CAR_Public/010821.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, August 21, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 163


                              Headlines


AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Wolf Haldenstein Files SD CA Securities Suit
AUDIO VISUAL: $15 Million Settlement Offer Receives Preliminary Nod
BAYER CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Baycol/Lipobay Suit
BIG 5 CORPORATION: Sued By CA Store Managers For Overtime Wages
ELOQUENT INC.: To Seek Dismissal Of Securities Suits In S.D. New York

FAIRMARKET INC.: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit In S.D. NY
GLOBAL CROSSING: Johnson & Perkinson Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Lawsuit In SD N.Y.
IBASIS INC.: Wolf Popper Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. New York
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Added As Defendant In "Missouri Loans Act" Breach Suit

MARVIN WINDOWS: Settles 'Defective Wood Windows and Doors' Lawsuit
MODEM MEDIA: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
PALM INC.: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGIES: Asks Court To Dismiss Securities Suit In NY
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Begins Securities Suit In CO

RAMBUS INC.: Spector Roseman Raises Securities Suit In N.D. California
RESEARCH MEDICAL: Sued In KS For Selling Diluted Chemotherapy Drugs
SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Lewis and Trinko Firms Files Securities Suit
SEAVIEW VIDEO: Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint Due Sept. 17
SIPEX CORPORATION: Securities Suits In Mass. Regarded As Meritless

SPRINT CORPORATION: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Securities Suit In KS
STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Faces Wage Suits Filed By California Managers
SULZER ORTHOPEDICS: Approval Of Hip Implant Settlement Put On Hold
TICKETMASTER: Settlement Deal For 7-year-old Antitrust Suit Approved
WEBMD CORPORATION: NY Securities Suits Should Only Name Underwriters
ZIFF-DAVIS: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. New York

                              *********


AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Wolf Haldenstein Files SD CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California on behalf of purchasers of Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NASDAQ: AMLN) securities between February 8, 2000 and July 25, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit is pending against defendants Amylin and Joseph C. Cook (the
Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer).

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.

Amylin is engaged in the discovery, development and commercialization
of potential drug candidates for the treatment of metabolic disorders.

On July 25, 2001, the Food and Drug Administration released medical and
statistical reviews regarding Amylin's diabetes drug pramlintide
acetate (SYMLIN) prior to an FDA Advisory Committee Meeting scheduled
for July 26, 2001.

This review cited major concerns regarding the safety and lack of
efficacy of SYMLIN.

The review stated there were major adverse events upon treatment with
SYMLIN and an alarming number of patients that had life altering events
relating to hypoglycemia (low blood glucose level), including major
trauma, accidents and death, many of which apparently were concealed
from the safety database, making this database unreliable to the FDA.

The complaint alleges that this hypoglycemic side effect was
particularly surprising to the FDA and investors, as the Company all
along had claimed that one advantage of SYMLIN over insulin was that it
did not increase the risk of hypoglycemia.

>From an efficacy standpoint, the medical review stated the clinical
trials deviated from good medical practice because during the studies a
constant insulin dose was maintained in the patient, and therefore, the
data provided little insight to which patients, if any, would benefit
from SYMLIN or how it should be used.

The public announcements and statements made during the Class Period
were materially false and misleading when issued in that they falsely
portrayed Amylin as a growing, successful, well-managed, law-abiding,
well-controlled company, and a leader of its industry, and that it had
a highly effective drug, SYMLIN.

These public announcements and statements did not make full, complete
and timely disclosure of Amylin's fraudulent illegal practices and
failed to correct false and misleading statements made prior to July
25, 2001, in that they failed to disclose the following material
adverse information:

     (1) Amylin had been concealing materially negative information
         from the FDA which would render FDA approval of SYMLIN
         impossible;

     (2) the actual study showed that SYMLIN was causing a four-fold
         increase in hypoglycemia-related events in patients as
         compared to a placebo;

     (3) in Type 1 diabetics, SYMLIN was reducing the patients' ability
         to recognize hypoglycemia;

     (4) contrary to the Company's repeated statements that SYMLIN had
         no additional risk for hypoglycemia, SYMLIN was showing that
         it did create additional risk;

     (5) the treatment and control arms of the SYMLIN study were
         manipulated in order to create the appearance of SYMLIN's
         efficacy, and SYMLIN's purported efficacy was not based on a
         full battery of applicable statistical analyses/tests,
         including factoring in the variances in doses; and

     (6) the results of the SYMLIN study actually favored treatment
         with insulin alone.

For more information, contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone:
(800) 575-0735 (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.,
Gustavo Bruckner, Esq., Thomas Burt, Esq., Michael Miske, or George
Peters) by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.whafh.com


AUDIO VISUAL: $15 Million Settlement Offer Receives Preliminary Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A $15 million settlement pact offered by Audio Visual Services
Corporation received preliminary approval from federal court, the
Company disclosed in a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The settlement agreement reached a year ago was formalized in a
definitive settlement document recently and received the preliminary
approval last month.

