CAR_Public/021003.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, October 3, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 196

                           Headlines

ACE CASH: Settles "Payday Loan" Lawsuit in Indiana for $400,000
ACE CASH: Florida Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Payday Loan" Suit
ACE CASH: Attorney General's Claims Remaining Hitch in Florida Lawsuit
ACE CASH: Settles "Payday Loan" Suit in Arkansas for only $300,000
AJINOMOTO COMPANY: Offers $58 Million to Settle MSG Antitrust Suit

APPLERA CORPORATION: Securities Suit Motion to Dismiss Pending
ATEC GROUP: Settles Securities Fraud Suit for Undisclosed Amount
BP AMERICA: Sued in Oklahoma for Improper Billing, COPAS Violations
ENTRUST INC.: Judge Nixes Securities Suit in Eastern District of Texas
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Files Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Class Suit

IRWIN FINANCIAL: RESPA Cases Against Subsidiary in N.D. Alabama Stayed
IRWIN FINANCIAL: Charges in PA Dropped, But One Unit Remains Defendant
IRWIN FINANCIAL: Forces Arbitration in Rhode Island Class Action
IRWIN FINANCIAL: Amended Complaint Adds Unit in Massachusetts Lawsuit
JENNIFER CONVERTIBLES: Plaintiffs Accept Cash, Stock Settlement Offer

MANUFACTURERS LIFE: $150M Class Action Against Firm in Canada Certified
MOTOROLA INC.: Baltimore Judge Says Evidence Insufficient for Trial
MUSIC COMPANIES: Settles Two-year-old Antitrust Suit by Offering $143M
PIER 1 IMPORTS: Recalls Candleholders That Can Unexpectedly Shatter
TOKAI CARBON: Settles Graphite Antitrust Suit, to Pay $6 Million

UNITED STATES: Federal Bureau of Investigation Slapped with Bias Suit
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: SC Urged to Rule on Affirmative-Action Cases

* Georgia Enacts Law Against Predatory Lending to Protect Poor, Elderly

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Glancy & Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in GA
ELECTRONIC DATA: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
MORGAN STANLEY: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SALOMON SMITH: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY

SALOMON SMITH: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York

                          *********

ACE CASH: Settles "Payday Loan" Lawsuit in Indiana for $400,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ace Cash Express, Inc. disclosed recently that it had already reached a
settlement in the case captioned Eva J. Rowings v. Ace Cash Express,
Inc.

This lawsuit regarding the Company's former "payday loan" activities in
Indiana was filed against the Company in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana on December 17, 1999.

The plaintiff, for herself and others similarly situated, alleged that:

     (1) the Company's disclosures to recipients of payday loans in
         Indiana did not comply with the disclosure requirements of the
         federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Regulation Z of the
         Federal Reserve Board and the Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit
         Code (the Indiana UCCC), and

     (2) the Company's payday-loan finance charges exceeded those
         permitted by the Indiana UCCC and by Indiana Code 35-45-7-2
         (Indiana's loansharking statute), so that those loans were
         void.

On the disclosure-violation claims, the plaintiff had sought to
represent a class of the Company's payday-loan customers since December
17, 1998.  On the excess-finance-charge claims, the plaintiff had
sought to represent a class of the Company's payday-loan customers
since December 17, 1997 who were assessed finance charges at an annual
interest rate greater than 72%.

On August 28, 2002, the court approved a class settlement agreement,
under which the Company agreed to pay approximately $400,000, and
entered an order dismissing all claims in this lawsuit with prejudice.
Unless appealed, that order was set to become final and effective on
September 27, 2002.

Ace Cash Express operates a leading chain of check-cashing stores in
the US. In addition to cashing checks for individuals, the company's
stores offer a range of other products and services, including money
orders, money transfers, bill payment, lottery tickets, and small
consumer loans.

Check cashing remains the cash cow, however, bringing in more than half
of the company's revenue. ACE has grown in recent years, largely
through acquisitions; it owns or franchises nearly 1,200 check-cashing
stores in 35 states, with the largest concentration in Texas. Nearly
20% of its stores are franchised.


ACE CASH: Florida Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Payday Loan" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ace Cash Express, Inc. informed the SEC recently that the plaintiffs,
whose purported class action was dismissed and affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, have appealed that ruling and moved for the re-hearing of the
appeal.

The lawsuit, styled as Wendy Betts, John Cardegna and Gary M. Kane v.
Ace Cash Express, Inc. et al., is regarding the Company's former
deferred-deposit (payday loan) activities in Florida.  This case was
filed in a Florida state Circuit Court in Orange County, Florida,
against the Company, its wholly owned subsidiary Check Express, Inc.,
and certain unnamed persons described in the complaint.

Plaintiffs, for themselves and others similarly situated since January
27, 1996, had alleged that the Company's deferred-deposit activities in
Florida violated certain Florida lending practices and usury statutes,
the Florida Consumer Finance Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, and the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal
Practices Act and constituted fraud.

The plaintiffs sought an injunction against any such further alleged
illegal activities as well as actual and punitive damages of various
kinds, including forfeiture of the total amount of the deferred-deposit
transactions with the purported class of customers in Florida, an
amount equal to twice the fees and charges received by the Company from
those transactions, an amount equal to three times the damages suffered
by the purported class, the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and court
costs.

In February 2001, the Attorney General of the State of Florida filed a
motion to intervene as a plaintiff in this lawsuit, but the court
denied that motion.  On May 29, 2001, the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiffs appealed that dismissal, but on August 30, 2002, the
Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.

"On September 13, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing of
the appeal, and that motion is pending before the appellate court," the
company said in its latest SEC filing.


ACE CASH: Attorney General's Claims Remaining Hitch in Florida Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ace Cash Express, Inc. announced in its latest SEC disclosure that the
two suits it is facing in Florida are now resolved, although the
State's attorney general still has a pending appeal related to the
suit.

The cases, captioned Eugene R. Clement v. Ace Cash Express, Inc. and
Neil Gillespie v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., are related to the Company's
former deferred-deposit (payday loan) activities in Florida.  Both were
filed in a Florida state Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, Florida.

The lawsuits, purported to be a class action, allege that the Company's
deferred-deposit activities violated the federal TILA, the Florida
usury laws, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(FDUTPA). The plaintiffs sought an injunction against any further
alleged illegal activities as well as actual and punitive damages of
various kinds, including damages under the federal TILA, an amount
equal to twice the fees and charges received by the Company from its
deferred-deposit transactions with the purported class of customers in
Florida, the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and court costs.

The Attorney General of the State of Florida intervened as a plaintiff
in this lawsuit. The intervenor complaint filed on April 11, 2001 named
as defendants, in addition to the Company, the Company's Chairman of
the Board, Raymond C. Hemmig; the Company's Chief Executive Officer,
Donald H. Neustadt; and two former employees of the Company.

The intervenor complaint alleged violations by the Company and the
other defendants of the Florida RICO Act and the FDUTPA. The intervenor
complaint sought all remedies available under the Florida RICO Act,
including the civil forfeiture of all money and other property of the
Company used in, derived from, or realized through the Company's
deferred-deposit activities in Florida, the revocation of each license
or permit of the Company granted by any Florida state agency, and an
injunction against future violations of the FDUTPA or the Florida RICO
Act.

The intervenor complaint also sought, because of alleged violations of
other Florida laws, the payment to Florida consumers of actual damages
caused by the Company's illegal activities, the payment to the State of
Florida of certain civil penalties, the divestiture of any interests of
the Company in Florida real property, and the payment of attorneys'
fees and costs.

On July 7, 2001, the court dismissed plaintiffs Clement's and
Gillespie's existing complaints without prejudice. Plaintiffs Clement
and Gillespie filed an amended complaint, and the court dismissed all
of Gillespie's claims, and all but one of Clement's claims, with
prejudice.  Plaintiff Gillespie appealed the dismissal of his claims.
On June 12, 2002, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with
plaintiffs Clement and Gillespie in which the Company agreed to pay
each of them a nominal amount. Accordingly, on July 2, 2002, plaintiff
Gillespie voluntarily dismissed with prejudice his appeal, and on July
14, 2002, the trial court dismissed with prejudice the remaining claim
in plaintiff Clement's complaint.

