/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010817.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 17, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 161 Headlines ARAMARK CORPORATION: Sued For Managers' Alleged Racial Discrimination BAYER CORPORATION: Federman and Woska Firms File W.D. Oklahoma Suits BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Dismissal Moves Plaintiffs To File Amended Suit DETROIT EDISON: Says Discrimination Suit Certification Inappropriate ELOQUENT INC.: Cauley Geller Raises Securities Suit In S.D. New York FREEMARKETS INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY GENERAL NUTRITION: Settlement Deal Provides $4.2M In Product Credits GLOBAL CROSSING: Lovell & Stewart Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY HARMONIC INC.:Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Securities Violation Suit ITXC CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York LEGATO SYSTEMS: Suit Dismissed, But Plaintiffs Allowed To Amend It LUPRON LITIGATION: Manufacturers Sued Anew In N.D. Illinois MANPOWER INC.: 1999 Damage Suit In Louisiana Set For Trial On Sept. 4 MARINE DRILLING: Inks Agreement With "Offshore Workers" In Wage Suit NETSILICON INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York ON-POINT TECHNOLOGY: Final Approval Of Settlement Deal Still Pending OPEN MARKET: Shareholders File Opposition To Dismissal Request OPENTV CORPORATION: Stull Stull Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY PEOPLESOFT INC.: Court Holds Final $15M Settlement Approval Hearing PEOPLESOFT INC.: Counter Suit Against Ex-worker Planned PEOPLESOFT INC.: Declines To Speculate On Ruling In `99 Suit PORTAL SOFTWARE: Marc Henzel Initiates S.D. New York Securities Suit PSS WORLD: Berger & Montague Files Securities Suit In M.D. Florida QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CO Securities Suit RAMBUS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Initiates N.D. CA Securities Suit ROWECOM INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York TREX COMPANY: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit In W.D. Virginia ********* ARAMARK CORPORATION: Sued For Managers' Alleged Racial Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action race discrimination lawsuit was filed Wednesday against the nation's largest provider of outsourcing services, ARAMARK Corporation, which posted revenues in excess of $7 billion in 2000. The suit is being handled by a team of lawyers at two Philadelphia firms: (1) Joel I. Fishbein at Abrahams, Loewenstein & Bushman, P.C. and (2) Stephen A.Whinston, Jonathan Auerbach and Shanon J. Carson at Berger & Montague, P.C. The suit alleges that ARAMARK Corporation managers are guilty of ongoing, pervasive racial discrimination against African-Americans employed by ARAMARK at Philadelphia's Presbyterian Medical Center. Ten African-American workers filed the suit for themselves and on behalf of all African-American workers in the Patient Services, Environmental Services and Distribution Departments. Workers in these departments, who are predominately African-American, transport patients throughout the Presbyterian Medical Center complex, clean the rooms and floors, and distribute the linens. The complaint alleges that white managers harass African-American workers through an oppressive pattern of unfair and unjustified discipline. In response to repeated complaints by the African-American workers, according to the complaint, white managers retaliate by raising the level of discipline. The suit alleges that four of the named plaintiffs were fired based upon fabricated disciplinary charges. The workers contend they were really fired because they objected to the discriminatory pattern of discipline. The plaintiffs claim ARAMARK employees in other departments, who are mostly white, are not subjected to unfair discipline. One white manager is alleged to have referred to one African-American worker under his supervision as a "nigger." Another African-American worker was called a "black punk" to his face, according to the suit. ARAMARK's corporate motto is "Managed Services - Managed Better." In its employee handbook, distributed to all employees in all ARAMARK facilities, ARAMARK claims that it will not tolerate racial harassment. Yet, according to the complaint, when employees complained about racial harassment in this case, their complaints were ignored. According to Fortune Magazine, ARAMARK Corporation is the nation's largest outsourcing company. ARAMARK is ranked 258 in the Fortune 500 and is the 23rd largest employer on that list. ARAMARK's business is to provide catering, meeting planning, childcare, education, janitorial services, recreational activities and uniform services to its clients. BAYER CORPORATION: Federman and Woska Firms File W.D. Oklahoma Suits -------------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood, Strong, Martin & Associates, and Woska & Hasbrook, PLLC recently filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against Bayer Corporation, a subsidiary of Bayer AG (OTC Bulletin Board: BAYZY) for the manufacture and distribution of a medication known as "Baycol." Baycol is prescribed to lower plasma cholesterol levels. This is the first known class action filed against Bayer Corporation concerning Baycol. For more details, contact: William B. Federman by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 by Phone: (405) 235-1560 or by Fax: (405) 239-2112 BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel recently filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Bottomline Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: EPAY) between February 12, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about February 12, 1999, Bottomline commenced an initial public offering of 3,400,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $13 per share. In connection therewith, Bottomline filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) Robertson Stephens had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Robertson Stephens allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Bottomline shares issued in connection with the Bottomline IPO; and (2) Robertson Stephens had entered into agreements with customers whereby Robertson Stephens agreed to allocate Bottomline shares to those customers in the Bottomline IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Bottomline 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 