CAR_Public/010313.MBX               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, March 13, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 50

                             Headlines

CREDIT CARD: Wins Dismissal Web Gambling Suits over Racketeering
CREDIT CARDS: FleetBoston Wins Round 1; Case Hinges What "May" May Mean
DAIMLER CHRYSLER: Judge's Opinion Defends Action for Airbag Claims
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Creditors and Shareholders of Defunct United Cos. Sue
DIGEX, INCORPORATED: Announces Settlement Hearing for DE Securities Suit

HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Schroeder to meet German industry leaders Wednesday
INVESTMENT BANKS: 7 Wall St. Banks Sued Over Initial Offerings
KEY BANK: Judge Allows Investors' Suit That Alleges Bank Aided Criminal
LAYOFFS: Workers Fight Back Taking Former Employers to Court
MITSUBISHI CORP: Shareholder Accuses of Cover-up of Driver Complaints

NIKE INC: Bernard M. Gross Announces Securities Lawsuit Filed in Oregon
NIKE, INC: Savett Frutkin to File Securities Lawsuit in Oregon
OAKLAND POLICE: Jerry Brown Under Fire As City Copes With Scandal
ORACLE CORP: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in California
ORACLE CORP: Pittsburgh Law Firm Announces Class Action Suit Filed in CA

RENT-A-CENTER: EEOC Joins Nationwide Sex Discrimination Suit
STEWART ENTERPRISES: Announces Securities Lawsuits Withdrawn
SULLIVAN: AL High Ct Reverses Verdict for Property Contamination Damage
TACO BELL: Workers in Oregon Win Back Pay Lawsuit
TEAM COMMUNICATIONS: Cauley Geller Files Securities Lawsuit in CA

TEAM COMMUNICATIONS: Charles J. Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit Filed
TEAM COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in California
TWINLAB CORPORATION: Announces Settlement of Securities Lawsuit in NY
U OF TORONTO: Retired Professors Sue for Back Pay and Fair Pensions
UNISYS CORP: Pa. Ap. Ct. Reinstates Claims of 20,000 Retirees

                            *********

CREDIT CARD: Wins Dismissal Web Gambling Suits over Racketeering
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a significant victory for Visa, MasterCard, and several card-issuing
banks, a federal judge in New Orleans has dismissed two class actions filed
by people who lost money through Internet gambling and argued that they did
not have to pay their card debts because the card companies were engaging
in racketeering.

Dozens of lawsuits like this have been filed in state courts around the
country, and at least one plaintiff has won debt forgiveness. But in the
only federal cases so far, Judge Stanwood R. Duval Jr. of U.S. District
Court in New Orleans ruled Feb. 26 that the plaintiffs did not show that
the card companies were engaging in a "criminal enterprise," merely that
their line of business had inadvertently aided online casinos that would be
illegal in the United States but were legal in their host countries.

The judge wrote in his decision that providing "important services to a
racketeering enterprise is not the same as directing the affairs of the
enterprise," and that the use of particular payment cards at online casinos
constitutes "a random intersection, not an ongoing organization."

Last June the House Banking Committee approved legislation that would have
made it illegal to use checks, credit cards, or other bank-issued
instruments to gamble on the Internet. But the legislation died in the
House.

In what is perhaps considered the seminal case in this area -- and may well
have encouraged copycat cases -- a California woman sued MasterCard, Visa,
and Providian Financial Corp. in 1998 after racking up $70,000 in card debt
at various offshore casino Web sites. The woman, Cynthia J. Haines, argued
that Internet gambling is illegal in California, so the companies acted
wrongly in letting her use her credit cards, and that this relieved her of
the obligation to pay.

Ms. Haines prevailed, with the court absolving her of the debts. The case
led MasterCard in 1999 to publish payment guidelines for Internet casinos,
which Visa had done already. The rules require casino operators to post
notices that online gaming is illegal in some jurisdictions and that
customers can be held liable for any bets they place.

In the federal cases, Judge Duval showed little sympathy for the gambling
debtors. "Plaintiffs in these cases are not victims, they are independent
actors who made a knowing and voluntary choice to engage in a course of
conduct," the judge wrote. "Litigation over their own actions arose only
when the result of those actions became a debt that they did not wish to
pay."

The card companies were cheered by the ruling but said it might not close
the door on the matter.

"We're obviously very pleased on the decision," said Eileen Simon, vice
president and counsel to MasterCard International. But it is not the "death
knell for other decisions. We are hopeful that this signals some skepticism
as to the validity of these types of claims."

At most Internet casinos, people buy virtual "chips" with credit cards and
use them to play standard gambling games, such as roulette and blackjack.
Steve Zelinger, director of litigation for Visa International, said Judge
Duval's decision made clear that the purchase of those chips does not
constitute a gambling transaction. The person could decide not to gamble
and could cash in all the chips. "It's not our role to legislate people's
lives," he said. "We're not a police organization, we're a payment
mechanism." (The American Banker, March 12, 2001)


CREDIT CARDS: FleetBoston Wins Round 1; Case Hinges What "May" May Mean
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleetboston Financial Corp. has won round one in what promises to be a
protracted set of related litigations. The issue is the alleged
bait-and-switch tactics it employed to attract credit card customers.

Boston-based FleetBoston Financial was created when Fleet Bank acquired
BankBoston in 1999. The corporation and its credit card arms, Fleet Credit
Card Services L.P. and Fleet Credit Card Holdings Inc., are the targets of
a suit in Rhode Island state court and two U.S. District Court suits in
Philadelphia. The defendants are referred to collectively as Fleet in court
documents.

On Dec. 29, 2000, Fleet got a belated Christmas gift. U.S. District Judge
Bruce W. Kauffman dismissed a lawsuit in which plaintiff Paula E. Rossman
was assessed an annual fee after signing up for a Fleet credit card on the
basis of what she claims was a promise that no fee would be imposed. That,
she alleges, was contrary to the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA).

According to the judge, Fleet ''unquestionably engaged in wrongdoing'' if
it lured customers with favorable terms that it intended to change but
wrongdoing alone does not automatically trigger application of TILA.

"I've filed a notice of appeal," says plaintiffs' attorney Michael D.
Donovan, a partner at Donovan Miller, Philadelphia. "The decision ignores
congressional amendments to TILA that specifically prohibit what Fleet
did."

The case will also be refiled in both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island state
courts. Rossman is already plaintiff in a state claim under Rhode Island's
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, making the same bait-and-switch
allegations in regards to Fleet's interest rates. Other suits making
similar charges have been filed as well.

                Fed Raised Its Rate, So Did Fleet

In 1999, the plaintiff received a solicitation letter over the signature of
Fleet's executive vice president along with documents titled "Consumer
Information" and "Terms of Pre-Qualification."

The letter offered a credit card with no annual fee. The consumer
information document repeated the statement that Fleet would not impose an
annual fee. The terms of pre-qualification document advised that upon
receipt of a credit card, the plaintiff would receive a cardholder
agreement, the terms of which would be "subject to change."

That agreement contained a paragraph that stated: "We have the right to
change any of the terms of this agreement at any time. You will be given
notice of a change as required by law. Any change in terms governs your
account as of the effective date, and will, as permitted by law and at our
option, apply both to transactions made on or after such date and to any
outstanding transactions."

About seven months later, in May 2000, the plaintiff received another
letter in which an annual fee of $ 35 was assessed. It attributed the
change to the Federal Reserve's decision to raise interest rates. The
letter said the fee would be charged to plaintiff's account on the
anniversary of the date the account was opened. A month later another
letter modified the terms further, stating that continued rate increases
made it necessary to charge the fee as of July 2000, several months before
the one-year anniversary. Rossman's suit was filed on July 31, 2000.

"If you offer a no-annual-fee credit card, you can't charge an annual fee
within the first year," says Donovan. "It's untruthful to say it has no
annual fee when the intention is to adopt one."

Intention is the key word, and Donovan has a simple method for discerning
Fleet's intentions. "Interest rates went up and they adopted the fee. That
was their business plan. I don't think they'll deny that."

Yes they will, according to Fleet's attorney, Burt M. Rublin, a partner at
Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, Philadelphia. "My client doesn't want me
to speak for the record," he says, but he points out public documents that
answer questions about the federal case and also indicate the broad
outlines of Fleet's position in state courts. Fleet accepted the premise of
the plaintiff's federal case for purposes of argument and maintained that,
even if it did intend to raise rates, it hadn't violated federal law.

No one in the Fleet legal department would comment.

                  I Wish I May, I Wish I Might

Fleet argued that it had done nothing contrary to TILA. In a memorandum in
support of its motion to dismiss the case, it quoted Judge Richard A.
Posner, chief judge of the 7th Circuit, in a recent decision: "The Act is
not a general prohibition of fraud in consumer transactions or even in
consumer credit transactions."

Fleet said TILA simply requires a creditor to make disclosures that reflect
the terms of the legal obligation between the parties, and that disclosures
in direct-mail applications and solicitations must be accurate as of the
time of mailing.

Fleet claimed that documents given to the plaintiff as part of the
solicitation and when the card was issued (the cardholder agreement) both
provided that, subject to the agreement's change-in-terms provision, there
was no annual fee on the account. Thus, the solicitation's representation
that there was no annual fee accurately reflected the terms to which the
parties were legally bound at the time of the disclosures.

The case ultimately hinged on interpretation of Regulation Z, promulgated
by the Federal Reserve Board to guide enforcement of TILA. The argument
came down to the interpretation of one word in that regulation-"may."

The regulation requires credit card issuers to "disclose any annual or
other periodic fee, expressed as annualized amount, or any other fee that
may be imposed. The plaintiff interpreted that to mean "might" be imposed
in the future.

The judge disagreed, and chose an alternative meaning. "Although the term
'may' can be used to connote possibility," he wrote, "it can also be used
to connote permission."

He buttressed his position with a reference to the Federal Reserve's
official staff interpretations of Regulation Z, which say the disclosures
should reflect credit terms to which the parties are legally bound at the
time the disclosures are given. He stated that if Fleet did what the
plaintiff alleges, it had engaged in wrongdoing, but it hadn't violated
TILA.

The decision was wrong on several counts, according to Donovan.

"In 1988 Congress passed the Fair Credit and Charge Card Disclosure Act,
and in 1989 the Federal Reserve published final amendments to Regulation Z
to implement that Act," he says.

According to Donovan, Congress acted in order to make a distinction between
closed-end loans and open-ended credit programs. Prior to 1988 TILA
required both kinds of creditors to simply disclose the terms and
conditions when the loan closed. He claims the Court relied on cases
dealing with closed-end loans for its analysis.

"The 1988 Act requires disclosure of all terms and conditions applicable to
an ongoing plan, including those that 'may' be charged," he says. "The
Court construed the word 'may' as if it were a closed-end loan case," he
says. "Congress's intention was that you had to disclose the entire plan.
If you had a plan to impose an annual fee, you had to say so."

Fleet disagrees. In its memorandum it states: "There is nothing in TILA
that compels disclosure by a creditor of an intention to modify the
parties' legal obligations in the future. In fact, Regulation Z
specifically contemplates and permits a creditor to make a change in terms
in open-end credit transactions, such as revolving credit card accounts."

Donovan also claims that the ruling is in conflict with a 9th Circuit
decision issued in 2000, Demando v. Capital One. That decision allowed the
plaintiff to proceed against a credit card company on the basis of an
attempted rate increase that was never imposed.

According to the 9th Circuit's decision: "Notice that credit card issuer
sent to card holder, purporting to increase holder's fixed interest rate,
violated regulation mandating, pursuant to Truth in Lending Act (TILA),
that all disclosures issued in conjunction with open-ended credit
arrangements reflect terms of legal obligation of the parties, in that
notice contained terms which were in violation of credit agreement."

Fleet will argue that its agreement contemplated changes in terms.

                    Class-Action Status Sought

Fleet's state court position appears to be much tougher. The fraud and
deceptive-trade practices laws the plaintiffs filed under allow for a
closer examination of Fleet's intentions at the time it solicited
customers. Fleet has cited the Fed's interest rate increases as
justification for all subsequent changes in its credit card terms. Queried
whether state courts are likely to assume that the financial analysts who
design Fleet's credit card programs were blindsided by those increases,
Rublin stuck with his "no comment" comment.

A suit pending in Rhode Island is typical. "We're concentrating on an
analysis of whether Fleet's solicitation was likely to deceive," says Kelly
M. Dermody, a partner with Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, San
Francisco.

Her firm represents plaintiff Tyler Chavers, who transferred the balance of
his three credit cards to obtain the 7.99 percent annual interest rate
Fleet was advertising. One month later, he received a letter from Fleet
saying that because the Federal Reserve had raised interest rates, the bank
was increasing its rates to 9.5 or 10.5 percent, depending on when
cardholders opened their accounts.

"We'll be asking for class-action certification," says Dermody. (Corporate
Legal Times, March, 2001)


DAIMLER CHRYSLER: Judge's Opinion Defends Action for Airbag Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
In a harshly worded opinion, Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Mark I.
Bernstein has set forth a thorough account of why the Superior Court should
affirm judgments he made in a case that resulted in a multi-million dollar
verdict against Daimler Chrysler in a class-action airbag case.

"Defendant has repeatedly, cumulatively and repetitiously raised the same
claims in numberless form throughout the trial," Bernstein wrote in Crawley
v. Daimler Chrysler Corp. "Their claim that no class action can possibly be
properly certified has been restated hundreds of times under every
imaginable guise."

"The fact that defendant voluminously claim, in repetitive protean guises,
that a class action could not proceed and this court disagrees, and the
fact that court conducted a jury trial in this class action lawsuit does
not demonstrate bias." The quote comes near the very end of the 64-page
opinion, rebutting Daimler's contention that it was denied a fair trial.

The class action had alleged that Daimler, between 1988 and 1990, knowingly
sold cars with airbags that could severely burn the hands and wrists of
drivers even though equally effective, safer airbags were available.

Bernstein said that even today, "whenever an original airbag deploys, an
equally defective system is reinstalled and the vehicle returned to the
owner without warning or explanation."

The plaintiffs pressed three claims: one for common-law fraud, one for
breach of warranty and one under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Act. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the class on
March 11, 1999, for $ 730 per class member in compensatory damages and $
3.5 million in punitive damages. The class could be as many as 80,000.
Bernstein denied post-trial motions on Jan. 7, 2000. The current opinion
hashes out a number of issues, but two of the most prevalent throughout
include issues of class certification and reliance, including an apparent
issue of first impression on the issue of reliance. Other issues Bernstein
addresses include expert testimony and a cross-appeal filed by the class.

When the case was filed, it was originally assigned to Judge Bernard J.
Avellino. The case was later reassigned to Judge Stephen E. Levin to handle
all pretrial activity. Levin handles all pretrial activity for all of the
class actions in the First Judicial District. Daimler challenges the
court's procedure, claiming it violates state rule. Bernstein said to have
the judge assigned to pretrial work and handle trials as well would result
in an "impenetrable and intolerable delay."

                        Class Certification

Bernstein said Daimler has raised countless objections to the class
certification in the case, claiming that no class can exist. Bernstein
disagreed repeatedly throughout the opinion."There can be no other fair
method of adjudicating these common issues because, in this world, there is
no other possible method of adjudicating these claims," Bernstein wrote.
"Precluding redress of injury is the antithesis of fair. The conduct of
this action as a class action was proper."

                             Reliance

Daimler argued on appeal that the class failed to make a case for common
law fraud and therefore the court was wrong to charge the jury with the
claim. Bernstein said on the contrary, that the class presented sufficient
evidence to establish the element of scienter required for a charge on
common law fraud.Bernstein said the case presented a classic example of a
duty to disclose."The 1988 field investigations revealed an unacceptable
burn rate," Bernstein wrote. "Defendant decided to redesign the airbags and
issue an Owner's Manual Supplement. Under these circumstances, defendant
had a duty to know of the unacceptable risk of burns, knew of the
unacceptable risk and had a duty to disclose that risk."

Bernstein said the evidence showed, however, that Daimler made a "conscious
decision to conceal." In cases where alleged misrepresentation is
nondisclosure or concealment, Bernstein said, plaintiffs must prove
reliance, which is closely related to the element of materiality in this
case. To show reliance on material fact, the class had to show that if the
misrepresentation was never made, that they would not have purchased the
vehicle."In certain cases, however, reliance on material misrepresentation
may be presumed," Bernstein said. "Although there are no Pennsylvania cases
directly on point with this case, a presumption of reliance has been
applied in consumer protection cases, products liability cases and federal
securities fraud cases."

Bernstein discussed several pertinent cases, ultimately asserting that the
jury charge telling members that they may, but are not required to, presume
class reliance, was not in error. "Defendant in this case had superior
access to information regarding the safety of its airbags," Bernstein
wrote. "No public policy is furthered by permitting defendant to avoid
liability merely because the intentional misrepresentations are
nondisclosures." "It logically follows from the cases discussed that where
the defendant fraudulently engages in a uniform omission of a material
fact, as in this case, reliance may be presumed." Bernstein said Daimler
Chrysler argued that each one of the class members should testify to prove
reliance, while at the same time arguing the court erred by allowing
individual class members to testify because such testimony is "irrelevant
and cumulative."

The court then set forth witness testimony and explained why it was
relevant and validly permitted to show reliance. Bernstein called Daimler's
argument of class reliance "another veiled variation" of the argument that
class certification was not proper. The court also said it was proper to
submit to the jury the plaintiffs' fraud claim under the Consumer
Protection Law and that reliance may be presumed under the CPL.

                           Other Issues

After disposing of what seemed to be the major issues of the case,
Bernstein turned to addressing a number of issues reviewed prior to his
ruling on post-trial motions. He said none of the "repetitive and
overlapping grounds" presented reversible error. Bernstein said Daimler
raises "voluminous" issues regarding the expert witnesses presented by the
class.

The court said the witnesses were "well qualified," and he discussed
several in length. Daimler also argued that the allowance of evidence as to
a design change made to the airbags constituted reversible error, but
Bernstein said the design change was applicable to show Daimler's
intentions throughout the time up to the trial. Bernstein said Daimler
knowingly surprised the class with a late expert report. Daimler said the
report was late because it was unsure of whether reliance could be
presumed. Again Bernstein said that Daimler's position that each class
member needs to testify as to reliance is another attempt to attack the
validity of the class certification. "Certification of this class is
possible only if a jury could presume class reliance upon adequate
individual proof," Bernstein said. "The contention that defendant Chrysler
was somehow cast adrift by ... their lack of clarity on this issue is
belied both by their motions in limine on this very issue and their
desultory decision to submit the report prior to any ruling." Bernstein
said some of Daimler's trial techniques consisted of a "blatant and
transparent attempt to conduct trial by ambush." The court said the issue
of reliance was raised before the class was certified.

                            Cross-Appeal

The class filed a cross-appeal asking the court to issue an order with
specific identification of those class members who are entitled to relief.
The court said any specific designation would be premature before a proper
claims procedure is completed, and that procedure should not be completed
while appeals are still pending. "The potential costs of litigating
individual claims under an antagonistic and contentious model do not
justify forcing any resolution before appellate review is completed,"
Bernstein said.

The court, therefore, denied plaintiffs' request.Bernstein also denied
plaintiffs' request that the damages awarded under the CPL should be
trebled, asserting he would not replace the jury's verdict with a judicial
evaluation.In addition to other issues, Bernstein also said the court made
the proper decision in limiting the class action to Pennsylvania, rather
than expanding the class to a multi-state action

.Attorneys representing the class include Martin J. D'Urso and Joseph C.
Kohn of Kohn Swift & Graf. Pennsylvania attorneys for Daimler Chrysler
include: William H. Lamb of Lamb Windle & McErlane; Richard A. Sprague of
Sprague & Sprague; and Keith D. Heinhold of Marshall Dennehey Warner
Coleman & Goggin.Claudia Ginanni contributed to this report. (The Legal
Intelligencer, March 9, 2001)


DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Creditors and Shareholders of Defunct United Cos. Sue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of United Companies Financial Corp. creditors and shareholders have
filed suit against the defunct company's outside accounting firm for
allegedly issuing "grossly inaccurate financial statements" and concealing
crucial accounting mistakes. In the lawsuit filed in state civil district
court in New Orleans on Feb. 28, the plaintiffs claim Deloitte & Touche
defrauded them because it knew United Companies was losing money and helped
distort United's books.

"Deloitte breached its duties of care and loyalty by, among other things,
providing the company with unsound and negligent professional advice," the
plaintiffs claim in the suit.

"Deloitte thereby created and maintained a facade of corporate solvency,
allowing the company to become increasingly insolvent and the value of the
company to decrease dramatically."

In a one-paragraph statement, Deloitte said it planned to vigorously fight
the allegations. The suit does not specify damages being sought.

The suit stems from United's descent into bankruptcy and subsequent
collapse in 1999. Some shareholders saw fortunes in company stock vaporized
in the process.

When United issued its final financial statement in late 1999, the company
revealed it had lost more than $584 million in 1998. Deloitte & Touche is
based in New York City. Its New Orleans branch acted as United Companies'
outside auditor, meaning it verified United's internal accounting records
and issued an opinion as to their accuracy and consistency.

Since United's collapse, many shareholders have claimed that United's
management was misled by Deloitte's advice.

Leo Buese, a Phoenix attorney representing the plaintiffs, declined to
comment on the lawsuit. Buese said only that the suit spoke for itself and
that he would discuss it at the "appropriate time." In its statement,
Deloitte & Touche called the lawsuit an "attempt to shift responsibility
for adverse business developments to (United's) outside auditors."

United suffered setbacks during a time of financial upheaval, Deloitte
said. Blaming the company two years after United's demise was "wholly
without merit," the company said.

The suit was filed by William Hays Jr. of Atlanta. Hays serves as trustee
of a litigation fund that was established in United's bankruptcy plan. Hays
is an accounting fraud investigator who has worked in Louisiana previously.
In the early 1990s, a judge placed him in charge of collecting debts and
returning money to people who were defrauded in the failed Place Vendome
mall project in Baton Rouge. Hays, along with other members of the
litigation trust fund, also declined to comment on the suit.

United's bankruptcy plan, which was completed late last year, calls for
various United creditors to receive 70 percent of any proceeds from a
lawsuit, while shareholders would get the remaining 30 percent. United
specialized in high-risk mortgages. The company raised additional money by
using the loans to securitize bonds that were sold to Wall Street
investors. During the 1990s, United sold more than $11 billion worth of the
bonds.

At its peak, United had been the fancy of Wall Street until questions were
raised over its accounting practices in 1997. The company suffered another
setback in August 1998 when a global financial crisis caused investors to
shy away from high-risk lending companies.

In its final financial statement, United slashed $605.6 million off the
bonds' value, driving United deeply into the red. The 52-page suit outlines
in complex detail the plaintiffs' claims of how Deloitte allegedly misled
company officers about United's financial condition. Among their numerous
accusations, the plaintiffs claim that Deloitte allowed United to overstate
its "interest spread" - the difference between the interest United received
from borrowers and the interest it had to pay bond holders.

"Deloitte's failure to report the gross overvaluation of this asset account
caused United's financial statements to be false and misleading, and led
the board of directors and audit committee to believe that United was
profitable when, in fact, it was losing money on each securitization
transaction," the plaintiffs said.

Another claim delves into the way United treated income from its loan
service fees. The plaintiffs said that in 1996, United began reporting
servicing fees as income at the time of the loan securitization
transaction, even though the income would not be earned for many years. The
practice resulted in United overstating the initial "gain on sale" by at
least $90 million from 1996 to 1998, plaintiffs said in the lawsuit.

"In order to correct these accounting errors, the company, with Deloitte's
knowledge and consent, changed its accounting methodology in the fourth
quarter of 1998," they claim. "Deloitte concealed this change ... by
misrepresenting that the assumptions which figured into the gain on sale
calculation had suddenly changed."

It was unclear from court documents when arguments would begin in court.
The suit points out that under state law, its claims first must go before a
public accountant review panel.

Buese, the plaintiffs' attorney, also acknowledged that Deloitte has a year
to examine the suit and could take that entire amount of time. (Saturday
State-Times/Morning Advocate (Baton Rouge, LA.), March 10, 2001)


DIGEX, INCORPORATED: Announces Settlement Hearing for DE Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digex, Incorporated (Nasdaq: DIGX), is republishing a notice which appeared
in the "Wall Street Journal" on March 7, 2001.

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY

IN RE: DIGEX, INC.          CONSOLIDATED

SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION        CIVIL ACTION NO. 18336 NC

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS AND DERIVATIVE

ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND SETTLEMENT HEARING

TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF DIGEX, INCORPORATED

CLASS A COMMON STOCK (OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANTS IN THE ABOVE-

CAPTIONED ACTION AND THEIR AFFILIATES) AT ANY TIME DURING THE

PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING AUGUST 31, 2000 THROUGH AND

INCLUDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE MERGER BETWEEN WORLDCOM,

INC. AND INTERMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., INCLUDING ANY AND

ALL OF THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, ASSIGNEES OR

TRANSFEREES, IMMEDIATE AND REMOTE (THE "CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the plaintiffs and the defendants in the
above-captioned consolidated class action and shareholder derivative
lawsuit (the "Action") have entered into an agreement to settle this
Action.

PLEASE BE FURTHER ADVISED that pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, dated March 5, 2001, a hearing will be
held on April 6, 2001 at 2:00 p.m., before The Honorable William B.
Chandler, III, in the Court of Chancery, 1020 North King Street,
Wilmington, Delaware (the "Settlement Hearing"): (i) to determine whether a
Stipulation of Settlement dated March 2, 2001 (the "Stipulation"), and the
terms and conditions of the Settlement proposed in the Stipulation (the
"Settlement"), are substantively and procedurally fair, reasonable,
adequate and in the best interests of Digex, Incorporated ("Digex") and the
Class; (ii) to determine whether the Class should be certified in the
Action; (iii) to determine whether certain plaintiffs should be certified
as representatives of the Class; (iv) to determine whether final judgment
should be entered dismissing the Action as to all defendants named therein
and their affiliates and with prejudice as against plaintiffs, all members
of the Class, and all present, past and future shareholders of Digex (the
"Order and Final Judgment"); (v) to hear and determine any objections to
the Settlement and/or the application for attorneys' fees by plaintiffs'
counsel; (vi) if the Court approves the Stipulation and the Settlement and
enters the Order and Final Judgment, to determine whether it should award
attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' attorneys pursuant to the
application described herein; and (vii) to hear such other matters as the
Court may deem necessary and appropriate.

The Action and the Settlement address claims arising out of the proposed
merger (the "Merger") between WorldCom, Inc. ("WorldCom") and Intermedia
Communications, Inc. ("Intermedia") pursuant to which WorldCom will acquire
voting control of Digex. In connection with the Merger, WorldCom required
that the Digex board of directors grant a waiver to exempt WorldCom from
the restrictions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law
("Section 203"). The Digex board of directors (which included three
directors and an executive officer of Intermedia (the "Individual
Defendants")), over the objections of the special committee of the Digex
board of directors (the "Special Committee"), granted WorldCom the
requested Section 203 waiver. Numerous lawsuits were subsequently filed by
Digex stockholders challenging the actions by Intermedia and the Individual
Defendants, as well as by WorldCom, in connection with the Merger and the
Section 203 waiver.

Pursuant to the Settlement: (i) WorldCom will make a payment of freely
tradeable WorldCom common stock, either registered or exempt from
registration under the Securities Act of 1933, having a total value of one
hundred and sixty-five million dollars ($165,000,000) into a settlement
fund for distribution (after a deduction for the fees and expenses of
plaintiffs' attorneys in the Action) to certain members of the plaintiff
Class (the "Settlement Fund"); (ii) WorldCom will reimburse Digex up to
fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000) for fees and expenses incurred by
Digex in connection with the evaluation of various potential transactions
involving Digex and in connection with the Settlement; (iii) the
consideration payable by WorldCom to Intermedia's shareholders in
connection with the Merger will be reduced by modification of the exchange
ratio initially agreed upon in the Merger; (iv) WorldCom and Digex will
enter into certain sales channel, funding, facilities, and network
agreements; and (v) Intermedia and WorldCom will amend the certificate of
incorporation of Digex to establish a procedure for the consideration by
independent Digex directors of certain types of transactions between
WorldCom and Digex. In consideration for these substantial benefits, the
parties to the Action and the Special Committee have agreed, subject to
consummation of the Merger and the approval of the Settlement by the Court,
to dismiss all claims made by and that could have been made by Digex,
plaintiffs or the Class relating to the Merger and the Section 203 waiver,
including all claims asserted in the Action.

At or before the Settlement Hearing, Plaintiffs' counsel will apply to the
Court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount equal to
15% of the Settlement Fund, which, based upon a Settlement Fund value of
$165,000,000, would be $24,750,000. WorldCom, Intermedia and the Individual
Defendants have agreed not to oppose this fee request. Digex and the
Special Committee have reserved all rights regarding the fee request, and
the Special Committee has indicated that it intends to oppose the fee
request as excessive. Plaintiffs believe that the Special Committee lacks
standing to raise this issue. ANY CLASS MEMBER WHO WISHES TO BE HEARD ON
THE FEE APPLICATION SHOULD STATE ITS POSITION IN A FILING WITH THE COURT
PURSUANT TO THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THE NOTICE.

If you currently own shares of Digex Class A common stock or have owned or
may own shares of Digex Class A common stock at any time from and including
August 31, 2000 through and including the effective date of the Merger,
your rights may be affected by the Settlement. A member of the Class who
wishes to contest either the Settlement or the application for fees and
expenses by plaintiffs' counsel may do so by following the procedure set
forth in the Notice of Pendency of Class and Derivative Action, Proposed
Settlement and Settlement Hearing under the heading "RIGHT TO APPEAR AT
SETTLEMENT HEARING."

If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class and
Derivative Action, Proposed Settlement and Settlement Hearing, you may
obtain copies by calling Tania C. Almond, Director, Investor Relations,
Digex, Incorporated, at 240-456-3800.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE REGISTER IN CHANCERY.

Brokerage firms, banks and other persons or entities who are members of the
Class in their capacities as record owners, but not as beneficial owners,
are requested to send this notice promptly to beneficial owners.

Dated:  March 5, 2001

BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF

THE STATE OF DELAWARE


HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Schroeder to meet German industry leaders Wednesday
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder will meet German industry leaders Wednesday
for talks on a deadlocked national plan to compensate Nazi slave laborers,
his spokesman said.

The planned talks follow a New York judge's refusal last week to dismiss a
lawsuit against German banks over concerns that funding for the plan was
uncertain.

German companies have refused to hand over any part their half of a 10
billion mark (dlrs 4.8 billion) fund until the U.S. class-action lawsuits
on Holocaust claims which prompted them to back a national compensation
fund are quashed.

Lawmakers, Jewish leaders and victims' organizations have accused industry
of contributing to the holdup by so far raising only 3.6 billion marks
(dlrs 1.7 billion) for the fund.

Doubts that companies will contribute the full sum ''must be fully cleared
up'' before Schroeder travels to Washington at the end of the month for
talks with President George W. Bush, spokesman Uwe-Karsten Heye said.

The U.S. court ruling raised new doubts about when an estimated 1 million
elderly survivors of Nazi forced and slave labor, mostly non-Jews from
eastern Europe, will receive compensation. (AP Worldstream, March 12, 2001)



INVESTMENT BANKS: 7 Wall St. Banks Sued Over Initial Offerings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers acting on behalf of investors have accused seven investment banks
of colluding in violation of antitrust laws in their allocation of
sought-after initial public stock offerings.

In a class-action lawsuit, they charged that in return, the investment
banks demanded large brokerage commissions and commitments to artificially
support the prices of shares after the offerings.

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States attorney's
office in Manhattan are already investigating the market for I.P.O.'s, an
official close to the investigation confirmed.

Lawyers in this latest case said that while other class-action suits have
been filed since the investigation became public in December, those were
all based on the offering of one stock, VA Linux Systems. The lawyers said
that this suit, filed in United States District Court in Manhattan, will
ultimately cover many offerings, and is the first to accuse underwriters of
initial public offerings collaborating in violation of antitrust laws.

One of the lawyers involved in the latest suit is Christopher Lovell of the
firm Lovell & Stewart, who won a notable victory in 1998 in a class-action
suit that also charged antitrust violations. That suit, which yielded a
settlement for investors of more than $1 billion, accused Wall Street firms
of price-fixing in Nasdaq stocks.

Mr. Lovell said wrongdoings in the I.P.O. market were similar to those
charged in the Nasdaq case. "In the Nasdaq suit, we said leading brokerage
firms were engaging in anticompetitive practices," he said in an interview.
"In this case, we are saying the same thing."

The lawsuit accuses the brokerage firms of allocating shares in initial
public offerings to certain investors on the condition that those investors
agree to compensate the underwriters "in the form of dramatically increased
brokerage commissions or other brokerage compensation." Those commissions
would typically be equal to a third of the gains made by the customer from
the shares they received in the initial offering, the suit said.

It goes on to describe what it calls a "tie-in purchase," requiring
investors in initial stock offerings to buy additional shares in the
companies after the companies go public. The suit further charges that
these purchases were made at "specified escalating price levels which were
designed to push up and inflate the price of the class security to
increasingly higher levels." This process, the suit said, is known as
"laddering a stock."

The investment banks, who, the suit said, communicated with one another
regarding such arrangements, "successfully increased their individual and
collective underwriters' compensation and revenues to levels above those
that would have existed in a competitive market free from defendants'
unlawful agreement."

The I.P.O. case's probable lead plaintiff, Glen Billing, purchased shares
in an Internet software company, Marimba, after its initial public offering
in April 1999. Marimba's shares reached a high of $66.43 soon after the
offering, and then fell, closing on Friday at $5.16.

The suit also refers to initial public offerings of United Parcel Service
and Ariba. The lawyers plan to file more suits this week, said Howard
Sirota, the other lawyer involved in the case, under federal securities
laws charging similar violations relating to trading in VA Linux, as well
as dozens of other stocks.

"In the succeeding days, I'll be filing cases as fast as I can," said Mr.
Sirota, adding he could prove that investors lost far more than the $1
billion in the Nasdaq case.

The firms named as defendants in the suit are Credit Suisse First Boston;
Goldman, Sachs; Lehman Brothers; Merrill Lynch; Morgan Stanley Dean Witter;
BancBoston Robertson Stephens and Salomon Smith Barney. (The New York
Times, March 12, 2001)


KEY BANK: Judge Allows Investors' Suit That Alleges Bank Aided Criminal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
People who lost money they entrusted to Clifford Levesque and his Mainely
Payroll business might be able to recover some of it from Key Bank.

A Cumberland County Superior Court justice is allowing the unusual lawsuit
against Key Bank to go forward. The bank handled business accounts for
Mainely Payroll, of Augusta, and other operations run by Levesque and his
son Michael.

Justice Thomas D. Warren refused to dismiss a complaint filed by 33
plaintiffs against Key. However, he did rule for the bank in some areas,
dismissing charges of negligence, breach of duty, breach of contract,
breach of trust and liability for nondisclosure.

Claims that still could go to trial are those charging the bank with aiding
and abetting Levesque and Mainely Payroll in criminal activities.

Jeffrey A. Thaler, lead attorney for the former Mainely Payroll clients,
said the judge's decision carries significance beyond the state because
there are very few cases in the country that involve charges of banks
aiding and abetting criminal behavior.

Levesque's scheme - in which he failed to forward clients' payroll-tax
money to the Internal Revenue Service and the state and instead used it for
business and personal expenses - unraveled in late 1995 and early 1996.

The lawsuit charges that Key Bank failed to take action when it knew
Levesque and Mainely Payroll were conducting improper business practices.
It asserts that Levesque, a former Key Bank employee, diverted money from
the Mainely Payroll account to other Key Bank accounts. And it contends Key
Bank knew about the problems, including money diverted to pay for
overdrafts by a business owned by Levesque's son.

Levesque's businesses went bankrupt, and he and his son went to federal
prison after pleading guilty to criminal fraud.

Federal prosecutors said the fraud and subsequent losses for all the
companies, which were still obligated to cover payroll taxes, reached $2.3
million.

Among the plaintiff companies in the lawsuits are Augusta Fuel & Plumbing,
Apgar Imaging Systems and GroundAlf Inc., all of Augusta; Maine Eye Care
Associates of Waterville; Jenkins Inc. of Readfield; and Cushnoc Bank and
Trust, which later became part of Northeast Bank.

"Our clients are Maine business women and men who have waited for years to
have their day in court," said Thaler. "They are heartened that the judge
has agreed they may now proceed and let a jury of Maine citizens decide the
case."

Thaler said Warren indicated that the case could reach the jury trial list
in late August or early September. (Portland Press Herald, March 9, 2001)


LAYOFFS: Workers Fight Back Taking Former Employers to Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A growing number of workers who feel they've been treated unfairly during
recent job cuts now are fighting back by bringing lawsuits against their
former employers.

The lawsuits are being filed against both tech and traditional companies,
with many of the downsized workers claiming they weren't given adequate
advance notice of a downsizing. Some say they're owed back pay, promised
bonuses or stock options.

"It's important to take action if a company has violated an employment
law," says Matthew Finkle, 31, of Norwalk, Conn., who was laid off in
November from Walker Digital and is now suing. "My intent is not a personal
vendetta, but if they broke the law, they should be held accountable."

Many of the claims hinge on a little-known federal statute involving
notification of job cuts. Under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act of 1988 (WARN), which originally was aimed at protecting
manufacturing workers, most employers must give at least 60 days' notice
regarding a plant closing or mass layoff. Employees who haven't received
notice can be eligible for 60 days' pay.

But because there are many exceptions to the act ---- companies may not be
covered if they've encountered sudden unexpected business circumstances,
for example, or if they have fewer than 100 employees -- it remains to be
seen how successful New Economy workers who sue will be.

Still, the lawsuits are mounting:

Walker Digital of Stamford, Conn., is being sued by the Connecticut
attorney general, who claims the company violated the federal law requiring
notice.

"We think the lawsuit is totally without merit," says Kevin Goldman, a
spokesman for the business-development firm. Walker Digital dismissed about
100 employees in November.

Laid-off employees of Chris-Craft Boats in Sarasota, Fla., have hired a
lawyer to represent them in bankruptcy court because they say they did not
get all the pay owed them. The firm is a division of Outboard Marine, which
filed for bankruptcy protection in December and dismissed workers.

Inacom is being sued by laid-off workers who claim they weren't given
advance notice of the job cuts. About 5,000 workers may be represented if
the case is certified as a class action, lawyers say.

"We're getting more calls on this issue," says Mark Fancher, a lawyer in
Detroit for the plaintiffs. A lawyer for the Atlanta-based computer
supplier and consulting firm denied it was obligated to provide notice.

Legal experts say the recent cases may just be the start. One reason?
Severance pay. Companies generally provide severance as a way to give
themselves legal protection because workers are required to sign away their
right to sue in order to get the money. Many start-ups, however, have not
been able to afford severance. (USA Today, March 12, 2001)


MITSUBISHI CORP: Shareholder Accuses of Cover-up of Driver Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder on Monday sued 11 executives at Mitsubishi Motors Corp. for
1.18 billion yen (dlrs 9.8 million) in damages, accusing them of being
responsible for a cover-up of driver complaints that led to massive recalls
and corporate losses.

The lawsuit, filed in Tokyo District Court, is a rare assertion of
shareholders' rights in Japan, where such lawsuits, although gradually
rising, are a far cry from class-action cases in the United States.

In the Japanese legal system, the money, if awarded by the court, will be
paid to the company and not to the shareholder.

''To stay silent would have been to go against society,'' said plaintiff
Isao Yotsuya, a 63-year-old retired engineer, who bought 2,000 shares in
Mitsubishi Motors about five years ago.

Yotsuya, who is also a member of a grassroots group advocating
shareholders' rights, said he decided to invest in Mitsubishi Motors after
it came out with a new cleaner engine. ''I thought it might be a fun way to
spend my allowance,'' he said. But Yotsuya was appalled when he heard last
year that Mitsubishi Motors had been hiding thousands of driver complaints
about defects for more than 20 years.

Following those revelations, Mitsubishi Motors a Tokyo-based automaker that
is 34 percent owned by DaimlerChrysler last summer recalled 620,000
vehicles for failing brakes, leaking fuel, malfunctioning clutches and
other flaws after acknowledging a systematic cover-up.

And last month it announced a worldwide recall of 1.3 million vehicles
thousands of them the same vehicles from the earlier recall.

Mitsubishi Motors has acknowledged it purposely gave incorrect information
to government authorities and repaired vehicles by getting in touch with
buyers individually to avert recalls.

Mitsubishi Motors said in a statement Monday that it could not comment on a
lawsuit filed against its executives. ''Companies may be for profit, but
they also have social responsibility,'' said Junzo Tajima, one of Yotsuya's
lawyers. ''Cars are products requiring high levels of technology that could
endanger lives.'' Tajima said the top executives at Mitsubishi targeted in
the lawsuit committed illegal acts and betrayed consumers' trust by failing
to check on the company's products adequately.

The lawyers said the executives were board members since 1995 in the car
and truck divisions, who were in positions to have known about the
cover-up.

The damages requested are not estimates of the losses suffered by the
company as a result of the cover-up and subsequent recalls, as the main
purpose of the lawsuit was to raise awareness about managerial
accountability and legal compliance rather than money, they said.

Mitsubishi earmarked 11 billion yen (dlrs 91 million) for last summer's
recall and forecast a loss of 140 billion yen (dlrs 1.2 billion) for the
fiscal year ending in March.

The latest recall will cost 17 billion yen (dlrs 141 million) more,
according to the automaker, so the losses may turn out to be greater.
Mitsubishi's monthly sales in Japan have fallen by double-digit percentages
since the recall problem surfaced.

''For a long time, regular people who were shareholders never said
anything,'' said Kansai University professor Koji Morioka, a leader in
Japan's fledgling shareholders' ombudsman movement. ''The idea of
shareholders taking action against a company simply didn't exist.'' (AP
Worldstream, March 12, 2001)


NIKE INC: Bernard M. Gross Announces Securities Lawsuit Filed in Oregon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. gives notice that a class action lawsuit
is filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of Nike Inc. ("Nike" or the "Company")(NYSE:NKE) between December 20, 2000
and February 26, 2001 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Nike 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
regarding its third quarter earnings and revenues.

Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the material facts that Nike was
having problems since the summer with its demand and supply chain
management system which caused it to sustain reduced revenues and profits
in the third quarter. The truth finally emerged on February 26, 2001, when
Nike issued a press release entitled "Nike Revises Third Quarter and Fiscal
Year 2001 EPS Guidance."

In this release, Nike reported that it expects to earn between$0.34 and
$0.38 per share for the third quarter ending February 28, 2001, versus its
previously stated guidance of $0.50 to $0.55 per share.

Donald Blair, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer stated at a
conference call on February 28, 2001 that "these supply chain issues
resulted in significant amounts of excess inventory of some footwear
models, while other models have been in short supply or delivered late.
Also, during this time period, certain officers and directors sold their
shares of Nike stock for proceeds in excess of $12 million.

Contact: Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. Susan Gross, Esq. Deborah R.
Gross, Esq. Telephone: 866/561-3600 (toll free) 800/849-3120 (toll free) or
215/561-3600


NIKE, INC: Savett Frutkin to File Securities Lawsuit in Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. hereby gives notice that a class action
complaint was to be filed March 9 in the United States District Court for
the District of Oregon located at 1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Portland, OR
97204-2902, on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Class B
common stock of Nike, Inc. (NYSE:NKE) during the period between December
20, 2000 and February 26, 2001 ("Class Period") and who were damaged
thereby.

The complaint charges Nike and its senior officers, Philip Knight, Thomas
Clarke, Mark Parker and Gary DeStefano, with violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that defendants issued
materially false and misleading information about the Company's revenues
and profits which resulted in artificially inflated prices for the
Company's common stock.

Specifically, on December 19, 2000 Nike reported second quarter earnings
and reaffirmed the Company's earnings target of growth in the mid-teens for
the full fiscal year and second quarter revenue increase to $2.2 billion as
well as a net income increase to $119 million. As a result of the positive
statements made in Nike's earnings release, the price of Nike common stock
increased to $49.125 from $47.5625 on December 19, 2000. The next day, on
December 20, 2000, Nike held a conference call with analysts, during which
defendant Knight further said he remained optimistic. On January 16, 2001
Nike filed its Form 10-Q with the SEC and reported that selling and
administrative expenses increased for both the second quarter and fiscal
year-to-date period as compared to the prior year which was attributable to
incremental spending for market and operational initiatives undertaken to
achieve future revenue growth and profitability. The truth about the
Company's revenues and profits was disclosed after the close of the market
on February 26, 2001 when the Company issued a press release revising
downward its third quarter and fiscal year 2001 EPS guidance. Nike also
conducted a conference call at 5:00 p.m. that same day and stated that its
third quarter 2001 earnings would be lower than expected due to a planning
and inventory system problem which resulted in product shortages and
excesses as well as late deliveries. After the February 26, 2001
disclosure, the market price of Nike Class B common stock plummeted 19.5
percent or $9.57 to close at $ 39.60 per share on February 27, 2001.

Contact: SAVETT FRUTKIN PODELL & RYAN, P.C. Barbara A. Podell Robert P.
Frutkin Renee C. Nixon 215/923-5400 or 800/993-3233 E-mail:
mail@sattlaw.com


OAKLAND POLICE: Jerry Brown Under Fire As City Copes With Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
US News and World Report (3/19, Tharp) reports, "Has 'Governor Moonbeam'
turned into 'Mayor Make My Day'?

That's what some Oaklanders are asking about Jerry Brown as their city
deals with its biggest police scandal since clashes with the Black Panthers
in the 1960s.

Four former officers, known on the streets of West Oakland as 'the Riders,'
were fired in December and January after allegations of kidnapping and
beating suspects, planting dope, and other abuses.

Residents have filed class action lawsuits, prosecutors have dismissed some
cases handled by the four cops, and the FBI and district attorney's office
are investigating." US News adds, "The scandal has been seismic for the
700-plus force, but it has also marked a dramatic shift in Brown's image.
Suddenly, this Jesuit-trained mayor seems more like 'Dirty Harry' than the
political progressive he was known as during most of his three decades in
politics." (The Bulletin's Frontrunner, March 12, 2001)

ORACLE CORP: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss (http://www.milberg.com/oracle/)announced on March 9 that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Oracle Corp.
("Oracle") (Nasdaq:ORCL) publicly traded securities during the period
between Dec. 15, 2000 and March 1, 2001 (the "Class Period"). The suit has
been filed on behalf of an institutional plaintiff.

The complaint charges Oracle and Lawrence J. Ellison ("Ellison") with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Oracle supplies software
for enterprise information management. The complaint alleges that at the
beginning of the Class Period, defendants represented that Oracle would
have sequential EPS growth of 9%, or$0.12, and revenue of over $2.9 billion
for its Q3 2001. Defendants assured investors that Oracle's new 11i Suite
required no programming systems integration to implement the product and
that using the product internally saved the Company $1 billion. However,
defendant Ellison actually knew that the Suite was fraught with massive
technical problems, including giant gaps in its CRM modules, and required
expensive systems integration work to implement. Ellison also knew that
Oracle's so-called billion dollar savings was not the result of the
synergies created by Oracle's 11i product, but rather, his decision to
terminate more than 2,000 employees, many of whom would "support" Oracle's
new software. Throughout January and February 2001, defendants repeatedly
stated that Oracle's Q3 2001 estimates were easily achievable, that
Oracle's pipeline was "never stronger," its applications growth was
"accelerating," its database and application sales were rapidly growing and
that the slowing economy was showing no impact on Oracle's Q3 2001
performance. During this period defendant Ellison sold nearly $900 million
worth of his own Oracle shares at prices as high as $32 per share, or 50%
higher than the price to which Oracle shares dropped as Oracle's true
prospects began to reach the market.

On March 1, 2001, Oracle revealed that, contrary to prior assurances by
defendants of Oracle's continuing "strong" revenue and EPS growth,
including defendants' assurances less than two weeks earlier that demand
remained strong, Oracle would post a major revenue shortfall and EPS
declines, sending Oracle's shares into a free fall. This disclosure shocked
the market, causing Oracle's stock to decline to less than $17 per share
before closing at $16.88 per share on March 2, 2001, on record volume of
more than 221 million shares.

Contact: Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP William Lerach at
800/449-4900 wsl@mwbhl.com


ORACLE CORP: Pittsburgh Law Firm Announces Class Action Suit Filed in CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------A
class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Oracle Corp.
("Oracle") (Nasdaq: ORCL) publicly traded securities during the period
between Dec. 15, 2000 and March 1, 2001 (the "Class Period"). The complaint
charges Oracle and Lawrence J. Ellison ("Ellison") with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Oracle supplies software for enterprise information management. The
complaint alleges that at the beginning of the Class Period, defendants
represented that Oracle would have sequential EPS growth of 9%, or $0.12,
and revenue of over $2.9 billion for its Q3 2001. Defendants assured
investors that Oracle's new 11i Suite required no programming systems
integration to implement the product and that using the product internally
saved the Company $1 billion.

However, defendant Ellison actually knew that the Suite was fraught with
massive technical problems, including giant gaps in its CRM modules, and
required expensive systems integration work to implement. Ellison also knew
that Oracle's so-called billion dollar savings was not the result of the
synergies created by Oracle's 11i product, but rather, his decision to
terminate more than 2,000 employees, many of whom would "support" Oracle's
new software. Throughout January and February 2001, defendants repeatedly
stated that Oracle's Q3 2001 estimates were easily achievable, that
Oracle's pipeline was "never stronger," its applications growth was
"accelerating," its database and application sales were rapidly growing and
that the slowing economy was showing no impact on Oracle's Q3 2001
performance. During this period defendant Ellison sold nearly $900 million
worth of his own Oracle shares at prices as high as $32 per share, or 50%
higher than the price to which Oracle shares dropped as Oracle's true
prospects began to reach the market.

On March 1, 2001, Oracle revealed that, contrary to prior assurances by
defendants of Oracle's continuing "strong" revenue and EPS growth,
including defendants' assurances less than two weeks earlier that demand
remained strong, Oracle would post a major revenue shortfall and EPS
declines, sending Oracle's shares into a free fall. This disclosure shocked
the market, causing Oracle's stock to decline to less than $17 per share
before closing at $16.88 per share on March 2, 2001, on record volume of
more than 221 million shares.

Contact: Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq., 800-391-5164 or 412-391-5164, or fax,
412-471-1033, or yateslaw@aol.com


RENT-A-CENTER: EEOC Joins Nationwide Sex Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on March 12 moved to intervene
in a lawsuit filed by 21 women, current and former employees of
Rent-A-Center, a rent to own business.

The women are part of a suit which seeks to establish a nationwide class of
all former and current employees of Rent-A-Center and which alleges a
pattern of discrimination against women by Rent-A-Center, including sexual
harassment, failure to hire, failure to promote women, and wrongful
discharge.

The EEOC performed a nationwide investigation of the treatment of women by
Rent-A-Center, examined the employment numbers of Rent-A-Center and
conducted interviews with its managers.

In a finding dated September 19, 2000, the EEOC found reasonable cause to
believe that Rent-A-Center discriminated against women in promotions,
hiring, terms and conditions of employment, discharge, constructive
discharge, and other aspects of store operations, and that managers
destroyed employment records in violation of federal regulations.

In its determination following the nationwide investigation, the EEOC
stated: "In September 1998, the acquired business known as Rent-A-Center
had a workforce that was approximately 21.8% female overall, with
approximately 8,800 employees. In September 1998, The Renter's Choice
workforce was approximately 2% female, with approximately 3,300 employees.
In September 1999, approximately one year after the workforces of both
companies had been combined, the number of women employed by Renter's
Choice (which by then had changed its name to Rent-A-Center) was
approximately 9.8% female, with a workforce of approximately 11,300
employees. The total number of women had dropped to 1,100, down nearly 900
women employees from the number that the two businesses had employed
separately."

The women who brought this suit are a group of former and current employees
of Rent-A-Center from throughout the country. They are represented by Mary
Anne Sedey of Sedey and Associates and Jerome Schlichter of Schlichter,
Bogard and Denton, both of St. Louis, Missouri. When contacted, Mr.
Schlichter stated: "Previously, after conducting a nationwide
investigation, examining Rent-A-Center's employment practices, the EEOC
made a determination that there was reasonable cause to believe that
Rent-A-Center had discriminated across the board against women in
employment, promotions, hiring, conditions of employment, and discharge.
Now it has filed a motion to intervene on behalf of the women we represent
and in support of our request for nationwide certification of a class of
all women formerly and currently employed by Rent-A-Center. This is an
unusually strong statement by the government, by the EEOC and supports what
we have been contending all along, which is that this company has a very
serious problem with its treatment of female employees. The problem is
reflected in the minimal number of women employed by the company in the
first place and compounded by their treatment on the job."

According to the allegations of the Complaint, the suit alleges that women
were subjected to harassment and negative comments about their gender,
offensive questions about sexual matters, terminated as a result of
pregnancy and subject to abusive language. According to the Complaint, one
woman was told "women are lucky to be employed". Another woman alleged that
while she was pregnant, her manager repeatedly called to get her back to
work and called her physician asking him to induce labor.

The suit seeks $410 million in damages including back pay and interest, as
well as punitive damages for the class.

For more information contact Jerome Schlichter of the law firm of
Schlichter, Bogard & Denton at 314-621-6115, 100 S. 4th Street, Suite 900,
St. Louis, Missouri, 63102, or jschlichter@uselaws.com.

Contact: Jerome Schlichter of Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, 314-621-6115, or
jschlichter@uselaws.com


STEWART ENTERPRISES: Announces Securities Lawsuits Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Enterprises, Inc. (Nasdaq NMS: STEI) announced on March 9 that the
plaintiffs in the securities litigation that was pending against the
Company in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit have
voluntarily withdrawn their appeal, effectively ending the litigation.

William E. Rowe, president and chief executive officer of the Company said:
"We are pleased that the plaintiffs have withdrawn this litigation. From
the beginning, the Company has said that these claims were without merit.
The Company defended itself vigorously and did not pay anything to the
plaintiffs in connection with the withdrawal. We are glad to have this
litigation behind us."

The plaintiffs withdrew their appeal relating to 16 putative securities
class action lawsuits filed in the fall of 1999 against the Company,
certain of its directors and officers, and the lead underwriters in the
Company's January 1999 common stock offering. In December 2000, the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted
motions, filed by the Company and the other defendants, dismissing the
complaint against all defendants for failure to state a claim. The
plaintiffs subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has now been withdrawn.

Founded in 1910, Stewart Enterprises, Inc. is the third largest provider of
products and services in the death care industry in North America,
currently owning and operating 614 funeral homes and 161 cemeteries in
North America, South America, Europe and the Pacific Rim.


SULLIVAN: AL High Ct Reverses Verdict for Property Contamination Damage
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alabama Supreme Court has reversed a jury verdict entered against two
textile companies and a power company for property damage caused by
contaminants. The plaintiffs are owners of property located near an
artificial lake. The panel found insufficient scientific evidence and lack
of an intentional act to hold the companies liable. Russell Corp. et al. v.
Sullivan et al., Nos. 1981974, 1981095 and 1981096 (Ala., Jan. 12, 2001).

Russell Corp. and Avondale Mills operated textile plants in Alexander City,
Ala. As part of their operations, the plants deposited wastewater
containing dyes, salts, acid, surfactants and heavy metals directly into
the Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. At least one type of dye used
has been shown to have carcinogenic properties.

After the treatment, it is discharged into Sugar Creek at the rate of five
to six million gallons a day. The output flows through two creeks before
reaching Lake Martin. The plaintiffs are all residents of the Raintree
subdivision located on the lake.

The municipality of Alexander City installed a chlorination/dechlorination
facility at the Sugar Creek plant to remove the dye from the water. This
process combined the waste with oxygen and bacteria, creating a sludge,
which could be removed from the water.

Joe Sullivan and several other owners of homes adjacent to Lake Martin sued
Russell, Avondale, Alexander City and Alabama Power Co., which used the
lake to generate power. The suit alleged trespass and nuisance arising out
of the discharge of the chemicals. Alexander City was dismissed from the
suit before it went to trial.

A Jefferson Circuit Court jury awarded plaintiffs $155,000 in compensatory
damages and $52 million in punitive damages against Russell, Avondale and
APCo.

The state appeals court reversed, and rendered judgment for the defendants.
The plaintiffs then appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court.

The court held that an indirect trespass occurs when the trespasser
releases a foreign polluting matter beyond the boundaries of his or her
property, knowing to a substantial certainty that it will invade the
property. To prove indirect trespass, a plaintiff must establish four
elements: the invasion affected an interest in the exclusive possession of
his property; an intentional doing of the act resulted in the invasion; the
consequences were reasonably foreseeable; and substantial damage resulted.

The state high court said there is a question as to whether water actually
splashed onto the plaintiffs' property. The plaintiffs acknowledge that
they did not sue the defendants merely because water from Lake Martin
splashed onto their land. Instead, they argue that the trespass occurred
because chemicals originating at Russell and Avondale's plants were in the
water that splashed upon their land.

The court said that the plaintiffs' expert never tested the water near the
subdivision, the sediment from the lake floor or the plaintiffs' soil.

Plaintiffs also claimed that Russell and Avondale created a nuisance by
dumping toxic sludge into the lake. In Alabama, a nuisance can be private
or public. To recover damages for a public nuisance, the court said the
plaintiffs had to show they suffered a special injury not common to the
general public. Since they were unable to show the sludge washed on to
their property, their claim must fail, the court ruled.

Present Opinion

On application for rehearing to the Alabama Supreme Court by Russell,
Avondale and APCo, the court ruled that the trial court erred in denying
the companies' motion for a judgment as a matter of law.

The court said that the plaintiffs' claims alleging trespass and nuisance
as to APCo must be considered separately from those claims against Russell
and Avondale because APCo did not participate in the discharge of foreign
materials into Lake Martin. Trespass, the court said, requires an
intentional act by the defendant. There was no agency relationship between
APCo, on one hand, and Russell and Avondale on the other. Therefore, the
court said, there was no intentional act to support a claim of trespass.

As for the nuisance claim, the plaintiffs, the court said, failed to show
that APCo had a duty to control any discharge into Lake Martin; thus, the
claim fails.

On the claims against Russell and Avondale Mills, the supreme court ruled
that several conclusions urged by the plaintiffs are unsupported by
evidence. Based on these unsupported conclusions, "drawn from a series of
inferences ungrounded in scientific data," the plaintiffs asked the jury to
infer that:

-- The chemicals that they allege were present rose to the top of the
    water;

-- At the moment they rose to the surface, the water was at or above the
    490-foot contour line; and

-- The water then splashed onto the plaintiffs' properties, although no
    evidence of chemical contamination of the plaintiffs' properties was
    ever presented.

The court held, "Even if we were to hold that the experts' conclusions,
which were not based on scientific data gained from tests performed at the
site of the alleged contamination, supported a finding that toxic chemicals
were present in some portion of Lake Martin, the jury, in order to find for
the plaintiffs, would nevertheless have had to base its verdicts upon
multiple inferences." The plaintiffs failed to prove substantial damage
caused by the presence of any chemical, the court explained. Therefore, the
failure to present such evidence entitled Russell and Avondale to a
judgment as a matter of law on the trespass claims. (Toxic Chemicals
Litigation Reporter February 9, 2001)


TACO BELL: Workers in Oregon Win Back Pay Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Thousands of Taco Bell workers in Oregon have won a class-action lawsuit
that accused the restaurant chain of illegal labor practices that included
shaving time cards, an attorney said.

Paul Breed, an attorney representing the workers, said Taco Bell must pay
back wages to all employees involved in the suit, but did not give an
estimate.

Among the illegal practices, he said in a news release, was claiming that
employees were taking breaks when they were not, routinely shaving 5 to 10
minutes off time cards so it would not be noticed by workers but would save
the company several hours of pay during each payroll period.

"Taco Bell was found guilty of systematically engaging in the illegal
alteration of pay records," Breed said.

"I'm not talking accounting errors here. Taco Bell took time and wages from
their workers without their knowledge," he said.

There was no immediate comment from a Taco Bell spokeswoman at company
headquarters in Irvine, Calif.

More than 14,000 Taco Bell workers and former employees in Oregon were
eligible to file claims before the end of March 2000 in the class-action
lawsuit over unpaid overtime, including restaurant "cleaning parties."

A similar lawsuit in Washington state settled in 1997 resulted in $2.75
million in payments to more than 2,100 current and former workers.

Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC are part of Tricon Global Restaurants Inc., a
former PepsiCo subsidiary based in Louisville, Ky. (The Associated Press
State & Local Wire, March 12, 2001)


TEAM COMMUNICATIONS: Cauley Geller Files Securities Lawsuit in CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP announced on March 11
that it has filed a class action in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of all individuals and
institutional investors that purchased the publicly traded securities of
TEAM Communications Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: TMTV - news) between May 18, 2000
and February 12, 2001, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges TEAM Communications and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. TEAM
Communications currently owns and distributes over 4,000 hours of
programming worldwide, in addition to producing a wide variety of
programming for leading U.S. and international broadcasters. The complaint
alleges that during the Class Period, TEAM Communications reported
favorable but false financial results, causing its stock to trade at
artificially inflated levels of as high as $12 per share.

Then, on February 13, 2001, prior to the market opening, TEAM
Communications shocked the investment community with a press release which
revealed that the Company expected to record a Q4) charge equivalent to
more than five times all the income it reported during the Class Period. It
also acknowledged that certain of its acquisition and distribution
activities may have "lacked economic substance." On this news, TEAM
Communications' shares dropped to as low as $ 375, or more than 88% lower
than its Class Period high of $12.

Contact: Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau, both of Cauley Geller Bowman &
Coates, 1-888-551-9944


TEAM COMMUNICATIONS: Charles J. Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit Filed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. announced on March 10 that a private
securities action requesting class action status has been initiated on
behalf of purchasers of Team Communications Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: TMTV) who
purchased the common stock of Team Communications Group, Inc. during the
period May 18, 2000 through and including February 12, 2001.

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,
410/986-0036


TEAM COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss (http://www.milberg.com/team/)announced on March 9 that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of TEAM
Communications Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:TMTV) publicly traded securities during
the period between May 18, 2000 and February 12, 2001 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges TEAM Communications and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. TEAM
Communications currently owns and distributes over 4,000 hours of
programming worldwide, in addition to producing a wide variety of
programming for leading U.S. and international broadcasters. The complaint
alleges that during the Class Period, TEAM Communications reported
favorable but false financial results causing its stock to trade at
artificially inflated levels of as high as $12 per share.

Then, on 2/13/01, prior to the market opening, TEAM Communications shocked
the investment community with a press release which revealed that the
Company expected to record a Q4 00 charge equivalent to more than five
times all the income it reported during the Class Period. It also
acknowledged that certain of its acquisition and distribution activities
may have "lacked economic substance." On this news, TEAM Communications'
shares dropped to as low as $ 375, or more than 88% lower than its Class
Period high of $12.

Contact: Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP William Lerach,
800/449-4900 wsl@mwbhl.com


TWINLAB CORPORATION: Announces Settlement of Securities Lawsuit in
NY---------------------------------------------------------------------
Twinlab Corporation (NASDAQ: TWLB) announced on March 9 that it has reached
an agreement in principle to settle a series of shareholder securities
class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York in late 1998 and early 1999.

Under the agreement, which is subject to approval by the court, the company
will pay $26 million, all of which is covered by existing insurance.

A Twinlab spokesperson commented, "while we vigorously deny any wrongdoing,
we believed it best to put these lawsuits behind us and move on."

Twinlab Corporation, headquartered in Hauppauge, N.Y., is a leading
manufacturer and marketer of high quality, science-based, nutritional
supplements, including a complete line of vitamins and minerals,
nutraceuticals, herbs and sports nutrition products.


U OF TORONTO: Retired Professors Sue for Back Pay and Fair Pensions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Phyllis Grosskurth, internationally recognized biographer and retired
professor of English from the University of Toronto, and a group of other
retired women professors, launch class action lawsuit against the
University of Toronto to recover back pay and address resulting gender
inequality in pensions that has left some of Canada's most distinguished
pioneering academic women in poverty.

Distinguished academic pioneers at the University of Toronto were passed
over in a pay equity settlement involving over $1 million made in 1991 by
the University of Toronto. Women professors who retired before that day had
their pensions calculated on the basis of salaries that reflected pay
discrimination between them and their male colleagues performing similar
work. As a result, they now struggle to live on inadequate pensions.

The women have been trying for months to get recognition from the
University for their plight, with no results. A direct appeal to President
Birgeneau by distinguished scholars Phyllis Grosskurth and Ursula Franklin,
both members of the Order of Canada, was rejected.

Professor Grosskurth and several retired colleagues are thus now filing a
class action on behalf of all women professors who retired before 1991. The
University estimates that there may be as many as 88 retirees. In an action
to be filed and served March 12, the plaintiffs are seeking on behalf of
all the women recovery of the back pay which they feel is owing because of
years of salary discrimination. Throughout their careers, the University
was bound by Ontario's equal pay legislation, but many of the plaintiffs
were paid thousands of dollars less in salary than male colleagues.

Success in the action would mean that the pensions of these  distinguished
pathbreakers would be calculated on the basis of the true value of their
academic work. Pension reforms being sought by the University of Toronto
Faculty Association in a current round of negotiations with the University,
and the newly established Retired Academics and Librarians of the
University of Toronto ("RALUT") has also called for better pensions for
retirees. For many of the women, the situation is urgent, and they believe
they have no choice but to act now.

Mary Eberts of Eberts Symes Street & Corbett has been retained for the
civil action and is available for further comments by telephone at (416)
920-3030 (x301). Professor Grosskurth and other plaintiffs, Ms. Eberts and
a representative of RALUT will be in attendance at the press conference. A
copy of the Statement of Claim will be available for reporters. (Canada
NewsWire, March 9, 2001)


UNISYS CORP: Pa. Ap. Ct. Reinstates Claims of 20,000 Retirees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following press release was issued March 10 by Sandals & Langer, LLP:

In a landmark ruling released Friday, March 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals in
Philadelphia reinstated for trial the claims of approximately 20,000
retirees of Unisys Corporation (UIS), who claim that the company and its
predecessors falsely misled them into believing they would receive lifetime
medical benefits paid by the company as part of their retirement benefits.
The decision is the second ruling by the court of appeals in the landmark
class action case (In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits ERISA
Litigation) challenging the company's 1992 decision to unilaterally
terminate longstanding programs of company-paid retiree medical benefits.

In its first ruling in 1995, the appeals court upheld the legal validity of
the retirees' claims that computer-maker Unisys, the product of the 1986
merger of Sperry and Burroughs Corporations, had violated its strict
fiduciary duties by repeatedly misrepresenting to employees that they and
their spouses would receive lifetime, company-paid medical benefits after
they retired. That ruling was based on evidence that "the company, both
actively and affirmatively, systematically misinformed its employees about
the duration of their benefits by stating over and over again, without
qualification, that their benefits would continue for life." The trial
court had called this company behavior a "systematic campaign of
confusion."

In the ruling, the appeals court reversed the trial court's later
dismissals of claims of many retirees based on two technical grounds -- the
statute of limitations and the circumstances of their termination of
employment. On the first point, the court ruled that it was possible for
the retirees to show that company misrepresentations about the promised
medical benefits was "fraud or concealment" that prevented the company from
using the statute of limitations as a defense. On the second point, the
appeals court reversed the ruling that only employees who had retired
"voluntarily" had valid legal claims. The appeals court disagreed, saying
that the company's misrepresentations "could result in important decision
making [by the retirees] based on a mistaken belief that they possessed
guaranteed lifetime benefits," such as decisions about other medical
coverage, employment, and personal finances. The court ruled that the harm
resulting from these decisions could also form a basis for a legal claim
against the company.

Many of the retirees involved in the suit dedicated 20 to 30 or more years
to the company. They are pioneers of the United States computer industry
who helped develop the first commercial computers. Their lead attorney,
Alan Sandals of Philadelphia, reacted as follows to the ruling: "We are
gratified that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has again taken the lead
in emphasizing that employer misrepresentations about retirement benefits
are serious and cause real harm. The federal law, ERISA, prohibits this,
and courts will protect citizens when these abuses occur."

In 1994 and 1997, settlements totaling $125 million were reached on the
claims of approximately 8500 other retirees. The court's 35-page decision
is available on its internet website:
http://pacer.ca3.uscourts.gov/recentop/week/991929.txt.

Contact: Alan M. Sandals of Sandals & Langer, direct, 215-825-4005, or main
number, 215-825-4000 (normal business hours), or mobile, 215-219-3170

                             *********


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  * * *