CAR_Public/020227.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Wednesday, February 27, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 41

                            Headlines

AMERICA ONLINE: Sued For Shipping Customers Unordered Products in CA
CALIFORNIA: Corrections Dep't Settles Prisoners' Health Care Suit
CHEVRON PIPE: Texans Sue For Toxic Pollution Caused By Pump Station
FLORIDA: Jacksonville, Union Sued By Firefighters For Racial Bias
INCO LTD.: Ontario Residents Sue Over Pollution Linked To Old Refinery

JC BRADFORD: Discovery Proceeds in Fraud Suit Over Sale To PaineWebber
MASSACHUSETTS LIFE: Offers To Settle New Mexico Nondisclosure Suit
MENORAH GARDENS: Pre-Trial Evidence In Desecration Suit Confidential
OKLAHOMA: Effect of Black Officer's Firing on Racial Bias Suit Unclear
OPTICAL CABLE: Settles EEOC Suit Alleging Race, Gender Bias For $1M

TENNESEE: Chattanooga Funeral Homes Sued Relating To Tri-State Case
UNITED STATES: Hispanic Employees File Suit For Racial Discrimination

*Arsenic-Treated Wood To Be Phased Out Due To Possible Health Risks

                         Securities Fraud

ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Denies Allegations in Securities Suits in S.D. NY
ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ADVANCED SWITCHING: Charles Piven Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. VA
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. NY
ELAN CORPORATION: Mark McNair Lodges Securities Suit For ADR Holders

ELAN CORPORATION: Alfred Yates Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ENRON CORPORATION: Judge Appoints Lead Counsel in Employee 401(K) Suit
GLOBAL CROSSING: Milberg Weiss Expands Class Period in Securities Suit
GLOBAL CROSSING: Neiman Garland Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
GLOBAL CROSSING: Alfred Yates Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY

HOMESTORE.COM: CalSTRS Seeks Lead Plaintiff Position in Securities Suit
HUB GROUP: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. Illinois
IRVINE SENSORS: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in C.D. CA
JP MORGAN: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
JP MORGAN: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York

JUNIPER NETWORKS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Alfred Yates Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Rabin Peckel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA

NVIDIA CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in FL
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: NH Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Violations
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Lockridge Grindal Commences Securities Suit in FL

TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Neiman Garland Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Mark McNair Files Suit For FELINE PACS Noteholders


                             
                            *********


AMERICA ONLINE: Sued For Shipping Customers Unordered Products in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Customers of online services giant America Online, Inc. filed a class
action in the US District Court in San Francisco alleging the Company
billed them for merchandise that they did not buy, Associated Press
reports.  

The suit alleges that the Company "unlawfully charged and collected
money for this unordered merchandise and shipping and handling charges
from subscriber's credit card, debit card and checking accounts."  
Customers allegedly received products the Company advertised on its
service even when they clicked the "no thanks" button on their computer
screens.

The suit seeks unspecified damages, the return of unauthorized
payments, and to let consumers keep the unauthorized merchandise at the
Company's expense.  No court date has been set.

Company spokesman Nicholas Graham dismisses the suit.  Mr. Graham told
Associated Press, "These allegations are without merit and we intend to
vigorously contest this lawsuit in court."


CALIFORNIA: Corrections Dep't Settles Prisoners' Health Care Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Department of Corrections will settle a class action
filed by advocacy group, Prison Law Office, on behalf of the State's
inmates who were allegedly deprived of medical care, and subjected to
"cruel and unusual punishment," according to an AMNews report.

Under the settlement, more nurses and primary care physicians will be
assigned to take charge of the prisoners' medical concerns.  The
Department also agreed that a registered nurse will stay at each
prison's emergency clinic 24 hours a day.  Lastly, the State will
standardize treatment protocols in the prison system.

Don Specter, Director of Prison Law Office, welcomed the agreement.  He
told AMNews, "It should provide timely access to care.And it ensures
that the Dept. of Corrections will meet the community's standard of
care."

The Department also agreed to achieve the standards of care set by the
National Commission on Correctional Health care, which develops and
maintains the nationally recognized standards for correctional health
care.  The state is set to spend over $600 million on prison health
care this year.

Russ Heimerich, spokesman for the California Dept. of Corrections, told
Amnews they were able to come to an agreement less than a year after
the filing of the lawsuit because the Department already was addressing
health care overhauls.  He asserts, "We believe we have made
substantial strides in prison health care."


CHEVRON PIPE: Texans Sue For Toxic Pollution Caused By Pump Station
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Puls Taylor & Woodson LLP initiated a class action against Chevron Pipe
Line Company on behalf of 13 Parker County families in Texas State
District Court alleging that the Company dumped toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals at its pipeline booster/pump station on FM1189 east of Brock,
and that the chemicals have migrated into the soil and groundwater
sources of nearby farms and ranches.

The suit alleges that petroleum by-products and suspected toxic
carcinogens like benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and total xylenes
(BTEX) and methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) have been found in soil and
ground water under both the booster/pump station and plaintiffs'
adjacent properties. Leaks from boosters, sumps, pumps, swab traps and
oil water separators on or under the station are cited as sources of
the pollution.

The contaminated area overlies the Twin Mountains aquifer, classified
by the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission as a major
aquifer and fresh water source for the area. The local watershed drains
into a tributary of the Brazos River.

The suit charges the Company with repeatedly violating Federal and
State environmental laws including the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, and the Texas Water Code.

Records from monitoring wells show that MTBE was first detected in
water samples collected in November 1995. Samples collected in June
2001 at a well on one plaintiff's property showed an MTBE concentration
approximately 30 times higher than allowed under TNRCC guidelines.

For more information, contact Kelly Puls or Sam Taylor by Phone:
817-338-1717 or by E-mail: kpuls@ptwlaw.com or staylor@ptwlaw.com


FLORIDA: Jacksonville, Union Sued By Firefighters For Racial Bias
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Jacksonville faces a class action pending in the US
District Court in Jacksonville, Florida, charging the City and union
Brotherhood of Firefighters with racial discrimination.  

The suit, filed on behalf of firefighter Rufus Smith, accused the City
of making it difficult for black firefighters to get promoted than
their white counterparts.  The suit further challenges a section in the
union contract dealing with collective bargaining that was enacted in
1992, according to a WJXT News4Jax.com report.

Attorney for the plaintiffs, Reginald Luster, told News$jax.com, "Over
the past 10 years.it has done exactly what everybody knew it would do,
and that was to substantially decrease the promotional opportunities of
black firefighters."  Smith asserts the current contract has allowed
several hundred white firefighters to be grandfathered into the new
rank of engineer, while all others now have to be tested to get that
position.

Brotherhood of Firefighters President, George Young, said that the
issue should focus on who's eligible to take the promotional exam.  
"Though we have people who are capable of doing these jobs.we don't get
an opportunity."  He said they haven't found a promotional system
around the country that hasn't been challenged in court by both blacks
and whites.

The City's Deputy General Counsel, Steve Rohan, told Channel 4 the suit
is baseless.  "We fully expect to get an immediate dismissal or some
judgment on the case," Mr. Rohan said. "There's absolutely no way that
the case can be sustained."


INCO LTD.: Ontario Residents Sue Over Pollution Linked To Old Refinery
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Saint Catharines, Ontario launched a class action against
nickel producer Inco, Ltd. and the Ontario government, alleging the air
and soil in their neighborhood might have been contaminated with
potentially dangerous heavy metals like nickel, arsenic and cadmium,
due to an old Inco refinery.

The $750 million suit was commenced after high levels of these
contaminants were found in the soil and in homes surrounding the
refinery, which was shut down in the mid-1980s.  The plaintiffs'
lawyer, Eric Gillespie, has also accused the government over using
unreliable data to measure the potential health risks the residents
faced over the exposure.

A report published by The Canadian Press last September has asserted
that the provincial government might have underestimated the acceptable
exposure risk to the contaminants, and said the government should adopt
stricter international guidelines in its assessment.

Ontario's Environment Ministry disagreed with the report.  Senior
ministry official, Jim Smith, told Thestar.com, "There is always
controversy in science.We have not downplayed the risks. Our report
uses currently acceptable approaches to risk assessment."  When it
comes to overall nickel exposure, federal scientists said if the World
Health Organization scale "had been used as a point of comparison in
the current assessment, most age groups in the Port Colborne area would
be exceeding, and others would be close to the maximum recommended
(daily) intake."

Advocacy group Health Canada asserts that unlike the World Health
Organization scale, the U.S. standard doesn't take into account
nickel's potential cancer-causing properties when inhaled.  Thestar.com
reports that there were several examples of where the interpretation of
federal guidelines were in dispute.  One section of the Ministry's
report says people breathing in cadmium in the Rodney St. area face a
risk "considered negligible by the federal government."  However,
Health Canada officials said, "Inhalation exposure to cadmium is not
considered negligible by the federal government."

The provincial government intends to stand firm on its standards in
measuring the health risks posed by the chemicals, and has called on an
independent panel of environmental experts to back up its position.  
"We believe the assessment we have done is conservative (and)
protective," Mr. Smith said.


JC BRADFORD: Discovery Proceeds in Fraud Suit Over Sale To PaineWebber
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is underway in the class action filed against JC Bradford and
Co. by Birmingham stockbroker, Glenn Brandon. The suit was filed in the
Davidson County Circuit Court in Nashville, Tennessee, alleging fraud
in how proceeds were distributed in the sale of the Company to
PaineWebber, Inc. in April 2000.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) JC Bradford & Co.,

     (2) PaineWebber, Inc.,

     (3) UBS Americas Inc., the American subsidiary of UBS Warburg,

     (4) Jeffrey Powell, former JC Bradford CEO,

     (5) James Graves, former JC Bradford chief operating officer, and

     (6) James Bradford Jr., a senior member of JC Bradford and a
         member of its executive committee

The suit alleges that the defendants diverted $55 million from other
Company stakeholders through fraudulent employment agreements and
awards of 40 additional partnership points to Mr. Powell and Mr.
Graves, according to a Birmingham Business Journal report.

The suit further alleges that Mr. Bradford entered into a "sham
employment contract" with PaineWebber under which he would receive $6
million.  Mr. Bradford allegedly agreed to sell to PaineWebber for $15
million the use of the JC Bradford & Co. name, the Business Journal
reports.  The $15 million was included in the $620 million acquisition
price. But the suit contends that the defendants failed to disclose to
class members that the $15 million would not be distributed to equity
members as part of the sale.

Mr. Brandon, the lead plaintiff, who was the branch manager and senior
vice president of investments for Legg Mason Wood Walker Inc.'s
Birmingham office, has not commented on the suit, referring all
inquiries to his attorney, Dana Pescosolido of Baltimore.  Mr.
Pescosolido told the Business Journal, that no trial date has been set
yet for the suit, and is unlikely to be set before the fourth quarter
of this year.  

Paul Marrone, a spokesman for UBS PaineWebber in New York, told the
Business Journal, the firm will not comment "in view of the fact that
it's pending litigation."


MASSACHUSETTS LIFE: Offers To Settle New Mexico Nondisclosure Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
About three million customers of Massachusetts Life Insurance Company
(MassMutual), nationwide, would receive $100 off their next insurance
purchase under terms of a settlement proposed recently in State
District Court in New Mexico, the Albuquerque Journal reported
recently.

The Company policyholders would receive certificates to buy more
of the MassMutual's products, including more life insurance, disability
insurance, long-term care insurance and annuities.  A certificate could
also be surrendered for a $30 check, according to the proposed
settlement.

District Judge Arthur Encinias called the proposed settlement "more
agreeable" than the one offered earlier in the case, and ordered terms
of the proposal to be communicated to the Company's policyholders.  He
set June 20 to hear objections to the fairness of the settlement.

The class action, filed in 1998, by Santa Fe attorney George Gary
Duncan, charges that the Company did not adequately disclose to
customers that it charges extra to those who make more than one payment
for their insurance rather than paying once annually.

About 15 law firms from Florida to California, all involved in similar
lawsuits for policyholders suing MassMutual, eventually consolidated
their cases with the Santa Fe action, said Houston attorney Tim
Crowley.  Those firms have agreed to ask the court for no more than
$10.5 million in fees, total, Mr. Crowley said.

The Company "vigorously denies" any wrongdoing, but wishes to avoid the
cost of a lawsuit against its own customers, said Vaughn Williams, an
attorney for the Company.


MENORAH GARDENS: Pre-Trial Evidence In Desecration Suit Confidential
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A Florida State appeals court is maintaining confidentiality on the
sworn statements taken in the lawsuit against Menorah Gardens & Funeral
Chapels, statements that could shed light on allegations of botched
burials and grave desecrations, The Miami Herald recently reported.

The court gave attorneys who filed the lawsuit five days to respond to
efforts by attorneys for Menorah Gardens and its parent company SCI to
keep the pretrial evidence confidential.  The State Appeals Court will
review the response and then decide whether the depositions may be
released to the public.

The Court's action prevented the release of videotapes and transcripts
of statements made by two groundskeepers and a manager of cemeteries in
western Broward and Palm Beach counties.

Company attorney Barry Davidson is appealing a decision by Broward
Circuit Judge Leonard Fleet that the depositions should be accessible
to the press.  Mr. Davidson has argued that distribution of the
statements publicly would cause "emotional harm" to families who have
loved ones buried at the desecrated cemeteries.  "These are our
customers, and their names are being tossed around in the press," Mr.
Davidson said.

The attorneys suing SCI plan to tell the Appeals Court that Judge Fleet
acted appropriately in opening the evidence to public scrutiny.  They
are planning to to ask Judge Fleet to certify the lawsuit as a
class action, which would allow perhaps hundreds of people to seek
compensation from the world's largest funeral operator.


OKLAHOMA: Effect of Black Officer's Firing on Racial Bias Suit Unclear
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Officer Roy C. Johnson was recently fired from the Tulsa Police
Department by Police Chief Ron Palmer, who cited false arrest, lying
and a pattern of incompetence as the reasons for dismissal, the Tulsa
World reported recently.  This is the third time former Officer Johnson
has been fired. The previous firings eventually resulted in
reinstatement.

Just how the firing of former Officer Johnson will affect the civil
rights class action that bears his name is unclear.  The pending
federal lawsuit, initially filed by Mr. Johnson in 1994 on behalf of
the Department's black officers, alleges racism in the department's
hiring and promotions practices.  The suit, which achieved class action
status in 1998, also alleges that the Department has created a hostile
work environment for blacks and that the workplace is racially
segregated.

A hearing in the racial discrimination lawsuit had been scheduled for
February 12, at which time US District Judge Sven Erik Holmes was to
have set a court schedule if settlement negotiations had failed.  That
hearing never happened, with the cancellation apparently being an
attempt to give both sides a continued opportunity to reach a
settlement.  The hearing has not been rescheduled, and no further court
dates have been docketed in the case.

Before Mr. Johnson's firing, the settlement process already had faced
one hurdle, when Louis Bullock, lead attorney in the officers' lawsuit,
filed an excessive force lawsuit on February 1.  In that case, a black
woman and her son alleged that police officers used excessive force and
that she and her son were racially profiled when her vehicle was
stopped.  Mr. Bullock called the new case "unrelated" to the black
officers' class action, although a form filed along with the new
lawsuit lists the officers' civil rights suit as a related case.

Mr. Bullock said he was required to complete the form in that way
because the woman's husband, Tulsa Police Officer Dwight Jackson, is a
member of the class of plaintiffs in the officers' case.  Mr. Bullock
said at the time that he was still optimistic that an accord would be
reached in the officers' suit and said the filing of the excessive
force complaint, just 11 days before the scheduled hearing, should not
be viewed as an indication that settlement prospects in the class
action "had gone south."

Police Chief Ron Palmer, however, said he found it ironic and "a little
bit disconcerting that on the one hand (Bullock is) talking settlement,
and on the other, he is bringing additional litigation.  You have to
question" Mr. Bullock's motives in bringing the new suit during a
"critical stage" of negotiations in the class action.

As to any forthcoming questions that may be directed at his own
motivations for firing former Officer Johnson, Chief Palmer said that
he is aware that such accusations might be leveled.  However, based on
the evidence he was presented, Chief Palmer said he would not be doing
his duty if he did not fire Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Johnson was first fired in 1977, at the end of his probationary
period.  Mr. Johnson said he was fired because of his race, and police
officials said he was fired because of citizens' complaints against
him, newspaper reports indicate.  A federal judge ruled for former
Officer Johnson in 1982, saying the Department's claims were
unsubstantiated and that Mr. Johnson had been discriminated against.  
The judge ordered the officer reinstated with back pay totaling
$28,337.

Mr. Johnson was fired a second time in July 1984, for what police
officials said were at least three incidents of insubordination and
failure to follow the chain of command.  Mr. Johnson appealed the
decision to the Civil Service Commission, which reinstated him about
three weeks later without back pay and with the stipulation that he
attend stress-control sessions.


OPTICAL CABLE: Settles EEOC Suit Alleging Race, Gender Bias For $1M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Optical Cable Corporation, a Roanoke-based manufacturer of fiber optic
cable, has agreed to pay $1 million to settle allegations of race and
sex discrimination, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported recently.   
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought the lawsuit,
which alleged that the Company failed to hire blacks and discriminated
against women by refusing to place them in higher-paying jobs for which
they were qualified.

The settlement sets up a claims procedure that will be financed by
installments from the Company during the next three years.  Those
eligible for compensation include blacks who applied unsuccessfully for
employment since October 1994.  Further, Optical Cable will take steps
to recruit and hire black applicants.  Any unclaimed portions of the
settlement will be used for equal employment projects in the Roanoke
area.  The Company also will attempt to recruit and hire women for
higher paying positions.

The EEOC investigation began in October 1996, shortly after Douglas
Bonds, the second black hired by Optical Cable since it opened for
business in 1983, alleged that he was denied training and was fired
because of his race.

Neil Wilkin, President and Chief Financial Officer of Optical Cable,
said, "We are pleased we were able to resolve this matter voluntarily
and look forward to working with the EEOC to continue to educate our
managers and create a more diverse workplace."

The Company said it had reached a preliminary settlement in December
and expenses related to the settlement were accrued in the 2001 fiscal
year.  It expects no material impact on net income this year.


TENNESEE: Chattanooga Funeral Homes Sued Relating To Tri-State Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Funeral homes in Chattanooga, Tennessee face two class action suits
accusing them of violating state laws dealing with burial and
cremations, by displacing bodies which were due to be cremated,
according to Chattanooga.com.

Last week, a separate suit was filed against Tri-State Crematory,
accusing it of failing to perform cremation on bodies given to it, and
dumping these bodies on the crematory grounds.  Tri-State operator, Ray
Brent Marsh, is named in the suit.

These two suits follow the Tri-state lawsuit and are pending in the the
Hamilton County Circuit Court, against Taylor Funeral Home, Franklin-
Strickland Funeral Home and other unnamed funeral homes mentioned in
the Tri-State Crematory case.

Plaintiffs Joe C. Oden, Jr. and James Greer filed the first suit.  
According to Chattanooga.com, Mr. Oden says his wife was sent by Taylor
Funeral Home to be cremated at the facility at Noble, Ga., where scores
of bodies have been found.  Mr. Greer says his son was sent by
Franklin-Strickland Funeral Home to Tri-State to be cremated.

A second lawsuit, not specifying damages, was filed by Chattanooga
attorney Jerry Summers and Rossville attorney Chris Townley against
Turner Funeral Home and the Ray and Brent Marsh family. That suit was
also filed in Walker County, Georgia.  Lead plaintiff Libby Workman
says her husband, John P. Workman, died Feb. 6.

The suit says the Turner Funeral home "knew or should have known" that
for several years the crematory equipment was inoperable and bodies
were being "discarded."  The complaint further asserts that Turner
Funeral Home charged Ms. Workman for transportation of the body for
cremation though it knew Brent Marsh would pick up the body and return
ashes.  "Instead of being cremated, the body was stacked up in a shed
on the defendant Marsh's property along with other human corpses," the
suit alleges.


UNITED STATES: Hispanic Employees File Suit For Racial Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The US Forest Service faces a class action filed by Hispanics who
allege that the agency discriminated against them due to their race.  
The suit alleges that the Forest Service, an agency of the Department
of Agriculture, maintains a hostile environment that discriminates
against Hispanics.  The USFS allegedly does not promote them to
important positions and retaliates against those who report unfair
practices.

Lead plaintiff Joe Sedillo decided the file the suit after suffering
reprisals for reporting abuses of Hispanic employees, to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  Mr. Sedillo's attorney,
Dennis Montoya, told EFE news he had received many complaints of
discrimination in hiring and promotions, of the existence of a hostile
environment for Hispanics, and of retaliation and revenge when an
employee files a discrimination complaint.

Mr. Montoya added, the case serves as an example of that situation.
When he reported the discrimination he saw on his job, he was allegedly
transferred to another position and a suspension process was begun
against him.  Since the case was filed, he has received calls from
Hispanic employees with similar experiences in Puerto Rico and in
Colorado and other states.

According to an EFE report, the plaintiffs pointed out that although
there are some 1,600 Hispanics who work for the Forest Service,
constituting about 25 percent of the agency's workforce, less than 10
percent hold managerial positions.  Furthermore, less than 1 percent of
the Hispanics who work for the agency are in high-ranking positions,
there are no Hispanic regional directors and the number of reports of
discrimination increases each year, according to information included
in the complaint.

Mr. Montoya told EFE news, he hopes more employees will join the suit,
in order to solve the problem and achieve real change in the agency.  
Many people reportedly do not report abuses in their workplaces because
of fear of reprisals or of losing their jobs, but it is always
necessary that "someone speaks up."  Mr. Montoya says his client is
seeking institutional change and not simply a resolution of this
lawsuit.

"We want an end to the tactics that create a hostile work environment
for Hispanics."


*Arsenic-Treated Wood To Be Phased Out Due To Possible Health Risks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical and home-improvement industry executives agreed recently to a
two-year phase-out of an arsenic-based preservative in pressure-treated
wood that is widely used for fences, decks, playground equipment and
board walks in homes and on playgrounds throughout the country.  Home
Depot, Lowe's and other building supply stores, as well as
manufacturers of lumber treated with the chemical are defendants in
class action lawsuits alleging the defendants failed to adequately
inform consumers of the health risks posed by the lumber.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and industry officials who
negotiated the agreement say that there is no conclusive evidence that
chromated copper arsenate (CCA)-treated wood poses unreasonable health
risks to the public.  However, industry officials acknowledged that
mounting consumer demands for a safer alternative wood preservative
that does not include arsenic had forced their hand.  

"Basically, we did it for market reasons," said John Taylor, Vice
President of Osmose Inc., one of the three chemical manufacturers that
agreed to discontinue production of CCA within 22 months.  "We were
responding to both current and anticipated consumer demand."

In announcing the agreement, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman
said, "It will ensure that future exposures to arsenic are minimized in
residential areas."

Under the agreement Osmose, Arch Wood Protection Inc. and Chemical
specialties Inc. will gradually reduce production of CCA to give the
350 wood treatment plants throughout the country time to retool and
begin using alternatives.  The arsenic had been used because it helps
prevent rot and insect damage.  The agreement applies only to treated
wood products used for homes and playgrounds, but will not affect
production of wood used for utility poles, guard rails and other
commercial applications.

The elimination of much of the CCA-treated lumber is expected to force
companies to spend millions revamping their factories.  The American
Wood Preservers Institute estimates that 75 billion board feet of
pressure-treated lumber is used nationwide annually, mostly in decks,
play sets and fencing.

Environmental groups generally praised the companies' decision, but
urged the companies to stop selling the lumber before the end of 2003.
"This product should never have been put on the market in the first
place," said Richard Wiles, an Environmental Working Group Senior
Vice President.  "It represents the chemical industry at its absolute
worst."

Jay Feldman, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against the
Misuse of Pesticides, said EPA should move to ban all hazardous wood
preservatives, which he said have been linked to cancer, nervous system
damage and birth defects.

EPA officials said they intend to move ahead with a risk assessment of
CCA which began last spring, at the height of public concern over
levels of arsenic in drinking water and commercial products. Arsenic is
a known human carcinogen, and the study is being done to determine
whether children who repeatedly come into contact with CCA face a
heightened risk of developing cancer of the lungs, bladder or skin, as
some environmental and consumer groups contend.

However, while stressing that people should take precautions such as
washing their hands after coming into contact with CCA-treated wood and
never placing food directly on a deck or table surface, EPA said it
does not believe there is any reason to remove or replace CCA-treated
structures.

                         Securities Fraud

ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Denies Allegations in Securities Suits in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic payment services firm Actrade Financial Technologies, Ltd
(NASDAQNM: ACRT) will launch a vigorous defense against a class action
filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The suit is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common
stock from March 11, 1999 through February 8, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with federal securities violations arising from allegedly false and
misleading statements regarding its provision of short term loans to
businesses to finance commercial transactions.

As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the price
of the Company's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the class period.

In a statement, Actrade asserts, "The Company and its counsel have
reviewed the allegations in the complaint and assert that they are
without merit and that the company intends to defend itself
vigorously."


ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Actrade Financial Technologies,
Ltd. (NASDAQ: ACRT) between March 11, 1999 and February 8, 2002,
inclusive, against the Company and certain of its officers.

The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout the
class period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

The suit alleges that throughout the class period, defendants stated
that Actrade provided short-term loans to businesses to finance
commercial transactions. The complaint alleges that these statements
were false and misleading because defendants knew, or recklessly
disregarded, that the Company had also loaned millions of dollars to
individuals for non-commercial purposes, defrauded its sureties into
providing coverage for these loans, and had overstated its financial
results based on these fraudulent lending practices.

For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M. Nespole,
Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke 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 Web site:
http://www.whafh.com.E-mail should refer to ACTRADE.  


ADVANCED SWITCHING: Charles Piven Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. VA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA commenced a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Advanced Switching
Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq:ASCX) securities between October 5, 2000
and February 12, 2002, inclusive.  The suit is pending in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria
Division against the Company and:

     (1) Asghar D. Mostafa,

     (2) Harry J. D'Andrea,

     (3) Robert Ted Enloe, III,

     (4) Betsy S. Atkins,

     (5) Ronald S. Westernik, and

     (6) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false and misleading
prospectus and registration statement in connection with the Company's
initial public offering (IPO), and that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven, PA by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.pivenlaw.com


COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Computer Associates, Inc.
securities between May 28, 1999, and February 25, 2002.

The suit alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing materially false and misleading statements to
the market.

Specifically, beginning prior to May, 1999, CA falsely indicated that
it had penetrated the distributed systems market when, in fact, it was
giving away its distributed system software free, or at nominal
additional cost, to customers who were also extending mainframe
software licenses, and attributed large portions of the resulting
revenue to the non-mainframe products.

Also, beginning prior to May 1999, and ending in October 2000, when the
Company extended a license during its term, it recognized revenue for
the entire new license. Until June 2000, when the Company began using
new auditors, it did not "back out" the revenue from the un-expired
portion of the old license, double-counting this revenue.

After June 2000, CA began backing out this figure in an obscure line
item, but never disclosed that this caused revenue to be overstated by
more than one hundred million dollars each quarter prior June, 2000.

Defendants in order to hide a severe drop in revenue as measured by
generally accepted accounting principles, announced a "new business
model," which they represented involved offering more flexible
licensing terms to customers.

In fact, the "new business model" was a cover to institute new, non-
GAAP compliant accounting (which the Company called "pro forma, pro
rata"), and to obscure the fact that the switch from long-term licenses
to flexible subscriptions was not a pro-active move, but a symptom of
the obsolescence of its main product line.

While the stated goal of the "new business model" was to provide
customers more flexible terms, the real purpose was to cover up the
fact that the Company could no longer get many of their mainframe
customers to purchase the long-term licenses of mainframe software
which have been its mainstay.

After the announcement of the "new business model" in October 2000, the
Company issued press releases heralding moderate growth, though the
GAAP figures showed a revenue decrease of nearly sixty percent.  The
"pro forma, pro rata" method counted revenue from old license sales in
current and future periods, using old revenues to buttress the current,
deteriorating sales.

Defendants have allegedly attempted to have their cake and eat it, too.
In a strong economy, the Company recognized all the revenue from its
sales immediately, even double-counting some revenue, showing
impressive numbers. Now, in a sagging economy, they have obscured the
real loss of sales by changing to a method of accounting so back-loaded
that it does not conform to GAAP. The "pro forma, pro rata" method also
did not make the distinctions between product and service revenue
required by GAAP, obscuring the distinction and further hiding the
deterioration in sales.

CA has continued to report its GAAP figures, as it is required by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to do. Incredibly, defendants
have falsely stated that the GAAP figures are not reflective of the
Company's financial position, and that the "pro forma, pro rata"
figures do accurately reflect the Company's financial position.

The Company's true condition, however, is shown by the conduct of
defendants during the class period. After announcing the "new business
model" but before reporting under it for the first time, and contrary
to the CA's representations that the rosy picture created by the "pro
forma, pro rata" figures was an accurate portrayal of the Company's
position, the defendants engineered a clandestine, firm-wide layoff,
hiding the terminations as individual performance-based firings. They
fired possibly as many as a thousand employees with no severance
package, and continue to deny that the firings were a layoff, even
though executives involved in the layoff confirmed it in a March 20,
2001 New York Times report.

More recently, the Company was forced to withdraw a planned debt
offering after Moody's questioned the quality of its credit. As a
result, CA was forced to draw down $600 million on one credit line to
pay another.

The desperate cost-cutting by secret layoff, use of its new,
unrecognized accounting just when its revenue has dropped sharply, and
the use of credit lines to service existing debt, demonstrate that
defendants are keenly aware of the precarious financial condition of
the Company, and have deliberately mislead the investing public.

The misleading picture the Company has presented has not gone
unquestioned. On February 22, 2002, CA confirmed that it was aware that
both the Securities Exchange Commission and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation were investigating the Company's accounting for civil,
and in the case of the FBI, criminal violations.

News of the criminal and civil probes, which began to surface on
February 20, caused investors to flee the stock, which fell from a
February 19 closing price of $25.31 to a February 22 close of $15.99, a
drop of 36.8%.

For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M. Nespole,
Thomas Burt, Michael Miske, George Peters, or Derek Behnke 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 Web site:
http://www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer to CA.  


ELAN CORPORATION: Mark McNair Lodges Securities Suit For ADR Holders
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Mark McNair initiated a securities class action
alleging violations of federal securities laws by Elan Corporation, PLC
(NYSE:ELN) has been filed on behalf of purchasers of Elan American
Depository Receipts (ADRs) between April 23, 2001 and January 29, 2002.

The suit alleges that the Company issued a series of false and
misleading news releases and financial statements that failed to comply
with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Specifically, it
is alleged that the Company used more than 50 sham joint ventures to
keep research-and-development costs off its books, pump up earnings and
artificially inflate its stock price.

A January 30, 2002, a Wall Street Journal article exposed Elan's
activities, which resulted in a 16% stock drop. This was just the start
of the bad news for Company investors. After the Company announced a
few days later that its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2001 would
drop 84%, its ADRs fell 50% in a single day of trading. On February 7,
2002, Elan revealed it was under investigation by the SEC.

For further details, contact Mark McNair by Mail: 1101 30th Street
PN.W. Suite 500, Washington, DC, 20007 by Phone: 877-511-4717 or
202-872-4717 by E-mail: mcnair@justice4investors.com or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.justice4investors.com.  


ELAN CORPORATION: Alfred Yates Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Attorney Alfred G. Yates, Jr initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of Elan Corporation, PLC
(NYSE:ELN) common stock from January 2, 2001 to January 29,2002 in the
US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit
alleges that during the class period, defendants reported favorable
financial results for the Company, while concealing expenses through
joint ventures, recognizing income from companies in which it had
invested (round-trip revenue) and concealing material related-party
transactions.  As a result, Elan's stock traded as high as $65.

Then, on January 30,2002, The Wall Street Journal published an article
on the Company's accounting entitled, "Research Partnerships Give Irish
Drug Maker Rosy Financial Glow."  The article quoted Lynn Turner, a
former chief accountant for the SEC, "What's the real substance?. I'm
taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another. That is a
charade."  The article went on to describe several transactions in
which the Company had recognized revenue where it had funded the entire
purchase price. On this news, Company stock dropped to as low as
$22.40, before closing at $29.25 on volume of 37.1 million shares.

For further details, contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr. by Phone:
800-391-5164 or by E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


ENRON CORPORATION: Judge Appoints Lead Counsel in Employee 401(K) Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
US District Judge Melinda Harmon designated two Seattle attorneys as
co-lead counsels in the class actions filed against Enron Corporation
by its former employees who watched their retirement savings disappear
after the energy trader collapsed last year, Associated Press reports.

Former employees, Company shareholders and investors launched more than
70 class actions as the Company's bankruptcy filing sent shockwaves
through the economy.  The Company's stock dwindled to less than a
dollar from a high of almost $80 a year ago, when allegations about
fraudulent accounting practices and inflation of profits were
uncovered.

The employees claim the Company encouraged them to invest in stock for
their retirement accounts, and blocked them for selling their shares as
stock price kept going down.  Meanwhile, Company executives were
allegedly busy selling their personal stock.

Judge Harmon appointed Steve Berman of Hagens Berman LLP and Lynn Sarko
of Keller Rohrback to act as co-lead counsel as the suits move forward.   
Mr. Berman told AP, "I'm thrilled. It's the most important assignment
I've ever had."  Judge Harmon also appointed a steering committee from
five other law firms in Houston, New York, Hartford, Connecticut and
Phoenix to help organize the suits.

Mr. Berman said he and Ms. Sarko will file a single lawsuit April 1
consolidating those complaints related to employees and shareholders.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Milberg Weiss Expands Class Period in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP expanded the class period in
the securities class action pending in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Global Crossing Ltd. (NYSE:GX) publicly
traded securities during the period between February 14, 1999 and
October 4, 2001, to include those persons who acquired Company stock
pursuant to a merger which closed on September 28, 1999 between Global
Crossing and Frontier Corporation.

The suit charges certain of the Company's officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Due to its recent
bankruptcy filing, the Company is not named as a defendant in the
action.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants issued
false and misleading statements and press releases concerning the
Company's financial statements, their ability to offset declining
wholesale demand for bandwidth capacity with higher-margin, customized
data services and the Company's ability to generate sufficient cash
revenue to service its debt.

During the class period, before the disclosure of the true facts, the
individual defendants and certain Company insiders sold their
personally held common stock generating more than $1.5 billion in
proceeds and the Company raised over $7 billion in debt and equity
offerings.

However, the full extent of Global Crossing's cash flow crisis, and its
failure to compete in the market for customized communications
services, began to emerge on October 4, 2001. On that date, the Company
issued a string of stunning announcements. Cash revenues in the third
quarter would be approximately $1.2 billion, $400 million less than the
$1.6 billion expected by a consensus of analysts surveyed by Thomson
Financial/First Call. The cash revenue shortfall was purportedly the
result of a "sharp falloff" in wholesale IRU sales to carrier
customers.  The Company further announced that it expected recurring
adjusted EBITDA to be "significantly less than $100 million" compared
to forecasts of $400 million.

Following these announcements, the Company's share priced plunged by
49% to $1.07 per share.

For more information, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins by
Phone: 800-449-4900 or visit the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


GLOBAL CROSSING: Neiman Garland Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firms of Neiman, Garland, and Urbach initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchases of shares of Global
Crossing, Ltd. (NYSE: GX) common stock between January 2, 2001 and
October 4, 2001, inclusive

The suit charges certain of the Company's officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint
alleges that during the class period, defendants improperly recorded
revenue on the Company's bandwidth trading contracts, in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles, thereby substantially
overstating reported earnings. It also alleges that while Global
Crossing's shares were artificially inflated, certain individual
defendants engaged in heavy insider trading, receiving proceeds of over
$135 million for their personal shares.

For more information, contact Jeffrey Neiman by Phone: 866-539-3788 or
718-677-1430 by Fax: 718-258-2937 or by E-mail: JeffreyNeiman@Aol.Com


GLOBAL CROSSING: Alfred Yates Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Attorney Alfred G. Yates, Jr. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of Global Crossings Ltd. (NYSE:GX)
common stock from February 14,1999 to October 4,2001 in the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit charges certain of the Company's officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Due to its recent
bankruptcy filing, the Company is not named as a defendant in the
action.

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants issued false
and misleading statements and press releases concerning the Company's
financial statements, their ability to offset declining wholesale
demand for bandwidth capacity with higher-margin, customized data
services and its ability to generate sufficient cash revenue to service
its debt.

During the class period, before the disclosure of the true facts, the
individual defendants and certain Company insiders sold their
personally held common stock generating more than $1.5 billion in
proceeds and the Company raised over $7 billion in debt and equity
offerings.

However, the full extent of the Company's cash flow crisis, and its
failure to compete in the market for customized communications
services, began to emerge on October 4, 2001. On that date, the Company
issued a string of stunning announcements. Cash revenues in the third
quarter would be approximately $1.2 billion, $400 million less than the
$1.6 billion expected by a consensus of analysts surveyed by Thomson
Financial/First Call. The cash revenue shortfall was purportedly the
result of a "sharp falloff" in wholesale IRU sales to carrier
customers. Global Crossing further announced that it expected recurring
adjusted EBITDA to be "significantly less than $100 million" compared
to forecasts of $400 million. Following these announcements, Company
share price plunged by 49% to $1.07 per share.

For more details, contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr. by Phone: 800-391-5164
or by E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


HOMESTORE.COM: CalSTRS Seeks Lead Plaintiff Position in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) filed a
petition in the US District Court for the Central District of
California to be lead plaintiff in a class action against
Homestore.com, Inc. and several of its former executives.

Since December 27, 2001, at least 19 suits have been filed against
Homestore.com, charging the Company with falsified financial statements
and engaged in accounting irregularities.  The suits also name as
defendants:

     (1) Stuart H. Wolff, former chief executive officer and chair of
         the board,

     (2) Peter B. Tafeen, former chief operations officer, and

     (30 Joseph J. Shew, former chief financial officer.

All three resigned either immediately before news of the accounting
misrepresentations was released or shortly thereafter.

Allegations in the suits include:

     (i) the Company issued six false quarterly press releases in
         calendar years 2000 and 2001, reporting positive revenue
         growth. The day after several of these announcements, the
         Company's stock price rose by as much as 25 percent;

    (ii) the executives named as defendants misrepresented the
         Company's true prospects to conceal their improper acts until
         they were able to sell at least $27.9 million worth of their
         own stock;

   (iii) the Company violated fundamental accounting principles in how
         it accounted for bartering its website advertising space for
         business services from an undisclosed trading partner. These
         improper "roundtrip" transactions resulted in overstated
         revenues and assets, which misled potential investors.

Jack Ehnes, CEO of CalSTRS, said in a statement, "As one of the
nation's largest institutional investors, CalSTRS is concerned for the
underlying integrity of our economic markets.We want the public to know
there are those who are ready to step up to ensure fair dealings and a
level playing field for all shareholders."

CalSTRS estimates its Homestore losses at more than $9 million. Between
May 4, 2000 and December 21, 2001, the time period cited in the
lawsuits, CalSTRS purchased 431,123 shares of Homestore, investing a
total of $13.4 million.

For more information, contact Sherry Reser by Phone: 916-229-3258.


HUB GROUP: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Hub Group, Inc. (Nasdaq:HUBGE)
securities between April 21, 1999 and February 12, 2002, inclusive, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against the Company and:

     (1) William L. Crowder,

     (2) Philip C. Yeager,

     (3) Jay E. Parker,

     (4) David P. Yeager,

     (5) Thomas L. Hardin and

     (6) Arthur Andersen, LLP.

It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period which statements
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of Hub
Group's securities.

For further details, contact Leo W. Desmond by Phone: 888-337-6663,
561-712-8000 by E-mail: Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com


IRVINE SENSORS: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP commenced a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of persons who acquired Irvine Sensors Corporation
(NASDAQ: IRSN) common stock between January 6, 2000 and September 15,
2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, a high-tech research and development
firm, along with certain of its officers and directors, violated
federal securities laws, by, among other things, repeatedly maintaining
throughout the class period, that Silicon Film Technologies, Inc., a
majority-owned subsidiary of IRSN, was near completion of its
Electronic Film System or "EFS-1," a device which would interface with
a conventional camera to enable the camera to take digital pictures,
all the while knowing that the EFS-1 was suffering from serious and
insurmountable technical design flaws.

In September 2001, after nearly two years of touting the EFS-1
technology, IFC abruptly announced that SFI had suspended operations
and was considering bankruptcy, essentially ending the EFS-1 project.
This news caused Company stock price to plummet from a class period
high of $14 a share to a low of 12 cents.

According to the suit, due to defendants' deceptive and illegal
conduct, the Company's stock price was artificially high throughout the
class period, causing plaintiff and the other class members to purchase
securities at inflated prices.

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: IRSN@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com


JP MORGAN: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
all persons who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired
the common stock of JP Morgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) or its
predecessors, Chase Manhattan Corp. (DE) and J.P. Morgan & Co., Inc.,
between March 1, 2000 and February 1, 2002, inclusive, in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC
thereunder, against the Company and its president William B. Harrison.  
The suit alleges the defendants failed to disclose material risks of
the Company's business in its filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and its press releases during the class period.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company's business
involved its well-established business practice of making commodities
loans transactions, derivative loan transactions, and other
transactions that were designed to be "off the books" financing of its
borrowers.

These creative transactions allegedly were in essence, loan
transactions, but were dressed up to look like other types of
transactions. This well-established practice and the Company's large
transactions pursuant thereto allegedly subjected it to large credit
risks, large risks of refusal to make repayment (or to insure
performance), and even large risks of liability to the debtor and third
parties. Such substantial risks allegedly were not disclosed to the
public.

In addition, the complaint alleges that JP Morgan's public statements
regarding its exposure relating to transactions involving Enron
Corporation were misleading and incomplete. For example, on November
21, 2001, the Company issued a public statement to the effect that its
total exposure regarding Enron was approximately $900 million. However,
this figure allegedly failed to include the Company's true exposure to
Enron arising out of structuring transactions as "off the books" loans.
Only later did the Company allegedly claim that its total Enron-related
exposure risk was approximately $2.6 billion due to such systematic
practices.

The suit further alleges that due to the Company's failure to disclose
the foregoing, persons who acquired its stock during the class period
paid artificially inflated prices. As a result of even the partial
disclosure of one portion of JP Morgan's exposure due to its "off the
books" lending practices, its stock price has fallen by 40% and federal
examiners are now assessing the true extent of the Company's
undisclosed risks to see whether the 2.86 times increase in its
originally understated exposure to Enron resembles the amount of its
understated exposure to the other companies to which it allegedly has
made loans disguised as commodity or derivative transactions.

For more information, contact Christopher Lovell or Christopher Gray by
Mail: 500 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10110 by Phone:
212-608-1900 or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.lovellstewart.com


JP MORGAN: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart, LLP filed a securities class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the
common stock of JP Morgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM) or its predecessors,
Chase Manhattan Corp. (DE) and JP Morgan & Co., Inc., between March 1,
2000 and February 1, 2002, inclusive, in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC
thereunder.  The suit alleges that the Company and president William B.
Harrison, Jr. violated the federal securities laws by failing to
disclose material risks of the Company's business in its filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission and its press releases during
the class period.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company's business
involved its well-established business practice of making commodities
loans transactions, derivative loan transactions, and other
transactions that were designed to be "off the books" financing of its
borrowers.  These creative transactions allegedly were, in essence,
loan transactions but were dressed up as other types of transactions.

This well-established practice and JP Morgan's large transactions
pursuant thereto allegedly subjected it to large credit risks, large
risks of refusal to make repayment (or to insure performance), and even
large risks of liability to the debtor and third parties. Such
substantial risks allegedly were not disclosed to the public.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the Company's public statements
regarding its exposure relating to transactions involving Enron
Corporation were misleading and incomplete. For example, on November
21, 2001, the Company issued a public statement to the effect that its
total exposure regarding Enron was approximately $900 million. However,
this figure allegedly failed to include the Company's true exposure to
Enron arising out of structuring transactions as "off the books" loans.
Only later did the Company allegedly claim that its total Enron-related
exposure risk was approximately $2.6 billion due to such systematic
practices.

The complaint further alleges that due to the Company's failure to
disclose the foregoing, persons who acquired its stock during the class
period paid artificially inflated prices. As a result of even the
partial disclosure of one portion of JP Morgan's exposure due to its
"off the books" lending practices, its stock price has fallen by 40%
and federal examiners are now assessing the true extent of the
Company's undisclosed risks to see whether the 2.86 times increase in
its originally understated exposure to Enron resembles the amount of
its understated exposure to the other companies to which it allegedly
has made loans disguised as commodity or derivative transactions.

For further details, contact Christopher Lovell or Christopher Gray by
Mail: 500 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10110 by Phone:
212-608-1900 by E-mail: sklovell@aol.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.lovellstewart.com


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Juniper Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ:
JNPR) securities between April 12, 2001 and June 7, 2001 against the
Company and:

     (1) Scott Kriens, at all relevant times, Chairman, CEO, and
         President;

     (2) Marcel Gani, at all relevant times, CFO,

     (3) Steven Haley, at all relevant times, Vice President, Worldwide
         Sales and Service and

     (4) Peter L. Wexler, at all relevant times, Vice President of
         Engineering

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants stated that
Juniper was on track to have 2nd Quarter 01 revenues of greater than
$330 million and earnings per share (EPS) of $0.25, and that deferred
revenue (i.e., revenue not yet recognized because customers had not yet
accepted products) had declined because customer acceptance cycles were
shorter than in the past.

The suit further alleges that defendants also represented the Company
was on track to report 2001 EPS of $0.90-$1.00, pro forma, causing its
stock to trade as high as $69.50. Defendants took advantage of this
inflation selling 747,463 shares, for proceeds of approximately $42.9
million.

In June 2001, Juniper disclosed that its 2nd Quarter 2001 revenues
would be much lower than previously represented and earnings would be
less than half of prior estimates. Defendants also admitted that
customer acceptance cycles were in fact much longer than in the past,
stretching from days to months. One analyst noted that the Company's
announcement was matched in "severity by its tardiness."

On this news, Company shares dropped to $38.02, or more than 46% lower
than the class period high of $69.50.  Ultimately, Juniper reported a
loss for 2001 and pro forma EPS of just $0.50, half what defendants
represented, and its stock has declined to $13.

For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gustavo Bruckner,
Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke 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 Web site:
http://www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer to Juniper.  


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Alfred Yates Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates, Jr. initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of Juniper Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq:JNPR)
common stock from April 12, 2001 to June 7, 2001 in the US District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint
alleges that during the class period, defendants stated that the
Company was on track to have 2nd Quarter 2001 revenues of $330-plus
million and earnings per share (EPS) of $0.25, and that deferred
revenue (i.e., revenue not yet recognized because customers had not yet
accepted products) had declined because customer acceptance cycles were
shorter than in the past.

The defendants also represented Juniper was on track to report 2001 EPS
of $0.90-$1.00, pro forma, causing its stock to trade as high as
$69.50. Defendants took advantage of this inflation, selling 747,463
shares, for proceeds of $42.9 million.

On June 8,2001, the Company disclosed that its 2nd Quarter 2001
revenues would be much lower than previously represented and earnings
would be less than half of prior estimates. Defendants also admitted
that customer acceptance cycles were in fact much longer than in the
past, stretching from days to months. One analyst noted that the
Company's announcement was matched in "severity by its tardiness."

On this news, Company shares dropped to $38.02, or more than 46% lower
than the class period high of $69.50. Ultimately, the Company reported
a loss for 2001 and pro forma EPS of just $0.50, half what defendants
represented, and its stock has declined to $13.

For more information, contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr. by Phone:
800-391-5164 or by E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Juniper Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq:
JNPR) publicly traded securities during the period between April 12,
2001 and June 7, 2001.

The suit charges Juniper and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint
alleges that during the class period, defendants stated that the
Company was on track to have 2nd Quarter 2001 revenues of $330+ million
and earnings per share (EPS) of $0.25, and that deferred revenue (i.e.,
revenue not yet recognized because customers had not yet accepted
products) had declined because customer acceptance cycles were shorter
than in the past.

Defendants also represented the Company was on track to report 2001 EPS
of $0.90-$1.00, pro forma, causing its stock to trade as high as
$69.50. Defendants took advantage of this inflation selling 747,463
shares, for proceeds of $42.9 million.

In June 2001, the Company disclosed that its 2nd Quarter 2001 revenues
would be much lower than previously represented and earnings would be
less than half of prior estimates. Defendants also admitted that
customer acceptance cycles were in fact much longer than in the past,
stretching from days to months. One analyst noted that the Company's
announcement was matched in "severity by its tardiness."

On this news, Juniper shares dropped to $38.02, or more than 46% lower
than the class period high of $69.50. Ultimately, the Company reported
a loss for 2001 and pro forma EPS of just $0.50, half what defendants
represented, and its stock has declined to $13.

For further details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: 888-643-6735 or
610-660-8000 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: Marchenzel@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


NVIDIA CORPORATION: Rabin Peckel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin and Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased NVIDIA Corporation common
stock (Nasdaq:NVDA) between February 15, 2000 and February 14, 2002,
both dates inclusive.

The suit charges the Company, and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The violations, as the suit alleges,
stem from the issuance of allegedly false financial statements during
the class period, which had the effect, during the class period, of
artificially inflating the price of Company shares while two executives
received $66 million from insider sales.

On February 14, 2002, NVIDIA announced that the SEC had requested that
it conduct a review of how it had accounted for "certain past
transactions" and that, as a result, the Company might be forced to
restate previously announced financial results.

In reaction to such news, Company shares fell from $62.16 on February
14, 2002 to $53.55 per share two trading days later.

For more information, contact Eric Belfi or Maurice Pesso by Mail: 275
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: 800-497-8076 or
212-682-1818 by Fax: 212-682-1892 or by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com.  


NVIDIA CORPORATION: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired NVIDIA Corp. (Nasdaq:NVDA)
securities between February 15, 2000 and February 14, 2002, inclusive,
in the US District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company, Jen-Hsun Huang and Christine B. Hoberg.

It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period which statements
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

For further details, contact Leo W. Desmond by Phone: 888-337-6663,
561-712-8000 by E-mail: Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com


NVIDIA CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all persons who acquired NVIDIA Corporation
(NASDAQ: NVDA) common stock between Feb. 15, 2000 and Feb. 14, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit
alleges that as part of their effort to boost the price of Company
stock, defendants misrepresented the Company's true prospects in an
effort to conceal its improper acts until they were able to sell at
least $66 million worth of their own stock.

In order to overstate revenues and assets in its 4th Quarter 2000 and
1st to 3rd Quarters 2001, NVIDIA violated generally accepted accounting
principles and SEC rules by engaging in an illegal accounting scheme.
This scheme had the effect of dramatically overstating revenues and
assets.

On February 14, 2002, after the close of the market, the Company
partially admitted that its past accounting for its prior results may
be inaccurate in a press release entitled, "NVIDIA Corporation
Conducting Review of Certain Transactions at the Request of the SEC."  
On this news the Company's shares plummeted the following day.

For more 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: NVDA@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com.


REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz and Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Florida on behalf of
all persons who purchased the common stock of Regeneration
Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: RTIX) between July 25, 2001 and January 31,
2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, engaged in the use of natural tissue
and technologies to repair and promote the healing of human bone and
other human tissues, and three top corporate officers misled the
investing public during the class period regarding the Company's
financial condition.

Specifically, throughout the class period, defendants made several
positive statements concerning the Company's financial results,
reporting quarter after quarter of "record" financial results and
strong revenue growth which caused the price of Company stock to trade
as high as $12.82 per share. These statements were allegedly false and
misleading because Regeneration failed to take a charge to earnings to
recognize worthless inventory.

On February 2, 2002, the Company announced it was delaying its fourth
quarter and year-end results for fiscal year 2001 while "management
completes its evaluation of certain inventory issues."  The Company
also announced that its Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of
Marketing and Sales were leaving the Company, effective immediately.

The Company further announced that it is evaluating whether "these
issues may affect its previously reported financial results" and
although the Company's "annual results have not been finalized, company
officials expect to report a loss for both the quarter and the year."

In response to this revelation the price of Regeneration stock plunged
more than 50% from $10.15 on January 31, 2002 to $5.19 on February 1,
2002.

For more information, contact Andrew M. Schatz, or Patrick A. Klingman,
or Wayne T. Boulton, or Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 800-797-5499 by E-
mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.snlaw.net


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: NH Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in New Hampshire dismissed the
consolidated securities class action filed against Tyco International
(NYSE:TYC) on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock from October
1,1998 to December 8,1999.

The suit consolidated 38 similar actions in various federal courts, and
alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during
the class period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the
Company's common stock.

The complaint alleged that Tyco's representations were rendered false
and misleading by defendants' failure to disclose:

     (1) that the Company would achieve its earnings targets only
         through undisclosed acquisitions;

     (2) that the individual defendants sold in excess of $100,000,000
         of their individual stock holdings to the company; and

     (3) that the Company's management procedures were to make large
         payments to insiders, including a $20,000,000 payment to one
         director and his charity for furthering the interests of the
         Company.

The suit further alleged that external rule changes required the
Company to cease its allegedly aggressive revenue recognition practices
and recognize the revenues from its security contracts only as the
monies thereunder were received.

Throughout the class period, defendants were allegedly aware that the
adverse financial effect of the rule change by the Securities and
Exchange Commission would be approximately $1,000,000,000. However,
defendants allegedly failed to disclose this adverse financial effect
until partial disclosure was made in October 2001.  As defendants
belatedly announced portions of the foregoing material facts between
October 2001 and January 2002, Tyco stock allegedly fell by more than
40 plus percent.

The Company's executives welcomed the ruling, hoping it will end
questions about its accounting methods and unflattering comparisons to
Enron.  In a statement, Tyco CEO L. Dennis Kozlowski stated, "The
dismissal of these lawsuits should help allay concerns that have been
raised about Tyco's accounting practices."


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart, LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Tyco International Ltd. (NYSE:TYC), between Feb. 1, 2000 through Feb.
1, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of the Company's common stock.

The complaint alleges that Tyco's representations were rendered false
and misleading by defendants' failure to disclose their use the
following accounting practices to reflect the company's reported
continued profit and revenue growth:

     (1) aggressive write-down of receivables of acquired companies,
         which would be charged to purchase accounting while
         subsequently collectively recorded to income;

     (2) aggressive write-down of inventory of acquired companies,
         which would be charged to purchase accounting while subsequent
         sale recorded as income;

     (3) aggressive write-down of fixed assets of acquired companies,
         which would be charged to purchase accounting while future
         depreciation expenses are reduced;

     (4) aggressive subsequent capitalization of expenses, such as
         spare parts and operating supplies;

     (5) aggressive adjustment of inventory and bad debt reserves to
         maximize income; and

     (6) aggressive use of restructuring reserves to write-off fixed
         assets thereby reducing future depreciation expenses.

The suit also alleges that the Company's representations were rendered
false and misleading by defendants' failure to disclose:

     (i) that the Company would achieve its earnings targets only
         through undisclosed acquisitions;

    (ii) that the individual defendants sold in excess of $100,000,000
         of their individual stock holdings to the company; and

   (iii) that the Company's management procedures were to make large
         payments to insiders, including a $20,000,000 payment to one
         director and his charity for furthering the interests of the
         Company.

The suit further alleges that external rule changes required Tyco to
cease its allegedly aggressive revenue recognition practices and
recognize the revenues from its security contracts only as the monies
thereunder were received. Throughout the class period, defendants were
allegedly aware that the adverse financial effect of the rule change by
the Securities and Exchange Commission would be approximately
$1,000,000,000.

However, defendants allegedly failed to disclose this adverse financial
effect until partial disclosure was made in October 2001. As defendants
belatedly announced portions of the foregoing material facts between
October 2001 and January 2002, Company stock fell allegedly by more
than 40 plus percent.

For more information, contact Christopher Lovell or Ian T. Stoll by
Mail: 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10110 by Phone: 212-608-1900
by E-mail: sklovell@aol.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.lovellstewart.com


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Lockridge Grindal Commences Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of purchasers of Tyco International Ltd. (Nasdaq:TYC) common
stock during the period between December 13, 1999 through February 1,
2002, inclusive against the Company and:

     (1) L. Dennis Kozlowski,

     (2) Mark H. Swartz,

     (3) Lord Michael A. Ashcroft,

     (4) Mark Belnick, and

     (5) Frank E. Walsh, Jr.

The suit charges that defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market in press
releases and public filings during the class period with respect to the
Company's financial condition.

Additionally, the suit alleges that Tyco and the individual defendants,
as officers and/or directors of the Company, failed to disclose that:

     (i) the corporate atmosphere at the Company was one in which the
         individual defendants were encouraged to pursue their own
         interests, at the expense of the Company and its shareholders,
         by establishing a bonus plan that rewarded individuals who
         acquired companies with very high but very short term
         profitability;

    (ii) the Company spent several billion dollars of capital on
         hundreds of cash acquisitions during the class period;

   (iii) the Company's management orchestrated numerous payments to
         insiders, including a $20,000,000 payment to one Company
         director who operated a charity with interests beneficial to
         the Company; and

    (iv) the individual defendants sold more than $155,000,000 of their
         own stock holdings to the Company.

The Company's false and misleading statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the price per share of Tyco's common stock. The
discovery of its questionable financial dealings and misrepresentations
led to a dramatic drop in the Company's stock price resulting in
substantial losses to its shareholders.

For more information, contact Karen M. Hanson by Phone: 612-339-6900 or
by E-mail: kmhanson@locklaw.com


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Neiman Garland Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman, Garland, and Urbach commenced a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of shares of Tyco International, Ltd. (NYSE: TYC)
common stock between February 5, 1999 and February 4, 2002.

The suit alleges the Company, and certain of its officers and
directors, misled the public about its financial results and violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by failing to
disclose hundreds of acquisitions and other transactions during the
class period which improperly inflated reported revenue and earnings.

As the truth regarding false and misleading statements was revealed
beginning January 27, 2002 Tyco's stock price began a steep decline.  
Company shares, which closed at $45 on January 27, 2002, had dropped to
$35.63 by the end of the class period.

For more information, contact Jeffrey Neiman by Phone: 866-539-3788 or
718-677-1430 by Fax: 718-258-2937 or by E-mail: JeffreyNeiman@Aol.Com


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Mark McNair Files Suit For FELINE PACS Noteholders
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Mark McNair initiated a securities class action
alleging violations of federal securities laws by Williams Companies,
Inc. (NYSE:WMB) on behalf of purchasers of WMB notes in or traceable to
the company's January 7, 2002 offering. These notes were convertible
into common stock and known as FELINE PACS (OTCBB:WMB). This lawsuit
focuses solely on the January 7 offering.

The suit alleges that documents filed by the Company in connection with
its offering failed to adequately disclose more than $2.4 billion in
credit, support and lease obligations that it had at the time of the
offering. This inadequate and misleading disclosure did not last long.

Three weeks after the offering, Williams announced that it was delaying
the release of its fiscal 2001 financial results to account for the
$2.4 billion obligation, which included $250 million in costs that were
not even mentioned in the offering documents. The disclosure stunned
investors and Company stock prices dropped precipitously and so did the
value of its FELINE PACS, which were tied to the price of that stock.

For more details, contact Mark McNair by Mail: 1101 30th Street PN.W.
Suite 500, Washington, D.C, 20007 by Phone: 877-511-4717 or
202-872-4717, by E-mail: mcnair@justice4investors.com or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.justice4investors.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 2002.  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 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *