CAR_Public/010913.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, September 13, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 179


                              Headlines

CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Suit in NY
COLONIAL PIPELINE: Residents Mull Environmental Suit in AL And TN
COMMERCE ONE: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in NY
COPPER MOUNTAIN: Securities Suits Could Adversely Affect Business
CRITICAL PATH: Securities Suits Could Seriously Affect Business
DOUBLECLICK INC.: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suits in NY
DRKOOP.COM: Denies Allegations of Securities Fraud in NY
ENRON CORPORATION: Texas Supreme Court Reverses Class Certification  
FOSTER CARE: Suit Mentions Negligent Agency and Shameful Conditions
GILSTER CORPORATION: Sued After Employees Develop Rare Lung Disease
ICT GROUP: Denies Allegations in Securities Suit in PA
IMMUNE RESPONSE: Kirby McInerney Initiates Securities Suit in CA
INFOSPACE INC.: Rosen Law Commences Securities Suit in NY
IVILLAGE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in NY
IXL ENTERPRISES: Faces Multiple Securities Suits in GA
LEINER HEALTH: Receives $16 Million Settlement in Antitrust Suit
LODGIAN INC: Delaware Chancery Court Dismisses Securities Suit
MEAD JOHNSON: Holstein Zimmerman Initiates Nationwide Suit in Chicago
METRIS COMPANIES: Sued For Consumer Fraud in Minnesota Court
MICROSTRATEGY INC.: Enters Settlement in Suit Filed in VA
NET2000 COMMUNICATIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY
PRIME RETAIL: Sued For Violation of the Federal Securities Law
SECOND-HAND SMOKE: Study Commences on Effect of Smoke on Casino Workers
SEROLOGICAL CORPORATION: District Court Dismisses Securities Suit
TERAYON COMMUNICATIONS: California Court Dismisses Suit With Prejudice
TREX COMPANIES: Bernard Gross Initiates Securities Suit in VA
VERTICALNET INC: Sued For Securities Acts Violations in NY
WR GRACE: Faces Environmental Suit Due to Operations in MT and MN
Z-TEL TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY
ZIFF-DAVIS INC.:  Moves to Dismiss Securities Suit in New York


                              *********


CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Chordiant Software, Inc.
(NASDAQ: CHRD) securities between February 14, 2000 and December 6,
2000.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a
Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false
and misleading information and failed to disclose material information.

The Prospectus was issued in connection with Chordiant's initial public
offering of 4.5 million shares of common stock at $18.00 per share that
was completed on or about February 14, 2000.

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
         Chordiant 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 Chordiant shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations by Mail: Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th
Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-
1414 by E-mail: CHRD@bernlieb.com or visit their Website:
www.bernlieb.com.


COLONIAL PIPELINE: Residents Mull Environmental Suit in AL And TN
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents from 14 Alabama and Tennessee counties plan to file a class
action suit against Atlanta-based Colonial Pipeline, who plans to put
up a petroleum pipeline.

Those who opposed the project met at a special meeting at the Lincoln
County Courthouse in Fayetteville to discuss the issue.

No one from Colonial attended the Thursday meeting in Fayetteville.

A group called Secure Alabama's Valuable Environment (SAVE) sought
political support to stop the pipeline project on grounds that it could
harm communities and endanger people and wildlife.

Colonial spokespeson Sam Whitehead said that the company hoped to work
with communities and landowners on the route and added that the
pipeline should operate discreetly as designed.

The proposed route runs 225 miles from Talladega through Huntsville in
Alabama, and Redstone Arsenal to Nashville.

Whitehead has emphasized that the Company hopes not to condemn any
affected land and will provide compensation to landowners.

Colonial officials have said that they have the right to condemn
property in Tennessee.

However, State Rep. Joe Fowlkes was confident that they would prevail
in the dispute.  He said that while Tennessee law grants eminent domain
powers to natural gas pipelines, they do not apply to petroleum lines.

Colonial Pipeline is owned by nine of the nation's biggest oil
companies, including Amoco, Citgo, Conoco and Phillips Petroleum.


COMMERCE ONE: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Commerce One, Inc. (NASDAQ:
CMRC) securities between July 1, 1999 and June 15, 2001.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Named as defendants in the complaint are Commerce One and the following
executive officers of Commerce One:

     (1) Mark B. Hoffman,

     (2) Peter F. Pervere,

     (3) Thomas J. Gonzales, II,

     (4) Asim Abdullah,

     (5) Jay M. Tenebaum,

     (6) John V. Balen,

     (7) William B. Elmore,

     (8) Kenneth C. Gardner,

     (9) William J. Harding,

    (10) John P. Swingewood, and

    (11) Jeffrey T. Webber.

The complaint also names as defendants Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation, Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation and
U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc., co-lead underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering of 3,300,000 shares of common stock at $21.00
per share on July 1, 1999.

