TCR_Public/011011.mbx         T R O U B L E D   C O M P A N Y   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 11, 2001, Vol. 5, No. 199

                           Headlines

ALGOMA STEEL: Plan of Arrangement Deadline Extended to Oct. 26
ASSISTED LIVING: Falls Short Of AMEX Listing Guidelines
BURPEE HOLDING: Files for Chapter 11 Protection in Philadelphia
BURPEE HOLDING: Chapter 11 Case Summary
CELLPOINT INC: Funding Through Private Placements Reaches $6.55M

COHEN MEDICAL: Files Chapter 11 Petition in C.D. California
COHEN MEDICAL: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors
COMDISCO INC: Equity Panel Balks At Watchell Success Fees
CONDOR TECHNOLOGY: Needs to Complete Debt Workout by January 2
CREDIT CARD CENTER: Amicus Secures Management of ATM Portfolio

EDISON INT'L: SoCal Unit Will Honor QF Power Purchase Agreements
ETOYS INC: Seeks Okay of $2.6MM Settlement with Goldman Sachs
EXODUS COMMS: Taps Skadden ARPS As Primary Bankruptcy Counsel
FEDERAL-MOGUL: Gets Okay to Pay $50M In Critical Vendors' Claims
FRIEDE GOLDMAN: Advances Construction of 2 Semisubmersibles

GREATE BAY: Solicitation for Indenture Revision Expires Today
HEALTHCENTRAL: Files for Protection Under Chapter 11
HENRY MAYO: In Talks with Creditors to Pay Off $10MM In Debts
ICG COMMS: Secures Court Approval to Pay Exit Financing Fees
IMPERIAL CASUALTY: S&P's Bpi Rating Reflects Volatile Returns

INTEGRATED HEALTH: Lease Decision Period Extended to April 1
J.C. PENNEY: Selling $600MM Convertible Sub. Notes Due 2008
J.C. PENNEY: Fitch Rates Convertible Subordinated Notes at BB-
LACLEDE STEEL: Has Until Confirmation Date to Decide on Leases
LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Hearing on Disclosure Statement on Friday

MARINER POST-ACUTE: Enters Settlement on PHCM Loan with Omega
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Lenders Extend Waiver Until December 13
ONSITE ACCESS: Lease Decision Period Extended Until December 17
OWOSSO CORP: Mulls Further Sale of Assets To Stabilize Results
PASW INC: Fails to Comply with Nasdaq Net Equity Requirements

PACIFIC GAS: Admin. Claims for the April 6 - 30 Period Filed
PENN SPECIALTY: Court Extends Lease Decision Deadline to March 4
PENN SPECIALTY: Asks Court to Extend Removal Period to Feb. 5
PHAR-MOR INC: Securities Delisted From Nasdaq
PITTSBURGH CORNING: Obtains Approval of Employee Severance Plan

RELIANCE GROUP: Seeks Extension of Plan Filing Period to Feb. 7
SAFETY COMPONENTS: Unit Sells Metallic Belt Links Assets
STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE: Bank Lenders Agree to Forbear Until Oct. 19
STEEL HEDDLE: First Creditors' Meeting Set for October 12
SUN HEALTHCARE: Lease Decision Time Further Extended to Dec. 13

SUNBEAM CORP: Has Until December 31 to Solicit Plan Acceptance
TITANIUM METALS: Valhi May Junk Deal Without Shareholders' Nod
TOWER RECORDS: Closes Sale of Argentine, HK & Taiwan Operations
USG CORP: Wants Rule 9027 Removal Period Extended Until March 31
U.S. WIRELESS: Seeks Court Approval of Worker Retention Plan

WARNACO GROUP: Moves to Junk Countertrade Consumption Protocol
WINSTAR COMMS: Agrees to Segregate Proceeds from S.F. ISP Sale

                           *********

ALGOMA STEEL: Plan of Arrangement Deadline Extended to Oct. 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
Algoma Steel Inc.(TSE:ALG.) obtained an an extension of its
protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA)
and the time for the filing of a Plan of Arrangement to October
26, 2001.

The current order was to expire on October 12, 2001. The
extension was supported by all of Algoma's stakeholders.

Hap Stephen, Algoma's Chief Restructuring Officer, said
"Progress continues to be made through discussions with the
Company's stakeholders. We expect to file a restructuring plan
for consideration by Algoma's stakeholders by October 26, 2001."

Algoma Steel Inc., based in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, is
Canada's third largest integrated steel producer. Revenues are
derived primarily from the manufacture and sale of rolled steel
products including hot and cold rolled sheet and plate.


ASSISTED LIVING: Falls Short Of AMEX Listing Guidelines
-------------------------------------------------------
Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. (AMEX:ALF), a national provider
of assisted living services, received a notice from the American
Stock Exchange on October 3, 2001 indicating that AMEX intends
to file an application with the Securities and Exchange
Commission to strike the Company's common stock and its two
series of convertible subordinated debentures from listing and
registration on AMEX.

AMEX indicated that the Company has fallen below the AMEX
listing guidelines as a result of the net losses sustained by
the Company in its five most recent fiscal years and the
continued low trading price of the Company's common stock. A
trading halt of the Company's securities was instituted by AMEX
on October 1, 2001 in connection with the Company's announcement
on that day that it had filed a voluntary petition under Chapter
11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware. The Company does not intend
to appeal the delisting of its securities.

If the Company's common stock is delisted from AMEX, the public
trading market for its common stock will likely be adversely
affected. Following such delisting of the Company's common stock
from AMEX, the Company may seek to have its common stock quoted
on the OTC Bulletin Board.

Historically, the OTC Bulletin Board has been a less developed
market providing lower trading volume than the national
securities exchanges and NASDAQ. However, there is no guarantee
that the Company will succeed in having its common stock quoted
on the OTC Bulletin Board.


BURPEE HOLDING: Files for Chapter 11 Protection in Philadelphia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burpee Holding Company, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 protection
with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
George C. Ball Jr., chairman, commented, "This does not have any
effect on our operating subsidiaries. This is just a credit and
financing issue on the holding company." (New Generation
Research, October 9, 2001)


BURPEE HOLDING: Chapter 11 Case Summary
---------------------------------------
Debtor: Burpee Holding Co.

Chapter 11 Petition Date: September 21, 2001

Court: Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia)

Bankruptcy Case No.: 01-33512

Judge: Kevin J. Carey

Debtor's Counsel: James M. Matour
                   One Logan Square
                   27th Floor
                   Philadelphia, PA 19103
                   215-496-7016


CELLPOINT INC: Funding Through Private Placements Reaches $6.55M
----------------------------------------------------------------
CellPoint Inc. (Nasdaq:CLPT), a global provider of mobile
location software technology and platforms, announced it has
raised a total of US$6.55 million to date through initial
closings on private placements in Europe and North America.

These initial closings were completed subsequent to
restructuring of floating convertible notes announced September
26, 2001.

"We are pleased with the support and trust investors have
demonstrated in CellPoint," said Peter Henricsson, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer. "These closings represent an
understanding of the extraordinary potential of the mobile
location services industry, as well as CellPoint's market
leadership position" Working with KCSA Public Relations
Worldwide, CellPoint's investor relations firm in North America,
the Company will next embark on a series of meetings with
institutional investors in the United States."We will be raising
additional working capital in the coming months, primarily with
institutional investors."

Tuesday last week, Nasdaq granted the Company a voting exception
regarding announcement of a closing due to the delay of delivery
of proxy materials and the return of proxies resulting from the
September 11 events in New York City. CellPoint will file a
registration statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Form S-3 by the end of October to register the
common stock and warrants associated with all of these private
placements.

The initial closings included 50% warrant coverage with strike
prices over two years ranging from $2.25 per share to $5.00 per
share. The company will issue less than six million shares of
common stock in conjunction with the initial closings.

CellPoint Inc. (Nasdaq and Stockholmsborsen: CLPT) is a US
company with subsidiary operations in Sweden and Great Britain
delivering mobile location technology and services in
cooperation with cellular operators worldwide. CellPoint's end-
to-end cellular location technology is a high-capacity system
that works in unmodified GSM networks and uses standard GSM or
WAP phones and standard Internet services.

Several commercial applications are available for business and
personal location services including Resource Manager? for
mobile resource management, iMate? for location-sensitive
information and Finder?, an application for locating friends and
family.

CellPoint? and CellPoint Systems? are trademarks of CellPoint
Inc. Forward-looking statements in this release are made
pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Act of 1995. Actual results may differ materially
from those projected in any forward-looking statement. Investors
are cautioned that such forward-looking statements involve risk
and uncertainties which may cause actual results to differ from
those described.


COHEN MEDICAL: Files Chapter 11 Petition in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Medical Corp., a California-based health maintenance
organization providing medical coverage to 6,200 people in
Southern Nevada will cease operations after filing for
bankruptcy in California, the Nevada state insurance
commissioner said, reported the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

The Cohen Medical Corp., doing business as Tower Health Nevada,
filed its chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

Insurance Commissioner Alice Molasky-Arman said she was
dissatisfied with the California regulator's short notice to
Nevada about the company's decision to cease operations.
Nevada's Division of Insurance was not told about the intention
to file bankruptcy though the agency's examiner was in the
California receiver's office on Sept. 28.  The California
conservator expects to send termination notices to Nevada
members, employers and providers within the next few days. (ABI
World, October 9, 2001)


COHEN MEDICAL: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors
------------------------------------------------------------
Debtor: Cohen Medical Corporation
         dba Tower Health
         200 Oceangate Boulevard
         6th Floor
         Long Beach, CA 90802

Chapter 11 Petition Date: October 04, 2001

Court: Central District of California (Los Angeles)

Bankruptcy Case No.: 01-39860

Judge: Samuel L. Bufford

Debtor's Counsel: Richard K. Diamond, Esq.
                   Danning, Gill, Diamond & Kollitz
                   2029 Century Pk East
                   3rd Floor
                   Los Angeles, CA 90067-2904
                   310-277-0077

Estimated Assets: $1 million to $10 million

Estimated Debts: 410 million to $50 million

Debtor's 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors:

Entity                      Nature Of Claim       Claim Amount
------                      ---------------       ------------
Rx America
369 Billy Mitchell Road     Trade                   $2,622,000
Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Willim J. Stilling
Parsons, Behle & Latimer
201 South Main Street
Suite 1600
Salt Lake City
UT 84111-2216
(801) 532-1234

Garfield Medical Center     Trade                    $497,000
PO Box 31001-0119
Pasadena, CA 91100
(800) 375-1630

Western Med Ctr-Sta Ana     Trade                    $426,000
PO Box 3100-0543
Pasadena, CA 91110-0543
(800) 270-0702

St. Mary Medical Center     Trade                    $388,000
Claims Department
18300 Highway 18
Apple Valley, CA 92307
(760) 242-2311

Corona Regional Med Ctr     Trade                    $246,000

Riverside Community         Trade                    $222,000

UCI Medical Center          Trade                    $186,000

Daniel Freeman Hospital     Trade                    $178,000

Presbyterian Intercomm      Trade                    $173,000
Hospital

Fountain Valley Regional    Trade                    $167,000
Hospital

Downey Community Hospital   Trade                    $165,000
Foundation

Milk Drew Medical Center    Trade                    $164,000

St. Mary Medical Center                              $162,000

Applied Insurance           Trade                    $155,000
Association

Loma Linda University       Trade                    $154,000
Medical Center

Centinela Hospital          Trade                    $146,000
Medical Center

Sunrise Hospital            Trade                    $129,000

Cedars Sinai Medical        Trade                    $119,000
Center

Pomona Valley Hospital      Trade                    $113,000
MC

Good Samaritan Hospital     Trade                    $110,000


COMDISCO INC: Equity Panel Balks At Watchell Success Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
The Official Committee of Equity Security Holders of Comdisco,
Inc. clarifies that it has no objection to the retention of
Watchell Lipton as lead counsel to the Creditors' Committee.
However, the Equity Committee is not comfortable with the
proposed contingent success fee arrangement for Watchell Lipton.

Michael Yetnikoff, Esq., at Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, in Chicago,
Illinois, reminds the Court that the Creditors' Committee seeks
to compensate Watchell with monthly fees of $100,000, plus a
Bonus Fee calculated in increments based upon distributions to
unsecured creditors ranging from 85% to 100%, resulting in total
compensation of $5,000,000 if unsecured creditors receive a 100%
distribution.

Mr. Yetnikoff notes that the $100,000 monthly fees would be
credited against the Bonus Fee once the Bonus Fee exceeds
$725,000; at that point the Bonus Fee would be the greater of:

     (a) the monthly fees plus $725,000, or
     (b) the Bonus Fee less monthly fees.

Mr. Yetnikoff observes that the Bonus Fee could result in
compensation to Watchell Lipton that is well above its normal
hourly rates and incurred expenses.  The Equity Committee
contends that such compensation should be denied at this time.

According to Mr. Yetnikoff, there are several reasons why the
Court should deny the application to the extent it seeks
approval of the Bonus Fee.

First, Mr. Yetnikoff says, the request is without precedent.

Second, Mr. Yetnikoff continues, the Bonus Fee cannot be
justified because there may not be any real contingency here.
Mr. Yetnikoff says it is very likely that creditors will receive
a 100% recovery in these cases.  Thus, Mr. Yetnikoff asserts,
Watchell should not obtain a bonus -- let alone a $5,000,000 fee
-- for a result that may not be either "rare" or "exceptional"
at the inception of these cases.

Third, Mr. Yetnikoff adds, even if the 85% to 100% recoveries
that would result in a bonus could be said to constitute
unexpected "success" for creditors in these cases, there is no
reason to conclude that Watchell would be responsible for such
an outcome.  On the contrary, Mr. Yetnikoff claims, credit
should be given to the Debtors' rehabilitative efforts.

Fourth, Mr. Yetnikoff notes, the Bonus Fee would necessarily
come from the assets of these bankruptcy cases that would be
otherwise payable to equity holders.  "If the Creditors'
Committee wishes to reward its counsel, it should not do so with
the shareholders' money.  Let the creditors pay any bonus solely
from distributions to general unsecured creditors," Mr.
Yetnikoff contends.

Fifth, Mr. Yetnikoff anticipates that the Court approval of the
Bonus Fee would irreversibly impair equity's economic interests
in these cases.  Mr. Yetnikoff tells Judge Barliant that it is
simply too soon to lock in the Bonus Fee. (Comdisco Bankruptcy
News, Issue No. 9; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-
0900)


CONDOR TECHNOLOGY: Needs to Complete Debt Workout by January 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Condor Technology Solutions Inc. yesterday disclosed that if it
doesn't complete its proposed restructuring by January 2, the
payment of $12.1 million under its credit agreement would
immediately become due and the company would likely to be forced
to file for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, according to Dow
Jones.

According to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the company is asking its shareholders to approve a
restructuring of the company's debt, in addition to a 1-for-2
reverse stock split of its common shares.  In the event of
bankruptcy, Condor said all its outstanding debt, totaling about
$49.2 million on June 30, would be ranked before payments to its
shareholders. (ABI World, October 9, 2001)


CREDIT CARD CENTER: Amicus Secures Management of ATM Portfolio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amicus Financial, the electronic banking division of CIBC,
announced it has been awarded the opportunity to solicit all of
the Credit Card Center's (CCC) former merchant customers in an
effort to assume management of nearly 15,000 ATM terminals
located throughout the United States. Currently, Amicus
Financial manages more than 8,000 ATMs in the U.S. and Canada.

"[Tues]day's announcement about our growing remote banking
network - one of the largest in North America - is yet another
milestone in our journey to grow North America's largest
electronic bank," said Brian Cassidy, chief executive officer of
Amicus. "Thanks to our thousands of bank machines, Amicus
Financial is offering unprecedented access and convenience to
our nearly 800,000 customers across the continent."

On Friday, Aug. 24, a federal bankruptcy court judge in
Philadelphia awarded XtraCash ATM, the ATM operating arm of
Amicus Financial, the exclusive rights to petition all of CCC's
former merchant customers with an incentive program in an effort
to convert nearly 15,000 already-installed ATMs. That a
reputable banking organization won this right is good news for
merchants who had contracted with CCC and for consumers who
relied on the convenience of these ATMs.

"Amicus Financial's long-term ATM strategy is to create North
America's largest and most comprehensive bank machine network,"
said Eugene DeSilva, chief officer of Amicus Financial's Remote
Banking Division. "We want to ensure that our ATMs provide fee-
free access to funds for Amicus Financial banking customers and
reliable, convenient access to cash for the public."

Amicus Financial's Remote Banking Division manages three
distinct businesses: an owned ATM network, which includes
private label bank machines like those of Marketplace Bank and
Safeway SELECT Bank; a managed ATM network where Amicus
Financial provides other ATM network owners with servicing and
maintenance; and an independent sales operator (ISO) network,
managed by XtraCash ATM, which provides service and back office
processing to individual ATM operators such as convenience
stores and gas stations. Bank machines formerly managed by CCC
would fall under this last category.

Most Amicus Financial ATMs will provide a range of services,
including cash dispensing, deposit taking, and account access
and management. Future services and features may include online
banking capability, check cashing, advertising, money transfer,
and access to web-based services.

Amicus Financial, a division of the Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce, provides electronic financial services for many great
brands in North America including President's Choice Financial,
Marketplace Bank and Safeway SELECT Bank.

Through its network of more than 350 banking pavilions, contact
centers open 24/7, and more than 8,000 ATMs, Amicus Financial
currently services almost 800,000 customers and is acquiring
more than 30,000 new customers each month.

Amicus Financial offers a superior customer experience by
combining self-service with a new standard of friendly, helpful,
and responsive customer service, and with better rates and no
fees on day-to-day banking.


EDISON INT'L: SoCal Unit Will Honor QF Power Purchase Agreements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern California Edison (SoCal Edison) yesterday told small
power producers that it would honor its five-year, fixed-price
contracts with them, ending concern that a separate debt-
recovery settlement conflicted with the contract agreement, Dow
Jones reported.

The June agreement has SoCal Edison buying power from the so-
called qualifying facilities at 5.37 cents a kilowatt-hour, as
well as paying back $1.2 billion in debt for past power
purchases. But the agreement also says the timetable of debt
repayment hinges on a legislative rescue for the insolvent
utility, and not on a court settlement.

State regulators announced last week that they had reached a
settlement with the utility, allowing it to pay down $3.3
billion in debt through existing customer rates. A federal judge
approved the settlement on Friday.

Several qualifying facilities yesterday said they had been in
contact with the utility and were told that the original
agreement would essentially remain intact.  SoCal Edison said it
expects to repay all debt by the end of the first quarter of
2002. (ABI World, October 9, 2001)


ETOYS INC: Seeks Okay of $2.6MM Settlement with Goldman Sachs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidating Internet toy retailer eToys Inc. is seeking
bankruptcy court approval of a settlement with Goldman Sachs &
Co. under which Goldman Sachs will refund $2.55 million in
investment banking fees that it received from the company, Dow
Jones reported.

According to a recent filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Wilmington, Del., eToys engaged Goldman Sachs in December 2000
to help the company with a sale, merger or capital infusion.

The parties entered into another agreement on February 7 -
exactly one month before eToys' chapter 11 filing - under which
eToys paid Goldman Sachs a $3 million fee and $150,000 for out-
of-pocket expenses.  The agreement required Goldman Sachs to
return a portion of the fee unless a certain sale, merger or
other transaction was consummated.  eToys said that since no
such transaction took place, it is entitled to a refund of $2.65
million.

Objections to the settlement are due on October 23. The U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Delaware, will schedule a
hearing only if objections are filed.  Although the company shut
down its web site when it filed for chapter 11 on March 7, it
continued to market its assets and businesses. Since that time,
it has entered into and consummated various sale and other
transactions, including a transaction with an affiliate of KB
Toys.

Most recently, the company has sought approval to sell certain
inventory from locations in Virginia and California to Bobby
Wilkerson Inc. for about $1.3 million. A hearing on the request
is scheduled for October 17. (ABI WOrld, October 9, 2001)


EXODUS COMMS: Taps Skadden ARPS As Primary Bankruptcy Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------
Exodus Communications, Inc. presents their application to employ
and retain Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP as their
principal bankruptcy counsel to prosecute these chapter 11
cases.

Adam W. Wegner, the Debtors' Senior Adviser for Legal and
Corporate Affairs, tells the Court that Skadden Arps is uniquely
familiar with the Debtors' business and legal affairs.  Mr.
Wegner relates that the Debtors selected the firm of Skadden
Arps as their attorneys because of the firm's extensive
experience with and knowledge of the Debtors' business, as well
as its experience and knowledge in the field of debtors' and
creditors' rights and business reorganizations under chapter 11.

The Debtors have hired Skadden Arps under a general retainer
arrangement set forth in a formal Engagement Agreement.  In
short, Skadden will charge for services at hourly rates under a
bundled rate structure that includes all staff, clerical and
resource charges.  Presently, the hourly rates under the bundled
rate structure range are:

         Partners                             $480 to 695
         Counsel and Associates                230 to 470
         Legal Assistants and Support Staff     80 to 160

Specifically, Mr. Wegner says, the Debtors will turn to Skadden
to:

A. advise the Debtors with respect to their powers and duties as
    debtors and debtors-in-possession in the continued
    management and operation of their business and properties;

B. attend meetings and negotiate with representatives of
    creditors and other parties in interest;

C. take all necessary action to protect and preserve the
    Debtors' estates, including the prosecution of actions on
    their behalf, the defense of any actions commenced against
    the estates, negotiations concerning litigation in which the
    Debtors may be involved, and objections to claims filed
    against the estates;

D. prepare on behalf of the Debtors all motions, applications,
    answers, orders, reports, and papers necessary to the
    administration of the estates;

E. advise the Debtors in connection with any sale of assets;

F. negotiate and prosecute on the Debtors' behalf, plan of
    reorganization, disclosure statement, and all related
    agreements and documents, and take any necessary action on
    behalf of the Debtors to obtain confirmation of such plan;

G. appear before this Court, any appellate courts, and the
    United States Trustee, and protect the interests of the
    Debtors' estates before such courts and the United States
    Trustee; and

H. perform all other necessary legal services and provide all
    other necessary legal advice to the Debtors in connection
    with the chapter 11 cases.

Skadden member J. Gregory Milnoe, Esq., relates that the firm
was retained to assist the Debtors in their present
restructuring efforts on July 15, 2001, and has since performed
extensive legal work for the Debtors in connection with their
ongoing restructuring efforts including with respect to
financing and divestiture strategies and creditor issues.

Mr. Milnoe believes Skadden Arps has assembled a highly
qualified team of attorneys, including himself, to service the
Debtors during their reorganization efforts. The other members
of the legal team to service the Debtors are:

            * D.J. Baker, Esq.,
            * Mark S. Chehi, Esq., and
            * John K. Lyons, Esq.

Exodus paid Skadden a $75,000 retainer for professional services
and expenses.  The Debtors also paid $441,939 for prepetition
legal services

Mr. Milnoe confirms that members, counsel and associates of
Skadden Arps:

   (1) do not have any connection with the Debtors or their
       affiliates, their creditors, or any other party in
       interest, or their respective attorneys and accountants,

   (2) are "disinterested persons," and

   (3) do not hold or represent any interest adverse to the
       estates.

Mr. Milnoe tells the Court that Skadden Arps in the past has
represented, currently represents, and in the future likely will
represent certain creditors of the Debtors and other
parties-in-interest in matters unrelated to the Debtors, the
Debtors' reorganization cases or such entities' claims against
or interests in the Debtors.

Prior to the commencement of these cases, Skadden Arps conducted
a "conflicts review" with respect to the Debtors and the most
significant parties-in-interest in the Debtors' cases and has
discovered that it has represented the following entities on
matters related to the Debtors:

A. Former Secured Creditor - The Firm regularly represent
    Goldman Sachs on matters unrelated to Exodus. Goldman Sachs
    participated in a senior secured credit facility under which
    certain of the Debtors were borrowers. In the spring of
    2001, the Firm rendered certain advice to Goldman Sachs
    concerning such participation. The senior secured credit
    facility was paid in full by Exodus in June 2001, and the
    Firm's representation of Goldman Sachs in that matter
    concluded at that time.

B. Common Shareholder - The Firm regularly represents Global
    Crossing Ltd. which is a 19.6% shareholder of Exodus on
    matters unrelated to Exodus. In detailed conflicts check,
    Mr. Milnoe discovered that in connection with regular,
    ongoing tax advice to Global Crossing concerning its
    investments in a variety of enterprises, tax advice was also
    being given regarding tax strategies and implications
    affecting Global Crossing's investment in Exodus. The Firm
    has ceased providing any such advice and clarified in
    writing that it will not provide advice to or otherwise
    represent Global Crossing in any way relating to its former,
    existing or future relationships with Exodus, including but
    not limited to, tax advice concerning Global Crossing's
    existing investment in Exodus. To preserve the confidences
    of all parties, the Firm has established an "ethical wall"
    and instructed Firm lawyers who have worked for Global
    Crossing with respect to its investment in Exodus not to
    discuss or share any information about that matter with any
    persons working on Exodus matters and vice versa. Finally,
    the Firm has obtained a written waiver from Global Crossing
    permitting it to fully represent Exodus on all matters in
    which Global has or may have an adverse interest, including,
    but not limited to, litigation before this Court or another
    appropriate tribunal. The Firm continues to represent Global
    Crossing Ltd. in matters unrelated to the Debtors.

C. Litigation - The Firm previously provided advice to Live365,
    Inc., a customer of Exodus, in connection with a potential
    contract dispute. However, the matter was resolved without
    the initiation of any formal proceedings by the Firm, and
    the Firm's representation of Live365 in this matter has
    terminated. In addition, the Firm currently represents
    Merrill Lynch which is a defendant in a series of purported
    class action lawsuits brought on behalf of Merrill Lynch
    customers alleging the breach of fiduciary duties allegedly
    owed to such customers by publishing analyst reports about
    various companies including, in one case, Exodus. Such
    lawsuits are not based on Merrill Lynch's acting as an
    investment banker for a security of Exodus, and the Firm has
    not represented Merrill Lynch in connection with the offer,
    sale or issuance of a security of Exodus. Lastly, Skadden,
    Arps currently represents, or has represented the following
    entities on matters unrelated to the Debtors:

    1. Secured Lenders - Skadden, Arps currently represents, or
       has represented certain of the Debtors' secured lenders
       in matters unrelated to Exodus, including: Bank of
       Tokyo Mitsubishi, Ltd.; Barclays Bank Plc, Barclays
       Global Investors Trust & Banking Co., Ltd.; Fuji Bank,
       Ltd., Fuji Securities Inc.; Lehman Brothers,
       Lehman-Sunrise Finance, K.K., and Lehman Brothers
       Merchant Banking Partners II, L. P.; Franklin
       Resources, Inc.; Transamerica Lending and Leasing,
       Inc.; Wells Fargo Bank, Wells Fargo & Co., Allis
       Chalmers Corp., Family Golf Centers, Inc, Giant
       Industries, Inc., Motorcar Parts and Accessories, Inc.,
       NET Perceptions, Inc., Rockwell International Corp.,
       USF&G-Falcon Asset Management, Inc. and William Siart.

    2. Indenture Trustees - Chase Manhattan Bank and Trust
       Company and HSBC Bank USA are each indenture trustees
       with respect to the issuance of the Debtors' 11 public
       debt. Skadden, Arps represents Chase Manhattan Bank and
       Trust Company and HSBC Bank USA on matters unrelated to
       the Debtors.

    3. Major Lessors - Of the Debtors' major lessors, identified
       by the Debtors as of August 8, 2001, Skadden, Arps
       represents or has represented the following major
       lessors or their affiliates in matters unrelated to the
       Debtors and these cases: Cisco Systems and Sun Micro
       systems.

    4. Major Trade Creditors. Of the Debtors major vendors,
       Skadden, Arps represents or has represented the
       following major vendors or their affiliates in
       matters unrelated to the Debtors or their chapter 11
       cases: affiliates of Akamai Technologies, Inc.,
       including Battery Ventures, Massachusetts Financial
       Services Co., and the Massachusetts Institute of
       Technology; AT&T; Cable & Wireless; EMC 2 Corporation;
       and Global Crossing.

    5. Officer and Directors - Daniel Lynch a former director
       of Exodus is an outside director of Cybercash Inc., a
       client of the firm. Naomi O. Seligman, a former
       director of Exodus is also an outside director of firm
       clients Sun Microsystems.

    6. Retained Professionals. In addition to Skadden, Arps,
       the Debtors have sought, or may seek, to retain (a)
       Fenwick and West, (b) Bingham Dana LLP, (c) Gray Cary
       Ware and Freidenrich, (d) KPMG Peat Marwick, (e)
       Lazard Freres & Co. LLC and (e) Logan & Company, Inc.
       to represent them in these cases. Skadden, Arps
       currently represents Lazard Freres & Co. LLP, and KPMG
       Peat Marwick on matters unrelated to these cases. In
       addition, Skadden, Arps represents and has represented
       entities that have in the past used the services of
       these professionals.

    7. Other Professionals. Skadden, Arps also represents or has
       represented in the past the following of the Debtors,
       ordinary course professionals or their affiliates on
       matters unrelated to the Debtors or their Chapter 11
       cases: Baker and McKenzie, an affiliate of Baker &
       McKenzie; Minter, Ellison, Orrick, Herrington &
       Sutcliffe, LLP, PriceWaterhouse Coopers and Deloitte
       and Touche.

    8. Major Bondholders - Skadden Arps represents or has
       represented the following bondholders or their
       affiliates in matters unrelated to the Debtors:
       Aegon USA Investment Management Inc., Brookside Capital
       Management/Bain Capital, Inc., Eaton Vance Management
       Inc., Fidelity Management & Research, Goldman Sachs
       International, Legg Mason Capital Management, Inc.,
       Lehman Brothers, Lond, Abbett & Company, Morgan
       Stanley, Dean Witter, Northwestern Investment
       Management Company, Oppenheimer Funds, Prudential
       Global Asset Management, Putnam Investments, RBC
       Dominion Securities Corp., Smith Barney Asset
       Management, T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., The TWC
       Group a/k/a Trust Co. of the West, and Wellington
       Management Company LLP. (Exodus Bankruptcy News, Issue No.
       3; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)


FEDERAL-MOGUL: Gets Okay to Pay $50M In Critical Vendors' Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Sherbin, Vice President, Deputy General Counsel and
Secretary of Federal-Mogul, tells the Court that Federal-Mogul
Corporation needs the discretion to pay up to $50,000,000 of
prepetition claims owed to certain critical vendors.

By Motion, the Debtors ask the Court for authority to pay (but
not an order directing them to pay) pre-petition claims of
critical vendors the Company deems to be essential to the
uninterrupted functioning of the Debtors' business operations.

Mr. Sherbin provides these examples of situations where the
Debtors might want to pay a prepetition Critical Vendor claim:

(A) the goods and services provided are often the only source
     from which the Debtors can procure certain goods or
     services;

(B) failure to pay the critical vendor claims would very likely
     result in termination of the critical vendors' provision of
     goods and services to the Debtors;

(C) the critical vendors provide goods and services to the
     Debtors on advantageous terms;

(D) the critical vendors would be irreparable harmed by the
     Debtors' failure to pay their pre-petition claims, resulting
     in the Debtors being forced to obtain goods and services
     elsewhere that would either be higher price or not the
     quality required by the Debtors.

Mr. Sherbin explains that the Debtors will be motivated to pay a
Critical Vendor Claim when the failure to pay is likely to
result in:

   (1) the Debtors' inability to obtain necessary materials for
       production;

   (2) a temporary shutdown of the Debtors' manufacturing
       facilities; and

   (3) severe negative effects on the Debtors OE customers, which
       include most vehicle manufacturers in the U.S.

Laura Davis Jones, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl Young & Jones,
P.C., in Wilmington, Delaware, tells the Court that these
effects are primarily due to the highly integrated nature of the
OE supply chain, the Debtors' central role in the supply chain
and the OE customers' stringent quality requirement that limit
the availability of alternative sources of supply.  Such effects
would result in significant shutdowns of their customers'
manufacturing facilities, severely impacting those customers and
potentially giving rise to damages claims against the Debtors.

The Debtors seek to pay up to $50,000,000 in critical vendor
claims, Ms. Jones says, recognizing the necessity of making
payments to critical vendor claims and ensuring provision of
adequate amounts of credit on a post-petition basis.

Ms. Jones relates that the Debtors have undertaken a review of
their pre-petition vendors to identify those essential to the
Debtors' operations. In addition, the Debtors further developed
certain procedures that will ensure continuation of trade credit
necessary to the Debtors' businesses.

Mr. Sherbin estimate that 1,800 vendors constitute critical
vendors, or approximately 5.1% of the Debtors 35,000 vendors as
of the petition date.  Mr. Sherbin proposes to condition the
payment of critical vendor claims on the agreement that they
continue supplying goods and services on trade terms previously
availed by the Debtors, or such other trade practices that are
favorable to the Debtors as those in effect pre-petition.

If a critical vendor refuses to supply goods and services to the
Debtors on customary trade terms following the receipt of
payment on its critical vendor claim, the Debtors seek authority
to:

   (i) declare that any such trade agreement between the Debtors
       and critical vendor be terminated; and

  (ii) declare that provisional payments made to critical vendors
       on account of critical vendor claims be deemed to have
       been in payment of outstanding post-petition claims of
       such vendors.

In the event of such occurrence, Ms. Jones requests that such
critical vendors immediately repay the Debtors any payment made
to it on account of critical vendor claims to the extent that
payments on account of such critical vendor claims exceed the
post-petition claims of such vendors without giving effect to
any rights of setoff. Ms. Jones states that the Debtors seek to
return the parties to their position immediately prior to the
entry of the order approving this motion with respect to all
pre-petition claims in the event a trade agreement is terminated
or a critical vendor refuses to supply goods and services to the
Debtors on customary trade terms following the receipt of
payment of critical vendor claims.

The Debtors further propose the reinstatement of any terminated
trade agreement in the event of:

   (x) such determination is subsequently reversed by the Court
       for good cause shown that the determination was materially
       incorrect;

   (y) The underlying default under the trade agreement was fully
       cured by the critical vendor not later than 5 business
       days following the Debtors' notification to the critical
       vendor that a default has occurred;

   (z) The Debtors reach a favorable alternative agreement with
       the critical vendor.

As a further condition of receiving critical vendor claim, Ms.
Jones says, the critical vendor must agree to remove trade liens
obtained by some critical vendors on the Debtors' assets.

The Debtors believe that payment of critical vendor claims is
necessary to effect a successful reorganization in these cases.
Otherwise, Ms. Jones believes that such critical vendors are
likely to discontinue providing goods to the Debtors on
customary trade terms, reducing the amount of credit available
to the Debtors. In addition, the Debtors believe that certain
critical vendors may cease to do business with the Debtors,
resulting in Debtors' inability to obtain certain essential
goods and services and forcing the Debtors to incur higher
costs.

                        *   *   *

Finding that the relief requested is in the best interest of the
Debtors and their estates, creditors, and other parties in
interest, Judge Robinson grants the motion on an interim basis,
authorizing, but not directing, the Debtors to make payments for
critical vendor claims up to $10,000,000. (Federal-Mogul
Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 2; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service,
Inc., 609/392-0900)


FRIEDE GOLDMAN: Advances Construction of 2 Semisubmersibles
-----------------------------------------------------------
Friede Goldman Halter, Inc. (OTCBB:FGHLQ) announced that its
Friede Goldman Offshore subsidiary has reached an agreement with
Petrodrill IV Ltd. and Petrodrill V Ltd. (Petrodrill) to advance
the construction of two Amethyst-class deepwater
semisubmsersible drilling rigs.

Friede Goldman will work, at the customer's direction, and
operate on a cost-reimbursable basis with contractually
established rates for equipment, personnel, and labor. The
agreement is expected to generate greater security and
additional employment opportunities for the local workforce.
Preliminary estimates place work for this phase of completion at
four months for the Company's Pascagoula, Mississippi facility
and five months at the Orange, Texas facility. Petrodrill may
opt to add additional phases.

FGH also announced plans to consolidate its ongoing Pascagoula,
Mississippi offshore projects at the East Facility on Greenwood
Island. The West Bank facility will undergo a restoration and
upgrade during the temporary closure.

According to Offshore Group President Ron Schnoor, "With as many
as six oil rigs moored at the docks over the past several years,
FGO has been unable to allow for maintenance dredging. We have
approximately $500,000 in the port's coffers specifically
designated for dredging of the basin alongside our docks at the
West Bank, so this is the perfect opportunity to carry out that
project at no cost to the Company."

The West Bank facility renovation is just one example of the
numerous initiatives that the Company is taking to support its
goals of cost-effective, stable, and well-managed business
operations.

Friede Goldman Halter is a world leader in the design and
manufacture of equipment for the maritime and offshore energy
industries. Its operating units are Friede Goldman Offshore
(construction, upgrade and repair of drilling units, mobile
production units, and offshore construction equipment), Halter
Marine (construction and repair of ocean-going vessels
for commercial and governmental markets), FGH Engineered
Products Group (design and manufacture of cranes, winches,
mooring systems, and marine deck equipment), and Friede &
Goldman Ltd. (naval architecture and marine engineering).


GREATE BAY: Solicitation for Indenture Revision Expires Today
-------------------------------------------------------------
GB Property Funding Corp., GB Holdings, Inc. and Greate Bay
Hotel and Casino, Inc. has extended the solicitation period for
the solicitation of consents for the purpose of amending the
terms of the indenture governing the Company's 11% First
Mortgage Notes due 2005.

The  terms of the Solicitation are set forth in the Solicitation
Materials distributed to holders of Notes. The Solicitation was
due to expire at 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on October 8, 2001.
The Solicitation will now expire at 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on
October 11, 2001, unless the  Solicitation is extended to a
later date and time.


HEALTHCENTRAL: Files for Protection Under Chapter 11
----------------------------------------------------
HealthCentral (Nasdaq:HCEN), a leading healthcare e-commerce
company, and its wholly-owned subsidiaries HealthCentralRx.com,
Inc., HealthCentral Enterprise Web Services, Inc., WebRx.com,
Inc., HCEN Acquisition Corp., HealthCentral.ca, Vitamins.com,
Inc., Vitamins.com, LLC, L&H Vitamins, Inc. and J&M Direct Corp.
announced that they have filed voluntary petitions for
protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy
Code.

The Company currently intends to proceed with a sale of its
assets. The Company is taking this action in an effort to
maximize the value of the business for all of its stakeholders.

HealthCentral (Nasdaq: HCEN) is a leading provider of healthcare
e-commerce to consumers through WebRxSM, a network of sites
representing the consolidation of Vitamins.com,
HealthCentral.com, RxList.com and others. Its e-commerce site,
WebRxSM --  http://www.webrx.com -- features more than 20,000
products.

WebRxSM features one of the largest on-line selections of
vitamins, a Vision Center and a Comfort Living department --
http://www.comfortliving.com -- with a broad range of products
including maternity and baby care, ergonomic chairs, water
purifiers and an extensive line of allergy control products.
HealthCentral.com -- http://www.healthcentral.com-- provides
health-related information and commentary by Dr. Dean Edell, MD
and other experts. RxList.com --  http://www.rxlist.com --
provides both patient-focused and professional-focused
prescription drug information monographs.


HENRY MAYO: In Talks with Creditors to Pay Off $10MM In Debts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hoping to avoid bankruptcy, the financially beleaguered Henry
Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital in Valencia, California, is
scrambling to cut deals with creditors to pay off its $10
million debt, The Los Angeles Daily News reported.  The
hospital's chief executive officer and chief financial officer
have been placing calls to each creditor to persuade them to
accept 22.5 cents on the dollar for past-due bills.

Hospital President and CEO Roger E. Seaver said 95 percent of
the creditors must agree to the discounted payment if the
hospital is to avoid a bankruptcy court-supervised business
reorganization.  Seaver said if the hospital is forced to file
for chapter 11, court and other fees would reduce the rate it
can pay to creditors.

"At a meeting in a couple of weeks, the major creditors will
decide if they'll agree to the terms or force us into chapter 11
(bankruptcy)," Seaver said. "Getting 95 percent agreement in
anything is a problem, even though it appears to be the best
option for them.  In the end, it's their choice."  As of last
Friday, Newhall Memorial had agreements from creditors owed 15
percent of the total debt, which is in excess of $10 million.
(ABI World, October 9, 2001)


ICG COMMS: Secures Court Approval to Pay Exit Financing Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
ICG Communications Inc. received court approval to pay due
diligence reimbursement in connection with its efforts to obtain
exit financing.

Chief Judge Peter J. Walsh of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Wilmington, Del., signed the order on September 28, according to
documents obtained by DBR Friday.

The order permits ICG Communications to cap the reimbursement at
$500,000. As part of the facilities-based communications
provider's efforts to emerge from bankruptcy, ICG Communications
is in the process of securing exit financing.

The company said in its motion that it has entered into
"preliminary discussions" with a potential lender. (ABI World,
October 9, 2001)


IMPERIAL CASUALTY: S&P's Bpi Rating Reflects Volatile Returns
-------------------------------------------------------------
Standard & Poor's  assigned its single-'Bpi' financial strength
rating on Imperial Casualty & Indemnity Co.

The rating action reflects the stock company's volatile returns,
absence of retained earnings, and net asbestos and environmental
liability exposure, which is offset in part by strong
capitalization.

Based in Philadelphia, Penn. (domiciled in Nebraska), Imperial
Casualty & Indemnity Co. (NAIC: 11487) writes mainly general
liability. All outstanding shares are owned by British Petroleum
Co. PLC (BP), formerly BP Amoco (double-'A'-plus counterparty
credit rating), the world's third largest integrated oil
company behind Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch/Shell.

The company's business lies entirely within its major state of
Connecticut and its products are distributed primarily through
independent agencies. The company, which began business in 1955,
is licensed in 42 states and the District of Columbia.

     Major Rating Factors:

     -- The company's historical returns have been volatile with,
for example, ROA ranging from 0.3% to 14.4% in the last five
years, a limiting factor. Together with a record of earnings
volatility, the company's absence of retained profits
(unassigned surplus is negative $0.1 million) is a rating
factor.

     -- The combination of one-year loss development to surplus
of 9.0% and high earnings volatility is a limiting factor. At
year-end 2000, the company's net asbestos and environmental
liability reserves exceeded 40% of policyholders' surplus. The
company's direct unpaid losses are also high at 47% of
policyholders' surplus.

     -- The company's surplus, which stood at $13.8 million at
year-end 1999, has shown virtually no growth with a compound
annual growth rate of 0.3% since 1972.

     -- At year-end year 2000, capital adequacy as measured by
Standard & Poor's model was extremely strong.

The company is rated on a stand-alone basis.

'Pi' ratings, denoted with a 'pi' subscript, are insurer
financial strength ratings based on an analysis of an insurer's
published financial information and additional information in
the public domain. They do not reflect in-depth meetings with an
insurer's management and are therefore based on less
comprehensive information than ratings without a 'pi' subscript.
'Pi' ratings are reviewed annually based on a new year's
financial statements, but may be reviewed on an interim basis if
a major event that may affect the insurer's financial security
occurs. Ratings with a 'pi' subscript are not subject to
potential CreditWatch listings.

Ratings with a 'pi' subscript generally are not modified with
'plus' or 'minus' designations. However, such designations may
be assigned when the insurer's financial strength rating is
constrained by sovereign risk or the credit quality of a parent
company or affiliated group.


INTEGRATED HEALTH: Lease Decision Period Extended to April 1
------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Health Services, Inc. sought and obtained an order
from the Court, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 365(d)(4), further
extending the time within which they must decide whether to
assume, assume and assign, or reject unexpired leases of
nonresidential real property to and including April 1, 2002.
The extension applied to all lessees or sub-lessees and is
without prejudice to their ability to request a further
extension.

Presently, the Debtors are lessees or sub-lessees under more
than 1,300 Unexpired Leases, approximately 181 of which are
utilized in connection with the Debtors' long-term care
facilities, 142 of which are utilized in connection with
Symphony (and certain other ancillary divisions), while
approximately another 1,024 Unexpired Leases relate to the
RoTech Debtors. The Debtors include with the motion in an annex
a list of the Unexpired Leases to the best of the Debtors'
knowledge, representing a good faith effort on their part to
list the Unexpired Leases.

The Unexpired Leases are valuable assets of the Debtors' estates
and are integral to the continued operation of their businesses.
Thus, the Debtors do not want to forfeit their right to assume
any Unexpired Lease as a result of the "deemed rejection"
provision of the Bankruptcy Code, or be compelled to assume all
of their Unexpired Leases within that same period in order to
avoid rejections, with the resultant imposition of potentially
substantial administrative expenses to their estates.

However, the time required to make lease assumption and/or
rejection decisions is compounded by the large number of
Unexpired Leases, as well as the overall size and complexity of
the Debtors' cases, the Debtors tell the Court. The task is
daunting, the Debtors say, given the complexity and
distinctiveness of many of the lease arrangements: in order to
make reasoned decisions to assume or reject such leases, the
actual and projected financial performance of each facility must
be reviewed, ongoing operating results monitored and evaluated,
and other factors affecting the desirability of retaining
various facilities considered.

The Debtors tell the Court that their continuing effort to
rationalize their vast lease portfolio has produced significant
results during the Third Extension Period.

In particular, the Debtors remind Judge Walrath that they are in
the process of formulating a plan of reorganization for the
RoTech Debtors, which collectively are the lessees under more
than 75% of the Unexpired Leases. The RoTech Debtors are working
toward the goals of completing the confirmation process by
January 26, 2002 and emerging from chapter 11 within the first
quarter of 2002. In furtherance of those goals, during the Third
Extension Period, the RoTech Debtors focused on identifying
unwanted Unexpired Leases within their portfolio, and as a
result have already filed rejection motions as to a number of
Unexpired Leases. It is anticipated that at least one additional
rejection motion in respect of Unexpired Leases of the RoTech
Debtors will be filed shortly.

Thus, the Debtors anticipate that by the end of the first
quarter of 2002, assumption/rejection decisions will have been
made as to the vast majority of the Unexpired Leases. The
Debtors believe in good faith that an extension of their time to
April 1, 2002 will facilitate an orderly and efficient process
for making the assumption/ rejection decisions on this major
portion of the Debtors' portfolio.

In addition to the continued efforts by the RoTech Debtors to
make decisions on their Unexpired Leases, the Debtors reiterate
the significant progress that they have made with respect to
their long-term care facility leases, drawing Judge Walrath's
attention to their previous efforts in making an extensive
facility-by-facility review and evaluation of their long-term
care facility portfolio, which has been the subject of
continuing refinement, discussion with the Creditors' Committee
and its professionals, negotiation and implementation. The
Debtors advise that their portfolio analysis has served, and
will continue to serve, as the basis for ongoing and anticipated
lease restructuring negotiations.

The Debtors also note that the lessors in respect of the
Unexpired Leases will not be prejudiced by the extension
because: (i) the Debtors have performed and will continue to
perform in a timely manner their post-Filing Date obligations
under the Unexpired Leases, except with respect to those
obligations which are the subject of bona-fide disputes; and
(ii) any lessor may request that the Court fix an earlier date
by which the Debtors must assume or reject its lease in
accordance with section 365(d)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Debtors are convinced that the extension will promote their
ability to maximize the value of their estates, avoid the
incurrence of needless administrative expenses by minimizing the
likelihood of an inadvertent rejection of a valuable lease or
premature assumption of a burdensome one, and, most importantly,
best serve the health and safety of facility residents.

The extension granted will include not only the unexpired leases
in the annex but also all unexpired nonresidential real property
leases pursuant to which the Debtors are or are determined to be
a lessee or sublessee, provided however, that it does not apply
to those nonresidential real property leases which are the
subject of a separate order of the Court. (Integrated Health
Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 20; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service,
Inc., 609/392-0900)


J.C. PENNEY: Selling $600MM Convertible Sub. Notes Due 2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. (NYSE: JCP) announced that it has
priced a private placement of $600 million of 5 percent
convertible subordinated notes due 2008.  The offering was
increased from the previously announced amount of $500 million.

In addition, the initial purchasers of the securities will have
a 30 day option to purchase up to an additional $50 million in
notes.  The notes are convertible into 21.1 million shares of
JCPenney Common Stock at the option of the holders, at a
conversion price of $28.50 per share.

The notes are callable by the Company on or after October 20,
2004.  The proceeds from the offering are expected to be used
primarily for upcoming debt maturities.

The notes are being sold to qualified institutional buyers in
reliance on Rule 144A and to persons outside the United States
under Regulation S.  The notes, and the JCPenney Common Stock
issuable upon conversion of the notes, have not been registered
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and they may not
be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or
an applicable exemption from registration requirements.

J. C. Penney Company, Inc. is one of America's largest
department store, drugstore, catalog, and e-commerce retailers,
employing approximately 270,000 associates.  The Company
operates approximately 1,080 JCPenney department stores in all
50 states, Puerto Rico, and Mexico.

In addition, the Company operates approximately 50 Renner
department stores in Brazil.  Eckerd operates approximately
2,650 drugstores throughout the Southeast, Sunbelt, and
Northeast regions of the U.S.  JCPenney Catalog, including e-
commerce, is the nation's largest catalog merchant of general
merchandise.  J. C. Penney Company, Inc. is the sponsor of
JCPenney Afterschool, a partnership committed
to providing kids with high-quality afterschool programs to help
them reach their full potential.


J.C. PENNEY: Fitch Rates Convertible Subordinated Notes at BB-
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fitch has assigned a rating of 'BB-' to J. C. Penney Co., Inc.'s
proposed $500 million issue of seven year convertible
subordinated notes. The proceeds are expected to be used
primarily for upcoming debt maturities. At the same time, Fitch
affirmed its rating of 'BB+' on Penney's  senior notes. The
Rating Outlook is Negative.

The ratings reflect Penney's soft department store and Eckerd
drugstore operations, and weakness in the company's catalog
operation. While recent sales trends for the department and drug
stores have been encouraging, profitability remains depressed.
These factors are offset in part by management's efforts to
improve operations and strengthen the company's liquidity
position.

After deteriorating for several years, Penney's credit measures
have begun to stabilize. EBITDAR (before restructuring and other
charges) to interest plus rents was 1.5 times in the 12 months
ended July 28, 2001, compared with 1.4x in 2000 and 2.0x in
1999. Leverage as measured by lease-adjusted debt to EBITDAR of
6.4x in the latest 12 months compared with 6.7x and 4.6x in 2000
and 1999, respectively. While these levels are weak for the
rating category, Fitch expects them to rebound over the medium
term as debt levels are reduced and profitability and cash flow
improves.

Despite its soft operations, the recent sale of the Direct
Marketing Services business and improving free cash flow have
strengthened Penney's balance sheet and liquidity. As of July
28, 2001, the company had cash on hand of $1.7 billion. This
liquidity will be used to retire debt maturities over the next
couple of years, thereby allowing management time to implement
its turnaround strategies.

Penney's management team, under the direction of CEO Allen
Questrom, is taking positive steps to return the company to
profitable growth over the long term. These steps include the
recent centralization of the merchandising function at the
department stores, which should lead to improved assortments and
more timely movement of goods into the stores. Eckerd is
implementing new pricing and marketing strategies, and is
reconfiguring its stores to boost sales of higher margin general
merchandise.

Nevertheless, the Negative Rating Outlook reflects a weakened
economic outlook, the competitive nature of the pharmacy and
department store sectors, and the risks associated with
implementing new strategies. It also reflects the expectation
that it could take an extended period of time for the company's
turnaround efforts to take hold.


LACLEDE STEEL: Has Until Confirmation Date to Decide on Leases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barry S. Schermer concurred with Laclede Steel Company's
assertion that sufficient cause exists to extend the time within
which the company must elect to assume or to reject any
unexpired leases of nonresidential real property.  Judge
Schermer thus extended Laclede Steel's lease decision period
until the entry of an order confirming a plan of reorganization.

Lessors may request the Court to compel Laclede Steel to assume
or reject a particular unexpired lease, Judge Schermer notes.
Laclede Steel likewise retains the right to oppose any such
motion, Judge Schermer adds.

Laclede Steel, one of only three full-line producers of
continuous-weld pipe in the US, sought chapter 11 protection for
the second time on July 27, 2001, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri.  Lloyd A. Palans, Esq., at
Bryan Cave LLP, in St. Louis, represents the firm in its
restructuring efforts.

The company's 10Q Report filed with SEC lists its assets at
$129,906,000 and its liabilities at $123,340,000 as of March 31,
2001.


LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Hearing on Disclosure Statement on Friday
------------------------------------------------------------
Having reviewed Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. and
Dictaphone Corp.'s Disclosure Statement and the objections,
and based on the Debtors' stated intent to amend and the sale
motions, Judge Wizmur set a continued hearing on the Disclosure
Statement, as amended, for October 12, 2001. (L&H/Dictaphone
Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 12; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service,
Inc., 609/392-0900)


MARINER POST-ACUTE: Enters Settlement on PHCM Loan with Omega
-------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors Inc. (NYSE:OHI) announced that it has
entered into a comprehensive settlement with Mariner Post-Acute
Network Inc. (MPAN) resolving all outstanding issues relating to
Omega's loan (the PHCM Loan) to Professional Healthcare
Management Inc. (PHCM), an MPAN subsidiary. Omega also announced
the 90-day extension by one lender of a covenant waiver and
continuing discussions with a second lender regarding a similar
extension.

                         MPAN Settlement

Pursuant to the MPAN settlement, the PHCM Loan is secured by a
first mortgage on twelve skilled nursing facilities owned by
PHCM with 1,668 operating beds.

PHCM will remain obligated on the total outstanding loan balance
as of January 18, 2000, the date MPAN filed for protection under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, and is to pay Omega its
accrued interest at a rate of approximately 11% for the period
from the filing date until September 1, 2001.

As of the closing of the Settlement Agreement on September 17,
2001, PHCM paid approximately 93% of such accrued interest and
Omega expects the balance will be paid within the next 60 days.
Monthly payments with interest at the rate of 11.57% per annum
resumed October 1, 2001. The Settlement Agreement was approved
by the United States Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Delaware on
August 22, 2001, and became effective as of September 1, 2001.

On February 1, 2001, four Michigan facilities previously
operated by PHCM and subject to Omega's pre-petition mortgage
were transferred by PHCM to a new operator who paid for the
facilities by execution of a Promissory Note that has been
assigned to Omega.

PHCM was given a $4.5 million credit on February 1, 2001 and an
additional $3.5 million credit as of September 1, 2001, both
against the PHCM Loan balance in exchange for the assignment of
the Promissory Note to Omega. The Promissory Note is secured by
a first mortgage on the four facilities.

Following the closing under the Settlement Agreement, the
outstanding principal balance on the PHCM Loan is approximately
$59,700,000. The PHCM Loan term will be ten years with PHCM
having the option to extend for an additional ten years. PHCM
will also have the option to prepay the PHCM Loan between Feb.
1, 2005 and July 31, 2005.

C. Taylor Pickett, Omega's CEO, commented, "We are pleased to
have completed this agreement with MPAN and PHCM, whose
commitment to providing quality patient care enabled their
facilities to improve even while operating through the
bankruptcy process."


OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Lenders Extend Waiver Until December 13
---------------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors Inc.'s senior lenders previously
granted a waiver through September 14, 2001 of certain financial
covenants under the Company's two secured credit facilities. The
lenders under Omega's $175 million secured credit facility have
extended this waiver through December 13, 2001. The waiver
granted under Omega's separate $75 million secured credit
facility has expired and discussions regarding an extension are
continuing with the lender.

Omega has not received any notice of default or acceleration of
the outstanding balance thereunder. Omega's ability to draw upon
the remaining availability under these credit facilities has
been limited by the covenant violation and waiver until such
time as a permanent resolution is attained.

As part of this process, Omega is engaged in discussions
regarding a restructuring of these credit facilities as well as
evaluating various alternatives in connection with addressing
the $110 million in debt maturing during the first half of 2002.
There can be no assurance that Omega will be successful in
restructuring its two secured credit facilities, consummating
any alternative transaction that may be required to address the
2002 debt maturities or the timing or terms of any such
transactions.


ONSITE ACCESS: Lease Decision Period Extended Until December 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
OnSite Access, Inc. and its affiliate debtors ask Judge Richard
L. Bohanon to put off until December 17, 2001 their deadline for
deciding whether to assume or reject their unexpired leases of
nonresidential real property.

The Debtors tell Judge Bohanon that they are still in the
process of analyzing the leases to determine whether these will
be needed in the context of the Debtors' operations.  OnSite
Access assures lessors that the Debtors intend to pay their
obligations under the leases and have the means to do so.

Furthermore, the company says that lessors will not be
prejudiced by an extension because they may individually ask the
Court to fix an earlier date by which the Debtors must assume or
reject a lease.

OnSite Access, Inc. is a broadband telecommunications network
provider of data, voice and enhanced services to small and
medium-sized businesses.  The company sought chapter 11
protection on May 16, 2001 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York.  Frank A. Oswald, Esq., at Togut
Segal & Segal LLP, in New York, New York, represents the firm in
its reorganization efforts.


OWOSSO CORP: Mulls Further Sale of Assets To Stabilize Results
--------------------------------------------------------------
Owosso Corporation (Nasdaq: OWOS) announced that, at this time
of great economic uncertainty, it has taken actions to
significantly reduce its corporate infrastructure.

Effective immediately, the corporate headquarters' organization
will be reduced to a level of four individuals from its previous
level of nine.  This includes the departure of Jack Morrash, the
Company's Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer,
and Harry Holiday III, Chief Operating Officer.  Owosso's
Corporate Controller, Kirk Moore, will remain with the Company
and will assume the duties and title of Executive Vice-President
- Finance and Chief Financial Officer.

The Company also announced that George B. Lemmon, Jr., President
and Chief Executive Officer, will take a salary reduction of 20%
effective immediately.

These actions are consistent with reductions implemented over
the past two years which reduced the corporate office from 15
people two years ago to the current four.

Owosso also announced the sale of the Company's Cramer business.
Effective September 24, 2001, Owosso sold substantially all of
the assets of Cramer for cash proceeds of approximately
$565,000, plus the assumption of approximately $317,000 of
liabilities.

Owosso is in the process of disposing of the Cramer real estate,
the only remaining asset of this business.  The proceeds from
the sale were utilized to reduced debt.

The Company's remaining operating segments consist of the Motors
segment, which includes Motor Products - Owosso Corporation,
Motor Products - Ohio Corporation and Stature Electric, Inc.,
and the Coils segment, consisting of Astro Air Coils, Inc. and
Snowmax, Inc.

George B. Lemmon, Jr. stated, "In addition to the actions being
taken to further reduce fixed costs at both the corporate and
operating unit levels, the Company is considering further sales
of assets and/or business units to stabilize and improve the
financial results of the Company."

To receive additional information on Owosso Corporation visit
Owosso's website, http://www.owosso.com


PASW INC: Fails to Comply with Nasdaq Net Equity Requirements
-------------------------------------------------------------
PASW Inc. (Nasdaq:PASW) announced that on October 1, 2001, the
company received notification from The Nasdaq Stock Market Inc.
that it was not in compliance with the net tangible assets or
net equity requirements for continued listing as set forth in
Market Place Rule 4310c(2)(B) as modified by SR-NASD-01-14 and
that its securities will be delisted from The Nasdaq
National/Small Cap Market at the opening of business on October
9, 2001.

After that date, the PASW common stock (PASW) and warrants
(PASWW) will begin trading on the OTC Bulletin Board Market
(OTCBB).

PASW is in limbo. The company, formerly Pacific Softworks, had
agreed in 2001 to a reverse acquisition with Canada's privately
held Simmons Energy Services, a provider of drilling and
maintenance equipment and services to oil and gas companies.
That deal was called off, though, because PASW was unable to
raise enough cash to meet its end of the agreement.

Cash flow has been a problem for PASW in other respects as well:
it had to discontinue operations at its Alera Systems
subsidiary, which developed remote management tools until it ran
out of cash, and its only remaining operating subsidiary is
Network Research Corporation Japan, which distributes NETsilicon
products in Asia. Founder Glenn Russell owns 67% of PASW.


PACIFIC GAS: Admin. Claims for the April 6 - 30 Period Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
A slew of administrative claims against Pacific Gas and Electric
Company for the period April 6, 2001 through April 30, 2001 have
been filed pursuant to the Court's Order governing section
503(a) administrative expense claims arising from the sale of
electric energy or services for PG&E's customers through the
California Independent System Operator Corporation (the "ISO")
or from the sale of electric energy or services by the
California Department of Water Resources (the "DWR")
(collectively, "ISO/DWR Administrative Claims").

A number of claimants have asserted administrative claims each
in an undetermined amount pending resolution in judicial,
administrative and other proceedings. The claimants have filed
the claims because of the deadline imposed by the Court Order.

Certain claimants anticipate $0 administrative claims but have
filed the claims to reserve their rights for possible amendment
in future.

Claimants that have indicated anticipated amounts or minimum
amounts for their administrative claims expressly reserve rights
for future amendments. Claimants also declare that the amount of
all payments received to date on account of the respective
Administrative Claim has been credited and deducted for the
purpose of making the Administrative Claim.

In addition, a number of ISO/DWR Administrative Claims for
periods other than that from April 6, 2001 through April 30,
2001 have also been filed.

The Administrative Claims that have been filed are as follows
(if the period is not specified, the claim pertains to the
period April 6, 2001 through April 30, 2001):

      (1) Portland General Electric Company asserts an
Administrative Claim in an unknown amount, pending a final
determination of PG&E's liability for the amounts that are or
may be owed to Claimant from the sale of electric energy or
services, subject to resolution in judicial, administrative and
other proceedings.

      (2) Powerex Corp. asserts an Administrative Claim in an
unknown amount, pending a final determination of PG&E's
liability for the amounts that are or may be owed to Claimant
from the sale of electric energy or services, subject to
resolution in judicial, administrative and other proceedings.

      (3) Claimants Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc. and West Coast
Power LLC assert Administrative Claims due to West Coast Power
LLC in an amount of at least $1,422,994.08 (which includes
Disputes and Underscheduling Penalty), and due to Dynegy Power
Marketing, Inc. in an amount that could be a positive balance.
The current best information of Claimant Dynegy Power Marketing,
Inc. shows a credit of $201,055.97 (which has not yet been
finally determined).

Claimants are informed and believe that there are reporting
issues, including the failure of the ISO to promptly invoice the
DWR for power, but they do not have final figures in hand.

Claimants do not currently have sufficient facts to enable them
to accurately quantify their claims because the actual
allocations are determined by the ISO. Moreover, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission is or may be reviewing charges
during this period pursuant to its order in San Diego Gas &
Electric Co. v. Sellers of Energy & Ancillary Servs., 96 FERC
par. 61, 120 (2001), which may affect the amount of this claim.

Claimants seek interest at the tariff, contractual, or legal
rate, as appropriate.

      (4) Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C. does not
believe at this time that anything is owed but is filing this
administrative claim in order to preserve its right to amend, if
necessary, when the requisite information becomes available.

      (5) Duke Energy Morro Bay, LLC does not believe at this
time that anything is owed but is filing this administrative
claim in order to preserve its right to amend, if necessary,
when the requisite information becomes available.

      (6) Duke Energy Moss Landing, LLC does not believe at this
time that anything is owed but is filing this administrative
claim in order to preserve its right to amend, if necessary,
when the requisite information becomes available.

      (7) Duke Energy Oakland, LLC asserts an Administrative
Claim in the amount of at least $414,488.00 for any and all
unpaid purchase price, charges, costs and expenses for power
sales, services and capital expenditures made or incurred by the
Claimant for which PG&E was the ultimate purchaser or
financially responsible entity, pursuant to the Must-Run Service
Agreement, between Duke Energy Oakland, LLC and the CalISO,
effective June 1, 1999.

Although the Court's Order provides that "claims arising from
'reliability must run' (RMR) charges are not included for
purposes of the bar dates, Claimant has filed this proof of
claim with respect to the RMR Agreement, in the event that any
of its claims under the RMR Agreement would be deemed or found
not to be subject to this exception in the Order.

      (8) Reliant Energy Servces, Inc. has filed a proof of
administrative claim currently believed to be $0 subject to
amendment.

      (9) Claimant: Williams Energy Services and Williams Energy
Marketing & Trading Company assert an Administrative Claim in
the amount of $39,020,660.36 subject to amendment.

      (10) California Department of Water Resources asserts an
Administrative Claim in the estimated amount of $179,423,648 for
the period April 7, 2001 through June 30, 2001. Claimant
specifies that by filing this claim, it does not waive its
sovereign immunity except as otherwise provided by law.

      (11) California Edison Company asserts an Administrative
Claim for compensation arising from post-petition purchases of
energy and ancillary services made by the California Department
of Water Resources for the periods April 6, 2001 through April
30, 2001 and May 1, 2001 through May 31, 2001.

Due to the significant uncertainty regarding DWR purchases and
uncertainty as to how and when such unprecedented utility
bankruptcy claims will be settled, SCE cannot estimate (1) what
portion of the $9 billion in DWR purchases should be allocated
to each of the utility's respective customers, (2) how that
allocation might be affected by proceedings before the
Bankruptcy Court and in other jurisdictions, nor (3) how the
amount will be allocated with respect to different time periods
(e.g. how much of that $9 billion in DWR purchases is
attributable to PG&E's pre-petition period vs. its post-petition
period). In the event that some portion of PG&E's purchases are
allocated to SCE, PG&E may be liable to SCE for some of these
amounts on various legal theories, including, but not limited
to, equitable indemnity and contribution. Therefore, with
respect to post-petition purchases made by DWR through May 31,
2001, SCE's administrative claim against PG&E, if any, is
contingent, unliquidated and cannot be estimated at this time.

      (12) Southern California Edison Company asserts an
Administrative Claim for compensation arising from
Underscheduled Loan Penalties during the periods April 6, 2001
through April 30, 2001 and May 1, 2001 through May 31, 2001.

On December 15, 2001, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) order the ISO to begin calculating a penalty called an
Underscheduled Load Penalty. The penalty is levied on all
participants that consume more than 105% of the amount that they
schedule in advance through the ISO and PX markets. The amounts
collected via this penalty are credited to those participants
which used less than 105% of their scheduled amount. In hours
when SCE consumed less than 105% of its schedule, SCE would
receive such a credit.

It is not clear if the ISO could levy this penalty on PG&E in
the post-petition period. If the ISO can pass the charge on to
PG&E, SCE believes that all or most of any SCE gross credit
would by assessed against PG&E during the periods when PG&E has
consumed less than 105% of its schedule. In the event that some
of PG&E's charges become credits to SCE, PG&E may be liable to
SCE for some of these amounts on various legal theories,
including, but not limited to, equitable indemnity and
contribution.

The ISO has informed SCE that the Underscheduled Load Penalty
for the post-petition period has not been calculated yet.

Therefore, without information from the ISO, SCE cannot estimate
its administrative claim, if any, with respect to the
Underscheduled Load Penalty, and thus such administrative claim
is contingent and unliquidated. SCE is currently opposing the
application of the Underscheduled Load Penalty by FERC. SCE
submits this Proof of Administrative Claim in the event that
FERC in fact imposes the Underscheduled Loan Penalty and SCE in
turn is owed a credit.

      (13) Southern California Edison Company (SCE) asserts an
Administrative Claim for compensation arising from the
reallocation of post-petition "uplift charges" allocated to PG&E
by the ISO and the California Power Exchange (PX).

When the generation and sale of electricity in California was
"deregulated" in 1998, SCE was required each day to purchase all
of the electricity it sold to its retail customers through the
PX, and to purchase electricity and ancillary services through
the real-time energy markets managed by the ISO pursuant to a
rule enacted by the CPUC. The PX and ISO settled transactions
for purchases of wholesale power, including ancillary services
on behalf of market participants.

For the purposes of invoicing, both the ISO and the PX allocate
"uplift Charges" to market participants pursuant to their
respective tariffs. These charges represent a pro-rata
allocation of common costs incurred by the PX and/or ISO. Uplift
charges are any charges for services other than energy and
ancillary services, including administration fees, grid
management charges, congestion charges, rounding charges and
revenue neutrality charges. It is SCE's position that the Uplift
Charges allocated to PG&E by the ISO and/or by the PX should be
the responsibility of PG&E alone and that no reallocation of
these costs should occur. In the event that these Uplift Charges
are not paid by PG&E, net creditors should receive a reduced
payment pursuant to ISO tariff section 11.16.1. To the extent
that Uplift Charges are re-allocated to loads and exports
(including SCE), then SCE, vis-a-vis the ISO and PX, may have a
claim against PG&E for those reallocated Uplift Charges on
various legal theories including equitable indemnity and
contribution. In May 2000, the ISO sent a notice informing all
market participants that the ISO views itself as settling
transactions between market participants, and will not file a
proof of claim in the PG&E bankruptcy case on behalf of market
participants for sales made to PG&E. Significant uncertainty
exists as to how the post-petition Uplift Charges allocated by
the ISO and PX will be handled. Therefore, to the extent SCE has
an administrative claim against PG&E pursuant to such post-
petition Uplift Charges, such claim is contingent and
unliquidated at this time.

      (14) SCE asserts an Administration Claim for compensation
arising from post-petition sales made by SCE to PG&E vis-a-vis
the ISO for April, 2001.

Prior to January 19, 2001, the ISO billed the PX for costs
related to the ISO's procurement of electricity from third
parties to meet SCE's net short position for energy and
ancillary services, the PX then billed such charges to SCE.
Since January 19, 2001, SCE has not been a participant in the
PX, and the ISO began to bill such charges directly to SCE. For
the purposes of invoicing, the ISO has historically provided a
credit for the sales made by SCE to the ISO, which is netted
against the ISO's charges to SCE for purchases made by SCE from
the ISO.

SCE indicates its position that sales of energy and ancillary
services made by SCE to the ISO should be netted against the
purchases made by SCE from the ISO.

SCE is a net buyer from the ISO. SCE has not knowingly made
sales to PG&E through the ISO. The Court has recently ruled that
given PG&E's financial circumstances, the ISO cannot lawfully
purchase any post-petition power on behalf of PG&E. However,
significant uncertainty exists as to how the ISO's post-petition
purchases on behalf of PG&E will be handled, as well as how such
unprecedented utility bankruptcy claims will be settled.

In the event that the ISO's post-petition sales that SCE made to
the ISO are treated independently of the purchases made by SCE,
SCE would have an administrative claim against PG&E on various
legal theories in an amount that represents that portion of
post-petition sales of energy and ancillary services that were
sold to the ISO and subsequently or simultaneously sold by the
ISO to PG&E. SCE estimates such contingent administrative claim
for April, 2001 to be in an unluquidated amount up to $20.3
million, which includes the sale of energy, ancillary services
and certain other credits. This claim represents the total gross
credit earned by SCE sales to the ISO, with the amount allocated
to PG&E based upon historical data. This claim is further
subject to adjustment based on new Orders and information of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

FERC is currently conducting hearings on refunds for sales of
electricity in California spot markets from October 2, 2000
through June 20, 2001. As a result, the ISO continues to make
changes in past statements, resulting in changes in the amounts
owed to various participants.

      (15) SCE asserts an Administrative Claim for compensation
arising from Transmission Owner Credits for the period April 1,
2001 through April 30, 2001.

SCE, as transmission owner, receives various charges and credits
from the ISO for wheeling, congestion and transmission access
charges. As a transmission owner, SCE generally receives a
credit from the ISO for wheeling, congestion and transmission
revenues that the ISO receives from third parties who use the
transmission system (a Transmission Owner Credit). Beginning in
January 2001, SCE has received fractional payments (or credits)
from the ISO, beginning with payments for November 2000
transactions. The ISO provides detailed reports to SCE each
month on the amounts owed to SCE from market participants.

SCE indicates its position that the Transmission Owner Credits
that SCE receives should not be treated separately from the
payments for same that are due to the ISO (i.e. that
Transmission Owner Credits should be based on net amounts.)

SCE estimates that its claim for the portion of the outstanding
net credit balance attributable to PG&E is approximately
$490,603.11 for the period April 1, 2001 through April 30, 2001.
To the extent that Transmission Owner Credits are treated on a
gross basis (i.e. if the obligation to make payments to the ISO
for wheeling and congestion are treated independently of the
transmission owner's right to receive credits from the ISO), SCE
anticipates that its claim could be as high as the total amount
of gross credits that are owed to SCE, as transmission owner.

The post-petition gross credits due to SCE, for the period April
1, 2001 through April 30, 2001, in SCE's estimation, are
approximately $1,605,015.56. Due to the uncertainty as to how
Transmission Owner Credits will be handled, and the uncertainty
as to how and when such unprecedented utility bankruptcy claims
will be settled, SCE has estimated its claim for Transmission
Owner Credits based on gross credits. In the event that PG&E
fails to make payment, SCE may have a claim against PG&E for
lost Transmission Owner Credits on various legal theories. SCE
estimates the value of its claim for Transmission Owner Credits
to be in an unliquidated amount up to $1,605,015.54 subject to
further adjustment.

      (16) SCE asserts an Administrative Claim for compensation
arising from Transmission Owner Credits for the period May 1,
2001 through May 31, 2001.

The ISO operates the transmission lines that are owned by SCE
pursuant to a tariff which sets the terms and conditions for
transmission and related services that the ISO provides as an
operator of California's transmission system. SCE, as
transmission owner, receives various charges and credits from
the ISO for wheeling, congestion and transmission access
charges. As a transmission owner, SCE generally receives a
credit from the ISO for wheeling, congestion and transmission
revenues that the ISO receives from third parties who use the
transmission system (a "Transmission Owner Credit"). Beginning
in January 2001, SCE has received fractional payments (or
credits) from the ISO, beginning with payments for November 2000
transactions. The ISO provides detailed reports to SCE each
month on the amounts owed to SCE from market participants.

SCE indicates its position that the Transmission Owner Credits
that SCE receives should not be treated separately from the
payments for same that are due to the ISO (i.e., that
Transmission Owner Credits should be based on net amounts.)
SCE's claim for the portion of the outstanding net credit
balance attributable to PG&E is approximately $470,782.10 for
the period May 1, 2001 through May 31, 2001. To the extent that
Transmission Owner Credits are treated on a gross basis, (i.e.,
if the obligation to make payments to the ISO for wheeling and
congestion are treated independently of the transmission owner's
right to receive credits from the ISO), SCE's claim could be as
high as the total amount of gross credits that are owed to SCE,
as transmission owner.

The post-petition gross credits due to SCE, for the period May
1, 2001 through May 31, 2001, are approximately $1,324,102.09.

Due to the uncertainty as to how Transmission Owner Credits will
be handled, and the uncertainty as to how and when such
unprecedented utility bankruptcy claims will be settled, SCE has
estimated its claim for Transmission Owner Credits based on
gross credits. In the event that PG&E fails to make payment, SCE
may have a claim against PG&E for lost Transmission Owner
Credits on various legal theories. SCE estimates the value of
its claim for Transmission Owner Credits to be in an
unliquidated amount up to $1,324,102.09.

      (17) Northern California Power Agency asserts an
administrative claim (contingent and unliquidated) in the amount
of $35,081.64 subject to amendment to the extent authorized by
applicable law.

Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) entered into a
Scheduling Coordinator Agreement and a Participating Generator
Agreement with the ISO. NCPA is a seller and a purchaser of
energy and/or ancillary services in the real-time ISO market.
NCPA had provided ancillary services to the ISO market for which
it has not received payment. NCPA asserts a claim in this
amount, plus any applicable interest and costs (including
attorneys' fees to the extent authorized). NCPA does not know if
and to what extent these services were for customers of PG&E.
For that reason, this Administrative Claim is contingent and
unliquidated.

The assertion of this claim is not intended to preclude efforts
by the ISO to collect amounts owed by PG&E to ISO for the
benefit of NCPA and the other sellers into its markets. To the
extent ISO asserts its own independent claim that includes this
Administrative Claim, NCPA consents to the allowance of the ISO
claim and will withdraw or consent to disallowance of NCPA's
Administrative Claim to the extent NCPA's claim is duplicative.
NCPA makes it clear that, in reserving this Administrative
Claim, NCPA does not intend to waive any claim it has against
ISO on any basis.

      (18) California Polar Power Brokers LLC asserts an
administrative claim in the amount of at least $78,929.41 for
the period April 6, 2001 to April 30, 2001. In addition,
Claimant seeks interest at the tariff, contractual or legal
rate, as appropriate.

Claimant is informed and believes that there are reporting
issues, including the failure of the ISO to promptly invoice the
DWR for power, and Claimant does not have final figures, much
less audited figures, in hand.

Claimant does not currently have sufficient facts to enable it
to accurately quantify its claims because the actual allocations
are determined by the ISO. As the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission is or may be reviewing charges during this period
pursuant to its order in San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Sellers
of Energy & Ancillary Servs., 96 FERC paragraph 61,120 (2001),
which may affect the amount of this claim, Claimant expressly
states that this claim is subject to refinement and amendment.

      (19) California Polar Power Brokers LLC asserts an
administrative claim in the amount of at least $23,064.87 for
the period May 1, 2001 to May 31, 2001. In addition, Claimant
seeks interest at the tariff, contractual or legal rate, as
appropriate.

However, Claimant is informed and believes that there are
reporting issues, including the failure of the ISO to promptly
invoice the DWR for power, and Claimant does not have final
figures, much less audited figures, in hand. Claimant does not
currently have sufficient facts to enable it to accurately
quantify its claims because the actual allocations are
determined by the ISO. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
is or may be reviewing charges during this period pursuant to
its order in San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Sellers of Energy &
Ancillary Servs., FERC paragraph 61,120 (2001), which may affect
the amount of this claim. When an accurate sum is determined,
this claim will be amended. This claim is therefore subject to
refinement and amendment, as Claimant learns the precise amounts
outstanding.

      (20) Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP),
asserts a contingent unliquidated administrative priority claim
pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 503(a).

Claimant was paid the amounts due for such sales, to wit:
$55,182,609. However, Claimant anticipates that events may occur
in the future, including retroactive determinations relative to
the amounts charged for the energy so sold, that might result in
some adverse adjustment for which Debtor may be liable.
Therefore, Claimant asserts this contingent and unliquidated
Administrative Claim for the full amount received by Claimant
from the sale of electric energy or services to the DWR for the
claim Period, based on the latest information available to
Claimant.

Claimant expects that, by reason of future events, such as rate
relocations by adjudicating or regulatory agencies having
jurisdiction to do so, Claimant may lose the benefit to such
payments. The extent to which PG&E may be liable for some
amounts in such event has not been determined. Until a final
determination has been made in an appropriate forum as to which
parties are liable for any amounts owed to Claimant, by reason
of such contingencies, Claimant cannot state the extent, if any,
to which PG&E would have liability to Claimant for the amounts
owed.

In view of the deadlines established by the Court's Order,
Claimant therefore reserves against PG&E a contingent claim not
in excess of the price of the full amount of the sales in
question for the Claim Period. Claimant reserves the right to
amend this Administrative Claim as appropriate if and as
additional information becomes known. Claimant expressly
indicates that, by filing this Administrative Claim against
PG&E, Claimant does not amend its claim filed for pre-chapter 11
damages and does not waive, and expressly reserves all claims
against any other parties which may be liable to Claimant for
the debt described above, including but not limited to the ISO
and DWR.

      (21) The Martinez Refining Company (MRC), a division of
Equilon Enterprises, LLC asserts an administrative claim
pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 503(a) in the approximate
amount of $25,776.13 for post-petition sales from April 6, 2001
through May 31, 2001. For purposes of filing this Proof of
Claim, MRC also includes any parent, affiliate, subsidiary or
any other related entity to MRC that is the actual creditor to
any obligation stated herein.

The energy transactions underlying MRC's administrative claim
asserted were entered into on MRC's behalf by Viasyn, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and certified scheduling coordinator of the
ISO. MRC is informed and believe that the electricity herein was
used exclusively in ISO designated North Path 15.

At this time, MRC lacks complete information from PG&E and/or
the ISO. Claimant expects to amend this claim as needed, if
required.

      (22) Sempra Energy Trading Corp. asserts an administrative
claim in the amount of $379,629.61 for the period May 1, 2001 to
May 31, 2001, subject to amendment to the extent authorized by
applicable law.

      (23) Sempra Energy Trading Corp. asserts an administrative
claim in the amount of $361,871.00 for the period April 6,2001
to April 30, 2001, subject to amendment to the extent authorized
by applicable law.

      (24) Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, LP, asserts an
administrative claim in the amount of $6,047,161.32 for the
period April 6, 2001 through April 30, 2001, plus certain
amounts that are currently contingent and/or unliquidated,
subject to amendment to the extent authorized by applicable law.

Claimant makes it clear that other claims, rights, and remedies
against PG&E held by Claimant and certain of its affiliates that
are entitled to be treated as administrative claims are not
waived, released, impaired, prejudiced or effected in any way,
by the filing of this Administrative Claim or the non-inclusion
of such claims in this Administrative Claim.

      (25) San Diego Gas & Electric Company asserts an
administrative priority claim in the amount of $798,428.01, plus
other unliquidated amounts, subject to amendments to the extent
authorized by applicable law, for the period April 6, 2001 to
April 30, 2001. Claimant relates in an Addendum to the claim
that:

-- On or about December 4, 1997, SDG&E entered into a Scheduling
    Coordinator Agreement with the ISO and on or about January 6,
    1998, SDG&E entered into a PX Participation Agreement with
    the California Power Exchange Corporation (CalPx). Pursuant
    to these and related agreements, as well as applicable
    tariffs, SDG&E became entitled to payment on account of
    transactions related to the energy and ancillary services
    markets, including, without limitation, transmission facility
    access charges, congestion revenues, and other items.

-- In particular, the ISO has issued a certification as of
    August 24, 2001 that SDG&E is owed $798,428.01 as a result in
    part of the failure of PG&E to pay amounts owed to the ISO
    for the trading month of April 2001. Under the Tariffs, (i)
    SDG&E is an "ISO Creditor" as to such amounts; and (ii) PG&E
    is an "ISO Debtor" obligated to pay SDG&E a portion of such
    amounts. In addition, PG&E may become an ISO Debtor with
    respect to post-petition energy and ancillary market
    transactions for other reasons, including, without
    limitation, the outcome of pending or future administrative
    and judicial proceedings.

-- At present, SDG&E cannot determine either the total amount it
    may be owed in connection with post-petition energy and
    ancillary services market activity or PG&E's share thereof.
    In addition to such items, SDG&E may have additional claims
    arising from post-petition energy and ancillary services
    market transactions which are not reflected and may not be
    reflected on the ISO certifications. Accordingly, SDG&E
    cannot ascertain whether the certifications are reflective of
    the total amount it is owed by ISO or PG&E in connection with
    post-petition energy and ancillary services market activity.

-- SDG&E has disputed certain amounts on its accounts with the
    ISO from time to time. Certain of the pending disputes may
    concern post-petition transactions in the energy and
    ancillary services markets. If any one or more such disputes
    is resolved favorably to SDG&E in any amount, under the
    Tariffs: (i) SDG&E shall be an "ISO Creditor" as to such
    amount, and (ii) PG&E shall be an "ISO Debtor" obligated to
    pay SDG&E a portion of such amount. At present, SDG&E cannot
    determine either the total amount it may be entitled to in
    connection with the pending disputes or PG&E's share thereof.

-- PG&E may be assessed penalties under the Tariffs arising from
    underscheduling load during the post-petition period. Under
    the Tariffs, (i) SDG&E shall be an "ISO Creditor" as to any
    such amount, and (ii) PG&E shall be an "ISO Debtor" obligated
    to pay SDG&E a portion of such amount. At present, SDG&E
    cannot determine either the total amount of underscheduling
    penalties or PG&E's share thereof.

-- At this time, SDG&E lacks sufficient information from PG&E,
    the ISO, CalPx and/or the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission (FERC) and other authorities and parties to
    determine the precise amount SDG&E is owed by PG&E on account
    of this claim.  Moreover, the precise amount which SDG&E is
    owed by PG&E may be subject to amendment for a variety of
    reasons, including but not limited to, certain proceedings
    currently pending before ISO and FERC. Accordingly, SDG&E
    reserves the right to amend this Proof of Claim to describe
    the amount of its claim with more particularity after
    additional information sufficient to support such amendment
    becomes known. In addition, SDG&E reserves the right to amend
    this Proof of Claim to assert any counterclaims it may have
    against PG&E in the event PG&E asserts claims against SDG&E.

-- This Proof of Claim shall not constitute a waiver of any
    rights that SDG&E may have under the Tariffs and other
    applicable law to insist on determination of this obligation
    and any potential counter-claims before a jury, arbitrator or
    other decision maker. The assertion of this Proof of Claim is
    not intended to preclude efforts by CalPx or ISO to collect
    amounts which either may assert are owed by PG&E to CalPx or
    ISO for the benefit of SDG&E.

-- If any part of the interest of CalPx or ISO in any property
    claimed by PG&E constitutes a security, trust beneficiary,
    ownership, or other interest therein, SDG&E asserts the same
    interest.

-- This claim is a secured claim to the extent of right of SDG&E
    to set off any claim made by PG&E against this claim.

-- The specific date(s) on which the debt was incurred is not
    certain because of the ongoing nature of the underlying
    transactions.

    (26) San Diego Gas & Electric Company asserts an
administrative claim in the amount of $753,363.36, plus other
unliquidated amounts, for the trading month of May, 2001.
Claimant makes it clear that this Administrative Claim may be
amended to the extent authorized by applicable law.

    (27) Idaho Power Company asserts an administrative claim
in the amount of$ 69,412.43 for the period April 6-30, 2001.

The Administrative Claim is asserted for the full unpaid amount
owed to Claimant from the sale of electric energy or services
through the ISO for the Claim Period, based on the latest
information available to Claimant. The extent to which PG&E may
be liable for the amounts owed to Claimant has not been resolved
in various legal proceedings. Until a final determination has
been made in an appropriate forum as to which parties are liable
for the amounts owed to Claimant, Claimant cannot state the
extent, if any, to which PG&E has liability to Claimant for the
amounts owed. Claimant has therefore asserted against PG&E the
full amount owed to Claimant for sales or services described
above for the Claim Period, pending final determination of
PG&E's liability for the amounts in question.

Claimant reserves the right to amend this Administrative Claim
as appropriate as additional information becomes known. By
filing this Administrative Claim against PG&E, Claimant does not
waive, and expressly reserves all claims against any other
parties who may be liable to Claimant for the debt described
above, including but not limited to the ISO.

    (28) Claimant Avista Energy, Inc. asserts an administrative
claim pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 503(a) in the amount
of$ 2,889,810.00 for the month of May, 2001, subject to
amendment to the extent authorized by applicable law.

The Administrative Claim is asserted for the full unpaid amount
owed to Claimant from the sale of electric energy or services
through the ISO for the Claim Period, based on the latest
information available to Claimant. The extent to which PG&E may
be liable for the amounts owed to Claimant has not been resolved
in various legal proceedings. Until a final determination has
been made in an appropriate forum as to which parties are liable
for the amounts owed to Claimant, Claimant cannot state the
extent, if any, to which PG&E has liability to Claimant for the
amounts owed. Claimant has therefore asserted against PG&E the
full amount owed to Claimant for the sales described above for
the Claim Period, pending final determination of PG&E's
liability for the amounts in question.

Claimant reserves the right to amend this Administrative Claim
as appropriate as additional information becomes known. By
filing this Administrative Claim against PG&E, Claimant does not
waive, and expressly reserves all claims against any other
parties who may be liable to Claimant for the debt described
above, including but not limited to the ISO.

    (29) Idaho Power Company asserts an administrative claim in
the amount of $ 76,577.79 for the month of May, 2001, subject to
amendment to the extent authorized by applicable law. All
amounts claimed are for sale of uninstructed energy.

The Administrative Claim is asserted for the full unpaid amount
owed to Claimant from the sale of electric energy or services
through the ISO for the Claim Period, based on the latest
information available to Claimant. The extent to which PG&E may
be liable for the amounts owed to Claimant has not been resolved
in various legal proceedings. Until a final determination has
been made in an appropriate forum as to which parties are liable
for the amounts owed to Claimant, Claimant cannot state the
extent, if any, to which PG&E has liability to Claimant for the
amounts owed. Claimant has therefore asserted against PG&E the
full amount owed to Claimant for sales or services described
above for the Claim Period, pending final determination of
PG&E's liability for the amounts in question.

Claimant reserves the right to amend this Administrative Claim
as appropriate as additional information becomes known. By
filing this Administrative Claim against PG&E, Claimant does not
waive, and expressly reserves all claims against any other
parties who may be liable to Claimant for the debt described
above, including but not limited to the ISO.

    (30) AES NewEnergy, Inc. asserts an administrative claim in
the amount of $956,954.70 for the period April 6-30, 2001,
Subject to amendment to the extent authorized by applicable law.

The Administrative Claim is asserted for the full unpaid amount
owed to Claimant from the sale of electric energy or services
through the ISO for the Claim Period, based on the latest
information available to Claimant. The extent to which PG&E may
be liable for the amounts owed to Claimant has not been resolved
in various legal proceedings. Until a final determination has
been made in an appropriate forum as to which parties are liable
for the amounts owed to Claimant, Claimant cannot state the
extent, if any, to which PG&E has liability to Claimant for the
amounts owed. Claimant has therefore asserted against PG&E the
full amount owed to Claimant for the sales described above for
the Claim Period, pending final determination of PG&E's
liability for the amounts in question.

Claimant reserves the right to amend this administrative Claim
as appropriate as additional information becomes known. By
filing this Administrative Claim against PG&E, Claimant does not
waive, and expressly reserves all claims against any other
parties who may be liable to Claimant for the debt described
above, including but not limited to the ISO.

The Administrative Claim was calculated as follows: $969,658.82
is the total balance outstanding owed to Claimant on account of
sales in the ISO markets for the month of April, 2001, as
reflected in the ISO account statement attached hereto. From
that amount, Claimant has deducted the amount estimated to be on
account of transactions occurring prior to April 6, 2001,
leaving a balance of $956,954.70 owed for postpetition
transactions.

    (31) Avista Energy, Inc. asserts an administrative claim in
the amount of$ 6,888,762.49 for the month of June, 2001, subject
to amendment to the extent authorized by applicable law. All
amounts owing are for sale of ancillary services.

The Administrative Claim is asserted for the full unpaid amount
owed to Claimant from the sale of electric energy or services
through the ISO for the Claim Period, based on the latest
information available to Claimant. The extent to which PG&E may
be liable for the amounts owed to Claimant has not been resolved
in various legal proceedings. Until a final determination has
been made in an appropriate forum as to which parties are liable
for the amounts owed to Claimant, Claimant cannot state the
extent, if any, to which PG&E has liability to Claimant for the
amounts owed. Claimant has therefore asserted against PG&E the
full amount owed to Claimant for the sales described above for
the Claim Period, pending final determination of PG&E's
liability for the amounts in question.

Claimant reserves the right to amend this Administrative Claim
as appropriate as additional information becomes known. By
filing this Administrative Claim against PG&E, Claimant does not
waive, and expressly reserves all claims against any other
parties who may be liable to Claimant for the debt described
above, including but not limited to the ISO.

    (32) PG&E Energy Trading - Power, L.P. asserts an
administrative claim in the amount of $4,694.65 for the period
April 6,2001 through April 30, 2001, subject to amendment to the
extent authorized by applicable law.

The Administrative Claim is asserted for the full unpaid amount
owed to Claimant from the sale of electric energy or services
through the ISO for the period in question, based on the latest
information available to Claimant. The extent to which Debtor
may be liable for the amounts owed to Claimant has not been
resolved in various legal proceedings. Until a final
determination has been made in an appropriate forum as to which
parties are liable for the amounts owed to Claimant, Claimant
cannot state the extent, if any, to which the Debtor has
liability to Claimant for the amounts owed. Claimant has
therefore asserted against the Debtor the full amount owed to
Claimant for the sales described above, pending final
determination of Debtor's liability for the amounts in question.

Claimant reserves the right to amend this Administrative Claim
as appropriate as additional information becomes known. By
filing this Administrative Claim against the Debtor, Claimant
does not waive, and expressly reserves all claims against any
other parties who may be liable to Claimant for the debt
described above, including but not limited to the ISO.

   (33) PG&E Energy Services Ventures, Inc. asserts an
administrative claim in the amount of $26,650.00 for the period
April 6, 2001 through April 30, 2001, subject to amendment to
the extent authorized by applicable law.

The Administrative Claim is asserted for the full unpaid amount
owed to Claimant from the sale of electric energy or services
through the ISO for the period in question, based on the latest
information available to Claimant. The extent to which Debtor
may be liable for the amounts owed to Claimant has not been
resolved in various legal proceedings. Until a final
determination has been made in an appropriate forum as to which
parties are liable for the amounts owed to Claimant, Claimant
cannot state the extent, if any, to which the Debtor has
liability to Claimant for the amounts owed. Claimant has
therefore asserted against the Debtor the full amount owed to
Claimant for the sales described above, pending final
determination of Debtor's liability for the amounts in question.

Claimant reserves the right to amend this Administrative Claim
as appropriate as additional information becomes known. By
filing this Administrative Claim against the Debtor, Claimant
does not waive, and expressly reserves all claims against any
other parties who may be liable to Claimant for the debt
described above, including but not limited to the ISO. (Pacific
Gas Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 15; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)


PENN SPECIALTY: Court Extends Lease Decision Deadline to March 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. gives Penn Specialty Chemicals, Inc.
until March 4, 2002 to decide which unexpired leases of
nonresidential real property it wants to assume or reject.
Judge Farnan stresses that landlords have a right to seek an
order requiring the company to decide on a particular unexpired
lease prior to the deadline.  The company may also seek
additional extensions of the lease decision period if it wants
to.

Penn Specialty, one of the world's largest suppliers of
specialty chemicals THF and PTMEG, filed for chapter 11
protection on July 9, 2001, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware.  Deborah E. Spivack, Esq., at Richards,
Layton & Finger, in Wilmington, Delaware, represents the company
in its restructuring effort.


PENN SPECIALTY: Asks Court to Extend Removal Period to Feb. 5
-------------------------------------------------------------
Penn Specialty Chemicals, Inc. has focused primarily on
stabilizing its business, selling certain of its assets, and
responding to creditor inquiries and addressing a variety of
creditor concerns.  For this reason, the company has not been
able to review all the judicial and administrative proceedings
to which it is a party.  As a result, it cannot yet determine
whether any of these actions should be removed under Bankruptcy
Rule 9027(a).

Thus, Penn Specialty asks Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. to extend
its removal period by an additional 120 days, through and
including February 5, 2002.  The company says that an extension
will not prejudice its adversaries because, at any rate, these
adversaries may not prosecute the actions without being granted
relief from the automatic stay.

Penn Specialty, one of the world's largest suppliers of
specialty chemicals THF and PTMEG, filed for chapter 11
protection on July 9, 2001, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware.  Deborah E. Spivack, Esq., at Richards,
Layton & Finger, in Wilmington, Delaware, represents the company
in its restructuring effort.


PHAR-MOR INC: Securities Delisted From Nasdaq
---------------------------------------------
Phar-Mor. Inc. (Nasdaq: PMORQ) announced that the Company's
securities will be delisted from the Nasdaq at the opening of
business on October 10, 2001.

Following the Company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing on
September 24, 2001, the Nasdaq Stock Market had immediately
suspended trading in the Company's securities. On October 2,
2001, the Nasdaq notified the Company that as a result of the
Company's bankruptcy it was delisting the Company's securities
from the Nasdaq, subject to the Company's right of appeal. The
Company has determined not to appeal the Nasdaq's decision but
will consider, when appropriate, making application to be listed
on the OTC Bulletin Board.

Phar-Mor is a retail drug store chain operating 139 stores under
the names "Phar-Mor," "Pharmhouse" and "The Rx Place" in 24
states. Phar-Mor's online store is accessible at
http://www.pharmorwebrx.com and through the company's
Web site at  http://www.pharmor.com

On September 24, 2001, Phar-Mor filed for bankruptcy protection
under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. On October 3,
2001, the Company announced that it would close 65 of its
stores.


PITTSBURGH CORNING: Obtains Approval of Employee Severance Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Pittsburgh yesterday approved
Pittsburgh Corning Corp.'s severance program for 15 employees
deemed key to the company's reorganization plan, Dow Jones
reported.

Pittsburgh Corning's plan ensures up to 18 employees bonuses and
12 months' severance pay if they are terminated without cause.

The severance portion ensures that 15 of the 18 eligible
employees will receive an incentive payment to stay on, even if
they are terminated before the company's reorganization plan is
completed or the bonuses are fully paid. (ABI World, October 9,
2001)


RELIANCE GROUP: Seeks Extension of Plan Filing Period to Feb. 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
The time and resources spent responding to the various
objections and motions filed by the Pennsylvania Insurance
Department have made it impossible for Reliance Group Holdings,
Inc. to transform their pre-petition agreement in principle with
the Ad Hoc Bondholder Group and the Lender Group into a formal
plan of reorganization, Steven R. Gross, Esq., at Debevoise and
Plimpton, tells Judge Gonzalez.

Mr. Gross notes that the Committees have supported RGH in their
efforts to defend their estates against the barrage of
litigation launched by the Pennsylvania Insurance Department.
Because of the continued need to respond to the numerous
challenges by the Pennsylvania Insurance Department, neither the
Debtors nor the Committees have had any opportunity to resume
negotiations on the restructuring.

During the postpetition period, RGH has also worked diligently
to gather necessary information to complete the schedules and
statements of financial affairs.  Since RGH has only one
executive employee, with the help of one outside consultant,
gathering and preparing such information was a significant use
of corporate resources.  Therefore, not only have Debtors lacked
the opportunity to continue their restructuring negotiations,
but they also have not been in a position to request the Court
to fix a claims bar date and establish procedures for filing
proofs of claim -- necessary prerequisites to formulating a
confirmable plan.

By Motion, the Debtors ask the Court for additional time,
not only to resume restructuring negotiations, but to establish
a bar date and address claim classification and related issues.
Specifically, the Debtors request that they exclusive period
during which to propose and file a Chapter 11 plan be extended
until and including February 7, 2002 and their exclusive period
during which to solicit acceptances of that plan be extended
until and including April 8, 2002.  The Debtors make it clear
that this request is made without prejudice to their right to
seek further extensions.

Mr. Gross argues that 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1121(d) permits the Court
to extend the exclusive period "for cause."  While the Code does
not define "cause" for an extension of the exclusive periods,
the legislative history behind Section 1121(d) indicates that
"cause" is a flexible standard designed to balance the competing
interests of a debtor and its creditors.  See H.R. Rep. No. 595,
95th Cong., 2d. Sess. 231, 232 (1978)(bankruptcy court is given
flexibility to increase the 120-day period depending on the
circumstances of the case).

Congress created the exclusive periods to give a debtor a clear
opportunity to propose and confirm a plan without the disruption
occasioned by competing plans, Mr. Gross continues.  The object
of Chapter 11 is to develop, negotiate and confirm a plan by
agreement.  RGH made considerable progress toward such a plan
prior to the petition date but has not had a realistic chance
since then to resume negotiations with the creditor groups.

The Debtors and their estates will benefit from additional time
to pursue meaningful negotiations with their creditors.  Mr.
Gross assures Judge Gonzalez that creditors will not be
prejudiced by relief requested as RGH is continuing to preserve
the assets of the estate.  The Debtors have made minimal
expenditures for administrative expenses and have accrued
expenses attributable to the maintenance of their bankruptcy
proceedings and, primarily, to the preservation of the estates
against the litigation brought by the Pennsylvania Insurance
Department. (Reliance Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 12; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)


SAFETY COMPONENTS: Unit Sells Metallic Belt Links Assets
--------------------------------------------------------
Valentec Wells, LLC, a subsidiary of Safety Components
International, Inc., closed the sale of its metallic belt links
business, located at Lake City, Missouri to a subsidiary of
Alliant Techsystems, Inc., a leading supplier of conventional
large, medium, and small-caliber tactical and training
ammunition to the U.S. Department of Defense.

In announcing the sale, Mr. John C. Corey, President and CEO of
SCI noted that "the deal includes the retention of all of the
active employees by ATK, and was consistent with SCI's
continuing focus on its core automotive businesses."  Mr. Corey
also added that "under ATK's ownership, the long term interest
of national defense would be better served through the enhanced
integration of the supply base within the small to medium-
caliber ammunition industry."

Safety Components International, Inc. is a leading, low-cost
supplier of automotive airbag fabric and cushions with
operations in North America and Europe. The Company is also a
leading manufacturer of value-added synthetic fabrics used in a
variety of niche industrial and commercial applications. In
addition, Safety Components supplies metal airbag components
utilizing its machining and stamping capabilities gained from
years of experience as a military ordnance manufacturer. The
company is headquartered in Greenville, South Carolina.


STANDARD AUTOMOTIVE: Bank Lenders Agree to Forbear Until Oct. 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Automotive Corporation (AMEX:AJX) today announced that
the Company and its bank lenders under the Company's Term Loan
and Revolving Credit Facility have entered into an extension of
the forbearance agreement under the Credit Facility, expiring on
October 19, 2001.

The Company and the bank lenders are currently negotiating a
longer-term forbearance agreement.

Standard Automotive Corporation is a diversified company with
production facilities located throughout the United States,
Canada, and Mexico. Standard manufactures precision products for
the aerospace, nuclear, industrial and defense markets; it
designs and builds remotely operated systems used in
contaminated waste cleanup; it designs and manufacturers trailer
chassis used in transporting maritime and railroad shipping
containers; and it builds a broad line of specialized dump truck
bodies, dump trailers, and related products. Through its
Providence Group, Standard provides engineering professional
services to both government and commercial industry.


STEEL HEDDLE: First Creditors' Meeting Set for October 12
---------------------------------------------------------
United States Trustee for Region 3 will convene a meeting of the
Steel Heddle Group's creditors on October 12, 2001 at 11:30
a.m., Room 2313 of the U.S. Court House in Wilmington, Delaware.

The company's representative is required to appear in this
meeting while all creditors are welcomed, but not required, to
attend.  At the meeting, creditors will get the chance to
examine and question the Steel Heddle Group and its debtor-
affiliates under oath.

The deadline to file proofs of claim will be announced later.

Steel Heddle Group, Inc., a pioneer and innovator in weaving
machine accessories for 103 years, filed for Chapter 11
protection on August 28, 2001 in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court.
Laura Davis Jones, Esq., at Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl, Young &
Jones, represents the Debtors in their restructuring effort.
Subject to further extensions, the Debtors exclusive period
during which to file a plan expires on December 26, 2001.

In its schedules of assets and liabilities filed last September
25, 2001, the company listed $0 in assets and $126,812,645 in
debt.  As of July, Steel Heddle Group and its bankrupt
affiliates reported $64,300,000 in assets and $176,000,000 in
debt.


SUN HEALTHCARE: Lease Decision Time Further Extended to Dec. 13
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. sought and obtained the Court's
authorization for a further extension of the time to assume or
reject their unexpired leases of nonresidential real property
and facility lease to and including the earlier of (a) December
13, 2001 and (b) the date on which an order is entered
confirming a plan of reorganization for the Debtors.

The unexpired leases are inextricably related to the core of the
Debtors' business operations. These operations involve, among
other things, the provision of long-term care services which
require facilities specifically tailored to the provision of
such care.

Thus, the unexpired leases are critical assets of the
Debtors.

Inadequate time for making informed decisions may result
in an inadvertent rejection of a valuable lease or a premature
assumption of a burdensome lease,  which may lead to substantial
administrative expense obligations. Further, as long-term care
facilities house elderly and infirm residents, any inadvertent
or forced closure of a facility could adversely affect the
health and welfare of the residents.

However, the sheer number and complexity of the leases make it a
daunting task reaching informed decisions as to whether to
assume or reject the leases. In addition, as providers of long-
term care services, the Debtors are subject to an extensive
regulatory framework that will affect the assumption or
rejection decisions.

The Debtors remind the Court the progress that they have made,
for example, the Government Stipulation, the Transfer Procedures
and agreements with landlords, but negotiations with certain of
the landlords have been difficult and they need additional time
to make informed decisions with respect to the remaining
unexpired leases in their portfolio.

At the Debtors' behest, the Court granted the extension provided
that such extension of time is without prejudice to the right of
the Debtors' lessors to file an appropriate motion with the
Court for a hearing to consider a reduction of such time, and
without prejudice to the Debtors' right to request further
extensions of time within which they may assume or reject the
unexpired leases pursuant to section 365(d)(4) of the Bankruptcy
Code. (Sun Healthcare Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 23; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)


SUNBEAM CORP: Has Until December 31 to Solicit Plan Acceptance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Upon the motion of Sunbeam Corporation and its affiliate
debtors, Judge Arthur J. Gonzales extends the period during
which the Debtors have the exclusive right to solicit
acceptances of their reorganization plan to December 31, 2001.
The Debtors retain the right to ask for a further extension of
their exclusive solicitation period, Judge Gonzales notes.

Sunbeam Corporation, the largest manufacturer and distributor of
small appliances, sells mixers, coffeemakers, grills, smoke
detectors, toasters and outdoor & camping equipment in the
United States, filed for chapter 11 protection on February 6,
2001 in the Southern District of New York.  George A. Davis,
Esq., of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, represents the Debtor in
their restructuring effort.  As of filing date, the company
listed $2,959,863,000 in assets and $3,201,512,000 in debt.


TITANIUM METALS: Valhi May Junk Deal Without Shareholders' Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
Titanium Metals Corporation (NYSE: TIE) announced on September
19, 2001 that it had received a proposal from Valhi, Inc. (NYSE:
VHI) whereby the shares of the common stock of NL Industries,
Inc. (NYSE: NL) held by Valhi and Tremont Corporation (NYSE:
TRE) would be transferred to TIMET in exchange for TIMET
securities.

Valhi has informed TIMET that Valhi will not approve any
transaction that may be negotiated  with an independent
committee of TIMET's Board of Directors and its advisors without
the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares voting that are
held by persons other than Valhi, Tremont and their affiliates.

TIMET, headquartered in Denver, is a producer of titanium metal
products.  Information on TIMET is available on the World Wide
Web at http://www.timet.com/


TOWER RECORDS: Closes Sale of Argentine, HK & Taiwan Operations
---------------------------------------------------------------
MTS, Incorporated, dba Tower Records, the world's largest
independent entertainment software retailer, announced the
completed sale of its operations in Argentina, Hong Kong and
Taiwan, and the execution of Tower Records franchise agreements
in those territories.

Following news yesterday that the retailer has successfully
inked an amendment to its bank deal, today's statement further
attests to the company's commitment to its business plan, put
into effect earlier this year.

Michael Solomon, President & CEO for Tower Records said, "The
divestiture of these foreign operations keeps us on track with
the set of initiatives we have undertaken as part of our ongoing
business program to improve Tower's performance. The conversion
of six of our stores to Tower Records franchises will enable us
to leverage brand equity without incurring further capital
investment or net operating losses."

Local record retailer, Cosmos Records Co. Ltd., a wholly owned
subsidiary of UFO International Co., Ltd., has acquired Tower
Records locations and operations in Taiwan and Hong Kong. The
company has 18 years experience in the music business and
intends to build the existing store portfolio, adding one
to two stores per year over the next four years. Tower Records
Franchise Division confirmed that Cosmos Records is scheduled to
open a new Tower Records store in Taipei later this week,
representing the third in Taiwan.

The four Tower Records stores in Argentina have been sold to
Condor Records, which will continue to operate and expand in
that country under the Tower name, as economic conditions turn
around.

Michael Solomon said further, "Tower has established strong
brand recognition in Argentina, as well as a solid customer
base. However the prolonged Argentine recession thwarted our
ability to further expand the company in that country. We
believe that, as a local investor, Condor Records is well
positioned to capitalize on the current changing record retail
environment."

Bob Kaufman, Senior Vice President for Tower Records
International Franchises said, "We expect that the sale and
licensing of Tower Records' operations in Taiwan, Hong Kong and
Argentina will enable us to expand our business in these
territories and capitalize on market opportunities. We are
proud to welcome Cosmos Records in Taiwan and Hong Kong and
Condor Records in Argentina to the Tower Records Franchise
family."

Since 1960 Tower Records has been recognized and respected
throughout the world for its unique brand of retailing. Founded
in Sacramento, California by current Chairman Russ Solomon, the
company's growth over four decades has made Tower Records a
household name.

Tower Records owns and operates 173 stores worldwide with 57
franchise operations in seven countries. The company opened one
of the first Internet music stores on America Online in June
1995 and followed a year later with the launch of
TowerRecords.com. The site was named "Best Music Commerce site"
by Forrester Research in Fall 2000.

The recent founding of Tower Records own exclusive and
independent record label, 33rd Street Records, has enabled the
retailer to release popular and niche hit driven music, while
placing great emphasis on both marketing and artist development.

Tower Records' commitment to introducing its customers to the
latest trends in new product lines is paramount to the
organization's retail philosophy. Tower forges ahead with the
development of exciting shopping environments, espousing diverse
product ranges, artist performance stages, personal electronics
departments, and digital centers. Tower Records maintains its
commitment to providing the deepest selection of packaged
entertainment in the world merchandised in stores that celebrate
the unique interests and needs of the local community.


USG CORP: Wants Rule 9027 Removal Period Extended Until March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Gypsum Company has been named in tens of thousands
of asbestos-related products liability suits.  The liabilities
of U.S. Gypsum, and the need to resolve them, are what prompted
the Debtors to file for chapter 11 protection in the first
place. USG Corporation's businesses have been unsustainably
burdened by the costs of defending, administering and resolving
asbestos claims.

Within the constraints of the existing tort system and due to
the nature and scope of asbestos litigation, U.S. Gypsum's
efforts to determine  and resolve legitimate asbestos
liabilities have been frustrated.  There is no workable way to
determine which asbestos claims have merit and which do not.

As a result, U.S. Gypsum is unable to ensure that the assets
that it can be reasonably expected to devote to asbestos claims
resolution are sufficient to, and go to, legitimate asbestos
claimants to whom U.S. Gypsum has any true liability.  The
Debtors have looked to the tools provide by the Bankruptcy Code
to the Court, so that they may have help in determining U.S.
Gypsum's true asbestos liabilities and a rational procedure for
discharging those liabilities.

To ensure the Debtors' assets are used to pay meritorious claims
and  that the reorganization procedure is rationally executed,
the Debtors may request the removal of some or all of the
pending asbestos liability actions from state court to federal
court and subsequently transfer some or all of these cases to
the District of Delaware for final resolution.

The Debtors will not implement these steps unless it is
necessary in light of the administration of these chapter 11
cases, but they wish to retain flexibility to remove cases to
federal court as the chapter 11 cases progress.

To preserve the Company's right to use the removal tool
available under 28 U.S.C. 1452, the Debtors ask the Court to
extend the removal period afforded under Rule 9027 of the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure through March 31, 2002.

Daniel J. DeFranceschi, Esq., at Richards, Layton & Finger,
notes that removal period extensions have been routinely granted
by courts in Delaware, including three other major asbestos
related chapter 11 cases currently pending in the District, W.R.
Grace & Company (six-month extension), Armstrong World
Industries, Inc. (120-day extension granted, debtors have
requested a second extension), and Owen Cornings (court granted
two extensions of 120 days each).

Mr. DeFranceschi adds that because of the number and complexity
of the Proceedings against the Debtors, the Debtors need time to
determine which, if any, of the Proceedings should be removed,
and if appropriate, transferred to this District. The requested
relief will protect the Debtors' right to economically
adjudicate lawsuits under 28 U.S.C. 1452 if the circumstances
warrant removal.

The requested relief is believed to be in the best interest of
the Debtors' estates and creditors. As the automatic stay has
been implemented the relief requested will not prejudice the
plaintiffs in the cases as no Proceedings can be prosecuted
without relief from the stay.

Unless the requested relief is granted, the potential
consolidation of the Debtors' affairs into one court may be
frustrated and the Debtors' would be forced to deal with the
claims and proceeding in a case by case fashion, to the
detriment of their creditors. (USG Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 9;
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)


U.S. WIRELESS: Seeks Court Approval of Worker Retention Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Wireless Corp. is asking the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Wilmington, Del., to approve a key employee retention plan to
help maintain the value of its assets, according to Dow Jones.

A hearing has been scheduled for October 25 and objections are
due October 15.

The company, which provides mobile location and traffic-related
information to wireless carriers, is planning to liquidate its
assets on a going-concern basis.  Therefore, the motion said
it's "critical that existing operations be maintained in the
interim," so U.S. Wireless can provide added value to creditors.

Separately, U.S. Wireless will also ask the court at the Oct. 25
hearing to extend through January 10, 2002, the time in which it
must assume or reject its unexpired real estate leases. The
company's lease consideration period is currently set to expire
October 29.

The San Ramon, California-based company filed for chapter 11
bankruptcy protection on August 29, listing assets of about
$17.7 million and debts of about $22.2 million. (ABI World,
October 9, 2001)


WARNACO GROUP: Moves to Junk Countertrade Consumption Protocol
--------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997 and 1998, The Warnaco Group, Inc. and Active Media
Services, Inc., entered into a series of agreements that adopted
the traditional structure of the trade credit transaction,
together with third party financing and trade credit insurance,
according to J. Ronald Trost, Esq., at Sidley Austin Brown &
Wood, in New York, New York.  Those agreements consist of:

   (i) a Purchase Agreement dated as of December 1997 by and
       between Active Media and Warnaco, as amended by Amendment
       No. 1 dated as of April 22, 1998;

  (ii) a Consent Agreement dated as of April 22, 1998 by and
       among Warnaco, Active Media and National Westminster Bank,
       PLC; and

(iii) related side letter agreements dated December 31, 1997 and
       April 22, 1998 between Warnaco and Active Media.

Mr. Trost explains that Active Media obtained financing from
Westminster Bank in order to purchase inventory from the
Debtors.

At the same time, Mr. Trost relates, Active Media and the
Debtors entered into new Countertrade Consumption Procedures
that set forth detailed procedures and practices between the
Debtors and Active Media, with respect to Active Media supplying
Goods and Services (excluding media and advertising), and Active
Media was designated as the Debtors' exclusive agent to procure
printing services.

In addition, Mr. Trost tells the Court, the Debtors and Active
Media established a "Cross Purchase Credit", which Active Media
would designate for each invoice a portion that was assigned by
Active Media to Westminster Bank.  Thereafter, Mr. Trost says,
the Debtors would pay the assigned portion of each invoice to
Westminster Bank.

According to Mr. Trost, Westminster Bank obtained certain
representations, warranties and covenants from Warnaco pursuant
to the Consent Agreement.  If the Debtors would violate the
Consent Agreement, Mr. Trost explains, it would give rise to a
claim by Westminster Bank for an accelerated payment from the
Debtors in an amount roughly equivalent to the unused balance of
the Cross Purchase Credit.

In sum, Mr. Trost says, the Debtors received a cash payment upon
the sale of inventory to Active Media, and after that,
Westminster Bank received the assigned portion of each invoice
in exchange for its financing to Active Media.

Mr. Trost informs Judge Bohanon that a substantial portion of
the Cross Purchase Credit was not utilized by the Debtors within
the time limited prescribed in the Subject Agreements.  As a
result, Mr. Trost notes, the Debtors estimates that some
$15,000,000 in Cross Purchase Credit had not been used as of
Petition Date.

Also, Mr. Trost relates, pre-petition invoices submitted by
Active Media that amounts to $375,000 remain unpaid.
Accordingly, Mr. Trost says, Westminster Bank has a pre-petition
claim against the Debtors for its portion of the invoice in the
amount of $130,000.

By this motion, the Debtors seek the Court's authority to reject
these Agreements.  Mr. Trost explains the Debtors' executory
obligations that will be affected by the proposed rejection
include, but not limited to:

   (a) continued performance under and in compliance with the
       Countertrade Consumption Procedures; and

   (b) the designation of Active Media as the exclusive agent of
       the Debtors in connection with the procurement of printing
       services.

The Debtors contend that the continued purchase of Goods and
Services under the Subject Agreements does not provide any
benefit to their estates.  The assumption of the Subject
Agreements is not feasible either, Mr. Trost notes.  Given the
cure obligations of pre-petition invoices of no less than
$505,000 and provision of Westminster Bank's claim for an
accelerated payment in excess of $14,000,000, Mr. Trost
observes, assumption of the Subject Agreements is simply not
appropriate.

The Debtors are confident they can obtain Goods & Services from
other sources, aside from Active Media.  Once rejection of the
Subject Agreements is authorized, Mr. Trost tells the Court, the
Debtors may be able to realize additional discounts in future
purchases of Goods & Services either:

   (a) by adding such purchases to the Debtors' other trade
       credit agreements with Active Media, which are not
       affected by this Motion, or

   (b) by pursuing alternative purchasing assignments with third
       parties, including trade credit-barter companies that will
       provide discounts.

And so, the Debtors ask Judge Bohanon to grant them the relief
requested. (Warnaco Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 10; Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)


WINSTAR COMMS: Agrees to Segregate Proceeds from S.F. ISP Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
Winstar Communications, Inc. sought and obtained the Court
approval of its motion to sell its San Francisco ISP.

However, in response to the objection of Lucent Technologies,
the Debtors agreed to modify the sale order to provide that:

A. Upon consummation of the Sale of the Assets, the Debtors
    shall place the net proceeds thereof in a segregated bank
    account maintained by the Agent for the Debtors' postpetition
    lenders.

B. Within 10 days of the later of September 24, 2001 or the date
    upon which Lucent Technologies receives invoices for all the
    Assets, Lucent shall provide the Debtors with documentation
    to establish Lucent's valid and perfected lien on all or any
    portion of the Assets or the proceeds. Failure to provide
    such notice shall result in all alleged liens being deemed
    null and void.

C. Within 10 days of receipt of such documentation the Debtors
    shall reply in writing to dispute any such assertion in
    favor of Lucent.

D. If the Debtors and Lucent are unable to agree on the extent
    to which Lucent has a valid and enforceable lien, if any, on
    the proceeds of the Sale of the Assets within 10 days
    thereafter, the Debtors shall file a motion with this Court
    seeking a determination that Lucent does not have a legal
    and valid lien against the Assets and the Debtors and Lucent
    agree to seek adjudication by this Court of the validity of
    such liens on an expedited basis on notice to the Debtors
    pre-petition lenders, creditor's committee and to Lucent.

Judge Farnan also authorizes the Debtors to assume and assign to
the Purchaser or its designee the Contracts, effective upon the
Closing Date, except for those with Cox Communications or Lucent
Technologies. The Sale Motion is withdrawn in respect of the
contracts between Winstar Wireless and Cox and is without
prejudice to Cox's ability to file an administrative expense
claim against the Debtors. (Winstar Bankruptcy News, Issue No.
15; Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., 609/392-0900)

                           *********

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. Yvonne L. Metzler, Bernadette
C. de Roda, Ronald P. Villavelez 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 240/629-3300.

                      *** End of Transmission ***