CAR_Public/020304.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Monday, March 4, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 43

                            Headlines

AGENT ORANGE: Institute Cites Lack of Evidence To Prove Link to Cancer
BARCLAYS PLC: Multi-Billion Dollar Suit Over Enron Role Likely
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE INC.: Ontario Court Certifies Employee Pension Suit
COLORADO: Inmate's Lawyer To File Suit Over Inadequate Hepatitis Care
FLORIDA: Palm Beach School Board To Settle For $300T School Fees Suit

LEXINGTON EYE: WA Court Approves Settlement in Laser Surgery Fraud Suit
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Revises Federal Antitrust Settlement Provisions
NEW YORK: Housing Authority Sued For Denying Center's Use For Prayer
ORIENTA FARMER'S: Shareholders Sue Directors Over Embezzlement Scheme
OXYCONTIN LITIGATION: Court Refuses To Certify Consumer Suit V. Purdue

STARWOOD HOTELS: Sued For Charging Unauthorized Resort Fee in New York
TOBACCO LITIGATION: British American Tobacco Says Lawsuits On The Wane
TRI-STATE CREMATORY: Families of Desecration Victims File Suit in GA
VITAMIN ANTITRUST: Drug Firms To Settle Citric Acid Suit For $7.7M
WASHINGTON: Federal Way City Attorney Calls Sign Code Suit "Meritless"

                        Securities Fraud

ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ADVANCED SWITCHING: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA
BIOPURE CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in Massachusetts
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. NY

CRITICAL PATH: CA Court Grants Approval To Securities Suit Settlement
DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. TX
GLOBAL CROSSING: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
HA-LO INDUSTRIES: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
HUB GROUP: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. Illinois

IRVINE SENSORS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
JP MORGAN: Schoengold Sporn Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York
KMART CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MI
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Faces US$ 1B Suit For Allegedly Cheating Shareholders
MCLEOD USA: Lockridge Grindal Commences Securities Suit in N.D. Iowa

MEDI-HUT CO.: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in New Jersey
NATIONAL GOLF: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in C.D. California
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
PHILIPS INTERNATIONAL: NY Court Refuses To Certify Securities Suit
PNC FINANCIAL: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. PA

RAYTEL MEDICAL: Shareholders File Suit Opposing SHL Telemedicine Merger
REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Barroway Files Suit in N.D. FL
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Adkins Kelson Probes Possible Securities Claims
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in FL
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Employees File 401(k) Suit After Stock Price Plunge
                              
                            *********

AGENT ORANGE: Institute Cites Lack of Evidence To Prove Link to Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Institute of Medicine reported that there is not enough
evidence to link pesticide Agent Orange to acute myelogenous leukemia,
after reviewing additional data.  The Institute, a division of the
National Academy of Science, reversed their findings a year ago,
Associated Press reports.

Vietnam veterans filed class actions against manufacturers of Agent
Orange. They were exposed to the chemical when it was used to clear
areas of jungle during the war.  The suits alleged that exposure to the
pesticide caused them to contract cancers like non-Hodgkins lymphoma
and myeloma and that even their children were affected with cancer. The
suits are now pending in the US District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.  

Initially, the Federal Court barred Agent Orange personal injury class
actions, saying the decision violated the due process rights of
Vietnam-era veterans who learned after 1994 that they may have claims
against manufacturers of the defoliant.  Last year, the US 2nd Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed the Federal Court's decision, allowing the
suits to proceed.

Len Selfon, Director of veterans benefits programs for Vietnam Veterans
of America, told Associated Press, "Obviously we're disappointed.We'll
have to see what they based the retraction of their original conclusion
on."  

The Institute released findings in April 2001, concluding that the
children of Vietnam veterans who where exposed to Agent Orange seemed
to have an above-average chance of being afflicted by acute myelogenous
leukemia.  This finding was the first scientific connection between the
disease and the pesticide, according to AP.  However, the Institute
maintained that the link was not conclusive, but was only a "possible
association."

The researchers took into consideration an Australian study in their
new analysis.  The study reportedly had an error "that led its authors
to incorrectly conclude that these children faced significantly greater
risk of AML than the general population."  When revised, the report
further showed that the incidence of AML was slightly elevated among
children of the veterans, but within the normal range of variation.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi told Associated Press,
"Right now, the scientific evidence doesn't support a connection
between this disease in the children of Vietnam veterans and Agent
Orange exposure. If future studies reach the legal threshold, I will
support creating benefits for these children of Vietnam veterans."


BARCLAYS PLC: Multi-Billion Dollar Suit Over Enron Role Likely
--------------------------------------------------------------
Financial institution Barclays PLC faces the threat of a multi-billion-
dollar class action lawsuit for its role in the collapse of Enron.  
Fleming & Associates, a Texas class action law firm that has secured $2
billion settlements for investor clients, said it is considering
including the Company in a lawsuit it expects to file against Enron's
bankers and legal advisers.

The Company provided a crucial $11.4 million loan in 1997 to two of
Enron's "special purpose entities" (SPEs) that helped Enron hide
billions of dollars of debt from investors.  The SPEs, which were
controlled and partly owned by senior Enron executives, used the
Barclays' loan to buy a three percent stake in Chewco, one of Enron's
controversial off-balance sheet partnerships.  With three percent of
Chewco held by "outsiders," Enron was able to keep the partnership off
its books.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE INC.: Ontario Court Certifies Employee Pension Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a class action filed
against Colgate-Palmolive Inc. seeking damages in the amount of $8.1
million dollars, for all members and former members of the Colgate-
Palmolive Canada Pension Plan for Salaried and Non-Union Hourly
Employees with service under the plan prior to 1990.

The suit's claims are based on:

     (1) $5.4 million being the dollar value amount of the contribution
         holidays allegedly improperly taken by the Company with
         respect to the plan during the period between January 1, 1983
         and December 31, 1989, plus pre-judgment interest;

     (2) damages in the amount of $2.7 million, being the alleged
         reduction in the value of the assets of the plan as a result
         of the allegedly improper transfer of assets and liabilities
         of the employees from the Bristol-Myers Canada Inc. Retirement
         Income Plan to the Colgate Plan, plus pre-judgment interest;

For more information, contact Mark Zigler and Kirk Baert of Koskie
Minsky, Barristers and Solicitors by Phone: 416-595-2090, 416-595-2117
or 800-286-2266 by E-mail: colgate@koskieminsky.com,
mzigler@koskieminsky.com or kbaert@koskieminsky.com or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.koskieminsky.com


COLORADO: Inmate's Lawyer To File Suit Over Inadequate Hepatitis Care
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawyer for a dying Colorado death-row inmate is considering filing a  
class action against the State's Department of Corrections, alleging
that the Department failed to properly treat prisoners suffering from
hepatitis C because of the cost, the Denver Post reports.

Lawyer David Lane, who represents convicted killer Frank Rodriguez,
alleges the State failed to properly treat around 7,000 inmates who
have the disease.  He told the Denver Post, "It is going to be a huge
issue.It is the HIV of the new millennium."  

Mr. Lane added that the US Constitution requires the government to care
for inmates.  He charges the Department with making treatment
inaccessible to inmates, saying "They make the treatment available but
you have to jump through so many hoops to become approved to take it
that nobody can qualify."

The Department's top medical officer, Joseph McGarry, told the Post
that only an estimated 17% of the State's inmates have hepatitis C.  
The treatment for the disease reportedly costs $20,000 a year per
inmate with hepatitis C. The Department budgets $7 million annually for
medication, though there's not a specific line item for hepatitis C
drugs.

Mr. McGarry stated that before the inmates are treated, they undergo an
evaluation to determine how advanced the disease is. They also must
complete a year-long alcohol and drug course before treatment.  He said
hepatitis C can be contracted by the sharing of intravenous needles,
which are used among prison populations for drug use or tattoos.

"You are trying to use the funds available judiciously, give it to the
right people," McGarry asserts. Only "a few" inmates have died of
hepatitis C in the past five years, he added.


FLORIDA: Palm Beach School Board To Settle For $300T School Fees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Palm Beach County School Board will settle for $300,000 after
almost two years of negotiations, a class action over school fees filed
by a mother of a Spanish River High School student, the Florida Sun-
Sentinel reports.  Lori Ronan-Khessali filed the suit after her son was
told he could not graduate from high school unless he paid $20 he owed
for a health nutrition class.  

The School Board agreed a year ago to change its student fee policy to
include a provision stating that student fees are voluntary.  Under the
settlement, the School Board will also take steps to make sure fees for
field trips and other extra-curricular activities will not be made
compulsory.  The settlement also stipulates that the District would
have to get court approval to have the student fee policy changed.

Only Mrs. Ronan-Khessali and four others will collect money from the
settlement, getting $5,000 each.  The rest of the settlement will cover
lawyer fees.  The settlement will also not include any provision for
other people who think they wrongly paid student fees to recoup money,
since it could cost $20 million to $30 million to refund fees paid by
students during the past four years, Gerald Richman, lawyer for the
plaintiffs told the Sun-Sentinel.  "Our object was not to bankrupt the
school district, but to ensure the school district's policy complied
with the state constitution."

The School Board admitted no wrongdoing by settling the suit.  Board
member Susan Whelchel told the Sun-Sentinel, "It was an unfortunate
case to begin with, but I think this is a fair, equitable and best
method by which to settle the case."

The School Board will vote on the issue at a March 13 meeting.  The
settlement still is subject to approval by a circuit court judge.


LEXINGTON EYE: WA Court Approves Settlement in Laser Surgery Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The King County Superior Court approved the settlement in a class
action suit against Lexington Eye Institute, Ltd., which allegedly
engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices toward their laser
eye surgery patients.  The suit named as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Focus Eye Care,

     (2) Dr. Robert Woods, and

     (3) Trinh Hua, OD,

As part of the approved settlement, the defendants agreed not to
enforce the "Governing Law" and "Jurisdiction" provisions of their
consent form that each Washington patient had to sign before laser eye
surgery occurred in Canada. The "Governing Law" and "Jurisdiction"
provisions of the consent form required that all disputes associated
with laser eye surgery performed at Lexington Eye Institute be brought
only in Canada and under Canadian law. The settlement removes one of
the key impediments to Washington patients who have suffered personal
injuries caused by the defendants from obtaining relief for these
injuries in their home country and state.

For more information, contact Cheryl Conners, Mike Woerner or Amy
Hanson by Phone: 800-776-6044 by E-mail: cconners@kellerrorhback.com or
visit the firm's web site: http://www.seattleclassaction.com.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Revises Federal Antitrust Settlement Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation has agreed to modify the controversial settlement
with the US Justice Department in the antitrust suits against them,
along with nine states.  Nine other states have dissented against the
settlement, saying it was not harsh enough to punish the Company's
anti-competitive behavior, and that it contained provisions that the
Company could use to its advantages.

The Company agreed to drop a controversial provision that required
computer makers to license some intellectual property to Microsoft.  
The provision had elicited criticism from the dissenting states, who
said the Company could utilize the provision "to adopt significantly
more onerous licensing terms and to impose them on the (computer
manufacturers)."  Microsoft also agreed to widen some technical
definitions and redefine some terms that critics had argued could be
used as loopholes to get around the restrictions in the deal, according
to a Reuters report. The Company labeled the criticisms "specious" and
said it would not try to get out of its obligations.  

A Justice Department official also emphasized that the provision was
dropped after reading the public comments, and not because of
complaints from the states.  The Department further said that a
sentence had also been added to make clear the Company cannot
manipulate the Windows desktop to discriminate against non-Microsoft
products.  Antitrust Chief Charles James told Reuters, "The
modifications announced today simply make this effective settlement
even better."

However, the dissenting states were not enthusiastic about the changes.  
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal called the revisions
"more cosmetic than real."  Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller added,
"The revisions don't change the fundamental nature of the settlement,
nor the fundamental flaws so many have found in it."  Ed Black,
President of the Computer & Communications Industry Association,
compared the modifications to changing the tires of a car after it had
been totaled in an accident, telling Reuters, "Have these changes made
the settlement anywhere near acceptable? The answer is, 'No, absolutely
not."

A hearing will be held on March 6, with Federal Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly to determine if the proposed settlement is in the public
interest.  Judge Kollar-Kotelly last week allowed some critics of the
settlement to make ten-minute presentations of their objections during
the hearing, and allowed some outside groups critical of the settlement
to testify and submit briefs.  

The nine dissenting states will also have separate hearings on their
demands for tougher sanctions, which will begin March 11 and likely run
for 6-8 weeks.  According to Reuters, the states are proposing
additional remedies to close the loopholes in the settlement, including
forcing the Company to sell a cheaper, stripped-down version of its
Windows operating system and disclose the system's inner workings.


NEW YORK: Housing Authority Sued For Denying Center's Use For Prayer
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The New York City Housing Authority faces a class action suit filed by
the American Center for Law and Justice, an international public
interest law firm, after a pastor was denied permission to use a public
housing facility to meet in and pray for the New York community that
suffered great losses in the tragic attacks of September 11th, 2001.

The suit was commenced in the US District Court in the Eastern District
of Long Island in Central Islip, New York on behalf of Pastor Joan
Daily, a Christian minister who has been a long-time resident of a
public housing development in Woodside in Queens, New York.

The suit alleges that after the September 11th attacks, Pastor Daily
applied to reserve a room at the Woodside Community Center in mid-
October to conduct a Bible study and pray for those affected by the
September 11th events that claimed the lives of several Woodside
residents. The suit contends the facility is routinely used by Woodside
residents for a wide variety of purposes, including exercise groups,
adult and continuing education programs, and youth programs that
include karate classes and computer programs.

According to the suit, Pastor Daily's request was rejected by the New
York City Housing Authority saying the facilities could not be used for
religious or political purposes and cited a city policy that prohibits,
"(r)eligious services, unless the religious services are directly
connected to the principal reason for a family-oriented event, such as
weddings."

"At a time when communities across the city of New York were working to
deal with the pain and suffering of September 11th, our client was told
no - prayer is not an appropriate form of speech," said Vincent
McCarthy, Senior Counsel of the ACLJ.  "Our client merely wanted the
same access to a public housing facility that is routinely given to
other residents."

He added, "While the City as a whole has done a tremendous job in
helping the New York community deal with the tragic events of September
11th, it is troubling that the housing authority would reject a request
to permit prayer to occur in a facility that is located in the midst of
a community that was deeply affected by the tragedy. The denial to use
the facility was not only insensitive, but unconstitutional as well.
We're confident the court will work to correct this discriminatory
action."

The suit names as defendants in the suit the New York City Housing
Authority, the Director of Community Operations, the Borough
Administrator, and the Center Director. The ACLJ contends the actions
and policy of the city violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments of
the US Constitution.

For more information, contact Vince McCarthy by Phone: 860-355-1902 or
860-488-7221


ORIENTA FARMER'S: Shareholders Sue Directors Over Embezzlement Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The former shareholders of Orienta Farmer's Cooperative Association, in
Oklahoma, have filed a class action against the group's directors, in
Major County District Court, alleging negligence on the part of five
board members and claiming they are partially to blame for an
embezzlement scheme that caused the Cooperative to close, the
Associated Press recently reported.

Shareholders are asking for $5 million in punitive damages from the
former board members and another $5 million from the Cooperative's
accountant, Dwayne E. Campbell.  The accounting firm, Collins, Butler &
Company of Enid, Oklahoma, also is a defendant.

The lawsuit further claims that board members "failed to adequately and
effectively hire, control, supervise and direct" the Cooperative's
manager, Gregory Vincent Hunt.  Mr. Hunt, 42, was found guilty in
Oklahoma City Federal Court of 65 counts of passing out forged
securities and 41 counts of money laundering.  He embezzled more than
$2 million from the Cooperative, prosecutors said.

Mr. Hunt was accused of squandering much of the embezzled money in
commodities markets.  Federal prosecutors say he diverted more than $2
million of the Cooperative's funds through various bank accounts and
investments and used some of it to buy trucks, recreational vehicles, a
boat, guns and other property.


OXYCONTIN LITIGATION: Court Refuses To Certify Consumer Suit V. Purdue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court for the Eastern District of New York refused to
certify a class action involving the prescription medication OxyContinr
(oxycodone HCL controlled-release) Tablets, saying the plaintiffs
failed to satisfy any of the legal "prerequisites for certifying a
class action.

The suit is the first test case to see if a class action can be brought
by OxyContinr consumers.  The plaintiffs in the suit claimed to
represent a proposed class of persons allegedly harmed by OxyContinr
after developing an addiction to the drug after it was prescribed to
them by a physician for pain relief.  Pharmaceutical firm Purdue Pharma
LP was named as a defendant when the lawsuit began in Kentucky State
Court, along with other pharmaceutical companies, two private
physicians and a hospital. The hospital and the doctors have since been
dismissed from the case.

In his ruling, Judge Danny C. Reeves noted that the proposed plaintiff
class would contain "members who obtained OxyContinr illegally, use the
drug illegally and take different prescription strengths."  He,
therefore, ruled "(T)his amounts to different injuries and interests
among plaintiffs.Accordingly, class certification is inappropriate and
this court denies plaintiffs' motion for class certification."

Purdue's Executive Vice President and General Counsel Howard R. Udell
hailed the victory, saying in a statement, "This is an important legal
victory for Purdue Pharma.After a careful analysis of the applicable
law, Judge Reeves rejected every single one of the plaintiffs'
arguments in support of class status. We expect that his opinion will
be an important precedent for other judges reviewing similar class
action allegations in the future."

"On behalf of all innocent victims of pain, I am deeply gratified by
this ruling," noted Dr. Paul Goldenheim, Purdue's Executive Vice
President, Worldwide R&D and senior physician.  "Patients need
appropriate medical care, including, where needed, good prescription
medications selected by their doctors. Lawsuits such as this can
interfere with the doctor-patient relationship to the extent that
innocent pain sufferers are deprived of necessary medical care. Many
patients tell us that they have had their lives taken away from them by
conditions which can be relieved only through prescription medications
as part of an overall treatment program."

"We are gratified by Judge Reeves' Foister ruling and others which
preceded it," concluded Mr. Udell. "We have an absolute commitment to
defending ourselves in court against the baseless claims of plaintiffs'
lawyers who bring lawsuits with great fanfare in the hope of a cash
settlement. We look forward to similar outcomes in the future."


STARWOOD HOTELS: Sued For Charging Unauthorized Resort Fee in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Wexler Eagel & Morgenstern, LLP initiated a class action against
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., the owner of such brand-name
hotel chains as Sheraton, Westin, The Luxury Collection, St. Regis, W,
Ciga and Four Points by Sheraton, in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, Westchester County, on behalf of all persons or entities who,
during the period from March 1, 1999, through February 28, 2002, stayed
at Starwood Hotel and were charged a "Resort Fee" or similar fee.

The suit alleges that, during the class period, the Company
fraudulently charged travelers an undisclosed or improperly classified
"resort fee" or similar fee in addition to the room rate quoted at the
time a traveler's reservation was made.  Starwood, the complaint
alleges, either failed to disclose the additional "resort fee" or
misrepresented the "resort fee" or other fee as a "tax" through its web
site and its telephone reservation system.

The suit further alleges that the resort fees or other fees, although
sometimes represented by the Company to be tax, were really not tax
remitted by Starwood to any governmental authority at all, but rather
an additional charge that was improperly retained by it.

For more information, contact Peter D. Morgenstern, by Mail: 900 Third
Avenue, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: 212-308-5858 by Fax: 212-486-0462
by E-mail: info@bragarwexler.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.bragarwexler.com


TOBACCO LITIGATION: British American Tobacco Says Lawsuits On The Wane
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation by cancer sufferers against tobacco giants has passed its
high-water mark and is in decline, the world's second-largest tobacco
company claimed recently, The Daily Telegraph in London reported.

British American Tobacco (BAT) has faced a decade of lawsuits in the
United States, but so far has lost just one case and paid out only
$750,000.  Michael Prideaux, representing BAT's Corporate Affairs
Office, summarized the past year's results by saying, "The number of
cases is falling, and the important thing is that the big class actions
are being overturned."

Of the 59 class actions filed against the industry so far, only 14
remain active.  The principal exception is in Florida, where five
tobacco companies, including BAT's Brown & Williamson, have been
ordered to pay almost $100 billion.  The companies are appealing and
BAT claimed to be confident that the ruling will be reversed.

"We will fight every case, which is what deters even some of the more
creative U.S. lawyers.  It is getting increasingly difficult to
convince a jury that an individual was unaware of the risk."

