CAR_Public/010926.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, September 26, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 188


                           Headlines

BLUE MARTINI: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BREAKAWAY SOLUTIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit In NY
CANDIES INC.: Settles Securities Suit For $10 Million in S.D. NY
CASELLA WASTE: October Mediation Scheduled Re New Jersey Suit
ECONNECT: Settles Securities Suit For $5.35 Million in California

ENCORE COMPUTER: Enters Settlement Agreement in DE Securities Suit
EXOLON ESK: Charged With Antitrust Violations In PA and NY Actions
EXTREME NETWORKS: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates NY Securities Suit
F5 NETWORKS: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
IL FORNAIO: Enters Settlement Agreement In Securities Suit in DE

IMMUNE RESPONSE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. CA
INFOSPACE INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates W.D. WA Securities Suit
INTERNATIONAL GAMING: Certification, Pending Motions Hearing Set
LIBERTY FINANCIAL: Asks Massachusetts Court To Drop Securities Suit
LGS NATURAL: District Court Approves $27 Million Settlement in LA

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Will Vigorously Oppose S.D. NY Securities Suits
MONTANA: Students Asks Court To Certify Suit Against Board of Regents
NAPSTER INC.: "Breakthrough" Agreement Reached In Copyright Suit
PEDIATRIC SERVICES: Securities Violations Case Discovery Ongoing
PEERLESS SYSTEMS: California Securities Suit Drags On

ROYAL AHOLD:Class Certification In DE Fiduciary Duty Suit Forthcoming
SANTA FE: Confident of Prevailing In Suit Filed By Former Employees
SOUTHWEST GAS: District Court Approves CA Securities Suit Settlement
STRATOS LIGHTWAVE: Will Vigorously Oppose S.D. NY Securities Suits
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Doctor Testifies Screening "Not Recommended"

TUT SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
VIANT CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges S.D. NY Securities Suit
WEBVAN GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY


                           *********


BLUE MARTINI: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Blue Martini, Inc.
(NASDAQ: BLUE) securities between July 24, 2000 and July 9, 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 Blue Martini and:

     (1) James C. Gaither,

     (2) A. Michael Spence,

     (3) Andrew W. Verhalen,

     (4) Edward H. Vick,

     (5) William F. Zuendt,

     (6) Goldman, Sachs & Co.,

     (7) Dain Rauscher Incorporated,

     (8) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC and

     (9) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc.

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 Blue Martini's initial
public offering of 7.5 million shares of common stock at $20.00 per
share that was completed on or about July 21, 2000.

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 Blue
         Martini 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 Blue Martini shares in
         the after- market at pre-determined prices.

For more information, contact Ms. Linda Flood by Mai: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-
1414 by E-mail: BLUE@bernlieb.com or visit the Website:
www.bernlieb.com


BREAKAWAY SOLUTIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit In NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz initiated a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Breakaway Solutions, Inc.
(NASDAQ: BWAY) securities between October 5, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

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

Named as defendants in the complaint are Breakaway Solutions and:

     (1) Gordon Brooks,

     (2) Kevin Comerford,

     (3) Christopher H. Greendale,

     (4) Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated,

     (5) Lehman Brothers, Inc., and

     (6) Deutsche Banc Securities, Inc.

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 Breakaway Solutions'
initial public offering of 3,000,000 shares of common stock at $14.00
per share that was completed on or about October 5, 1999.

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
         Breakaway Solutions shares in the IPO in exchange for
         exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and

    (ii) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain
         of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would
         allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for
         the customers' agreement to purchase Breakaway Solutions
         shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.
For further information, contact Ms. Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-
1414 by e-mail at BWAY@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bernlieb.com


CANDIES INC.: Settles Securities Suit For $10 Million in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Footwear maker Candies, Inc. entered into a $10 million settlement
agreement with plaintiffs in a securities class action suit filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The securities suit was filed in May 1999 against the Company and
certain of its current and former  officers  and  directors.

Other similar complaints were filed in the same court and in August
1999, a consolidated complaint was served on the Company.

The consolidated complaint included claims under sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule
10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The consolidated complaint was brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired securities of the Company between May 28, 1997 and May 12,
1999.

The suits alleged that Company issued materially false and misleading
financial statements for the fiscal year ended January 31, 1998 and the
first three quarters of the fiscal year ended January 31, 1999.

This caused the Company's securities to trade at artificially inflated
prices.

The settlement consideration of $10 million is payable in a combination
of cash, the Company's Common Stock and convertible preferred stock.

The Settlement Agreement provided that on or about May 1, 2000, the
Company would pay to plaintiffs $3 million in cash, and on or after the
effective date as defined in the Settlement Agreement, the Company
would issue shares of the  Company's  Common  Stock with a value of $2
million.

The Company was also required to pay the Class an additional $1 million
on or before October 1, 2000.

The remaining $4 million owed to plaintiffs will be in the form of
Preferred Stock, which will convert to the Company's Common Stock at a
rate based on the price of the Company's Common Stock on the first and
second anniversary of the Effective Date.

The Court has approved the Settlement Agreement.


CASELLA WASTE: October Mediation Scheduled Re New Jersey Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Refuse management systems provider Casella Waste Systems, Inc. is
awaiting a one-day mediation scheduled for October 12, 2001 regarding
the pending consolidated class action suits against it. The parties
have agreed to delay the deadline for plaintiffs' responsive papers
until the mediation occurs.

The consolidated suits arose from a complaint filed by Salvatore Russo
on April 26,1999 and Melanie Miller on May 14,1999.

The two similar suits named as defendants the Company, subsidiary KTI
Inc., and two of its principal officers, Ross Pirasteh and Martin J.
Sergi.

The plaintiffs filed the suit purportedly on behalf of all shareholders
who purchased KTI common stock from May 4, 1998 through August 14,
1998.

The complaints allege that the defendants made material
misrepresentations in KTI's nine-month report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 1998 in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended concerning KTI's
allowance of doubtful accounts and net income.

The court ordered the complaints consolidated and on June 15,2000, the
plaintiffs filed the consolidated amended complaint.

In August 2000, the defendants moved to dismiss the first suit for
failure to state a claim, but the Court denied the motion without
prejudice and directed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these
Complaints and, if necessary, will vigorously defend against these
actions.



ECONNECT: Settles Securities Suit For $5.35 Million in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amusement and recreation company eConnect has reached a settlement in
principle with plaintiffs in several class action suits filed against
it in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

The suits were filed last year against the Company and Thomas S.
Hughes, an officer and director of the Company, as well as the
directors of the Company (in certain actions).

The suits generally allege that the Company violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The principal allegations concern various material misrepresentations
and omissions in the Company's public statements, on and after November
18, 1999, which were false and misleading.

These actions artificially inflated the market for the Company's common
stock.

Pursuant to the settlement, the Company paid $350,000 to plaintiffs'
counsel to be held in escrow during fiscal year 2000.

A warrants component of the settlement is still being finalized with
the plaintiffs' counsel which will call for the issuance of 5,000,000
stock warrants of the Company's common stock exercisable over ten years
from the date of issuance with a strike price of $1.00 per share.

The Company anticipates that the settlement will be approved by the
court and will be negotiated in full by the fiscal year 2001.


ENCORE COMPUTER: Enters Settlement Agreement in DE Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Encore Computer Corporation entered into a settlement agreement with
plaintiffs in the securities class action suit filed in Delaware
Chancery Court, in and for New Castle County.

On November 18, 1997, several class action suits were filed on behalf
of all shareholders of Encore against Gould Electronics, Inc. and named
the Company as a nominal defendant.

The suits also named as defendants the following officers of Gould
Electronics, Inc.:

     (1) Kenneth G. Fisher,

     (2) Rowland H. Thomas,

     (3) Robert J. Fedor, and

     (4) C. David Ferguson.

The suits primarily allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and obligations in connection with the proposed sale of Encore's
storage products business to Sun Microsystems, Inc.

The Court subsequently consolidated the suits on December 17, 1997.

On July 15, 1999, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint adding two
additional defendants, Michael C. Veysey and Thomas N. Rich and no
longer naming the Company as a nominal defendant.

The Amended Complaint alleged that the defendants breached fiduciary
duty in connection with the operation and management of the Company,
including the Sun Microsystems transaction, as well as the sale of
Encore's "real-time" computing business to Gores Technology Group.

The defendants allegedly made or caused misstatements and omitted to
disclose information in the Sun and Gores Proxy Statements.

Last June 16, 2000, the Court of Chancery dismissed the suit in its
entirety and the plaintiffs promptly appealed the decision to the
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.


On July 5, 2001, the parties executed a settlement agreement calling
for the Company to repurchase the shares Encore common stock held by
the defendants for a price consisting of the defendants' pro rata share
of Encore's assets.

The shares repurchased by the Company will then be redistributed to the
members of the Class.

The Plan of Distribution provides that:

     (i) 40% of the repurchased shares, referred to as Tranche A, will
         be automatically distributed to the holders as of the record
         date of the Sun Transaction,

    (ii) 10% of the repurchased shares, referred to as Tranche B, will
         be automatically distributed to the holders as of the record
         date of the Gores Transaction, and

   (iii) the remaining 50% of the repurchased shares, or Tranche C,
         will be distributed to the class as a whole, based on their
         losses, on a claims-made basis.

The agreement awaits court approval.

The defendants have denied wrongdoing and entered into the settlement
to avoid the further expense, inconvenience, and burden of the
litigation and to forever put to rest all disputes with respect to the
operation and management of the Company.


EXOLON ESK: Charged With Antitrust Violations In PA and NY Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mineral products and asbestos maker Exolon ESK Company faces two
antitrust class action lawsuits filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The initial suit was filed in October 1994 by General Refractories
Company against the Company and another defendant, Washington Mills
Electro Minerals Corporation.

The suit primarily alleges that the defendants conspired with unnamed
co-conspirators during the period from January 1,1985 through date of
the complaint to:

     (1) fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of artificial
         abrasive grains, and

     (2) allocate among themselves their major customers or accounts
         for purchases of artificial grains.

The plaintiffs allegedly paid more for abrasive grain products than
they would have paid in the absence of such anti-trust violations.

Another suit was filed in July 1995 by Arden Architectural Specialties,
Inc. against the same defendants in the United States District Court
for the Western District of New York.

The suit is based on the same matters alleged in the General
Refractories complaint.

In October 1997, the Norton Company was named an additional defendant
in both cases.

Discovery was completed in January 2000 and the parties are currently
awaiting a pending decision on the issue of class certification.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
allegations, and it intends to vigorously defend against the charges.


EXTREME NETWORKS: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates NY Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Extreme Networks,
Inc. (NASDAQ: EXTR) securities between April 9, 1999 and December 6,
2000.

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

The action alleges the following underwriting firms, which were lead
underwriters of Extreme Networks' initial public offering, as
defendants:

     (1) Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.,

     (2) BancBoston Robertson Stephens Inc., and

     (3) Dain Rauscher Wessels, a division of Dain Rauscher
         Incorporated

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 Extreme Networks' initial
public offering of 7,000,000 shares of common stock at $17.00 per share
that was completed on or about April 9, 1999.

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 Extreme
         Networks 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 Extreme Networks shares
         in the after-market at pre-determined prices.

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


F5 NETWORKS: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP has filed a class action complaint in the Southern
District of New York involving F5 Networks Corporation (NASDAQ: FFIV)
on behalf of all persons who acquired F5 securities between June 4,
1999 and December 6, 2000.

The complaint alleges that the underwriters who managed F5 Network's
Initial Public Offering and secondary offering violated federal
securities laws.

The suit alleges that the registration statements, which incorporated
prospectuses, failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (i) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors; and

    (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby they agreed to allocate the company's IPO shares and
         shares in its secondary offering in exchange for the
         customers' agreements to purchase additional shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

These undisclosed agreements caused the common stock of F5 Networks to
trade at inflated prices during the class period indicated above and in
the complaint.

For more information, contact Wolf Popper, LLP, Investor Relations
Department by Phone: (212) 451-9625 or (877) 370-7703 by Fax: (877)
370-7704 by Mail: 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-6689 by E-mail:
irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit the firm's Website: www.wolfpopper.com


IL FORNAIO: Enters Settlement Agreement In Securities Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Upscale restaurant operator Il Fornaio America Corporation entered into
a settlement agreement with plaintiffs in the securities class action
suit filed in Delaware Chancery Court, in and for New Castle County.

The suit arose from several class action suits challenging the cash-
for-stock merger in which a company formed by Bruckmann, Rosser,
Sherrill and Co. II, LP would merge with Il Fornaio.

Following the merger, each of the Company's outstanding common stock
was converted into $14 in cash.

The suits were brought on behalf of certain public holders of the
Company's common stock.

These suits were later ordered consolidated in February 2001.

The Complaint specifically alleges that:

     (1) the defendants in the Action breached their fiduciary duties
         or aided and abetted the breaches of others' fiduciary duties
         in connection with the negotiation and approval of the Merger
         by undervaluing Il Fornaio common stock and ignoring the full
         value of its assets and timing the announcement of the merger
         to place an artificial lid on the market price of Il Fornaio's
         common stock in order to justify a price that is unfair to the
         Company's public stockholders, and

     (2) failed to disclose material non-public information in their
         possession as to the value of Il Fornaio, the full extent of
         its future earning capacity, and expected increases in
         profitability;

The settlement agreements provide that in addition to any other vote
required by law or the rules of the NASDAQ stock market, the Merger
must be approved by a majority of the votes cast on the Merger
excluding votes attributable to shares owned or controlled by
Continuing Stockholders.

The defendants also agreed to amend the Proxy Statement to include
additional disclosures regarding:

     (i) the factors that led to the reduction of the Merger
         Consideration and the reasons that the Merger continues to be
         advisable and fair to the shareholders of Il Fornaio at the
         present time in light of those factors,

    (ii) the inquiry by a publicly traded restaurant chain regarding a
         possible merger, and why the Merger continues to be in the
         best interests of shareholders in light of that inquiry, and

   (iii) financial results for the most recent quarter.

The settlement agreement is awaiting court approval.

Upon enforcement of the settlement, the plaintiffs have agreed to
release all claims against the defendants.

The Company continues to deny any wrongdoing but entered into the
settlement to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation
and to permit the Merger to proceed.


IMMUNE RESPONSE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz commenced a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Immune Response Corporation
(NYSE: IMNR) securities between May 17, 1999 and July 6, 2001.

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

Named as defendants in the complaint are Immune Response, Agouron
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dennis J. Carlo and Peter Johnson.

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

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued
to the investing public false and misleading statements and press
releases concerning the Company's financial condition and prospects.

Moreover, the Company failed to disclose material information necessary
to make its prior statements not misleading.

Immune Response is a biopharmaceutical company developing immune-based
therapies to induce specific T cell response for the treatment of HIV,
autoimmune diseases, gene therapy and cancer.

Immune Response's major product is Remune, an injectable HIV-1
immunogen- based treatment designed to slow or stop the progression of
HIV infections into AIDS.

The Company is also developing and testing therapeutic products for
other autoimmune conditions. Agouron is a subsidiary of Pfizer, and
was, until July 6, 2001, Immune Response's partner in developing Remune
for commercial distribution and sale.

Defendants withheld the results of Remune's major clinical trial, and
instead misrepresented the status and prospects of Remune, even though
defendants knew during the Class Period that Remune had no effect upon
people with HIV and AIDS.

Defendants' false misrepresentations that Remune was effective in the
fight against AIDS operated to artificially inflate the price of Immune
Response stock to a Class Period high of $19.75 on March 6, 2000.

This upsurge in Immune Reponse's stock caused by defendants' false and
misleading statements and omissions enabled Immune Response to complete
a public offering of 2,760,000 shares for $16,560,000 during August of
2000.

On October 31, 2000, it was publicly announced that the Journal of
American Medical Association ("JAMA") would be releasing a study
showing that Remune was not effective in the fight against AIDS.

It was also revealed that Immune Response had sought for months to
block the release of the study by withholding the final batch of data,
withholding the addresses of about half the investigators spread at 77
national sites so the authors could not circulate the paper before
publication, and then suing the authors of the study for $7-10 million
in damages.

This announcement caused its stock price to drop to as low as $3.875 on
volume of 2.3 million shares on November 1, 2000, from its prior day
close of $6.06, causing millions of dollars in damages to members of
the Class.

Despite the JAMA article, Immune Response and Agouron allegedly
continued to issue false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding the positive effects of Remune on HIV- infected patients.

Immune Response and Agouron continued in this manner until July 6,
2001, when Agouron finally dropped out of the project and Immune's
stock crashed to $1.80 per share.

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


INFOSPACE INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates W.D. WA Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced 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--news) securities between January 26, 2000 and January 30, 2001.

The suit was filed against InfoSpace and Naveen Jain (founder and
Chairman of the Board, as well as the former CEO and President).

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making 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.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants' public
representations:

     (1) were the result of their efforts to manipulate the reported
         earnings and expected FY 2001 performance of InfoSpace and

     (2) were designed to allow Jain to sell millions of dollars of his
         own InfoSpace shares at artificially inflated prices and to
         permit a series of acquisitions using InfoSpace's artificially
         inflated stock as currency.

As the truth began to come out concerning defendants' conduct,
InfoSpace's shares fell to less than $6 per share, a decline of 95%
from their Class Period high.

For more information, contact George Peters, Michael Miske, Gregory M.
Nespole or Fred Taylor Isquith by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York,
New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com. All
e-mail correspondence should make reference to InfoSpace.


INTERNATIONAL GAMING: Certification, Pending Motions Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Gaming Technology is facing alleged violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in an amended
consolidated class action lawsuit.

Previously the action consisted of:

     (1) one suit filed in the United States District Court of Nevada
         Southern Division, entitled Larry Schreier v. Caesar's World,
         Inc., et al, and

     (2) two filed in the United States District Court of Florida,
         Orlando Division, entitled Poulos v. Caesar's World, Inc., et
         al. and Ahern v. Caesar's World, Inc., et al.


The Court granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue of the
consolidated action to Las Vegas, Nevada.

The actions allege that the defendants have engaged in fraudulent and
misleading conduct.

The defendants reportedly induced people to play video poker machines
and electronic slot machines, based on false beliefs concerning how the
machines operate and the extent to which there is an opportunity to win
on a given play.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants' acts constitute
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
and give rise to claims for common law fraud and unjust enrichment

In December 1997, the Court denied the motions that would have
dismissed the Consolidated Amended Complaint or that would have stayed
the action pending Nevada gaming regulatory action.

The defendants filed their consolidated answer to the Consolidated
Amended Complaint on February 11, 1998.

A hearing is scheduled for November 9, 2001 to consider pending motions
and class certification.


LIBERTY FINANCIAL: Asks Massachusetts Court To Drop Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Life insurance provider Liberty Financial Companies, Inc. asked the
Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts to dismiss a securities
class action suit arising from two major agreements.

The suit was filed last June 5, 2001 by stockholders of the Company
against the Company, its subsidiary Liberty Mutual, its directors and
Fleet National Bank.

On June 4, 2001, the Company announced that it reached a definitive
agreement to sell its asset management business to Fleet National Bank
for approximately $900 million in cash.

The Company also announced that it had entered into a merger agreement
with Liberty Mutual Financial Corporation.

Under the agreement, the Company will become a wholly owned subsidiary
of Liberty Mutual and the Company's public stockholders will receive a
cash amount currently estimated to be $33.44 per share.

The suit alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to
the Company's stockholders other than Liberty Mutual and its
affiliates, by not obtaining the best possible price in the proposed
Fleet transaction and the merger with Liberty Mutual.

The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend it and the plaintiff has yet to file a response.

On July 11, 2001, the Company and its directors moved to stay all
discovery pending a decision on the motion to dismiss.


LGS NATURAL: District Court Approves $27 Million Settlement in LA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana
approved a $27 million settlement in the class action lawsuit filed
against LGS Natural Gas Company.

The lawsuit was filed in November 1998 and alleged that the Company and
other named defendants passed through in rates charged to Louisiana
customers certain costs that plaintiffs contend were unlawful.

In addition, the Louisiana Public Service Commission had opened an
investigation into the allegations raised in the lawsuit.

The Company agreed to refund the customers $27 million, which
represents amounts collected through their purchase gas adjustment
clause, including interest for the period 1992-1997.

In addition, the Company agreed to pay attorneys' fees to counsel
representing the class action plaintiffs in both the lawsuit and the
Commission investigation.

The Louisiana Public Service Commission approved an agreement to settle
both the Commission investigation and the class action lawsuit and
concluded its investigation by order dated December 13, 2000.

The District Court approved the settlement agreement and entered its
order dismissing the class action on January 4, 2001.

The Company has maintained that it has not admitted any liability and
entered into the settlement in order to avoid costly and burdensome
litigation.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Will Vigorously Oppose S.D. NY Securities Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. stated its intention to vigorously
oppose several securities class action complaints filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suits commenced in July 2001 alleging violations of the securities
laws in connection with the Company's June 2000 initial public
offering.

The complaints allege that the underwriters in the IPO received
excessive and undisclosed commissions and entered into unlawful
agreements with certain of their clients pursuant to which those
clients purchased the Company's stock in the after-market for the
purpose of artificially inflating the price of the Company's shares.

The suits name as defendants, the Company and its underwriters, Goldman
Sachs & Co. and Lehman Brothers, Inc.

The Company expects these suits to be consolidated by the court.

The Company has denied the claims asserted against it and its officers
and directors.


MONTANA: Students Asks Court To Certify Suit Against Board of Regents
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys in a class action lawsuit against the state Board of Regents
asked a Montana Federal Court judge to give the case class action
status.

Megan Bocks, Quincy Young and Leslie Garvin, two of them former
University of Montana students and one a student of Montana State
University, filed the suit because they said they were charged out-of-
state tuition after they officially became Montana residents.

Megan Bocks, Quincy Young and Leslie Garvin were all graduate students
caught in what their lawyer, Alan Blakley, called a Catch-22.

Their lawyer, Alan Blakley said a requirement forcing students to take
fewer than seven credits for one year while applying for residency is
unfair, because the UM School of Law and some graduate schools also
require students to take more than seven credits to stay in their
programs.

"The entire system needs to be changed," Blakley said. "Not only do we
lose a lot of in-state students, but we lose out-of-state students who
want to be here for the rest of their lives."

About 25 people want to be added to the case, Blakley said. If the
judge denies the motion, the case will proceed with the three former
students named as plaintiffs.

But the regents say that students are not automatically denied
residency if they take seven credits or more, said LeRoy H. Schramm,
the chief legal counsel for the University System, who asked the judge
to dismiss the case Wednesday.

"It isn't unconstitutional, because they're incorrect when they say
it's a hard and fast rule," Schramm said.

The regents also argue that the students suing them did not use the
proper appeals process.

Students denied residency at the campus level may appeal to the
Commissioner of Higher Education. If the commissioner denies residency,
than the student can appeal to the regents.

"They got a decision on the campus level but never appealed to the
commissioner or the regents," Schramm said of the plaintiffs. "They
instead rushed into court."

Schramm said the plaintiffs moved to Montana solely to attend college.
But Blakley said his clients had fulfilled all other requirements, were
recognized as residents by law and planned on staying in Montana.

Oral arguments made Wednesday were mostly motions filed by both sides.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a motion for a summary judgment.


NAPSTER INC.: "Breakthrough" Agreement Reached In Copyright Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Napster, Inc. reached a preliminary settlement and licensing agreement
with thousands of music publishers in a class action suit for copyright
infringement.

The company, which provided users with others' music, sparked a heated
debate on copyright protection when it allowed millions of users to
download music for free over the Internet until its voluntary closure
on July 2, 2001.

Under terms of the deal, Napster agreed to pay $26 million to music
creators and copyright owners to settle damages for past, unauthorized
uses of music and also an advance of $10 million against future
licensing royalties for music used on a new secure, fee-charging
service it hopes to launch this year.

To compensate rights holders, Napster and any other online music
service needs to obtain licenses for both compositions and sound
recordings.

Publishers and songwriters generally own the rights to compositions,
while recording companies own copyrights to the recordings.

Under the deal announced Monday, Napster said a percentage of revenues
generated from its new service will be paid to copyright holders, with
songwriters and publishers getting one-third of that designated amount
and recording companies getting two-thirds.

Music publishers called the decision "a breakthrough."

"Under this deal, publishers and songwriters will receive a
proportionately larger percentage of royalties than they had in the
past, which comes to about five or six cents per song on a physical
CD," said Edward Murphy, president and chief executive of the National
Music Publishers Association.

Napster has been reinventing itself from "music industry renegade" to
an "accepted competitor" among the proliferation of online music
services commencing this year.

Even as Napster appears to have reached another major milestone,
experts believe its chances of survival are still slim given the
billions of dollars in damages it potentially faces from a copyright
lawsuit filed against it by the recording industry giants.

The labels first sued Napster in December 1999 for copyright
infringement and succeeded in getting an injunction, which barred
Napster from offering copyrighted material on the service.

In June, Napster clinched a deal to be a distributor for MusicNet, an
online music joint venture backed by RealNetworks Inc., Warner Music,
EMI and BMG. However, some of the labels said they would not let
Napster carry their music until it had proven it has developed a secure
service that pays royalties.


PEDIATRIC SERVICES: Securities Violations Case Discovery Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Health care provider Pediatric Services of America faces a class action
suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia for federal securities act violations.

The suit, filed last March 1999, also named the Company's current and
former officers and was amended on or about July 22,1999.

The plaintiffs generally allege that prior to the decline in the price
of the Company's Common Stock on July 28, 1998, there were violations
of the Federal Securities Laws.

These violations arose from misstatements of material information in
and/or omissions of material information from certain of the Company's
securities filings and other public disclosures principally related to
its reporting of accounts receivable and the allowance for doubtful
accounts.

The amended complaint purports to expand the class to include all
persons who purchased the Company's Common Stock during the period from
July 29, 1997 through and including July 29, 1998.

On October 8, 1999, the Company and the individual defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint on both substantive and procedural
grounds, which the Court denied.

On February 27, 2001, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

Discovery in the case closed on July 31, 2001 with a period of expert
discovery to follow through December 14, 2001.

The Company and the individual defendants deny that they have violated
any of the requirements or obligations of the Federal Securities Laws.


PEERLESS SYSTEMS: California Securities Suit Drags On
-----------------------------------------------------
A hearing regarding the amended consolidated securities class action
lawsuit against Software provider Peerless Systems Corporation is still
pending.

The company has asked the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California to dismiss the case.

The first suit was filed on August 28,2000 and a second suit was filed
in September of the same year.

The suits alleged that the Company and two of its former officers
engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock price
based on misleading public announcements.

On April 17, 2001, the plaintiffs filed an Amended and Consolidated
Complaint.

The Company vehemently denied the allegations, calling them without
merit and stated its intention to defend vigorously against the cases.


ROYAL AHOLD:Class Certification In DE Fiduciary Duty Suit Forthcoming
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Grocery chain operator Royal Ahold faces a securities class action
filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, in and for New Castle County
challenging its acquisition of internet grocer Peapod, Inc.

The suit names as defendants, the Company and these officers and
directors of the Company and Peapod, Inc.:

     (1) Andrew B. Parkinson,

     (2) Mark Van Stekelenburg,

     (3) Brian Hotarek,

     (4) Ronald Van Solt,

     (5) Mark C. Van Gelder,

     (6) Maarten Dorhout Mees,

     (7) Mark E. Smith,

     (8) Trygve E. Myhren,

     (9) Drayton McLane,

    (10) William J. Grize, and

    (11) Gary Preston

The plaintiff filed the action on his own behalf and on behalf of all
Peapod common stockholders from June 30, 2000 to July 2001 excluding
the defendants and their affiliates.

The suit primarily alleges that the defendants are breaching their
fiduciary duties because Ahold is acquiring the 42% of Peapod owned by
members of the Class on unfair terms and at an unfair price.

Ahold commenced in late July this year the acquisition of 42% of
Peapod's interest for approximately $35 million.

The acquisition was accomplished by a tender offer at a price of $2.15
per share, followed by a merger at the same price per share.

The Company is vigorously defending against this action, which is
currently awaiting class certification.


SANTA FE: Confident of Prevailing In Suit Filed By Former Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Offshore drilling contractor Santa Fe International Corporation is
confident it will prevail in the class action filed by former offshore
employees.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Galveston Division against approximately 20 offshore
drilling contractor defendants.

The suits primarily allege that the defendants have engaged in a
conspiracy to depress wages and benefits paid to their offshore
employees.

Plaintiffs contend that this alleged conduct violates federal and state
antitrust laws.

The plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves and an alleged
class of similarly situated offshore workers that have allegedly
suffered similar damages from the actions of defendants.

The purported class includes all individuals in the employ of, or
previously employed within the last ten years by, the defendants on
water-based drilling apparatuses and who accepted employment by the
defendants within the Unites States for either domestic or
international employ.

At the present time, the court has not ruled on class certification.

A hearing on this issue on August 9, 2001 was postponed, and the matter
was recently transferred to the Houston Division of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Certain of the other defendants have entered into settlement
agreements, pursuant to which they have agreed to pay settlement
amounts.

The Company vigorously denies the allegations and believes that a
negative outcome, if any, will not materially affect the Company's
business operations and financial position.


SOUTHWEST GAS: District Court Approves CA Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Gas Corporation announced today that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California gave its final
approval of a settlement with the lead shareholder representatives in
the California shareholder class action lawsuit.

The settlement covers those who purchased or held Southwest stock at
any time during the period from December 14, 1998 though January 21,
2000.

Among the settlement terms, Southwest shareholders will receive:

     (1) $22.0 million if Southwest enters into a business combination
         with a third party within 36 months;

     (2) 50% of the first $54.0 million of any recovery from either
         Southern Union Company (NYSE:SUG) or ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE:OKE) in
         litigation currently pending in Phoenix, Arizona Federal
         District Court ("Arizona litigation"); or

     (3) $9.5 million if neither of first two happens within 36 months.

Also among the terms, Southwest's shareholders have agreed to support
the company in the Arizona lawsuit against Southern Union and ONEOK.

In the Arizona Litigation, Southwest seeks recovery of damages suffered
as a result of the failure of the ONEOK merger, which Southwest alleges
was caused by the wrongful conduct of Southern Union and ONEOK.

Noting that the Company received no objections to the settlement after
sending over 62,000 shareholder notices, Southwest Chairman Thomas
Hartley said, "We are pleased to have the shareholder class action
lawsuit behind us, and, together with our shareholders, look forward to
aggressively pursuing a favorable resolution of the pending Arizona
litigation."

The federal judge overseeing the Arizona litigation has dismissed all
racketeering claims against Southwest, its officers, and directors, and
many additional claims against individual officers and directors of the
company.

On August 17, 2001, the judge vacated the previously scheduled trial
date of November 13, 2001, and has set a new trial date of May 28,
2002.

Southwest Gas Corporation provides natural gas to customers in Arizona,
Nevada, and California.


STRATOS LIGHTWAVE: Will Vigorously Oppose S.D. NY Securities Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stratos Lightwave, Inc. intends to vigorously oppose several securities
class action suits filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The Company believes it is part of a trend of suits filed against
companies who went public last year.

Named as defendants in the complaint are Stratos Lightwave and Stratos
executive officers, James W. McGinley and David A. Slack.

The complaint also names as defendants these underwriters of Stratos
Lightwave's initial public offering:

     (1) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     (2) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc.,

     (3) CIBC World Markets, Inc., and

     (4) Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.

The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the
registration statement and prospectus from the Company's June 26, 2000
initial public offering failed to disclose certain alleged actions by
the underwriters for the offering.

The complaints charge the defendants with violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or Sections 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaints also allege claims solely against the underwriting
defendants under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends
to defend them vigorously.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Doctor Testifies Screening "Not Recommended"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charleston doctor Dominic Gaizano testified Monday that "no major
medical organization in the United States recommends any form of
screening for lung cancer."

Gaizano is the second witness to testify in the landmark class action
suit filed against four of the nation's biggest tobacco companies, R.J.
Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, Philip Morris and Lorillard.

250,000 healthy West Virginia smokers who consume the equivalent of one
pack a day filed the suit, seeking medical monitoring that they say
will help save or prolong lives by diagnosing illness earlier.

In earlier testimony, Gaziano agreed with industry lawyers that smokers
should quit smoking, but said that will do nothing to predict latent
diseases.

He conceded though that the proposed medical monitoring program has
never been reviewed by independent doctors or tested on a sample group
for effectiveness.

However, Gaziano said that even though specific groups have not been
tested, the methods in the program have been.

Medical monitoring in this case means lung-function tests called
spirometry for all symptom-free smokers at age 40, with a second test
at age 45 and tests every two years after that. Spirometry requires a
person to exhale as deeply as possible into a tube that measures lung
capacity.

Starting at age 50, healthy smokers also would get spiral computerized
tomography scans, which generate three-dimensional images of organs and
could potentially reveal diseases earlier than other tests.

The tobacco companies, however, say one test the smokers want is still
experimental, and both tests are unproven to make a difference in the
eventual outcome of a disease.

Lorillard attorney Bill Newbold presented documents indicating the
American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society do not
recommend routine medical screening for lung cancer.

The attorney also showed jurors portions of a National Cancer Institute
report that concludes there are difficulties diagnosing lung cancer
with a spiral CT scan because of such things as smoking-related
scarring in the lungs.

The report indicated that invasive follow-up procedures such as needle
biopsies carry possible complications including bleeding, infection,
pain, and in some cases, lung collapse.

The tobacco companies say the spiral CT scan is an emerging technology
that yields too many false positive results, prompting doctors to
perform invasive, risky follow-up procedures such as needle biopsies.


TUT SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Tut Systems, Inc.
(Nasdaq: TUTS) securities between July 20, 2000 and January 31, 2001.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Named as defendants in the complaint are Tut Systems, Salvatore
D'Auria, Nelson Caldwell, Allen Purdy and Sanford Benett.

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

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued
to the investing public false and misleading financial information that
materially misstated the Company's condition and prospects. Moreover,
the Company failed to disclose material information necessary to make
its prior statements not misleading.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants
issued multiple press releases and filed quarterly reports with the
Securities and Exchange Commission which misrepresented the revenues
that Tut was deriving from its sales to small competitive local
exchange carriers.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose
that these CLECs were not able to pay for the products purchased from
Tut, causing Tut's sales to be inflated and its stock price to be
artificially inflated to a Class Period high of $120.37 on August 29,
2000.

The individual defendants took advantage of the artificially inflated
price of Tut's stock to sell 87,100 shares of their Tut stock for
proceeds of $8.1 million.

By late 2000, analysts learned that Tut's 4thQ 00 sales would be well
below previously forecasted levels, causing the stock to decline.

On November 30, 2000, Tut revealed to the public that it was in fact
suffering a huge decline in revenues and was not posting smaller
negative earnings per share growth.

Moreover, Tut was forced to reveal the problems it had been
experiencing during the Class Period in attempting to grow its
business, which was contrary to defendants' repeated assurances
regarding Tut's performance and prospects.

This announcement caused the stock to drop to below $10 per share.
However, the stock continued to trade at artificially inflated levels
as defendants concealed the large amount of uncollectible receivables
on Tut's books.

On January 31, 2001, Tut announced huge write-offs of uncollectible
accounts receivable and inventory, that its 4thQ 00 revenues had
dropped to less than $6 million compared to more than $10 million in
the 4thQ 99, and that it was laying off 10% of its workforce.

This announcement caused its stock price to drop to as low as $5.84,
causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to members of the
Class.

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


VIANT CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz filed a securities class action lawsuit
on behalf all persons who acquired Viant Corporation (NASDAQ: VIAN)
securities between June 17, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

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

Named as defendants in the complaint are Viant and the following:

     (1) Robert L. Gett,

     (2) M. Dwayne Nesmith,

     (3) Goldman, Sachs & Co.,

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (5) BancBoston Robertson Stephens Inc., and

     (6) Lehman Brothers, Inc.

The complaint alleges that defendants disseminated materially false and
misleading information in connection with Viant's initial public
offering on or about June 17, 1999 and Viant's secondary offering on or
about December 7, 1999.

The suit 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.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the prospectuses filed in
connection with the Viant IPO and Secondary Offering were materially
false and misleading because they 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
         Viant shares issued in connection with the Viant IPO; and

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

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


WEBVAN GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Webvan Group, Inc.
(NASDAQ: WBVN) securities between November 4, 1999 and December 6,
2000.

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

The complaint names certain officers and directors of Webvan, as well
as the following underwriting firms -- which were co-lead underwriters
of Webvan's initial public offering -- as defendants:

     (1) Goldman, Sachs & Co.,

     (2) Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation,

     (3) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated,

     (4) Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.,

     (5) Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., and

     (6) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

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 Webvan's initial public
offering of 25,000,000 shares of common stock at $15.00 per share that
was completed on or about November 4, 1999.

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

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





                              *********


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

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