The complaint charges defendants 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,
for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained
material misrepresentations and/or omissions.

The Prospectus was issued in connection with the Commerce One IPO.

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

     (i) 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
         Commerce One shares issued in connection with the Commerce One
         IPO; and

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

For further details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations, by Mail: Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th
Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-
1414 by E-mail at CMRC@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bernlieb.com.


COPPER MOUNTAIN: Securities Suits Could Adversely Affect Business
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Copper Mountain Networks, Inc. said that pending securities litigations
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California could have an adverse effect on business operations.

They said that even if their defense against such claims is successful,
the litigation could result in substantial costs and divert
management's attention and resources.

Since October 2000, approximately twenty-four complaints have been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and two of its officers.

One related derivative action was filed in Delaware.

The suits allege violations of the federal securities laws arising out
of declines in the Company's stock price.

Specifically, the complaints allege that the Company made false
statements and omissions to the public and to the securities markets.  

The Company is a leader in digital subscriber line (DSL) communications
products for telecommunications and Internet service providers, which
enable high-speed broadband connectivity over existing copper phone
lines


CRITICAL PATH: Securities Suits Could Seriously Affect Business
---------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Path, Inc. believes that pending securities suits in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
could seriously harm their business.

The Company said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the lawsuits could harm its relationships with existing
customers and its ability to obtain new customers.

The continued defense of the lawsuits and conduct of the investigation
could also result in the diversion of management's time and attention
away from business operations.

Furthermore, negative developments with respect to the lawsuits could
cause the Company's stock price to decline significantly.

Beginning on February this year, a number of securities class action
complaints were filed against the Company, its current and former
officers and directors, and their accountants.

The complaints have been consolidated into a single action.

The complaints generally allege that, in differing periods from
December 1999 to February 1, 2001, the Company made false or misleading
statements of material fact about their financial statements for the
year 2000 and beyond.

Derivative actions were also filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California and in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The derivative complaints allege that certain of Critical Path's
current and former officers and directors:

     (1) breached their fiduciary duties,

     (2) engaged in abuses of their control,

     (3) unjustly enriched by their sales of our common stock,

     (4) engaged in insider trading in violation of California law, and

     (5) published false financial information in violation of
         California law.

The company provides e-mail hosting, wireless device support,
integrated calendaring, and bi-directional fax to e-mail for some 2,000
customers (corporations, ISPs, and telecom providers).


DOUBLECLICK INC.: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suits in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Internet advertising company Doubleclick, Inc. vowed to vigorously
oppose several securities class action suits pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaints also name as defendants the following:

     (1) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (2) Kevin J. O'Connor,

     (3) Kevin P. Ryan,

     (4) Dwight A. Merriman,

     (5) Stephen R. Collins,

     (6) David N. Strohm,

     (7) Mark E. Nunnelly,

     (8) W. Grant Gregory, and

     (9) Donald Peppers

The suits assert that the Company violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement filed with the
SEC on or about February 19, 1998 and the Prospectus filed on or about
February 20, 1998 for the issuance and initial public offering of 3.5
million shares of DoubleClick common stock contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions.


DRKOOP.COM: Denies Allegations of Securities Fraud in NY
--------------------------------------------------------
DrKoop.Com, Inc. has vowed to vigorously oppose the securities class
action suits pending against them in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The Company said that similar lawsuits have been filed against
companies which have completed their initial public offerings in 1999
and 2000.

The suits assert similar allegations, stating that the defendants
violated federal securities laws with regard to their initial public
offering.

They allege that the Company issued and sold common stock without
disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in the offering,
including the lead underwriters, had solicited and received undisclosed
and excessive commissions from certain investors.

The Company believes that the claims alleged in the lawsuit are
primarily directed at the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering and are without merit.

DrKoop.Com, Inc. is an health information provider on the World Wide
Web.


ENRON CORPORATION: Texas Supreme Court Reverses Class Certification  
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Supreme Court declared as "improper" the class certification
granted to a lawsuit filed in 1995 and remanded the case to the Harris
County District Court in Houston, Texas.

In 1995, several parties filed suit against Intratex Gas Company
Houston Pipe Line Company and Panhandle Gas Company, each of which is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Enron.  

The Plaintiffs were either sellers or royalty owners under numerous gas
purchase contracts with Intratex, many of which have terminated.  

In 1996, the Court split the case into two matters to be tried
separately.

The first matter alleged that the Enron Defendants committed fraud and
negligent misrepresentation in connection with the "Panhandle program,"
a special marketing program established in the early 1980s.  

This case was tried in October 1996 and resulted in a verdict for the
Enron Defendants.  

The second matter alleged that the Enron Defendants violated state
regulatory requirements and certain gas purchase contracts by failing
to take the Plaintiffs' gas ratably with other producers' gas at
certain times between 1978 and 1988.  

The trial court certified a class action with respect to ratability
claims.  

The Company denied the allegations and have asserted various
affirmative defenses, including the statute of limitations.  

Enron believes that they have strong legal and factual defenses, and
intend to vigorously contest the claims.  

Enron is the #1 buyer and seller of natural gas and the top wholesale
power marketer in the US.

Enron also markets and trades other commodities, including metals,
paper, coal, chemicals, and fiber-optic bandwidth.


FOSTER CARE: Suit Mentions Negligent Agency and Shameful Conditions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Shameful" and inefficient foster care conditions have spurred lawyers
to file a class action lawsuit against the Department of Children and
Families.

An important allegation states that the department does not exert
enough effort to find missing children who run away from the foster
care system.

About 80 foster children are listed as either runaways or victims of
parental abduction.

In Miami-Dade County, 138 children were listed as runaways as of last
week.

Natalye James relinquished custody of her developmentally disabled
daughter to the Department of Children & Families with hopes the
teenager would get counseling to help her cope with the sexual abuse
she endured at the hands of her father.

The 16-year-old ran away from a school for emotionally disturbed
children and has told authorities that she had been raped twice while
she was alone in Miami, and was sleeping outside near a shed.

James and advocates for foster children are demanding answers from the
child welfare department.  

``From the first day the lawsuit was filed, we have been very worried
as to why there are almost 100 children in care who have run away, been
abducted or are missing that DCF can't account for,'' Talenfeld said.

The department has denied these allegations.

They say they called police immediately upon learning the girl was
missing.

The department also called the Missing and Exploited Children's
Network, hoping to get the girl's picture posted on the network's
website. The agency also asked a judge to sign an order for police to
find her.

``Once we did find out, we did take immediate action, and we followed
the proper procedure,'' said Eva Coblentz, a department spokeswoman.
``We did everything we needed to do at that time.''

``We are concerned about these kids,'' Coblentz added. ``We do care.
Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, some people think we do not care.
But we try to help.''


GILSTER CORPORATION: Sued After Employees Develop Rare Lung Disease
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Six factory workers at the Gilster Mary Lee Corporation popcorn plant
filed a class action suit in Jasper County Circuit Court in Missouri
alleging that additives used in the plant destroyed their lungs.

Eight workers have developed bronchiolitis obliterans, a rare pulmonary
disease that makes it difficult for them to breathe.

Federal and state health investigators suspect that something in the
popcorn flavoring is causing damage to the workers' lungs after they
got sick in the room where butter flavorings, soybean oil and salt are
mixed.

The suit also names International Flavors and Fragrances Inc. of New
York, which makes the butter flavoring and Joplin doctor Rick L.
Scacewater.

The suit alleges Scacewater treated most of the sickest patients, knew
they came out of the same plant and never warned employees or anyone
else.

A spokesman for International Flavors and Fragances and Scacewater's
counsel claimed that they had not seen the suit and declined to make
any comment.

The company, which has been in operation for 14 years and employs 130
people, has begun encouraging workers to wear respirators in the room,
following recommendation by the National Institute for Occupational
Safety.

The company has cooperated with the institute, often taking steps to
improve exhaust systems and worker conditions in the plant before they
were recommended by NIOSH.

Even then, lung tests showed that 12 workers had significant declines
in lung function between April and August, after the company had made
changes to lower chemical and dust levels.

Four of the eight workers who have developed the disease are awaiting
lung transplants while some workers have developed skin and eye
irritations.


ICT GROUP: Denies Allegations in Securities Suit in PA
------------------------------------------------------
Global telemarketer ICT Group, Inc. vehemently denied allegations in a
securities class action suit filed against them in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On October 23, 1997, a shareholder, acting on behalf of a class of ICT
shareholders filed a complaint in against the Company and certain of
its directors.

The complaint alleged that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's initial public
offering effective June 14, 1996.

On February 2, 1998, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and the court granted this motion with leave to plaintiff to
file an amended complaint on narrow accounting allegations on May
19,1998.

On June 22, 1998, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint purporting to bring negligence claims in connection with the
Company's initial public offering.

On November 3, 1998, the court granted a motion appointing Rowan Klein
and Michael Mandat as lead plaintiffs.

On February 2, 1999, the court dismissed the case without prejudice,
directing that the case remain in status quo, that the statute of
limitations be tolled and that the parties continue with discovery and
advise the court if assistance by the court is needed.

The Company has filed a motion for summary judgement seeking to have
the case dismissed on the grounds that there is no material issue of
fact.

Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to defendant's motion
and also filed a motion to have the matter certified as a class action.

In September 2000, the Court entered orders dismissing both motions
without prejudice, with leave to re-file such motions upon the
completion of discovery.

The Company anticipates that further discovery will be conducted.

The company handles outgoing and incoming calls from about 40 call
centers in the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe.

Its services include marketing research, sales support, consulting, and
e-commerce needs of clients such as insurance, financial, information
technology, and telecommunications firms.


IMMUNE RESPONSE: Kirby McInerney Initiates Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP has commenced a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of Immune Response Corporation
(NASDAQ: IMNR) common stock between May 17, 1999 and July 6, 2001,
including investors who purchased stock in Immune Response
Corporation's August 2000 secondary stock offering.

The action charges Immune Response Corporation as well as the Company's
Chief Executive Officer and its Director of Medical and Scientific
Affairs, with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 arising from defendants' false and misleading
statements concerning the efficacy of its AIDS-treatment drug Remune.

The complaint alleges that defendants misstated and manipulated the
results of a study performed on Remune that was concluded in May 1999,
and then attempted to prevent scientists who performed the study from
divulging the results - which showed that there was no statistically
significant evidence that Remune helped patients - to the public.

The complaint alleges, defendants continued to represent the benefits
of Remune until, in June 2001, the Company admitted that an additional
study had found no significant difference between patients treated with
Remune and those not given Remune.

On July 6, 2001, the Company's partner in developing Remune exited
further collaboration in development of Remune, as there was no
convincing evidence that Remune helped patients.

As a result of such defendants' actions and misleading statements, as
alleged in the complaint, Immune Response's stock price rose during the
Class Period to artificially inflated levels, trading over $18 per
share and allowing the defendants to complete a lucrative secondary
stock offering in August 2000.

When the truth about Remune was finally, fully and belatedly disclosed
to the public and the marketplace, Immune Response's stock price fell
to below $3.00 per share.

For more information, contact Ira M. Press or Gretchen Becht 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: gbecht@kmslaw.com


INFOSPACE INC.: Rosen Law Commences Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf
of all purchasers of InfoSpace, Inc. (Nasdaq -INSP) publicly traded
common stock during the period from January 26, 2000 through January
30, 2001.

The complaint charges InfoSpace and its founder and Chairman Naveen
Jain with violations of the federal securities laws. Specifically,
plaintiffs have brought claims under sections 10(b) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges InfoSpace and its founder and Chairman, Naveen
Jain, with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that between January 2000 and January 2001,
Defendants disseminated false and misleading information concerning
InfoSpace's actual FY 1999 and 2000 financial performance and
Defendants' expectations concerning InfoSpace's FY 2001 revenue and
earnings.

In fact, neither InfoSpace's reported FY 1999 and FY 2000 results nor
its projected FY 2001 performance were accurate.

Defendants' public representations were the result of Defendants'
efforts to manipulate InfoSpace's reported earnings and expected FY
2001 performance and were designed to, and did, allow:

     (1) Jain to sell millions of dollars of his own InfoSpace shares
         at artificially inflated prices; and

     (2) allow Defendants to complete a series of acquisitions using
         shares of InfoSpace's artificially inflated stock as currency,
         including the October 2000 acquisition of Go2Net.

On January 30, 2001, after Defendants had completed several
acquisitions using inflated InfoSpace shares as currency, Defendants
disclosed that, contrary to the representations made by them during
2000 that InfoSpace was experiencing strong revenue growth during 4Q99,
and FY 2000 and that InfoSpace would continue to post strong revenue
growth through FY 2001, InfoSpace would report no revenue growth or EPS
for FY 2001, but rather would report declining revenue and a
significant loss for the year.

As Defendants began to reveal some of their improper conduct, including
the fact that Defendants' projected revenues and earnings estimates
were false, InfoSpace's shares fell to less than $6 per share, a 95%
decline from their Class Period high of $138-1/2 per share.

For more information, contact Laurence Rosen by Phone:866-767-3653
(toll-free) by E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or visit the firm's
Website: www.rosenlegal.com


IVILLAGE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired iVillage, Inc. (NASDAQ:
IVIL) securities between March 18, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

The case is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York.

Named as defendants in the complaint are iVillage and the following
executive officers of iVillage:

     (1) Candice Carpenter,

     (2) Nancy Evans,

     (3) Craig T. Monaghan and

     (4) Sanjay Muralidhar.

The complaint also names as defendants Goldman Sachs & Co., Credit
Suisse First Boston Corp., BancBoston Robertson Stephens and Lehman
Brothers, co-lead underwriters of the Company's initial public offering
of 3,650,000 shares of common stock at $24.00 per share on March 18,
1999.

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 for issuing a
Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions.

The Prospectus was issued in connection with the iVillage 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 iVillage
         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 iVillage shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices.

For more information, Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations, by Mail: Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th
Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-
1414 by E-mail: IVIL@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bernlieb.com


IXL ENTERPRISES: Faces Multiple Securities Suits in GA
------------------------------------------------------
Business consultant iXL Enterprises, Inc. faces several class action
complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

The suits were filed late last year and charge the Company and certain
of its directors and officers of violating federal securities acts.

These cases were consolidated last January 23,2001 and a consolidated
amended class action complaint was filed on March 27, 2001on behalf of
those who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of iXL between
November 30, 1999 and September 1, 2000.

The amended complaint seeks damages based on general allegations of
false and misleading press releases and SEC filings concerning the
Company's business prospects and financial statements.

The amended complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

A related complaint was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia

The complaint alleges causes of action under Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, the Georgia Blue Sky laws, as well as common
law claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation.

A second related complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The above complaint alleges fraud, negligent misrepresentation and
breach of fiduciary duty.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the above
suits and intends to vigorously oppose these actions.

iXL Enterprises, Inc. is a leading business and technology consultancy
that helps companies utilize the power of emerging technologies and
advanced business strategies to build stronger, more profitable
relationships with their customers and business partners.


LEINER HEALTH: Receives $16 Million Settlement in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leiner Health Products received a $16 million settlement from one of
the defendants in the antitrust lawsuit it filed in September 1999.

The suit was filed against certain of its raw material suppliers and
other alleged co-conspirators.

The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to fix vitamin
prices and allocate vitamin production volume and vitamin customers in
the United States.

The company received settlement payment of approximately $16,734,000,
net of legal fees of approximately $188,000.

In addition, the Company incurred approximately $1,680,000 of
consulting expenses paid in connection with the lawsuit and a bonus
payment of $1,150,000 awarded to certain of the Company's key
management personnel in recognition of the effect of antitrust activity
on prior years.

Compensation resulted in a net recovery of approximately $13,900,000.

The Company agreed to release all claims it may have against the
supplier and to opt out of any settlement in so far as it pertains to
the supplier.

The Company will pursue charges against its other suppliers in the
lawsuit which will not be ready for trial until approximately September
2002.

The Company is a top maker of vitamins, minerals, supplements, and OTC
drugs sold primarily under private labels, but also under its own
labels (such as YourLife, Nature's Origin, and Pharmacist Formula).

It makes more than 500 vitamin products. Its 400 pharmaceuticals
include cold medicines and analgesics; Leiner also makes bath, skin,
and hair products


LODGIAN INC: Delaware Chancery Court Dismisses Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a class action suit against
hotel and motel operator Lodgian, Inc. arising from the planned sale of
the company to Casuarina Cayman Holdings and Whitehall Real Estate.
In 1999 and 2000, a total of six class actions were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of all security holders of the
Company.

Named as defendants in each of the actions were the Company and six of
the Company's directors and/or officers.

The complaints alleged, among other things:

     (1) that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties
         in connection with an offer by Casuarina Cayman Holdings Ltd.   
         to acquire all of the Company's outstanding common stock;

     (2) that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties
         in connection with effecting certain changes to the size and
         composition of the Company's Board of Directors in connection
         with certain agreements entered into by the Company regarding
         a potential sale of the Company to Whitehall Street Real
         Estate Limited Partnership XIII and Whitehall Parallel Real
         Estate Limited Partnership XIII, and

     (3) that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
         obligations in connection with their consideration of certain
         conditional offers received by the Company regarding a
         potential sale of the Company.

The Delaware court created one consolidated class action in November
2000.

In July 2001, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the Consolidated
Action, hence relieving the Company of any potential claim for damages.


MEAD JOHNSON: Holstein Zimmerman Initiates Nationwide Suit in Chicago
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Following a recent website recall by Johnson-Mead Corp, Stern,
Holstein, Zimmerman and Hanson, P.C. filed a national class action law
suit in Chicago, IL, Cook County Circuit Court for money damages for
infants who have been ingesting baby formula manufactured by Mead-
Johnson.

The suit was filed late Tuesday, July 10, 2001.

The defective product, Enfamil Nutramigen, is marketed for babies who
have allergic reactions to cow's milk.

The mislabeling is in the Spanish instructions which if followed will
cause higher concentrations of formula, resulting in excessive
vomiting, diarrhea and therefore could cause dehydration to babies
which according to Mead Johnson, could cause death, seizures and
numerous other medical conditions.

The danger, the suit, alleges is that the overdose of formula is masked
by the same symptoms for which the infants are being fed the baby
formula. Therefore parents and pediatricians alike have no reason to
suspect the defective product as an aggravating factor.

For more information, contact Robert A. Holstein, Thomas A. Zimmerman,
Jr., Angie Rozanski or Erica Cleaves by Phone: (877) 660-7677 (toll-
free) or (312) 440-0020 by Fax: (312) 440-4180 or by E-mail:  
tzimmerman@shzhlaw.com


METRIS COMPANIES: Sued For Consumer Fraud in Minnesota Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Metris Companies, Inc. faces a class action suit filed in Hennepin
County Court in Minneapolis, Minnesota in July last year.

The suit was filed on behalf of all cardholders who were issued a
credit card by Direct Merchants Bank and were allegedly assessed fees
or charges that the cardholder did not authorize.

The suit charged Metris Companies Inc. and their subsidiaries Metris
Direct, Inc. and Direct Merchants Bank with violations of the Minnesota
Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, the Minnesota Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and breach of contract.

The complaint awaits class certification.

The Company filed an answer in August 2000 and believes that it has
substantive legal defenses to the allegations.

However, the Company said in a disclosure with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that there can be no assurance that the suit will
not have a material adverse effect on their financial position.

Metris Companies markets its Fingerhut credit card and Direct Merchants
Bank brand Visa and MasterCard to moderate-income customers throughout
the US.

Metris issues mostly secured and unsecured cards; it offers such add-
ons as credit card registration, credit insurance programs, and
extended service plans.


MICROSTRATEGY INC.: Enters Settlement in Suit Filed in VA
---------------------------------------------------------
Microstrategy, Inc. entered into an agreement to settle two securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia and the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The settlement was approved by the District Court in April 2001 and the
Chancery Court in August 2001.

The Company was sued for securities violations in connection with
various statements that were made with respect to the Company's 1999,
1998 and 1997 financial results.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as
defendants in the suits, alleging that they had violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) and Section 20A of the Exchange Act.

A derivative suit was then filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, with
substantially similar claims.

The two suits were later consolidated in the Virginia District Court.

Under the class action settlement agreements, class members will
receive:

     (1) five-year unsecured subordinated promissory notes issued by
         the Company having an aggregate principal amount of $80.5
         million and bearing interest at 7.5% per year;

     (2) 2,777,778 shares of the Company's Class A common stock; and

     (3) warrants issued by the Company to purchase 1,900,000 shares of
         the Company's Class A common stock at an exercise price of $40
         per share, with the warrants expiring five years from the date
         they are issued.

The Company will have the right to prepay the promissory notes at any
time.

They can also opt to mandatorily convert the promissory notes into
shares of the Company's Class A common stock at a conversion price
equal to 80% of the dollar volume-weighted average trading price per
share for all round lot transactions in the Company's stock on the
Nasdaq National Market for the ten trading days ending two days
prior to the date that written notice of conversion has been given.

The warrants may be exercised for cash or by tendering the related
unsecured subordinated promissory notes valued for the purpose of
warrant exercise at 133% of their principal amount plus accrued
interest.

Under the derivative settlement agreement, the Company was required to
add a new independent director with finance experience to the audit
committee of its Board of Directors.

The new director will also ensure continued adherence with applicable
legal and regulatory requirements regarding the independence of audit
committee members and trading by insiders.

On June 11, 2001, the Company announced the addition of two new
independent directors to the audit committee of its Board of Directors.

In addition, certain officers of the Company are required to contribute
a portion of the shares of the Company's Class A common stock that is
to be issued to class members.

Thus, Michael J. Saylor, the Chairman of the Board of Directors and
Chief Executive Officer, Sanju K. Bansal, the Vice Chairman, Executive
Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, and Mark S. Lynch, the
former Chief Financial Officer and current Vice President of Business
Affairs, will contribute to the class action settlement an aggregate of
1,683,502 shares of Class A common stock held by them.


NET2000 COMMUNICATIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Net2000 Communications, Inc.
(NASDAQ: NTKK) securities between March 6, 2000 and June 6, 2001

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Named as defendants in the complaint are Net2000 and the following
executive officers of Net2000:

     (1) Clayton A. Thomas, Jr.,

     (2) Clyde Heintzelman,

     (3) Donald E. Clarke,

     (4) Peter B. Callowhill,

     (5) Eric Geis,

     (6) Reid Miles,

     (7) Mitchell Reese,

     (8) Goldman, Sachs & Co.,

     (9) Donald, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp.,

    (10) J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., and

    (11) Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc.


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 Prospectus was issued in connection with the Net2000 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 Net2000
         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 Net2000 shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations by Mail: Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th
Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-
1414 by E-mail at NTKK@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bernlieb.com.


PRIME RETAIL: Sued For Violation of the Federal Securities Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore-based outlet center developer Prime Retail, Inc. faces a
class action suit for federal securities law violations, according to a
report in the Baltimore Business Journal.

Eight lawsuits were filed last year, accusing the beleaguered retailer
of misleading investors and artificially inflating Prime's stock price.

Stockholders brought the class-action suits against Prime Retail last
year, alleging the defendants violated federal securities law by
misleading investors and artificially inflating Prime's stock price.

The suits claim thousands of shareholders lost money because of the
real estate trust's negligence.

Prime Retail vehemently denied any liability and recently filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company
labeled the allegations as "without merit" and stated its intention to
vigorously defend itself against the suits.

In addition to Prime Retail, the other defendants include Glenn D.
Reschke, the president, chief executive officer and chairman of the
board of directors; William H. Carpenter Jr., the former president and
chief operating officer and a current director; Abraham Rosenthal, the
former chief executive officer and a former director; Michael W.
Reschke, the former chairman of the board and a current director; and
Robert P. Mulreaney, the former chief financial officer and treasurer.

The matter was briefly discussed at the company's annual shareholder
meeting last month, where leaders promised -- again -- to defend the
consolidated suit.


SECOND-HAND SMOKE: Study Commences on Effect of Smoke on Casino Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Researchers from the Nevada School of Medicine are raring to start  
their research into how second-hand smoke affects casino dealers when
they received a $2.3 million federal grant.

National Institutes of Health awarded the grant, and the research
project is the first major study into the effects of workplace exposure
to environmental tobacco smoke.

An earlier study in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine revealed that Nevada has the most adult smokers in the nation,
and also the highest rate of asthma and deaths from smoking related
illness.

Casinos and hotels employ 25 percent of the people in Clark County.

Several casino workers have filed a class action suit against the
tobacco industry claiming illnesses from exposure to second-hand smoke.

A federal judge tossed out the suit in July, stating there were too
many individual factors for a class action suit. That decision has been
appealed

Second-hand smoke kills nearly 400 people in Clark County each year,
said Robin Camacho, spokeswoman for the American Heart Association's
Las Vegas office.

She said she hoped the study would encourage the gaming industry to
stop viewing smoking as essential to casino profits.

"Tobacco lobbyists wield powerful influence, and the public needs to be
aware that our state does nothing to protect these casino workers from
second-hand smoke," Camacho said Wednesday.


SEROLOGICAL CORPORATION: District Court Dismisses Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division has ordered the dismissal of the securities class
action suit against Serologicals Corporation (Nasdaq: SERO).

United States District Court Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr. granted
Serologicals' motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the
plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to show a violation of U.S.
securities laws.

The court further ruled that the plaintiffs will not be permitted to
amend the lawsuit. The ruling is subject to potential appeal by the
plaintiffs.

In its ruling, the court noted that the plaintiffs had already amended
their complaint twice and that "further amendments will not generate
any new factual allegations capable of averting dismissal under the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995."  

The court further said that "The plaintiffs' complete failure to
identify direct or even strong circumstantial evidence of scienter
suggests that no such evidence exists."

"We are extremely pleased that the court has dismissed this lawsuit,
which we have always believed to be totally without merit," said David
Dodd, president and chief executive officer of Serologicals. "We look
forward to focusing our total efforts on the many positive strategic
and operational initiatives that we are implementing, which are
designed to further build upon our recent accomplishments."

Serologicals Corporation, headquartered in Atlanta, is a worldwide
provider of biological products to life science companies.

The Company's products are used in the further development of
diagnostic, biotech and therapeutic products.


TERAYON COMMUNICATIONS: California Court Dismisses Suit With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County, California has dismissed
with prejudice a class action suit filed against the Company for
alleged unlawful business practices late last year.

The suit, filed against the Company and certain of the Company's
officers, causes of action under California Business & Professions Code
Sections 17200 et seq. and 17500.

The suit charged the Company with unlawful business practices, unfair
and fraudulent business practices, and false and misleading
advertising.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on January 19,
2001.

The court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the action and denied
plaintiffs' motion requesting remand.

On April 5, 2001, defendants moved for an order requiring further
proceedings, if any to take place in the Northern District of
California.

Plaintiffs did not oppose this motion and eventually entered into a
stipulation to go forward in the Northern District.

On July 9, 2001, a status conference was held in this case where the
plaintiffs did not appear.

The court then requested that defendants submit an order dismissing the
Bertram action with prejudice.

Terayon Communication Systems provides broadband equipment and is also
is a provider of digital subscriber line systems, which speed access
over copper telephone lines.


TREX COMPANIES: Bernard Gross Initiates Securities Suit in VA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit on July 11, 2001 in
the Western District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Trex Company, Inc. (NYSE: TWP), between April 24, 2001
through June 18, 2001 inclusive.

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 by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between, April 24, 2001 through June
18, 2001 thereby artificially inflating the price of Trex securities.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Company
repeatedly issued press releases highlighting the Company's strong
sales revenue growth and earnings growth.

These statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose that:

     (1) the company had shipped to their customers product in
         quantities far in excess of the actual demand which resulted
         in inventory build-up at its customers; and

     (2) the excess inventory at the customer level resulted in the
         company not reasonably believing it could achieve $81 million
         in first half revenues for 2001 .

Finally, on June 18, 2001, the company revealed that because of its
excess inventories at the customers, it had experienced substantially
reduced sales in April and May and that Trex expected to achieve only
$66 to $68 million in revenues for the first half of 2001.

As a result of this disclosure, Trex's stock price fell $7.98 to close
at $18.50 on June 19, with over 1.3 million shares traded.

Furthermore, defendants Wittenberg and Matheny sold 190,000 shares of
Trex stock at prices that were artificially inflated by the defendants'
wrongdoing.

For more information, contact Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. by
Mail: 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone:
866-561-3600 (toll free), 800-849-3120 (toll free) or 215-561-3600


VERTICALNET INC: Sued For Securities Acts Violations in NY
----------------------------------------------------------
VerticalNet, Inc. faces several class action lawsuits filed in the
United States Federal Court for the Southern District of New York.

The first suit was filed last June 12, 2001, after which copycat
actions containing substantially similar allegations were filed.

The suits named as defendants, four underwriters involved in the
issuance and initial public offering of 3.5 million shares of
VerticalNet stock in February 1999:

     (1) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     (2) Hambrecht & Quist LLC,

     (3) Volpe Brown Whelan & Company LLC, and

     (4) WIT Capital Corporation.

The complaints allege violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The suits allege the following:

     (1) that the four underwriters awarded material portions of the
         initial shares to certain favored customers in exchange for
         excessive commissions,

     (2) that the underwriters engaged in a practice known as
         "laddering," whereby the clients or customers agreed that in
         exchange for IPO shares they would purchase additional shares
         in the Company at progressively higher prices after the IPO,
         and

     (3) that the Company, its officers and directors failed to
         disclose in the Prospectus and the Registration Statement the
         existence of these purported excessive commissions and
         laddering agreements.

VerticalNet has instructed their legal counsel to vigorously oppose the
lawsuits and stated its intention to enforce indemnity with respect to
the underwriters who are also named as defendants in the complaints.


VerticalNet is a leading operator of online vertical trade communities
focusing specifically on the business-to-business segment of the
Internet.

It has a stable of more than 55 Web sites spanning 14 industry groups.
Among its offerings are Water Online (municipal water supply and
wastewater treatment) and Chemical Online (chemical processing).

     
WR GRACE: Faces Environmental Suit Due to Operations in MT and MN
-----------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace, Inc. faces two class action lawsuits due to alleged harm
resulting from the firm's operations in Montana and Minnesota.

In February 2000, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court in Missoula, Montana on behalf of owners
of improved private property situated within 12 miles of Libby,
Montana.

The action alleges that the class members have suffered harm from
environmental contamination and loss of property rights resulting from
Grace's former vermiculite mining and processing operations.

A similar lawsuit was filed in October 2000 in the 4th District
Court of Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The lawsuit makes similar allegations on behalf of owners of real
property situated near a former vermiculite processing plant in
Northeast, Minneapolis.

The Company denied the allegations, saying that it has no reason to
believe that its former activities caused damage to the environment or
property.

These suits are not expected to result in material liability to Grace.

W. R. Grace & Co., through its subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in
specialty chemicals and specialty materials businesses on a worldwide
basis.

These businesses consist of catalysts and silica products (Davison
Chemicals) and construction chemicals, building materials and container
products (Performance Chemicals).


Z-TEL TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Z-Tel Technologies, Inc.
[NASDAQ: ZTEL] between December 15, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive, against defendants Z-Tel, certain of its officers and
directors, and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Z-Tel common stock pursuant to the December
15, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated Z-Tel 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 Z-Tel stock rocketed upward
was intended to drive Z-Tel'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 information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gustavo Bruckner,
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 their Website: www.whafh.com. E-mail
should refer to Z-Tel.


ZIFF-DAVIS INC.:  Moves to Dismiss Securities Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ziff-Davis, Inc. has asked the New York Supreme Court to dismiss a
class action lawsuit filed by two former employees last October 6,2000.

The suit named the Company, ZDNet, Inc. (ZDNet), SOFTBANK, Inc.
(SOFTBANK) and Company officer Eric Hippeau as defendants.

The complaint alleges breach of contract, detrimental reliance and
unjust enrichment resulting from:

     (1) the allegedly wrongful shortening of exercise periods of
         certain Ziff-Davis, ZDNet and SOFTBANK options and

     (2) the allegedly wrongful revocation of other Ziff-Davis and
         ZDNet options.  

The complaint was filed on behalf of all persons who were holders of
employee stock options in Ziff-Davis, ZDNet, or SOFTBANK as of April
13, 2000 (excluding Mr. Hippeau).  

On November 20, 2000, defendants Ziff-Davis, ZDNet and Eric Hippeau
moved to dismiss the action.  

Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action with regard to SOFTBANK
and Mr. Hippeau on January 26, 2001, and, on March 12, 2001, indicated
an intention to seek voluntary dismissal of the entire action.  

Papers concerning the dismissal have been submitted to the court, and
the parties await court approval.

Ziff-Davis, Inc. publishes eWeek, Inter@ctive Week, and Sm@rt Partner.

The company's Ziff Davis Internet develops Web sites, while its Ziff
Davis Development develops new magazines and stages trade shows.

                                       *********

         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  * * *