BAT Chairman Martin Broughton said that the Company would continue to
be an active consolidator in the tobacco market, and he referred to the
fact that the joint venture with China's tobacco monopoly, proposed
last spring, remains on track.


TRI-STATE CREMATORY: Families of Desecration Victims File Suit in GA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The families of deceased persons whose remains were delivered to Tri-
State Crematory, Inc. for cremation, but were instead dumped in the
crematory grounds, have joined together to file class actions in
federal and state courts against the unlicensed Georgia crematory and
the funeral homes that did business with it. The suits were filed on
behalf of all families who had similar experiences such as theirs.  The
first lawsuit was filed in the State Court of Georgia, Walker County,
while the federal lawsuit was commenced in the Rome, Georgia Federal
Court.

The families chose to file class actions instead of pressing individual
claims in an effort to protect the interests of the hundreds of
families similarly affected by the tragedy at the Tri-State Crematory
in Noble, Georgia.

D. Dwayne Lee, the grandson of Alma Sykes whose remains were entrusted
to the crematorium, explained, "We realize that there are a lot of
people out there who are going through the same kind of nightmare we
are experiencing of not knowing what happened to their family members.
It is hard to think about how best to protect your rights at a time
like this. We are filing this lawsuit on behalf of the community of
families affected by this disaster, in hopes that by having a suit on
file that protects all of us, we can give other families some time to
deal with this terrible news."

Carol Bechtel, the daughter of Robert and Willie Florence Swofford,
whose remains were also entrusted to Tri-State, stated, "Through filing
this case, we can take some of the pressure off of people who do not
want to rush to see a lawyer to file a lawsuit. We can give the other
families some breathing room, and some time to decide what they need to
do."

The families bringing the lawsuits are united by the fact that all
entrusted loved ones' remains to funeral homes that contracted with
Tri-State Crematory, Inc., for cremation services.

"In light of recent discoveries that Tri-State Crematory engaged in a
routine practice of failing to cremate bodies entrusted to its care,
some families do not know what happened to their loved ones' remains.
These families do not know if the ashes they were given for burial are
those of their loved one, if what they thought were ashes are human
remains, or if their loved ones were ever cremated," commented attorney
Kathryn Barnett, an attorney with Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, which serves as counsel for the families.

For further details, contact Kathryn Barnett by Phone: 615-313-9000 or
by E-mail: kbarnett@lchb.com


VITAMIN ANTITRUST: Drug Firms To Settle Citric Acid Suit For $7.7M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Five international drug companies will settle for $7.7 million an
antitrust class action in Canada charging the companies with conspiring
to fix the prices of citric acid, a common food additive used in
detergent, medicine and food products, from 1991 to 1995, CBC News
Online reports.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Hoffman-LaRoche,

     (2) Jungbunzlauer,

     (3) Archer Daniels Midland,

     (3) Haarman & Reimer, and

     (4) a subsidiary of Bayer AG

The settlement will be distributed to The Canadian Federation of
Independent Grocers, the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributers, the
Consumers' Association of Canada, the Canadian Association of Food
Banks and the University of Guelph's Agricultural College.


WASHINGTON: Federal Way City Attorney Calls Sign Code Suit "Meritless"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed by business owners against the City of Federal
Way over the removal of their business signs under the City's sign code
is "meritless" and "a classic example of greedy plaintiff lawyers
trying to inappropriately use a suit to get taxpayer money," City
attorney Bob Sternbank told the Federal Way Mirror.

Five business owners commenced the suit on behalf of more than five
hundred other business owners, seeking to force the City to compensate
business owners located along state highways if they are required to
conform their signs.  According to The Federal Way Mirror, the
plaintiffs: Jet Chevrolet, Kuecker Ltd. Partnership, Clerget Management
Corp., Davco Enterprises, Inc. and Beatrice Rhodes, claim they suffered
declines in business after removing their signs, in addition to the
costs incurred by replacing non-compliant signs.

The controversial sign code was adopted in 1990 and amended in 1995.  
It required business owners to convert to pedestal-or-ground mounted
signs instead of pole signs.  According to the Federal Way Mirror, the
City gave business owners 10 years to conform to the code. In 2000,
City Code Enforcement started issuing notices of violation for
businesses that didn't abide by the sign code. The fine for violating
the sign code is $100 for each day the sign is left in place.

Earlier, two Federal Way residents, Harry Horan, owner of Horan Real
Estate, and David Rhodes, owner of two strip mall developments in
Federal Way, filed a complaint in King County Superior Court, seeking
compensation for business owners located along state highways from the
City.  The State Court ruled in their favor, but the City filed an
appeal with the State Court of Appeals.  The Appellate Panel has upheld
the lower Court's decision and the case is now pending.

Mr. Sterbank said there is no evidence the plaintiffs' losses stemmed
from the City's sign code.  "Their economic circumstances were due to
their own making or the recession," he said.  He added that City and
State laws require people seeking compensation from the City to file a
claim with the City prior to filing a lawsuit, and that none of the
plaintiffs has filed a claim.

                            Securities Fraud

ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Actrade Financial Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACRT) and
certain of its officers and directors.  The suit was filed on behalf of
all persons who purchased the Company's common stock during the period
March 11, 1999 through February 8, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by issuing a series of press
releases and public filings containing materially false or misleading
statements representing that the Company provided short-term loans to
businesses to finance commercial transactions.

The suit alleges that these statements were false and misleading
because defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that Actrade 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.  The suit further alleges that
defendants' actions artificially inflated the price of Company common
stock during the class period.

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


ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
all persons who purchased the common stock of Actrade Financial
Technologies (NASDAQ: ACRT) between March 11, 1999 and February 8,
2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that certain officers and directors of the Company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by, among other things, making false and misleading statements in
its public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and its
press releases. In these statements defendants represented that the
Company was providing financing to businesses for commercial
transactions, when in fact, it was also providing financing to
individuals for non-commercial purposes.

The suit also alleges that the defendants engaged in fraudulent lending
practices during the class period and that Actrade's reported financial
results during the class period were artificially inflated because of
the false and misleading information disseminated by defendants upon
the marketplace.

For more information, contact Howard Longman by Mail: 6 East 45th
Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: 800-337-4983 by Fax: 212-490-2022
or by E-mail: TSVI@aol.com


ADVANCED SWITCHING: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Advanced Switching
Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: ASCX) between October 5, 2000 and
February 12, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants 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 alleges 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 ASC's initial
public offering (IPO).  The suit further states that the 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 between October 5, 2000 and
February 12, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Company
securities.

On October 5, 2000, the Company completed its IPO pursuant to a
prospectus in which it represented that it had signed a $24 million
contract with Qwest Communications, Inc., that its A-4000 product was
being shipped and that its A-4500 product would be available in 2001.

In fact, as alleged in the complaint, at the time of the IPO, the
prospectus concealed that the Company's largest customer was having
significant problems with its products, another significant customer
had informed ASC's it was over-inventoried and that the agreement with
Qwest was contingent on the Company complying with terms it could not
complete.

Moreover, ASC had not even started on the A-4500 such that it was
impossible that this product would be available in 2001. Later,
subsequent to the IPO, defendants issued statements which asserted that
customers were deploying the A-4000, which, as alleged in the
complaint, did not occur, and that the Company offered DS-O to OC-192
capability which, in fact, it had not been able to offer.

On February 5, 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing that
it would be liquidated, which as alleged in the complaint, was
essentially an admission that it had been a complete failure as a
public company because the A-4500 had not been made available in 2001
and the Qwest contract had failed due to its inability to meet the
terms of the contract. Finally, on February 12, 2002, ASC announced
that a major customer had asked for a $17 million refund due to a
defective product being shipped.

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


BIOPURE CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against Biopure Corporation (Nasdaq: BPUR) on behalf of all those
persons or entities who purchased the Company's common stock during the
period between May 8, 2001 and December 6, 2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, a leading developer, manufacturer
and marketer of a new class of pharmaceuticals it calls "oxygen
therapeutics," and the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by issuing materially false and misleading statements concerning
the likely timing of the Company's filing with the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) of its Biologic License Application (BLA) to
market Hemopure, its experimental blood substitute for patients
undergoing elective surgery.  In particular, defendants led investors
to believe that the BLA was on track to be filed by year-end 2001.

As alleged in the suit, these statements were materially false and
misleading because, by commencement of the class period, defendants
knew or recklessly ignored the fact that the data collected from the
Hemopure trial (which had been completed in August 2000) was
significantly deficient and failed to demonstrate that the trial had
been conducted in an "adequate and well-controlled" manner.  As such,
plaintiff asserts that the data lacked reliability, thereby making any
application unlikely to be accepted for filing, much less approved, by
the FDA. It is further alleged that defendants also knew that the FDA
would not allow a BLA to be filed where the data lacked "prima facie"
reliability.

On December 6, 2001, Biopure announced that it would not file the
Hemopure application until mid-2002, contrary to repeated prior
assertions that the BLA would be filed in 2001.  The Company blamed the
delay on "additional facility and process validation requirements" for
its Cambridge, Massachusetts manufacturing plant.  The suit asserts
that this was merely a pretext for the delay, which in fact was
occasioned by the data deficiencies that had arisen during the clinical
trial.

As a result of the postponement, the price of Company stock fell to
less than $15 per share, well below the $20 plateau above which the
stock traded throughout most of the class period.

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


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, Inc. 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 unexpired
portion of the old license, double-counting this revenue.

After June 2000, CA, Inc. 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 (GAAP), 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 the Company's
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, CA, Inc. issued press releases
heralding moderate growth, though the GAAP figures showed a revenue
decrease of nearly 60 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 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, Inc. 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 Company'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 have confirmed it to the
New York Times (as reported on March 20, 2001).

More recently, the Company was forced to withdraw a planned debt
offering after Moody's questioned the quality of its credit. As a
result, the Company admits, it 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 CA, Inc. has presented has not gone
unquestioned. On February 22, 2002, the Company confirmed that it was
aware that both the Securities Exchange Commission and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation were investigating its 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 further details, contact Fred Taylorr 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.


CRITICAL PATH: CA Court Grants Approval To Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California gave preliminary approval to the proposal offered by
Critical Path, Inc. (NASDAQ:CPTH) to settle the securities class
actions pending against the Company, its current and former officers
and directors, and their accountants.

The complaints generally allege that, in differing periods from
December 1999 to February 1, 2001, the Company made false or misleading
statements of material fact about their financial statements for the
year 2000 and beyond.  Derivative actions were also filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California and in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The shareholder litigation settlement provides for a payment of $17.5
million in cash and the issuance by Critical Path of warrants to
purchase 850,000 shares of its common stock at an exercise price of
$10.00 per share.  In the derivative litigation, settlement provides
for certain corporate governance changes and the payment of plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees.

Under the terms of the settlements, all claims against the Company and
all other defendants will be dismissed without admission of liability
or wrongdoing by any party.

The Court has ordered that a notice be issued to members of the class
and has scheduled a hearing for May 23, 2002 to consider final approval
of the settlement.

"This preliminary Court approval represents an important step in
resolving the pending class action," said Senior Vice President and
General Counsel Michael Zukerman.  "We look forward to the final
approval hearing in May."


DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action
in the United States District ourt for the Southern District of Texas
on behalf of purchasers of Dynacq International Inc. (Nasdaq: DYII)
publicly traded securities during the period between Nov. 29, 1999 and
Jan. 16, 2002.

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 represented that the
Company's favorable financial results were due to its commitment to
quality and cost-effective care.

Throughout the class period, defendants repeatedly stated that the
Dynacq's financials were strong and that it was consistently achieving
"record results."  Defendants actually knew that the quality of the
Company's balance sheet was eroding, that it was violating federal law
in the maintenance of its facilities and that it improperly cared for
patients.

On Jan. 16, 2002, TheStreet.com ran an article on the Company entitled,
"Dynacq's Doubtful Accounts Send Distress Signals."  Essentially, the
article exposed many of the Company's problems, which in the days that
followed, caused the Company's share price to crumble.

These disclosures shocked the market, causing Dynacq's stock to decline
to less than $15 per share before closing at $15.20 per share on Jan.
17, 2002, on volume of more than 2.6 million shares, and later
plummeting to less than $12 per share.

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


GLOBAL CROSSING: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against several top officers of Global Crossing Ltd.
(NYSE:GX) (OTCBB:GBLXQ), charging them with releasing false financial
statements to the public, in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all investors who bought Company
stock from January 2, 2001 through October 4, 2001.

The suit charges five top Company managers with artificially inflating
earnings by improperly recording and reporting cash and revenue from
certain long-term lease contracts for the rights to use the company's
fiber optic cable network. Simultaneously, the complaint says, the
Company entered into substantially similar agreements with the same
companies to purchase bandwidth capacity from them in a different area.  
In essence, the suit alleges that these swap transactions were
improperly recorded to artificially inflate the Company's financial
results.

At the same time, Global Crossing was carrying an increasingly heavy
debt burden that was exacerbated by an ever-shrinking market for
bandwidth. This forced the Company to drastically lower its prices. The
Company was unable to offset the declining demand for bandwidth
capacity with the sale of customized provider services because, unknown
to investors, the defendants had no viable plan for establishing the
Company as a provider of these services.  During the class period, the
individual defendants and other Company insiders generated more that
$149 million from insider stock sales.

The full extent of the Company's financial crisis began to emerge on
October 4, 2001 when the company announced that its third quarter 2001
cash revenues were $400 million below expectations and that it was
selling off its desktop trading systems division.

The suit says that investors were also stunned by the announcement that
the Global Crossing's expected recurring adjusted EBITDA would fall
almost $300 million less than analyst expectation. In reaction to these
statements, the Company's stock plunged 49% to $1.07 per share.

For more information, contact Jeffrey C. Block, Patrick T. Egan by
Mail: One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: 800-516-9926 by E-
mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com  


HA-LO INDUSTRIES: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the securities of HA-LO Industries
Inc., (NYSE: HMK) between February 18, 1999 and November 23, 2001
inclusive, against:

     (1) Lou Weisbach, President and CEO until November 1999, Chairman
         of the Board,

     (2) John R. Kelley Jr., President and CEO from November 1999 until
         February 15, 2001,

     (3) Marc S. Simon, CEO since February 15, 2001, and

     (4) Gregory J. Kilrea, CFO

The Company has filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code and is not a defendant in this lawsuit.

The suit charges 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 materially false and misleading
statements to the market between February 18, 1999 and November 23,
2001, concerning its financial performance for the HA-LO's fiscal year
1998, 1999 and 2000 and the first quarter of 2001.

Throughout the class period, defendants issued press releases reporting
the Company's quarterly and year-end financial performance, and filed
reports confirming such performance with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission. These reports positively portrayed the
Company's performance during the class period.

These statements, as alleged in the complaint, were materially false
and misleading because HA-LO had, throughout the class period,
improperly recognized revenues, thereby inflating its reported sales
and earnings.

On November 23, 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing the
restatement of its previously filed financial statements for the period
1998 to 2000, and that the Company "may also restate its first quarter
2001 Form 10-Q."  According to the press release, the restatement will
have the effect of decreasing the Company's reported class period
pretax income by a total of $15 million, including $1.2 million if the
restatement includes the first quarter of 2001.

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


HUB GROUP: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Hub Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:
HUBGE) between April 21, 1999 and February 12, 2002, inclusive 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

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 between April 21, 1999 and February 12, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued statements regarding Hub's quarterly and annual financial
performance and filed reports confirming such performance with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The suit alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because, among other things:

     (i) the Company's 65% owned subsidiary, Hub Group Distribution
         Services, which represented a material portion of its
         revenues, was improperly recognizing revenues in violation of
         the Company's accounting policies and GAAP. As a result, the
         Company's operating results were materially misrepresented and
         verstated;

    (ii) the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of
         the Company; and

   (iii) based on the foregoing, defendants' statements concerning the
         prospects of Hub Group were lacking in a reasonable basis at
         all times

On February 12, 2002, after the close of the market, Hub shocked the
market when it announced that it had discovered certain accounting
irregularities at its 65% owned subsidiary, Hub Group Distribution
Services. As a result of this discovery, the Company estimates that it
had overstated its earnings on an after-tax, post minority interest
basis by between approximately $3 million to $4 million since 1999. The
Company further stated that its investigation is ongoing and once it
has been completed, it will restate its financial results for the
appropriate periods.

In response to these disclosures, the price of the Company's common
stock dropped from $10.52 per share to $8.03 per share, a one-day loss
of more than 31% on volume of more than 153,700 shares traded, more
than ten times the average trading volume.

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


IRVINE SENSORS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in United States District Court for the Central District of California,
Southern Division on behalf of purchasers of Irvine Sensors Corporation
(NASDAQ: IRSN) common stock between January 6, 2000 and September 15,
2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company
purports to be a developer of proprietary technologies to produce
compact packages of solid state micro-circuitry.

Silicon Film Technologies, Inc. (SFI) was a majority owned subsidiary
of ISC whose primary purpose was to design and market the Electronic
Film System or "EFS-1."  EFS-1 purportedly interfaced with a
conventional camera to enable the camera to take digital pictures.

During the class period, defendants repeatedly promised the investing
community that the EFS-1 was near completion and would be ready for
release shortly. These promises never materialized because Irvine
allegedly knew, but did not disclose to the public, among other things,
that EFS-1 suffered from serious and insurmountable technical design
flaws.

On September 15, 2001, after nearly two years of touting the EFS-1
technology, the Company announced that SFI had suspended operations and
was considering bankruptcy, which sounded the death-knell of the EFS-1
project.

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


JP MORGAN: Schoengold Sporn Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schoengold & Sporn, PC launched a securities class action on behalf of
all persons or institutions who purchased, converted or otherwise
acquired securities of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) between
March 13, 2000 and January 25, 2002 at artificially inflated prices due
to the Company's "sham" transactions with Enron Corporation, causing
billions of dollars of damages and a sharp drop in its securities'
prices.

The suit, pending in the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York, alleges violations of the securities laws of the United
States (Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) by the Company, its controlling
officers and directors.

The suit states that JP Morgan and Enron engaged in "sham" transactions
in 2000 and 2001 to camouflage loans as prepaid forward transactions,
failing to truthfully and accurately describe the great credit risks to
the Company and artificially inflating its securities prices.  The suit
also alleges the Company's active collaboration and participation with
Enron in the improper plan and scheme, which enabled Enron to
manipulate its earnings and avoid taxes.

For more information, contact Jay P. Saltzman or Ashley Kim by Mail: 19
Fulton Street, Suite 406, New York, New York 10038 by Phone:
866-348-7700 or 212-964-0046 by Fax: 212-267-8137 or by E-mail:
Shareholderrelations@spornlaw.com


KMART CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MI
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Kmart Corporation (NYSE: KM)
between May 17, 2001 and January 22, 2002, inclusive, against defendant
Charles Conaway.

The suit alleges that defendant 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 between May 17, 2001 and January 22, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

Prior to and throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint,
the Kmart and Mr. Conaway represented that the Company was engaged in a
comprehensive restructuring of its operations which were revitalizing
the Company and its sales.

The suit alleges that these representations were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following adverse material facts:

     (1) that the Company's purported revitalization was a complete
         failure as it was continuing to lose market share to
         competitors and its purported efforts to reverse this trend
         were not meeting with success;

     (2) that the Company's supply chain management was extremely
         problematic as its distribution centers were outdated and
         inefficient and its supply chain software was plagued by bugs
         and glitches, which were causing the Company to experience
         inventory problems. As a result of these supply chain
         management issues, the Company was experiencing difficulties
         routing inventory to stores, thereby negatively impacting the
         Company's sales; and

     (3) that the Company was experiencing substantial liquidity
         problems which would necessitate a major restructuring of the
         Company's operations and possibly a bankruptcy filing, which
         ultimately happened.

On January 22, 2002, Kmart issued a press release announcing that it
had filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of
the US Bankruptcy Code According to the press release, the Company's
decision to seek "judicial reorganization" was based on a "combination
of factors, including a rapid decline in its liquidity resulting from
Kmart's below-plan sales and earnings performance in the fourth
quarter."  

Following this announcement, the price Kmart common stock dropped from
$1.74 per share to $0.70 per share, a one day decline of 59%, on
extremely heavy trading volume.

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


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Faces US$ 1B Suit For Allegedly Cheating Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment firm Lehman Brothers faces a US$ 1 billion class action
filed by lawfirm Duvin Cahn and Hutton in Federal Court, on behalf of
investors who where allegedly cheated by the defendants of "millions of
dollars."  The suit also names as defendants SG Cowens Securities
Corporation and Cleveland broker Frank Gruttadauria.

The suit charged the Company with:

     (1) fraud,

     (2) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (3) negligence,

     (4) breach of contract and

     (6) civil conspiracy

The suit alleges that "for more than 15 years, through greed,
carelessness or both, Lehman and SG Cowen either directly caused or
tolerated blatantly illegal actions by Gruttadauria, the director of
Lehman's Cleveland office. That office had been owned until 2000 by SG
Cowen."

Attorney Robert Duvin said, "If this could happen to an experienced
investor like (businessman Samuel Glazer), it could happen to anyone
who entrusts his money to a respected brokerage firm, and will further
undermine public confidence in the financial markets already weakened
by the Enron scandal. Lehman's and Cowen's negligence could have very
serious repercussions for the entire investment industry."

The complaint further alleges that "Gruttadauria systematically
violated securities laws and regulations and company rules. He looted
client accounts of over $100 million, falsified records, forged
documents and misdirected the account statements of numerous clients."


MCLEOD USA: Lockridge Grindal Commences Securities Suit in N.D. Iowa
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa on
behalf of purchasers of McLeodUSA Incorporated (Nasdaq:MCLDQ) common
stock during the period between January 30, 2001 and December 3, 2001,
inclusive against defendants Clark E. McLeod, Stephen C. Gray and Chris
A. Davis.

The Company was not named a defendant because it has recently filed for
protection under US bankruptcy laws and is accordingly protected by the
operation of the stay against litigation under those laws.

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, public filings and in a prospectus dated April 27, 2001,
during the class period with respect to the Company's business,
operations and financial statements.

Specifically, the suit alleges that the defendants, as officers and/or
directors of McLeod, failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company was failing to timely and properly recognize
         hundreds of millions of dollars in impairment losses in
         connection with certain acquisitions, such as Splitrock
         Services, Inc. and Caprock Communications Corp.;

     (2) the Company did not have the funds necessary to complete its
         national network and that it would soon have to abandon its
         plans to finish the network; and

     (3) the Company was unable to service its substantial debt and
         lacked the financial flexibility necessary to avoid a
         restructuring.

During the class period, prior to the disclosure of the true facts
about the Company, McLeodUSA purchased Intelispan for $40 million in
common stock.

For more details, contact Karen M. Hanson by Mail: 100 Washington
Avenue South Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 by Phone: 612-339-6900 or
by E-mail: kmhanson@locklaw.com


MEDI-HUT CO.: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP commenced a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of Medi-Hut Co., Inc.
(Nasdaq:MHUT) from April 4, 2000 through February 4, 2002, inclusive.  
The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, and names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Joseph A. Sanpietro, President and CEO,

     (2) Laurence M. Simon, CFO,

     (3) Robert Russo, Treasurer,

     (4) Vincent Sanpietro, Secretary,

     (5) James G. Aaron, director, and

     (6) James S. Vacarro, director

The complaint seeks damages for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The suit alleges that defendants knowingly and recklessly
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and omissions
that misrepresented the Company's business, operations and financial
performance.

As stated in suit, Medi-Hut misled the investing public by failing to
disclose that a Company vice president had a controlling interest in
Larval Corporation, its largest customer. Specifically, the Company
failed to disclose that Lawrence Marasco, its Vice President for Sales
and Marketing, had a controlling interest in Larval. During fiscal year
2001, sales to Larval accounted for 62% of the Company's revenues.

Because Lawrence Marasco had a controlling interest in one of the
Company's customers, generally accepted accounting principles dictated
that the Company identify sales to that customer as related party
transactions. Medi-Hut, however, failed to disclose the true nature of
its sales to Larval.

Indeed, each report the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission during the class period, including quarterly and annual
reports, was devoid of any reference to the fact that a Medi-Hut
employee controlled one of its largest customers. These reports were
disseminated to shareholders and/or were publicly available to
potential investors.

The suit alleges that the misrepresentations and omissions by
defendants influenced the views of stock market analysts and the
investing public and brought about an unrealistic assessment of the
Company's performance and prospects and that, as a result, Company
stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the class
period.

On February 4, 2002, the nature of the relationship between the
Company, Lawrence Marasco and Larval Corp. was revealed. The market,
recognizing that a majority of the Company's revenues in fiscal year
2001 were generated via sales to a related party, reacted swiftly and
severely. By the close of business on February 4, shares of the Company
had lost 51% of their value, falling $3.41 to $3.29 in unusually heavy
trading. Four days later, Grant Thorton LLP resigned its position as
Medi-Hut's independent auditor after only two weeks. Grant Thorton
served as the Company's auditors from January 24, 2002 through February
8, 2002.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


NATIONAL GOLF: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of National Golf Properties, Inc.
(NYSE: TEE) common stock during the period between April 1, 1999 and
November 14, 2001 (including all purchases in or pursuant to the
Company's May 17, 2001 secondary offering).

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that David G. Price
misappropriated funds from a publicly traded company and funneled them
to himself via a scheme of complicated financial dealings involving the
Company and a variety of Price-controlled entities.

Price-controlled entities conduct substantial business with National
Golf, to the detriment of its shareholders. Mr. Price's plan culminated
in a May 2001 secondary offering that generated over $31 million from
plaintiff and other class members which went to a Price-controlled
entity, Oaks Christian High School.

Defendants allegedly violated the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a
false and misleading registration statement and prospectus, which
became effective May 17, 2001, and included materially false and
misleading financial statements, and other false and misleading
statements, pursuant to which 1.175 million shares of Company common
stock were sold to plaintiff and other members of the class.

Defendants allegedly violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the business and financial operations of the Company with
the intent and having the effect of substantially inflating the trading
price of National Golf common stock.

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


NVIDIA CORPORATION: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer initiated a securities class action against
NVIDIA Corporation (Nasdaq: NVDA) and certain of the Company's officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
February 15, 2000 and February 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, among other things, that during the class period, defendants
issued a series of false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial condition.

In order to overstate revenues in its financial statements, NVIDIA
allegedly violated generally accepted accounting principles and SEC
rules by engaging in an improper scheme. As a result of defendants'
misleading statements and accounting improprieties during the class
period, the price of the Company's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices.

For more information, contact Frederic S. Fox or Hae Sung Nam by Mail:
805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022 by Phone:
800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980 by Fax: 212-687-7714 or by E-mail address:
mail@kaplanfox.com


PHILIPS INTERNATIONAL: NY Court Refuses To Certify Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to
certify as a class action the lawsuit filed against Philips
International Realty Corp. (NYSE:PHR) and its directors by Company
shareholders relating to the Company's liquidation.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs have sought permission from the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit to appeal the denial of class
certification. In order for plaintiff to obtain permission to appeal,
it must demonstrate that the denial of class certification effectively
terminates the litigation and that the District Court's decision was an
abuse of its discretion.

PIR has opposed plaintiff's application. If the Court of Appeals grants
the request, plaintiff will then be able to appeal the Federal Court's
ruling denying class certification.


