/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010912.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 12, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 178 Headlines 724 SOLUTIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in NY ART TECHNOLOGY: Weiss And Yourman Commences Securities Suit in CA AUDIBLE INC.: Kirby McInerney Initiates Securities Suits in NY CACHEFLOW INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY CAPTEC REALTY: Merger Spurs Securities Suit in Delaware Chancery Court CCC INFORMATION: Sued For Violations of State Regulations in Georgia ANTITRUST LITIGATION: NRG Energy Subsidiaries Deny Allegations CLARENT CORPORATION: Levy Levy Commences Securities Suit in CA COREL CORPORATION: Asks Pennsylvania Court to Dismiss Securities Suit DAOU SYSTEMS: Will Oppose Multiple Securities Suits in CA EGL INC.: Faces Charges Of Employee Discrimination in TX EMEX CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Initiates Securities Suit in NY EN POINTE: Court Consolidates Several Securities Suits in CA ENGAGE TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Suit in NY HAYES LAMMERZ: Elwood Simon Initiates Securities Suit in MI MORGAN STANLEY: Sued by Agency For Alleged Sex Discrimination NIKU CORPORATION: To Oppose Securities Suits in NY PAULEY FUNERAL: District Court Dismisses Securities Suit in LA PSI TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in NY ROADHOUSE GRILL: To Oppose Securities Suit in Florida SCHEIN HENRY: Sued For Fraud and Negligence in TX SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA INC: Finkelstein Krinsk Files Suit in GA SELECTICA INC: Bernstein Leibhard Initiates Securities Suit in NY STORAGE USA: Faces Suits Over Late Fees Recovery in NY and MD TICKETMASTER INC: Missouri Court Approves Settlement of Antitrust Suit TOBACCO LITIGATION: Landmark Trial Commences in VA TRUMP HOTELS: Settles Securities Suit in NJ VISION TWENTY-ONE: Sued by Shareholders For Securities Act Violations VISUAL NETWORKS: Faces Multiple Securities Suits in MD WAL-MART CORPORATION: Charged With Forcing Unpaid Overtime on Employees WESTERN STATE: Judge Orders Changes Costing $3 Million Per Year ********* 724 SOLUTIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired 724 Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: SVNX) securities between January 28, 2000 and December 6, 2000 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Named as defendants in the complaint are 724 Solutions and the following executive officers of 724 Solutions: (1) Gregory Wolfond, (2) Karen Basian, and (3) Christopher Erickson. The complaint also names as defendants Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., Fleet Boston Robertson Stephens, Inc., and Thomas Weisel Partners, LLC, co-lead underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of 6,000,000 shares of common stock at $26.00 per share on January 27, 2000. The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions. The Prospectus was issued in connection with the 724 Solutions IPO. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (i) the Underwriter Defendants agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted 724 Solutions shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (ii) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase 724 Solutions shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices. For further details, contact Ms. Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779- 1414 or by E-mail: SVNX@bernlieb.com. ANTITRUST LITIGATION: NRG Energy Subsidiaries Deny Allegations -------------------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy, Inc. denied the allegations in a class action lawsuit filed against certain partially-owned subsidiaries of the Company last May 2, 2001. The suit, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, also named other power generators and power traders as defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in various anti- competitive, unlawful, fraudulent and unfair business practices and acts. The suit alleges that the defendants acted with the anti-competitive purpose of using economic and physical withholding of electricity from the California electric generation market in order to derive monopoly profits from the sale of their electricity in California. The Company does not believe that its affiliates named in this lawsuit engaged in any illegal activities, and the Company's affiliates intend to vigorously contest these allegations. NRG Energy, Inc. is a leading global energy company primarily engaged in the acquisition, development, ownership and operation of power generation facilities and the sale of energy, capacity and related products. ART TECHNOLOGY: Weiss And Yourman Commences Securities Suit in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Weiss & Yourman filed a class action complaint in the the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons who acquired Art Technology Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:ARTG) securities between January 25, 2001 and April 2, 2001, inclusive. The complaint charges that defendants, Art Technology, CEO Jeet Singh and Chairman of the Board Joseph Chung, violated federal securities laws by, among other things, issuing false misleading statements regarding ATG's financial condition as well as its present and future business prospects. Specifically, the company announced in a January 25, 2001 press release that, "ATG capped an extraordinary and profitable calendar year 2000 with a record-breaking quarter that was strong across all metrics... [t]he combination of highly competitive product offerings, excellent market positioning, and broad customer base leaves us very well positioned for the coming year. As a result, we are raising our revenue expectations for 2001." However, only two months later, on April 2, 2001, the company announced that earnings for the first quarter ending March 30, 2001 would be significantly below these announced expectations. The Company said that it would post a loss of between 19 and 22 cents per share for the quarter, instead of a profit of 9 cents per share which it had indicated earlier. The Company also said that revenues for the quarter would be between $40 million and $42 million, instead of the previously touted $69 million. This disclosure shocked the market, causing ATG's stock to lose over 50% from its prior day close, and over 85% from where it was selling after the January 25 press release. For further information, contact Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles) by