CAR_Public/010524.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Thursday, May 24 2001, Vol. 3, No. 102

                              Headlines

AMERICAN ELECTRIC: SD Ohio Court to Hear Arguments on Dismissal Motion
ANCHOR GAMING: Federal And State Courts Dismiss Securities Lawsuits
AVANT CORP.: $47.5 Mil Settlement With Shareholders Awaits Court Nod
BANK PLUS: Motion to Dismiss Credit Card Suit in Alabama Still Pending
BAUSCH & LOMB: Edward Carreiro Files Lawsuit Against Company, Others

BROADVISION INC.: Expects All Securities Lawsuits to be Consolidated
CALIFORNIA AMPLIFIER: Mark McNair Extends Period of Securities Suit
CITADEL COMMUNICATIONS: Expects Settlement of Five Shareholders Suits
FIRST VIRTUAL: Appellate Court Has Yet to Set Date For Oral Arguments
FORD MOTOR: Recalls Add'l 13 M Firestone Tires Used on Ford Explorers

FREEMARKETS INC: Mark McNair Files Securities Suit Against CEO And CFO
GEMSTAR TV: Plaintiffs' Motion For Summary Judgment Pending in NY Court
GLOBALSTAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Dismissal Motion Hearing Set For June 7
HIGHWOODS REALTY: Final Settlement Hearing of Suit Scheduled For Today
HUMPHREY HOSPITALITY: Faces Two Shareholders Suits Filed in ED Virginia

JDN REALTY: Says Plaintiff's Amendment to Securities Suit is Improper
JDN REALTY: Shareholders File Suit For Fraud And Various Violations     
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Lawsuit For $60 Million
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial on LifeScan Lawsuit Begins This September
LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in New York

LORAL SPACE: Stull Stull Commences Shareholder Suit in S.D. New York
MATRIX BANCORP: Subsidiary Intends to File Motion to Compel Arbitration
MICROFIELD GRAPHICS: Maintains Denial of Allegations in Securities Suit
ONYX ACCEPTANCE: Continues Vigorous Defense Against Securities Lawsuit
OPEN DOOR: Milazzo Fortunato Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey

OPEN MARKET: Court Consolidates Securities Suits Filed Against Company
P-COM INC: California Court Certifies Shareholders Plaint as Class Suit
PROTECTION ONE: Court to Hear Motion to Dismiss Amended Plaint in June
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Class Remains Uncertified in Illinois and Alabama
QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: Settlement Pact Awaits Approval From Court

RAZORFISH INC.: Court Intends to Dismiss Securities Suit in SD New York
RSA SECURITY: Agreement to Settle Shareholders Suit Needs Court Nod
SECURITY CAPITAL: Homestead Pays $675,000 to Settle Shareholders Suits
SMARTFORCE PUBLIC: Mounting Strong Defense Against Suit in California
SOUTHERN EDISON: Faces Securities Suit in L.A. For Fraudulent Report

SPEEDWAY MOTORSPORT: Class Has Yet to be Certified in Johnson Lawsuit
SULZER ORTHOPEDICS: Weiner & Cox Files Liability Suit in Michigan


                              *********


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: SD Ohio Court to Hear Arguments on Dismissal Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 23, 2000, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York seeking unspecified compensatory
damages against American Electric Power Company, Inc. and four former
or present officers.

The individual plaintiff also seeks certification as the representative
of a class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired AEP common stock between July 25, 1997, and June 25,
1999.

The complaint alleges the defendants knowingly violated federal
securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements concerning, among other things:

     (i) the undisclosed materially impaired condition of the Cook
Plant,

    (ii) AEP's inability to properly monitor, manage, repair, supervise
and report on operations at the Cook Plant and the materially adverse
conditions these problems were having, and would continue to have,

   (iii) AEP's deteriorating financial condition, and

    (iv) ultimately on AEP's operations, liquidity and stock price.

Four other similar class action complaints have been filed and the
court has consolidated the five cases. The plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint pursuant to this court order. This
case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.

On March 5, 2001, AEP and the individual defendants filed a
comprehensive motion to dismiss all claims against all defendants in
the consolidated cases. The Court has set oral arguments on the motion
for June 7, 2001.


ANCHOR GAMING: Federal And State Courts Dismiss Securities Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Several securities class action lawsuits were filed against Anchor
Gaming and certain current and former officers and directors. The
lawsuits were filed in various jurisdictions following the announcement
in early December 1997 that the Company's results for the December
quarter might not meet analysts' expectations.

The lawsuits were brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's stock and allege violations of state and/or federal
securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements and omissions to
state material facts over various periods of time covered by the suits.

The lawsuits were consolidated in Nevada, both in federal and state
court. The consolidated federal action, captioned In re Anchor Gaming
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. CV-S-97-01751-PMP (RJJ), was
dismissed on January 6, 1999 with the court entering a judgment
in the Company's favor.

The consolidated state action, captioned Ryan, et al. v. Anchor Gaming,
et al., Civil No. A383456, was dismissed by Order of the Court dated
January 24, 2001.


AVANT CORP.: $47.5 Mil Settlement With Shareholders Awaits Court Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2001, Avant Corporation reached an agreement with attorneys
for the plaintiffs to settle the two class action stockholder lawsuits
that are currently pending against the Company.

Under the terms of the two tentative settlements, Avant will pay $47.5
million in cash to the plaintiff's classes, which will dismiss all of
their claims against the Company with prejudice. The proposed agreement
is subject to the execution of definitive settlement documents, court
approval and certain other contingencies following notice to the
affected shareholders.

The two lawsuits brought by Paul and Helen Margetis and by Joanne
Hoffman, on behalf of certain purchasers of Avant common stock, were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California in 1995 and 1997, respectively.


BANK PLUS: Motion to Dismiss Credit Card Suit in Alabama Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bank Plus Corporation and MasterCard International, Inc. have been
named as defendants in a purported class action filed July 27, 1999 in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama,
entitled Evelyn L. Brown, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated vs. MasterCard International, Inc. and Fidelity Federal Bank,
Civil Action Case No. CV 99-A-788-N.

The plaintiff alleges she placed bets through a gambling site on the
Internet. The Internet site instructed her to open an account by
entering her credit card number. By this means, the plaintiff's
gambling expenses incurred on the Internet site were charged to a
MasterCard issued to the plaintiff by the Bank.

The plaintiff alleges that, in allowing its credit card to be used for
illegal gambling, the Bank violated a variety of Federal and State
statutes, including:

     (i) the Wire Act (18 U.S.C. Section 1084(a)),

    (ii) the Travel Act (18 U.S.C. Section 1952),

   (iii) a Federal statute that specifically prohibits conducing an
         illegal gambling business (18 U.S.C. Section 1955),

    (iv) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18
         U.S.C. Section 1962(c) and 1964(a)), and

     (v) a number of Alabama statutes.

The plaintiff seeks certification of a class, declaratory relief
voiding her credit card charges, unspecified compensatory damages,
triple exemplary damages under RICO, punitive damages, and attorneys
fees and costs.

The Bank and MasterCard have filed motions to dismiss the case. The
Bank believes that it should not have liability and that it has
substantial legal defenses to the lawsuit.

                                       
BAUSCH & LOMB: Edward Carreiro Files Lawsuit Against Company, Others
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Edward J. Carreiro of Hatboro, Pa. filed a class
action lawsuit against Bausch & Lomb, Network Commerce, Inc., and
Seaview Video technology, Inc., and its officers from violation of the
federal and/or state securities laws for those individuals who
purchased the above named stock in the following class periods:

     Corporation                      Class Period

     Bausch & Lomb                    4/13/00 - 8/24/00(NYSE:BOL)

     Network Commerce, Inc.           9/28/99 - 4/16/01 (NASDAQ:NWKC)

     Seaview Video Technology, Inc.   3/30/00 - 3/19/01 (NASDAQ:SEVU)

For more information, contact: Edward J. Carreiro, Esquire, of The Law
Offices of Edward J. Carreiro, 41 Byberry Road, Hatboro, Pennsylvania
19040, via email at carreirolaw@yahoo.com, or at 215/672-7600.


BROADVISION INC.: Expects All Securities Lawsuits to be Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 20, 2001, Broadvision Inc. filed a Form 8-K with the
Securities and Exchange Commission reporting that several purported
class action lawsuits had been filed against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors.

In each of the lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek to assert claims on behalf
of a class of all persons who purchased securities of the Company
between January 26, 2001 and April 2, 2001.

The complaints allege the Company and the individual defendants
violated federal securities laws in connection with the Company's
reporting of financial results during such period.

The Company expects all of the lawsuits will eventually be consolidated
into a single action, as is customary in such cases. The Company
believes the lawsuits are without merit and it will defend itself
vigorously.


CALIFORNIA AMPLIFIER: Mark McNair Extends Period of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Mark McNair has extended the class period of its
securities class action lawsuit against California Amplifier Inc.
(Nasdaq: CAMP). As a result, shareholders who purchased stock between
April 6, 2000 and March 28, 2001 are part of the class.

This change to the Class Period is due to an announcement by the
Company on May 22 that it expects to file with the SEC amended
quarterly reports for the periods ended May 29, 1999, August 28, 1999,
November 27, 1999, May 27, 2000 and November 25, 2000.

The deadline for filing a Lead Plaintiff Motion is May 29, 2001.

Prior to this announcement by the Company, on March 29, 2001, it
announced that its comptroller had resigned after making "certain
adjustments to the company's accounting records" that could force a
restatement of fiscal 2000 results that would reduce net income by as
much as $2.2 million. This announcement triggered a stock decline and
Nasdaq officials halted trading at $5.03, more than 90% off the
Company's Class Period high.

For more information, contact: Mark McNair at 1819 Pennsylvania Ave.
N.W. Suite 550, Washington, DC, 20006 by telephone at 877-511-4717, via
e-mail at wmmcnair@justice4investors.com or visit
http://www.justice4investors.com.  


CITADEL COMMUNICATIONS: Expects Settlement of Five Shareholders Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Citadel Communications Corporation disclosed in a recent regulatory
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it is facing
five separate purported class actions.

These actions were filed following the announcement of its proposed
merger with FLCC Acquisition Corp. pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with FLCC Holdings, Inc., dated January 15, 2001 and amended on
March 13 and 22, 2001.

The following lawsuits were filed against Citadel Communications and
other parties:

   1.) On January 17, 2001, William P. Burcin, an alleged stockholder
       of Citadel Communications, filed a purported class action under
       Nevada law in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada.

       The suit names as defendants Citadel Communications, several    
       directors of Citadel Communications, unidentified individuals
       (Does 1 through 100) and unidentified corporations (Roe
       Corporations 1 through 100).

       Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Citadel
       Communications and its board of directors caused plaintiff and
       other members of the purported class to be deprived of the value
       of their investment in Citadel Communications, that Citadel
       Communications and its board of directors failed to exercise
       ordinary care and diligence in the exercise of their fiduciary
       duties to the public stockholders of Citadel Communications, and
       that plaintiff and the other members of the purported class will
       be irreparably harmed by defendants' actions.

       The complaint seeks the following relief:
     
         (i) class action status;
       
        (ii) a declaration that the merger agreement is unenforceable;       

       (iii) an order enjoining the merger agreement and enjoining
             defendants from consummating the merger until Citadel
             Communications discloses all material facts regarding the
             merger and implements procedures to obtain the highest
             possible price for Citadel Communications;

        (iv) an order directing the defendant directors to exercise
             their fiduciary duties and rescinding any agreements to
             pay Forstmann Little & Co. termination fees;

         (v) unspecified damages; and

        (vi) costs and disbursements, including attorneys' and    
             experts' fees.

   2.) On January 17, 2001, Rolling Investor Group Inc., an alleged   
       stockholder of Citadel Communications, filed a purported class
       action under Nevada law in the District Court, Clark County,
       Nevada.

       The suit names as defendants Citadel Communications, several
       directors of Citadel Communications, Forstmann Little & Co.,
       FLCC Holdings, Inc. and FLCC Acquisition Corp.

       Plaintiff's allegations include the following: the merger is
       unfair to the stockholders of Citadel Communications; the
       defendant directors have breached their fiduciary and common law
       duties by failing to properly auction Citadel Communications and
       to ensure the highest possible price is paid to Citadel
       Communications' public stockholders; and plaintiff and the other
       members of the purported class will be irreparably harmed by
       defendants' actions.

       The complaint seeks the following relief:

         (i) class action status and certification of plaintiff as
             class representative;

        (ii) a preliminary and permanent order enjoining the merger or,
             in the event the merger is consummated, rescission
             thereof;

       (iii) unspecified compensatory damages together with prejudgment   
             interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; and

        (iv) costs and disbursements, including attorneys' and experts'
             fees.

   3.) On January 18, 2001, John Newalanic, an alleged stockholder of
       Citadel Communications, filed a purported class action in the
       District Court, Clark County, Nevada, against Citadel
       Communications and several of its directors.

       Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants are
       attempting to deprive plaintiff and other members of the
       purported class of the value of their investment in Citadel
       Communications, that defendants have failed to exercise ordinary
       care and diligence in the exercise of their fiduciary duties to   
       the public stockholders of Citadel Communications, and that
       plaintiff and the other members of the purported class will be
       irreparably harmed by defendants' actions.

       The complaint seeks the following relief:

         (i) class action status;

        (ii) a declaration that the merger agreement is unenforceable;

       (iii) an order enjoining defendants from proceeding with the
             merger agreement and from consummating the merger until
             Citadel Communications implements procedures to obtain the
             highest possible price for Citadel Communications;

        (iv) an order directing the defendant directors to exercise
             their fiduciary duties until the sale or auction of
             Citadel Communications is completed and rescinding any
             terms of the merger agreement that have been implemented;

         (v) unspecified damages; and

        (vi) costs and disbursements, including attorneys' and experts'
             fees.

   4.) On January 19, 2001, Ray Jourdan, an alleged stockholder of
       Citadel Communications, filed a purported class action in the
       District Court, Clark County, Nevada.

       The suit names as defendants Citadel Communications, several of   
       its directors, unidentified individuals (Does 1 through 100) and
       unidentified corporations (Roe Corporations 1 through 100).

       Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the director
       defendants have failed to announce active auction of Citadel
       Communications, that the director defendants are abiding by a
       process that will deprive purported class members of the value
       of their investment in Citadel Communications, that the
       directors have failed to exercise ordinary care and diligence in
       the exercise of their fiduciary duties to the public
       stockholders of Citadel Communications, and that plaintiff and
       the other members of the purported class will be irreparably
       harmed by defendants' actions.

       The complaint seeks the following relief:
    
         (i) class action status;

        (ii) a declaration that the merger agreement is unenforceable;      

       (iii) an order enjoining the merger agreement and enjoining
             defendants from consummating the merger until Citadel
             Communications discloses all material facts regarding the
             merger and implements procedures to obtain the highest
             possible price for Citadel Communications;

        (iv) an order directing the defendant directors to exercise    
             their fiduciary duties and rescinding any agreements to
             pay Forstmann Little & Co. termination fees;

         (v) unspecified damages; and

        (vi) costs and disbursements, including attorneys' and experts'
             fees.

   5.) On February 13, 2001, Allan B. Bowdach, an alleged stockholder
       of Citadel Communications, filed a purported class action in the
       District Court, Clark County, Nevada.

       The suit names as defendants Citadel Communications, several
       directors of Citadel Communications, Forstmann Little & Co.,
       FLCC Holdings, Inc. and FLCC Acquisition Corp.

       Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the defendant
       directors have conflicts of interest in the merger, that the
       defendant directors have breached their fiduciary and common law
       duties by failing to properly auction Citadel Communications and
       to ensure the highest possible price is paid to Citadel
       Communications' public stockholders, and that plaintiff and the
       other members of the purported class will be irreparably harmed
       by defendants' actions.

       The complaint seeks the following relief:

         (i) class action status and certification of plaintiff as
             class representative;

        (ii) a preliminary and permanent order enjoining the merger or,
             in the event the merger is consummated, rescission
             thereof;

       (iii) unspecified compensatory damages together with prejudgment
             interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; and

        (iv) costs and disbursements, including attorneys' and experts'
             fees.

The Company believes that the allegations discussed above relating to
the proposed merger with FLCC Acquisition are without merit. The
parties to the foregoing proceedings have reached an agreement in
principle to settle all claims arising out of the proposed merger with
FLCC Acquisition pursuant to which certain changes were made to the
terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger and to the proxy statement
relating to the vote of Citadel Communications' stockholders based on
the suggestions and comments of plaintiffs' counsel.

The Company expects the agreement will be memorialized in a formal
settlement agreement and presented to the court for its approval.


FIRST VIRTUAL: Appellate Court Has Yet to Set Date For Oral Arguments
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On or about April 9, 1999, several purported class action suits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging violations of the federal securities laws against
FIRST VIRTUAL COMMUNICATIONS INC. and certain of its officers and
directors in connection with the Company's reporting of its financial
results for the period ended December 31, 1998.

The court dismissed these actions without leave to amend on February
14, 2000. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals on March 29, 2000. The appeal has been fully
briefed by all parties and no date for oral argument has yet been set.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls Add'l 13 M Firestone Tires Used on Ford Explorers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd. commends Ford Motor Company's recent
decision to put safety before profits in announcing that it will
replace an additional 13 million Firestone tires currently being used
on Ford Explorers.

Previously, on August 9, 2000, Bridgestone/Firestone announced a
voluntary recall of 6.5 million ATX, ATX II and Wilderness AT tires.
Firestone, however, continues to deny that it should recall any
additional tires.

There are alleged to be over 174 deaths and 700 injuries reported as a
result of dangerous and defective Firestone tires on Ford vehicles.

On August 28, 2000, Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd. filed its
Worldwide Class Action against Ford, Bridgestone and
Bridgestone/Firestone seeking, among other things, the recall of these
additional 13 million tires.

On October 24, 2000, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
Ordered that all cases pending in Federal Court be transferred and
consolidated before one judge in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Kenneth B. Moll believes that Ford's decision to replace these
defective and dangerous tires is a direct result of the pressure
against the company through evidence uncovered in this litigation.

Ford announced that it will replace all Wilderness AT tires, including
15, 16 and 17 inch tires on Ford Motor Company products. Customers will
be able to return the recalled tires to a Ford dealer and receive free
replacement tires not manufactured by Firestone.

Alternatively, customers will be reimbursed for replacing these
recalled tires at specified tire replacement centers. Customers will
receive up to $110 for each 15 inch tire and $130 for each 16 or 17
inch Firestone tire.

The reimbursement plan is available for customers who previously
replaced their Wilderness AT tires that were not included in the August
8, 2000 Firestone recall and for owners of Ford Explorers, Rangers,
Expeditions and F-150 trucks equipped with Wilderness AT tires.

It is estimated that all 13 million tires may be replaced over the next
nine months at a cost to Ford of $2.1 billion.

Attorney Kenneth Moll said, "Ford has made the correct decision that
will help protect millions of people. The replacement program comes as
we approach the warmer summer months when, historically, most of the
reported cases of tread separations have occurred. The additional 13
million recalled tires are the exact tires we requested be recalled in
August, 2000 when we filed our original complaint. Unfortunately, the
delay in recalling these tires may have resulted in the deaths of over
86 people."


FREEMARKETS INC: Mark McNair Files Securities Suit Against CEO And CFO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Mark McNair filed a securities class action lawsuit
against FreeMarkets, Inc. (Nasdaq: FMKT).  The complaint is on behalf
of shareholders who purchased the stock between July 24, 2000 and April
23, 2001.

The complaint alleges FreeMarkets improperly accounted for its
financial results for the second, third and fourth quarters and the
year of fiscal 2000.

The suit names FreeMarkets' chief executive officer and chief financial
officer as defendants.  These officers are charged with collectively
selling thousands of shares of FreeMarkets common stock during the
Class Period for proceeds totaling over $17 million.


GEMSTAR TV: Plaintiffs' Motion For Summary Judgment Pending in NY Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
During July and August 2000, Gemstar TV Guide International, Inc. was
served with more than twenty class action complaints filed primarily in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of magazine subscribers.

These complaints, which have been consolidated into a single action,
allege TV Guide, the Magazine Publishers Association, and twelve other
publishers of consumer magazines have violated federal antitrust laws
by conspiring to limit the discounting of magazine subscription prices
by means of rules adopted by the MPA and the Audit Bureau of
Circulation.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, trebled unspecified damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for partial
summary judgment which is pending before the Court.


GLOBALSTAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Dismissal Motion Hearing Set For June 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 20, 2001, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Globalstar Telecommunications Ltd. and Globalstar Capital
Corporation on behalf of the owners of the 10 3/4% bonds, due November
2004 in Superior Court, New Castle County, Delaware.

Globalstar Capital Corporation and Globalstar, L.P. issued the Bonds as
joint obligors. The next interest payment on the Bonds was due May 1,
2001.

The complaint alleges that the defendants repudiated the Bonds'
registration statement, prospectus and indenture, without consent of
the bondholders, when Globalstar announced that it was suspending its
future interest payments on the Bonds.

On April 23, 2001, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a cause of action. On June 7, 2001, arguments on this
motion will be heard.

    
HIGHWOODS REALTY: Final Settlement Hearing of Suit Scheduled For Today
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 2, 1998, John Flake, a former stockholder of J.C. Nichols,
filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and the
other former stockholders of J.C. Nichols in the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas against J.C. Nichols, certain of its
former officers and directors and Highwoods Realty Ltd. Partnership.

The complaint asserts claims against J.C. Nichols and certain named
directors and officers of J.C. Nichols for breach of fiduciary duty to
J.C. Nichols' stockholders, and to members of the J.C. Nichols Company
Employee Stock Ownership Trust, as well as claims under Section 14(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Sections 11 and 12(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933 variously against J.C. Nichols, the named
directors and officers of J.C. Nichols and the Company.

By order dated June 18, 1999, the court granted in part and denied in
part our motion to dismiss, and the court thereafter certified the
proposed class of plaintiffs with respect to the remaining claims.

By order dated August 28, 2000, the court granted in part and denied in
part defendants' summary judgment motion. Defendants sought
reconsideration of the court's ruling with respect to certain of the
securities claims as to which the court denied their summary judgment
motion, and by order dated January 11, 2001, the court granted in part
that reconsideration motion.