PNC FINANCIAL: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo launched a securities
class action against PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (NYSE:PNC), two
of its top officers and its auditor alleging company revenues were
artificially inflated by improper accounting techniques.  The suit,
pending in the US District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, was filed on behalf of all investors who bought Company
stock from July 19, 2001 through January 28, 2002.

The suit accuses PNC, a Pittsburgh-based financial services company, of
using improper accounting methods to inflate earnings reports and
subsequently releasing those figures to the public. The complaint also
names two top officers and its auditor, Ernst & Young, as defendants.

On January 29, 2002, the Company revealed that the Federal Reserve
Board had ordered the company to restate its financial results for the
second and third quarters of 2001 and revise its fourth quarter 2001
numbers. According to the suit, the board ordered the restatement
because of the Company's apparent failure to comply with generally
accepted accounting principles during the class period by failing to
consolidate into its financial reports three financial firms in which
the Company had interests.

The suit says the restatements inflated PNC's net income during the
class period by $155 million, or 27%, and reduced Company earnings by
that amount for the year ended December 31, 2001.  Company stock
quickly fell 12% the day after it announced the restatement, the
complaint adds.

For further details, contact Chauncey D. Steele IV by Mail: One Liberty
Square Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: 800-516-9926 by E-mail:
law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com


RAYTEL MEDICAL: Shareholders File Suit Opposing SHL Telemedicine Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Raytel Medical Corporation (Nasdaq:RTEL) faces a class action suit
opposing the proposed merger transaction between the Company and SHL
Telemedicine Ltd. (SWX: SHLTN).  The suit also names members of the
Company's board of directors and other individuals as defendants.

The suit arose after the Company announced the signing of a definitive
merger agreement pursuant to which SHL, a developer and marketer of
telemedicine devices and provider of telemedicine services, will
acquire Raytel through a tender offer by an SHL subsidiary for all of
its outstanding shares at a price of $10.25 per share in cash, for a
total of approximately $31.1 million. Following the completion of the
tender offer, the SHL subsidiary will be merged into the Company in a
transaction in which any shares not tendered will be converted into the
right to receive the same per share cash price paid in the tender
offer.

On February 25, 2002, Raytel director received a copy of a complaint
that had been filed by an alleged Company stockholder in the San Mateo
County, California Superior Court, alleging that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith and
independence in connection with the proposed merger transaction by
engaging in self-dealing.

The Company believes that the complaint lacks merit and intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuit. The filing of the lawsuit has not caused
the Special Committee of its Board of Directors or the Board of
Directors to change their respective recommendations in favor of the
tender offer.


REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Barroway Files Suit in N.D. FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action against
Regeneration Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:RTIX), claiming that the
company misled investors about its business and financial condition, in
the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville
Division on behalf of all investors who bought the Company's securities
between July 25, 2001 through January 31, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants made highly positive statements regarding the Company's
financial results.

RTI reported quarter after quarter of "record" financial results and
strong revenue growth, which caused the price of Company securities to
trade as high as $12.82 per share during the class period. These
statements were allegedly false and misleading because the Company
failed to take a charge to earnings to recognize worthless inventory.

On February 2, 2002, the Company shocked the market by announcing that
it was delaying its fourth quarter and yearend results for fiscal year
2001 while "management completes its evaluation of certain inventory
issues."  RTI also announced that its Chief Financial Officer Richard
Allen and Vice President of Marketing and Sales, James Abraham, are
leaving the Company, effective immediately. The Company further
announced that it is "evaluating whether these issues may affect RTI's
previously reported financial results" and although "RTI's annual
results have not been finalized, company officials expect to report a
loss for both the quarter and the year."

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

For more information, contact the Shareholder Relations Manager by
Phone: 888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-822-2221 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Adkins Kelson Probes Possible Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Adkins, Kelston & Zavez, PC are investigating possible securities fraud
claims against Symbol Technologies, Inc. (NYSE:SBL), a New York-based
company best known as a producer of bar code scanners.  According to a
13 February 2002 Newsday article citing sources close to the Company,
the Company engaged in three questionable transactions which had the
effect of increasing its reported revenues and profits, namely:

     (1) taking a $10 million royalty payment from a dot com partner
         company in the third quarter of 2000;

     (2) using expenses associated with the acquisition of Telxon
         Corporation to mask declining sales; and

     (3) recording $40 million in inventory as having been shipped in
         the first quarter of 2001 and then reversing the transaction
         in the second quarter of 2001.

For more information, contact Adkins, Kelston & Zavez, PC by Mail: 90
Canal Street, Boston, MA 02114 by Phone: 617-367-1040 by Fax:
617-742-8280 or by E-mail: Jzavez@AKZLaw.com


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the US
District Court for the Southern District of Florida claims that Tyco
International Ltd. (NYSE:TYC) misled shareholders about its business
and financial condition.  The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all
investors who bought the Company's securities between February 5, 1999
and February 4, 2002.

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants issued false
and misleading statements, press releases and SEC filings concerning
the Company's financial condition. These statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the price per share of the Company's common
stock and other securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Tyco's representations were
false and misleading due to defendant's failure to disclose:

     (1) hundreds of cash acquisitions during the class period totaling
         expenditures of several billion dollars;

     (2) that the individual defendants sold in excess of $155 million
         of their individual stock holdings in the Company;

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

     (4) the Company fostered a corporate atmosphere which encouraged
         the individual defendants to work for their personal interests
         rather than those of the Company or its shareholders by
         offering bonuses to those who acquired companies with high,
         but short term, profitability.

For further details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-822-2221 by Fax: 610-822-0002 by
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com   


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Employees File 401(k) Suit After Stock Price Plunge
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Former employees of embattled Williams Companies, Inc. filed a class
action in Tulsa, Oklahoma after their 401(k) savings were allegedly
depleted by the sharp plunge in the Company's stock price, NewsOK.com
reports.  

The suit, similar to the cases filed by Enron's former employees,
alleges that the company, its directors and managers of its retirement
plan of putting employees at risk by heavily weighting their 401(k)
plans with the Company's stock.

The suit asserts that more than 65% of the Company's retirement plan
has been invested in Company stock since 1999.  The stocks plunged
after the Company announced that former subsidiary Williams
Communications, Inc. has defaulted on a $2.2 billion debt, and that it
may be forced to pay for the said debt.  Stock price then plunged from
a high of $46.44 to $16.10 a share in less than a year.

Attorney for the plaintiffs, William Federman, told NewsOK.com, "We
think Williams management and the audit committee knew of these
problems at least by November of 2001.But rather than addressing those
problems and trying to help employees, they chose to protect themselves
and their corporate positions.The problems were probably no secret to
management, but they certainly were to the public and Williams
employees."  He added that the employees have lost approximately $30
million.

Williams calls the suit "groundless" and says it will defend itself
vigorously against these suits, and the numerous securities fraud suits
brought by its stock decline.

                              *********


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  * * *