/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/011101.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, November 1, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 214 Headlines APPLE COMPUTER: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates N.D. CA Securities Suit CANADA: Supreme Court Hears Welfare Discrimination Suit Against Quebec CRITICAL PATH: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY ENRON CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX FORD MOTOR: Sued By Customer For Excess Vehicle Radiator Charges HAWAII: State Faces Special Education Improvement Deadline KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY LEXENT INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates NY Securities Suit LOUDCLOUD INC.: Marc Henzel Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit LOUDCLOUD INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Commences N.D. CA Securities Suit LOUDEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D.NY MARCONI PLC: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. PA MASSACHUSETTS: Advocates Sue For Adequate Mental Health Care For Kids PSS WORLD: Marc Henzel Sues For Securities Act Violations in M.D. FL QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Suit RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY SULZER MEDICA: Appellate Court To Review Implant Suits' Settlement TALARIAN CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. NY TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Barroway File Suit in S.D. NY TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY UNITED STATES: Ag Dept Minority Employees Sue For Discrimination VENTRO CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D.CA VICINITY CORPORATION: "False, Misleading" Prospectus Fosters Suit WEBMD CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY ********* APPLE COMPUTER: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates N.D. CA Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin and Barroway LLP filed a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Apple Computer, Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) common stock from July 19, 2000 through September 28, 2000, inclusive. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The suit charges the defendants with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that in July 2000, the Company introduced its new Power Mac G4 Dual Processor, G4 Cube and iMac personal computers, representing that they were exceptionally powerful, fast and featuring exceptionally attractive revolutionary features. At the time, the Company represented that the development of these new products was completed, they were ready for mass production and would be available in quantity very shortly. The Company claimed this would result in its achieving strong revenue and earnings per share (EPS) growth in the 4th Quarter 2000 and 2001. As a result, the Company's stock climbed to a class period high of $64- 1/8 in early September 2000, when four top officers sold 370,000 shares of their stock for $22 million. Suddenly, 20-25 trading days later, the Company shocked investors by revealing a huge 4th Quarter 2000 revenue and EPS shortfall due to very poor sales to its education (K-12) market and poor consumer acceptance of its new personal computer products. These products were late to market, had defects and lacked features which were essential for market success, resulting in the accumulation of excessive inventories of finished goods in the Company's distribution channel and its having to cancel component part orders and, thereby, incur financial penalties. As rumors of the Company's troubles circulated prior to and then following its shocking disclosure, Company stock collapsed from $61- 3/64 to $25-3/8, continuing to fall to as low as $17 and then to $13- 5/8, as investors absorbed the full impact of these shocking revelations, a stock decline that wiped out over $10 billion of Apple's market capitalization in just a few days. For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman 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 or visit the firm's Website: www.sbclasslaw.com CANADA: Supreme Court Hears Welfare Discrimination Suit Against Quebec ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Canada heard the suit filed by a 42-year-old Montreal resident challenging Quebec's welfare rules. Louise Gosselin filed the suit on behalf of thousands of Quebecers who received welfare payments 12 or more years ago. >From 1985 to 1989, Quebec slashed welfare payments to recipients aged under 30 who refused to join job-training programs from $448 to $163 a month. Quebec discontinued the age-based rule after 1989. The suit contends that the policy discriminated against some young people because it didn't allow them to lead a decent life. The $163-a-month check was allegedly so inadequate that young people were forced into crime, prostitution and homelessness. Gosselin says she survived in the late 1980s by sleeping in shelters or on the street and by eating in soup kitchens. She presently remains on welfare. Carmen Palardy, counsel for Gosselin, asserted that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms obliges the government to ensure all citizens have a minimum income. She argues, "It's recognized in Canada that welfare systems are essential and that it's a fundamental right to ensure a decent level of living for all the people across the country who find themselves deprived of the means of subsistence." Gwen Brodsky, of the National Association of Women and the Law backed the suit, saying that young people were driven to "degrading means of survival" that threatened their psychological and physical security. Lawyers for the Quebec government contended that there was nothing legally wrong with the welfare rules, saying the government was not obligated to provide a guaranteed minimum revenue. Andre Fauteux, a government attorney, said that they focused on those aged under-30 not because of discrimination but because their lack of training and work experience made it hard for them to find work. He debunked the suit's contentions that Quebec's program wasn't adapted to all those on welfare and that there weren't enough job-training openings provided to meet the demand. "Social aid is to help with the necessities of life. It's not a program of guaranteed-minimum revenue for people who are capable of work," added Isabelle Harnois, a Quebec government lawyer. CRITICAL PATH: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo LLP initiated a securities class action against Critical Path, Inc. (NASDAQ: CPTH) and certain of its top officers for violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all investors who bought the Company's common stock between October 20, 2000 and February 1, 2001. The action charges that the Company and some of its top officers misled investors about the company's revenues and earnings and that the company did not prepare its financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. On February 2, 2001, the company announced it had discovered "a number of transactions that put into question the company's financial results." In addition, the company stated that its 2000 4th quarter results may be "materially misleading" an two senior officers were placed "on leave." As a result of the announcement, Company shares fell 67% from its closing price of $10.06 on February 1, 2001 to $3.86 on February 2, 2001 before trading in the stock was halted on the Nasdaq Stock Market. For more information, contact Chauncey D. Steele V by Mail: One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (617) 542-8300 by Fax: (617) 542-1194 or visit the firm's Website: www.bermanesq.com ENRON CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX --------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Enron Corporation (NYSE:ENE) preferred stock between on or about June 1, 1999, and October 26, 2001, inclusive. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and: (1) Kenneth L. Lay, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, (2) Jeffrey K. Skilling, former President, CEO and Chief Operating Officer, and (3) Andrew S. Fastow, former Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President 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. The defendants allegedly issued materially false and misleading statements during the class period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's Preferred Securities. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company issued a series of statements concerning its business, financial results and operations which failed to disclose among other things that: (i) in June 1999, the Company began entering into a series of extraordinarily leveraged investment and hedging transactions with a group of limited partnerships which were controlled by the then-Chief Financial Officer Andrew S. Fastow. The Company did not publicly disclose the details of these transactions, the material change in its investment and hedging strategy as represented by these transactions, the material increase in the degree of leverage and the business and investment risk with respect to these transactions, and generally, or that these transactions could lead to billions of dollars in borrowings and writedowns of shareholders' equity, which would jeopardize the value of the Company's Preferred Securities; (ii) the Company failed to write-down impaired assets on a timely basis in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and (iii) the Company's operating results were materially overstated as a result of the Company's failing to timely write-down the value of its investments with certain limited partnerships, including those described above. In October 2001, the Company surprised the market by announcing that in the third quarter of 2001, the Company was taking non-recurring charges of $1.01 billion after tax ($1.11 per diluted share). The Company failed to clearly disclose until October 18 that it also was taking a $1.2 billion writedown in shareholders' equity as a result of unwinding the investments with the limited partnerships controlled by Mr. Fastow. Since the announcement of the $1.2 billion writedown in shareholders' equity, the market price of the Company's Preferred Securities has dropped significantly. This lawsuit is brought on behalf of only the Preferred Shareholders of Enron, which include among others the following classes of stock: (a) Enron Capital LLC, 8.00%, 11/30/43 series, 8 million shares outstanding, traded on the New York Stock Exchange; (b) Enron Capital Trust I, 8.3% Series, 8 million shares outstanding, traded on the New York Stock Exchange; (c) Enron Capital Trust II, 8.1250% series (preferred R), 6 million shares outstanding, traded on the New York Stock Exchange; (d) Enron Capital Trust III, 200,000 shares outstanding; (e) Enron Capital Resources LP, 9.0%, 8/31/24 Series A, 3 million shares outstanding, traded on the New York Stock Exchange; (f) Portland General Electric, 7.75%, 6/15/07 series, 300,000 shares outstanding, traded on the NASDAQ; (g) Portland General Electric, 8.25%, 12/31/35 Series A, 3 million shares outstanding, traded on the New York Stock Exchange; Purchasers of Convertible Preferred Stock are not included in the Class. For further details, contact George Peters, Derek Behnke, Robert B. Weintraub, Jeffrey G. Smith or Daniel W. Krasner by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com. Your e-mail should refer to Enron Preferred Securities. FORD MOTOR: Sued By Customer For Excess Vehicle Radiator Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ford Motor Corporation faces two class action suits filed in Texas and Illinois for charging customers for upgraded heavy-duty radiators that they did not receive. The first suit was filed by The Edwards Law Firm LLP in the 28th Judicial District Court, Nueces County, Texas while the second was filed by Chicago law firm of Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein, PC in Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison, Illinois. The Company allegedly charged approximately 80,000 of its customers in Texas and 450,000 nationwide for the radiators. The Texas case was filed on behalf of consumers who purchased new 2000- and 2001-model Ford F-150 pick-ups with the "Class III Towing Group" or the "Heavy-Duty Electrical/Cooling Group" option packages. The consumers paid $350 to $400 each for the Class III Towing Group option package and $210 for the Heavy-Duty Electrical/Cooling Group option package. Both options were to include an upgraded heavy-duty radiator. The Company did not install the upgraded heavy-duty radiators on the vehicles. The 2000 Ford F-150 went on the market in September 1999, followed by the introduction of the 2001 F-150 a year later, in September 2000. The Illinois suit makes substantially similar allegations. In deposition testimony, the Company claimed that it first became aware on September 29, 2000, more than a year after the 2000 model was introduced, that the trucks were not properly equipped. Last week, the Company publicly admitted its wrongdoings and will offer its affected customers a choice between $100 cash, a $500 coupon good toward the purchase of another Ford, or radiator replacement, according to Reuters. Attorneys in the lawsuits say that Ford's response is inadequate. "Ford's deception continues," said William R. Edwards III, co-lead counsel in the Texas suit in a press release, "First, Ford charged its customers for something that they did not receive. And when Ford learned of the problem, it continued to sell the trucks without the upgraded heavy-duty radiators." He further said "Now, six months after we filed the class-action lawsuit, Ford makes an offer that is inadequate. We are pleased that Ford finally is prepared to admit their mistake publicly, albeit after 450,000 customers have been denied what they purchased." He added the Company should take complete responsibility and at least offer free rental cars while the repairs are made. About 44 percent of the 500,000 F-150s that the Company sells nationwide every year have one of the two option packages that should include the upgraded heavy-duty radiator. The suit alleges that the Company had a contractual obligation to ensure that the upgraded heavy-duty radiators were installed on every vehicle that included the options package. Steven Kanner, counsel in the Illinois suit says, "Ford had the opportunity to respond appropriately to the problem on September 29, 2000, but chose not to," Instead, the Company allegedly kept everyone in the dark about the problem, including their dealers, and continued to sell the trucks without the upgraded heavy-duty radiators. Six months after a lawsuit was filed and it became clear that the problem was about to come to light, the Company offers to replace the radiators. Edwards said that about 450,000 F-150 owners nationwide will soon receive repair notices from the Company offering to replace the standard radiator with the upgraded heavy-duty radiator. According to Edwards, this response is inadequate because the Company is offering no rental car reimbursement to F-150 owners or any other compensation for the one to two days that they will be without their own vehicles while the radiators are being replaced. For more information, visit the Website: www.F150Radiator.com or call (800) 305-9768 toll-free to get the same information. HAWAII: State Faces Special Education Improvement Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The state of Hawaii has until November 1 to show that it is complying with the Felix consent decree that requires the state to improve its special-education services, the Associated Press recently reported. Specifically, by November 1, the Department of Education must show that 27 of its 41 school complexes are providing services to special needs children as required by law. So far, 26 schools are in full or provisional compliance, and test results are awaited on the adequacy of one more school. Under the 1994 Felix consent decree, which evolved out of a class action lawsuit charging the state with ignoring the needs of mentally disabled children, Hawaii agreed to improve special-education services as required by federal law. The state has missed a string of deadlines since then, however. Judge Ezra offered the state one last chance by setting the November 1 deadline to meet certain benchmarks. He also warned that the federal court would take over Hawaii's special- education program if the deadline was not met. Eric Seitz, one of the plaintiff attorneys in the Felix case, said that, while there are still serious problems, there is hope the state can get the job done on its own without a receiver. He said he doubts the court will take drastic action because the state will be able to show that it is close to compliance. Judge Ezra is not scheduled to hear the issue in court until later in November. Fellow plaintiff attorney Shelby Floyd feels less confident than Seitz because she sees ongoing problems recruiting teachers and launching an information management system. Both attorneys are concerned about a legislative investigation of the state's compliance with the decree, saying it will distract the efforts of the Department of Education. KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf all persons who acquired Keynote Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: KEYN) securities between September 24, 1999 and August 15, 2001. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and names the Company and executive offices Umang Gupta and John Flavio as defendants. The complaint also names FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. as a defendant, one of the lead underwriters of Keynote's initial public offering and secondary offering of common stock. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a registration statements and prospectus that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The prospectus were issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering of 4,000,000 shares of common stock at $14.00 per share that was commenced on or about September 24, 1999 and a secondary offering of 5,750,000 shares of common stock at $105 per share that was commenced on or about February 7, 2000. The complaint alleges that the prospectuses were false and misleading because they failed to disclose: (i) the underwriter's agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted shares in the offerings in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (ii) the agreement between the underwriter and certain of its customers whereby the underwriter would allocate shares in the offerings to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase shares in the after-market at pre- determined prices For further details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: KEYN@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com LEXENT INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Lexent, Inc. (NASDAQ: LXNT) securities between July 27, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of its officers and its underwriters. 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. In July 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of 6 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $15 per share. In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which those underwriters allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of IPO shares issued in connection with the IPO; and (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate shares to those customers in the IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices For further details, contact Fred Taylor Isquity, Thomas H. Burt, Gustavo Bruckner, Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference to Lexent. LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates NY Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Liberate Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: LBRT) securities between July 28, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, inclusive. The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and: (1) Mitchell E. Kertzman, President, Chief Executive Officer and director, (2) Nancy J. Hilker, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, (3) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, (4) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., (5) Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Incorporated The complaint alleges that defendants violated 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. Specifically, the complaint alleges that in July 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering of 6,250,000 of shares of common stock at an offering price of $16 per share. In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which they allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of shares issued in connection with the IPO; and (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers whereby they agreed to allocate shares to those customers in the IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquity, Gregory M. Nespole, Michael Miske or George Peters by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference to Liberate Technologies. LOUDCLOUD INC.: Marc Henzel Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Loudcloud, Inc. (NASDAQ: LDCL) securities between March 8, 2001 and May 1, 2001. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and names as defendants, the Company and: (1) Marc L. Andreessen, (2) Benjamin A. Horowitz, (3) Roderick M. Sherwood III, (4) William V. Campbell, (5) Michael S. Ovitz, (6) Andrew S. Rechleff, (7) Goldman, Sachs & Co., (8) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, (9) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC, (10) Epoch Securities, Inc., (11) Allen & Company Incorporated, (12) CIBC World Markets Corp., (13) Dain Rauscher Incorporated, (14) Raymond James & Associates, Inc., (15) Robertson Stephens, Inc., and (16) Wit SoundView Corporation The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 for issuing a registration statement and prospectus that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The prospectus was issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering of 25,000,000 shares of common stock, at $6.00 per share, commenced in March 2001. The complaint alleges that the prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (i) Loudcloud's plans to substantially reduce its workforce and to restructure itself shortly after the public offering; (ii) that the public offering was not raising funds sufficient to enable the Company to reach profitability and accomplish the planned expansion described in the prospectus; (iii) the imminent cancellation of a major contract to which one of the underwriters was a party; and (iv) that in order to enable the public offering to go forward, undisclosed sales of shares were made to insiders and the selling price of the offering was artificially maintained by the undisclosed sale of part of the offering to insiders. For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: (610) 660-8000 or (888) 643-6735 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 LOUDCLOUD INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Commences N.D. CA Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Loudcloud, Inc. (Nasdaq: LDCL) issued pursuant to the March 8, 2001 Prospectus. The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the prospectus used by defendants to sell $150 million worth of Company stock was false and misleading because, among other things, it failed to disclose: (1) the Company's plan to substantially reduce its work force and to restructure immediately following the offering; (2) that the offering was not raising funds sufficient to enable the Company to reach profitability and accomplish the planned expansion described in the prospectus; (3) that a major contract to which one of the underwriters was a party was being terminated; and (4) that in order to enable the Offering to go forward, sales of shares were being made to insiders and the selling price of the offering was artificially maintained by the undisclosed sale of part of the offering to insiders. As the truth about the Company and its operations reached the market, the price of Company shares fell to less than $2.00 per share, inflicting over $100 million in damages upon plaintiff and the class. For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman 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 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.sbclasslaw.com LOUDEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D.NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Loudeye Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOUD) securities between March 15, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and: (1) Martin G. Tobias, (2) Larry Culver, (3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., (4) Chase Securities, Inc., and (5) CIBC World Markets Corp. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a registration statement and prospectus that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The prospectus was issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering of 4,500,000 shares of common stock at $16.00 per share that was completed in March 1999. The complaint alleges that the prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (i) the underwriters' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (ii) the agreement between the underwriters and certain of its customers whereby the underwriters would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase Company shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: (610) 660-8000 or (888) 643- 6735 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 MARCONI PLC: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. PA ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Marconi PLC (Nasdaq: MONI) between April 11, 2001 and July 4, 2001, inclusive. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters. The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The defendants allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market between April 11, 2001 and July 4, 2001, concerning the demand for its products. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued several press releases in which they assured investors: (1) that the Company would experience an increase in its revenues in the current year; and (2) that, despite earnings warnings from most of its competitors, the Company saw no need to change its guidance. In July 2001, however, defendants finally disclosed that they were, in fact, experiencing a slowdown in customer spending and, as a result, the Company expects sales to fall more than 15% and operating profit to fall 50% for the year ending March 2002. The market's reaction to this announcement was immediate and punitive. When shares reopened for trading on July 5, 2001, after having been suspended pending this announcement, the price per share of the Company's American Depositary Receipts dropped by over 50% to close at $3.35 per share, significantly below the class period high of $12.50 per share. For further details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M. Nespole, Gustavo Bruckner, George Peters by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com. E- mail should refer to Marconi. MASSACHUSETTS: Advocates Sue For Adequate Mental Health Care For Kids --------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocates for mentally ill children are suing the State of Massachusetts for allegedly forcing hundreds of children into unnecessary and lengthy hospital stays. The suit will be filed in Springfield federal court after negotiations to expand home-based treatments collapsed. The suit accuses the state of violating federal laws by failing to provide extensive counseling and support in the children's homes as some other states do. The suit was filed on behalf of at least 1,000 children in the Medicaid program for the poor and the disabled. The suit also names nine children, from Brockton to the Berkshires, who have been moved from facility to facility without getting the help they need. Steven J. Schwartz, an attorney with the Center for Public Representation, told of a 13-year old girl prone to self-abuse. Her parents begged for professional help so they could keep her in their Berkshire County home but instead the girl was moved in and out of psychiatric wards and residential programs over a seven-year period. Schwartz says, in an interview with the Boston Globe, "The fundamental problem is that the kids don't need to leave their homes, their communities, their families, but they're being ripped out of their homes because there's no comprehensive treatment except at institutions or group facilities." He further said that they were not able to come up with an agreement with the state in nine months of talks aimed at averting the lawsuit. However, Wendy Warring, the state's Medicaid commissioner, says the advocates were too impatient and the state was working to develop better mental care services. Warring said she has asked the company that manages Medicaid mental health care for Massachusetts to develop a more comprehensive home-care program, but that it will take time. Some improvements can be made even with budget restrictions, she said. The Medicaid program this year spent about $110 million on mental health care for about 50,000 children. Schwartz, however, said that the urgency of the children's needs is the driving force behind the lawsuit and not the state's economic downturn, which has led to talk of budget cuts. A hundred children remain "stuck" inappropriately in hospitals or residential facilities, according to the advocacy groups. As many as 10 states provide extensive home-based mental health services for children, which includes individualized treatment programs of therapy, help in modifying troubling behavior, after-school programs, and support for the family. PSS WORLD: Marc Henzel Sues For Securities Act Violations in M.D. FL -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of PSS World Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: PSSI) securities between October 26, 1999 and September 1, 2000, inclusive. The action was filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida against the Company, David A. Smith and Patrick C. Kelly. 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 Company securities. Throughout the class period, defendants issued multiple press releases and filed quarterly reports and an annual report with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The reports materially overstated the Company's net income in violation of generally accepted accounting principles. Last June 2000, defendants issued a press release announcing its year end results and the fact that it 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, 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 the Company's shares, which had been buoyed by the potential exchange value of Fisher's stock during the Class Period. Accordingly, the Company's 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, the Company filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001 with the SEC and disclosed, for the first time, the fact that the Company's internal controls over inventory, accounts payable, sales, and accounts receivable were, at all relevant times, materially deficient. The Company also revealed that it 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 details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: (610) 660-8000 or (888) 643- 6735 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Quicklogic Corporation (NASDAQ:QUIK) common stock between October 14, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company, FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., its underwriters. 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. In October 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering of 6,667,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $10 per share. In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which they allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Company shares issued in connection with the IPO; and (2) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers whereby they agreed to allocate the Company's shares to those customers in the IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Corporation shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices For further details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman 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 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.sbclasslaw.com RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Rhythms NetConnections Inc. (NASDAQ: RTHM.OB) between April 6, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Company common stock pursuant to the April 6, 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. Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive commissions, defendants allocated Company shares to customers at the IPO price. To receive the allocations at the IPO price, 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 Company stock rocketed upward was intended to drive Company share price up to artificially high levels. This artificial price inflation enabled both the underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices. For further details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gustavo Bruckner, Thomas Burt or George Peters by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer to Rhythms. SULZER MEDICA: Appellate Court To Review Implant Suits' Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to perform an expedited review of the nationwide settlement to the Sulzer Medica hip system litigation. The Company is proposing a $783 million settlement to the suits, which were filed after patients suffered severe pain and slipping after being fitted with the Company's hip and knee implants. More than 1,600 lawsuits were filed against the Company, who recalled 40,000 hip implants and withdrew some knee implants after patient complaints started to grow. The implants allegedly were not bonding properly to their bones. Later, the Company determined that oil residue on the hip and knee implants caused the problem. The Company proposed to pay patients who needed surgery after receiving the faulty hip or knee implants between $57,500 and $97,500 in cash and stock. Federal judge Kathleen O'Malley also decided to include about 1,600 faulty knee implants in the proposed settlement. Andres Pereira, counsel for the plaintiffs says, "As we anticipated when we appealed the preliminary class certification, the appellate court is going to take a hard look at this inadequate and inappropriate class settlement." TALARIAN CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Talarian Corporation (NASDAQ: TARL) securities between July 20, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company and: (1) Lehman Brothers, Inc., (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, (3) Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Incorporated, (4) Paul A. Larson, (5) Michael A. Morgan and (6) Thomas J. Laffey 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. In July 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of 4,200,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $16.00 per share. In connection therewith, it filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which they allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of shares issued in connection with the IPO; and (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers whereby they agreed to allocate shares to those customers in the IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: (610) 660-8000 or (888) 643- 6735 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Barroway File Suit in S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin and Barroway LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of of TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSYS) common stock between August 8, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against: (1) Chase Securities, Inc., (2) Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., (3) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., (4) Banc of America Securities, LLC., (5) Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Incorporated, (6) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., (7) Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., and (8) Thomas Weisel Partners, LLC. 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. In August 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of 4,700,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $17 per share. In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which they allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Company shares issued in connection with the IPO; and (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers whereby the Company agreed to allocate shares to those customers in the IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices For more information, Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman 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 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.sbclasslaw.com TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Transmeta Corporation (NASDAQ: TMTA) securities between November 7, 2000 and June 20, 2001, inclusive. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendants the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling the Company's common stock pursuant to the November 7, 2000 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 defendants allegedly made false and misleading statements about the Company's business and its principal product, the Crusoe family of microprocessors, stating that this technology represented a revolutionary process that delivered longer batter life in Mobile Internet Computers while delivering high performance. Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive commissions, defendants allocated Company shares to customers at the IPO price. To receive the allocations at the IPO price, 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 the Company's stock rocketed upward was intended to drive its share price up to artificially high levels. This artificial price inflation enabled both the underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices. The Complaint further alleges that defendants falsely stated that the Company's Crusoe chips produced both high performance and substantially improved battery life. As a result, the Company's stock traded as high as $50-7/8 per share. In May 2001, Company insiders sold 829,500 of their Transmeta shares for proceeds of over $10.5 million. Then, just weeks later, the Company was forced to admit that its results for the Second Quarter 2001 would be much worse than defendants had previously represented and that it would, in order to properly account for its impaired inventory, be forced to record a multi-million dollar inventory charge in connection with its inventory for defective and/or outdated products. Following the Company's announcement, its stock collapsed to $5.12 per share before closing at $5.36 per share, an 89% decline from its class period high of $50,875. For further details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Thomas Burt, Gregory Nespole or George Peters by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer to Transmeta. UNITED STATES: Ag Dept Minority Employees Sue For Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Minority employees of the United States Department of Agriculture filed several class action suits against the department with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging racial discrimination. The department's African, Asian and Hispanic employees allege that they are routinely denied promotions or are rejected when they apply for loans and subsidies. Members of the Coalition of Minority Employees, a labor group that represents workers in the department's 33 agencies, met with congressional staff members. Representatives from the offices of John Doolitle, R-Rocklin, Cal Cooley, D-Hanford and Gary Condit, D-Ceres, as well as from the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation attended the meeting. Members of the coalition said they hoped the meeting will help open the lines of communication with management. Most of the complaints involved the Forest Service, the largest division in the Agriculture Department, which fights fires and manages timber. Speakers in the meeting told of a labor contractor who left crews of Hispanic workers in the forest without adequate food, water or transportation, and prisoners who fight forest fires who are given mixed directions when they are on the line. Several said minorities face a glass ceiling even if they are qualified for professional jobs. "Lead agent", Allen Spencer, says he was denied promotions and subjected to racial slurs while working as a computer specialist with the Stanislaus National Forest in Sonora. He further asserted discrimination persists in the Forest Service because managers are assigned to far-flung areas and allowed to make their own rules. "Essentially, any employee who is not white or a member of the archaic Forest Service culture of exclusion is going to be discriminated against," he said in an interview with the Modesto Bee. VENTRO CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D.CA --------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Ventro Corporation (NASDAQ:VNTR) securities during the period between February 15, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The Company is a builder and operator of business-to-business e- commerce marketplace companies. The complaint alleges that during the class period, it was evident to defendants that the Company did not possess the technology to successfully compete as a marketplace. The defendants knew this would severely impair the Company's future revenue growth but wanted to raise additional money through debt offerings before the bottom fell out of its stock price. Thus, defendants continued to make positive but false statements about the Company's business and future revenues, and as a result, Company stock traded as high as $243.50 per share during the class period. The complaint further alleges that in December 2000, the Company announced a restructuring in which it closed down two out of three of its main B2B marketplaces. In early 2001, it was revealed that defendants had realized by December 1999 that the Company's business model of independent marketplaces didn't make sense and that even its partners were not satisfied with its technology for operating the marketplaces. By this time Company stock had declined to less than $2 per share, inflicting billions of dollars of damage on plaintiff and the class. For more details, contact Gregory M. Nespole, Michael Miske, George Peters or Fred Taylor Isquithcontact by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com. E- mail should refer to Ventro. VICINITY CORPORATION: "False, Misleading" Prospectus Fosters Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Vicinity Corporation says it has meritorious defenses against the several securities suits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between February 8, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive against the Company and: (1) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., (2) Emerick M. Woods, and (3) David Seltzer 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. Last February 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of 7,000,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $17.00 per share. In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the underwriter had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which it allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Company shares issued in connection with the IPO; and (ii) the underwriter had entered into agreements with customers whereby it agreed to allocate shares to those customers in the IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices The Company expects these cases to be consolidated. WEBMD CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of WebMD Corporation formerly known as Healtheon Corporation, (NASDAQ: HLTH) securities between February 10, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company's underwriters, Goldman Sachs & Co. and Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In February 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering of 5,000,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $8 per share. In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) 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 Company shares issued in connection with the IPO; and (ii) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby defendants agreed to allocate shares to those customers in the IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: (610) 660-8000 or (888) 643- 6735 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's 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, Aurora Fatima Antonio 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 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *