder Stock Sale Suit Settled For $3.5 Mil
PHARMOS CORPORATION: Shareholder Faces Securities Lawsuit in NJ

POTTERY BARN: Recalls 92T Blankets Due To Strangulation Hazard
PRESSTEK INC.: Plaintiffs Withdraw Appeal Of Suit's Dismissal
PURDUE PHARMA: NY Supreme Court Denies Motion For Class Status
RITE AID: Appeals Court Questions $31 Mil Fee Award Calculation
SHURGARD STORAGE: Shareholders Launch Stock Lawsuits in W.D. WA

SILICON STORAGE: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in N.D. CA
TXU CORPORATION: Settles Claims Over Disastrous European Unit
UNITED STATES: PCI Head Reiterates Backing Of Class Action Bill
VIRGINIA: Fast-Food Suit Ban Advances in House of Delegates


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

51JOBS INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in MA
CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. CA
CITADEL SECURITY: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in TX
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ

EPIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges MA Securities Suit
HUFFY CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in OH
PHARMOS CORPORATION: Marc s. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
PHARMOS CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in NJ
SILICON STORAGE: Marc Henzel Files Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA

SIPEX CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
SIPEX CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in CA

                          *********

51JOB INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
51job, Inc. and certain of its officers face several securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all securities
purchasers of 51job, Inc.

The complaints charge 51job and certain of its officers 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 Complaints allege the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company improperly recognized recruitment
         advertising revenue in the third quarter;

     (2) that the Company, a purported expert in Chinese labor
         markets, failed to realize that the drop in late-
         December advertising suggested that many Chinese firms
         have adopted a more Western schedule for hiring;

     (3) that as a result of this market shift, the Company was
         forced to sharply lower its profit outlook; and

     (4) that as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants
         lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements
         about the Company's growth and progress.

Further, on or around January 18, 2005, before the market
opened, 51job announced softness in sales for the latter part of
the month of December 2004, the exit of the peripheral
stationery and office supplies business and updated guidance for
the fourth quarter of 2004. The Company expected fourth quarter
total revenues to be between RMB117 and RMB121 million, compared
with RMB140 million, the low-end of its previous forecasted
range. The news shocked the market. As a result, shares of 51job
fell $15.49 per share, or 35.37 percent, on January 18, 2005, to
close at $28.32 per share, on unusually high volume.

The first identified complaint is styled "Bruce Goplen, et al.
v. 51job, Inc., et al."  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

     (1) Green & Jigarjian LLP, 235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, San
         Francisco, CA, 94104, Phone: 415.477.6700, Fax:
         415.477.6710,

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

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



AMERICAN HONDA: Firm, Banks Settle TN Racial Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Honda Finance Corporation and three national banks have
settled class-action lawsuits in Tennessee that were brought by
black customers, who accuse the finance firm and the banks of
racial bias in automobile lending policies, the Associated Press
reports.

The suits alleged that Company policies routinely allowed car
dealers to charge black customers higher interest rates on auto
loans than were given to whites with similar financial
histories.

Under the settlement, American Honda, Bank One, Bank of America
and US Bancorp will set tighter caps on how much car dealers can
increase interest charges on car loans. General Motors
Acceptance Corporation and Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation
have agreed to similar settlements in the last two years.


B.J. MARCHESE: PA Judge OKs $2.45 Mil Identity Theft Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Philadelphia approved a $2.45 million
settlement in a class-action lawsuit against Benjamin Marchese
the Third of B.J. Marchese Auto World on behalf of hundreds of
people who were victims of identity theft by the former Limerick
auto dealer, the Associated Press reports.

According to court documents, the settlement will compensate
people for damage to their credit reports as well as direct
banks and credit reporting agencies to delete incorrect
information from victims' credit reports and bank records.  Mark
Kearney, a Blue Bell lawyer who represented the class, told the
Associated Press that the victims will receive in excess of
$3,400 each with checks being mailed starting this week.

The 33-year-old auto dealer pleaded guilty to theft-related
charges as part of a plea agreement and will serve a minimum of
four years in prison. He had claimed that he abused others'
credit to feed a gambling habit.


BEHR DAYTON: Employees Lodge Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three Behr employees, an Area Supervisor, a Maintenance
Supervisor, and a Production Supervisor, filed a class action
lawsuit against their employer, Behr Dayton Thermal Products,
LLC, a Dayton, Ohio, a manufacturer of climate control products
and supplier to the automotive industry, to recover more than
$5,000,000 in unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and
punitive damages for the members of the class. The employees
allege that Behr violated the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act when it converted hourly supervisory employees to salaried
workers and failed to pay millions of dollars of overtime that
the supervisors had earned. The more than 100 employees in the
class include all persons who were employed by Behr in the
positions of Area Supervisor, Maintenance Supervisor, and
Production Supervisor at Behr any time from October 1, 2002 to
the present.

Stan Chesley and Bob Steinberg of Waite, Schneider, Bayless &
Chesley Co., L.P.A., Cincinnati, Ohio and John Folkerth, Jr. of
Folkerth & Folkerth, L.L.P., Dayton, Ohio are representing the
employees.

For more details, contact Stanley M. Chesley, Esq. by Phone:
513-621-0267 OR Robert Steinberg, Esq. by Phone: 513-621-0267.


CALIFORNIA: Insurance Commissioner Delivers Checks To Charities
---------------------------------------------------------------
The first checks from a $20 million settlement of a class action
lawsuit to resolve insurance claims that stems from Armenian
Genocide nearly 90 years ago was recently delivered by
California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi to charities
based in the state, the Kansas City Business Journal reports.

According to observers, the Commissioner reportedly played an
instrumental role during the final negotiations leading to the
agreement with New York Life Insurance Company.

As he delivered the checks to the charities, the Commissioner
said, "Justice has been long overdue in this case. I am pleased
that this settlement will help resolve the insurance claims of
the heirs and beneficiaries from the tragic genocide that began
in 1915. The hard work of all parties involved will help bring
some measure of closure to the descendants of the victims. Today
marks the beginning of the distribution of monies from this
agreement, and I am very proud to have helped in this healing
process."

The five organizations receiving checks for $333,333 each are:
the Armenian Church of North America Eastern Diocese (New York),
Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church Eastern U.S. and Canada
(New York), Armenian Apostolic Catholic Exarchate for Armenian
Catholics in the U.S. and Canada (New York), Armenian Missionary
Association of America, Inc. (Paramus, New Jersey) and the
Armenian General Benevolent Union (New York). While four other
Armenian organizations in California will also receive $333,333
each, including: Armenian Church of North America Western
Diocese (Burbank), Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic
Church (Los Angeles), Armenian Educational Foundation
(Glendale). The Armenian Relief Society, United States Chapter
of Watertown, Massachusetts will also receive an equal portion
of the proceeds.

Plaintiffs' attorneys explained that in order to make a claim
for a portion of the settlement, descendants of policyholders
killed during the Armenian Genocide must postmark their claims
no later than March 16, 2005. Details of the settlement and the
New York Life policies involved are available at
http://www.ArmenianInsuranceSettlement.com.


COMMEND CO.: Recalls 600 Dining Sets Because of Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Commend Co. Ltd., of Fair Lawn, N.J. is cooperating with the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 600 HD Designs, 5-piece Dining Set.

The wooden chairs can break, posing a fall hazard to consumers.
Commend has received one report of a chair breaking. In this
report, there was a fall and minor injury.

The chairs and table are sold unassembled as part of a boxed 5-
piece dining set. The words "HD Designs 5 Piece Dining Set" and
item number BFR3917HO are written on the box. The chairs and
dining table are honey oak wood and the seats have beige vinyl
padding.

Manufactured in Thailand, the dining sets were sold at all Fred
Meyer stores in Idaho, Washington, Oregon and Alaska; Fry's
stores in Arizona; and Smith's Marketplace stores in Utah from
April 2004 to October 2004 for about $200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
Fred Meyer to receive a store credit.

Consumer Contact: For more information, call Fred Meyer at
(800) 697-2448 between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday or visit the Fred Meyer Web site:
http://www.fredmeyer.com.


COMMERCE BANCORP: Shareholders Initiate Amended Complaint in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Employees at politically powerful and fast-growing Commerce
Bancorp were pressured to make political donations that were
reimbursed by the Company, according to a recently amended
class-action lawsuit that was filed by stockholders, who
initially sued the Cherry Hill-based bank last summer, the
Associated Press reports.

Stockholders claim that the bank failed to disclose that some of
its employees' activities were under scrutiny by federal
investigators. The suit came in response to the federal
indictments of two former bank executives charged with making
loans to a Philadelphia city official in exchange for getting
$300 million worth of city business for the bank. The two men
are scheduled for trial in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia
next month.

In the most recent court filing, an unidentified former broker
in the bank's investment arm claims he was told by a supervisor
that he should contribute the bank's federal political action
committee. He could choose not to give, a supervisor said, but
there would be a consequence: "He would never move any higher in
the organization." Furthermore, the broker claimed that many
employees were "effectively required" to contribute to the
political fund and were reimbursed through expense accounts, a
practice that clearly violates federal laws.

In a telephone interview, Commerce general counsel Alexander
Bono commented amended suit by stating, "We were surprised to
see that sort of allegation. As far as we know, it's untrue,
completely unsubstantiated." He also adds, "Padding your expense
account for anything is contrary to how we do things."

Even before the indictments and the class action filings, the
bank was dealing with criticism for the way it engaged in
business and politics. Amid pressure over government contractors
giving money to candidates, Commerce suspended donations by its
political action committees (PAC) in 2003.

Republicans and Democrats running for offices at all levels of
government had benefited from its donations. The bank was also
an active donor in federal elections and in campaigns in
Pennsylvania, Delaware and New York, where it also has branches.

Commerce now has 319 branches from Delaware to New York and is
planning to open 55 to 60 more this year, including its first in
the Washington area.


CREDIT REPAIR FIRMS: FTC Files Illegal Business Practices Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two companies targeting Spanish-speaking consumers with claims
that they could improve consumers' credit ratings have violated
federal laws, according to the Federal Trade Commission.  The
FTC has asked a federal district court to halt both companies'
illegal business practices.

According to separate FTC complaints, Florida-based Sunshine
Credit Repair, Inc. and Service Brokers Associates, Inc. use
Spanish and English-language advertising to induce consumers to
pay up-front fees for the defendants' "credit repair" services.
The FTC alleges that Sunshine Credit typically charges a $198
fee for its services, while Service Brokers typically charges
$300 to $400. Under the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA),
it is illegal to charge consumers money before performing the
promised credit repair services. The FTC also charges that
Sunshine Credit deceptively claims it can permanently delete
accurate, negative information from consumers' credit reports.

"When it comes to credit repair, only time, a conscientious
effort, and a personal debt repayment plan will improve your
credit report," said Brad Elbein, Director of the FTC's
Southwest Regional Office. "No credit repair Company or consumer
has the right to remove accurate, current information from a
credit report."

The FTC further alleges that both companies violated other
provisions of the CROA. According to the complaints, prior to
their signing of a contract, both companies fail to provide
consumers with required statements informing them about their
rights under federal and state law to dispute inaccurate
information themselves and explaining the limitations of credit
repair. In addition, the FTC charges that both companies fail to
inform consumers they have the right to cancel their contracts
without penalty.

According to the FTC, consumers can remove inaccurate
information from a credit report themselves - credit repair
companies have no greater power to do so. If consumers notice
errors on their credit reports, they should contact the credit
bureau to dispute that information. The credit bureau will then
conduct an investigation and, if the entry on the report is
found to be inaccurate, it will be removed. The FTC's consumer
education brochure, Credit Repair: Self-Help May Be Best, offers
advice for consumers looking to go through this process, as well
as indicators that a "credit repair" offer may be a scam. The
brochure is available at
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/repair.htm.

The FTC alleges that Sunshine Credit and Service Brokers have
violated the CROA by:

     (1) charging consumers money before performing promised
         services;

     (2) failing to provide consumers with written statements
         concerning their credit file rights; and

     (3) failing to inform consumers of their right to cancel a
         contract.

The FTC further charges that Sunshine Credit violated the CROA
and the FTC Act by making deceptive claims about the Company's
ability to remove accurate, negative information from consumers'
credit reports.  The FTC has asked the court to halt the
companies' illegal business practices and award consumer
redress.

The FTC's complaint against Sunshine Credit names Sunshine
Credit Repair, Inc., and Gabriela Etchevarne as defendants. The
complaint against Service Brokers names Service Brokers
Associates, Inc. and Daniel Gonzalez as defendants.

The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the complaints was
5-0. The complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on January 26, 2005.

For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center,
Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580
by Phone: 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov. Also contact Jen Schwartzman, Office of
Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2674 or Susan Arthur, FTC
Southwest Region by Phone: 214-979-9370


FORD MOTOR: Recalls SUVs Because of Cruise Control Switch Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. is recalling about 800,000 pickups and sport
utility vehicles, namely Ford F-150 pickups, Ford Expeditions
and Lincoln Navigators, model 2000 and model 2001 F-Series
Supercrew trucks, the Associated Press reports.

The Company is recalling the sport utility vehicles because the
cruise control switch could short circuit and cause a fire under
the hood, the nation's second biggest automaker said Thursday,
according to AP.  The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration opened an investigation into the defect in
November after receiving 36 reports of fires.  All of the
incidents occurred when the vehicle was parked and the ignition
was turned off.  No injuries were reported.

As part of the recall, the Company will notify owners of the
recall in February, and dealers will deactivate the cruise
control switch for free.  Once the Company has an adequate
supply of replacement switches, it will send another letter
notifying owners that they can get their switches replaced.

Ford told AP cruise control will be disabled once the switch is
deactivated.  "We recognize this may be an inconvenience, but we
believe this preventive action is in the best interest of our
customers' safety," the Company said.


GOLD BANC: Court Dismisses Overcharging Suit V. Firm, Subsidiary
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed a
class-action suit against Gold Banc Corp. Inc. and its Gold Bank
subsidiary, which had alleged that it had overcharged borrowers
using its Farm Service Agency guaranteed loan program, according
to a Gold Banc written news release, the American City Business
Journals reports.

Ruling in the case, Harold I. Mason et al. v. Gold Banc
Corporation et al., the court determined that federal statutes
and regulations didn't entitle the plaintiffs to take action. It
also ruled in Gold's favor on the plaintiffs' usury claim. Also,
the court dismissed the plaintiffs' state law claims, without
prejudice, based on a lack of jurisdiction.

Gold (NASDAQ: GLDB), which controls $4.3 billion of assets and
is the third-largest bank owner in metropolitan Kansas City,
said in the news release that it didn't know whether the
plaintiffs would ask to refile their state law claims in a
different court. It also said that a separate class-action case
involving the guaranteed loan program remains pending against
Gold Bank in Oklahoma state court.

Gold had said in November that it had paid $16.5 million to
settle a similar suit that was disclosed in June. Rodger L.
Ediger on behalf of the United States filed that suit in October
2002 in camera and under seal in U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma. It also alleged that Gold had
charged excessive interest rates and fees on agricultural loans
covered by the Farm Service Agency's guaranteed loan program.

Gold CEO Mick Aslin said in a prepared statement in November
that the Company denied all allegations of wrongdoing. Gold
settled to avoid the time, expense and risk of litigation, Mr.
Aslin said, the American City Business Journal reports.


HUFFY CORPORATION: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suit in S.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
Huffy Corporation faces a shareholder class action filed on
behalf of purchasers of Huffy Corporation's common stock from
April 16,2002 to August 13,2004 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The complaint charges certain of Huffy's officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Huffy is
a diversified sporting goods Company. The Company markets
basketball equipment, sports balls and other outdoor games under
various brand names.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, defendants issued numerous positive statements
concerning the Company's growth and long-term prospects. As
alleged in the Complaint, these statements were materially false
and misleading because Defendants failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them at all relevant
times:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing problems integrating
         the McCalla and Gen-X acquisitions such that the
         Company was experiencing rising expenses and was not
         generating the benefits from the acquisitions that it
         had represented to investors;

     (2) that the Company's Canadian operations were engaged in
         improper accounting practices, thereby overstating the
         Company's revenues and income. Specifically, the
         Company was failing to properly account for customer
         returns and reductions, was failing to timely write
         down the value of bad debt and was overstating the
         value of its inventory;

     (3) that the legacy costs associated with certain of the
         Company's discontinued operations were continuing to
         mount and were increasingly draining cash from the
         Company;

     (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, in addition to
         continued weakness in the Company's core lines of
         business, the Company's financial condition was
         dramatically eroding such that it was approaching
         insolvency and would soon have to file for bankruptcy;
         and

     (5) based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable
         basis for their positive statements concerning the
         Company's increased sales growth and long term growth
         prospects.

On or around August 13, 2004, Huffy issued a press release
announcing that, in the course of its review of the
Corporation's financial statements for the first quarter of
2004, it determined that certain accounting entries, estimated
in the range of $3.5 to $5.0 million related primarily to
customer deductions, credits and reserves for inventory
valuation and doubtful account receivables for Huffy Sports
Canada (formerly known as Gen-X Sports) were more properly
reflected in the period ended December 31, 2003 rather than in
the first quarter of 2004. As a result, the next trading day,
the price of Huffy common stock declined from $0.58 per share to
$0.35 per share, a decline of 40 percent.

Further, on August 16, 2004, the Company announced that the New
York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") has determined that trading of
Huffy common stock should be suspended immediately and that the
NYSE will take steps to remove Huffy as a listed Company on the
NYSE. Finally, on October 20, 2004, the Company announced that
the Company and all of its United States and Canadian
subsidiaries have filed voluntary petitions for protection under
Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The suit is styled "Dean Gladow, et al. v. Huffy Corp., et al."
The plaintiff firms in the litigation are:

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

     (2) Kirby, McInerney & Squire LLP, 830 Third Avenue 10th
         Floor, New York Ave, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.317.2300,


IBM CORPORATION: Gypsy Holocaust Suit Allowed To Move Forward
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit filed against computer giant IBM by Gypsies will
proceed to trial in Switzerland's Federal Tribunal Court, the
Associated Press reports.  The suit alleges that the Company's
punch-card machines helped Nazis commit mass murder more
efficiently.

The Gypsy International Recognition and Compensation Action
filed the suit, based on a 2001 book written by American author
Edwin Black.  The book, titled "IBM and the Holocaust," alleged
that the punch-card machines were used to codify information
about people sent to concentration camp.

The suit alleges that the Company's Geneva office was its hub
for trade with the Nazis.  In addition to 6 million Jews, the
Nazis are believed to have killed around 600,000 Gypsies,
although Roma groups say the number could have been as high as
1.5 million.  The suit seeks "moral reparation" and US$20,000 (-
16,650) each in damages on behalf of four Gypsies, or Roma, from
Germany and France and one Polish-born Swedish Gypsy.  All five
plaintiffs were orphaned in the Holocaust.

In 2003, a lower court in Geneva decided it didn't have
jurisdiction to hear the case, saying IBM only had an "antenna"
in the Swiss city during World War II.  The plaintiffs appealed
and in 2004, the city's appeals court overturned the decision,
noting that Geneva's archives showed that IBM opened an office
in 1936 under the name "International Business Machines
Corporation New York, European Headquarters."

The Supreme Court upheld the appeals court ruling, AP reports.
The appeals court said it couldn't rule out "IBM's complicity
through material or intellectual assistance to the criminal acts
of the Nazis."

No immediate comment was available from IBM.  The Company
earlier denied the charges, according to AP.  The New York-based
firm also has consistently denied it was in any way responsible
for the way its machines were used in the Holocaust.

The Gypsies' lawyers, led by Henri-Philippe Sambuc, maintain
that the Company's Geneva office continued to coordinate Europe-
wide trade with the Nazis, acting on clear instructions from
IBM's world headquarters in New York.  IBM's German division has
paid into Germany's government-industry initiative to compensate
people forced to work for the Nazis during the war, according to
AP.

In April 2001, a class action lawsuit against IBM in New York
was dropped after lawyers said they feared it would slow down
payments from the German Holocaust fund. German companies had
sought freedom from legal actions before committing to the fund,
AP reports.


INTERSTATE PHARMACY: Reaches $3.2M HI Consumer Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Interstate Pharmacy Corporation, a subsidiary of
AmerisourceBergen Corp. (ABC) settled for $3.2 million a class-
action lawsuit in Hawaii that accused it of accepting returned
medication from patients and reissuing it, MarketWatch reports.

The Company, which said the suit made no allegations of human
physical harm, will pay $2 million to a fund for class members
and $1.2 million to the University of Hawaii to fund programs
benefiting senior citizens.

According to a press release by the pharmaceutical services
firm, the settled suit involves Interstate Pharmacy Corp., a
part of AmerisourceBergen's PharMerica Inc. subsidiary. It is
alleged to have reused returned pharmaceutical products prior to
February 2000.

Since the allegations were made, Hawaii changed its law to
permit the use of returned medications under certain conditions.
AmerisourceBergen said any unclaimed money in the fund would
also be distributed to the University of Hawaii. A Company
spokesman also said that the settlement would be covered by a
reserve.


IT GROUP: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in W.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
IT Group, Inc. and certain of its executive officers face a
securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of IT Group, Inc. in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

Specifically, the complaint charges IT Group and certain of the
Company's executive officers with violations of the Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiffs claim defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning IT Group's financial performance,
in Company quarterly press releases and Form 10-K annual reports
and Form 10-Q quarterly reports filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission between October 21, 1998 and February 23,
2000, artificially inflated the Company's stock price,
inflicting damages on investors.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants:

     (1) overstated IT Group's accounts receivable by improper
         inclusion of unapproved change orders and purchase
         price adjustments made in connection with acquisitions;

     (2) misrepresented the quality of IT Group's accounts
         receivable, by overstating billed receivables and
         understating unbilled receivables;

     (3) concealed that the IT Group was undergoing a liquidity
         crisis due to the failure of its acquisitions strategy,

     (4) failed to disclose that the government contracts, which
         IT Group claimed provided it with a multi-billion
         dollar backlog, were actually awarded to multiple
         vendors, and

     (5) failed to disclose that the quality of IT Group's
         receivables was impaired due to the Company's violation
         of the U.S. Government's Federal Acquisition
         Regulations "pay-when-paid" requirements.

The suit is styled "Howard G. Clair, et al. v. IT Group, Inc.,
et al., case no. 03-CV-00288," filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under
Judge William L. Standish.  Law firm for the plaintiffs is
Cohen, Gettings & Caulkins, P.C., Mail: 2200 Wilson Boulevard,
Suite 800, Arlington, VI, 22201, Phone: 703.525.2260, Fax:
703.525.2489, E-mail: info@cohengettings.com.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Five Consumer Fraud Suits Over Splenda
---------------------------------------------------------------
False advertising lawsuits are mounting against chemical
sweetener manufacturer Johnson & Johnson/McNeil for claims made
about its chlorinated artificial sweetener Splenda. Five
separate lawsuits across the United States have been filed thus
far, three State Consumer Class Action suits and two independent
Federal suits.

The complaints focus on violations of the Federal Lanham Act and
violations of Florida and California statutes, all of which are
designed to protect consumers against misleading corporate
statements. All complaints allege deceptive and/or misleading
representations made by Johnson & Johnson/McNeil in
advertisements and marketing terminology in order to attract
customers to purchase and consume the artificial sweetener
Splenda.

"The Sugar Association believes, as do the consumers who filed
the State Class Action suits, that Johnson & Johnson is
misinforming consumers about the reality of the chlorinated
product Splenda," remarked James Murphy, counsel for the Sugar
Association, which filed one of the lawsuits. "We feel the
public needs to be aware that Splenda is an artificial chemical
sweetener. Splenda is created with chlorine, and the final
product does not have sugar in it. People need accurate
nutritional information to make good decisions on what they are
feeding their families."

In its advertisements and on its product packaging, Johnson &
Johnson/McNeil claims that, "Splenda is made from sugar, so it
tastes like sugar." According to the suits, statements like this
mislead consumers into thinking that Splenda is natural sugar
without calories. In fact, Splenda is not natural and does not
taste like sugar. The sweetness of Splenda derives from a
chlorocarbon chemical that contains three atoms of chlorine in
every one of its molecules.

The five lawsuits filed are:

State Consumer Class Action Cases

     (1) Peggy Patton, On Behalf of Herself and All Others
         Similarly Situated vs. McNeil Nutritionals LLC filed in
         Santa Clara County, California on December 6, 2004.

     (2) Marc Backer, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated vs. McNeil Nutritionals LLC filed in
         Los Angeles Country, California on December 21, 2004.

     (3) Bobby Allen Green, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated vs. McNeil Nutritionals LLC filed in
         Duval County, Florida on December 2, 2004.

Federal

     (4) Merisant vs. McNeil Nutritionals LLC filed in
         Philadelphia on November 26, 2004.

     (5) The Sugar Association vs. McNeil Nutritionals LLC filed
         in Los Angeles on December 10, 2004

For more information about the lawsuits filed against Johnson &
Johnson in relation to Splenda, or for information about the
Truth About Splenda campaign http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com,
please call Rich Masters at Qorvis Communications by Phone:
202-496-1000.


JUMPKING INC.: Recalls Trampolines, Enclosures For Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Jumpking Inc.r of Mesquite, Texas, is voluntarily
recalling about 1 million trampolines and about 296,000
"FunRing" enclosures sold separately and with Jumpking
trampolines. Welds on the frame of these trampolines can break
during use, resulting in falls and possible injuries.
Additionally, the mounting brackets of the FunRing enclosures
have sharp edges, which can cause lacerations.

Jumpking has received 47 reports of one or more welds breaking
on these trampolines. This resulted in 21 reports of a variety
of injuries, including a concussion; head, neck and back
injuries; a broken arm; sprains; lacerations; and bruises. The
firm also received 12 reports of other incidents, including nine
reports of serious lacerations, when children came into contact
with the sharp edges of the enclosure brackets.

The recall includes 14-foot and 15-foot Jumpking trampolines
sold separately and with FunRing enclosures. The brand name
"Jumpking, Inc." is written on a warning label wrapped around a
leg of the trampoline. The eight legs of these trampolines fit
into perpendicular sockets welded to the top rails. Trampolines
with weldless sockets that fit over the connecting top rail
pieces are not included in this recall.

The FunRing enclosures have an arched design where the vertical
poles are connected by arches at the top. Some enclosures were
sold separately from the trampolines. The trampolines and
enclosures were manufactured in the U.S. and China. Later units,
that include the rubber sleeves that fit around the mounting
brackets, are not included in the recall.

The trampolines with enclosures were sold at discount,
department and toy stores nationwide and in Canada from July
1999 through December 2003 for between $350 and $450.
Trampolines without FunRing enclosures were sold from July 1999
through February 2004 for between $180 and $220. FunRing
enclosures were sold separately for between $150 and $250.

Consumers should stop using the trampolines and/or the
enclosures, and contact Jumpking to receive free repair kits.

To order the repair kits or for more information, contact
Jumpking Inc. toll-free at (866) 302-8669 between 9 a.m. and 6
p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or go to the Company's Web site:
http://www.jumpking.com.


LAKEWOOD ENGINEERING: Recalls 70,000 Heaters Due To Burn Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lakewood Engineering & Mfg. Co., of Chicago, Illinois is
cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling about 70,000 Model 5101 oil-
filled electric radiator heaters.

Welds can rupture, expelling hot oil that can burn nearby
consumers. Lakewood is aware of 28 reports of incidents,
including one burn injury from spewing oil. An additional 14
heaters with ruptured welds have been returned to Lakewood.

The recalled heaters are portable electric radiator-style
heaters with six fins, one of which has the control panel
attached to it. The units are grayish-white in color and have
the name "Lakewood" printed below the handle indentation on the
control panel. The model number "5101" is printed on the UL
label on the lower right side of the control panel.

Manufactured in the U.S.A., the heaters were sold at by all
retailers nationwide, including Wal-Mart and Ace Hardware, from
August 2004 through November 13, 2004 for between $34 and $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using these heaters, unplug
them and contact Lakewood to determine if their heater is part
of the recall. Lakewood will provide a free replacement heater
to each consumer who has a recalled heater.

Consumer Contact: Call Lakewood toll-free at (888) 858-3506
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or visit
the Company's Web site: http://www.lakewoodeng.com.


MEDIA WORLD: Shareholders Commence $35 Mil Writ V. Adam Clark
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Clark, who allegedly sold bogus video compression
technology to Media World Communications, is facing a $35
million class-action lawsuit from the Company's shareholders,
The Age reports.

Media World was placed into administration in September after
its "breakthrough" Adams Platform compression technology was
revealed to be no improvement on existing technology.

Lawyers representing the shareholders filed the $35 million
class action in the Victorian Supreme Court against Mr. Clark,
his companies and others, for misleading and deceptive
representations. The writ alleges that the Company's prospectus
did not contain all the information it should have.

Maurice Blackburn Cashman, senior partner Bernard Murphy, told
The Age that Media World had predicted it would achieve 14 per
cent penetration of Australian TV households within five years
of starting video-on-demand services and would derive annual
operating income from those services in Australia of $145
million before launching into international markets worth more
than $127 billion. He also said, "After collecting approximately
$35 million from investors between 2000 and 2004, Media World
announced that the technology did not work even as well as
already existing commercially available technology and went into
administration."

Furthermore, Mr. Murphy explained to The Age that the claim
relied on provisions in the Corporations Act, the Trade
Practices Act, the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission Act and the Fair Trading Act of Victoria.

In a related case, Justice Finkelstein in Melbourne's Federal
Court will hear an application by the administrator of the Media
World companies very soon. The administrator has asked the court
to determine whether the investors should be declared contingent
creditors.


NICOR INC.: Shareholder Stock Sale Suit Settled For $3.5 Mil
------------------------------------------------------------
To settle a shareholder suit dating back to 2002, Naperville-
based Nicor Inc. agreed to pay $3.5 million and promised to
strengthen its corporate governance policies, the Chicago Daily
Herald reports.

The case, which is over stock sales along with a separate class-
action suit that was settled last year cost Nicor about $42
million. After insurance reimbursement, Nicor's out-of-pocket
payment is expected to be about $9 million.

Mark Knox, Nicor's investor relations director, told the Daily
Herald, "We're pleased to have these matters settled and behind
us and to add financial certainty to these matters."

However, Kenneth Flammang, an owner of Bannockburn Securities
LLC, a Northbrook boutique money management firm that owns
shares in Nicor, told the Herald he was disappointed with the
settlement. Accoridng to him, "Like most class-based litigation,
the attorneys came out ahead and the shareholders get very
little," he also adds, "The Company got off the hook very
cheaply."

The two shareholder cases are related to the now defunct Nicor
Energy and the Performance-based Rate program both had alleged
that Nicor provided misleading and inaccurate information to the
financial market.

Last April, Nicor said it agreed to settle a federal class-
action case for $38.5 million. Under terms of that agreement,
claims against the utility and its executives were dismissed
without admission of wrongdoing or liability.

Last year's settlement, on the other hand, involved a 2002 case
against Nicor Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Thomas Fisher
and other Company executives by the shareholders who purchased
stock between November 24, 1999, and July 19, 2002.

Meanwhile, the most recent settlement of $3.5 million, which is
set to pay the plaintiff's legal fees and expenses as well as to
allow Nicor not to admit liability, is pending approval in Cook
County circuit court in about 120 days.

According to Mr. Knox, that settlement would require Nicor to
rewrite its governance policies on a variety of points. Mr. Knox
also said that Nicor has been in compliance with New York Stock
Exchange rules and it intends to "strengthen" its policies
further. The new policies are expected to be included in a
federal filing in late February. Other federal and state actions
on behalf of consumers related to the rate program though are
still pending, he adds.


PHARMOS CORPORATION: Shareholder Faces Securities Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmos Corporation faces a securities class action in the
United States District for the District of New Jersey, on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's securities from August 23,2004 to
December 17,2004.

According to a press release dated January 24, 2005, a class
action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of all purchasers of
Pharmos Corp.  Specifically, the action charges Pharmos and
certain of its senior officers with violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The alleged violations stem from the
dissemination of false and misleading statements, which had the
effect -- during the Class Period -- of artificially inflating
the price of Pharmos's shares.

During the Class Period, defendants concealed the fact that
Dexanabinol, the Company's flagship drug product, in Phase III
trials for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) trial was not exhibiting
materially favorable reaction. Prior to disclosing this
information to the public, Pharmos sold $16.75 million worth of
stock in a private placement. Furthermore, the Company's CEO
sold 20% of his holdings and its President sold almost 50% of
his holdings. Such sales occurred after the close of Phase III
enrollment and after the six month post-enrollment period
concluded. On December 20, 2004, just weeks after insiders sold
400,000 shares of stock, they announced Dexanabinol was not
found to be materially effective in Phase III testing.
Furthermore, after years of touting the effectiveness of
Dexanabinol, the Company abruptly ceased its effort to gain
approval for Dexanabinol for TBI.

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Kirby, McInerney & Squire LLP, 830 Third Avenue 10th
         Floor, New York Ave, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.317.2300,


POTTERY BARN: Recalls 92T Blankets Due To Strangulation Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pottery Barn Kids, of San Francisco, California is cooperating
with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by
voluntarily recalling about 92,000 Chamois Blankets.

The decorative stitching on the blanket's edge can come loose,
allowing a child to become entangled in the yarn. This poses a
strangulation hazard to young children. Pottery Barn Kids has
received four reports of incidents involving the decorative
stitching coming loose. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves children's chamois blankets made of 100%
polyester. The blankets were sold in yellow, pink, blue and
green, and the reverse side of all the blankets is white.
Decorative yarn in a coordinating color is stitched around the
blanket's edge. The blanket measures 30-inches wide by 40-inches
long and are labeled for stroller use. A label on the blanket
reads "pottery barn kids" and "Made in Korea."

Manufactured in Korea, the blankets were sold at all pottery
Barn Kids' stores nationwide, through the Pottery Barn catalog,
and PotteryBarnKids.com from December 2002 through December 2004
for about $30.

Consumers can remove the decorative stitching or contact Pottery
Barn Kids for information on how to receive a replacement or
refund.

Consumer Contact: Contact Pottery Barn Kids toll-free at
(877) 800-9720 between 7 a.m. and 12 a.m. ET daily or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.potterybarnkids.comOR Pottery Barn
Kids Media Contact: Abigail Jacobs, at (415) 616-8432.


PRESSTEK INC.: Plaintiffs Withdraw Appeal Of Suit's Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported securities class action lawsuit
filed against Presstek, Inc., its former Chief Executive Officer
Robert W. Hallman, and its former Chief Financial Officer Neil
Rossen, have withdrawn their appeal of the U.S. District Court's
recent dismissal of the suit.

The lawsuit was allegedly brought on behalf of purchasers of
Presstek's common stock during the period from December 10, 1999
through July 16, 2001, and was filed in June 2003 in the United
States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. In
October 2004, in a 47-page decision granting Presstek's motion
to dismiss, Judge Steven McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court,
found that each of the claims brought by the plaintiffs failed
to allege a claim on which the Court could grant relief and the
case was dismissed. Today, the plaintiffs formally withdrew
their appeal of this matter.

"Of course, we are quite pleased with the plaintiffs' withdrawal
of their appeal and that we resolved this matter once and for
all without going through the appeal process or reaching a
settlement," said James F. Scafide, Corporate Counsel of
Presstek, Inc. "Throughout this process we have maintained that
the allegations raised by the plaintiffs in this matter were
without merit. We are happy that we can now put this issue
behind us and focus our efforts on more productive matters."


PURDUE PHARMA: NY Supreme Court Denies Motion For Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Stephen J. Maltese of the Supreme Court of the State of
New York for Richmond County denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in Hurtado, et al. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et
al., a personal injury lawsuit claiming harm, including
addiction, caused as a result of using OxyContin(R) (oxycodone
HCl controlled-release) Tablets. Purdue Pharma is the Stamford,
Connecticut-based distributor of OxyContin.

In state and federal courts around the country, class
certification in OxyContin-related litigation has now been
denied in written opinions on nine occasions. After nearly four
years of litigation, no plaintiff has been able to sustain a
class in any of the OxyContin cases.

Class action status enables a plaintiff to prosecute a lawsuit
on behalf of a larger group of people alleged to be suffering
similar damages as a result of misconduct attributed to the
defendant in the litigation.

Justice Maltese ruled that the Hurtado plaintiffs had failed to
meet the "commonality requirement" of class certification,
stating, "[This case presents] important individual issues and
to lump all of those issues together would be inappropriate for
all of the parties involved." (Opinion, p. 9) He observed
specifically, "Without a common injury or 'signature disease'
like asbestosis or mesothelioma, which only come from asbestos
contact, it is difficult to define a class or establish
causation.  Signature diseases are those that are uniquely
related to exposure to a certain substance and are rarely
observed in individuals that are not exposed.  If the plaintiffs
proffer that addiction is a common injury to all parties, that
does not substantiate their case.  The Court of Appeals in New
York has determined that issues of addiction are individualized
and are not appropriate for class certification." (Opinion, p.
9-10)

Justice Maltese also concluded that the individual plaintiffs'
claims would not be typical for the members of the proposed
class, "Without a clearly defined common injury or signature
disease, the five plaintiffs named cannot be typical of an
entire group." (Opinion. p.10.)

In his 23-page opinion and order, Justice Maltese also reviewed
the reasoning and holdings of the state and federal courts that
previously had ruled on the issue of class certification in
OxyContin litigation. He noted that the New York state trial
court over which he presides is not bound by the decisions from
these other jurisdictions, but expressed reluctance "to rule on
a case of such magnitude, which could affect potentially
thousands of people without knowing what other courts have done
under similar circumstances, which may be persuasive." (Opinion,
p.20)

"Justice Maltese's opinion is very welcome and we appreciate and
respect his analysis," stated Howard R. Udell, Executive Vice
President and Chief Legal Officer of Purdue Pharma. "This is yet
another in a series of rulings in our favor that are not only
important in our litigation, but for patients as well."

"Publicity arising from unproven allegations in lawsuits such as
these can frighten doctors from practicing good medicine and
scare patients into disregarding the instructions of their
healthcare professionals. With these procedural motions behind
us, we are eager to proceed to trial where we confidently expect
to dispose of the allegations in this case on their merits,"
Udell concluded.

In OxyContin cases that have ended, 261 lawsuits against Purdue
Pharma have either been dismissed by the court or withdrawn by
the plaintiffs. No case has resulted in a verdict against Purdue
Pharma. With the exception of a single lawsuit brought by the
Attorney General of West Virginia that was settled with no
admission of wrongdoing by the Company, Purdue Pharma has paid
nothing to settle any of the 261 private cases that have been
withdrawn or dismissed.


RITE AID: Appeals Court Questions $31 Mil Fee Award Calculation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge may have been too generous when he awarded more
than $31 million in fees to the lawyers who secured a $126
million settlement in a class action suit against Rite Aid
Corp., the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

According to its 33-page opinion in In re Rite Aid Corp.
Securities Litigation, the three-judge panel found that "in all
respects but one," U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell had
"performed an exemplary analysis" in his rulings on the fee
award. The panel further states in its opinion that Judge
Dalzell correctly followed the percentage-of-recovery approach
in deciding that the plaintiffs' lawyers were entitled to 25
percent of the fund, but he erred in his application of a
lodestar "crosscheck" by focusing only on the hourly rates for
the top lawyers.

Legal experts explain that the lodestar is calculated by
multiplying the number of hours reasonably worked on a case by a
reasonable hourly billing rate for such services based on the
given geographical area, the nature of the services provided and
the experience of the attorneys.

Although the 3rd Circuit prefers the percentage-of-recovery
method for deciding class-action fee awards, the court has said
it is "sensible" for trial judges to "crosscheck" the percentage
fee award against the lodestar method. But, now the 3rd Circuit
has insisted that the crosscheck must be based on the hourly
rates of all of the plaintiffs' lawyers so that it will
accurately reflect how much of a "multiplier" the fee award
represents.

The panel also found out that Judge Dalzell erred in calculating
the rate solely on the basis of the senior-most partners at lead
firms whose average billing rate is $605 and instead should have
applied a "blended billing rate" that would approximate the fee
structure of all the plaintiffs attorneys who together logged
more than 12,000 hours on the case.

Furthermore, Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Anthony J. Scirica wrote
in an opinion joined by 3rd Circuit Judge D. Michael Fisher and
visiting 9th Circuit Senior Judge Arthur L. Alarcon, "Had the
hourly rates been properly blended, taking into account the
approximate hourly billing rates of the partners and associates
who worked on the case, the multiplier would have been a higher
figure, alerting the trial court to reconsider the propriety of
its fee award. Failure to apply a blended rate, we believe, is
inconsistent with the exercise of sound discretion and requires
vacating and remanding for further consideration." He however
stressed that the percentage-of-recovery approach "is the proper
method" of awarding attorney fees, and said the lodestar
crosscheck calculation "need entail neither mathematical
precision nor bean-counting."

Filed in the wake of Rite Aid's accounting scandal, the
shareholder suits eventually led to settlements totaling more
than $334 million. The first settlement, worth $207 million, led
to a fee award of $48.25 million, while the second settlement,
the accounting firm KPMG paid $125 million and former Rite Aid
CEO Martin Grass paid $1.4 million.

The recent decision from the 3rd Circuit focused only on the $31
million in fees awarded in the second case.

Court records show that 34 plaintiffs firms will share in the
fees, but that more than 80 percent will go to the two lead
firms that together logged more than 11,000 hours on the case
namely Berger & Montague in Philadelphia and Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach in New York.

The Berger firm's team was led by Sherrie R. Savett and included
Carole R. Broderick and Robin Switzenbaum while the Milberg
Weiss contingent was led by David J. Bershad and included
William C. Fredericks, Brian C. Kerr, Susan M. Greenwood and
Christian Siebott.

Shareholder Walter Kaufmann who argued that Judge Dalzell's $31
million fee award was unreasonable and that he should have
applied a declining percentage "sliding scale" principle to
reduce the percentage-of-recovery to account for the magnitude
of the settlement fund brought the appeal. Now the 3rd Circuit
has rejected most of Mr. Kaufmann's arguments, but sided with
him on his complaint that Judge Dalzell's crosscheck was faulty.

In the suits, investors alleged that between May 1997 and March
1999, Rite Aid portrayed itself as a Company with "very strong"
profitability and said it was in the midst of a major program to
expand and modernize its operations. In fact, the suit alleged,
the modernization and expansion programs were "encountering
significant problems." However, instead of publicly disclosing
the problems, the suit alleged that Rite Aid engaged in a
variety of improper accounting methods designed to hide its true
financial picture by both artificially inflating its earnings
and deflating its expenses.

Over a three-year period, the suit alleged, Rite Aid succeeded
in artificially inflating its after-tax earnings by more than
$1.6 billion. The suit also alleged that KPMG was "aware of" and
"recklessly disregarded" Rite Aid's improper accounting
practices. In each of the three years, the suit said, KPMG
issued "unqualified auditor's opinions" that said Rite Aid's
financial statements conformed with generally accepted
accounting principles.

The public first learned of the problems in March 1999 when Rite
Aid announced that its fourth-quarter earnings would be less
than expected. The news caused stock prices to drop from $37 per
share to $22.56. Soon after, investors learned that the SEC was
investigating Rite Aid's accounting practices. The Company
responded by restating its financial results for the previous
three years.

However, the suit alleged that the true extent of Rite Aid's
problems weren't revealed until November 1999, when a series of
disclosures rocked the Company and caused its stock price to
plummet down to just $5.38 per share.


SHURGARD STORAGE: Shareholders Launch Stock Lawsuits in W.D. WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. faces several securities class
actions filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired its common stock from
May 9,2001 to March 26,2004 in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington.

The actions charge that Shurgard and one or more of its officers
and/or directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Specifically, the complaints allege that during the
Class Period, Defendants materially misled the investing public
by issuing false and misleading statements regarding the
business and financial results of Shurgard.

More specifically the complaints allege:

     (1) the Company lacked sufficient internal controls and
         therefore was unable to ascertain its true financial
         standing;

     (2) the Company's U.S. owned entities should have been
         accounted for using a consolidated accounting method
         since the inception of each entity;

     (3) the Company's European operations incurred operating
         losses which were not supported but sufficient evidence
         of future profitability to recognize loss carry
         forwards;

     (4) net income for 2001, 2002 and for the nine-month period
         ended September 30, 2003 had been seriously overstated
         due to the improper accounting for the Tax Retention
         Operating Lease;

     (5) because of these errors, the value of the Company's
         balance sheet and income statement had been materially
         overstated at all relevant times;

     (6) Shurgard's quarterly and annual filings and press
         releases had not conformed to Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP"), and;

     (7) at the time the Company presented its earnings
         guidance, it knew or should have known that it had no
         adequate basis to make those statements.

On March 26, 2004 Shurgard began to reveal the extent of its
accounting irregularities by announcing that it would be unable
to file its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003. It
further stated that as a result of its audit process certain
accounting adjustments having a material effect on reported
financials would have to be made. Then on May 17, 2004, Shurgard
announced that management had reviewed previously reported
historical financial data and related descriptions for certain
accounting errors. Shurgard announced that it had conducted a
re-audit of the financial statements for the years ended
December 31, 2001 and 2002 and for the quarters ended March 31,
June 30, September 30, 2003 and 2002 as well as the quarter
ended December 21, 2002.

It also indicated that it had incorrectly assessed certain
accounting policies applied to its consolidated financial
statements which were required to be restated. In addition, the
Company's newly appointed auditors, PricewaterhoseCoopers, had
identified other accounting errors impacting prior periods which
were required to be restated. As a result, Shurgard's shares
fell to $33.30 per share in response to the news that the
Company's previously-reported financial results, which had
already been restated, may not in fact be what they seemed.

The first identified complaint is styled "David Gross, et al. v.
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc., et al."  The plaintiff firms in
this litigation are:

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

     (2) Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 212.907.0700, Fax:
         212.818.0477, E-mail: info@glrslaw.com

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


SILICON STORAGE: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. faces several securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. from March 30,2004 to
December 20,2004.

The Complaints allege that defendants Silicon Storage and one or
more of its officers and/or directors violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements, which had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.  Specifically, the
Complaints allege that Silicon Storage concealed the following
facts:

     (1) that its sales and margins were being materially
         impacted by Macronix and Intel's actively lowering
         their average selling prices;

     (2) that Silicon Storage was not on track to achieve its
         profitability projections; and

     (3) that its gross margin projections were overstated.

Further, on December 20, 2004, Silicon Storage issued a press
release announcing that "its revenue in the fourth quarter is
expected to be between $102 and $108 million versus previous
guidance of $120 to $130 million. Due to current market
conditions, the Company expects to record an inventory charge of
between $20 and $25 million for excess inventory and to write
certain products down to their current estimated market values."
As result of this news, Silicon Storage shares fell from a close
of $7.01 per share on December 20, 2004, to close at $5.99 per
share on December 21, 2004, on unusually high trading volume.

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

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

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


TXU CORPORATION: Settles Claims Over Disastrous European Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas-based TXU Corporation has agreed to pay $220 million to
settle claims from the failure of its European subsidiary, the
Associated Press reports.

TXU is set to pay TXU Europe Ltd., with the money being
distributed to creditors, which according to the Company will be
covered by a combination of insurance, cash and borrowing from
available credit. It has also revealed that it would take an
after-tax charge against earnings of $143 million in the fourth
quarter, which could be reduced once it agrees with insurance
carriers over proceeds from policies.

TXU spokesman Chris Schein told AP the settlement resolved the
last major legal dispute stemming from the European operation.
Last week, the Company announced it would pay $150 million and
change corporate rules to settle a class-action lawsuit brought
by investors who bought TXU stock just before it dropped sharply
in 2002.

The latest settlement hinges on creditor approval and releasing
TXU, which provides electricity to more than 2.5 million
customers in Texas and owns power plants, from current or
potential claims, but Mr. Schein said a majority of creditors
have already indicated their approval.

Chief Executive C. John Wilder told AP that it "closes a
difficult chapter in TXU's history" and eliminates the
uncertainty of a drawn-out proceeding that could have included
claims in the billions of dollars.


UNITED STATES: PCI Head Reiterates Backing Of Class Action Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Just as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) publicly
made his intention to make class action reform legislation an
immediate priority for the 109th Congress, the Property Casualty
Insurers Association of America released a statement reiterating
the need for reform and its support of the nation's legislators
backing such measures, the Insurance Journal reports.

According the insurance Company association, asbestos litigation
reform and medical liability reform are joining the class action
reform at the top of the Senate's agenda, and 2005 could become
a watershed year for Congress to reshape the nation's legal
system.

In a written statement, PCI President and CEO Ernie Csiszar
said, "I am pleased that leaders in both the House of
Representatives and the Senate have joined President Bush in
making legal reform a priority for the 109th Congress. A recent
study conducted by the actuarial firm of Tillinghast Towers
Perrin documented the crippling costs of our disjointed legal
system."

Mr. Csiszar also stated that there are a number of legal reform
initiatives that could receive significant attention in from
Congress in 2005, one of them is S. 5, the Class Action Fairness
Act. "Class action abuse is a major contributor to the $246
billion our legal system costs consumers each and every year,"
Mr. Csiszar continues, "Congress' awareness of class action
reform has not occurred overnight. Members on both sides of the
aisle have acted in good faith and created a bill over several
years that promise to address the most egregious problems within
the legal system. I am confident that with Senator Frist's
leadership, this legislation has a distinct opportunity to
become law this year."

Furthermore, the PCI head also stated in the written statement,
"I am also pleased to see Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas)
reintroducing the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, which will
prevent lawyers from using the system for their own profit. That
bill would also take steps to ban venue shopping, preventing
lawyers from seeking out havens of leniency for the most
frivolous of court actions.


VIRGINIA: Fast-Food Suit Ban Advances in House of Delegates
-----------------------------------------------------------
The House of Delegates in Virginia has given preliminary
approval to a bill states if you get fat from eating too much
fast food, you can't blame the restaurant, The Free Lance-Star
reports.  Delegates had advanced Del. Bill Janis' bill on a
voice vote recently with a final recorded vote on the measure
being slated for today.

Del. Janis' bill would prohibit people from suing restaurants
for obesity or health problems they have from eating those
restaurants' food.  No one has filed such a lawsuit in Virginia,
but Del. Janis had cause for concern since in 2002 a class-
action suit was brought against McDonald's in New York by two
teenagers who claimed the fast-food chain's food made them fat
and contributed to their health problems. Though it was thrown
out twice, the lawsuit was reinstated just this week.

Del. Janis, R-Glen Allen, introduced similar legislation last
year that had failed, however this year he wrote it differently.
This time, the bill uses Food and Drug Administration language
for food products that have an "open and obvious hazard," which
is very similar to that of legislation that passed Congress
earlier this year but did not make it out of the U.S. Senate.

According to him, "This bill simply acknowledges that any type
of food can be healthy if it's eaten in moderation." He also
said 14 states have already passed similar legislation "so they
can foreclose ahead of time the possibilities of litigation." He
pointed out that his bill would simply codify what is already
existing practice in Virginia.

Though other delegates had a few questions about current law and
why Virginia should act to prevent something that has never
happened here, the bill was advanced anyway, with what appeared
to be a majority of Democrats voting against it.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


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

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

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

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080or by E-
Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
on behalf of purchasers of AstraZeneca PLC ("AstraZeneca")
(NYSE:AZN) publicly-traded securities, including investors who
purchased or acquired AstraZeneca securities on foreign markets
and/or who purchased AstraZeneca's American Depositary Receipts
("ADRs") during the period between April 2, 2003 and October 11,
2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges AstraZeneca and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. AstraZeneca is a pharmaceutical research Company
specializing in research and development of drugs to treat
cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, neuroscience, oncology,
respiratory and inflammation and infection disorders.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous materially false and misleading
statements concerning the results of the clinical trials of the
Company's investigational oral anticoagulant Exanta, and the
status and likelihood of the approval of the New Drug
Application for Exanta. These statements caused the Company's
stock/ADR prices to rise until September 9, 2004, when staffers
at the U.S. Food & Drug Administration ("FDA") posted briefing
documents on the FDA's website which raised previously unheard-
of problems with Exanta. Then, on October 11, 2004 the Company
issued a press release stating, in relevant part, that they
received an Action Letter from the FDA for Exanta. The release
stated that "the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not
grant approval for the investigational oral anticoagulant
EXANTA(R) (ximelagatran)." On news of the conclusion reached in
the FDA's action letter, the Company's stock price declined to
$38 per share, erasing millions of dollars in market
capitalization from the Class Period high of $51.20 per share
reached on March 9, 2004 on the NYSE, GBP 2,894 per share
reached on October 28, 2003 on the London Stock Exchange, and
SEK 380.50 per share reached on October 29, 2003 on the
Stockholm exchange.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or by
E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/astrazeneca/.


CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, and in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Charlotte Russe
Holding Inc. (NasdaqNM: CHIC) between January 22, 2004 and
December 6, 2004 (the "Class Period"), including all persons who
acquired shares in the April 20, 2004 equity offering.

The Complaint alleges that Charlotte Russe violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. Specifically the complaint alleges that the
Charlotte Russe's statement were false or misleading because it
failed to disclose that the fact that the strategic
repositioning of Rampage stores was failing to produce tangible
results and because other measures, promoted by management as
actions designed to improve operations, were proving futile in
both merchandising and store organizations. On September 9,
2004, Charlotte Russe revised its financial guidance for the
quarter ending September 25, 2004. On this news, Charlotte Russe
shares fell from a close of $14.63 per share on September 8,
2004, to close at $11.20 per share on September 9, 2004. On
December 6, 2004, Charlotte Russe Executive Vice President Donna
Desrosiers resigned and Charlotte Russe forecasted a decline in
comparable store sales for the quarter ending December 25, 2004.
On this bad news, Charlotte Russe fell from a close of $10.91
per share on December 5, 2004, to close at $10.09 per share on
December 6, 2004.

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


CITADEL SECURITY: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Citadel Security Software, Inc.
("Citadel" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:CDSS) between February 12,
2004 and December 16, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit was filed against Citadel and Steven B. Solomon and
Richard Connelly ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, it is alleged that the
Company failed to disclose and or misrepresented that customer
demand in the commercial portion of the Company's business was
slowing, that the Company's pipeline of potential contracts
failed to materialize due to poor management execution and as a
consequence the Company was lacking any reasonable basis for its
projections.

On December 17, 2004, Citadel provided a financial update for
its year ended December 31, 2004. It stated that based on
preliminary estimates, it expected revenue to approximate $15.2
million to $16 million, compared to previous guidance of full-
year revenue of $18.5 million to $21 million. News of this
shocked the market. Shares of Citadel fell $1.80 per share or
nearly 42% to close at $2.49 per share.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. by Phone:
(800) 495-1868.


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of Conexant Systems, Inc. (NasdaqNM: CNXT)
between March 1, 2004 and November 4, 2004 (the "Class Period"),
including all former holders of GlobespanVirata, Inc.
("Globespan") who acquired Conexant shares in the merger
completed March 1, 2004.

The complaint alleges that Conexant violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading statements concerning its
integration with Globespan. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that Conexant repeatedly stated that the integration was
successful when in fact there were significant problems with
respect to the combined companies' parallel DSL and wireless
technology offerings, as well as their sales and administration
functions. The complaint alleges that Conexant issued false and
misleading statements when it claimed that its wireless LAN
("WLAN") business was experiencing reduced growth due to
competition from Taiwan-based chip suppliers when, in fact, the
problem was actually caused by the combined companies' WLAN
business not being properly integrated in the merger.

On November 4, 2004, Conexant released its financial and
operational results for the fourth quarter ended October 1,
2004, reporting that its "fourth fiscal quarter 2004 revenues of
$213.1 million decreased 20 percent from the third fiscal
quarter revenues of $267.6 million," and stating that
"Conexant's sequential decline in revenues to $213.1 million in
the fourth fiscal quarter was largely due to excess channel
inventory that resulted from lower-than-expected customer
demand. . . ." On this news Conexant stock fell from a close of
$1.76 on November 4, 2004, to close at $1.60 on November 5,
2004.

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


EPIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges MA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
on behalf of purchasers of EPIX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("EPIX")
(NASDAQ:EPIX) securities during the period between July 10, 2003
and January 14, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges EPIX and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. EPIX (formerly known as EPIX Medical Inc.) is a developer
of targeted contrast agents that are designed to improve the
diagnostic quality of images produced by magnetic resonance
imaging ("MRI"). MRI is an imaging technology for a range of
applications, including the identification and diagnosis of a
variety of medical disorders.

The complaint alleges that, by the start of the Class Period,
defendants became aware of clinical quality issues with the
underlying data for their MS-325 Phase III program. MS-325 is
designed to provide visual imaging of the vascular system
through a type of MRI known as magnetic resonance angiography.
These issues, including the generation of unintelligible imaging
scans, made difficult, if not impossible, the proper control of
their clinical test results and statistical analysis of the data
and results. On December 16, 2003, defendants announced the
submission of their New Drug Application ("NDA") for MS-325.
Defendants continued to conceal the serious problems with their
clinical program, specifically the poor quality of the
underlying clinical data and problems with the statistical
analysis. Defendants instead made positive and encouraging
remarks about their "extensive scientific and clinical
development" activities and prospects for product approval.

Then, on January 14, 2005, as alleged in the Complaint, the
Company reported shocking news about the MS-325 submission.
Although defendants sought to place a positive spin on their
receipt of an "approvable" action letter from the U.S. Food &
Drug Administration ("FDA") for MS-325, the news was far from
positive. The FDA had determined that problems with the Phase
III clinical trials were so serious that it was impossible for
them to come to a conclusion about the efficacy of MS-325.
Worse, the FDA noted problems with the underlying data itself,
problems that could not be resolved simply on the basis of re-
analysis of the data. Thus, defendants delivered a serious
setback to investors and, based on their news, the price of EPIX
stock plunged 27%, to $10.67, for a loss of $3.98 per share, on
volume of 11 million shares.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or by
E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/epix/.


HUFFY CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in OH
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on
behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Huffy Corp. (Pink Sheets: HUFCQ.PK) between April
16, 2002 and August 13, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Huffy violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Huffy's positive
statements concerning its growth and long-term prospects were
false and misleading because Huffy was experiencing problems
integrating the McCalla and Gen-X acquisitions; Huffy's Canadian
operations were engaged in improper accounting practices; legacy
costs associated with discontinued operations were continuing to
mount; and, as a result of the foregoing, Huffy's financial
condition was dramatically eroding such that it was approaching
insolvency.

On August 13, 2004, Huffy issued a press release announcing
that, in the course of its review of its financial statements
for the first quarter of 2004, it had determined that certain
accounting entries, estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5.0
million and related primarily to customer deductions, credits
and reserves for inventory valuation and doubtful account
receivables for Huffy Sports Canada (formerly known as Gen-X
Sports), were more properly reflected in the period ended
December 31, 2003 rather than in the first quarter of 2004. In
response to this announcement, the price of Huffy common stock
declined from a close of $0.58 per share on August 13, 2004, to
close at $0.35 per share on August 14, 2004. Then, on August 16,
2004, Huffy announced that it was being delisted from the New
York Stock Exchange ("NYSE"). Finally, on October 20, 2004,
Huffy announced that it was filing for bankruptcy.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080or by E-
Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.


PHARMOS CORPORATION: Marc s. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf
of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of
Pharmos Corp. (Nasdaq: PARS) between August 23, 2004 and
December 17, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Pharmos violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Dexanabinol, the
Company's flagship drug product, in Phase III trials for
Traumatic Brain Injury ("TBI") trial, was not exhibiting a
materially favorable reaction. However, prior to disclosing this
information to the public, Pharmos sold $16.75 million worth of
stock in a private placement. Furthermore, the Company's CEO
sold 20% of his holdings and its President sold almost 50% of
his holdings. Such sales occurred after the close of Phase III
enrollment and after the six month post-enrollment period had
concluded. On December 20, 2004, just weeks after insiders sold
400,000 shares of stock, Pharmos announced that Dexanabinol was
not found to be materially effective in Phase III testing.
Furthermore, after years of touting the effectiveness of
Dexanabinol, Pharmos abruptly ceased its effort to gain approval
for Dexanabinol for TBI.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080or by E-
Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.


PHARMOS CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Pharmos Corporation (Nasdaq: PARS) ("Pharmos" or the "Company")
between August 23, 2004 and December 20, 2004, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint charges Pharmos, Haim Aviv and Gad Riesenfeld with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

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

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

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

On December 20, 2004, Pharmos announced top-line results of its
pivotal Phase III trial of dexanabinol to treat severe TBI. The
Company drug, dexanabinol did not demonstrate efficacy as
measured by the primary clinical outcome endpoint, the Extended
Glasgow Outcome Scale. News of this shocked the market. Shares
of Pharmos fell $2.32 per share, or 66.29 percent, on December
20, 2004 to close at $1.18 per share, on unusually high volume.

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


SILICON STORAGE: Marc Henzel Files Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Silicon
Storage Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ:SSTI) common stock during the
period between March 30, 2004 and December 20, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Silicon Storage and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Silicon Storage is a supplier of flash
memory semiconductor devices for the digital consumer,
networking, wireless communications and Internet computing
markets.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and prospects.  The true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) the Company's sales and margins were being materially
         impacted by Macronix and Intel actively lowering
         average selling prices;

     (2) the Company was not on track to achieve Q4
         profitability, but rather losses;

     (3) the Company's gross margin projections were overstated
         by at least 1,000%;

     (4) the Company's accounting during the Class Period was
         false and misleading; and

     (5) as a result, the Company's Q4 estimates of revenue of
         $120-$130 million and income of $0.10 to $0.14 per
         share were grossly inflated and the Company's reported
         assets were materially overstated.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Silicon
Storage's stock traded at inflated prices during the Class
Period, increasing to as high as $17.31 on April 14, 2004,
whereby the Company's top officers and directors sold more than
$2.9 million worth of their own shares.

On December 20, 2004, the Company issued a press release
announcing that "its revenue in the fourth quarter is expected
to be between $102 and $108 million versus previous guidance of
$120 to $130 million. Due to current market conditions, the
Company expects to record an inventory charge of between $20 and
$25 million for excess inventory and to write certain products
down to their current estimated market values." On this news,
the Company's shares plummeted from $7.00 to $5.43 per share.

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


SIPEX CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Sipex Corporation (Nasdaq: SIPX) between April 10, 2003 and
January 20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Sipex, Douglas M. McBurnie, Walid
Maghribi, Phillip A. Kagel, and Clyde R. Wallin with violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically,
the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company inappropriately recognized revenue on
         sales for which price protection, stock rotation and/or
         return rights were granted;

     (2) that the Company's financial results were in violation
         of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (4) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated at all relevant times.

On January 20, 2005 Sipex announced that the Company may restate
its financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2003 and the fiscal quarters ended April 3, 2004, July 3, 2004
and October 2, 2004 due to the possible improper recognition of
revenue during these periods on sales for which price
protection, stock rotation and/or return rights may have been
granted. The news shocked the market. Shares of Sipex fell $0.90
per share, or 23.44 percent, on January 21, 2005 to close at
$2.94 per share, on unusually high volume.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080or by E-
Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.


SIPEX CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Sipex Corporation ("Sipex")
(Nasdaq: SIPX) between April 11, 2003 and January 20, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, Case No. C-05-0392, is pending before the Honorable
Marilyn H. Patel in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, against defendants Sipex, Walid
Maghribi (former President and CEO), Phil Kagel (former CFO),
and Ray Wallin (current CFO). According to the complaint,
defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that Sipex designs, manufactures and
markets high-performance semiconductors that are used by
original equipment manufacturers operating in the computing,
consumer electronics, communications and networking
infrastructure markets. Throughout the Class Period, Sipex
reported positive results in SEC filings and publicly
disseminated press releases. Defendants attributed these results
to increased semiconductor sales and cost savings resulting from
a restructuring of its operations. Unbeknownst to the Class,
however, the Company's seeming success was the result of
improper accounting that artificially inflated Sipex's reported
results.

The truth began to emerge on January 20, 2005. On that day,
after the market closed, Sipex issued a press release announcing
that it might need to restate its reported financial statements
for fiscal 2003, and for the first three quarters of fiscal
2004. The Company stated that it had discovered "improper
recognition of revenue during these periods on sales for which
price protection, stock rotation and/or return rights may have
been granted," and that the Company's audit committee and board
of directors had commenced an internal investigation of the
matter. As a result of the investigation, Sipex stated that it
would not be able to file its 2004 annual report with the SEC on
time. In reaction to this news, the price of Sipex common stock
dropped dramatically, on unusually high volume, falling $0.90
per share, or 23%, from its previous trading day's closing price
of $3.84, to close at $2.94 on January 21, 2005.

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

Copyright 2005.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *