/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010302.MBX               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, March 2, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 43


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Decries Merit of Antitrust Lawsuit in PA By Dentist
CENDANT CORP: 2 Former Execs Indicted On Charges Of Inflating Earnings
DOMINOES PIZZA: Residents Sue Alleging Discrimination in Deliveries
FILM COMPANIES: Lawsuit Accuses of Waiting Too Long to Pay Fired Workers
GLOBALSTAR TELECOMM: Charles J. Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit

GLOBALSTAR TELECOMM: Hit With Securities Suit in  Filed By Shalov Stone
GOODYEAR TIRE: IL Suit Accuses of Silent Recall of Load Range E Tires
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Settles Federal Shareholder Lawsuit for $30 Mil
NORTEL NETWORKS: Bernard M. Gross Announces Securities Suit Filed in NY
OFFICE DEPOT: Willie Gary Says Employment Race Bias Suit Is Prepared

OKLAHOMA: Unclaimed Money in License Suit Waiting for Eligible Drivers
PPA: Cohen, Milstein Files National Suits to Educate Doctors & Consumers
RISCORP, INC.: Burt & Pucillo Announces Settlement Hearing in FL
SMITHFIELD FOODS: Product Liability Lawyers Take up Suits Re Hog Farms
SMITHFIELD FOODS: U.S.' Top Hog Processor Accused Of Planned Pollution

TOBACCO LITIGATION: BAT's Legal Fees Rise to $ 200 Mil
U.S.: Vet Care Case By Career Military May Cost Feds Billions
U-M: Minority Students lose round in Case over Admissions Program
VICORP RESTAURANTS: Sued in CO over Proposed BancBoston Affiliate Merger
VISX, INCORPORATED: Announces Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in CA

WORLDWIDE XCEED: Shareholder Suit Filed in NY By Schiffrin & Barroway
WORLDWIDE XCEED: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Suit Filed in N.Y.
XCEED GROUP: Milberg Weiss Announces Securities Suit Filed in New York


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Decries Merit of Antitrust Lawsuit in PA By Dentist
Align Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: ALGN), the inventor of the Invisalign(R)
System, a proprietary method of straightening teeth without unsightly
wires and brackets, announced that a complaint was filed against the
company on February 22, 2001 by Jon L. Richter in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Richter, a general practice dentist, purports to sue on behalf of himself
and all licensed dentists in the U.S., excluding orthodontists. Mr.
Richter alleges that Align Technology reached an agreement with
unspecified orthodontists to restrict the sales of the Invisalign System
only to orthodontists, and thereby violated U.S. antitrust laws. The
complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages. While the Invisalign
System is not available to dentists, Align Technology has not entered
into any agreements with orthodontists restricting the distribution of
the Invisalign System. For this reason, among others, Align Technology
believes the lawsuit is without merit.

Since launching the Invisalign System in July of 1999, Align Technology's
policy has been to sell the System solely to orthodontists. Orthodontists
are dental specialists who receive two to three years of training beyond
general dentistry in treating malocclusion, or the misalignment of teeth.

About Align Technology, Inc.

Align Technology designs, manufactures and markets the Invisalign System,
a proprietary new method for treating malocclusion, or the misalignment
of teeth. The Invisalign System corrects malocclusion using a series of
clear, nearly invisible, removable appliances that gently move teeth to a
desired final position. Because it does not rely on the use of metal or
ceramic brackets and wires, the Invisalign System significantly reduces
the aesthetic and other limitations associated with braces. Invisalign is
appropriate for treating adults and older teens. Align Technology was
founded in March 1997 and received FDA clearance to market the Invisalign
System in 1998.

CENDANT CORP: 2 Former Execs Indicted On Charges Of Inflating Earnings
Cendant Corp.'s former Chairman Walter A. Forbes and former Vice Chairman
E. Kirk Shelton were indicted on charges of inflating company earnings in
what prosecutors called one of the biggest securities frauds ever.

Forbes and Shelton, who have denied wrongdoing, resigned in 1998 from New
York-based Cendant, a marketing and franchising company of such chains as
Days Inn hotels and Century 21 real estate brokers.

The criminal and civil fraud charges contend Forbes, 58, and Shelton, 46,
contributed to a decade-long fraud scheme mostly at CUC International
Inc., a Cendant predecessor. Cendant has restated three years of results,
saying that former CUC executives inflated earnings before charges by $
500 million.

A federal grand jury in Newark, N.J., on Wednesday indicted Forbes and
Shelton, and the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil fraud
lawsuit in Newark federal court.

"Some call this kind of manipulation 'earnings management,' " said Robert
Cleary, the U.S. attorney in New Jersey. "Investors who watched
helplessly as their share values plunged call it 'fraud.' "

Forbes and Shelton were charged with conspiracy and wire fraud for
conspiring with subordinates to use fraudulent accounting methods to
inflate income, the U.S. attorney's office said. Both face a maximum of
five years in prison and a $ 250,000 fine on each of the two counts. They
also face possible fines in the SEC case.

The SEC said its separate civil case alleges the men "directed a massive
financial fraud while selling millions of dollars worth of the company's

CUC, a marketer of discount membership clubs, merged with HFS Inc., a
hotel and real estate franchiser, to form Cendant in December 1997.
Forbes was CUC's founder and chairman before he became Cendant's top
executive. Shelton was CUC's president.

After Cendant made a post-merger announcement that it had found CUC
accounting abuses, its stock tumbled 46% in one day to $ 19.06, erasing $
14 billion in market value. On Wednesday, Cendant shares dipped 5 cents
to close at $ 13.08 on the New York Stock Exchange.

Three other former Cendant executives, including former Executive Vice
President Cosmo Corigliano, pleaded guilty in June to participating in
the CUC accounting fraud. Corigliano cooperated in the investigation that
led to Wednesday's indictment.

"We intend to contest the charges with great vigor," said Forbes'
attorney, Brendan V. Sullivan Jr. of Washington.

Shelton's attorney, Martin J. Auerbach of New York, blamed Corigliano for
the fraud. "Mr. Shelton did not participate in the fraud that occurred at
CUC/Cendant and is innocent of all the charges brought against him,"
Auerbach said.

Forbes and Shelton both refused to testify in the SEC inquiry, asserting
their constitutional rights against self- incrimination, the SEC said.

A Cendant spokesman said: "The employees and shareholders of our company
have moved well beyond this episode in our history."

Cendant has agreed to pay $ 2.83 billion to settle a class-action fraud
lawsuit, the largest settlement ever of a securities fraud case. CUC's
former auditor, Ernst & Young, settled another investor suit for $ 335

Cendant, which had $ 3.8 billion in revenue last year, has agreed to buy
Avis Group Holdings Inc., the world's No. 2 car-rental company, next
month. Cendant franchises Days Inn, Howard Johnson, Ramada Inn and other
hotels; real estate brokers such as Century 21 and Coldwell Banker; and
Jackson Hewitt tax-preparation services. (Los Angeles Times, March 1,

DOMINOES PIZZA: Residents Sue Alleging Discrimination in Deliveries
A group of residents in a predominantly black neighborhood have filed a
federal lawsuit against Domino's Pizza Inc., saying the company is
discriminatory in its deliveries. The lawsuit filed this week is a
continuation of a lawsuit originally filed last year in Circuit Court and
then in July in federal court by plaintiff Kenneth Moore. He later
obtained class-action status, and now 92 people are included in the suit.

The plaintiffs claim that Domino's "practice of refusing to deliver to
the doors of certain residences has been implemented in areas of the city
that are predominantly black."

They are seeking $1 million in compensatory damages for every act of
discrimination proven by the plaintiffs during a two-year period starting
in 1998, along with $50 million in punitive damages.

Domino's officials, however, have said they do not deliver to certain
areas because of security concerns, not race, according to the lawsuit.

Two residents - one white and one black - in the neighborhood where the
suit is being filed told The Commercial Appeal on Wednesday that Domino's
does deliver there and doesn't discriminate against blacks. "They have
been delivering to us for years," said Marcia Jennings, who is black.

Connie Copeland, who is white, said Jennings told her about an incident
in January of 1996 in which a Domino's deliverer was robbed. She said
such endangerment might explain a concern for deliveries in the area.

However, the company has dealt with claims of delivery discrimination in
other parts of the country.

Under an agreement with the U.S. Justice Department last June, Domino's
settled complaints that its nationwide delivery policy and delivery
limits were biased against black customers. Under the agreement, Domino's
can deny delivery to an area based only on a legitimate safety concern
for drivers.

In 1998, a federal judge in Jacksonville, Fla., issued an injunction
ordering Domino's to deliver to the predominantly black enclave of
American Beach, Fla., after two residents sued the company that owned the
area Domino's franchise. (The Associated Press State & Local Wire, March
1, 2001)

FILM COMPANIES: Lawsuit Accuses of Waiting Too Long to Pay Fired Workers
About 40 studios, management companies and other firms that hire film
crews face a lawsuit that says they break California's labor laws by
waiting too long to pay fired workers.

The suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, names every major
studio--including Walt Disney Co.'s Walt Disney Studios, AOL Time Warner
Inc.'s Warner Bros. and Sony Corp.'s Sony Pictures Entertainment--as well
as payroll firms, production companies and talent agencies.

The workers allege that all of the employers illegally wait until the
next regularly scheduled payday after terminations before delivering
checks. Under California law, motion picture employers must pay fired
workers within 24 hours after they are terminated, the workers say. Ten
plaintiffs filed the suit, which seeks class-action status on behalf of
25,000 workers. (Los Angeles Times, March 1, 2001)

GLOBALSTAR TELECOMM: Charles J. Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. announced on February 28 that a
private securities action requesting class action status has been
initiated on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the common
stock of Globalstar Telecommunications Ltd. during the period December 6,
1999 through and including October 27, 2000.No class has yet been
certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not
represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased the stock
listed above during the class period, you have certain rights. To be a
member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you
may retain counsel of your choice.

Contact: Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., Baltimore Charles J.
Piven, 410/332-0030 pivenlaw@erols.com

GLOBALSTAR TELECOMM: Hit With Securities Suit in  Filed By Shalov Stone
Shalov Stone & Bonner issued the following announcement February 28: A
class action was commenced on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Globalstar Telecommunications Ltd. (Nasdaq: GSTRF) in the
period from December 6, 1999 to October 27, 2000. The complaint names
Globalstar, Bernard Schwartz and Loral Space & Communications Ltd. as

The complaint alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions of material facts concerning the
company's business performance during the relevant time. According to the
complaint, throughout the relevant time period, defendants repeatedly
assured investors that the company's operations were performing well,
that the company was enjoying strong growth and that the company's shares
were undervalued, among other things. At the same time, however, the
complaint alleges that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that
Globalstar was falling dramatically below the company's publicly stated
business plan and that severe shortfalls in the sales of phones
necessarily imperiled the company's business plan at all relevant times.
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Case No. 01 Civ. 1748).

Contact: Kenneth A. Ricken, Esq.; or Mark J. Nemetz, Legal Assistant,
both of Shalov Stone & Bonner, 212-686-8004

GOODYEAR TIRE: IL Suit Accuses of Silent Recall of Load Range E Tires
An economic-damage class action has been filed in Illinois state court
against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and Kelly-Springfield Tire Co., with
plaintiffs charging that the companies knew of problems with Load Range E
tires and have been conducting a "silent recall." Harper et al. v.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. et al. , No. 00-L-1154, complaint filed (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Madison County, Nov. 11, 2000).

The proposed nationwide class consists of: All persons and entities in
the United States who own or owned, other than for purposes of resale,
Goodyear Wrangler AT, Goodyear Wrangler HT, Goodyear Wrangler RT/S,
Goodyear All-Season Workhorse, Kelly-Springfield Power King,
Kelly-Springfield Trailbuster, Goodyear Marathon and other
Goodyear/Kelly-Springfield Load Range E, Load Range D, light truck and
recreational vehicle tires or who owned or leased vehicles with such

Claims for personal injury and wrongful death are not included in the

The plaintiffs seek damages caused by the defendants' "wrongdoing,"
including costs of replacing the tires, which they claim are prone to
tread separation. Fifteen deaths and numerous injuries have been linked
to the tires.

According to the complaint, Goodyear has known of the problem for five
years and made a design change in 1996, but has publicly denied that a
defect exists. "The problem with the Defective Tires is massive," the
plaintiffs maintain, "affecting thousands, if not millions, of consumers
across the nation.

According to The Los Angeles Times, 'sources familiar with the matter
said Goodyear has received more than 3,000 claims about its light truck
tires since A majority of these claims have been settled, said sources,
with consumers receiving replacement tires and reimbursements if their
vehicles were damaged.' "For perspective, NHTSA the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration has received approximately 3,700 complaints
about the Bridgestone/Firestone tires that were recently subject to

The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph P. Danis of Carey & Danis in St.
Louis; Gary E. Mason, Alexander E. Barnett and Matthew F. Pawa of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll in Washington, D.C.; Ronald L. Motley of Ness,
Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole in Mount Pleasant, S.C.; Donni Young
of Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole in New Orleans; and David
Nester of Nester & Constance in Belleville, Ill. (Products Liability,
January 2001)

NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Settles Federal Shareholder Lawsuit for $30 Mil
Network Associates, Inc. (Nasdaq: NETA), announced on March 1 that it has
settled a federal shareholder class action suit, filed in April 1999,
arising from the accounting treatment of in-process research and
development in connection with various acquisitions by Network Associates
and predecessor corporations in 1998 and prior years. The settlement
resolves federal securities law claims of members of the Class, which
consists of persons who purchased Network Associates' shares between
January 20, 1998 and April 6, 1999. The amount of the settlement is $30
million and will be funded primarily by the Company's D & O insurance
carriers. The settlement is subject to judicial approval. The settlement
does not affect the federal shareholder class action lawsuits that were
filed in December 2000 and January 2001.

With headquarters in Santa Clara, Calif., Network Associates, Inc. is a
leading supplier of security and availability solutions for e-businesses.
Network Associates is comprised of four business units: McAfee,
delivering world class anti-virus products; PGP Security, providing
firewall, intrusion detection and encryption products; Sniffer
Technologies, a leader in network and application management; and Magic
Solutions, providing web-based service desk solutions. For more
information, Network Associates can be reached at 972-308-9960 or on the
Internet at http://www.nai.com.

NORTEL NETWORKS: Bernard M. Gross Announces Securities Suit Filed in NY
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. gives notice that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Nortel Networks Corp. (NYSE:NT)
between November 1, 2000 and February 15, 2001 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Nortel and certain of its executive officers with
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder arising from material
misstatements and omissions made during the Class Period.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period,
defendants repeatedly issued materially false and misleading statements
overstating sales growth and revenues for the company's services and
products for the year 2000 and especially strong fourth quarter 2000
performance. Besides boasting that Nortel's "industry leading portfolio"
would allow it to "continue to outpace the market and gain profitable
market share" despite the tightening of capital within the telecom
sector, defendant Dunn projected that Nortel would achieve 30% growth in
revenues and EPS in 2001. The complaint alleges that defendant's guidance
concerning revenue and earnings for the full year 2001 was materially
false and misleading because at the time they made these statements,
defendants were aware that the economy in the United States had slowed
down dramatically. As a result, defendants' misrepresentations caused the
price of Nortel's securities to be inflated throughout the Class Period,
allowing certain defendants to collectively sell over $7 million of
personally held Nortel stock.

On February 15, 2001, Nortel surprised investors by issuing a press
release announcing that it would not meet previous sales expectations and
would reduce its workforce by 10,000 employees.

Contact: Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. Susan Gross, Esq. Deborah R.
Gross, Esq. 866/561-3600 (toll free) 800/849-3120 (toll free)

OFFICE DEPOT: Willie Gary Says Employment Race Bias Suit Is Prepared
Stuart trial attorney Willie Gary -- who relishes taking on corporations
in the courtroom -- has sent a letter to executives of Office Depot Inc.,
suggesting they meet with him before he files a class-action race
discrimination lawsuit on behalf of its current and former black

"The lawsuit is prepared, not filed yet," attorney C.K. Hoffler, a
partner in Gary's law firm, said on Wednesday in Seattle, where they were
preparing for the first court hearing on a $ 5 billion race
discrimination suit filed in January against Microsoft Corp.

Flamboyant, powerful and a top litigator, Gary heads a 130-person law
firm, whose staff includes an airline captain and co-pilot to fly his
Boeing 737 jet.

Office Depot is the fourth Fortune 500 company targeted by Gary in the
past 18 months for discriminatory employment practices. Before Microsoft,
suits were filed against Coca-Cola Co. and Eastman Kodak.

Hoffler, echoing statements made by her boss, said allegations of
disparate pay, promotions and job opportunities for black employees at
Delray Beach-based Office Depot are more widespread than charges leveled
against giant software manufacturer Microsoft. "Office Depot is a hostile
work environment for black employees," said Hoffler, who said the firm
has met with more than 50 former and current employees. "There is a
definite pattern of discriminatory employment practices. There is a glass
ceiling and disproportionately less African-Americans in higher

But Office Depot denied the allegations that it discriminates against
black employees in a statement released in response to public statements
by Gary published Tuesday in the Palm Beach Post.

"Naturally we take seriously any allegation of discrimination, and we are
certainly willing to meet with Mr. Gary for the purpose of determining
the nature of the grievances of his clients," said Eileen Dunn, vice
president of investor relations for Office Depot. She said the company's
general counsel and chief executive officer had received Gary's letter
Tuesday but no meeting date was set.

"We emphatically deny that there is any policy or systematic practice of
discrimination of any sort at Office Depot," the company said in its
statement. "Office Depot has a long-standing policy of equal opportunity
and affirmative action in its hiring and promotion practices. We are
committed to diversity in our management, our work force and in our
relations with suppliers and vendors." (Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale,
FL), March 1, 2001)

OKLAHOMA: Unclaimed Money in License Suit Waiting for Eligible Drivers
Attorneys representing members of a class action lawsuit are looking for
thousands of Oklahoma drivers who may be entitled to refunds in a

The settlement involved a lawsuit over excessive fees people paid the
state Department of Public Safety to reinstate their drivers licenses
between July 1990 and 1995.

Oklahoma County District Judge Niles Jackson appointed attorneys at the
Oklahoma City law firm of Carpenter and Laquer to represent all class
members, an advertisement in The Daily Oklahoman and other major
metropolitan newspapers said.

Refunds could range from $10 to $2,000 according to an ad that ran in The
Oklahoman on Wednesday and Sunday.

Attorney Richard Laquer said close to 40,000 people were part of the
class action lawsuit. So far, attorneys have been unable to contact
20,000 people to inform them they may be eligible for a refund, he said.

Those whose names appear in the ads did not respond to letters sent to
them about possible refunds, Laquer said. This month, the names of 1,500
people were listed, Laquer said. Each month, another 1,500 names will be
published until all the names of those who didn't respond are published,
Laquer said.

People who see their names in the advertisements should contact the law
firm of Carpenter and Laquer at (405) 232-1515 in the Oklahoma City area
or toll-free at (877) 560-1515, the advertisement said. (The Associated
Press State & Local Wire, March 1, 2001)

PPA: Cohen, Milstein Files National Suits to Educate Doctors & Consumers
Six national class action suits representing millions of consumers who
purchased over-the-counter cold, flu and allergy medications containing
the potentially deadly drug Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) were filed by the
national class action law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,

The firm has offices in Seattle, Washington and Washington, D.C. PPA has
been associated with strokes, seizures, heart attacks and related
problems, and even death. The suits, filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington, are the first national
class actions involving PPA filed on behalf of consumers.

The suits seek, among other things, to require the manufacturers of cold,
flu and allergy medications formerly containing PPA, to inform health
care providers nationwide that some of their patients may have suffered
brain, heart or other injury from the ingestion of PPA, and to educate
consumers about the potential explanation for undiagnosed injuries they
may have suffered from PPA.

The lawsuits claim that the drug companies who marketed, manufactured and
distributed these medications knew, for over 20 years, that PPA has
serious life-threatening side effects, but continued to sell the products
in order to reap huge sums in profits. At the urging of the FDA, the use
of PPA ingredients in the manufacture of these medications was
discontinued in November, 2000.

The companies named in the suits include American Home Products Corp.,
Shering-Plough Corp., Bayer Corp., SmithKline Beecham Corp.,
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Novartis Corp. These companies are the major
manufacturers of cold, flu and allergy products, including varieties of
Dimetapp, Robitussin, Coricidin, Contac, Triaminic, Comtrex, Naldecon
Pediatric and Alka-Seltzer, among others.

Stephen D. Annand, a partner and head of Cohen Milstein's Healthcare
Practice Group, and co-counsel in the litigation with Lewis at Cohen
Milstein, pointed out that "the suits request that consumers be warned
not to ingest any products containing PPA that they may still have in
their medicine cabinets." According to Annand, "This is of critical
importance because the specified shelf life of these products may not
have expired and consumers who do not know about the PPA withdrawal from
the market would be likely to continue to take these medications,
possibly leading to disastrous health consequences." Annand pointed out
that efforts to date to notify consumers of this danger have been totally

Additional counsel in the suits, Baltimore attorney Barry L. Steelman,
who has successfully litigated cases involving individuals who have
suffered personal injuries caused by PPA, including death, said, "These
suits will bring to light a public health hazard that has existed for
decades in America. We believe that these cases will serve the public
interest by assisting physicians to completely and accurately assess the
patients' health." Steelman pointed out that "providing information
concerning adverse effects of PPA is extremely important because many of
the patients affected would not have been considered at risk for cardiac
or neuro-vascular events that PPA is known to cause, and thus normally
would not be evaluated by their physicians for such conditions,
particularly in cases involving unclear symptom presentations."

Based on claims that the medications were falsely advertised and that
there were no warnings about the known health risks of PPA, the lawsuits
also seek refunds to consumers for the purchase price of cold, flu and
allergy medications containing PPA. The annual sales for these
medications are estimated to be in the billions of dollars. The suits
further propose that a portion of the sums disgorged by these
manufacturers be used for additional research on the adverse effects of
PPA and dissemination of the results of that research to health care
providers and consumers. Additionally, the suits seek allocation of a
portion of the fund to enhancing ways of treating injuries caused by PPA.

Contact: Media Relations, Inc. Deborah Schwartz, 301/897-8838

RISCORP, INC.: Burt & Pucillo Announces Settlement Hearing in FL
The Law Offices of Burt & Pucillo, LLP Announces Summary Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement Against Riscorp, Inc.

The following was released by Burt & Pucillo, LLP:



Class action litigation (the "Litigation") has been pending in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Court")
against RISCORP and certain of its former directors and officers
("Defendants") since July 9, 1999. The parties to the action have reached
a proposed Settlement.

You are hereby notified, pursuant to Court Order, that a settlement
hearing will be held on Thursday, April 19, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., before
the Honorable James S. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge, at the
Sam M. Gibbons United States Courthouse, 801 North Florida Avenue,
Courtroom 13A, Tampa, Florida 33602 (the "Settlement Hearing") to
determine: (1) whether the Class should be certified and whether the
Class Representative and Class Counsel have adequately represented the
Class; (2) whether the Settlement of the Litigation in the amount of
$400,000.00 in cash, plus accrued interest (the "Settlement Fund") should
be approved as fair, just, reasonable and adequate to the Class; (3)
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the class action is fair,
just, reasonable and adequate; (4) whether the applications of counsel
for the Class for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be
approved; (5) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice
as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of January 25,
2001, filed with the Court; and (6) such other matters as the Court may
deem appropriate.

If you purchased RISCORP common stock during the period from November 19,
1997, through and including July 20, 1998, your rights may be affected by
the Settlement of this Litigation. To share in the distribution of the
Settlement Fund, members of the Class must establish their rights and
file a Proof of Claim form postmarked on or before May 19, 2001.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must file a written
request for exclusion by April 9, 2001. If you are a member of the Class
and have not yet received a detailed printed Notice of Pendency of Class
Action and Proposed Settlement of Class Action Determination, Proposed
Settlement of Class Action, Settlement Hearing and Right to Appear,
please write to the Claims Administrator referred to below: Riscorp, Inc.
Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Complete Claim Solutions,
Inc. P.O. Box 24676 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 Lead Counsel for the
Class is:

Michael J. Pucillo BURT & PUCILLO, LLP 515 North Flagler Drive Suite 1701
West Palm Beach, FL 33401

DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT. Dated: January 30, 2001       BY ORDER OF THE

Contact: Burt & Pucillo, LLP, West Palm Beach Michael J. Pucillo, Esq.,
561/835-9400 Fax: 561/835-0322

SMITHFIELD FOODS: Product Liability Lawyers Take up Suits Re Hog Farms
The Wall Street Journal (3/1, Kilman) reports, "A coalition of
environmental and populist farm groups are targeting Smithfield Foods
Inc., in their campaign against factory-style hog farms. The coalition,
led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is president of the New York
environmental group Water Keeper Alliance and son of the assassinated
senator, filed a lawsuit in federal court in Raleigh, N.C., accusing the
Smithfield, Va., company of violating environmental laws by allowing hog
manure to pollute some of that state's rivers. The groups are preparing a
series of similar lawsuits. And in a twist, the lawsuits are being
handled by some of the product-liability lawyers who have helped to slam
the tobacco and drug industries in recent years with class-action
litigation. Nine law firms, which have each contributed $50,000 to a war
chest, were assembled by Pensacola, Fla., attorney Mike Papantonio, who
represented some plaintiffs in the Fen-Phen diet-drug lawsuit." (The
Bulletin's Frontrunner, March 1, 2001)

SMITHFIELD FOODS: U.S.' Top Hog Processor Accused Of Planned Pollution
Environmental groups on Wednesday hit the nation's biggest hog processor
with a racketeering lawsuit accusing the company of deliberately fouling
water, air and soil as part of a strategy to drive competing small
farmers out of business.

The lawsuit accuses Smithfield Foods Inc., which churns out 6 billion
pounds of meat a year, of lowering its production costs by flouting
federal and state environmental laws. By polluting, rather than treating
its waste, Smithfield is able to produce pork so cheaply that independent
farmers can't compete, the suit alleges.

In filing a case under RICO, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, the environmentalists are seeking to hold Smithfield
and its top executives financially responsible for the environmental and
economic harm its business practices allegedly caused. They are asking a
court to award triple damages--three times the amount of actual harm.

Smithfield Vice President Richard J.M. Poulson responded with a furious
statement calling the case "extortion by litigation" and "a gross
perversion of our legal system."

Poulson defended Smithfield's waste-disposal system as "state-of-the-art"
and said the company's farms adhered to a "strict zero-tolerance standard
for environmental discharge."

The environmentalists' charges of massive pollution "are exaggerated
beyond belief," agreed Stephen Cohen, a spokesman for the National Pork
Producers Council.

But the lawsuits were welcomed by activists in nearly a dozen states who
have long railed against the "factory farms" that confine thousands of
hogs in a single barn and pipe their manure to huge open-air lagoons.

The biggest hog lots can produce more waste than millions of people, but
unlike cities, they are not required to build sewage treatment plants.
Instead, they collect the manure and urine in lagoons, then spray it on
crops as fertilizer.

From Utah to Missouri to North Carolina to Mississippi, rural residents
who live near the big farms complain that the lagoons give off rank
odors, that the manure fouls rivers and that the corporations drive
independent farmers into bankruptcy.

The groups supporting Wednesday's lawsuits hint at the depth of local
rage: Along with well-known national organizations such as the Sierra
Club and Humane Society, there were at least a dozen grass-roots
coalitions with names like People Opposed to Ruining Kansas or Families
Against Rural Messes.

"I promise you this: We will march across this country and we will bring
these kind of lawsuits against every single pork factory in America if we
have to," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., president of the Water Keeper
Alliance and a leader in the legal campaign against Smithfield.

Many, if not all, big hog operations already have been tested by legal

Smithfield Foods, for instance, in 1997 drew the largest civil penalty
ever assessed for violations of the Clean Water Act--a $ 12.6-million
fine. It was also ordered to pay $ 3.8 million for about 22,000 pollution
violations in Virginia.

The nation's second-largest pork producer, Premium Standard Farms, in
1999 settled an environmental lawsuit in Missouri by agreeing to spend $
25 million to study technology that could reduce pollution.

On a smaller scale, hog lots in several states have compensated neighbors
who sued to recover the losses they incurred when the pigs moved in and
their property values sank.

Such cases have sparked some tinkering with the way corporations handle
hog waste. But their basic model of lagoons and spray fields has remained
intact. The racketeering lawsuit, filed in federal court in Tampa, Fla.,
aims to force systemic change by insisting that big hog lots treat their
waste the way an industrial factory or a city would before releasing it
into the environment.

There's just one hitch: Hog lots are not considered factories or cities.
They're classified as farms. And as such, they're not required by law to
build waste treatment plants.

"The courts thus far have been reluctant to be too critical of
confinement factories as long as they're doing what's required by state
or federal law," said Neil Harl, an agricultural analyst at Iowa State

Aside from occasional spills, most big farms are doing what their permits
allow. As Harl put it: "It's hard to surmount that kind of defense."

Pork producers argue as well that nostalgia for the "good old days" of
family farms is misplaced. The nation has moved on, they argue; the
industrial revolution has come to agriculture.

When consumers buy pork chops, they expect the meat to look and taste a
certain way. They want it to be lean and cheap. The corporate system of
genetically engineering pigs and breeding them in confinement lots was
developed to meet that demand.

These "generally accepted methods of production," Cohen said, are used
not only by big corporations, but by many independent family farmers as

"Mr. Kennedy and his cohort of contingency-fee lawyers have declared war
on an industry that constitutes a way of life across the country,"
Poulson added.

Ten major class-action law firms have each pledged $ 50,000 to get that
battle rolling. And they'll ante up more if need be, Kennedy said:
"Whatever it takes to win." (Los Angeles Times, March 1, 2001)

TOBACCO LITIGATION: BAT's Legal Fees Rise to $ 200 Mil
LEGAL fees at British American Tobacco soared to $ 200 million (Pounds
138 million) last year as more than 4,200 new cases for damages were
filed against the company.

Martin Broughton, chairman of BAT, the world's second biggest tobacco
company, said that more than $ 140 million was paid to lawyers in
America. The increase in fees accompanied a huge rise in the number of
product liability cases filed against the company in America, which rose
to more than 4,740 last year from just 537 in 1999.

BAT's UK subsidiaries have been named as co-defendants in some 1,345 of
those cases, compared with 161 the previous year. The company has already
been ordered to pay Pounds 17.6 billion in damages in 35 class actions in

BAT was also forced to pay $ 750,000 in the first of 4,637 individual
claims against the company. The company is seeking to have both decisions
reversed, with the individual case heading for the Supreme Court.

While reluctant to reveal the total potential cost of all the litigation,
BAT said: "It is not impossible that the results of operations or
cashflows of the group could be materially affected by the final outcome
of any particular litigation."

Despite the legal problems, profit before tax for the year to December 31
rose by 11 per cent to Pounds 1.5 billion. BAT said, however, that sales
volumes across the group had declined by 2 per cent while price increases
across the board had helped to increase profits.

Mr Broughton said: "Record results in a year of tremendous change provide
us with a sound platform for further growth." (The Times (London), March
1, 2001)

U.S.: Vet Care Case By Career Military May Cost Feds Billions
A federal appellate court has opened the U.S. government to billions of
dollars in potential damages for breaking a promise to provide free,
lifetime health care to career military personnel.

The Feb. 8 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is
another dramatic set-back for the government, which has unsuccessfully
fought liability for breaching contractual promises in such diverse areas
as savings-and-loan bailouts, spent nuclear fuel disposal and oil
exploration. In all these areas, the potential damages exposure is
considered staggering, reaching well into the multibillion-dollar

The three-judge Federal Circuit panel in Schism v. U.S., No. 99-1402,
held that the government, in recruiting efforts that continued into the
early 1990s, promised free lifetime health care to enlistees who served
at least 20 years. That promise created an implied-in-fact contract that
the government breached in 1956 when Congress passed a law imposing
space-available limitations on military medical care, wrote Chief Judge
H. Robert Mayer. As the demand for care began to exceed the capacity of
military medical facilities, some retirees were turned away based on the
1956 law; they later had to rely on Medicare.

"The retirees entered active duty in the armed forces and completed at
least twenty years service on the good faith belief that the government
would fulfill its promises," wrote Chief Judge Mayer. "The terms of the
contract were set when the retirees entered the service and fulfilled
their obligation. The government cannot unilaterally amend the contract
terms now."

An estimated 1.5 million military retirees -- most from World War II and
the Korean War -- and their dependents could be eligible for damages
totaling $ 14 billion to $ 25 billion, according to retired Air Force
Col. George E. "Bud" Day of Day & Meade in Fort Walton Beach, Fla., a
Medal of Honor recipient who represented retired Navy Col. William O.
Schism and retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert L. Reinlie in the

Mr. Day, the nation's most highly decorated officer and a former
"roommate" of U.S. Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., in a Vietnam POW camp,
says he will return now to a Florida district court for a determination
of damages and for a ruling on a class action certification motion.

He also will keep a close eye on Washington, where the federal government
has 45 days to request review of the panel decision by the full Federal
Circuit and 90 days to seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court. "No
decision has been made yet," says E. Roy Hawkins of the Department of
Justice's civil appellate staff, who opposed Mr. Day in the Federal

                               Another War

Suing the federal government is "like going back to combat," says Mr. Day
wryly. The litigation over the government's promise actually began with
Mr. Day's filing a suit on behalf of himself.

"I got aggravated," he recalls.

When military retirees were turned away or moved out of military
hospitals, they turned to several veterans' groups, says Mr. Day. "The
retirees said to them, 'You've got lawyers and a bit of money. Sue them.'
But they all said no."

When word got out that he had sued on behalf of himself, "my office got
3,000 phone calls from all over the country."

Before he knew it, a few military retirees came into his office and
offered to do legwork on the litigation. They call themselves the Class
Act Group. They have launched a Web site and have collected $ 100
contributions and thousands of volunteer hours from interested retirees.
Mr. Day refiled the suit in 1996 on behalf of Messrs. Schism and Reinlie.

Key to the Federal Circuit's ruling was U.S. v. Winstar, 518 U.S. 839
(1996), which has become the linchpin for recent breach-of-contract
actions against the federal government. In Winstar, which involved the
government's savings-and-loan bailout, a lower appellate court held that
the terms of a government contract, like any other contract, do not
change with the enactment of subsequent legislation. The U.S. Supreme
Court, applying ordinary principles of contract, affirmed. When Winstar
was affirmed, Mr. Day recalls, "I said, 'Holy smoke, this is great for

In Schism, the government argued that any promise of free, lifetime
health care was unenforceable because it was not expressly authorized by
Congress. But the circuit panel held that Congress had delegated "broad
authority" to military secretaries "to recruit service members; and the
secretaries, through their agents the recruiters, promised free,
life-time health care to those who met certain service obligations."

Simultaneous with their litigation battle, Mr. Day and his supporters
began pressing Congress for relief. They erected more than 100 billboards
around the country. Using the famous recruiting figure of Uncle Sam, the
billboards announce that the government lies.

Last year, Congress passed Tricare for Life, which allows retirees over
65 to participate in the military's health insurance plan, free of cost,
if they first buy Medicare's Part B coverage. The Part B premium is $ 45
per month. Many retirees have been paying $ 5,000 or more per year for
Medicare supplement policies.

"That does not take care of the problem," says Philip E. Cushman,
executive director of Veterans for Due Process. "The bottom line of all
this is the government is trying to save money."

Although he is grateful that Congress has acted, Mr. Day says it is not
enough: "That is all prospective, and it doesn't give back the money we
had to pay to Medicare and for supplementary insurance to cover what
Medicare doesn't." And, adds Mr. Cushman and others, it is not what was

When he started the litigation, Mr. Day recalls, "I had 13 volunteers,
all guys like me, in their 70s. Reinlie is 79 and Schism is 75, and I'll
be 76. Eventually, we got a pretty big group."

But four or five of the group have died during the course of the case, he
says. "I'm told that of those eligible, they are dying at the rate of
1,000 a day. The bottom line is we had 3 million plaintiffs when I filed
suit and that population is dwindling at lightning speed. It's terrible."

He will file an emergency motion in the district court to expedite
matters, he says, adding, "I think they're entitled to get paid while
they're alive, instead of the government sweating them out and waiting
for them to die." (The National Law Journal, February 26, 2001)

U-M: Minority Students lose round in Case over Admissions Program
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that a group of minority students did not
present enough evidence that the University of Michigan needs an
undergraduate affirmative action admissions program to remedy past and
present discrimination.

The ruling is a setback for the intervening defendants who say their
argument of historical discrimination should be heard by the higher
courts. They will appeal U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan's decision,
said attorney Godfrey Dillard. "Obviously Judge Duggan doesn't feel
people of color have anything to contribute to the affirmative action
debate," Dillard said.

Duggan ruled Dec. 14 without a trial that U-M's undergraduate admissions
policy, which gives minority applicants extra points on a score sheet of
entrance qualifications, is legal.

Duggan said U-M can use affirmative action to diversify its student body,
but the intervenors also wanted him to rule that remedying discrimination
is another legal justification for the policy.

The two plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit, represented by the
Washington, D.C. Center for Individual Rights, have filed an appeal.

Meanwhile, attorneys in a similar case against U-M's Law School
admissions policy are awaiting a decision from U.S. District Judge
Bernard Friedman. The monthlong trial in that case ended Feb. 16.

Curt Levey, a CIR lawyer, said Duggan's decision shows that the
intervenors don't belong in the case. He said the decision does not bode
well for intervenors in the Law School case.

Duggan found that the minority students didn't produce evidence that
U-M's reason for having an affirmative action policy was to remedy

"Defendant intervenors have failed to present any evidence that the
discrimination alleged by them, or the continuing effects of such
discrimination, was the real justification for the (U-M's) race-conscious
admissions programs," Duggan wrote.

"Furthermore, the terms of the admissions policies themselves indicate
that they were developed to achieve diversity, not as a means to remedy

He found that the intervenors did not establish that discrimination in
admissions decisions exists or existed, and did not show why affirmative
action is the least intrusive way to remedy discrimination.

"This is a very solid repudiation of their claims," Levey said. "I don't
think the intervenors in the law school case can be too happy today. It
casts a dark cloud over their case."

When the case was filed in 1997, Duggan ruled that the intervenors should
not be allowed into the case but the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
overturned that decision.

Dillard hopes the appeals court again rules in their favor. "We feel
confident we will be reinstated in this case," Dillard said. (The Detroit
News, March 1, 2001)

VICORP RESTAURANTS: Sued in CO over Proposed BancBoston Affiliate Merger
VICORP Restaurants, Inc. (Nasdaq:VRES) ("VICORP") announced on February
28 that two lawsuits were filed on February 20, 2001, in the District
Court in the City and County of Denver, Colorado, with respect to the
proposed merger of VICORP and a newly formed affiliate of BancBoston
Capital, Inc. and Goldner Hawn Johnson & Morrison, Incorporated.

Each of the suits purports to be filed as a class action on behalf of the
named plaintiff and all other shareholders of VICORP. The complaints in
the two actions are virtually identical, except for the name of the
plaintiff, and both suits were filed by the same Denver law firm.

The complaints allege that the consideration to be received by VICORP
shareholders in the merger is inadequate because it did not result from
an open bidding or "market check" mechanism. The complaints further
allege that the directors of VICORP and certain of its officers breached
their fiduciary duties to the VICORP shareholders by failing to exercise
ordinary care and diligence in connection with the merger and had
conflicts of interest in the transaction. Each plaintiff seeks, among
other things, class action certification, an injunction prohibiting
VICORP from proceeding with the merger, and an award of damages,
attorneys' fees and costs of suit.

VICORP believes that the allegations in the complaints are without merit
and intends to defend the suits vigorously. The proxy statement to be
provided by VICORP to its shareholders in connection with the merger will
contain a description of the auction process conducted by VICORP prior to
entering into the merger agreement and a detailed summary of the merger

                 Information Concerning Participants

VICORP, its directors, and executive officers may be deemed to be
participants in the solicitation of proxies from VICORP shareholders to
approve the merger. The directors and executive officers of VICORP have
an interest in the merger, some of which may differ from or may be in
addition to those of VICORP shareholders generally. Those interests,
which will be described in greater detail in the proxy statement with
respect to the merger, include interests related to continuing employment
relationships, payments under a severance agreement and a covenant
against competition, payments in settlement of stock options and rights
under a directors' compensation plan and options in the acquiring company
to be issued to certain officers.

                   Availability of Proxy Statement

VICORP has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission preliminary
proxy material relating to the special meeting of shareholders at which
the merger will be voted upon and intends to mail a proxy statement for
that meeting to shareholders in March. Shareholders are urged to read the
proxy statement carefully when it is available, as it will contain
important information that shareholders should consider before making a
decision about the merger. Copies of the proxy statement, as well as
other filings containing information about VICORP, may be obtained
without charge at the SEC's Internet site (http://www.sec.gov).Copies of
the proxy statement, when finalized, and VICORP's other SEC filings will
also be obtainable, without charge, from VICORP's Secretary at VICORP
Restaurants, Inc., 400 West 48th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80216,

VICORP operates and franchises approximately 374 mid-scale family-type
restaurants, principally under the names Bakers Square and Village Inn,
with concentrations in the Rocky Mountain region, upper Midwest,
California, Arizona and Florida.

VISX, INCORPORATED: Announces Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in CA
VISX, Incorporated (NYSE:EYE) announced on March 1 that United States
District Court Judge for the Northern District of California Charles R.
Breyer has issued an order dismissing the consolidated securities fraud
class action lawsuits filed against VISX and certain of its officers in
early 2000. The February 27, 2001 ruling will result in a final judgment
for VISX and its officers on these consolidated complaints at the trial
court level.

VISX is the worldwide leader in the development of refractive laser
technology. VISX systems are commercially available in the United States
and markets worldwide.

WORLDWIDE XCEED: Shareholder Suit Filed in NY By Schiffrin & Barroway
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, announced on March 1 that a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Worldwide Xceed Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: XCED) from November
29, 1999 through November 15, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Worldwide Xceed and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants' filings with the S.E.C. contained financial
statements that were materially false and misleading in that they were
prepared in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and the
Company's own accounting procedures. These quarterly and annual reports
filed with the S.E.C. overstated the Company's revenues and understated
its losses. As a result, the price of the Company's stock was
artificially inflated during the class period.

Contact: Marc A. Topaz, Esq., or Robert B. Weiser, Esq., 888-299-7706 or
610-667-7706, or info@sbclasslaw.com, both of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP

WORLDWIDE XCEED: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Suit Filed in N.Y.
A lawsuit has been filed on Feb. 13, 2001 by the law firm of Stull, Stull
& Brody and Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, on behalf of a Plaintiff
and a proposed class of purchasers of securities of Worldwide Xceed Group
Inc. (NASDAQ:XCED) against Worldwide Xceed Group Inc. ("Xceed" or
"Company") and certain officers and directors for the class period
November 29, 1999 through and including November 15, 2000 ("Class
Period"), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains, New York, in a case entitled
Mann v. Worldwide Xceed Group Inc., et al., Index No. 01CIV1125 (GEL).

The complaint alleges that Xceed, and certain officers and directors
including Scott A. Mednick, Werner G. Haase, Nurit K. Haase, William
Zabit and John P. Gandolfo ("Individual Defendants" hereinafter),
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making false and misleading
statements and omissions. The complaint alleges these misstatements
resulted when defendants intentionally and/or recklessly violated
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") in the Company's
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") during the
Class Period. By understating its losses and overstating its earnings,
the complaint alleges Xceed attempted to create the impression on the
public market that it was more successful that it actually was.
Defendants stated affirmatively in Xceed's public filings that its
accounting procedures complied with GAAP. In fact, the complaint alleges
the company's operations were rife with accounting irregularities
including: gross understatement of net losses due to inadequate
allowances for uncollectible accounts; improper amortizing of goodwill
and intangibles from acquired companies; improperly failing to recognize
impairment of long-lived assets in conformance with Xceed's own stated
accounting policies and GAAP; and the Company's violating its own stated
policy for recognition of revenue. In addition, certain of the Individual
Defendants also engaged in insider sales of Xceed common stock during the
Class Period while allegedly in possession of material non-public

As a result of the above alleged violations, the price of Xceed
securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period. Upon
revelation of the truth regarding Xceed's actual financial condition, the
price of Xceed securities plummeted.

Contact: Stull, Stull & Brody, New York Howard T. Longman, Esq.,
1-800-337-4983 or Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, Chestnut Ridge, New
York Gary S. Graifman, Esq., 1-800-660-7843 or 845/356-2570

XCEED GROUP: Milberg Weiss Announces Securities Suit Filed in New York
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit was filed on February 28, 2001, on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Worldwide Xceed Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:XCED)
between November 29, 1999 and November 15, 2000, inclusive. A copy of the
complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be
viewed on Milberg Weiss' website at: http://www.milberg.com/xceed/

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007
against defendants Xceed, Scott A. Mednick, Werner G. Haase, Nurit K.
Haase, William Zabit and John P. Gandolfo.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between November 29, 1999 and November 15, 2000, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Xceed securities.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants filed quarterly and
annual reports with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
that contained financial statements which were materially false and
misleading as they were prepared in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and the Company's own accounting
procedures. In its filings, the Company repeatedly overstated its
revenues and understated its losses by, among other things: (a)
underreporting its allowance for uncollectible accounts receivable; (b)
underreporting and miscomputing the amortization of intangible assets
relating to workforce, customer base, technical know-how and industry
contacts in connection with its acquisition of Zabit & Associates, Inc.;
(c) failing to review, identify and/or take the appropriate charge for
the impairment of its long-lived assets; and (d) using the "percentage of
completion" method of accounting for reporting revenues for "fixed-price
contracts" in violation of GAAP. As a result of this undisclosed conduct,
the Company's stock was trading at artificially inflated prices
throughout the Class Period.

Contact: Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, New York Steven G.
Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman, 800/320-5081 xceedcase@milbergNY.com


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., Princeton, NJ, and Beard Group, Inc.,
Washington, DC. Theresa Cheuk, Managing Editor.

Copyright 1999.  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 301/951-6400.

                    * * *  End of Transmission  * * *