/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010524.MBX C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 24 2001, Vol. 3, No. 102 Headlines AMERICAN ELECTRIC: SD Ohio Court to Hear Arguments on Dismissal Motion ANCHOR GAMING: Federal And State Courts Dismiss Securities Lawsuits AVANT CORP.: $47.5 Mil Settlement With Shareholders Awaits Court Nod BANK PLUS: Motion to Dismiss Credit Card Suit in Alabama Still Pending BAUSCH & LOMB: Edward Carreiro Files Lawsuit Against Company, Others BROADVISION INC.: Expects All Securities Lawsuits to be Consolidated CALIFORNIA AMPLIFIER: Mark McNair Extends Period of Securities Suit CITADEL COMMUNICATIONS: Expects Settlement of Five Shareholders Suits FIRST VIRTUAL: Appellate Court Has Yet to Set Date For Oral Arguments FORD MOTOR: Recalls Add'l 13 M Firestone Tires Used on Ford Explorers FREEMARKETS INC: Mark McNair Files Securities Suit Against CEO And CFO GEMSTAR TV: Plaintiffs' Motion For Summary Judgment Pending in NY Court GLOBALSTAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Dismissal Motion Hearing Set For June 7 HIGHWOODS REALTY: Final Settlement Hearing of Suit Scheduled For Today HUMPHREY HOSPITALITY: Faces Two Shareholders Suits Filed in ED Virginia JDN REALTY: Says Plaintiff's Amendment to Securities Suit is Improper JDN REALTY: Shareholders File Suit For Fraud And Various Violations JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Lawsuit For $60 Million JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial on LifeScan Lawsuit Begins This September LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in New York LORAL SPACE: Stull Stull Commences Shareholder Suit in S.D. New York MATRIX BANCORP: Subsidiary Intends to File Motion to Compel Arbitration MICROFIELD GRAPHICS: Maintains Denial of Allegations in Securities Suit ONYX ACCEPTANCE: Continues Vigorous Defense Against Securities Lawsuit OPEN DOOR: Milazzo Fortunato Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey OPEN MARKET: Court Consolidates Securities Suits Filed Against Company P-COM INC: California Court Certifies Shareholders Plaint as Class Suit PROTECTION ONE: Court to Hear Motion to Dismiss Amended Plaint in June PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Class Remains Uncertified in Illinois and Alabama QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: Settlement Pact Awaits Approval From Court RAZORFISH INC.: Court Intends to Dismiss Securities Suit in SD New York RSA SECURITY: Agreement to Settle Shareholders Suit Needs Court Nod SECURITY CAPITAL: Homestead Pays $675,000 to Settle Shareholders Suits SMARTFORCE PUBLIC: Mounting Strong Defense Against Suit in California SOUTHERN EDISON: Faces Securities Suit in L.A. For Fraudulent Report SPEEDWAY MOTORSPORT: Class Has Yet to be Certified in Johnson Lawsuit SULZER ORTHOPEDICS: Weiner & Cox Files Liability Suit in Michigan ********* AMERICAN ELECTRIC: SD Ohio Court to Hear Arguments on Dismissal Motion ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On June 23, 2000, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeking unspecified compensatory damages against American Electric Power Company, Inc. and four former or present officers. The individual plaintiff also seeks certification as the representative of a class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired AEP common stock between July 25, 1997, and June 25, 1999. The complaint alleges the defendants knowingly violated federal securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements concerning, among other things: (i) the undisclosed materially impaired condition of the Cook Plant, (ii) AEP's inability to properly monitor, manage, repair, supervise and report on operations at the Cook Plant and the materially adverse conditions these problems were having, and would continue to have, (iii) AEP's deteriorating financial condition, and (iv) ultimately on AEP's operations, liquidity and stock price. Four other similar class action complaints have been filed and the court has consolidated the five cases. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint pursuant to this court order. This case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. On March 5, 2001, AEP and the individual defendants filed a comprehensive motion to dismiss all claims against all defendants in the consolidated cases. The Court has set oral arguments on the motion for June 7, 2001. ANCHOR GAMING: Federal And State Courts Dismiss Securities Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Several securities class action lawsuits were filed against Anchor Gaming and certain current and former officers and directors. The lawsuits were filed in various jurisdictions following the announcement in early December 1997 that the Company's results for the December quarter might not meet analysts' expectations. The lawsuits were brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's stock and allege violations of state and/or federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements and omissions to state material facts over various periods of time covered by the suits. The lawsuits were consolidated in Nevada, both in federal and state court. The consolidated federal action, captioned In re Anchor Gaming Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. CV-S-97-01751-PMP (RJJ), was dismissed on January 6, 1999 with the court entering a judgment in the Company's favor. The consolidated state action, captioned Ryan, et al. v. Anchor Gaming, et al., Civil No. A383456, was dismissed by Order of the Court dated January 24, 2001. AVANT CORP.: $47.5 Mil Settlement With Shareholders Awaits Court Nod -------------------------------------------------------------------- In March 2001, Avant Corporation reached an agreement with attorneys for the plaintiffs to settle the two class action stockholder lawsuits that are currently pending against the Company. Under the terms of the two tentative settlements, Avant will pay $47.5 million in cash to the plaintiff's classes, which will dismiss all of their claims against the Company with prejudice. The proposed agreement is subject to the execution of definitive settlement documents, court approval and certain other contingencies following notice to the affected shareholders. The two lawsuits brought by Paul and Helen Margetis and by Joanne Hoffman, on behalf of certain purchasers of Avant common stock, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in 1995 and 1997, respectively. BANK PLUS: Motion to Dismiss Credit Card Suit in Alabama Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bank Plus Corporation and MasterCard International, Inc. have been named as defendants in a purported class action filed July 27, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, entitled Evelyn L. Brown, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated vs. MasterCard International, Inc. and Fidelity Federal Bank, Civil Action Case No. CV 99-A-788-N. The plaintiff alleges she placed bets through a gambling site on the Internet. The Internet site instructed her to open an account by entering her credit card number. By this means, the plaintiff's gambling expenses incurred on the Internet site were charged to a MasterCard issued to the plaintiff by the Bank. The plaintiff alleges that, in allowing its credit card to be used for illegal gambling, the Bank violated a variety of Federal and State statutes, including: (i) the Wire Act (18 U.S.C. Section 1084(a)), (ii) the Travel Act (18 U.S.C. Section 1952), (iii) a Federal statute that specifically prohibits conducing an illegal gambling business (18 U.S.C. Section 1955), (iv) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) and 1964(a)), and (v) a number of Alabama statutes. The plaintiff seeks certification of a class, declaratory relief voiding her credit card charges, unspecified compensatory damages, triple exemplary damages under RICO, punitive damages, and attorneys fees and costs. The Bank and MasterCard have filed motions to dismiss the case. The Bank believes that it should not have liability and that it has substantial legal defenses to the lawsuit. BAUSCH & LOMB: Edward Carreiro Files Lawsuit Against Company, Others -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Edward J. Carreiro of Hatboro, Pa. filed a class action lawsuit against Bausch & Lomb, Network Commerce, Inc., and Seaview Video technology, Inc., and its officers from violation of the federal and/or state securities laws for those individuals who purchased the above named stock in the following class periods: Corporation Class Period Bausch & Lomb 4/13/00 - 8/24/00(NYSE:BOL) Network Commerce, Inc. 9/28/99 - 4/16/01 (NASDAQ:NWKC) Seaview Video Technology, Inc. 3/30/00 - 3/19/01 (NASDAQ:SEVU) For more information, contact: Edward J. Carreiro, Esquire, of The Law Offices of Edward J. Carreiro, 41 Byberry Road, Hatboro, Pennsylvania 19040, via email at carreirolaw@yahoo.com, or at 215/672-7600. BROADVISION INC.: Expects All Securities Lawsuits to be Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------------- On April 20, 2001, Broadvision Inc. filed a Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission reporting that several purported class action lawsuits had been filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. In each of the lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek to assert claims on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased securities of the Company between January 26, 2001 and April 2, 2001. The complaints allege the Company and the individual defendants violated federal securities laws in connection with the Company's reporting of financial results during such period. The Company expects all of the lawsuits will eventually be consolidated into a single action, as is customary in such cases. The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and it will defend itself vigorously. CALIFORNIA AMPLIFIER: Mark McNair Extends Period of Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Mark McNair has extended the class period of its securities class action lawsuit against California Amplifier Inc. (Nasdaq: CAMP). As a result, shareholders who purchased stock between April 6, 2000 and March 28, 2001 are part of the class. This change to the Class Period is due to an announcement by the Company on May 22 that it expects to file with the SEC amended quarterly reports for the periods ended May 29, 1999, August 28, 1999, November 27, 1999, May 27, 2000 and November 25, 2000. The deadline for filing a Lead Plaintiff Motion is May 29, 2001. Prior to this announcement by the Company, on March 29, 2001, it announced that its comptroller had resigned after making "certain adjustments to the company's accounting records" that could force a restatement of fiscal 2000 results that would reduce net income by as much as $2.2 million. This announcement triggered a stock decline and Nasdaq officials halted trading at $5.03, more than 90% off the Company's Class Period high. For more information, contact: Mark McNair at 1819 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Suite 550, Washington, DC, 20006 by telephone at 877-511-4717, via e-mail at wmmcnair@justice4investors.com or visit http://www.justice4investors.com. CITADEL COMMUNICATIONS: Expects Settlement of Five Shareholders Suits --------------------------------------------------------------------- Citadel Communications Corporation disclosed in a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it is facing five separate purported class actions. These actions were filed following the announcement of its proposed merger with FLCC Acquisition Corp. pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger with FLCC Holdings, Inc., dated January 15, 2001 and amended on March 13 and 22, 2001. The following lawsuits were filed against Citadel Communications and other parties: 1.) On January 17, 2001, William P. Burcin, an alleged stockholder of Citadel Communications, filed a purported class action under Nevada law in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada. The suit names as defendants Citadel Communications, several directors of Citadel Communications, unidentified individuals (Does 1 through 100) and unidentified corporations (Roe Corporations 1 through 100). Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Citadel Communications and its board of directors caused plaintiff and other members of the purported class to be deprived of the value of their investment in Citadel Communications, that Citadel Communications and its board of directors failed to exercise ordinary care and diligence in the exercise of their fiduciary duties to the public stockholders of Citadel Communications, and that plaintiff and the other members of the purported class will be irreparably harmed by defendants' actions. The complaint seeks the following relief: (i) class action status; (ii) a declaration that the merger agreement is unenforceable; (iii) an order enjoining the merger agreement and enjoining defendants from consummating the merger until Citadel Communications discloses all material facts regarding the merger and implements procedures to obtain the highest possible price for Citadel Communications; (iv) an order directing the defendant directors to exercise their fiduciary duties and rescinding any agreements to pay Forstmann Little & Co. termination fees; (v) unspecified damages; and (vi) costs and disbursements, including attorneys' and experts' fees. 2.) On January 17, 2001, Rolling Investor Group Inc., an alleged stockholder of Citadel Communications, filed a purported class action under Nevada law in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada. The suit names as defendants Citadel Communications, several directors of Citadel Communications, Forstmann Little & Co., FLCC Holdings, Inc. and FLCC Acquisition Corp. Plaintiff's allegations include the following: the merger is unfair to the stockholders of Citadel Communications; the defendant directors have breached their fiduciary and common law duties by failing to properly auction Citadel Communications and to ensure the highest possible price is paid to Citadel Communications' public stockholders; and plaintiff and the other members of the purported class will be irreparably harmed by defendants' actions. The complaint seeks the following relief: (i) class action status and certification of plaintiff as class representative; (ii) a preliminary and permanent order enjoining the merger or, in the event the merger is consummated, rescission thereof; (iii) unspecified compensatory damages together with prejudgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; and (iv) costs and disbursements, including attorneys' and experts' fees. 3.) On January 18, 2001, John Newalanic, an alleged stockholder of Citadel Communications, filed a purported class action in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada, against Citadel Communications and several of its directors. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants are attempting to deprive plaintiff and other members of the purported class of the value of their investment in Citadel Communications, that defendants have failed to exercise ordinary care and diligence in the exercise of their fiduciary duties to the public stockholders of Citadel Communications, and that plaintiff and the other members of the purported class will be irreparably harmed by defendants' actions. The complaint seeks the following relief: (i) class action status; (ii) a declaration that the merger agreement is unenforceable; (iii) an order enjoining defendants from proceeding with the merger agreement and from consummating the merger until Citadel Communications implements procedures to obtain the highest possible price for Citadel Communications; (iv) an order directing the defendant directors to exercise their fiduciary duties until the sale or auction of Citadel Communications is completed and rescinding any terms of the merger agreement that have been implemented; (v) unspecified damages; and (vi) costs and disbursements, including attorneys' and experts' fees. 4.) On January 19, 2001, Ray Jourdan, an alleged stockholder of Citadel Communications, filed a purported class action in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada. The suit names as defendants Citadel Communications, several of its directors, unidentified individuals (Does 1 through 100) and unidentified corporations (Roe Corporations 1 through 100). Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the director defendants have failed to announce active auction of Citadel Communications, that the director defendants are abiding by a process that will deprive purported class members of the value of their investment in Citadel Communications, that the directors have failed to exercise ordinary care and diligence in the exercise of their fiduciary duties to the public stockholders of Citadel Communications, and that plaintiff and the other members of the purported class will be irreparably harmed by defendants' actions. The complaint seeks the following relief: (i) class action status; (ii) a declaration that the merger agreement is unenforceable; (iii) an order enjoining the merger agreement and enjoining defendants from consummating the merger until Citadel Communications discloses all material facts regarding the merger and implements procedures to obtain the highest possible price for Citadel Communications; (iv) an order directing the defendant directors to exercise their fiduciary duties and rescinding any agreements to pay Forstmann Little & Co. termination fees; (v) unspecified damages; and (vi) costs and disbursements, including attorneys' and experts' fees. 5.) On February 13, 2001, Allan B. Bowdach, an alleged stockholder of Citadel Communications, filed a purported class action in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada. The suit names as defendants Citadel Communications, several directors of Citadel Communications, Forstmann Little & Co., FLCC Holdings, Inc. and FLCC Acquisition Corp. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the defendant directors have conflicts of interest in the merger, that the defendant directors have breached their fiduciary and common law duties by failing to properly auction Citadel Communications and to ensure the highest possible price is paid to Citadel Communications' public stockholders, and that plaintiff and the other members of the purported class will be irreparably harmed by defendants' actions. The complaint seeks the following relief: (i) class action status and certification of plaintiff as class representative; (ii) a preliminary and permanent order enjoining the merger or, in the event the merger is consummated, rescission thereof; (iii) unspecified compensatory damages together with prejudgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; and (iv) costs and disbursements, including attorneys' and experts' fees. The Company believes that the allegations discussed above relating to the proposed merger with FLCC Acquisition are without merit. The parties to the foregoing proceedings have reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims arising out of the proposed merger with FLCC Acquisition pursuant to which certain changes were made to the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger and to the proxy statement relating to the vote of Citadel Communications' stockholders based on the suggestions and comments of plaintiffs' counsel. The Company expects the agreement will be memorialized in a formal settlement agreement and presented to the court for its approval. FIRST VIRTUAL: Appellate Court Has Yet to Set Date For Oral Arguments --------------------------------------------------------------------- On or about April 9, 1999, several purported class action suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging violations of the federal securities laws against FIRST VIRTUAL COMMUNICATIONS INC. and certain of its officers and directors in connection with the Company's reporting of its financial results for the period ended December 31, 1998. The court dismissed these actions without leave to amend on February 14, 2000. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on March 29, 2000. The appeal has been fully briefed by all parties and no date for oral argument has yet been set. FORD MOTOR: Recalls Add'l 13 M Firestone Tires Used on Ford Explorers --------------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd. commends Ford Motor Company's recent decision to put safety before profits in announcing that it will replace an additional 13 million Firestone tires currently being used on Ford Explorers. Previously, on August 9, 2000, Bridgestone/Firestone announced a voluntary recall of 6.5 million ATX, ATX II and Wilderness AT tires. Firestone, however, continues to deny that it should recall any additional tires. There are alleged to be over 174 deaths and 700 injuries reported as a result of dangerous and defective Firestone tires on Ford vehicles. On August 28, 2000, Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd. filed its Worldwide Class Action against Ford, Bridgestone and Bridgestone/Firestone seeking, among other things, the recall of these additional 13 million tires. On October 24, 2000, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation Ordered that all cases pending in Federal Court be transferred and consolidated before one judge in Indianapolis, Indiana. Kenneth B. Moll believes that Ford's decision to replace these defective and dangerous tires is a direct result of the pressure against the company through evidence uncovered in this litigation. Ford announced that it will replace all Wilderness AT tires, including 15, 16 and 17 inch tires on Ford Motor Company products. Customers will be able to return the recalled tires to a Ford dealer and receive free replacement tires not manufactured by Firestone. Alternatively, customers will be reimbursed for replacing these recalled tires at specified tire replacement centers. Customers will receive up to $110 for each 15 inch tire and $130 for each 16 or 17 inch Firestone tire. The reimbursement plan is available for customers who previously replaced their Wilderness AT tires that were not included in the August 8, 2000 Firestone recall and for owners of Ford Explorers, Rangers, Expeditions and F-150 trucks equipped with Wilderness AT tires. It is estimated that all 13 million tires may be replaced over the next nine months at a cost to Ford of $2.1 billion. Attorney Kenneth Moll said, "Ford has made the correct decision that will help protect millions of people. The replacement program comes as we approach the warmer summer months when, historically, most of the reported cases of tread separations have occurred. The additional 13 million recalled tires are the exact tires we requested be recalled in August, 2000 when we filed our original complaint. Unfortunately, the delay in recalling these tires may have resulted in the deaths of over 86 people." FREEMARKETS INC: Mark McNair Files Securities Suit Against CEO And CFO ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Mark McNair filed a securities class action lawsuit against FreeMarkets, Inc. (Nasdaq: FMKT). The complaint is on behalf of shareholders who purchased the stock between July 24, 2000 and April 23, 2001. The complaint alleges FreeMarkets improperly accounted for its financial results for the second, third and fourth quarters and the year of fiscal 2000. The suit names FreeMarkets' chief executive officer and chief financial officer as defendants. These officers are charged with collectively selling thousands of shares of FreeMarkets common stock during the Class Period for proceeds totaling over $17 million. GEMSTAR TV: Plaintiffs' Motion For Summary Judgment Pending in NY Court ----------------------------------------------------------------------- During July and August 2000, Gemstar TV Guide International, Inc. was served with more than twenty class action complaints filed primarily in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of magazine subscribers. These complaints, which have been consolidated into a single action, allege TV Guide, the Magazine Publishers Association, and twelve other publishers of consumer magazines have violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to limit the discounting of magazine subscription prices by means of rules adopted by the MPA and the Audit Bureau of Circulation. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, trebled unspecified damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for partial summary judgment which is pending before the Court. GLOBALSTAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Dismissal Motion Hearing Set For June 7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On February 20, 2001, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Globalstar Telecommunications Ltd. and Globalstar Capital Corporation on behalf of the owners of the 10 3/4% bonds, due November 2004 in Superior Court, New Castle County, Delaware. Globalstar Capital Corporation and Globalstar, L.P. issued the Bonds as joint obligors. The next interest payment on the Bonds was due May 1, 2001. The complaint alleges that the defendants repudiated the Bonds' registration statement, prospectus and indenture, without consent of the bondholders, when Globalstar announced that it was suspending its future interest payments on the Bonds. On April 23, 2001, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. On June 7, 2001, arguments on this motion will be heard. HIGHWOODS REALTY: Final Settlement Hearing of Suit Scheduled For Today ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On October 2, 1998, John Flake, a former stockholder of J.C. Nichols, filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and the other former stockholders of J.C. Nichols in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas against J.C. Nichols, certain of its former officers and directors and Highwoods Realty Ltd. Partnership. The complaint asserts claims against J.C. Nichols and certain named directors and officers of J.C. Nichols for breach of fiduciary duty to J.C. Nichols' stockholders, and to members of the J.C. Nichols Company Employee Stock Ownership Trust, as well as claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Sections 11 and 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 variously against J.C. Nichols, the named directors and officers of J.C. Nichols and the Company. By order dated June 18, 1999, the court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss, and the court thereafter certified the proposed class of plaintiffs with respect to the remaining claims. By order dated August 28, 2000, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' summary judgment motion. Defendants sought reconsideration of the court's ruling with respect to certain of the securities claims as to which the court denied their summary judgment motion, and by order dated January 11, 2001, the court granted in part that reconsideration motion. On the eve of the trial of this matter, the parties settled all their remaining claims. The parties have executed a Stipulation of Settlement, which has been submitted to the court. The final settlement hearing is scheduled for May 24, 2001. HUMPHREY HOSPITALITY: Faces Two Shareholders Suits Filed in ED Virginia ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A recent regulatory document filed by Humphrey Hospitality Trust, Inc. with the Securities and Exchange Commission reveals that two class actions have been filed against the Company in April this year in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint alleges certain of the Company's executive officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The complaints were brought on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock from November 14, 2000 through March 29, 2001. They allege the defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial condition and operations and artificially inflated the market price of the Company's securities during the class period. The Company denies any wrongdoing and intends to defend these claims vigorously. JDN REALTY: Says Plaintiff's Amendment to Securities Suit is Improper --------------------------------------------------------------------- JDN Realty Corporation has been named in a number of lawsuits since the discovery of undisclosed compensation arrangements with two former executive officers of JDN Development and the Company, additional unauthorized benefits to these same two former executive officers, and undisclosed related party transactions involving these two former officers and the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. One or more of these suits also names as defendants JDN Development and certain current and former officers and directors of JDN Development and/or the Company. Certain class actions filed in federal court allege violations of the federal securities laws asserting that by failing to report the undisclosed compensation, unauthorized benefits and related party transactions to the public in the Company's financial statements, public filings, and otherwise, the defendants made or participated in making material misstatements or omissions which caused the plaintiffs to purchase the Company's common and preferred stock at artificially inflated prices. Included in the class actions is a lawsuit which names among the defendants certain underwriters involved in the preferred stock offering by the Company in 1998. The Preferred Stock Class Action raises allegations similar to those raised in the other class action cases, but it is based on purported misrepresentations or omissions in the Company's registration statement and prospectus in connection with the 1998 offering. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek compensatory damages of an indeterminate amount, interest, attorneys' fees, experts' fees and other costs and disbursements. On April 17, 2000, the federal court entered an order consolidating the various class actions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On June 13, 2000, the federal court entered an order appointing Clarion-CRA Securities lead plaintiff and the law firm of Chitwood & Harley as lead plaintiff's counsel. On February 13, 2001, plaintiffs in the Preferred Stock Class Action purported to amend their complaint to add Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, PLLC, the Company's securities counsel, as a defendant. The purported amendment was not filed by the lead plaintiff and the Company has filed a motion to strike the purported amendment as improper. JDN REALTY: Shareholders File Suit For Fraud And Various Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit was also filed by shareholders against JDN Realty Corporation, JDN Development, and four former officers and directors of these companies in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia. The complaint contains substantially the same factual allegations asserted in the federal class actions, but purports to seek relief under state law for damages, which these plaintiffs allege should have been paid to the class as dividends. The original complaint contained claims of common law fraud, conversion and purported violations of Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, but the fraud count has now been dropped by way of an amended complaint recently filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and expenses, interest and equitable relief. The case was removed to federal court, but has now been remanded back to Superior Court, where it is currently pending. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Agrees to Settle Antitrust Lawsuit For $60 Million --------------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson has agreed to pay $60 million to settle a national contact lens antitrust lawsuit, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said Tuesday. Spitzer said in a statement that the settlement, which may provide as much as $100 in discounts for future purchases of contact lenses and eye exams, also requires J&J to increase the availability of replacement lenses at pharmacies, by mail order and on the Internet. The settlement was submitted for court approval Tuesday. J&J was the last defendant to settle an antitrust lawsuit brought by 32 states against three contact lens manufacturers and the American Optometric Association. In February, eye care products maker Bausch & Lomb Inc. said it would offer a rebate to customers as part of the class-action lawsuit settlement and take a charge from the case, resulting in a net loss for fourth quarter 2000. The case stems from a 1994 claim that Bausch & Lomb, Novartis AG, J&J, optometrists and the American Optometric Association conspired in refusing to sell contact lenses through alternative channels of distribution, including mail-order companies, which often offer lower prices. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial on LifeScan Lawsuit Begins This September ------------------------------------------------------------------ Johnson & Johnson and its LifeScan subsidiary are defendants in several class actions filed in federal and state courts in California in 1998 in which it is alleged that purchasers of SureStep blood glucose meters and strips suffered economic harm because those products contained undisclosed defects. In late 2000, LifeScan pleaded guilty in federal court to three misdemeanors and paid a total of $60 million in fines and civil costs to resolve an investigation related to those same alleged defects. In one of the federal class actions, a nationwide class was certified by the district court last year and trial has been scheduled for September of this year. The Company and LifeScan believe these claims are without merit and are vigorously defending these actions. LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Liberate Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: LBRT) securities during the period between July 27, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The complaint charges defendants Liberate, Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Mitchell E. Kertzman and Nancy J. Hilker with violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint further alleges the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) Credit Suisse, BancBoston and Merrill Lynch had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Credit Suisse, BancBoston and Merrill Lynch allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Liberate shares issued in connection with the Liberate IPO; and (ii) Credit Suisse, BancBoston and Merrill Lynch had entered into agreements with customers whereby Credit Suisse, BancBoston and Merrill Lynch agreed to allocate Liberate shares to those customers in the Liberate IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Liberate shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. As alleged in the complaint, the SEC is investigating underwriting practices in connection with several other initial public offerings. For more information, contact: Jackie Addison, Sue Null, or Charlie Gastineau of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP at P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438, Toll Free: 1-888-551-9944, E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's website at www.classlawyer.com. LORAL SPACE: Stull Stull Commences Shareholder Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. (NYSE:LOR) between November 4, 1999 and February 1, 2001. The action, numbered 01 Civ 4388, is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, against defendants Loral Space & Communications Ltd., Bernard Schwartz, and Richard J. Townsend. The Honorable John G. Koeltl is the judge presiding over the case. The complaint alleges that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions of material facts concerning the company's business performance during the relevant time, and that these statements failed to disclose that Globalstar was experiencing regulatory problems and delays in receiving necessary European approvals to achieve sales in conformity with Globalstar's stated business plans. In fact, undisclosed regulatory delays effectively prevented sales in Europe until approximately April or May of 2000. The statements allegedly failed to disclose that Globalstar's business plans were predicated primarily on sales in developed nations and that Globalstar phones did not offer roaming service, rendering them uncompetitive in developed nations. Furthermore, defendant Schwartz's statements about the number of phones by December 31, 1999 and December 31, 2000 were materially false. Defendant Schwartz had no basis for making such statements. Indeed, defendant Schwartz was in a clear position to know that Globalstar's projections were entirely without basis and that by December 31, 1999, Globalstar would not sell phones or achieve subscriptions in remotely those numbers. For more information, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody by calling toll-free 1-800-337-4983, or by e-mail at SSBNY@aol.com, or by fax at 212/490-2022, or by writing to Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017. MATRIX BANCORP: Subsidiary Intends to File Motion to Compel Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Matrix Bancorp, Inc. disclosed in a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that one of its primary subsidiaries, Sterling Trust Company, has been named a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits instituted by one law firm in Pennsylvania. The style of such lawsuits are as follows: (i) Douglas Wheeler, et. al. v. Pacific Air Transport, et. al.; (ii) Paul C. Jared, et. al. v. South Mountain Resort and Spa, Inc., et. al.; (iii) Lawrence Rehrig, et. al. v. Caffe Diva, et. al.; (iv) Merrill B. Christman, et. al. v. Millennium 2100, Inc., et. al.; (v) David M. Veneziale, et. al. v. Sun Broadcasting Systems, Inc., et. al.; (vi) Don Glazer, et. al. v. Technical Support Servs., Inc., et. al.; and (vii) Donald Maudlin, et. al. v. World Vision Entertainment, Inc., et. al. All of such lawsuits were originally filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On April 26, 2001, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ordered that all of such cases, except Maudlin, be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, so that Sterling Trust may properly present its motion to compel arbitration. Sterling Trust intends to file a motion to compel arbitration on each of such actions within the time frames prescribed by the District Court in Pennsylvania. With respect to the Maudlin case, Sterling Trust has filed a motion to dismiss, since Sterling Trust can find no evidence that the plaintiffs in that case ever had accounts with Sterling Trust. MICROFIELD GRAPHICS: Maintains Denial of Allegations in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In February 2000, Microfield Graphics Inc. was named in a class action lawsuit, Adair v. Microfield Graphics Inc. et. al 00 Civ. 0629 (MBM), in the United States District Court Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the Company and its Chief Executive Officer issued a series of false and misleading statements concerning, among other things, the Company's purchase agreement with 3M. The complaint alleges that, as a result of these allegedly material misstatements and omissions, the Company's stock price was artificially inflated during the period from July 23, 1998 through April 2, 1999 and requests that damages be determined at trial. The Company denies the allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself. However, the ultimate outcome of the litigation is presently undeterminable. ONYX ACCEPTANCE: Continues Vigorous Defense Against Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On January 26, 1999, Onyx Acceptance Financial Corporation released a restatement of its financial statements for the years ended December 31, 1996 and 1997, and for the first three quarters of 1998. On January 25, 2000, a putative class action complaint was filed, and has since been amended, against the Company and certain of its officers and directors alleging, among other matters, violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from this restatement. Onyx is vigorously defending against this matter and believes the resolution of this litigation will not have a material adverse effect on Onyx's consolidated financial position. OPEN DOOR: Milazzo Fortunato Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------------- Milazzo, Fortunato, McCann & Murray, LLC, attorneys for Camille M. Barbone and Tom Carley, have filed a motion in their class action and derivative lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County seeking to add as a defendant Open Door Online, Inc. The suit alleges that Open Door Online, DeBaene and the Board of Directors have committed fraud by substituting, without consent or authorization, securities in lieu of payment on account of promissory notes given by ODOL in exchange for loans from investors. It also alleges that the acts of DeBaene and his co-defendants constitute crimes in the nature of "racketeering" including, but not limited to, theft, forgery, fraudulent practices and fraud in the offering, sale or purchase of securities. Further allegations describe misrepresentations made by DeBaene and Randolph Biemel, through Mission Bay Consultant, when raising capital for ODOL whereby they solicited loans for ODOL through the guise of no risk, high interest promissory notes. Other counts include the following allegation: (i) sale of unregistered securities, (ii) sale of unregistered or registered securities by unlicensed persons, (iii) solicitation of investments through false representations, (iv) creation of false debt on ODOL's books, (v) issuance of shares to DeBaene and his co-defendents without any valid consideration with the intent to hinder, (vi) delay and/or defraud the creditors and shareholders of ODOL, and (vii) interference with the property rights of the Plaintiff class. On April 10, 2001 the Plaintiffs attended the shareholders' meeting at Open Door's corporate headquarters located in Coventry, Rhode Island. A two tier voting procedure was adopted until such time as the court rules on the shares of stock DeBaene and the Board of Directors authorized and issued on the eve of the lawsuit. The hearing is set for June 8, 2001 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County. For further information, contact the attorneys for Camille M. Barbone and Tom Carley: Milazzo, Fortunato, McCann & Murray, LLC 15 Warren Street, Suite 20 Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 (201) 343-7070 (Telephone) (201) 343-7916 (Facsimile) E-Mail: MFMLAWYERS@cs.com OPEN MARKET: Court Consolidates Securities Suits Filed Against Company ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Six putative class actions were filed between June 14, 2000 and August 10, 2000, against Open Market Inc. and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. These actions, each filed on behalf of an alleged class of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between November 18, 1999 and April 18, 2000, allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act. On January 25, 2001, the court entered an order consolidating these actions into one action. This consolidated case is entitled IN RE OPEN MARKET SECURITIES LITIGATION, C.A. No. 00-CV-11162. On April 13, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. P-COM INC: California Court Certifies Shareholders Plaint as Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In September and October 1998, several class action complaints were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, on behalf of P-Com stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired P-Com Inc.'s Common Stock between April 1997 and September 11, 1998. The plaintiffs allege various state securities laws violations by P-Com and certain of its officers and directors. The complaints seek un- quantified compensatory, punitive and other damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive and/or equitable relief. On December 3, 1998, the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, entered an order consolidating all of the above complaints. On June 30, 2000 the Superior Court of California issued a notice of ruling certifying this matter as a class action. PROTECTION ONE: Court to Hear Motion to Dismiss Amended Plaint in June ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Protection One, Inc., its subsidiary Protection One Alarm Monitoring, and certain present and former officers and directors of Protection One are defendants in a purported class action litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Alec Garbini, et al v. Protection One, Inc., et al., No CV 99-3755 DT (RCx). Pursuant to an Order dated August 2, 1999, four pending purported class actions were consolidated into a single action. On February 27, 2001, plaintiffs filed a Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of a class consisting of all purchasers of publicly traded securities of Protection One, including common stock and notes, during the period of February 10, 1998 through February 2, 2001. The Amended Complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Protection One, Monitoring, and certain present and former officers and directors of Protection One based on allegations that various statements concerning Protection One's financial results and operations for 1997, 1998, 1999 and the first three quarters of 2000 were false and misleading and not in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that former employees of Protection One have reported that Protection One lacked adequate internal accounting controls and that certain accounting information was unsupported or manipulated by management in order to avoid disclosure of accurate information. The Amended Complaint further asserts claims against Western Resources and Westar Industries as controlling persons under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A claim is also asserted under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against Protection One's auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP. The Amended Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and an award of fees and expenses, including attorneys' fees. Defendants have moved to dismiss, in part, the Amended Complaint. The motion is scheduled to be heard June 4, 2001. PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Class Remains Uncertified in Illinois and Alabama ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Providian Financial Corporation disclosed in a recent regulatory document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it is facing three class actions pending in state courts in San Mateo County, California, Cook County, Illinois, and Bullock County, Alabama. These actions were not consolidated with the Consolidated Action in California and are proceeding separately. The parties have reached an agreement to settle the San Mateo County, California action, which involves a class consisting of a relatively small number of California customers. The settlement, which will not have a material impact on the Company, is subject to court approval. No class has been certified in the Cook County, Illinois or Bullock County, Alabama actions. A motion to dismiss the Cook County, Illinois action has been granted with prejudice, and the plaintiff has filed an appeal. These other state actions also contain substantially the same allegations as those alleged in the Consolidated Action. Certain of the actions also allege unconscionable or improper terms and fees, disclosure violations, failure to honor customer requests and breach of promises to customers. QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: Settlement Pact Awaits Approval From Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- Beginning on September 30, 1999, several purported class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina against Quintiles Transnational Corporation and several of its executive officers and directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock between July 16, 1999, and September 15, 1999. These actions were subsequently consolidated and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint purporting to represent a class of purchasers of the stock or call options, and sellers of put options, during the period between April 21, 1999, and September 15, 1999. The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. Accordingly, the Company and the named officers and directors filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Immediately prior to the hearing scheduled on February 6, 2001, on the motion to dismiss, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. The parties have negotiated a memorandum of understanding and the settlement is before the court for approval. RAZORFISH INC.: Court Intends to Dismiss Securities Suit in SD New York ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Razorfish, Inc. (NASDAQ: RAZF), a global digital solutions provider, announced Tuesday the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York intends to dismiss the securities class action filed in December 2000 against Razorfish and certain of Razorfish's current and former officers and directors. The Court informed the parties of its decision by telephone yesterday and indicated that its opinion would be issued at a later date. The litigation alleged that Razorfish and certain of its former officers made misleading statements about the integration of i-Cube -- a company acquired by Razorfish in 1999 -- in order to inflate Razorfish's share price. The Court's decision follows an earlier opinion appointing the lead plaintiff in the litigation in which the Court criticized the litigation as "lawyer-driven." Razorfish is represented in the litigation by Jack Auspitz, Hilary Williams, Julie Glynn and Susan Quinn of the New York office of Morrison & Foerster. RSA SECURITY: Agreement to Settle Shareholders Suit Needs Court Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- On or about December 11, 1998, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of RSA Security Inc. during the period from and including September 30, 1997 through July 15, 1998: Fitzer v. Security Dynamics Technologies, Inc., Charles R. Stuckey, Jr., D. James Bidzos, Arthur W. Coviello, Jr., John Adams, Marian G. Leary and Linda B. Saris, Civil Action No. 98-CV-12496-WGY. The plaintiffs subsequently dismissed without prejudice the claims against Ms. Saris. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants misled the investing public concerning demand for the Company's products, the strengths of its technologies, and certain trends in its business and sought unspecified damages, interest, costs and fees of their attorneys, accountants and experts. On September 28, 2000, the United States District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and entered a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. On October 18, 2000, the plaintiffs filed in the District Court a notice of appeal from the judgment. After the notice of appeal was filed, the defendants made a motion to the District Court to modify the judgment of dismissal, and to add certain material to the record on appeal. The District Court denied the defendants' motion, and defendants' appeal from the denial of the motion has been consolidated with the plaintiffs' appeal. The parties have agreed to settle the case, subject to court approval. SECURITY CAPITAL: Homestead Pays $675,000 to Settle Shareholders Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A majority-owned investee of Security Capital Group, Inc., Homestead Village Incorporated, and its Board of Directors were named as defendants in five purported class action lawsuits filed in connection with the proposed offer made by Security Capital in March 2000 to acquire all shares of Homestead not owned by Security Capital. The plaintiffs sought unspecified money charges and an injunction. In May 2000, the plaintiffs' lawyers, Homestead, its Board of Directors and Security Capital entered into a memorandum of understanding under which the plaintiffs' lawyers agreed to settle these claims for the payment of a total of $675,000 for fees and expenses. The settlement was approved by the court in March 2001 after notice to all former Homestead shareholders of the proposed settlement. Homestead made the payment of $675,000 in April 2001 in settlement of the class action lawsuits filed. SMARTFORCE PUBLIC: Mounting Strong Defense Against Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Since the end of the third quarter of 1998, a class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California Smartforce Public Limited Company, its subsidiary SmartForce USA, and certain of its former and current officers and directors alleging violation of the federal securities laws. It has been alleged the Company misrepresented or omitted to state material facts regarding its business and financial condition and prospects in order to artificially inflate and maintain the price of its ADSs, and misrepresented or omitted to state material facts in its registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with its merger with ForeFront, which also is alleged to have artificially inflated the price of the Company's ADSs. The Company believes this action is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. SOUTHERN EDISON: Faces Securities Suit in L.A. For Fraudulent Report -------------------------------------------------------------------- In October 2000, a class action securities lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Los Angeles against Southern California Edison Company and Edison International. As amended in December 2000 and March 2001, the lawsuit alleges that SCE and Edison International are engaging in fraud by over-reporting and improperly accounting for the Transition Revenue Account undercollections. The second amended complaint is supposedly filed on behalf of a class of persons who purchased Edison International common stock beginning June 1, 2000, and continuing until such time as TRA-related undercollections are recorded as a loss by SCE. The response to the second amended complaint was deferred. This lawsuit has been consolidated with another similar lawsuit filed on March 15, 2001. SCE believes that its current and past accounting for the TRA undercollections and related items is appropriate and in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. SPEEDWAY MOTORSPORT: Class Has Yet to be Certified in Johnson Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------------- On March 8, 2001, Larry L. Johnson filed a class action complaint, against Speedway Motorsport Inc. and Oil-Chem, in the Superior Court of Gaston County, North Carolina. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified damages for violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The class has not been certified and no discovery has taken place. SMI intends to defend itself vigorously. Management does not believe the outcome of this lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or future results of operations. SULZER ORTHOPEDICS: Weiner & Cox Files Liability Suit in Michigan ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed in Macomb County Circuit Court, on behalf of Michigan residents who had hip replacement surgery after July, 1997, and received a defective Inter-Op joint, which has since been recalled by Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc. Attorneys filing the lawsuit are Cy Weiner and Elizabeth Thomson of Weiner & Cox in Southfield, and Robert E. Garvey, P.C. of St. Clair Shores. Sulzer manufactured and sold over 17,000 defective hip implant devices between July, 1997 and December 8, 2000. This problem is affecting thousands of people nationwide. "Our office has been flooded with calls from concerned people who have undergone hip replacement surgeries. The number of our potential class members is growing every day," says Cy Weiner, principal attorney with Weiner & Cox. "We will aggressively pursue our lawsuit against Sulzer to see that the future medical needs of our potential class will be secured," he added. The lawyers are preparing to seek certification of the class in the near future. The case has been assigned to the courtroom of Judge George E. Montgomery. For additional information, contact: Elizabeth Thomson, Robert Garvey or Cy Weiner at 1-800-701-0900. ********* 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. Larri-Nil G. Veloso and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 301/951-6400. * * * End of Transmission * * *