On August 29, 2001, the Attorney General filed an amended complaint
that restated its previous allegations against the Company and the
other named defendants under the FDUTPA and the Florida RICO Act and
that also named as additional defendants a current franchisee and a
former franchisee of the Company in Florida.

On March 27, 2002, the court dismissed with prejudice the Attorney
General's complaint against one of the former employees of the
Company, and on May 20, 2002, the Attorney General appealed that
dismissal.  That appeal is pending.

On May 22, 2002, the court dismissed, without prejudice, all but one of
the claims asserted by the Attorney General against the Company and all
of the claims asserted by the Attorney General against the current
franchisee in Florida.

On June 5, 2002, upon request by the Attorney General, the court
dismissed the claims against the current franchisee with prejudice,
thereby permitting the Attorney General to appeal that decision. The
Attorney General subsequently filed such an appeal.

The remaining claims of the Attorney General before the trial court are
against the Company concerning a small dollar amount of its renewal
transactions; against Messrs. Hemmig and Neustadt and the remaining
former employee of the Company; and against the Company's former
franchisee.

The motion to dismiss filed by Messrs. Hemmig and Neustadt and the
former employee and the motion to dismiss filed by the former
franchisee have not yet been considered by the court.

"The Company intends to file a motion for summary judgment regarding
the remaining claims against it," Ace Cash said in its SEC report.


ACE CASH: Settles "Payday Loan" Suit in Arkansas for only $300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ace Cash Express, Inc. informed the Securities and Exchange Commission
recently that it had already settled a suit in Arkansas, relating to
its former deferred-presentment (payday loan) activities in the state.

The case, styled as Mayella Veasey et al. v. Ace Cash Express, Inc.,
was filed in the Arkansas state Circuit Court of Pulaski County,
Arkansas in December 2000 and was served on the Company on March 22,
2001.

The plaintiff, for herself and others similarly situated, had alleged
that the Company's deferred-presentment transactions in Arkansas from
June 15, 1999 to May 1, 2000 violated the usury laws of Arkansas.

The plaintiff was represented by the same counsel that represented the
plaintiffs in the previous lawsuit against the Company in Arkansas
regarding deferred-presentment transactions. That previous lawsuit,
which was settled by the Company in October 2000, related to the
Company's deferred-presentment transactions in Arkansas through June
15, 1999, when a statute that expressly authorized such transactions,
the Check Cashers Act, became effective in Arkansas.

The Company believes that this latest lawsuit was prompted by the
decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court in March 2001 to the effect that
a portion of the Check Cashers Act was unconstitutional insofar as it
may purport to construe or define the usury provisions of the Arkansas
Constitution.  That decision did not, however, address the legality of
any deferred-presentment transaction effected under the Check Cashers
Act.

Because the Company has offered only short-term loans made by Goleta
National Bank at the Company's locations in Arkansas since May 1, 2000,
the Company has not entered into any deferred-presentment transactions
in Arkansas since that date.

The complaint had sought damages in an amount equal to twice the amount
paid by customers of deferred-presentment transactions in Arkansas
during the specified 10 1/2-month period as well as the plaintiff's
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 6, 2002, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with
the plaintiff under which it agreed to pay a total of $300,000. On July
12, 2002, the court entered an order approving the settlement agreement
and dismissing the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.  That order
became final and effective on August 12, 2002.


AJINOMOTO COMPANY: Offers $58 Million to Settle MSG Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
TO:  ALL WHO PURCHASED MSG OR NUCLEOTIDES (IMP, GMP, OR I+G, A
     COMBINATION OF IMP AND GMP) DIRECTLY FROM THE DEFENDANTS
     IDENTIFIED BELOW BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1990 AND NOVEMBER 1, 1999.

     THIS COURT-ORDERED NOTICE MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.

This Summary Notice is given to an Order of the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota, dated August 15, 2002, in the
Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 00-1328 (PAM/JGL).
The purpose of the Notice is to inform you of the terms of two
settlements entered into with certain defendants, so that you may
decide what steps you wish to take.  A Settlement Hearing will be held
before the Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge, in
the United States Courthouse, Courtroom 1, 316 North Robert Street, St.
Paul, Minnesota, at 9:30 a.m. on November 7, 2002.  The purpose of the
Hearing will be to determine whether the proposed Settlements are fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and are entitled to final approval by the
Court.

THE LITIGATION

In this class action litigation, the Court has certified a Class
represented by plaintiffs Diversified Foods & Seasonings, Inc., M. Phil
Yen, Inc., Felbro Food Products, Inc., and Y. Hata & Co., Ltd. (the
Class Representatives).  The Class Representatives claim that the
Defendants violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring from at least
as early as January 1, 1990 through at least November 1, 1999 to raise,
fix, maintain and stabilize prices of the food flavor enhancers "MSG"
(Monosodium Glutaminate) and "Nucleotides" (defined as Disodium
Inosinate or DSI or IMP), Disodium Guanylate (DSG or GMP) and the
combination of IMP and GMP (I+G).  The Class Representatives claim
that, as a result of the alleged conspiracy, the Class members were
injured by paying more for MSG and Nucleotides that they would have
paid in the absence of any illegal conduct.  The Defendants are
Ajinomoto U.S.A., Inc., Ajinomoto Company, Inc., Cheil Jedang Corp., CJ
America, Inc., Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd., Takeda Vitamin & Food
USA, Inc., Archer Daniels Midland Co., Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co., Ltd., and
Tung Hai Fermentation Industrial Corp.  All of the defendants deny the
allegations, deny liability, and deny that any Class Representative or
Class member is entitled to damages or other relief.

THE CLASS

The court has certified this Class:

All persons who purchased MSG or nucleotides (IMP, GMP or I+G, a
combination of IMP and GMP), directly from any of the defendants or
their affiliates or co-conspirators in the United States during the
period January 1, 1990 through November 1, 1999.  Excluded from the
Class are the defendants, their respective parents, subsidiaries and
affiliates, and federal, state and local government entities and
political subdivisions, including possessions, commonwealth, and
territories.

The court has appointed these law firms as Co-Lead Counsel for the
Class:

Samuel D. Heins
Daniel E. Gustafson
Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C.
700 Northstar East
608 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402

Richard A. Lockridge
W. Joseph Bruckner
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.
Suite 2200
100 Washington Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55401

If you timely requested exclusion from the Class pursuant to the
Court's Notice dated November 20, 2001, you are no longer a member of
the Class.

THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS

Notices previously have been directed to the Class regarding
settlements with Defendants Kyowa, Daesang, and Takeda.  Those
settlements have been approved by the Court.

Recently, Class Co-Lead Counsel and counsel for Ajinomoto Co., Inc.
have negotiated a proposed settlement that provides fro Ajinomoto to
make a payment of $58 million into an interest bearing escrow account
for the benefit of the Class, in exchange for the release of the claims
of the Class against Ajinomoto and Ajinomoto U.S.A., Inc.  The Court
has preliminarily approved the Ajinomoto Settlement.

Also, Class Co-Lead Counsel and counsel for Archer Daniels Midland Co.
(ADM) have negotiated a settlement that provides for ADM to make a
payment of $1.2 million into an interest-bearing escrow account for the
benefit of the Class, in exchange for the release of the claims of the
Class against ADM.  The court also has preliminarily approved the ADM
Settlement.

Both Settlement Agreements have extensive terms and conditions.

If you are a member of the Class and do not receive the more-detailed
Notice of the Proposed Settlements with Defendants Ajinomoto and ADM
and Settlement Hearing (the Long-Form Notice), you may obtain a copy by
writing to:

     Settlement Administrator
     MSG Antitrust Litigation
     c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
     P.O. Box 101
     Minneapolis, MN 55440-0101

The Long-Form Notice is also available at the following Internet
address: http://msgclaims.com

OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO CLASS MEMBERS

If you are a member of the Class, you are entitled, but not required,
to be present at the Settlement Hearing.

Members of the Class who do not wish to object to the Ajinomoto
Settlement or the ADM Settlement need not appear at the Settlement
Hearing and need not submit any documents in connection with the
hearing.  You will be bound by the terms of the Settlements, if
approved by the Court, and you may be entitled later to submit a claim
to share in the Settlement Funds pursuant to a subsequent notice,
claims procedure, and plan of distribution approved by the Court.

Any objections to the proposed Settlements, final judgments, or release
of claims against Ajinomoto and ADM, must be filed with the Court and
served upon Class Co-Lead Counsel and counsel for Ajinomoto and ADM no
lager than October 24, 2002, in the manner specified in the Long-Form
Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR INFORMATION.


Office of the Clerk,
United States District Court
District of Minnesota


APPLERA CORPORATION: Securities Suit Motion to Dismiss Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Applera Corporation is subject to a purported class action lawsuit
relating to its 2000 offering of shares of Applera Corporation - Celera
Genomics Group Common Stock.  The Company and some of its officers were
served in five lawsuits purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Applera
Corporation - Celera Genomics Group Common Stock in the Company's
follow-on public offering of Applera Corporation - Celera Genomics
Group Common Stock completed on March 6, 2000.

During the offering, the Company sold an aggregate of approximately 4.4
million shares of Applera Corporation - Celera Genomics Group Common
Stock at a public offering price of $225 per share. All of these
lawsuits have been consolidated into a single case and an amended
consolidated complaint was filed on August 21, 2001.

The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the prospectus used
in connection with the offering was inaccurate or misleading because it
failed to adequately disclose the alleged opposition of the Human
Genome Project and two of its supporters, the governments of the United
States and the United Kingdom, to providing patent protection to the
Company's genomic-based products.

Although Celera Genomics has never sought, or intended to seek, a
patent on the basic human genome sequence data, the complaint also
alleges that the Company did not adequately disclose the risk that it
would not be able to patent this data.  The consolidated complaint
seeks unspecified monetary damages, rescission, costs and expenses, and
other relief as the court deems proper.

The Company and the other defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the
case, which is pending before the court. Although the Company believes
the asserted claims are without merit and intends to defend the case
vigorously, the outcome of this or any other litigation is inherently
uncertain.

"The defense of this case will require management attention and
resources," the company said in its latest Securities and Exchange
Commission disclosure.

Applera's Applied Biosystems unit makes data-managing life science
systems used in the drug, food, agriculture, and chemical manufacturing
industries; it accounts for most of Applera's sales.

The company's Celera Genomics unit sequenced the human genome and
licenses its genetic databases to biotech and drug companies for
medical discoveries. The two units have a joint venture, Celera
Diagnostics, to develop molecular diagnostics. Applera and its
offspring are combining their expertise to identify gene markers for
diseases, then develop and commercialize drugs based on their findings.


ATEC GROUP: Settles Securities Fraud Suit for Undisclosed Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------
ATEC Group, Inc. informed the Securities and Exchange Commission
recently that it had reached a settlement with plaintiffs in the
securities fraud suit pending against the company since August 1999.

The company did not disclose the amount involved in the settlement.
The deal, if approved by the court, will bind those who purchased the
Company's common stock from October 12, 1998 through May 19, 1999,
inclusive.

"The Company has reached a settlement with the plaintiffs subject to
court approval. This settlement will be paid by the Company's insurance
carrier," the company said in its SEC report.

ATEC Group is an authorized sales and service dealer for some of the
world's top computer companies, including Apple and Microsoft. It also
provides a host of information technology services systems integration,
telecommunications support, and network services to businesses,
government agencies, education institutions, and consumers.

ATEC also manufactures its own PCs (under the Nexar name), writes
software, operates an e-commerce Web site, and provides Internet access
(through ATECone.net). Chairman Surinder Rametra controls 25% of the
company's voting shares; his younger brother Ashok Rametra (president)
owns more than 15%.


BP AMERICA: Sued in Oklahoma for Improper Billing, COPAS Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TO:  All persons or entities who own or owned an interest in any
     drilling and spacing unit, secondary recovery unit, or other
     enhanced recovery unit or property, or in oil and gas wells
     wherein BP America Production Company f/k/a Amoco Production
     Company (Amoco) was or is the operator, and where Amoco (a) used
     allocation accounts, sometimes referred to as "functional location
     accountability codes" (FLACS) and/or "Operating Centers" to bill
     and collect indirect charges and/or (b) billed and collected
     charges for the services of supervisors above first line
     supervision.

     Specifically excluded from the class are:

     (a) any and all Amoco offshore operated properties;

     (b) any forced pooled working interest, unless the force pooled
         working interest owner entered into a joint operating
         agreement that superseded the pooling order;

     (c) all claims for improper billing of charges prior to January 1,
         1983;

     (d) all agencies, departments or instrumentalities of the United
         States of America; and

     (e) Conoco Inc. and other persons or entities whom Plaintiff's
         counsel is prohibited from representing under Rule 1.7 of the
         Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct.


WHY ARE YOU RECEIVING THIS NOTICE?

You are receiving this Notice to inform you of the Class Action Lawsuit
styled Lobo Exploration Company, for itself and all others Similarly
Situated versus BP America Production Company f/k/a Amoco Production
Company, Case No. CJ-97-72, that was filed and is presently pending in
the District Court of Beaver County, Oklahoma.  This Notice describes
the Class Action.  You have been identified as a potential member of
the Class who may have claims similar to those asserted by Lobo
Exploration Company against the Defendant.

This Notice is not to be understood as an expression of any opinion by
this Court as to the merits of any of the claims or defenses asserted
by either side in this litigation, but is sent for the sole purpose of
informing you of the pendency of this litigation so that you may make
appropriate decisions as to what steps you may wish to take in relation
to this lawsuit.

YOU SHOULD CAREFULLY READ THIS ENTIRE NOTICE BEFORE MAKING ANY DECISION
REGARDING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. THIS NOTICE IS GIVEN TO YOU
PURSUANT TO AN ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT.

WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE CLASS ACTION?

On July 22, 1998, the Trial Judge entered an Order certifying the
Class.  The order was appealed to higher courts, where the decision was
made that this Lawsuit could go forward as a Class Action. The Trial
Judge has determined that Oklahoma law will be applied on the Class
Claims.

WHAT ARE THE CLAIMS AND DEFENSES?

The Class Representative claims that Amoco used its, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
accounting center in a fraudulent scheme to improperly double bill its
non-operating working interest owners in wells and units operated by BP
America Production Company f/k/a Amoco Production Company within the
United States. The Class Representative claims that Amoco carried out
its scheme to defraud the Class by billing overhead charges and
indirect charges first as a fixed rate overhead charge and a second
time as a direct charge (double billing) in violation of the COPAS
accounting procedures specified in the respective joint operating
agreements.  The Class Representative also claims that Amoco's double
billing scheme began in 1983 and has continued to the present. The
Class Representative claims that Amoco's double billing scheme
uniformly and systematically affected all the Class Members in a
similar manner, regardless of the form of agreement in place. The
overhead and indirect charges which the Class Representative claims
were double billed are charges for:

     (a) Amoco's "operations centers" (which the Class Representative
         asserts were previously categorized as district offices,
         sub-district offices and administrative offices),

     (b) supervision above first level, and

     (c) technical labor billed on an area-wide basis or where the
         technical employee was not assigned to a specific property.

The Class Representative claims that these charges were not proper
direct charges regardless of the form of COPAS accounting procedure or
other agreement in place.  The Class Representative also alleges that
Amoco created an extremely complex and nearly impenetrable accounting
system, which hid the allegedly fraudulent and deceitful charges from
working interest owners.  It is claimed that the Class Members have
been wrongfully double billed by Amoco in excess of $100,000,000.00
The Class Representative seeks both actual and punitive damages on
behalf of itself and others in the Class.

Amoco denies Lobo's allegations. Amoco alleges that its charges for
operations centers, supervision and technical labor were proper direct
charges under the COPAS accounting procedures and industry practice.
Amoco further asserts that it did not conceal any of its charges from
working interest owners. In addition, Amoco has asserted defenses
including the contractual, 24-month adjustments provision and various
statutes of limitation.

WHAT MIGHT YOU RECEIVE?

If you remain in the Class and there is any settlement or judgment in
the Lawsuit, you will (may) receive your proportionate part of any such
settlement or judgment (after deduction of fees and expenses) based on
your working interest in wells operated by Amoco and included in such
settlement or judgment.  There is no assurance that the Class
Representative will be successful in pursuing the claims against Amoco.

WHO REPRESENTS THE CLASS?

Lobo Exploration Company is the Class Representative. The following
lawyers are Class Counsel, who represent the interests of the Class
Representative and the Class:

Robert J. Kee
Trippet & Kee
123 Douglas Avenue
P.O. Box 728
Beaver, Oklahoma 73932
(580) 625-4597

Allan DeVore
Jane G. Rowe
The DeVore Law Firm, P.C.
1318 N. Robinson
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103
(405) 232-4997

Douglas E. Burns
Terry L. Stowers
Burns & Stowers, P.C.
1318 North Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73103
(405) 232-4997

WHAT OPTIONS DO YOU HAVE?

You have two basic options:

     (a) Participate in the Class. You are presently a member of the
         class. If you do nothing, you will remain a member of the
         Class. Therefore, if you wish, to remain a member of the
         Class, you need do nothing further at this time.  If you
         remain in the Class, you will be bound by any existing and
         future rulings, decisions or judgments in the case.

     (b) Opt Out of the Class. If you do not wish to be a member of the
         Class, then you may opt out of the Class as long as you do so
         in writing within 45 days from the Notice Date, which would be
         October 26, 2002. If you do not opt out by that time in
         writing, you will remain a member of the Class and be bound by
         any existing and future rulings, decisions or judgments
         affecting the Class. If you wish to opt out of the Class, you
         must send a letter to the Court Clerk in generally the
         following form and content:

Dear Judge,

I have read the Notice of Class Action in Lobo Exploration Company vs.
BP America Production Company f/k/a Amoco Production Company and I do
not want to remain a of the Class.

The letter must be dated and post-marked on or before the date listed
above, it must be signed by you, and your full name, present address
and telephone number must be legibly written on it. You are requested,
but not required, to include the name of any wells or units relating to
the Lawsuit where you were and/or are a working interest owner, if you
know the names. However, your failure to include such well or unit
names will not affect the validity of your election. Your letter should
be sent to the following address: Court Clerk, Beaver County, Beaver
County Courthouse, P.O. Box 237, Beaver, Oklahoma 73932.

HOW AND WHEN CAN YOU FIND OUT MORE?

If you would like to have additional information about this Class
Action, you may obtain such information in several ways. The Petition,
Answer, and Docket Sheet are, available to you by e-mail through an
auto-responder system. To activate the auto-responder, simply send a
blank e-mail to lobovamoco@trlegal.com  Within minutes you will receive
an e-mail with these documents attached. If you wish to receive
additional documents relating to the case, you may do so during normal
business hours in the Office of the Court Clerk, Beaver, Oklahoma, or
at any of the Class Counsel's offices.  If you do not opt out of the
Class, then further Notices will be sent to you as required. You may be
contacted from time to time by Class Counsel. You are requested to keep
the Class Counsel informed of any change in address.

ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS NOTICE OR THE CLASS ACTION SHOULD BE DIRECTED
TO ONE OF THE CLASS COUNSEL IDENTIFIED.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE FOR
MORE INFORMATION.

By Gerald H. Rifle
Associate District Judge


ENTRUST INC.: Judge Nixes Securities Suit in Eastern District of Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrust, Inc. (Nasdaq: ENTU), a leading global provider of enhanced
Internet security solutions and services, announced on Tuesday that it
won dismissal of a class action lawsuit against the Company.

The lawsuit, which was filed in July 2000, alleged that the Company had
made misrepresentations about its prospects from October 1999 through
July 2000, in violation of the federal securities laws. Judge T. John
Ward of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas in Marshall, Texas, issued an order on September 30, 2002
dismissing the case.

In the order of dismissal, Judge Ward found that the plaintiffs had
not, with sufficient specificity, presented any facts indicating that
Entrust had made misrepresentations about its prospects.

Judge Ward stated, "The plaintiffs have pleaded no specific facts that
indicate at the time the alleged revenue forecasts were made, the
defendants had actual knowledge of contradictory facts. The SAC (Second
Amended Complaint) therefore does not state a claim for securities
fraud..."

Judge Ward went on to find that the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act required dismissal of the case.

Bill Conner, Entrust's president and chief executive officer, stated,
"We are very pleased with this decision. The charges against the
Company had no basis. We are glad the court decided to throw out the
case now, rather than letting it continue to a trial that would have
required further time and expense."

The court dismissed the case with prejudice; however, the order is
subject to the possibility of an appeal.

Entrust, Inc. (Nasdaq: ENTU) is a leading global provider of Internet
security solutions and services that make it safer to do business and
complete transactions over the Internet. Entrust has the industry's
broadest set of identification, entitlements, verification, privacy and
security management capabilities.

More than 1,500 major corporations, service providers, financial
institutions and government agencies in more than 40 countries use the
privacy, security and trust provided through Entrust's portfolio of
award- winning technologies. For more information, please visit
http://www.entrust.com


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Files Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Healthsouth Corporation (NYSE: HRC) announced Tuesday that on September
30, 2002 it filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama answers in 15 shareholder class action lawsuits filed
against the company and certain of its officers and directors.

The company and the individual defendants also filed motions with the
court to dismiss the actions or, in the alternative, to render judgment
on the pleadings based on the complaints and the answers as filed.

"As we have said, we believe these shareholder class action lawsuits
are entirely without merit," said Richard M. Scrushy, Chairman of the
Board of HEALTHSOUTH. "As HEALTHSOUTH's actions demonstrate, we will
move expeditiously to defend against this unfounded litigation, and we
believe the answers and motions we have filed provide the court with a
clear and ample basis to dispose of these matters without delay. As we
vigorously defend against this litigation, we remain focused on our
operations and on delivering superior clinical outcomes and high-
quality cost-effective care to our patients."

Filing on behalf of HEALTHSOUTH, the law firm of Haskell Slaughter
Young & Rediker, L.L.C. asked the court to consider the defendants'
motions on an expedited schedule.

HEALTHSOUTH is the nation's largest provider of outpatient surgery,
diagnostic imaging and rehabilitative healthcare services, with
approximately 1,900 locations in all 50 states, the United Kingdom,
Australia, Canada and Puerto Rico. HEALTHSOUTH can be found on the Web
at http://www.healthsouth.com


IRWIN FINANCIAL: RESPA Cases Against Subsidiary in N.D. Alabama Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Financial Corporation disclosed in its latest Securities and
Exchange Commission report that the class action against a subsidiary,
Irwin Mortgage Corporation, remains pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

The suit alleges that Irwin Mortgage violated the federal Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) relating to Irwin Mortgage's payment
of broker fees to mortgage brokers.

A second suit was filed September 2001 seeking consolidation with this
case.  In July 2001, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment asking the court to find Irwin Mortgage summarily liable for
violating RESPA. Irwin Mortgage filed a motion in opposition and these
motions are now pending before the district court.

In November 2001, by order of the district court, the parties filed
supplemental briefs analyzing the impact of a new HUD policy statement
that explicitly disagrees with the judicial interpretation of RESPA by
the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in its ruling upholding class
certification in this case.

Irwin Mortgage filed a petition for certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court seeking review of the 11th Circuit's class certification
ruling and also filed a motion in the district court seeking a stay of
further proceedings until the 11th Circuit renders decisions in the
other three RESPA cases pending before it.

The Supreme Court denied Irwin Mortgage's petition.  On March 8, 2002,
the district court granted Irwin Mortgage's motion to stay proceedings
in this case.

"At this stage of the litigation we are unable to determine the outcome
or a reasonable estimate of potential loss. However, we expect that an
adverse outcome in this lawsuit could result in substantial monetary
damages that could be material to our financial position. We have not
established any reserves for this case or for the second suit that
seeks consolidation with this one," the company's SEC report states.

The second case, which seeks class action status and contains
allegations similar to those in the first case, has been stayed until
the 11th Circuit renders decisions in the other three RESPA cases
pending before it.

"An adverse outcome in the second case could cause the company to
suffer material losses," the report adds.

Irwin Financial is a holding company with an emphasis on mortgage
banking.  Subsidiary Irwin Mortgage makes, purchases, and services
residential mortgage loans through about 100 offices nationwide.

Irwin Union Bank and Trust has more than 20 branches serving Indiana,
Kentucky, Missouri, Michigan, Utah, Arizona, and Nevada with community
banking services.  Irwin Home Equity originates home equity loans,
which the company solicits via direct mail, telemarketing, and the
Internet.

Other units provide venture capital to financial services firms, fund
equipment leases, and sell credit life insurance to bank customers.
Chairman William Miller owns about 40% of the company, which bought
Canadian leasing firm Onset Capital.


IRWIN FINANCIAL: Charges in PA Dropped, But One Unit Remains Defendant
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In January, 2001, Irwin Financial Corporation and two subsidiaries,
Irwin Leasing Corporation (formerly Affiliated Capital Corp.) and Irwin
Equipment Finance Corporation, the company's indirect and direct
subsidiaries, respectively, were served as defendants in an action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.

The suit alleges that a manufacturer/importer of certain medical
devices made misrepresentations to health care professionals and to
government officials to improperly obtain Medicare reimbursement for
treatment using the devices, and that the Irwin companies, through
Affiliated Capital's financing activities, aided in making the alleged
misrepresentations.

The Irwin companies filed a motion to dismiss on February 12, 2001. On
August 10, 2001, the court granted the motion in part by dismissing the
company and Irwin Equipment Finance as defendants in the suit.  Irwin
Leasing remains a defendant.

"We have not established any reserves for this case. Because the case
is in the early stages of litigation, we are unable at this time to
form a reasonable estimate of the amount of potential loss, if any,
that we could suffer," said the company in its recent SEC disclosure.


IRWIN FINANCIAL: Forces Arbitration in Rhode Island Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In May, 2001, Irwin Union Bank and Trust and Irwin Home Equity, Irwin
Financial Corporation direct and indirect subsidiaries, respectively,
received notice that they were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

The suit alleges that Irwin's disclosures and closing procedure for
certain home equity loans did not comply with certain provisions of the
Truth in Lending Act. The suit also requests that the court certify a
plaintiff class in this action.

On June 18, 2001, Irwin filed a motion with the court to compel
arbitration pursuant to the provisions in the home equity loan
agreement. On October 20, 2001, the Court entered judgment in favor of
Irwin compelling arbitration and dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.
The plaintiffs have appealed.

"We have not established any reserves for this case. If arbitration is
ultimately upheld, we do not expect to suffer material loss in this
case," the company said in its latest SEC disclosure.


IRWIN FINANCIAL: Amended Complaint Adds Unit in Massachusetts Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In an amended complaint, a subsidiary of Irwin Financial Corporation,
Irwin Union Bank and Trust, was named in place of our indirect
subsidiary, Irwin Home Equity, as a defendant in a suit originally
filed in July 2001 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The suit relates to a loan purchased by Irwin Union Bank and Trust and
serviced by Irwin Home Equity. The plaintiff alleges that the loan
documents did not comply with certain provisions of the Truth in
Lending Act relating to high rate loans. The suit also requests that
the court certify a plaintiff class in this action.  Irwin Union Bank
and Trust filed an answer to the amended complaint denying plaintiff's
allegations.

"Because the case is in the early stages of litigation, we are unable
at this time to form a reasonable estimate of the amount of potential
loss, if any, that we could suffer. We have not established any
reserves for this case," the company's latest SEC report states.


JENNIFER CONVERTIBLES: Plaintiffs Accept Cash, Stock Settlement Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Between December 6, 1994 and January 5, 1995, Jennifer Convertibles,
Inc. was served with eleven class action complaints and six derivative
action lawsuits, which deal with losses suffered as a result of the
decline in market value of the Company's stock as well as the Company
having "issued false and misleading statements regarding future growth
prospects, sales, revenues and net income".

In addition, the complaints in these actions assert various acts of
wrongdoing by the defendants, including the Private company and current
and former officers and directors of the Company as well as claims of
breach of fiduciary duty by such individuals.

On November 30, 1998, the court approved the settlement of class action
litigation.  The settlement provided for the payment to certain members
of the class and their attorneys of an aggregate maximum amount of
$7,000 in cash and Preferred Stock having a value of $370.

The cash portion of the settlement was funded entirely by insurance
company proceeds.  The Company issued 26,664 shares of Series B
Preferred Stock, convertible into 18,664 shares of the Company's Common
Stock, based on valid proofs of claims actually filed.

These shares are non-voting, have a liquidation preference of $5.00 per
share ($133) and accrue dividends at the rate of $.35 per share per
annum (cumulative unpaid dividends of $26 at August 25, 2001.  The
preferred stock is convertible at the option of the Company at any time
after the Common Stock trades at a price of at least $7.00 per share.

The company operates 170 stores (about 75 are licensed) throughout the
US, which sell sofa beds, loveseats, and chairs.  The company also runs
17 stores that specialize in leather furniture under the banner
Jennifer Leather.

The stores offer name-brand products as well as the company's private-
label Bellissimo Collection.  The firm buys about 70% of its products
from Klaussner Furniture, which owns a 20% stake in Jennifer
Convertibles.  Fred Love, brother-in-law of CEO Harley Greenfield, owns
Klaussner Furniture and 25 Jennifer Convertible stores. Greenfield owns
about 16% of the company; EVP Edward Seidner owns 10%.


MANUFACTURERS LIFE: $150M Class Action Against Firm in Canada Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A $150 million class action suit against Manufacturers Life Insurance
Company (Manulife) has been certified as a class proceeding by the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice and will now proceed to trial.

The class action against Manulife was brought in December 2001 by four
plaintiffs from Barbados, including the country's former Supervisor of
Insurance, Wismar Greaves. It argues that when Manulife sold its
business interests in Barbados in 1996 it inappropriately failed to
protect the rights of Barbados participating policyholders to benefit
in the event of the company's future demutualization. It did so, the
suit contends, without their consent and without paying them fair and
equitable compensation.

The class action alleges that Manulife was negligent and breached its
fiduciary duty when it chose not to protect the ownership interests of
the Barbados policyholders even though it did protect the interests of
policyholders in the United States in a transaction that was also
completed in 1996.

"The court will decide whether Manulife deliberately misled a group of
approximately 8,000 policyholders and avoided paying them about $100
million," said Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C., of Sutts, Strosberg LLP.
"There is evidence which would allow a court to conclude that the
company acted in an arrogant, high-handed and outrageous fashion. This
ruling ensures that Manulife, its directors, its management and, by
extension, its shareholders will be forced to face those the company
failed to protect, many of them among the poorest and most vulnerable
of its policyholders."

Key among the arguments made by the class action is that the company
obtained approval for the sale of its Barbados interests by both
providing misleading information to the Barbados regulator, the
Supervisor, and withholding pertinent information from him.

In his lengthy and detailed Reasons For Decision, The Honourable Mr.
Justice Ian Nordheimer agreed that the company's dealings with the
regulator merited full examination:

    ..."a court might conclude that the statements made in the
proceedings before the Supervisor did not constitute full, fair and
frank disclosure by Manulife of its plans..."

Mr. Justice Ian Nordheimer, in addition to certifying the class action,
also rejected Manulife's motion for dismissal of the class action. Mr.
Justice Nordheimer said that a trial was necessary to deal with the
very serious and complex issues raised. In addition, he wrote:

..."The action raises an issue as to whether the defendant actively
misled a regulator..."

"The court will decide whether Manulife misrepresented its intentions
when dealing with policyholders like me," said Wismar Greaves, former
Supervisor of Insurance for Barbados. "It will also determine whether
Manulife knew by 1996 that the likelihood of demutualization was high
and why for inexplicable reasons it pretended otherwise." Mr. Greaves,
is available for comment in Barbados today and can be reached at (246)
429-7084.

The class action asks that Manulife pay to former policyholders in
Barbados the same compensation paid to other policyholders when
Manulife demutualized. Efforts will proceed to notify additional
members of the class in Barbados and in Canada. Already about 2,000
people have registered as members of the class.

Harvey T. Strosberg counsel in this action, is one of Canada's leading
class action litigators. He helped Hepatitis-C victims negotiate a
settlement of $1.1 billion with the federal and provincial governments
in 1999. He also was involved in obtaining compensation for Walkerton
residents in the contaminated water scandal in May 2000. He has also
negotiated other high profile class action settlements including YBM
Magnex in 2001.


MOTOROLA INC.: Baltimore Judge Says Evidence Insufficient for Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola and other cell phone manufacturers, including mobile phone
carriers, celebrated Monday's ruling in Baltimore, which tossed an $800
million lawsuit filed by a doctor who claimed to have developed a brain
tumor as a result of using analog cell phones.

The decision handed by U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake is expected
to influence, if not hinder, 11 other suits that posit similar claims.
Some are pending in Judge Blake's chamber.

"Clearly from the outset, it's not going to bode well for those cases,"
said attorney John Angelos, who filed the lawsuit against Motorola on
behalf of Dr. Christopher Newman.

Judge Blake ruled that none of the evidence submitted by Dr. Newman was
substantial enough to warrant a trial.  The evidence she was referring
to where those evidence and experts' testimony presented during a five-
day hearing in February, the Associated Press said.

The telecommunications world watched the case closely. If it went to
trial, it would have opened the door to other suits against the $45
billion industry.

Dr. Newman, a neurologist from Jarrettsville, claimed an analog cell
phone he used from 1992 to 1998 gave him a cancerous tumor behind his
right ear.  Aside from being blind in his left eye, he also suffers
from memory loss and slowed speech and can no longer work, said Class
Action Reporter in a report last month.

"We hope this has an impact on other pending litigation and serves as a
deterrent to future litigants making unsupported claims of this kind,"
Motorola spokesman Norman Sandler told the Associated Press in an
interview.

When considering Newman's evidence, Judge Blake used high standards
called the Daubert guidelines. The standard, established in 1993, lets
judges be court gatekeepers and determine if the science submitted is
considered reliable.

Even though Attorney Angelos presented scientific evidence that showed
analog phones may cause tumors, Judge Blake ruled that evidence was
overwhelmed by a body of evidence that shows no relationship between
cell phone radiation and cancer.  She pointed out in her 23-page ruling
that even the published studies presented by Newman include reasoning,
theories and methodology that "have not gained general acceptance in
the scientific community."

The prosecution leaned heavily on a study by Swedish oncologist Lennart
Hardell, who testified against Motorola in evidence hearings in
February.  The study claims that long-term users of old-fashioned
analog cell phones were at least 30 percent more likely than nonusers
to develop brain tumors.  His research was published in the latest
European Journal of Cancer Prevention.

Mr. Hardell studied 1,617 patients with brain tumors and compared them
with a similar-sized group of people without tumors.  He found that
patients who used Sweden's Nordic Mobile telephones were 30 percent
more likely to have brain tumors, especially on the side of the head
that touched the phone most often.  Those who used the phones longer
than 10 years were 80 percent more likely to develop tumors.

The report says by rejecting Dr. Newman's expert testimony, Judge Blake
cleared the way for Motorola attorneys to file a motion to dismiss the
case.


MUSIC COMPANIES: Settles Two-year-old Antitrust Suit by Offering $143M
----------------------------------------------------------------------
New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced Monday that the
world's five largest music companies and the three largest music
retailers will pay $143.1 million to settle a CD price-fixing case
launched by New York and Florida two years ago.

According to a report by Reuters, the five record labels: Vivendi
Universal's Universal Music Group, Sony Corp.'s Sony Music, Bertelsmann
AG's BMG Music Group, Warner Music Group, a division of AOL Time Warner
Inc. and EMI Group Plc, and the three retailers, Musicland Stores
Corp., Trans World Entertainment Corp. and Tower Records, agreed to
stop using MAP policies as part of the settlement. They did not admit
any wrongdoing, though.

In August 2000, most U.S. states joined in a lawsuit alleging that an
industry practice called "minimum advertised pricing" (MAP)
artificially inflated the price of CDs between 1995 and 2000, violating
federal and state antitrust laws, the report says.  Under MAP, the
labels subsidized advertising for retailers that agreed not to sell CDs
below a certain price.

The news agency says the companies will pay $67.4 million in cash to
compensate consumers who overpaid for CDs between 1995 and 2000. The
companies also agreed to distribute $75.7 million worth of CDs to
public entities and nonprofit organizations throughout the country.

"This is a landmark settlement to address years of illegal price
fixing," Mr. Spitzer said in a statement. "Our agreement will provide
consumers with substantial refunds and result in the distribution of a
wide variety of recordings for use in our schools and communities."

In an interview with Reuters, John Sullivan, chief financial officer of
Trans World said, "It's always been absurd to us to even be involved in
this case. Given the cost of lengthy litigation, it made more sense for
us to settle the case." Trans World owns the FYE and Coconuts music
chains.

Universal Music Group, the world's largest record company said it
believes MAP policies were legal, although it wanted to avoid the cost
of lengthy litigation. "We believe our policies were pro-competitive
and geared toward keeping more retailers, large and small, in
business," the company said in a statement.

In a May 2000 settlement with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the
five labels agreed to ban the MAP policy for seven years, the report
says. The settlement did not require the labels to pay any damages, nor
did the labels admit any wrongdoing.


PIER 1 IMPORTS: Recalls Candleholders That Can Unexpectedly Shatter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC),
Pier 1 Imports, of Fort Worth, Texas, is voluntarily recalling about
9,200 candleholders. The Giant Champagne Glass-Shaped Floating
Candleholder is made of mouth-blown recycled glass and is intended for
use with floating candles. The candleholder can unexpectedly shatter
and cause cuts to consumers.

Pier 1 has received two reports of the glass candleholder shattering.
No injuries have been reported.

The recalled Giant Champagne Glass-Shaped Floating Candleholder is
about 17 1/4-inches high by 13-inches in diameter. The green
candleholders were made in Spain. The price sticker on the bottom of
the candleholder reads "SKU#1884160."

Pier 1 Imports sold the candleholders through their retail stores and
on-line nationwide from January 2002 through May 2002 for about $25.

Consumers should stop using the candleholders immediately and return
them to the store where purchased for a refund or a merchandise credit.
For more information, call Pier 1 Imports at (800) 245-4595 between
8:30 a.m. and 11 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. and 11 p.m. CT
Saturday, and 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. CT Sunday. Consumers can also visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.pier1.com

To see a picture of the recalled product(s) and/or to establish a link
from your web site to this press release on CPSC's web site, link to
the following address:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml03/03001.html


TOKAI CARBON: Settles Graphite Antitrust Suit, to Pay $6 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
TO:  ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED GRAPHITE ELECTRODES IN THE UNITED STATES
     DURING THE PERIOD JULY 1, 1992 TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 1997.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED $6 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH TOKAI CARBON
COMPANY, LTD. AND TOKAI CARBON U.S.A., INC., CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT
CLASS CERTIFICATION, AND HEARING ON THE FAIRNESS OF THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT AND PETITION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND
REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION COSTS AND EXPENSES.

This notice is given pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania to inform you of a proposed settlement of a
lawsuit pending against Tokai Carbon Company, Ltd., and Tokai Carbon
U.S.A., Inc. (collectively Tokai) in the Court, and of a hearing on the
fairness of the proposed settlement and Class Counsel's request for
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses.  In
the lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege, on behalf of a class of all persons
who directly purchased graphite electrodes in the United States during
the period of July 1, 1992 to and including June 30, 1997, that the
defendants, Tokai Carbon Company, Ltd., Tokai Carbon U.S.A., Inc., SEC
Corporation, Nippon Carbon Aluminum AG and VAW Carbon GmbH (Defendants)
and other conspirators, violated the federal antitrust laws.

In earlier filed lawsuits alleging similar claims, a class was
certified and settlements were reached and approved by the Court with
The Carbide/Graphite Group, Inc., SGL Carbon Corporations, SGL Carbon
AG, Showa Denko Carbon, Inc., and UCAR International Inc.  Other
settlements in this lawsuit were previously reached with VAW Aluminum
AG and VAW Carbon GmbH and SEC Corporation and approved by the Court.

SETTLEMENT CLASS

On August 23, 2002 the Court conditionally certified the following
Settlement Class:

All persons (excluding governmental entities, Defendants, co-
conspirators and other producers of graphite electrodes and their
subsidiaries and affiliates) who purchased graphite electrodes in the
United States directly from UCAR International Inc., UCAR Carbon
Company, Inc., The Carbide/Graphite Group, Inc., SGL Carbon
Corporation, SGL Carbon AG, Showa Denko Carbon, Inc., Tokai Carbon
Company, Ltd., Tokai Carbon U.S.A., Inc., Nippon Carbon Company, Ltd.,
SEC Corporation, VAW Aluminum AG or VAW Carbon GmbH, or any subsidiary
of affiliate of the forgoing, at any time during the period from July
1, 1992 to and including June 30, 1997.  The Class does not included
Nucor Corporation and Nucor-Yamato Steel Company or any of the
plaintiffs (or their subsidiaries or controlled affiliates) in
Ameristeel V. Carbide Graphite, Civ. No. 98-1693 (E.D. Pa).

The Settlement Class only includes persons who purchased graphite
electrodes in the United States.

SUMMARY OF THE TOKAI SETTLEMENT

Tokai has paid a total of $6 million to the Class. Tokai has agreed to
cooperate with Class Counsel in the prosecution of the litigation.  The
Tokai settlement provides for releases and discharges of claims against
Tokai arising out of alleged anticompetitive activities in the graphite
electrodes market as specifically set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.

COURT HEARING

A hearing will be held on November 19, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., in the
United States Courthouse 6B, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate, whether the conditional certification of the
Settlement Class should become final, and whether Class Counsel's
request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation costs and
expenses should be approved.

If you believe you are a member of the Class identified above and you
have not receive a detailed Notice in the mail, you may obtain a copy
by writing to:

     Graphite Electrodes Antitrust Litigation
     P.O. Box 290, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
     19105-0290

The detailed mail Notice provides important information about:

     (i) requesting exclusion from the Settlement Class;

    (ii) objecting to the proposed Tokai settlement, request for
         attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation costs and
         expenses;

   (iii) eligibility to participate in a distribution from the Tokai
         Settlement Fund; and

    (iv) entering an appearance in the litigation.

Any questions that you have concerning the matters contained in this
Notice may be directed, in writing, to any of the following Class
Counsel:

Leonard Barrack, Esq.
Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
3300 Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7087

Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
William E. Hoese, Esq.
Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.
One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
Philadelphia, PA 19107

Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
Martin I. Twersky, Esq.
Berger & Montague, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365

Howard J. Sedran, Esq.
Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106

PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE OR DIRECT ANY INQUIRIES TO THE COURT.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
MICHAEL E. KUNZ, CLERK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


UNITED STATES: Federal Bureau of Investigation Slapped with Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Four black agents and one Hispanic agent at the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) field office in New York recently filed a
discrimination lawsuit, The New York Times reported.

The agents accused their supervisors of a pattern of racial bias that
hampered the agents' work on a number of fugitive cases, gang
investigations and efforts to follow up leads in the September 11
attacks.

In a letter to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, and several
lawmakers, the agents said they were horrified when the photographs of
several minority agents were posted on their squad's "wall of shame,"
an office bulletin board where pictures of gang members and criminal
subjects are posted.

The letter says that under the agents' faces were hand-drawn pictures
of them wearing warm-up suits and gold medallions.  A caption referred
to them as "whiners."

The agents said they were especially angered that the faces had been
cut from a photograph of the squad taken a few days after the September
11 attacks, at the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island, where they
were sifting through debris from the World Trade Center site in order
to collect body parts and other evidence.

Among the agents who filed the complaint several have been credited
with important arrests, and the agents have received exceptional
performance appraisals.

In the complaint, the agents said that after the attacks they pursued a
highly promising lead about an unidentified Pakistani even as their
supervisor complained that they were spending too much time out of the
office.  The five agents said that criticism was not directed at white
agents.

Beyond the specific complaints, the letter and a filing in the Federal
District Court for the District of Columbia, depict a corrosive,
demoralizing and racially insensitive environment in the New York
office, the largest of the 56 field offices of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.  The New York office is often regarded by senior
managers as the Bureau's flagship local operation.  It has hundreds of
experienced agents skilled in investigations of organized crime,
terrorism and espionage.

"The most shocking thing here is that these issues were raised numerous
times by the five agents and yet there was no effort by management to
address it," a lawyer for the agents, Ronald Schmidt, said.

"These problems are cultural and will continue to negatively impact FBI
operations unless systematic reforms are introduced," Mr. Schmidt said.

A spokesman for the Bureau, Mike Kortan, said, "The FBI has not been
served with a copy of the complaint and cannot comment at this time."

Mr. Kortan added, "The FBI remains committed to equal opportunity in
the workplace, and any allegation of discrimination is taken seriously
and acted upon.  A number of processes for grievances are available to
employees, and in this case the equal employment opportunity process is
under way."

The letter and the lawsuit focus on the actions of Mark Paridy, who
supervised the agents for more than three years on a squad that tracked
fugitives, an assignment widely regarded as one of the most difficult
and potentially dangerous.  FBI officials said that neither Mr. Paridy
nor other agents would comment on the accusations.

The complaint said that Mr. Paridy had secretly monitored their voice
mail messages and penalized the agents after they had filed
administrative complaints by assigning them tasks usually given to
junior agents.  The minority agents said they were assigned more than
their share of old fugitive cases that had few leads and were highly
unlikely to be solved.

Other agents have been more pointed in criticizing the agency since the
September 11 attacks.  Another agent from the New York office testified
to a congressional committee recently that he had sent an e-mail
message to his superiors before the attacks, warning that "someday
someone will die" unless headquarters acted more quickly to investigate
a certain suspect.

Later, that suspect, Khalid al-Midhar, was widely believed to have led
the group that crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

The minority agents said they had repeatedly complained to managers
about Mr. Paridy's actions.  Often, they said he seemed to focus on
minority agents, sometimes asking them to account for their whereabouts
and report to him even when working undercover.

The suit was filed after the agents' lawyer said that they had
exhausted the administrative complaint process, a system that minority
agents have frequently said was slow, often arbitrary and a forum that
seldom reached conclusions that minorities regarded as just.

The Bureau has long struggled with bias charges.  A class action by
black agents was settled in 1993, when the bureau promised to change
procedures for promotions, management training and assignments.  The
agents took the Bureau back to court in 1998, saying it had failed to
institute the changes.  In a second settlement, in 2000, the Bureau
said it would make the changes by 2003, an outcome that minority agents
said was a tepid approach to the problems.

The agents who filed the complaint are Wilfred Baptiste, Kendall
Hobson, Paul Sutherland, Nathan Tucker, and Carlos Luquis.


UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: SC Urged to Rule on Affirmative-Action Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------------
White students who sued the University of Michigan to block its
affirmative-action policies for undergraduate admissions, plan to file
a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, even
though the lower appellate court, which heard arguments last year, has
not yet ruled on it, the New York Times News Service reported recently.

The unusual petition argues that the Supreme Court should bypass the
6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, rather than allow the university to
admit another class of freshmen using a system that the plaintiffs in
the case see as unconstitutional.  Lawyers for the plaintiffs also say
the expedited review makes sense because it would allow the justices to
consider the case in conjunction with a separate lawsuit about
affirmative action at the university's law school already before the
court.

"The case presents issues of fundamental national importance," contends
the petition in the class-action lawsuit.  "The two cases considered
together will present the court with a broader spectrum and more
substantial record within which to consider and rule upon the common
principles that they involve."

The Supreme Court very rarely agrees to take a case before a lower
court has ruled, although it did so in the landmark Brown v. Board of
Education case, which blocked the racial segregation of schools.

In the University of Michigan cases, federal trial courts made split
decisions, upholding the undergraduate admissions system, in which
minority students, as well as athletes and the children of alumni, get
extra points; but striking down the law school's system, which simply
sought a "critical mass" of blacks and Latinos.  After hearing
arguments on both cases in December, the 6th Circuit ruled in May that
the law school's admission policies were acceptable, but has remained
silent on the undergraduate case.

The Center for Individual Rights, a Washington-based group that
represents the plaintiffs, appealed to the Supreme Court in August on
the law school case.  Marvin Krislov, general counsel for the
university, said he planned to oppose the petition for the Supreme
Court review in the law school case, though he agreed it was best to
keep the cases linked.

"Our goal is to win, and we won on both key issues at the circuit
court, so our position is the court does not need to take the law
school case," Mr. Krislov said.  "But if they are going to do one, they
should do both."


* Georgia Enacts Law Against Predatory Lending to Protect Poor, Elderly
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Georgia Fair Lending Act, a new law intended to curb high-interest
loans, aimed mainly at the poor and elderly, took effect Tuesday,
reports the Associated Press Newswires.  There is no limit to how much
could be collected in a class-action civil suit brought on the
borrowers' behalf, based on the provisions of this Act, according to
attorney Donalf Lampe, who is the author of a guide for lenders.

The Act was approved by the General Assembly in April and outlaws
exorbitant balloon payments, prepayment penalties and other fees on
high interest loans.  The law places Georgia among a handful of states
aiming to halt predatory loans that exploit the poor and minorities.

Almost everyone involved in the lending process -- including bankers,
brokers and anyone buying the right to collect the payments -- is
liable if the loan violates the law.  Penalties include up to six
months in jail and a $1,000 fine per violation.

"I think it is going to make a big difference," Mr. Lampe said.

The law's supporters say many of those who receive the high-cost loans
are actually eligible for much cheaper loans.  "Our intent is to
restrict the bad loans, not the good loans," said Senator Vincent Fort,
D-Atlanta, the chief sponsor of the Act.  "It is a good law, and we
need to see how it works over the next few years."

The new lending law will be enforced by the Georgia Department of
Banking and Finance.  With 80 field examiners, the agency is
responsible for regulating 270 banks, 80 credit unions and 3,000
mortgage lenders and brokers.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP filed recently a Class Action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons who purchased securities of BellSouth
Corporation (NYSE: BLS) between January 22, 2001 and July 19, 2002,
inclusive.

The Complaint charges BellSouth 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
BellSouth's business and financial prospects caused BellSouth's stock
price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

The Complaint alleges that defendants reported quarter after quarter of
"record" financial results and financial growth despite a rapidly
deteriorating market for telecommunications companies but, as the
Company was ultimately forced to reveal, the financial prospects for
BellSouth were far from the Company's representations.

On July 22, 2002, defendants revealed that BellSouth's earnings had
dropped by an astonishing 67% for the second quarter of 2002, and that
weak economic conditions in Central and Latin America had been, and
were continuing to have a material, adverse impact on the Company's
earnings and profitability.

In response to the Company's devastating July 22, 2002 disclosure,
BellSouth stock plummeted more than 18%, to $22 per share on trading
volume of more than 18 million shares traded, an enormous increase over
BellSouth's average trading volume.

For more information, contact Glancy & Binkow LLP through Lionel Z.
Glancy by Phone: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224.  You may also contact
Michael Goldberg by e-mail: info@glancylaw.com


ELECTRONIC DATA: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP recently filed a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired
Electronic Data Systems Corporation (NYSE: EDS) common stock between
September 7, 1999 and September 24, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges Electronic Data Systems Corp. 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 misstatements
of material facts and omitted to state material facts in their public
statements and elsewhere, including:

     (i) failing to disclose that EDS's backbone revenue from its
         Information Solutions IT outsourcing business is highly
         susceptible to interruption due to terms in EDS's service
         contracts that enable EDS customers to unilaterally suspend
         discretionary spending on IT outsourcing;

    (ii) affirmatively misrepresenting the predictability of EDS's
         future cash flows by touting the anticipated revenue that EDS
         would supposedly receive from its IT outsourcing service
         contracts with customers without disclosing that payments
         under such contracts were not guaranteed; and

   (iii) failing to disclose that EDS faced significant potential
         threats to its liquidity if its share price fell because of
         put options and other obligations that ultimately obligated
         EDS to buy back a total of 5.44 million shares of EDS stock at
         fixed prices averaging over $60.00 per share.

The complaint alleges that when Wall Street began to learn about the
foregoing on September 18, 2002, after executives of EDS warned that a
lack of new revenues would wipe out more than $0.60 per share of its Q3
earnings target of $0.74, the price of EDS stock plummeted to a 52?week
low of $20, down from a Class Period high of $72.45.

The complaint alleges that after further revelations regarding EDS's
put options and other liabilities emerged, EDS's share price tumbled
even further, reaching an intraday low of $10.09 on September 24, 2002.

For more information, contact Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations, by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or by e-mail: EDS@bernlieb.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm filed recently a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of Inktomi Corporation (Nasdaq:INKT) publicly traded
securities during the period between June 10, 1998 and April 3, 2001,
inclusive.

The complaint charges Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter & Co., Inc., Henry Blodget and Mary Meeker with issuing
misleading analyst reports about Inktomi.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants urged investors to
purchase Inktomi stock when defendants knew or should have known that
such purchases were not a good investment. The complaint alleges that
defendants issued "Buy" recommendations about Inktomi without any
rational economic basis; failed to disclose that they were issuing
"Buy" recommendations to obtain investment banking business; and
concealed significant, material conflicts of interests that prevented
them from providing independent objective analysis.

For more information, contact The Emerson Firm through Tanya R. Autry,
Investor Relations Department by Phone: 800-663-9817 or by e-mail:
tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


MORGAN STANLEY: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP commenced recently a shareholder suit on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter Technology Fund shares, of all four share classes (Nasdaq:TEKAX)
through (Nasdaq:TEKDX) claiming that the company misled investors about
its business and financial condition.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and seeks damages for violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought Morgan Stanley
Dean Witter Technology Fund shares from the public offering for the
Fund on September 25, 2000 through July 31, 2002.

The complaint charges that defendants were:

     (1) the underwriters for the common stock of certain of the
         companies in the Technology Fund's portfolio;

     (2) the investment bankers and corporate finance specialists for
         certain of the companies whose securities are in the Fund's
         portfolio;

     (3) seeking to obtain additional investment banking business from
         these present and former clients and from other companies
         whose shares also were/are in the Fund's portfolio;

     (4) the issuers of the shares in the Fund;

     (5) preparing and publicly disseminating research reports and
         recommendations on many of the companies whose shares were in
         the Fund's portfolio; and

     (6) the broker for certain members of the Class.

This action arises as a result of the issuance by the defendants of
shares in the Fund, and concerns material misstatements and omissions
by defendants in the Prospectus, relating to defendants' conflicts of
interest, which include but are not limited to the following:

     (1) defendants failed to disclose and omitted material information
         that MSDW had had investment banking relationships with,
         including having brought public, certain of the companies
         whose securities were part of the Fund's portfolio. Defendants
         disclosed neither this general fact nor the identities of the
         particular companies with which it had investment banking
         relationships;

     (2) defendants failed to disclose and omitted material information
         concerning that MSDW was continuing to seek investment banking
         relationships with many of the companies whose securities were
         part of the Fund's portfolio; and

     (3) defendants failed to disclose and omitted material information
         concerning that a material part of the total compensation paid
         to MSDW research analysts was based upon obtaining investment
         banking business for MSDW and not upon the accuracy of their
         research about a given company. Hence, MSDW and its affiliated
         companies including the Fund recommended investments in and/or
         invested in companies in order to enhance MSDW's opportunity
         to obtain investment banking business from those companies
         (without regard to whether they were good investments for the
         investors including plaintiffs and the Class).

For more details, contact Schiffrin & Barroway 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


SALOMON SMITH: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP lodged recently a class action suit against
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., analyst Jack Grubman, Salomon's parent
company Citigroup, Inc. and Citigroup CEO Sanford Weill for misleading
purchasers of AT&T Corp. common stock.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (02-CV-6943). Plaintiff seeks damages for
violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all investors
who purchased AT&T Corp. securities between November 29, 1999 and
August 22, 2002.

The complaint charges defendants with recommending the purchase of AT&T
common stock or of the AT&T Wireless tracking stock without regard to
the factual basis and without disclosing its conflicts of interest.

When issuing the analyst report, the Defendants Salomon and Grubman
failed to disclose significant, material conflicts of interest,
including the following: that, in an explicit or implicit quid pro quo,
Salomon was granted a lucrative role in the April 2000 issuance of an
AT&T Wireless tracking stock, after Grubman, at AT&T's request, passed
to Grubman by Weill, raised his recommendation of AT&T in November 1999
from "neutral" to "buy."

For more details, contact Schiffrin & Barroway through Marc A. Topaz,
Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. 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


SALOMON SMITH: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm commenced recently a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Level 3 Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq:LVLT)
common stock during the period between January 4, 1999 and June 18,
2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Salomon Smith Barney Inc., Jack Grubman and
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Inc. urged investors to purchase
Level 3 stock when they knew or should have known that such purchases
were not a good investment. The complaint alleges that defendants
issued "Buy" recommendations about Level 3 without any rational
economic basis; failed to disclose that they were issuing "Buy"
recommendations to obtain investment banking business; and concealed
significant, material conflicts of interest that prevented them from
providing independent objective analysis.

For more details, contact The Emerson Firm through Tanya R. Autry,
Investor Relations Department by Phone: 800-663-9817 or by e-mail:
tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


                            *********



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  * * *