CAR_Public/010425.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, April 25, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 81

                            Headlines

AKRON-KARMAN: Rubber Co. Faces Discrimination Suit By Black Employees
ALABAMA: Sp Ct Limits Civil Rights Suits in Case re English-only Tests
ALBERTSON'S: Hit With Major Employee Race Discrimination Class Action
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Health Plans Cover Viagra But Not Birth Control
AUTOWEB.COM: Sirota & Sirota And Lovell & Stewart File Securities Suit

CISCO SYSTEMS: Former VP Charged with Embezzlement of More Than $10 Mil
CISCO SYSTEMS: Scott & Scott Files Shareholders Suit in California
CISCO SYSTEMS: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Lawsuit
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Faces SC Suit over Parking Brake Interlock System
eBT INTERNATIONAL: Announces Voluntary Dismissal of Securities Suit

GENERAL MOTORS: Group Funded By Attys. Designs Gas Tank For Pickup Truck
K-DUR 20: Spector, Roseman Sues Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and AHP
MISSISSIPPI: $500M for Program May Bring Long College Bias Suit to End
MONSANTO CO: To Pay Anniston Residents $40M in Toxicity Suit
NETZERO: SIROTA & SIROTA AND LOVELL & STEWART File SECURITIES Suit in NY

NORTHWEST AIRLINES: To Pay Passengers Stranded In Jan. 1999 In Detroit
NSTAR CORP: Suit Alleges of Improperly Billing for Default Service
ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Suit in LA
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Contests Securities Suit in FL re Billing Practices
TAINTED WATER: Walkerton Pays Former Water Manager to Avoid Court

TOBACCO LITIGATION: MN Medicaid Recipients Lose Supreme Court Appeal
UTAH CENTER: 12-Yesr-Old Suit Re Disability Ends With Improvements
WARNACO GROUP: Lovell & Stewart Files Securities Lawsuit in New York

                         *********

AKRON-KARMAN: Rubber Co. Faces Discrimination Suit By Black Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------------
AKRON-Karman Rubber Co. is being sued by 32 current and former employees
who claim they faced discrimination by the firm through unequal treatment
and pay and a hostile work environment. The 32 employees, all but three
of whom are black, filed the suit March 16 in U.S. District Court and the
Summit County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages in excess of
$700 million, including about $4 million per plaintiff on each of six
counts outlined in the suit, according to the documents.

''The money the plaintiffs are asking for is ridiculous,'' said Harley
Kastner, attorney for Karman. ''Their claims are unsupported legally and
factually.'' Kastner said the company has been extraordinary with hiring
minorities. ''It's too bad a 50-year-old company is receiving such
negative attention with this.''

While Edward Gilbert, the plaintiff's attorney, could not be reached for
comment, court documents describe the alleged discriminatory behavior,
retaliation and environment employees say they endured during their time
with Karman.

The lawsuit claims that plaintiffs were denied their constitutional right
to file discrimination grievances with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission
and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission because of contract
language negotiated and instituted between the company and the labor
union representing the hourly production workers. The contract states:
''A bargaining unit member may not challenge a company practice in any
state, federal, or local form prior to exhausting his (union negotiated)
remedies.''

The plaintiffs contend the contract language was instituted and used by
the company as an intimidation tool to retaliate against plaintiffs for
filing complaints.

The suit alleges the workers feared they would be disciplined or
terminated for filing discrimination complaints with the OCRC and the
EEOC.

The workers are represented by United Steelworkers of America Local 328.

Karman Rubber President David Mann said two of the employees who are
plaintiffs in the lawsuit were part of the negotiating committee that
helped bargain the contract.

The company terminated nine of the plaintiffs between February 1997 and
February 2000, actions the workers claimed in the lawsuit were
retaliatory. Mann said the 29 black plaintiffs named in the suit left the
company for different reasons, ''but they were not fired.''

