TCR_Public/010815.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 15, 2001, Vol. 5, No. 159

                           Headlines

360NETWORKS INC.: Asks For More Time To Make Lease Decisions
ALAMAC KNIT: Seeks Order Authorizing Stay Bonus Plan Payments  
ALTERRA HEALTHCARE: Cash Shortfall Triggers Covenant Defaults
AMF BOWLING: Court Okays Proposed Interim Compensation Protocol
AZTEC TECHNOLOGY: Posts Narrower Net Loss In Second Quarter 2001

BRIDGE INFORMATION: Resolves Sprint Adequate Assurance Dispute
BUY.COM: Shares Knocked Off Nasdaq National Market
CHYPS CBO: Fitch Downgrades Ratings On Six Tranches Of Notes
COMDISCO INC.: Reports $168 Million Loss In Third Quarter
COMDISCO INC.: Hires Logan & Company As Claims Agent

CORAM HEALTHCARE: Summary of Second Joint Chapter 11 Plan  
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Stockholders' Meeting Set For September 20
DANKA BUSINESS: KPMG Audit PLC Revises Fiscal Year 2001 Report
EDWARDS THEATRES: Settles Lease Dispute With Concept Centers
ERLY INDUSTRIES: Retains Jones Wright As New Accountants

F2 BROADCAST: Completes Assets Sales; Donald Edwards Joins Board
FACTORY CARD: Ninth Amendment to Postpetition Financing  
FACTORY CARD: Asks Court To Extend Exclusive Period To Nov. 30
FINOVA GROUP: Selling Realty Capital Loan Portfolio
GC COMPANIES: Seeks To Extend Lease Decision Period To Sept. 5

GENESIS HEALTH: Obtains Approval of Solicitation Procedures
GENTEK INC.: Reports Q2 Loss And Amends Senior Credit Facilities
HEARME: Discloses Management Shake Up & Nasdaq Appeal Withdrawal
ICG COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Claims & Assumes Contract With Qwest
INSCI-STATEMENTS: Reports Losses & Improved EBITDA in Q1 2002

LAIDLAW INC.: Obtains Final Approval of $200MM GECC DIP Facility
LOEWEN GROUP: Rejecting Agreements With Alger Group
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Fitch Rates Senior Subordinated Notes At BB-
MARINER POST-ACUTE: Moves To Transfer Hayward, Calif., Facility
NIKE INC.: Shareholders To Convene in Portland On September 17

OWENS CORNING: Wants To Reject Robert F. Owen Non-Compete Pact
PACIFIC GAS: Asks For Four-Month Extension Of Exclusive Periods
SHOWSCAN ENTERTAINMENT: Court Approves Reorganization Plan
STAR TELECOM: Has Until October 12 To File Reorganization Plan
SURGE COMPONENTS: Appeals Nasdaq's Delisting Determination

TELESCAN INC.: Reports Q2 Results & Appeals Nasdaq Delisting
UGLY DUCKLING: Fitch Lowers Sub Debt Rating To CCC From B-
VLASIC FOODS: Paying $1.5 Million Prepetition Contractor Claims
WEBVAN GROUP: Deadline For Submitting Bids For Assets Is Aug. 27
WHEELING-PITTSBURGH: Seeks To Extend Exclusive Period To Nov. 23

WINSTAR COMM.: Obtains Court Nod To Pay Prepetition Services

* Meetings, Conferences and Seminars

                           *********

360NETWORKS INC.: Asks For More Time To Make Lease Decisions
------------------------------------------------------------
360networks inc. asks Judge Gropper for an order extending the
time to assume or reject all unexpired leases of nonresidential
real property until confirmation of a plan in these cases.

Alan J. Lipkin, Esq., at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, in New York,
relates that the Debtors are party to about 179 unexpired leases
of non-residential real property that have neither been assumed
nor rejected.  The Unexpired Leases include office spaces, POP
sites, and AMP sites.

Mr. Lipkin contends that these unexpired leases may be valuable
assets of the Debtors' estates and/or may be integral to the
continued operation of the Debtors' businesses.  Thus, Mr.
Lipkin says, the Debtors need more time to evaluate the need for
these locations in the context of a long term business plan to
be finalized and a plan of reorganization to be negotiated.

As these cases are still in their infancy, Mr. Lipkin argues
that the Debtors should not be forced to choose between losing
valuable locations and assuming leases that ultimately should be
rejected.  Accordingly, Mr. Lipkin notes, the Debtors require an
extension to avoid what would be a premature assumption or
rejection of the unexpired leases.

                     Responses/Objections

(A) Creditors' Committee

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors agrees that the
Debtors' need more time to assume or reject unexpired leases of
non-residential real property.  However, the Committee believes
an indefinite extension is too long, given that the Debtors will
be obligated to pay $2,200,000 per month in administrative rent.
The Committee fears this will cause the Debtors to accrue
significant administrative rent claims that must be paid ahead
of unsecured creditors.

Instead, the Committee proposes a 90-day extension period,
without prejudice to the Debtors seeking a further extension of
the assumption/rejection period.  According to the Committee, a
90-day extension will provide the Debtors with sufficient time
to evaluate the remaining leases.  At the same time, the
Committee will be able to check on the accumulation of
substantial administrative rent claims.

(B) EL PASO 221, L.P.

The Debtors entered into a lease agreement with EL PASO 221 in
September 2000 for the use of a commercial building located in
El Paso, Texas.  But since Petition Date, the Debtors have
failed to meet its monthly rental obligations under the lease
agreement.

Irving H. Packard, Esq., at Gibbons Del Deo Dolan Griffinger &
Vecchione, in New York, clarifies that EL PASO 221 is not
objecting to the Debtors' request for an extension of time to
decide what to do with the unexpired leases.  But, Mr. Packard
explains, EL PASO 221 is bothered by the Debtor's proposal to
make the extension coterminous with confirmation of a plan of
reorganization.

According to Mr. Packard, such an indefinite extension will
cause real hardship to EL PASO 221, especially if the lease will
be ultimately rejected.  Moreover, Mr. Packard adds, EL PASO 221
may suffer further losses if the market deteriorates during the
period that the Debtors hold the Lease without committing to
honor its provisions.

Thus, EL PASO 221 requests that the Debtor's proposed order be
modified:

    (1) to limit the time within which its Lease must be assumed
        or rejected to a period of 60 days from and after August
        10, 2001, conditioned upon the debtor paying all
        reserved rents due for the period from June 28, 2001
        through and including August 31, 2001 no later than the
        close of business on August 27, 2001 (the Payment), and
        thereafter paying the rent by the 10th day of the each
        month until the extension expires;

    (2) to provide that the Lease shall be automatically
        terminated in the event that EL PASO 221 does not
        receive the Payment by the close of business on August
        26, 2001;

    (3) to provide that any further extension be granted only
        upon cause shown by the Debtor; and to

    (4) grant EL PASO 221, L.P. such other and further relief as
        may be deemed just and proper.

(C) NEES Communications Inc.

The Debtors lease approximately 1,921 square feet of
nonresidential real property located at 474 Main Street,
Worcester, Massachusetts, pursuant to an agreement dated May 17,
2001 with NEES Communications, Inc.

Under the lease, the Debtors are required to make rental
payments of $12,006.25, starting upon NEES' completion of work
to prepare the Worcester Premises for occupancy.  The lease also
requires the Debtors to pay its share in operating expenses,
real estate taxes, and other costs and ancillary services.  Upon
execution, the Debtors are also obligated to tender a
nonrefundable deposit of $399,000 to compensate NEES for the
cost of the Landlord's Work.

However, one week before Petition Date, the Debtors instructed
NEES to cease completion of the Landlord's Work.  Since then,
the Debtors have had no contact with NEES regarding the
Worcester Premises.

According to Gary L. Selinger, Esq., at Salomon Green & Ostrow,
in New York, the Debtors' proposed extension of the
assumption/rejection period severely prejudices NEES because
rental payments under the lease do not begin until NEES has
completed its preparatory "build-out" work on the Premises.  If
granted, Mr. Selinger says, the extension would give the Debtors
until confirmation to decide whether to assume or reject the
Lease, without requiring it to either:

     (a) tender post-petition rent to NEES, or

     (b) otherwise provide NEES with adequate protection of its
         interest in the Lease.

NEES asserts that any extension of the Debtors'
assumption/rejection period must provide:

     (1) that until such time of such election, the 360 Debtor
         shall timely perform all of its obligations under the
         Lease, including the reimbursements to NEES provided in
         sections 4.02, 4.03 and 4.04 of the lease -- requiring
         the 360 Debtor to pay, respectively:

        (a) its proportionate share of the property's operating
            expenses,

        (b) its proportionate share of the property's real
            estate taxes, and

        (c) annual heat, ventilation and air conditioning costs,
            and ancillary services for converted power, totaling
            $61,200 as of the Lease's execution date, and that

     (2) such extension shall be without prejudice to NEES'
         rights to seek to reduce the 360 Debtor's time for
         election, under section 365(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy
         Code, for any reason, including, but not limited to,
         the 360 debtor's failure to perform timely all of its
         Lease obligations.

(D) Sterling Network Exchange

One of the leases covered in the Debtors' motion to extend its
assumption/rejection period is the Phoenix Lease.  Under this
lease, the Debtors rent a property located at 120 East Van Buren
Avenue in Phoenix, Arizona, which is owned by Sterling Network
Exchange LLC.

Bruce S. Nathan, Esq., at Davidoff & Mailito, LLP, in New York,
tells Judge Gropper that the Debtors have not paid rent to
Sterling for the months of July and August 2001.  Currently, Mr.
Nathan relates, the Post-petition Arrearage is approximately
$110,710.57 as of August 3, 2001.

Thus, Sterling demands immediate payment of all the Post-
petition Arrearage, and objects to any extension of the
assumption/rejection period until such time as the Post-petition
Arrearage has been paid in full.  Sterling also objects to any
extension that is not expressly conditioned on the Debtors
timely making all future payments and performing all obligations
under the Phoenix Lease in full.

Mr. Nathan emphasizes that this objection is made without
prejudice to Sterling's right to raise other defaults under the
Phoenix Lease, oppose further requests to extend the time
period, or seek to shorten any extension of the time period that
the Court might grant.

(E) 7th and Walnut Associates

7th and Walnut Street Associates, Limited Partnership own and
operates an office building located at 666 Walnut Street, Des
Moines, Iowa 50309.

Kenneth Sussmane, Esq., at Sussmane & Zapfel, in Westport,
Connecticut relates that the Debtors lease 977 square feet of
space in the Building under the Walnut Lease dated March 2000.
Pursuant to this agreement, Mr. Sussmane says, the Debtors are
obligated to pay rent in advance on the first day of each month
in the amount of $1,180.54, plus additional rent equal its
proportionate share of operating expenses of the building.
However, Mr. Sussmane notes, the Debtors failed to pay post-
petition rent to Walnut Associates in the amount of $1,331.52.

Walnut Associates asserts that an order granting an extension of
time to assume or reject the Walnut Lease should provide:

      (i) a date certain for the Debtor to make such election to
          assume or reject the Walnut Lease,

     (ii) past due post-petition rent in the amount of $1,331.52
          shall be paid by Debtor to Walnut Associates by August
          15, 2001, and

    (iii) the Walnut Lease shall immediately terminate upon the
          failure of Debtor to pay its post-petition rental
          obligations to Walnut Associates within 3 business
          days of receipt of written notice setting forth the
          payments that are due.

(F) Vincent Crisafulli

Vincent Crisafulli is the landlord of the commercial building
located at 875 Broadway in Albany, New York.  The Debtors is the
tenant of this property pursuant to a written lease agreement
dated April 2000.  According to the Landlord, the Debtors failed
to comply with its lease obligation, to keep the Landlord's
property free from mechanic's liens, and otherwise maintain it
in a safe condition, in both pre-petition and post-petition
periods.

Robert E. Ganz, Esq., at Ganz & Wolkenbreit, LLP, in Albany, New
York, informs the Court that several companies have filed
mechanic's liens against the Building:

            Name of Company               Amount of Lien
            ---------------               --------------
            GroutTech, Inc.                $ 59,119.02
            Roland J. Down, LLC            $415,100.00
            Wagner Equipment Company       $517,635.44
            Cranesville Block Company      $ 18,296.06
            Justin Electrical, Inc.        $464,440.00

By letter, the Landlord's counsel notified the Debtor's counsel
of the existence of the liens.  But to date, Mr. Ganz notes that
the Debtors failed to discharge any of the liens.  Under section
365(d)(3), Mr. Ganz says, the Debtors are required, in the post-
petition period, to abide by the terms of its lease and to
timely perform all of its obligations including the discharge of
any and all mechanic's liens, whether filed pre-petition or post
petition.

If the Court would grant the Debtors' motion, the landlord
emphasizes that it should be conditioned that the Debtors pay
all its post-petition rent and perform its obligations in a
timely fashion.  The Debtors should also be required to promptly
effect a discharge of the mechanics' liens, the landlord adds.

In addition, Mr. Ganz reveals that the Debtor's specialized
repair work left two dangerous conditions on the property:

  (a) Footings poured by Sweet Associates have never been
      backfilled.  This poses 3 dangers:

          (i) someone could fall into the trench and become
              injured;

         (ii) the footings could become undermined causing the
              building to move and settle; and

        (iii) if not resolved before frost (October in Albany)
              heaving during a frost/thaw cycle causing
              structural damage to the building.

  (b) A transformer on a concrete pad is gradually shifting to a
      point where there is a possibility the transformer will
      move causing an electrical short.  This could harm
      Debtor's equipment and the building's utilities.  There is
      also a possibility of bodily injury if the electrical
      system is not adequately grounded.

The landlord contends that any extension of time to assume or
reject this Lease should also be conditioned on the immediate
repair of the two dangerous conditions.

(G) Violet Realty

Violet Realty, Inc. is the Landlord of the commercial building
located at Main Place Tower, 350 Main Street in Buffalo, New
York.  In the building, the Debtors rent Suite No. 100 and a
portion of the 2nd floor known as the Cage(s).  This is pursuant
to a written lease agreement dated January 2000, as modified by
written First Lease Amendment dated August 2000, between
Landlord and 360 Networks, as successor to Worldwide Fiber
Networks, Inc.

According to Edmond P. O'Brien, Esq., at Stempel Bennett Claman
& Hochberg, P.C., in New York, the Debtors failed to comply with
its lease obligation and to keep the Landlord's property free
from mechanics' liens:

            Name of Company               Amount of Lien
            ---------------               --------------
            Lehigh Construction Group      $275,501.00
            Wagner Equipment Company       $437,733.49
            The Fishel Company             $ 10,449.40

Mr. O'Brien tells Judge Gropper that the Landlord has already
notified the Debtor's counsel of the liens' existence.  Still,
the Debtors failed to discharge any of the liens.  Under New
York law, Mr. O'Brien says, a mechanic's lien can be discharged
by, e.g., "bonding" the lien.

Should the Debtors' motion be granted, the landlord request that
it should only be upon the condition that (in addition to paying
all post-petition rent in a timely fashion, and otherwise timely
performing its other obligations) it be required to promptly
effect a discharge of the mechanics' liens. (360 Bankruptcy
News, Issue No. 5; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-
0900)


ALAMAC KNIT: Seeks Order Authorizing Stay Bonus Plan Payments  
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alamac Knit Fabrics, Inc. and its affiliated debtors seek entry
of an order authorizing the debtors to make payments under their
Stay Bonus Plan.  

In recent weeks it has become apparent that the debtors will not
be able to reorganize as going concerns, and that an orderly
liquidation of the debtors' estates is in the best interests of
their creditors and other parties in interest.  

The debtors have determined that the Management Plan is no
longer adequate to ensure retention of key employees, and that a
new plan is required.

Under the Bonus Plan, each of 20 key employees is entitled to a
stay bonus at the time of his or her termination by the debtors,
based on a formula that takes into account the position of the
key employee and such key employee's base salary.  

In addition the Bonus Plan provides for a reserve amount of
$30,000 for discretionary stay bonuses to be paid to additional
employees. Such discretionary bonuses are to be awarded to
employees of the company who services, in the judgment of the
CEO are essential to the liquidation. The Bonus Plan provides
for bonuses that aggregate $509,972 (including the $30,000 of
discretionary bonuses).  


ALTERRA HEALTHCARE: Cash Shortfall Triggers Covenant Defaults
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alterra Healthcare Corporation (AMEX: ALI) announced financial
results for the three-month period ended June 30, 2001. At
quarter end, the Company operated or managed 453 residences with
a total capacity to serve approximately 21,358 residents. In
addition, the Company commented on its ongoing progress related
to the restructuring of its capital structure including
activities related to the disposition of certain of the
Company's owned and leased residences.

            OPERATING AND FINANCIAL RESULTS

For the three months ended June 30, 2001, the Company reported
revenues of $126.9 million, an increase of 13% over revenues for
the quarter ended June 30, 2000. The Company's pre-tax loss for
the quarter ended June 30, 2001, was $28.6 million (excluding
charges related to asset dispositions and losses on lease
terminations) compared to a pre-tax loss of $10.9 million
for the comparable period of 2000 (excluding the impact of non-
recurring charges and expenses). The Company's net loss for the
quarter ended June 30, 2001, was $192.2 million. The pre-tax
loss for the quarter ended June 30, 2001, includes $182.5
million of non-cash expenses including the reserves for asset
dispositions ($160.4 million), lease terminations ($3.1
million), depreciation, amortization, and payment-in-kind
("PIK") interest expense.

              RECENT OPERATIONAL RESULTS

In the second quarter of 2001, the Company's residence level
operating margins were 31%, consistent with the first quarter of
2001. The Company's operating margins have improved through the
first half of 2001 due to rate increases that have been
implemented in a large portion of the portfolio. Monthly rates
averaged $2,774 for the quarter ended June 30, 2001, an
increase of 8.5% over the average monthly rate for the June 2000
quarter. In addition, general and administrative costs
(excluding costs related to the Company's restructuring
activities) declined to $9.7 million in the June 2001 quarter,
or 6.8% of total residence revenue. For the three months ended
June 30, 2001, the Company reported overall average occupancy of
83%, a 2% increase over occupancy of 81% for the comparable
quarter of 2000 and a decrease of 1% from the March 2001
quarter.

Steven Vick, President and Chief Operating Officer said, "We are
pleased that our management team continues to deliver quality
service, optimize rates, and control costs. We look forward to
continued growth in our cash flow as we proceed through 2001."

              STABILIZED RESIDENCE RESULTS

During the quarter ended June 30, 2001, the Company operated 460
stabilized residences with a resident capacity of 21,568. These
residences had an average occupancy for the quarter of 84%. For
the three months ended June 30, 2001, these residences achieved
revenues of $141.8 million and had an operating margin of $42.7
million or 30%. The Company defines stabilized residences as
those that have reached 95% occupancy or have been open for 12
months as of the beginning of the reporting period.

Weighted average occupancy for all residences -- both stable and
in lease-up -- was 83% for the quarter ended June 30, 2001.

                 SAME RESIDENCE RESULTS

The Company operated 368 residences that were stabilized for the
entire second quarter of 2000 and 2001. For these residences
with a capacity to serve 16,562 residents, revenues for the
three months ended June 30, 2001, were $109.2 million. These
residences produced operating margins of 33% and had average
occupancy of 86% for the three-month period ended June 30, 2001.

                RESTRUCTURING ACTIVITIES

As previously announced, the Company is seeking to
comprehensively restructure its capital structure. To conserve
cash and fund ongoing residence operations, the Company did not
make selected scheduled debt service and lease payments during
the first half of 2001 and, as a result, is in default under
many of its major credit instruments (including its convertible
subordinated debentures) and certain of its lease facilities.
The Company is currently prohibited from making cash payments on
its convertible subordinated debentures pursuant to the
subordination provisions of these debt securities.

The Company previously announced that the principal components
of its restructuring plan are: (i) the disposition of a
substantial number of the Company's residences, which the
Company expects to accomplish primarily by actively working with
its lenders and lessors to identify new operators and by selling
assets through an organized sales process; (ii) the
restructuring of the Company's principal debt and lease
obligations, including in certain instances payment deferrals,
extensions of additional credit, the rescheduling of debt
maturities and the elimination or modification of certain
covenants; and (iii) the exchange of new debt, equity or
equity-linked securities of the restructured Company for the
Company's currently outstanding convertible debentures and joint
venture interests held by third parties in certain of the
Company's residences. While substantive restructuring
discussions are underway with the Company's lenders, lessors and
joint venture partners, no assurance can be given that the
Company will be successful in negotiating the appropriate
restructuring arrangements with its various capital structure
constituents.

Effective July 1, 2001, the Company concluded the restructuring
of one of its leased portfolios which includes 42 residences
with an aggregate resident capacity of 1,640 by entering into a
master lease. The master lease includes negotiated covenant
amendments and is for an initial term of sixteen years and
includes one fifteen-year renewal option. For the quarter
ended June 30, 2001, this leased portfolio generated
approximately $5.5 million of cash flow after debt service and
had an average occupancy of 89%.