further details, contact: The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 210 West Washington Square, Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106 by Phone: (888) 643-6735 or (215) 625-9999 by Fax: (215) 440-9475 by E- mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Dismissal Moves Plaintiffs To File Amended Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs who brought a suit against Commonwealth Edison Company in relation to a 1999 power interruption recently filed a second amended complaint, a Company report to the Securities and Exchange Commission said. According to the Company, the amended complaint was filed June 1, almost two months after an April Illinois court dismissal of four of the five counts alleged in the suit. The suit was originally filed in August 1999, seeking damages for personal injuries, property damage and economic losses related to a series of service interruptions in the summer of 1999. The combined effect of these interruptions resulted in over 168,000 customers losing service for more than four hours. The Court has approved conditional class certification for the sole purpose of exploring settlement talks. DETROIT EDISON: Says Discrimination Suit Certification Inappropriate -------------------------------------------------------------------- Detroit Edison Company dismissed a discrimination class action suit recently as without merit and claimed that a certification of the case is inappropriate. The suit was filed by a purported class of job applicants who allege discrimination on the basis of race and national origin with respect to the Company's pre-employment testing program and testing-related procedures. Ercilio Beltran lodged the suit last month in the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, Michigan. Detroit Edison, a subsidiary of DTE Energy Company, distributes electricity to some 2.1 million customers in southeastern Michigan. The utility's power plants (mainly fossil-fueled) have a generating capacity of more than 11,000 MW. ELOQUENT INC.: Cauley Geller Raises Securities Suit In S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------------- Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP lodged recently class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Eloquent, Inc. (Nasdaq: ELOQ) securities during the period between February 17, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The complaint charges the following defendants with violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder: (1) Eloquent, (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, (3) Lehman Brothers Inc., (4) Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., (5) Salomon Smith Barney Inc., (6) Abraham Kleinfeld and (7) R. John Curson On or about February 17, 2000, Eloquent commenced an initial public offering of 4.5 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $16.00 per share. In connection therewith, Eloquent filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the Underwriter Defendants (Robertson Stephens, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and Smith Barney) had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Eloquent shares issued in connection with the Eloquent IPO; and (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate Eloquent shares to those customers in the Eloquent IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Eloquent shares in the aftermarket at pre- determined prices. For more information, contact: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP through its Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll free) or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com FREEMARKETS INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Stull, Stull & Brody filed Wednesday a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of FreeMarkets, Inc. (NASDAQ:FMKT) common stock between December 9, 1999 and July 30, 2001, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling FreeMarkets common stock pursuant to the December 9, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors. The complaint alleges that, in exchange for the excessive commissions, members of the underwriting group allocated FreeMarkets shares to customers at the IPO price of $48 per share. To receive the allocations (i.e. the ability to purchase shares) at $48, the underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher prices. The requirement that customers make additional purchases at progressively higher prices as the price of FreeMarkets stock rocketed upward (a practice known as "laddering") was intended to (and did) drive FreeMarket's share price up to artificially high levels. This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both the underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the $48 IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $293.00 during its first day of trading. Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the IPO, the complaint alleges, the underwriters required their customers to "kick back" some of their profits in the form of secret commissions. These secret commission payments were sometimes calculated after the fact based on how much profit each investor had made from his or her IPO stock allocation. The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 because the Prospectus distributed to investors and the Registration Statement filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory approval for the FreeMarkets offering contained material misstatements regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the IPO transaction and failed to disclose the additional commissions and "laddering" scheme discussed above. For more information, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. by Phone: 1-800-337- 4983 (toll free) by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com by Fax: 212/490-2022 or by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 GENERAL NUTRITION: Settlement Deal Provides $4.2M In Product Credits -------------------------------------------------------------------- General Nutrition Companies, Inc. announced Wednesday that it has reached settlement of three lawsuits that sought class action status for all of the Company's U.S. franchisees. The agreement provides franchisees, as a group, with credits of approximately $4.2 million for use over 24 months for GNC products purchased through the company's wholesale distribution affiliate along with system enhancements, including the continuation of some that were already in place. Mike Meyers, President and COO of GNC, said "Our franchisees are critical to the growth of the GNC brand, and we are committed to meeting their needs as members of one of the best franchising systems in the world. "We entered into this agreement to provide a business solution for our franchisees that resolves lengthy legal actions that benefit nobody. "While GNC does not admit to any wrongdoing or taking any actions against the interests of our franchisees, our franchising system continues to evolve and we believe that the changes spelled out in this agreement will benefit both GNC and our franchisees. We are pleased to bring this matter to a successful conclusion," he said. "At the same time," he added, "this is the latest, most significant step in the 'New Deal' that GNC's new management team announced at our 11th annual franchise convention in June. "Our commitment to a long-term partnership with our franchisees is demonstrated by the cutting-edge programs that were put into place in the first seven months of this year, including the elimination of the co-op ad structure, the expansion of GNC's national ad campaign, enhancements to the GENESIS franchisee intranet, extended payment terms on products purchased from GNC, free shipping of special orders placed electronically between the standard two-week shipments, free product samples when we launch new GNC brands, new science-based products, the re-launch of GNC's popular Preventive Nutrition line, and the launch of the ProPerformance Elite Series," Meyers said. Notice of the proposed settlement will be sent to all U.S. franchisees. The settlement is available to any U.S. GNC franchisee that does not opt out of the settlement. In the settlement, the company committed to improving its franchisees' business through the following: (1) Providing each franchisee wholesale credits on purchases of GNC's private label products in the amount of $125 per store a month for 24 months, or approximately $4.2 million for the franchise system as a whole. The company and its franchisees continue to recognize the importance of GNC brands in the success of GNC stores. (2) Protecting franchisees from any increases in franchise renewal fees by placing a cap on what franchisees will pay for one five-year renewal term. The company expects all franchisees will take advantage of this offer by renewing the initial term of their franchise agreements. (3) Foregoing franchisee royalties on products, if any, promoted by GNC in Let's Live Magazine, a third-party publication sent to active GNC Gold Card members, at a retail price below their GNC wholesale cost. (4) Providing through the company's new Intranet communications system immediate electronic notice of discontinued products, and a minimum 20-day notice concerning system-wide price reductions for a majority of all discontinued products. (5) Crediting franchisees for any discontinued products inadvertently shipped as part of a store opening order and limiting less-popular products in opening-store inventories. The company also reaffirmed its commitment to helping franchisees improve their businesses by: (i) Extending through 2003, franchisees' current wholesale cost for GNC Gold Cards. (ii) Continuing for at least three years from the date of implementation a new franchisee wholesale loyalty reward program that provides rebates to franchisees. (iii) Restating in writing GNC's longstanding policy that franchisees may buy direct from third-party vendors. Russ Cooper, Senior Vice President and General Manager of GNC Franchising, Inc., said, "These are changes that will benefit both GNC and our franchisees while strengthening the franchising system itself." "GNC remains committed to the letter and the spirit of our franchising mission statement: To be a worldwide leader in franchising by developing the world's highest quality support services, and awarding license agreements to qualified candidates who share our growth and customer service objectives," Cooper said. Cooper added, ``This settlement goes a long way toward resolving the business disputes and litigation involving franchisees, about 1 percent of our more than 1,400 U.S. franchise locations. "We firmly believe that going to court is always the least desirable way to resolve business differences between a franchisor and its franchisees. Signing this agreement is not in any way an admission of wrongdoing by GNC. "We appreciate the efforts made by legal counsel on both sides in bringing this to a successful conclusion. Our goal now is to continue building on the system enhancements that have been put into place this year that contribute directly to sales and profitability for all of our franchisees," Copper said. General Nutrition Companies, Inc. (GNC), based in Pittsburgh, PA, is the largest nationwide specialty retailer of vitamin, mineral and herbal supplements, sports nutrition as well as many personal care and related products. GNC operates more than 4,500 retail outlets throughout the United States and 26 foreign markets including Puerto Rico, Canada and Mexico. GNC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Numico N.V., a worldwide market leader in specialized nutrition that includes infant and clinical nutrition and nutritional supplements. GLOBAL CROSSING: Lovell & Stewart Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lovell & Stewart, LLP filed a class action lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of all persons and entities who acquired the common stock of Global Crossing Ltd. (NYSE:GX) between August 13, 1998 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The lawsuit asserts claims under Section 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder and seeks to recover damages. The action, Jacob v. Global Crossing Ltd., et al., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and has been assigned to the Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S. District Judge. The complaint alleges that Global Crossing and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Global Crossing common stock pursuant to the initial public offering without disclosing to investors that at least seven of the underwriters of the Global Crossing IPO had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors. In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, co- lead underwriters Salomon Smith Barney Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co., and Morgan Stanley & Co. and underwriters Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. and Lehman Brothers, Inc. allocated Global Crossing shares to customers at the IPO price of $19.00 per share. To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at $19.00, the defendant underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher prices. The requirement that customers make additional purchases at progressively higher prices as the price of Global Crossing stock rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did) drive Global Crossing's share price up to artificially high levels. This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both the defendant underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying Global Crossing stock at the $19.00 IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $26.81 during its first day of trading. Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the IPO, the complaint alleges, the defendant underwriters required their customers to "kick back" some of their profits in the form of secret commissions. These secret commission payments were sometimes calculated after the fact based on how much profit each investor had made from his or her IPO stock allocation. The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 because the Prospectus distributed to investors and the Registration Statement filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory approval for the Global Crossing offering contained material misstatements regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the IPO and failed to disclose the additional commissions and "laddering" scheme discussed above. For additional information, contact: Lovell & Stewart, LLP through Christopher Lovell, Victor E. Stewart, or Christopher J. Gray by Phone: 212/608-1900 or by E-mail: sklovell@aol.com HARMONIC INC.:Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Securities Violation Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Harmonic, Inc. informed the Securities and Exchange Commission recently that the federal court handling a securities class action against it has granted its motion to dismiss said case. The court sustained the motion in February, although it also afforded the plaintiffs until August 13 to amend their consolidated complaint. It is not clear whether or not the plaintiffs were able to file their amended complaint in time for the deadline that expired last Monday. The consolidated suit was originally filed in several separate class actions between June and August 2000, alleging violations of the federal securities laws by the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The complaint alleges that, by making false or misleading statements regarding the Company's prospects and customers and its acquisition of C-Cube, certain defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint also alleged that certain defendants violated section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by filing a false or misleading registration statement, prospectus, and joint proxy in connection with the C-Cube acquisition. The consolidated suit awaits resolution in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. "Based on its review of the previous complaints in the securities class action and consultations with legal counsel, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will prevail," the Company told SEC. Harmonic, Inc. develops and sells digital and fiber optic systems for Internet access and video-on-demand services. Its broadband network access products include multiplexers, optical nodes, transmitters, and optical amplifiers. Harmonic also offers converged data network equipment such as digital headend systems, digital signal encoders, and complete provider-to- subscriber data delivery systems. ITXC CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel lodged recently a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of ITXC Corp. (Nasdaq: ITXC) between September 27, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action alleges the following as defendants: ITXC, Lehman Brothers Inc., FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc., Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Incorporated Tom I. Evslin, and Edward B. Jordan. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about September 27, 1999, ITXC commenced an initial public offering of 6,250,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $12 per share. In connection therewith, ITXC filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) the Underwriter Defendants had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of ITXC shares issued in connection with the ITXC IPO; and (2) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby they agreed to allocate ITXC shares to those customers in the ITXC IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional ITXC shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. For more information, contact: The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 210 West Washington Square, Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106 by Phone: 888-643-6735 or 215-625-9999 by Fax: 215-440-9475 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 LEGATO SYSTEMS: Suit Dismissed, But Plaintiffs Allowed To Amend It ------------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. District Court, Northern District of California recently granted a motion filed by Legato Systems, Inc. and other defendants seeking the dismissal of a shareholder suit filed last year. However, along with the dismissal July 10, the court also allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The Company is just a nominal defendant in the suit that claims that defendants breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in improper insider trading. Legato's management software backs up and protects data on computer networks, and recovers data after catastrophes. Its customers include the Southern Company, British Airways, and Credit Suisse Group. LUPRON LITIGATION: Manufacturers Sued Anew In N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- Abbott Laboratories, TAP Pharmaceuticals Products, Inc. and Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. were sued anew in relation to its Lupron drug recently. In a SEC regulatory document filed by Abbott Laboratories, the Company revealed that the suit was brought last June 12 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit alleges civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in connection with the marketing of Lupron, purports to be a class action on behalf of all entities and individuals who paid the twenty percent co-payment cost of Lupron, and seeks treble damages and other relief. Abbott intends to file a response denying all substantive allegations. Lupron is commonly used in the treatment of prostate cancer and manufactured only by the above defendants. MANPOWER INC.: 1999 Damage Suit In Louisiana Set For Trial On Sept. 4 --------------------------------------------------------------------- A 1999 class action suit asserting personal injuries and property damages is scheduled to go on trial on September 4, bares a report filed by Manpower, Inc. to the Securities and Exchange Commission. "Although several recent court rulings have been adverse to the Company, it intends to continue to vigorously contest these lawsuits," the report said. In the same report, the Company also said that should the ultimate judgments or settlements exceed its insurance coverage, they could have a material effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position and cash flows. This case stems from a 1999 explosion at a customer's industrial facility. Allegedly, the injuries and damages were caused in part by the actions of one of the Company's temporary employees. The case is pending in a Louisiana court. Manpower, Inc. is the world's second-largest temporary-employment company. With about 3,700 owned or franchised offices in some 60 countries (mainly France, the UK, and the US), it places more than 2.7 million people in office, industrial, and professional positions. MARINE DRILLING: Inks Agreement With "Offshore Workers" In Wage Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Marine Drilling Companies Inc. has reached recently a settlement agreement in a class action suit filed by an offshore worker over depressed wages and benefits paid to offshore employees. According to a SEC regulatory document, the Company recorded a $5.1 million provision in its June financial statements to cover for the preliminary settlement agreement with the plaintiff. The agreement needs court approval, the SEC report said. Verdin vs. R&B Falcon Drilling USA Inc., et al. is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The case was filed in August last year. The plaintiff, previously employed by another defendant in the action, purports to be an "offshore worker" and alleges that a number of offshore drilling contractors have acted in concert to depress wages and benefits paid to their offshore employees. The plaintiff contends this is a violation of federal and state antitrust laws and seeks an unspecified amount of treble damages, attorney's fees and costs on behalf of himself and an alleged class of offshore contract workers. Marine Drilling is an oil and gas-drilling contractor, operating five independent leg jack-ups, 10 mat-supported jack-ups, and two semi- submersibles. The Company is active primarily in the Gulf of Mexico but also drills in the North Sea and offshore Australia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East. NETSILICON INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP filed Wednesday a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of NETsilicon, Inc. (NASDAQ: NSIL) between September 15, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending against defendants NETsilicon, CIBC World Markets Corp., U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc., Cornelius Peterson and Daniel J. Sullivan and is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about September 15, 1999 NETsilicon commenced an initial public offering of 5,250,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $7.00 per share. In connection therewith, NETsilicon filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) CIBC World Markets Corp. and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc. had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of NETsilicon shares issued in connection with the NETsilicon IPO; and (2) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate NETsilicon shares to those customers in the NETsilicon IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional NETsilicon shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. For more information, contact: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by Phone: 800/320-5081 by E-mail: netsiliconcase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com ON-POINT TECHNOLOGY: Final Approval Of Settlement Deal Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------------- There is still no word from the court considering a settlement agreement that would free On-Point Technology Systems, Inc. from any liability in a securities class action filed last year. In a report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company said the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has yet to issue its final nod on the settlement deal. Under the settlement agreement, On-Point would issue shares equal to $950 thousand in value on the date the shares are required to be issued to the class. On-Point and the other defendants have also denied the liability claims as part of the amended settlements. Shareholders of the Company filed the suit, claiming that On-Point violated federal securities laws by the dissemination of materially false and misleading financial statements. On-Point is a player in the Internet lottery market. OPEN MARKET: Shareholders File Opposition To Dismissal Request -------------------------------------------------------------- The federal court in Massachusetts granted Open Market Inc.'s request for dismissal of a shareholders suit, but plaintiffs quickly replied with a motion opposing the dismissal. Open Market earnestly awaited the resolution of the motion, which it filed in May. Recently, though, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts acted on the motion, but allowed plaintiffs a chance to file a motion stating its opposition. The plaintiffs' motion was filed last August 3, according to a SEC report filed by the Company recently. The shareholders suit is a consolidation of six putative class action suits filed between June 2000 and August 2000, against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. This action represents an alleged class of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between November 18, 1999 and April 18, 2000. It alleges 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. OPENTV CORPORATION: Stull Stull Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody commenced recently a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of OpenTV Corp. (NASDAQ:OPTV) from between November 22, 1999 and July 31, 2001, inclusive. The suit is pending against OpenTV Corp., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporation, Jan Steenkamp and Randall S. Livingston. The complaint alleges that on or about November 22, 1999 Open TV commenced an initial public offering of 7,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $20 per share. In connection therewith, OpenTV filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) Merrill Lynch had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Merrill Lynch allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of OpenTV shares issued in connection with the OpenTV IPO; and (2) Merrill Lynch had entered into agreements with customers whereby Merrill Lynch agreed to allocate OpenTV shares to those customers in the OpenTV IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional OpenTV shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. For further information, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. by Phone: 1-800- 337-4983 (toll free) by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com by Fax: 212/490-2022 or by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 PEOPLESOFT INC.: Court Holds Final $15M Settlement Approval Hearing ------------------------------------------------------------------- PeopleSoft, Inc. expects a ruling anytime on a settlement agreement since the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held a final approval hearing August 9. The settlement involves a $15 million offer by the Company in exchange for the dropping of the securities class actions filed beginning January 29, 1999. The suits, which have since been consolidated into one action, represent all purchasers of PeopleSoft common stock during the period April 22, 1997 to January 28, 1999. It alleges that PeopleSoft misrepresented the degree of market acceptance of its products, the technical capabilities of its products, the success of certain acquisitions it had made, and the anticipated financial performance of the Company in fiscal 1999. The Company is the No.3 seller of applications that tie together customers' global back-office operations. Its enterprise resource planning (ERP) software addresses such tasks as accounting, manufacturing, and supply chain management. PEOPLESOFT INC.: Counter Suit Against Ex-worker Planned ------------------------------------------------------- PeopleSoft, Inc. said recently in a SEC report it will pursue a cross complaint against a former employee who has a pending case against the Company for wrongful discharge and harassment, among other allegations. The former employee, however, received a jury-returned favorable verdict on the count of liability and allowed the trial to proceed on the issue of damages. The ex-employee filed the suit in November 1996 in the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda, alleging wrongful discharge, retaliation, age discrimination and harassment. The plaintiff is seeking damages for lost wages, lost stock options, emotional distress, and punitive damages. The Company, however, has filed a counter suit based upon plaintiff's violation of Penal Code section 632 and the plaintiff taking of proprietary information from the Company. The trial on the plaintiff's action was trifurcated on the issues of liability, damages and the Company's cross complaint. The cross complaint filed by the Company has not yet been heard. "The Company will continue to vigorously defend the action, which may include an appeal," the SEC report said. PEOPLESOFT INC.: Declines To Speculate On Ruling In `99 Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The 9th Appellate Circuit Court recently held a hearing on the appeal by plaintiffs seeking to reverse the dismissal of a case filed against PeopleSoft, Inc. two years ago. A decision is still pending, but the Company expects it to be handed down at any time. Although the suit was dismissed in March last year, the Company declined to speculate on the ruling, claiming only that the suit has no merits. The appeal hearing was held July 11, 2001. The suit consolidates several complaints filed beginning July 1999 alleging Vantive Corporation, then a newly-acquired Company, violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. PORTAL SOFTWARE: Marc Henzel Initiates S.D. New York Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel recently began a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Portal Software, Inc. (Nasdaq: PRSF) between May 5, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. Named as defendants are Portal Software, Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co., Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., John E. Little and Jack L. Acosta. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about May 5, 1999, Portal Software commenced an initial public offering of 4,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $14 per share. In connection therewith, Portal Software filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse and Robertson Stephens had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse and Robertson Stephens allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Portal Software shares issued in connection with the Portal Software IPO; and (2) Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse and Robertson Stephens had entered into agreements with customers whereby Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse and Robertson Stephens agreed to allocate Portal Software shares to those customers in the Portal Software IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Portal Software 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 additional information, contact: The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 210 West Washington Square, Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106 by Phone: 888-643-6735 or 215-625-9999 by Fax: 215-440-9475 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel18 PSS WORLD: Berger & Montague Files Securities Suit In M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------ Berger & Montague, P.C. recently filed a class action suit on behalf of an investor against PSS World Medical, Inc. (Nasdaq: PSSI) and its two principal officers in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased PSS World Medical common stock during the period from October 26, 1999 through September 1, 2000, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between October 26, 1999 and September 1, 2000, thereby artificially inflating the price of PSS World Medical securities. Throughout the Class Period, the defendants issued multiple press releases and filed quarterly reports and an annual report with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which materially overstated the Company's net income in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. On June 22, 2000, the defendants issued a press release announcing its yearend results and that the Company had entered into a definitive stock-for-stock merger agreement with Fisher Scientific International, Inc. The market reacted favorably to this announcement because of the value of the exchange ratio of Fisher's shares. One of the key terms of the merger, which was belatedly disclosed by the Company, was that the Company had to report EBITDA of not less than $23 million for the quarter in order for the merger to be consummated. In an August 8, 2000 press release, the defendants announced that they were in compliance with this provision of the merger agreement and that the merger was expected to proceed. On September 1, 2000, the Company issued a press release reporting that the merger agreement had been terminated. In response to this announcement, the market reevaluated the true value of PSS World Medical's shares, which had been buoyed by the potential exchange value of Fisher's stock during the Class Period, and, accordingly, shares of PSS World Medical's common stock, which had closed at $6 3/8 prior to announcement of the merger termination, closed at $4 13/16 on an inordinate volume of 5,730,200 shares upon dissemination of the news. As the sell-off continued, the price of the Company's stock settled into the range of approximately $2 3/4 - $3 3/4. While Fisher had abandoned the merger because of the results of its own due diligence review of the Company's books and records, the public only became aware of the truth on June 27, 2001. On that date, PSS World Medical filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001 with the SEC and disclosed, for the first time, that the Company's internal controls over inventory, accounts payable, sales, and accounts receivable were, at all relevant times, materially deficient and that the Company had previously issued financial statements for the quarter ended June 30, 2000 which were materially misleading. As a result of these problems, the Company would be forced to restate its previous financial data, and would also cause the Company's EBITDA to be reduced, below the threshold that would have allowed the merger to be completed. For more information, contact: Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Stuart J. Guber, Esq. or Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations Manager by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website: www.investorprotect.com QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CO Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP commenced recently a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Qwest Communications International, Inc. (NYSE: Q) from March 22, 2001 through July 23, 2001, inclusive. The complaint charges Qwest and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that on March 22, 2001, defendants Joseph Nacchio and Robin Szeliga appeared at a UBS Warburg hosted senior management meeting where they falsely claimed that they would legitimately achieve 1Q01 and FY01 EPS of $0.11 and $0.59, respectively. On April 24, 2001, Qwest reported its financial results for 1Q01, including revenue growth of 12% and EBITDA growth of 16%. Subsequent to these statements, Qwest's stock price increased, trading as high as $41.83 on April 30, 2001. In fact, Qwest's 1Q01 results and its statements regarding those results as well as the statements regarding the success of the integration with U.S. West Inc. and the Company's strong expense controls were materially false and misleading due to the Company's improper valuation of KPNQwest in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The complaint further alleges that defendants failed to disclose the following facts: (1) Qwest's 1Q01 earnings were better than expectations primarily due to its change in the discount rate to calculate its pension obligations, increasing Qwest's 1Q01 results by at least $0.03; (2) Qwest's 1Q01 earnings were better than expectations due to defendants' failure to properly ``write- down'' the value of Qwest's holdings in KPNQwest, which was materially overstated as a result; (3) Qwest's 1Q01 earnings were increased by $0.01- $0.02 due to its aggressive use of capitalization to classify tens of millions of dollars of interest and software development costs as assets rather than expenses, which would contribute to decreased earnings in future quarters; (4) there was no way Qwest's future earnings would be nearly as strong as represented due in part to the accounting manipulations defendants engaged in which would adversely affect future results, as expenses were being deferred to future quarters and years; and (5) Qwest's selling, general and administrative expenses were only 22% of sales, not due to tight expense controls as represented, but due to improper classification of SG&A expenses as cost of sales. Subsequently, on July 20, 2001, Qwest admitted that its classification of costs had been incorrect such that cost of sales had been overstated and SG&A expenses had been understated. As a result of defendants issuance of alleged material and misleading statements (including a false 1Q01 financial statement), Qwest's stock traded as high as $41.83 per share. The individual defendants took advantage of this inflation, selling 1,255,000 shares of their Qwest stock for proceeds of $49.5 million. Ultimately, on July 24, 2001, Qwest conceded that it recorded a write- down of over $3.1 billion, primarily related to its ownership in KPNQwest. Upon this admission/revelation, Qwest's shares dropped once again, trading below $27. For more information, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP through Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com RAMBUS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Initiates N.D. CA Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP commenced recently a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Rambus, Inc. (Nasdaq: RMBS) from January 18, 2000 through May 9, 2001, inclusive. The complaint charges Rambus and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning, among other things: (1) the undisclosed fact that Rambus had engaged in fraudulent activity in order to obtain purportedly valuable patents on SDRAM computer memory and memory related technologies which enable semiconductor memory devices to keep pace with faster generations of processors and controllers; (2) the true enforceability and viability of Rambus' SDRAM patents and the true risks involved with investing in Rambus stock during the Class Period; (3) the effects these adverse undisclosed actions were having and would continue to have on the company's growth and earnings prospects; and (4) that company insiders, certain of which are named as defendants in the action, sold or otherwise disposed of over $125 million of their privately held Rambus stock while in possession of undisclosed material adverse information regarding the true validity of the company's SDRAM patents, including the undisclosed fact that such patents were obtained by defendants' fraud. It was only after defendants sold or otherwise disposed of their privately held stock that, on May 9, 2001, investors learned the truth about Rambus, when a jury in a patent infringement suit filed by Rambus against one of its competitors, Infineon Technologies, AG, determined that Rambus' SDRAM patents had been obtained by fraud. For additional information, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP through Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com ROWECOM INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP recently commenced a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of RoweCom, Inc. (Nasdaq: ROWE) securities during the period between March 9, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The complaint charges defendants FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and Salomon Smith Barney Inc. with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about March 9, 1999, RoweCom commenced an initial public offering of 3.1 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $16 per share. In connection therewith, RoweCom filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that (1) defendants had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of RoweCom shares issued in connection with the RoweCom IPO; and (2) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby defendants agreed to allocate RoweCom shares to those customers in the RoweCom IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional RoweCom 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: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP through its Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll free) or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com TREX COMPANY: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit In W.D. Virginia -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel recently filed a class action complaint against Trex and its senior officers and directors, Robert G. Matheny and Roger A. Wittenberg, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The suit allegedly represent a class of persons who purchased the securities of Trex Company, Inc. (NYSE: TWP) between April 24, 2001 and June 18, 2001 and who were damaged thereby. The Complaint alleges the defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On April 24, 2001, Trex issued a press release and participated in a conference call with analysts and investors. During the course of that conference call, defendants made certain false and misleading statements regarding the Company's revenue, products and earnings growth. Additionally, defendants claimed that they were comfortable with a revenue estimate of $81 million for the first half of fiscal 2001 for the Company. As a result, shortly after the April 24, 2001 statements and until the June 18, 2001 disclosure, Trex common stock traded at prices in excess of $26.00. It is alleged that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact they had shipped product to their customers in quantities far in excess of actual demand resulting in its customers having inventory build-up. The increased inventories at retailers and wholesalers then reached levels that defendants could not reasonably believe would be sold off at a sufficient rate to create anywhere near $81 million in revenue by June 30. Defendants also knew and recklessly disregarded the fact that Trex was responsible for "pushing" additional inventory into wholesale and retail warehouses in order to artificially maintain the appearance of continued sales growth. Throughout the first quarter of 2001, Trex had offered various special pricing, rebates and/or credit to many of its direct wholesalers and retail outlet customers in an effort to stimulate them to purchase even more inventory. By encouraging, promoting and facilitating such stockpiling of inventory at the wholesale and retail levels, it is alleged the defendants knew or disregarded that wholesalers and retailers would make materially fewer purchases in the second fiscal quarter. The defendants subsequently publicly disclosed on June 18, 2001 that Trex would achieve materially less than the previously announced $81 million in first half revenues for 2001. As a result of this disclosure, Trex's stock price fell $7.98 to close at $18.50 on June 19, 2001. While the market price for Trex stock was artificially inflated by defendants' statements and before the facts regarding the financial impact of the rising retail and warehouse inventory levels were disclosed to the public, individual defendants Matheny and Wittenberg sold 190,000 of their Trex shares for proceeds of over $5.18 million. For more information, contact: The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 210 West Washington Square, Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106 by Phone: 888-643-6735 or 215-625-9999 by Fax: 215-440-9475 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 ********* 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, Larri-Nil 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 * * *