TCR_Public/010801.mbx          T R O U B L E D   C O M P A N Y   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, August 1, 2001, Vol. 5, No. 149


AMEDISYS INC.: Terra Healthy Reports 21.27% Equity Stake
AMF BOWLING: Obtains Injunction Against Utility Companies
ARMSTRONG HOLDINGS: Property Damage Claimants Want Own Committee
AT PLASTICS: May Liquidate If Debt Restructuring Fails
AVIATION GENERAL: Appeals Nasdaq's Delisting Determination

BORDEN CHEMICALS: Committee Taps Chanin Capital as Advisor
BULL RUN: Files Amended and Restated Form 10-K and 10-Qs
CAPITAL ENVIRONMENTAL: Reports Second Quarter 2001 Losses
CASUAL MALE: Seeks Court Nod to Close 81 Stores
CHROMATICS COLOR: Nasdaq Delisting Hearing Set For August 16

CMI INDUSTRIES: Amends Credit Facility & Makes Interest Payment
COMDISCO: Court Okays Continued Use Of Current Business Forms
CONSECO INC: Releasing Second Quarter Results On August 6
CORNERS PICTURE: Emerges from Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection
CSC LTD.: Liquidates After Assets Draw No Bids

FINOVA GROUP: Committee Engages Wachtell Lipton as Counsel
FRUIT OF THE LOOM: Rejecting NWI Environmental Contracts
GARDEN WAY: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors
GNI GROUP: Chapter 11 Plan Returns 5% on Unsecured Claims
HALO INDUSTRIES: Files Chapter 11 Petition in Wilmington

HALO INDUSTRIES: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors
HEARME: Closes Business Operations & Plans To Sell Assets
HEILIG-MEYERS: Obtains Approval of New $30 Million Credit Line
INTEGRATED HEALTH: Cheyenne Wants Decision on Care Center Lease
INTIRA CORP.: Case Summary & 30 Largest Unsecured Creditors

LASER MORTGAGE: Shareholders Approve Liquidation and Dissolution
MAXICARE: Max 65plus Coverage Ends on August 31 in California
NATIONAL AIRLINES: Credit Line Extended Through August
NEXTWAVE TELECOM: Asks FCC to Dismiss Competitors' Petition
NOVO NETWORKS: Files Chapter 11 Petitions in Wilmington

NOVO NETWORKS: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors
OWENS CORNING: Enters Into Document Services Pact With Xerox
PILLOWTEX CORP.: Moves to Reject Service Agreement With Lockheed
PSINET INC: Microsoft Wants To Proceed With Contract Termination
SACO SMARTVISION: Resumes Trading On Toronto Stock Exchange

SIZZLER INT'L: Shareholders' Meeting Scheduled For Aug. 29
SUN HEALTHCARE: Asks Court to Nix Insurers' 502(e)(1)(B) Claims
SUN VALLEY WATERBEDS: Retailer Files for Bankruptcy Protection
SUN VALLEY WATERBEDS: Chapter 11 Case Summary
TMI-EDUCATION.COM: Intends To Make Creditor Proposal

UBICS INC: Shares Subject to Nasdaq Delisting
UCFC FUNDING: S&P Downgrades Ratings To Low-Bs
VENCOR INC.: Moves to Expunge Multiple Claim Transfers
W.R. GRACE: Rule 9027 Removal Period Extended To January 2, 2002
WARNACO GROUP: Retains Ordinary Course Professionals

WHEELING-PITTSBURGH: Labor Talks With USWA Begins On August 20
WINSTAR COMM.: Asks For More Time to Remove Prepetition Suits

* Meetings, Conferences and Seminars


AMEDISYS INC.: Terra Healthy Reports 21.27% Equity Stake
Terra Healthy Living, Ltd. beneficially owns 1,465,367 shares of
the common stock of Amedisys Inc.  This amount represents 21.27%
of the issued and outstanding shares of the Company, assuming
conversion of outstanding Series A Convertible Preferred Stock,
as of March 31, 2001 (the latest date for which the number of
securities outstanding is publicly available). Terra Healthy
Living beneficially owned 22.55% of the issued and outstanding
shares of the Company, assuming conversion of outstanding Series
A Convertible Preferred Stock, as of March 3,1998.

The names of the persons reporting the holding are Terra Healthy
Living, Ltd., Dr. Urs  Lustenberger and Peter J. Workum.  Dr.
Lustenberger and Mr. Workum are the directors of Terra Listed
Limited, a Guernsey company. Terra Healthy is in the process of
transferring its assets to Terra Listed Limited.  The principal
business address of Terra Healthy is 2/3 Rue du Pre, St. Peter
Port, Guernsey, Channel Islands GY1 3NS.

The principal business of Terra Healthy is investments.   Dr.
Lustenberger is a partner at Wyler, Lustenberger & Glaus, a law
firm based in Zurich which specializes in financial law, venture
capital, new economy enterprise and representation of foreign
business enterprises in Switzerland. Mr. Workum is the President
of Proprietary Industries, Inc., a diversified Canadian
corporation which owns and manages a portfolio of financial,
natural resource and real estate assets.  Terra Healthy was
formed in the British Virgin Islands. Dr. Lustenberger is a
citizen of Switzerland, and Mr. Workum is a Canadian citizen.

Terra Healthy Living, Ltd. acquired an aggregate of 350,000
shares of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock in Amedisys at a
price of $10.00 per share in two private placements using
working capital. At the time of the acquisition of the Series A
Stock, Terra Healthy also owned 298,700 shares of the common
stock of Amedisys.

Terra Healthy Living, Ltd. reportedly holds the common stock for
purposes of investment, and has no present intention to change
management or make any other changes at this time, but reserves
the right to do so in the future.

AMF BOWLING: Obtains Injunction Against Utility Companies
AMF Bowling Worldwide, Inc. asks Judge Tice to enter an order:

       (a) determining adequate assurance of payment for future
           utility services; and

       (b) prohibiting utility companies from altering, refusing
           or discontinuing such service to the Debtors without
           appropriate notice and a hearing.

According to Rachel Strickland, Esq., at Willkie Farr &
Gallagher, in New York, the Debtors are proposing an order
providing that:

       (1) The Debtors' current liquidity is sufficient to
           provide adequate assurance of payment; and

       (2) no utility company may act unilaterally before
           altering, refusing or discontinuing service to the

However, Ms. Strickland notes, each utility company may petition
the Court for relief based on the facts and circumstances
arising after the Petition Date.  They can also request the
Debtors provide additional adequate assurance of payment, Ms.
Strickland adds.  If a utility company files such a motion, Ms.
Strickland says, then the relief sought would not shift any
burden of proof imposed on the Debtors or the utility company.

The Debtors obtain utility services from approximately 5,000
Utility Providers all over the world.

Should the utility companies refuse to provide or discontinue
providing services to the Debtors for even a brief period, Ms.
Strickland warns, the Debtors' operations would be severely
disrupted, jeopardizing the Debtors' reorganization efforts.
Therefore, Ms. Strickland emphasizes, it is critical that
utility service continue without interruption.

The Debtors assure Judge Tice that the utility companies will
not be exposed unreasonable risk of nonpayment because have more
than sufficient liquidity to meet all post-petition utility
obligations on time.  Ms. Strickland adds that the Debtors have
been paying their utility suppliers regularly and on a timely
basis before the Petition Date, and the Debtors are current in
most of their accounts with the suppliers.

Convinced that the Debtors merely seek to prevent the utility
companies from acting unilaterally to the Debtors severe
detriment, Judge Tice granted the Debtors' motion in all
respects.  (AMF Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 3; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

ARMSTRONG HOLDINGS: Property Damage Claimants Want Own Committee
Joanne B. Wills and Steven K. Kortanek of the Wilmington firm of
Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers, representing
Christene Woods, Charles Phillips, Larry Stark, Brad Dusenka,
and Steven Tancredi, individually and as representatives of a
proposed class of similarly-situated persons holding
unliquidated claims against Armstrong Holdings, Inc. for
property damage allegedly caused by the Debtors, ask Judge
Joseph Farnan to direct the United States Trustee to create and
appoint an official committee of asbestos-related property
damage claimants.

In December 2000, the United States Trustee appointed an
official committee of unsecured creditors; and a second official
committee of asbestos claimants.  No committee has been
appointed to represent the holders of asbestos-related property
damage claims, however.  A single seat on the asbestos
claimants' committee is held by Christene Woods, who is a
property-damage claimant.  She is represented by the law firm
of Seeger Weiss.

The Property Damage Claimants describe themselves as
representatives of a putative nationwide class of owners of
"Armstrong Flooring" and/or "Armstrong Resilient Flooring,
Asphalt or Vinyl Asbestos Tile", flooring and tiling products
the Debtor Armstrong World Industries, Inc., manufactured and
distributed nationwide between 1954 and 1983. These products
contain the carcinogen asbestos, which is widely known
to cause innumerable debilitating and life-ending diseases such
as mesothelioma, various pleural illnesses, and lung cancer.

Prior to the Petition Date, the Property Damage Claimants filed
a complaint and class action lawsuit against AWI in the District
Court of Nueces County, Texas.  The Complaint seeks:

       (i) to provide a warning of the potential hazard from
asbestos flooring to a nationwide class of persons identified in
the class definition;

      (ii) to recover an unliquidated amount of damages from AWI
for its manufacturer and distribution of the products under
several cause of action, including strict liability, negligence,
breach of implied warranties of merchantability; and

     (iii) to certify a nationwide class for purposes of warning
and testing, and a multi-state class on behalf of those entitled
to remediation as a result of the Debtors' manufacture and
distribution of the products.

The proposed class likely consists of tens of thousands of

After the commencement of these cases, each of the Property
Damage Claimants completed and submitted a U.S. Trustee
questionnaire form to that office.  The Property Damage
Claimants note that they are widely disbursed, living in Texas,
Illinois, Minnesota and Rhode Island.

Early in these bankruptcy cases, and on a number of occasions
since then, counsel for the Property Damage Claimants has asked
in writing that the U.S. Trustee form an official committee of
property damage claimants.  The Property Damage Claimants' first
written request was by letter dated February 6, 2001 and
included as attachments the questionnaire forms and signed
powers of attorney.  Counsel for the U.S. Trustee responded by
letter in February 2001 asking that counsel to the Property
Damage Claimants provide completed questionnaires for any
additional proposed property damage claimants by March 2, 2001.
A timely response was made to this request. The U.S. Trustee
subsequently asked for signed powers of attorney for the
proposed members of a property damage claimants' committee,
which was also given promptly.  By letter in June 2001, the
Property Damage Claimants reiterated their formal request that
the U.S. Trustee form an official committee of property damage
claimants, pointing out the serious concerns that the Property
Damage Claimants say clearly justify and show the necessity of
an additional committee.

From the very outset of its work the Asbestos Claimants'
Committee faced material conflicts between the interests of
property damage claimants and personal injury claimants.  At the
Committee's first official meeting on January 19, 2001, it
quickly became clear that the personal injury claimant
representatives were not prepared to fully address the issues
relating to the proof, allowance and valuation of the property
damage claims.  The personal injury claimant representatives
asked the property damage claimants' representatives to leave
the meeting.  The personal injury claimant representatives
refused to discuss any business of the committee while the
property damage claimant representatives were in the room.  The
personal injury claimant representatives announced that they did
not believe the property damage claimants had viable claims or
claims that could be valued since the property damage claims had
not been fully litigated. Ironically, there have been no further
"formal meetings" of this committee since the initial meeting.
All elected officials are personal injury representatives.  To
date, the committee has failed to obtain information regarding
the possibility of insurance coverage for property damage-only
claims, an issue that is crucial to the property damage

Likewise, the property damage claimant representative is not in
a position to fully address the personal injury claimant
issues.  From a constitutional perspective, it is not possible
to have the current committee address the competing interests of
the personal injury claimants and the property damage
claimants.  The conflict between these two constituencies is
particularly significant in light of the current uncertainty as
to the Debtors' ability to satisfy all claims in full.  The
inherent conflict within the Asbestos Claimants' Committee,
should the estates not be able to provide for claims in full,
places counsel to the Asbestos Claimants' Committee in an
irreconcilable position as well.

The same is true with respect to these constituencies' competing
claims against the proceeds of the Debtors' liability insurance
policies.  It is practically certain that these different
constituencies will each be seeking recoveries from many of the
same carriers and the same policies.  There is the risk that
there will not be sufficient proceeds to cover all claims,
making this conflict a matter of critical importance to the
interests of each group of claimants.

The failure of the U.S. Trustee to appoint a separate property
damage claimant committee denies this class of creditors
adequate representation in the reorganization process.

Above all else, the Asbestos Claimants' Committee itself has
resolved to support the appointment of the U.S. Trustee of an
official committee of property damage claimants.  There is no
stronger evidence of the need for a separate official committee
with a clear mandate to be the voice for property damage
claimants in these cases, while leaving the Asbestos Claimants'
Committee equally able to discharge its fiduciary duties with an
undivided loyalty to the personal injury claimants.  If
an additional committee is appointed, the single property damage
representative on the Asbestos Claimants' Committee will resign
and seek to be a member of the property damage claimants'

The Property Damage Claimants believe that very few of the
property damage claimants were notified of the Debtors'
bankruptcy filings. Many of the affected persons are unaware
that they hold potential claims in the Debtors' estates, a
troubling fact in view of the impending bar date, which was
notified out only four months after the Debtors' bankruptcy

Given the size of the proposed class and of the claims held by
the class, the need for a separate official committee becomes
yet clearer.  Only through the appointment of a separate
official committee can property damage claimants fully and
fairly participate in the process of estimating and liquidating
claims against the Debtors' estates.

The Property Damage Claimants remind Judge Farnan that the
decision of whether a given class of claimants can be adequately
represented by an appointed committee is made on a case-by-case
basis.  The court may consider factors such as whether a present
committee is actually representative of its class, the size of
the claims held by members of the committee, whether diverse
categories of claims are represented on the committee, and the
complexity of the overall bankruptcy case.  The Movants argue
that the two official committees already appointed are not
representative of the property damage claimants, as interests
critical to the formulation of a plan are not represented.  In
support of this claim, the Movants cites holdings in cases such
as In re Northeast Dairy Cooperative Federation, Inc., 59 B.R.
531 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y. 1986), and In re Montgomery Ward LLC,
pending in Delaware. The Movants suggest that, as in these
cases, in the instant case the existing members of the two
official committees share virtually no common interests with the
Property Damage Claimants, even though the Property Damage
Claimants claim their interests will be critical to the
formulation of a plan.

For the reasons stated above, the existing Asbestos Claimants'
Committee in these cases is inherently unrepresentative of the
Property Damage Claimants' constituency.  The Asbestos
Claimants' Committee will necessarily make its primary objective
the maximization of recoveries for personal injury claimants.
The property damage creditors have a similar (indeed, competing)
desire to maximize recoveries and seek different forms of relief
from that sought by the personal injury claimants.  In many
cases, the property damage claimants cannot simply monetize
their individual claims, as remediation work is needed with
respect to the installed flooring products.  To recover on their
claims, if allowed, many of the Movants will need to have the
Debtors perform (and/or pay for) extensive remedial work on
their houses and properties during the coming years. Their
interests are in having a plan of reorganization confirmed that,
at a minimum, establishes and funds a massive property-
remediation program, in which the Debtors or their appointed
agents (i) notify potential asbestos property-damage victims of
the asserted defects in their properties, (ii) establish
procedures for cleaning up and forever removing the offending
products, if possible, and (iii) arrange to pay the Movants for
transportation, lodging, construction-permit and other costs
associated with full-scale property cleanups.  These are
interests materially distinct from those of personal injury

With respect to the Creditors' Committee, its membership of
mostly prepetition lenders and financial firms naturally means
that its objectives are categorically opposed to those of the
property damage claimants.  The Creditors' Committee's interests
are in a return on an investment, rather than compensation for
tort-based damages.

