CAR_Public/010917.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, September 17, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 181


                              Headlines

ALPHARMA INC.: Will Assert Vigorous Defense in Securities Suit in NJ
AMERICAN HOME: Faces Suit Over Cough Products Containing PPA in TN
ARKANSAS: Suit Asks Better Mental-Health Care For Jail Inmates
DELANO TECHNOLOGY: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
EL SITIO: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
FAHRENHEIT ENTERTAINMENT: Sued For Including AntiPiracy Software in CDs
FINANCIAL INDUSTRIES: To Vigorously Oppose Suit in Travis County TX
FIRST HORIZON HOME LOAN: Suit Filed Over Mortgage Broker Payments
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit in Madison County IL
HUGHES ELECTRONICS: Sued For Breach of Fiduciary Duty in Delaware
HUMANA INC.: Sued by Shareholders For Securities Fraud in Florida Court
HUMANA INC.: Stockholders Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit in KY
IAMS COMPANY: Faces Consumer Suit Over Deceptive Dog Food Packaging
ICH CORPORATION: Settles With Employees Seeking Overtime Pay in CA
ICO INC.: Sued by Shareholders For Breach of Fiduciary Duty in TX
INFOSPACE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in W.D. WA
MATTEL INC.: Federal Court Dismisses Securities Suit in C.D. CA
METROMEDIA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Commences in Delaware Suit
METROMEDIA INTERNATIONAL: Circuit Court Dismisses Securities Suit
NETSILICON INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ONI SYSTEMS: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ONYX SOFTWARE: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. WA
QUALITY SYSTEMS: Suit Awaits Class Certification in CA
RAZORFISH INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SOUTH CAROLINA: Gambling Machine Owners Lose Suit Over Machine Ban
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Subsidiary Faces Securities Suit in N.D. OH
TERRORIST ATTACK: Thousands of Lawsuits Against Airlines, WTC Expected
VICTORIA FARMS: Farm Operators Agree to Pay Employees $342,969
WESTERN RESOURCES: District Court Dismisses Securities Suit in CA


                              *********


ALPHARMA INC.: Will Assert Vigorous Defense in Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpharma, Inc. believes that it will prevail in the six class action
suits filed against them in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

Based on its preliminary investigation, the Company believes it has
meritorious defenses.

The suits were brought on behalf of all persons who acquired securities
of the Company between April 28, 1999 and October 30, 2000.

Named defendants include the Company and four current officers of the
Company.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were damaged when they
acquired securities of the Company because they issued financial
statements that were materially false and misleading.

This constitutes a violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934.

The parties have not yet commenced discovery.

Additionally, the Company has filed a claim on behalf of the Company
and each of the named individual defendants under the directors' and
officers' insurance policies.

Based upon the facts as presently known, management does not believe
that it is likely that the class actions will result in liability which
will be material to the financial position of the Company.  

However, because of the stage of the discovery in this matter, the
Company is unable to conclude that resolution of the lawsuits will not
materially affect their business operations or financial position.


AMERICAN HOME: Faces Suit Over Cough Products Containing PPA in TN
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical products maker American Home Products, Inc. faces a
class action suit filed in the United States District Court in
Tennessee involving two of the Company's cough/cold products.

The Company produces Dimetapp and Robitussin which has been found to
contain the ingredient phenylpropanolamine or PPA.

Last year, the Food and Drug Administration discovered taking PPA
increases the risk of hemorrhagic stroke and ordered all drug companies
to discontinue production of PPA-containing medicine.

The suit seeks a court-supervised medical monitoring program and a
court-supervised educational program to fully apprise plaintiffs and
class members of the alleged adverse health effects and risks of PPA.

In addition to above case,a total of 62 individual personal injury
lawsuits have been brought against the Company alleging injury as a
result of ingestion of PPA-containing products.

The Company expects that additional PPA cases may be filed in the
future against it and the other companies that marketed PPA-containing
products. Nonetheless, the Company intends to defend all such cases
vigorously.


ARKANSAS: Suit Asks Better Mental-Health Care For Jail Inmates
--------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit that
seeks adequate mental-health treatment and expedited mental exams for
county jail inmates, according to a recent Associated Press report.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Reasoner set a trial date for December 10th
and also set November 8th as the date to  hear the ACLU's request for
class-action status for the suit.  

