/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010420.MBX               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, April 20, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 78


ACCELERATED NETWORKD: Lionel Z. Glancy to Commence Securities Lawsuit
ACRODYNE COMMUNICATIONS: MD Ct Gives Prelim Approval to Settlement
B2B INTERNET: Schiffrin & Barroway Charges of Violating Securities Laws
BANK OF NY: Enters into Agreement for Controls re Transfer Activities
BANK OF NY: Investors File Suit in NY Sp Ct re Investment in Inkombank

BARNES & NOBLE: CEO Issues Statement After Settlement re Discounts
BEAR STEARNS: Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Alleging Hedge Fund Fraud
BERG: 3rd Circuit Broadens Who Can Be 'Conspirator' in RICO Suit
FORD MOTOR: Trial Gears up; Judge Orders for Ignition Part Replacement
HIP IMPLANT: Sulzer Says Suits Likely to Be Rejected by U.S. Courts

HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: New Center In Tel Aviv Helps Holocaust Claimants
INMATES LITIGATIION: 5th Cir Calls For End To 28-Year-Old TX Ruiz Case
INMATES LITIGATION: Blacks File Suit Over Injuries From L.A. Jail Riots
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Contact Lens Wearers Won't See Much in $ 860M Pact
MARKETWATCH.COM, INC: Sirota & Sirota Announces Securities Suit in N.Y.

MERRILL LYNCH: Cauley Geller Announces Suit re B2B internet Holdrs
NCI BUILDING: Edward J. Carreiro Announces Filing of Securities Lawsuit
NEW YORK LIFE: Withdraws Pension Assets from Its Mutual Funds
OTTAWA: Urged to Give up Appeal in $1.6 Bil Veterans' Lawsuit
PLANETRX.COM, INC: Milberg Weiss Announces Securities Suit in New York

QUIGLEY'S CORP: Zinc Lozenges Unlikely To Curb Lawsuit over Common Cold
THOMAS & BETTS: Contests Consolidated Securities Suits in TN
VEHICLE SEIZURES: INS Moves Away from Practice in Border Enforcement
WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Bankruptcy Filing Does Not End Investor Suit
WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Files for Chapter 11 Relief

WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Suit in N.Y.


ACCELERATED NETWORKD: Lionel Z. Glancy to Commence Securities Lawsuit
Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy has been retained to commence a class
action lawsuit asserting claims on behalf of all purchasers of
Accelerated Networks Inc., (Nasdaq:ACCL) common stock between June 22,
2000 and April 17, 2001, (the "Class Period").

The complaint will allege that Accelerated Networks Inc. and certain of
its officers and directors issued materially false and misleading
statements -- in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 -- regarding Accelerated Networks' operations and
financial results.

As a result of Accelerated Networks' misrepresentations and omissions,
the complaint will allege the price of Accelerated Networks' stock was
artificially inflated during the class period, and investors who bought
these securities were damaged thereby.

Contact: Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy, Los Angeles Lionel Z.
Glancy/Michael Goldberg, 310/201-9150 or 888/773-9224

ACRODYNE COMMUNICATIONS: MD Ct Gives Prelim Approval to Settlement
Acrodyne Communications, Inc. (ACROE) announced on April 18 that the
previously announced proposed settlement of that certain class action
litigation filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland in which the Company and two of its officers and directors were
named defendants has been preliminarily approved by the court.

The proposed settlement requires the Company to issue to the class
plaintiffs five (5) year warrants to purchase One Million Six Hundred
Thousand (1,600,000) shares of the Company's voting common stock at an
exercise price of One Dollar ($1.00) per share and to pay the class
plaintiffs Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000.00) in the
aggregate. It is anticipated that the payment of cash portion of the
proposed settlement is to be funded by the Company's officers and
directors indemnity insurance policy. The Court, by Order dated April 9,
2001, preliminarily approved the proposed settlement and established the
date of June 11, 2001 as the final day for a class plaintiff to request
exclusion from the class or to object to the Settlement. Although there
is no guarantee that the settlement as currently proposed will be
finalized, the Company is hopeful that a final settlement of the
litigation will be approved by the Court in June 2001. For more details
regarding the litigation and the preliminarily approved settlement
thereof, please see the Legal Proceedings Section of the 1999 Form
10KSB/B filed with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 17,

The Company also announced that its negotiations with Sinclair Broadcast
Group, Inc. ("Sinclair"), its single largest shareholder, current largest
customer, and largest creditor, regarding a plan of recapitalization and
the restructure of the Company's debt are close to completion. While
there is no final agreement at this time (and any final agreement is
still contingent upon the occurrence of certain events, including a final
court approved settlement of the class action litigation mentioned
above), the Company reported that it is optimistic that the negotiations
will continue and result in an acceptable arrangement that will afford
the Company the financial stability to build for the future. For more
details regarding the negotiations with Sinclair on a proposed plan
recapitalization and a restructure of the Company's debt, please see the
Operations and Business Risk Section to Note 1 of the Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements of December 31, 2000 and 1999 that are
part of the 1999 Form 10KSB/B and 2000 Form 8K filed with U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 17, 2001.

The Company's Chairman of the Board of Directors, CEO, and Interim
President, Nathaniel Ostroff, commented on the Company's negotiations
with Sinclair: "As a result of the preliminary approval by the court of
the proposed settlement and the Company's demonstrated ability to build
and deliver its new Quantum transmitter product line, Sinclair has agreed
to continue the Company's current secured and unsecured credit facilities
while negotiating a new credit facility and plan of recapitalization. At
this time, the Company has no reason to believe this situation will
change, and we are hopeful of reaching an acceptable agreement with
Sinclair within the next several months."

Sinclair commented, "We've made an enormous investment towards the
success of Acrodyne. Now that the Quantum product is finished and
available for delivery, we fully expect to recover our investment. We
couldn't be happier about the Quantum product."

B2B INTERNET: Schiffrin & Barroway Charges of Violating Securities Laws
The following statement was issued April 19 by the law firm of Schiffrin
& Barroway, LLP:

Notice is hereby given 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 B2B Internet Holdrs
Depositary Receipts (Amex: BHH) from February 23, 2000 through April 9,
2001, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges B2B Internet and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing a false and misleading registration statement and
prospectus (the "Offering Documents") in connection with the Company's
2/23/00 initial public offering ("IPO"). Specifically, the complaint
alleges that the B2B Internet Holdrs depositary receipts were "basket
securities" whose price was directly related to, and moved with, the
price of 20 underlying securities held in the B2B Internet Holdrs trust.
The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing and selling B2B Internet Holdrs Depositary
Receipts pursuant to Offering Documents that were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that a substantial proportion
of the B2B Internet Holdrs trust's initial portfolio consisted of stocks
whose prices had been artificially inflated through the use of improper
practices relating to their respective initial public offerings, and that
they therefore traded at artificially inflated prices. The price of B2B
Internet Holdrs has fallen from a March 14, 2000 high of $108 per B2B
Internet Holdr to a low of $ 4.26 on April 3, 2001.

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

BANK OF NY: Enters into Agreement for Controls re Transfer Activities
The Company continues to cooperate with investigations by federal and
state law enforcement and bank regulatory authorities. The investigations
focus on funds transfer activities in certain accounts at BNY,
principally involving wire transfers from Russian and other sources in
Eastern Europe, as well as certain other matters involving BNY and its
affiliates. The funds transfer investigations center around accounts
controlled by Peter Berlin, his wife, Lucy Edwards (until discharged in
September 1999, an officer of BNY), and companies and persons associated
with them. Berlin and Edwards pled guilty to various federal criminal
charges. The Company cannot predict when or on what basis the
investigations will conclude or their effect, if any, on the Company.

On February 8, 2000, BNY entered into a written agreement with both the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the New York State Banking
Department, which imposed a number of reporting requirements and
controls. Substantially all of these reporting requirements and controls
are now in place.

BANK OF NY: Investors File Suit in NY Sp Ct re Investment in Inkombank
On October 24, 2000, three alleged shareholders of Inkombank filed an
action in the Supreme Court, New York County against the Company, BNY and
Inkombank. The complaint alleges that the defendants fraudulently induced
the plaintiffs to refrain from redeeming their alleged $40 million
investment in Inkombank. The complaint asserts a single cause of action
for fraud, seeking $40 million plus 12% interest from January 1994,
punitive damages, costs, interest and attorney fees. The Company and BNY
have moved to dismiss the amended compliant. That motion is pending. The
Company and BNY believe that the allegations of the complaint are without
merit and intend to defend the action vigorously.

BARNES & NOBLE: CEO Issues Statement After Settlement re Discounts
Statement from Leonard Riggio, Chairman and CEO, Barnes & Noble, Inc.
Following Settlement in the matter of American Booksellers Association,
Inc et. al. vs. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Borders Group Inc. et. al.

Barnes & Noble, Inc. (NYSE: BKS) -- "We are pleased to announce that the
litigation brought by the American Booksellers Association (ABA) has come
to an end. From the outset, we have maintained that the suit brought by
ABA was completely without merit.

"This settlement is nothing short of a total vindication for Barnes &

"More importantly, we won a victory for people everywhere who love to
read books, for the authors who write them, for publishers, and for the
40,000 Barnes & Noble booksellers - our knowledgeable and dedicated
employees - who provide such a valuable service to our industry.

"From a legal perspective, based on a March 19, 2001, opinion and ruling
by U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick, Jr. in favor of Barnes & Noble,
we now have a published legal opinion which validates the fundamental
legal principle under which important discounts and terms provided to
Barnes & Noble, as well as other booksellers, including many members of
the ABA, are permissible.

"It should be made very clear that no monetary damages were paid to the
ABA. Barnes & Noble agreed only to pay $2.35 million to the plaintiffs to
help defray their extensive legal expenses.

"Though the trial ended before Barnes & Noble had a chance to present its
case, the testimony of the plaintiffs' own witnesses indicates that
competition in the bookselling industry remains vibrant and there are
numerous publisher programs available to all booksellers. The court
transcript is a matter of public record.

"It's our hope that all booksellers will put this matter behind them so
that we all can continue with the important business of bookselling."

                      Joint Statement

Barnes & Noble, the Borders Group, and the American Booksellers'
Association reached agreement ending their lawsuit. A copy of that
agreement is attached.

                   Settlement Agreement

The following constitutes the terms of settlement between the American
Booksellers Association, Inc. ("ABA"), the 26 individual Plaintiffs
listed in Attachment A ("Plaintiffs"), the Barnes & Noble entities listed
in Attachment A ( "Barnes & Noble"), and the Borders -- collectively "the
parties" -- to settle American Booksellers Association, Inc. et al. vs.
Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Borders Group, Inc. et al., NO. C98-1059WHO
(N.D. Cal.) ("the lawsuit").

The parties acknowledge that on March 19, 2001 the Court entered an Order
and Opinion granting partial summary judgment in favor of Barnes & Noble
and Borders. The parties agree to entry of a Court order dismissing with
prejudice all claims in the second amended complaint.

To the greatest extent permitted by law, the parties hereby release each
other from any and all state and/or federal claims which any party has or
may have in any personal or representative capacity against any other
party relating in anyway to the matters contained in the second amended
complaint or litigated in the lawsuit up to the date of the settlement,
regardless of whether the claims released have been set forth in the
lawsuit, including a waiver by all parties of any rights under California
Civil Codess. 1542. None of the facts, allegations, or other matters that
occurred prior to the date of the execution of this agreement can be used
to support a future claim against any party.

During the next 3 years (36 months), the ABA and Plaintiffs each
covenants to refrain and forebear from instituting any action or
litigation against Barnes & Noble and Borders related to any activities,
practices, conduct or facts alleged in, litigated in, or underlying this
lawsuit. Also, to the extent permitted by law, during the next 3 years
(36 months), the ABA, Plaintiffs, and their counsel herein each agrees
that they will not, either directly or through their respective agents,
attorneys, employees or representatives, support, fund, or aid any third
party, including any ABA member or any other person or entity, to
institute or pursue any claims or litigation against Barnes & Noble and
Borders that are related to any activities, practices, conduct or facts
alleged in, litigated in, or underlying this lawsuit.

Each party will bear its own costs. Barnes & Noble and Borders will each
pay $2.35 million to the ABA as a reimbursement of a portion of the legal
fees expended by the ABA in the lawsuit.

The ABA and Plaintiffs and their counsel agree that all information
produced by Barnes & Noble and Borders during the course of the lawsuit
in whatever form, and all copies of depositions taken in the lawsuit, and
(unless otherwise agreed) any work product containing or attaching in
whole or substantial part such information shall promptly be destroyed,
after which the ABA's and Plaintiffs' counsel will so certify. The ABA's
and Plaintiffs' counsel will certify that all copies of such depositions
have been returned from all court reporting services and all persons
affiliated in any way with any plaintiff in the lawsuit. The ABA's and
Plaintiffs' counsel will secure the return of all documents produced by
Barnes & Noble and Borders in the lawsuit which have been lodged with the
Court and all deposition transcripts which have been lodged with the
Court, for destruction in a similar fashion. Nothing in this paragraph
shall apply to the transcripts of any court proceedings or to any filings
with the court.

The parties agree to issue the attached Joint Statement announcing that
they have settled the lawsuit on the terms contained in this agreement,
with a copy of this agreement attached to the joint statement.

The parties agree that this Settlement Agreement will be governed by
California law.

All parties hereby represent and warrant that they have been informed of
the terms of this Settlement Agreement by their counsel and have
knowingly and intentionally waived their claims as specified herein
pursuant to the advice of counsel.

All parties agree that this Settlement Agreement is the complete
settlement agreement between the parties and may not be modified in any
way without a separate written agreement executed by all parties.

                       Attachment A

The 26 Individual Plaintiffs

Book House of Stuyvesant Plaza, Inc.; The Book Shop, Inc.; The Book Stall
at Chestnut Court, Inc.; Book Soup, Inc., B&R Books, Inc., dba Little
Professor Book Center; Changing Hands Bookstore, Inc.; Cody's Books,
Inc.; College Book Company of San Antonio, Inc., dba The Twig, Booksmith
of San Antonio and Red Balloon Children's Book Store; Books by Mail, LLC;
Copperfield's Books, Inc. and Petalu.a Gold, dba Copperfield's Books;
Dutton's Brentwood Books, Inc.; Edward B. Elrod, Sole Proprietor and
Successor In Interest, dba Ventura Book Store; Elliott Bay Book Company,
a corporation; Third Place Company LLC, dba Elliott Bay Book Company; The
Happy Bookseller; Inkwood, Inc., dba Inkwood Books; Kepler Corporation,
dba Kepler's Books & Magazines; Ketterson's Old Market Bookstore; Left
Bank Books, Inc.; Lemuria, Inc.; Midnight Special Bookstore, Inc.; Our
Gang, Inc., dba Freddy's Feed and Read; Sam Weller's Books, Inc., dba Sam
Weller's Zion Bookstore; Tattered Cover, Inc.; The Squirrel Hill
Bookstore; Thunderbird Bookshops, Inc.; Tiger & Company, Inc, dba
Chapters: A Literary Bookstore; and Women & Children First, Inc.

The Barnes & Noble Entities

Barnes & Noble, Inc.; Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.; B. Dalton
Bookseller, Inc.; Doubleday Book Shops, Inc.; Marboro Books Corp.;
Barnesandnoble.com LLC, Barnes & Noble Online, Inc.

The Borders Entities

Borders Group, Inc.; Borders, Inc.; Walden Book Company, Inc.; Borders
Online, Inc.; Borders Fulfillment, Inc.; and The Library, Ltd.

O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP JENNER & BLOCK 1999 Avenue of th] Stars, Seventh
Floor 601 13th Street, N.W. Los Angeles, California 90067-6035
Washington, D.C. 20005

Attorneys For Barnes & Noble Attorneys For The Aba And Plaintiffs

#141658) 235 Montgomery Street SKJERVEN MORRILL MacPHERSON LLP 30th
Floor, Russ Building Three Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco,
California San Francisco, California 94111 94104

Attorneys For The Borders Group Attorneys For The Aba And Plaintiffs

BEAR STEARNS: Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Alleging Hedge Fund Fraud
A federal judge on April 18 dismissed a class action lawsuit against Bear
Stearns, which alleged that the US investment bank was partly responsible
for a hedge fund fraud that cost investors more than Dollars 400m. Judge
Denise Cote said that plaintiffs' lawyers failed to prove that Bear
Stearns substantially assisted or participated in the fraud by clearing
Mr Berger's trades, and lending him money on margin. (Financial Times
(London), April 19, 2001)

BERG: 3rd Circuit Broadens Who Can Be 'Conspirator' in RICO Suit
In a decision that significantly broadens the scope of civil RICO in the
3rd Circuit, a federal appeals panel has ruled that RICO conspiracy
claims are not limited to those defendants who participated in the
"operation or management" of a corrupt enterprise.

In Smith v. Berg, a unanimous three-judge panel upheld a decision by
Senior U.S. District Judge Thomas N. O'Neill Jr., who found that a recent
decision of the U.S. Supreme Court had implicitly overruled the 1995
decision by the 3rd Circuit in United States v. Antar.

In Antar, the 3rd Circuit had suggested that RICO conspiracy liability
under Section 1962(d) extends only to those who have conspired personally
to operate or manage the corrupt enterprise.But O'Neill found that Antar
was overruled by the Supreme Court's 1997 decision in Salinas v. United
States which called for a broad application of general conspiracy law to
Section 1962(d) claims.

The Salinas case involved a sheriff's deputy who had knowledge of, and
facilitated, a bribery scheme where an inmate paid off a sheriff for
"contact visits" with his wife and girlfriend. The jury acquitted Salinas
of liability under Section 1962(c) because he had not committed any
predicate acts, but convicted him of RICO conspiracy because of his
agreement to the scheme and his assistance.

Applying Salinas, O'Neill refused to dismiss RICO conspiracy claims
against the title insurance companies and banks named as defendants in a
class-action suit brought by alleged victims of John G. Berg, who, they
claim, misled them into purchasing homes which they could not afford by
fraudulently asserting that their homes would be entitled to various tax
abatements and mortgage credit certificates. The plaintiffs claim that
the title insurance and lending companies conspired with Berg and his
companies New Century Homes Inc. and Affordable Residences Inc. to
defraud them and realize the maximum profits from the sales and related
title insurance and financings.

In the RICO claims against Berg and his companies, the plaintiffs claimed
that he used misleading mailings and radio and television advertisements
to market residential developments in Philadelphia from 1994 to 1997.

Named as conspirators in the suit are Columbia National Inc., First Town
Mortgage Corp., Countrywide Credit Industries Inc., Fidelity National
Financial and Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania.

The suit alleges that the conspirators furthered Berg's fraudulent
enterprise by

allowing Berg to assume many of their normal functions during settlements
recording false information on HUD-1 settlement statements;

contacting prospective home buyers and encouraging them to make the

communicating and negotiating with Berg rather than directly with the

failing to make Truth-In-Lending Law disclosures; and

granting mortgages for which they knew the plaintiffs were unqualified.

O'Neill found that if Antar were still good law, he would be forced to
dismiss all of the RICO conspiracy claims against the lenders and title
insurers.But O'Neill found that Salinas had overruled Antar and that the
plaintiffs therefore did not have to prove that the non-Berg defendants
committed any "predicate acts" of racketeering in order to hold those
defendants liable under the RICO conspiracy statute. O'Neill certified
his decision for an immediate appeal, and the 3rd Circuit agreed to hear

                   3rd Circuit's Reasoning

Now the 3rd Circuit has ruled that O'Neill was right and that Antar,
while still a correct ruling in many respects, should no longer be read
to impose stricter requirements for RICO conspiracy or to suggest that
RICO conspiracy liability is limited to those who are also liable for a
substantive violation under Section 1962(c). "We therefore hold that any
reading of Antar suggesting a stricter standard of liability under
Section 1962(d) is inconsistent with the broad application of general
conspiracy law set forth in Salinas," U.S. Circuit Judge Carol Los
Mansmann wrote. Under the "general principles of criminal conspiracy
law," Mansmann said, "a defendant may be held liable for conspiracy to
violate Section 1962(c) if he knowingly agrees to facilitate a scheme
which includes the operation or management of a RICO enterprise."

Mansmann also found that O'Neill was correct in holding that the more
recent decision from the Supreme Court in Beck v. Prupis did not limit
application of Salinas to criminal cases.In an opinion joined by U.S.
Circuit Judges Maryanne Trump Barry and Robert E. Cowen, Mansmann traced
the confusion back to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Reves v.
Ernst & Young which held that to be liable under Section 1962(c), a
person must participate in the "operation or management" of the corrupt
enterprise's affairs.In Antar, Mansmann said, the 3rd Circuit considered
a line of cases holding that conspiracy liability does not require a
showing that the defendant himself participated in the operation or
management of the enterprise. Finding those cases to be in tension with
Reves, she said, the 3rd Circuit "crafted a novel distinction" between
conspiring to operate or manage an enterprise, on the one hand, and
conspiring with someone who is operating or managing the enterprise, on
the other. The Antar court concluded that liability under Section 1962(d)
would attach only in the first instance, Mansmann said, because "only
then is the defendant conspiring to do something for which he would, if
successful, be liable under Section 1962(c). But Mansmann noted that
"this language in Antar was unnecessary to our holding since the court
ultimately concluded that the defendant met either standard. Most other
federal appellate courts, she said, have not applied the "operation or
management" test in Reves to a RICO conspiracy, but instead concluded
that Reves addressed only the extent of conduct or participation
necessary to violate a substantive provision of the statute. In Salinas,
Mansmann said, the Supreme Court resolved a conflict that had developed
among the Courts of Appeals on the issue of whether a RICO conspiracy
defendant must also be liable for committing predicate RICO acts.

Siding with the majority of the appellate courts, the justices ruled that
no predicate act is needed since RICO conspiracy requires only that the
defendants share a common purpose. Mansmann found that Salinas clearly
broadened the scope of RICO conspiracy and implicitly rejected the limits
suggested by Antar. "The plain implication of the standard set forth in
Salinas is that one who opts into or participates in a conspiracy is
liable for the acts of his co-conspirators which violate Section 1962(c)
even if the defendant did not personally agree to do, or to conspire with
respect to, any particular element," Mansmann wrote. And the Salinas
court "did not confine its discussion ... to the element of predicate
acts, in which event it might be 'harmonized' with Antar's discussion of
requirements as to levels of participation." Instead, she said, the
justices expressed their analysis "in broad terms," defining an
interpretation of conspiracy liability that is "directly at odds with"
the way the non-Berg defendants were reading Antar. The plaintiffs in
Smith v. Berg are represented by attorney James N. Gross of Philadelphia
and Dean B. Webb of Vancouver, Wash.

Attorney Burt M. Rublin of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll represented
Countrywide Credit Industries.

Attorney Elliott A. Kolodny of Mellon Webster & Mellon in Doylestown
represented Columbia National.

Attorney Natalie Finkelman of Shepherd Finkelman & Gaffigan in Media
represented First Town Mortgage Corp., while Edward J. Hayes and Lisa
Carney Eldridge of Fox Rothschild O'Brien & Frankel represented Fidelity
National Title Insurance Co. (The Legal Intelligencer, April 18, 2001)

FORD MOTOR: Trial Gears up; Judge Orders for Ignition Part Replacement
The historic class action's re-trial began to shift into high gear last
week as the judge set a date for opening statements and ruled that Ford
Motor Co. must replace defective ignition parts in class member vehicles,
which could cost the car company up to $340 million. Ford will have to
repair faulty TFI modules in cars that were sold between 1983 and 1995
with an updated version.

During the bench trial of the two- phase suit, retired Alameda County
Superior Court Judge Michael Ballachey ordered a recall of 1.7 million
vehicles. Ballachey ruled that the car maker was silent about the defect,
which witnesses said caused some vehicle models to lose power steering,
power brakes or to stall completely. It is unclear how much the judges
order will cost the company, said Ford's in- house counsel Donald Lough.
There are fewer registered class member cars on the road now because the
cars are older, he said.

Approximately 1.2 million cars today would get the replacement part,
which Lough said costs from $100 to $150. That could bring the cost for
Ford down to $180 million, and there could be even fewer cars needing the
new part once the recall takes place possibly years down the line, he
said. The longer the case takes, the fewer vehicles there are on the road
that need to be recalled, acknowledged lead plaintiffs attorney Jeffrey
Fazio. "But should (Ford) benefit from that?" Fazio estimates that the
cost to repair the 1.7 million vehicles that have been recalled, with
parts and labor, is about $200 per vehicle, or $340 million total.
Nevertheless, the recall may never happen if the new jury finds that Ford
is not liable, said Lough. "The first thing that we need to do is to
retry the case before the jury," he said.

The re-trial of the jury phase of Howard v. Ford 763785-2 which will
determine damages begins on Sept. 17. The first panel hung after more
than a week of deliberations. The jury commissioner is assembling a jury
pool in which jurors with affected Ford vehicles and financial hardship
have been weeded out. Voir dire will begin on Aug. 28. Meanwhile, the
plaintiffs filed a writ with the First District Court of Appeal April 10
to revive a motion that would deny Ford a chance to sway the new jury
that it is not liable. Ballachey denied the motion last month. (The
Recorder, April 18, 2001)

HIP IMPLANT: Sulzer Says Suits Likely to Be Rejected by U.S. Courts
Sulzer AG said that InCentive Capital AG's proposal to scrap Sulzer's
5-pct limit on individual shareholder voting is illegal. In the documents
distributed at April 19's AGM, which started at 10 am, Sulzer said the
proposal contravenes Article 626, Paragraph 5 of the Swiss Legal Code for
Corporations. Sulzer also reiterated its forecast that Sulzer Industries
by 2003 will achieve sales of 3 bln sfr and an EBIT of 270 mln sfr. The
divestment of Sulzer Infra is going according to plan, and Sulzer
Burckhardt will be divested as soon as its market environment improves,
management said. Sulzer Medica AG's CEO Andre Buchel said that the U.S.
recall of hip-implants would be covered by existing insurance policies.
He added that penalties and class-action suits regarding the implants
would likely be rejected by the U.S. courts. (AFX European Focus, April
19, 2001)

HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: New Center In Tel Aviv Helps Holocaust Claimants
Holocaust survivors now have a new resource to help them obtain the
compensation awarded to them from recent legal settlements.

The Information Center for Holocaust Survivors, which opened on April 18
in Tel Aviv in front of a gathering of Holocaust survivors, is the
brainchild of Deputy Foreign Minister Michael Melchior.

As the government representative for Holocaust survivor property claims,
Melchior said he realized that Holocaust survivors were confused about
their rights. "Even I have difficulty understanding all the details of
the agreements," he said.

Two different class action law suits in the United States have ended in
settlements awarding compensation to Holocaust survivors. One is with
German companies and the German government, while the other settles
claims against Swiss Banks.

Each settlement awards different amounts to many categories of Holocaust
survivors, who must apply in order to receive compensation. Many
potential claimants consulted lawyers, who often wasted their money while
themselves not understanding the claims procedure. "In the midst of a
righteous fight, we were forgetting about the individuals deserving the
compensation," said Melchior.

After receiving requests from Holocaust survivors for assistance,
Melchior decided to join the Claims Conference, the agency processing
Holocaust survivor claims, in establishing an information center. The
center will be a place where survivors can come to receive information as
well as assistance in filling out application forms. It has also
established a Web site (www.meidashoa.co.il).

The compensation eligible claimants will receive is "purely symbolic,"
said Yonah Laks, a survivor of the medical experiments performed by Josef
Mengele. "My lost years during the war can never be repaid," she said.

Melchior realizes that it is impossible to compensate the sufferings of
Holocaust survivors but he says the center will achieve something of
moral value. "It is not the money," agreed Charnia Yosef, a survivor of
Treblinka. (The Jerusalem Post, April 19, 2001)

INMATES LITIGATIION: 5th Cir Calls For End To 28-Year-Old TX Ruiz Case
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals pushed the 28-year-old Ruiz prison
reform suit one step closer to an end last month, calling for final
resolution or an ultimate termination of the landmark case. In its latest
ruling in Ruiz, et al. v. Johnson, the appellate court gave Senior U.S.
District Judge William Wayne Justice 90 days from March 20 to make
certain findings or terminate his 1992 judgment in which he limited the
scope of the wide-ranging suit.

In 1972, inmate David Ruiz filed suit against the Texas Department of
Corrections, alleging his civil rights were violated because of
intolerable conditions in the prison, including extreme overcrowding and
poor medical care.

The case, now a class action, nearly concluded in 1992 when Justice - who
has presided over the case since 1974 - reduced his jurisdiction to just
a handful of areas, such as prison overcrowding.

In 1999, Justice issued two orders in the case, one finding the Prison
Litigation Reform Act unconstitutional and an alternative order in case
he was reversed on that issue finding systemic constitutional violations.
The state appealed to the 5th Circuit.

The state has long wanted to escape the jurisdiction of the federal
courts, seeking to have the Texas prison system declared constitutional.
"We recognize the need for an expeditious resolution to the termination
motions brought by the defendants, particularly given the long duration
of this case," Circuit Judge Carl Stewart wrote in a 3-0 panel opinion.
He was joined by Circuit Judge James Dennis and Senior Circuit Judge
Reynaldo G. Garza. "Indeed, we have already noted, in an appeal regarding
matters in the current proceedings, our dismay at the delay by the
district court in disposing of the present issues," Stewart wrote.
"Nevertheless, we are also mindful of the great amount of effort put into
this case by the district court as well as the preeminent need for the
court to continue to carefully and fairly consider the serious
allegations by the inmates of unconstitutional conditions and treatment
in the Texas prison system."

Lawyers for the prison system hope the decision spells the end of the
federal court's jurisdiction over prison reform. "It was as close to an
outright victory as it could have been without being one," says Carl
Reynolds, general counsel for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
"Now it's down to whether you can look at the final judgment and look and
see if the issues still exist."

                        Task Begins

The decision may mean that the state finally will agree to remedy the
remaining problems over which the court still has jurisdiction, says
Donna Brorby, a San Francisco lawyer who represents the inmates.
Continuing problems include an environment inside Texas' expanding
prisons that allows for the victimization and rape of weaker prisoners by
stronger prisoners, Brorby alleges. "The task in 90 days is to complete
the process and create remedies for the constitutional violations,"
Brorby says.

Even though the opinion urges a resolution between the parties, that may
be a difficult task, Reynolds says. "The plaintiffs' stake is having
something in place where the state can be held in contempt" if conditions
become unconstitutional, Reynolds says, while the state does not want to
risk "being held in contempt and have a scolding in federal court from
time to time."

The 5th Circuit also found the 1996 PLRA constitutional and said it did
not violate the separation of powers doctrine, as Justice had ruled in
1999. The PLRA put limits on federal courts' jurisdiction over prison

As the 5th Circuit panel noted, other circuits also have found the PLRA
constitutional. "This is a huge victory for Texas. Never before has the
5th Circuit acknowledged the Ruiz decision is now virtually a moot
point," says Texas Attorney General John Cornyn. The "ruling, I believe,
soon will lead to the restoration of Texas' sovereignty over its prison

In a concurring opinion, Garza noted that it was time for the suit to
end. "If any of the present prisoners have need for some kind of help,
they can file another lawsuit against the Texas prison system, but this
case has to be ended," Garza wrote. "I urge my good friend Judge W. Wayne
Justice to do so if at all possible." (Texas Lawyer, March 26, 2001)

INMATES LITIGATION: Blacks File Suit Over Injuries From L.A. Jail Riots
A civil rights attorney has filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department on behalf of 39 black inmates injured last
year during jail riots.

The lawsuit claims that sheriff's deputies failed to take the appropriate
action to prevent the violence last spring at the Pitchess Detention
Center in Castaic. Jail officials allowed black inmates to be outnumbered
by Hispanics despite ongoing tension between the two groups, the lawsuit

The inmates are seeking $1 million each in compensatory damages and $1
million each in punitive damages, said Venice attorney Steve Yagman, who
filed the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs were among hundreds involved in two days of rioting, which
left one black inmate critically injured.

The Sheriff's Department had not seen the lawsuit and declined to comment
on it, said Capt. Ray Leyva, a sheriff's spokesman.

Sheriff's officials said at the time of the rioting that there were
simply far fewer black inmates than Hispanics.

Sheriff Lee Baca asked several community groups shortly after the riots
to develop programs for inmates to help reduce tensions.

A similar lawsuit was filed last year in U.S. District Court on behalf of
273 black inmates involved in the rioting. That lawsuit claimed that
deputies took away black prisoners' shoes so they couldn't stomp other
inmates, but failed to retrieve razor blades from Hispanic inmates. It
has not come to trial. (The Associated Press State & Local Wire, April
19, 2001)

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Contact Lens Wearers Won't See Much in $ 860M Pact
Suit Said Johnson & Johnson Sold Similar Products at Different Prices

A four-year contentious battle came to an end this week as health care
products giant Johnson & Johnson's Vistakon subsidiary agreed to a
settlement that could total as much as $ 860 million, including
attorneys' fees, over the marketing of its contact lenses to doctors and
consumers. The proposed agreement in Kropinski v. Johnson & Johnson is
subject to approval of the Food and Drug Administration.

The original complaint against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson
Vision Products Inc., alleged the company's advertisements and statements
about its "1-Day Acuvue" contact lenses were intentionally misleading.
Both doctors and consumers were told by Johnson & Johnson that 1-Day
Acuvue lenses could not be used for more than one day, whereas the
company's Acuvue lens information said they could be used up to 14 days.
In fact, Acuvue and 1-Day Acuvue were the same product, said Jay W.
Eisenhofer of Wilmington, Del.'s Grant & Eisenhofer, co-lead counsel for
the plaintiffs. "The 1-Day Acuvue lenses were also approved by the FDA
for 14-day use," he said. "But we did surveys and found that over 90
percent of people [surveyed] thought their use was limited to one day."
New York City's Abbey Gardy firm was co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

The New York firm Kramer Levin represented Johnson & Johnson. Although
both brands of lenses were FDA-approved for 14-day use, there was a big
difference in price between the two. One-day Acuvue lenses cost about
one-fifth as much as regular Acuvue contact lenses." There is nothing
wrong with repackaging a drug," said Eisenhofer, responding to the
sometimes-critiqued practice of marketing the same drug under a different
brand name for a different use, as in the case of Wellbutrin and Zyban.
Both are chemically the same, although one is marketed to treat
depression, and the other, smoking cessation. This is not the same thing,
he said. "But I call this consumer fraud."

                    Settlement Agreement

As part of the proposed settlement agreement signed by both parties,
Johnson & Johnson and other defendants have agreed to an injunction
against their making or causing to be made the statement that "1-Day
Acuvue lenses cannot be slept in or used for more that one day" in the
future. Nor can the defendants say that there is any lack of scientific
data showing that 1-Day Acuvue lenses can be slept in or used for more
than one day. The company also has agreed to change its sales training
materials and follow an agreed-upon script on its toll-free information
line.And packaging and marketing materials for 1-Day Acuvue will be
revamped. The defendants will "eliminate anything that could be construed
to suggest that the 1-Day Acuvue lenses cannot safely be slept in or used
for more than a single day," including removing the words "disposable"
and "for single use only" from the 1-Day Acuvue box.Finally, Johnson &
Johnson must also send out letters to all eye-care professionals it
marketed to and post the same on its Vistakon Web site,


According to the joint memorandum, the parties "engaged in extensive
discovery ... reviewed millions of pages of documents, took and defended
72 depositions ... and enlisted the services of experts on the issues of
liability and damages."During that time it came to light that Johnson &
Johnson had attempted to make negligible changes to the 1-Day Acuvue
product that had nothing to do with the length of time the lenses could
be worn, just to differentiate them for legal purposes, Eisenhofer
said."It was obvious they were just trying to say they were different
[from Acuvue lenses]. But functionally, they weren't."Prior to setting a
trial date, the New Jersey Superior Court in Camden County imposed an
order for the parties to proceed to mediation. After several months, and
on the eve of trial, the parties settled. The memorandum said the
10-month mediation process "proved to be as hard fought as the litigation

              Class Member Compensation

But for all the fighting and all the money involved in the settlement,
people who actually bought Acuvue may not be seeing much green. The
settlement amount was reached by calculating the estimated number in the
class six million by compensation of approximately $ 140 each in cash and
other credit vouchers. Attorneys' fees of up to $ 20 million would bring
the total to $ 860 million. During the class period, the parties say
Johnson & Johnson sold or distributed about 125 million boxes of Acuvue
contact lenses.

They estimate that the average class member would have purchased 20 boxes
of Acuvue during the class period. According to the agreement, each would
be eligible to receive $ 60 in cash, $ 60 in coupons toward future
purchases of lenses, and a $ 20 payment toward the unreimbursed cost of
the patient's next eye examination under the following breakdown. For
every box of Acuvue contact lenses class members can prove they purchased
between Jan. 1, 1995 and the date the first notice of settlement is
published, the Vistakon settlement agreement said they will receive:

     -- $ 3 in cash.
     -- $ 3 credit toward future purchases of Johnson & Johnson contact
        lenses of any type.
     -- $ 1 for the "otherwise unreimburseable" portion of the cost of
        an eye exam within two years.

Additionally, for every box of Acuvue purchased during 1994, each class
member will receive a $ 3 credit toward a future purchase of Johnson &
Johnson contact lenses. Under the settlement, class members will also be
informed that they "may be able to switch to the cheaper Day Acuvue
lenses, which cost only one-fifth as much as the Acuvue lenses," and that
"class members who do switch to the 1-Day Acuvue lenses may save money on
their future purchases." Vistakon has agreed to pay class counsel's
attorney fees and costs up to $ 20 million, subject to court approval.
Cash payments of $ 15,000 will also be made to each of the five
representative plaintiffs in the case, in addition to their benefits
under the settlement agreement.

                Vistakon 'Always Straightforward'

Jeffrey J. Leebaw, executive director of corporate communications for
Johnson & Johnson, said in a written statement that the company
"expect[s] the payout to consumers to be very small, and the amount of
attorney's fees and costs ($ 17 million and $ 3 million respectively) ...
is relatively negligible in the context of plaintiffs' class action suits
of this type."

However, Johnson & Johnson is apparently admitting no wrongdoing.
"Vistakon has always been straightforward about its lenses. Acuvue and
1-Day Acuvue are different lenses in a number of respects, and we have
always accurately stated both the similarities and the differences
between the two lenses," Leebaw said. "Vistakon spent more than $ 200
million to develop technology that allowed it to bring Day Acuvue to
market as the world's first contact lens to make daily disposal an
affordable reality. Using a fresh new lens every day is undisputably the
healthiest way to wear contact lenses." "The company is settling this
case for a very modest outlay to put the uncertainty of litigation behind
it." (The Legal Intelligencer, April 18, 2001)

MARKETWATCH.COM, INC: Sirota & Sirota Announces Securities Suit in N.Y.
The law firms of Sirota & Sirota, LLP ((212) 425-9055 or
http://www.sirotalaw.com)and Lovell & Stewart, LLP ((212) 608-1900 or
http://www.lovellstewart.com)filed a class action lawsuit on April 17,
2001 on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of MarketWatch.com, Inc.
(Nasdaq: MKTW) between January 15, 1999 and April 16, 2001, inclusive.
The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder and seeks to
recover damages.  If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than June 17, 2001.

The action, Laurence Bonilla v. MarketWatch.com, Inc., et al., is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (500
Pearl Street, New York, New York), Docket No. 01-CV-3225 (LLS) and has
been assigned to the Hon. Louis L. Stanton, Senior U.S. District Judge.
The complaint alleges that MarketWatch.com, Inc., Larry S. Kramer, its
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Directors James A. DePalma, Alan
R. Hirschfield, Allan R. Tessler, Mark F. Imperiale, Andrew Heyward and
Michael H. Jordan violated the federal securities laws by issuing and
selling MarketWatch.com common stock pursuant to the January 15, 1999 IPO
without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in the
offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors. In exchange
for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, lead underwriter
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. and underwriters BancBoston Robertson
Stephens, Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated and
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. allocated MarketWatch.com shares to
customers at the IPO price of $17.00 per share. To receive the
allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at $17.00, the
underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to purchase additional
shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher prices. The requirement
that customers make additional purchases at progressively higher prices
as the price of MarketWatch.com stock rocketed upward (a practice known
on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did) drive
MarketWatch.com's share price up to artificially high levels. This
artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both the
underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock
at the $17.00 IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at
inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $130.00 during its
first day of trading.

Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the IPO,
the complaint alleges, the underwriters required their customers to "kick
back" some of their profits in the form of secret commissions. These
secret commission payments were sometimes calculated after the fact based
on how much profit each investor had made from his or her IPO stock

The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act
of 1933 because the Prospectus distributed to investors and the
Registration Statement filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory
approval for the MarketWatch.com offering contained material
misstatements regarding the commissions that the underwriters would
derive from the IPO transaction and failed to disclose the additional
commissions and "laddering" scheme discussed above.

Contact: Christopher Lovell, Victor E. Stewart, or Christopher J. Gray,
all of Lovell & Stewart, LLP, 212-608-1900, sklovell@aol.com; or Howard
B. Sirota or Saul Roffe, both of Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 212-425-9055,

MERRILL LYNCH: Cauley Geller Announces Suit re B2B internet Holdrs
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP announced on April 18
that it has filed a class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the B2B
internet Holdrs Depositary Receipts (Amex: BHH) between February 23, 2000
and April 9, 2001, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges that Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Merrill Lynch & Co., Ahmass L. Fakahany, John L. Steffens,
E. Stanley O'Neal and George A. Schieren violated Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks to recover damages.

The complaint alleges that the B2B Internet Holdrs depositary receipts
were "basket securities" whose price was directly related to, and moved
with, the price of 20 underlying securities held in the B2B Internet
Holdrs trust. The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the
federal securities laws by issuing and selling B2B Internet Holdrs
Depositary Receipts, in an IPO on February 23, 2000, pursuant to a
registration statement and prospectus that were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that a substantial proportion
of the B2B Internet Holdrs trust's initial portfolio consisted of stocks
whose prices had been artificially inflated through the use of improper
practices relating to their initial public offering, and that they
therefore traded at artificially inflated prices. The price of B2B
Internet Holdrs has fallen from a March 14, 2000 high of $108 per B2B
Internet Holdr to a low of $4.26 on April 3, 2001.

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

NCI BUILDING: Edward J. Carreiro Announces Filing of Securities Lawsuit
Law Offices of Edward J. Carreiro, of Hatboro, PA, on April 18 announced
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against NCI Building Systems,
Inc. and its officers resulting from violation of the federal and/or
state securities laws for those individuals who purchased the NCI
Building Systems, Inc. stock in the following class period:

Corporation                   Class Period
NCI Building Systems, Inc.    NYSE:NCS  8/25/99 - 4/12/01

Contact: Law Offices of Edward J. Carreiro Edward J. Carreiro,
215/672-7600 carreirolaw@yahoo.com

NEW YORK LIFE: Withdraws Pension Assets from Its Mutual Funds
The New York Life Insurance Company, pitted against its employees in a
class-action suit over their retirement plans, has said that the company
is justified in investing pension assets in its own mutual funds. But a
recent securities filing revealed that New York Life was withdrawing all
of its pension assets, about $1.8 billion, from its Eclipse family of
mutual funds even as it was defending its investment actions in federal

Two weeks ago, Judge Bruce W. Kaufman of United States District Court in
Philadelphia said a trial could proceed to consider whether New York Life
violated its fiduciary duties by charging its workers and agents up to 25
times the market rates for managing their pension fund. Judge Kaufman
dismissed a racketeering charge.

A New York Life official said at the time that the partial dismissal
affirmed that financial companies could invest in their products.

But the official did not disclose the withdrawals, which cut the assets
of the Eclipse funds by a third. New York Life, which also runs the
MainStay family of funds, disclosed the move on Page 232 of a recent
299-page securities filing.

How a financial services company treats its retirement plan is a delicate
issue. Federal law requires that retirement funds be managed only for the
benefit of workers and retirees. The class-action suit contends that New
York Life has been treating the retirement assets of employees as seed
capital to bolster its mutual funds and that the bonuses of several
executives were tied to the size of the firm's mutual fund assets.

It is rare for a large defined-benefit pension plan, which provides
retired employees with a fixed amount of money based on tenure and
salary, to invest in mutual funds. Unlike 401(k)'s, pension plans do not
require the convenient presentation of mutual funds because employees
have no role in managing the money. Pension plans do not face the
unpredictable asset flows of 401(k)'s, as thousands of employees move in,
out and among funds. As a result, pensions are managed by investment
firms for significantly lower fees.

Eli Gottesdiener, a Washington lawyer who filed the suit against the
insurer, said the withdrawal of the money was "an admission of guilt."

Mr. Gottesdiener said that if New York Life had now decided its mutual
funds were not good investments for its pension plan, then they were
never good investments.

George J. Trapp, an executive vice president at New York Life, said the
withdrawals were a result of suggestions made by a consulting firm hired
in 1999 to appraise the pension. "By no means is it an admission of
guilt," he said. "This is a process that began well before we heard of
Eli Gottesdiener or his lawsuit."

Mr. Trapp said the consultants had suggested that the pension plan use
investment strategies not available among Eclipse's 15 funds, like
investing in private companies, though he did not clarify why that would
explain withdrawing all of the money from the funds. The money will
continue to be managed by New York Life's fund managers but in private,
separate accounts.

"The separate account gives you greater flexibility," Mr. Trapp said,
adding that "cost is a factor, but not the predominant factor."

The company does not intend to withdraw its Eclipse funds as offerings in
its 401(k) plans. The suit contends that the Eclipse funds are more
expensive than most funds in 401(k)'s. A tentative settlement was reached
earlier this month in a similar suit that Mr. Gottesdiener filed against
First Union Bank and its 401(k). Under its settlement, First Union has
agreed to pay $26 million and hire an independent financial adviser to
help oversee the plan.

The assets of some Eclipse funds have been cut by nearly 80 percent. The
Eclipse Value Equity fund has fallen to $162 million from $746 million.
Generally, such a decline would require a wave of stock sales and result
in huge taxable capital gains. In this case, the Eclipse funds are paying
the pension plan in securities instead of cash, which should reduce such
concerns. The fees have been capped, a New York Life official said, and
stock shares with the lowest cost basis would be transferred into the
tax-sheltered pension plan.

Michael Lipper, the founder and former chairman of Lipper Inc., the
fund-tracking firm, agreed that such a move could be a tax benefit to
shareholders. But, he added, questions remained.

"When an investment adviser contributes defined-benefit plan assets to
its own mutual fund, there's a potential conflict," Mr. Lipper said.

Norman Stein, a professor and pension expert at the University of
Alabama, said "for a defined-benefit plan of any size to be invested in
mutual funds, it's hard to make a case for it."

"If you're controlling a big lump of money," Mr. Stein said, "and you're
not giving investors choices, which you don't in a defined-benefit plan,
it's difficult to justify the extra fees." (The New York Times, April 19,

OTTAWA: Urged to Give up Appeal in $1.6 Bil Veterans' Lawsuit
Prime Minister Jean Chretien has a legal and moral duty to "make peace"
with Canadian war veterans whose money was mishandled by the federal
government, their supporters say.

The son of a deceased soldier and a lawyer representing as many as 10,000
people in a class action lawsuit urged Ottawa April 18 to give up its
appeal of a court ruling which could force a $1.6 billion payout to
veterans and their relatives.

Ontario Superior Court Justice John Brockenshire ruled last October the
government failed veterans who were declared incompetent and under its
care by not investing their money when it took over their finances.

The judge ruled inoperative a section of the Veterans Affairs Act that
prohibits lawsuits claiming interest prior to 1990.

In a meeting at the Ontario Court of Appeal, Ontario Chief Justice Roy
McMurtry scheduled Oct. 1 as the start of the federal government's
appeal. David Greenaway, a lawyer involved in the class action, told a
news conference in Toronto, "We are here on behalf of our clients, who
have no voice, to tell the federal government that their day of reckoning
is coming."

Lawyers in the class action plan to vigorously oppose the the appeal, but
"the door is open" to negotiating a settlement, he said.

Federal lawyer John Spencer called the news conference "unfortunate."

"He's using the pressure of the press and media to negotiate a
settlement, which is usually done confidentially," Spencer said.

Roger Langen, a Toronto high school teacher whose father George was the
lone survivor of an ambush in Italy during World War II, says he hasn't
even had a response to a letter he sent to Chretien last Nov. 11.

Langen urged other veterans to speak up for their mentally disabled
counterparts. The dominant voice so far has been that of Cliff
Chadderton, who as head of a national veterans' council bitterly opposes
the lawsuit and is expected to seek to intervene in the appeal.

"Would it please you to know that your pension, for services rendered to
your country, would earn less over a period of nearly 20 years than your
grandchild's deposit of $5 could earn in a month? That, too, happened to
my father," Langen said.

His father went off to war at 17, became a sergeant and carried a
submachine gun, Langen said. After the war, he returned home to New
Brunswick, married and became a lawyer, but "his mind grew more and more
seized with the obsessions of the past," his son said. His father became
an alcoholic and ended up on the streets, suffering from dementia, Langen

At age 49, his father went to live in Sunnybrook's veterans' wing, then
in 1990 went back to New Brunswick until his death two years ago at 74.

After learning in 1987 that interest wasn't being paid on his account,
the family obtained power of attorney and his mother got a cheque from
the government for $76,000 in unused principle, Langen said. (The Toronto
Star, April 19, 2001)

PLANETRX.COM, INC: Milberg Weiss Announces Securities Suit in New York
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit was filed on April 18, 2001 on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of PlanetRx.com, Inc. ("PlanetRx" or the "Company")
(OTC: BB PLRX.OB) between October 7, 1999 and March 24, 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:

The action, numbered, 01-CV-3272, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, located at 500
Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, against defendants PlanetRx; William J.
Razzouk; Steve Valenzuela; The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. ("Goldman
Sachs"); BancBoston Roberston Stephens, Inc. ("BancBoston"); Bear Stearns
& Co., Inc.; ("Bear Stearns"); Merrill Lynch, Fenner & Smith,
Incorporated ("Merrill Lynch"); and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (Salomon).

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On October 7, 1999,
PlanetRx commenced an initial public offering of 6 million of its shares
of common stock at an offering price of $16 per share (the "PlanetRx
IPO"). In connection therewith, PlanetRx filed a registration statement,
which incorporated a prospectus (the "Prospectus"), with the SEC. The
complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and
misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i)
Goldman Sachs, BancBoston, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and Salomon had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors in exchange for which Goldman Sachs, BancBoston, Bear Stearns,
Merrill Lynch and Salomon allocated to those investors material portions
of the restricted number of PlanetRx shares issued in connection with the
PlanetRx IPO; and (ii) Goldman Sachs, BancBoston, Bear Stearns, Merrill
Lynch and Salomon had entered into agreements with customers whereby
Goldman Sachs, BancBoston, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and Salomon agreed
to allocate PlanetRx shares to those customers in the PlanetRx IPO in
exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional PlanetRx
shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. As alleged in the
complaint, the SEC is investigating underwriting practices in connection
with several other initial public offerings.

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

QUIGLEY'S CORP: Zinc Lozenges Unlikely To Curb Lawsuit over Common Cold
Until the mid-1990s, curing the common cold was compared to achieving
world peace in its level of difficulty. But then, a little zinc lozenge
came along and promised to change all that.

The television, radio and Internet ads that claimed Cold-Eeze lozenges
could either prevent or lessen the duration of the common cold are now
off the air. But that hasn't stopped two plaintiffs from pursuing a class
action against the Quigley Corp. for false advertising. The case received
a mixed ruling on preliminary objections April 9 in Commerce Court from
Judge John W. Herron, allowing the plaintiffs' implied warranty and
unjust enrichment claims to go forward, as well as claims under the
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law for its Internet ads.

                         The Case

If certified as a class, plaintiffs Jason Tesauro and Elizabeth Eley
would represent all people who purchased Cold-Eeze-brand zinc lozenges,
made by the Quigley Corp., between 1996 and 1999. The pair claim that,
despite the claims in Quigley's ads, the lozenges were about as helpful
as the infamous Carbolic Smoke Ball in preventing or lessening the common
cold and its symptoms.

In that 1893 case, manufacturer and plaintiff battled over the terms of
offer and acceptance.But in 2000's Tesauro v. The Quigley Corporation,
filed last August, the plaintiffs alleged that Quigley violated the
UTPCPL, breached the UCC implied warranty of merchantability and were
unjustly enriched. Quigley gained a market foothold by initially selling
the lozenges exclusively through shopping channel QVC. Later, they were
sold in retail stores. According to court papers, Cold-Eeze sales reached
$ 70.2 million in 1997.

But in 1999, the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against
Quigley for false and misleading ads. The company had claimed in its
radio, television and Internet ads that it Cold-Eeze lozenges were
"clinically proven" to prevent or reduce the severity of colds and flu.
The FTC said these claims violated the Federal Trade Commission Act
because Quigley "did not have a reasonable basis" to claim Cold-Eeze
produced these health benefits.In February 1999, the FTC and Quigley
signed a consent order in which Quigley admitted no violation of the law,
but promised not to make any further health claims about Cold-Eeze
lozenges until it had "competent and reliable scientific evidence" to
substantiate them.

Interestingly, the plaintiffs never alleged they personally saw or relied
on the Quigley ads. In his 13-page ruling on preliminary objections in
the case, Judge Herron pointed out that contrary to Quigley's argument
this wasn't fatal to their claim.Herron speculated that the plaintiffs
likely chose not to plead reliance because it "might require an
individualized inquiry that would not meet the class certification
requirements of numerosity, commonality and typicality." The plaintiffs
alleged that Quigley engaged in five of the 21 practices that "constitute
unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices"
under the UTPCPL: deceptive marketing of goods, marketing of altered
goods, "bait" advertising, breach of written warranty and fraud.

                      False Advertising

The court overruled Quigley's demurrer to the plaintiffs' false
advertising claims. In order to state a false advertising claim, Herron
said, a plaintiff must show that a defendant's advertising:

   -- Is a false representation of fact,

   -- Actually deceives or has a tendency to deceive a substantial
      segment of its audience, and that

   -- The false representation is likely to make a difference in the
      purchasing decision.

The plaintiffs must also show they suffered an "ascertainable loss of
money or property as a result" of the false ads. Although the complaint
did not specifically allege that the ads deceived or were likely to
deceive their audience, it discussed the content of the ads and the
number of sales, which was enough to render it "sufficiently specific,"
Herron said." The complaint alleges that the defendant called its product
'Cold-Eeze' and that the ads touted the product's effectiveness against
colds, pneumonia and allergies," Herron said. "The complaint sufficiently
alleges facts to support a finding that the ads made a difference in some
consumers' decisions to buy Cold-Eeze and that the ads increased the
demand for and the price of Cold-Eeze."

                Written and Implied Warranties

Herron sustained Quigley's demurrer to the written warranty claim, but
only in part. The claim was problematic because it involved a written
guarantee. The judge pointed out that the UTPCPL does not define the term
"written," nor do the few cases that address the 1976 amendment to the
UTPCPL. Nor does the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which regulates
a narrow class of statutorily-defined written warranties. After
considering the purpose of the UTPCPL, as well as definitions of
"writing" in Black's Law Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary, Herron concluded: "the seller gives the buyer a written
guarantee or warranty under [the UTPCPL] if the seller intentionally sets
forth the guarantee or warranty in letters, words or the equivalent on a
physical medium and gives the guarantee to the buyer in that form." But
this definition remains ambiguous. Herron used the word "physical" to
describe the medium required, but many would consider the Internet not to
be a physical medium. Since in the next sentence he concluded, "The
defendant intentionally set forth it Internet ad in letters and words on
a visible medium buyers' computer screens linked to the Internet," it
seemed the word "visible" may be the gravamen of the definition. At
least, it was in this case. Because the television and radio ads were not
written, they would not fall under UTPCPL, and Herron sustained Quigley's
demurrer as to them. Because a factfinder could find the statement in
Quigley's Internet ad that Cold-Eeze contains a "patented formula
clinically proven to reduce the severity and duration of common cold
symptoms" could create an express warranty Herron overruled Quigley's
demurrer insofar as the plaintiffs claimed a breach of written warranty
on the Internet ad.

Quigley lost on its attempt to demur on a UCC implied warranty claim,
because the Cold-Eeze lozenges are "goods" as contemplated by the UCC and
within the statute. Only when medications are dispensed by a hospital,
where the service of giving medical care predominates, would medicines
cease to be "goods."

                  Fraud, Unjust Enrichment

Herron sustained Quigley's demurrer to fraud, calling the plaintiffs'
claims under the UTPCPL "legally insufficient." "To state a claim under
these sections, the plaintiffs must allege the elements of common law
fraud. In spite of this requirement, the plaintiffs admit in their brief
that their claims are not based on fraud," Herron said. A fraud claim
would also mean the plaintiffs had justifiably relied on a
misrepresentation, and the plaintiffs never said they relied on Quigley's
ads. But Herron overruled Quigley's demurrer on the issue of unjust
enrichment. "The plaintiffs gave the defendant a benefit money for a cold
remedy, and the defendant appreciated, accepted and retained the money,"
said Herron. "It would be inequitable for the defendant to keep this
money if the plaintiffs did not in fact receive a cold remedy." (The
Legal Intelligencer, April 18, 2001)

THOMAS & BETTS: Contests Consolidated Securities Suits in TN
On February 16, 2000, certain shareholders of the Corporation filed a
purported class-action suit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee against the Corporation, Clyde R. Moore and
Fred R. Jones.

The complaint alleges fraud and violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder. The plaintiffs allege that purchasers of the Common Stock
between April 28, 1999, and December 14, 1999, were damaged when the
market value of the stock dropped by nearly 29 percent on December 15,
1999. The plaintiffs allege generally that the defendants artificially
inflated the market value of the Common Stock by a series of misleading
statements or by failing to disclose certain adverse information. An
unspecified amount of damages is sought.

On July 12, 2000, the Corporation filed a Motion to Dismiss the suit,
together with a memorandum of law in support of the motion to dismiss.
After the motion was fully briefed, but before argument, plaintiffs
requested and were granted leave to file an amended pleading adding
claims based on the Corporation's announcement of additional accounting
charges on August 21, 2000. A further amended complaint was subsequently
filed expanding the alleged plaintiff class to include all purchasers of
the Corporation's securities from April 28, 1999 to August 21, 2000.

On August 28, 2000, a shareholder filed a purported class-action suit in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
against the Corporation, Clyde R. Moore, T. Kevin Dunnigan, Fred R. Jones
and John P. Murphy.

The complaint alleges fraud and violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder. The plaintiffs allege that purchasers of the Common Stock
between February 15, 2000 and August 21, 2000 were damaged when the
market value of the stock dropped by nearly 26% on June 20, 2000, and
fell another 8% on August 22, 2000. The plaintiffs allege generally that
the defendants artificially inflated the market value of the Common Stock
by a series of materially false and misleading statements or by failing
to disclose certain adverse information. An unspecified amount of damages
is sought. Three additional complaints alleging essentially identical
claims were subsequently filed against the same defendants in the same
court by plaintiffs represented by the same counsel who filed the August
28 action.

On December 12, 2000, the Court issued an order consolidating all of the
above actions into a single action, and appointing lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on January
25, 2001. The consolidated complaint essentially repeats the allegations
in the earlier complaints described above, but does not name T. Kevin
Dunnigan or John P. Murphy as defendants. The Corporation intends to
contest the litigation vigorously and filed a renewed motion to dismiss
on March 12, 2001. At this early stage of litigation, the Corporation is
unable to predict the outcome of this litigation and its ultimate effect,
if any, on the financial condition of the Corporation. However,
management believes that there are meritorious defenses to the claims.
Mr. Moore and Mr. Jones, the only individual defendants, may be entitled
to indemnification by the Corporation.

VEHICLE SEIZURES: INS Moves Away from Practice in Border Enforcement
In a quiet but dramatic reversal, U.S. border inspectors are no longer
confiscating thousands of cars used to sneak undocumented immigrants into
the country.

The move away from the controversial practice comes in response to a U.S.
law that makes it harder to justify seizures when no criminal charges are
filed. The law, which took effect last August, also made it easier for
motorists to challenge seizures and required the U.S. government to pay
the legal bills of successful appellants.

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service officials said the prospect
of a tidal wave of court challenges and associated legal costs prompted
them to direct inspectors to give the keys back to motorists in all but
the most grave cases of immigrant smuggling, such as those in which
migrants' lives are jeopardized or when repeat offenders are involved.

The change also reflects a shift in attitude. Immigration officials say
they have come to view car seizures -- once a daily staple of border
enforcement -- as having questionable value in fighting smugglers. Many
cars in which undocumented migrants are ferried are junkers worth only a
few hundred dollars -- no serious loss to smuggling syndicates, officials

"I don't think it reduced smuggling significantly," said Adele J. Fasano,
INS district director in San Diego.

The INS traditionally seized more vehicles than any federal law
enforcement agency -- and no place saw more cars taken than the port of
entry at San Ysidro. The new law was expected to result in fewer seizures
by federal law enforcement agencies nationwide, but the drop at the
border has been steeper than anyone imagined.

Since last fall, the number of cars confiscated by the INS at the six
border crossings in California has tumbled from about 1,000 a month to
fewer than 60 -- a trend roughly mirrored at ports of entry across the
U.S.-Mexico border. In between official crossings, U.S. Border Patrol
agents in San Diego used to seize about 100 cars a month. That has
dropped to zero.

Mary Lundberg, a federal prosecutor who oversees the financial litigation
unit of the U.S. attorney's office in San Diego, said the decline
reflected a cautious response to the law by officials. She said it did
not mean that previous seizures were legally suspect.

"We're all trying to work with the new law. We're looking at it and being
conservative," Lundberg said.

The shift is welcome news to INS critics, who long held that the agency
abused its power by confiscating cars even when drivers were unaware
their passengers lacked legal status to enter. Last year, the INS settled
a class-action lawsuit with vehicle owners who alleged that the agency
gave little or no explanation for taking their cars.

"There were many cases in which the immigration service was abusive and
acted illegally in seizing the vehicle and refusing to release them to
innocent owners," said Robert Pauw, a Seattle lawyer who represented the

Pauw charged that officials were motivated to confiscate cars in part
because sales generated millions of dollars for the federal government.
The value of cars seized by INS inspectors at the six ports of entry in
California last year was about $ 46 million, according to the agency.

On the Southwest border, which has seen a big jump in people being hidden
in car trunks and compartments, inspectors complain that they have lost a
key weapon. Limited staffing, courtrooms and detention space mean a small
portion of the smuggling cases are prosecuted. Most migrants are sent
back to the Mexican side after booking. Vehicle forfeiture often was the
only punishment for transporting illegal immigrants.

"At least before, there was a sense you were hurt somehow for the crime
you committed. What is the incentive to not do it? There is none," said
immigration inspector Eric West, who is an officer in the union
representing inspectors.

"The only thing we have to go on right now is that most people don't
realize this. . . . It's really disheartening," said West, who works at
the San Ysidro crossing.

In the past, inspectors would have seized virtually every car that
carried a foreigner entering with fake documents or none. The owner had
to fight the action in federal court or through an INS administrative
appeal, but the odds of winning were poor. Now those motorists who are in
the United States legally can get their cars back once authorities have
logged the incident.

"In a short period of time--two or three hours--they're gone," said John
F. Gawron, a supervisory INS inspector who oversees forfeitures. He said
inspectors have seen cars that, released one day, come back another
carrying more undocumented immigrants.

Top INS officials said it is too soon to tell whether the shift is
affecting enforcement. The INS and prosecutors from the U.S. attorney's
office in San Diego are examining ways that inspectors might seize more
cars without incurring huge legal expenses under the federal law, known
as the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act. The measure, sponsored by U.S.
Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), passed with broad bipartisan support.

The measure came in response to widespread reports of excesses by law
enforcement officers in seizing suspects' homes and other private
property, mainly in drug cases.

At the border, the impact has been to raise the standard of proof, from
probable cause to preponderance of evidence, that is needed in court to
link a vehicle to immigrant smuggling. The law also scrapped payment of a
bond formerly required of car owners who planned to fight forfeiture in
federal court.

Sam Stratman, a Hyde spokesman, said INS inspectors can still seize cars
under civil law, as long as they meet the bolstered due-process
standards. He said the changes left intact the government's power to
confiscate property when criminal charges are filed.

"Civil asset forfeiture was not removed from the arsenal of tools
available to law enforcement. But the reform ensures that the government
must prove that the party--in this case automobiles driven across the
border at San Diego--are involved in a criminal act. That is not too much
to ask," Stratman said.

Though the law has made seizures more difficult, it gave investigators
and prosecutors more clout to freeze smugglers' bank accounts and
overseas assets, officials said. Fasano said those powers may work better
against international rings than seizing thousands of cars.

Bruce Ward, deputy director for ports in San Ysidro, Otay Mesa and
Tecate, said inspectors continue to fill out seizure forms and log cars
in which illegal immigrants are discovered. The data can be retrieved and
used later to justify confiscation of a vehicle that repeatedly shows up
carrying undocumented immigrants.

"We're doing the paperwork," Ward said. "We just aren't taking the car."
(Los Angeles Times, April 19, 2001)

WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Bankruptcy Filing Does Not End Investor Suit
Shalov Stone & Bonner (www.lawssb.com), the law firm representing
investors in class actions against Winstar Communications Inc. (NASDAQ:
WCII), issued the following announcement in response to Winstar's recent
bankruptcy filing: Although Winstar has filed for bankruptcy, Shalov
Stone & Bonner intends to continue prosecuting the class actions against
the non-bankrupt defendants.

The bankruptcy may slow down the lawsuit, but it is not the end of it.
Investors are encouraged to contact our firm to learn more about the
lawsuit and how to participate in it, by visiting the firm's website at

Shalov Stone & Bonner conducted the investigation leading to the filing
of the Winstar class action and it was the first law firm to take action
in these cases. The firm is frequently retained by investors to conduct
investigations and initiate actions involving allegations of corporate
fraud. The members of the firm possess significant experience and
expertise conducting investigations and legal actions of this nature. The
firm's experience and accomplishments are discussed on its website -

The complaint against Winstar 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, in April 2001, contrary to prior representations about
Winstar's financial condition and growth, Winstar announced that it was
halting its expansion and laying off thousands of employees. Winstar
filed for bankruptcy two weeks later. The lawsuit is on behalf of
investors who purchased Winstar securities in the period from June 2000
to April 2, 2001.

Contact: Shalov Stone & Bonner, New York Mark J. Nemetz, 212/686-8004

WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Files for Chapter 11 Relief
Winstar Communications Inc., sought protection from creditors under
Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy code. In a related move, the New
York broadband supplier also sued Lucent Technologies for $ 10 billion
for breach of a vendor-financing agreement. Earlier this month, Winstar
defaulted on $ 75 million worth of interest payments and laid off 2,000
employees. (The Christian Science Monitor, April 19, 2001)

WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Suit in N.Y.
The following is an announcement by the law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed on April 18,
2001, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf all persons who purchased the common stock of Winstar
Communications, Inc. ("Winstar" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:WCII) between
August 2, 2000 to April 2, 2001 (the "Class Period").

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 August 2, 2000 and April 2, 2001, regarding the Company's
performance and future prospects. Specifically, defendants indicated to
investors that the Company was experiencing significant growth and was
sufficiently funded through the first quarter of 2002. In truth, however,
Winstar's strong financial results were the result of improper accounting
practices in which Winstar capitalized numerous capital expenditures as
assets instead of as expenses causing the Company's EBITDA to be
materially overstated. Winstar also overstated its revenues by improperly
reporting uncollectible receivables as revenues. Investors finally became
aware of Winstar's problems when, on April 2, 2001, Winstar announced
that it would be delaying the filing of its Form 10-K because it was
involved in material transactions that precluded it from making a timely
filing. On April 5, 2001, the Company announced that it was "halting" its
expansion plans and would be laying off approximately half of its
workforce. The reaction to these announcements was immediate and
punitive. On April 2, 2001, shares of Winstar stock closed at $0.875 per
share from a prior close of $2.16 per share. On April 6, 2001, shares of
Winstar stock declined even further to close at $0.40, far less than the
class period high of $32 per share.

Contact: Stull, Stull & Brody, New York Tzivia Brody, Esq.,
1-800-337-4983, e-mail:SSBNY@aol.com fax: 212/490-2022


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  * * *