                 ASSET DISPOSITION ACTIVITY

During the second quarter of 2001, the Company re-evaluated its
previously announced disposition plan, increasing the number of
total residences to be sold to 82 residences representing 3,396
beds. Residences included in the disposition plan were
identified based on an assessment of a variety of factors
including geographic location, residence size, and operating
performance. The Company recorded a pre-tax loss of $160.4
million (net of a $3.6 million pre-tax gain on sale) in the
quarter to reflect the assets held for sale at the lower of
carrying value or estimated liquidation value less costs to
sell.

During the quarter ended June 30, 2001, 15 of these residences
representing 429 beds were sold for a net price of $20.1 million
and three parcels of land were sold for a net sale price of $2.2
million. In conjunction with these sales, the Company repaid
$18.8 million of debt or lease obligations and realized a net
gain on sale of $3.6 million. In addition to these asset
sales, the Company has effected the termination of the leases
related to 17 residences representing a resident capacity of
940. Through June 30, 2001, the Company has recorded total
charges of $12.6 million related to these lease terminations.

Alterra offers supportive and selected healthcare services to
our nation's frail elderly and is the nation's largest operator
of freestanding Alzheimer's/ memory care residences. Alterra
currently operates in 28 states.

The Company's common stock is traded on the American Stock
Exchange under the symbol "ALI."


AMF BOWLING: Court Okays Proposed Interim Compensation Protocol
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMF Bowling Worldwide, Inc. sought and obtained an
administrative order establishing the procedures for the monthly
compensation and reimbursement of professionals specifically
retained in these Chapter 11 cases.

Dion W. Hayes, Esq., at McGuireWoods LLP, in Richmond, Virginia,
explains that the procedures require the presentation to the
Debtors, the United States Trustee, and the Committee of a
detailed monthly statement of services rendered and expenses
incurred by each professional for each month.  If there is no
timely objection, Mr. Hayes says, the Debtors shall be
authorized to pay 80% of the total compensation requested for
the month, with a 20% holdback, and 100% of disbursements
requested for the month.  These payments shall be subject to the
Court's subsequent approval as part of the fee application
process, Mr. Hayes adds.

The procedures for the monthly compensation and reimbursement of
professionals are:

  (a) On or before the 28th day of each month following the
      month for which compensation is sought, each professional
      will submit a Monthly Statement to:

           (i) the Debtors,

          (ii) the Debtors' attorneys,

         (iii) the Office of the United States Trustee for the
               Eastern District of Virginia and

          (iv) counsel to the Committee, and

           (v) any other official committee, if appointed.

        Each recipient will have until the earlier of:

           (i) the 10th day of the next calendar month, or

          (ii) 15 days after the submission of the Monthly
               Statement,

      to review the Monthly Statement. If none of the recipients
      of the Monthly Statement objects as provided in paragraph
      (b) below, the Debtors shall be authorized to pay 80% of
      such professional's compensation and 100% of the
      disbursements requested in that particular Monthly
      Statement.

  (b) In the event any of the Notice Parties has an objection to
      a particular Monthly Statement, on or before the earlier
      of the 10th day of the next calendar month or 15 days
      after the submission of the Monthly Statement, such party
      shall serve the Notice Parties with a "Notice of Objection
      to the Monthly Statement" with an affidavit setting forth
      the precise nature of the objection and the amount at
      issue.  Thereafter, the objecting party and the
      professional whose Monthly Statement is objected to shall
      meet or confer to attempt to reach an agreement regarding
      the correct payment to be made.  If an agreement cannot be
      reached or if no meeting or conference takes place, the
      professional whose Monthly Statement is objected to shall
      have the option of:

        (i) filing the Monthly Statement, the Notice of
            Objection to the Monthly Statement and a request for
            payment with the Court, or

       (ii) foregoing payment of the disputed amount until the
            next interim fee application hearing, at which time
            the Court will consider and resolve the objection.

      The Debtor shall promptly pay 80% of any portion of the
      compensation and 100% of the disbursements requested that
      are not the subject of a Notice of Objection to the
      Monthly Statement.  In addition, if an agreement is
      reached regarding an objection to a Monthly Statement, the
      parties to the objection shall submit an explanation of
      the resolution to the Notice Parties.  Following receipt
      of the explanation, the Debtors shall be authorized to pay
      80% of the undisputed compensation and 100% of the
      undisputed disbursements.

  (c) The first Monthly Statement shall be submitted by each of
      the professionals on or before August 28, 2001 and shall
      cover the period from the Petition Date through July 31,
      2001.

  (d) Approximately every 4 months, each of the professionals
      shall file an application for interim approval and
      allowance, pursuant to section 331 of the Bankruptcy Code,
      of the compensation, including the Holdback, and
      reimbursement of expenses requested for the preceding 4
      months with the Court.  Such application shall be served
      on the Notice Parties on or before the 30th day following
      the last day of the period for which compensation is
      sought.  The first such application shall be filed on or
      before December 3, 2001 and shall cover the period from
      the Petition Date through November 2, 2001.

  (e) The pendency of a request for payment of a Monthly
      Statement to which an objection has been made or an order
      of the Court that payment of compensation or reimbursement
      of expenses was improper as to a particular statement
      shall not disqualify a professional from the future
      payment of compensation or reimbursement of expenses as
      set forth above.

  (f) Neither the payment of, nor the failure to pay, in whole
      or in part, monthly interim compensation and reimbursement
      of expenses as provided herein shall bind any party in
      interest or the Court with respect to the interim or final
      allowance of applications for compensation and
      reimbursement of expenses.

According to Mr. Hayes says, these procedures will enable all
parties to closely monitor the costs of administration, and
enable the Debtors to maintain a level cash flow and implement
efficient cash management procedures.

At the Debtors' behest, Judge Tice also ordered that each member
of the Committee(s), once appointed, shall be permitted to
submit statements of expenses and supporting vouchers to the
attorneys for the Committee(s), who will collect and submit such
requests for reimbursement in accordance with the foregoing
procedures.

Service of notice of a hearing to consider interim applications
upon:

     (i) the Office of the United States Trustee,

    (ii) the Notice Parties,

   (iii) all professionals who have been retained by orders of
         the Court in this case, and

    (iv) all parties who have filed a notice of appearance with
         the Clerk of this Court and requested such notice.

Judge Tice also directs the Debtors to include all payments to
professionals on their monthly operating reports, detailed so as
to state the amount paid to each of the professionals. (AMF
Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 4; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service,
Inc., 609/392-0900)


AZTEC TECHNOLOGY: Posts Narrower Net Loss In Second Quarter 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aztec Technology Partners, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: AZTC), a
leading provider of e-Solutions products and services for
businesses, reported a net loss for the quarter ended June 30,
2001 of $3.3 million, or $.14 per share, compared to
a net loss of $15.8 million, or $.70 per share in the same
period in 2000. The most recent quarter's results included a
charge for restructuring of $.4 million. Results for the second
quarter of 2000 included a non-cash, goodwill write-off of $21.9
million and a $5.7 million net gain related to the disposal of
businesses primarily in the voice and data segment.

Loss before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization,
excluding write-offs of goodwill and strategic restructuring
costs was $.1 million in the second quarter of 2001 compared to
a loss of $.8 million in the second quarter of 2000. Revenue for
the second quarter of 2001 totaled $35.3 million compared to
$80.8 million in the second quarter of 2000. The decline
in revenue reflects primarily the sale or closure of various
subsidiaries as well as lower product sales at the company's
e-Integration subsidiary, Aztec New England.

Aztec's e-Solutions subsidiary, Blueflame, Inc., posted revenue
of $10.6 million for the second quarter, an increase of 28.3
percent from $8.2 million in last year's comparable quarter.

Peter A. Pelletier, chief executive officer of Aztec, said,
"Aztec's three principal operating subsidiaries showed positive
EBITDA in the second quarter of 2001. Both our Blueflame and
Aztec New England subsidiaries made significant progress in the
first half in improving operating efficiencies while at the same
time maintaining our market position in an economic environment
that has been challenging for our entire sector. These efforts
have been critical to our ability to negotiate a new loan
agreement, which is now being reviewed by the bank group, and
are vital to our future success."

For the first six months of the current year, Aztec reported a
net loss of $8.1 million, or $.34 per share, compared to net
loss of $16.6 million, or $.74 per share, for the first six
months of 2000. EBITDA for the first six months of 2001 was a
negative $1.1 million versus a positive $.4 million for the
first six months of 2000. Revenue for the first six months of
2001 totaled $78.0 million, down from $162.3 million a year
earlier due primarily to the sale or closure of various
subsidiaries as well as lower product sales at the company's
e-Integration subsidiary, Aztec New England. The decline in
EBITDA for the six months ended June 30, 2001 is due mainly to
lower revenues primarily from businesses sold or closed in 2000,
while certain SG&A expenses remained fixed.

             About Aztec Technology Partners

Aztec Technology Partners, Inc. is a single-source provider of
e-Solutions and e- Integration products and services for middle
market and Fortune 1000 companies across a broad range of
industries. Aztec helps clients throughout the U.S. to gain
competitive advantages by exploiting the power of intranet,
Internet and extranet technologies. For further information,
visit http://www.aztectech.com


BRIDGE INFORMATION: Resolves Sprint Adequate Assurance Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Communications Company L.P. asks Judge McDonald to direct
Bridge Information Systems, Inc. and Savvis Communications Corp.
to:

    (a) provide adequate assurance of future performance; and

    (b) cure all arrearages or, alternatively,

    (c) grant relief from the automatic stay to permit Sprint to
        terminate their Network Management Agreement.

James M. Meister, Esq., at Stinson, Mag & Fizzell, relates that
Sprint and Savvis were parties to a Network Management Agreement
prior to Petition Date.  Under the agreement, Mr. Meister says,
Sprint provides various telecommunications and network services
to Savvis.  According to Mr. Meister, Savvis owed Sprint
$18,000,000 for three months of pre-petition services.  In
addition, Savvis owes Sprint an average of approximately
$6,000,000 a month.

                    Savvis Objects

Robert H. Brownlee, Esq., at Thompson Coburn, asserts that
Savvis has been improperly named as a respondent to Sprint's
Motion. Mr. Brownlee clarifies that Savvis was never a party to
and never joined in the Debtors' Utilities Service Motion.  
Thus, Mr. Brownlee argues, Savvis should not be subject to any
of the relief sought of Sprint's Motion.  Besides, Mr. Brownlee
notes, Sprint has been offered and/or provided with "adequate
assurance" and its interest are being adequately protected, such
that both Debtors and Savvis should continue to receive the
protection and restraint provided for in the Utilities Service
Order.

Savvis asks Judge McDonald to deny Sprint's motion.

                  Resolution of Dispute

To resolve their differences, the Debtors, Savvis and Sprint met
and agreed to these terms in a Stipulation:

  (1) As adequate assurance, the Debtors and/or Savvis will pay
      to Sprint:

      (a) an Initial payment of $7,000,000 on or before March
          22, 2001, covering services provided by Sprint to
          Savvis for the period February 15, 2001 through March
          21, 2001;

      (b) payments on a weekly basis beginning on Thursday,
          March 22, 2001 and every Wednesday thereafter (each a
          Payment Date), each in the amount of $1,400,000 as
          prepayments for services to be provided by Sprint to
          Savvis for the following week (each a Weekly
          Prepayment); and

      (c) payments on each of the Payment dates in the amount of
          $100,000 except that from and on Wednesday, June 6,
          2001 through Wednesday, July 11, 2001 on each
          Wednesday the payment shall be in the amount of
          $200,000 to be applied to obligations owing by Savvis
          to Sprint for the period prior to the Filing Date.

  (2) All payments shall be funded by wire transfer to Sprint on
      the dates set forth above and shall be accompanied by a
      written notice to Ruth West (or her designee) at Sprint
      setting forth that each such payment has been made, the
      date of such payment, and wire transfer tracking
      information including the account into which the transfer
      was made.

  (3) To the extent that Sprint received or receives new orders
      for services from Savvis subsequent to the Filing date,
      Sprint shall not be required to fulfill such new orders
      unless and until:

      (a) Sprint is paid a sum satisfactory to pre-pay Sprint
          for the estimated amount of usage represented from the
          date the order is fulfilled to the next payment Date;
          and

      (b) the Debtors and Savvis have agreed to increase the
          Weekly Payments by a like amount for each week
          thereafter.

      If the Weekly Payments are increased, then the new amount
      of the Weekly Payments shall be deemed to be the Weekly
      Payments and shall be governed by the terms and conditions
      of paragraph 1.

  (4) If the Debtors or Savvis fail to timely make any payment
      due, Sprint shall have the right to seek a court order
      (upon prior written notice to counsel to the Debtors and
      Savvis, by facsimile transmission) authorizing it to
      terminate the service Sprint provides to Savvis after the
      expiration of 3 business days from the date of such notice
      (the Termination Date).  The Parties hereby consent to an
      emergency expedited telephonic hearing to consider
      Sprint's request to terminate such service as set forth
      herein.

  (5) To the extent that any payments due hereunder are not
      timely made by the Debtors, such amounts shall be afforded
      administrative priority status, and Sprint reserves the
      right to seek additional priority status.

  (6) Sprint's original Motion for adequate assurance is deemed
      dismissed without prejudice.  Sprint's motion for an order
      permitting termination of agreement with Savvis is
      continued.  This Stipulation is without prejudice to
      Sprint seeking adequate assurances of performance from
      Savvis in the event Savvis becomes a debtor under Title 11
      of the United States Code.

  (7) Division of responsibility between the Debtors and Savvis
      for payments shall be set forth in a separate stipulation
      and order, but for the purposes of payments to Sprint
      pursuant to this Stipulation, the Debtors and Savvis shall
      be jointly and severally responsible for such payments.

Judge McDonald stamped his approval on this stipulation.  The
terms of the stipulation expired on July 17, 2001 (or a later
date as may be agreed to by the Parties). (Bridge Bankruptcy
News, Issue No. 13; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc.,
609/392-0900)


BUY.COM: Shares Knocked Off Nasdaq National Market
--------------------------------------------------
buy.com (Nasdaq: BUYX), The Internet Superstore announced that
its securities were delisted from The Nasdaq National Market
effective with the opening of business on August 14, 2001. The
Company expects that its stock will be quoted on the OTC
Bulletin Board.

                       about buy.com

buy.com, The Internet Superstore and low price leader, offers
its approximately 4 million customers nearly 1,000,000 SKUs in a
range of categories including computer hardware and software,
electronics, wireless products and services, books, office
supplies and more. Individuals and businesses can shop quickly
and easily at buy.com 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. buy.com was
named the Best E-Commerce Site by PC World magazine (June 2001),
Best Overall Place To Buy by Computer Shopper Magazine (January
2001), the No. 1 electronics e-tailer in the PowerRankings by
Forrester Research, Inc. (November 2000), and a Best of the Web
in the computer and electronics category by Forbes Magazine
(spring 2000 and fall 2000). buy.com, founded in June 1997, is
located in Aliso Viejo, California. For more information visit
http://www.buy.com



CHYPS CBO: Fitch Downgrades Ratings On Six Tranches Of Notes
------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch downgraded six tranches and affirmed two tranches of two
collateralized bond obligations (CBOs). The two transactions,
CHYPS CBO 1997-1 and CHYPS CBO 1999-1, are backed by high yield
bonds and are both managed by Delaware Investment Advisors. All
of the affected classes had been placed on Rating Watch Negative
on March 27, 2001.

These ratings actions are being taken after reviewing the
performance of each transaction. Increased levels of defaults
and deteriorating credit quality of each portfolio have
increased the credit risk of these transactions to the point the
risk may no longer be consistent with the tranche's rating.

The following securities have been downgraded and are removed
from Rating Watch Negative:

     CHYPS CBO 1997-1 Ltd. / Corp.
          * $57,100,000 class A-3 notes from 'A-' to 'B';
          * $42,400,000 class B notes from 'BBB-' to 'CC'.

     CHYPS CBO 1999-1 Ltd. / Corp.
          * $41,000,000 class A-3A notes from 'A-' to 'BBB-';
          * $14,851,485 class A-3B notes from 'A-' to 'BBB-';
          * $13,000,000 class B-1 notes from 'BBB-' to 'BB+';
          * $18,000,000 class B-2 notes from 'BB' to 'CC'.

The following securities are removed from Rating Watch Negative
and their ratings are affirmed:

     CHYPS CBO 1997-1 Ltd. / Corp.
          * $143,692,708 class A-2A notes 'AAA';
          * $20,807,292 class A-2B notes 'AAA'.


COMDISCO INC.: Reports $168 Million Loss In Third Quarter
---------------------------------------------------------
Comdisco, Inc. (NYSE:CDO) reported operating results for the
third quarter ended June 30, 2001.

Operating Results: For the third quarter ended June, 30, 2001,
Comdisco reported a loss from continuing operations of $168
million, or $1.10 per common share, compared with earnings from
continuing operations of $50 million, or $.31 per common share,
for the year earlier period. These results include charges for
additional reserves for Comdisco's Ventures and
telecommunications portfolios of $161 million and exclude
Availability Solutions, which has been recorded as discontinued
operations because of the pending sale of the business to
Hewlett-Packard Company for $610 million.

The current period loss resulted primarily from these additional
reserves, the lower contribution from the company's equipment
remarketing efforts, and reduced equity-related gains in
Comdisco's Ventures group. Overall, the company had a net loss
of $164 million, or $1.08 per common share, compared with net
earnings of $17 million, or $.10 per common share, for the prior
year period. Total revenue for the quarter was $585 million,
compared with $810 million for the prior year period.

For the nine months ended June 30, 2001, Comdisco reported a
loss from continuing operations of $94 million, or $.62 per
common share, compared with earnings of $154 million, or $.95
per common share, for the year earlier period. Overall for the
nine months, the company had a net loss of $130 million, or $.86
per common share, compared to net earnings of $101 million, or
$.62 per common share, for the prior year period. Total revenue
for the nine months was $2.2 billion, versus $2.5 billion for
the year earlier period.

Explanation of charges: Given the continuing decline in the
economic environment for venture capital-backed companies,
Comdisco determined that approximately $137 million of
additional reserves for its Ventures portfolio were required in
the third quarter of fiscal 2001. In addition, due to the
rapid, widespread decline in equipment values within the
telecommunications market, Comdisco recorded an additional $24
million of reserves for its telecommunications portfolio.

Comdisco's third quarter results were also adversely affected by
a slowdown in remarketing, higher borrowing costs, significantly
lower contributions from the sale of warrants in its Ventures
portfolio, and the costs associated with the company's
comprehensive strategic business review initiated in the second
quarter and chapter 11 filing on July 16, 2001.

Reorganization: As announced on July 16, 2001, Comdisco has
reached a definitive agreement to sell substantially all of its
Availability Solutions business to Hewlett-Packard Company for
$610 million. The proposed transaction is subject, among other
things, to bankruptcy court approval and higher or otherwise
better offers resulting from a bidding process approved by the
bankruptcy court on August 9, 2001. Because of the impending
sale, financial results for the Availability Solutions business
are recorded as discontinued operations in the accompanying
financial statements. Competitive bids for the sale to Hewlett-
Packard are due on September 30, 2001 and the bankruptcy court
has scheduled a hearing for approval of the sale on October 23,
2001. The Hewlett-Packard transaction is currently scheduled to
close on November 16, 2001.

Simultaneously with entering into the agreement with Hewlett-
Packard on July 16, Comdisco and 50 domestic U.S. subsidiaries
filed voluntary petitions for relief under chapter 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. Comdisco's operations located
outside of the United States were not included in the chapter 11
reorganization cases. The filing will allow the company to
provide for an orderly sale of its services business, while
resolving short-term liquidity issues and enabling the company
to reorganize on a sound financial basis to support its ongoing
businesses. Comdisco is continuing to pursue other strategic
alternatives to create value for its stakeholders, including the
potential reorganization or sale of its leasing businesses and
the restructuring of its Ventures group. Comdisco earlier
announced plans to emerge from chapter 11 in the first quarter
of 2002. The company's planned asset divestitures and strategic
reorganization timetable are on track.

Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) Financing: Comdisco has obtained $600
million of DIP financing, $100 million of which is reserved for
support of the company's international operations, which were
not included in the chapter 11 filing. The company obtained
interim approval of the first $200 million of the DIP facility
on July 16, 2001. None of the $200 million has been used by the
company to date and all of it remains available. Final approval
of the DIP financing is anticipated at a hearing scheduled for
August 23, 2001.

                 About Comdisco

Comdisco -- http://www.comdisco.com-- provides technology  
services worldwide to help its customers maximize technology
functionality, predictability and availability, while freeing
them from the complexity of managing their technology. The
Rosemont, (IL) company offers a complete suite of information
technology services including business continuity, managed web
hosting, storage and IT Control and Predictability Solutions SM.
Comdisco offers leasing to key vertical industries, including
semiconductor manufacturing and electronic assembly, healthcare,
telecommunications, pharmaceutical, biotechnology and
manufacturing. Through its Ventures division, Comdisco provides
equipment leasing and other financing and services to venture
capital backed companies.


COMDISCO INC.: Hires Logan & Company As Claims Agent
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Barliant concurs with Comdisco, Inc.'s observation that
the Clerk is not be equipped to effectively and efficiently
docket and maintain proofs of claim that will be filed by
Comdisco's 100,000 creditors, potential creditors and other
parties-in-interest.  To effectively and efficiently receive,
docket, maintain, photocopy and transmit proofs of claim, the
Debtors will employ an independent third party as an agent of
the Court. By Application, the Debtors sought and obtained Judge
Barliant's permission to employ and retain Logan & Company, Inc.
as its claims and balloting agent.

Logan is a data processing firm that specializes in claims
processing, noticing and other administrative tasks in Chapter
11 cases.  Specifically, Logan will:

  (a) serve as the Court's notice agent to mail notices to
      estate's creditors and parties-in-interest,

  (b) provide computerized claims, objection and balloting
      database services,

  (c) provide expertise and consultation and assistance in claim
      and ballot processing and with other administrative
      information related to the Debtor's bankruptcy cases,
      including assisting in preparation of the Debtor's
      schedules and statement of financial affairs.

The Debtors believe that Logan's assistance will expedite
service of 2002 notices, streamline claims administration
process and permit Debtors to focus on their reorganization
efforts.  Mr. Blake says Logan is well qualified to provide such
services, expertise, consultation and assistance as it has
assisted and advised numerous other Chapter 11 Debtors.

At the Debtor's or the Clerk's Office's request, Logan agrees
to:

    (a) Relieve the Clerk's Office of all noticing under any
        applicable rule or bankruptcy procedure and processing
        of claims including:

           (i) Initial notice of filing;
          (ii) 341(a) meeting of creditors
         (iii) Bar date;
          (iv) Objections to claims;
           (v) Notice of any hearings on a disclosure statement
               and confirmation of a plan of reorganization;
          (vi) Other miscellaneous notices to any entices, not
               necessarily the creditors, that the Debtors or
               Court may deem necessary for an orderly
               administration of the Chapter 11 cases.

    (b) At any time, upon request, satisfy the Court that Logan
        has the capability to efficiently and effectively
        notice, docket and maintain proofs of claim;

    (c) Mail a notice of bar date approved by the Court for
        filing of proof of claim and a form for filing proof of
        claim to each creditor notified of the filing;

    (d) File with the Clerk's Office a certificate of service,
        within 10 days after each service, which includes a copy
        of the notice, a list of persons to whom it was mailed
        and the date mailed;

    (e) Maintain all proofs of claim filed;

    (f) Maintain official claims registers by docketing all
        proofs of claim on a claims register, including, but not
        limited to the following information:

          (i) the name and address of the claimant and agent, if
              agent filed proof of claim;
         (ii) the date received;
        (iii) the claim number assigned;
         (iv) the amount and classification asserted by such
              claimant;

    (g) Receive and maintain original proofs of claim in correct
        claim number order, in an environmentally secure area
        and protect the integrity of these original documents
        from theft and/or alteration;

    (h) Transmit to the Clerk's Office an official copy of the
        claims registers and provide Clerk's Office with any
        information regarding the claims register upon request;

    (i) Maintain an up-to-date mailing list for all entities
        that have filed proofs of claim, which shall be
        available upon request of a party in interest or the
        Clerk's Office;

    (j) Be open to the public for examination of the original
        proofs of claim without charge during regular business
        hours;

    (k) Record all transfers of claims pursuant to Fed. R.
        Bankr. P. 3001(e) and provide notice of the transfer as
        required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(e);

    (l) Act as the Debtors' solicitation agent in respect of any
        plan of reorganization and to receive and tabulate
        ballots in connection therewith;

    (m) Make all original documents available to the Clerk's
        Office on an expedited basis;

    (n) Comply with applicable state, municipal, and local laws,
        orders, regulations, and requirements of Federal
        Government Department and Bureaus; and

    (o) Promptly comply with such further conditions and
        requirements as the Clerk's Office may hereafter
        describe;

In addition, Logan will also assist the Debtors with:

     (i) the preparation of their schedules, statements of
         financial affairs and master creditor lists, if
         necessary, and any amendments thereto; and

    (ii) if necessary, the reconciliation and resolution of
         claims.

Kathleen M. Logan, president of Logan & Company, assures Judge
Barliant that:

  (a) Logan is not employed by the Government and shall not seek
      any compensation from the Government;

  (b) By accepting employment in the case, it waives any rights
      to receive compensation from the Government;

  (c) It is not an agent of the United States and is not acting
      on behalf of the United States;

  (d) It will not misrepresent any fact to the public; and

  (e) It will not employ any past or present employees of the
      Debtors for work involving the Debtors' chapter 11 cases.

Under an agreement dated July 6, 2001, Logan will charge the
Debtors' standard prices for its services, expenses and supplies
at the rates or prices in effect on the day such services and
supplies are provided.  Logan also agrees not to increase its
prices, charges, and rates for a period of one year from the
date of this agreement.  The Debtors will pay Logan for any
necessary and reasonable incurred out-of-pocket expenses for
transportation, lodging, meals and related items.  The Debtors
agree to make an advance payment to Logan to be applied to the
final billing in an amount equal to $100,000.  At the end of
each calendar month, Logan will submit an invoice to the
Debtors.  The amount invoiced is due and payable upon receipt.  
If any amount is unpaid as of 30 days from receipt of the
invoice, the Debtors will pay a late charge, which is 1 and 1/2%
interest of the amount unpaid.  But in case the invoiced amount
is disputed, the Debtors shall send Logan a notice within 10
days from receipt. (Comdisco Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 3;
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)


CORAM HEALTHCARE: Summary of Second Joint Chapter 11 Plan  
---------------------------------------------------------
The plan proposed by the debtors, Coram Healthcare Corp. and
Coram, Inc. provides for, among other things, the satisfaction
or settlement of substantially all of the debtors' unsecured
indebtedness through a combination of cash payments, issuance of
New Coram Stock and New Secured Notes, cancellation of existing
equity interests, and a distribution to holders of Allowed
Equity Interests. The purposes of the plan as described in the
Second Joint Disclosure Statement are:  

     * To enable Coram to continue to comply with the provisions
       of "Stark II" so that it can continue its core infusion
       therapy business;  

     * To reduce the amount of debt in the debtors' capital
       structure and alter certain other obligations of the
       debtors; and  

     * To maximize the value of the ultimate recoveries by
       creditors and equity interest holders of the debtors on a
       fair and equitable basis in accordance with the
       recommendations in the Goldin Report.  

The plan permits Coram and its operating subsidiaries to
continue their  business operations. The plan eliminates and/or
refinances substantially all of the debtors' existing
unsecured(non-priority) indebtedness, provides for the issuance
of cash and/or New Coram Stock and New Secured Notes to the
holders of existing indebtedness; and extinguishes all other
existing equity interests of the debtors, while providing a
potential settlement to holders of allowed CHC Equity Interests.  

The Noteholder Group will privately hold reorganized Coram.
Publicly-held CHC will cease to have any direct or indirect
business operations and will be dissolved in accordance with the
provisions of the plan. The only long-term liabilities of
Reorganized Coram will consist of the New Secured Notes (in a  
known, maximum amount of $180 million). Coram's short-term
borrowing needs, if any, will be provided by the Exit Financing
Facility, a revolving secured credit facility pursuant to which
up to $40 million will be available to Reorganized Coram.  

       Description and Amount of Claims of Interests  

     * Administrative Expense Claims-Aggregate Amount of Claims   
           Estimate $4,262,000
           Estimate Recovery 100%  

     * Priority tax claims --Aggregate Amount of Claims-        
           Estimate-$81,400
           Estimate Recovery 100%  

     * Class CHC P (Allowed CHC Priority Non-Tax Claims) --
       Aggregate Amount of Claims
           Estimate-$12,900
           Estimate Recovery 100%  

     * Class CHC 1 (Allowed CHC Secured Claims) --Aggregate
       Amount of Claims-
           Estimate-$0
           Estimate Recovery 100%  

     * Class CHC 2(Allowed CHC General Unsecured Claims
       Aggregate Amount of Claims

           Estimate-$7,492.000
           Estimate Recovery 40% if accepting plan  
                             26.7% - 100% if rejecting plan  

     * Class CHC 3(Allowed CHC Notes Claims) --Aggregate Amount
       of Claims
           Estimate-$252,620,000  
           Estimate Recovery 0  

     * Class CHC 4 (Allowed CHC Equity Interests--Aggregate
       Value of Interests-
           Estimate-0   
           Estimated Recovery - Up to $10 million if Class CHC 4
                     accepts the plan (depending upon vote of
                     Class CHC 2 and related litigation) No
                     recovery if  Class CHC 4 rejects the plan.
                     Ownership of Reorganized Coram: 0%  

     * Class Coram P (Allowed Coram Priority Non-Tax Claims) -   
       Aggregate amount of Claims
           Estimated $18,700
           Recovery Estimated 100%  

     * Class Coram 1 (Allowed Coram Secured Claims)
       Aggregate Amount of Claims - $0  
           Recovery Estimated 100%  

     * Class Coram 2 (Allowed Coram General Unsecured Claims)
       Aggregate Amount of Claims
           Estimated $124,000
           Estimated Recovery 100%  

     * Class Coram 3 (Allowed Coram Notes/Preferred Stock
       Claims) Aggregate Amount of Claims and Interests
           Estimated $272,679,000
           Impaired See treatment of subclasses Coram 3A and
              Coram 3B  

     * Sub-Class Coram 3A (Allowed Coram Notes Claims) Aggregate
       Amount of Claims and Interests
           Estimated $154,905,000   
           Recovery Estimated 100% - Impaired; each holder of an
               allowed Coram Notes Claims shall receive New
               Secured Notes in an amount equal to the full
               amount of its claim.  

     * Sub-class 3B(Allowed Coram Preferred Stock Interests) -
       Aggregate Amount of claims and interests estimated
       $117,774,000 Recovery (Estimated, based on Goldin's
       valuation) - 55.2% Impaired - each holder of an Allowed
       Coram  Preferred Stock Interest shall receive its pro
       rata share of all new secured notes remaining after the
       distribution to sub-class 3A and its pro rata share of
       the new Coram Stock.  

     * Class Coram 4 (Allowed Coram Equity Interests) Aggregate
       Value of Interests  
           Estimated - 0
           Recovery 0%  

Note: In the event Class CHC 2 rejects the plan and the
Creditors' Committee contests such treatment and the court
determines that the distribution scheme precludes confirmation
of the plan unless the CHC Equity Interest Consideration is firm
made available to Class CHCC 2 under Section 1129(b)(2)(B) of 11
USC then each holder of an Allowed Class CHC 2 claim shall
receive the less of its pro rata share of $12 million in cash,
or an amount necessary to cause such holder to be paid in full.  

Coram with the consent of the holders of Claims in Class Coram 3
will transfer cash in the amount of $2 million to fund the CHC
General Unsecured Consideration, which monies will be
distributed to the holders of Allowed Claims in Class CHC 2 and
pursuant to the provisions of the plan. Coram, with the consent
of the holders of Claims in Class Coram 3, will transfer cash in
the amount of $1 million to fund the CHC Noteholder
Consideration, which monies will be distributed to the holders
of Allowed claims in Classes CHC 2 if CHC 2 accepts the plan,
pursuant to the specific provisions of the plan.  

In the event Class CCHC 4 accepts the plan, Coram will transfer
cash in the amount of up to $10 million to fund the CHC Equity
Interest Consideration, which money will be distributed a to the
holders of Allowed Equity Interests in Class CHC 4.If Class CHC
2 rejects the plan but Class CHC 4 accepts the plan, the amount
of the CHC Equity Interest consideration made available to
holders of allowed CHC equity interests may be reduced depending
on the outcome of the issues described in the absolute priority
litigation.  

David M. Friedman, Adam L. Shiff, Robert M. Novick and Athena
Foley of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP and Laura Davis
Jones and Rachel Lowy of Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl, Young & Jones,
PC represent the debtors.


COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Stockholders' Meeting Set For September 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Covad Communications Group,
Inc., a Delaware corporation will be held on Thursday, September
20, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. local time, at the Sheraton San Jose
Hotel, Milpitas, California. At the Annual Meeting, the
Company's stockholders will be asked to consider and vote upon:

     (1) The election of two Class II directors to serve on the
Company's Board of Directors for a term to expire at the third
succeeding annual meeting (expected to be the 2004 annual
meeting) and until their successors are elected and qualified.

     (2) Ratification of independent auditors, Ernst & Young
LLP, for the 2001 fiscal year.

     (3) Such other business as may properly come before the
Annual Meeting or before any adjournments or postponements
thereof.

Only stockholders of record of the Company's Common Stock at the
close of business on August 3, 2001 are entitled to notice of
and to vote at the Annual Meeting or any adjournments or
postponements thereof.


DANKA BUSINESS: KPMG Audit PLC Revises Fiscal Year 2001 Report
--------------------------------------------------------------
Danka Business Systems PLC (Nasdaq:DANKY) announced that because
of the successful conclusion of its three part financial
restructuring plan on June 29, 2001, its independent auditors',
KPMG Audit PLC, have revised their independent auditors' report
for the Company's fiscal year ended March 31, 2001, as filed in
the Company's Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 27, 2001.

The Company's independent auditors' report on its financial
statements originally included an explanatory paragraph
regarding the need to restructure indebtedness in order to meet
obligations and pay such indebtedness when it matured, which
raised substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue
as a going concern. Because the Company successfully completed
its three part financial restructuring plan which included an
amended and restated bank facility, the sale of Danka Services
International, and the exchange of $184 million of the Company's
convertible subordinated notes for new extended maturity notes
and cash, KPMG Audit PLC has issued a new independent auditors'
report which deletes the explanatory paragraph, including any
reference to the Company's ability to continue as a going
concern. The Company will file an amended Form 10-K to reflect
these revisions.

Danka's Chief Executive Officer, Lang Lowrey, commented, "We are
delighted that our auditors have removed any doubt as to the
Company's going concern status. We believe this revision will
restore confidence from our customers, shareholders, employees,
vendors, and lenders in the Company's financial stability."

Danka Business Systems, PLC, headquartered in London, England,
and St. Petersburg, Florida, is one of the world's largest
independent suppliers, by revenue, of office imaging equipment
and related services, parts and supplies. Danka provides office
products and services in 30 countries around the world. For
additional information about copier, printer and other office
imaging products from Danka, visit the Web site at
http://www.danka.com


EDWARDS THEATRES: Settles Lease Dispute With Concept Centers
------------------------------------------------------------  
Edwards Concept Center Theatres Circuit, Inc. ("ETC") and its
affiliated debtors request that the court enter an order
approving the settlement agreement between Concept Centers, LP,
Darling Construction & Realty Corp. ("DCRC"), Richard L.
Darling, Sr., ETC, China Trust Bank and Golden Eagle  
Insurance Company.  

Prior to the Petition Date, ETC entered into a lease with
Concept Centers to operate a movie theater in a to-be-
constructed shopping center. Under the lease, ETC was
responsible for theatre construction costs exceeding $75 per  
square foot. DCRC constructed the theater, but costs exceeded
the expected budget, which DCRC contends is approximately $1.6
million. DCRC filed suit against Concept Centers seeking to
foreclose on a lien it asserted against Concept Center Theatre.
ETC cross-complained alleging defects in the work performed.  

Subsequent to the filing of these cases, Concept Centers filed a
proof of claim against ETC in the amount of $1,626,838. For
various lease obligations and indemnification of the cost
overruns.  

The settlement provides that in exchange for paying Concept
Centers $30,000, Concept Centers will waive the construction
cost overruns portion of its proof of claim which amount to
approximately $1.57 million.  


ERLY INDUSTRIES: Retains Jones Wright As New Accountants
--------------------------------------------------------
On July 31, 2001, Erly Industries, Inc., now known as Torchmail
Communications Inc., dismissed Postlethwaite & Netterville APAC,
as the principle accountant previously engaged to audit the
Company's financial statement. Effective August 1, 2001, the
Company retained Jones, Wright, Simkins and Associates as the
principal accountants to replace Postlethwaite. The Company's
audit committee and board of directors approved the change of
accountants from Postlethwaite to Jones.

The audit reports of Postlethwaite on the Company's financial
statements for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000 did not
contain any adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion, nor were
they qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope, or
accounting principles, except such reports were modified to
include an explanatory paragraph for a going concern
uncertainty.


F2 BROADCAST: Completes Assets Sales; Donald Edwards Joins Board
----------------------------------------------------------------
F2 Broadcast Network Inc. (OTCBB:FTWB) announced the completion
of their assets sales, the liquidation of all long term
obligations, and restructuring of the Board of Directors.

"The sale of these assets resulted in a substantial gain of
between 1.1 to 1.4 million, eliminates our outstanding long term
obligations, increased liquid assets by $577,000,and will have a
positive effect on earnings per share in the subsequent
reporting period."

"We are now in a position to concentrate on the growth of F2
through the licensing of the F2 Digital Content Manager,
additional Sports Content Web-casting and the acquisition of
additional digital content," said Howard Stern, CEO/President.

"The sale of these assets has resulted in a substantial gain of
between $1.1 to $1.4 million dollars. This will have a positive
effect on earnings per share in the subsequent reporting
period," continued Stern. The Company also announced the
addition of retired steel executive Donald Edwards, to the
Board of Directors. "We are extremely excited with the addition
of Don to the Board, he will function as the Chairman of our
newly formed Board of Advisors. We will continue to make
appointments of outside Board Members who bring us great
experience in business management," said Howard Stern.

                   About F2 Broadcast

F2 Broadcast Network is a provider of Internet video production
services specializing in the creation of turnkey solutions for
live, on demand, and archived convergent media. F2 Broadcast
delivers content via both high-speed Internet access and
satellite uplink. With satellite downlink facility in
Ft.Lauderdale, Florida, F2 Broadcast is uniquely positioned to
successfully produce and stream content from any location and
deliver it to the World Wide Web. F2 Broadcast Network is the
Internet Video Production Partner of PGA TOUR.com and their work
can be seen at http://www.pgatour.com


FACTORY CARD: Ninth Amendment to Postpetition Financing  
-------------------------------------------------------  
Factory Card Outlet Corp. and Factory Card Outlet of America
Ltd. seek an order approving the ninth amendment to that certain
Debtor in Possession Loan and Security Agreement with Wells
Fargo Retail Finance, LLC, which provides (a) for the extension
of the maturity date of the DIP Facility to February 1,  
2002, (b) an increase of the Facility Amount to $35 million (c)
an increase in the special subline advances, and (d)payment of
an Amendment Fee. The debtors request that the hearing date be
set for August 20, 2001 and the Objection Deadline be set for
August 15, 2001. Attorneys for the debtors are Daniel J. De
Franceschi and Michael J. Merchant of Richards, Layton & Finger,  
PA, Wilmington, DE and Richard Krasnow of Weil Gotshal & Manges
LLP, New York, NY.


FACTORY CARD: Asks Court To Extend Exclusive Period To Nov. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Factory Card Outlet Corp. and Factory Card Outlet of America
Ltd. seek an order extending the exclusive periods during which
the debtors may file a plan of reorganization and solicit
acceptances thereof.  

The debtors request a further extension of their Exclusive
Filing Period and their Exclusive Solicitation Period to an
including November 30, 2001 and February 1, 2002, respectively.
Since the last extension of the Exclusive Periods, the debtors
state that there have been major developments in the case. The
court approved the disclosure statement relating to the amended  
plan and the confirmation hearing was adjourned when Factory
Card Holdings, Inc. informed the debtors that it intended to
substitute the party that would be partially funding the plan.
As a result, the debtors need additional time to allow the new
investor sufficient time to conduct its due diligence and
negotiate with the Creditors' Committee and the Equity Committee
regarding a  consensual agreement on the plan and to explore a
plan alternative that is supported by the Equity Committee and
explore other alternative plans.  

The hearing date is set for August 20, 2001 at 1:30 PM.
Attorneys for the debtors are Daniel J. DeFranceschi and Michael
J. Merchant of Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Wilmington, DE and
Richard Krasnow of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY.  


FINOVA GROUP: Selling Realty Capital Loan Portfolio
---------------------------------------------------
The FINOVA Group, Inc. sought and obtained the Court's
authorization to sell and transfer substantially all of Realty
Capital bridge and long- term mortgage loan portfolio to the
prevailing bidder resulting from the Court-approved sale
procedures, free and clear of all liens, claims, interests and
encumbrances. At the Sale Hearing, FINOVA's counsel at Richards,
Layton & Finger, P.A. reported that at the Sealed Bid Auction,
Regency Savings Bank FSB was determined to be the winning
bidder. At the recommendation of Richards, Layton, and based
upon all evidence proffered, and the representations and
argument of counsel, the Court, after due deliberation, approved
the Purchase Agreement by and among the Seller and Regency in
all respects.

The Real Capital Loan Portfolio is one of the Debtors' lines of
business, representing 4% of the Debtors' total assets, with
approximately $390 million in total outstanding principal
balance. In October 1997, the Debtors purchased Belgravia
Capital Corporation and formed a subsidiary of FINOVA Capital
Corporation named FINOVA Realty Capital. Beginning in 1998,
Realty Capital began originating and funding commercial mortgage
backed security fixed rate loans structured and designed for
sale in the secondary mortgage market (the Fixed-Rate Loans).
Approximately a year later, Realty Capital began originating and
funding floating rate short term loans secured by real estate on
commercial properties (the Bridge Loans). In June 2000, Realty
Capital merged into FINOVA Capital Corporation and became one of
its lines of business. In the fourth quarter of 2000, the
Debtors decided to discontinue and liquidate the Realty Capital
line of business.

The Debtors' decision to sell Realty Capital was based upon the
strong value of the Fixed-Rate Loans and the Bridge Loans (the
Loan Portfolio) held by Realty Capital and the high likelihood
of generating substantial cash proceeds from the Loan Portfolio
within a short period of time at a relatively nominal discount
to net book value. The decision also accounted for the costs of
continuing to maintain such management intensive assets and the
amount of future funding relating to the Loan Portfolio.

The assets comprising the Loan Portfolio include (i) eleven
fully funded comercial mortgage backed security Fixed-Rate Loans
with an outstanding aggregate principal balance of approximately
$35 million, and (ii) thirty-four floating rate short term
Bridge Loans with an outstanding aggregate principal balance of
approximately $357 million and over $100 million in aggregate
future commitments. The Loan Portfolio accounts for
approximately 92% of the total assets of Realty Capital. The
remaining assets of Realty Capital include higher leverage loans
secured by real estate partnership interests, jointly funded
loans, other real estate assets, and a fixed rate hotel loan in
foreclosure. The Debtors intend to liquidate the remaining
assets of Realty Capital in the ordinary course of the Debtors'
business operations through motivated borrower discounts,
refinances, sales to other institutions or transfers of such
assets to one of the Debtors' operating lines of business.

The Purchase Agreement contemplates that Regency will purchase
all identified loan contracts in the Loan Portfolio and become
the lender thereunder, that Regency will assume, undertake and
discharge any and all obligations of the Debtors under the
Mortgage Loans, including, without limitation, contractual
obligations to (i) extend the maturity date of the Mortgage
Loans, (ii) disburse the Funding Obligations, Impounded Balances
and Third Party Escrow Balances and (iii) pay interest accruing
after the Closing Date on the Impound Balances, if required by
applicable loan documents or local law, and that Regency will
purchase the Loan Portfolio subject to affirmative defenses and
rights to setoff with respect to repayment obligations of
borrower parties to the Mortgage Loans in accordance with the
standards of applicable law and Folger Adam Security, Inc. v.
DeMatteis/MacGregor, JV, 209 F.3d 252 (3d Cir. 2000)
(collectively, the "Contract Defenses"), provided, however, that
nothing in the Purchase Agreement or the Court's Order will
constitute an admission on behalf of the Debtors or Regency as
to the nature of the Contract Obligations or the extent or
validity of the Contract Defenses.

The Court's order also provides that:

  --  The sale and transfer of the Loan Portfolio to the
      Purchaser is a transfer pursuant to section 1146(c) of the
      Bankruptcy Code and, accordingly, shall not be subject to
      taxation under any state or local law imposing a stamp,
      transfer or similar tax.

  --  The Purchase Agreement and any related agreements,
      documents or other instruments may be modified, amended or
      supplemented by the parties thereto in accordance with the
      terms thereof without further order of the Court, provided
      that any such modification, amendment or supplement does
      not have a material adverse effect on the Debtors or their
      estates.

  -- Pursuant to section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Loan
     Portfolio will be transferred and conveyed to the Purchaser
     upon the Closing Date and, except as expressly specified in
     the Purchase Agreement or the Sale Order, will be
     transferred free and clear of all Liens and Claims other
     than those related to Assumed Liabilities, Contract
     Obligations or Contract Defenses.

--  The Debtors are authorized to pay out of the Proceeds (i)
     ordinary and necessary costs of closing the sale of the
     Loan Portfolio; and (ii) the fee of Secured Capital Corp.
     as financial advisor and broker with respect to the sale of
     the Loan Portfolio.

--  Nothing in the Order will be deemed or construed to affect
     the existing rights under applicable law of borrowers under
     the Mortgage Loans to assert claims against the Debtors'
     estates stemming from or arising as a result of the
     Debtors' actions or omissions with respect to the Mortgage
     Loans prior to the Closing Date.

--  With the exception of any liabilities specifically assumed
     as Assumed Liabilities, Contract Obligations or Contract
     Defenses under the Purchase Agreement, all persons and
     entities holding Liens or Claims of any kind and nature
     against any of the Debtors or with respect to the Loan
     Portfolio arising under or out of or in connection with or
     in any way relating to the Debtors, are barred and enjoined
     from asserting such Liens and Claims against the Loan
     Portfolio or the Purchaser, its successors, assigns,
     affiliates, shareholders, members, officers, directors or
     trustees.

--  Except as otherwise expressly provided in the Purchase
     Agreement including, without limitation, with respect to
     the Assumed Liabilities, Contract Obligations or Contract
     Defenses, or as otherwise provided in the Sale Order, the
     Purchaser will have no liability or responsibility for any
     liability or other obligation of the Debtors arising under
     or related to the Loan Portfolio other than for the
     Purchase Price.

--  The sale and transfer of the Loan Portfolio does not and
     will not subject the Purchaser to any liability for claims
     against any Debtor or the Loan Portfolio by reason of such
     transfer under the laws of the United States, any state,
     territory or possession thereof or the District of Columbia
     applicable to such transactions. The Bankruptcy Court
     retains jurisdiction: (a) to enforce and implement the
     terms and provisions of the Purchase Agreement, all
     amendments thereto, any waivers and consents thereunder,
     and each of the agreements executed in connection
     therewith; (b) to compel delivery of the Loan Portfolio to
     the Purchaser under the terms and conditions of the
     Purchase Agreement; (c) to resolve any disputes arising
     under or related to the Purchase Agreement, except as
     otherwise provided therein; (d) to hear and determine any
     disputes relative to the Liens and Claims, and (e) to
     interpret, implement and enforce the provisions of this
     Sale Order.

--  The provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 6004(g) are waived and
     the Sale Order will be effective and enforceable
     immediately upon entry.

The Court's order also specifies that any objections to the Sale
Motion which have not been withdrawn, waived, or settled, and
all reservations of rights included therein, are overruled on
the merits.

Before the Sale received the blessing of the Court, several
objections were raised.

One of the objections was raised by IOP Limited One, a
California limited partnership and the obligor under a
promissory note to FINOVA Realty Capital. The IOP Loan was
intended as a "bridge loan" for the development of real property
in San Diego, California. The current outstanding balance of the
loan is more than $1 million. IOP Limited One objected to the
motion to sell the portfolio free and clear of any interest
under 11 U.S.C. Section 363(f) to the extent of the sale free
and clear of potential contract defenses. IOP Limited believes
it has outstanding contract defenses against enforcement of the
IOP Loan including fraud, rescission, and other defenses in the
nature of recoupment. IOP Limited One objected to the motion to
the extent the Debtors sought an order effectively eliminating
such defenses.

Austin Bryant Properties No. 7 L.P. objected to the extent that
the proposed procedures did not provide for the requirement that
any proposed bidder be required to agree to assume any and all
unfunded commitments related to the Portfolio. Austin is a New
York Limited Partnership that owns the Market Place Shopping
Center in Temple, Texas. The loans and advances were secured by,
among other things, a first mortgage on the Real Property as
well as an assignment of leases and rents from the Real
Property. Pursuant to the terms of the Bridge Loan Agreement,
FINOVA was obligated to make an initial advance to Austin at the
closing of approximately $13,098,000. The Bridge Loan Agreement
further provides that FINOVA was obligated to make certain
additional advances of up to $6,100,000 upon the satisfaction of
certain specified conditions and that such funds were to be
available for a period of up to 36 months after the loan
closing.

Austin alerted Judge Walsh that those bridge loan agreements,
under which there exist future commitments, may constitute
executory contracts under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. To
the extent they are executory contracts any proposed
assignee/purchaser would be obligated to assume the Debtors'
obligations thereunder and would be required to provide to the
other party to the contract adequate assurance of future
performance.

The Mall at IV objected to the sale and transfer of the Loan
Portfolio free and clear of all liens, claims, encumbrances and
interests. There is no legal basis, the Mall asserts, to permit
a sale of these loans free and clear of The Mall at IV's
substantial administrative expense claims.

The Mall at IV is the holder of the 100% interest in the
leasehold of a 134,000 square foot retail center located in
Paramus, New Jersey, which is subject to a long term ground
lease. On June 28, 2000, The Mall at IV entered into a loan
agreement with FINOVA Realty Capital, Inc. with a stipulated
maximum principal amount of $10,527,000, evidenced by a
Promissory Note in that amount in favor of FINOVA. Repayment of
the Loan is secured by the leasehold interest owned by The Mall
at IV. The loan was cross-defaulted with other loans made by
FINOVA to entities related to The Mall at IV, which include SP
Acquisition Associates, LLC, SP Acquisition Associates II, LLC
and SBS Acquisition Associates, LLC in the maximum principal
amount of $36,915,000. Pursuant to the Loan Agreement, The Mall
at IV says, if neither an event of default nor an incipient
default exists and the cash flow from the Property is
insufficient to make the interest payments due under the Note,
The Mall is entitled to obtain draws from an Interest Reserve
Fund until the Interest Reserve Fund has been exhausted. Upon
exhaustion of the Interest Reserve Fund, The Mall at IV was
required to pay FINOVA the monthly installments of interest due
under the Note in accordance with the terms of the Note. The
Mall at IV tells Judge Walsh that on April 5, 2001, it made a
written request to FINOVA requesting a draw from the Interest
Reserve Account in the amount of $514,129.97 but FINOVA has
failed and refused to disburse such funds in violation of the
provisions of the Loan Agreement.

The Mall also alleges that the Debtors are in default of the
terms of a $10,527,000 Promissory Note as a result of their
failure to extend the term of The Mall at IV's loan pursuant to
a written notice issued by The Mall at IV exercising its right
to extend the maturity date of the loan from July 1, 2001 to
January 1, 2001.

                       Sale Procedures

The Sale Procedures as approved by the Court are as follows:

(A) Loan Pools

   The Debtors offer the Loan Portfolio for sale (i) as a single
   portfolio consisting of all of the loans comprising the Loan
   Portfolio, and (ii) in certain "pools" (the "Loan Pools").

(B) Requests for Information

   Each Prospective Purchaser requests information relating to
   the Loan Portfolio, subject to a confidentiality agreement
   and provide such other information regarding the party as
   reasonably requested by the Debtors to establish that such
   party is qualified to bid on the Loan Portfolio. After this,
   the Prospective Purchaser will be provided an Offering
   Memorandum describing the sale and the Loan Portfolio,
   detailed information packages describing the mortgage loans
   comprising the Loan Portfolio, various updates regarding the
   Loan Portfolio and access to certain other due diligence
   materials pertaining to the Loan Portfolio.

(C) Purchase Agreement

   The Debtors distribute to each Prospective Purchaser a
   proposed form of Mortgage Loan Purchase and Sale Agreement
   (the "Purchase Agreement").

(D) Submission of Initial Offers; Bid Date

   Prospective Purchasers submit their Initial Offers

(E) Form of Initial Offer

   Each Prospective Purchaser submits an "Initial Offer" to
   purchase the Loan Portfolio or specified Loan Pools. Each
   Initial Offer should include: evidence reasonably acceptable
   to the Debtors, demonstrating that the Prospective Purchaser
   has the financial ability to close and consummate the sale
   transaction contemplated by the Initial Offer and satisfy the
   obligations to be assumed in connection therewith;

(F) Initial Offer Evaluation

   The Debtors evaluate the Initial Offers based upon a number
   of criteria including, without limitation, (i) the price
   offered, (ii) the comments to the Purchase Agreement, if any,
   (iii) the Prospective Purchaser's ability to perform within
   the time frame specified, (iv) the Prospective Purchaser's
   experience in purchasing commercial mortgage loans in the
   secondary market, (v) the Prospective Purchaser's
   creditworthiness and sources of financing for the
   acquisition, and (vi) other factors deemed relevant by the
   Debtors.

(G) Prevailing Offers

   The Debtors determine which Prospective Purchaser(s) have
   submitted the prevailing offer(s) and notify the Prospective
   Purchasers accordingly. Prior to announcing the Prevailing
   Offer(s), (i) the Debtors and the Prevailing Offeror(s) will
   finalize the Initial Offer and the Purchase Agreement, and
   (ii) the Prevailing Offeror(s) and the Debtors shall execute
   a final form of Purchase Agreement, which shall not be
   effective until authorized and approved by this Court (the
   "Final Purchase Agreement"). The Debtors retain the right to
   determine that none of the Initial Offers constitute an
   acceptable Prevailing Offer. Sale 4pproval Hearing.

(H) Sale Approval Hearing

(I) Closing

   Upon the Bankruptcy Court's authorization of the sale
   transaction, the Debtors and the Prevailing Offeror(s) shall
   close the sale in accordance with the terms of the Final
   Purchase Agreement(s) approximately 15 days after the
   Bankruptcy Court enters an order authorizing and approving
   the sale.

(J) Failure to Close on Prevailing Overbid

   If a Prevailing Offer is approved by the Court, but does not
   result in a sale in accordance with the terms of the Final
   Purchase Agreement and Paragraph I above, other than because
   of a default by the Debtors, then the Debtors may close on
   the next most advantageous Initial Offer, and such closing
   shall require no further order or action of the Court to do
   so.

The Debtors tell the Court that the Sale Procedures are designed
to replicate the manner in which loans are typically sold in the
secondary market. In this regard, the Debtors are advised by
Secured Capital that potential investors will be more likely to
submit their highest and best bid for the Loan Portfolio through
a sealed bid auction. The Debtors believe that investor
participation will be maximized by the sealed bid auction
because investors are familiar with the process and rely upon it
to preserve the confidentiality of certain pricing mechanisms
which may be used by such investors. Although not an open
auction, the Debtors believe that the Sale Procedures establish
a very competitive offering process which will result in pricing
exceeding that which would be obtained from an open auction.

                 Employment of Secured Capital

The transaction was accomplished with the assistance of Secured
Capital Corp. Following the Debtors' decision to liquidate the
Realty Capital line of business, the Debtors retained Secured
Capital as their financial advisor and broker to conduct the
marketing and sale of the Loan Portfolio.

FINOVA selected Secured Capital for the firm's good
qualifications, experience and track record in connection with
this kind of sale. Since its founding in 1990, Secured Capital
has completed over $22 billion of commercial mortgage and real
estate sales and financings, of which $14 billion involved the
sale of commercial, multifamily and hotel mortgage loans.
Secured Capital also has sold more commercial whole loan than
any other firm since 1990 and has virtually a 100% closure rate
on the mortgage transactions brought to market.

Since the petition date, the Debtors continued to utilize the
services of Secured Capital to sell the loan portfolio. As at
the Petition Date, the Debtors had paid Secured Capital $250,000
for services rendered and $217,922.04 for reimbursement of third
party expenses in accordance with the Engagement Letter, with no
other amounts due and owing to Secured Capital.
Contemporaneously with their motion to sell Realty Capital, the
Debtors sought and obtained the Court's approval for the
employment of Secured Capital nunc pro tunc to the petition date
(March 7, 2001).

The Engagement provides that Secured Capital's compensation will
relate primarily to the results obtained from different phases
of the Sale - Phase I, Phase II and Phase IIA.

Secured Capital agreed to perform Services in the different
phases as follows:

Phase I (services performed before the Petition Date) related to
the due diligence process;

Phase II

(services performed before the Petition Date)

(a) advise the Debtors of the proposed terms and structure of
    the sale;

(b) prepare pre-marketing materials to solicit purchaser
    interest and actively market the Loan Portfolio to potential
    investors;

(c) develop a list of potential purchasers, distribute
    introductory letters to potential purchasers and oversee
    updates that address potential purchasers' questions;

(d) coordinate with the Debtors' legal counsel regarding the
    preparation of an offering memorandum and distribute the
    offering memorandum to qualified parties;

(services performed with phase IIA services during chapter 11
cases)

(e) receive and analyze offers and present recommendations to
    Debtors;

(f) notify successful offers, assist in the negotiation of one
    or more purchase agreements, and if requested, assist in
    closing the sale;

Phase IIA

(a) participate in conference calls and meetings with the
    Debtors and their counsel to ascertain the various
    procedural options for the Loan Portfolio sale;

(b) broaden marketing efforts, advise the Debtors and their
    counsel of the marketing timeline, auction process
    (including appropriate overbid requirements) and purchase
    agreement documentation to be utilized, and review bid
    procedures as requested by the Debtors.

(c) be available to provide affidavits and, if necessary,
    testimony in support of the bid procedures;

(d) prepare for and participate in relevant hearings to the
    extent requested by the Debtors;

(e) update the due diligence materials and prepare an amended
    package of information to be furnished to investors;

(f) attend the auction and assist investor participation in the
    bid process and the auction.

As compensation, Secured Capital will receive a "Success Fee" at
the time of closing of the sale of any loan within the Loan
Portfolio or upon a "Discounted Payoff" which is defined as a
"prepayment in full satisfaction of a Loan by the borrower or
sale of the Loan to borrower, for an amount less than the full
amount of outstanding principal, accrued interest, prepayment
premium, and exit fee, if any, owed under the loan documents,
provided that, (i) in the case of a Loan with a Benchmark
Pricing Level greater than 98%, the Debtors may waive all or any
portion of the prepayment premium and such waiver will not
constitute a Discounted Payoff, and (ii) in the case of a loan
with a Benchmark Pricing Level less than or equal to 98%, the
Debtors may waive all or any portion of the prepayment premium
and the exit fee and such waiver will not constitute a
Discounted Payoff.

The Success Fee will be equal to the total of the product for
each increment of "Gross Sale Proceeds" and the applicable
percentage depending on the closing date. The Success Fee
Percentages are as follows:

                                If Closing       If Closing
                                On or before     after
Gross Sale Proceeds GSP         4/30/01          4/30/01
-----------------------        ------------     ----------
First $100 million of GSP      0.575%           0.375%
Next $200 million of GSP       0.43125%         0.28125%
All GSP above $300 million     0.2875%          0.1875%

The Engagement Letter further provides that Secured Capital will
receive an "Incentive Fee" of 7.5% of the amount by which the
aggregate Gross Sale Proceeds exceeds the aggregate "Benchmark
Pricing Amount" as that term is defined in the Engagement
Letter.

There is also a Phase IIA Fee subject to an aggregate limit of
$150,000 as follows: (i) a fee of $75,000 for the first month of
services following the Petition Date, and (ii) $50,000 per month
thereafter until bid procedures for the Sale are approved by the
Court. The Phase II Fee is intended to compensate Secured
Capital for updating materials and reevaluating certain Phase II
services as a result of pursuing the Sale during the chapter 11
cases. The Debtors believe this is relatively modest considering
the size and complexity of the Sale. The Phase IIA Fee will not
be credited to the Success Fee.

Under the Engagement Letter, Secured Capital may be entitled to
receive a "Termination Fee" from the Debtors if the Sale has not
been completed by September 30, 2001. The Termination Fee will
be $150,000 if no offers for the Loan Portfolio have been
received and $250,000 if offers have been received. The
Termination Fee will be credited against any future Success Fee
that becomes due if the Debtors continue to retain Secured
Capital to complete the Sale.

Finally, under the Engagement Letter, the Debtors will be
responsible for reimbursing Secured Capital for certain third
party marketing expenses, capped at $50,000, in connection with
the Sale, including (a) printing, reproduction and distribution
of updated marketing materials, and (b) travel. Additionally,
Secured Capital is entitled to reimbursement for third party
expenses to update due diligence materials (expected to
aggregate approximately $50,000) and advertising expenses
incurred in connection with the Sale.

The Debtors have advised Secured Capital that the fees and
expenses of Secured Capital are subject to the jurisdiction and
approval of the Bankruptcy Court under the Bankruptcy Code, the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the Local Bankruptcy
Rules and applicable orders of the Bankruptcy Court. (Finova
Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 11; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service,
Inc., 609/392-0900)


GC COMPANIES: Seeks To Extend Lease Decision Period To Sept. 5
--------------------------------------------------------------  
The debtors, GC Companies, Inc., et al. request that the US
Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, enter an order extending
to September 5, 2001 the date by which the debtors must assume
or reject unexpired leases.  

Harcourt General, Inc. formerly owned all of the equity
interests in GC Companies, Inc. and its subsidiaries, and may
have incurred various forms of secondary liability in respect of
a majority of the leases to which one or more of the debtors are
a party. Consequently, most of the debtors' leases are Harcourt
leases.  

Harcourt General has been attempting to mitigate its damages
with respect to the Harcourt Rejection Leases. Harcourt General
has made progress in its negotiations with landlords and has to
date directed the debtors to reject all but four of the Harcourt
Rejection Leases. Harcourt General has requested that the
debtors obtain an extension of the time to assume or reject the
remaining leases.  


GENESIS HEALTH: Obtains Approval of Solicitation Procedures
-----------------------------------------------------------
In preparation for seeking confirmation of the Plan of
Reorganization, Genesis Health Ventures, Inc. & The Multicare
Companies, Inc. sought and obtained the Court's approval,
pursuant to sections 105, 502, 1126, and 1128 of the Bankruptcy
Code, Rules 2002, 3003, 3017, 3018, and 3020 of the Bankruptcy
Rules, and Rules 3017-1 and 9013-1 of the Local Rules, of:

(1) the form and manner of the Notice of the Disclosure
    Statement Hearing as presented to the Court with the motion;

(2) (a) July 6, 2001 as the Record Date for voting purposes for
        holders of claims;

    (b) 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, on August 17, 2001
        as the Voting Deadline;

    (c) August 28, 2001 (and August 29, 2001, if necessary) as
        the date of the Confirmation Hearing;

(3) Notice and Objection Procedures for Confirmation of the
    Plan,

(4) the Solicitation Packages and procedures for distribution,

(5) the Ballot Forms and Voting Procedures, and

(6) the retention of Poorman-Douglas Corporation as Voting
    Agent.

                      The Record Date

The Court authorized that July 6, 2001 is the record date for
purposes of determining which creditors are entitled to vote on
the Plan.

                    Confirmation Hearing

The confirmation Hearing on the Plan will be conducted on August
28, 2001 (and August 29, 2001, if necessary. The Confirmation
Hearing may be continued from time to time by the Court or the
Debtors without further notice except for adjournments announced
in open court.

             Notice of the Confirmation Hearing

The Debtors will provide to all creditors and equity security
holders, simultaneously with the distribution of the
Solicitation Packages, a copy of the notice substantially in the
form as presented to the Court with the motion, setting forth
(i) the Voting Deadline for the submission of ballots to accept
or reject the Plan, (ii) the time fixed for filing objections to
confirmation of the Plan, and (iii) the time, date, and place
for the Confirmation Hearing.

In addition, the Debtors will publish the Confirmation Hearing
Notice, not less than 25 days before the Confirmation Hearing,
in the national editions of The Wall Street Journal, The New
York Times, and USA Today and the local editions of The Boston
Globe, The Baltimore Sun, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and The
Tampa Tribune.

The Debtors believe that publication of the Confirmation Hearing
Notice will provide sufficient notice of the Voting Deadline,
the time fixed for filing objections to confirmation of the
Plan, and the time, date, and place of the Confirmation Hearing
to persons who do not otherwise receive notice by mail as
provided for in the order approving this Motion.

           Procedures for Objections to the Plan

Pursuant to the Court's order, objections or proposed
modifications, if any, to confirmation of the Plan must

(1) be in writing,

(2) state the name and address of the objecting party and the
     amount and nature of the claim or interest of such party,

(3) state with particularity the basis and nature of any
    objection or proposed modification, and

(4) be filed, together with proof of service, with the Court and
    served so that they are received no later than 4:00 p.m.
    Eastern Time, on August 17, 2001 (which is 11 days prior to
    the requested date of the Confirmation Hearing) by

           (a) the Clerk of the Court,
           (b) attorneys for the Genesis Debtors,
           (c) attorneys for the Multicare Debtors,
           (d) attorneys the Agent,
           (e) attorneys for the Genesis Committee,
           (f) attorneys for the Multicare Committee, and
           (g) the U.S. Trustee.

The Debtors, the Agent, the Genesis Committee, and the Multicare
Committee may serve replies to such objections or proposed
modifications by no later than August 24, 2001 (4 days prior to
the Confirmation Hearing).

                 Solicitation Packages

The Debtors will mail or cause to be mailed the "Solicitation
Packages" containing copies of (i) the Order approving this
Motion and the Disclosure Statement, (ii) the Confirmation
Hearing Notice, and (iii) the approved form of the Disclosure
Statement (together with the Plan).

The Solicitation Package will not include the Plan Supplement.
The Debtors will separately file copies of the Plan Supplement
with the Court. In addition, the Agent, the Genesis Committee,
the Multicare Committee, the U.S. Trustee, the SEC, the IRS, the
DOJ, and the PBGC will be served with a copy of the Disclosure
Statement, the Plan, and the Plan Supplement.

Holders of claims in classes entitled to vote to accept or
reject the Plan will receive (i) an appropriate form of Ballot
and a Ballot return envelope, (ii) a letter from the Genesis
Committee recommending acceptance of the Plan, and (iii) such
other materials as the Court may direct. Consistent with
sections 1126(0 and (g) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy
Rule 3017(d), Solicitation Packages for holders of claims
against or interests in any Debtor placed within a class under
the Plan that is deemed to accept or reject the Plan under
section 1126(f) or (g) of the Bankruptcy Code will not include a
Ballot. Instead, the Solicitation Packages for such holders of
claims and interests will include a Notice of Non-Voting Status.

Solicitation Packages will not be sent to creditors by virtue of
claims scheduled and paid in full by the Debtors. The Debtors
will not distribute copies of the Plan and Disclosure Statement
to any holder of an unimpaired claim, or party to an executory
contract who does not hold either an allowed filed or a
scheduled claim or who holds a scheduled claim listed as
contingent, unliquidated, or disputed, unless such party makes a
specific request in writing.

The Debtors are excused from sending Solicitatioin Packages to
addresses from which the Disclosure Statement Notices were
returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable
unless the Debtors are provided with accurate addresses for the
entities before July 16, 2001.

                     Voting Procedures

The appropriate Ballot forms will be distributed to

(i)  certain holders of claims in Classes Gl (Genesis Other
     Secured Claims), Ml (Multicare Other Secured Claims),

(ii) G2 (Genesis Senior Lender Claims), G4 (Genesis General
     Unsecured Claims), G5 (Genesis Senior Subordinated Note
     Claims), M2 (Multicare Senior Lender Claims), and M4
     (Multicare General Unsecured Claims) and M5 (Multicare
     Senior Subordinated Note Claims) under the Plan, as these
     classes are entitled to vote to accept or reject the Plan.

With respect to the Ballots that will be sent to holders of
claims in Class G5 (Genesis Senior Subordinated Note Claims),
M1-7 (Multicare Other Secured Claims -- Point Pleasant Bonds),
and M5 (Multicare Senior Subordinated Note Claims), the Debtors
will send Ballots to record holders of the Genesis Senior
Subordinated Note Claims, the Point Pleasant Bonds, and the
Multicare Senior Subordinated Note Claims, including, without
limitation, brokers, banks, dealers, or other agents or nominees
(collectively, the "Master Ballot Agents"). Each Master Ballot
Agent would be entitled to receive reasonably sufficient copies
of Ballots to distribute to the beneficial owners of the claims
for whom such Master Ballot Agent holds the Genesis Senior
Subordinated Note Claims, and the Multicare Senior Subordinated
Claims, and the Debtors will be responsible for each such Master
Ballot Agent's reasonable costs and expenses associated with the
distribution of copies of Ballots to the beneficial owners of
such claims and tabulation of the Ballots. Additionally, each
Master Ballot Agent will receive returned Ballots from the
beneficial owners, tabulate the results, and return, inter alia,
such results to Poorman Douglas in a Master Ballot by the Voting
Deadline. The Master Ballot Agents will complete the Master
Ballots according to the instructions set forth in the Master
Ballots.

The Court authorized that Ballots need not be provided to:

(1) unimpaired claims in Classes Gl (Genesis Other Secured
    Claims) and Ml (Multicare Other Secured Claims) because they
    are presumed to accept the Plan,

(2) Classes G3 (Genesis Priority Non-Tax Claims), G6 (Genesis
    Intercompany Claims), M3 (Multicare Priority Non-Tax
    Claims), and M6 (Multicare Intercompany Claims) because they
    are unimpaired and, therefore, conclusively presumed to
    accept the Plan, and

(3) Classes G7 (Genesis Punitive Damage Claims), G8 (Genesis
    Series G Preferred Stock Interests), G9 (Genesis Series H
    Preferred Stock Interests), G10 (Genesis Series I Preferred
    Stock Interests), G11 (Genesis Common Stock Interests), M7
    (Multicare Punitive Damage Claims), and M8 (Multicare Common
    Stock Interests) because they will retain and receive no
    property under the Plan and, therefore, are deemed to reject
    the Plan.

The Debtors will send "Notice of Non-Voting Status" to

(1) holders of unimpaired claims in Classes G1 and Ml,

(2) holders of claims in Classes G3, G6, G7, G8, G9, G10, G11,
    M3, M6, M7 and M8 which are not entitled to vote under the
    Plan, and

(3) holders of the Debtors' publicly traded stock as reflected
    in the records maintained by the Debtors' Transfer Agent(s)
    as of the close of business on the Record Date, which
    include, without limitation, the brokers, dealers,
    commercial banks, trust companies, or other nominees
    (collectively, the Nominee Stockholders) through which the
    beneficial owners (collectively, the Beneficial
    Stockholders) hold stock, and each Nominee Stockholder will
    be entitled to receive reasonably sufficient copies of
    Notices of Non-Voting Status to distribute to the Beneficial
    Stockholders for whom such Nominee Stockholders hold stock,
    and the Debtors will be responsible for each such Nominee
    Stockholders' reasonable costs and expenses associated with
    the distribution of copies of Notices of Non-Voting Status
    to the Beneficial Stockholders. The Nominee Stockholders
    will distribute the Notices of Non-Voting Status to the
    Beneficial Stockholders within 3 days of receipt of such
    notices from the Debtors.

All Ballots and Master Ballots must be properly executed,
completed, and delivered to Poorman-Douglas (i) by mail, (ii) by
overnight courier, (iii) by personal delivery, so that they are
received by Poorman-Douglas no later than 5:00 p.m., Pacific
Time, on August 17, 2001 (the Voting Deadline).

The Court directs that, solely for the purpose of voting to
accept or reject the Plan and not for the purpose of the
allowance of, or distribution on account of, a claim, and
without prejudice to the rights of the Debtors in any other
context, each claim within a class of claims entitled to vote to
accept or reject the Plan will be temporarily allowed in an
amount equal to the amount of such claim as set forth in a
timely filed proof of claim, or if no proof of claim was filed,
the amount of such claim as set forth in (i) the Genesis
Debtors' schedules of assets and liabilities dated October 19,
2000, or any amendment thereof, or (ii) the Multicare Debtors'
schedules of assets and liabilities dated October 19, 2000, or
any amendment thereof, provided that:

   (a) If a claim is deemed allowed in accordance with the Plan,
       such claim is allowed for voting purposes in the deemed
       allowed amount set forth in the Plan;

   (b) If a claim for which a proof of claim has been timely
       filed is marked as contingent, unliquidated, or disputed,
       the Debtors propose that such claim be temporarily
       allowed for voting purposes only, and not for purposes of
       allowance or distribution, at $1.00;

   (c) If a claim has been estimated or otherwise allowed for
       voting purposes by order of the Court, such claim is
       temporarily allowed in the amount so estimated or allowed
       by the Court for voting purposes only, and not for
       purposes of allowance or distribution;

   (d) If a claim is listed in the Schedules as contingent,
       unliquidated, or disputed and a proof of claim was not
       (i) filed by the applicable bar date for the filing of
       proofs of claim established by the Court or (ii) deemed
       timely filed by an order of the Court prior to the Voting
       Deadline, unless the Debtors have consented in writing,
       the Debtors propose that such claim be disallowed for
       voting purposes and for purposes of allowance and
       distribution pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3003(c); and

   (e) If the Debtors have served an objection to a claim at
       least 10 days before the Voting Deadline, the Debtors
       propose that such claim be temporarily disallowed for
       voting purposes only and not for purposes of allowance or
       distribution, except to the extent and in the manner as
       may be set forth in the objection.

The Court directs that, if a claimant seeks to challenge the
allowance of its claim for voting purposes in accordance with
the above procedures, such claimant is directed to serve on the
Debtors and file with the Court on or before the 10th day after
the later of (i) service of the Confirmation Hearing Notice and
(ii) service of notice of an objection, if any, to such claim, a
motion for an order pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3018(a)
temporarily allowing such claim in a different amount for
purposes of voting to accept or reject the Plan. Such creditor's
Ballot will not be counted unless temporarily allowed by the
Court for voting purposes after notice and a hearing.

Any Ballot that does not indicate an acceptance or rejection of
the Plan, or indicates both an acceptance and rejection will not
be counted.

If no votes to accept or reject the Plan are received with
respect to a particular class, such class is deemed to have
voted to accept the Plan.

If a creditor casts more than one Ballot voting the same claim
before the Voting Deadline, the last Ballot received before the
Voting Deadline is deemed to reflect the voter's intent and thus
to supersede any prior Ballots.

Creditors must vote all of their claim(s) within a particular
class under the Plan, whether or not such claims are asserted
against the same or multiple Debtors, either to accept or reject
the Plan and may not split their vote(s), and thus a Ballot that
partially rejects and partially accepts the Plan will not be
counted.

The following types of Ballots will not be counted:

(1) any Ballot received after the Voting Deadline unless the
    Debtors grant an extension of the Voting Deadline;

(2) any Ballot that is illegible or contains insufficient
    information to permit the identification of the claimant or
    interest holder;

(3) any Ballot cast by a person or entity that does not hold a
    claim in a class that is entitled to vote to accept or
    reject the Plan;

(4) any Ballot cast for a claim identified as unliquidated,
    contingent, or disputed for which no proof of claim was
    timely filed;

(5) any unsigned Ballot; and

(6) any Ballot transmitted to Poorman-Douglas by facsimile.

         Retention of Poorman-Douglas as Voting Agent

The Debtors have in excess of 23,000 potential creditors. To
accomplish in the most effective and efficient manner the
process of receiving, compiling, and tabulating the Ballots
submitted by these creditors with respect to the Plan, the
Debtors sought and obtained to engage Poorman-Douglas
Corporation, an independent third party, to act as their voting
agent.

                          *   *   *

The Court authorized the Debtors to make unsubstantive changes
to the Disclosure Statement, the Plan and related documents
without further order of the Court and to make conforming
changes among the Disclosure Statement, the Plan, and any other
materials in the Solicitation Package prior to their mailing.
(Genesis/Multicare Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 12; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)


GENTEK INC.: Reports Q2 Loss And Amends Senior Credit Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
For the three months ended June 30, 2001, GenTek Inc. (NYSE: GK)
reported revenues of $319.5 million, compared with $364.9
million in the corresponding period of last year. Excluding the
restructuring and impairment and other charges, earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) were
$36.0 million, compared with $67.5 million in the second quarter
of 2000.

The company's second-quarter results were negatively impacted by
the severe downturn in the U.S. telecommunications industry, as
well as by lower volumes and pricing in the North American
automotive industry relative to the second quarter of 2000.

On a sequential basis, the company reported improved operating
results in both the manufacturing and performance-products
segments, primarily driven by lower costs.

In response to current adverse market conditions, GenTek
recorded in the second quarter restructuring and impairment and
other charges totaling $150.8 million ($100.8 million after
tax). Included in this amount are charges related to asset
impairments, severance, plant closures, discontinuation of
certain product lines, and receivable and inventory writedowns.

As a result of the restructuring and cost reduction programs,
the company will reduce its workforce by approximately 1,700
employees, or 16 percent. The workforce reductions will
primarily impact GenTek's communications and manufacturing
segments and are expected to be essentially completed by year-
end. The total cash outlay in conjunction with these charges is
expected to be about $15 million. Savings resulting from the
restructuring and cost reduction programs are anticipated to
exceed $25 million annually.

According to GenTek Chairman Paul Montrone, "The restructuring
charge reflects the extensive actions we are taking to align
GenTek's headcount and infrastructure with current economic
conditions. In particular, our aggressive ramp-up of
manufacturing and salaried personnel in the communications
segment last year was predicated on continued strong growth.
The restructuring activities will 'right size' our businesses
and immediately position GenTek for improved operating
performance. Our businesses are fundamentally sound and we are
optimistic about our ability to deliver future earnings growth."

The company also amended its senior credit facility through Dec.
31, 2002. The amendment provides for additional financial
covenant flexibility in exchange for, among other things, more
restrictive other covenants, including limitations on
acquisitions.

"We are very pleased that GenTek was able to amend its credit
agreement in advance of any potential covenant issues with
strong support from our bank and institutional lenders," added
Montrone.

The company recorded a net loss of $102.4 million, or ($4.03)
per diluted share, for the second quarter. Excluding the
restructuring and other charges, the net loss was $1.6 million,
or $(0.06) per diluted share, compared with net income of $21.1
million, or $0.82 per diluted share, in the second quarter of
2000.

For the first six months of 2001, GenTek posted sales of $659.4
million, compared with sales of $707.7 million in the
corresponding period of last year. Excluding the restructuring
and other charges, net income was $0.9 million, or $0.04 per
diluted share, compared with $30.8 million, or $1.25 per diluted
share, in the first six months of 2000, and EBITDA was $78.4
million compared with $121.2 million in the same period last
year.

GenTek Inc. is a technology-driven manufacturer of
telecommunications equipment and other products.
Additional information on GenTek is available online at
http://www.gentek-global.com


HEARME: Discloses Management Shake Up & Nasdaq Appeal Withdrawal
----------------------------------------------------------------
HearMe (Nasdaq:HEAR) announced executive level management
changes and withdrawal of its Nasdaq appeal as part of its
previously announced plan for an orderly close of normal
business operations.

Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Rob Csongor, 39, and Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) Linda Palmor, 46, have stepped down from
their respective positions as part of the wind down process.
Moving forward, Mr. Csongor will continue to serve on HearMe's
Board of Directors.

Effective immediately, HearMe Chief Technology Officer (CTO)
James Schmidt, 48, will serve as CEO and manage the wind down
initiatives that include a potential sale of assets and
settlement of liabilities. Mr. Schmidt has also been appointed
to HearMe's Board of Directors, occupying a vacancy created
by the resignation of David Brown as a Director of HearMe. Joyce
Keshmiry, 55, HearMe's Corporate Controller, will serve as CFO.

In addition, the Company also announced that it will not pursue
the 10-for-1 reverse stock split that it previously proposed to
submit for stockholder approval at the Annual Meeting.
Accordingly, the Company is withdrawing its request for review
of a NASD staff determination to discontinue the trading of the
Company's common stock on the Nasdaq National Market. The
Company expects that its common stock will begin trading on the
OTC Bulletin Board.

The Company's Board of Directors is currently in the process of
reviewing a wind down plan which, upon approval, will be
presented to the Company's stockholders for approval.

                       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 http://www.hearme.com


ICG COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Claims & Assumes Contract With Qwest
----------------------------------------------------------------
ICG Communications, Inc. asks Judge Walsh's approval of a
settlement agreement with Qwest Communications Corporation, his
authorization to modify the stay to permit setoff, and for the
Debtors' assumption of executory contracts with Qwest.  The
Debtors say that Qwest is one of the largest and most well-known
companies in the telecommunications industry. Before the
Petition Date, the Debtors and Qwest developed a number of
important and mutually valuable business relationships, governed
by a plethora of contracts.  These contracts include agreements
pertaining both to the Debtors' internet service provider
business and their operations as a competitive local exchange
carrier, or "CLEC".

Specifically, the Debtors are party with Qwest to a number of
contracts and equipment leases which include:

       (a) two Switched Access Service Agreements dated August
29, 1995, and September 20, 1995, under which ICG Telecom Group,
Inc., provides switched access services to Qwest in various
metropolitan areas;

       (b) a Fiber Optic Lease Agreement dated June 20, 1996,
under which both Telecom and Qwest lease fiber optic systems
between Akron and Cleveland, Ohio;

       (c) three IRU Agreements dated June 20, 1997, June 25,
1999, and January 5, 2000, between ICG Equipment, Inc., and
Qwest under which indefeasible rights to use certain optical
fibers were granted;

       (d) a Capacity Lease Agreement dated June 25, 1999, under
which Qwest leases a fiber optic services from Telecom;

       (e) an Equipment Purchase Agreement dated June 29, 1999,
under which Qwest sold various telecommunications hardware and
software to Equipco;

       (f) an Arbitrated Interconnection Agreement of the State
of Colorado dated October 27, 2000, under which in the State of
Colorado:

             (i) U.S. West Communications Inc., predecessor in
interest to Qwest, provides telecommunications services for
resale to Telecom; and

             (ii) both Qwest and Telecom provide interconnection
and reciprocal compensation for the exchange of certain
telecommunications services;

       (g) two Remote Access Services Agreements dated June 29,
1999, and June 29, 2000, under which Telecom and certain of its
subsidiaries provide Primary Rate Interface services to Qwest;
and

       (h) a Master Agreement for Dialtone Services between
Interprises America, Inc., an affiliate of Qwest, and Telecom,
dated April 1, 1998, under which Telecom provides additional PRI
services to Qwest.

Both the Debtors and Qwest have asserted various breaches of,
and claims under, these prepetition agreements.  Following
lengthy negotiations, the parties have agreed, in order to
continue a cooperative, mutually beneficial relationship, to
avoid potentially costly litigation, and to provide valuable
benefits to the Debtors' estates and to Qwest, to enter into a
global settlement resolving all of the claims and issues between
the parties.

By Motion, the Debtors seek approval of the settlement agreement
with Qwest and authority to enter into all appropriate and
necessary documentation to make the settlement effective.  
Specifically, the Debtors hereby seek entry of an order:

       (a) authorizing the assumption of certain of the
prepetition agreements, as amended,

       (b) authorizing the Debtors to enter into new agreements
with Qwest,

       (c) approving the effectuation of certain setoff rights,

       (d) authorizing waivers of certain claims both by and
against the Debtors, and

       (e) providing for Qwest to pay to the Debtors $10 million
in cash.

The relief requested in this Motion involves, in some instances,
different Debtor entities.  If this Motion is granted, it will
be without prejudice to the rights of one Debtor's estate vis-.-
vis another to seek inter-company adjustments based upon the
benefits received under the Settlement Agreement, as the Court
may at a later date determinate appropriate.

A summary of the principal components of the Settlement
Agreement are:

                  The 2000 IRU

Under the 2000 IRU, Equipco agreed to provide Qwest with an
indefeasible right to use a fiber optic network.  Network use
and related services were to be provided to Qwest for six years.  
The 2000 IRU provided for Qwest to pay approximately $145
million to Equipco as compensation, of which approximately $126
million was paid. Significant portions of this network had to be
constructed by Equipco, but, in fact, such construction was not
completed and as a result Equipco has not provided the services
to Qwest under the 2000 IRU.

Absent a settlement, Equipco would likely reject the 2000 IRS
because (a) significant additional capital would be required to
finish construction of this network, and (b) after doing so,
Equipco would receive no fees or revenue from Qwest form the
ongoing provision of services because the majority of such fees
were prepaid by Qwest before the Petition Date and the balance
of moneys owed by Qwest are subject to valid setoff rights.  
Upon rejection of the 2000 IRU, Qwest has indicated it would
assert a damage claim for at least $156 million - the amount of
payments made to Equipco for which services would not have been
provided.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Debtors have agreed to
assume the 2000 IRU, but only after it is amended to:

       (a) modify the network requirements to be provided to
Qwest; and

       (b) require Qwest to fully fund the approximately $12.7
million in capital required to complete construction.

Essentially, Qwest will pay for the completion of the network,
and then receive the use of that network for the six-year period
set out in the agreement.  While the provision of these services
to Qwest will not provide additional cash revenue for Equipco
(or additional costs since the only material costs are to build
the network initially), assuming the 2000 IRU as amended will
eliminate Qwest's claim for rejection damages, which could
exceed $156 million, and require no capital or other expenditure
by the Debtors.  The Settlement Agreement also contains
provisions to ensure that the funds provided by Qwest can only
be used to build out this network.

     Resolution and Setoff of Certain Prepetition Claims

Prior to the Petition Date, Qwest purported to effectuate the
setoff of certain mutual debts that arose before the Petition
Date.  The Debtors have contested the validity of certain of
these purported setoffs. Following a review of its books and
records and negotiations between the parties, the Debtors have
agreed that Qwest has a valid right to setoff in accordance with
the Bankruptcy Code of:

       (a) $21,741,577 due to Equipco under the 2000 IRU (prior
to its amendment and assumption described above) against
$23,741,577 Equipco owes Qwest under the 1999 IRU; and

       (b) $6,748,373.20 owed by Telecom to Qwest against
$14,733,069.34 owed by Qwest to Telecom under the Colorado
Interconnect.

Thus, under the Settlement Agreement, those setoffs are
consented to by the Debtors.

      Resolution of Remaining IRU Agreement Claims

The 1997 and 1999 IRUs provide for Equipco to be granted long-
term indefeasible rights to use certain network assets by Qwest.  
The Debtors believe that such agreements constitute financing
arrangements, based upon the length of the agreements and below-
market purchase options granted to Equipco thereunder at the end
of the respective terms.  The 19987 and 1999 IRUs are currently
reflected as capital leases on Equipco's books and records.  
Qwest reserves its rights with regard to such characterization.  
Equipco paid the majority of the lease/purchase price thereunder
to Qwest before the Petition Date - in excess of $216 million.  
After giving effect to he IRU setoff described above, Equipco
remains obligated to Qwest for approximately $38 million more in
payments under the 1997 and 1999 IRUs, which amounts the Debtors
assert constitute general unsecured claims.  Under the
Settlement Agreement, the IRU claims will be waived, after being
reduced by $20 million, in exchange for the transfer of title of
certain assets to Qwest under the Settlement Agreement.

In addition, because the 1997 and 1999 IRUs contain certain
provisions (such as maintenance, repair and licensing), which
are beneficial to the Debtors, the Debtors have agreed to amend
and assume both of the IRUs so as to allow the beneficial
aspects to continue for the term of the agreements.

                        PRI Agreements

The PRI Agreements are executory contracts under which Telecom
and certain of its subsidiaries sells services to Qwest.  
Thereunder, Telecom provides internet access to Qwest, which in
turn sells such access to its customers.  Under these
agreements, Telecom sells two types of access to Qwest:  PRI and
private label remote access services.  In addition, not all of
the circuits to be sold to Qwest under the existing PRI
Agreements are in fact being provided to, and paid for by,
Qwest.  PLRAS differs from PRI (which is also known as
remote access services) in that it provides more of the
components necessary to complete an internet connection by
adding hardware to the PRI provided to the customer.  As such,
PLRAS is more expensive to provide and, accordingly, the fee for
such service is higher than that charged for PRI.

A significant percentage of the Debtors' overall revenue stream
is derived from the sale of PRI and PLRAS products to customers.  
There are a relatively small number of third parties - of which
Qwest is one - that are potential customers for these services
on a large-scale basis.  Accordingly, it is extremely beneficial
to the Debtors' estates and the value of their businesses to
solidify their relationships with large customers and, if
possible, to increase the amount of PRI or PLRAS products sold
to (and thus paid for by) these customers.  Of course, no such
customers or potential customers can be required to buy more
services from the Debtors.

Under the Settlement Agreement:

       (a) the existing PRI Agreements will be assumed after
being amended to:

             (i) primarily provide PRI rather than PLRAS;

            (ii) modify the rate structure to charge Qwest a
                 reduced rate; and

           (iii) require Qwest to utilize currently unused
                 service amounts contemplated under the existing
                 contracts; and

       (b) Telecom and Qwest will enter into a new, five-year
PRI agreement under which Qwest will purchase sufficient
additional services from Telecom to guarantee additional monthly
revenue of $2.1 million for the first 36 months of the
agreement, and $1.2 million for the remaining 24 months.

The net result of the modification of the existing PRI
Agreements and the entry into the new agreement is that the
Debtors' monthly revenue from the sale of internet services to
Qwest will increase by approximately $1.9 million per month for
the next 36 months, and $1 million for the subsequent 24 months.

In light of the change in the type of service provided for under
the existing PRI Agreements from PLRAS to PRI, certain equipment
currently owned by Equipco solely to provide PLRAS to Qwest will
be unnecessary for the Debtors' operations.  Such equipment
will, however, be useful to Qwest.  In fact, this equipment was
purchased by Equipco originally to enable the sale of PLRAS
services to Qwest.  Under the Settlement Agreement, Equipco will
transfer title to that equipment to Qwest.  The ascribed value
of this equipment is $20 million, and thus Qwest will reduce its
claim against Equipco by $20 million (from $38 million to $18
million), before waiving the balance of that claim.  (The value
of the equipment currently on Equipco's books is $21.5 million.  
The Debtors believe that the equipment has a fair market value
of substantially less, and that as a practical matter the
equipment has little resale value other than as part of a
transaction with Qwest.) This equipment is, however, presently
subject to liens in favor of the Debtors' prepetition secured
lenders, the Debtors' DIP lenders, and to some extent,
potentially, Cisco Systems, Inc., the company from which some of
the equipment was purchased.  Accordingly, the Settlement
Agreement does not require the equipment to be transferred to
Qwest at this time.  The Debtors will transfer title to Qwest
when, and only after, all such liens are satisfied or the
lienholders consent.  In the interim, the Debtors will provide
Qwest or its designated vendor with reasonable access to the
equipment for maintenance, inspection and other purposes.

                 Capacity Lease Agreement

Under the Capacity Lease Agreement, Telecom provides Qwest with
certain "point to point" access to the Debtors'
telecommunications lines for a period of 10 years.  Payment for
the services under the agreement was accomplished through two
methods.  First, Qwest prepaid approximately $32 million at the
outset of the agreement for a portion of the "point to point"
connections and was entitled to work off such prepayment under
an amortization schedule with a rate of $266,693 per month.
Second, Qwest is entitled to use other "point to point"
connections for which Qwest pays Telecom in cash according to
usage rates set forth in the agreement.  There is no minimum
usage requirement with regard to either of these services and
thus, absent a settlement, Qwest could cease utilizing these
services at any time, and eliminate over $1 million in monthly
cash revenues that Telecom currently receives.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Capacity lease Agreement
will be amended and assumed by the Debtors.  Under the amended
agreement, the term of the agreement will be extended by 36
months and Qwest will increase the amount of services paid for
via amortization of its $32 million prepayment by $100,000 per
month (to $366,693 per month). In turn, Qwest will be required
to utilize the pay for in cash an amount of services equal to
75% of the current usage level under the current agreement for
the initial term of 36 months.  Essentially this will "lock in"
approximately $800,000 of monthly revenue for Telecom that
currently could evaporate at any time.

                 Valley Route Rack Space

Under the 1997 IRU, Qwest was to provide the Debtors with "rack
space" (i.e., use of space for equipment in facilities owned or
leased by Qwest in various parts of California.  Equipco was to
pay for such space based on market rates.  Equipco did not, in
fact, utilize this space, and the parties dispute the reasons
for this non-use.

Under the Settlement Agreement. Qwest will provide rack space
(where indicated by the Debtors as needed), and will do so free
of charge for five years.  The Debtors believe that such access
ensures that the Debtors will be able to continue to conduct
operations along such segment and therefore provides a
significant benefit to their estates. Approximate cost savings
are $400,000 over the five-year term.

             Resolution of the Interconnect Claim

Qwest owes Telecom various amounts under the Colorado
Interconnect, after giving effect to the setoff described above.  
These amounts are comprised of:

       (a) approximately $19 million in charges for "toll"
reciprocal compensation (reciprocal compensation is payment from
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers to the Debtors for the
termination of calls from ILEC customers over the Debtors'
telecommunication lines); and

       (b) approximately $8 million in "local" reciprocal
compensation.

Qwest vigorously contests the validity of certain aspects of the
reciprocal compensation portion of the Debtors' claim.  (The
billing and payment of such reciprocal compensation is a much-
litigated issue in the telecommunications field and is the
subject of numerous and often contradictory opinions by state
and federal courts.)  Under the Settlement Agreement, Qwest will
pay $10 million in cash to Telecom in full satisfaction of all
claims arising under the Colorado Interconnect as of the
Petition Date, including claims regarding reciprocal
compensation.  As a result, the Debtors will receive, without
further delay or litigation expense, $10 million in cash.
Further, the parties have agreed to re-rate reciprocal
compensation chares in the future in accord with applicable
rulings and decisions regarding reciprocal compensation and to
retroactively apply such rates to all reciprocal compensation
billings arising after the Petition Date.

                       Mutual Release

The Settlement Agreement provide for mutual releases of all
claims, other than those expressly addressed by the Settlement
Agreement, existing between the parties as of he Petition Date
and any termination charges, whether arising prior to or after
the Petition Date, under the Interprises PRI Contract.  This
provides finality an certainty to the Debtors' estates with
regard to the Qwest claims by ensuring that the Debtors' estates
will not be encumbered with lengthy and costly litigation
regarding any of the issues arising from the Qwest Agreements.

            The Debtors Argue the Settlement Agreement
                     Should Be Approved

The Debtors argue that the approval and implementation of the
Settlement Agreement is in the best interest of the Debtors,
their estates and their creditors.  The Debtors, their estates
and their creditors receive significant benefit from the
Settlement Agreement, including:

       (a) the elimination of unsecured claims exceeding $230
million;

       (b) the immediate receipt of $10 million in cash; and

       (c) implementation of new and modified contacts of the
provision of various services to Qwest resulting in elimination
of the risk that current revenue levels could materially
decrease, and instead increasing monthly revenue from Qwest by
over $1.9 million per month for the next 36 months, and over $1
million for the following 24 months.

Perhaps most importantly, the Settlement Agreement allows the
Debtors to continue to have a highly beneficial and valuable go-
forward working relationship with one of their largest customers
- one of the largest and most influential companies in the
telecommunications industry worldwide.

In contrast, absent the Settlement Agreement, the Debtors would
be required to litigate the myriad of claims arising from the
Qwest Agreements, could lose significant revenue, would subject
these estates to material additional unsecured claims that would
dilute the ultimate recoveries to other creditors, and would
certainly damage, perhaps irreparably, a critical and important
customer relationship.  Thus, the Debtors believe that
resolution of the claims and issues resolved by the Settlement
Agreement provides a significant benefit to the Debtors,
their estates and creditors, and is in their best interests.
(ICG Communications Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 8; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)


INSCI-STATEMENTS: Reports Losses & Improved EBITDA in Q1 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------
insci-statements.com, Corp. (OTC Bulletin Board: INSI), doing
business as INSCI, a provider of scalable digital document
repository solutions that provide high-volume document capture,
warehousing and delivery functions, announced that as a result
of management's revised operating plan and the introduction of
several cost reduction programs, the Company reduced its net
loss for the fiscal year 2002 first quarter ended June 30, 2001
by 91 percent from the year-earlier period and 92 percent from
the 2001 fiscal fourth quarter ended March 31, 2001.

Revenues for the 2002 fiscal year's first quarter were $2.5
million with a net loss applicable to common shareholders of
$224,000, or a $0.01 loss per share. This compares to revenues
of $2.9 million with a net loss applicable to common
shareholders of $2.4 million, or a loss per share of $0.17 for
the prior year period. Sequentially, revenues rose 28 percent
over fourth quarter revenues of $1.9 million with a net loss
applicable to common shareholders of $2.7 million, or a loss per
share of $0.17.

INSCI President and CEO Henry F. Nelson commented, "We are
pleased with the substantial progress we have made in achieving
our two most immediate goals: increasing revenues and reducing
expenses. Despite the financial constraints under which we are
operating, we continue to push our current business plan
forward. We are working hard to achieve strategic alliances,
partnerships or other business combinations that should lead to
an enhancement of shareholder value, while continuing to satisfy
our customers and maintain our technological leadership position
through the introduction of new and enhanced products. I would
like to thank our employees for their hard work and devotion
which has been instrumental to this progress."

During the quarter, total expenses were reduced 50 percent from
the year-earlier period and 41 percent from the fiscal 2001
fourth quarter. Sales and marketing expenses were reduced 42
percent and general and administrative expenses were reduced 31
percent from last year's first quarter. To further reduce and
contain costs, the Company has reduced its employee count to 54
employees from 115 employees in the year-earlier period. Cash
flow as measured by EBITDA was approximately $60,000 for the
quarter, a marked turnaround from the negative $2.0 million in
the year-ago quarter.

In June 2001, INSCI closed a convertible debt facility of up to
$700,000. The Company has drawn $250,000 of the facility with an
additional $100,000 scheduled to be received, if required, upon
completion of several post-closing items. INSCI can draw on the
remainder of the facility at the discretion of the lender and
upon attaining certain operating milestones.

                       About INSCI

insci-statements.com, Corp., doing business as INSCI, is a
leading- provider of highly scalable digital document repository
solutions that provide high-volume document capture, warehousing
and delivery functions via Local and Wide Area Networks or the
Internet. Its award-winning products bridge back- office with
front-office mission critical and customer-centric applications
by web-enabling legacy-generated reports, bills, statements and
other documents. The Company has strategic partnerships and
relationships with such companies as Xerox, Moore and Unisys.
For more information about INSCI, visit WWW.INSCI.COM. For
additional investor relations information, visit the Allen &
Caron Inc web site at WWW.ALLENCARON.COM.


LAIDLAW INC.: Obtains Final Approval of $200MM GECC DIP Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laidlaw Inc. confirmed it has completed final documentation
required to establish a previously announced $200 million
secured revolving debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing facility.
The facility, including a $100 million letter of credit sub-
facility, is being provided by General Electric Capital
Corporation and General Electric Capital Canada. The DIP
facility was approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
and the United States Bankruptcy Court.

Steve Cooper, Laidlaw's vice chairman and chief restructuring
officer said, "With the DIP financing facility in place, current
cash-on-hand of approximately $260 million and approximately $70
million of availability under the Greyhound Lines Foothill
facility, Laidlaw currently has liquidity in excess of $530
million. This availability is expected to be sufficient to
meet the company's needs for the foreseeable future and to
ensure business-as-usual as the new school year starts."

Laidlaw Inc. is a holding company for North America's largest
providers of school and inter-city bus transportation, public
transit, patient transportation and emergency department
management services. All dollar amounts are in U.S. dollars.


LOEWEN GROUP: Rejecting Agreements With Alger Group
---------------------------------------------------
In seven separate motions, The Loewen Group, Inc. seeks the
Court's authority to reject agreements with Alger Group, L.L.C.
pertaining to nine cemeteries in Michigan among the 28 Michigan
cemeteries over which the Debtors are in dispute with the
L.L.C.s, as previously reported. The Debtors seek to reject (1)
a Sales Agreement, (2) an Option Agreement and (3) an Amending
Agreement in connection with each transaction with Alger in the
late nineties.

The cemeteries concerned are:

     (A) Cemeteries Located in Jackson and Albion , MI (i)
Hillcrest Memorial Park in Jackson and (ii) Albion Memory
Gardens which were transferred to Alger by AMG and HMP pursuant
to an Asset Purchase Agreement under which 10% of the $3,240,000
purchase price for the assets was payable to AMG and HMP in cash
and the remainder, $2,916,000 in the form of a 10-year
subordinated promissory note.

     (B) A Cemetery located in Sault Sainte Marie, MI, known as
Oak Lawn Chapel Gardens, which was transferred to Alger by OCG
pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement under which 10% of the
$1,100,000 purchase price for the assets was payable to AMG
and HMP in cash and the remainder, $990,000 in the form of a
10-year subordinated promissory note.

     (C) A Cemetery located in Grand Rapids, Michigan, known as
Graceland Memorial Park, which was transferred to Alger by
FLMG pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement under which 10%
of the $1,100,000 purchase price for the assets was payable to
AMG and HMP in cash and the remainder, $990,000 in the form of
a 10-year subordinated promissory note.

     (D) A Cemetery located in Negauncee, Michigan, known as
Northland Chapel Gardens, which was transferred to Alger by NCG
pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement under which 10% of the
$840,000 purchase price for the assets was payable to NCG in
cash and the remainder, $756,000 in the form of a 10-year
subordinated promissory note.

     (E) A Cemetery located in Midland, Michigan, known as
Midland Memorial Gardens, which was transferred to Alger by FLMG
pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement under which 10% of the
$730,000 purchase price for the assets was payable to NCG in
cash and the remainder, $657,000 in the form of a 10-year
subordinated promissory note.

     (F) A cemetery, located in Wells, Michigan, known as
Gardens of Rest Memorial Park which was transferred to Alger by
GOR pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement under which 10% of
the $1,620,000 purchase price for the assets was payable to NCG
in cash and the remainder, $1,458,000 in the form of a 10-year
subordinated promissory note.

     (G) 3 Cemeteries, located in Grandville, Holland and Grand
Rapids, Michigan, known as (a) Rest Lawn Memorial Gardens (b)
Kent Memorial Gardens and (c) Floral View Memorial Gardens,
which were transferred to Alger by Restlawn pursuant to an Asset
Purchase Agreement under which 10% of the $1,755,000 purchase
price for the assets was payable to NCG in cash and the
remainder, $1,579,500 in the form of a 10-year subordinated
promissory note.

The background and motions with respect to the four cemeteries
are substantially similar. In connection with each of the
Transactions pursuant to the respective Asset Purchase
Agreement, the Debtor(s) and Alger entered into a Sales
Agreement, an Option Agreement, and a Guaranty by LGII. The
Debtor(s) and Alger also became parties to an Amending
Agreement.

In light of the terms of the agreement and the status of
operation of the cemeteries, the Debtors have determined, in the
exercise of their business judgment, that rejection of the
agreements is in the best interests of their respective estates
and creditors.

(1) The Sales Agreement

    Under the Sales Agreement, Debtor is obligated to make
monthly payments to Alger to cover non-sales payroll, insurance
and other costs, and to provide a guaranteed rate of return to
Alger on its original cash investment. Further, all receipts
from cemetery operations are to be deposited in a Debtor account
on a daily basis. On the other hand, Alger and any other party
that obtains receipts from operations are obligated to deposit
them into the Debtor account. In addition, Alger is obligated
to indemnify Debtor for claims resulting from certain general
and administrative expenses incurred in the operation of the
Cemetery, and Debtor is obligated to indemnify Alger for claims
resulting from certain selling expenses incurred in the
operation of the Cemetery.

(2) The Option Agreement

    Alger is obligated to operate the Cemetery in the ordinary
course and to refrain from taking certain enumerated acts. In
addition, Alger is granted a put right to purchase the assets
under certain circumstances and Debtor is granted a Right of
First Refusal in connection with a sale of the assets and an
option to purchase the assets under certain circumstances.

(3) The Amending Agreement

    The Amending Agreement provides that, so long as the Sales
Agreement is in effect, Alger is not obligated to pay the
principal or interest on the Note "[pursuant to the parties'
understanding that a true purchase and sale of Assets was not
intended." The Amending Agreement also clarified that the
monthly payments to Alger were guaranteed in that they would be
paid "whether or not supported by the revenues of the Business."
Under this arrangement, Alger is guaranteed a rate of return on
its financed cash investment of the greater of (a) 20% per
annum or (b) 11.50% per annum plus the prime rate of interest.

Additionally, the Amending Agreement provides that: (a) Alger
shall annually provide an accounting summarizing the payroll
expenses associated with Alger's operation of the Cemetery
assets; and (b) in the event the amounts paid by Alger for these
expenses exceed the actual expenses for the year, Alger will
refund the difference to Debtor.

The Amending Agreement expressly states that: (a) the purpose of
the various transaction documents was to assure that the net
benefits and burdens of the operation of the Cemetery business
were for the account of Debtor; (b) the parties desired to
confirm this understanding regarding the intended economic
results of the transaction documents and to amend the documents
to the extent necessary to assure that these results would be
realized; (c) the parties did not intend the August 18, 1997
Transaction to constitute a purchase and sale of the assets for
federal, state and local income tax purposes; and (d) Debtor
would continue to be the owners of the assets and the Cemetery
businesses for all such purposes.  

The Debtors tell Judge Walsh each of the Cemeteries has not
produced cash flow returns consistent with their level of
investment. In the year 2000, the Cemetery had negative
operating cash flow. Under the Sales Agreement, notwithstanding
this negative cash flow, the Debtors are required to pay to
Alger a guaranteed rate of return on its original cash
investment. At the same time, so long as the Sales Agreement
remains in effect, all payments of principal and interest under
the Note are suspended.

Rejection of the Agreements will enable the Debtors to get out
of this situation. It will bring to an end the Debtors'
obligation to reimburse Alger for its payroll costs and provide
a guaranteed rate of return to the LLCs, notwithstanding the
negative cash flow generated by the Cemetery. It will relieve
the Debtors of their obligations under the Sales Agreement to
provide a sales force for the Cemetery. It will also put an end
to the situation whereby Alger is granted a put right to require
Debtor to purchase the Cemetery at a specified price under the
circumstances described in the agreement, regardless of whether
such a transaction is in NCG's best interest. The Debtors
believe that the Cemetery's value is substantially less than the
purchase price specified in the Option Agreement. Furthermore,
upon the rejection of the Sales Agreement and the Amending
Agreement, Alger will be obligated to pay principal and interest
then payable under the Note and to commence making payments as
they become due in accordance with the terms of the Note in the
future.

In the motions, the Debtors indicate that upon the granting of
this motion, they will seek to amend their complaint in the
Adversary Proceeding to carve out the cemeteries, which will
narrow the scope of the Adversary Proceeding.

Accordingly, the Debtors represent that rejection of the
agreements is in the best interest of the estates and creditors
and should be approved.

The agreements proposed for rejection are:

     (A) With respect to (i) Hillcrest and Memorial Park, (ii)
Albion Memory Gardens:

         (1) a Sales Agreement, dated November 21, 1996, between
Debtor LGII and Alger Group, L.L.C.;

         (2) a Right of First Refusal and Option Agreement dated
November 21, 1996 (the LGII Option Agreement) between LGII and
Alger; and

         (3) a Right of First Refusal and Option Agreement dated
November 21, 1996 (the AMG Option Agreement) between Albion
Memory Gardens, Inc., n/k/a Debtor AMG, Inc. and Alger

         (4) a Right of First Refusal and Option Agreement dated
November 21, 1996 (the HMP Option Agreement) between Debtor HMP
Acquisition, Inc. and Alger;  

         (5) an Agreement Amending Prior Agreements (the
Amending Agreement), dated November 21, 1996, between LGII, AMG
and HMP on the one hand, and Alger on the other.

     (B) With respect to Oak Lawn Chapel Gardens located in
Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan:

         (1) a Sales Agreement, dated March 11, 1997, between
Debtor LGII and Alger Group, L.L.C.;

         (2) a Right of First Refusal and Option Agreement dated
March 11, 1997, (the Option Agreement) between OCG Cemetery
Corp., f/k/a Oak Lawn Chapel Gardens, Inc. and Alger; and

         (3) an Agreement Amending Prior Agreements (the
Amending Agreement), dated March 11, 1997, between Debtor Loewen
Group International, Inc. (LGII) and OCK on the one hand,
and Alger on the other.

     (C) With respect to Graceland Memorial Park located in
Grand Rapids, Michigan:

         (1) a Sales Agreement, dated June 23, 1998, between
Debtor FLMG Cemetery Corp. and Alger Group, L.L.C.;

         (2) a Right of First Refusal and Option Agreement dated
June 23, 1998 (the Option Agreement) between FLMG and Alger;
and

         (3) an Agreement Amending Prior Agreements (the
Amending Agreement), dated June 23, 1998, between Debtor Loewen
Group International, Inc. (LGII) and FLMG on the one hand,
and Alger on the other.

     (D) With respect to Northland Chapel Gardens:

         (1) a Sales Agreement, dated August 18, 1997, between
Debtor NCG Cemetery Corp., f/k/a Northland Chapel Gardens, Inc.
and Alger Group, L.L.C.;

         (2) a Right of First Refusal and Option Agreement dated
August 18, 1997 (the Option Agreement), between NCG and Alger;
and

         (3) an Agreement Amending Prior Agreements (the
Amending Agreement), dated August 18, 1997, between Debtor
Loewen Group International, Inc. (LGII) and NCG on the one hand,
and Alger on the other.

     (E) With respect to Midland Memorial Gardens located in
Midland, Michigan:

         (1) a Sales Agreement, dated October 1, 1997, between
Debtor FLMG Cemetery Corp. and Alger Group, L.L.C.;

         (2) a Right of First Refusal and Option Agreement dated
October 1, 1997 (the Option Agreement), between FLMG and Alger;
and

         (3) an Agreement Amending Prior Agreements (the
Amending Agreement), dated October 1, 1997, between Debtor
Loewen Group International, Inc. (LGII) and FLMG on the one
hand, and Alger on the other.

     (F) With respect to Gardens of Rest Memorial Park located
in Wells, Michigan

         (1) a Sales Agreement, dated March 17, 1997, between
Debtor LGII and Alger Group, L.L.C.;

         (2) a Right of First Refusal and Option Agreement dated
October 1, 1997 (the Option Agreement), between GOR Cemetery
Corp. f/k/a Gardens of Rest, Inc. and Alger; and

         (3) an Agreement Amending Prior Agreements (the
Amending Agreement), dated March 17, 1997, between Debtor Loewen
Group International, Inc. (LGII) and GOR on the one hand,
and Alger on the other.

     (G) With respect to (a) Rest Lawn Memorial Gardens (b) Kent
Memorial Gardens and (c) Floral View Memorial Gardens in
Grandville, Holland and Grand Rapids, Michigan:

         (1) a Sales Agreement, dated May 7, 1997, between
Debtor Restlawn Acquisition, Inc. and Alger Group, L.L.C.;

         (2) a Right of First Refusal and Option Agreement dated
May 7, 1997 (the Option Agreement), between Restlawn and Alger;
and

         (3) an Agreement Amending Prior Agreements (the
Amending Agreement), dated May 7, 1997, between Debtor Loewen
Group International, Inc. (LGII) and Restlawn on the one hand,
and Alger on the other. (Loewen Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 43;
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Fitch Rates Senior Subordinated Notes At BB-
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch has assigned a rating of 'BB-' to Louisiana-Pacific
Corp.'s (LPX) $200 million issue of senior subordinated notes
and placed the rating on Rating Watch Negative. The senior
subordinated notes are to mature Nov. 15, 2008, and are priced
to yield 10.875%.

The rating reflects the uncertainty of future pricing in the
building products industry. The company had responded to the
recent downward trend of OSB prices by adjusting its workforce
and production to meet demand and by reducing its dividend.
However at the end of second quarter, LPX's profitability had
declined, and EBITDA was negative over the last 12 months.
The proceeds from the issue will be used to repay all
outstanding debt under an existing term loan and a portion of
the debt outstanding under an existing revolving credit
facility, as well as to pay transaction costs related to the
offering. LPX expects to close the offering early next week.


MARINER POST-ACUTE: Moves To Transfer Hayward, Calif., Facility
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mariner Post-Acute Network, Inc. seeks the Court's authority to
divest of the Hayward Convalescent Hospital nursing home
facility located at 1832 B Street, Hayward, California 94541, as
a going concern by way of a Settlement Agreement and Operation
Transfer Agreement. The Medicare provider number for the
facility is 05-5338.

Specifically, the Debtors seek the Court's order:

     (1) approving the "Settlement Agreement Re Hayward
Facility" including the "Operations Transfer Agreement" (the
"OTA") by and between The Hillsdale Group, L.P. as the landlord
and replacement operator, and Grancare, as current operator and
tenant;

     (2) authorizing the assumption and assignment to Landlord
of the Medicare Provider Agreement between Grancare and the
Health Care Financing Administration ("HCFA") relating to the
Facility;

     (3) approving the "Consulting Agreement," by and between
the Landlord, as consultant, and Grancare; and

     (4) granting related relief.

The Lease between Landlord and GranCare was rejected by
operation of law pursuant to section 365(d)(4) of the Bankruptcy
Code.

The Debtors represent that entry into the Agreements will
provide for the interim management of the Facility and the
orderly transition of operations at the Facility, thus
minimizing or avoiding disruption in patient care as well as
minimizing the Landlord's damages and the costs of exiting the
Facility by closure. It is not known how much money the Facility
has been losing or projected to lose. Certain provisions in the
arrangement give some idea - The Debtors will "pay to Landlord,
in the event that the Facility if unprofitable for the month of
July 2001, an amount that will be calculated as 12 times the
EDITDAR loss for the month of July 2001, which amount will not
exceed $191,265.00.

               The Settlement Agreement

This will generally provide for the following:

     (1) Payment of all rent and real property taxes including
penalties and interest) due under the Lease from the Petition
Date through July 31, 2001; provided, however, that such
payments will thereafter be only $1.00 per month, except that
if the Facility is not transitioned to the Landlord due to
action by the Debtors;

     (2) If the transfer of operations at the Facility has not
occurred by August 31, 2001, or such later date aa the parties
may mutually agree, then Grancare may proceed to close the
Facility in accordance with applicable law;

     (3) Payment, in the event that the Facility is unprofitable
for the month of July 2001, to Landlord by Grancare an amount
that shall be calculated as 12 times the EDITDAR loss for the
month of July 2001, which in aay event, will not exceed
$191,265.00. If EBITDAR results reflect income of zero or
greater, no special payment will be made to Landlord; and

     (4) A waiver of any and all other claims of the Landlord
against Grancare.

                   Consulting Agreement

The material provisions of the Consulting Agreement will
generally govern the management of the Facility by Landlord
until the earlier of: (a) 90 days after the Closing Date; (b)
the date on which the Landlord obtains the necessary
governmental licensure to operate the Facility; and (c) the
termination of the Consulting Agreement pursuant to its terms.

The Consulting Agreement will provide for:

     (1) The employment of virtually all of Grancare's employees
at the Facility by Landlord;

     (2) Payment of all Facility expenses accruing to and
relating to the management and operation of the Facility by
Landlord; and

     (3) The compliance by Landlord of all of the necessary
certification and license reporting requirements and federal,
state and local laws.

             The Operations Transfer Agreement

The material provisions of the proposed Operations Transfer
Agreement will generally govern the transition of operations at
the Facility, and will include, among other things:

     (1) The employment of virtually all of Grancare's employees
at the Facility as of the Closing Date, thereby avoiding any
WARN Act and severance claims which might otherwise be asserted
if the Facility were to cease operations;

     (2) The reconciliation of future amounts received from the
collection of accounts receivable;

     (3) The discharge of all liabilities of Grancare for
payment of earned vacation time and other earned paid time
Transfer, all of its right, title, and interest in and to any
consumables, inventories, and supplies actually used in the
operation of the Facility, free and clear of liens and
encumbrances, all of which are believed to have nominal value;

     (4) The transfer of patient records and financial data;

     (5) The assumption and rejection of certain executory
contracts.

                Assumption and Assignment of
                 Medicare Provider Agreement

Grancare will assume and assign to the Landlord the Medicare
Provider Agreement between Grancare and HCFA relating to the
Facility on terms substantially identical to terms which have
been previously approved by HCFA and the Court in these cases.

As in the motion for the transfer of Facilities relating to the
NHP Lease Portfolio, the Debtors suggest similar offset by HCFA
and the United States' right to administrative claim subject to
a cap at an amount under discussion but which the Debtors
believe will not exceed $50,000 with respect to the Facility.
NovaCare Holdings, Inc. has objected to such provisions as it
has to the motion regarding the NHP Lease Portfolio and for
similar reasons related to "Prudent Buyer Monies".

The Debtors represent that the proposed Agreements were
negotiated in good faith and are the product of extensive arm's-
length negotiations between and among the Landlord, Landlord,
and Grancare. In exercising their business judgment, the Debtors
have determined that an orderly transition of operations at the
Facility under the terms and conditions set forth in the
Agreements is in the best interests of its estate, creditors and
patients. (Mariner Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 17; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)


NIKE INC.: Shareholders To Convene in Portland On September 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
The annual meeting of shareholders of NIKE, Inc., an Oregon
corporation, will be held on Monday, September 17, 2001, at 1:00
P.M., at the Center for Cultural Exchange, One Longfellow
Square, Portland, Maine 04101, for the following purposes:

     1.  To elect a Board of Directors for the ensuing year.

     2.  To approve the NIKE, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan.

     3.  To consider a shareholder proposal.

     4.  To ratify the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
         as independent accountants.

     5.  To transact such other business as may properly come
         before the meeting.

All shareholders are invited to attend the meeting. Shareholders
of record at the close of business on July 25, 2001, the record
date fixed by the Board of Directors, are entitled to notice of
and to vote at the meeting.


OWENS CORNING: Wants To Reject Robert F. Owen Non-Compete Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
On March 2, 1995, Owens Corning entered into an seven-year
agreement with Robert F. Owen under which Mr. Owen agreed not to
engage in activities which competed with the Debtors' business,
goodwill, trade, customers, employees and the like. In return
for not engaging in certain activities, Mr. Owen was to be paid
the sum of $140,000 in seven annual installments of $20,000 each
payable from March 2, 1996 and subsequent annual payments
thereafter.

During the time period since the agreement was executed, the
Debtors have divested themselves of the product line ("Carriage
Hill" stone veneer products) which they sought to protect by the
Agreement. As a result of this divestiture, the agreement no
longer provides a meaningful benefit to the Debtors' estates.

By motion the Debtors asks the Court for authority to reject
the executory contract with Robert F. Owen.

J. Kate Stickles, Esq., at Saul Ewing, LLP contends that
rejection of this agreement accordingly reflect the Debtors
exercise of sound business judgment. (Owens Corning Bankruptcy
News, Issue No. 15; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc.,
609/392-0900)


PACIFIC GAS: Asks For Four-Month Extension Of Exclusive Periods
---------------------------------------------------------------
A four-month extension of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's
exclusive period during which to propose a plan of
reorganization in this chapter 11 case is warranted, Gary M.
Kaplan, Esq., at Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabin,
argues. The legal standard, Mr. Kaplan observes, is whether the
Debtor can show cause for an extension under 11 U.S.C. Sec.
1121. The legislative history underpinning Sec. 1121, see H.R.
Rep. No. 95-595 (1977), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5963, and
well-developed lines of case law, see, e.g., In re Dow Corning
Corp., 208 B.R. 661, 665 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1997); In re Public
Serv. Co., 88 B.R. 534-35 (Bankr. D. N.H. 1988); In re Texaco,
Inc., 76 B.R. 322, 325-27 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987), teach that the
size and complexity of a chapter 11 case provide cause for
extension of a debtor's exclusive periods. Additional cause is
shown in circumstances where further negotiations with creditors
are required which could to a successful and consensual
reorganization. See S. Rep. No. 95-989 (1978), reprinted in 1978
U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787; In re United Press Int'l, Inc., 60 B.R. 265,
270 (Bankr. D.C. 1986).

This chapter 11 case is the largest on-going restructuring in
the country, involving $20 billion of assets, 45,000 creditors,
and 20,000 employees, Gordon R. Smith, PG&E's President and CEO
reminds Judge Montali. And, Mr. Smith adds, this bankruptcy case
is exceeding complex based on PG&E's status as a utility company
subject to a myriad of state and federal statutes, rules and
regulations. And to complicate matters, the Debtor is in the
midst of grappling with an unprecedented energy crisis.

PG&E wants to propose a plan of reorganization that has broad
creditor support. PG&E Corporation, the Debtor's parent, wants
to be a co-proponent of that plan. Everybody want a plan to be
filed as soon as possible, and PG&E is committed to do that.
PG&E wants to be out of bankruptcy, not in. "Delay costs the
estate literally millions of dollars per week in feed, costs and
interest accruals with respect to creditor claims," Mr. Kaplan
indicates.

Accordingly, the Debtor urges Judge Montali to grant it a four-
month extension, until December 6, 2001, of the Debtor's time
within which to propose a plan of reorganization and a
concomitant extension, through February 4, 2002, of the Debtor's
exclusive period during which to solicit acceptances of that
plan. (Pacific Gas Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 11; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)


SHOWSCAN ENTERTAINMENT: Court Approves Reorganization Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Showscan Entertainment Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: SHOW) announced
that its formal Disclosure Statement and Reorganization Plan has
been approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central
District of California.

The Company, which filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition to
reorganize its debts under U.S. Federal Court protection less
than a year ago, will continue to operate its businesses in the
future under the reorganization plan, subject to confirmation by
the Court.

Russell H. Chesley, Showscan President and Chief Executive
Officer, said, "I am pleased that the Court has approved our
plan, and I look forward to accelerating the successful
reorganization of Showscan. We have never wavered in our
commitment to our customers, we have maintained our operations
without interruption throughout the process, and now we have put
together a plan under which Showscan will emerge with all of the
pieces in place to move aggressively into the future."

Under the terms of the approved plan, Octograph Media Group,
Showscan's long term film production partner, will fund
Showscan's reorganization and will ultimately convert its own
claims into equity, thereby acquiring Showscan and taking the
company private as a wholly owned subsidiary of Octograph.

Mr. Chesley said, "Octograph and Showscan already enjoy a strong
alliance. By joining our two companies together, we will be able
to offer our customers not only continued quality service and
access to our incomparable Showscan film library, but also a
constant flow of future titles for the simulation attraction and
large format industries, all of which will be distributed
through Showscan."

Mr. Chesley further said, "Our business centers upon our long
term customer relationships. With Octograph's support, we will
have the resources to achieve stability and to maintain and
enhance our high levels of service and film quality, which are
required to sustain our existing customer relationships and to
build new ones. Plus, we will now have the chance to seek out
new markets and to bring new entertainment products to a broader
marketplace than ever before."

Octograph Media Group is a broadly based entertainment and media
company, specializing in the creation of media content for a
wide range of entertainment applications, including motion
pictures and television, simulation rides, large format and
other film-based attractions and special venues.

Showscan currently is the exclusive worldwide distributor of two
major simulation thrill ride films produced by Octograph,
"Dragon Planet" and "Robo Soldier." Octograph is producing two
new stereoscopic 3-D simulation ride films for Showscan
distribution later this year.

Sue Yeon Kim, Octograph President and CEO, said, "Merging with
and helping Showscan successfully reorganize, fits very well
with Octograph's mission to build a multi-faceted global media
organization. Showscan is a strong brand, noted for its quality
films and technology, and we believe that the combination of
both companies will allow us to provide not only more thrilling
new titles, but also more advanced technical solutions to the
changing film-based attraction market."

Ms. Kim added, "It is Octograph's intention to fully support
Showscan's efforts to serve and expand its customer base in the
leisure entertainment market. We believe that there are numerous
opportunities to help rebuild and grow the current special venue
film industry in the future, as well as to pursue new
entertainment business opportunities."

Showscan is an international leader in production, distribution
and exhibition of exciting movie-based attractions shown in
large format theatres worldwide. Showscan's simulation
attractions and special venue theatres are open or under
construction in 24 countries around the globe, located in theme
parks, cinema multiplexes, expos, festivals, world's fairs,
resorts, shopping centers, casinos, museums, location based and
family entertainment centers, and other tourist destinations. It
is estimated that over 100 million people worldwide have
experienced a Showscan Entertainment attraction. The Showscan
camera system, used by Showscan in creating the world's premier
entertainment attractions and experiences, was awarded a
Scientific and Engineering Achievement Academy Award(TM) in 1993
by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. For more
information, visit Showscan on the Internet at WWW.SHOWSCAN.COM.


STAR TELECOM: Has Until October 12 To File Reorganization Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
STAR Telecommunications Inc. announced that on Aug. 6, 2001, the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
approved an order extending STAR Telecommunications' exclusive
period in which to file a plan of reorganization to Oct. 12,
2001.

From Oct. 12, 2001, through Nov. 12, 2001, a co-exclusivity
period will exist, during which time both STAR and the
Creditors' Committee will have the right to file. Either STAR
and/or the Creditors' Committee, depending upon whether either
party or both parties file a plan in such period, shall have
until Jan. 14, 2002, to solicit acceptances of any such plan.

STAR filed a voluntary petition for U.S. Bankruptcy Code Chapter
11 bankruptcy protection on March 13, 2001. Trading in STAR's
stock was halted by Nasdaq on March 13, 2001, in accordance with
Marketplace Rule 4450(f), pending receipt and review of
additional information requested by the staff.

On March 27, 2001, STAR requested that Nasdaq terminate the
designation of its securities as Nasdaq National Market
securities and requested that the staff delist its securities at
the earliest practicable date, in accordance with Marketplace
Rule 4480(b). STAR's securities were subsequently delisted
by Nasdaq on April 4, 2001. Trading in STAR's stock is extremely
limited.

With the termination of its wholesale business, STAR has
resolved to pursue an orderly liquidation of its assets in
Chapter 11 in an efficient manner designed to maximize the value
of its assets for the benefit of its creditors.

              About STAR Telecommunications

STAR Telecommunications provides global telecommunications
services to consumers and long distance carriers. STAR provides
international and national long distance services, international
private line, dial around services and international toll-free
services.


SURGE COMPONENTS: Appeals Nasdaq's Delisting Determination
----------------------------------------------------------
Surge Components, Inc. (NASDAQ SC: SPRS; Boston Stock Exchange:
SRD) announced that it has received a notice that the staff of
The Nasdaq Stock Market had determined to delist the Company's
common stock from quotation on The Nasdaq Stock Market.

The delisting was to have been effective on August 14, 2001
unless the Company appealed prior to such date, which it has.
The Staff stated that its decision was based principally upon
the public interest concerns raised by Surge's involvement in
the previously disclosed "questionable payments," the
refusal by two of Surge's top executives to respond directly to
questions from the Staff, and Surge's current inability to meet
certain of the quantitative continued listing criteria under
Nasdaq's Marketplace Rules, including the net worth and per
share stock price requirements. As noted above, the Company has
determined to appeal the Staff's determination to the
Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel. There can be no assurance
that the Panel will grant the Company's request for continued
listing. The common stock will continue to trade on Nasdaq until
the appeal has been decided.

The effects of delisting include more limited information as to
the market prices of the Company's common stock, less liquidity
for the common stock and less news coverage of the Company.
Delisting may adversely affect investors' interest in the
Company's securities and materially adversely affect the trading
market and prices for such securities and the Company's ability
to issue additional securities or to secure additional
financing.

Ira Levy, President of Surge, stated: "We believe we have been
treated unfairly by Nasdaq and have determined to appeal. We
voluntarily reported the questionable payments, have undertaken
our own investigation and have taken steps to ensure such
payments are not made in the future. As to the quantitative
tests, our net worth exceeds the minimum requirements based on
the conversion of our notes into equity since the last reported
quarter and the concern as to stock price could be addressed by
a reverse stock split, which we are considering. Also, certain
of our directors have indicated that they intend to purchase our
common stock in the open market in light of their belief that it
undervalued.

It would be unfortunate if Nasdaq delists us, but it will not
affect our core business which is positioned for a favorable
fiscal 2002."

                    About the Company

Surge Components, Inc. is a supplier of electronic products and
components. These products include capacitors and discrete
components. The Company's products are typically utilized in the
electronic circuitry of diverse products, including automobiles,
cellular telephones, computers, consumer electronics, garage
door openers, household appliances, power supplies and smoke
detectors. Surge's products are sold to both original equipment
manufacturers and to distributors of Surge's product lines.


TELESCAN INC.: Reports Q2 Results & Appeals Nasdaq Delisting
------------------------------------------------------------
Telescan, Inc. (Nasdaq/NM:TSCN) reported that revenue for the
quarter ended June 30, 2001, totaled $5.6 million compared to
revenue of $8.9 million for the same period a year earlier. Core
operating loss before special and other charges for the quarter
totaled $170,000, or $0.01 per share, compared to a core
operating loss before special and other charges of $2.7 million,
or $0.15 per share, for the same period in 2000.

Telescan reported a net loss of $3.9 million, or $0.24 per
share, in the second quarter of 2001 compared to a net profit of
$1.6 million, or $0.09 per diluted share, in the second quarter
of 2000, which included an $8.7 million gain on the sale of
marketable securities. Special charges and non-core operating
costs in the current quarter, totaling $3.7 million, consisted
of: (1) $2.4 million, or $0.15 per share, for the write-off of
the Company's investment in TeamVest, Inc.; (2) $728,000, or
$0.04 per share, for the write-off of the Company's investment
in GRO Corporation; (3) $108,000, or $0.01 per share, in
severance related costs; and (4) $436,000, or $0.03 per share,
for the costs related to pursuing the Company's pending merger
with ZiaSun Technologies, Inc.

Revenue decreased $3.3 million, or 37%, compared to the prior
year quarter as the Company continued to be impacted by the
softened demand for services in the Internet market. Revenue
from the Consumer Division decreased $1.9 million, or 43%,
compared to the prior year quarter primarily due to the
depressed market for Internet advertising and online services.
Revenue from the Business-to-Business Division declined
$200,000, or 7%, from the prior year quarter, benefiting from
$900,000 in fees recognized in the second quarter of 2001 as
part of the Company's settlement agreement with National
Broadcasting Company.

The Company's continued cost containment efforts through
headcount reductions and cost reductions in every facet of the
Company's operations produced substantial cost savings in the
second quarter. Cost of revenue for the quarter decreased $2.6
million, or 55%. Selling expenses decreased $1.0 million, or
57%, while general and administrative expenses decreased $2.3,
or 43%, over the same period a year earlier.

As of June 30, 2001, the Company had cash and cash equivalents
of $2.1 million. Additionally, as of June 30, 2001, the Company
had marketable securities with a value of approximately
$729,000.

"The purpose of our merger with ZiaSun is to reposition
Telescan's assets - our proprietary investment tools, market-
leading advisory publications and online direct marketing
expertise - where those assets have the greatest value," said
Lee Barba, Telescan's Chief Executive Officer. "We are seeing
this strategy being validated daily, even in this down market,
when we marry Telescan's technology with ZiaSun's marketing and
instruction-based fulfillment for the benefit of the self-
directed investor." Nasdaq Notice of Staff Determination

On May 11, 2001, the Company was notified by The Nasdaq Stock
Market that its common stock failed to maintain a minimum bid
price of $1.00 over the previous 30 consecutive trading days as
required by The Nasdaq National Market under Marketplace Rule
4450(a)(5). In accordance with Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(8)(B),
the Company was provided 90 calendar days, or until August 9,
2001 to regain compliance with the rule. On August 10, 2001,
Nasdaq notified the Company that its common stock would be
delisted from the Nasdaq National Market for failure to
demonstrate compliance. The Company will request a hearing from
the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel to appeal the delisting
determination. The Company believes that it will be granted
continued listing on the National Market in consideration of the
Company's pending merger with ZiaSun and its pending application
for listing on the Nasdaq for its successor parent entity in the
merger, INVESTools Inc.

                 About Telescan, Inc.

Houston-based Telescan provides products and services through
two sales and marketing divisions, each serving a unique market.
The Consumer Division publishes premium investment advice,
education, tools and analytics to individual investors online
through two Web properties, INVESTools.com and
WallStreetCity.com. In addition, the Consumer Division operates
a subscription marketing service and an e-mail list management
service. As an Application Service Provider (ASP), Telescan's
Business-to-Business Division offers businesses of varying sizes
an array of online financial solutions to meet the unique
requirements of the customer's Internet business strategy, along
with site development and hosting services.

In May 2001, Telescan announced plans to merge with ZiaSun
Technologies, Inc. (OTCBB:ZSUN) to become a leading provider of
investor education, financial publications and analytics
worldwide.


UGLY DUCKLING: Fitch Lowers Sub Debt Rating To CCC From B-
----------------------------------------------------------
Fitch lowers the 'B-' rating on Ugly Duckling Corp.'s (UDC)
subordinated debt to 'CCC' and removes the rating from Rating
Watch Negative. The Rating Outlook is Negative.

UDC was placed on Rating Watch on Jan. 22, 2001 following the
company's announcement that its warehouse credit facility with
General Electric Capital Corp. (GECC) would not be renewed when
it came due. Approximately $35 million of subordinated debt is
affected by this action.

Fitch's rating actions follows the company's replacement of the
GECC facility with a new warehouse credit agreement from
Greenwich Capital Financial Products, Inc. Despite the new
agreement, Fitch is concerned that covenants within the new
facility are more restrictive than in the previous agreement and
UDC will be challenged to manage within the new limits. In
addition, Fitch remains concerned with the company's limited
financial flexibility, as most assets are specifically
encumbered, and with the fact that public debt holders are
deeply subordinated within the capital structure.

Fitch's Negative Rating Outlook reflects weaker operating trends
with respect to earnings and asset quality for the remainder of
2001 as UDC attempts to reposition itself by improving its
customer profile through improved risk management practices.
While these efforts should improve asset quality over time, the
more immediate effect will be to reduce revenue and earnings
over the near term. Moreover, UDC will continue to be impacted
by loans already originated prior to implementing improved
underwriting standards.

Fitch also notes that UDC's chairman and largest shareholder,
Ernest Garcia II, has offered to purchase the remaining shares
he does not already own. Under the purchase offer, current
shareholders would receive $2.00 cash and $5.00 in subordinated
debt in exchange for their shares. If this were to occur, Fitch
believes the overall financial impact on leverage and fixed
charge coverage would be modest, however given UDC's already
limited financial flexibility, the company will be further
challenged to manage its financial profile.

Ugly Duckling Corp., based in Phoenix, AZ, is the largest
operator of 'buy here/pay here' used car dealerships, with over
77 owned dealerships and $534 million in managed loans
outstanding at June 30, 2001.


VLASIC FOODS: Paying $1.5 Million Prepetition Contractor Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vlasic Foods International, Inc. sought and obtained an order to
pay the $1,500,000 pre-petition claims of certain contractors,
in full satisfaction of any potential liens and interests.

David R. Hurst, at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, in
Wilmington, Delaware, explains it is crucial to pay such
contractors, who repair and maintain the equipment and machinery
of the Debtors' businesses. Mr. Hurst emphasizes these
contractors are not just any ordinary contractors because they
provide specialized services for the operation and upkeep of the
Debtors' specialized equipment.

Mr. Hurst adds that the Debtors extensively use the services of
certain information technology contractors, including software
vendors and consultants since much of the Debtors' business is
highly automated and uses machinery that is technology-
dependent. The Debtors also make extensive use of computerized
systems at their corporate headquarters for accounting,
communications and others, Mr. Hurst adds.

Without the continued support and performance by the
Contractors, Mr. Hurst notes, the enterprise value of the
Debtors might be jeopardized.

With respect to each contractor claim, Mr. Hurst asserts that:

     (i) the Debtors shall not pay a contractor claim unless the
contractor has perfected or, in the Debtors' judgment, is
presently capable of perfecting or may be capable of perfecting
in the future one or more Liens or Interests in respect of such
claim, and

    (ii) the payment of such claim shall be made with a full
reservation of rights regarding the extent, validity, perfection
or possible avoidance of any Liens or Interests.

The Court further ruled that:

     (a) Any contractor who accepts payment shall be deemed to
have agreed to continue providing goods or services to the
Debtors the ordinary trade and credit terms before Petition Date
or as acceptable to the Debtors.

     (b) If any Contractor accepts payment and does not continue
to provide goods or services on customary terms during the
pendency of these cases, then any payment they received shall
be recoverable by the Debtors upon written request and will
be reinstated as a pre-petition claim.

     (c) Banks and other financial institutions upon which
checks are drawn in payment of these Claims are directed to
receive and process such checks upon presentation.

     (d) Neither this Order, nor the Debtors' actions, shall be
deemed to be an assumption or adoption of an agreement, contract
or policy.

     (e) Any payment made shall not be deemed as an admission of
a waiver of any rights the Debtors may have to subsequently
dispute such obligation. (Vlasic Foods Bankruptcy News, Issue
No. 9; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)


WEBVAN GROUP: Deadline For Submitting Bids For Assets Is Aug. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Webvan Group, Inc. is in the process of soliciting bids for the
purchase of its business units, technology platforms and other
assets. Interested parties must submit offers to the company by
Aug. 27, 2001. The company has already contacted over 60
potential parties and anticipates that several interested
parties will submit offers by the Aug. 27 deadline.

The centerpiece of the assets being offered for sale is Webvan's
technology platform. Designed by some of Silicon Valley's top
software engineers, the platform is modular in design and as
such is extremely versatile -- capable of a range of functions
from a completely integrated e-commerce platform to supporting
warehouse management and delivery operations. The company is
also offering the HomeGrocer technology platform for sale.
Interested parties are encouraged to contact George Colliat at
650/627-3453 for further information about the platforms.

Webvan also announced the completion of its first post-
bankruptcy auction. On Aug. 7 and 8, Webvan auctioned the
furniture, office equipment and material handling systems from
its Atlanta facilities. Subject to the offers it receives from
the Aug. 27 bid process, the Company will continue to pursue it
asset sale strategy with auctions for the Bay Area and Baltimore
scheduled for late September.

The company also announced that it did not expect to have any
funds available to distribute to its stockholders. A company
spokesman stated, "Based on our preliminary analysis of the
likely recoveries on our assets versus the expected claims
against those assets, we do expect to have funds available for
distribution to our unsecured creditors. We do not expect,
however, to have any funds available for distribution to our
equity holders."


WHEELING-PITTSBURGH: Seeks To Extend Exclusive Period To Nov. 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. tells the Court that they are
"working towards the ultimate goal of constructing a plan of
reorganization by (a) working diligently to determine whether
any third parties have an interest in acquiring all or a part of
the Debtors or their facilities, and (b) investigating
thoroughly various possible reconfigurations of the Debtors'
business that would support continued operation as a stand-alone
business." The Debtors are currently working on additional plans
to reduce costs and to improve their operating results, and have
also outlined long-term options that the Debtors continue to
investigate. Given the present severely depressed state of the
steel market, however, the Debtors require additional time to
investigate these options. Additionally, the Debtors have
requested approval of a new financial advisor to assist them in
their ongoing reorganization efforts and to assist them in the
evaluation of various alternative configurations of the Debtors'
business.

Based on these statements, the complicated and complex nature of
the Debtors' business, and the amount of work that still must be
completed in order to identify the proper plan of
reorganization, the Debtors seek a further extension of (a) the
period within which the Debtors may exclusively file a plan of
reorganization for an additional ninety days to and including
November 23, 2001, and (b) the period in which the Debtors may
solicit acceptances of the plan of reorganization to and
including January 21, 2002. (Wheeling-Pittsburgh Bankruptcy
News, Issue No. 9; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-
0900)


WINSTAR COMM.: Obtains Court Nod To Pay Prepetition Services
------------------------------------------------------------
Winstar Communications, Inc. sought and obtained authorization
to compensate services rendered to them before the commencement
of their chapter 11 cases.

Judge Farnan authorizes the Debtors to pay claims of certain
trucking and distribution vendors, public warehousemen, federal,
state and municipal regulatory authorities, and trade persons
and contractors for their pre-petition services.

According to Counsel Pauline K. Morgan at Young Conaway Stargatt
& Taylor of Wilmington, Delaware, the Debtors' have obligations
to pay an estimated $11,500,000 for pre-petition services:

(a)$500,000 for shipping, storage, and delivery of the Debtors'
   important equipment, including computers and other equipment
   used in transfer of telecommunications data.

(b)$1,000,000 for federal, state and municipal regulatory and
   business license assessments to various regulatory agencies.
   These include mandatory fees for interstate telephone relay
   services, interstate provider fees, contributions to
   universal state service fund and other similar fees.

(c)Approximately $10,000,000 for maintenance and repair services
   by various contractors that are essential for the Debtors'
   continued smooth-running business operations.

Judge Farnan grants the Debtors' request that, upon payment, the
claimants must continue to render service on the same trade
terms before the filing of these cases.

The Judge further moves that if a claimant accepts payment and
refuses to continue services during the pendency of these cases,
any payment they received will be considered a post-petition
transfer. In such cases, the Debtors may recover payment in cash
and the claim shall be reinstated as if the payment has not been
made. However, this treatment can be disputed by submission of a
written request to the Debtors for a hearing to be set on the
next regular omnibus hearing date.

Finally, Judge Farnan orders all banks and financial
institutions which receives checks or drafts for payment of the
Claims, whether dated pre-petition or post-petition, to honor
such checks upon recommendation of the Debtors. (Winstar
Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 9; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service,
Inc., 609/392-0900)  


* Meetings, Conferences and Seminars
------------------------------------
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
            Contact: aira@airacira.org

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

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

September 10-11, 2001
   RENAISSANCE AMERICAN MANAGEMENT, INC. & BEARD GROUP
      Fourth Annual Conference on Corporate Reorganizations
         The Knickerbocker Hotel, Chicago, IL
            Contact 1-903-592-5169 or ram@ballistic.com

September 13-14, 2001
   ALI-ABA
      Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions
         Washington Monarch, Washington, D. C.
            Contact: 1-800-CLE-NEWS or http://www.ali-aba.org

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 http://www.abiworld.org

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

October 12-16, 2001
   TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
      2001 Annual Conference
         The Breakers, Palm Beach, FL
            Contact: 312-822-9700 or info@turnaround.org

October 16-17, 2001
   International Women's Insolvency and Restructuring
   Confederation (IWIRC)
      Annual Fall Conference
         Somewhere in Orlando, Florida
            Contact: 703-449-1316 or
                 http://www.inetresults.com/iwirc
              
October 28 - November 2, 2001
   IBA Business Law International Conference
   Including Insolvency and Creditors Rights Sessions
      Cancun, Mexico
         Contact: +44 (0) 20 7629 1206
            http://www.ibanet.org/cancun

November 15-17, 2001
   ALI-ABA
      Commercial Real Estate Defaults, Workouts, and
      Reorganizations
         Regent Hotel, Las Vegas
            Contact:  1-800-CLE-NEWS or http://www.ali-aba.org

November 26-27, 2001
   RENAISSANCE AMERICAN MANAGEMENT, INC. & BEARD GROUP
      Seventh Annual Conference on Distressed Investing
         The Plaza Hotel, New York City
            Contact 1-903-592-5169 or ram@ballistic.com

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

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

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
                 http://www.lawedinstitute.com

February 28-March 1, 2002
   ALI-ABA
      Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions
         Renaissance Stanford Court, San Francisco, CA
            Contact: 1-800-CLE-NEWS or http://www.ali-aba.org

March 3-6, 2002 (tentative)
   NORTON INSTITUTES ON BANKRUPTCY LAW
      Norton Bankruptcy Litigation Institute I
         Park City Marriott Hotel, Park City, Utah
            Contact:  770-535-7722 or Nortoninst@aol.com

March 8, 2002
   American Bankruptcy Institute
      Bankruptcy Battleground West
         Century Plaza Hotel, Los Angeles, California
            Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or http://www.abiworld.org

March 20-23, 2002
   TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
      Spring Meeting
         Sheraton El Conquistador Resort & Country Club
         Tucson, Arizona
            Contact: 312-822-9700 or info@turnaround.org

April 10-13, 2002 (tentative)
   NORTON INSTITUTES ON BANKRUPTCY LAW
      Norton Bankruptcy Litigation Institute II
         Flamingo Hilton, Las Vegas, Nevada
            Contact:  770-535-7722 or Nortoninst@aol.com

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

April 25-27, 2002
   ALI-ABA
      Fundamentals of Bankruptcy Law
         Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
            Contact:  1-800-CLE-NEWS or http://www.ali-aba.org

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 http://www.abiworld.org

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

June 27-30, 2002
   NORTON INSTITUTES ON BANKRUPTCY LAW
      Western Mountains, Advanced Bankruptcy Law
         Jackson Lake Lodge, Jackson Hole, Wyoming
            Contact: 770-535-7722 or Nortoninst@aol.com

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

August 7-10, 2002
   American Bankruptcy Institute
      Southeast Bankruptcy Conference
         Kiawah Island Resort, Kiawaha Island, SC
            Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or http://www.abiworld.org


October 9-11, 2002
   INSOL International
      Annual Regional Conference
         Beijing, China
            Contact: tina@insol.ision.co.uk or
                 http://www.insol.org

October 24-28, 2002
   TURNAROUND MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
      Annual Conference
         The Broadmoor, Colorado Springs, Colorado
            Contact: 312-822-9700 or info@turnaround.org

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

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

December 3-7, 2003
   American Bankruptcy Institute
      Winter Leadership Conference
         La Quinta, La Quinta, California
            Contact: 1-703-739-0800 or http://www.abiworld.org

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

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


The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Troubled Company Reporter each Wednesday.  Submissions via
e-mail to conferences@bankrupt.com 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  
conferences@bankrupt.com.  

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 Amazon.com. Go to
http://www.bankrupt.com/books/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 ***