The paper is to appear in PRL (if it hasn't already), but you can find the preprint here. Adrian Cho at Science covered it last week in the News and Analysis section. It highlights the status so far where people think there's something wrong with the analysis, but no one can figure out where.
“If it's true, it's astonishing,” says Stephen Barnett, a theorist at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, U.K. “I suspect there is something subtle going on here” that doesn't contradict relativity. But Rodney Loudon, a theorist retired from the University of Essex in the United Kingdom, says, “As far as I can tell, [the analysis] is right."I tell ya, even now, classical E&M can still spring a few surprises! I love it!
Edit (5/8/2012): As one can imagine, there are already responses to this paper. One just appeared on arXiv today:
I'm sure we'll hear a lot more.
Edit (5/24/2012): More rebuttals against this paper, and this time, it comes from someone who should know what he is taking about:
I believe this effectively solves the "paradox" in the original paper.