TCR_Public/010320.MBX          T R O U B L E D   C O M P A N Y   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, March 20, 2001, Vol. 5, No. 55


AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT: Misses Scheduled $3MM Principal Payment
BRIDGE INFORMATION: Engages Deloitte & Touche As Accountants
CROWN CORK: Moody's Places Long-Term Ratings Under Review
CYBERCASH: Planning to Move Shares from Nasdaq to OTCBBS
DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Court Documents Show "Massive" Lemon Laundering

ECHOCATH: Goldstein Golub Replaces KPMG as Independent Accountant
ELGIN TECHNOLOGIES: May Shut Down Due To Cash Flow Constraints
FINOVA GROUP: Honoring Employee Retention Obligations
FIRSTAR CENTER: Files Chapter 11 to Facilitate Sale
FOUNTAIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Needs New Funding to Continue Operation

FRUIT OF THE LOOM: Asks Court's Okay To Amend DIP Loan Amendment
GORGES HOLDING: Seeks to Extend Exclusive Period to July 31
HARNISCHFEGER: Court Okays Preference Claim Settlement Procedures
HEALTHNET: Lack Of Funds Trigger Going Concern Doubts
INNOVO GROUP: Reports More Losses In the Year Ended November 2000

JUST TOYS: Planning To Sell Assets Under Bankruptcy Protection
LEADER INDUSTRIES: Expects Disappointing Results for Q4 & FY2000
LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Bakers Move to Disqualify Milbank as Counsel
LOEWEN GROUP: Rejects Weinstein Shareholder Agreement
LTV CORP.: Opposes Motion for Appointment of Retirees' Committee

MARINER: Wants Further Extension of Time to Decide on Leases
MARTIN INDUSTRIES: Requests Hearing to Continue Nasdaq Listing
MARTIN INDUSTRIES: Talking To New Lender About Possible Funding
MIRRONEX: Inks Asset Purchase Agreement With Opus360
NETSOLVE: Invista & Principal Mutual Jointly Own 7.7% Of Stock

NETZEE INC.: Nasdaq Looks To Delisting Common Shares
NEW ICO: Pulls SEC Registration Statement
OWENS CORNING: Continental Wants To Determine Rights In Agreement
PACIFIC GAS: Out Takes Terminates Contract After Default
PARADIGM4: Delays Bankruptcy Filing

PILLOWTEX: Assumes Yarn Purchase Agreement With Parkdale America
QUINTUS: Deadline for Competing Asset Purchase Bids is March 27
RITE AID: Founder Alex Glass Resigns From Board Of Directors
SAFETY-KLEEN: Lamp Moves for Stay Relief to Foreclose M&M Lien
SIRIUS SATELLITE: May Cease Operations if Unable to Raise Capital

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Coram Energy to Sign Involuntary Petition
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Caithness Energy Secures Plant Lien
STROUDS INC: Has Until June 4 to Decide on Real Property Leases
SUN HEALTHCARE: Examiner Hires Young Conaway as Local Counsel
TRANS WORLD: Justice Department Okays American's Acquisition

UNAPIX ENTERTAINMENT: Wants More Time to Decide on Leases
UNIFAB INTERNATIONAL: Posts 2000 Losses & Seeks Covenant Waivers
VLASIC FOODS: Court Grants Authority To Pay Pre-Petition Taxes
VOTER.COM: Planning To Sell Membership List


AMERICAN HOMEPATIENT: Misses Scheduled $3MM Principal Payment
American HomePatient, Inc. (OTC:AHOM) did not make a scheduled
$3,000,000 principal payment due March 15, 2001 under the terms
of its existing credit facility. Failure to make the payment is a
default under the credit facility. The Company is currently
negotiating with its lenders to amend the credit facility to cure
the nonpayment default and defaults related to noncompliance with
existing financial covenants. The Company also is negotiating
with its lenders to modify the existing scheduled principal
payments along with other terms and covenants.

Since the negotiations include discussions regarding
modifications of future principal payments, the Company chose not
to make the March 15, 2001 payment under the existing credit
facility. As a result of the default, the lenders under the
credit facility have the ability to demand payment of all
outstanding amounts and to exercise other remedies under the
credit facility. The Company is current in its payments of
interest under the credit facility.

BRIDGE INFORMATION: Engages Deloitte & Touche As Accountants
Bridge Information Systems, Inc. and its debtor-affiliates asked
the Court for permission to employ Deloitte & Touche LLP and
Deloitte Consulting, L.P., in the course of their chapter 11

Bridge reminded the Court that it was acquired in 1995 by
investment partnerships sponsored by Welsh, Carson, Anderson &
Stowe. Subsequently, Bridge pursued a strategy of acquiring
under-performing financial information businesses while
simultaneously developing a new technology platform. Bridge made
several acquisitions from 1996 to 1999. These acquisitions
presented difficult integration issues relating to the
coordination of disparate products, systems and management teams,
the extent and duration of which was greater than originally
estimated. During 2000, the Debtors determined that their
operations and finance support structures required improvement.

Deficiencies in the Debtors' billing and order entry systems and
business processes led to difficulties producing accurate bills
and in collecting amounts billed. Operational inefficiencies led
to provision of services that were not included in customer
contracts, below-market pricing and the absorption of costs that
should have been charged to customers. The Debtors now realize
that many of these deficiencies arose due to a number of factors
including growth of the business of the Debtors (not matched by
growth in operations or finance staff), dismissal of employees at
acquired companies knowledgeable in their respective controls and
systems, insufficient coordination between global functional
groups and the Debtors' financial team, and staffing constraints
due to time commitments necessary to implement acquisitions,
coordinate customer migration efforts, negotiate financing
transactions and upgrade information systems.

Deloitte & Touche has played a critical role in the Debtors'
ongoing efforts to improve their operations. In mid-2000, the
Debtors retained Deloitte in the ordinary course of business to
provide consulting services in several key areas of the business
including cash collections, billing and revenue enhancements,
cost reduction identification and other areas. These services
were operational in nature and did not involve debt restructuring
or negotiations with the Debtors' creditors. Deloitte's
engagement is now in its Third Phase and Deloitte estimates that
70% of the services contemplated to be performed are complete:

      (A) Revenue-Lead Management: Deloitte has identified and
helped the Debtors to implement a plan to realize an additional
$36 million in annual incremental revenue and implement a
database with information for in excess of 1300 contracts, which
database has provided the ability to identify and obtain
significant incremental revenues.

      (B) Cash Collections Operations: Deloitte has facilitated
collections of in excess of $61 million of which more than $22
million was over 90 days delinquent. Overall, the Debtors'
accounts receivable have declined by $61 million since August
2000. Working capital has improved and average days' sales
outstanding has declined from approximately 138 days to 76 days.
Improved cash application procedures have resulted in a 50%
decrease in unapplied credits from customers.

      (C) Vendor Management-Delivery (Circuits): Deloitte has
identified estimated savings of approximately $2.0 million per
annum in communications network expenditures; identified
additional potential one-time credits of $2.1 million from
network carriers; and assisted in securing credits of
approximately $7.3 million for the Debtors from vendors that had
overbilled the Debtors and, additionally, credits of
approximately $5 million for the overpayment of
telecommunications taxes.

      (D) Vendor Management-Content (Data Service Providers):
Deloitte has started the process of working with the Debtors to
assist with the management of key vendor relationships, i.e.,
those vendors that provide data content critical to the Debtors'
ongoing businesses; and begun reconciliation of over $35 million
in data service provider payments with actual Year 2000 royalty
in usage reports in order to help the Debtors substantiate
amounts paid to such providers. Deloitte has developed a process
for the Debtors to use in managing these relationships.

      (E) Order Management Processes: Deloitte has helped the
Debtors to reduce open work request orders by approximately 91%
(26,000 Vantive orders); resolve 61% of open "demo" orders which
had exceeded standard duration; redesign processes to speed order
throughput; reduce "sales holds" by 98%; and implement metrics to
manage order processing performance. More accurate order
processing has improved billing accuracy and contributed to the
decrease in days' sales outstanding as mentioned earlier.

      (F) Order Management-Systems Enhancements: Deloitte has
developed and implemented twelve order processing system
enhancements; developed functional requirements to drive
development efforts; and increased order integrity by
implementing controls and- organizational changes to restrict
order entry capability. Increasing systems functionality to
support order processing is anticipated to ultimately lower
operational costs (increased efficiency in the order management
groups) and improve collections performance (more accurate bills
and better diagnostics).

      (G) Billing Enhancements and Collections Process
Improvements: Deloitte's assistance has enabled the Debtors to
reduce billing adjustments by approximately 50%; to create a
revised billing/invoicing format to clarify customer charges
and improve communications; and to increase billing integrity by
implementing controls to restrict "charge file" access.

      (H) Product Management: Deloitte has supported tactical
implementation of a price increase plan, with an expected $18
million annual impact, reduction of product packages by 24% and
identification of additional significant reductions. Reduction in
the number of products and bill codes is expected to
significantly improve operational efficiency and increase billing
accuracy (again, potentially further reducing the days' sales

In addition to these services, Deloitte & Touche has provided
other services to the Debtors and to certain domestic non-debtor
affiliates, including audit and tax services and member firms of
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu have provided services to the Debtors'
overseas, non-debtor affiliates. Deloitte & Touche is currently
providing audit services to a non-debtor subsidiary of Debtor
Bridge Data Company, Bridge Trading Company.

The Debtors entered into an Engagement Letter with Deloitte on
January 16, 2001, describing a wide range of "Viability" and
"Sustainability" initiatives projected to cost over $500,000 and
consume nearly 2,000 hours of Deloitte professionals' time each
week. The scope of what Deloitte Consulting will do in these
cases has been scaled-back to:

      (1) Assisting the Debtors in realizing revenue enhancement
targets in accordance with the Debtors' business objectives;

      (2) Helping the Debtors to create processes to detect and
correct billing errors before bills are sent to the customer;

      (3) Helping the Debtors to continue to collect cash and
settle outstanding receivables;

      (4) Assisting the Debtors to actively pursue content and
delivery vendor relationships, including:

          (a) helping the Debtors to manage their relationships
              with significant content providers, and

          (b) helping the Debtors to manage telecommunications
              costs through greater coordination and communication
              with vendors; and

      (5) Helping the Debtors to define systems requirements
related to order management which are critical in meeting year
2001 efficiency targets and improving operational efficiency.

The Debtors said they want Deloitte only to provide services that
are absolutely critical to the Debtors' survival. The Debtors
estimate that these reduced services will probably cost between
$330,000 and $370,000 per week.

"Based upon the Debtors' experience with Deloitte Consulting's
pre-petition services . . . , the Debtors believe that the
short-term and long-term benefits to the estate will greatly
exceed these costs," Gregory D. Willard, Esq., at Bryan Cave LLP,
tells Judge McDonald.

The Debtors asked Deloitte & Touche to:

      (x) Audit and report on the annual financial statements of
          the Debtors;

      (y) Assist and advise with respect to federal, state or
          other tax matters; and

      (z) Assist with such other accounting services and matters
          as the Debtors, their attorneys or financial advisors
          may from time to time request.

The Debtors disclosed that Deloitte & Touche is owed $2,488,000
for pre-petition services. The Debtors sought to employ Deloitte
& Touche as their accountants and professionals pursuant to 11
U.S.C. Sec. 327(a). Accordingly, Deloitte & Touche will waive
its $2,488,000 pre-petition claim in order to become
disinterested as defined in 11 U.S.C. Sec. 101(14).

Deloitte Consulting is owed approximately $5,600,000 for pre-
petition services. The Debtors sought to employ Deloitte
Consulting in the ordinary course of business, rather than as a
disinterested professional, and Deloitte Consulting will retain
its pre-petition claim. Although Deloitte holds a pre-petition
claim against the Debtors, the Debtors do not believe that claim
constitutes an interest materially adverse to the Debtors, their
creditors or other parties in interest. The Debtors are not
requesting authority to pay any pre-petition amounts owed to
Deloitte. Rather, Deloitte's claim will be treated in accordance
with the provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

"Given the deep level of Deloitte & Touche's familiarity with the
Debtors' businesses and ongoing nature of Deloitte & Touche's
projects, if the Debtors are unable to use Deloitte & Touche, the
Debtors believe it would be a major setback to the Debtors'
efforts to make short-term improvements to their businesses. At
this critical juncture, it is very important that the Debtors
meet certain business objectives in order to maintain the
confidence of customers and key suppliers. In addition, the
Debtors believe that the expense of any other option, such as
developing the resources internally or engaging a replacement
consultant, would be significantly greater than continuing with
Deloitte & Touche because of the learning curve that will
necessarily have to be traveled by any newcomer to the Debtors'
businesses," Thomas J. Moloney, Esq., from Cleary, Gottlieb,
Steen & Hamilton, argued to Judge McDonald.

Rodney W. Kinzinger, a Deloitte & Touche LLP Partner based in St.
Louis, and Jeffrey C. Mischka, a Deloitte Consulting Principal
based in New York, attested to the facts related in the Debtors'

Messrs. Kinzinger and Mischka disclosed that Deloitte has
received a $750,000 retainer to secure the Debtors' payment of
post-petition fees and advise that Deloitte will bill the Debtors
at its customary hourly rates:

      Staff Classification                Hourly Rate
      --------------------                -----------
      Partners/Principals/Directors       $450 to $650
      Senior Managers                     $325 to $500
      Managers                            $230 to $480
      Senior Consultants                  $120 to $360
      Staff Consultants/Analysts           $90 to $250
      Paraprofessionals                    $75 to $110

Messrs. Kinzinger and Mischka related that Deloitte & Touche has
a large and diversified practice that encompasses the provision
of services to many financial institutions and commercial
corporations, many of which are likely to be claimants or have
other connections with Bridge's chapter 11 proceedings. Deloitte
& Touche and certain of its members and employees may have in the
past provided services to, may currently provide services to, and
may in the future provide services to, various creditors of the
Debtors or other entities that are parties in interest in these
chapter 11 cases in matters that are unrelated to the Debtors and
these cases. Deloitte & Touche may serve as a professional in
other matters, unrelated to the Debtors or these cases, in which
attorneys, accountants and other professionals retained in
connection with these Chapter 11 cases by the Debtors, their
creditors or other parties in interest have also been engaged.
Deloitte & Touche may serve as a professional in other matters,
unrelated to the Debtors or these cases, in which creditors or
other parties in interest of the Debtors may also be creditors or
other parties in interest of unrelated debtors. Deloitte & Touche
has not represented and will not represent any such entity's
separate interest in the Debtors' cases which would be adverse to
the Debtors.

Messrs. Kinzinger and Mischka are confident that neither they,
Deloitte & Touche, nor any partner, principal or employee of
Deloitte & Touche who is anticipated to provide services to the
Debtors pursuant to the Application, insofar as they have been
able to ascertain, has any connection with the Debtors, their
affiliates, the Debtors' officers and directors, the 20 largest
unsecured creditors, other significant lenders or parties-in-
interest (including debtholders participating in
syndication in amounts in excess of $100,000), or the United
States Trustee for the Eastern District of Missouri except: ADP,
Chicago Board of Trade, Citibank, John W. Clark, Deutsche Borse
AG, Dow Jones, GE Capital, General Motors Pensions and
affiliates, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Chase, Lehman Brothers,
Market Data Corporation, Tom McInerny, Morgan Stanley, NASDAQ
Stock Market, Inc., New York Mercantile Exchange, Salomon
Brothers, State Street Bank, Welsh, Carson, Andersen & Stowe and
its principals, affiliates and investment portfolio holdings,
Allstate Insurance Company, Amara Capital Ltd, Bank of Hawaii,
Bank of Nova Scotia, Barclays Bank, Bear Steams & Co., First
Dominion Capital Corp, Fleet Bank, Highland Investment
Associates, Key Corporate Capital, Inc., Mercantile Bank,
Merisel, Inc., Merrill Lynch and affiliates, New York Life
Insurance, Oaktree Capital Management LLC, Orix USA Corp, Pilgrim
America Group, Reboul, MacMurray, Maynard & Kristol, Savvis,
Stein Roe & Farnham, Inc./Liberty Mutual, Travelers Companies,
Van Kapmen Senior Income Trust, and Wells Fargo Bank -- all in
matters wholly unrelated to Bridge's chapter 11 cases.

Likewise, insofar as Messrs. Kinzinger and Mischka have been able
to ascertain, no such person, by reason of any direct or indirect
relationship to, connection with or interest in the Debtors,
holds or represents any interest adverse to the Debtors, their
estates or any class of creditors or equity security holders with
respect to the matters upon which Deloitte & Touche is to be
engaged pursuant to the Application. Deloitte & Touche has
undertaken a search to determine and to disclose, whether it or
its affiliates has been employed by significant creditors,
significant equity security holders, officers or directors of the
Debtors, or other parties in interest in such unrelated matters.

Deloitte further disclosed that it provides a wide range of
accounting, auditing, tax and consulting services for Welsh,
Carson, Anderson & Stowe, a major shareholder and creditor of the
Debtors and a possible bidder for the Debtors assets. Deloitte
provides services for or on behalf of Welsh, Carson and many of
its principals, affiliates and investment portfolio holdings,
including the Debtors. Deloitte provides various services in
matters unrelated to these cases to debtholders or certain of the
Debtors' twenty largest unsecured creditors including General
Motors or its affiliates, and Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith
and affiliates, for whom Deloitte provides a variety of other
services. In the ordinary course of its business, Deloitte has
business relationships in unrelated matters with its principal
competitors, the other "Big Five" accounting firms, including
PricewaterhouseCoopers. For example, from time to time, Deloitte
and one or more of such entities may work jointly on assignments
for the same client or may otherwise engage each other for
various purposes. Further, Deloitte and its affiliates have
lending relationships with Salomon Brothers, now owned by
Citibank (now part of Citigroup), both of which institutions are
lenders to Deloitte and, through capital financing arrangements,
to members of Deloitte or its affiliates. In addition, J.P.
Morgan Chase and Fleet Bank (now known as Fleet-Boston) provide
financing to Deloitte or its individual partners or principals.
Deloitte invests at Goldman Sachs and has accounts with Wells
Fargo Bank. Deloitte will not represent the interests of any of
these entities in connection with these proceedings without prior
Court permission. (Bridge Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 2;
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

CROWN CORK: Moody's Places Long-Term Ratings Under Review
Moody's Investors Service may likely downgrade the long term
ratings of Crown Cork and Seal, following a review of the
company's new refinancing scheme.

The bond rating agency is set to review the impact of the new
terms and conditions of the new bank facilities on the structural
seniority of unsecured bonds.

These new facilities have afforded the company a liquidity that
extends beyond February 2002, the original maturity date of its

But Moody's believes that the increased interest expenses
resulting from reliance on more expensive bank facilities could
further diminish the company's already thin free cash flow.
In addition, the granting of significant collateral to bank
lenders has likely weakened the position of bondholders.

Crown Cork and Seal is currently rated B2 by the bond rating
agency. This means that the bonds of the company lack
characteristics of a desirable investment and the assurance of
interest and principal payments of long-term contracts is small.

Moody's will include in its review the prospects for leverage
reduction resulting from the company's asset divestiture program.
It will also consider the company's efforts to improve the
operating performance of its remaining businesses, including its
cash flow capacity to absorb the cost of its asbestos settlement

CYBERCASH: Planning to Move Shares from Nasdaq to OTCBBS
CyberCash, Inc. (Nasdaq: CYCHQ), a leading provider of electronic
payment technologies and services, said it intends to voluntarily
delist its common stock from the Nasdaq Stock Market so the
shares will be eligible for trading on the Over the Counter
Bulletin Board. This move comes in response to the Nasdaq's
determination that CyberCash's continued listing on The Nasdaq
Stock Market was no longer warranted given its recent
restructuring and announced intention to sell its operations to
Network 1 Financial, Inc. through an auction process. The Company
is taking steps to facilitate trading on the Bulletin Board as
soon as possible and will make additional details known as they
become available.

The Company stressed that it is continuing to operate in the
ordinary course of business and its customers will not experience
any interruption in service or degradation of support. John H.
Karnes, CyberCash's Chief Financial Officer, commented, "The
Nasdaq's decision does not mean that CyberCash is going out of
business, as some of our competitors would have people believe.

CyberCash remains the most secure, most reliable Internet payment
processing service available -- bar none. CyberCash has the
highest service availability and operationally it is absolutely
business as usual." Karnes concluded, "In fact, we are
forecasting March to be our best month ever, anticipating well
over 11 million Internet payment transactions, and we are
continuing to receive large software orders from resellers who
have satisfied themselves that we can continue to support them.
We look forward to the prospect of aligning with a major industry
partner through the sale process and emerging stronger, and
positioned better than ever to continue serving our merchants in
the years ahead."

                          About CyberCash

CyberCash, Inc., headquartered in Reston, VA, is a leading
provider of Internet payment services and electronic payment
software for both Business- to-Consumer (B2C) and Business-to-
Business markets (B2B). The Company provides service solutions to
more than 27,500 Internet merchants and has shipped more than
145,000 copies of its software products. In addition to enabling
Internet payments, CyberCash offers merchants state-of-the-art
risk management capabilities through its FraudPatrol(TM) Internet
fraud detection service, and the opportunity to generate
additional sales leads through an affiliate marketing program.
CyberCash offers the broadest reach in the payment industry with
a comprehensive distribution network focusing on both direct and
indirect channels, which include marketing partnerships with
financial institutions, Internet service providers, application
service providers, storefront solution providers and leading
independent software vendors. On March 2, 2001, CyberCash and
Network 1 Financial, Inc. terminated their previously announced
merger agreement and CyberCash commenced the sale of its
operations in Chapter 11. For more information, visit

DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Court Documents Show "Massive" Lemon Laundering
DaimlerChrysler's public image is severely tarnished by documents
made public by a North Carolina court that reveal the cold
efficiency of the company's program to buy back and recycle
vehicles with a troubled history, a process known as "lemon
laundering." The documents reveal that Chrysler paid $1.3 billion
to buy back more than 50,000 vehicles from 1993 through 2000.

The release of the documents is "a great victory for consumers in
America who were defrauded by DaimlerChrysler," according to Doug
Abrams, an attorney suing Chrysler on behalf of a North Carolina
couple who unknowingly bought a recycled lemon. Abrams is a
partner in Twiggs, Abrams, Strickland and Rabenau, a Raleigh,
N.C. firm that are's first "Attorneys of Record"
for Lemon Litigation.

"These documents establish for the first time the extensive
corporate- level involvement in a process that historically had
been dismissed as the misbehavior of a few rogue dealers. Now
we're beginning to learn the truth of Chrysler's extensive
involvement," said Ralph Hoar, director of, where
some of the documents are posted.

"From a review of these documents we conclude that this
misconduct by DaimlerChrysler is merely a part of its business
plan," Abrams said. The three-inch stack of DaimlerChrysler
documents came to light because they were in a notebook referred
to by a Chrysler lawyer while appearing as a witness in the case.
Wake County Superior Court Judge Narley Cashwell ordered the
lawyer to turn over the documents, setting off a two-day scramble
by Chrysler to get the documents sealed. Earlier this week the
North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated a temporary stay that it
had placed on the documents in February.

Abrams maintained that, "Chrysler has not produced the first
single document in response to Judge Cashwell's specific orders
specifying documents DaimlerChrysler is required to produce."

Among other things, the documents reveal that DaimlerChrysler
generally recovers close to 70 percent of the buyback price by
auctioning most of the troubled vehicles to DaimlerChrysler
dealers who resell them to the public. A few of the vehicles are
crushed or "donated." Among the documents are disclosure forms
that are supposed to be signed by new owners to acknowledge they
are aware of the vehicle's troubled history. The forms are
frequently not signed.

The case, filed in 1999, has been marked by DaimlerChrysler's
repeated refusal to produce documents as the court has ordered.
Since December 11, 2000, the company has accumulated more than
$325,000 in sanctions. In January, Judge Cashwell, faced with the
automaker's refusal to comply with four separate orders calling
for the production of documents, penalized DaimlerChrysler with a
default judgment, meaning that it will not be allowed to mount a
defense in the case.

Last year, the court ordered Chrysler to produce underlying cost
documents related to its buyback program. In a hearing before
Judge Cashwell, Chrysler attorney R. Jonathan Charleston told the
court that the underlying cost documents had been produced under
seal. "Our review revealed that DaimlerChrysler did not produce
the underlying cost documents," Abrams said. "We have reminded
Mr. Charleston of his representations to the court. We have asked
the judge to hold Chrysler in contempt and to bring Chrysler's
president and CEO to Raleigh to explain Chrysler's repeated
refusal to comply with orders of North Carolina courts," he
added. Abrams has asked the court to increase DaimlerChrysler's
sanctions to $20,000 a day until they produce the documents as
ordered by the court. "The current level of sanctions have had no
impact," he said.

"Chrysler continues to flaunt its complete disregard for valid
orders of the superior court. Judge Cashwell is well recognized
as a courageous and insightful judge. In our view, Chrysler
remains in contempt of court," Abrams said.

Copies of the Chrysler documents are available from Safetyforum
Research at 703-469-3700.

ECHOCATH: Goldstein Golub Replaces KPMG as Independent Accountant
On March 1, 2001, Echocath, Inc. notified its independent
accountants, KPMG LLP that the auditing services of KPMG would no
longer be required. KPMG's dismissal was approved by the
Company's Board of Directors.

KPMG LLP's auditors' report on the financial statements of
EchoCath, Inc. for the two fiscal years ended August 31, 2000,
contained a separate paragraph stating that "the Company has
suffered recurring losses from operations, has negative working
capital and has a net capital deficiency, that raise substantial
doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern".

On March 7, 2001 the Company engaged Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP
as the Company's principal independent accountant to audit the
financial statements of the Company for the year ending August
31, 2001.

ELGIN TECHNOLOGIES: May Shut Down Due To Cash Flow Constraints
Elgin Technologies Inc. has limited access to available working
capital, which impacts the Company's ability to operate
efficiently. As a consequence, results from operations have been
negatively affected and it is expected that they will continue to
be adversely affected. There exists a substantial risk that the
Company will be required to curtail or discontinue its current
business operations.

Since e2 Electronics commenced operations in 1994, the Company
and its subsidiaries, have produced losses in each year and had
an accumulated deficit of $39,775,000 at March 31, 2000. For the
year ending March 31, 2000, the Company has continued to
experience losses of $4,280,000 on revenues of $7,424,000. The
major contributors to the accumulated losses were continued
research and development efforts to bring Master Lite-TM- to
market, along with the capital needed to rebuild the telecom
power and conversion businesses.

The Company and its subsidiaries have experienced cash flow
constraints throughout their operating history, resulting in
lower orders and decreased margins. The Telecom Power business
has been negatively impacted in its efforts to turnaround and
expand, principally by the Company's history of lack of working
capital, restructuring, consolidations and substantial operating
losses. Management is making every effort to reverse these trends
by reducing the operating costs of the Company's existing product
lines and seeking to expand into less costly, more profitable
products and services. These efforts will, however, require
increased capital infusion and management cautions that there can
be no assurances that these efforts will be successful.

Even though the Company is in the process of bringing Master
Lite-TM-to market, there can be no assurance that the Company
will successfully complete the product's technology or that the
product and technology will gain acceptance or that the Company
will not experience adverse operating results, including, but not
limited to substantial additional losses, in the future.

The substantial operating losses of the Company's operating
segments incurred through and subsequent to March 31, 2000, and
the Company's limited ability to obtain financing other than from
one major investor raises substantial doubt concerning the
ability of the Company to realize its assets and pay its
obligations as they mature in the ordinary course of business.

These conditions, among others, raise substantial doubt among the
Company's independent auditors about the Company's ability to
continue as a going concern. Weinick Sanders Leventhal & Co.,
LLP, the company's independent auditors make the following
statement concerning the company's financial condition: "the
Company has a working capital deficiency of $11,272,070 and
liabilities exceed assets by $11,070,149 at March 31, 2000 and,
in addition, the Company has incurred losses since inception.
These conditions, among others, raise substantial doubt about the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern".

Management indicates it is making every effort to reverse these
trends by the hiring of a new President/CEO and appointing a new
Vice President as head of sales to implement a turnaround of the
Company's businesses. New management will continue efforts to
reduce the operating costs of the Company's existing product
lines and seek to expand into less costly, more profitable
products and services. As stated though, these efforts will,
however, require increased working capital infusions. At present
the Company's sole source of financing is from one major
investor. Management cautions that there can be no assurances
that these efforts will be successful or that the investor will
continue to provide financing or that alternative sources of
funds will be available for management to implement its plan.
On June 1, 1998, e2 Electronics (the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary) filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

In connection with the bankruptcy, DC&A Partners, e2 Electronics'
largest secured creditor, purchased e2 Electronics' assets from
the Bankruptcy Court for $177,000. DC&A is a company formed by
principals of Mason Cabot, the Company's former investment
banking firm. Until the bankruptcy has been concluded, there is a
possibility that the Bankruptcy Court could invalidate certain
pre-petition transactions or make other findings, determinations
or rulings that could have material adverse effects on the
Company and/or its properties.

The Company is following a business plan intended to expand its
sales efforts and market penetration along with the continued
development and marketing of the MBLS technology. Implementation
of this plan will require substantial additional capital for
product development, marketing and promotion. No assurance can be
given that the Company will be successful in expanding its
current sales or distribution capabilities or developing new
products that result in increased sales and earnings or that its
marketing and promotion activities will have the intended effect
of expanding sales and increasing earnings.

The ability of the Company to execute its business plan is
substantially reliant upon the completion of the development of
its proprietary technologies, including but not limited to Master
Lite-TM-, and the successful marketing of products based upon
those technologies. There can be no assurance that the Company
will complete this development or that such development will
result in viable and/or marketable products. The Company's
failure to complete the development of its technologies and/or
market products based thereon could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition and results of

Furthermore, as a result of technological changes and
developments, many technologies are successfully marketed for
only a short period of time. There can be no assurance that (i)
any of the Company's current or future products will continue to
be accepted for any significant period of time or (ii) the market
will accept the Company's new products, or if such acceptance is
achieved, that it will be maintained for any significant period
of time. The Company's success will be dependent upon the
Company's ability to bring existing products to market and to
develop new products and product lines. The failure of the
Company's products and product lines to achieve and sustain
market acceptance and to produce acceptable margins could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and
results of operations.

The Company currently has only one major investor as its sole
financing source. There can be no assurance that this investor
will continue to fund the Company's operations. Without working
capital from this investor or an alternative financing source,
the Company could be required to curtail or discontinue its
current business operations. The Company's business plan is based
upon current assumptions about the costs of its implementation.

If these assumptions prove incorrect or if there are
unanticipated expenses, the Company may be required to seek
additional equity and/or debt financing. No assurance can be
given that the Company will be able to obtain such financing upon
favorable terms and conditions. Moreover, no assurance can be
given that the Company will be able to successfully implement any
or all of its business plan, or if implemented, that it will
accomplish the desired objectives of product expansion and
increased revenues and earnings.

FINOVA GROUP: Honoring Employee Retention Obligations
Effective in May, 2000, The FINOVA Group, Inc., initiated
Retention Programs for certain employees. These Retention Plans
were implemented in order to retain employees in the event of a
change of control and during the Debtors' out of court
restructuring. The Retention Plan for general employees includes
both a Retention Bonus, Enhanced Severance Pay and outplacement

Retention Bonuses were calculated as a percentage of base salary,
plus other compensation. The percentage used to calculate the
amount of the Retention Bonus for each employee was either 0%,
20%, 30%, 40% or 60%, with the exception of certain management
and executive employees who received a higher percentage for
their Retention Bonuses. The percentage received as a Retention
Bonus was determined by the employee's criticality rating.

The Debtors commenced installment payments of the Retention
Bonuses to all employees except senior executives in October
2000. Participating employees were entitled to receive 10% of
their total Retention Bonus each month from October 2000 through
March 2001 representing a total payout of 60% of the total
retention bonus by April 2001. In April 2001. the remaining
balance of 40% of each non-executive employee's total Retention
Bonus will be payable.

Under the Retention Plan, if an employee is terminated prior to
April 2001, without cause, the employee is entitled to receive
the balance of the Retention Bonus in a lump sum payment. The
actual total amount of Retention Bonuses that the Debtors paid in
the months of November 2000 and January 2001 increased
substantially due to terminations. The Debtors estimate that the
total amount of Retention Bonuses payable in the month of March
2001 was approximately $2,100,000.

The Retention Plan for general employees also included Enhanced
Severance Pay. Enhanced Severance Pay was determined by the
employee's level within the companies and length of service. With
the exception of certain executives and senior management,
Enhanced Severance Pay was subject to a minimum of eight or
sixteen weeks of pay and capped at fifty-two weeks of pay. Under
the Retention Plan, Enhanced Severance Pay is payable to the
employee in a lump sum upon termination without cause.

In addition to the Retention Plan applicable to general
employees, the Distribution & Channel Finance and the FINOVA
Realty Capital lines of business each have Liquidation Period
Retention and Incentive Plans. Both of these lines of business
are currently liquidating their portfolios. The Liquidation
Period Retention and Incentive Plans were developed to retain
employees who were critical to the efficient liquidation of the
portfolios and to the maximization of proceeds from the sale of
the portfolios.

Under the D&CF Liquidation Period Retention and Incentive Plan,
employees that were retained during the liquidation period from
December 1, 2000 through May 31, 2001 are entitled to an
additional Liquidation Period Retention Bonus. The Liquidation
Period Retention Bonus is 5% of base salary per month for non-
management employees. Critical management is receiving 6.6% of
base salary per month. In addition to Liquidation Period
Retention Bonuses, employees of D&CF are entitled to certain
incentive payments after the end of the liquidation period from
pools of funds determined based on the amount realized from the
collection of the portfolio during the Liquidation Period.
Employees will share in the pools as determined by management.
The maximum bonus pool available for payment of incentive
payments under the D&CF Liquidation Period Retention Plan is
$795,250. The expected bonus pool available for payment of
incentive payments under the D&CF Liquidation Period Retention
Plan is $616,250.

Under the FRC Liquidation Retention and Incentive Plan, employees
that were retained during the liquidation period from February 1,
2001 through December 31, 2001 are entitled to performance based
incentive bonuses payable from a pool measured as the aggregate
of: (1) a portion of cash proceeds from liquidation activities;
and, (2) a portion of cash proceeds above a baseline of each
asset established by an independent third party. Employees will
share in the pools as determined by management. The pool will be
partially disbursed each time FRC reaches an interim financial
goal for the liquidation. If the interim financial goals are not
met, deferral and forfeiture provisions reduce the incentive

Prior to filing their bankruptcy petitions, the Debtors
reevaluated their prepetition Retention Plans in light of the
termination date of the prepetition Retention Plans and their
current financial situation. As a result, the Debtors have
adopted new retention plans which will become effective following
expiration of and payment under the prepetition plan. The Debtors
will be filing in the near future a motion for approval of the
new retention plans. The Debtors seek authorization to continue
to pay employees all amounts due under the existing Retention
Plans, including without limitation, the remaining 40% of the
balance of the Retention Bonuses due in April 2001 under the
prepetition Retention Plans, but not including retention payments
to senior executives. The Debtors believe that paying the 40%
balance of the Retention Bonuses is of critical importance.
Employees were promised these funds long before any bankruptcy
filing was anticipated and many have already made personal
commitments based on the anticipated payments.

"Any failure to make these payments will seriously undermine
morale, and raise questions in the minds of employees about the
Debtors' willingness and ability to honor their commitments,"
William J. Hallinan, FINOVA's President, Chief Executive Officer,
General Counsel tells the Court. The total cost the estate is
approximately $10,700,000 -- "very small relative to the amounts
involved in these cases [and] the risks of not making the payment
are very high."

"Motion granted," Judge Wizmur ruled, except with respect to
FINOVA's Senior Executives. (Finova Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 2;
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

FIRSTAR CENTER: Files Chapter 11 to Facilitate Sale
Firstar Center, the company that owns the Firstar Center and the
Cyclones hockey team in Cincinnati, filed for bankruptcy
Thursday, according to WLWT Eyewitness News 5 in Cincinnati.
Owners said that concerts would continue. Firstar Center owes
creditors $40 million. It is filing for bankruptcy so that a new
company that has offered to buy the arena, Cincinnati Arena
Holdings, will not incur the massive debt. The company offered
Firstar's current owners $31 million for the arena. General
manager Martha Schwartz said that Firstar would file for chapter
11 protection so that the already scheduled events at the arena
will continue. Firstar blames the county for its financial
downward spiral. The company said that the county took Firstar
Center's parking for the new stadium construction, and that
people have stayed away from events. (ABI World, March 16, 2001)

FOUNTAIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Needs New Funding to Continue Operation
Fountain Pharmaceuticals Inc. has incurred recurring losses and
has a $2,883,486 working capital deficit at December 31, 2000.
During the past three years these losses have been principally
funded through sales of preferred stock ($2,500,000) to an entity
controlled by the Company's current Chairman of the Board (Mr.
Schuchert) and advances of $2,711,500 from Mr. Schuchert. Given
the limited financial resources of the Company, the Company is
continuing to reduce operating expenses. In addition, the Company
is continuing to de-emphasize building an internal sales
infrastructure and is concentrating its efforts on establishing
partnerships and/or joint ventures with sales channels that do
not require up front investment or overhead expense. These
relationships may include commission only sales personnel, E-
Commerce marketing partners, etc. Based upon the Company's
current budget guidelines, management believed that the Company
had sufficient working capital to enable it to meet its
anticipated operating expenses through March 2, 2001. Mr.
Schuchert has conditionally indicated his intention to fund the
Company's cash needs for the near term but is under no obligation
to do so. If the Company is unable to secure additional financing
from Mr. Schuchert in the very near term, it will not be able to
continue as a going concern and will suspend operations.

The Company was organized during 1989 to develop and
commercialize certain proprietary compound encapsulation
technologies. Following several years of continued developmental
efforts, the Company was able to secure patents on several
aspects of its technologies in the United States and Europe,
introduce branded products in certain markets and develop
strategic associations with pharmaceutical companies.

From inception through 1994, the Company remained in the
development stage while experiencing substantial losses. Its
principal source of capital was derived from a series of private
financing transactions and an initial public offering in 1990.
Sales revenues during this period were insufficient to offset the
Company's operating costs and liabilities. Consequently, the
Company filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division on November 30,
1994. Upon successfully reorganizing its operations and finances,
the Company emerged from bankruptcy in July 1996.

In July 1997, the Company completed a private placement of
2,000,000 newly-designated and issued shares of Series A
Convertible Preferred Stock to Fountain Holdings, LLC, a Wyoming
limited liability company, controlled by Joseph S. Schuchert, Jr.
As a result of this private placement the Company obtained
additional working capital of $2.5 million, which it utilized to
enhance the expansion of its sales and marketing program, as well
as to further the Company's research and development efforts.

As a result of significant increases in marketing costs
associated with the expansion of existing product lines and the
introduction of new products during fiscal year ended September
30, 1998, which were not offset by sales revenues during the
period, the Company substantially utilized its working capital
resources. In order to provide working capital, the Company also
entered into a secured credit arrangement with Mr. Schuchert as
of December 31, 1998. The credit agreement provides for a two-
year line of credit of up to $1,500,000 subject to the Company
satisfying certain agreed upon quarterly operating budget

As a result of additional costs associated with the development
and marketing of two new product lines during fiscal year ended
September 30, 1999, the Company fully utilized the $1,500,000
line of credit. In order to maintain current operations for
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, the Company obtained short
term unsecured loans from its former President, Mr. Gerald
Simmons and Mr. John C. Walsh, a director of the Company in the
aggregate amount of $20,000. During fiscal year ended September
30, 2000 and subsequently, Mr. Schuchert made additional
unsecured advances to the Company, the terms of which have not
been finalized. As of February 16, 2001, the outstanding
principal balance of this unsecured loan was $1,211,500.

As mentioned above, Mr. Schuchert has conditionally indicated his
intention to fund the Company's cash needs for the near term but
is under no obligation to do so. If the Company does not secure
additonal financing from Mr. Schuchert in the very near term, the
Company will not be able to continue as a going concern and will
suspend operations.

During the quarter ended December 31, 2000, the Company realized
a net loss of $253,914 on revenues of $192,011, compared to a net
loss of $577,707 on revenues of $136,914 for the quarter ended
December 31, 1999. This decrease in net losses from the prior
year's quarter ended December 31, 1999, is attributable primarily
to the overall reduction in operating expenses. The increase in
revenues of 40.2% from prior year's quarter ended December 31,
1999 was a result, primarily, of early shipments during the
quarter ended December 31, 2000, normally which would occur in
the second fiscal quarter, to the Company's European licensee's
in Switzerland and Norway.

As of December 31, 2000, the Company had a working capital
deficit of $2,883,486, a decrease in working capital of $245,124
from the level of working capital deficit, of $2,638,362 as of
September 30, 2000. The decrease in working capital is primarily
attributable to operating expenses not offset by sales revenues,
accrued interest on the Credit Agreement, plus estimated accrued
interest on the unsecured loan from Mr. Schuchert.

FRUIT OF THE LOOM: Asks Court's Okay To Amend DIP Loan Amendment
Fruit of the Loom, Ltd., pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 364(d), asked
Judge Walsh to authorize an amendment to its postpetition loan
and security agreement dated December 29, 1999. There are two
major requests:

      (a) to extend the term of the DIP Facility Agreement to
December 31, 2000 and

      (b) to voluntarily reduce the availability under the
Agreement to $450,000,000, comprised of a $350,000,000 revolving
credit facility and a $100,000,000 term loan.

The letter of credit sublimit under the revolving portion of the
facility remains at $175,000,000. The amendment also provides for
payment of a one- time $900,000 Commitment Fee to the lenders and
a $225,000 Administrative Fee to the Agent.

The Debtors agreed to limit their capital expenditures to
$75,000,000 for the period December 31, 2000 to December 31,
2001, and covenant that Minimum EBITDAR will be no less than
$128,445,000 for the period December 31, 2000 to December 31,

Since the petition date, Fruit of the Loom has been authorized to
borrow up $625,000,000, comprised of a revolving facility up to
$475,000,000 and a term facility of $150,000,000 subject to
reduction. The revolving credit facility includes a sublimit of
$175,000,000 for letters of credit. Total borrowings under the
DIP Facility Agreement as of February 2, 2000 were approximately
$100,000,000, excluding issued and undrawn letters of credit and
undrawn reserves. Total borrowings as of that date consist
entirely of the term loan component; there is no usage of the
revolver loan component. Once reduced, the term loan may not be
reborrowed. Availability, after issued and undrawn letters of
credit and undrawn reserves, at February 28, 2001, exceeded

Under the terms of the agreement, Fruit of the Loom pays a
monthly fee of 0.5% per annum of the total unused revolving
credit commitment, calculated on average usage during the
preceding month. To date, these fees have averaged approximately
$70,000 per month. The agreement terminates on June 30, 2001.

Bank of America continues to serve as Agent under the DIP
Facility for a lending syndicate comprised of Credit Suisse First
Boston, CIT Group Commercial Services, Citicorp USA, Bank of Nova
Scotia, Congress Financial, Fleet Capital Corporation, Foothill
Capital Corporation, Credit Agricole Indosuez, GMAC Business
Credit, Goldman Sachs Credit Partners, Heller Financial, Israel
Discount Bank, LaSalle Business Credit, National City Commercial
Finance, The Provident Bank, General Electric Capital, and
Transamerica Business Credit Corporation.

David G. Crumbaugh, Esq., and Davis S. Heller, Esq., at Latham &
Watkins in Chicago, continue to serve as counsel to BofA in Fruit
of the Loom's chapter 11 cases. (Fruit of the Loom Bankruptcy
News, Issue No. 24; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-

GORGES HOLDING: Seeks to Extend Exclusive Period to July 31
Gorges Holding Corporation and Gorges/Quik-to-Fix Foods, Inc.,
the debtors, sought entry of an order granting an extension of
their exclusive period within which they may file a Chapter 11
plan or plans through and including July 31, 2001 and the
exclusive period within which they may solicit acceptances of
any such plan(s) through and including October 1, 2001.

This is the debtor's first request for an extension of their
Exclusive Periods.

The debtors, working with their court-approved professionals,
developed and obtained Court approval of a retention plan for
certain employees. The debtors have also been working closely
with their financial advisors PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP to
complete their statements of financial affairs, their schedules
of assets and liabilities, and their schedules of executory
contracts and unexpired leases. The debtors completed and filed
their schedules on January 22, 2001.

The debtors have also been working with their financial advisors,
PricewaterouseCoopers, LLP, to assist them in developing a
revised business plan. McDonald Investments, Inc. is being
utilized by the debtors to, among other things, prepare a
valuation of their businesses and to respond to third parties who
have inquired about potential business combinations. The
completion by McDonald Investments of its valuation of the
debtors' business will be an important step in the debtors'
ability to formulate and negotiate a Chapter 11 plan.

HARNISCHFEGER: Court Okays Preference Claim Settlement Procedures
To minimize expenses, Beloit Corporation of the Harnischfeger
Industries, Inc. Debtors sought and obtained the Court's approval
for an omnibus procedure for settling preference claims pursuant
to section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and Rule 9019 of the
Bankruptcy Rules.

Beloit told the Court that the company and its professionals are
analyzing the preference claims that it may assert. Beloit sought
to resolve such preference claims by settlement pursuant to
section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and Rule 9019 of the
Bankruptcy Rules. The Debtor believes that settlement of the
preference claims will bring cash into Beloit's estate, thereby
increasing the assets available to its creditors.

However, Beloit noted that pursuant to section 363(b) of the
Bankruptcy Code, if a settlement is outside of the ordinary
course of business of the debtor, it requires approval of the
bankruptcy court upon motion and after notice and a hearing as
required by Rule 9019 of the Bankruptcy Rules. To comply with the
Bankruptcy Code in the absence of Court approval for an omnibus
procedure, Beloit must obtain Court approval of each settlement,
which involves preparing, filing and serving separate motions for
each proposed settlement of a preference claim. Further, Beloit
may be delayed in obtaining the Court's approval due to the
required notice periods and the available hearing schedule.

Therefore, Beloit sought the establishment of an omnibus
procedure to allow it to enter into settlements of preference
claims on a cost-effective and expeditious basis.

The Debtor assured the Court that the proposed procedure
preserves an oversight function for key parties in interest that
protects the value of Beloit's preference claims. Before the
effective date of the Plan, Beloit and the Beloit Committee have
a fiduciary obligation to preserve the value of the Beloit
estate. After the effective date, the Plan Administrator will
have this fiduciary obligation. Beloit, the Beloit Committee and
the Plan Administrator will discharge their fiduciary duties in
settling the preference claims, the Debtor submitted.

                Proposed Omnibus Procedure

With respect to preference claims under section 547 of the
Bankruptcy Code, Beloit proposed that it be authorized to enter
into settlements, without obtaining prior approval from this
Court, pursuant to the Omnibus Procedure:

      (1) Beloit will not settle a preference claim unless it is
reasonable in Beloit's (or the Plan Administrator's) judgment. In
making this judgment, Beloit (or the Plan Administrator) will
consider (i) the probability of success if the preference claim
is litigated or arbitrated, (ii) the complexity, expense and
likely duration of any litigation or arbitration with respect to
the preference claim, (iii) other factors relevant to assessing
the wisdom of the settlement, and (iv) the fairness of the
settlement vis-i-vis Beloit's estates, creditors and
shareholders,  that is, the criteria for courts to consider
approval of settlements.

      (2) No settlement will be effective unless it is executed by
the counsel to Beloit or counsel to the Plan Administrator;

      (3) Subject to the other provisions of the omnibus
procedure, until the Plan's effective date, Beloit in its
discretion, may agree to settle any preference claim so long as
the settlement is within the limits agreed to between Beloit and
the Beloit Committee. If such requirements are met, Beloit may
enter into, execute and consummate a written agreement of
settlement that will be binding on it and its estate without
further Court approval.

      (4) After the Plan's effective date, the Plan Administrator
may settle preference claims in its discretion without Court
approval, subject to the other provisions of the omnibus

Beloit submitted that the proposed omnibus procedure will aid
their efforts to reduce expenses and maximize value for the
benefit of its estate, creditors and other parties in interest
because its counsel will not need to draft, file and serve
numerous motions. The proposed procedures, Beloit represents,
will also reduce the burden on the Court's docket while
protecting the interests of all creditors through the notice and
objection procedures.

Therefore, in the exercise of their business judgment, Beloit has
determined that the relief requested in this Motion is in the
best interests of its estate and creditors. Beloit further
submitted that the proposal was made in consultation with Counsel
to the Beloit Committee, and such Counsel agrees with the relief
requested in the motion. (Harnischfeger Bankruptcy News, Issue
No. 38; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

HEALTHNET: Lack Of Funds Trigger Going Concern Doubts
Healthnet International Inc. has two business units,
ehealthstores and nject. eHealthstores licenses applicable
software, builds and maintains customized e-commerce Web sites
and provides marketing services for retailers and health care
providers who wish to sell vitamins, minerals and supplements
(VMS) products on the Internet. nject (formerly Varcom), provides
Internet design, graphic and marketing services for clients. In
addition, the Company's early prototype retail operations
(, continue to operate
as the research and development test beds and direct product
sales divisions.

As at November 30, 2000, the Company had a working capital
deficit of $4,818,052, including notes payable on February 1,
2001 and May 31, 2001 in the total amount of $3,373,700 and
interest accrued thereon in the total amount of $178,304. These
conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to
continue as a going concern. The ability of the Company to
continue its operations is dependent upon its success in its
present efforts to secure additional debt financing, and/or raise
additional equity financing through the sale of common stock by
means of private placement to sophisticated investors, and/or
complete the transaction to acquire 100% of the outstanding
shares of WorldPathway Technologies Inc., and/or renegotiate the
terms of settlement of notes payable, and/or successfully
conclude certain large Web site licensing agreements. There is,
of course, no assurance that these present efforts will be

An additional debt financing of $25,000 has been received
subsequent to the quarter end and prior to March 7, 2001 and
further immediate debt financing and later equity financing is
being planned.

Losses for the fiscal quarter and nine months ended November 30,
2000 amounted to $1,574,593 and $3,776,352. Revenue during the
period was $82,434 compared to $182,673 for the previous quarter
reflecting reduced Website development revenues.

INNOVO GROUP: Reports More Losses In the Year Ended November 2000
Innovo Group Inc. (Nasdaq: INNO), a sales and marketing
organization designing and selling craft, accessory and apparel
products to the retail, specialty and premium markets, announced
financial results for fiscal 2000, ending a transitional year in
which the Company took numerous steps to improve the operational
structure and financial strength of the Company.

For fiscal year-ended November 30, 2000, the Company's net loss,
excluding an extraordinary charge described below, increased to
$5.0 million or $0.62 per share compared to a net loss of $1.3
million or $0.22 per share in fiscal 1999.

The Company's financial performance in fiscal 2000 reflects the
impact of the Company's transition to a sales and marketing
organization and away from its dependence on its manufacturing
and distribution capabilities. During fiscal 2000, the Company
closed its domestic manufacturing and distribution facilities,
restructured its operations to focus on its core product
categories with the highest volume and profit margin, raised
additional working capital and converted certain indebtedness to
equity in order to strengthen the Company's financial position.

The Company has shifted the production of products which were
previously manufactured by the Company domestically to Azteca
Production International, Inc. and has outsourced the
distribution of all its products to Apparel Distribution
Services, LLC, both affiliates of Commerce Investment Group, LLC,
a significant shareholder of the Company. The charges taken by
the Company during fiscal 2000 as a result of closing its
manufacturing and distribution facilities totaled approximately

Jay Furrow, the Company's President, stated that "while we are
not pleased with the financial consequences of closing the
manufacturing and distribution facility, we are very pleased to
be able to shed the negative financial obligations and production
and distribution limitations associated with the facility. As a
result of the Company's ability to close its domestic
manufacturing and distribution facility and focus on sales and
marketing the Company has been able to take steps and implement
procedures which the Company believes will increase revenues,
reduce expenses, decrease the cost of goods sold, increase supply
and distribution capabilities and allow management to focus its
efforts on future growth of the Company."

For fiscal 2000, net sales decreased $5.07 million or 46.8% from
$10.83 million in 1999 to $5.76 million in 2000. The decrease in
sales can largely be attributed to the Company's inability to
meet customer demand as a result of labor and production
shortages, a large premium order of $2.5 million placed in 1999
but not repeated in 2000, a decrease in the sales of clear
backpacks and sports bags in 2000 compared to 1999 and non-
competitive pricing due to costly domestic manufacturing of its
products. Additionally, the decrease in net sales is a result of
an increase in customer discounts and allowances and the
reduction in sales and marketing staff in an attempt to reduce
costs and focus the Company's sales and marketing efforts on its
core products and key customers.

In fiscal 2000, the Company converted $2 million of debt to
equity in exchange for common stock and warrants. The fair value
of the warrants, which was determined to be $1,095,000, was
recorded as an extraordinary charge for the extinguishment of
debt and a corresponding increase in additional paid-in capital.
Furrow noted that "fiscal 2000 was a transitional and
reorganizational year, but we believe all of the actions taken
will ultimately have positive consequences. The actions taken in
fiscal 2000 should provide the Company with the financial and
operational foundation to increase production and distribution
capabilities, increase revenues, and reduce expense. The
financial results for fiscal 2000 are disappointing, but the
Company believes that the tools are in place to allow the Company
to obtain profitability and increase shareholder value."

                     About Innovo Group Inc.

Innovo Group Inc. through its subsidiary Innovo Inc. and Joe's
Jeans, is a sales and marketing organization designing and
selling craft, accessory and apparel products to the retail and
premium markets. The Company's craft products include canvas and
denim totebags and aprons. The Company's accessory product line
is comprised of such products as licensed and non-licensed
backpack, totebags, waist packs and handbags. The Company's
apparel products consist of women's high-end denim jeans and knit
shirts featuring the Joe's brand. For more information, visit the
company web site at

JUST TOYS: Planning To Sell Assets Under Bankruptcy Protection
Just Toys, Inc. announced that operating results since September
30, 2000 continue to be extremely disappointing. The Company
experienced further erosion in its working capital position and
became unable to pay its obligations to vendors and other
creditors on a reasonably current basis. As a result, it has been
extremely difficult for the Company to obtain new merchandise and
the Company has concentrated on fulfilling orders out of existing
inventory. The Company released all personnel not needed for this
limited activity.

Just Toys is discussing with several companies the sales of its
assets in connection with a filing under the Bankruptcy Code.
Such a transaction is unlikely to result in any assets being
available for distribution to stockholders.

LEADER INDUSTRIES: Expects Disappointing Results for Q4 & FY2000
Leader Industries Inc. has experienced an unexpected downturn in
sales for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2000. Sales for
this quarter are estimated at $5.9 million compared to $6.4
million for the same quarter in fiscal 1999, representing a 9.2%
decline. In addition, new products introduced under the Leader
trademark, which were expected to generate increased sales in the
year 2000, did not, as a result of delays in launching and
slowdown in customers' orders.

These new products consisting of a line of protective eyewear for
motocross/ATV, a new line of paintball masks, a series of sports
goggles with corrective lenses and, in particular, a full range
ofindustrial safety eyewear were well received on the market
place, but sales have not been achieved at the expected rate.

Most of the costs related to these new products, such as
development costs, design, patents, prototypes, molds, production
start-up costs, marketing, sales expenses, trade shows, packaging
and launch promotions, were all incurred during the second half
of FY2000, contributing to the disappointing results.

Due to weak sales and year-end adjustments, the Company expects a
loss before income taxes in the fourth quarter 2000, of
approximately $5.5 million, resulting in a loss before income
taxes for the twelve months ended December 31, 2000 of
approximately $7.0 million, compared to income before taxes of
$1.1 million in fiscal 1999. Audited financial results are
expected to be available by mid April 2001.

The Company is currently not satisfying certain financial ratios
and covenants prescribed by its lenders and is discussing with
these lenders and consultants refinancing and restructuring
scenarios including equity financing and debt refinancing. No
decision has been made to date as to a specific course of action.
In consultation with its advisors, the Company has implemented
several measures in order to reduce operating costs and maximize
sales, while maintaining quality products and service for its

For the first two months of the current fiscal year, sales have
met budgeted expectations. First quarter 2001 sales are expected
to be around $8.8 million, representing an 11.4% increase over
the sales recorded for the first quarter of fiscal 2000.

Dedicated to protective eyewear, Leader Industries Inc. designs,
manufactures and distributes a wide range of eyeglasses, goggles,
visors and masks for sports, as well as for the industrial
sector. Started in 1972, the Company generates nearly 50% of its
sales in the United States and 30% in Europe. More than 230
employees work in the Company's six locations in Canada, the
United States, France and Brazil, of whom 190 in Boucherville

LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Bakers Move to Disqualify Milbank as Counsel
Janet Baker and James Baker, former principal shareholders of
Dragon Systems, Inc., and now shareholders of Lernout & Hauspie
Speech Products N.V. and Dictaphone Corp., represented by Scott
D. Cousins and William Chipman of Greenberg Traurig LLP of
Wilmington, Delaware, Karen C. Dyer of the Orlando Florida firm
of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, and David Boies of the Armonk
New York branch of Boies, asked Judge Wizmur in effect to
reconsider her approval of the Debtors' employment of the law
firm of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy as their lead bankruptcy
counsel by bringing a Motion asking that the firm be disqualified
from that position.

The Bakers told Judge Wizmur that there are serious conflicts of
interests which were not disclosed to her in the Debtors'
application to employ Milbank, conflicts that create a direct,
disabling conflict of interests which have already manifested.

Specifically, the Bakers said that:

      * L&H procured its merger with Dragon by fraudulently
misstating its financial statements and tortiously interfering
with a planned merger with another entity. Therefore, while the
Bakers have claims as parties to the merger agreement against
N.V., and Holdings and/or Dragon also have a claim against N.A.
that the merger should be rescinded, a joint legal representative
would be required to aid one debtor against, and to the detriment
of, another.

      * L&H has moved to obtain secured postpetition financing for
the benefit of L&H's reorganization, while attempting to secure
that financing with Holdings' assets, which are still, the Bakers
believe, unencumbered. The proposed lien unduly prejudices the
rights of Holdings' creditors and subordinates their interests in
Holdings' assets. In addition, it is not in Holdings' interest to
finance the heavily indebted L&H and Dictaphone, as Holdings is a
solvent entity of its own.

      * L&H is "raiding" Holdings' intellectual property and
employees for the benefit of L&H and Dictaphone, mismanaging
Holdings' business, and closing successful lines of business, all
to Holdings' detriment.

      * L&H seeks to pursue a joint plan or reorganization based
on the assets of all three Debtors; nevertheless, Holdings as a
financially sound entity would benefit from a plan that severs
its relationship to L&H, rather than a joint plan which
necessarily would require the relatively unencumbered assets of
Holdings to be used to pay off and/or secure the debts of
Dictaphone and L&H.

      * Milbank has also undertaken to defend L&H in shareholder
derivative suits filed against L&H regarding L&H's purported
fraudulent activities. Thus, Milbank has established an advocacy
position and relationship with L&H in which substantial sums will
be spent on a potentially meritless defense of L&H. The use by
Milbank of Holdings' assets to defend the alleged improper
activities of L&H, or the use of Holdings' assets to finance
other activities of L&H because L&H's assets are depleted in
defending these shareholder suits, is improper and presents a
direct conflict.

Milbank cannot adequately engage in joint representation because,
regardless of which position it advocates, the conflicts among
L&H, Holdings and Dictaphone require that the firm argue on
behalf of one entity to the detriment of another. An attorney who
must choose between positions that will advance the interest of
one client, to the detriment of another, may not act as a joint
representative. (L&H/Dictaphone Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 5;
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

LOEWEN GROUP: Rejects Weinstein Shareholder Agreement
At The Loewen Group, Inc.'s behest, the Court authorized the
Debtors' rejection of Shareholder Agreement with Joel W.
Weinstein, Norman Cutler, Robert A. Weinstein, Arthur Grossberg
and Mark Weinstein.

The Court concurred that it is a reasonable exercise of LGII's
business judgment and in the best interests of LGII's estate and
creditors to reject the Shareholder Agreement. Moreover, the
Court finds that the relief granted will not prejudice or affect
any of the rights of the parties to the Agreement, nor will it
prejudice or affect any rights of the Debtors to object on all
applicable grounds to any claim that has been or may be asserted
by these parties.

                The Shareholder Agreement

In October, 1995, LGII and the Shareholders entered into a
Shareholder Agreement pursuant to which the parties agreed to
certain terms and conditions with respect to the ownership and
activities of Weinstein Family Services, Inc. (Weinstein). The
Shareholders and LGII hold all of the outstanding shares of
common stock of Weinstein.

Under the terms of the Shareholder Agreement, the parties agreed

* Restriction on Sale and issuance of Shares

      The Sharehoders are prohibited from selling, transferring or
disposing of their shares to any party other than LGII. The
Sharehoders have a "put" right pursuant to which they may require
LGII, on 120 days written notice, to purchase their shares of
Class A common stock at an "agreed price" to be determined by a
formula set forth in the Shareholder Agreement. The minimum
"agreed price" is the original equity contribution by the
Shareholders to Weinstein, or $495,000.

      LGII also has the right to call the Shareholders' respective
shares in the event that Joel W. Weinstein, Norman Cutler and
Robert A. Weinstein are no longer employed by LGII or any of its
affiliates or subsidiaries.

* Restriction on Issuance of Shares

      Weinstein is prohibited from issuing any additional shares
of its stock, granting stock options or creating any new
subsidiaries without the consent of two-thirds of the

* Financing of Acquisitions

      With respect to the first $10 million of acquisitions by
Weinstein, the Shareholders were to be responsible for funding
4.95% of the acquisition cost, or $495,000 whereas with respect
to acquisitions in excess of $10 million, LGII is required to
fund the full acquisition cost.

* Capital Expenditures

      Payment for capital expenditures is required to be made from
current cash flow or long-term debt. Net after-tax proceeds from
sales of capital items are required to be applied as a reduction
of long-term debt.

* Legend on Shares

      Each share certificate of Weinstein stock must include a
legend noting that such share is subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in the Shareholder Agreement.

* Management Fee

      LGII is entitled, within its sole discretion, to charge a
periodic management fee to Weinstein. (Loewen Bankruptcy News,
Issue No. 34; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

LTV CORP.: Opposes Motion for Appointment of Retirees' Committee
The LTV Corporation objected to any suggestion that a committee
of retired employees should be appointed in these Chapter 11
cases. First, the Debtors told Judge Bodoh, the Debtors currently
are not seeking to modify or otherwise forego the payment of
retiree benefits. To the contrary, the Debtors are continuing to
pay retiree benefits in accordance with the requirements of the
Bankruptcy Code. There is therefore no justification for
appointment of such a committee at this time. If the Debtors were
to decide to seek a modification of their retiree benefit
obligations, the appointment of an official committee of retired
employees to represent non-union employees may be appropriate.
But until that occurs, appointment of a committee is premature
and would cause the Debtors to incur additional administrative
expense liability with little, if any, corresponding benefit to
these estates. In addition, if appointment of an official
committee of retired employees subsequently became appropriate,
it is not clear that the moving members are the parties that
should be appointed to serve. The Debtors have thousands of
nonsalaried retired employees that may be eligible to serve on
any official committee, and believe that the composition of this
committee, if it were ultimately appointed, largely will depend
on the types of modifications being sought by the Debtors with
respect to retiree benefits and which group or groups of retirees
will be affected. This information is not available at this time,
and the appointment of an official committee would require the
Court to engage in unwarranted speculation with respect to these

The motion also fails to set forth any facts suggesting that the
movants' current interests as general unsecured creditors is not
adequately represented by the two statutory committees already
appointed in these cases. The Debtors believe that the Creditors'
Committee and the Noteholders' Committee more than adequately
represent the interests of the Movants and their members as
general unsecured creditors. Accordingly, there is no
justification for burdening the Debtors' estates with the expense
or delay of an additional official committee.

          The Unsecured Creditors Committee's Objection

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of LTV Steel
Company agreed that the relief requested is premature, and also
agreed that the moving parties may not be the proper
representatives for the Debtors' retirees in any event. The
Committee is already established, and there is no reason, the
Committee told Judge Bodoh, to suggest that this committee cannot
fulfill its obligations. The moving parties' interests are very
limited, and there is no reason to create a "single issue"
committee, imbued with all of the rights and investigative duties
imposed by the Bankruptcy Code.

Although the moving parties may have played a significant role in
the Debtors' previous reorganization, they now fail to establish
that they are the proper parties to represent the Debtors'
retirees in these proceedings. How the retiree obligations may be
affected in the present reorganization, and concomitantly what
entities or individuals are the appropriate representatives,
cannot be known at this point. (LTV Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 5;
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-00900)

MARINER: Wants Further Extension of Time to Decide on Leases
Mariner Post-Acute Network, Inc. told Judge Walrath they will be
unable to make reasoned decisions as to whether to assume or
reject all the Unexpired Leases by the previously approved
deadline of March 19, 2001.

However, the Unexpired Leases are valuable assets of their
estates and are integral to the continued operation of their
businesses. Under the circumstances of the cases, the Debtors
believe that they should not be forced to forfeit their right to
assume any of the Unexpired Leases as a result of the "deemed
rejected" provision of section 365(d)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code,
or be compelled to assume all of these leases prematurely, with
the resultant imposition of potentially substantial
administrative expenses on their estates.

Instead, the Debtors believe that an extension of the period is
well justified considering that:

      (1) the leases are important assets of the estates;

      (2) their chapter 11 cases are large and complex;

      (3) they have not had sufficient time in which to appraise
the value of the unexpired leases or determine whether to retain
particular leased facilities;

      (4) a further extension of the period will not prejudice the

For these reasons, the Debtors requested that the Court
authorize, pursuant to section 365(d)(4) of the United States
Bankruptcy Code, a further extension of the date by which they
must assume or reject their unexpired leases of nonresidential
real property to and including the earlier of:

      (a) September 17, 2001 (or such later date as may be fixed
on subsequent motion of the Debtors) and

      (b) the effective date of a plan of reorganization for the

The Debtors asked that such requested extension include but not
limit to the 367 Unexpired Leases and Subleases that the Debtors
have identified and as listed in exhibit A to the motion. The
Debtors specifically requested that the requested extension
exclude the one lease between Living Centers-East, Inc.
(tenant) and Colonial Oaks Living Center, Inc. (landlord)
relating to property at Colonial Oaks Living Center, 4312 Ithaca
Street, Metairie, LA. (Mariner Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 13;
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

MARTIN INDUSTRIES: Requests Hearing to Continue Nasdaq Listing
Martin Industries, Inc. (NASDAQ/NM: MTIN) has been notified by
Nasdaq staff, in a letter dated March 13, 2001, of Nasdaq's
determination that the Company's common stock will be delisted
from the Nasdaq National Market at the opening of business on
March 20, 2001, unless the Company requests a hearing within
seven days. The staff's decision is based on the Company's common
stock failing to maintain a minimum market value of public float
of at least $5 million over 30 consecutive trading days as
required by Marketplace Rule 4450(a)(2) for continued listing.
Over the past several months, the Company's stock has not met
this market capitalization requirement, as well as Nasdaq's
requirement that the stock maintain a minimum bid price of $1.00
for 30 consecutive trading days.

The Company has requested a hearing before a Nasdaq Listing
Qualifications Panel to review the Nasdaq staff's decision. This
request will stay the delisting pending the Panel's decision.
There can be no assurance the Panel will grant the Company's
request for continued listing. If the Company's common stock is
delisted from Nasdaq, it would be eligible for trading on the
Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board (OTCBB), provided the Company
remains current in its filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). In that event, investors would be able to trade
the stock and obtain market information through the operations of
the OTCBB, assuming that current market makers in the Company's
stock and other broker-dealers continue to make a market in the

MARTIN INDUSTRIES: Talking To New Lender About Possible Funding
Martin Industries stated it is in negotiations with a prospective
lender for a new asset-based, secured line of credit to replace
its current credit facility, including its $10 million line. The
current credit line, originally due on January 1st of this year,
and term loan payments have been extended through May 15, 2001,
by the current bank lender in order to give the Company time to
finalize negotiations with the proposed new lender. There can be
no assurance, however, that any new credit arrangement will be
finalized or further extensions granted beyond May 15, 2001.

Martin Industries also announced that it plans on releasing its
results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended December 31,
2000, immediately upon filing its Form 10-K for 2000 with the
SEC. The Company expects to report losses greater than those
reported for 1999. The results for 2000 are expected to reflect
losses resulting from lower sales that continued into the fourth
quarter, plus significant one-time charges associated with
restructuring, factory consolidations and revaluation of the
Company's inventory. In addition, the Company will reverse
approximately $7.8 million of net operating loss carry forward
(NOL) tax credits. This is a non-cash charge that will not
restrict the Company from using these credits to offset taxes on
future earnings.

The Company is also contemplating changing its method of
accounting for its inventory from the LIFO method to FIFO. This
change would be non-cash, have no effect on the income statement
and provide a partial offset to the impact of the NOL reversal on
shareholder equity. After Martin reports its results of 2000, it
will hold a teleconference to discuss those results, as well as
activities occurring in 2001. Further information will be
provided on the details of accessing the call to which
shareholders and interested persons are invited.

Jack Duncan, President and CEO of Martin Industries stated,
"Although our 2000 results will clearly not be acceptable, a
careful analysis of these results will demonstrate the benefits
of the $10 million in payroll expense reductions we made during
the past year and the positive effects of consolidating our
manufacturing into a single US factory and our Canadian factory.
We are already seeing these results in the first quarter of this
year. The large production variances experienced in 2000 have
been significantly reduced along with fixed costs, including
selling and administrative overhead."

He also noted, "The results of our negotiations with our current
and potential new lenders are obviously critical. Our top
priorities for the first half of 2001 are to secure adequate
financing and to restore our revenues to a level that will allow
us to consistently operate at a profitable level. Even though all
of our challenges are not behind us, we have made considerable
progress toward turning this organization around in order to
better serve our customers and reestablish Martin's position in
its industries."

Martin Industries designs, manufactures and sells high-end, pre-
engineered fireplaces, gas heaters and decorative gas logs for
commercial and residential new construction and renovation
markets. It also designs and manufactures premium gas barbecue
grills for residential and small commercial use, and do-it-
yourself utility trailer kits.

MIRRONEX: Inks Asset Purchase Agreement With Opus360
Opus360 Corporation (Nasdaq: OPUS), a leading provider of
eBusiness software for managing and acquiring skilled
professionals, entered into an asset purchase agreement pursuant
to which Opus360 will acquire certain specified assets of
Mirronex Technologies Inc., consisting primarily of the mxConnect
product and will assume certain specified liabilities of

The transaction is expected to be completed through a Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceeding commenced by Mirronex and pursuant to
Section 363 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

Completion of the asset purchase is subject to numerous
conditions as well as approval by the bankruptcy court. Opus360
expects to consummate the transaction during the first half of
its fiscal year.

mxConnect is an outsourcing hub that acts as a marketplace
between companies and their staffing suppliers. The product will
add billing and settlement infrastructure to Opus360's
Workforce360(TM), a family of eBusiness software and services for
managing and acquiring skilled professionals.

                   About Opus360 Corporation

Opus360 provides eBusiness software that enables companies to
manage and acquire skilled professionals strategically. Recently
named one of the top 100 technology companies by Forbes magazine
and one of the top 100 eProcurement providers by iSource Business
magazine, Opus360's software enables businesses to get more work
done with the employees they have and reduce the cost of
acquiring skilled professionals.

Opus360 has sold its products and services to leading
corporations, professional services and staffing firms such as
Lucent Technologies (NYSE: LU), Computer Sciences Corporation
(NYSE: CSC), CompuCom (Nasdaq: CMPC), Computer Task Group (NYSE:
CTG) and Global Managed Services. Opus360 is a Safeguard
Scientifics (NYSE: SFE) partner company. Opus360 is headquartered
in New York City and can be contacted in the U.S. at 212.687.6787

NETSOLVE: Invista & Principal Mutual Jointly Own 7.7% Of Stock
Invista Capital Management, LLC, an investment adviser firm, and
its parent holding company, Principal Mutual Holding Company,
beneficially own 999,256 shares of the common stock of Netsolve,
Inc., representing 7.7% of the outstanding common stock of the
company. The two firms share voting and dispositive powers over
the stock.

NETZEE INC.: Nasdaq Looks To Delisting Common Shares
Netzee, Inc. (Nasdaq: NETZ), a leading provider of Internet
banking products and Internet commerce solutions for community
financial institutions, disclosed that on March 13, 2001, it
received a letter from The Nasdaq National Market indicating that
the company no longer complies with the $1.00 minimum bid price
requirement stated in Marketplace Rule 4450(a)(5).

Netzee has 90 calendar days, or until June 11, 2001, to come into
compliance with this rule, which would require the company's
stock to trade at $1.00 or more for a minimum of 10 consecutive
trading days during that period. If Netzee fails to meet this
requirement it will become subject to delisting from The Nasdaq
National Market, at which the time the company can appeal the
delisting to the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel.

"Though we are not surprised by this notice, we have taken the
necessary steps to refocus the company on our core Internet
offerings, and we believe we have attained the necessary
financing to fund our operations until we become cash flow
positive, which we expect to occur before the end of this year,"
said Donny R. Jackson, chief executive officer. "We feel the
value of this restructuring has not yet been reflected in our
stock price.

"It is important to reiterate that since I joined Netzee as chief
executive officer in October, we have restructured the company to
compete in more clearly defined market sectors, focusing on our
core Internet products and services," Jackson said. "We have made
significant management changes and consolidated corporate
operations in fewer locations with fewer personnel. We expect
these measures to achieve $14 million in annualized cost savings.

"We also acquired the Internet banking and bill paying businesses
from John H. Harland Company, resulting in Harland becoming a
major equity holder and lender to the company," Jackson
continued. "And we assured our financial viability with the sale
of the former assets of DPSC Software, Inc., realizing over $14
million in proceeds from that transaction. We remain confident
that those proceeds will finance our operations until we turn
cash flow positive, which we firmly expect to occur prior to year

"The combined effect of these measures is that operating results
for 2001 are expected to reflect significant improvement as a
result of the changes we have put in place, particularly in the
second half," Jackson said. "Demonstrating our staying power as
the year progresses should reinforce our position in the
marketplace, allowing us to ramp up sales from both new and
existing customers, with momentum building in the second half of
the year. We are initiating aggressive sales and marketing
programs to achieve that objective.

"Netzee plays a significant role in the market for Internet
banking products and services for community financial
institutions," Jackson said. "We intend to defend and grow our
position in this marketplace."

                          About Netzee

Netzee provides financial institutions with a suite of Internet-
based products and services, including full-service Internet
banking, bill payment, cash management, Internet commerce
services, custom web design and hosting, branded portal design,
access to brokerage services, implementation and marketing
services, financial analytic tools and financial information
tools. The company was formed in 1999 as a subsidiary of The
InterCept Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: ICPT), and as the successor to a
company founded in 1996. Netzee became a public company in
November 1999, raising approximately $61.6 million in gross
proceeds from its initial public offering. The company's stock is
traded on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol NETZ.
Further information about Netzee is available at .

NEW ICO: Pulls SEC Registration Statement
In light of current market conditions and evolving business
plans, ICO-Teledesic Global Limited and New ICO Global
Communications (Holdings) Limited withdrew their pending S-4
registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange

The S-4, which was filed in September 2000, related to the
proposed mergers of New ICO and Teledesic Corporation into ICO-
Teledesic Global, a Kirkland, Wash.-based holding company formed
to hold the satellite assets of telecommunications pioneer Craig

ICO-Teledesic Global and New ICO determined to withdraw the
registration statement while they assess the impact of
dramatically different financial market conditions and changes to
the New ICO and Teledesic business plans.

The move also gives the companies added flexibility as they
attempt to stabilize the mobile satellite industry and build
viable satellite systems offering a broad array of advanced
telecommunications services in the United States and around the

The boards of directors of New ICO, Teledesic and ICO-Teledesic
Global continue to consider the status of the mergers and whether
one or both will proceed.

London-based New ICO is developing a mobile satellite system to
offer high-quality mobile voice services and medium-speed
wireless Internet and other packet-data services on a global
basis. Bellevue, Wash.-based Teledesic is developing a global
broadband satellite communications network and is working with
contractors to build a cost-effective system.

New ICO acquired the assets of ICO Global Communications
(Holdings) Limited ("Old ICO") in May 2000 following Old ICO's
emergence from Chapter 11 reorganization proceedings. In that
transaction, Old ICO shareholders and other constituents received
shares of New ICO's Class A Common Stock. Under the terms of the
plan of reorganization approved by the bankruptcy court, New ICO
undertook to use reasonable efforts to list its Class A Common
Stock no later than March 31, 2001. Concurrent with the
withdrawal of the S-4 registration statement, New ICO filed an
application with the bankruptcy court to seek confirmation that,
in light of the changed circumstances described above, New ICO is
not required to list the Class A Common Stock within this

OWENS CORNING: Continental Wants To Determine Rights In Agreement
Kevin Gross of the Wilmington law firm of Rosenthal, Monhait,
Gross & Goddess, PA, together with Douglas K. Mayer and Margaret
M. Garnett of the New York firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &
Katz, representing Continental Casualty Company, asked Judge
Fitzgerald to determine and establish Continental's rights and
obligations in respect of an agreement between Continental and
Fibreboard Corporation. Mr. Gross told Judge Fitzgerald that
Continental and Fibreboard entered into an agreement entitled
"Agreement Between Fibreboard and Continental on Remaining
Issues" in December 1999. He says this agreement is colloquially
known as the "Buckets Agreement".

The Buckets Agreement addresses administrative and payment
responsibility for the claims of certain groups of asbestos-
related personal injury claimants with whom Fibreboard and
Continental had previously settled, but to whom full payment
was not yet then due.

Continental was formerly a general liability insurer of
Fibreboard, which has been a defendant in asbestos-related tort
suits since 1967. From 1979 through 1999, Fibreboard and
Continental were engaged in litigation in California state courts
over whether Fibreboard was entitled to be defended and
indemnified under the continental insurance policy for asbestos-
related personal injury and wrongful death liabilities. Although
the complex history of that litigation and its aftermath is
largely irrelevant to this motion, Continental presented Judge
Fitzgerald with a summary of undisputed facts for context.

                The Trilateral Agreement

In 1993, Continental, Fiberboard and Pacific Indemnity, another
Fibreboard liability insurer, entered into a comprehensive
settlement agreement, known as the Trilateral Agreement,
resolving their insurance disputes. Under this Agreement,
Continental and Pacific would pay a total of $2 billion to a
trust to be used by Fibreboard to defend and pay certain future
asbestos-related claims, and would pay additional amounts to
satisfy certain then-pending asbestos- related claims, as a
complete resolution, buyout, release and discharge of all
obligations arising under the contested insurance policies.
Representatives of the defendant class consented, and the
agreement was approved by the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas. As part of this approval, the
District Court found that the Trilateral Agreement was fair,
reasonable and adequate from the point of view of Fiberboard
asbestos claimants and co-defendants, and that any and all
liability of Continental under the Fibreboard insurance policy
was extinguished, released and discharged.

Continental and Pacific funded the Trilateral Agreement
principally by making payment to the Fibreboard Settlement Trust,
an irrevocable Texas trust established by Fibreboard as required
under the Trilateral Agreement. The trustees must apply the trust
estate solely to pay Fibreboard's defense and indemnity costs for
personal injury asbestos claims. Any balance remaining in the
trust after all claims have been paid, or after January 1, 2051,
whichever is earlier, is to be distributed to a charity
conducting medical research or providing medical care to those
with asbestos-related diseases.

                The Three-Party Agreements

During the course of the disputes between Continental and
Fibreboard, and before their entry into the Trilateral Agreement,
Fibreboard and Continental entered into Three-Party Agreements
with plaintiff law firms representing asbestos claimants settling
asbestos-related claims that were pending at that time.
Additional Three-Party Agreements were entered into during the
period between the signing of the Trilateral Agreement and the
date the Trilateral Agreement became effective. In general, the
Three-Party Agreements provide that Fibreboard and Continental
each shall pay certain amounts to asbestos-related claimants who
duly establish their claims as specified in the agreement.

Obligations under these Three-Party Agreements remained extant
despite the Trilateral Agreement. Indeed, the Three-Party
Agreements expressly contemplate that Fiberboard and Continental
may reapportion their payment responsibilities under the subject
Three-Party Agreement in connection with a comprehensive
settlement between Fibreboard and Continental, such as the
Trilateral Agreement.

                    The Buckets Agreement

The Buckets Agreement represents a reapportionment of payment
responsibility for a defined set of these Three-Party Agreements.
The handling of claims subject to Three-Party Agreements remained
in dispute between Fibreboard and Continental despite the
Trilateral Agreement. To resolve that dispute, Continental and
Fibreboard negotiated over a period of years following their
entry into the Trilateral Agreement, finally signing the Buckets
Agreement in 1999. The Buckets Agreement divides the claims at
issue into two categories, or "buckets": presently settled
claims, in the first bucket, and committed disputed presently
settled claims and committed unsettled present claims, or
committed claims for short, in the second bucket.

The Trilateral Agreement and the Buckets Agreement assign all
responsibility for paying presently settled claims in the first
bucket to Continental. Continental has agreed to process and pay
all claims identified as belonging in the first bucket, without
regard to the number of claims or the estimated values of those
claims. The money to pay these claims comes out of Continental's
general funds; the Buckets Agreement does not provide for any
segregation or separate accounting of such funds. Fibreboard's
only involvement in the payment of presently settled claims in
the first bucket is the right to be involved in any renegotiation
of such claims, the right to be notified of disputes arising out
of such claims, and the right to receive monthly data extracts
from Continental describing payments made. Continental also has
the right to participate in the renegotiation of any committed
claim in the second bucket, and to be notified of any disputes
regarding such claims.

Payment of Committed Claims in the second bucket is to be made by
Continental, at Fibreboard's direction, from a committed claims
account funded by Continental in the initial amount of $44
million. The Buckets Agreement expressly states that Continental
"will solely own and control the funds" in the committed claims
account. In 1999, contemporaneously with entry into the Buckets
Agreement, Continental signed an agency agreement for Bank one
Trust Co. to manage the committed funds account. At the same
time, Continental and Fibreboard signed a letter agreement
stating that any money remaining in the committed claims account
after all claims have been paid would be transferred to the
Fibreboard Settlement Trust. In September 2000, following an
agreed reduction in the committed funds account, Continental
forwarded a check for $3.5 million from the Committed claims
account to the Fibreboard Settlement Trust.

Fibreboard is responsible for managing the processing and
directing Continental in the payment of committed claims. Prior
to Fibreboard's bankruptcy filing, the settled practice was for
Fibreboard to submit to Continental, on or about the fifth and
twentieth days of each month, schedules of committed claims on
which payment was due. Continental would verify these schedules
and then process payment. From the date of signing of the Buckets
Agreement until Fibreboard's bankruptcy filing, Continental paid
$21,818,585 in presently settled claims and committed claims as
they came due under the terms of the Three-Party Agreements and
the Buckets Agreement.

                 Basis for Declaratory Action

Before the filing of Fibreboard's Chapter 11 case, Continental
performed its obligations under the Buckets Agreement by paying
claims as they came due under the terms of the Buckets Agreement
and various separate underlying settlement agreements among
Continental, Fibreboard, and asbestos claimants. After
Fibreboard's Chapter 11 filing, however, Continental says
Fibreboard's attorneys contacted counsel for Continental and
orally instructed Continental to refrain from processing all
payments or drawdowns on the claims from the committed claims
account, and likewise to refrain from processing any payments to
claimants for presently settled claims, asserting that
Continental's payments would violate the automatic bankruptcy
stay. Despite repeated requests in October and November, 2000,
Fibreboard has not provided a written explanation
for its oral instruction. In January 2001 representatives and
counsel for Fibreboard and Continental met to discuss the status
of payments under the Buckets Agreements. At this meeting,
Fibreboard's counsel expressed Fibreboard's belief that payments
by Continental on presently settled or committed claims would
violate the stay, and stated that Fibreboard did not intend to
seek relief from this Court concerning the applicability of the
automatic stay unless Continental resumed payment to asbestos

At present, a significant number of claims have come due but have
not been paid based on Fibreboard's oral instruction. These
unpaid claims include 128 presently settled claims, for which
Continental is solely responsible under the Buckets Agreement.
The payments outstanding on presently settled claims total
$1,069,477.78. In addition, $111,000 for committed claims
authorized by Fibreboard prior to commencement of these cases has
not been drawn down from the committed claims account. The
amounts due that are demanded of Continental will increase
shortly into millions of dollars.

Continental told Judge Fitzgerald that it wishes at all times to
comply fully with any restrictions imposed on it by the
Bankruptcy Code, and has abided by Fibreboard's oral instruction
and withheld payments that were otherwise due from Continental
under the terms of the Buckets Agreement and the Three-Party
Agreements. At the same time, Continental's own analysis has
concluded that the automatic stay does not apply. Moreover,
Continental is subject to contractual obligations not just to
Fibreboard, but also the holders of the claims. Indeed, counsel
for those claimants continue to demand payment from Continental.

Finding itself caught between conflicting demand from Fibreboard
and the asbestos claimants Continental respectfully sought
direction from this Court in the form of an order determining
that Continental may resume making scheduled payments to asbestos
claimants and otherwise performing its contractual obligations
under the Buckets Agreements. (Owens Corning Bankruptcy News,
Issue No. 10; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

PACIFIC GAS: Out Takes Terminates Contract After Default
Out Takes, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: OUTT) announced that it is
terminating its Contract with Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Due to default by PG&E in terms of its payment obligations for
electricity purchased in the past, and absent assurances or
guarantees regarding PG&E's ability to meet its past, or future
obligations in terms of that Contract, Los Alamos Energy, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Out Takes, has elected to terminate
its Contract, which termination is not being contested by PG&E.

The Company has taken such steps as to allow it to sell
electricity through electricity and commodities exchanges, and
has executed agreements with requisite regulatory authorities and
third parties to commence such sales.

As previously announced, investors in Out-Takes should be aware
that the Company intends to effect a 1 for 100 reverse split of
its outstanding common stock.

PARADIGM4: Delays Bankruptcy Filing
Paradigm4 announced that just prior to the scheduled filing of
its bankruptcy petition Thursday, several interested investors
contacted the Company and its senior lender.  In light of these
developments, the Company has postponed the filing of its
bankruptcy petition while further discussions take place. "This
is a very fluid, fast-moving, unpredictable situation," said
Harold Ives, company spokesman.

PILLOWTEX: Assumes Yarn Purchase Agreement With Parkdale America
In January 1996 Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc., and Parkdale Mills Inc.,
predecessor in interest to Parkdale America, LLC, entered into a
long-term yarn purchase agreement.  In December 1997 Pillowtex
Corporation acquired Fieldcrest. In 1998 Fieldcrest and Parkdale
entered into another long-term yarn purchase agreement which
substantially restates the terms and conditions of the 1996
agreement, but adds provisions for the purchase and supply of
terry yarn. In 2000, Parkdale and Pillowtex, as the parent
corporation of Fieldcrest, entered into a long-term yarn purchase
agreement that restated the terms of the 1996 and 1998
agreements, but eliminated the provision for the sale of terry
yarn, and increased the cost-of-cotton component of the pricing.
The 2000 Agreement also added back a provision for annual price
increases in Parkdale's conversion costs, but capped any increase
at $0.005 per pound. The 2000 Agreement began with the first
order from Pillowtex in January 2001.

Although the parties understood that the 1998 Agreement would
replace the 1996 Agreement and amend its terms, and that the 2000
Agreement would replace them both beginning in January 2001, the
1998 Agreement has no provision expressly amending or terminating
the 1996 Agreement, and the 1998 Agreement contains no provision
expressly amending or terminating the 1998 Agreement.

Accordingly, by their terms the 1996 and 1998 Agreements, and the
2000 Agreement are all arguably in effect.

Under the terms of the yarn purchase agreements, Parkdale agreed
to supply all of Pillowtex's weekly requirements for certain
specified yarns (excluding the terry yarn) in excess of internal
production. These agreements all have terms that automatically
continue for successive one-year periods unless at lest one year
in advance of the commencement of the renewal term one of the
parties gives notice of termination.

As of the Petition Date, Parkdale was owed approximately $3.6
million based on the pricing terms under the 1996 and 1998
agreements. Parkdale is Pillowtex's only supplier of the yarns,
and is also the nation's largest yarn supplier -- and the only
supplier with the capacity to meet all of Pillowtex's yarn
requirements.. Multiple suppliers would likely be required to
replace the quantity of yarns provided by Parkdale. Parkdale is
essential to the success of Pillowtex's bed operations, so that
maintaining a proper, current agreement is in the best interests
of this estate and its creditors.

            The Yarn Purchase Agreements Solution

To eliminate uncertainty regarding the terms of the three
concurrent contracts, Pillowtex and Parkdale have agreed to
consolidate the three agreements into one by assumption of the
2000 Agreement and termination of its two predecessor agreements.
In that connection, Pillowtex and Parkdale have also agreed to
certain modifications of the 2000 agreement, including terms
governing payment of the prepetition balance due to Parkdale.

                    The 2000 Agreement

The essential terms of the 2000 Agreement are:

      (1) Quantities: Pillowtex's projected weekly requirements
for each of the yarn counts is provided, and Parkdale agreed to
supply up to those quantities, plus any additional requirements
compounded at an annual growth factor of 15%. Pillowtex agreed to
purchase from Parkdale all requirements for these yarns in excess
of internal production. Parkdale also has the right of first
refusal for any additional yarns not included in the agreement's

      (2) Projections: Pillowtex provides Parkdale with a rolling
three-month projection of yarn requirements. The parties agree
that these projections are good faith estimates only, and actual
requirements may vary significantly.

      (3) Prices: Yarn prices per pound are determined by:

         (i) Cost of cotton content, which is based on cotton
             price as fixed by Pillowtex, plus 200 basis points
             times waste factor, plus

        (ii) Cost of polyester content (if required) at a transfer
             price per pound to be provided by the polyester
             supplier, plus

       (iii) Conversion costs.

Parkdale is responsible for purchasing the cotton. Pillowtex is
responsible for fixing he cotton price following this

      (4) Cotton content: In the event that the cotton content of
the yarn deliveries are less than the number of bales fixed for
the quarter, the excess cotton fixation will be rolled forward to
the next quarter at the price of the current fixation or the
price of the applicable cover month, whichever is higher. In the
event the cotton content of the yarn deliveries is greater than
the number of bales fixed for the quarter, the cotton fixations
will be rolled back from the upcoming quarter at the price of the
forward fixation, or the applicable cover month, whichever is
higher. Parkdale is to provide a status report each week of yarn
deliveries against cotton price fixations.

      (5) Annual price increases: All shipments after January 1,
2001, are subject to a maximum annual increase of $0.005 in the
conversion costs cents per pound from Parkdale's current
conversion costs per pound. Pillowtex has the right to reasonably
review all price changes under this agreement prior to their
becoming effective.

      (6) Term: This agreement remains in effect until December
31, 2003. Unless either party gives notice at the end of the
contract year, an additional year will be added to the contract.

                Amendments to the 2000 Agreement

The material terms of the Amendment are:

      (1) The cost of the cotton component of the pricing will be
the lower price under the 1996 and 1998 Agreements until all
cotton that Parkdale currently has under contract is consumed, at
which time the pricing will be as stated in the 2000 Agreement.

      (2) Parkdale will provide 30-day credit terms to Pillowtex.

      (3) As a cure of all defaults under the yarn purchase
agreements, Pillowtex will pay the prepetition balance by paying
Parkdale $600,000 immediately, and $600,000 in each successive
month until the prepetition balance is paid in full.

      (4) While Pillowtex still owes any amounts on the
prepetition balance, the outstanding prepetition balance will
become immediately due and payable, and Parkdale may revert to
cash before delivery sales, if (i) Pillowtex fails to make any
cure payment on the prepetition balance on time and the failure
to pay is not cured within three business days after Pillowtex's
receipt of a written notice of default; (ii) an event of default
occurs under Pillowtex's postpetition Credit Agreement, and the
outstanding amount is accelerated and becomes immediately due and
payable; (iii) the commitment under the postpetition Credit
Agreement is terminated; or (iv) there is a fundamental, adverse
change to Pillowtex that affects a material portion of
Pillowtex's sheeting operations.

      (5) Until Pillowtex's bankruptcy case is closed, Pillowtex
has the right to terminate the yarn purchase agreement at any
time upon 135 days' written notice to Parkdale. During the time
from notice of termination through the effective date of the
termination, the parties will work together towards an orderly
winding down of their relationship, including Pillowtex's timely
payment of all invoices, and Parkdale's timely delivery of goods
ordered during the wind-down period. Any outstanding amounts on
the prepetition balance will be paid no later than the day
termination takes effect.

      (6) The 1996 and 1998 Agreements are terminated.

Pillowtex said that this agreement, as modified, provides it with
better pricing than it could obtain from alternative suppliers of
yarn of substantially similar quality. The agreement also
contains no monthly minimum requirements, and therefore
facilitates just-in-time management techniques and provides
Pillowtex with greater manufacturing flexibility which, in turn,
enables Pillowtex to better manage cash flow and inventory
levels. Further, the Amendment provides Pillowtex with the more
favourable cost of cotton pricing under the 1996 and 1998
Agreements, until all cotton that Parkdale currently has under
contract is consumed, gives Pillowtex 30-day credit terms, and
gives Pillowtex a unilateral termination right during the
bankruptcy should unforeseen circumstances later make it
advantageous to do so. Pillowtex also argues that assumption of
the 2000 Agreement guarantees the continued supply of high-
quality yarn necessary for Pillowtex's operations. For these
reasons, Pillowtex asked Judge Robinson for authorization to
assume the 2000 Agreement, as amended, and for further authority
to pay the prepetition amounts due to Parkdale on the terms as

Noting that this matter is largely a clarification of an existing
agreement, Judge Robinson approved of the proposed modifications
and granted the Motion. (Pillowtex Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 5;
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

QUINTUS: Deadline for Competing Asset Purchase Bids is March 27
Quintus Corporation (OTC: QNTS) stated that the Delaware
Bankruptcy Court has now approved the bidding procedures and
schedule for the completion of its asset purchase sale. Bids must
be received by March 27, 2001 and the auction is scheduled for
March 30, 2001, with court approval of the result scheduled for
April 5, 2001.

Quintus noted it announced an asset purchase agreement with Avaya
Inc. (NYSE: AV) on February 22 under which Avaya will acquire
substantially all of Quintus' assets for $30 million in cash and
assume certain of Quintus' liabilities up to an additional $30
million on completion of the agreement.

RITE AID: Founder Alex Glass Resigns From Board Of Directors
Rite Aid Corp. announced that its, founder Alex Grass, has
resigned from the Company's board of directors. According to, Alex Grass' son, Martin L. Grass, is
currently facing criminal and civil investigations-by the S.E.C.,
the F.B.I. and the U.S. Attorney's Office--related to Company
management issues during the late 1990s. Martin Grass was removed
from his positions as chairman and chief executive officer of the
Company in late 1999. The Company further stated that while it
does not usually announce board resignations it will list them in
its annual proxy statement issued for the stockholders' meeting.
(New Generation Research, March 16, 2001)

SAFETY-KLEEN: Lamp Moves for Stay Relief to Foreclose M&M Lien
Lamp Incorporated is a construction contractor. Prior to the
Petition Date, Lamp entered into a contract with Safety-Kleen
Corp. to build out an empty second floor of a building owned by
the Debtors. Lamp told Judge Walsh that the Debtors did not pay
amounts owed under the construction contract during the pre-
petition period.

On September 28, 2000, Lamp recorded a mechanic's lien in the
principal amount of $64,918.60 in the Office of the Recorder of
Deeds, Cook County, and now seeks relief from the stay to file an
action to foreclose that lien in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois. In the lawsuit Lamp will also seek authority to
recover the amount owed from the proceeds of a sheriff's sale of
the property.

William D. Sullivan of the firm of Elzufon Austin Reardon Tarlov
& Mondell, P.A., together with Timothy Conway and Edward Keidan
of the firm of Conway & Mrowice, representing Lamp, asked Judge
Peter J. Walsh to modify the automatic stay so as to permit Lamp
Inc. to commence and prosecute a suit to foreclose an Illinois
statutory mechanics lien on real property owned by Safety-Kleen
Systems, Inc. In the alternative, Lamp asked Judge to provide for
adequate protection of Lamp's interests.

William Sullivan believes that Lamp's course of action is
justified under the Bankruptcy Code, which provides for
circumstances under which the Bankruptcy Court may terminate,
annul, modify, or condition the automatic Stay for "cause" or
when a creditor's interest in unprotected, or when the Debtor has
no equity in the affected property and the property is not
necessary for an effective reorganization. Mr. Sullivan argued
that in this particular instance, the Debtors have no equity in
the property, given the amount of the Lamp lien and the terms of
the DIP Financing Order, which pledges all of the Debtors' real
property as collateral. Mr. Sullivan believes and claims to have
information that the property is not necessary for the Debtors'

Accordingly, Sullivan said that the stay must be lifted to permit
Lamp's foreclosure action.

Mr. Sullivan told Judge Walsh that, in the alternative, the
Debtors cannot provide adequate protection for Lamp's secured
interest in the property. This circumstance in itself constitutes
cause for relief from the stay. Mr. Sullivan believes that given
the DIP Lender's assertion of liens on the property, there is no
"equity cushion" to protect Lamp's interest and accordingly, Lamp
can be afforded adequate protection only if it receives
recognition of its first priority lien and cash payments equal to
any deficiencies in the secured amount of its lien, plus
interest. Without such treatment, Sullivan told Judge that relief
from the Stay to pursue a foreclosure action is appropriate.

                The Debtors' Response: No way!

Responding on behalf of the Debtor, Gregg Galardi, David Kurtz,
J. Gregory St. Clair, and Eric Davis of Skadden, Arps, ask Judge
Walsh to deny Lamp's  Motion in its entirety for these reasons:

      (1) Lamp has not established the necessary elements for
relief from the automatic stay because it does not hold a valid,
perfected mechanic's lien on the property. Mr. Galardi tells
Judge Walsh that, although a copy of the "Original Contractor's
Notice and Claim for Mechanic's Lien" was attached to Lamp's
Motion, there is no indication of when or where the lien was
filed or recorded. Thus, Mr. Galardi surmises that Lamp has not
sufficiently established that it holds a duly filed, recorded,
and perfected mechanic's lien on the Property.

      (2) Lamp alleged that the Debtors have no equity in the
Property. Again, Mr. Galardi told Judge Walsh that this
contention is wrong. In its Motion, Lamp alleged that this lack
of equity results from the sum of Lamp's mechanic's lien and the
DIP liens. Mr. Galardi clarified matters by saying that, while
pursuant to the DIP Order the DIP Lenders were granted security
interests in, and liens on the Debtors' Pre-Petition real estate,
the Pre-Petition real estate collateral are only those enumerated
in Schedule 5 of the Debtors' Motion  for an Order Authorizing
Post-Petition Financing on a Superpriority Basis, and other
related motions. The particular property which is the subject of
Lamp's alleged mechanic's lien is not included in the
enumeration. Thus, Galardi told Judge Walsh that it cannot be
said that the Property was pledged as collateral to the DIP
Lenders under the DIP Order or otherwise.

      (3) Furthermore, Mr. Galardi argued that, even assuming that
Lamp has an interest in the Debtors' property by virtue of a
valid mechanic's lien, the Debtors still have equity in the
property. Lamp has the initial burden of demonstrating that cause
exists to warrant the termination of the automatic stay, but Lamp
has failed to carry this burden because it has not provided any
admissible evidence of the Debtors' lack of equity in the
Property. Consequently, it has not established its entitlement to
relief under the Code.

      (4) To Lamp's assertion that, as a result of the DIP
Lender's lien on the Property under the DIP Order, there is no
"equity cushion" to serve as adequate protection of Lamp's
interest, Galardi reiterates that the DIP Lenders do not have a
lien of the Property.

      (5) Lamp's interest is adequately already protected. The
value of the property greatly exceeds the value of Lamp's
interest. One of the Debtors' branch sales and service facilities
is located on this property, and the property is valuable and
necessary to the estate's operation and the Debtors' consequent

      (6) Granting Lamp's Motion violates the fundamental purpose
of the automatic stay. The fundamental purpose of the automatic
stay is to forestall the depletion of the debtors' assets due to
legal costs in defending proceedings against it and, in general,
to avoid interference with the orderly liquidation or
rehabilitation of the debtor. If Lamp's Motion were granted, the
ensuing litigation will entail discovery, a trial to liquidate
Lamp's claim, if any, and a potential loss of the property
through foreclosure. The time and cost associated with completing
discovery, preparing for trial and defending the litigation
during the trial would be significant and would distract the
Debtors from and interfere with their reorganization efforts, and
be an inappropriate drain on the Debtors' scarce human and
financial resources.

      (7) The Debtors' interest in continuing the automatic stay
far outweighs Lamp's interest in lifting the stay. In deciding
whether or not to grant the Lift Stay Motion, these factors
should be considered:

          (a) The prejudice that the Debtors would suffer if the
              automatic stay were lifted;

          (b) The balance of hardships facing the parties; and

          (c) The probability of success on the merits of the
              underlying action of the automatic stay were lifted.

Measured against these factors, Galardi told Judge Walsh that the
Debtors' interest in continuing the automatic stay is greater
than Lamp's interest in lifting the stay. The Debtors would be
greatly prejudiced if the automatic stay were lifted. If Lamp is
permitted to foreclose on its mechanic's lien, the Debtors might
lose a valuable asset that currently generates income for their
estates and creditors. In addition, a sale of the property
through foreclosure would likely be for an amount significantly
less than the market value of the property. The Debtors would
lose some, if not all, of the equity in the property, to the
detriment of their estates and creditors.

Lifting the automatic stay would set a dangerous precedent,
forcing the Debtors to spend too much time and resources on
liquidating pre-petition claim. Such would also leave the Debtors
with insufficient time to reorganize their estates. The lifting
of the automatic stay would prejudice the Debtors further by
diverting the attention of the Debtors' already overburdened
legal staff. The Debtors' legal staff would be required to devote
significant time and energy to the litigation and less time to
other pressing matters more pertinent to the Debtors'
reorganization efforts.

Additionally, Mr. Galardi claimed that, while the Debtors have
sufficiently established the substantial prejudice that the
Debtors would suffer if the automatic stay is lifted, Lamp, on
the other hand, has not shown that it will suffer any hardship if
the Motion is denied. Denial of Lamp's Motion would merely
continue the status quo until the conclusion of the Debtors'
cases. Lamp would thus face only the ordinary delay that all
creditors face in complex Chapter 11 cases. (Safety-Kleen
Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 14; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service,
Inc., 609/392-0900)

SIRIUS SATELLITE: May Cease Operations if Unable to Raise Capital
Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., a Delaware corporation, is
developing a service for broadcasting digital quality music
programming via satellites to subscribers' vehicles. The company
intends to focus on providing a consumer service, and anticipates
that the equipment required to receive the broadcasts will be
manufactured by consumer electronics manufacturers. In April
1997, Sirius was the winning bidder in an FCC auction for one of
two national satellite broadcast licenses with a winning bid of
$83.3 million. The company paid the bid amount during 1997 and
was awarded an FCC license on October 10, 1997.
The Company is expected to incur additional substantial
expenditures to plan and implement its service and to sustain its
operations until it generates positive cash flow from operations.
The Company's working
capital at December 31, 2000 will not be sufficient to meet these
objectives as presently structured. This raises substantial doubt
about its ability to continue as a going concern.
The company is planning to raise additional financing through the
sale of debt or equity securities or a combination thereof;
however, no assurance can be given that such financings will be
completed on terms acceptable to the company. If Sirius is unable
to obtain additional financing, it will be required to curtail
its operations. On February 23, 2001, Sirius entered into an
underwriting agreement with Lehman Brothers Inc. with respect to
the public offering of ten million shares of its common stock.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Coram Energy to Sign Involuntary Petition
One of California's small independent electricity producers,
Coram Energy Group Ltd., was expected to sign an involuntary
bankruptcy petition Thursday against SoCal Edison, the owner of
the company said, according to Dow Jones. The petition is
reportedly being circulated to five other companies and lists the
amount of money each is owed by the utility, Coram's Brian
O'Sullivan told Dow Jones Newswires. O'Sullivan wouldn't name the
other companies on the petition, but said that they are all
"qualifying facilities" as the small generating plants are

The petition, known as a Form 5, could be filed in U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Los Angeles as soon as this week, O'Sullivan
said.  "I would have liked to have done it myself some time ago,
but I couldn't do it on my own," said O'Sullivan, who received
the papers for signing Wednesday.  O'Sullivan said he would have
preferred not to pursue a bankruptcy proceeding, but is running
out of cash and will have to shut down his operations in about a
month. That situation, combined with the stalling of legislation
in the California Senate to deal with the qualifying facilities,
have left O'Sullivan with no other option, he said.

Qualifying facilities, from which U.S. utilities have had to buy
power since the 1970s under federal law, supply California with
almost 30 percent of its power. SoCal Edison hasn't paid these
producers for months. (ABI World, March 16, 2001)

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Caithness Energy Secures Plant Lien
Breaking away from a pack of creditors owed billions by Southern
California Edison (SoCal Edison), Caithness Energy received
permission Wednesday to secure a lien against one of the
utility's plants, according to the Associated Press. The judgment
allows the New York-based electricity supplier to attach a
partial claim on an Edison facility in Laughlin, Nev. - a move
that could spur bigger creditors to launch similarly aggressive
approaches or even force Edison into bankruptcy.

Caithness, which has two Nevada plants owed $20 million by
Edison, was allowed to attach the lien by U.S. District Judge
Lloyd George of Las Vegas.

Once it becomes final, the claim will be the first lien
successfully placed against an Edison asset since California's
energy crisis began last year. An Edison spokesman said the
utility would seek a stay of the order next week. A lien allows a
creditor a better chance of getting paid by laying claim to all
or a portion of any future sale of a property. The judge allowed
Caithness to file for a 56 percent interest in the plant, which
employs 309 people and is valued at $530 million. The energy was
used by Edison to feed California's energy grid, Caithness
attorney Philip Korologos said.

Edison owes Caithness a total of $100 million, and another $20
million bill will come due at the end of March, Korologos said.
But whether Caithness will go after Edison's California assets is
far from certain. Korologos said he believed that some form of
additional mediation is required for California liens that might
make such an option less attractive in the utility's home state.
Industry experts said that the Caithness move could cause other,
bigger creditors to feel pressure to act more aggressively on
behalf of shareholders. The law requires only three major
creditors to band together to force Edison into involuntary
bankruptcy; the utility has said it does not intend to file on
its own. (ABI World, March 16, 2001)

STROUDS INC: Has Until June 4 to Decide on Real Property Leases
By order entered on March 1, 2001, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware granted the debtor's motion to extend
the period to assume, assume and assign, or reject unexpired
leases of nonresidential real property through and including
June 4, 2001.

SUN HEALTHCARE: Examiner Hires Young Conaway as Local Counsel
Kevin W. Pendergest, the Examiner of the estates of Sun
Healthcare Group, Inc. sought the Court's approval, pursuant to
sections 105(a), 327(a) and 1104 of the Bankruptcy Code, for the
employment and retention of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
as co-counsel to the Examiner nunc pro tunc to February 12, 2001.

The Examiner voiced that he needs to employ certain
professionals, specifically, the services of competent counsel,
to enable him to carry out his duties as authorized by the
Bankruptcy Code in light of the complex nature of the Debtors'
business operations and various legal questions which will likely
need to be addressed.

Young Conaway has been selected, Mr. Pendergest said, to act as
Examiner's co-counsel because of their extensive experience and
knowledge in the field of debtors' and creditors' rights and
business reorganizations under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code
and because of the firm's expertise, experience and knowledge
practicing before the Bankruptcy Court, its proximity to the
Court and its ability to respond quickly to emergency hearings
and other emergency matters in the Bankruptcy Court. Mr.
Pendergest believes that Young Conaway is both well-qualified and
uniquely able to represent him as counsel in this Chapter 11 case
in a most efficient and timely manner.

Mr. Pendergest advised that all members, counsel and associates
of Young Conaway who will be engaged in this chapter 11 case are
admitted to practice before the Court. To the best of his
knowledge, Mr. Pendergest said, the members, counsel and
associates of Young Conaway neither represent nor hold any
interest adverse to the Examiner, the Debtors and/or the Debtors'
bankruptcy estates, except as set forth in the declaration of
Young Conaway attached to the Application.

Subject to the approval of this Court, Young Conaway will seek
compensation for its professional services on an hourly basis,
plus reimbursement of actual, necessary expenses and other
charges incurred by the firm. The principal attorneys and
paralegal presently designated to represent the Examiner and
their current standard hourly rates, subject to periodic
adjustments, are:

      (a) Brendan Linehan Shannon    $350 per hour
      (b) Edward J. Kosmowski        $240 per hour
      (c) Chandra Rudloff             $85 per hour

Other attorneys and paralegals may from time to time serve the
Debtor in connection with the matters covered in the Application.

In his Declaration in support of the Application, Mr. Brendan
Linehan Shannon, a member of Young Conaway, opins that, given
Young Conaway's practice, it is virtually impossible to conceive
of a major chapter 11 case in which at least some of Young
Conaway's current or former clients, or their attorneys and
accountants, would not have business relationships with or hold
claims against the debtors. Mr. Shannon adds that, in his
experience, the fact that some current or former clients of Young
Conaway, or their attorneys and accountants, may hold claims
against the Debtors or otherwise be involved in these cases will
not impair Young Conawav's ability to represent the Examiner.

Mr. Shannon then reported to the Court the result of his review
of the names of the Debtors, the names on the Debtors' List of
the Top 20 Unsecured Creditors filed with the Court, and the
professional firms involved or proposed to be involved in these
cases (Arthur Andersen, Crossroads, LLC, Houlihan, Lokey, Howard
& Zukin, Inc., O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Otterbourg, Steindler,
Houston & Rosen, PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP, Richards, Layton &
Finger, P.A., Stevens & Lee, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Weil,
Gotshal & Manges LLP) regarding the connections of Young Conaway
and its attorneys with certain entities and/or their affiliates,
in matters totally unrelated to the Debtors' pending chapter 11

      (A) Debtors

          Young Conaway has not represented and does not currently
represent any of such parties as to the matters for which Young
Conaway is to be retained in these chapter 11 cases.

      (B) Debtors' Top 20 Unsecured Creditors

          Young Conaway has not represented and does not currently
represent any of such parties as to the matters for which Young
Conaway is to be retained in these chapter 11 cases. Mr. Shannon
discloses that Young Conaway does however represent certain
creditors of Sun - Ventas, Inc. and Ventas Realty Limited
Partnership, but such representation, in Mr. Shannan's view, will
not impair Young Conaway's ability to loyally and zealously
represent the Examiner. Further, both the Examiner and the Ventas
Entities are aware of Young Conaway's representations and have
consented to this, Mr. Shannon told the Court.

      (C) The Professional Firms

          Mr. Shannon submitted that Young Conaway has not
represented and does not currently represent any of such parties
as to the matters for which Young Conaway is to be retained in
these chapter 11 cases.

Nevertheless, Mr. Shannon's review showed that Young Conaway has
represented or currently represents parties in matters in which
the following parties, and/or one or more affiliates of certain
of such parties, may be considered to be a professional: Arthur
Andersen & Co., Crossroads, LLC, Houlihan, Lokey, Howard & Zukin,
Inc., O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston &
Rosen, P.C., PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP, Richards, Layton &
Finger, P.A., Stevens & Lee, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP and
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.

Mr. Shannon also revealed that Young Conaway has worked on
several occasions in cases where Crossroads, LLC, the Examiner's
proposed financial advisor, has provided management or consulting
services to clients of Young Conaway, including the bankruptcy
cases of Primary Health Systems, Inc. and its affiliated debtors
which are currently pending in this District.

Moreover, in July 2000 Young Conaway employed John D. McLaughlin,
Jr., Esquire, who was formerly employed as an attorney in the
United States Trustee's Office of the Department of Justice for
Region 3, from May 1992 through June 2000.

Young Conaway, from time to time, has referred matters to some of
the Professional Firms and certain of the Professional Firms have
referred matters to Young Conaway. In my experience, occasional
referrals to or from other Professional Firms would in no way
impair Young Conaway 's ability to loyally and zealously
represent its client in any particular matter.

Mr. Shannon believes that Young Conaway is a "disinterested
person" as defined in section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Mr. Shannon further submitted that Young Conaway will continue to
monitor its connections to these cases and supplement this
Declaration disclosing any developments which Young Conaway
believes require further disclosure to this Court. (Sun
Healthcare Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 19; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

TRANS WORLD: Justice Department Okays American's Acquisition
American Airlines was pleased to be notified by the U.S.
Department of Justice that DOJ had ended its investigation of
American's planned acquisition of Trans World Airlines and will
not challenge the transaction. DOJ also said it has granted early
termination of the Hart-Scott-Rodino waiting period.

American's acquisition of TWA was announced on January 10, 2001
and gained U.S. Bankruptcy Court approval on March 12, 2001. It
will enhance American's overall network while delivering
significant benefits to the public, thousands of employees and
many communities by keeping virtually all of TWA's people working
and airplanes flying.

American expects to close the transaction next month pending the
resolution of certain labor issues relating to the integration of
TWA and American's workforces.

American Airlines and its regional airline affiliate, American
Eagle Airline, together serve more than 240 cities in 49
countries and operate approximately 4,100 daily flights. American
Airlines, which traces its beginnings to 1926, today operates a
fleet of 720 modern jetliners and employs more than 103,000
people worldwide. American Airlines and American Eagle Airline
are both wholly owned by AMR Corp. (NYSE: AMR)

UNAPIX ENTERTAINMENT: Wants More Time to Decide on Leases
Unapix Entertainment, Inc., et al. sought an order further
extending the time within which the debtors are required to
assume or reject unexpired leases of non-residential real

The debtor is represented by Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP.

The debtor sought an extension of time to assume or reject its
leases until March 31, 2001. The debtors are actively soliciting
a sale, merger or other form of business transaction that would
maximize the reorganization value of the debtors' assets, cut
which will undoubtedly require the debtors to maintain a minimum
level of operations. The debtors need the use of the premises
covered by the leases in order to maintain this minimum level of
operations but cannot adequately determine whether assumption of
those leases is in the best interest of their estates until the
debtors and Salem have had adequate time to evaluate the
potential transaction options. In addition, both premises are
critical to the debtors' solicitation process, as data rooms have
been established in New York and Encino for third parties to
conduct due diligence.

The debtors lease property located at 200 Madison Avenue, New
York, NY and 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Encino, California.

UNIFAB INTERNATIONAL: Posts 2000 Losses & Seeks Covenant Waivers
UNIFAB International, Inc. (NASDAQ: UFAB) reported net loss of
$7.3 million ($1.00 per share, basic and diluted) on revenue of
$60.4 million for the nine months period ended December 31, 2000
compared to net loss of $208,000 ($0.03 per share, basic and
diluted) on revenue of $55.8 million for the nine month period
ended December 31, 1999. Net loss for the quarter ended December
31, 2000 was $5.2 million ($0.63 per share, basic and diluted) on
revenue of $17.5 million compared to net loss of ($398,000)
($0.06 per share, basic and diluted) on revenue of $18.1 million
for the quarter ended December 31, 1999. The Company reported
backlog of approximately $27.0 million at December 31, 2000.

"I have been through many down cycles in the energy industry,"
said Dailey Berard, UNIFAB International, Inc., president, CEO
and Chairman of the Board, "but I have never experienced one
which confounded conventional thinking as much as this one has.
We experienced an uptick in contract awards a year ago and with
the prices of oil and gas at that time we expected the recovery
cycle to begin in the second half of 2000. We underestimated the
lack of confidence and the stability of oil and gas prices, the
effect that the mergers among the major oil companies had on
capital spending, and the need for our customers to repair their
balance sheets, which were damaged by low commodity price levels
in 1998 and 1999.

"For over a year, we have been working with backlog levels that
have been less than three months revenue. During that period,
pricing for fabrication services suffered, as competition for the
few projects available was fierce. Our financial results in the
quarter and nine-month period ended December 31, 2000 reflect
this pricing. In addition, loss reserves of $4.2 million, mainly
on two fixed price contracts and a first of a kind lift boat,
were recorded in the December quarter. These loss reserves were
the result of the poor pricing environment in early 2000, when
those contracts were awarded, and reduced productivity in the
yards as work slowed during the December quarter due to poor
weather conditions and low level of work backlog at that date.
Our backlog began to grow in late December and by December 31,
2000 reached $27 million, our highest level of backlog since the
beginning of 1999. Since December, we have added over $20 million
to that backlog. The turn around we expected in the second half
of 2000 appears to be materializing now, nine months later."

"We aggressively grew the Company throughout the downturn through
acquisitions and development of new fabrication capacity.
However, our operating results have had an impact on our
financial strategy, and we have been unable to maintain
compliance with the financial covenants in our credit facility.
We are in discussions with our bank group to waive these covenant
defaults for December 31, 2000 and we expect to be able to obtain
that waiver. With the dramatic increase in backlog, we are
pursuing financing alternatives to reduce our reliance on
conventional bank financing, improve our liquidity, and establish
a capital structure which will allow us to take advantage of the
production capabilities we have assembled."

"I believe we are on the verge of realizing the benefits of the
Company we have built over the last three years. With the
economic environment in the construction and fabrication end of
the oil and gas industry improving and with our full capacity in
place and in demand, we are optimistic about our prospects for
2001 and excited about the outlook beyond."

UNIFAB International, Inc. is an industry leader in the custom
fabrication of topsides facilities, equipment modules and other
structures used in the development and production of oil and gas
reserves. In addition, the Company designs and manufactures
specialized process systems, refurbishes and retrofits existing
jackets and decks, provides design, repair, refurbishment and
conversion services for oil and gas drilling rigs and performs
offshore piping hook-up and platform maintenance services. Dailey
Berard serves as a commissioner on a number of committees and
task forces that are working to improve training and education of
the workforce in Louisiana.

VLASIC FOODS: Court Grants Authority To Pay Pre-Petition Taxes
David Hurst, Anthony Clark, Sally McDonald Henry and Frederick
Morris of the firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP,
representing Vlasic Foods International, Inc., Vlasic Foods
Brands, Inc., and other related Debtors, sought and obtained
Judge Sue Robinson's authority to pay certain pre-petition sales,
use and other taxes to the respective Taxing Authorities as such
taxes were and are collected from the Debtors' customers or
otherwise incurred in the ordinary course of the Debtors'
business. This authority is without prejudice to the Debtors'
rights to contest the amounts of any Taxes on any grounds they
deem appropriate.

The Debtors estimated that the aggregate amount of pre-petition
Use Taxes is approximately $232,000.00 and the aggregate amount
of pre-petition Employment and Withholding Taxes is approximately
$1 million. (Vlasic Foods Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 3;
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

VOTER.COM: Planning To Sell Membership List
The recently failed political portal plans to sell a
list of 170,000 e-mail addresses, complete with the party
affiliations and issues of interest to people on the list,
raising new concerns about the strength of voluntary privacy
protections when companies go belly-up, according to

In an attempt to head off privacy concerns, is
requiring bidders to agree that they will use the list only to
"provide personalized political news and information to the
subscribers." That would be consistent with the former web site
operator's privacy policy, which said that if the company was
sold, data about subscribers could be transferred only if it was
to be used for that purpose.

Privacy advocates, however, complained that the sale of such
sensitive information could easily result in misuse of the list.
The loophole in the original privacy policy may keep
out of legal trouble, but subscribers could be in shock if
partisan political groups purchase the list. The e-mail address
list doesn't include people's names and home addresses, though it
does include other demographic data such as gender and home zip
code. The controversy over sales of personal data collected by
bankrupt Web sites first arose in July when the Federal Trade
Commission moved to block defunct Toysmart from selling its
customer list. While in business, the former toy retailer adhered
to a posted privacy policy that forbade the company to share
personal customer information with outside parties.

The issue could become moot since the Senate last night approved
the bankruptcy reform bill. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) added a
provision to the bill forbidding bankrupt companies to sell
personal data collected under privacy policies that restrict such
transfers. The version of the bill already approved by the House
lacked the privacy protection provision, so a conference
committee would have to agree to add it for the measure to become
law. (ABI World, March 16, 2001)


Bond pricing, appearing in each Monday's edition of the TCR, is
provided by DLS Capital Partners in Dallas, Texas.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the TCR. Submissions about insolvency-
related conferences are encouraged. Send announcements to

Each Friday's edition of the TCR includes a review about a book
of interest to troubled company professionals. All titles are
available at your local bookstore or through Go to order any title today.

For copies of court documents filed in the District of Delaware,
please contact Vito at Parcels, Inc., at 302-658-9911. For
bankruptcy documents filed in cases pending outside the District
of Delaware, contact Ken Troubh at Nationwide Research &
Consulting at 207/791-2852.


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Troubled Company Reporter is a daily newsletter co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, NJ USA, and Beard
Group, Inc., Washington, DC USA. Debra Brennan, Yvonne L.
Metzler, Aileen Quijano and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2001.  All rights reserved.  ISSN: 1520-9474.

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 TCR subscription rate is $575 for 6 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 ***