Phone: (800) 437-7918 by E-mail: info@wyca.com or visit the firm's Website: www.wyca.com AUDIBLE INC.: Kirby McInerney Initiates Securities Suits in NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kirby McInerney & Squire commenced a class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of Audible, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADBL) common stock between July 16, 1999 and June 11, 2001 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action alleges - against Audible Inc., certain of its officers and directors, and the lead underwriters of Audible's initial public offering - that the defendants' actions in Audible's initial public offering and thereafter constituted 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 10b5 promulgated thereunder. On July 16, 1999, Audible commenced an initial public offering of 4 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $9.00 per share. In connection therewith Audible filed a registration statement and a prospectus with the SEC. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things: (1) that Audible's lead underwriters had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Audible shares issued in connection with the Audible IPO; and (2) that Audible's lead underwriters had entered into agreements with customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate Audible shares to those customers in the Audible IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Audible shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. The defendant's undisclosed actions were intended to, and did, artificially inflate the price of Audible's stock in the aftermarket, creating tremendous profits for the underwriters and their customers by buying the stock at $9.00 per share and then selling it at inflated aftermarket prices. For further details, contact Randall K. Berger or Orie Braun by Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 (toll-free) or by E-Mail: obraun@kmslaw.com CACHEFLOW INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------------- On June 29, 2001, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of CacheFlow, Inc. (NASDAQ: CFLO) between November 18, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, against defendants CacheFlow, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling CacheFlow common stock pursuant to the November 18, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors. Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive commissions, defendants allocated CacheFlow shares to customers at the IPO price. To receive the 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 CacheFlow stock rocketed upward was intended to drive CacheFlow'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 more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M. Nespole, Thomas Burt, Michael Miske, or George Peters by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com. E- mail should refer to CacheFlow. CAPTEC REALTY: Merger Spurs Securities Suit in Delaware Chancery Court ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Stockholders filed a class action complaint against Captec Net Lease Realty, Inc. last July 31, 2001 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. The complaint was filed by Audrey Sagel, a Captec stockholder, individually and on behalf of an alleged class consisting of the public stockholders of Captec, except the defendants, their affiliates and relatives. The suit named the Company, and each of Captec's directors individually were named as defendants. The allegations of the complaint arise from a July 1, 2001 Agreement and Plan of Merger between Captec and Commercial Net Lease Realty, Inc. which merges Captec with and into CNL with CNL as the surviving corporation. The complaint alleges the following: (1) that the Merger consideration afforded Captec's stockholders is inadequate and that the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to plaintiffs and the alleged class by entering into the Merger, (2) that as part of the Merger, Patrick L. Beach, the Company's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, will enter into an asset purchase agreement and because of this, Mr.Beach will acquire certain non-real estate assets of Captec at substantially less than their actual value for the purpose of personal gain, (3) that the Asset Purchase by Mr. Beach, will lower the overall value of Captec, thereby preventing the plaintiffs from obtaining fair and full merger consideration for their shares of Captec common stock, (4) that by agreeing to pay a breakup fee up to $5 million, minus $1 million in expenses to CNL in the event that the merger with CNL is terminated, Captec,s Board of Directors has precluded consideration of a potentially more favorable acquisition proposal from a third party, (5) that the alleged class will be irreparably damaged if the Merger is consummated. Captec believes the claims made by Ms. Sagel are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against them. Captec Net Lease Realty is a real estate investment trust (REIT) that develops, buys, and owns more than 130 properties in 27 states across the US. Captec leases the properties to national and regional franchised retailers and restaurants, with eateries accounting for about three- quarters of property revenue. CCC INFORMATION: Sued For Violations of State Regulations in Georgia -------------------------------------------------------------------- CCC Information Services Group, Inc. faces a putative class action suit filed on May 21, 2001, in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia, against CCC and one of its insurance company customers. The plaintiffs allege that Georgia Farm Bureau, using a valuation provided by CCC, offered the plaintiff an inadequate amount for her automobile. The plaintiffs further assert that CCC's TOTAL LOSS valuation product provides values that do not comply with applicable state regulations governing total loss claims settlements. The plaintiffs assert claims against CCC for fraud and misrepresentation, supression and concealment, conspiracy, and violation of the Georgia RICO statute. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of Georgia Farm Bureau customers who are residents of Georgia and whose total loss claims were adjusted using a valuation provided by CCC. The Company's motion to dismiss the suit is pending in court. The Company offers computer software and services that help insurance agencies and collision repair shops process auto claims. CCC's software products include TOTAL LOSS, which estimates the worth of totaled vehicles; PATHWAYS DIGITAL IMAGING for capturing images of damaged vehicles; and PATHWAYS COLLISION ESTIMATING for determining repair costs. CLARENT CORPORATION: Levy Levy Commences Securities Suit in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Levy and Levy, PC filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Clarent Corp. (NASDAQ:CLRN) from April 20, 2001 through August 31, 2001, inclusive. The complaint alleges that Clarent and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that on Sept. 4, 2001, Clarent announced in a press release that it had discovered information suggesting that its previously reported revenues for the first and second quarters of fiscal 2001 may have been materially overstated. They also said that the Company's Board of Directors was forming a special committee to investigate a number of transactions that placed in question the Company's historical financial results. The Company also stated that its first quarter 2001 revenues, as released on April 19, 2001, and its second quarter 2001 revenues, as released on July 19, 2001, will be reduced and the related net losses will increase upon conclusion of the review. In addition, the Company anticipates that its revenues for the second half of fiscal 2001 and for fiscal 2002 will be substantially below previously anticipated levels, and that the related losses will be significantly larger than expected. The Company also announced that several of its officers had been placed on administrative leave. On this news trading halted at $5.37. For more information, contact Stephen G. Levy by Mail: One Stamford Plaza, 263 Tresser Blvd., 9th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901 and 245 Park Avenue, 39th Floor, New York, NY 10167 by Phone: 866-338-3674 (toll free), 203-564-1920, or 212-792-4343 or by e-mail: LLNYCT@aol.com COREL CORPORATION: Asks Pennsylvannia Court to Dismiss Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Graphics software provider Corel Corporation moved to dismiss a securities class action suit filed against them in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for Securities Act violations. The complaint consolidated seven class action lawsuits filed between March 13,2000 in the District Courts of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The suits named the Company and Dr. Michael C.J. Cowpland as defendants. The suits, filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Corel common shares between December 7, 1999 and December 21, 1999, alleges that the defendants violated various provisions of the federal securities laws, including Section 10(b), Section 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about Corel's financial condition. At the scheduling conference on June 14, 2000, the court appointed Fred Spagnola, Michael Perron and David Chavez as Lead Plaintiffs, and the law firms of Weinstein, Kitchenoff Scarlato Goldman Ltd. and Savett Frutkin Podell Ryan, P.C. as Co-Lead Counsel. An Amended Consolidated Complaint was served on or about August 14, 2000. and references an expanded class period, from December 7, 1999 to March 20, 2000. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens and Pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6). on October 16, 2000. On December 4, 2000 the plaintiffs filed their answer to Corel's Motion to Dismiss. The motion has yet to be heard by the court. The Company intends to aggressively defend this matter. DAOU SYSTEMS: Will Oppose Multiple Securities Suits in CA ------------------------------------------------------------------ Daou Systems, Inc. will vigorously oppose several class action suits brought against them in federal and state courts. In the 3rd quarter of 1998,separate complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. These complaints were consolidated and amended in February 24, 1999 and amended again last January 21, 2000. The suit charges the Company with the alleged improper use of the percentage-of-completion accounting method for revenue recognition. In addition, on October 1998, separate complaints were filed in the Superior Court of San Diego, California. These additional complaints mirror the allegations set forth in the federal complaints and assert common law fraud and the violation of certain California statutes. By stipulation of the parties, the state court litigation has been stayed pending the resolution of a motion to dismiss, which was filed on February 22, 2000 in the federal litigation. That motion was heard on February 20, 2001 and the court took the matter under submission. The Company believes that the allegations set forth in all of the foregoing complaints are without merit. However, no assurance as to the outcome of this matter can be given and an unfavorable resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition. The company designs, installs, and supports computer networks for more than 1,300 health care organizations throughout the US. EGL INC.: Faces Charges Of Employee Discrimination in TX -------------------------------------------------------------- International logistics company EGL, Inc. faces a class action lawsuit filed last May 12,2000 alleging gender, race and national origin discrimination, as well as sexual harassment. Four individuals originally filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. The suit was later transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas - Houston Division. The suit arose from a December 1997 investigation by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), where the EEOC issued a Commissioner's Charge pursuant to Sections 706 and 707 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the Commissioner's Charge, the EEOC charged the Company and certain of its subsidiaries with violations of Section 703 of Title VII, as amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, resulting from: (1) engaging in unlawful discriminatory hiring, recruiting and promotion practices and maintaining a hostile work environment, based on one or more of race, national origin, age and gender, (2) failures to investigate, (3) failures to maintain proper records and (4) failures to file accurate reports. The Commissioner's Charge states that the persons aggrieved include all Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and females who are, have been or might be affected by the alleged unlawful practices. In July 2000, four additional individual plaintiffs were allowed to join the Philadelphia suit. The individual plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class of approximately 1,000 current and former EGL employees and applicants although their initial motion for class certification was denied in November 2000. The EEOC was not initially a part of the litigation but on January 31,2001, the EEOC was granted a Motion to Intervene by the Court in Philadelphiain the Philadelphia litigation. In addition, the Philadelphia Court also granted EGL's motion that the case be transferred to the present Houston District Court where EGL had sued the EEOC alleging agency bias and misconduct. EGL has stated its intention to pursue the case against the EEOC. EGL is currently in the midst of active discovery on this matter and vehemently denies all allegations both in the EEOC charge and in the lawsuit The Company currently expects to prevail in its defense of this matter but cannot determine the amount of time it will take to resolve the Commissioner's Charge. EGL is an international transportation and logistics company. The Company's principal lines of business are air freight forwarding, ocean freight forwarding, customs brokerage and other value-added services such as warehousing, distribution and insurance. EMEX CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Initiates Securities Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of Emex Corporation (Nasdaq: EMEX) during the period between April 9, 2001 through May 23, 2001, inclusive. The Complaint charges Emex and two of its top officials with issuing materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's attempt to secure much needed financing. In particular, the Company issued a press release announcing that it had entered an agreement to obtain a $100 million loan needed to finance the building of the first of a series of its commercial plants. Emex further stated that this financing was "arranged through the efforts of Credit Suisse First Boston. In reaction to this news, the Company's stock rose 13% on April 10, 2001, and continued to climb to a high of $36 per share on May 22, 2001. Thereafter, on May 23, 2001 it was reported on Dow Jones Newswire that Credit Suisse First Boston denied any role in the $100 million financing. As a result of this news, Nasdaq halted trading of Emex pending additional information. On May 30, 2001, Emex finally acknowledged that Credit Suisse First Boston was not behind the $100 million financing, but rather another company: Fieldstone, Inc. Following this announcement, Nasdaq resumed trading in Emex common stock. However, Emex's stock price then plummeted over 35% on May 30, 2001 to close at $16.98, and continued to fall an additional $5.31 per share to close at $11.67 on June 1, 2001. For more information, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 888-476-6529 (or (888) 4-POMLAW) toll free or by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. EN POINTE: Court Consolidates Several Securities Suits in CA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A District Court orders consolidated several class action lawsuits filed against En Pointe Technologies, Inc. consolidated last February 2001. The suit, filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of California, named that the Company, five of the Company's directors, one current officer, and certain former officers along with seven unrelated parties as defendants. The case asserts that the defendants made misrepresentations regarding the Company and that the individual defendants improperly benefited from the sales of shares of the Company's common stock. The defendants intend to vigorously defend the allegations and believe the case is without merit. The company resells products from companies such as IBM, Hewlett- Packard, Compaq, Nortel Networks, and Sony. En Pointe's customers include Abbott Laboratories, the cities of New York and Los Angeles, and Stanford University. ENGAGE TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Suit in NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP has commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Engage Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:ENGA) securities between July 19, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, against defendants Engage Technologies, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Engage Technologies common stock pursuant to the July 19, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors. Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive commissions, defendants allocated Engage Technologies shares to customers at the IPO price. To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) 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 Engage Technologies stock rocketed upward was intended to drive Engage Technologies' 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 details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Thomas Burt, Gustavo Bruckner, Michael Miske, or George Peters by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit their Website: www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer to Engage Technologies. HAYES LAMMERZ: Elwood Simon Initiates Securities Suit in MI ------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Elwood S. Simon & Associates has filed a nationwide class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of all shareholders who purchased the common stock of Hayes Lammerz International, Inc. (NYSE:HAZ) between June 8, 2000 and September 5, 2001. The lawsuit, which was filed on September 6, 2001, was the first filed lawsuit seeking recovery on behalf of aggrieved shareholders; since that time several other law firms have announced they intend to file identical lawsuits. The complaint alleges that the company violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market concerning its financial results for fiscal 2000 and the first quarter of fiscal 2001. Specifically, the reported net loss of $41.8 million for fiscal 2000 was understated by at least 31% and was actually $56.4 million for that fiscal year period. Net loss for the first quarter of fiscal 2001, which was previously reported as $7.6 million, was understated by a staggering 350% and was actually $34.7 million for the quarter. The Company stated that its investigation relating to these financial misrepresentations would continue and that additional restatements/adjustments may be necessary. Also, as a result of these restatements, the Company revealed that it was in breach of certain financial covenants under its senior credit facility. On September 5, 2001, when this adverse information was disclosed, the stock was halted from trading and opened the following day at $2.10 per share. This represented a 50% decline from the prior day's trading price of $4.15 per share and more than a 90% decline from the $20 per share Hayes stock had been trading at during the class period. For more information, Elwood S. Simon by Mail: 355 Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 250, Birmingham, Michigan 48009-6224 by Phone: (248) 646-9730 by Fax: (248) 258-2335 and by E-mail: elwoodsimon@hotmail.com. MORGAN STANLEY: Sued by Agency For Alleged Sex Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wall Street Brokerage Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. faces a sex discrimination suit filed by a federal agency on behalf of a top bond saleswoman and up to 100 other female employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission slapped a class action lawsuit on the company on behalf of Alice Schieffelin, who was fired in October 2000. The agency assert's that Schieffelin's gender prevented her from being promoted to managing director and caused her to be paid less than her male peers. The EEOC is charging Morgan Stanley with engaging in discriminatory practices since 1995 and said the names of other women who are coming forward will be sent to the company in the near future. The suit is the first of its kind, as the EEOC has not filed a suit against a firm alleging promotions were denied on the basis of sex. The suit also alleges that Morgan Stanley retaliated against and ultimately fired Ms. Schieffelin when she objected to this discriminatory conduct. Morgan Stanley has denied the EEOC's claims. The Company claimed in a press statement that she was the highest paid salesperson on her desk and that the job she claims she was denied went to another woman. The Company further said Schieffelin was fired for "insubordination." In addition to back pay for Schieffelin, the commission is seeking compensatory damages and a portion of the brokerage firm's profits ``to deter continuation of Morgan Stanley's unlawful employment practices.'' Schieffelin worked her way up to the position of principal at the firm, making more than $1 million a year. However, she was not promoted to managing director, a job with much higher compensation prospects. Instead, men who were less or no more qualified than Schieffelin did get managing director promotions, the EEOC said. Schieffelin first filed a formal complaint in November 1998 and said she was regularly harassed at work until she was fired last October. NIKU CORPORATION: To Oppose Securities Suits in NY ------------------------------------------------------------- Niku Corporation labeled as "without merit" allegations in five securities class actions filed against them in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suits, commenced in August 2001, were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering. The complaints 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 complaints generally allege that the Company issued a prospectus that contained false and misleading statements regarding certain excessive and undisclosed commissions received by the underwriters in the allocation of common stock in the Company's initial public offering. On or about February 28, 2000, Niku commenced an initial public offering of 8,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $24 per share. In connection therewith, Niku filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC. The Company stated its intention to defend the case vigorously in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company's software helps information technology (IT) departments, consulting organizations, product development groups, and other service organizations better manage an enterprise's service projects. PAULEY FUNERAL: District Court Dismisses Securities Suit in LA --------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed a securities class action filed against Pauley Funeral Homes, Inc. for failure of the plaintiffs to state a claim. During the fall of 1999, 16 putative securities class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, certain of its directors and officers and the lead underwriters of the Company's January 1999 common stock offering. The suits were consolidated, and the court appointed lead plaintiffs as well as lead and liaison counsel for the plaintiffs, who filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Section 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suits, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period October 1, 1998 through August 12, 1999, allege: (1) that the defendants made false and misleading statements in the prospectus relating to their January 1999 stock offering. (2) that the defendants allegedly failed to disclose allegedly material information in the prospectus relating to the stock offering and in certain of the Company's other public filings and announcements. (3) that these allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions permitted the Chairman of the Company to sell Company common stock during the class period at inflated market prices. The District Court dismissed the case last December 7, 2000 The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on January 4, 2001. The Company intends to defend themselves vigorously, calling the allegations ".without merit" in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. PSI TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP has commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Psi Technologies Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:PSIT) securities between March 16, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, against defendants PSi Technologies, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling PSi Technologies common stock pursuant to the March 16, 2000 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors. Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive commissions, defendants allocated PSi Technologies shares to customers at the IPO price. To receive the 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 PSi Technologies stock rocketed upward was intended to drive PSi Technologies' 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 details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Thomas Burt, Gustavo Bruckner, Michael Miske, or George Peters by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit their Website: www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer to PSi Technologies. ROADHOUSE GRILL: To Oppose Securities Suit in Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- Roadhouse Grill, Inc. intends to strongly oppose a class action suit filed against them in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida. It described the lawsuit as "without merit." The suit names several company directors and an underwriter as co- defendants: (1) Vincent Tan, (2) Ayman Sabi, (3) Philip Friedman, (4) Phillip Ratner, (5) Alain K.K. Lee and (6) Berjaya Group (Cayman) Limited ("Berjaya") as defendants The complaint relates to a proposed going private transaction involving a tender offer by the Company. On May 3, 2000 the Company issued a press release in which it announced that an independent committee of the Board of Directors had proposed a tender offer purchase price of $7.00. The class action suit claims that $7.00 is not a fair price, and alleges that Berjaya and the individual defendants are breaching their fiduciary duties to Company's shareholders. Based on the condition of the retail financing environment and the increase in interest rates, the Company has decided to postpone the tender offer. The Roadhouse Grill, Inc. operates, franchises and licenses high- quality full-service casual dining restaurants under the name "Roadhouse Grill." The Company is currently the largest operator of the roadhouse-style casual dining restaurant concept in the United States. SCHEIN HENRY: Sued For Fraud and Negligence in TX ----------------------------------------------------------- Mail-order catalog retailer Schein Henry faces a class action lawsuit filed in Texas District Court, Travis County, involving the sale of certain practice management software products. The Company and one of its subsidiaries were accused of negligence, breach of contract fraud and violations of certain Texas commercial statutes involving the sale of the Easy Dentalr Management Software prior to 1998. The Court certified both a Windowsr Sub-Class and a DOSr Sub-Class to proceed as a class action in October 1999. It is estimated that 5,000 Windowsr customers and 15,000 DOSr customers could be covered by the judge's ruling. In November of 1999, the Company filed an appeal of the District Court's determination to the Texas Court of Appeals on the class certification but on September 14, 2000, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's certification order. On January 5, 2001, the Company filed a Petition for Review in the Texas Supreme Court asking this court to find "conflicts jurisdiction" to permit review of the District Court's certification order, which appeal is now pending. On April 5, 2001 the Texas Supreme Court requested that the parties file briefs on the merits. During the appeal of the class certification, a trial on the merits is stayed. SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA INC: Finkelstein Krinsk Files Suit in GA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Finkelstein & Krinsk filed a class action lawsuit on August 20, 2001, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Scientific-Atlanta, Incorporated (NYSE:SFA) between April 19, 2001 and July 19, 2001, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material representations to the market between April 19, 2001 and July 19,2001, thereby artificially inflating the price of Scientific-Atlanta securities. Specifically, defendants issued materially false and misleading information regarding the Company's third quarter results. For example, on May 11, 2001, in a Form 10-Q that was filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission, defendants reported their financial results and highlighted an increase in production capacity of set-tops. On July 19, 2001, defendants reported Scientific-Atlanta's financial results for the fourth quarter of 2001 and shocked the market by reporting a 21% decline in bookings from the previous year's fourth quarter. Among other things, this decline in bookings was attributable to a surplus in customer inventory levels, which defendants knew, or should have known, at the time they filed the Company's Form 10-Q on May 11, 2001, making the representations in the Form 10-Q regarding production capacity materially false and misleading. In addition, the Company announced that it was revising its earnings estimates for the first quarter of fiscal 2002. The market reaction to this announcement was immediate and punitive, as shares of Scientific-Atlanta plummeted by more than 34%, or $12.08, to close at $23 per share, on heavy trading volume. For more 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. SELECTICA INC: Bernstein Leibhard Initiates Securities Suit in NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Selectica, Inc. (NASDAQ: SLTC) securities between March 10, 2000 and December 6, 2000. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Named as defendants in the complaint are Selectica and the following executive officers of Selectica: Rajen Jaswa, Sanjay Mittal, and Stephen Bennion. The complaint also names as defendants Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. and Fleet Boston Robertson Stephens, Inc., co-lead underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of 4,000,000 shares of common stock at $30.00 per share on March 10, 2000. The complaint charges defendants with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (1) the Underwriter Defendants agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted Selectica shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (2) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase Selectica shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or by E-mail: SLTC@bernlieb.com. STORAGE USA: Faces Suits Over Late Fees Recovery in NY and MD -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Storage USA, Inc. faces two similar statewide class action suits in New York and Maryland. Storage USA, Inc, an umbrella-partnership real estate investment trust (UPREIT), owns some 400 self-storage facilities and manages about another 120, including some 60 franchises, in more than 30 states and the District of Columbia. Most of the facilities it buys, builds, develops, and runs are rented on a monthly basis On July 22, 1999, a purported statewide class action was filed against the Company in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Maryland, seeking recovery of certain late fees paid by tenants and an injunction against further assessment of similar fees. The Company filed a responsive pleading on September 17, 1999, setting out its answer and affirmative defenses. The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and a Motion for Class Certification, but before Storage USA was required to respond to these motions, the case was stayed until 30 days after the conclusion of appellate proceedings in an unrelated case, not involving the Company. The proceedings challenge the constitutionality of a new statute passed by the Maryland legislature relating to late fees. On November 15,1999, a similar nationwide class action suit was filed against the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Ulster County seeking recovery of certain late and administrative fees paid by tenants. The Company filed a responsive pleading on January 28, 2000 and the case was transferred to New York County. On July 6, 2000 the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and a Motion for Class Certification. On February 6, 2001, the New York Supreme Court, in an oral ruling by Justice Gammerman, declined to certify either a New York or nationwide class. On August 10, 2001, the parties executed a stipulation discontinuing the action with prejudice. The Company stated that the terms of the settlement are confidential, however, they do not have a material impact on the Company's financial position or results of operations. TICKETMASTER INC: Missouri Court Approves Settlement of Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri approved a settlement agreement between Ticketmaster, Inc. and plaintiffs in an antitrust class action suit. The suits were originally filed as 16 separate class action lawsuits filed in United States District Courts on behalf of consumers who purchased tickets to various events through the Company. On December 7, 1994, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of the lawsuits to the Missouri District Court for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings. After an amended and consolidated complaint was filed by the plaintiffs, Ticketmaster filed a motion to dismiss the suit. 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 affirmed the district court's ruling. 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, which was denied. The plaintiffs and the Company finally reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims in November last year. Ticketmaster is the world's largest ticket retailer. It also operates Citysearch, a collection of 100 urban hubs worldwide offering access to local information on entertainment, business, news, and other events. TOBACCO LITIGATION: Landmark Trial Commences in VA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action suit requiring cigarette companies to provide medical tests for 250,000 West Virginia smokers finally went to trial last Monday in the First Judicial Circuit in Virginia. The landmark suits name as defendants: (1) R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc.'s R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., (2) Philip Morris Cos. Inc., (3) British American Tobacco Plc unit Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., and (4) Loews Corp.'s Lorillard Tobacco Co. Scott Segal, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said during opening arguments that these companies knowingly and consciously manufactured, designed and sold in a negligent and wrongful manner a ".nicotine delivery device called a cigarette." West Virginians who have smoked the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes a day for five years but have no symptoms of tobacco-related diseases want cigarette makers to create a court-administered fund to pay for regular medical tests for cancer or chronic pulmonary disorders such as emphysema. The suit further alleges that the companies continued to sell "an unreasonably unsafe" product for profit with no concern for their customers' health and did not exert effort to make a safer cigarette. The tobacco companies countered that they did nothing to conceal the possible dangers of smoking, that the hazards of their product have long been known and that the best medical monitoring is quitting. "The plaintiffs claim cigarettes are defective and because they smoked, the companies should be forced to pay for medical monitoring while most of them continue to smoke," said R.J. Reynolds attorney Jeff Furr. Furr asserts that the tests the smokers want was fundamentally unfair because it didn't require anyone to quit. "It was designed to be as large and expensive and unrestricted as possible," he said. He insisted that the companies never stopped looking for ways to make cigarettes safer. Between 1954 and 1998, tobacco companies did make cigarettes safer, reducing the average tar level 70 percent between 1954 and 1998. Furr said the only way to make cigarettes risk-free is to install a filter that blocks all the smoke -- and that's something smokers wouldn't buy. The case became the first class-action lawsuit to reach the trial phase last January until Ohio County Judge Arthur Recht declared a mistrial because plaintiff witnesses made banned references to nicotine and addiction. Under West Virginia law, class-action cases cannot depend on testimony that refers to issues relevant to individual smokers, such as addiction. The lawsuit survived an industry motion to decertify its class status and later got the green light to proceed anew, under new rules that allow use of the word "nicotine" only in the context of the assertion that cigarettes represent a nicotine-delivery system. TRUMP HOTELS: Settles Securities Suit in NJ ------------------------------------------------ Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, Inc. reached a settlement agreement with plaintiffs in the class action suit filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Atlantic County. The court approved the settlement last May 17, 2001, the Court preliminarily approved the Stipulation, pending a Settlement Hearing to determine the fairness and adequacy of the proposed settlement. The suit was filed early last year by Mark Metelman, a stockholder of the Company, on behalf of all stockholders against the Company and each member of the Board of Directors. The plaintiff claimed that a third party made an offer to purchase THCR, and that one or more members of the Board of Directors wrongly failed to consider the supposed offer. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer. On July 21, 2000, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's Complaint, without prejudice. The Court granted the plaintiff ten weeks during which to file an Amended Complaint, pleading a stockholder derivative action, and on October 12, 2000, plaintiff filed the amended complaint. Both parties reached the agreement in March 2001, without admitting any wrongdoing or liability. The settlement is still subject to court approval. VISION TWENTY-ONE: Sued by Shareholders For Securities Act Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Vision Twenty-One, Inc. faces a securities class action suit filed last April in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division for securities act violations. The Company, one of its former executive officers who was also a director and two former officers are named as defendants in the suits. The complaints allege that the Company issued materially false and misleading statements related to the Company's integration of its acquisitions, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suit, filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's Common Stock in the period between December 5, 1997 and November 5, 1998, arose from the following complaints: (1) Tad McBride against Vision Twenty-One, Inc., Theodore N. Gillette, Richard T. Welch, and Michael P. Block, filed on January 22, 1999; (2) Robert Rosen v, Vision Twenty-One, Inc., Theodore N. Gillette and Richard T. Welch, filed on January 27, 1999; (3) Charles Murray against Vision Twenty-One, Inc., Theodore N. Gillette, Richard T. Welch and Michael P. Block, filed on January 29,1999; and (4) Sam Cipriano, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Vision Twenty-One, Inc., Theodore N. Gillette, Richard T. Welch and Michael P. Block, filed on February 22, 1999. These complaints were consolidated into one case and one plaintiff's group was appointed lead plaintiff by judicial order in 1999. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on October 15, 1999 and the lead plaintiffs served answering papers on December 3, 1999. The Court granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss in August 2000. A Motion for Class Certification was filed on January 26, 2001 and the parties are continuing in class certification discovery to enable the defendants to respond to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses to this matter and intends to assert them vigorously. VISUAL NETWORKS: Faces Multiple Securities Suits in MD ---------------------------------------------------------------- Visual Networks, Inc. faces several class actions filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in July, August and September 2000. The complaints allege that the Company and certain of its executives made false and misleading statements between February 7, 2000 and August 23, 2000, which inflated the market price of the Company's stock. The suits charge the defendants with violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company has vowed to defend itself vigorously against the case, though they cannot give any assurance about the results of the litigation. The Company believes that failure to prevail in the litigation could result in the payment of substantial monetary or punitive damages. Visual Networks, Inc. designs, manufactures, sells and supports comprehensive service management systems for providers and users of new world connectivity services and out-sourced Web services. WAL-MART CORPORATION: Charged With Forcing Unpaid Overtime on Employees ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Two former women employees of retailing giant Wal-Mart filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court Monday, accusing the discount chain of requiring employees to work unpaid overtime. The suit, which seeks class action status, was filed on behalf on behalf of all current and former employees of Wal-Mart's 30 Washington state stores. Plaintiffs Tamra Moore of Snohomish County and Debra Barnett of King County accuse the chain of keeping employees locked in the store for hours, without pay, until managers had completed checks of every department. The lawsuit also claims that employees were often required to skip meal breaks and rest periods, work overtime and attend meetings and training sessions, all without being reimbursed. It says employees were pressured to do so through intimidation and threats they would be fired. Rob Phillips, spokesman for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart, said that company policy is to pay all of our associates for all of the time that they work. He could not comment on the lawsuit, as he had not seen the complaint yet. Similar lawsuits are pending in New York, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, California, Iowa, Oregon, Georgia and Kentucky, according to Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC, one of the law firms representing the plaintiffs. Phillips confirmed that several similar suits were pending in other states. WESTERN STATE: Judge Orders Changes Costing $3 Million Per Year -------------------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge required Western State Hospital to effect changes that are expected to cost the hospital about $3 million per year. U.S. District Judge Robert Bryan ruled on a class action suit filed on behalf of the center's 250 patient Monday, saying that the hospital must hire more staff and create a separate ward for female patients. The lawsuit said that living conditions at the center were "deplorable" - overcrowded wards and dorm rooms, and sexually aggressive male patients in the same wards as vulnerable women, leading to assaults. The hospital houses about 250 men and women who are either charged with a crime and awaiting evaluation, or have been found innocent of a crime by reason of insanity. The center currently has a staff of about 20. Western State also must create an all-female ward at the center to keep aggressive patients away from vulnerable ones. A 48-year-old woman said she was sexually assaulted twice - once in the hospital kitchen and the second in in the shower area of a coed bathroom. The state Department of Social and Health Services agreed with the lawsuits allegations and said improvements could made to benefit patients. The Legislature already has approved a boost in the hospital's budget to cover the costs of making the changes, said Karl Brimner, director of DSHS' mental health division. ********* 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, Aurora Fatima Antonio 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 * * *