CAR_Public/020628.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Friday, June 28, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 127

                           Headlines

APO HEALTH: Sued For Sending Unsolicited Broadcast Faxes in IN Court
AT&T BROADBAND: Cable Settlement With Jacksonville Consumers Delayed
BRIGHTPOINT INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. IN
CELL PATHWAYS: Fairness Hearing For Securities Suit Set September 2002
CROATIA: Fans Sue Football Team After World Cup Elimination

CYBERGUARD CORP.: Trial in Amended Securities Suit Set For June 2003
GUTHY-RENKER: Faces Suit For RICO Violations Over Internet Mall Scam
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued For Artificially Boosting Demand For Remicade
M&F WORLDWIDE: DE Court Refuses To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
MOVIE GALLERY: Agrees To Settle TN Suit Over Extended Viewing Fees

NEOPHARM INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in N.D. IL
NEW MEXICO: Court Asked To Take Over Jail For Violations of Court Order
OPTICAL CABLE: Agrees To Settle Consolidated Securities Suit in W.D. VA
SOUTH CAROLINA: University Students Sue Over Defective Water Heater
TEXAS: Movie Companies Face Suit Seeking Films With Open Captioning

VIROPHARMA INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in PA
WASHINGTON: Olympia Dump Operators Compensating Homeowners For $8.5M
WEST VIRGINIA: Welfare Benefits Suit Underestimates State Finances

*Madison County Keeps "Lawsuit Capital of The World" Title, Study Shows

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

AMDOCS LIMITED: Glancy & Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit S.D. NY
CORPPRO COMPANIES: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Suit in E.D. OH
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
LANTRONIX INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

MORGAN STANLEY: Klayman & Toskes To File Claim For Worldcom Employees
MUTUAL RISK: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA
OMNICOM GROUP: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
VERISIGN INC.: Glancy & Binkow Launches Securities Fraud Suit in CA
YORKTON SECURITIES: Koskie Minsky Commences Securities Suit in Canada
                             
                             *********

APO HEALTH: Sued For Sending Unsolicited Broadcast Faxes in IN Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------
APO Health, Inc. faces a class action pending in the Circuit/Superior
Court of Marion County, Indiana filed on behalf of Kenro, Inc., on
behalf and all other similarly situated.  

The suit involves unsolicited broadcast faxes sent in the state.  The
suit has been granted class status.  The Company has petitioned the
court to certify its class action certification order for interlocutory
appeal.

If the Company can defeat the class certification, then the plaintiff
is limited to a single violation with a maximum potential recovery of
$1,500.  If the class certification issue is lost then the Company's
exposure can range in the millions of dollars.  The Company intends to
vigorously oppose the suit.


AT&T BROADBAND: Cable Settlement With Jacksonville Consumers Delayed
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Both sides say they agree, but residents of Jacksonville, Florida and
AT&T Broadband will not have a settlement for cable customers worked
out until next week, The Florida Times-Union reports.  Meanwhile, a
potential class action has been filed against the Company on behalf of
the approximately one million cable customers in Florida.

The problems began last summer, when complaints to the city of
Jacksonville from customers dissatisfied with their treatment by the
Company jumped to more than 20 times the monthly average of 50 calls a
month.  The impressive increase in complaints triggered the launching
of a statewide investigation by the state Attorney General's Office
into the Company's billing practices.

The agreement could include cash refunds for customers and a delay in
the cable rate increase scheduled for July 1.  Although the completed
agreement between the Company and Jacksonville was expected after the
recent four-hour bargaining session between these two parties, Ellen
Filipiak, the Company's senior vice president in charge of Florida,
said, "It's just taking longer than we thought - there is absolutely no
breakdown . We are continuing to make progress."

No written agreements have been exchanged between the two sides, City
Council Matt Carlucci said.  "It needs to be in writing and it needs to
be done right to protect the city," he added.  The city wants to have
the agreement drafted by Matt Leibowitz, a Miami-based
telecommunications attorney the city has hired for cable negotiations.  
Mr. Liebowitz was out of the state and could not be reached for
comments.


BRIGHTPOINT INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. IN
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities suits against Brightpoint, Inc. filed an
amended consolidated suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.  The amended suit names as defendants the
Company, several of its executive officers and directors, and Company's
current independent auditors as a defendant.

The suit was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
publicly traded securities between January 29, 1999 and January 31,
2002, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Company and
certain of its officers and directors, as well as the Company's current
independent auditors, and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by the individual defendants.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company
intentionally concealed and falsified its financial condition, and
issued financial statements which violated generally accepted
accounting principles, in order that it would not be declared in
default of its loan covenants under its line of credit.  The amended
complaint also alleges that, due to the false financial statements, the
Company's stock was traded at artificially inflated prices.

The Company disputes these claims and intends to vigorously defend this
matter.


CELL PATHWAYS: Fairness Hearing For Securities Suit Set September 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania will hold a fairness hearing on September 6,2002,
concerning the settlement proposed by Cell Pathways, Inc. to settle
eleven securities class actions pending against it and certain of its
officers and directors.

The suits alleged that the Company and its officers made false and
misleading statements about the Company's lead drug candidate, which
caused artificial inflation of its stock price during the class period
of October 27, 1999 to September 22, 2000, when the Company announced
that the FDA had informed it that it would be receiving a "not
approvable" letter for its new drug application for its leading drug
candidate.

In February 2002, agreement in principle was reached to settle this
litigation for the issuance of 1.7 million shares of common stock by
the Company and the payment of $2 million.  

The hearing shall determine whether an order should be entered:

     (1) finally approving the proposed settlement of the claims
         asserted by plaintiffs and the class in the suit,

     (2) dismissing the suit with prejudice as to the defendants;

     (3) finding that any shares of CPI Stock to be issued in
         connection with the Settlement are exempted securities under
         section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933;

     (4) finding that the Notice of Class Action Certification,
         Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Hearing Thereon and of
         other matters set forth therein was the best practicable
         notice under the circumstances and complied fully with due
         process and the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Section
         3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, and any other
         applicable law;

     (5) approving the Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund;
         and

     (6) awarding counsel fees and reimbursement of expenses to
         plaintiffs' counsel.

For more details, contact Nina Vernick or Sherrie R. Savett of Berger &
Montague PC by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by
Phone: 215-875-3032 by E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net or contact David
Kessler of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East,
Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-667-7706 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


CROATIA: Fans Sue Football Team After World Cup Elimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Disappointed Croatian football team fans are filing a class action
against the team after it was eliminated in this year's World Cup.  The
suit was filed by by businessman Krunoslav Bobic on behalf of the
3,500-strong population of Pasman, the Belfast Telegraph reports.

Mr. Bobic is demanding millions in damages, saying, "I'm a businessman
and I know the importance of keeping promises. If a factory fails to
deliver on an order or a company fails to keep a promise, you can take
action against them, so why should the Croatian Football League be any
different?"

He told the Telegraph, "They promised us the world and we ended up with
nothing. We suffered a lot of material and spiritual damage which can
easily be proven in a court of law."


CYBERGUARD CORP.: Trial in Amended Securities Suit Set For June 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated amended suit against Cyberguard Corporation
is set for June 2,2003 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

Several suits where commenced after the Company announced in August
1998 that due to a review of its revenue recognition practices relating
to distributors and resellers, it would restate prior financial
results.  The suits were filed against the Company and certain former
officers and directors, and were later consolidated by the court.  The
consolidated suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Robert L. Carberry, CEO from June 1996 through August 1998,

     (2) William D. Murray, CFO from November 1997 through August 1998,

     (3) Patrick O. Wheeler, CFO from April 1996 through October 1997,

     (4) C. Shelton James, former Audit Committee Chairman, and

     (5) KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

In August 1999, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended suit,
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock during various periods from November 7, 1996
through August 24, 1998.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that as a result of
accounting irregularities relating to the Company's revenue recognition
policies, the Company's previously issued financial statements were
materially false and misleading and that the defendants knowingly or
recklessly published these financial statements which caused the
Company's common stock prices to rise artificially.

The action alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Subsequently, the defendants,
including the Company, filed their respective motions to dismiss the
suit.  The court denied the Company's and Mr. Carberry's motions to
dismiss, but granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice for Mr.
Murray, Mr. Wheeler, Mr. James and KPMG.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of that order.  In
March 2001, the court ruled on motion, saying that:

     (i) the previously dismissed defendants Mr. Murray, Mr. Wheeler
         and Mr. James should not have been dismissed from the action
         and shall be defendants in this action under the control
         person liability claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
         Act; and

    (ii) that the plaintiffs may amend the consolidated suit to bring
         claims against C. Shelton James under Section 10(b) of the
         Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In April 2001, the plaintiffs filed their second amended suit to
include amended claims against C. Shelton James and later filed an
amended motion for class certification.  The court will be holding oral
argument on the issue and will decide whether the lawsuit will proceed
as a class action shortly thereafter.  

The Company intends to vigorously defend this action.  However, the
Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation.  
There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in
defending the lawsuit or, if unsuccessful, that insurance will be
available to pay all or any portion of the expense of the lawsuit.


GUTHY-RENKER: Faces Suit For RICO Violations Over Internet Mall Scam
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Guthy-Renker, the nation's largest producer of television infomercials,
faces a class action lawsuit alleging that it defrauded thousands of
investors, including senior citizens, of an estimated $30 million.

The suit, filed on behalf of an elderly California couple, charges that
the Company conspired to commit fraud and violated the federal RICO
(Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act by promoting an
Internet "shopping mall" (and Web sites on it) that promised riches but
was in reality part of a worthless scam.

Attorney for the plaintiffs Timothy Naegele said in a statement that
with a company like Guthy-Renker, which earns huge profits by using the
images and reputations of stars to sell products in its infomercials on
hundreds of television stations around the country, it is important
that the general public be aware of the allegations that the company
has been involved in a corporate conspiracy to market a valueless
Internet scheme.

"Guthy-Renker's alleged misrepresentations focused on duping naive
individuals, many of whom were elderly, into believing that their
investments in an Internet venture called 'America's Choice Mall' would
result in quick and substantial returns," he added.  "We estimate that
around the nation perhaps as many as 10,000 investors like our clients
were victimized to the magnitude of $30 million or more."