The Property Damage Claimants' constituency represents a very
large magnitude of claims, both in dollar amount and in number
of claimants. This factor therefore strongly weighs in favor of
having a separate official committee to represent this distinct
set of claimants.

Neither the Creditors' Committee nor the Asbestos Committee
represent diverse categories of claims.  The Movants cite the
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit as holding that
committees that include entities with differing reorganizational
aspirations are often beneficial to debtors.  That some
committee members may wish to reorganize, while others prefer
liquidation, is not unusual, and would not in itself support a
motion for appointment to an existing committee.  However, there
is no fair allocation of divergent interest in either of the
existing official committees.  On the Asbestos Claimants'
Committee only one of the eleven members represents the
interests of the property damage claimants.  Obviously the
interests of the Creditors' Committee are uniformly opposed to
those of the property damage claimants.

A large case brings with it not only a varied debt structure,
but a complex business requiring significant postpetition
financing and a heavily negotiated plan.  To be sure, the
appointment of an additional committee of asbestos-related
property-damage claimants will add some complexity and expense
to the administration of the Debtors' estates. These facts
alone, however, should not be grounds for declining to appoint
an additional committee.  Furthermore, if a new committee were
appointed in here cases, this Court could order that one or both
of the existing committees share information obtained by
professionals, who work at substantial costs to the estates in
many large Chapter 11 cases, including these cases.

Finally, the Property Damage Claimants submit that the Trustee's
decision to appoint two committees in these cases is of little
or no consequence in determining the outcome of this Motion.
Courts acknowledge that the Trustee's act in appointing
committees or committee members is a ministerial or
administrative one.  Whether the Trustee's choices adequately
represent creditors is an issue subject to de novo review by
this Court.  (Armstrong Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 8; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

AT PLASTICS: May Liquidate If Debt Restructuring Fails
AT Plastics (TSE: ATP; Amex: ATJ) announced financial results
for the second quarter and six months ended June 30, 2001.

"We have been managing through the industry trough, with
decisive actions which include reducing overheads, managing
inventory and improving product mix. We are implementing
strategic initiatives to position the Company for a return to
earnings growth by focusing on core operations where we have a
strong position in growing niche markets, and by deleveraging
the balance sheet," said Gary Connaughty, President and CEO of
AT Plastics.

The focus of the financial statements is on the Company's
continuing operations, Specialty Polymers and Films. The Wire
and Cable business, which was sold effective May 31, 2001 and
the Packaging business, which is being sold, have been presented
as discontinued operations and the Company's financial
statements for fiscal 2000 and 1999 have been restated
accordingly and filed with the applicable regulatory
authorities. All figures are in Canadian dollars unless
otherwise stated.

For the second quarter, the Company reported sales of $68.6
million from continuing operations, compared with $69.2 million
in the same quarter of 2000. Sales increased 16.9% from the
first quarter of fiscal 2001, reflecting the seasonality of they
Films business' horticultural and agricultural products.

Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization
from continuing operations, and before special charges, declined
38% to $7.0 million from $11.4 million in the same quarter the
previous year, primarily due to higher feedstock costs. EBITDA
was 2.9% higher than the previous quarter, reflecting the
seasonality of the Films business. The Company reported a net
loss of $4.5 million or $0.14 per share after special charges of
$2.0 million related to restructuring costs. This compares with
net income from continuing operations amounting to $724,000 in
the second quarter a year ago.

Including discontinued operations, the Company reported a net
loss of $6.2 million, compared with a net income of $8,000 a
year ago.  Losses from the Wire and Cable business, which was
sold effective May 31, 2001, exceeded operating earnings from
the Packaging business, resulting in a loss of $1.7 million for
discontinued operations.

For the first six months of the fiscal year, revenue from
continuing operations was $127.3 million, compared with $128.3
million in the first half of 2000. EBITDA amounted to $13.9
million, compared with $21.4 million the same period of 2000.
The Company reported a net loss from continuing operations of
$7.3 million, or $0.22 per share after special charges, compared
with a net loss of $1.2 million or $0.04 per share in the same
period a year ago. Including discontinued operations, the
Company reported a net loss of $8.9 million, compared with a net
loss of $2.4 million in the first half of 2000.

Further details on the performance of continuing and
discontinued operations are contained in Management's Discussion
and Analysis, attached.

                      Restructuring Plan

On July 3, 2001, the Company announced a strategic plan to
increase future returns to shareholders by maximizing returns on
its core operations where it has a strong market position and
significant upside potential. The elements of the plan are:

    (1) focus on the Specialty Polymers and Films businesses;

    (2) sale of the Wire & Cable business and the Packaging
        business with proceeds used to reduce debt;

    (3) $30 million equity offering with proceeds to support core
        operations and reduce debt; and

    (4) a debt restructuring plan allowing the Company to defer
        certain principal repayments and refinance the balance of
        its debt on more favorable terms.

As a result of certain of the terms and conditions of the
Company's agreement with its lenders entered into in connection
with the debt restructuring plan, the Company's restated
financial statements for fiscal 2000 and 1999 and for the second
quarters and the six months ended June 30, 2000 and 1999,
contain a going concern note.

When fully implemented, this strategic plan will result in the
transformation of the Company into a more focused and
financially stronger entity.


"Although the North American economy remains weak, we see good
opportunity to improve performance based on the actions we are
taking combined with lower feedstock costs. The flexibility of
our new high-pressure autoclave reactor will enable us to
significantly increase margins in our Specialty Polymers
business by improving product mix," Mr. Connaughty said. "We are
positioning the Company to take full advantage of our expanded
capacity and capabilities as the economy strengthens."

AT Plastics develops and manufactures specialty plastics raw
materials and fabricated products. The Company operates in
specialized markets where its product development and process
engineering have allowed it to develop proprietary and patented
technologies to meet evolving customer requirements in niche
markets. Products are sold in the United States, Canada and
internationally. AT Plastics' shares are listed on The Toronto
Stock Exchange, under the trading symbol "ATP", and on the
American Stock Exchange, under the trading symbol "ATJ." Web

AVIATION GENERAL: Appeals Nasdaq's Delisting Determination
Aviation General, Incorporated (NASDAQ:AVGE) announced that it
received a Nasdaq Staff Determination that the Company fails to
comply with the minimum bid price requirements for continued
listing on the Nasdaq SmallCap Market, Rule 4310(c)(4). The
Company's common shares will continue to trade on the Nasdaq
Stock Market, pending the outcome of the appeal the Company has
filed in accordance with the Nasdaq procedures, although there
can be no assurance Nasdaq will grant the Company's appeal for
continued listing.

Aviation General, Incorporated is actively pursuing measures
that would most probably result in regaining compliance with the
minimum bid price requirements. Aviation General believes its
stock is significantly undervalued, and is considering various
alternatives, such as a restructuring of the Company's
capitalization, ownership structure, and reactivation of the
Company's Stock Repurchase Program.

Aviation General, Incorporated is a publicly traded holding
company with two wholly owned subsidiaries, Commander Aircraft
Company and Strategic Jet Services, Inc. Commander Aircraft
Company -- manufactures, markets
and provides support services for its line of single engine,
high performance Commander aircraft, and consulting, brokerage
and refurbishment services for all types of piston aircraft
through its Aviation Services division. Strategic Jet Services,
Inc. -- provides consulting,
sales, brokerage, acquisition, and refurbishment services for
jet aircraft.

BORDEN CHEMICALS: Committee Taps Chanin Capital as Advisor
Chanin Capital Partners, a specialty investment bank, announced
it has been engaged by the Unsecured Creditors Committee of
Borden Chemicals and Plastics to assist with the Chapter 11
restructuring of Borden's debt obligation or a potential sale of
the company.

"We are excited to work with the Unsecured Creditors Committee
of Borden and share our unparalleled combination of
restructuring and chemical industry expertise," said Mark Rubin,
Senior Vice President leading the transaction for Chanin.

Mr. Rubin will be working with Mark Hughes, a Senior Advisor to
Chanin specializing in chemicals and related industries. Mr.
Hughes brings to the team over 20 years of extensive knowledge
in the chemical and plastics industries. Between 1998 and 2000,
Mr. Hughes was named to the Institutional Investor All-Star
Analyst Team in the chemicals sector.

Borden Chemicals and Plastics is the fifth largest domestic
producer of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) resins. The company is
headquartered in Geismar, Louisiana with three chemical
plants -- two in Louisiana and one in Illinois.

Chanin Capital Partners -- is a
nationally-recognized, specialty investment bank firm providing
the following financial services: Financial Restructurings,
Mergers and Acquisitions, Corporate Finance and Private
Placements, Valuations and Fairness and Solvency Opinions, and
Principal Investments. The professionals of Chanin Capital
Partners have privately placed over $5 billion in debt and
equity securities, completed over $60 billion in financial
restructuring transactions, consummated over $20
billion in merger and acquisition transactions, and provided
hundreds of companies with valuations and fairness and solvency

BULL RUN: Files Amended and Restated Form 10-K and 10-Qs
Bull Run Corporation (Nasdaq: BULL) completed and filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission an amended and restated Form
10-K for the Company's fiscal year ended June 30, 2000 and Form
10-Q's for each of the quarterly periods ended September 30,
2000, December 31, 2000 and March 31, 2001. The previously filed
Form 10-K and Form 10-Q's required amendment and restatement as
a result of the previously-announced discovery of accounting
errors in financial statements of Universal Sports America,
Inc., a company acquired by Bull Run in December 1999.

Earlier this year, the Company's subsidiary, Host
Communications, Inc., discovered material errors in Universal's
accounting for and reporting of certain asset and liability
accounts specifically related to Universal's Affinity Events
business segment (also known as "Streetball") in financial
statements issued by Universal prior to, and financial
information provided subsequent to, the acquisition. The most
significant amount of Universal's accounting errors accumulated
prior to Bull Run's acquisition of Universal.

The restatement of its financial statements reflecting a
decrease in certain assets and a change in historical operating
results constituted an event of default under Bull Run's credit
facility; however, the Company and its lenders recently executed
an amended and restated bank credit facility, which includes an
extension of the facility's maturity date from December
17, 2001 to July 1, 2002.

Bull Run also recently announced that Host Communications
executed an 11-year agreement with CBS Sports for certain
marketing, licensing and media rights. Under the agreement,
which takes effect in September 2002, HCI was awarded the (a)
exclusive worldwide rights to administer the National Collegiate
Athletic Association (NCAA) Corporate Partner Program; (b)
exclusive right to produce, distribute and sell NCAA
Championship game programs and publications; (c) rights to
engage in merchandise licensing utilizing registered marks of
the NCAA and its championships; (d) television rights for
certain NCAA Championships that will not be otherwise aired by
CBS or ESPN, and other sports-related television programming;
(e) video streaming rights and home video rights to all NCAA
championships except the Men's Final Four; and (f) and exclusive
rights to the Hoop City Experience at both the Men's and Women's
Final Four.

Host's contract with CBS will run concurrent with the network's
agreement with the NCAA, which begins with the fall academic
calendar in 2002 and extends through the spring championships
season in 2013. This CBS/Host agreement extends Host's
relationship with the NCAA, which began in 1975 and was
otherwise scheduled to end in 2002.

Bull Run, through Host Communications, provides affinity,
multimedia, promotional and event management services support to
universities, athletic conferences, associations and
corporations. Selected as one of the top five sports marketing
companies in the world by SportsBusiness Journal last year,
Host currently holds the multi-media athletics rights to 13
institutions and six conferences that include Florida State,
Kentucky, Michigan, Notre Dame, Purdue, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas and the Southeastern Conference, in addition to
its contractual relationship with the NCAA. Bull Run also has
significant investments in Gray Communications Systems, Inc., an
owner and operator of 13 television stations and four
newspapers; Rawlings Sporting Goods Company, Inc., a leading
supplier of team sports equipment in North America; iHigh Inc.,
a marketing company focused on high school students; and Sarkes
Tarzian, Inc., an owner and operator of two television stations
and four radio stations.

CAPITAL ENVIRONMENTAL: Reports Second Quarter 2001 Losses
Capital Environmental Resource Inc. (Nasdaq: CERI) reported
second quarter 2001 results. For the second quarter, the Company
reported a loss after certain one-time items of $1.1 million or
$0.16 per share (diluted), compared to a loss of $0.4 million or
$0.06 per share for the comparable period in 2000. Revenue for
the quarter was $23.7 million, compared with $30.7 million for
the year earlier period. Adjusted EBITDA in the second quarter
of 2001 (after adjusting for approximately $1.7 million of
transaction expenses and provisions related to the sale of all
of the Company's U.S. operations during the quarter, $1.4
million of non-cash unrealized foreign exchange gains and $0.3
million of costs associated with meeting financing requirements
under the Company's Senior Debt Facilities) was $4.2 million or
17.6% of revenue. Adjusted EBITDA in the second quarter of 2000
(after adjusting for approximately $1.6 million of additional
costs disclosed in the previous year) was $5.7 million or 18.6%
of revenue. Adjusted EBITDA is defined as loss plus income
taxes, net interest and financing expense, depreciation and
amortization and identified unusual items. Operating income for
the second quarter of 2001 was $1.3 million or 5.5% of revenue
compared to income of $1.4 million or 4.6% of revenue for the
year earlier period. Adjusted for the unusual items noted above,
the second quarters of 2001 and 2000 resulted in operating
income of $1.9 million (8.2% of revenue) and $3.0
million (9.8% of revenue) respectively.

During the second quarter of 2001, the Company sold all of its
operating assets in the United States for a total sale price of
approximately $22.1 million. Net cash proceeds (after taking
into account a holdback plus transaction and other related
costs) from the transactions were approximately $17.4 million,
of which $16.8 million were used to repay indebtedness to the
Company's Senior Lenders. In connection with the sale of these
assets, the Company has incurred and accrued expenses of
approximately $3.3 million and $1.7 million in the first and
second quarters of 2001 respectively related primarily to lease
termination penalties, severance costs, change of control
payments, union pension liability payments, professional fees,
and other transition costs, and has established an allowance for
doubtful accounts. The allowance for doubtful accounts is based
on the Company's estimate of the future net realizable value of
certain non-operating U.S. assets and is therefore subject to

As announced on June 15, 2001, the Company is in default of the
obligation under its senior credit facilities to raise $16.0
million from the issuance of equity or subordinated debt. The
Company has entered into an equity investment agreement with
certain parties with respect to a transaction which would cure
this default.

Subject to successfully closing the above transaction, the
Company has negotiated a further amendment to its senior debt
facilities which will cure existing defaults. The full amount of
the senior debt continues to be included in current portion of
long-term debt.

Capital Environmental Resource Inc. is a regional integrated
solid waste services company that provides collection, transfer,
disposal and recycling services in markets in Canada. The
Company's web site is

CASUAL MALE: Seeks Court Nod to Close 81 Stores
Casual Male Corp., the nation's largest retailer of big men's
clothes, requested permission from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Manhattan to close 81 of its 662 stores, according to Dow
Jones.  The Clinton, Miss.-based company said its reorganization
effort would be hindered if it were to continue operating the
money-losing stores.  Casual Male filed for chapter 11
bankruptcy protection in May and operates under the Casual Male
Big & Tall, Repp Big & Tall and B&T Factory brand names. (ABI
World, July 27, 2001)

CHROMATICS COLOR: Nasdaq Delisting Hearing Set For August 16
Chromatics Color Sciences International, Inc. (Nasdaq: CCSI)
announced that it received a determination letter from the staff
of The Nasdaq Stock Market on May 29, 2001 that the Company
fails to comply with the net tangible assets/market
capitalization/net income requirement for continued listing set
forth in Nasdaq's Marketplace Rules 4310(c)(2)(B). Further, the
Company was notified by letter dated July 3, 2001 by the
Hearings Department that the net tangible assets deficiency
would be considered as a basis for delisting at the Company's
hearing before the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel which is
now scheduled for August 16, 2001. Therefore, the net tangible
assets/market capitalization/net income deficiency will be a
subject of the Company's hearing. The Company's hearing has
stayed the delisting of the Company's securities pending the
Panel's decision. There can be no assurance that the
Qualifications Panel will grant the Company's request for
continued listing.

Chromatics Color Sciences is in the business of color science
and has developed technologies and intellectual properties in
this field. The Company has received clearance from the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) for the commercial use of its medical
device for the non-invasive monitoring of bilirubinemia in
newborn infants by healthcare professionals in hospitals,
clinic, pediatrician offices and the home environment. The
Company believes its technologies and intellectual properties
may also have medical applications in the detection and
monitoring of other chromogenic diseases which the Company
defines as those diagnosed or monitored by the coloration of the
human skin, tissue or fluid being affected. Medical
applications, in addition to the non-invasive monitoring of
bilirubinemia in newborns, will require clinical trials and FDA
clearances for commercial use.

CMI INDUSTRIES: Amends Credit Facility & Makes Interest Payment
CMI Industries, Inc., amended its existing credit facility with
its senior secured lender.  As announced earlier this month, the
involuntary bankruptcy petition filed against the Company by
certain holders of the Company's senior subordinated notes was
dismissed pursuant to an agreement reached between the Company
and certain holders of the Company's senior subordinated notes.
The amendment to the Company's existing credit facility was
contemplated in an order issued by the United States District
Court overseeing the involuntary bankruptcy proceeding.

The credit facility was amended to provide funds for the Company
to make the interest payment due April 1, 2001 to the note
holders of the Company's senior subordinated notes. In
connection with the amendment, CMI's subsidiary, Elastic Fabrics
of America, LLC, issued a secured limited guaranty of the credit
facility. The amended credit facility, in conjunction with cash
flow from current operations, will provide for CMI's ongoing
working capital needs.

Promptly after amending the Company's credit facility and the
expiration of the appeal period pursuant to the United States
District Court's order dismissing the involuntary bankruptcy
petition, the Company made the April 2001 interest payment to
the note holders in the aggregate amount of $3.7 million on July
25, 2001.

CMI Industries, Inc., and its subsidiaries manufacture textile
products that serve a variety of markets, including the home
furnishings, woven apparel, elasticized knit apparel and
industrial/medical markets. Headquartered in Columbia, South
Carolina, the Company operates manufacturing facilities in
Clarkesville, Georgia; Greensboro, North Carolina; and Stuart,

COMDISCO: Court Okays Continued Use Of Current Business Forms
In order to minimize expenses to the estate, Comdisco, Inc.
sought and obtained an order authorizing them to continue using
all existing correspondence, business forms and checks.
Changing correspondence and business forms would, the Debtors
argue, be expensive, unnecessary, and burdensome to the Debtors'
estates as well as disruptive to their business operations.
(Comdisco Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 2; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

CONSECO INC: Releasing Second Quarter Results On August 6
Conseco, Inc. (NYSE:CNC) will report results for the second
quarter of 2001 at the end of the day on Monday, August 6, 2001.

The company will host its regular quarterly investor conference
call on Tuesday, August 7, 2001.

The call will begin at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time on August 7th. It
can be accessed through the CNC Shareholders section at Listeners
should go to the web site at least 15 minutes before the event
to register, download and install any necessary audio software.
The webcast will be archived for two weeks.

CORNERS PICTURE: Emerges from Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection
Corners Picture Framing Super Stores, one of the nation's
largest retail and corporate picture-framing companies, had
emerged from Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection. Stuart Needleman,
President and CEO, stated, "I'm extremely proud that our
organization was able to continue providing the highest level of
customer service during this difficult period."

Mr. Needleman added: "We owe our success to the dedication and
hard work of our over four hundred framer/designers, field
managers, and the home office support team, as well as to a
strong and loyal customer-base, earned in over fifteen years in
the picture framing business." Needleman also credits
"cooperation from our many vendors and suppliers and the
visionary investors and lenders who understood the potential of
our business model."

The company received additional equity capital from members of
the senior management team as well as outside investors. Mr.
Needleman went on to say, "Corners already provides the highest
quality workmanship with unequalled customer service. We are now
poised to become the country's premier picture framing

Corners operates 29 Framing Superstores in Massachusetts,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and California.
The chain also has a designer showroom, Corners Gallery, at the
Boston Design Center as well as Corporate Sales offices in
Boston and San Francisco.

CSC LTD.: Liquidates After Assets Draw No Bids
Bankrupt steel bar producer CSC Ltd. announced it would
liquidate after no bidder bought its assets, Dow Jones reports.
The company, which owns a steel mill in Warren, Ohio, has
contracted with an auctioneer and will sell its equipment
piecemeal.  Real estate and other assets, including machinery,
equipment, supplies and trademarks, will also be sold.  Mark
Filippell of McDonald Investments Inc., which serves as the
company's investment banker, said that a few bidders were
interested in pieces of the assets but there were no bids made
for the other pieces.

CSC filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Jan. 12,
listing assets of about $216 million and debts of about $259
million. (ABI World, July 27, 2001)

FINOVA GROUP: Committee Engages Wachtell Lipton as Counsel
The Committee voted to retain the law firm of Wachtell, Lipton
as its counsel. Thereafter, the Committee selected Pachulski,
Stang, Ziehl, Young & Jones as Delaware counsel. In this
application, the Committee seek the Court's authorization for
the retention of Wachtell, Lipton as counsel to the Committee,
pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Sections 1103 and 328 and Bankruptcy
Rule 2014.

The Committee represents that it based the selection of
Wachtell, Lipton as Committee counsel on the firm's extensive
experience and knowledge in the fields of bankruptcy and
creditors' rights, corporate acquisitions and the other fields
of law that are expected to be involved in these cases. The
Committee believes that Wachtell, Lipton is well qualified to
represent it in connection with these cases.

Wachtell, Lipton is known for its expertise in bankruptcy and in
mergers and acquisition transactions, friendly or unfriendly.
The Committee notes that it is among the world's pre-eminent
firms in both of those practice areas. Thus the Committee sees
the firm as particularly well suited to represent it in the
FINOVA case, involving as it does both bankruptcy law and a
likely contest for corporate control. Enhancement of the
recoveries to creditors of these estates, in substance, will
require an effort to resist what amounts to a hostile takeover
of The FINOVA Group, Inc., by the ostensible fiduciaries for
creditors - the officers and directors of the Debtors, the
Committee tells Judge Walsh. In order to provide service in
matters that require special attention, extensive experience,
high expertise and the reputation of its partners, the firm does
not generally handle routine matters and limits the number and
type of matters it does undertake. Wachtell, Lipton operates
with a ratio of partners to associates of one to one, which
reflects its significant partner- level involvement in each
matter. Matters undertaken by the firm are at all times afforded
the direct personal attention of its partners, the Committee

Included among the professional services which Wachtell, Lipton
may be called upon to render to the Committee are:

(1) negotiating alternatives to the Berkadia plan;

(2) advising the Committee with respect to the Berkadia plan and
     other plans which may be proposed;

(3) advocating the Committee's position with respect to such
     plans in pleadings and in court appearances;

(4) representing the Committee with respect to asset sales and
     other transactions which may be proposed;

(5) assisting in the examination of the Debtors' affairs and
     review of the Debtors' operations; and

(6) attending hearings, drafting pleadings and generally
     advocating positions and performing other professional
     services which further the interests of the creditors
     represented by the Committee, including, without limitation,
     those services set forth in Bankruptcy Code section 1103(c).

The Committee submits that it is necessary to employ attorneys
to render the professional services described, and that, without
such professional assistance, neither the Committee's evaluation
of the activities of the Debtors nor its meaningful
participation in the negotiation, promulgation, and evaluation
of a plan of reorganization would be possible.

         Proposed Terms of Retention of Wachtell, Lipton

The Committee believes that tying professional compensation
directly to the ultimate return to creditors on a present value
basis presents the most efficient mechanism to obtain the
services needed to maximize that return to creditors.

Accordingly, the Committee has determined that Wachtell,
Lipton's compensation should depend directly upon the recoveries
achieved by unsecured creditors in these cases.

At the threshold, Wachtell, Lipton will bill for its services at
$50,000 per month (plus reimbursement for its actual and
necessary expenses). That monthly sum, the Committee notes, is
well below the actual time charges in this case and comparable
cases. However, Wachtell, Lipton will also be compensated with a
contingent fee based on the value of the distributions paid to
unsecured creditors in these cases. Distributions made in the
form of cash present no valuation issue; distributions in the
form of securities would be valued based on the average trading
price of those securities for 20 trading days after the Debtors
emerge from bankruptcy. Distributions received from litigation
recoveries or other miscellaneous sources will be valued on
receipt. To take into account the effect of delay on creditor
recoveries, the creditors' recovery will be computed on a basis
that includes in the debt amount post-petition interest (whether
or not payable under a confirmed plan) at a rate equal to the
Debtors' weighted average non-default cost of debt on the plan
confirmation date.

No contingent fee would be payable if creditor recoveries did
not equal or exceed 85% of total debt. On the other hand, the
maximum contingent fee achievable would be $3,950,000 (plus an
additional $50,000 payable only if the recovery to holders of
debt of The FINOVA Group Inc. is 75% or more).

Between those extremes, the contingent fee would be computed as

      Total Recovery to Creditors

         Value of Recovery              Amount of
        as % of Total Debt*         WLRK Contingent Fee
        -------------------         -------------------
             below 85%                      $0
          85% --     87%              $1.0 --   $1.5MM
          87% --     89%              $1.5 --   $2.0MM
          89% --     91%              $2.0 --   $2.5MM
          91% --     93%              $2.5 --   $3.0MM
          93% --     95%              $3.0 --   $3.5 MM
             Above 95%                      $3.95MM*

* Computed on the basis of $10.998 billion pre-petition debt
plus post-petition interest at non-default cost of debt at plan

The Committee recognizes that an hourly fee structure for
attorneys is the routine arrangement in bankruptcy cases.
Nevertheless, the Committee believes that the proposed
compensation arrangement is the most likely means to promote the
interest of unsecured creditors in maximizing their recovery.

The Committee tells Judge Walsh that the FINOVA proceedings
present an especially apt vehicle for implementation of the
contingent arrangement proposed by the Committee. "The week
before filing bankruptcy, the Debtors secretly handed over
control to a plan funder known as "Berkadia," now slated to
receive 51% of the equity of the restructured Debtors upon plan
consummation," the Committee notes, "the Debtors have
contractually committed themselves, without approval of their
creditors, their shareholders, or th[e] Court, to consummate the
plan proposed by Berkadia. In fact, the Debtors have already
paid Berkadia and its affiliates $68 million in fees to that end
and have promised to pay a further $60 million, plus unlimited
cost reimbursement, to further the Berkadia plan. Further,
Berkadia has obtained the dismissal of six of the top executives
of the Debtors and has terminated the Debtors' outside
restructuring advisors."

The Committee believes that the consideration afforded creditors
in the Berkadia transaction is less than what could be
accomplished in an open, fair and non-coercive process, and the
fee structure negotiated with Wachtell, Lipton is designed to
reward the firm if it brings about recovery levels substantially
in excess of those promised by Berkadia. "While the Berkadia
plan purports to pay creditors in full, the securities to be
distributed to creditors under the Berkadia plan are in fact
worth far less than their face amount. If Wachtell, Lipton is
unsuccessful in that effort, it will be paid only $50,000 per
month," the Committee represents.

The Committee also notes that, in order to operate in the manner
Wachtell, Lipton does, the firm routinely bases its fees not on
time, but on the intensity of the firm's efforts, the
responsibility assumed, the complexity of the matter and the

As legal basis for the proposal, the Committee asserts that the
type of retention sought by this Application is expressly
contemplated by the Bankruptcy Code, which in section 328(a)
provides that the Court may approve the retention of Committee
professionals on "any reasonable terms and conditions,"
specifically including "on a contingent fee basis." It is
respectfully submitted that, for the reasons set out above, this
case presents an especially apt vehicle for retention of
Wachtell, Lipton pursuant to section 328(a) on a "contingent fee
basis" tied to the recovery of creditors.

To the best of the Committee's knowledge, Wachtell, Lipton has
had no other prior connection with the Debtors, their creditors
or any other party in interest except as stated in the Fortgang
Affidavit. Upon information, the Committee believes that the
firm of Wachtell, Lipton is disinterested and does not hold or
represent any interest adverse to the Debtors' estates or the
Committee or the creditors the Committee represents in the
matters upon which it has been and is to be engaged.

The Committee has been advised that Wachtell, Lipton was
retained as special reorganization counsel by an informal
committee of the holders of the Debtors' pre-petition bonds and
that such representation was terminated prior to its retention
by the Committee.

The Committee believes that the services performed by Wachtell,
Lipton from the Petition Date through the date of this
Application have redounded to the benefit of all of the Debtors'
creditors and would have been performed by Wachtell, Lipton as
counsel to the Committee, if the Committee were in existence at
all times prior to its formation, given that (a) Wachtell,
Lipton's prior representation was on a co-operative basis with
the prior informal committee of bank creditors, (b) the
Committee is composed of members of the prior informal bank and
bond committees, plus the trustee for many of the bond issues
and (c) substantially all of the Debtors' creditors are pair
passu unsecured.

Accordingly, the Committee requests that the Court authorize the
retention of Wachtell, Lipton as of the Petition Date, nunc pro

Chaim J. Fortgang, Esquire, partner of the firm of Wachtell,
Lipton, reveals in his affidavit that Wachtell, Lipton has in
the past represented, is currently representing and may in the
future represent certain creditors of the Debtors in unrelated
financial restructuring, litigation, corporate and other
matters. These creditors include bank lenders to the Debtors
and, upon information and belief, holders of the Bonds. Mr.
Fortgang notes that, given the large number of creditors who
hold claims against the Debtors, and the fluid nature of the
creditor constituencies in these and other chapter 11 cases, it
is not possible to state accurately who all of these creditors
are and which other cases or matters they are involved in. What
Mr. Fortgang has been able to ascertain is that, Wachtell,
Lipton has in the past represented, is currently representing
and may in the future represent:

* The bank members of the Committee and others of the Debtors'
   bank lenders, in unrelated restructuring, corporate and/or
   other matters.

* The holders, indenture trustee and/or underwriters of bonds
   issued by the Debtors in unrelated restructuring, corporate
   and/or other matters from time to time.

* certain non-creditor parties with interests in the FINOVA
   Chapter 11 cases.

In particular, it is possible that the Debtors, as lenders, may
have been members of a lender group represented by, or members
of which have been represented by, Wachtell, Lipton.

Mr. Fortgang represents that, neither he nor Wachtell, Lipton
represent any interest adverse to the Debtors or to their
estates in the matters upon which Wachtell, Lipton is to be

Mr. Fortgang states in his affidavit that Wachtell, Lipton is a
"disinterested person" as that term is defined in Section
101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.

According to Wachtell, Lipton's accounting records, the Debtors
paid $100,000 to Wachtell, Lipton prior to the Petition Date,
pursuant to a customary agreement with the Debtors to pay
Wachtell, Lipton's fees and expenses in connection with the Pre-
petition Representation. To the extent that the fees and
expenses of Wachtell, Lipton for the Pre-petition Representation
were less than $100,000, Wachtell, Lipton will apply the balance
to its allowed fees and expenses as counsel to the Committee,
Mr. Fortgang tells the Court.

           Limited Objection By the Equity Committee

The Equity Committee makes it clear that it has not objection to
the retention of Wachtell Lipton or to the payment of
compensation to the firm as requested in the Application.

The Equity Committee objects only to the payment of that
compensation, to the extent it exceeds Wachtell Lipton's normal
hourly charges and disbursements, from the assets of the estate
, which would otherwise inure to the benefit of the equity
constituency. The Equity Committee believes that the additional
amount of Wachtell Lipton's compensation, over and above its
normal charges, should be paid from the recovery to unsecured
creditors in the cases.

The Equity Committee notes that the FINOVA case is unusual in
many respects, four of which are relevant to the issue at hand:

(1) the magnitude of the case is enormous in terms of asset

(2) the creditors are being paid in full and equity is receiving
a significant, albeit far smaller, distribution;

(3) assuming the the Debtors' plan is confirmed, the duration of
the case will be very short;

The Equity Committee notes that the distribution to creditors in
the FINOVA cases will include nearly $8 billion in cash and more
than $3 billion in notes but, by contrast, equity value is in
the range of $600 million. Thus, payment of even as much as $8.5
million to Wachtell Lipton and Lazard can be more than amply
provided for from the distribution to creditors but, such
payment will account for substantially more than 1% of the value
the equity constituency will receive, the Equity Committee

The Equity Committee suggests that the Court approve the
Application but modify the proposed Order so that any
compensation in excess of the firm's normal hourly charges and
disbursements be paid out of the distributions to creditors in
the cases.

               Limited Objection of the U.S. Trustee

The U.S. Trustee notes that the Committee was not formed until
March 20, 2001, so the effective date should not be as of the
Petition Date, as requested in the Application. The U.S. Trustee
objects to approval of the retention of Committee counsel as of
a date prior to the formation of the Committee. The U.S. Trustee
takes the position that any services prior to the formation of
the Committee were rendered on behalf of the interests of those
creditors rather than in furtherance of the Committee's
fiduciary responsibility to act on behalf of all unsecured

The U.S. Trustee tells Judge Walsh that the retention of
Wachtell as Committee counsel, if approved, should be effective
as of March 20, 2001, the Committee formation date.

The U.S. Trustee also objects to the Compensation Scheme of a
flat monthly rate of $50,000 plus expenses along with a back-end
fee of up to $4 million calculated according to a formula
related to the valuation of the distribution to creditors. The
U.S. Trustee observes that based on the terms of the revised
Plan as outlined at the Disclosure Statement hearing on June 13,
2001, it is a near certainty that the valuation of the
distribution to creditors will trigger the maximum back-end fee
to Wachtell under the formula proposed in the application. The
U.S. Trustee believes this is a misnomer to refer to the back-
end fee as a "contingent" fee.

The U.S. Trustee also takes the view that it is inappropriate
for Wachtell to be compensated on a transactional basis where
Wachtell and the Committee did not bring the deal to the table,
when the Committee actually complained that it had been shut out
of the negotiating process that led to the Berkadia proposal. It
appears, the U.S. Trustee notes that the Committee had
subsequently been involved in the negotiations that led to
certain modifications and enhancements of the Berkadia plan.
However, the U.S. Trustee believes that the extent to which
Wachtell should be allowed premium compensation for its role in
these negotiations should not be fixed yet but rather should be
subject to plenary review at the conclusion of the case at which
time the value added by Wachtell can be evaluated and compared
with the actual time, effort and opportunity costs invested by
Wachtell into the representation, and further balanced against
the principle that a success fee should be reserved for
extraordinary results, and "counsel should not be rewarded for
merely doing what it was supposed to do in furtherance of the
basic fiduciary duty of the Committee.

The United States Trustee requests that Wachtell's retention be
approved only on condition that it is effective as of the date
of formation of the Committee, and that approval of any
compensation to Wachtell in excess of the lodestar rates be
reserved for plenary review (i.e. not limited only to
"improvidently granted" review under section 328(a)) as of the
time of the final fee application, with Lazard retaining the
burden of proving its entitlement to any fee enhancement or
Contingent Fee.  (Finova Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 10;
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

FRUIT OF THE LOOM: Rejecting NWI Environmental Contracts
NWI manages remedial activities at certain properties located
within the United States on behalf of itself and pursuant to
contractual obligations. NWI is the former owner of Velsicol
Chemical Corporation, a chemical and pesticide manufacturer
wholly-owned by True Specialty Corporation.  Fruit of the Loom
(the Debtor) and NWI have contractual obligations, including
indemnification obligations, related to certain environmental
liabilities, such as those under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, attendant
regulations promulgated thereunder, and similar state statutes.
These liabilities relate both to the sale of discontinued
operations and with NWI's current ownership of such sites. Fruit
of the Loom and/or NWI are obligated under certain prepetition
executory agreements, which, under certain circumstances, may
obligate Debtor to indemnify, among others, Velsicol for
environmental liabilities relating to the sites.

Fruit of the Loom has retained certain contractual
indemnification obligations related to the sale of products in
connection with its discontinued operations.  Fruit of the
Loom's retained liability reserves related to discontinued
operations at December 31, 2000, consist primarily of certain
environmental reserves of approximately $31,800,000 and product
liability reserves of approximately $2,000,000.  Fruit of the
Loom has insurance coverage, subject to deductibles and
exclusions from coverage provisions, for potential clean-up cost
expenditures in excess of current environmental reserves up to
$100,000,000 in the aggregate.  This coverage is for sites with
on-going remediation, pollution liability coverage for claims
arising out of pollution conditions at owned locations,
including continuing operations, sold facilities and non-owned
sites and product liability coverage for claims arising out of
products manufactured by the sold operations.

NWI has no current operations (other than to manage remediation
efforts at certain sites) and is not an integral part of Fruit
of the Loom's business.  The reorganization plan contemplates
the orderly liquidation of NWI.  To that end, the Debtors have
determined that the rejection of dozens of Settlement
Agreements, Remediation Agreements, and Participation Agreements
is in the best interests of its creditors and the estates.
(Fruit of the Loom Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 34; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

GARDEN WAY: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors
Debtor: Garden Way Incorporated
         1 Garden Way, Troy
         New York, 12180

Chapter 11 Petition Date: July 30, 2001

Court: District of Delaware

Bankruptcy Case No.: 01-10011

Debtor's Counsel: Pauline K. Morgan, Esq.
                   M. Blake Cleary. Esq.
                   Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
                   Wilmington Trust Center
                   11th Floor
                   PO Box 391
                   Wilmington, DE 19801
                   (302) 571-6600

Estimated Assets: $ 10 million to $50 million

Estimated Debts: More than $100 million

List of Debtor's 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors:

Entity                        Nature Of Claim       Claim Amount
------                        ---------------       ------------
Chase Manhattan Bank Group    Bank Loan             $49,000,000
Roger Odell
380 Madison Ave.
9th Floor, New York
NY 10017
Tel: 212-622-4878
Fax: 212-622-4834

Briggs & Stratton Corp.       Trade Debt            $3,333,343
Bill Neureuther
PO Box 702
Milwaukee, WI 53268
Tel: 414-259-5521
Fax: 414-479-1322

CNA Insurance Companies       Trade Debt            $3,297,756
Mark Senal
PO Box 95777, Chicago
IL 60694
Tel: 312-822-5281
Fax: 312-817-0849

Tecumsch Products             Trade Debt            $1,255,249
Tim Voelker
PO Box 200
New Holstein
WI 53061
Tel: 920-898-2118
Fax: 920-898-2704

National Traffic Service      Trade Debt            $633,230
151 John James
Audubon Pkwy, Amherst
NY 14228
Tel: 716-636-8253
Fax: 716-636-1487

Empire State Development      Gov't contract        $600,000
Terry Trifari
633 Third Ave., New York
NY 10017
Tel: 212-803-3640
Fax: 212-803-3625

Tru-Cut Die Corp.             Trade Debt            $585,803
Donald Frank
1145 Allied Drive
Sebring, OH 44672
Tel: 330-938+9806
Fax: 330-938-9342

Dorado Beach Hotel            Def Comp              $319,374
Jairo Estrada                 Agreement
Box 51, Dorad, PR 00645
Tel: 518-785-3840

City Troy-City Treasurer      Taxes                 $318,568
Joe Bucharnan
City Hall
Troy, NY 12180
Tel: 518-270-4407

Quad/Graphics, Inc.           Trade Debt            $302,842
PO Box 930505
Atlanta, GA 31193
Tel: 414-566-2288

Wescon Products Co.           Trade Debt            $277,520
Mike Palmer
2533 Sq. West St.
PO Box 7710, Wichita
KS 67277-7710
Tel: 316-942-7266
Fax: 316-942-5114

Nathaniel Stoddard            Def. Compensation     $265,539
736 Garden Road               Agreement &
Elmira, NY 14905              Stock Buyback
Tel: 607-271-9122
Fax: 607-377-8795

Eastern Equipment Inc.        Trade Debt            $256,765
Glenn Misco
23 Londonderry Road
Unit #18
Londonderry, NH 03053
Tel: 800-444-0407
Fax: 603-437-0851

Titan International, Inc.     Trade Debt            $241,722

Sears, Roebuck and Company    Sales contract        $227,568

OEM Corp.                     Trade Debt            $171,742

Campbell Hausfeld Div.        Trade Debt            $167,305

Moore Response Marketing      Trade Debt            $161,253

New Hampshire, Inc.           Trade Debt            $159,135

Francis Edwards               Def Compensation      $156,235

GNI GROUP: Chapter 11 Plan Returns 5% on Unsecured Claims
GNI Group Inc. will ask Judge Wesley W. Steen of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Houston on Aug. 3 to approve the disclosure
statement for the company's first amended joint reorganization
plan, Dow Jones reported.  Under the plan, general unsecured
creditors would receive 5 percent of their allowed claims.  If
the court authorizes the disclosure statement, it will consider
confirmation of the plan at a hearing on Aug. 31.

GNI Group, which is based in Deer Park, Texas, is seeking to
extend through Aug. 31 the exclusive period in which it may
collect votes for its plan without the threat of third parties
filing competing plans.  On July 11, Judge Steen signed a bridge
order that extends the company's exclusive solicitation period
through Monday.  At a June 29 hearing, the court indicated it
would consider the bridge order if the company complied with a
July 9 plan-filing deadline.  GNI, which filed for chapter 11
bankruptcy protection with six subsidiaries, estimated assets of
between $100,000 and $500,000 and debts of between $50 million
and $100 million. (ABI World, July 3, 2001)

HALO INDUSTRIES: Files Chapter 11 Petition in Wilmington
HALO Industries (NYSE: HMK), a promotional products industry
leader, has filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code. Monday's filing included a series
of routine first-day motions to conduct business as usual.
Factors behind the Company's decision included several non-
operating issues such as the lease on the headquarters building
and the acquisition of .

The filing, made Monday in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Wilmington, Delaware, provides protection for the Company's U.S.
promotional products business including its Lee Wayne
subsidiary. It excludes HALO's Canadian and European operations,
Premier Promotions, HALO Sports, and its marketing subsidiary,
UPSHOT, none of which seek Chapter 11 protection.

The filing will enable the Company to continue to conduct its
business operations and control its assets while restructuring
its financial obligations. Motions filed Monday reflect the
Company's commitment to pay all employee wages, commissions and
benefits, to accelerate payments to vendors for shipments, to
protect customer deposits and credits, and a number of other
operating matters. This will assure that employees of the
Company will continue to be paid in the normal manner and their
benefits will not be affected. The Company's 401(k) plan is
fully funded and protected by federal law.

In addition, the Company announced that it has secured a $30
million debtor-in-possession financing facility from its
existing lenders, LaSalle Bank and Comerica. This significant
increase in its credit line represents a major vote of
confidence. Together, the new financing arrangements and
Chapter 11 protection will significantly enhance the Company's
liquidity, providing sufficient funds to fully satisfy customer
requirements and upcoming seasonal needs.

"After reviewing strategic options, our board of directors made
the decision to relieve the business from past burdens," said
Marc Simon, president and chief executive officer. "As we
implement our recovery plan, we are fully committed to
maintaining and protecting our valued relationships with our
sales force, employees, customers, vendors and shareholders. To
demonstrate that commitment, the Company is implementing an
immediate vendor payment plan designed to ensure uninterrupted
shipments to customers and protect the cash flow of our vendors.
Monday's action is in line with my stated priority to restore
the financial health of our Company while focusing on our core
promotional products business. It is all about retention of our
valuable business."

This announcement follows a series of strategic initiatives
taken by HALO under the direction of Marc Simon, the Company's
new president and chief executive officer, who was brought in
five months ago to restore the Company to financial health. In
the second quarter, HALO sold two non-core business units,
Lipson, Alport, Glass & Associates (LAGA) and Market USA, as
well as its interest in iDentify, generating $80 million of
cash. During this period, the company significantly reduced

"Monday's action demonstrates our belief in and commitment to
the long-term future of our promotional products business. Our
strong sales force, blue-chip client list and longstanding
vendor relationships continue to give us competitive advantages
that we intend to convert into a profitable future once we
unburden ourselves from the past," said Simon. "We are
determined to emerge a stronger company."

                      About HALO

HALO Industries, Inc. (NYSE: HMK) is the world's largest
distributor of promotional products.

HALO INDUSTRIES: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors
Lead Debtor: HA-LO Industries, Inc.
              5800 West Touhy
              Niles, Illinois 60714

Debtor affiliates filing separate chapter 11 petitions:

              Lee Wayne Corporation
    , Inc.

Type of Business: HA-LO Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries Lee
                   Wayne Corporation and, Inc.,
                   provide full service, innovative brand
                   marketing in the custom and promotional
                   products industry.

Chapter 11 Petition Date: July 30, 2001

Court: District of Delaware

Bankruptcy Case No.: 01-10000

Debtors' Counsel: Neal L. Wolf, Esq.
                   Todd L. Padaog, Esq.
                   Elizabeth M. Khachigian, Esq.
                   Orrick Herington & Sutcliffe LLP
                   400 Sansome Street
                   Old Federal Reserve Bank Bldg.
                   San Francisco, CA 94111
                   (415) 392-1122


                   Adam G. Landis, Esq.
                   Richard S. Cobb, Esq.
                   Eric Lopez Schnabel, Esq.
                   Klett Rooney Lieber & Schorling
                   A Professional Corporation
                   1000 West Street, Suite 1410
                   The Brandywine Building
                   Wilmington, DE 19801
                   (302) 552-4200

Approximate Assets: $100 million

Approximate Debts: $80 million

Consolidated List of Debtors' 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors:

Entity                        Nature Of Claim       Claim Amount
------                        ---------------       ------------
Reed Illinois Corporation     Services Agreement    $1,744,108
Terry Birck, Owner            (construction and
930 West Division              remodeling)
Chicago, IL 60622-4288
(312) 943-8100

Centerpoint Properties        Lease Agreement       $1,270,090
Corp.                         (Commercial Lease)
John Gates, CEO
650 E. Devon Ave.
Suite 153
Itasea, IL 60143
(630) 586-8186

Answer Think Consulting       Services Agreement    $911,296
Group, Inc.                   (technology
1401 Brickell Avenue           consulting)
Suite 440
Miami, FL 33131
Daryl Pope
311 South Wacker Drive
Suite 1750
Chicago, IL 60606
(877) 423-4321

Norwood                       Trade Debt            $871,280
Frank Krasovec, CEO
1331 North Pine Street
San Antonio, TX 78202
(800) 937-7227

Radio Cap Co., Inc.           Trade Debt            $648,328
Frank Krasovec, CEO
615 Perez Street
San Antonio TX 78207-2397
(800) 937-7227

Uni-Ray Ltd.                  Trade Debt            $550,000
Keith Lam, Owner
China HK City
Tsim Sha Tsui
Hong Kong, SAR
(852) 2739-8783

Softchoice Corporation        Sales Agreement       $548,680
David Holgate, CEO            (software)
165 North Jefferson Street
Suite 100
Chicago, IL 60661
(888) 549-7638

Sanmar                        Trade Debt            $459-482
Mary Lott, Owner
30500 SE 79th Street
Issaquah, WA 98027
(800) 426-6399

Alpha Shirt Company           Trade Debt            $453,297
David Grobisen, VP Sales
401 E Hunting Park Ave.
Ohiladelphia, PA 19124
(800) 523-4585

Broder Bros. Co.              Trade Debt            $439,907
Vincent Tyra, CEO
2425 Camp Avenue
Suite 100
Carrolton, TX 75006
(800) 543-4200

Senator USA LLC               Trade Debt            $420,204
John Delaney, President
4215 Tudor Lane
Greensboro, NC 27410
(800) 553-6101

Altheimer & Gray              Services Agreement    $409,402
Jeffrey N. Smith, Partner     (legal services)
10 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-7482
(312) 715-400

Cutter & Buck                 Trade Debt            $367,049
Andy Hilton, VP Corp Accts
2701 First Avenue
Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98121
(206) 622-4191

3M Promotional Markers        Trade Debt            $371,789
James Halverson
Sales Manager
2020 Lookout Drive
North Mankato, MN 56003
(800) 328-2407

Yot-Toy Productions           Trade Debt            $363,629
Kate Clark
35 W. 35th Street
10th Floor
New York, NY 10001
(212) 594-2202

Racing Champions              Trade Debt            $326,166
Court Stoelting, CFO
800 Roosevelt Road
Building B, Suite 414
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137

MAS, Inc.                     Trade Debt            $325,172
Brian Hagenmeier
VP Operations
2718 Brecksvilee Road
PO Box 526
Richfield, OH 44286
(800) 648-1414

Vantage Custom Classics       Trade Debt            $319,838
Ira Neaman, President
6320 Gross Pointe Rd.
Niles, IL 60714

Sleepek Printing Co.          Trade Debt            $304,626
Michael Sleepek, President
815 S. 15th Avenue
Bellwood, IL 60104
(708) 500-8900

Gemline                       Trade Debt            $281,541
Jonathan Isaacson, Owner
Nine International Way
Lawrence, MA 01843
(800) 800-3200

HEARME: Closes Business Operations & Plans To Sell Assets
HearMe (Nasdaq:HEAR), a provider of VoIP application
technologies for next generation networks, announced its
decision to close business operations and pursue a sale
of its assets, with the goal of returning any remaining capital
to stockholders. The Company's intent is to adopt a plan for an
orderly wind down of business operations.

In light of the ongoing economic slowdown -- particularly in the
telecommunications sector -- and diminishing revenue traction
and visibility, HearMe has been engaged in a concerted effort
for the past several months to explore various strategic
alternatives, including the sale of the Company. In addition, as
previously announced, the Company substantially reduced
operating costs to maximize business operations and
preserve cash.

"The deepening turmoil in the industry has significantly
affected our revenue visibility and ability to predict the
course of the business. With no viable alternatives, we felt the
best decision was to develop a plan for an orderly disposition
of HearMe's assets with the objective of returning any remaining
capital to the stockholders," said Rob Csongor, CEO of HearMe.
"We truly believe we performed a thorough and painstaking effort
to try to maximize stockholder value. If other strategic
alternatives present themselves in the future, we will pursue
initiatives that we believe to be in the best interests of our

               Second Quarter Revenue and Results

HearMe reported revenues for the second quarter and six months
ended June 30, 2001. Revenues for the second quarter were $0.6
million, bringing six month revenues for the period ending June
30, 2001 to $3.3 million. This compares to technology licensing
revenues totaling $4.4 million for the second quarter and $7.3
million for the six month period in the previous year. Ongoing
operating expenses, excluding a restructuring charge and stock
compensation expense, were $5.9 million for the quarter,
compared to $12.3 million in the prior year quarter.

As a result of the lowered operating expenses, HearMe's pro
forma net loss for the quarter was $5.4 million, or $0.19 per
diluted share, excluding a $0.7 million charge related to
restructuring costs and a stock compensation charge of $0.3
million. This compares to a prior year second quarter pro
forma loss of $7.4 million, or $0.27 per diluted share before
charges for (1) in-process research and development related to
its April 2000 acquisition of AudioTalk Networks, Inc., (2)
amortization of intangible assets mainly related to the
AudioTalk acquisition, (3) stock compensation expense and (4)
loss from discontinued operations in the second quarter of
2000. Including all charges, the Company realized a net loss of
$6.5 million for the second quarter of 2001, or $0.23 per
diluted share, compared to a net loss of $23.7 million, or $0.87
per diluted share, in the second quarter of 2000.

The loss for the first six months of 2001 was $10.4 million or
$0.37 per diluted share, excluding the restructuring charge and
stock compensation expense. For the corresponding period of
2000, the pro forma loss was $12.9 million or $0.51 per diluted
share before all charges. Including charges for restructuring
and stock compensation expense, the Company had a net loss of
$11.7 million, or $0.41 per diluted share for the first six
months of 2001, compared to a net loss of $35.1 million, or a
loss of $1.40 per diluted share, in the same period last year.

HearMe's intent is to continue to methodically wind down
business operations in order to provide support for its
customers and partners while at the same time minimizing all
other expenditures. The Company intends to retain an adequate
staff to manage the wind down process.

HearMe has engaged outside counsel and advisors in the process
of developing a wind down plan to be presented to the Board of
Directors and stockholders for approval. Upon stockholder
approval, the Company intends to provide reasonable reserves for
its obligations and distribute any remaining capital to its

Due to this announcement, HearMe is canceling its scheduled
second quarter conference call and plans to adjourn the
stockholder meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 31, 2001.

                     About HearMe

HearMe (Nasdaq:HEAR) develops VoIP application technologies that
deliver increased productivity and flexibility in communication
via next generation communications networks. The Company's PC-
to-phone, phone-to-phone, and PC-to-PC VoIP application platform
offers innovative technology and turnkey applications that
simplify the process of bringing differentiated, enhanced
communications services to market. Communications services
supported or enhanced by HearMe technology include VoIP-based
conferencing, VoIP Calling, and VoIP-enabled customer
relationship management (CRM). Founded in 1995, HearMe is
located in Mountain View, California, and is located on the
Internet at

HEILIG-MEYERS: Obtains Approval of New $30 Million Credit Line
Bankrupt retailer Heilig-Meyers Co. received court approval for
a new $30 million line of credit to replace a $215 million
financing package in place since it filed for bankruptcy
protection in August, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
The old financing was to expire Monday.  Had the Richmond, Va.-
based chain not received the approval, the chain would have
had a difficult time completing the liquidation of its namesake
Heilig-Meyers stores and continuing the operations of The

The retailer decided in April to close 300 of its namesake
stores while continuing to operate about 70 of The RoomStore
locations. All Heilig-Meyers store locations are now closed.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Douglas O. Tice Jr. approved a motion
giving the new credit agreement to the CIT Group/Business
Credit Inc.  It had been with Fleet Retail Finance Inc. and Back
Bay Capital LLC, which decided not to renew the agreement.  (ABI
World, July 27, 2001)

INTEGRATED HEALTH: Cheyenne Wants Decision on Care Center Lease
As previously reported, IHS Cheyenne sought and obtained the
Court's approval for the divestiture by transfer of the
Residential Center located at 2860 East Cheyenne Avenue in North
Last Vegas, Nevada (Cheyenne Residential and Nursing Center-Las
Vegas). IHS Cheyenne remains a tenant to another lease with
Cheyenne SNF LLC (lessor), by virtue of an assignment by the
original lessee, Preferred Care West, remains - a lease of
Cheyenne Care Center-Las Vegas at 2857 East Cheyenne Avenue in
North Las Vegas, Nevada ("Care Center").

Cheyenne SNF LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, now asks
the Court to:

(1) compel Integrated Health Services, Inc. to move to assume or
     reject the Care Center Lease on or before July 27, 2001,
     such motion to be heard at the August 14, 2001 omnibus
     hearing and

(2) compel the Debtors to produce all documents requested by the

The movant complains to the Court that IHS Cheyenne had been
chronically late in paying rent and had consistently failed to
comply with the terms of the Leases since October of 1999 and
continuing through the first year of their bankruptcy
proceeding. The Debtors finally brought its payments on the
facilities current. However, the lessor had to expend time and
effort, and the payment was made belatedly, Cheyenne SNF

In addition, uncertainty arising out of the future operation of
the Care Center makes it difficult to sell or refinance the
property, Cheyenne SNF tells the Court that. Specifically, the
Cheyenne Care Center is encumbered by a deed of trust with
Washington Mutual. The Washington Mutual deed of trust secures a
promissory note in the amount of $2,060,000. This note expired
on May 1, 2001 and has been granted a temporary extension until
October 1, 2001. Cheyenne SNF tells the Court that it has made
every possible effort to sell or refinance the property, but in
light of the uncertainty over the future operation of the Care
Center, prospective purchasers or lenders have determined that
buying or refinancing the property is not feasible. The problem
is expounded by Debtors' continual refusal to produce
information and documents to the Movant, Cheyenne SNF complains.

Cheyenne SNF puts forward several reasons why the Debtors should
be required to promptly make a decision concerning assumption or

First, while the rent has been paid recently, Debtors have not
done so willingly, and only after extended efforts, including
travel by both the landlord and its counsel across the country
for depositions and hearings. In addition, Debtors still refuse
to comply with their obligations under the Lease, which has
required the Movant to bring this Motion.

Second, clearly the Lease is not a primary asset of the estate.
Whether the Debtors assume or reject the Lease will hardly have
a "make or break" effect on the success of the Debtors'

Third, the potential prejudice to the landlord is immense. With
the financing coming due, Movant and its principals may be
subject to foreclosure and have their personal assets at risk
due to this bankruptcy.

Fourth, the landlord would not receive a windfall if the Debtors
were required to assume or reject the Lease at this time.

Fifth, while the administratively consolidated case is
admittedly is large and complex, IHS Cheyenne's bankruptcy case
is neither large nor complex. In addition, Movant's lease is one
small part of the bankruptcy. Debtors' decision whether to
assume or reject the Care Center's lease is not a large or
complex issue and can be readily and easily analyzed by the

Sixth, and finally, the Debtors have had more than a reasonable
period of time to analyze the estate and formulate a
reorganization plan. By the time this Motion is heard, Debtors
will have had nearly 18 months to analyze the Debtors'
operations at this one small facility.

In addition, the Debtors ought to be required to produce the
documentation and information requested by Cheyenne SNF, as a
matter of bankruptcy law, and equity and fairness to Cheyenne
SNF and its principal, the movant asserts. (Integrated Health
Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 18; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service,
Inc., 609/392-0900)

INTIRA CORP.: Case Summary & 30 Largest Unsecured Creditors
Debtor: Intira Corporation
         5667 Gibraltar Drive
         Pleasanton, CA 94588

Chapter 11 Petition Date: July 30, 2001

Court: District of Delaware

Bankruptcy Case No.: 01-10004

Debtor's Counsel: Laura Davis Jones, Esq.
                   Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl, Young & Jones PC
                   919 North Market Street, Suite 1600
                   Wilmington, DE 19801
                   Tel: (302) 652-4100
                   Fax: (302) 652-4400

Estimated Assets: more than $100 million

Estimated Debts: more than $100 million

List of Debtor's 30 Largest Unsecured Creditors:

Entity                        Nature Of Claim       Claim Amount
------                        ---------------       ------------
Micheal Littenberg            Unsecured Notes       $188,500,000
Schulte Roth & Zabel
616 third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Tel: 212-756-2000
Fax: 212-593-5955

Och Management                Unsecured Notes       $23,314,812
Avi Katz
153 E. 53rd, 43rd Floor
New York, NY 10022
Tel: 212-790-0141
Fax: 212-790-0140

Putnam Investment             Unsecured Notes       $18,252,167
Management, Inc.
Jim Miller/Jeff Bray
One Post Office Square
12th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Tel: 617-760-8857
Fax: 617-760-1885

Level 3 Communications        Trade Debt            $4,983,732
Kathleen Perone
Department 182
Denver, Colorado 80291-0182
Tel: 877-453-8353
Fax: 877-553-8353

Nextlink                      Trade Debt            $4,235,808
PO Box 828618
Philadelphia, PA 19182-8618
Tel: 877-444-6398
Fax: 415-519-8910

Hewlett-Packard Co.           Trade Debt            $2,954,094
Ann Martin
PO Box 101149
Atlanta, GA 30392-1149
Tel: 404-648-8127
Fax: 404-648-1716

GE Capital                    Trade Debt            $2,626,049
Barbara Bishop
PO Box 740428
Atlanta, GE 30374-0428
Tel: 203-749-6445
Fax: 203-749-4530

Williams Communications,      Trade Debt            $2,566,919
Blake Williams
21864 Network Place
Chicago, IL 60673-1218
Tel: 888-465-9516
Fax: 918-573-1849

Lucent Technologies           Trade Debt            $2,293,142
Noreen Vallani
PO Box 200955
Dallas, TX 75320-0955
Tel: 888-467-0500
Fax: 650-318-1101

Cable & Wireless USA, Inc.     Trade Debt           $1,932,000
Stephanie Fahey
PO Box 371689
Pittsburgh, PA 15251-7689
Tel: 312-341-8335
Fax: 312-341-0463

Time Warner Telecom           Trade Debt            $1,855,851
Wendy Werner
70 N.E. Loop 410
Suite 900
San Antonio, TX 78216
Tel: 415-489-0705
Fax: 415-489-0765

Verizon Select Services       Trade Debt            $1,653,710
PO Box 101362
Atlanta, GA 30392-1362
Tel: 631-435-2205
Fax: 631-435-2264

Espire Communications, Inc.   Trade Debt            $1,140,672
Lolita Davis
PO Box: 64576
Baltimore, MD 21264-4576
Tel: 301-361-3631
Fax: 301-361-4276

Worldcom Technologies,        Trade Debt            $1,550,000
Robert Rodriguez
PO Box 730426
Dallas, TX 75373-0426
Tel: 202-736-6865
Fax: 973-889-2740

AT&T Canada                   Trade Debt            $940,951
Brenda Anderson
200 Wellington St. West
14th Floor
Toronto, Ontario Canada
M5V 3G2
Tel: 310 406-2194
Fax: 888-806-1913

Sprint                        Trade Debt            $602,848
PO Box 930331
Atlanta, GE 31193-0331
Tel: 800-786-6272
Fax: 877-202-3689

Fleet Business Credit Corp.   Trade Debt            $479,149
135 S. LaSalle
Dept. 8210
Chicago, IL 60674-8210
Tel: 800-333-1919
Fax: 312-853-8034

Qwest Communications          Trade Debt            $471,358
Legal Department
PO Box 36481
Louisville, KY 40232-6481
Tel: 303-992-1400
Fax: 303-992-1724

Birch Telecom                 Trade Debt            $453,052
Gregory Lawhon
2020 Baltimore Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64108
Tel: 816-300-3318
Fax: 816-842-7507

Caronet, Inc.                 Trade Debt            $453,052
Kathleen Hepburn
PO Box 69
Raleigh, NC 27602-0069
Tel: 727-820-5508
Fax: 727-820-5652

Kenan                         Trade Debt            $477,839
Peter Fisher
PO Box 4338
Boston, MA 02211
Tel: 303-298-0402
Fax: 303-298-7536

EMC Corporation               Trade Debt            $405,146
Denise Dixon
Dept Ch 10648
Palatine, IL 60055-0648
Tel: 212-564-6866
Fax: 212-937-2632

C. Rallo Contracting Co.      Trade Debt            $403,866
Charles Rallo
5000 Kemper Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63139
Tel: 314-664-2900
Fax: 314-664-4207

Heller Financial Leasing,     Trade Debt            $393,587
Legal Department
PO Box 67000
Detroit, MI 48267-070
Tel: 877-644-1747
Fax: 248-680-4214

Verilease Corporation         Trade Debt            $345,300
PO Box 281135
Atlanta, GA 30384-1135
Tel: 800-646-3196
Fax: 503-721 1719

Verilease Corporation         Trade Debt            $345,211
NW 7662
PO Box 1450
Minneapolis, MN 55485-7662
Tel: 248-366-5300
Fax: 248-366-5332

Data General Leasing          Trade Debt            $248,664
Jane Weissman
PO Box 1187
Englewood, CO 80150-1187
Tel: 508-898-7616
Fax: 508-898-7616

De Lage Landen                Trade Debt            $239,022
Financial Services

The Associates                Trade Debt            $236,428

MCI                           Trade Debt            $235,484

LASER MORTGAGE: Shareholders Approve Liquidation and Dissolution
LASER Mortgage Management, Inc. (NYSE: LMM) announced that at
its Annual Meeting held Friday its shareholders approved the
merger of the Company with and into its wholly owned Delaware
subsidiary, which has the same name as the Company, pursuant to
which the Company's state of incorporation will be changed from
Maryland to Delaware.

The shareholders also approved the subsequent liquidation and
dissolution of the surviving Delaware entity under the terms and
conditions of a Plan of Liquidation and Dissolution, which was
previously approved by the Board of Directors of the Company and
the Board of Directors and the sole shareholder of the surviving
Delaware entity. At the Company's Annual Meeting, approximately
79% of the Company's outstanding shares of common stock were
cast in favor of the merger proposal and the liquidation and
dissolution proposal. Less than 1% of shares were voted against
the proposals and the balance of the shares did not vote.

The merger should become effective within the next few days.
Shortly thereafter the liquidation and dissolution process will
begin. The surviving Delaware entity will provide the requisite
notice under Delaware law of its liquidation and dissolution.
Upon the end of the 60 day notice period, the surviving Delaware
entity will petition the Delaware Court of Chancery for
permission to make an initial distribution of $3.00 per
outstanding share of common stock, with additional cash
distributions resulting from the disposition of the remaining
assets expected to occur within the following three years, after
providing for expenses.

The Company also announced that its shareholders approved the
re-election of Mark W. Hobbs as a Class I Director to serve for
a three-year term and Arthur House as a Class II Director to
serve for a one-year term. Upon completion of the merger, the
Company's current Board of Directors will serve as the surviving
Delaware entity's Board of Directors

LASER Mortgage Management, Inc. is a specialty finance company
investing primarily in mortgage-backed securities and mortgage
loans. The Company has elected to be taxed as a real estate
investment trust under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as

MAXICARE: Max 65plus Coverage Ends on August 31 in California
Maxicare Health Plans Inc.'s California operation will stop
offering its Medicare product, MAX 65plus, as an HMO option for
seniors in Los Angeles and Orange Counties effective Aug. 31,
2001.  This move will affect approximately 7,700 members in
theses counties. Maxicare announced it withdrew from San
Bernardino and Riverside Counties June 30, 2000.

This announcement follows a request by Maxicare for mutual
termination of its Medicare contact with the Healthcare Finance
Administration (HCFA) in May. While Maxicare realizes the impact
of this action to the Medicare recipients, the company is aware
of options available to this group and will help ease the

"We will work with our members to provide seamless transition to
other plans to ensure continuity of care to all our members,
with special emphasis on those that are currently in treatment,"
said Susan Blais, chief operating officer and executive vice
president of Maxicare.

Members with questions about their coverage can contact Max
65plus representatives at 1-800-392-6565.

NATIONAL AIRLINES: Credit Line Extended Through August
A bankruptcy judge extended a deadline for National Airlines to
reach a bailout agreement or risk losing a multimillion-dollar
credit line guaranteed by one of its investors, Reuters
reported.  Harrah's Entertainment Inc. has guaranteed part of
the credit line, which was originally set to expire on July 31.
That deadline has been extended until the end of August.

In exchange for the extension, National agreed to reduce the
amount of the credit line to $15.5 million from $16 million and
to pay Harrah's $400,000 in cash over the course of the month.
If a bailout agreement is signed by the end of August, the
credit line could be further extended through the end of October
while the deal is pending.  National, a discount airline, filed
for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last December. (ABI World,
July 27, 2001)

NEXTWAVE TELECOM: Asks FCC to Dismiss Competitors' Petition
In a response filed Monday with the Federal Communications
Commission, NextWave Telecom Inc. has asked the FCC
to dismiss a petition filed by its competitors on July 19, 2001,
that is designed to delay NextWave's rollout of its 3G digital
wireless network in 95 markets. "Our response demonstrates that
the petition is frivolous and utterly without merit," said
NextWave's Deputy General Counsel, Michael Wack. The petition
was filed by Alaska Native Wireless, L.L.C., Verizon Wireless,
and VoiceStream Wireless Corporation.

"It's clear that certain competitors are attempting to use
administrative and legal ploys to delay our wireless network
rollout," said Wack. "The FCC must decide whether it wants to
stand up to these tactics and allow the spectrum to be put to
use right away, or if it wants consumers to be denied
the use of our digital 3G network while litigation continues.
The fact is that NextWave has the financial resources and the
technical know-how to put this spectrum to use faster than
anyone else can. Our competitors' petition provides no reason to
wait one minute longer. It attempts to revive baseless
and long expired claims, to challenge bankruptcy reorganization
plans that were never enacted, and to "prove" violations of
regulatory requirements that never existed. It is unfounded in
both fact and law, and the FCC should dismiss it summarily."

In its response, NextWave makes three principal points to
illustrate that none of the issues raised by the petitioners
provide any basis for an investigation or audit:

     1) No known legal standard requires NextWave to reapply for
the licenses that were the subject of litigation before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  The
petitioners falsely assert that NextWave is an "applicant" for
the licenses, but as a legal matter that is not correct.  The
FCC granted the licenses to NextWave in 1997, and the Court's
unanimous June 22nd decision returns them to the Company by
operation of law.  As the Court has ruled in similar
circumstances, the FCC on remand is not free to "take another
bite at the explanation apple" and attempt to re-cancel the
licenses. Furthermore, any attempt to do so is constrained by
the Commission's guarantee to the Court that "if NextWave
prevails before this Court it will get its licenses back."

     2) NextWave complies fully with the FCC's "designated
entity" requirements for spectrum licensees, and the
petitioners' allegations to the contrary are wholly contrived
and without foundation.  Nothing that has occurred while
NextWave has been reorganizing in bankruptcy has altered
the company's corporate structure in any way that would call
into question the FCC's 1997 finding that NextWave fully
complies with the agency's "designated entity" rules.  The
petitioners' allegations concerning foreign ownership are
equally meritless, and totally absurd coming from carriers who
themselves are fully or substantially foreign owned.

     3) There is no basis to investigate or audit NextWave's
ability to meet regulatory requirements to build out and operate
the network.  The Commission would violate the law and
fundamental norms of due process if it imposed new and
unforeseen regulatory requirements on NextWave. The Company has
already initiated a nationwide buildout in all its PCS markets
that it has fully financed with cash on hand.  It will soon
file a plan of reorganization that provides billions of
additional dollars for network construction and operational

Referring to the petitioners, Wack said, "Sometimes wolves come
in sheep's clothing, but these wolves come dressed as wolves.
Their petition is part of a concerted campaign to abuse
regulatory and judicial processes to stop NextWave from entering
the market as a competitor. Just days ago they filed a letter
with the FCC, brazenly trumpeting their intention to litigate
indefinitely and 'leave NextWave's owners and investors in
limbo, tying up capital that could otherwise be productively
employed.' NextWave is ready, willing, and able to finance its
buildout, enter the marketplace, and start delivering service to
consumers. The government should not countenance efforts by our
competitors to abuse administrative processes in an attempt
to slow us down."

About NextWave:

NextWave Telecom Inc., headquartered in Hawthorne, N.Y., was
organized in 1995 to provide high-speed wireless Internet access
and voice communications services to consumer and business
markets on a nationwide basis. NextWave holds a total of 95 PCS
licenses whose geographic scope covers more than 168 million
POPs coast to coast, including all top 10 U.S. markets, 28 of
the top 30 markets, and 40 of the top 50 markets. NextWave's
"carriers' carrier" strategy allows existing carriers and new
service providers to market NextWave's network services through
innovative airtime arrangements. For more information about
NextWave, visit its Web site at

NOVO NETWORKS: Files Chapter 11 Petitions in Wilmington
In connection with its ongoing strategic review, Novo Networks,
Inc., a holding company with subsidiaries engaged in a variety
of network and communications services businesses, began Monday
the process of shifting its operational focus from the
telecommunications sector to its newly-established financial
services division. The Company's principal operating
subsidiaries, Novo Networks Operating Corp., AxisTel
Communications, Inc. and e.Volve Technology Group, Inc, each
commenced voluntary cases under chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code in order to stabilize ongoing operations and
protect their assets pending implementation of a chapter 11 plan
of reorganization.

In order to preserve value and maximize overall recoveries, the
subsidiaries' plan, which is currently being prepared, will
provide for the consolidation of certain of the subsidiaries'
core operations and the disposition of the remaining assets in
an orderly fashion. The Company currently anticipates that the
subsidiaries will file their joint chapter 11 plan within three
weeks, and intends to conclude the chapter 11 process as
expeditiously as possible. In order to fund the reorganization
effort, Novo Networks, Inc. has agreed, subject to Bankruptcy
Court approval, to provide the subsidiaries with a $1.6 million
debtor-in-possession credit facility.

Steven Loglisci, a former CEO of e.Volve, has been tapped to
lead the subsidiaries through the restructuring process. The
subsidiaries also retained Executive Sounding Board Associates,
a well-known turnaround firm, to serve as their financial and
restructuring advisor. "In light of the increasingly dismal
outlook for emerging telecommunications carriers and our
exposure to the highly competitive long-distance voice market,
we opted for chapter 11 protection as the most effective means
to preserve our existing business," said Mr. Loglisci. "After
evaluating our various business lines, we decided to take
immediate steps to shut down money-losing operations, preserve
cash and focus on developing positive cash flow in our
international facilities-based network operated by e.Volve. I am
very encouraged that our parent company, Novo Networks, Inc.,
has sufficient faith in our efforts to have extended $1.6
million in financing for this process. "

Simultaneously with the announcement of the subsidiaries'
chapter 11 filings, Novo Networks, Inc. also announced plans to
diversify its operations through its newly-established financial
services division. Barrett Wissman, Novo Networks' President,
will lead this effort.

Novo Networks, Inc. will also continue managing its portfolio
company holdings, which include significant equity stakes in
Gemini Voice Solutions (formerly known as, ORB,
Inc. and Lineabox, among others, with a view toward maximizing
their long-term value.

Mr. Wissman, stated that, "As a result of the continuing
weakness in the networking and communications business we
concluded that the best course of action for Novo is to exit
certain of its communications businesses and move in a new
direction with our financial services division. As part of the
changes we are making in conjunction with our strategic review,
our first priority will be to run all of our operations on a
profitable basis. With the collective experience of our board of
directors and management team, we are confident that we can
build a financial services division that will help the Company
achieve its goal of long-term profitability."

The Company also announced it has been notified by the Nasdaq
Stock Market that its securities fail to meet the minimum bid
price requirement for continued listing under the Nasdaq Stock
Market rules. The Company has until October 9, 2001 to regain
compliance with continued listing requirements. If the Company
is unable to demonstrate compliance with the continued listing
requirements on or before October 9, 2001, the Nasdaq staff will
provide the Company with a written determination that its
securities will be delisted. At that time, the Company may
request a review of the staff's determination pursuant to the
Stock Market rules. The Company is evaluating a number of
options to regain compliance with Nasdaq's continued listing
requirements including, but not limited to, a reverse stock

NOVO NETWORKS: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors
Lead Debtor: Novo Networks International Services, Inc.
              1 Evertrust Plaza, 8th Floor
              Jersey City, NJ 07302

Debtor affiliates filing separate chapter 11 petitions:

              AxisTel Communications, Inc.
              Novo Networks International Services, Inc.
              Novo Networks Global Services, Inc.
              e.Volve Technology Group, Inc.
              Novo Networks Operating Corp.

Debtor affiliate which filed chapter 11 petition in Northern
District of Texas on April 2, 2001:

              Internet Global Services, Inc.

Chapter 11 Petition Date: July 30, 2001

Court: District of Delaware

Bankruptcy Case No.: 01-10007

Debtors' Counsel: Jeffrey M. Schlerf, Esq.
                   Christopher A. Ward, Esq.
                   Eric M. Sutty, Esq.
                   The Bayard Firm
                   222 Delaware Avenue
                   Suite 900
                   Wilmington, DE 19801

Estimated Assets: $10 million to $50 million

Estimated Debts: $10 million to $50 million

Debtors' 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors:

Entity                        Nature Of Claim       Claim Amount
------                        ---------------       ------------
World Access/                 Trade Debt            $1,833,226
World Exchange
9999 Willow Creek Rd.
San Diego, CA 92131

Qwest                         Trade Debt              $544,357
Deneen Burke/Chiang Lee
PO Box 36481
Louisville, KY
Tel: (888) 496-7447
Fax: (703) 363-3527

Sprint                        Trade Debt              $505,945
Gwen Brooks
PO Box 101465
Atlanta, GEG 30392
Tel: (972) 405-3741

Broadwing Communications      Trade Debt              $503,740
Accounts Receivable
PO Box 79159
Phoenix, AZ 85062-9159
Tel: (800) 994-9638
Fax: (888) 335-1339

RSL                           Trade Debt              $264,003
Duane McDonald
1001 Brinton Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15221
Tel: (412) 247-6788
Fax: (412) 244-6619

Worldcom New Jersey           Trade Debt              $147,538

Storm Telecommunications      Trade Debt              $125,104

Level 3 Communications LLC    Trade Debt              $120,721

Worldcom Miami                Trade Debt              $117,195

McLeod USA                    Trade Debt              $117,139

ACC Telecom                   Trade Debt               $99,266

Time Warner Telecom           Trade Debt               $91,718

World Access Communications   Trade Debt               $88,056

Cisco Systems Capital Corp.   Trade Debt               $81,353

Unilink Gateway Exchange      Trade Debt               $73,355

Meridian Access Group         Trade Debt               $58,808

MCI Worldcom                  Trade Debt               $58,340

New Global Telecom            Trade Debt               $54,107

Worldcom New York             Trade Debt               $47,872

Worldcom California           Trade Debt               $47,386

NexGen Telecommunications,    Trade Debt               $44,797

OWENS CORNING: Enters Into Document Services Pact With Xerox
Owens Corning asks Judge Fitzgerald to authorize and approve
their entry into a document services agreement with Xerox
Corporation.  As of December 1996, Owens Corning and Xerox
Corporation entered into an agreement for services.  Under the
terms of the original agreement, Xerox became obligated to
operate Owens Corning's global document management system.  More
particularly, the original agreement obligated Xerox to provide
a broad array document-related services to Owens corning,
including copying, creation, production, distribution and
archiving.  The original agreement also obligated Xerox to
provide Owens Corning with certain SAP document lifecycle
services, as well as related printing of invoices, statements,
vendor and employee checks, W-2s and the like.  SAP America,
Inc. licenses certain software to the Debtors which essentially
runs the Debtors' basic financial systems. Owens Corning assumed
its license agreement with SAP previously.

In addition, the original agreement contains provisions
regarding the "transitional services" Xerox is to provide to
Owens Corning at the expiration or termination of the agreement
so as to ensure that the Debtors' operations are not affected
thereby.  Owens Corning's expenditures under the original
agreement have been approximately $8.0 million/year, ,exclusive
of certain variable expenses.  The term of the original
agreement expires December 31, 2001.  In light of this upcoming
expiration, and due to certain disputes which have arisen
under the original agreement, the parties have engaged in
extensive discussions so as to determine the parties'
relationship on a going-forward basis.

These discussions have resulted in a new Document Services
Agreement filed with the Court under seal.  The major provision
of the Agreement are:

        (a)  The new agreement replaces the original agreement as
of May 1, 2001, subject to court approval;

        (b) The services to be provided by Xerox are to include
printing, mailing, literature fulfillment and document archiving

        (c) The term of the new agreement is to expire on  April
30-, 2004, unless terminated earlier or extended in accord with
the terms of the agreement;

        (d) Under the new agreement, Xerox grants Owens Corning a
license of the software and source code required to enable Owens
Corning to script all data files related to the generation of
printed billing documents.  Such scripting services were
performed by Xerox under the original agreement;

        (e) The new agreement quantifies certain amounts due and
owing to Xerox under the original agreement.  Specifically, the
new agreement gives, subject to Court approval, Xerox an allowed
general unsecured claim in Owens Corning's bankruptcy case of
$3,034,251.32 on account of certain undisputed prepetition
services provided under the original agreement;

        (f) The new agreement further gives Xerox the right to
assert a general unsecured claim against Owens Corning or
another $982,590 on account of certain disputed prepetition
charges.  Owens Corning reserves the right to contest any such
disputed claim, and agrees that, in the event the allowability
of such claim is determined by arbitration under the original
agreement, that it will not seek to re-litigate such
allowability in this Court; and

        (g) The new agreement contains mutual releases between
the parties, subject to Xerox's entitlement of the allowed claim
described above, and Xerox's right to assert the disputed claim.

The Debtors argue that, in the exercise of their business
judgment, it is in the best interests of the Debtors and their
creditors, and necessary to their business operations, that
Owens Corning enter into the new agreement.  Among other things,
the new agreement addresses the various issues which will arise
upon the upcoming expiration of the original agreement, and by
providing for certain key software to be licensed to Owens
Corning, avoids many of the uncertainties and risks which would
otherwise apply upon the original agreement's expiration.
Separately, the new agreement obligates Xerox to provide
services to Owens Corning which are necessary for the Debtors'
operations. The financial terms of the agreement are described
as "fair and reasonable" by the Debtor, and are said to be the
lowest cost option available to the Debtors for the services at
issue at this time, although no specific charges or costs are

Owens Corning anticipates that its expenditures under the new
agreement will be approximately $5.0 million per year.  (Owens
Corning Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 13; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

PILLOWTEX CORP.: Moves to Reject Service Agreement With Lockheed
Fieldcrest Cannon is a party to an Information and Technology
Service Agreement dated August 1996 with Lockheed Martin
Corporation.  Under the Tech Agreement, Lockheed provides
extensive technology and information services to Fieldcrest.
These services include providing and maintaining computers,
telephones, hardware and software.  The term of the agreement
was originally for 10 years.  But a memorandum of agreement last
October 1999 shortened the term up to December 31, 2001.  The
MOA also resolve certain disputes between Lockheed and
Fieldcrest, and narrowed the scope of the Tech Agreement.

Pursuant to the Tech Agreement, Lockheed employs 22 people to
work solely on maintaining the Pillowtex Corporation's computer
systems.  For the year 2000, Fieldcrest made monthly payments of
$500,000 to Lockheed for its services.  This year, the payments
average $450,000 per month. Donna L. Harris, Esq., at Morris,
Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel, in Wilmington, Delaware, explains that
Lockheed is required to invoice Fieldcrest for its services on a
monthly basis.  However, shortly after Petition Date, both
parties agreed that Lockheed could begin invoicing Fieldcrest
bimonthly starting January 2001.  Ms. Harris says Fieldcrest and
Lockheed further agreed that Fieldcrest would be required to
remit sums due under each invoice within 14 calendar days
of each invoice.

As of the Petition Date, Fieldcrest owed Lockheed $1,860,000
under the Tech Agreement.

Fieldcrest has determined that it would be much cheaper for them
to perform in-house the services provided by Lockheed.  To
achieve this goal, Fieldcrest sought and retained some technical
personnel to replace the existing Lockheed personnel.
Fieldcrest even obtained Lockheed's permission (through an
agreement) to hire some of its personnel and subcontractors.
Under this agreement, Ms. Harris relates, Fieldcrest agrees to
pay Lockheed a fee of $23,000 for each Lockheed subcontractor
that Fieldcrest is able to hire and $41,000 for each Lockheed
employee that Fieldcrest is able to hire.  Ms. Harris adds that
Lockheed even volunteered to provide, if needed, transition
assistance at rates to be negotiated between the parties.
The parties agree that the rejection date for the Tech Agreement
is June 30, 2001.

By this motion, Fieldcrest seeks the Court's authority to reject
the Tech Agreement effective June 30, 2001 because their believe
it is in the best interest of their estate and creditors.

At this point in time, Ms. Harris explains, Fieldcrest no longer
needs the services of Lockheed because it is now in a position
to perform the services that were previously provided by
Lockheed. Besides, Ms. Harris adds, the Tech Agreement is set to
expire at the end of this year.  Assuming the Tech Agreement
would require a substantial cure payment, Ms. Harris notes.
(Pillowtex Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 10; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

PSINET INC: Microsoft Wants To Proceed With Contract Termination
Microsoft Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary WebTV
Networks, Inc. tell the Court that, two weeks before PSINet
filed its bankruptcy petition, Microsoft sent PSINet a notice
terminating a Consumer Wholesale Usage Agreement between
Microsoft and PSINet. Pursuant to the Agreement, PSINet provides
internet access to Microsoft's WebTV subscribers.

Microsoft desires to complete the process of terminating this
executory contract.

Accordingly, Microsoft Corp. and WebTV Networks, through their
attorneys of record Joseph E. Shickich, Jr. and Bruce J. Borrus
of Riddell Williams P.S. and Thomas P. Battistoni of Balber
Pickard Battistoni Maldonado & Van Der Tuin, PC, move the Court
for an Order:

(1) granting Microsoft relief from the autom    atic stay in
order to complete the process of terminating its executory
contract with PSINet, Inc.; or in the alternative

(2) declaring that Microsoft will not violate the automatic stay
by completing the process of terminating the executory

As legal basis, Microsoft asserts that a bankruptcy filing does
not prevent termination of an executory contract when the notice
of termination was sent before the date of the debtor's
bankruptcy filing and nothing but the passage of time remains to
complete the termination, as In re Beck, 5 B.R. 169 (Bankr.
Hawaii 1980), cited with approval, In re Benrus Watch Co., 13
B.R. 331 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1981).

Microsoft further asserts that the Agreement will expire by its
terms on November 11, 2001 pursuant to its notice to PSINet for
termination. In this regard, Microsoft draws the Court's
attention to the provision in the Agreement for a 180-day
advance written notice requirement and provides for a gradual
ramp down during the six months between the date of the
termination notice and the final termination date.

In the words of the Agreement:

        "Either party may terminate this Agreement for
convenience and without cause or penalty upon giving the other
party one hundred eighty (180) days prior written notice. In the
event of termination for convenience under this Section by
either party, PSINet will maintain service availability through
a ramp-down period which will start at the beginning of the 180
day notice period, or later if mutually agreed. The party so
terminating for convenience will determine the number of
subscribers to be removed each month which shall not exceed one
sixth of the total user base at the time notice of termination
is given. After the last calendar day of the sixth month from
the beginning of the ramp down period, any remaining Customers
may be removed by either party. Either party can accelerate this
ramp down schedule with the written consent of the other party.
Purchaser will be responsible for, and shall pay for, all
services provided until all Customers are removed at the rates
determined by the Applicable Base Charge for the total number of
Customers in the month immediately preceding the beginning of
the ramp down period."

Microsoft tells the Court that the Termination Letter states:
"In accordance with Section 6 of the Agreement, this letter
shall serve as formal notice that WNI [WebTV Networks, Inc.] is
exercising its right to terminate the Agreement. Accordingly,
the Agreement will terminate on November 11, 2001. For the
duration of the Agreement WNI expects PSINet to maintain service
availability through the rampdown period, which begins May 15,
2001." This letter was sent to PSINet on May 14, 2001 by air
express courier, facsimile, and email, Microsoft tells the

Microsoft tells the Court it believes that it would not violate
the automatic stay by proceeding with the ramp down and
completing the termination of the Agreement, but has filed the
motion as the Second Circuit encourages parties who believe that
their actions will not violate the automatic stay to seek
declarations from the bankruptcy court before vindicating their
interests. "None of the purposes of the automatic stay would be
served by its continued application to prohibit Microsoft from
continuing with the ramp down and termination of the Agreement.
Even if the debtor were to assume the Agreement, the Agreement
would expire pursuant to its terms on November 11, 2001. The
automatic stay does not extend the expiration date of a
contract," Microsoft's lawyers argue.

Summing up, Microsoft's legal team says,

       "Microsoft sent PSINet a notice of termination of the
Agreement before PSINet filed its bankruptcy petition. The
Agreement will expire by its terms on November 11, 2001.
Pursuant to Best Film & Video Corp. and Adana Mortgage, 'cause'
within the meaning of section 361(d)(1) exists for the Court to
enter an Order granting Microsoft relief from stay so that it
can proceed with the ramp down and final termination of the
Agreement. In the alternative, pursuant to Benrus, Anne Cara
Oil, and Beck, Microsoft requests an Order declaring that the
automatic stay is inapplicable and that Microsoft can proceed
with the ramp down and final termination of the Agreement
without violating the automatic stay."  (PSINet Bankruptcy News,
Issue No. 5; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-

SACO SMARTVISION: Resumes Trading On Toronto Stock Exchange
SACO Smartvision Inc. announces that trading in its shares on
the Toronto Stock Exchange resumed Monday. All provincial
securities commissions, with the exception of the Alberta
Securities Commission, have lifted the cease trading orders
previously issued against SACO for failure to file its annual
financial statements, first quarter financial statements and
other continuous disclosure documents within the prescribed time
limits.  SACO expects the Alberta Securities Commissions to lift
its cease-trading order shortly.

As previously announced, SACO is under the protection of the
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and has mailed to its
creditors and shareholders a Plan of Compromise and Arrangement
and related materials.  The meetings of creditors and
shareholders to consider the Plan will be held on August 16,

SIZZLER INT'L: Shareholders' Meeting Scheduled For Aug. 29
The Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Sizzler International,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, will be held at the Radisson Hotel
at 6161 West Centinela Avenue, Culver City, California 90230, on
Wednesday, August 29,2001 at 3:30 p.m. for the following

           (1) To elect two directors to serve until the 2004
Annual Meeting of Stockholders and until their successors are
elected and qualified;

           (2) To vote upon a proposal to amend the Company's
1997 Employee Stock Incentive Plan to increase the number of
shares of common stock for which options may be granted or which
may be sold as Restricted Stock under the Plan;

           (3) To vote upon a proposal to amend the Company's
1997 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Incentive Plan to increase
the number of shares of common stock for which options may be
granted under the Plan; and

           (4) To transact such other business as may properly
come before the meeting or any adjournment of the meeting.

The Board of Directors has fixed the close of business on July
6, 2001 as the record date for the determination of stockholders
entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the Annual Meeting and
any adjournment or postponement thereof.

SUN HEALTHCARE: Asks Court to Nix Insurers' 502(e)(1)(B) Claims
Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. asks the Court to enter an order,
pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 502(e)(1)(B) and Rule 3007 of the
Bankruptcy Rules, disallowing and expunging 43 claims totaling
$50,915,009.78 filed by their Insurers.

The Debtors tell Judge Walrath that these Insurers already enjoy
a unique position for the ability to be paid in full on
reimbursements relating to pre-petition claims because, pursuant
to a First Day Order, Sun has in fact maintained the insurance
programs and have paid all deductibles relating to the Insurers'
policies. The Debtors remind Judge Walrath that, in order to
assure that their insurance programs would continue unimpeded
during the course of their chapter 11 cases, they obtained the
First Day Order which permitted them to pay, inter alia, all
premiums and deductibles, whether these were incurred pre-
petition or post-petition. The First Day Order also allowed
workers compensation claimants to proceed directly against
insurance carriers with respect to workers compensation claims,
provided that such claimant satisfied her or his claim solely
against the Insurers.

Despite what they enjoy, "they still filed proofs of claim," the
Debtors protest.

All the policies concerned contain deductibles, and all the
proofs of claims appear to represent estimates of deductibles
that the Insurers might be required to fund and then seek
reimbursement, the Debtors note. So their claims are "not only
unliquidated but doubly contingent: contigent upon the insurer
paying a claim to the claimant, and contigent upon [Sun's]
failure to pay the reimbursement or indemnification represented
by the deductible, notwithstanding the First Day Order," the
Debtors tell Judge Walrath.

"None of the insurers can point to a single claim wherein the
Insurer paid a claimant, billed the Debtors for the deductible,
and the Debtors are past due on payment of such bill," Sun

Therefore, the Debtors object to the insurance claims and ask
that the Court authorize the disallowance and expungement of the

The Debtors indicate that they expressly reserve all further
substantive and/or procedural objections they may have. By way
of example and not by way of limitation, the Debtors expressly
reserve the right to object to the St. Paul claims on the ground
that St. Paul no longer has any potential liability on the
overwhelming majority of its claims, because the bonds placed
with it were transferred to another insurer, AmWest. (Sun
Healthcare Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 22; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

SUN VALLEY WATERBEDS: Retailer Files for Bankruptcy Protection
Tempe, Ariz.-based Sun Valley Waterbeds, parent of the Bedroom
Superstore, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection,
according to The Tribune.  The company, a 19-store chain, plans
to close 32 of its 89 showrooms.  A company spokesman said the
filing was done reluctantly, in hopes of reorganizing into a
more streamlined operation.  "This is not something we wanted to
do," he said. "Our objective is to get our creditors paid back
and take care of our customers." (ABI World, July 27, 2001)

SUN VALLEY WATERBEDS: Chapter 11 Case Summary
Debtor: Sun Valley Waterbeds, Inc.
         550 W Southern Avenue #101
         Tempe, AZ 85282-4541

Debtor affiliate filing separate chapter 11 petition:

         Sun Valley Waterbeds Of Minn, Inc.

Chapter 11 Petition Date: July 17, 2001

Court: District of Arizona

Bankruptcy Case Nos.: 01-09291 and 01-09285

Judge: Redfield T. Baum

Debtors' Counsel: Christopher H. Bayley, Esq.
                   One Arizona Center
                   Phoenix, AZ 85004
                   (602) 382-6214

TMI-EDUCATION.COM: Intends To Make Creditor Proposal
---------------------------------------------------- inc. announces that in order to complete its
recovery plan made public on July 5, 2001, it filed a notice of
its intention to make a proposal to its creditors, according to
the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The filing of this notice dos not affect the operations of the
Corporation conducting business in Quebec under the name TMI
Multihexa and it continues to offer its training services in
Quebec City, Montreal and Hull.  The operations of its 12
franchisees throughout Quebec and New Brunswick are not affected
either. inc. holds 100% of the shares in Learnix
Inc., Learnix Ltd., BGW Multimedia Inc. and Edu-Performance
Canada Inc. The operations of these four companies are not
affected by the measures taken by Inc.

The Corporation's management had already initiated discussions
with various partners interested in investing in their
activities and believes that filing of this notice will allow
completion of the recovery plan peacefully and sheltered from
unnecessary pressures, while respecting the interests of the
numerous parties involved in this file.

For its part, TMI-Learnix inc. (formerly Kayo Management Ltd)
who recently acquired shares of inc. by way
of a share exchange, has decided to postpone listing of its
shares on the Montreal Stock Exchange until
Inc. has reorganized its financial situation.

The Corporation also announces that Mr. Richard Carter and Mr.
John Valentini have tendered their resignations as directors of
the Corporation.

UBICS INC: Shares Subject to Nasdaq Delisting
UBICS, Inc. (Nasdaq: UBIX) received a Nasdaq Staff Determination
on July 25, 2001, indicating that UBICS has failed to comply
with the $5,000,000 minimum market value of public float
requirement for continued listing set forth in Nasdaq
Marketplace Rule 4450(a)(2) and that its shares are, therefore,
subject to delisting from the Nasdaq National Market. UBICS has
requested a hearing before a Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel
to review the Staff Determination and present its case. UBICS
shares will continue trading on the Nasdaq National Market until
the Panel has reached a decision. There can be no assurance that
the Panel will grant UBICS' request for continued listing.
Should the Company's appeal to remain on the Nasdaq National
Market be unsuccessful, the Company believes that it meets all
eligibility requirements to trade on the Nasdaq SmallCap Market.

UBICS provides information technology (IT) professional services
to large and mid-sized organizations. UBICS provides its clients
with a wide range of professional services in areas such as
client/server design and development, ERP & CRM package
implementation and customization, e-commerce/Internet,
application maintenance programming, data base, systems and
network administration, network engineering, and business
process re-engineering. With the creation of its CobaltCreative
division and 3 office locations, UBICS also provides Web
Development, Digital Media, Comprehensive Design, Strategic
Planning and Custom Kiosk solutions within various industries
across the United States and Europe.

UCFC FUNDING: S&P Downgrades Ratings To Low-Bs
Standard & Poor's lowered its ratings on all classes of UCFC
Funding Corp.'s manufactured housing contract pass-through
certificates series 1998-3. In addition, the rating on the A-1
class was placed on CreditWatch with negative implications. At
the same time, Standard & Poor's affirmed its rating on United
Companies Funding Corp.'s series 1996-2 class A-1 certificate.

The lowered ratings and CreditWatch placement reflect high
projected cumulative net losses on the manufactured housing
contracts and deteriorating credit enhancement. Additionally,
delinquency levels have been extremely high (90-plus day
delinquencies were 9.88% in July 2001), and the average recovery
rate has been less than 30% for the last 12 months.
Overcollateralization has been depleted, and consequently, the
B-2 class has experienced principal write-downs during seven of
the last nine months. Collateral performance for this trust has
continued to deteriorate after Standard & Poor's lowered its
ratings on all classes in July of 2000.

In October 1998, UCFC announced that it was exiting the
manufactured housing originations business. Since then, recovery
rates have been adversely affected and lower than originally
expected by Standard & Poor's. The company also filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy in March 1999.

EMC Mortgage Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Bear Stearns
Co. Inc., assumed servicing responsibility on UCFC's entire
manufactured housing and home equity portfolios as of Dec. 31,

The affirmed triple-'A' rating on class A-1 reflects a surety
bond wrap provided by MBIA Insurance Corp., Standard & Poor's


UCFC Funding Corp.
Manufactured housing contract pass-thru certs series 1998-3

      Class        Rating
               To            From
      A-1      A/Watch Neg   AA


UCFC Funding Corp.
Manufactured housing contract pass-thru certs series 1998-3

      Class            Rating
               To                From
      B-1      B-/Watch Neg      BB-
      M-1      BBB-/Watch Neg    A-
      M-2      BB/Watch Neg      BBB

VENCOR INC.: Moves to Expunge Multiple Claim Transfers
In a number of instances, Vencor Inc.'s Claims Register
maintained by Bankruptcy Services, Inc., reflects that a
particular claim has been transferred by the original claimant
to two or more transferees.

Based on the "the first in time is first in right" principle
establised by law with respect to the assignment of claims,
Vencor, Inc. (the Debtors) request the Court's authorization to
make a distribution under the plan to the transferee who first
purchased the claim and the disallowance and expungement of any
subsequent transferee claims made by the original claim holder,
pursuant to section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy
Rule 3001(e).

The Debtors have on record 50 proofs of claim that have been
sold twice for which the Debtors believe the relief requested is
necessary. The Debtors reserve their right to object on any
other basis to any First Transferee Claim.

Approximately 8,900 proofs of claim and interest have been filed
against the Debtors. The Debtors are currently preparing
additional omnibus objection to claims, which seeks to disallow
and expunge, or reduce, as appropriate, certain of the remaining
claims. More instances of multiple transfers of Claims may come
to light or occur as the Debtors and BSI continue to review the
Claims Docket, or due to additional Notices of Transfer of Claim
being filed. Accordingly, the Debtors reserve their rights to
object to such Claims on any basis. (Vencor Bankruptcy News,
Issue No. 31; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

W.R. GRACE: Rule 9027 Removal Period Extended To January 2, 2002
At the Petition Date, W. R. Grace & Co. was a party to lawsuits
pending in state and Federal courts across the country.
Pursuant to Rule 9027 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure, the Debtors ask the Court to extend their 90 day
period of time within which they must decide whether to remove a
legal proceeding from the court in which it is pending to the
District of Delaware for resolution.

The Debtors have not had a full opportunity to investigate their
involvement in the Prepetition Lawsuits, and decisions about the
appropriate forum in light of these chapter 11 filings would be
imprudent at this early juncture, the Debtors argue.

Accordingly, the Debtors sought and obtained an extension of the
time within which they must decide whether to remove any
Prepetition Lawsuit through and including January 2, 2002.
(W.R. Grace Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 9; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

WARNACO GROUP: Retains Ordinary Course Professionals
The Warnaco Group, Inc. sought and obtained the Court's
authority to employ and retain the services of various
accountants, independent financial and tax advisors, attorneys
and/or law firms and other Ordinary Course Professionals:

     a) Allen & Overy
     b) Baker & McKenzie (U.K.)
     c) Basham Ringe Y Correa S.C.
     d) Coudert Brothers
     e) Day, Berry & Howard LLP
     f) Gianni, Origoni & Partners
     g) Gomez-Acebo Y Pombo/Madrid
     h) Grotta, Glassman & Hoffman, P.A.
     i) Holzach, Safarik & Partner
     j) Petrel & Associates
     k) Pricewaterhouse Coopers (Netherlands)
     l) Pricewaterhouse Coopers (France)
     m) Pricewaterhouse Coopers (Germany)
     n) Raupach & Wollert-Elmendoroff
     o) Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson
     p) Sharrett, Paley, Carter & Blanvelt
     q) SJ Berwin & Company
     r) Sproule Pollack
     s) Stibbe Simont Monohan Duhot
     t) Stokes & Murphy, P.C.
     u) Stroock & Stroock
     v) White & Case LLP

If necessary, Judge Bohanon gives the Debtors the free hand to
supplement the list of Ordinary Course professionals provided
that proper notice is filed with the Court, as well as:

     (i) the Office of the United States Trustee for this

     (ii) counsel to the agent for the Debtors' pre-petition
secured lenders,

     (iii) counsel to the agent for the Debtors' post-petition
secured lenders,

     (iv) counsel to any statutory committee appointed in these
cases, and

     (v) all other parties that have filed a notice of

If no objections to the supplemental list are filed within 15
days after service, the retention of the additional Ordinary
Course Professionals are considered approved by the Court.

Judge Bohanon reminds Debtors that they are only authorized to
make monthly payments up to $20,000 for compensation and
reimbursement of expenses to each of the Ordinary Course
Professionals, and up to $250,000 for all Ordinary Course

The Debtors have the right to apply for increases in the caps on
the monthly payments.  If the fees and expenses for any one firm
of Ordinary Course Professionals exceed $20,000, the firm must
apply to the court for approval before they can be compensated
and reimbursed.  Judge Bohanon says the same procedure applies
if the fees of all ordinary course professionals exceed
$250,000. While their application is pending, each firm shall be
entitled to an interim payment of up to the amount of its pro
rata share of $250,000 as a credit against its fees and
disbursements for such month ultimately allowed by the Court.

Judge Bohanon ruled that no professional shall be authorized to
perform services and be compensated for services performed in
these chapter 11 cases unless such professional has served upon
the Office of the United States Trustee for this district and
the Debtors and filed with the Court:

     (i) an affidavit certifying that such professional does not
represent or hold any interest adverse to the Debtors or their
estates with respect to the matter on which the professional is
to be employed, and

     (ii) a completed retention questionnaire.

Kelley A. Cornish, Esq., at Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, in New
York, explains it is in the best interest of the Debtors to
continue to employ the Ordinary Course Professionals rather than
retaining new professionals.  Terminating the Debtors'
relationships with the Ordinary Course Professionals will only
cause a disruption, Ms. Cornish notes, that would hamper the
smooth flow of the Debtors' normal business activities.
(Warnaco Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 4; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

WHEELING-PITTSBURGH: Labor Talks With USWA Begins On August 20
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation and the United
Steelworkers of America announced that they would begin
discussions on Aug. 20 regarding modifications to the company's
labor agreement with the USWA.

"We are pleased that the United Steelworkers Union has agreed to
meet with us as we explore methods to further reduce the
company's costs and improve its efficiencies," said James G.
Bradley, Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel President and CEO. "Since
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel filed for bankruptcy protection in
November, it has taken a number of significant steps that have
dramatically reduced its costs and improved its manufacturing
efficiencies. However, it has become clear that the damage done
to the domestic steel markets by dumped foreign steel continues
without any sign of improvement. Our discussions with the Union
are necessary to determine additional methods to reduce costs."

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation is the ninth largest
domestic integrated steelmaker. It filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection on Nov. 16, 2000.

WINSTAR COMM.: Asks For More Time to Remove Prepetition Suits
At the Petition Date, Winstar Communications, Inc. was a party
to lawsuits pending in state and Federal courts across the
country. Pursuant to Rule 9027 of the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure, the Debtors ask the Court to extend their
90 day period of time within which they must decide whether to
remove a legal proceeding from the court in which it is pending
to the District of Delaware for resolution.

The Debtors have not had a full opportunity to investigate their
involvement in the Pre-petition Lawsuits, and decisions about
the appropriate forum in light of these chapter 11 filings would
be imprudent at this early juncture, the Debtors argue.

Accordingly, the Debtors ask that the time within which they
must decide whether to remove any Pre-petition Lawsuit be
extended through a date to be fixed at a hearing before Judge
Farnan on September 20, 2001. (Winstar Bankruptcy News, Issue
No. 9; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

* Meetings, Conferences and Seminars
August 1-4, 2001
    American Bankruptcy Institute
       Southeast Bankruptcy Conference
          The Ritz-Carlton, Amelia Island, Florida
             Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or

August 10-11, 2001
    Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Advisors
       Distressed M&A Conference
          Ocean Place Conference Resort, Long Branch, New Jersey

August 22-24, 2001
    Association of Insolvency and Restructuring Advisors
       Florida CPE Courses for Financial Advisors, Attorneys
       and Turnaround Specialists
          Hyatt Regency Pier Sixty Six, Fort Lauderdale, Florida

  September 6-9, 2001
    American Bankruptcy Institute
       Southwest Bankruptcy Conference
          The Four Seasons Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada
             Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or

September 7-11, 2001
    National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees
       Annual Conference
          Sanibel Harbor Resort, Ft. Myers, Florida
             Contact: 1-800-445-8629 or

September 10-11, 2001
       Fourth Annual Conference on Corporate Reorganizations
          The Knickerbocker Hotel, Chicago, IL
             Contact 1-903-592-5169 or

September 13-14, 2001
       Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions
          Washington Monarch, Washington, D. C.
             Contact: 1-800-CLE-NEWS or

September 14-15, 2001
    American Bankruptcy Institute
       ABI/Georgetown Program "Views from the Bench"
          Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C.
             Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or

October 3-6, 2001
    American Bankruptcy Institute
       Litigation Skills Symposium
          Emory University School of Law, Atlanta, Georgia
             Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or

October 12-16, 2001
       2001 Annual Conference
          The Breakers, Palm Beach, FL
             Contact: 312-822-9700 or

October 16-17, 2001
    International Women's Insolvency and Restructuring
    Confederation (IWIRC)
       Annual Fall Conference
          Somewhere in Orlando, Florida
             Contact: 703-449-1316 or

October 28 - November 2, 2001
    IBA Business Law International Conference
    Including Insolvency and Creditors Rights Sessions
       Cancun, Mexico
          Contact: +44 (0) 20 7629 1206

November 15-17, 2001
       Commercial Real Estate Defaults, Workouts, and
          Regent Hotel, Las Vegas
             Contact:  1-800-CLE-NEWS or

November 26-27, 2001
       Seventh Annual Conference on Distressed Investing
          The Plaza Hotel, New York City
             Contact 1-903-592-5169 or

November 29-December 1, 2001
    American Bankruptcy Institute
       Winter Leadership Conference
          La Costa Resort & Spa, Carlsbad, California
             Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or

January 31 - February 2, 2002
    American Bankruptcy Institute
       Rocky Mountain Bankruptcy Conference
          Westin Tabor Center, Denver, Colorado
             Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or

January 11-16, 2002
    Law Education Institute, Inc
       National CLE Conference(R) - Bankruptcy Law
          Steamboat Grand Resort, Steamboat Springs, Colorado
             Contact: 1-800-926-5895 or

February 28-March 1, 2002
       Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions
          Renaissance Stanford Court, San Francisco, CA
             Contact: 1-800-CLE-NEWS or

March 3-6, 2002 (tentative)
       Norton Bankruptcy Litigation Institute I
          Park City Marriott Hotel, Park City, Utah
             Contact:  770-535-7722 or

March 8, 2002
    American Bankruptcy Institute
       Bankruptcy Battleground West
          Century Plaza Hotel, Los Angeles, California
             Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or

March 20-23, 2002
       Spring Meeting
          Sheraton El Conquistador Resort & Country Club
          Tucson, Arizona
             Contact: 312-822-9700 or

April 10-13, 2002 (tentative)
       Norton Bankruptcy Litigation Institute II
          Flamingo Hilton, Las Vegas, Nevada
             Contact:  770-535-7722 or

April 18-21, 2002
    American Bankruptcy Institute
       Annual Spring Meeting
          J.W. Marriott, Washington, D.C.
             Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or

April 25-27, 2002
       Fundamentals of Bankruptcy Law
          Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
             Contact:  1-800-CLE-NEWS or

May 13, 2002 (Tentative)
    American Bankruptcy Institute
       New York City Bankruptcy Conference
          Association of the Bar of the City of New York
          New York, New York
             Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or

June 6-9, 2002
    American Bankruptcy Institute
       Central States Bankruptcy Workshop
          Grand Traverse Resort, Traverse City, Michigan
             Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or

June 27-30, 2002
       Western Mountains, Advanced Bankruptcy Law
          Jackson Lake Lodge, Jackson Hole, Wyoming
             Contact: 770-535-7722 or

July 11-14, 2002
    American Bankruptcy Institute
       Northeast Bankruptcy Conference
          Ocean Edge Resort, Cape Cod, MA
             Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or

August 7-10, 2002
    American Bankruptcy Institute
       Southeast Bankruptcy Conference
          Kiawah Island Resort, Kiawaha Island, SC
             Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or

October 9-11, 2002
    INSOL International
       Annual Regional Conference
          Beijing, China
             Contact: or

October 24-28, 2002
       Annual Conference
          The Broadmoor, Colorado Springs, Colorado
             Contact: 312-822-9700 or

December 5-8, 2002
    American Bankruptcy Institute
       Winter Leadership Conference
          The Westin, La Paloma, Tucson, Arizona
             Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or

April 10-13, 2003
    American Bankruptcy Institute
       Annual Spring Meeting
          Grand Hyatt, Washington, D.C.
             Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or

December 3-7, 2003
    American Bankruptcy Institute
       Winter Leadership Conference
          La Quinta, La Quinta, California
             Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or

April 15-18, 2004
    American Bankruptcy Institute
       Annual Spring Meeting
          J.W. Marriott, Washington, D.C.
             Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or

December 2-4, 2004
    American Bankruptcy Institute
       Winter Leadership Conference
          Marriott's Camelback Inn, Scottsdale, AZ
             Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or

The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Troubled Company Reporter each Wednesday.  Submissions via
e-mail to are encouraged.


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, Bernadette de Roda, 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 ***