---

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

            Thursday, February 17, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 34

                          Headlines

ABIT COMPUTER: Hoffman & Edelson Obtains Approval For Settlement
ACTION PERFORMANCE: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in NM
ARIZONA: Justices Unconvinced On Claim in Racial Profiling Case
BISYS GROUP: Defendants Ask NY Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
CALIFORNIA: Judge Says Oakland Police Ignoring "Riders" Reforms

D&K HEALTHCARE: Asks MO Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
DANKA BUSINESS: Asks For Summary Judgment in TN Securities Suit
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Customers Launch Pay-Day Loan Suits in Canada
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Trying To Settle One of Four CA Overtime Suits
EMMPAK FOODS: Recalls 123T lbs Ground Beef Due To Contamination

GENERAL MOTORS: Minority Dealers Launch Suit in NJ Over Program
HI-HEALTH SUPERMART: Settles FTC Deceptive Advertising Charges
INDIANA: Housing Investigation Finds No Basis For Suit V. NHP
INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Four Law Firms Lodge Securities Suits
MOTHERS WORK: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CT Court

NATIONAL SECURITIES: Certification For Securities Suit Appealed
NEW YORK: Settlement On Legal Aid Suits For Homeless Falls Apart
OREGON: Newspaper Pronounces $27M HEDR Radiation Study As Biased
POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in MA Securities Suit
REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Securities Suits in Ohio

TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Shareholders File Securities Lawsuits in NH
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: NH Court Refuses To Dismiss Suit Defendants
UNITED STATES: FDA Unveils Advances in Drug Safety Monitoring
UST LIQUIDATING: Trial For CA Securities Suit Set October 2005
VIENNA: Tsunami Victims To File Lawsuits V. Three Entities in NY

WAL-MART STORES: Bloomberg Joins CA Suit Over Sealed Documents
WAL-MART STORES: CT Child Labor Violations Settlement Under Fire

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ASTRAZENECA PLC: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in DE
AXONYX INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
HUFFY CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in OH
HYPERCOM CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Brodsky & Smith Files Stock Suit in NC

INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Suit in NC
INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Lodges NC Securities Suit
INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Schatz & Nobel Files NC Securities Suit
OFFICEMAX INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in IL
SINA CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NY

SINA CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NY Securities Suit
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Schneider & Wallace Lodges Stock Suit in AZ
VECCO INSTRUMENTS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NY
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in NY
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Schatz & Nobel Files NY Securities Fraud Suit

VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NY Fraud Suit

                        *********

ABIT COMPUTER: Hoffman & Edelson Obtains Approval For Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Hoffman & Edelson, LLC, on behalf of plaintiff
Eric Schonning and the settlement class, have obtained
preliminary court approval of a nationwide settlement of a class
action lawsuit against ABIT Computer (USA) Corporation ("ABIT")
alleging that ABIT manufactured, marketed and sold ABIT
Motherboard models BE6, BE6II, BF6, BX- 133, KA7, KA7-100, SE6,
VH6, VH6II, VH6T, VP6, KT7-raid, KT7A, KT7A-raid, VL6, VT6X4,
SA6R, and BX133-raid containing an allegedly defective
capacitor.

ABIT denies any wrongdoing, and the Court has made no
determinations regarding liability or damages.

The Settlement provides that ABIT will repair or replace the
capacitors on the affected models at no cost to the purchaser.
Purchasers will be instructed to send their motherboard(s) to
ABIT or its designated repair facility and ABIT will repair or
replace the capacitors. All shipping costs will be paid by ABIT.
ABIT will extend the warranties on the repairs and on the
capacitors for a period of two years, following the repair. For
those members of the Class who have incurred direct out-of-
pocket expenses in connection with the repair of a motherboard
affected by a capacitor failure, ABIT will reimburse such Class
members for the cost of repairs, parts, labor and handling
charges in connection with repairing affected capacitors,
provided such costs are reasonable and verifiable.

ABIT is pleased to have reached a settlement of the litigation.
While ABIT believes it did not face liability in the lawsuit,
because of the expense and burden of litigation, ABIT believes
that resolving the matter via a settlement is in the best
interests of ABIT and its customers.

For further information about the litigation or the settlement,
go to http://www.abitsettlement.com.


ACTION PERFORMANCE: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in NM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Action Performance Companies, Inc. and certain of its current
and former officers face a securities class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico,
entitled "The Cornelia Crowell, GST Trust v. Action Performance
Companies, Inc., et al."

The complaint alleges that the Company made false and misleading
statements concerning its financial results and business during
the period from July 23, 2003 to October 22, 2003, resulting in
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief.


ARIZONA: Justices Unconvinced On Claim in Racial Profiling Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism as a lawyer
for the state argued that alleged racial profiling isn't a legal
basis to challenge traffic stops, the Associated Press reports.

The high court is considering whether minority drug defendants
are entitled to have an expert appointed for pretrial
proceedings to support defense claims of racial profiling in
Department of Public Safety traffic stops on Interstate 17 in
Yavapai County.

The Assistant Attorney General Cari McConeghy-Harris argued that
state court rules don't require appointment of an expert in
pretrial proceedings to make a statistical analysis of traffic-
stop data and that constitutional protections against racial
profiling don't come into play with traffic stops, AP reports.

However, the assistant attorney general's assertion that U.S.
Supreme Court rulings appear to indicate that 14th Amendment
protections for equal protection under the law don't apply until
someone is actually ticketed drew sharp questions as well as
expressions of incredulity from several justices.

"What, is the traffic violation inherent in being black?" echoed
Justice Rebecca White Berch, according to AP. On the other hand
Justice Michael Ryan pointed out, "The defendant wouldn't even
be charged if he hadn't been subject to an illegal stop. It
starts the whole chain. If you don't have a stop, you wouldn't
have the prosecution."

After the hearing, Ms. McConeghy-Harris explained to AP that the
U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an officer's motivation is not
an issue in a traffic stop as long as the officer has a rational
reason to make a stop that is a minimal intrusion of privacy.
Furthermore, she explains that alleged racial profiling could be
challenged only on the basis of a person selectively being
arrested or prosecuted. She also pointed out, "It's very
difficult to explain what exactly our distinction is. It's
certainly not saying that it's OK for this racial profiling if
it's going on to be going, but they should be attacking it at a
different level."

During the hearing, defense attorney Lee Phillips argued that
his clients need the expert to help prove racial profiling so
that a judge can rule on the issue even before the case goes to
trial. Proof of racial profiling, according to him, would
warrant dismissal of charges to remove the unconstitutional
taint.

Afterwards as the hearing was adjourned, Mr. Phillips explained
his side to AP by saying that he disagreed with Ms. McConeghy-
Harris' argument on equal-protection rights not being violated
by traffic stops. He adds, "I think that's contrary to the
Constitution. Whether a ticket is issued or not ... is
irrelevant."

The DPS has denied that its officers engage in racial profiling
when determining which motorists to stop for traffic violations.
However, the agency last month agreed to a settlement of a
federal class-action lawsuit on behalf of minority motorists. In
that settlement, which was submitted to a federal court for
approval, DPS promised to institute new training procedures, to
collect traffic-stop information and take other steps to prevent
or detect any racial profiling.


BISYS GROUP: Defendants Ask NY Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bisys Group, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers
and directors filed separate motions to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against them in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Following the Company's May 17, 2004 announcement regarding the
restatement of its financial results, seven putative class
action and two derivative lawsuits were filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers.  By
order of the Court, all but one of the putative class actions
have been consolidated into a single action, and on October 25,
2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all
shareholders who purchased the Company's securities between
October 23, 2000 and May 17, 2004 and generally asserts that the
Company, certain of its officers, and its independent auditors
allegedly violated the federal securities laws in connection
with the purported issuance of false and misleading information
concerning the Company's financial condition. The complaint
seeks damages in an unspecified amount as well as unspecified
equitable/injunctive relief.

The remaining putative class action purports to be brought on
behalf of all persons who acquired non-publicly traded BISYS
securities from the Company as part of private equity
transactions during the period October 23, 2000 to May 17, 2004.
The complaint generally asserts that the Company and certain of
its officers allegedly violated the federal securities laws in
connection with the purported issuance of false and misleading
information concerning the Company's financial condition, and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  On November 29, 2004,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. By order of the Court,
the defendants' time to answer the complaint has been extended
until resolution of the motion to dismiss the complaint
described in the previous paragraph.


CALIFORNIA: Judge Says Oakland Police Ignoring "Riders" Reforms
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Oakland Police Department has ignored the reforms mandated
by the legal settlement arising from the "Riders" police
misconduct scandal, according to a federal judge, the Inside Bay
Area reports.

"It is a slap in the face," said U.S. District Court Judge
Thelton Henderson, describing the police force's failure to
implement reforms laid out in the settlement "unacceptable" and
vowing to step up his oversight of the department, the Inside
Bay Area reports.

John Burris and James Chanin, the attorneys who negotiated the
settlement on behalf of 119 defendants allegedly mistreated by
police, requested the conference with Judge Henderson. In that
conference the attorneys told the judge they were fed up with
what they characterized as the city's lack of commitment to the
reforms.

Judge Henderson agreed, warning that unless the Police
Department shows significant progress, he will consider citing
the city or city officials for contempt of court with the most
serious sanction the judge could order would be to strip the
city of its power over the department and put a caretaker in
charge.

Though Gregory Fox, the city's attorney, acknowledged that
police had failed to meet the settlement's requirements the last
two years, he pointed out that things have changed in the last
45 days. He told Inside Bay Area this change is due to Mayor
Jerry Brown's and City Administrator Deborah Edgerly's taking
charge of the department after the departure of former Chief
Richard Word, who is now the top law enforcement officer in
Vacaville.

In the conference Ms. Edgerly told the judge, "I am absolutely
committed to the reform of the Police Department." She also
pledged that the problems would not reoccur on her watch as well
as vowed to discipline or fire those officers not committed to
the reforms. To further make a point regarding the city's
commitment, Interim Chief Wayne Tucker, who has been in office
for 14 days, acknowledged "a failure of leadership" and promised
it would not continue under his watch. "I'm not making excuses.
It's behavior and actions that matter," he said.

Judge Henderson though seemed somewhat mollified by the earnest
testimony from city officials and thus warned that he would keep
close tabs on the department.

In a December report issued by the monitors tracking the
progress of the reforms, the department had met only 21 of the
50 tasks due to be completed by now under the February 2003
agreement. In particular, the monitors, who include two civil
rights attorneys, a suburban Chicago police chief and a retired
Los Angeles Sheriff's Department division chief, cited the
department for failing to document vehicle and pedestrian stops
as well as field investigations and detentions, to guard against
racial profiling.

In addition, the department failed to document the training of
officers on new policies and procedures, according to the
report. Judge Henderson also expressed his alarm over the
report's citing of many officers, including commanders, were
openly disdainful of the requirements of the settlement
agreement.

The settlement had arose from a class-action lawsuit by 119
Oaklanders who claimed a group of officers known as the "Riders"
beat them, framed them with planted evidence, including drugs,
and filed false police reports.  The city agreed to pay the
plaintiffs $10.5 million and reform the department, which is
expected to cost an additional $10 million.


D&K HEALTHCARE: Asks MO Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
D&K Healthcare Resources, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to dismiss the class
action filed against it and its chief executive, operating and
financial officers.

On February 5, 2004, an individual named Gary Dutton filed the
suit, asserting a class action for alleged breach of fiduciary
duties and violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  On April 30, 2004, United Food & Commercial Workers
Union, Local 655, AFL-CIO, Food Employees Joint Pension Plan
("Local 655") filed a motion to become lead plaintiff.  On
October 5, 2004, the Court granted Local 655's motion appointing
it lead plaintiff.  On November 15, 2004, plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint against the Defendants and Richard Plotnick
and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.

Bristol-Meyers Squibb and Mr. Plotnick have filed Motions to
Dismiss based on statute of limitations and pleading deficiency
grounds. On February 4, 2005, The Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss based upon factual errors in plaintiff's pleadings and
on the grounds that plaintiff failed to meet the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act threshold pleading requirements
of adequate particularity and scienter.

The suit is styled "Dutton v. D&K Healthcare Resources, Inc. et
al, case no. 4:04-cv-00147-SNL," filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, under Judge
Stephen N. Limbaugh.

Representing the Company are Glenn E. Davis, Jacqueline Ulin
Levey, Edwin L. Noel of ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, One
Metropolitan Square, Suite 2600, St. Louis, MO 63102-2740,
Phone: 314-621-5070, Fax: 314-612-2241, E-mail:
gdavis@armstrongteasdale.com, julin@armstrongteasdale.com,
enoel@armstrongteasdale.com.


DANKA BUSINESS: Asks For Summary Judgment in TN Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Danka Business Systems, PLC asked the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to grant summary
judgment in its favor in the putative class action complaint
titled "Stephen L. Edwards, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Danka
Industries, Inc., et al., including American Business Credit
Corporation, Defendants."  The suit alleges claims of breach of
contract, fraud/intentional misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, violation of the Florida Deception and Unfair Trade
Protection Act and injunctive relief.

The claim was filed in the state court in Tennessee, and the
Company has removed the claim to the United States District
Court for Middle District of Tennessee for further proceedings.
The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the class, which
the Company has opposed. The Company has filed a motion for
summary judgment, which plaintiffs have opposed.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Customers Launch Pay-Day Loan Suits in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Group, Inc.'s Canadian subsidiary continues to
face several class actions in various Canadian courts, alleging
usurious charges in payday-loan transactions.

On October 21, 2003, a former customer, Kenneth D. Mortillaro,
commenced an action against the Company's Canadian subsidiary on
behalf of a purported class of Canadian borrowers (except those
residing in British Columbia and Quebec) who he claims were
subjected to usurious charges in payday-loan transactions.  The
action, which is pending in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, alleges violations of a Canadian federal law
proscribing usury and seeks restitution and damages in an
unspecified amount, including punitive damages.

On November 6, 2003, the Company learned of substantially
similar claims asserted on behalf of a purported class of
Alberta borrowers by Gareth Young, a former customer of the
Company's Canadian subsidiary.  The Young action is pending in
the Court of Queens Bench of Alberta and seeks an unspecified
amount of damages and other relief.  On December 23, 2003, the
Company was served with the statement of claim in an action
brought in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by another
former customer, Margaret Smith.

The allegations and putative class in the Smith action are
substantially the same as those in the Mortillaro action. Like
the plaintiff in the MacKinnon action referred to below,
Mortillaro, Smith and Young have agreed to arbitrate all
disputes with the Company.

On January 29, 2003, a former customer, Kurt MacKinnon,
commenced an action against the Company's Canadian subsidiary
and 26 other Canadian lenders on behalf of a purported class of
British Columbia residents who, MacKinnon claims, were
overcharged in payday-loan transactions.  The action, which is
pending in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, alleges
violations of laws proscribing usury and unconscionable trade
practices and seeks restitution and damages, including punitive
damages, in an unknown amount.

On February 3, 2004, the Company's motion to stay the action and
to compel arbitration of MacKinnon's claims, as required by his
agreement with the Company, was denied; the Company appealed
this ruling.  On September 24, 2004, the Court of Appeal for
British Columbia reversed the lower court's ruling and remanded
the matter to the lower court for further proceedings consistent
with the appellate decision.

Similar class actions have been threatened against the Company
in other provinces of Canada, but the Company has not been
served with the statements of claim in any such actions to date.


DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Trying To Settle One of Four CA Overtime Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Financial Group, Inc. is working to settle one of the
four putative class actions, all of which were commenced by the
same plaintiffs' law firm, alleging violations of California's
wage-and-hour laws.

The named plaintiffs in these suits, which are pending in the
Superior Court of the State of California, are the Company's
former employees:

     (1) Vernell Woods (commenced August 22, 2000),

     (2) Juan Castillo (commenced May 1, 2003),

     (3) Stanley Chin (commenced May 7, 2003) and

     (4) Kenneth Williams (commenced June 3, 2003)

Each of these suits seeks an unspecified amount of damages and
other relief in connection with allegations that the Company
misclassified California store (Woods) and regional (Castillo)
managers as "exempt" from a state law requiring the payment of
overtime compensation, that the Company failed to provide
employees with meal and rest breaks required under a new state
law (Chin) and that the Company computed bonuses payable to the
Company's store managers using an impermissible profit-sharing
formula (Williams).

In January 2003, without admitting liability, the Company sought
to settle the Woods case, which the Company believes to be the
most significant of these suits, by offering each individual
putative class member an amount intended in good faith to settle
his or her claim.  These settlement offers have been accepted by
92% of the members of the putative class.  Woods' counsel is
presently disputing through arbitration the validity of the
settlements accepted by the individual putative class members.


EMMPAK FOODS: Recalls 123T lbs Ground Beef Due To Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emmpak Foods, Inc., a Milwaukee, Wisconsin, establishment, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 123,000 pounds of ground
beef that may be contaminated with hydraulic fluid, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
announced.

Products subject to recall include:

     (1) 1-pound packages of "GROUND BEEF, WITH NATURAL
         FLAVORINGS, 73/27."

     (2) 1-pound packages of "EXTRA LEAN GROUND BEEF, WITH
         NATURAL FLAVORINGS, 96/4."

     (3) 1-pound packages of "LEAN GROUND BEEF, WITH NATURAL
         FLAVORINGS, 93/7."

     (4) 1-pound packages of "SIRLOIN GROUND BEEF, WITH NATURAL
         FLAVORINGS, 90/10."

     (5) 1-pound packages of "CHUCK GROUND BEEF, WITH NATURAL
         FLAVORINGS, 80/20."

     (6) 1-pound packages of "ROUND GROUND BEEF, WITH NATURAL
         FLAVORINGS, 85/15."

     (7) 1-pound packages of "FRESH GROUND BEEF FOR CHILI, WITH
         NATURAL FLAVORINGS, 85/15."

These products bear sell by dates of 1/31/05, 2/1/05 or 2/2/05.
Each package also bears the code, "Est. 20654" inside the USDA
mark of inspection. The ground beef was distributed to retail
stores in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.

Included in the recall were 1-pound packages of "LAURA'S LEAN
BEEF, GROUND BEEF, 8% FAT" And 1-pound packages of "LAURA'S LEAN
BEEF, GROUND ROUND, 4% FAT."

These two products bear a sell by date of 2/1/05. Each package
also bears the code, "Est. 20654" inside the USDA mark of
inspection. These products were distributed to retail stores in
Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.

The problem was discovered after FSIS received a consumer
complaint. Anyone concerned about an injury from consumption of
the products should contact a physician.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact company
Customer Service Representative Luke Miller at (866) 567-7899.
Media with questions about the recall should contact company
Director of Communications Mark Klein at (952) 742-6211.

Consumers with food safety questions can phone the toll-free
USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854). The hotline is available in English and
Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are
available 24 hours a day.


GENERAL MOTORS: Minority Dealers Launch Suit in NJ Over Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of African-American and Hispanic dealers, both current
and former participants in the General Motors Minority Dealer
Development Program, have filed suit against General Motors in
the Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The dealers seek redress for the actions of GM which have caused
them severe financial harm and irreparable damage to their
professional reputations. Additionally, the plaintiffs are
demanding that GM Minority Dealer Development Program be
restructured so that it provides GM's minority dealers with a
more equitable business structure.

The filing petitions the Court to grant Class Action status so
that other aggrieved dealer/operators in the Minority Dealer
program can be fairly compensated for losses suffered under the
administration by GM of an egregious and one-sided Program. The
GM Minority Dealer Development Program as currently designed
benefits GM and only GM to the detriment and grievous harm to
minority operators lured by GM into a false and misleading
program.

This is not the first time this so-called Minority Development
program has been attacked by a minority dealer/operator. In 2002
GM settled an action brought by Vadia & Garcia dealer/operators
of Dadeland Chevrolet which alleged similar unfair and
discriminatory practices by certain of the management of GM in
the administration of the Minority Dealer Development Program.

Joseph Rosato, Esq. of the Cochran Firm stated; "What we are
asking for in this action is for minorities to be treated in a
fair and principled manner by GM. The facts of the case are both
shocking and compelling; it is unacceptable that one of the
world's largest companies can be allowed to behave toward
minorities in such a high-handed and egregious manner. We fully
expect a jury to find GM's administration of their Minority
Dealer Development Program to be illegal and to have caused
great harm to these minority dealer/operators. What GM is doing
with its Minority Dealer Development Program can only be
compared to the worst cases of sharecropping that took place in
the old South. Those days, thank God, are gone. Redress for GM's
minority dealers is clearly called for. "

For more details, contact Joseph S. Rosato, Esq. by Phone:
212-533-9000 OR Kendall Coffee, Esq. by Phone: 305-857-9797 OR
Richard Burton, Esq. by Phone: 305-705-0888.


HI-HEALTH SUPERMART: Settles FTC Deceptive Advertising Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hi-Health Supermart Corporation (Hi-Health) and its owner, Simon
Chalpin, have settled Federal Trade Commission charges that they
made unsubstantiated advertising claims that their product -
Premier Formula for Ocular Nutrition-Optim3 (Ocular Nutrition) -
can restore vision already lost from age-related macular
degeneration and eliminate small specks moving in the field of
vision (called "floaters").

The proposed administrative consent agreement bans the
respondents from claiming that Ocular Nutrition, or any similar
supplement product restores vision lost from macular
degeneration, or eliminates floaters, unless they have competent
and reliable scientific evidence to support those claims. It
also requires the payment of $450,000 to the FTC.

The FTC's complaint alleges that Hi-Health, based in Scottsdale,
Arizona, and Mr. Chalpin promoted Ocular Nutrition through a
nationwide radio advertising campaign. From January 2002 to June
2004, the respondents advertised Ocular Nutrition primarily
through testimonials and other statements read on the Paul
Harvey News & Comment radio show. In their advertising, the
respondents promised that Ocular Nutrition would not just
preserve eyesight, but actually restore vision lost to macular
degeneration. They also claimed that several studies showed that
the product could improve cataracts.

The FTC's complaint alleges that the respondents made
unsubstantiated claims that Ocular Nutrition restores vision
lost from age-related macular degeneration and eliminates
floaters, and falsely claimed that nutritional studies in
responsible medical journals confirm that the ingredients
available in Ocular Nutrition may help individuals with
cataracts and/or floaters.

According to the FTC, there are no nutritional studies in
responsible medical journals that confirm the respondents'
claims. According to the complaint, a statement issued by the
National Eye Institute with regard to lutein (one of the active
ingredients in Ocular Nutrition) cautions that while a number of
studies suggest a link between lutein and decreased risk of eye
disease, there is little, if any, definitive scientific evidence
at this time to support claims that lutein can decrease the risk
of developing cataracts.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the respondents falsely
claimed that a study shows that 83 percent of ophthalmologists
recommend or prescribe Ocular Nutrition to treat age-related
macular degeneration and cataracts.

The proposed consent agreement to settle the charges bans the
respondents from claiming that the Ocular Nutrition supplement,
or any substantially similar supplement product, restores vision
lost from macular degeneration, or eliminates floaters, unless
they have competent and reliable scientific evidence to support
those claims.

In addition, the proposed order prohibits the respondents from
making claims about the benefits, performance, efficacy, or
safety of any health-related service or program, dietary
supplement, food, drug, or device unless they have competent and
reliable scientific evidence that substantiates the claims and
bans misrepresentations of any test or study. The proposed order
requires the respondents to pay $450,000 to the FTC.

The Commission vote to accept the proposed consent agreement was
5-0. The FTC will publish an announcement regarding the
agreement in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be
subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and
continuing through March 16, 2005, after which the Commission
will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be
addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, Room H-159, 600
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC is
requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of
the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight
service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington
area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened
security precautions.

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 Brenda Mack, Office of Public
Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2182 or Heather Hippsley or Matthew
Daynard, Bureau of Consumer Protection by Phone: 202-326-3285 or
202-326-3291.


INDIANA: Housing Investigation Finds No Basis For Suit V. NHP
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Fort Wayne Neighborhood Housing Partnership did not
discriminate against its clients as a group by race or gender,
according to a preliminary report by Fort Wayne's Metropolitan
Human Relations Commission, the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette
reports.

The findings, which essentially finds no basis for a class
action suit, by the anti-discrimination agency's investigation
into the practices of the Neighborhood Housing Partnership, a
now-defunct non-profit agency created to help low-income people
become homeowners, specifically states that NHP's policies did
not help or hurt women or minorities more than they helped or
hurt men or whites when considered as a group.

According to Metro's Executive Director Gerald Foday, 45
individual investigations will go forward, because NHP may have
violated the federal Fair Housing Act in individual cases, the
Gazette stated. Mr. Foday's reports states, "Because no two
situations are identical, the jurisprudence of predatory lending
. urges that we look at each individual person on a case-by-case
basis." He also pointed out that if Fort Wayne had laws
prohibiting discrimination based on low income, as some cities
do, "the situation would be different," as NHP targeted low-
income areas and low-income clients.

Metro, which investigates discrimination in employment, housing,
public accommodation and education based on sex, race, religion,
handicap, ancestry, national origin or place of birth, and
sexual orientation, had begun its inquiry after a September 19,
2004, report by The Journal Gazette showed that in one in every
four NHP home sales examined by the newspaper, the houses were
vastly overpriced, with some NHP clients paying more than double
what their homes are worth.

A November 28 Journal Gazette report also revealed that that
appraisals used to justify the prices of homes sold by NHP
contained a rash of errors and compared houses to homes in
vastly different neighborhoods and even other houses NHP had
sold, all with the blessing of the agency.

NHP Board President Tom Niezer, however, told the Gazette
hundreds of low-income people are now homeowners who, without
NHP, would never have been able to buy a house and that the
partnership did not take advantage of its clients. He
reiterates, "The important issue here is whether the partnership
set its customers up for failure and the number of customers who
have successfully gone through the program would suggest we
didn't, and Metro's findings are consistent with that."

Of the 1,760 applications NHP received between 1992 and 2004,
67 percent were from blacks, 21 percent from whites and 7
percent from Hispanics. Of those who eventually purchased or
leased a home from NHP, 40 percent were black, 33 percent
Hispanic, and 27 percent were white.


INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Four Law Firms Lodge Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Four law firms filed class actions against Inspire
Pharmaceuticals alleging that the company and some of its
executives violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements that artificially
inflated the company's stock price, the Raleigh Triangle
Business Journal reports.

The four firms filing lawsuits are: Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman LLP of New York; Schatz & Nobel, P.C. of Hartford,
Conn.; Brodsky & Smith LLC of Bala Cynwyd, Pa.; and the Law
Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A of Baltimore.

Asked about the lawsuits, Inspire spokeswoman Jenny Kobin told
the Business Journal, "Our policy is not to comment on
litigation."

The Durham company's stock price (Nasdaq: ISPH) closed down more
than 44 percent on February 9 after it revealed disappointing
phase III clinical trial results for its lead drug candidate.

Legal experts point out that it is not uncommon for law firms to
file class-action lawsuits after a drop as large as the one
Inspire's share price suffered.


MOTHERS WORK: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CT Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mothers Work, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging
that under applicable federal and state law, certain former and
current employees should have received overtime compensation.
The plaintiffs in this case are seeking unspecified actual
damages, penalties and attorneys' fees.

At this stage in these proceedings, the Company is unable to
predict the outcome of this case, which the Company is
vigorously defending.  The Company has undertaken preliminary
steps to mediate certain of these claims.

The suit is styled "Gillmore v. Mothers Work Inc. et al., case
no. 3:03-cv-01900-JCH," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut, under Judge Janet C.
Hall.

Representing the plaintiffs is Anthony J. Pantuso, III of Hayber
& Pantuso, 221 Main Street, Ste 400 Hartford, CT 06106, Phone:
860-522-8888, Fax: 860-240-7945, E-mail:
apantuso@hayberandpantuso.com.

Representing the Company are Howard K. Levine and Ann H. Rubin
of Carmody & Torrance, 195 Church St., PO Box 1950, 18th Floor,
New Haven, CT 06509-1950, Phone: 203-784-3102, Fax:
203-784-3199, E-mail: hlevine@carmodylaw.com or
arubin@carmodylaw.com


NATIONAL SECURITIES: Certification For Securities Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the Superior Court for the State of
California, San Diego County's denial of class certification for
a lawsuit filed against National Securities Corporation and
others, relating to a series of private placements of securities
in Fastpoint Communications, Inc.  Plaintiffs are seeking
approximately $14.0 million, but no specific amount of damages
has been sought against the Company in the complaint.

In January 2004, the court entered an order denying class
certification. As a result of this order denying class
certification, the only remaining claims against the Company are
the individual claims asserted by the two class representatives
totaling $60,000.  Plaintiffs filed an appeal of this order and
it is now fully briefed.  The action in the lower court,
including a pending motion for summary judgment, has been
stayed.


NEW YORK: Settlement On Legal Aid Suits For Homeless Falls Apart
----------------------------------------------------------------
After an intensive round of negotiations between the city and
the Legal Aid Society in a protracted litigation on the rights
of homeless families that have now broken down in frustration,
legal observers are now predicting a new round of contentious
court battles, the New York Times reports.

At recent a news conference, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg accused
Legal Aid of hurting homeless families with the decades-old
litigation. Steven Banks, the lead lawyer on Legal Aid's
homelessness lawsuits, said the city had not proved that its
treatment of homeless people had improved enough for the society
to agree to rescind all court orders, the Times reports.

In January 2003, Legal Aid, which represents a group of homeless
plaintiffs in a class action suit against the city, agreed to a
two-year moratorium on suing the city over its treatment of the
homeless. In exchange, the city agreed to set up a panel of
independent experts to recommend improvements to the most
troubled parts of the homeless system particularly the Emergency
Assistance Unit, which is the Bronx office that is the entry
point for free shelter.

Both sides had agreed that if the city made enough changes
within the allotted moratorium, the appointed panel would
recommend an end to litigation and Legal Aid would settle the
cases once and for all, which in essence meant that Legal Aid
would end dozens of court orders that dictate even the details
of operations within the shelters.

Adhering closely to suggestions from the panel, the city made
several changes to the system, including promising to shut down
the current emergency unit and pledging to spend $36 million to
build a new unit. When the advisory panel came to the end of its
term last month, it found the changes to have been widespread
enough to warrant ending the litigation.

The panel then gave its recommendation to Justice Helen E.
Freedman of State Supreme Court on January 18. Justice Freedman,
who has presided over the litigation for 17 years and who is
said by all parties to be eager to be rid of the case, pushed
the parties into settlement talks, which went on through the
last four weeks, often past midnight. In those long hours of
negotiations, city officials said they were willing to agree to
all the changes demanded by the panel in exchange for being free
of court oversight and all 41 court orders.

Mr. Banks, Legal Aid's chief lawyer, told the Times he believed
it was still too early to know if the city's progress toward the
panel's recommendations would be sustained, and he refused to
agree to any plan that would rescind existing court protections,
particularly the right to shelter, which the Appellate Division
granted in 1986.

Though trying to sound victorious as they released the panel's
month-old recommendation for the first time, the city officials'
frustration with Legal Aid was very apparent. Mr. Bloomberg and
Michael A. Cardozo, the city's chief lawyer, made it clear that
they believed Legal Aid had not entered negotiations honestly
and had not even set out a plan by which a settlement could be
reached. Furthermore, Mr. Bloomberg said, Legal Aid has "stifled
progress for years with counterproductive litigation that has
hurt homeless families and has robbed the public of their right
to self-govern," the Times reports.

Mr. Cardozo and Linda I. Gibbs, the commissioner of homeless
services, emphasized that being free of court orders did not
mean they intend to abandon the right to shelter. But for now,
according to the city officials, the next step they would take
is to seek for the dismissal of all the court orders.


OREGON: Newspaper Pronounces $27M HEDR Radiation Study As Biased
----------------------------------------------------------------
A landmark study that estimated radiation doses to the public
from emissions from the Hanford nuclear reservation was
conducted in part to defend the federal government from
lawsuits, The Spokesman-Review of Spokane reports.

The newspaper reports that the Hanford Environmental Dose
Reconstruction (HEDR) Project, a $27 million study that began in
the late 1980s, contained significant conflicts of interest. The
study itself is part of a massive class-action lawsuit that is
finally headed for trial this April, in which alleged victims of
radiation releases say their health was damaged.

Lawyers for more than 2,000 people who sued Hanford contractors
starting in 1990 over their exposure to radioactive iodine-131
releases during World War II and the Cold War were responsible
for obtaining the records, the newspaper reported.

Documents revealed that after the secret Hanford releases were
finally made public in 1986, the U.S. Department of Justice
opposed a dose study as useless ``public relations,'' but
changed its mind after the first lawsuit for radiation damages.
Furthermore, the documents revealed that some of the Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratories staff in Richland who worked on
the study also worked for the Justice Department and for
Kirkland & Ellis, the Chicago law firm hired to defend Hanford
contractors against radiation injury claims.

Commenting on the documents revelations Seattle lawyer Tom
Foulds told the Spokesman-Review, the documents provide
"startling evidence" that the study was shaped to "support the
litigation positions that the government and Hanford defendants
anticipated," including choosing radiation dose estimates that
minimize the estimated radiation exposures.

Kevin Van Wart, of Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago, denied that the
study was set up to favor the defense, the Spokesman-Review
stated.

The study's radiation dose estimates also were used for a $21
million Hanford Thyroid Disease Study, which in 1999 concluded
it could find no link between Hanford's radiation clouds and
excess thyroid death and disease downwind. That result however
was at odds with other studies in the Marshall Islands and
Ukraine that showed clear associations between iodine-131
exposures and an increase in thyroid cancers and disease.

Lawyers for the "downwinders" will critique the two Hanford
studies at the April 11 trial in Spokane, while the defense will
present them as sound science.

Bob Alvarez, a prominent nuclear critic who served in the
Clinton administration as deputy assistant secretary for
planning and security at the Energy Department told the Review
that the HEDR study has long been suspect.

Washington and Oregon pressed for a dose study totally
independent of the Energy Department after documents released in
March 1986 showed massive clouds of radioactive iodine-131
escaped from Hanford in the 1940s and early '50s during the
production of plutonium for nuclear bombs.


POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in MA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action
filed against PolyMedica Corporation and certain of its officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

On November 27, 2000, Richard Bowe SEP-IRA filed a purported
class action lawsuit against the Company and Steven J. Lee, its
former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, on
behalf of himself and purchasers of common stock.  The lawsuit
seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees and
costs and claims violations of Sections 10(b), 10b-5, and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging various
statements were misleading with respect to the Company's revenue
and earnings based on an alleged scheme to produce fictitious
sales.  Several virtually identical lawsuits were subsequently
filed in the same court.

On July 30, 2001, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate the complaints under the caption "In re: PolyMedica
Corp. Securities Litigation, Civ. Action No. 00-12426-REK."
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on October 9,
2001.  The consolidated amended complaint extended the class
period to October 26, 1998 through August 21, 2001, and named as
defendants PolyMedica, Liberty, and certain former officers of
PolyMedica.  Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on December 10, 2001.  Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to this motion on February 11, 2002, and defendants
filed a reply memorandum on March 11, 2002.  The Court denied
the motion without a hearing on May 10, 2002.  On June 20, 2002,
defendants filed answers to the consolidated amended complaint.

On January 28, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification to which defendants filed an opposition on
February 27, 2004.  Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum on April
12, 2004 followed by additional briefing by the parties.  The
Court heard oral argument on the motion on June 2, 2004.  On
September 8, 2004, the court allowed the plaintiffs' motion and
certified the class.

On September 21, 2004, the defendants filed a petition
requesting that they be permitted to appeal the decision to the
First Circuit Court of Appeals.  The plaintiffs filed a response
to the defendants' petition on October 7, 2004, opposing
defendants' request to appeal the class certification.  Also on
October 7, 2004, the Court stayed sending notice of the class
action pending a ruling on defendants' appeal of class
certification.

The suit is styled "Bowe et al v. Polymedica Corp., case no.
1:00-cv-12426-REK," filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Robert E. Keeton.

Law firm for the defendants is Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-526-
6145, Fax: 617-526-5000.  The plaintiff firms are Hale & Dorr,
60 State Street, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone: 617.526.6167 and
Moulton & Gans LLP, 133 Federal Street, Boston, MA, 2110, Phone:
617.369.7979.


REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Securities Suits in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the two securities class
actions filed against Reynolds & Reynolds Co. in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Subsequent to the company's announcement on June 24, 2004,
regarding third quarter earnings, two shareholder class action
complaints and two shareholder derivative claims, subsequently
consolidated, were filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio.  A third shareholder derivative
claim was filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Montgomery
County, Ohio.

The class action complaints allege that the company, a current
officer and a former officer violated provisions of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaints allege that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class
Period, thereby artificially inflating the price of Reynolds
securities, an earlier Class Action Reporter Story (August
3,2004) states.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action.

On October 19, 2004, the plaintiffs in one of the shareholder
class actions voluntarily moved to dismiss the action, without
prejudice. On January 26, 2005, the second shareholder class
action was voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice.

The shareholder derivative claims were filed against the
company, as nominal defendant, members of the Board of Directors
and certain executive officers and allege breach of fiduciary
duty, and other violations of law.

The suits are styled:

     (1) Keber v. Waterhouse et al, case no 1:04-cv-00539-SSB-
         TSH

     (2) Maxwell v. Reynolds & Reynolds Company, case no. 3:04-
         cv-00394-TMR

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (i) Brian Felgoise, 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 ,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185,

    (ii) Bull & Lifshitz, 18 East 41st St., New York, NY, 10017,
         Phone: 212.213.6222, Fax: 212.213.9405,

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

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

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

    (vi) Smith & Smith LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: (866)759-2275, E-mail:
         howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Shareholders File Securities Lawsuits in NH
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd. and certain of its former directors and
officers faces several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

More than two dozen securities class actions were initially
filed and later transferred to the United States District Court
for the District of New Hampshire by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.  On January 7, 2005, the Company answered
the plaintiffs' consolidated complaint.

The Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit the decision of the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire to remand "Brazen v.
Tyco International Ltd." to the Circuit Court for Cook County,
Illinois and "Hromyak v. Tyco International Ltd.," "Goldfarb v.
Tyco International Ltd.," "Mandel v. Tyco International Ltd.,"
"Myers v. Tyco International Ltd.," "Rappold v. Tyco
International Ltd.," and "Schuldt v. Tyco International Ltd." to
the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida.  Plaintiffs
moved to dismiss the Company's appeal.  On December 29, 2004,
the United States District Court for the First Circuit granted
plaintiffs' motion and dismissed the Company's appeal.

Another class action complaint, styled "Ezra Charitable Trust v.
Tyco International Ltd." was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the action to the United
States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
Thereafter, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint, which
motion remains pending before the Court.

On December 23, 2004, plaintiff moved to amend the complaint.
The proposed amendment asserts cause of action under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against Tyco International Ltd. and
Edward Breen, its current Chief Executive Officer, and seeks to
add as defendants David FitzPatrick, current Chief Financial
Officer, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, former independent
auditors.  As against defendants Breen and FitzPatrick, the
complaint asserts a cause of action under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The United States District Court for the District of New
Hampshire granted one plaintiff's motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff in "Stumpf v. Tyco International Ltd." and "O'Loughlin
v. Tyco International Ltd."  On December 10, 2004, lead
plaintiff Mark Newby filed a Consolidated Securities Class
Action complaint purporting to represent a class of purchasers
of TyCom securities between July 26, 2000 and December 17, 2001.
Plaintiff names as defendants Tyco International Ltd., TyCom,
Ltd., Goldman Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith, Incorporated and Citigroup Inc., along with certain
former Tyco and TyCom executives.

The complaint asserts causes of action under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against Tyco, TyCom, Goldman Sachs,
Merrill Lynch, Citigroup and certain former Tyco and TyCom
executives.  The complaint alleges the TyCom registration
statement and prospectus was inaccurate, misleading and failed
to disclose facts necessary to make the registration statement
and prospectus not misleading.  Further, the complaint alleges
the defendants violated securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements and omissions concerning, among
other things, executive compensation, Tyco's and TyCom's
finances and TyCom's business prospects.  This action remains
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
New Hampshire.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: NH Court Refuses To Dismiss Suit Defendants
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New
Hampshire refused to dismiss certain defendants in the class
actions filed against Tyco International, Ltd. and certain of
its current and former employees, officers and directors,
brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).  The complaints purported to bring claims on behalf of
the Tyco International (US) Inc. Retirement Savings and
Investment Plans and the participants therein.

On January 12, 2005, the United States District Court for the
District of New Hampshire denied, without prejudice, the
Company's motion to dismiss certain additional individual
defendants from the action.  Also, on January 27, 2005, the
Company answered the plaintiffs' consolidated complaint.

The suit is styled "Overby et al v. Tyco International, et al,
case no. 1:02-cv-01357-PB," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire, under Judge Paul
Barbadoro.  Lawyers for the defendants are:

     (1) Francis P. Barron, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP, 825 8th
         Ave, New York, NY 10019-7475, Phone: 212 474-1000

     (2) William T. Hassler, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 1330
         Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Phone:
         202 429-3000

     (3) Edward A. Haffer, Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green, 1000
         Elm St, PO Box 3701, Manchester, NH 03105, Phone: 603-
         668-0300, E-mail: ehaffer@sheehan.com

Representing the plaintiffs Marvin Overby and the members of the
Tyco Retirement Savings and Investment Plan, are:

     (i) Kenneth G. Bouchard, Bouchard & Kleinman PA, 1 Merrill
         Drive, Ste 6, Hampton, NH 03842-1968, Phone: 603 926-
         9333 E-mail: kbouchard@bestnhlaw.com

    (ii) Robert A. Izard, Schatz & Nobel PC, 330 Main Street,
         2nd Floor, Hartford, CT 06106-1851, Phone: 860 493-6292

   (iii) Patrick A. Klingman, Schatz & Nobel PC, 330 Main
         Street, 2nd Floor, Hartford, CT 06106-1851, Phone: 860
         493-6292


UNITED STATES: FDA Unveils Advances in Drug Safety Monitoring
-------------------------------------------------------------
HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt and Acting FDA Commissioner Lester M.
Crawford unveiled a new emboldened vision for the FDA that will
promote a culture of openness and enhanced oversight within the
Agency.

As part of this vision, the FDA will create a new independent
Drug Safety Oversight Board to oversee the management of drug
safety issues, and will provide emerging information to health
providers and patients about the risks and benefits of
medicines.

Acting FDA Commissioner Crawford announced specific proposals
for immediate and fundamental steps to improve the way the FDA
manages drug safety information. These proposals focus on making
FDA's review and decision-making processes more independent and
transparent.

The FDA will enhance the independence of internal deliberations
and decisions regarding risk/ benefit analyses and consumer
safety by creating an independent Drug Safety Oversight Board
(DSB). The DSB will oversee the management of important drug
safety issues within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
(CDER). The DSB will comprise members from the FDA and medical
experts from other HHS agencies and government departments
(e.g., Department of Veterans Affairs) who will be appointed by
the FDA Commissioner. The board also will consult with other
medical experts and representatives of patient and consumer
groups.

The FDA will also increase the transparency of the Agency's
decision-making process by establishing new and expanding
existing communication channels to provide targeted drug safety
information to the public. These channels will be used to help
ensure that established and emerging drug safety data are
quickly available in an easily accessible form. The increased
openness will enable patients and their healthcare professionals
to make better-informed decisions about individual treatment
options. The Agency is proposing a new "Drug Watch" Web page for
emerging data and risk information and increased use of
consumer-friendly information sheets written especially for
healthcare professionals and patients.

Commenting on the formation of the monitoring board, David
Webster, a consultant at Webster Consulting Group, told the
Reuters that the creation of the safety board might benefit drug
companies, as it will shift some of the burden of liability for
safety from the pharmaceutical industry to the government. He
also said, "Plaintiffs and class action lawsuits will have a
harder time making the argument that consumers were not aware of
product risk."

However, another industry analyst that Reuters talked to stated
that the creation of the board was unlikely to have a dramatic
financial effect on drug companies. "It shouldn't slow down
approval times because this will be a separate board for drugs
already on the market," said Jon Lecroy, an analyst at Natexis
Bleichroeder Inc.


UST LIQUIDATING: Trial For CA Securities Suit Set October 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against UST Liquidating
Corporation and other parties on behalf of the Company's common
shareholders is set for October 2005 in California State Court.

In June 2000, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and certain other parties on behalf of certain common
shareholders of the Company, alleging that the Company and other
parties breached their fiduciary duty to the Company's common
shareholders in connection with the Veeder-Root sale
transaction.

After filing the complaint, the Plantiffs sought a preliminary
injunction, which was denied.  Subsequently, defendants'
demurrer to the complaint was sustained, without leave to amend.
The Court of Appeal reversed, though it did limit the scope of
the Plaintiffs' case, and the parties have been litigating the
case following the appellate court reversal.  A trial has been
scheduled for October 2005.


VIENNA: Tsunami Victims To File Lawsuits V. Three Entities in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Austrian and German victims of the Asian tsunami
disaster are to file a lawsuit demanding that Thailand, a French
hotel chain and US forecasters prove they reacted adequately to
the disaster, according to their respective lawyers, the Agence
France Presse reports.

Naming the French hotel chain Accor and the US-run tsunami early
warning system in the Pacific as well as Thai authorities, the
suit, which was brought on behalf of 15 Austrian and four German
victims of the disaster, will be filed in a New York district
court this week, the lawyers said in Vienna.

Herwig Hasslacher, one of the three lawyers for the group, told
the AFP, "We found that serious lapses were committed." The
lawyers though reiterated that the suit was not, at present,
designed to demand compensation but to uncover evidence that
would prove negligence.

The case was presented as the first of its kind arising out of
the December 26 disaster, when a powerful undersea earthquake
off the Indonesian island of Sumatra sent huge waves pounding
into coastlines around the Indian Ocean. Nearly 290,000 people
died, including several thousand Western tourists who were
holidaying in Indian Ocean resorts, notably in Thailand and Sri
Lanka.

Specifically, the suit is targeting the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Washington and its Hawaii-
based tsunami warning center, the Accor group of hotels where
some of the victims stayed and the Thai government.

Lawyers said their suit will accuse NOAA of having registered
the earthquake but failed to alert Indian Ocean countries of the
impending tsunamis as the Hawaii center covered only the
Pacific. Furthermore, the lawyers themselves said, if NOAA and
Thai authorities, which had their own information, had passed on
their alerts in time, it would have enabled people on shorelines
to flee inland.

Mr. Hasslacher told AFP, "We have evidence they did not warn us,
even though they knew a quarter of an hour later about the
strength and location of the quake, and although there is
supposed to be a tsunami warning" from 6.5 on the Richter scale.

"The U.S. government claims 'we are the protectors of the
world'. (But) if we know there is a tsunami on its way to wipe
out a major population, do we tell them?" U.S. lawyer Edward
Fagan told AFP.  "Nobody tell[s] them it's coming. This is
incredible!"

Mr. Fagan also pointed out that precautions were taken to
evacuate U.S. military personnel from the Diego Garcia base in
the Indian Ocean.

Mr. Hasslacher explains that Accor is named in the lawsuit since
the plaintiffs say the chain did not properly inform relatives
of the victims after the disaster and had built its Sofitel
hotel, in the Thai resort of Khao Lak, on a quake fracture line.

In a news conference, Mr. Fagan stated that he would ask the US
court this week, to ensure the preservation of key documents
needed for the case, such as satellite imagery and contacts
between the NOAA, Thailand and Indonesia.

"At the end of the day, it's quite possible it will show that
nobody did anything wrong," Mr. Fagan told AFP. "But people want
to know, even if they (their relatives) had no choice," said Mr.
Fagan, who has filed class-action suits on behalf of Holocaust
victims to receive compensation in Germany and other European
countries.


WAL-MART STORES: Bloomberg Joins CA Suit Over Sealed Documents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom of information advocates got a big boost recently when
national media company Bloomberg Financial Markets joined the
Berkeley Daily Planet's action to unseal California Wal-Mart
records filed in a class action lawsuit, the Berkeley Daily
Planet reports.

In what is described by the law.com website as "the biggest
single [class action] case in the nation," a group of Wal-Mart
workers are suing the giant retailer, in Savaglio v. Wal-Mart
Stores, for denying pay for missed lunch and rest breaks to
204,000 current and former California employees.

The Daily Planet, which is represented by the Oakland law firm
of Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, had joined the action last
August as an intervener after it learned that many of the
documents filed by Wal-Mart in the case had been placed under
"conditional seal," which in essence makes them unavailable to
the public.

Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld attorney, M. Suzanne Murphy, told
the Daily Planet that Bloomberg's formal entry into the case
would bring "considerable clout" to the lawsuit. To show their
support, a Bloomberg representative on a recent hearing sat in
the back of an Oakland courtroom and took notes as Daily Planet
attorneys argued against a tentative ruling by Superior Court
Judge Ronald M. Sabraw that some of the Wal-Mart documents,
which is comprised of nine volumes of documents filed by retail
giant that includes labor guidelines, pay and incentive
guidelines, timekeeping system records, and store operational
reviews, would remain under wraps.

During the hearing, Judge Sabraw listened to Mr. Murphy and
attorney Jessica Grant of the Furth Firm, representing the
Savaglio plaintiffs, who both tried to convince him of the
defectiveness of his preliminary order that at least one of
those nine volumes remain sealed. At times the proceedings
resembled more of a conversation than a hearing, with Judge
Sabraw breaking into the attorneys' presentations to ask
devil's-advocate questions or counter their assertions. At one
point, the judge apologized to Mr. Murphy for "continuing to
interrupt your argument."

Meanwhile, Wal-Mart attorney William Edlund said he was
satisfied with the judge's preliminary ruling, and thus offered
only a token argument by stating only that the amount of
material to remain sealed "is only a small number," and that he
would go through documents with Daily Planet attorneys to make
sure any information was not "improperly redacted."

At the same time Ms. Grant in answer to the judge's written
ruling that many of the at-issue documents are protectable trade
secrets, said, "the documents show that Wal-Mart has a
competitive edge because they're breaking the law. They're
exploiting their hourly employees." When Judge Sabraw admitted
that he had not read many of the documents at issue but was
relying on the affidavits of Wal-Mart officials that the
requested documents were "confidential material," Ms. Grant
called the affidavits "boilerplate documents" that offered only
the officials' word, but no details as to how the documents were
handled. She also said that many of the requested documents were
available to all Wal-Mart employees on the company website, and
the company had not shown it had taken steps to keep employees
from distributing that information. "Any one of these workers
could download these same documents and pass it on to a
newspaper," Ms. Grant said.

According to the Daily Planet, the judge replied to Ms. Grant's
statement by saying, "All the court can do is control the
documents in this case. The Daily Planet could get these
documents off the Internet themselves and publish them, and as
far as I'm concerned that would not be a violation of this order
to seal."

In reply to the judge's statement, Mr. Murphy said that this
puts the burden on plaintiffs to try to search for the
documents. He also adds, "Our office spent a tremendous amount
of research time trying to determine if any of these documents
were already in the public domain, either on the Internet or in
cases in other states. We have the resources to do that. Many of
the news outlets do not."

In the end, Judge Sabraw told attorneys for both sides, "even if
I seal these records, such an order is not necessarily
permanent. It's always possible to bring a motion to unseal the
documents at another time, as circumstances dictate." Thus,
legal experts say, Judge Sabraw left open the possibility that
the sealed documents could still be introduced at trial, which
is scheduled to begin in June. "At that point, I'll rule again
on whether the documents can be made public," he said. "If not,
I can order the courtroom closed during the time when those
sealed documents are introduced and argued."

Mr. Murphy and Ms. Grant are now expecting the judge's final
ruling on the sealed documents within a week.


WAL-MART STORES: CT Child Labor Violations Settlement Under Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart allowed nearly 70 teenage employees in Connecticut to
operate dangerous machinery over a four-year period, according
to federal Labor Department officials, the Hartford Courant
reports.

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal had called for a state
investigation after federal authorities reported 16- and 17-
year-old children operated chain saws, forklifts and paper
balers at Connecticut stores.

The number of youths involved was disclosed after a weekend
announcement that Wal-Mart and the federal Department of Labor
had reached an unusual, out of court settlement in January
regarding 25 violations of child labor laws, 21 of which took
place in Connecticut stores between 1998 and 2002. The Labor
Department though would not disclose where in Connecticut the
violations occurred nor whether any children were hurt.

Under the settlement federal officials will be required to give
the company a 15-day advance notice of any further audits as
well as a 10-day grace period to correct violations. Wal-Mart
agreed to pay $135,540 to settle the charges, but denied any
wrongdoing.

However, the arrangement drew sharp criticism as a "sweetheart
deal." According to Mr. Blumenthal, "In effect it gives the
company an unusual, if not unique, amount of time to avoid or
even cover up evidence in the future. And it certainly
diminishes the usefulness of any future federal investigation,
which is why the state has an obligation to undertake a more
proactive and aggressive role."

The notification provision even prompted Rep. George Miller, D-
California, to call for an investigation by the federal
Department of Labor's Inspector General to determine whether the
arrangement represented a "sweetheart deal between the Bush
Administration and one of the nation's most frequent violators
of labor laws."

Despite the Department of Labor's claims that the agreement was
fairly standard, criticism regarding the advanced notice
condition of the settlement was widespread.

According to the government's top deputy of employment standards
under both President Clinton and the first President Bush, John
R. Fraser, the agreement hardly acts as a stick over Wal-Mart to
make sure they comply. He said, "I can't imagine what the
Department of Labor gains out of giving advance notice of any
investigation. If it's not entirely unprecedented, it's
extremely rare and it's not at all clear what advantage is
gained in giving this employer that kind of concession." He
further states, "What's very unusual about this agreement is
that while it's based on a child labor violation, it applies to
any kind of investigation. It not only applies to cases with
potential child labor violations, but to minimum wage, the
Family Medical Leave Act, investigations of any alleged or
suspected violations of any of the laws over which the wage and
hour division has authority."

Labor lawyers who have worked with the Department of Labor in
the past also say the arrangement sets a disturbing precedent
for future investigations. Douglas Steele, a partner at
Washington-based Woodley & McGillivary, which represents federal
employees in labor cases says, "It seems to me that for the sum
of $135,000, which is very small for Wal-Mart, they've bought
better laws than any other company in the country."

The agreement calls on Wal-Mart to agree not to employ any
children under 14 or to allow anyone under 18 to operate
hazardous equipment. The company also was made to promise to
improve its training.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ASTRAZENECA PLC: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 AstraZeneca PLC
("AstraZeneca"), including AstraZeneca's American Depository
Receipts ("ADRs") (NYSE: AZN) and ordinary shares (London and
Stockholm: AZN), between April 2, 2003 and October 8, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, Case No. 05-CV-81, is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, against defendants
AstraZeneca, Tom McKillop (CEO and Executive Director), Jonathan
Symonds (CFO and Executive Director), Hakan Mogren (Deputy
Chairman of the Board of Directors), and Percy Barnevik
(Chairman of the Board of Directors). 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 during the Class Period, AstraZeneca
was engaged in late-stage clinical trials of an oral
anticoagulant, Exanta (R), also generically known as
ximelagatran, to study the prevention and treatment of blood
clots. Specifically, the clinical trials focused on three
indications:

     (1) the prevention of venous thromboembolism ("VTE") in
         patients undergoing knee replacement surgery;

     (2) long-term secondary prevention of VTE after standard
         treatment for acute VTE; and

     (3) the prevention of stroke and other thromboembolic
         complications associated with atrial fibrillation.

Exanta was regarded as a potential breakthrough oral
anticoagulant that would be less burdensome than warfarin, the
standard oral therapy for patients at risk of thrombosis.
Throughout the Class Period, AstraZeneca touted the purportedly
positive results from the Exant trials, claiming that the
results were indicative of a safe and effective new direct oral
anticoagulant. In December 2003, after the Company submitted a
New Drug Application ("NDA") to the Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for approval to market Exanta for the three indications,
defendants made numerous positive public statements about the
status of the NDA, and repeatedly commented that FDA approval of
the application would positively and materially impact the
Company's financial results. Unbeknownst to the Class, however,
defendants' statements were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose material adverse events in the
trials and the likelihood that the FDA would reject the NDA on
that basis.

The truth began to emerge on September 9, 2004 when the FDA
posted on its website briefing documents in preparation for its
meeting on September 10, 2004, when the Company's NDA was
scheduled to be reviewed. The briefing documents revealed
previously undisclosed adverse events in the Exanta studies,
including materially higher levels of liver enzymes in patients
treated with Exanta than previously reported by defendants, that
there were increased risks of coronary artery disease and heart
attacks in patients taking Exanta versus warfarin, and that the
Company had left too wide a margin in showing that Exanta was
equivalent to warfarin. In reaction to the publication of the
briefing documents, the price of AstraZeneca ADRs dropped
sharply, falling $2.65 per share, or 5.6%, from its previous
trading day's closing price of $47.05, to close at $44.40 per
share on September 9, 2004. On September 10, 2004, at the FDA
meeting, numerous other alarming safety and efficacy issues in
the Exanta trials were raised, including that certain studies
failed to demonstrate any clinical or statistical differences
between Exanta and warfarin; that the comparison of Exanta to
warfarin in short-term indications was unfair; that there were
higher incidences of coronary artery disease adverse events,
myocardial infarction, major bleeding, and severe liver injury,
including fatalities, in patients treated with Exanta than with
warfarin. In addition, the FDA found that AstraZeneca's Risk
Minimization Action Plan failed to address the possible risks of
delayed hepatoxicity after short-term use of Exanta or the risk
of myocardial infarction. On October 8, 2004, Company issued a
press release announcing that it received an Action letter from
the FDA rejecting the Exanta NDA. In reaction to this news, the
price of AstraZeneca ADRs fell again, dropping $0.12 per share
from its closing price of $38.80 on October 7, 2004, to close at
$38.68 on October 8, 2004.

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.


AXONYX INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Axonyx, Inc. (Nasdaq: AXYX) ("Axonyx" or the
"Company") between June 26, 2003 and February 4, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Axonyx, Marvin Hausman and Gosse Bruinsma
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's only viable drug candidate,
         Phenserine, a acetylcholinesterase ("AChE") inhibitor,
         failed to curb symptoms of Alzheimer's disease;

     (2) that the Company knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that Phenserine failed to partially block the
         effects of AChE, an enzyme that breaks down a
         neurotransmitter in the brain important for memory and
         cognition;

     (3) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company
         would not be able to commercialize Phenserine,
         currently its only potential source of revenue; and

     (4) that as a result the Company's positive statements
         about the development and potential approval of
         Phenserine were lacking in all reasonable basis when
         made.

On February 7, 2005, Axonyx announced that Phenserine did not
achieve significant efficacy in Phase III Alzheimer's Disease
trial. The news shocked the market. Shares of Axonyx fell $3.04
per share, or 62.68 percent, on February 7, 2005, to close at
$1.81 per share.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: 280 King of
Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or
1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


HUFFY CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Huffy Corp. ("Huffy" or the
"Company") [OTC: HUFCQ.PK] between April 16, 2002 and August 13,
2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants Don R.
Graber, Timothy G. Howard, Robert W. Lafferty and Paul R.
D'Aloia, officers of the Company during the Class Period.

The case name is Cunningham v. Graber, et al. The complaint
alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout
the Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflating
the market price of the Company's securities.

The statements made by the defendants during the Class Period
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts then
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (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 had
         been represented to investors;

     (2) that the Company's Canadian operations were engaged in
         improper accounting practices, including failing to
         properly account for customer returns and overstating
         the value of its inventory, resulting in the Company
         overstating its revenues and income;

     (3) that expenses 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.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Christopher
S. Hinton, Esq., or Derek Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New
York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 or by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com.


HYPERCOM CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Hypercom Corporation ("Hypercom" or the "Company") (NYSE:
HYC) between April 30, 2004 and February 3, 2005 inclusive, (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court of
Arizona against defendants Hypercom, Christopher S. Alexander
and John W. Smolak. The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material facts
which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that Hypercom EMEA, Inc.'s, the Company's UK
         subsidiary, leases originated during the Class Period
         were improperly accounted for as "sales-type leases"
         rather than "operating leases;"

     (2) this improper accounting lead the Company to materially
         overstate its net revenue for the first three quarters
         of 2004 by at least $4.0 million;

     (3) that the Company had materially overstated its
         operating profit by at least 65-75% during the Class
         Period;

     (4) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); and

     (5) that the Company's internal controls were inadequate
         for management to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company.

On February 4, 2005, Hypercom announced it would restate prior
2004 quarterly financials because certain leases originated
during that period by the Company's UK subsidiary, Hypercom
EMEA, Inc., were incorrectly accounted for as sales-type leases,
when they should have been operating leases. This accounting
error, which related to approximately 3,200 leases, resulted in
an overstatement of net revenue for the first three quarters of
2004. The Company currently estimates that the adjustment to its
financial statements would decrease net revenue for the nine
months ended September 30, 2004 by up to $4.0 million as
compared to previously announced results, and that operating
profit for the same period would decrease by approximately 65 to
75% of the amount of the net revenue reduction. The Company had
also determined that the internal control deficiency that gave
rise to this restatement represented a material weakness, as
defined by the PCAOB's Auditing Standard No. 2. Consequently,
management would be unable to conclude that the Company's
internal controls over financial reporting were effective as of
December 31, 2004, and the Company's independent auditors, Ernst
& Young LLP, are expected to issue an adverse opinion with
respect to the Company's internal controls.

Shares of Hypercom fell $1.00 per share, or a little over 18
percent, to close at $4.46 per share on unusually high trading
volume.

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


INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Brodsky & Smith Files Stock Suit in NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Inspire Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. ("Inspire Pharmaceuticals" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:ISPH),
between June 2, 2004 and February 8, 2005 inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Inspire
Pharmaceuticals securities. No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. or Evan J.
Smith, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Mail: Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-
mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.


INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Suit in NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Inspire
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq:ISPH) between June 2, 2004 and
February 8, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina against defendants Inspire
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Christy L. Shaffer and Thomas R. Staab,
II. The action charges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period,
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A., Baltimore by Phone: (410) 986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Lodges NC Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Inspire" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: ISPH) between June 2, 2004 and February 8, 2005
inclusive, (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina against defendants Inspire
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Christy L. Shaffer and Thomas R. Staab
II. The Complaint alleges that Defendants disseminated false and
misleading statements regarding the FDA mandated Stage III trial
of its dry eye drug, Diquafosol tetrasodium. Beginning with its
June 2, 2004 announcement of the initiation of its Stage III
trial, Study 109, the Company failed to inform investors that
the primary endpoint mandated by the FDA had changed from
corneal staining to a more stringent corneal clearing. In fact,
Defendant Shaffer, in responding to a Deutsche Bank analyst's
question during the November 4, 2004 conference call, stated
that the primary endpoint was "corneal staining." Investors,
including Piper Jaffray Senior Research Analyst Mark Karvosky,
believed that the drug had a very good chance of success because
it had met the corneal staining endpoint in the previous trial,
Study 105. Had investors known the truth about the primary
endpoint, the value of Inspire stock would not have been
artificially inflated almost 81% to $16.00 per share at the end
of the class period. After the pre-market opening disclosure on
February 9, 2005, Inspire lost almost $300 million in market
capitalization, closing at $8.88 on trading volume of 17.4
million shares - a staggering 65 times its average volume.

For more details, contact 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.


INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Schatz & Nobel Files NC Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Inspire
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: ISPH) ("Inspire") between June 2,
2004 and February 8, 2005 (the "Class Period"), including
purchasers in the July 26, 2004 and November 11, 2004 equity
offerings.

The Complaint alleges that Inspire violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Inspire made improper
statements regarding the Stage III trial of its dry eye drug,
Diquafosol tetrasodium. The Complaint alleges that Inspire
failed to inform investors that the study's primary endpoint
mandated by the FDA had changed from corneal staining to a more
stringent corneal clearing. Moreover, the Complaint alleges that
during a November 4, 2004 conference call, Inspire stated that
the primary endpoint was "corneal staining." When the truth was
revealed on February 9, 2005, Inspire stock fell from a previous
close of $16.00 per share to close at $8.88 per share on
extremely heavy trading volume.

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


OFFICEMAX INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in IL
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action suit against
OfficeMax, Inc. ("OfficeMax") (NYSE:OMX) in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois had been
extended to include both the purchasers of OfficeMax Inc.'s and
Boise Cascade Corp.'s ("Boise") publicly traded securities
during the period between December 1, 2003 and January 11, 2005
(the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, OfficeMax
and certain of its current and former officers and directors
made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
earnings in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As
a result of defendants' false statements, OfficeMax shares
traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, permitting
the Company's top officers and directors to obtain shareholder
approval of the OfficeMax acquisition, to obtain tens of
millions of dollars in severance and golden parachute payments,
to cash out millions of dollars worth of stock options and
restricted stock, to sell stock at inflated prices, and to
arrange to sell nearly $1.5 billion worth of the Company's
notes.

On January 12, 2005, OfficeMax announced that its chief
financial officer had resigned and that it would postpone the
release of its earnings for the fourth quarter and full year
2004, pending the conclusion of an internal investigation into
issues relating to its accounting for vendor income.

Then, on February 14, 2005, OfficeMax announced that it had
"ousted its chief executive after less than four months on the
job as a billing scandal at the office products retailer led to
the firing of two more employees. OfficeMax ... said a total of
six employees have now been fired in connection with an internal
investigation into the fabrication of documents to support a
bill to a vendor. The company also said it had uncovered
accounting errors in recording rebates and other payments from
vendors last year. It said it would restate results for the
first three quarters of 2004."

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


SINA CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of SINA Corporation
(NasdaqNM: SINA) ("SINA") between October 26, 2004 and February
7, 2005 (the "Class Period").

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

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


SINA CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities
purchasers of SINA Corporation (Nasdaq: SINA) ("SINA" or the
"Company") between October 26, 2004 and February 7, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges SINA, Wang Yan, and Charles Chao, 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
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company was increasingly relying on services
         related to "fortune telling" advertising, like
         horoscopes and astrology, in order to meet its earnings
         forecasts and generate a positive revenue stream;

     (2) that the Chinese government had clamped down on
         "fortune telling" advertising and the resulting
         clampdown on "fortune telling" advertising would have a
         material effect on the Company's revenue stream;

     (3) that China Mobile Communication Corp.'s recent change
         in its billing process for multimedia messaging
         services SINA provides to China Mobile subscribers had
         a material effect on the Company's business; and

     (4) that as a result of the above, the defendants' positive
         statements about the growth and prospectus of SINA were
         lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On February 7, 2005, after the markets closed, SINA announced
its financial results for the fourth quarter and full year ended
December 31, 2004. The results and the Company's business
outlook shocked the market. Shares of SINA fell $2.96 per share,
or 10.82 percent, to close at $24.39 per share on unusually high
trading volume.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: 280 King of
Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or
1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Schneider & Wallace Lodges Stock Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schneider & Wallace initiated a class action
suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona against Taser International, Inc. ("Taser" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: TASR) and certain of its officers and
directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
the publicly traded common stock of Taser between October 19,
2004 and January 6, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 by failing to disclose material adverse information
about the Company and its products. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that throughout the class period, Defendants failed to
disclose and/or concealed safety concerns relating to Taser
devices and/or that defendants lacked any reasonable basis for
the statements they were making concerning the Company's
profitability, resulting in the price of Taser's common stock
trading at artificially inflated levels. It has also been
alleged that while in possession of material, non-public adverse
information about the Company, certain of the Company's
executives sold hundreds of thousands of shares of their stock
in the Company for proceeds of tens of millions of dollars. Just
before midnight on January 6, 2005, Taser announced in a news
release that it was the subject of an informal inquiry by the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission relating to its
public statements about the safety of its products. On January
7, 2005, the Company's stock price plummeted 17.74% to close at
$22.72 on massive trading volume.

For more details, contact Schneider & Wallace by E-mail:
info@schneiderwallace.com.


VECCO INSTRUMENTS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Veeco
Instruments, Inc. (Nasdaq:VECO) between November 3, 2003 and
February 10, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendants Veeco, Edward
H. Braun and John F. Rein, Jr. The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A., Baltimore by Phone: (410) 986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated
a class action lawsuit on in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Veeco Instruments Inc. ("Veeco" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:VECO)
between November 3, 2003 and February 10, 2005, inclusive, (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Veeco, Edward H.
Braun and John F. Rein Jr. ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically the complaint alleges that
Defendants materially misled the investing public by issuing
false and misleading statements regarding the business and
financial results of Veeco. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that the Company's statements were false and misleading
because Defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose
that it had improperly valued the inventory and accounts payable
at its TurboDisc division in order to make the acquisition look
more attractive to the market, that it falsely recognized
revenue at TurboDisc during the class period, and that it
improperly overvalued its deferred tax assets.

On February 11, 2005, Veeco announced that it was postponing the
results of its financial results for the fourth quarter and full
year 2004 pending completion of an internal investigation of
improper accounting transactions at its TurboDisc division. The
Company further expects that the investigation will lead to
adjustments of the financial statements previously issued for
the quarterly periods and nine-months ended September 2004.
Shares of Veeco reacted negatively to the news, falling $1.83
per share, or approximately 10%, to $16.96 per share.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP by Phone: 800-321-0476 or visit
their Web site: http://www.glrslaw.com/get/?case=Veeco.


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Schatz & Nobel Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Veeco
Instruments, Inc. (Nasdaq: VECO) ("Veeco") between November 3,
2003 and February 10, 2005 (the "Class Period").

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

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


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NY Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Veeco Instruments Inc. (Nasdaq: VECO) ("Veeco" or
the "Company") between April 26, 2004 and February 10, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Veeco, Edward Braun and John Rein, Jr.
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 improper accounting procedures were in place at
         the Company's TurboDisc division;

     (2) that these improper accounting procedures caused the
         Company to materially overstate its net revenue for the
         first three quarters of 2004 by at least $7.5 million;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

     (5) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On February 11, 2005, before the market opened, Veeco announced
that it would postpone the release of audited results for the
fourth quarter and full year 2004 pending completion of an
internal investigation of improper accounting transactions at
its TurboDisc(R) division. News of this shocked the market.
Shares of Veeco fell $1.90 per share, or 10.07 percent, to close
at $16.96 per share on unusually high trading volume.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: 280 King of
Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or
1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.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  * * *