The strategy conceived and endorsed by the Company appealed to a cross-
section of Americans intrigued by the lucrative potential of Internet
commerce.  The inner workings of the alleged scheme provide an
important lesson in how to identify such guile and avoid being lured
into a similar artifice that does nothing but target one's savings,
especially the limited life savings of seniors.

According to the lawsuit, the Company intended to leverage its direct
response expertise onto the Internet marketplace to promote new
products that would have broad appeal.  The Company advertised seminars
in various parts of the country at which attendees were solicited and
sold ownership interests in "America's Choice Mall" as well as Web
sites on it.

However, the Company lacked the computer and technical knowledge to
develop and support the infrastructure of such a major Internet
venture, the suit charges, and made exaggerated claims about
profitability.

The Californians who initiated the legal action are a 92-year-old woman
and her 63-year-old son. The woman and her now-deceased husband, who
died at 86, were on a fixed income and invested $36,000 in the Internet
scheme, eventually losing all of it.

Thousands of investors failed to recognize until it was too late that
the Company had no Internet expertise to operate "America's Choice
Mall" and instead relied on its cache of affiliations with major
celebrities to target its victims, the lawsuit alleges. In the process,
the Company induced some who were elderly to jeopardize their life
savings in what was nothing more than a scam.

For more information, contact Timothy D. Naegele by Phone: 310-557-2300
                  

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued For Artificially Boosting Demand For Remicade
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson faces a class action filed in Newark federal court
charging the Company of bribing doctors and encouraging them to seek
inflated reimbursement from the government's Medicare program to boost
demand for the arthritis drug Remicade, the Boston Globe Reports.

The suit alleges that:

     (1) the Company listed the published average wholesale price of
         Remicade as US$666 per vial, while charging doctors
         "substantially less."  Because Medicare relies on the
         published price to reimburse doctors, they pocket large
         profits;

     (2) the Company marketed this profit potential to doctors to
         induce them to prescribe the drug more, and that the Company
         and its Centocor Inc. unit pay unspecified illegal bribes and
         kickbacks to doctors to induce them to prescribe Remicade.

"Doctors prescribing Remicade were able to generate large, unlawful
profits at the expense of the Medicare program, third-party payors, and
consumers," the suit states.  The plaintiffs in the suit are:

     (i) United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers
         Midwest Health Benefits Fund;

    (ii) New Jersey Citizen Action, a watchdog group; and

   (iii) United Senior Action of Indiana, Inc.

New Jersey Citizen Action and United Senior Action of Indiana have
filed a similar suit in New Jersey Superior Court, the Boston Globe
reports.  The suit says the Company overstated the drug's average
wholesale price, primarily in the Red Book of pharmaceutical prices
published by Thompson Corp.  The Company allegedly knew the published
price "bore no relation to the actual wholesale price of the drug" yet
told medical providers to charge Medicare based on the inflated price,
the suit says.

A spokesman for Centocor, Ron Schmid, told the Globe he could not
comment on pending litigation. A spokeswoman for New Brunswick, N.J.-
based Johnson & Johnson referred a call to Schmid.


M&F WORLDWIDE: DE Court Refuses To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court for New Castle County refused to approve
the settlement proposed by M&F Worldwide Corporation to settle a
consolidated securities class action relating to the Company's
acquisition of shares in Panavision, Inc. previously owned by the
Company's subsidiary Mafco Holdings, Inc.

Several suits were commenced in November 2000 in Delaware, while
another suit was filed in the New York County, New York Supreme Court.  
The suits labeled as "unfair to the Company's public shareholders" the
proposal to acquire Panavision stocks.

Following consummation of the Panavision transaction in April 2001, the
five Delaware suits were consolidated and the operative complaint was
amended to challenge the transaction as consummated.  Meanwhile,
another shareholder filed a related action in the Delaware Chancery
Court, captioned Vannini v. Perelman, et al.

The Company and the parties to the Vannini action later settled the
suit, pursuant to which, among other things, the Company acquired one
million shares of Company common stock held by the plaintiff, the
plaintiff dismissed his claim with prejudice, and the Company agreed to
pay to plaintiff $10.0 plus up to $1.0 for reimbursement of his legal
costs.

After the Vannini settlement, plaintiffs in the consolidated suit
commenced a separate derivative action in the Delaware Chancery Court
against the Company's directors and Mafco Holdings, challenging the
settlement as a breach of fiduciary duty.

In January 2002, during the trial of the consolidated suit, the
defendants and certain of the plaintiffs reached an agreement in
principle, which has subsequently been reduced to a definitive written
agreement, concerning the settlement and ultimate dismissal of the
consolidated suit and the action challenging the Vannini settlement.

The principal terms of the agreement, which were subject to court
approval, were:

     (1) shareholders who held Company common stock on April 19, 2001
         and who continued to hold through the date of the settlement
         hearing were entitled to obtain up to $2.15 per share, with
         the amount being reduced proportionately if necessary so that
         the total payout would not exceed US$12;

     (2) counsel for the settlement class were to receive attorneys'
         fees and expenses as awarded by the court, up to $2.75;

     (3) all decisions contemplated to be made by the Company under
         that certain letter agreement dated April 19, 2001 between the
         Company and the sole shareholder of Mafco Holdings were to be
         made by a committee of Company directors who are and were not
         directly or indirectly employed by such sole shareholder and
         are otherwise disinterested;

     (4) defendants in the consolidated suit were not to make, or cause
         or permit their affiliates to make, any future purchase of the
         Existing Notes of Panavision without first offering to the
         Company the opportunity to make such purchase, which
         opportunity was to be evaluated by the independent committee;

     (5) the Company was to have the right to purchase from Holdings
         approximately $37.7 principal amount at maturity of
         Existing Notes at any time through the maturity of such
         Existing Notes and in the sole discretion of the
         Independent Committee, at a price equal to the current
         holder's purchase price plus a reasonable cost of carry;

     (6) the consolidated suit and the action challenging the Vannini
         settlement were to be dismissed with prejudice, and the
         settlement class was to provide to defendants a full release
         of all claims relating to the subject of such lawsuits or any
         corporate opportunity claim relating to the purchase of
         Existing Notes by certain defendants or their affiliates.

Certain of the named plaintiffs in the consolidated suit opposed the
settlement.  At a hearing before the Chancery Court in May 2002, the
court declined to approve the settlement, but indicated a willingness
to consider any revised proposal.  Absent presentation and approval of
any such revised proposal, the court expressed a desire to resume trial
of the Consolidated Action in the summer of 2002.

Defendants continue to believe that they have meritorious defenses to
the claims, and therefore, if trial resumes, they intend to defend
themselves vigorously.


MOVIE GALLERY: Agrees To Settle TN Suit Over Extended Viewing Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Video rental chain Movie Gallery, Inc. recently obtained a court order
preliminarily approving the settlement it proposed in a putative class
action pending in Tennessee state court regarding the extended viewing
fees that the Company charges its customers.

The suit alleges, on behalf of a nationwide class of all customers,
that the extended viewing fees the Company charged for keeping its
rental products beyond the initial rental period are penalties in
violation of common law and equitable theories.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company is required to
give class members certificates with values ranging from US$9 to US$16,
redeemable between January 30, 2003 and June 30, 2003, for movie
rentals, game rentals and non-food purchases in its stores.  The
Company would also pay to plaintiffs' attorneys up to US$850,000 in
fees.

A fairness hearing regarding this settlement has been scheduled for
November 22, 2002.  At this hearing, the court will consider any
objections to the settlement agreement brought by class members, their
attorneys or other interested parties, and will determine whether to
approve, reject or modify the terms of the settlement.  If approved on
the proposed terms, the settlement would likely release all claims made
by all class members in all the pending class actions, other than
members who choose not to participate in the settlement.

Similar lawsuits are pending against the Company in Alabama and Texas
courts.  In connection with the settlement, the Company filed a motion
in the remaining suits to require the plaintiffs to stop their actions
in those lawsuits.  The plaintiffs in the Alabama case have objected to
the Company's motion, and have filed their own motion seeking
attorneys' fees.

The Company intends to vigorously object to the Alabama plaintiffs'
pursuit of any action in this case, including their claim for
attorneys' fees.  The Company further believes that our extended
viewing fees do not violate any laws.  

As a result, in the event the settlement is not approved by the court,
the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the lawsuits filed
against it.  However, the Company cannot provide any assurance as to
the outcome of these proceedings or provide any assurance that other
similar lawsuits regarding its extended viewing fee policy will not be
filed against it.


NEOPHARM INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in N.D. IL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Neopharm, Inc. faces several securities class actions pending against
them in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of NeoPharm,
Inc. (Nasdaq: NEOL) between September 25, 2000 and April 19, 2002,
inclusive.

The suits charge the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.  Specifically, the suits allege that the
Company issued a series of statements concerning its Liposome
Encapsulated Parclitaxel (LEP) product, and that the defendants:

     (1) made materially false positive statements to Pharmacia
         Corporation in order to induce their participation in clinical
         trials of LEP;

     (2) failed to disclose that Pharmacia Corporation was studying a
         different formulation of LEP that would not necessarily
         support the approval of the Company's LEP product; and

     (3) failed to disclose that all of Pharmacia Corporation's
         clinical trails failed to produce any positive benefits to
         patients.

In addition, certain individual defendants wrongfully sold Company
shares on the open market at artificially inflated prices, reaping
proceeds of over $7 million.

The Company has yet to answer the allegations in the suits but it
intends to vigorously defend each one.


NEW MEXICO: Court Asked To Take Over Jail For Violations of Court Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for mentally disabled inmates say the new 2,100-bed jail being
built west of Albuquerque, New Mexico, should be placed under federal
court orders as soon as it opens, the Associated Press Newswires
reports.

The lawyers have asked US District Judge Martha Vazquez to find
Bernalillo County and Albuquerque officials in contempt for allegedly
violating a court order that requires adequate mental health services
at the existing city-county jail.

In court documents, lawyers Peter Cubra, Elizabeth Simpson and Claire
Dickson said that city and county officials have not been complying
with an order Judge Vazquez issued in 1996 requiring certain mental
health services for the existing city-county jail.  This order is one
of seven issued in a class action filed in 1995 by inmates complaining
of overcrowding and inhumane conditions at the Albuquerque jail.

The lawyers have asked Judge Vazquez to direct the jail to correct the
alleged inadequacies as ordered by the 1996 consent decree and to
extend its applicability to the new jail when it opens.  "If the
defendants were not already violating the existing court order,
then we would not need to ask the court to address the problems in the
new jail," Mr. Cubra said.  

Among more than a dozen allegations, the inmates' lawyers argue that
the jail's psychiatric services unit is inadequately staffed and that
the jail lacks therapeutic services.  The inmates' lawyers say that the
county designed a psychiatric unit for the new jail, but did not build
it.  Instead, inmates with mental health issues will be housed in a
regular pod that eventually might get regular inmates.


OPTICAL CABLE: Agrees To Settle Consolidated Securities Suit in W.D. VA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Optical Cable Corporation agreed to settle a securities class action
pending against it and former chief executive Robert Kopstein in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

The suits, filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock
from July 31, 2000, through October 8, 2001, allege that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20 of the federal Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and were negligent in making certain alleged misrepresentations
and/or omitting to disclose material facts.

The Company will pay US$700,000 cash and issue warrants to purchase 2
million common shares to settle the suit, according to an Associated
Press report.  The settlement awaits final documentation, court
approval and class certification.


SOUTH CAROLINA: University Students Sue Over Defective Water Heater
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The South Carolina State University faces a class action filed by its
students, after a water-heater in the students' dorm allegedly poisoned
their dorm with carbon monoxide in August 1998, the Associated Press
reports.  The incident caused the death of sophomore Stephen Woolridge
and injured 40 students.  The suit also names as defendants Rheem
Manufacturing and Honeywell Inc., manufacturers of the heater in
question.


The students said they still suffer from the affects of the poisoning,
according to the suit.   Tywanna Kithcart told AP she felt something
was wrong as soon as she moved into the dorm.  "I would wake up in the
morning struggling to get ready for class," she said.  Even four years
later, she said her constant headaches have not disappeared.

Rheem and Honeywell officials deny the allegations, saying the problem
was caused by someone tampering with the water heater.  Officials with
both companies say they have reached out-of-court settlements with the
family of the student who died, AP reports.


TEXAS: Movie Companies Face Suit Seeking Films With Open Captioning
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Todd filed a class action in Texas federal court against 12 film-
production companies and theater chains, according to Time Magazine
(July 1, 2002).  Mr. Todd claims that by failing to provide enough
captioned screenings, distributors and theaters are violating the 1990
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Studios should supply theaters with open-captioned films, in which the
dialogue appears on the screen, Mr. Todd's attorneys say.  The studios'
suit against open captioning has been that it will annoy hearing
customers.  The lawsuit is the first legal action taken against the
movie studios in what is becoming an emotional struggle between deaf
activists and the film industry.

Advocates for the deaf, in their response to the studios' concern about
the hearing customers, is that open-captioned screenings, which occur
sporadically around the country, have not drawn complaints.  Viewers
have grown accustomed to captions on TVs at gyms and airports, the
advocates say, which may help to make the studios' case less persuasive
to a jury.

Several of the defendants, including 20th Century Fox and TIME's parent
company, AOL Time Warner, declined to comment.

Rob Todd usually teaches his son to take steps to adapt to his
environment.  However, this time, he decided it was the environment
that had to take steps, after taking his son Robert, 15, to see the
latest Star Wars movie.  "Who's supposed to be the young Darth Vader?"
he asked his father.  

Robert has severe to profound hearing loss, and like most of the 28
million other deaf or severely hearing-impaired Americans, he cannot
follow a movie without some help, from captioning or a companion.  
Deciding the law was on his side, Mr. Todd filed the suit.


VIROPHARMA INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Viropharma, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed in March
and May 2002 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
publicly traded securities during the period between July 13, 1999 and
March 19, 2002, inclusive.

The plaintiffs in these actions alleged that certain statements by the
Company about PicovirT were misleading.  The suits allege 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 July 13, 1999 and
March 19, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Company
securities.

The Company is vigorously defending itself against these lawsuits and
believes that it has meritorious defenses against the claims.  


WASHINGTON: Olympia Dump Operators Compensating Homeowners For $8.5M
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thurston County and the operator of Olympia Dump in Washington have
agreed to pay US$8.5 million to homeowners and businesses who said the
dump's stench and seagulls ruined the value of their property,
Associated Press Newswires reports.

The class action was brought by owners of about 1,000 homes and 150
commercial properties, and by Vicwood Meridian Partnership, a developer
in the rapidly growing north Thurston County area.  The suit contended
that the county mismanaged the dump by failing to cover the garbage
each day and control gas and leachate from the rotting refuse.  
Neighbors said the huge flocks of gulls and sickening odors became
worse in the mid-1990s.  The homeowners said the property values
were hurt and that they also worried about possible health risks.

The county closed the dump after the lawsuit was filed, and now ships
its garbage to Eastern Washington.


WEST VIRGINIA: Welfare Benefits Suit Underestimates State Finances
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A request to restore benefits to former welfare recipients
underestimates the effect on the state of West Virginia's finances,
officials of the state Department of Health and Human Resource (DHHR)
testified recently, according to a report appearing in the Charleson
Gazette (West Virginia).

So far, 246 families have been cut from the state welfare program,
called West Virginia Workd, because they used up their lifetime limit
of 60 months of benefits, said Karen Thornton, director of DHHR's
Office of Family Support.  Larry Harless, a lawyer for families who
have been cut off, asked the state Supreme Court to restore benefits to
families while larger issues of the class action are decided.

Semi-retired Harrison County Circuit Judge Daniel McCarthy, acting as a
special hearing commissioner for the Supreme Court, expects to rule on
that request this week.

Restoring benefits to those families would cost the state $5.27 million
a year, testified Douglas Robinson, chief financial officer for the
state Bureau for Children and Families, which includes Ms. Thornton's
office.  Mr. Robinson said that it is believed that the number on the
welfare rolls would return to about 33,000, pre-1996 levels, if cash
assistance is available with no limits.

Ms. Thornton pointed out that parents who are eligible for cash
assistance may also collect money for other things, such as
transportation, child care, tools, licensing fees and insurance, all
items that help someone find and maintain employment. So, receiving
assistance, with all these aids, may, in fact, serve as a means of
getting off the welfare rolls, rather than a crutch for remaining on
the rolls.

The larger issue before the state Supreme Court, however, involves the
state constitution, and whether it prevents the state from cutting
people off of assistance for life.


*Madison County Keeps "Lawsuit Capital of The World" Title, Study Shows
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County, Illinois maintains its title as the "Lawsuit Capital of
the World." A study released by the Manhattan Institute's Center for
Legal Policy states that the number of class actions filed in Madison
County increased by nearly four times from 1998 to 2002.

The study further states that:

     (1) the number of class action filings has skyrocketed from two in
         1998, reaching 39 in 2000 and 43 in 2001, and on a pace to
         reach 78 in 2002;

     (2) if class actions were filed nationwide at the same per capita
         rate as they were filed in Madison County in 2000, there would
         be nearly 43,000 class actions filed in the United States
         every year;

     (3) most of the class actions are being filed on behalf of
         multistate or nationwide classes.  From 2000 through early
         this year, 75 of 95 cases fell into those categories;

     (4) nearly all of the Madison County class-action lawsuits
         involved non-Madison County defendants.  In 2001, only five
         Madison County companies were sued in the 43 class actions
         filed;

     (5) locally elected judges in Madison County are being asked to
         set national policies in areas of financial services,
         insurance and other consumer sectors.

Additionally, the study stated just two law firms were involved in
nearly 75 percent of the suits filed in Madison County, a county of
about 259,000 people, in 2001.

The Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch (I-LAW) said the figures show that
lawsuit abuse was alive in Madison County.  "It is now indisputably
clear that the Madison County Courthouse has been transformed into an
immensely profitable personal playground for a few personal injury
lawyers who clog our courts with cookie-cutter lawsuits in the hope of
striking it rich with one big jackpot verdict or settlement," said Al
Adomite, executive director of I-LAW.

"When personal injury lawyers play the lawsuit lottery, everyone of us
ends up paying, through higher prices for consumer goods, lost jobs,
higher taxes, reduced city services and diminished access to quality
healthcare," he added.

However, William Schroeder, a law professor at Southern Illinois
University Carbondale, said it was only natural that "lawyers are going
to attempt to bring their lawsuits in an environment where they are
most likely to prevail."  Lawyers also say places like Madison County
are getting more class action cases because state rules often make it
easier for such lawsuits to be certified.  

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

AMDOCS LIMITED: Glancy & Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP and Israeli law firm Dekel-Sabo Law Office
initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased securities of Amdocs Limited (NYSE:DOX) between July 18, 2000
and June 20, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of federal securities laws.  Among other things,
plaintiff claims that defendants overstated the Company's orders
backlog and misrepresented the demand for the Company's products and
services.

The complaint alleges that defendants' material omissions and the
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements regarding
the nature of Company revenue and business prospects caused the
Company's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting
damages on investors.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067 by Phone: 310/201-9150
or 888/773-9224 or E-mail: info@glancylaw.com or contact Jacob Sabo by
Mail: Twin Towers 1, 33 Jabotinsky Street, Ramat-Gan 52511, P.O. Box
21119, Tel-Aviv, Israel 61210 by Phone: 011-972-36-13-33-10, or by E-
mail: sabolaw@inter.net.il.


CORPPRO COMPANIES: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Suit in E.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Corrpro Companies, Inc.
(AMEX:CO) securities between April 1, 2000 to March 20, 2002,
inclusive.  The suit is pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Ohio, against the Company and certain key
officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
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 more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise by Mail: 230 South Broad
Street, Suite 404, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102 by Phone:
215-735-6810 or by E-mail: BrianFLaw@yahoo.com


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Halliburton
Company (NYSE:HAL) between July 22, 1999 and May 28, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between July 22, 1999 and May 28, 2002.

As alleged in the complaint, beginning in the fourth quarter of 1998,
unbeknownst to the public, the Company materially changed its revenue
recognition policy to recognize revenue on claims and change orders
relating to cost-overruns which is clients had not approved.
Previously, the Company would only recognize revenue on approved change
orders or claims.

The suit further alleges that the alteration of the Company's
accounting policy and financial results reported as a result thereof
throughout the class period were materially false and misleading and in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) because,
among other things, the accounting change was not disclosed to the
public or supported as the preferred accounting treatment in the
Company's financial statements and because collection of the claims or
change orders was not probable and the amounts involved could not be
estimated reliably.

As a result of these violations of GAAP, according to the suit, the
Company's quarterly and annual earnings press releases and financial
reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
throughout the class period were materially false and misleading and
artificially inflated its reported revenues and earnings, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company stock.

On May 28, 2002, after the close of the market, the Company issued a
press release announcing that the SEC is conducting an investigation
into its accounting for cost overruns.  In reaction to the press
release, the price of the Company's common stock dropped by 3.3% in one
day on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street New
York NY 10017 by Phone: 800-337-4983 by Fax: 212/490-2022 or by E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com


LANTRONIX INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Lantronix Inc. (NASDAQ:LTRX)
publicly traded securities during the period between Nov. 2, 2000 and
May 30, 2002.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Lantronix designs, develops and markets network device servers.  The
complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants caused the
Company's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the
issuance of false and misleading financial statements.  As a result of
this inflation, the Company was able to complete a secondary offering
of eight million shares, raising proceeds of $64 million on July 17,
2001.

The defendants' alleged wrongful course of business:

     (1) artificially inflated the price of Company stock during the
         class period;

     (2) deceived the investing public, including plaintiff and other
         class members, into acquiring the Company's securities at
         artificially inflated prices;

     (3) allowed certain of the Individual Defendants to sell more than
         $13 million worth of the shares held/controlled by them and
         allowed the Company to sell $50 million worth of its own
         stock; and

     (4) permitted the Company to grow and benefit economically from
         the wrongful course of conduct.

The Company has now restated its results for F01 and the first two
quarters of F02.  Once the Company announced it would restate its
results, its stock dropped to below $1.00.

For more details, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900 by E-
mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross initiated a securities class  
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York charging Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and its former Internet
research analyst Henry M. Blodget with issuing misleading analyst
reports about GoTo.com, Inc. (Nasdaq:OVER).  The case was filed on
behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of GoTo during the
period between January 11, 2001 through June 6, 2001, inclusive.

The lawsuit charges that during the class period, in an effort to
obtain investment banking business from GoTo, defendants issued
positive ratings on the Company which were materially misleading as
they were inconsistent with their own contemporaneous, private adverse
assessments of GoTo.  For example, the very day of the initiation of
coverage, Mr. Blodget admitted in an e-mail that there was "nothing"
interesting about GoTo except banking fees.

The complaint also describes how defendants made their proposed rating
for GoTo more palatable to GoTo management by downgrading a GoTo
competitor.  However, when defendants learned that GoTo had awarded its
underwriting business to another bank, defendants downgraded GoTo in
retribution.

For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 888-476-6529
(888- 4-POMLAW) by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.pomlaw.com


MORGAN STANLEY: Klayman & Toskes To File Claim For Worldcom Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klayman & Toskes, PA is preparing to file an additional claim on behalf
of a WorldCom, Inc. (Nasdaq: WCOM) Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP)
participant against Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. for alleged
unlawful conduct at both its West Lebanon, New Hampshire and
Middletown, Rhode Island branch offices.  Claims have already been
filed against investment firms Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Salomon
Smith & Barney.

The suits allege that the firms failed to recommend to WorldCom ESOP
participants hedging strategies to protect their concentrated position
in the Company as a result of the exercise of their stock options
through the use of margin.

The claims focus on Salomon's, Merrill's, and Morgan Stanley's
mismanagement of their clients' portfolios given the fact that there
were option strategies available at the time of exercise that would
have protected the value of the margined, concentrated portfolio, known
as a "zero cost" collar.

"The recent events surrounding WorldCom's disclosure of accounting
irregularities points out the fallacy behind any advice given to
clients to concentrate all of their assets in a single stock without
any protection.  The basis of our clients' damages is articulated
through the use of options available at the time of exercise, known as
a 'zero-cost collar' strategy.  The tenets of risk management need to
be adhered to at all times.  As such, our clients' portfolios needed to
be hedged," according to Lawrence L. Klayman, principal partner of the
firm.

For more details, contact Lawrence L. Klayman by Phone: 888-997-9956 or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.nasd-law.com


MUTUAL RISK: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Mutual Risk Management Ltd. (Pink Sheets:MLRME)
previously (NYSE:MM) publicly traded securities during the period
between February 16, 2000 and April 2, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint 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, the Company and its
most senior officers and directors disseminated materially false
financial statements for each of the Company's interim quarters during
that period and for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 2001, which
materially overstated the Company's cumulative revenues and its net
income.  Defendants also made a series of other materially false and
misleading statements about the Company and its financial condition and
performance.

As a result of the materially false and misleading statements and
omissions described herein, Company stock was inflated to an all-time
high of $23.75 per share.

The Company also represented in each of its quarterly and annual
filings with the SEC that the financial statements included therein had
"been prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles" and "reflected all adjustments necessary for a fair
presentation of results for such periods."

In reality, each of the Company's financial statements violated GAAP by
understating reserves for potential claims.  The financial results
included in the Company's SEC filings during the class period were
thereby rendered materially false and misleading.

Then, on April 2, 2002, the Company admitted that even its disastrous
Q4 2001 results (announced February 19, 2002) were not accurate,
putting the Company's shares into another "free fall," trading at just
pennies per share following the April 2, 2002 admission.

For more details, contact Tanya R. Autry by Mail: P.O. Box 25336,
Little Rock, AR 72221-5336 by Phone: 800-663-9817 or by E-mail:
tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


OMNICOM GROUP: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of all persons who acquired the common stock of
Omnicom Group, Inc. (NYSE:OMC) between April 25, 2000 and June 11,
2002, inclusive in the United States 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 and seeks to recover damages.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market during the class
period, thereby artificially inflating the price of Omnicom securities.

The complaint alleges that prior to and throughout the class period,
defendants reported that the Company was continuing to experience
growth in its revenues and earnings, despite the overall economic
slowdown and the worst decline in advertising revenue that the industry
had ever experienced.

As alleged in the complaint, the Company's growth was attributed, for
the most part, to the numerous acquisitions made by the Company, which
were accretive to its earnings.  However, on June 12, 2002, an article
in The Wall Street Journal highlighted the Company's acquisition
accounting and raised questions concerning the Company's creation of an
off-balance sheet entity in which it transferred certain Internet
investments.

In particular, with respect to the Company's accounting for
acquisitions, the article noted that:

     (1) the Company immediately included revenue and earnings from
         recent acquisitions in its reported financial results, in
         contrast to its competitors who excluded the results for the
         first year after the company was acquired, thereby creating a
         materially misleading impression of the Company's performance;

     (2) the Company continued to owe hundreds of millions of dollars
         in additional payments for companies that it had previously
         acquired; and

     (3) the Company faced a potential future liability whereby, under
         certain circumstances, it might be required to acquire
         companies in which it had invested.

With respect to the off-balance sheet entity, The Wall Street Journal
article described the Company's transfer of its Internet investments to
Seneca, which had been jointly created with Pegasus Capital LLP in May
2001.  According to the article, Seneca had been created as a vehicle
for the Company to avoid reporting a loss on its investments in
Internet companies that had become devalued.

In response to the revelations contained in The Wall Street Journal
article, the price of Company common stock dropped precipitously,
falling almost 20% to close at $62.28, on volume of more than 31
million shares traded.

The complaint also alleges that on June 17, 2002, the Company
acknowledged that it had received an informal request from the SEC
relating to two directors who had reportedly resigned from its board
for reasons relating to Seneca.

For more details, contact Patricia Guiteau by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 877-935-7400 by E-mail:
pguiteau@whhf.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whhf.com


VERISIGN INC.: Glancy & Binkow Launches Securities Fraud Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
all persons who purchased securities of VeriSign, Inc. (Nasdaq: VRSN)
between January 25, 2001 and April 25, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of federal securities laws.  Among other things,
plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and the
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements regarding
the nature of the Company's financial results caused its stock price to
become artificially inflated, inflicting enormous damages on investors.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants sought
to artificially increase the Company's revenue and margins and to
create the perception that its deferred revenue growth was derived
organically.  In fact, approximately 10% of Company revenue was derived
from sales to small companies in which the Company had invested and
from dubious "barter transactions."

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg or Lionel Z. Glancy by Mail:
1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067 by
Phone: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.


YORKTON SECURITIES: Koskie Minsky Commences Securities Suit in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky filed a class action against Canadian firm Yorkton
Securities alleging that the brokerage firm improperly recommended,
sold and promoted shares of Book4Golf.com (Pink Sheets:BFDGF)
Corporation in circumstances where they were in a conflict of interest.

A notice of action issued today in Toronto alleges that the Company,
its parent company Yorkton Financial and G. Scott Paterson, did so in
order to realize personal gains at the expense of innocent investors.

The claim alleges that as a result of the Company's improper promotion
of Book4Golf's securities, share prices were artificially inflated
causing investor losses when the share price of Book4Golf subsequently
collapsed. General and punitive damages in excess of $500 million are
being claimed.

Following Book4Golf becoming publicly listed on October 14, 1999 the
defendants are alleged to have favorably promoted Book4Golf shares
despite undisclosed connections with the company and its predecessor
corporations.

Providing financial advice, positive analyst coverage, and acting as
the dominant trading dealer, while being security holders of Book4Golf
and its predecessor corporations are listed among several conflicting
roles Yorkton Securities and the other defendants are alleged to have
had with Book4Golf.

The notice of action also alleges that the defendants had substantial
financial relationships with Book4Golf, its predecessor corporations,
and affiliates and related companies of Book4Golf and its predecessor
corporations.

Kirk Baert of the Toronto law firm Koskie Minsky added, "Yorkton
Securities had a responsibility to disclose its affiliation with
Book4Golf but made a conscious decision not to, leading investors to
falsely believe their projections were valid."

Joseph Groia of the Toronto law firm Groia & Company stated, "Since the
bursting of the dot com bubble, thousands of small retail investors
have suffered enormous losses on their investments. We believe that it
is important for the integrity of Canadian capital markets, that
brokerage firms engaged in questionable sales and promotional practices
be held accountable for their actions. In our view, it seems manifestly
unfair that individual investors lost their savings while a very small
and privileged group, at little or no risk to themselves, walked away
with millions of dollars. We are confident that once these issues are
placed before an Ontario court, at least some of these losses will be
recovered."

For more details, contact Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky by Phone:
416-204-2889 or contact Joseph Groia or Alistair Crawley of Groia &
Company by Phone: 416-203-4472

                              *********

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  * * *