On the eve of the trial of this matter, the parties settled all their
remaining claims. The parties have executed a Stipulation of
Settlement, which has been submitted to the court. The final settlement
hearing is scheduled for May 24, 2001.


HUMPHREY HOSPITALITY: Faces Two Shareholders Suits Filed in ED Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent regulatory document filed by Humphrey Hospitality Trust, Inc.
with the Securities and Exchange Commission reveals that two class
actions have been filed against the Company in April this year in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The complaint alleges certain of the Company's executive officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  The complaints were brought on behalf
of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
from November 14, 2000 through March 29, 2001.  

They allege the defendants made false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's financial condition and operations and
artificially inflated the market price of the Company's securities
during the class period. The Company denies any wrongdoing and intends
to defend these claims vigorously.


JDN REALTY: Says Plaintiff's Amendment to Securities Suit is Improper
---------------------------------------------------------------------
JDN Realty Corporation has been named in a number of lawsuits since the
discovery of undisclosed compensation arrangements with two former
executive officers of JDN Development and the Company, additional
unauthorized benefits to these same two former executive officers, and
undisclosed related party transactions involving these two former
officers and the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company.  

One or more of these suits also names as defendants JDN Development and
certain current and former officers and directors of JDN Development
and/or the Company.

Certain class actions filed in federal court allege violations of the
federal securities laws asserting that by failing to report the
undisclosed compensation, unauthorized benefits and related party
transactions to the public in the Company's financial statements,
public filings, and otherwise, the defendants made or participated in
making material misstatements or omissions which caused the plaintiffs
to purchase the Company's common and preferred stock at artificially
inflated prices.

Included in the class actions is a lawsuit which names among the
defendants certain underwriters involved in the preferred stock
offering by the Company in 1998.

The Preferred Stock Class Action raises allegations similar to those
raised in the other class action cases, but it is based on purported
misrepresentations or omissions in the Company's registration statement
and prospectus in connection with the 1998 offering.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek compensatory damages of an
indeterminate amount, interest, attorneys' fees, experts' fees and
other costs and disbursements.

On April 17, 2000, the federal court entered an order consolidating the
various class actions in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia. On June 13, 2000, the federal court
entered an order appointing Clarion-CRA Securities lead plaintiff and
the law firm of Chitwood & Harley as lead plaintiff's counsel.

On February 13, 2001, plaintiffs in the Preferred Stock Class Action
purported to amend their complaint to add Waller Lansden Dortch &
Davis, PLLC, the Company's securities counsel, as a defendant.

The purported amendment was not filed by the lead plaintiff and the
Company has filed a motion to strike the purported amendment as
improper.

    
JDN REALTY: Shareholders File Suit For Fraud And Various Violations     
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was also filed by shareholders against
JDN Realty Corporation, JDN Development, and four former officers and
directors of these companies in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Georgia.

The complaint contains substantially the same factual allegations
asserted in the federal class actions, but purports to seek relief
under state law for damages, which these plaintiffs allege should have
been paid to the class as dividends.

The original complaint contained claims of common law fraud, conversion
and purported violations of Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, but the fraud count has now been dropped by way of
an amended complaint recently filed by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and expenses, interest and equitable relief. The case was removed to
federal court, but has now been remanded back to Superior Court, where
it is currently pending.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Lawsuit For $60 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson has agreed to pay $60 million to settle a national
contact lens antitrust lawsuit, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
said Tuesday.

Spitzer said in a statement that the settlement, which may provide as
much as $100 in discounts for future purchases of contact lenses and
eye exams, also requires J&J to increase the availability of
replacement lenses at pharmacies, by mail order and on the Internet.
The settlement was submitted for court approval Tuesday.

J&J was the last defendant to settle an antitrust lawsuit brought by 32
states against three contact lens manufacturers and the American
Optometric Association.

In February, eye care products maker Bausch & Lomb Inc. said it would
offer a rebate to customers as part of the class-action lawsuit
settlement and take a charge from the case, resulting in a net loss for
fourth quarter 2000.

The case stems from a 1994 claim that Bausch & Lomb, Novartis AG, J&J,
optometrists and the American Optometric Association conspired in
refusing to sell contact lenses through alternative channels of
distribution, including mail-order companies, which often offer lower
prices.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial on LifeScan Lawsuit Begins This September
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson and its LifeScan subsidiary are defendants in several
class actions filed in federal and state courts in California in 1998
in which it is alleged that purchasers of SureStep blood glucose meters
and strips suffered economic harm because those products contained
undisclosed defects.

In late 2000, LifeScan pleaded guilty in federal court to three
misdemeanors and paid a total of $60 million in fines and civil costs
to resolve an investigation related to those same alleged defects.

In one of the federal class actions, a nationwide class was certified
by the district court last year and trial has been scheduled for
September of this year.  The Company and LifeScan believe these claims
are without merit and are vigorously defending these actions.


LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action
suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Liberate Technologies, Inc.
(Nasdaq: LBRT) securities during the period between July 27, 1999 and
December 6, 2000.

The complaint charges defendants Liberate, Credit Suisse First Boston
Corp., BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc., Mitchell E. Kertzman and Nancy J. Hilker with
violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.

The complaint further alleges the Prospectus was materially false and
misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (i) Credit Suisse, BancBoston and Merrill Lynch had solicited and
         received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for which Credit Suisse, BancBoston and
         Merrill Lynch allocated to those investors material portions
         of the restricted number of Liberate shares issued in
         connection with the Liberate IPO; and

    (ii) Credit Suisse, BancBoston and Merrill Lynch had entered into
         agreements with customers whereby Credit Suisse, BancBoston
         and Merrill Lynch agreed to allocate Liberate shares to those
         customers in the Liberate IPO in exchange for which the
         customers agreed to purchase additional Liberate 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.

For more information, contact: Jackie Addison, Sue Null, or Charlie
Gastineau of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP at P.O. Box 25438,
Little Rock, AR 72221-5438, Toll Free: 1-888-551-9944, E-mail:
info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's website at
www.classlawyer.com.


LORAL SPACE: Stull Stull Commences Shareholder Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Loral Space
& Communications Ltd. (NYSE:LOR) between November 4, 1999 and February
1, 2001.

The action, numbered 01 Civ 4388, is pending in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl
Street, New York, NY 10007, against defendants Loral Space &
Communications Ltd., Bernard Schwartz, and Richard J. Townsend. The
Honorable John G. Koeltl is the judge presiding over the case.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions of material facts concerning the
company's business performance during the relevant time, and that these
statements failed to disclose that Globalstar was experiencing
regulatory problems and delays in receiving necessary European
approvals to achieve sales in conformity with Globalstar's stated
business plans. In fact, undisclosed regulatory delays effectively
prevented sales in Europe until approximately April or May of 2000.

The statements allegedly failed to disclose that Globalstar's business
plans were predicated primarily on sales in developed nations and that
Globalstar phones did not offer roaming service, rendering them
uncompetitive in developed nations.

Furthermore, defendant Schwartz's statements about the number of phones
by December 31, 1999 and December 31, 2000 were materially false.
Defendant Schwartz had no basis for making such statements. Indeed,
defendant Schwartz was in a clear position to know that Globalstar's
projections were entirely without basis and that by December 31, 1999,
Globalstar would not sell phones or achieve subscriptions in remotely
those numbers.

For more information, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull &
Brody by calling toll-free 1-800-337-4983, or by e-mail at
SSBNY@aol.com, or by fax at 212/490-2022, or by writing to Stull, Stull
& Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017.


MATRIX BANCORP: Subsidiary Intends to File Motion to Compel Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Matrix Bancorp, Inc. disclosed in a recent regulatory filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that one of its primary
subsidiaries, Sterling Trust Company, has been named a defendant in
several putative class action lawsuits instituted by one law firm in
Pennsylvania.

The style of such lawsuits are as follows:

     (i) Douglas Wheeler, et. al. v. Pacific Air Transport, et. al.;

    (ii) Paul C. Jared, et. al. v. South Mountain Resort and Spa, Inc.,    
         et. al.;

   (iii) Lawrence Rehrig, et. al. v. Caffe Diva, et. al.;

    (iv) Merrill B. Christman, et. al. v. Millennium 2100, Inc., et.
         al.;

     (v) David M. Veneziale, et. al. v. Sun Broadcasting Systems, Inc.,
         et. al.;

    (vi) Don Glazer, et. al. v. Technical Support Servs., Inc., et.
         al.; and

   (vii) Donald Maudlin, et. al. v. World Vision Entertainment, Inc.,   
         et. al.

All of such lawsuits were originally filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On April 26,
2001, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
ordered that all of such cases, except Maudlin, be transferred to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, so that
Sterling Trust may properly present its motion to compel arbitration.

Sterling Trust intends to file a motion to compel arbitration on each
of such actions within the time frames prescribed by the District Court
in Pennsylvania. With respect to the Maudlin case, Sterling Trust
has filed a motion to dismiss, since Sterling Trust can find no
evidence that the plaintiffs in that case ever had accounts with
Sterling Trust.


MICROFIELD GRAPHICS: Maintains Denial of Allegations in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2000, Microfield Graphics Inc. was named in a class action
lawsuit, Adair v. Microfield Graphics Inc. et. al 00 Civ. 0629 (MBM),
in the United States District Court Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that the Company and its Chief Executive Officer
issued a series of false and misleading statements concerning, among
other things, the Company's purchase agreement with 3M.

The complaint alleges that, as a result of these allegedly material
misstatements and omissions, the Company's stock price was artificially
inflated during the period from July 23, 1998 through April 2, 1999 and
requests that damages be determined at trial.

The Company denies the allegations and intends to vigorously defend
itself. However, the ultimate outcome of the litigation is presently
undeterminable.


ONYX ACCEPTANCE: Continues Vigorous Defense Against Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 26, 1999, Onyx Acceptance Financial Corporation released a
restatement of its financial statements for the years ended December
31, 1996 and 1997, and for the first three quarters of 1998.

On January 25, 2000, a putative class action complaint was filed, and
has since been amended, against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors alleging, among other matters, violations of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from
this restatement.

Onyx is vigorously defending against this matter and believes the
resolution of this litigation will not have a material adverse effect
on Onyx's consolidated financial position.


OPEN DOOR: Milazzo Fortunato Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milazzo, Fortunato, McCann & Murray, LLC, attorneys for Camille M.
Barbone and Tom Carley, have filed a motion in their class action and
derivative lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County
seeking to add as a defendant Open Door Online, Inc.

The suit alleges that Open Door Online, DeBaene and the Board of
Directors have committed fraud by substituting, without consent or
authorization, securities in lieu of payment on account of promissory
notes given by ODOL in exchange for loans from investors.

It also alleges that the acts of DeBaene and his co-defendants
constitute crimes in the nature of "racketeering" including, but not
limited to, theft, forgery, fraudulent practices and fraud in the
offering, sale or purchase of securities.

Further allegations describe misrepresentations made by DeBaene and
Randolph Biemel, through Mission Bay Consultant, when raising capital
for ODOL whereby they solicited loans for ODOL through the guise of no
risk, high interest promissory notes.

Other counts include the following allegation:

     (i) sale of unregistered securities,

    (ii) sale of unregistered or registered securities by
         unlicensed persons,

   (iii) solicitation of investments through false representations,

    (iv) creation of false debt on ODOL's books,

     (v) issuance of shares to DeBaene and his co-defendents without
         any valid consideration with the intent to hinder,

    (vi) delay and/or defraud the creditors and shareholders of ODOL,  
         and

   (vii) interference with the property rights of the Plaintiff class.

On April 10, 2001 the Plaintiffs attended the shareholders' meeting at
Open Door's corporate headquarters located in Coventry, Rhode Island. A
two tier voting procedure was adopted until such time as the court
rules on the shares of stock DeBaene and the Board of Directors
authorized and issued on the eve of the lawsuit.

The hearing is set for June 8, 2001 in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Bergen County. For further information, contact the attorneys
for Camille M. Barbone and Tom Carley: Milazzo, Fortunato, McCann &
Murray, LLC 15 Warren Street, Suite 20 Hackensack, New Jersey 07601
(201) 343-7070 (Telephone) (201) 343-7916 (Facsimile) E-Mail:
MFMLAWYERS@cs.com


OPEN MARKET: Court Consolidates Securities Suits Filed Against Company
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Six putative class actions were filed between June 14, 2000 and August
10, 2000, against Open Market Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

These actions, each filed on behalf of an alleged class of shareholders
who purchased the Company's common stock between November 18, 1999 and
April 18, 2000, allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the
Securities Exchange Act.

On January 25, 2001, the court entered an order consolidating these
actions into one action. This consolidated case is entitled IN RE OPEN
MARKET SECURITIES LITIGATION, C.A. No. 00-CV-11162.  On April 13, 2001,
the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint.

   
P-COM INC: California Court Certifies Shareholders Plaint as Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In September and October 1998, several class action complaints were
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, on
behalf of P-Com stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired P-Com
Inc.'s Common Stock between April 1997 and September 11, 1998.  

The plaintiffs allege various state securities laws violations by P-Com
and certain of its officers and directors.  The complaints seek un-
quantified compensatory, punitive and other damages, attorneys' fees
and injunctive and/or equitable relief.

On December 3, 1998, the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, entered an order consolidating all of the above complaints.  On
June 30, 2000 the Superior Court of California issued a notice of
ruling certifying this matter as a class action.


PROTECTION ONE: Court to Hear Motion to Dismiss Amended Plaint in June
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Protection One, Inc., its subsidiary Protection One Alarm Monitoring,
and certain present and former officers and directors of Protection One
are defendants in a purported class action litigation pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California,
Alec Garbini, et al v. Protection One, Inc., et al., No CV 99-3755 DT
(RCx).

Pursuant to an Order dated August 2, 1999, four pending purported class
actions were consolidated into a single action. On February 27, 2001,
plaintiffs filed a Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.

Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of a class consisting
of all purchasers of publicly traded securities of Protection One,
including common stock and notes, during the period of
February 10, 1998 through February 2, 2001.

The Amended Complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against Protection One, Monitoring, and certain present and former
officers and directors of Protection One based on allegations that
various statements concerning Protection One's financial results and
operations for 1997, 1998, 1999 and the first three quarters of 2000
were false and misleading and not in compliance with generally accepted
accounting principles.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that former employees of
Protection One have reported that Protection One lacked adequate
internal accounting controls and that certain accounting information
was unsupported or manipulated by management in order to avoid
disclosure of accurate information.

The Amended Complaint further asserts claims against Western Resources
and Westar Industries as controlling persons under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A claim is also asserted under Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against Protection One's auditor,
Arthur Andersen LLP.

The Amended Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages and an award of fees and expenses, including attorneys' fees.
Defendants have moved to dismiss, in part, the Amended Complaint. The
motion is scheduled to be heard June 4, 2001.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Class Remains Uncertified in Illinois and Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Providian Financial Corporation disclosed in a recent regulatory
document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it is
facing three class actions pending in state courts in San Mateo County,
California, Cook County, Illinois, and Bullock County, Alabama.

These actions were not consolidated with the Consolidated Action in
California and are proceeding separately. The parties have reached an
agreement to settle the San Mateo County, California action, which
involves a class consisting of a relatively small number of California
customers.

The settlement, which will not have a material impact on the Company,
is subject to court approval.

No class has been certified in the Cook County, Illinois or Bullock
County, Alabama actions. A motion to dismiss the Cook County, Illinois
action has been granted with prejudice, and the plaintiff has filed an
appeal.

These other state actions also contain substantially the same
allegations as those alleged in the Consolidated Action. Certain of the
actions also allege unconscionable or improper terms and fees,
disclosure violations, failure to honor customer requests and breach of
promises to customers.


QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: Settlement Pact Awaits Approval From Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning on September 30, 1999, several purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina against Quintiles Transnational Corporation
and several of its executive officers and directors on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's
common stock between July 16, 1999, and September 15, 1999.

These actions were subsequently consolidated and plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint purporting to represent a class of purchasers of the
stock or call options, and sellers of put options, during the period
between April 21, 1999, and September 15, 1999. The amended complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

Accordingly, the Company and the named officers and directors filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Immediately prior to the
hearing scheduled on February 6, 2001, on the motion to dismiss, the
parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. The parties have negotiated a
memorandum of understanding and the settlement is before the court for
approval.

        
RAZORFISH INC.: Court Intends to Dismiss Securities Suit in SD New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Razorfish, Inc. (NASDAQ: RAZF), a global digital solutions provider,
announced Tuesday the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York intends to dismiss the securities class action
filed in December 2000 against Razorfish and certain of Razorfish's
current and former officers and directors.

The Court informed the parties of its decision by telephone yesterday
and indicated that its opinion would be issued at a later date. The
litigation alleged that Razorfish and certain of its former officers
made misleading statements about the integration of i-Cube -- a company
acquired by Razorfish in 1999 -- in order to inflate Razorfish's share
price.

The Court's decision follows an earlier opinion appointing the lead
plaintiff in the litigation in which the Court criticized the
litigation as "lawyer-driven."

Razorfish is represented in the litigation by Jack Auspitz, Hilary
Williams, Julie Glynn and Susan Quinn of the New York office of
Morrison & Foerster.


RSA SECURITY: Agreement to Settle Shareholders Suit Needs Court Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On or about December 11, 1998, a purported class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of RSA Security Inc.
during the period from and including September 30, 1997 through
July 15, 1998: Fitzer v. Security Dynamics Technologies, Inc., Charles
R. Stuckey, Jr., D. James Bidzos, Arthur W. Coviello, Jr., John Adams,
Marian G. Leary and Linda B. Saris, Civil Action No. 98-CV-12496-WGY.

The plaintiffs subsequently dismissed without prejudice the claims
against Ms. Saris. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants misled
the investing public concerning demand for the Company's products, the
strengths of its technologies, and certain trends in its business and
sought unspecified damages, interest, costs and fees of their
attorneys, accountants and experts.

On September 28, 2000, the United States District Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss, and entered a judgment dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.

On October 18, 2000, the plaintiffs filed in the District Court a
notice of appeal from the judgment. After the notice of appeal was
filed, the defendants made a motion to the District Court to modify the
judgment of dismissal, and to add certain material to the record on
appeal.

The District Court denied the defendants' motion, and defendants'
appeal from the denial of the motion has been consolidated with the
plaintiffs' appeal. The parties have agreed to settle the case, subject
to court approval.


SECURITY CAPITAL: Homestead Pays $675,000 to Settle Shareholders Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A majority-owned investee of Security Capital Group, Inc., Homestead
Village Incorporated, and its Board of Directors were named as
defendants in five purported class action lawsuits filed in connection
with the proposed offer made by Security Capital in March 2000 to
acquire all shares of Homestead not owned by Security Capital.  

The plaintiffs sought unspecified money charges and an injunction. In
May 2000, the plaintiffs' lawyers, Homestead, its Board of Directors
and Security Capital entered into a memorandum of understanding under
which the plaintiffs' lawyers agreed to settle these claims for the
payment of a total of $675,000 for fees and expenses.

The settlement was approved by the court in March 2001 after notice to
all former Homestead shareholders of the proposed settlement.
Homestead made the payment of $675,000 in April 2001 in settlement of
the class action lawsuits filed.


SMARTFORCE PUBLIC: Mounting Strong Defense Against Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the end of the third quarter of 1998, a class action lawsuit has
been filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of
California Smartforce Public Limited Company, its subsidiary SmartForce
USA, and certain of its former and current officers and directors
alleging violation of the federal securities laws.

It has been alleged the Company misrepresented or omitted to state
material facts regarding its business and financial condition and
prospects in order to artificially inflate and maintain the price of
its ADSs, and misrepresented or omitted to state material facts in its
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with its
merger with ForeFront, which also is alleged to have artificially
inflated the price of the Company's ADSs.

The Company believes this action is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.


SOUTHERN EDISON: Faces Securities Suit in L.A. For Fraudulent Report
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2000, a class action securities lawsuit was filed in federal
district court in Los Angeles against Southern California Edison
Company and Edison International.  

As amended in December 2000 and March 2001, the lawsuit alleges that
SCE and Edison International are engaging in fraud by over-reporting
and improperly accounting for the Transition Revenue Account
undercollections.

The second amended complaint is supposedly filed on behalf of a class
of persons who purchased Edison International common stock beginning
June 1, 2000, and continuing until such time as TRA-related
undercollections are recorded as a loss by SCE.  

The response to the second amended complaint was deferred.  This
lawsuit has been consolidated with another similar lawsuit filed on
March 15, 2001.  

SCE believes that its current and past accounting for the TRA
undercollections and related items is appropriate and in accordance
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.


SPEEDWAY MOTORSPORT: Class Has Yet to be Certified in Johnson Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 8, 2001, Larry L. Johnson filed a class action complaint,
against Speedway Motorsport Inc. and Oil-Chem, in the Superior Court of
Gaston County, North Carolina. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified
damages for violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. The class has not been certified and no discovery has
taken place. SMI intends to defend itself vigorously. Management does
not believe the outcome of this lawsuit will have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position or future results of
operations.


SULZER ORTHOPEDICS: Weiner & Cox Files Liability Suit in Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed in Macomb County Circuit Court,
on behalf of Michigan residents who had hip replacement surgery after
July, 1997, and received a defective Inter-Op joint, which has since
been recalled by Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc. Attorneys filing the lawsuit
are Cy Weiner and Elizabeth Thomson of Weiner & Cox in Southfield, and
Robert E. Garvey, P.C. of St. Clair Shores.

Sulzer manufactured and sold over 17,000 defective hip implant devices
between July, 1997 and December 8, 2000. This problem is affecting
thousands of people nationwide.

"Our office has been flooded with calls from concerned people who have
undergone hip replacement surgeries. The number of our potential class
members is growing every day," says Cy Weiner, principal attorney with
Weiner & Cox.

"We will aggressively pursue our lawsuit against Sulzer to see that the
future medical needs of our potential class will be secured," he added.

The lawyers are preparing to seek certification of the class in the
near future. The case has been assigned to the courtroom of Judge
George E. Montgomery.

For additional information, contact: Elizabeth Thomson, Robert Garvey
or Cy Weiner at 1-800-701-0900.


  
                              *********

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., Trenton, New Jersey, and Beard Group, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.  Larri-Nil G. Veloso and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2001.  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  * * *