Under the agreement, all claims against the Company and the individuals
named as defendants in the action will be dismissed without presumption
or admission of any liability or wrongdoing.  

The settlement amount was paid entirely by the Company's insurance
carrier and was paid into an account to be administered by counsel for
the plaintiffs.  

In March and May 1999, two purported shareholder class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company and certain of its former officers and one
of its former directors.  

Both lawsuits allege, among other things, that defendants
misrepresented the Company's ability to integrate various companies it
was acquiring and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and various rules promulgated
thereunder.  

"In the event that the action is not finally settled, the Company
believes it has meritorious defenses to this action and intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously," says the SEC document.

The company rents and sells audiovisual equipment and provides staging
and meeting services.

In addition, AVS works with major hotel chains to provide audiovisual
and staging services for their conferences.

Customers include Doubletree, Hilton, Holiday Inn, and Hyatt.


BAYER CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Baycol/Lipobay Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of all persons who were prescribed the drug Cerivastatin, also
known as Baycol (Lipobay outside the United States).

As alleged in the Complaint, Bayer Corporation, a unit of Bayer AG (OTC
Bulletin Board: BAYZY), is named as the defendant in this action due to
its responsibility in manufacturing, promoting, marketing,
distributing, and selling Baycol and/or Lipobay.

On August 8, 2001 the Food and Drug Administration announced that Bayer
withdrew Baycol from all markets in which it distributed Baycol and/or
Lipobay, other than Japan.

According to the FDA, the recall was announced for a number of reasons,
including the fact that over 480 Baycol users developed rhabdomyolysis
after being prescribed the Baycol.

Rhabdomyolysis is a condition that results in muscle cell breakdown and
release of the contents of muscle cells into the bloodstream.

Symptoms of rhabdomyolysis include muscle pain, weakness, tenderness,
malaise, fever, dark urine, nausea and vomiting.

The pain may involve specific groups of muscles or may be generalized
throughout the body.

Most frequently the involved muscle groups are the calves and lower
back.

In some cases the muscle injury is so severe that patients develop
renal failure and other organ failure, which can be fatal.

Cases of fatal rhabdomyolysis in association with the use of Baycol
have been reported significantly more frequently than for other
approved statins.

The FDA has received reports of 31 U.S. deaths due to severe
rhabdomyolysis associated with the use of Baycol.

Recent news reports have suggested that over several hundred people
have died from their alleged use of Baycol and/or Lipobay worldwide.

According to Bayer, patients who are currently taking Baycol should
have their Baycol discontinued and be switched to an alternative
therapy.

For further information, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP through
Andrew L. Barroway, Esq. or Marc A. Topaz, Esq. by Mail: Three Bala
Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706
(toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


BIG 5 CORPORATION: Sued By CA Store Managers For Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
California store managers and assistant managers recently brought a
class action suit against Big 5 Corporation, demanding back pay for
overtime work, says a Securities and Exchange Commission regulatory
document.

The document filed by the Company said the suit has two subclasses: the
Company's California store managers and the first assistant store
managers.

The plaintiffs allege the Company improperly classified its store
managers and first assistant store managers as exempt employees not
entitled to overtime pay for work in excess of forty hours per week.

They seek, on behalf of the class members, back pay for overtime
allegedly not paid, statutory penalties in the amount of an additional
thirty days' wages for each such employee whose employment terminated
in the four years preceding the complaint, and injunctive relief to
require the Company to treat its store management as non-exempt.

The suit was filed last August 9 in the California Superior in Los
Angeles, alleging violations of the California Labor Code and the
Business and Professions Code.

"The Company has not yet answered the complaint and discovery has not
commenced," the SEC document says.

"The Company intends to defend the case vigorously. The Company's
results of operations and financial position could be adversely
affected by an adverse judgment in this matter," the report adds.


ELOQUENT INC.: To Seek Dismissal Of Securities Suits In S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Eloquent Inc. announced recently in a Securities and Exchange
Commission report that it will mount a vigorous defense against pending
securities class actions in New York, which it dismissed as meritless.

Beginning last month, several complaints were filed against Eloquent,
certain of its directors and officers, and certain underwriters of its
initial public offering.

The suits allegedly represent persons and entities that acquired
Eloquent's common stock on or after February 17, 2000.

The complaints allege that the registration statement and prospectus
issued by Eloquent in connection with the public offering contained
untrue statements of material fact or omissions of material fact in
violation of securities laws.

Accordingly, the registration statement and prospectus allegedly failed
to disclose that the offering's underwriters had allegedly solicited
and received additional and excessive compensation and benefits beyond
those listed in the registration statement and prospectus.

Also, said underwriters had entered into tie-in or other arrangements
with certain of their customers which were allegedly designed to
maintain, distort and/or inflate the market price of the Eloquent's
common stock in the aftermarket.  

The suits are currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Eloquent develops rich-media tools (audio, video, graphics, and text
arranged into an interactive and searchable layout) used with
intranets, extranets, and CD-ROMs for more than 200 predominantly large
high-tech clients such as IBM, Cisco Systems, and AT&T.

The company's rich-media products are used for corporate meetings,
training, product launch briefings and sales purposes, among other
things.


FAIRMARKET INC.: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit In S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP filed late last week a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of FairMarket,
Inc. (NASDAQ:FAIM) between March 13, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against defendants FairMarket, FleetBoston
Robertson Stephens, Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., Scott T.
Randall and John Belchers.

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 or about March 13, 2000, FairMarket commenced an initial public
offering of 5,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $17 per share.

In connection therewith, FairMarket filed a registration statement,
which incorporated a 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:

     (1) Robertson Stephens, Goldman, Merrill Lynch and Salomon had
         solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
         from certain investors in exchange for which Robertson
         Stephens, Goldman, Merrill Lynch and Salomon allocated to
         those investors material portions of the restricted number of
         FairMarket shares issued in connection with the FairMarket
         Corp. IPO; and

     (2) Robertson Stephens, Goldman, Merrill Lynch and Salomon had
         entered into agreements with customers whereby Robertson
         Stephens, Goldman, Merrill Lynch and Salomon agreed to
         allocate FairMarket shares to those customers in the
         FairMarket IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to
         purchase additional FairMarket shares in the aftermarket at
         pre-determined prices.

For additional information, contact: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H.
Rudman by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-
0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by Email: fairmarketcase@milbergny.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com


GLOBAL CROSSING: Johnson & Perkinson Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of
Global Crossings Ltd. (NYSE: GX) stock between August 13, 1998 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit is pending against the following defendants:

     (1) Global,

     (2) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (3) Morgan Stanley & Co.,

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,

     (5) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

     (6) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., and

     (7) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

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.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Global common stock pursuant to Global's
August 13, 1998 initial public offering without disclosing to investors
that certain underwriters, in exchange for excessive commissions,
allocated Global shares to customers at the IPO price.

To receive allocations at the IPO price, 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 Global stock increased (a
practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did)
drive Global's share price up to artificially high levels.

This artificial price inflation enabled both the underwriters and their
customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the IPO price and
then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices.

For further information, contact: Dennis J. Johnson, Esq. or Jacob B.
Perkinson, Esq. by Mail: 1690 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont
05403 by Phone: 1-888-459-7855 (toll free) or by E-mail:
JPLAW@adelphia.net


GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Lawsuit In SD N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP lodged a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of GRIC Communications, Inc.
(Nasdaq: GRIC) from December 14, 1999 through December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The suit was filed against defendants CIBC World Markets Corp., U.S.
Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc., Prudential Securities Inc., GRIC, Dr. Hong
Chen and Joseph M. Zaelit.

On or about December 14, 1999 GRIC commenced an initial public offering
of 4,600,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of
$14.00 per share.

In connection therewith, GRIC filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC.

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

     (1) the Underwriter Defendants had solicited and received
         excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors
         in exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to
         those investors material portions of the restricted number of
         GRIC shares issued in connection with the GRIC IPO; and

     (2) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to
         allocate GRIC shares to those customers in the GRIC IPO in
         exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
         GRIC shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

For more information, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP through Marc
A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by Mail: Three Bala Plaza
East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll
free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


IBASIS INC.: Wolf Popper Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper, LLP filed a class action lawsuit charging iBasis, Inc.
(NASDAQ:IBAS), BancBoston Robertson Stephens Inc., Hambrecht & Quist
LLC, U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc., and certain of iBasis's senior
officers with violations of the United States securities laws.

The action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased
iBasis common stock on the open market during the period November 10,
1999 through December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On or about November 10, 1999, iBasis commenced an initial public
offering of 6.8 million shares of common stock at an offering price of
$16.00 per share.

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

     (1) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         allocations of iBasis shares in the offering; and

     (2) these underwriters had entered into agreements to allocate
         iBasis shares to customers in exchange for which the customers
         agreed to purchase additional iBasis shares in the aftermarket
         at pre-determined prices.

The complaint also alleges that the underwriters issued optimistic
reports and buy recommendations for the companies they helped to
underwrite, which lacked a reasonable basis, in the hopes of securing
lucrative investment fees for their firms as well as substantial
compensation for the individual analyst covering the companies and to
stabilize the stock to allow preferential institutional clients to sell
shares at inflated prices.

The underwriters, in their research reports, failed to inform investors
of their bias and motive for issuing the research reports, which caused
iBasis shares to trade at inflated prices.

By virtue of this manipulation, BancBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.,
Hambrecht & Quist LLC, and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc. were able to
inflate the trading price of iBasis's shares after the initial
offering.

For more information, contact: Robert C. Finkel, Esq. by Mail: 845
Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-6689 by Phone: 212.451.9620 or
212.759.4600 by Fax: 212.486.2093 or 877.370.7704 by E-Mail:
irrep@wolfpopper.com or rfinkel@wolfpopper.com or visit the firm's
Website: www.wolfpopper.com


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Added As Defendant In "Missouri Loans Act" Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A suit naming Impac Funding Corporation as defendant was recently
amended to include Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., says a Company
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission recently.

According to the SEC report, the inclusion of the Company to the suit
was made last month.

The suit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri was filed September last year against Preferred Credit
Corporation and Impac Funding Corporation.

The plaintiffs are alleging a class action lawsuit, accusing defendants
of violating Missouri's Second Loans Act and Merchandising Practices
Act.

The defendants allegedly did this by marketing loans and charging
certain origination fees or finders' fees or mortgage broker or broker
fees or closing fees and costs on second mortgage loans on residential
real estate, which caused an illegal charge of interest or closing
costs or fees.

Impac Funding Corporation was a purchaser of second mortgage loans
originated by Preferred Credit Corporation, which the plaintiffs
contend are included in this lawsuit.  

The plaintiffs are seeking damages that include:

     (1) a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants, together with
         their officers, directors, employees, agents, partners or
         representatives, successors and any and all persons acting in
         concert from, directly or indirectly, engaging in the wrongful
         acts described therein;

     (2) disgorgement or restitution of all improperly collected  
         charges and the imposition of an equitable constructive trust
         over such amounts for the benefit of the plaintiffs;

     (3) the right to rescind the loan transactions; and

     (4) a right to offset any finance charges, closing costs, points
         or other loan fees paid against the principal amounts due on
         the loans, actual damages, punitive damages, reasonable
         attorney's fees, pre- and post- judgment interest and costs
         and expenses.  

"The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to such claims
and intends to defend these claims vigorously. Nevertheless, litigation
is uncertain, and the Company may not prevail in this suit," says the
SEC report.


MARVIN WINDOWS: Settles 'Defective Wood Windows and Doors' Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marvin Windows and Doors agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that
will give customers who own certain Marvin windows or doors
manufactured from 1985 to 1989 a discount on replacement products.

The suit was brought against the Warroad, Minn. manufacturer when
customers experienced decay in some wood windows and doors manufactured
from 1985 to 1989.

During this period Marvin treated its products with a wood
preservative, PILT, purchased from PPG Industries, Inc., in Pittsburgh.

The PILT proved to be ineffective.

According to the terms of the settlement, owners of Marvin windows or
doors manufactured from 1985 to 1989 are eligible for net discounts
ranging from approximately 38% to 58% on new windows or doors.

The total discount varies according to the homeowners' situation.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, customers have from Aug. 15
through Oct. 8, 2001, to opt out of the class and until Sept. 30, 2004,
to file a claim.

The agreement is subject to approval by Hennepin County District Judge
Bruce Peterson.

Susan Marvin, president of Marvin Windows and Doors, said, "We are
pleased to have reached this agreement. Resolving these legal issues
allows us to continue to focus on working with our customers to fix the
problem."

"We take a great deal of pride in the products that bear our family
name -- and have for the last 90 years. It is unfortunate that the
preservative failed to prevent decay and provide long-term protection
as we had been assured, but in the long run the settlement will help us
continue to make things right with our customers and continue our
pledge to stand behind our products," she said.

"Through this settlement, we have agreed to extend a discount program
through 2004 even though these products are 12 to 16 years old,'' said
Marvin.

Marvin has pursued litigation against PPG since 1994 and the case is
scheduled in federal court in October 2001.


MODEM MEDIA: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed late last week a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Modem Media, Inc.
(NASDAQ:MMPT) from between February 5, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The suit is currently pending against defendants Modem Media, Inc.,
FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc., Nationsbank Montgomery Securities
LLC, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., Gerald M. O'Connell and Steven C.
Roberts.

The complaint alleges that on or about February 5, 1999, Modem Media
commenced an initial public offering of 2,600,000 of its shares of
common stock at an offering price of $16 per share.

In connection therewith, Modem Media filed a registration statement,
which incorporated a 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:

     (1) Underwriter Defendants had solicited and received excessive
         and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange
         for which Underwriter Defendants allocated to those investors
         material portions of the restricted number of Modem Media
         shares issued in connection with the Modem Media IPO; and

     (2) Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate
         Modem Media shares to those customers in the Modem Media IPO
         in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
         additional Modem Media shares in the aftermarket at pre-
         determined prices.

For more details, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. by Phone: 1-800-337-4983
(toll free) by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com by Fax: 212/490- 2022 or by Mail:
6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017


PALM INC.: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel filed a lawsuit seeking class action status in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of all persons who purchased common stock of Palm, Inc. (Nasdaq:
PALM) between March 1, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Palm and two of its senior executives,
together with Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, FleetBoston
Robertson Stephens, and Salomon Smith Barney, violated federal
securities law by filing a misleading prospectus for Palm's initial
public offering.

Among other things, it is alleged that the prospectus failed to
disclose that Goldman Sachs and the other underwriter defendants had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors in exchange for which the investors were allocated
substantial blocks of Palm shares.

In addition, agreements between the underwriter defendants and their
customers regarding the purchase of additional shares of the Company in
the aftermarket at pre-determined prices were not disclosed in the
prospectus.

The Complaint further alleges the practices of the underwriter
defendants in connection with initial public offerings are the subject
of an on-going investigation by the SEC.

For further details, contact: Andrew M. Schatz, Jeffrey S. Nobel,
Patrick A. Klingman or Deborah Taylor by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by E-
mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: www.snlaw.net
     

PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGIES: Asks Court To Dismiss Securities Suit In NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Technologies, Inc. and plaintiffs in a securities class
action suit recently traded memoranda supporting their respective
position on whether or not the suit should be nixed.

According to a Company report to the SEC, it filed a motion last May
18, seeking the dismissal of the consolidated securities suit from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.

The plaintiffs countered this motion with a memorandum of law last June
25, opposing the Company's motion to dismiss.  

The Company in turn filed a memorandum last month further supporting
its motion.  

"Performance Technologies believes these claims to be without merit and
continues to mount a vigorous defense against these allegations," the
SEC report says.

Performance Technologies contributes to communication convergence. The
company makes network access products including adapters, servers, and
related software, and signaling gateways that integrate traditional
telephone and Internet Protocol (IP) data networks.

Performance Technologies' products have been used in applications
ranging from collecting weather satellite images to retrieving data
from NASA's deep space network.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Begins Securities Suit In CO
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, on behalf of all purchasers of Qwest Communications
International, Inc. (NYSE: Q) securities between March 22, 2001 and
July 23, 2001, inclusive.

The suit is pending against Qwest, Joseph P. Nacchio (Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer), and Robin R. Szeliga (Chief Financial Officer
since 4/18/01, Senior Vice President of Finance prior to 4/18/01, and
Interim Chief Financial Officer from 3/01-4/18/01).

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 materially false and misleading statements
throughout the Class Period that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that on March 22, 2001, defendants
Joseph Nacchio and Robin Szeliga appeared at a UBS Warburg hosted
senior management meeting where they falsely claimed that they would
legitimately achieve 1Q01 and FY01 EPS of $0.11 and $0.59,
respectively.

On April 24, 2001, Qwest reported its financial results for 1Q01,
including revenue growth of 12% and EBITA growth of 16%. Subsequent to
these statements, Qwest's stock price increased, trading as high as
$41.83 on April 30, 2001.

In fact, Qwest's 1Q01 results and its statements regarding those
results as well as the statements regarding the success of the
integration with U.S. West Inc. and the company's strong expense
controls were materially false and misleading due to the company's
improper valuation of KPNQwest in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (as the value of its investment in KPNQwest had
already declined months earlier), and due to the following undisclosed
facts:

     (1) Qwest's 1Q01 earnings were better than expectations primarily
         due to its change in the discount rate to calculate its
         pension obligations, increasing Qwest's 1Q01 results by at
         least $0.03;

     (2) Qwest's 1Q01 earnings were better than expectations due to
         defendants' failure to properly "write-down" the value of
         Qwest's holdings in KPNQwest, which was materially overstated
         as a result;

     (3) Qwest's 1Q01 earnings were increased by $0.01-$0.02 due to its
         aggressive use of capitalization to classify tens of millions
         of dollars of interest and software development costs as
         assets rather than expenses, which would contribute to
         decreased earnings in future quarters;

     (4) there was no way Qwest's future earnings would be nearly as
         strong as represented due in part to the accounting
         manipulations defendants engaged in which would adversely
         affect future results, as expenses were being deferred to
         future quarters and years; and

     (5) Qwest's selling, general and administrative expenses were only
         22% of sales, not due to tight expense controls as
         represented, but to improper classification of SG&A expenses
         as cost of sales.

Subsequently, on July 20, 2001, Qwest admitted that its classification
of costs had been incorrect such that cost of sales had been overstated
and SG&A expenses had been understated.

As a result of defendants' issuance of alleged material and misleading
statements (including a false 1Q01 financial statement), Qwest's stock
traded as high as $41.83 per share.

The individual defendants took advantage of this inflation, selling
1,255,000 shares of their Qwest stock for proceeds of $49.5 million.

Ultimately, on July 24, 2001, Qwest conceded that it recorded a write-
down of over $3.1 billion, primarily related to its ownership in
KPNQwest.

Upon this admission/revelation, Qwest's shares dropped once again,
trading below $27.

For additional information, contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz, LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: (800) 575-0735 (George Peters, Michael Miske, Gregory M.
Nespole, Esq., or Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.) by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com


RAMBUS INC.: Spector Roseman Raises Securities Suit In N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. launched a class action lawsuit
recently in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of purchasers of the stock of Rambus, Inc.
(Nasdaq:RMBS) securities during the period from January 18, 2000
through May 9, 2001.

The complaint charges Rambus and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented the operations and
business of Rambus during the Class Period, while failing to disclose,
among other materially adverse facts, that:

     (1) Rambus had engaged in fraudulent activity in order to obtain
         purportedly valuable patents on SDRAM computer memory and
         memory related technologies;

     (2) the true enforceability and viability of these patents and the
         true risks involved with investing in Rambus stock during the
         Class Period;

     (3) the effects these adverse undisclosed actions were having and
         would continue to have on Rambus's growth and earnings
         prospects; and

     (4) that Rambus insiders, certain of which are named as defendants
         herein, sold or otherwise disposed of over $125 million
         (adjusted to account for the Company's June 15, 2000, 4:1
         stock split) of their privately held Rambus stock while in
         possession of such undisclosed, material adverse information.

The complaint further alleges that plaintiffs and Class members who
acquired their Rambus shares at prices as high as $127 per share during
the Class Period have suffered tremendous losses.

Rambus' current price, representing an $11 billion reduction in market
capitalization, is more than 90% below its Class Period high.

For more information, contact: Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862
(toll free) by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the firm's
Website: www.spectorandroseman.com


RESEARCH MEDICAL: Sued In KS For Selling Diluted Chemotherapy Drugs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A respiratory therapist and the son of a deceased cancer patient have
filed a class action lawsuit against Kansas City pharmacist Robert R.
Courtney and his Research Medical Tower Pharmacy, which are accused of
selling diluted drugs for use by chemotherapy patients.

The suit was filed Thursday last week in Jackson County Circuit Court.

The plaintiffs -- Jim Jeffcoat, a registered respiratory therapist who
formerly purchased chemotherapy drugs from the Courtney pharmacy, and
Mark McFarland, whose now-deceased mother, Wilma McFarland, purchased
drugs from the pharmacy -- filed the suit both individually and as a
class action, representing the class of purchasers of chemotherapeutic
agents.

The plaintiffs are represented by James R. Bartimus and James P.
Frickleton of the prominent Kansas City personal-injury law firm of
Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Obetz, P.C.

"This is a serious public health issue, because as consumers and as
patients, we have no choice but to trust the medicines our doctors
prescribe," Frickleton said.

"By filing the class action, we hope to at least partially compensate
this sizable group of cancer patients whose therapies have been
fraudulently mishandled," he said.

The five-count lawsuit against Courtney and the Research Medical Tower
Pharmacy (which is not connected to Research Medical Center), 6420
Prospect Ave., alleges violations of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, fraud, negligence and negligent misrepresentation on
behalf of all plaintiffs, and lost chance of survival on behalf of Mark
and the late Wilma McFarland.

The suit seeks awards of damages in excess of $50,000, punitive
damages, attorney's fees and an injunction prohibiting the defendants
from diluting patient medications without a physician's order.


SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Lewis and Trinko Firms Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Donald B. Lewis and the Law Offices Of Curtis V. Trinko,
LLP recently filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The suit was filed on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Safeguard Scientifics, Inc. between December 1, 1999, and
December 15, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint alleges Safeguard and its founder, Warren V. Musser,
violated federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose
a course of conduct by defendants that was of material interest to the
investment markets and to the Company's shareholders.

The conduct, which began in December 1999 but was not disclosed until a
year later, included extensive purchases by Musser, on margin, of
substantial shares of Safeguard "partner" companies, secured by
Musser's Safeguard stockholdings.

It is also alleged in the complaint that these purchases of shares of
Safeguard partner companies both tended to boost the price of
Safeguard's own stock, and exposed Safeguard to a change in management
and control.

Following the forced liquidation of Musser's Safeguard shares, Musser
was forced to resign as Safeguard's CEO.

The Complaint further alleges that statements and omissions by
Safeguard and Musser during the Class Period artificially inflated the
price of Safeguard shares.

For further details, contact: Law Offices of Donald B. Lewis by Phone:
(610) 668-0331 or by E-mail: dlewis009@aol.com or contact: Law Offices
of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP by Phone: (212) 490-9550 or by E-mail:
ctrinko@trinko.com


SEAVIEW VIDEO: Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint Due Sept. 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Company is a defendant to a consolidated class action lawsuit
pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida against the Company and Richard L. McBride, the Company's
former chief executive officer.

Commencing in May 2001, five nearly identical class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company and McBride, and, on July 24, 2001,
those lawsuits were consolidated.

The plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint currently was due on
September 17, 2001.

In the five initial complaints, the plaintiffs thereto claimed
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In the five initial complaints, the plaintiffs to those actions
alleged, among other things, that from March 30, 2000 to March 19,
2001, the Company and McBride:

     (1) misstated the Company's sales and revenue figures;

     (2) improperly recognized revenues;

     (3) misrepresented the nature and extent of the Company's dealer
         network;

     (4) falsely touted purported sales contracts and agreements with
         large retailers;

     (5) misrepresented the Company's ability to manufacture, or to
         have manufactured, its products; and

     (6) misrepresented the Company's likelihood of achieving certain
         publicly announced sales targets.  

The consolidated action likely will seek compensatory and other
damages, and costs and expenses associated with the litigation.

The Company intends to defend against the action.


SIPEX CORPORATION: Securities Suits In Mass. Regarded As Meritless
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sipex Corporation recently stated two virtually identical purported
securities class action suits lodged in Massachusetts are meritless.

In a recent SEC report, the Company said it will mount a vigorous
defense against the suits.

The two complaints were filed between July 10 and July 19 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

It names Sipex and certain officers of the Company as defendants.

The suits are purportedly brought on behalf of a class of all persons
who purchased Sipex's common stock from July 20, 2000 through and
including January 11, 2001.

The suits allege, among other things, that the Company's financial
statements for the second and third quarters of fiscal year 2000
contain misstatements and assert violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

"Sipex believes that the allegations in the complaints are without
merit and intends to contest them vigorously," the SEC report says.

The company makes more than 750 kinds of analog integrated circuits
(ICs), including electroluminescent drivers used in products such as
Timex's Indiglo watches.

Other Sipex products include interface transceivers that help PCs
communicate with peripherals, power management ICs used in handheld
electronics, and data converters used in industrial controls and
instrumentation.

Sipex's customers include Alcatel, Cisco Systems, IBM, Motorola, NEC,
and Siemens.


SPRINT CORPORATION: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Securities Suit In KS
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Finkelstein & Krinsk filed a class action lawsuit
against Sprint Corporation for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The filing took place in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities
from, at least, Oct. 4, 1999, through Sept. 19, 2000.

The lawsuit alleges that Sprint and certain officer and director
insiders participated in a scheme to circulate false and misleading
statements regarding the status of business and prospects for the
Sprint merger with WorldCom to proceed.

Sprint is a telecommunications company offering hardline and wireless
service with revenue of over $17 billion.

The complaint alleges that Sprint issued a series of misleading
statements during the Class Period in order to gain shareholder
approval for its merger with WorldCom and thus trigger a "change in
control" plan, secretly modified, which reaped hundreds of millions of
dollars for management even though the merger was abandoned.

It is alleged that Sprint management failed to reveal information it
had when seeking the shareholders' approval pointing with certainty to
the fact that the merger would fail.

For further information, contact: Jeffrey R. Krinsk by Mail: 501 West
Broadway, Suite 1250, San Diego, CA 92101 by Phone: 877/493-5366 (toll
free) by E-mail: fk@class-action-law.com or by Fax: 619-238-5425


STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Faces Wage Suits Filed By California Managers
--------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. No.1 specialty coffee retailer Starbucks Corporation disclosed
recently that it is facing two class actions in California filed by its
managers.

The Company made the disclosure in a recent SEC regulatory filing.

According to the regulatory document, the suits were lodged last June
20 and July 2 and are now pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California and Central District of California,
respectively.

Each of the lawsuits was filed by two plaintiffs who are current or
former store managers and assistant store managers on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated store managers, assistant store
managers and retail management trainees.

The suits allege that the Company improperly classified such employees
as exempt under California's wage and hour laws and seek damages,
restitution, reclassification and attorneys fees and costs.

"Starbucks is vigorously investigating and defending this litigation,
but because the cases are in the very early stages, the financial
impact to the Company, if any, cannot be predicted," the document says.

Starbucks operates nearly 4,000 coffee shops in a variety of locations
(office buildings, shopping centers, airport terminals, supermarkets)
in some 20 countries worldwide.

Starbucks sells coffee drinks and beans, pastries, and other food items
and beverages, as well as mugs, coffeemakers, coffee grinders, and
storage containers.


SULZER ORTHOPEDICS: Approval Of Hip Implant Settlement Put On Hold
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sulzer Inter-Op hip implant class action settlement, announced last
week, has been put on hold by U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley
of the Northern District of Ohio who will not approve it without
further review.

Sulzer attempted to gain preliminary approval Friday last week of the
class and the settlement, but the Court had serious questions about its
proprietary.

"This is a victory for the victims of Sulzer's misconduct," said Andres
Pereira, an attorney with the law firm of Fleming & Associates, L.L.P.,
which represents recipients of the defective hips.

"The Court wisely put on hold this absurd deal," Pareira said.

In December 2000, Sulzer Orthopedics USA, Inc. recalled its Inter-Op
artificial hip implants after learning that machine oil had
contaminated the prosthetic devices during the manufacturing process.

The recalled devices included approximately 20,000 hips that had
already been implanted in patients.

Beginning in early Spring of last year, orthopedic surgeons using the
devices started to experience high numbers of cup loosening with the
artificial hips.

This results in excruciating groin pain and complications for the
patients and requires a second surgery to remove and replace the loose
prosthesis.


TICKETMASTER: Settlement Deal For 7-year-old Antitrust Suit Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri recently
approved a settlement deal reached by Ticketmaster and plaintiffs in a
7-year-old antitrust suit.

In a recent Company disclosure, Ticketmaster said the settlement
agreement inked in November last year received the final nod from the
federal court last June 11.

"The time to appeal the final order has expired. The settlement will
not have a material impact on the Company's financial results," the
Company said in a recent SEC report.

Terms of the settlement pact were not disclosed in the report.

At least 16 class action suits were lodged against the Company seven
years ago, purporting to represent consumers who alleged to have
purchased tickets to various events through Ticketmaster.

These lawsuits alleged that Ticketmaster's activities violated
antitrust laws.

After an amended and consolidated complaint was filed by the
plaintiffs, Ticketmaster filed a motion to dismiss and, on May 31,
1996, the District Court granted that motion ruling that the plaintiffs
had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

On April 10, 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court's ruling that
the plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their claims for damages under
the antitrust laws.

The appellate court also held that the plaintiffs' status as indirect
purchasers of Ticketmaster's services did not bar them from seeking
equitable relief against Ticketmaster.

On July 9, 1998, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari
to the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the decision
dismissing their damage claims.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari in the United States
Supreme Court was denied on January 19, 1999.

In November 2000, counsel for the purported class of plaintiffs and
Ticketmaster reached an agreement in principle pursuant to which this
litigation would be settled.

As the world's largest ticket retailer, the Company sells 83 million
event and sports tickets a year from more than 3,500 retail and 18
telephone centers worldwide, as well as on the Web.

It also operates Citysearch, a collection of 100 urban hubs worldwide
offering access to local information on entertainment, business, news,
and other events.


WEBMD CORPORATION: NY Securities Suits Should Only Name Underwriters
--------------------------------------------------------------------
WebMD Corporation believes the purported class action lawsuit in which
it is currently named should only be directed to its IPO underwriters.

In a latest regulatory document filed with the SEC, the Company
dismissed as meritless the complaint that names it along with IPO
underwriters as defendant in a securities fraud suit.

There are at least three purported securities lawsuits pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Morgan Stanley Co., Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co. in relation to the
Company's IPO.

One of the suits names WebMD and two former officers as defendant in
the case.

The suits, which were filed beginning last month, allege violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder because of failure to disclose certain practices
alleged to have occurred in connection with the distribution of shares
in the Healtheon IPO.

The suit that names WebMD and former officers as defendants also
alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities Exchange Act.

"We believe that the claims alleged in the lawsuits are primarily
directed at the underwriters and, as they relate to us, are without
merit," the SEC document says.

"To the extent that these claims concern practices and disclosures
relating to the plan of distribution in the Healtheon initial public
offering, we believe that WebMD will have a claim for indemnification
from the underwriters," the document adds.

WebMD (formerly Healtheon/WebMD) offers a number of services to connect
physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, insurance providers, and consumers
with transaction and information retrieval systems.

Its transaction services (more than 50% of sales) helps automate such
things as HMO enrollment, referrals, data retrieval, and claims
processing, while its Web site provides consumers and professionals
with health-related information, news, and services.


ZIFF-DAVIS: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP commenced a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Ziff-Davis, Inc. (NYSE: ZDZ) securities during
the period between March 30, 1999 and December 12, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants Ziff-Davis, CNET Networks, Inc., which
acquired Ziff-Davis in a stock swap on October 17, 2000, Goldman Sachs
& Co., who was one of the lead underwriters of Ziff-Davis' initial
public offering, and Ziff-Davis executive officers Hippeau and Timothy
C. O'Brien with 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 or about March 30, 1999, Ziff-Davis commenced an initial public
offering of 8 million of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $19.00 per share.

In connection therewith, Ziff-Davis filed a registration statement,
which incorporated a 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:

     (1) Goldman Sachs had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which Goldman Sachs allocated to those investors material
         portions of the restricted number of Ziff-Davis shares issued
         in connection with the Ziff-Davis IPO; and

     (2) Goldman Sachs had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby Goldman Sachs agreed to allocate Ziff-Davis shares to
         those customers in the Ziff-Davis IPO in exchange for which
         the customers agreed to purchase additional Ziff-Davis shares
         in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

As alleged in the complaint, the Securities and Exchange Commission and
the U.S. Attorneys' Office are investigating underwriting practices in
connection with numerous initial public offerings commenced in 1999 and
2000.

For more information, contact: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP
through its Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Sue Null or
Charlie Gastineau by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438
by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll free) or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com


                              *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, Larri-Nil
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  * * *