Arkansas ACLU Executive Director Rita Sklar said the organization has
received letters from around the state from people wanting to join in
the case

The suit claims that inmates are being held in county jails for months
without getting treatment, while awaiting admission to the state
hospital, even after they have been acquitted by reason of mental
disease or defect.  

For example, the suit claims that lead plaintiff James M. Terry was
held in Sebastian County jail for months without getting treatment for
a psychotic disorder.   He was finally moved to the State Hospital.

Bettina Brownstein, an ACLU attorney, said that Scott County inmate
Howard Erler will be added to the complaint.  

She said that Erler was charged in May with breaking and entering and
tampering with evidence.

A judge, she said, has ordered a mental evaluation of Erler, which is
pending.  Erler has attempted suicide three times. According to
Brownstein, "His mother thinks that if he doesn't get the appropriate
treatment, he's going to die -- it's a life and death situation."


DELANO TECHNOLOGY: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP commenced a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Delano Technology Corp.
(NASDAQ:DTEC) securities during the period between February 8, 2000,
and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants Delano Technology, John Foresi, Thomas
Hearne, and FleetBoston Robertson Stephens with violations of Sections
11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On or about February 8, 2000, Delano Technology commenced an initial
public offering of 5 million of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $18 per share.

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

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

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

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

For further details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau by Phone: 888/551-9944 (toll-free) or by E-mail:  
info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Website: www.classlawyer.com.


EL SITIO: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP filed a class action lawsuit last
June 12, 2001, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of El Sitio, Inc.
(NASDAQ: LCTO) securities between December 10, 1999 and December 6,
2000.

Named as defendants in the complaint are El Sitio and the following
executive officers of El Sitio: Roberts Cibrian-Campoy and Horacio
Milberg.

The complaint also names as defendants:

     (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (2) Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

     (3) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., and

     (4) Lehman Brothers, Inc.

The above are co-lead underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering of 8,200,000 shares of common stock at $16.00 per share on
December 10, 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 El Sitio 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
         El Sitio shares issued in connection with the El Sitio IPO;
         and

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

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


FAHRENHEIT ENTERTAINMENT: Sued For Including AntiPiracy Software in CDs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Marin County woman has sued Denver-based Fahrenheit Entertainment,
Inc. for violating her consumer rights.

Karen Delise bought the Charley Pride country album "A Tribute to Jim
Reeves," which uses the Digital Content Cloaking Technology developed
by SunnComm Inc. of Phoenix.

The technology prevents users from converting, or ``ripping,'' tracks
into the MP3 audio format, although registered owners of the CD can
download digital copies of the songs into their computer.

In the wake of Napster (file swapping software that allows users to
freely trade MP3 music files over the Internet), record companies been
testing a spate of technologies devised to clamp down on CD music
copying.

Delise has filed a class action lawsuit stating that her privacy rights
were violated because she couldn't download songs without providing
personal information that could be used to track her listening habits.   

She also asserts that Fahrenheit sold the album with ``misleading
advertising'' because the CD, unlike other CDs, did not give enough
warning that the songs couldn't be converted to MP3s.

DeLise's attorney, Ira Rothken of San Rafael, said that this was a case
about giving consumers material notice to make an informed buying
decision.

Entertainment law attorney Whitney Broussard of Selverne, Mandelbaum &
Mintz LLP said music fans have come to expect CDs to work in a certain
way, so that one with restrictions may have to include warnings.

Fahrenheit Entertainment Chief Executive Officer Peter Trimarco could
not be reached for comment. SunnComm spokesman William Whitmore said
his company had not seen the suit and had no comment.


FINANCIAL INDUSTRIES: To Vigorously Oppose Suit in Travis County TX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Industries Corporation intends to vigorously oppose a class
action suit filed in Travis County, Texas against two of its
subsidiaries alleging unfair sales practices.

The Company's subsidiaries ILCO and Investors-NA are defendants in the
lawsuit filed in October 1996, in Travis County, Texas, together with
CIGNA Corporation, an unrelated Company.

The suit alleges that the universal life insurance policies sold to
them by INA Life Insurance Company (a company which was merged into
Investors-NA in 1992) utilized unfair sales practices.  

The plaintiffs amended the complaint in April 2001 to include various
post-sale allegations, including allegations related to the manner in
which increases in the cost of insurance were applied, the allocation
of portfolio yields to the universal life policies and changes in the
spread between the earned rate and the credited rate.  

The Company filed a motion to strike the amended Complaint, which
motion was denied by the Court.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion with the court for certification,
which motion will be heard by the court in October 2001.


FIRST HORIZON HOME LOAN: Suit Filed Over Mortgage Broker Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leah Farr of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, recently filed a lawsuit in U.S.
District Court against First Horizon Home Loan Corp., a Dallas-based
subsidiary of First Tennessee National Corp. of Memphis, over illegal
payments to mortgage brokers.  

Farr's lawyers are hoping to get the suit classified as a class action
on behalf of all First Horizon borrowers who had similar transactions,
according to a recent report appearing in The Commercial Appeal.

The lawsuit claims that Farr hired a morgage broker who referred her
application to First Horizon.  

The mortgage broker, not named in the suit as a defendant, received a
"yield spread premium" that was compensation to the mortgage broker for
getting Farr to accept a mortgage at an interest rate above what First
Horizon told the broker would be required to make the loan.

The payment was in essence really a referral fee, claims the action:  
Since First Horizon kept no record of work performed to earn the
premium, the company cannot claim that payment was based on work
performed.

Such payments, the lawsuit further alleges, violate the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, which does not permit payments for referring
loan business -- an argument reiterated by Richard Stone of Kirby,
McInerney & Squire of New York, one of the law firms representing Farr.

First Tennessee executives declined comment; the company does not
discuss pending legal action, said Kim Cherry, spokeswoman.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit in Madison County IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation was served with another putative class
action last May 24, 2001, filed in the Circuit Court, Third Judicial
Circuit, Madison County, Illinois.

The suit was filed on behalf of "all person in the United States who:

     (1) are the original and current owner or lessee of a 1989-1997
         model year GM vehicle that currently exhibits topcoat  
         delamination; or

     (2) are the original and current owner or lessee of a 1989-1997
         model year GM vehicle, and paid to repair topcoat delamination
         on that vehicle; or

     (3) were the original owner or lessee of a 1989-1997 model year GM
         vehicle, and paid to repair topcoat delamination on that
         vehicle.

The Complaint alleges that GM failed to disclose the possibility that
vehicles would experience "topcoat delamination" and asserts claims for
common law and statutory "fraud by omission" based on that factual
predicate.

The case is awaiting class certification.

The Company stated its intent to vigorously defend the case in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


HUGHES ELECTRONICS: Sued For Breach of Fiduciary Duty in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Hughes Electronics Corporation, a unit of General
Motors Corporation filed five class action suits in the Delaware
Chancery Court.

These actions were filed on behalf of owners of the General MotorsClass
H shares against Hughes Electronics Corporation, General Motors
Corporation and the directors of Hughes Electronics.

The lawsuits allege that News Corp has been favored as a bidder to
purchase Hughes over EchoStar to benefit the Company in violation of
alleged fiduciary duties.

The Company believes these actions are without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the lawsuits.


HUMANA INC.: Sued by Shareholders For Securities Fraud in Florida Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Healthcare provider Humana, Inc. faces three purported class action
complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

The suit was filed by former stockholders of Physician Corporation of
America, or PCA, and certain of its former directors and officers.

The Company acquired PCA by a merger that became effective on September
8, 1997.

The three actions were then consolidated into a single action.

The consolidated action alleges that PCA and the individual defendants
knowingly made false and misleading statements in press releases and
public filings regarding the financial and regulatory difficulties of
PCA's workers' compensation business.

On May 5, 1999, plaintiffs moved for certification of the purported
class, and on August 25, 2000, the defendants moved for summary
judgment.

On January 31, 2001, defendants were granted leave to file a third
party complaint for declaratory judgment on insurance coverage.

The third party complaint seeks a determination that the defense costs
and liability, if any, resulting from the class action defense are
covered by an insurance policy issued by one insurer.

The above complaint also declares that in the alternative, there is
coverage under policies issued by two other insurers.

Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the third-party
complaint.


HUMANA INC.: Stockholders Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit in KY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action filed against health care
provider Humana, Inc. have appealed a Kentucky Court's decision to
dismiss the case in the Sixth Circuit Appellate Court.

Six class action suits were filed in 1999 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville and were later
consolidated.

The suits were filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased the
Company's common stock starting in late October 1998 or (in two
complaints) on February 9, 1999, and ending (in all complaints) on
April 8, 1999.

The complaints contained the similar allegations that the defendants
knowingly or recklessly made false or misleading statements in press
releases and public filings concerning the Company's financial
condition.

These statements were made with respect to the impact of negotiations
over renewal of the Company's with HCA-The Healthcare Company which
took effect April 1, 1999.

The complaints alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or the 1934 Act, Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of
the 1934 Act.

On April 28, 2000, the defendants filed a motion requesting dismissal
of the consolidated complaint.

On November 7, 2000, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky issued a memorandum opinion and order dismissing
the action.

The Company believes they will prevail, calling the allegations
"without merit" and stating their intent to continue to pursue defense
of the action.


IAMS COMPANY: Faces Consumer Suit Over Deceptive Dog Food Packaging
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dog food maker Iams Company faces a consumer class action in California
as well as separate lawsuits from two rival companies alleging that the
Company promoted a diet harmful to the health of dogs.

According to Jerry Sicherman, president of rival Nutro Products, Iams
Company attempted to deceive customers by reducing feeding instructions
on their bags so that they could nationally advertise lower daily
costs.

The Iams Company, a subsidiary of giant multinational Procter and
Gamble, has replied that the feeding instructions were reduced to
prevent obesity in dogs.

Sicherman calls this defense "patently ridiculous" and pointed out that
Iams, like all major dog food manufacturers, has products specifically
designed to deal with obese and inactive dogs.

"Iams," Sicherman said, "is attempting to complicate what is a
straightforward issue. Iams would like us to believe that they are
engaged in a collegial discussion about pet obesity and the propriety
of using kennel dogs to determine energy requirements.

He further said that Iams is trying to fog the issue by jumping on the
anti-obesity bandwagon.


"The real issue," Sicherman said, "is about false and misleading
advertising, and about the largest consumer products company in the
world (P&G) creating a marketing strategy based on deceiving the
public. "

Sicherman asserts that Iams has continued to deceive the public by
using these nutritionally deficient feeding instructions to calculate
erroneously low feeding costs on their website.


ICH CORPORATION: Settles With Employees Seeking Overtime Pay in CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant operator ICH Corporation entered into a settlement agreement
entered with current and former employees in the class action suit
filed in the Superior Court for Sacramento County, California.

A former manager of the Company's family dining restaurant "Lyon's" the
suit on behalf of himself and others employees in California and
Oregon, who seek overtime compensation.

The action, originally filed on April 27, 2000 alleges that Lyon's
required managers to spend more than 50% of their working time
performing non-management tasks, thus entitling them to overtime
compensation.

The Company believed it had meritorious defense to the allegations and
contends that Lyon's properly classifies its managers as salaried
employees, who are thereby exempt from the payment of overtime
compensation.

Nonetheless, and to avoid the uncertainty, delay and expense associated
with the defense of class action litigation on this matter, the parties
entered into a settlement agreement resolving the action dated as of
May 25, 2001.

The effectiveness of the agreement is subject to certain contingencies,
including court approval.

The Company has previously recorded, as a liability, a provision for
its estimate of a probable amount of loss related to this suit.

Based upon the terms of the settlement agreement, management believes
that the ultimate legal and financial liability of the Company and/or
its subsidiaries with respect to this action will not materially exceed
the recorded liability at June 30, 2001.


ICO INC.: Sued by Shareholders For Breach of Fiduciary Duty in TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Ico, Inc. filed a complaint in Texas State Court in
Harris Counth May this year.

The suit also named as defendants the Company's directors, two of the
Company's former officers/directors, and Travis Street Partners, L.L.C.

The suit charged the Company with breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with Travis' offer to buy the Company.

The lawsuit also alleges that certain severance payments made by the
Company to two of the Company's former officers/directors constitutes a
misappropriation of assets.

The individual shareholder plaintiff has requested that the suit be
maintained as a class action and that he be certified as the class
representative.

The Company has entered into an agreement with the plaintiff which, for
now, indefinitely extends the time for the Company to file a responsive
answer to the lawsuit.

Ico, Inc. processes petrochemicals and reconditions oil well drilling
equipment.

The company's subsidiaries grind, blend, and compound petroleum resin
pellets into smaller sizes for use in paint and such plastic products
as garbage bags and plastic film       


INFOSPACE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in W.D. WA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein, Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired InfoSpace, Inc.
(NASDAQ: INSP) securities between January 26, 2000 and January 30,
2001.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington.

Named as defendants in the complaint are InfoSpace and its founder and
Chairman, Naveen Jain.

The complaint charges defendants with violations Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

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


MATTEL INC.: Federal Court Dismisses Securities Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed the class action suit brought against toy maker Mattel, Inc.
by former stockholders of Broderbund Software, Inc.

The suit resulted from the merger of Broderbund Software and Learning
Company, Inc., which in turn, merged with the Company late last year.

The complaint generally alleges that Learning Company misstated its
financial results prior to the time it was acquired by Mattel.

Mattel and the other defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and in late May 2001, the Court granted the defendants'
motion and dismissed the case.  

The plaintiffs have appealed the Court's ruling to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.

Several stockholders have filed derivative complaints on behalf and for
the benefit of Mattel.

The suits allege that Mattel's directors breached their fiduciary
duties, wasted corporate assets, and grossly mismanaged Mattel in
connection with Mattel's acquisition of Learning Company and its
approval of severance packages to certain former executives.  

All of these derivative actions, one of which was filed in the Court of
Chancery in Delaware and the remainder in Los Angeles Superior Court in
California, have been stayed pending the outcome of motions to dismiss
in the federal securities actions.

Mattel believes the purported class actions and derivative suits are
without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.

Mattel sells a broad variety of toy products, which are grouped into
three   major categories: Girls, Boys-Entertainment and Infant &
Preschool.


METROMEDIA INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Commences in Delaware Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a class action suit filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery against Metromedia International Group, Inc. (then known as
Fuqua Industries).

Plaintiff Virginia Abrams filed the suit in February 22, 1991 against
Fuqua Industries, Inc. (predecessor company to Metromedia), Intermark,
Inc., the then-current directors of Fuqua Industries and certain past
members of the board of directors.

The action challenged certain transactions which were alleged to
be part of a plan to change control of the board of Fuqua Industries
from J.B. Fuqua to Intermark.

Subsequently, two similar actions were filed with the Court, which
ordered all of the foregoing actions consolidated in May 1991.

On October 7, 1991, all defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

On December 28, 1995, plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended
derivative and class action complaint, purporting to assert additional
facts in support of their claim regarding an alleged plan.

Again, the defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint.

On May 13, 1997, the Court dismissed all of plaintiffs' class claims
and dismissed all of plaintiffs' derivative claims except for the
claims that Fuqua Industries board members:

     (1) entered into an agreement pursuant to which Triton Group, Inc.   
         (which was subsequently merged into Intermark,), and

     (2) undertook a program pursuant to which 4.9 million shares of
         Fuqua Industries common stock were repurchased, allegedly both
         in furtherance of an entrenchment plan.

The order also dismissed one of the defendants from the case with
prejudice and dismissed three other defendants without waiver of any
rights plaintiffs might have to reassert the claims if the opinion were
to be vacated or reversed on appeal.

On February 5, 1998, plaintiffs filed a consolidated third amended
derivative complaint making substantially similar allegations and named
as defendants Messrs. J.B. Fuqua, Klamon, Sanders, Scott, Warner and
Zellars.

In March 1998, defendants J. B. Fuqua, Klamon, Sanders, Zellars, Scott
and Warner filed their answers denying each of the substantive
allegations of wrongdoing contained in the third amended complaint.

The Company also filed its answer, submitting itself to the
jurisdiction of the Court for a proper resolution of the claims
purported to be set forth by the plaintiffs.


METROMEDIA INTERNATIONAL: Circuit Court Dismisses Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a class action lawsuit
filed against Metromedia International Group, Inc and RDM Sports Group,
Inc.

The complaint named as defendants the Company, its current and former
officers and current and former officers of RDM Sports Group, Inc.,
where the Company has a controlling interest.

On October 19, 1998, a second purported class action lawsuit with
substantially the same allegations was filed in the same court.

The complaints allege that RDM Sports Group, Inc. and its current and
former directors and officers were liable under federal securities laws
for misrepresenting RDM's financial condition during the period
between November 7, 1995 and August 22, 1997.

The complaints also allege that the defendants failed to disclose vital
information on the above dates, which was when RDM disclosed that its
management had discussed the possibility of filing for bankruptcy.

In an opinion dated March 10, 2000, the court dismissed these actions
in their entirety.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the court's decision in July this year.

The company develops and operates global communications businesses in
emerging markets including Eastern Europe and republics of the former
Soviet Union.

Its operations include cable TV systems, paging systems, radio
broadcast stations, and wireless and fixed line telecommunications
companies.


NETSILICON INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of NETsilicon, Inc. (NASDAQ:NSIL)
securities during the period between September 15, 1999 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants NETsilicon, CIBC World Markets Corp.,
U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc., Cornelius Peterson and Daniel J.
Sullivan with violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On or about September 15, 1999, NETsilicon commenced an initial public
offering of 5.25 million of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $7.00 per share.

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

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

     (1) the Underwriter Defendants (CIBC World Markets and Piper
         Jaffray) 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 NETsilicon shares issued
         in connection with the NETsilicon IPO; and

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

For further details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau by Phone: 888/551-9944 (toll-free) or by E-mail:  
info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Website: www.classlawyer.com.


NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP commenced a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Nuance Communications, Inc.
(NASDAQ:NUAN) securities during the period between April 12, 2000 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges the following defendants:

     (1) Nuance,

     (2) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (3) Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc.,

     (4) Ronald Croen,

     (5) Graham Smith and

     (6) Dr. Yogen Dalal

with violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On or about April 12, 2000, Nuance commenced an initial public offering
of 4.5 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of
$17.00 per share.

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

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

     (i) the Underwriter Defendants (Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch)
         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 Nuance shares issued in
         connection with the Nuance IPO; and

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

For further details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau by Phone: 888/551-9944 (toll-free) or by E-mail:  
info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Website: www.classlawyer.com.


ONI SYSTEMS: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of ONI Systems Corp. (NASDAQ:ONIS)
securities during the period between May 31, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The complaint charges the following defendants:

     (1) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.

     (3) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     (4) Salomon Smith Barney Inc. ,

     (5) ONI,

     (6) Hugh C. Martin, and

     (7) Chris A. Davis

with violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On or about May 31, 2000, ONI commenced an initial public offering of 8
million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $25.00
per share.

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

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

     (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
         ONI shares issued in connection with the ONI IPO; and

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

For further details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau by Phone: 888/551-9944 (toll-free) or by E-mail:  
info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Website: www.classlawyer.com.


ONYX SOFTWARE: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. WA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP commenced a class
action in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of purchasers of Onyx Software Corporation
(NASDAQ:ONXS) publicly traded securities, including those who purchased
stock pursuant to Onyx's secondary stock offering in February 2001,
during the period between January 10, 2001 and April 3, 2001,
inclusive.

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

Onyx is a supplier of customer relationship management enterprise
applications that are designed to connect a company's sales, marketing
and service organizations with customers, prospects and partners.

On January 19, 2001, Onyx announced the acquisition of Revenue Lab and,
after the close of the market, hosted a conference call to discuss the
acquisition and the Company's business and prospects.

Later, Onyx reported favorable, but false, financial results. The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Onyx made misleading
statements about its business and issued false and misleading financial
results, causing its stock to be artificially inflated.

As a result of this inflation, Onyx was able to complete a secondary
offering of 2.5 million shares at $13.50 per share, raising net
proceeds of $31.5 million on February 7, 2001.

Then, on April 3, 2001, just weeks after this offering was completed,
Onyx revealed that its 1stQ01 results would be sharply lower than the
market had been led to expect with revenues of only $26-27 million and
a large loss.

The stock dropped below $3 per share on this news. Later, on August 10,
2001, after the market closed, defendants revealed that Onyx's 4thQ00
results had been materially misstated and would have to be restated.

After this announcement, Onyx's stock price dropped to as low as $3.70
on August 13, 2001 compared to a high of $17.25.

For further details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau by Phone: 888/551-9944 (toll-free) or by E-mail:  
info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Website: www.classlawyer.com.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Suit Awaits Class Certification in CA
------------------------------------------------------
No class has been certified yet in the securities class action filed
against Quality Systems, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange.

The suit was filed by John P. Caveny on behalf of himself and those who
purchased the Company's Common Stock between June 26,1995 and July
3,1996.

On May 14, 1997, a second purported class action was filed in the same
court, essentially repeating the allegations in the Caveny lawsuit and
seeking identical relief.

The above suits were consolidated into one action.

The amended suit also named as defendants the following:

     (1) Sheldon Razin,

     (2) Robert J. Beck,

     (3) Gregory S. Flynn,

     (4) Abe C. LaLande,

     (5) Donn Neufeld,

     (6) Irma G. Carmona,

     (7) John A. Bowers,

     (8) Graeme H. Frehner, and

     (9) Gordon L. Setran.

All of the foregoing individuals were either officers, directors or
both during the period from June 26, 1995 through July 3, 1996).

The suit alleged that the defendants violated the California
Corporations Code Sections 25400 and 25500, California Civil Code
Sections 1709 and 1710, and California Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200 et. seq.

The complaint asserts that the defendants issued positive statements
about the Company that allegedly were knowingly false, in part, in
order to assist the Company and the individual defendants in selling
Common Stock at an inflated price in the Company's March 5, 1996 public
offering and at other points during the class period.

The Company and the other named defendants successfully demurred to the
plaintiffs' claim under California Civil Code Sections 1709 and 1710,
and that claim, which served as the only basis for plaintiffs' request
for punitive damages, has been dismissed from both actions.

On January 25, 1999, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the
class representative and class legal counsel.

Plaintiffs appealed that decision as to class legal counsel and finally
certified the class counsel early this year.

Discovery for class certification is ongoing.

On March 27, 2001, the court approved a notice of class certification
to be mailed to shareholders who are potential class members.

Between April 9, 2001 and May 9, 2001, class notice was mailed to
potential class members.

Merits-related discovery in the action had been stayed pending the
appointment of class counsel.
   
The Company has stated its intent to vigorously defend the action but
are uncertain whether they will prevail.


RAZORFISH INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein, Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired RazorFish, Inc.
(NASDAQ: RAZF) securities between April 27, 1999 and June 11, 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 Razorfish and the following
executive officers of Razorfish: Jeffrey A. Dachis, Craig M. Kanarick,
Per I.G. Bystedt, Jonas S.A. Svensson, Susan Black, Carter F. Bales,
Kjell A. Nordstrom, and John Wren.

The complaint also names as defendants Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation, BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., BT Alex. Brown
Incorporated, and Lehman Brothers, Inc.

The above are co-lead underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering of 3,000,000 shares of common stock at $16.00 per share on
April 27, 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 Razorfish IPO.

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

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

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

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


SOUTH CAROLINA: Gambling Machine Owners Lose Suit Over Machine Ban
------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina's Supreme Court recently ruled that video gambling
businesses should not be reimbursed for money they lost when 12
counties banned the machines these business owners rented to video
gambling operators, according to a recent Associated Press report.

Rick's Amusement filed the class-action suit on behalf of at least 15
businesses which claimed  they lost money when they were forced to
break contracts providing the video gambling operators with the
necessary machines.  The five justices unanimously agreed, however,
that the state did not illegally take money from the business owners
when it allowed a county-by-county referendum on video gambling.

The court found that the businesses knew they were in a volatile
industry where one legislative vote or court ruling could significantly
alter their bottom line.

Robb McBurney, spokesman for the attorney general's office, said that
there are still plenty of civil suits over video gambling "bumping"
through the state courts, including several about the state law banning
the games.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Subsidiary Faces Securities Suit in N.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
Symbol Technologies faces a class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Ohio in relation to their
acquisition of Telxon Inc.

>From December 1998 through March 1999, a total of 27 class actions
were filed by certain alleged stockholders of Telxon on Telxon
stockholders, other than the defendants and their affiliates, who
purchased stock during the period from May 21, 1996 through February
23, 1999.

The suits name as defendants:

     (1) Telxon,

     (2) Frank E. Brick, former President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (3) Kenneth W. Haver, former Senior Vice President and Chief
         Financial Officer.

The court consolidated these actions in August 1999 and the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in September of the same year.

The suit charged the Company with "fraud on the market" arising from
alleged misrepresentations and omissions with respect to Telxon's
financial performance and prospects.

The suit further alleges that the Company violated generally accepted
accounting principles by improperly recognizing revenues.  

On November 8, 1999, the defendants jointly moved to dismiss the
amended complaint, which was denied on September 29, 2000.  

Following the denial, the parties filed a proposed joint case schedule,
discovery commenced, and the parties each filed their initial
disclosures.  

On October 30, 2000, defendants filed their answer to the plaintiffs'
amended complaint.

They also filed a motion for reconsideration or to certify the order
denying the motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal and request for
oral argument, and a memorandum of points and authorities in support of
that motion.  

On November 14, 2000, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition of
defendants' motion, which was denied on January 19, 2001.  

Discovery is in its preliminary stages.

Symbol Technologies is a world leader in portable data terminals and
bar code scanners.

The company also makes equipment and software that ties its scanners
into wireless local-area networks.

Its products retrieve data such as product and price information, and
include a series of Palm OS- and Windows CE-based handheld computers.


TERRORIST ATTACK: Thousands of Lawsuits Against Airlines, WTC Expected
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Horror over the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington last
Tuesday may not have abated yet, but already many are expecting
"inevitable lawsuits, thousands and thousands of them."

Civil litigation experts say there is bound to be many claims made
against American and United Airlines, and the Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey, owner of the World Trade Center.

"I can assume that someone is already preparing the class-action
lawsuits. There will be hundreds of them," said Tampa-based lawyer Hugh
Smith, a former FBI agent and federal prosecutor.

Analysts expect suits will claim the airlines failed to prevent
terrorists from hijacking the four planes.

Soon after the attacks, representatives of the two airlines approached
key lawmakers with legislative language that would provide American and
United with sweeping protection from liability, congressional aides
said.

But Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce,
Science and Transportation Committee, said the proposal floated by the
airlines was "way too broad" and lawmakers were crafting legislation of
their own that would provide far more limited protection from lawsuits.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is still defending itself
against the hundreds of lawsuit arising from the 1993 bombings that
killed six and wounded more than a thousand.  Some have yet to go to
trial.

Steve Cozen, a Philadelphia-based lawyer, said "It seems kind of
unseemly to even think about those kinds of things... Having said all
that, it's just going to be a mess from all kinds of perspectives"

A civil litigator involved in many of the Firestone tire suits said
that New York courts will be deluged with actions in the wake of the
devastating destruction and unfathomable loss of life.


VICTORIA FARMS: Farm Operators Agree to Pay Employees $342,969
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Island Farms has agreed to pay $342,969 in back wages to
farmworkers in the class action suit scheduled for trial next year in
the United States District Court in Sacramento.

The San Joaquin County asparagus farm also spent $172,000 on repairs to
farm working housing where workers lived in "indentured servitude."

Under the terms of a settlement, the grower agreed to pay another
$95,000 to make additional improvements to the farm worker housing.

The attorney who represented the workers called the settlement "a great
deal."

The agreement has not ended the litigation, which names as defendant
the camp operators -- JB Farm Labor Contracting of Stockton and its
principals, Jose Bautista and Otilio Bautista.

The California Rural Legal Assistance says that the contractors still
owe the workers an estimated $200,000 for what CRLA attorneys described
as illegal deductions for food and services such as rides to job sites.

JB Farm Labor's attorney, Lee Roy Pierce, declined to comment on the
settlement or on the class-action case that is scheduled for trial next
year in U.S. District Court in Sacramento.

Victoria Island terminated its relationship with JB Farm Labor as soon
as it learned of the allegations contained in the lawsuit, according to
a joint statement released by the grower and CRLA.

"The agreement represents a mutual commitment to improve the conditions
for farm workers," the statement said. "The settlement reflects the
parties' full faith that the high quality asparagus produced by
Victoria Island Farms is produced under the best conditions in the
industry by workers who are properly paid and housed in accordance with
the law."

About 200 people worked at Victoria Island each season. A court-
approved special master will oversee efforts to contact possibly 100 to
400 workers who toiled there for the four years prior to the suit and
pay the money owed them. Ten named plaintiffs will receive $7,500 each.


WESTERN RESOURCES: District Court Dismisses Securities Suit in CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of California
nixed the class action lawsuit brought against Western Resources, Inc.
for securities fraud last June 4,2001.
The suit, originally filed as five separate complaints, asserts claims
under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suits were consolidated on August 2, 1999.

It also names the following as defendants:

     (1) Westar, a Company subsidiary,

     (2) Protection One, where the Company has a controlling
         interest,

     (3) Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., a Protection One
         subsidiary, and

     (4) certain present and former officers and directors of
         Protection One

The suit further alleges that various statements concerning Protection
One's financial results and operations for 1997, 1998, 1999 and the
first three quarters of 2000 were false and misleading and not in
compliance with generally accepted accounting principles.

The Amended Complaint further asserted claims against the Company and
Westar Industries as controlling persons under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

A claim was also asserted under Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 against Protection One's auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP.

On February 27, 2001, plaintiffs filed a Third Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint.

On June 4, 2001, the District Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act but plaintiffs
leave to replead such claims.

The Court also dismissed all claims brought on behalf of bondholders
and against Arthur Andersen with prejudice.

The plaintiffs subsequently moved for reconsideration of the Court's
order insofar as it did not give plaintiffs permission to amend
their complaint to replead their claims against Arthur Andersen.

After that motion is decided by the Court, plaintiffs will file a new
amended complaint.

The Company stated its intention to vigorously defend against this
action in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                        *********

          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  * * *