Mann said six or seven of the plaintiffs were working at Karman until
mid-April, when the company had to lay off employees because of
''economic'' reasons. ''One of the employees involved in the lawsuit is
still working here right now,'' he said. ''It can't be that bad of an
environment if they're still employed here.''

Graffiti including racial epithets, KKK writings and swastikas were found
in Karman's men's restroom, fostering a hostile work environment, the
plaintiffs claim. ''About 75 percent of the employees never saw that
graffiti,'' Mann said. ''The graffiti was cleaned up within a few hours
by the maintenance crew.

The suit also alleges unequal pay for equal work, and that whites were
paid more for the same work the black workers performed. Lawyers on both
sides are debating which court should handle the suit. Gilbert wants the
case placed in the Summit County Common Pleas Court while Kastner filed
papers April 11 to have it heard in the Federal Court in Akron.

Mann said this is the first discrimination lawsuit Karman has faced in
more 50 years of business. The firm has 20 employees, and manufactures
rubber-to-metal, vibration, noise, shock control, compression transfer,
and injection-molded products. (Rubber & Plastics News, April 23, 2001)


ALABAMA: Sp Ct Limits Civil Rights Suits in Case re English-only Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines Tuesday that private
individuals do not have a right to sue under the federal Civil Rights Act
when they believe they are targets of discrimination in a government
program.

The case involves a woman of Hispanic heritage in Alabama who sued the
state because it only administers drivers' tests in English.

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act orders that no one "on the ground
of race, color or national origin (shall) be excluded from participation
in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under
any program or activity" covered by the law. Title VI also authorizes
federal agencies to enforce its mandate in federally subsidized programs.

The question before the Supreme Court in the Alabama case, however, was
whether an individual had the right to sue under Title VI.

Like nearly all states, Alabama used to administer its written driver's
test in a variety of languages. The state did so in 14 languages from the
1970s to 1991, "including Spanish, Korean, Farsi, Cambodian, German,
Laotian, Greek, Arabic, French, Japanese, Polish, Thai and Vietnamese,"
court records said.

But in July 1990, state voters passed Amendment 509 to the state
constitution. The amendment made English "the official language of the
state of Alabama," and ordered the Legislature and officials to take "all
steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language
of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced."

Amendment 509 also allows individuals living or doing business in Alabama
to file private suits to enforce the use of English.

A score of other states have made English their "official" language, but
very few, if any, appear to have applied that policy in the way Alabama
has.

Shortly after the amendment's passage, the Alabama Department of Public
Safety adopted a policy of using English-only in all portions of the
driver's exam.

"Interpreters, translation, dictionaries and other interpretive aids were
officially forbidden," according to an appeals court opinion in the case.

Immigrant Martha Sandoval of Mobile, Ala., supported by public and
religious advocates, filed a class action suit against the driver's exam
policy in federal court in 1996.

Sandoval, a Mexican who moved to Mobile in 1987 and is now a permanent
U.S. resident, speaks very little English, court records said. She did
take an English class at a Baptist church in Mobile, but had to quit
because she worked two jobs. A federal judge ruled that Sandoval had the
right to sue the state under U.S. civil rights law, and that the state's
policy violated the Civil Rights Act. When a federal appeals court
affirmed the judge's ruling, state officials asked the Supreme Court for
review of whether Congress, in the Civil Rights Act, created a private
right to sue state agencies receiving federal grants. After hearing
argument in the case last January, the Supreme Court reversed the lower
courts Tuesday in a clear split between strict constructionists and those
justices looking for the reasoning behind the plain language of a law.

Writing for the narrow majority of conservatives and moderate
conservatives, Justice Antonin Scalia cited the actual language of
federal law. "Neither as originally enacted nor as later amended does
Title VI display an intent to create a free-standing private right of
action" -- the right to sue -- "to enforce regulations promulgated under
(the relevant provision)," Scalia said. "We therefore hold that no such
right of action exists."

Justice John Paul Stevens led the court's four liberals in dissent.
Stevens said the majority was ignoring Supreme Court precedent, and in
doing so "suggests that today's decision is the unconscious product of
the majority's profound distaste for implied causes of action" -- again,
the right to sue -- "rather than an attempt to discern the intent of the
Congress that enacted Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Its colorful
disclaimer of any interest in 'venturing beyond Congress's intent' has a
hollow ring.' "

(No. 99-1908, Director Alexander vs. Sandoval and all others similarly
situated) (United Press International, April 24, 2001)


ALBERTSON'S: Hit With Major Employee Race Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 20, 2001, a race discrimination class action against Albertson's
was filed by Oakland civil rights attorneys Ed Casey and Mary Shea. The
complaint is brought by 12 current long-term employees of Albertson's
alleging that they and other African American employees are subjected to
race-based assignments and are routinely denied promotions, equal pay,
full-time work status, and given the least desirable work schedules.

The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Albertson's and its predecessor
Lucky Stores, Inc., has a glass ceiling preventing African American
employees from being promoted to Assistant Manager or higher. They
further allege that bids for job openings are often not posted, as
required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, or are posted only after
the job opening has already been awarded to a non-African American
employee. "The discrimination is reminiscent of the south in the early
60's," claims attorney Casey. "When the truth is revealed, this community
will be outraged."

Most of the complaining employees have worked for Albertson's (or the
company with which it merged, Lucky Stores, Inc.) for more than 10 years.
One of the complainants has been employed for 26 years and one for 31
years. Despite their decades of service, many of the complaining
employees were told they didn't have enough seniority when they asked
management why they were not being chosen for a job opening, preferred
schedule, or management training program.

In one instance, the employee has submitted a bid for full-time employee
status every 6 months for 26 years, but has never been granted full-time
status. During the same period numerous non-African American employees
with less seniority have been granted full-time positions.

According to attorney Shea, "These employees have devoted their entire
adult working lives to Albertson's. Oakland may be culturally diverse,
but discrimination is still rampant."

Anyone who wants to learn more about this lawsuit can send e-mail to
EmployeeJustice@aol.com or call Ed Casey, Mary Shea or Julie Mains at
510-208-4422.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Health Plans Cover Viagra But Not Birth Control
------------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines Inc. discriminated against some employees by refusing
to offer insurance coverage for birth control, Pap tests and infertility
treatments, according to a charge filed Monday with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission in Los Angeles.

Martina Alexander, a 37-year-old flight attendant from Riverside, said
she filed the complaint after she sought coverage for an infertility
problem.

Through correspondence with the Fort Worth-based company, Alexander said,
she was informed that her health plan covered the impotence drug Viagra
but not fertility treatments, Pap tests or birth control. "That letter
was a slap in the face," Alexander said. "This was absurd, and it was
unethical and immoral that they could treat women who work for American
this way."

American Airlines officials would not comment on the specific allegation
because the company had not been notified of the complaint.

Spokesman Gus Whitcomb said contraceptives prescribed for birth control
would not be covered under any of the health plans it offers its 110,000
employees worldwide. Contraceptives sometimes are prescribed for medical
conditions. In those cases the prescriptions would be covered. "What our
health plans pay for are medications and procedures which are deemed
medically necessary," he said. "If any prescription drug is deemed to be
medically necessary, then the health plan will pay for it."

Whitcomb said Viagra, like all prescription drugs, is covered if deemed
medically necessary. Infertility treatments may be covered by the
airline's health plans in some regions but not others, and Pap tests,
which test for signs of cervical cancer, may be offered in certain plans
that have wellness programs but not others, he said.

Since Jan. 1, 2000, California has required employers who offer health
plans with prescription coverage to include prescription contraceptives,
and bills with similar mandates have been introduced in Congress and
several other states.

While there are no published federal court opinions addressing whether
employers may exclude contraceptives from prescription drug plans, the
EEOC took the position in December that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act
forbids the exclusion.

Two cases challenging employers' refusal to cover contraceptives have
reached the federal courts. In Seattle, a lawsuit against a drug retailer
recently was declared a class action, and in Minneapolis a judge ruled
last week that a similar case against a commercial delivery service
should go to trial.

"They are coming forward because it's only in the past few years that
it's come to light how commonplace it is for employers to single out
contraceptives for exclusion," said Judy Appelbaum, vice president of the
National Women's Law Center in Washington. "The unfairness of that became
glaring when Viagra was approved by the FDA and quickly got included in
health plans and people said, 'Hey, wait a minute.' "

There are only a few, mixed court decisions regarding infertility
treatments, which men and women receive, and none on whether employers
must provide Pap tests, according to several lawyers.

Alexander, who has worked for American since 1987, said she discovered
contraceptives were not covered by her health plan in 1999. She said she
wrote several letters and made telephone calls to American headquarters
in an effort to get contraception, Pap tests and infertility treatments
covered for all employees. "I tried to change it at a corporate level,
and they flat out said, 'No,' " Alexander said. "And that's when I
decided I had to take it further."

American self-funds its health plans, meaning claims are paid out of its
budget, according to the company's Nov. 8, 1999, letter to Alexander. To
hold down costs, it said, American made the decision to cover "those
expenses medically necessary to sustain life."

Gloria Allred, the lawyer representing Alexander, said the suggestion
that Viagra "is 'medically necessary to sustain life' is absurd. Many
women . . . have died because of cervical cancer, which might have been
detected by a Pap smear."

EEOC legal counsel Ellen J. Vargyas said she could not discuss the
complaint until the agency issued a ruling. But she said the commission
issued its guidance decision in December because of the "fairly
widespread" practice by employers of excluding contraceptive prescription
coverage from drug plans.

If the EEOC determines Alexander has a valid complaint, the agency will
give her permission to file a discrimination lawsuit in federal court.
Federal law requires that all discrimination complaints against employers
go to the EEOC first. If a lawsuit is filed, Allred said, she plans to
ask the judge to make the case a class action on behalf of all similarly
affected American employees. Allred said she is investigating whether the
new state law covers American.

The EEOC is expected to make its determination in 60 to 90 days, Allred
said. (Los Angeles Times, April 24, 2001)


AUTOWEB.COM: Sirota & Sirota And Lovell & Stewart File Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Sirota & Sirota, LLP (+1 212 425-9055 or
http://www.sirotalaw.com)and Lovell & Stewart, LLP (+1 212 608-1900 or
http://www.lovellstewart.com)filed a class action lawsuit on April 20,
2001 on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Autoweb.com, Inc.
(Nasdaq: AWEB) between March 22, 1999 and April 18, 2001, inclusive. The
lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder and seeks to
recover damages. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than June 22, 2001.

The action, Michael McKay v. Autoweb.com, Inc., et al., is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (500 Pearl
Street, New York, New York), Docket No. 01-CV-3360 (GBD) and has been
assigned to the Hon. George B. Daniels, U.S. District Judge. The
complaint alleges that Autoweb.com, Inc., Dean A. DeBiase, its Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer, Farhang Zamani and Payam Zamani, its
founders, and Directors Mark N. Diker, Jay C. Hoag, Mark R. Ross and
Peter S. Sealey violated the federal securities laws by issuing and
selling Autoweb.com common stock pursuant to the March 22, 1999 IPO
without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in the
offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, lead
underwriters Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation and BancBoston
Robertson Stephens, Inc., together with underwriters Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter & Co., Incorporated and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. allocated
Autoweb.com shares to customers at the IPO price of 14.00 US dollars per
share. To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares)
at 14.00 dlrs, the underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher
prices. The requirement that customers make additional purchases at
progressively higher prices as the price of Autoweb.com stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Autoweb.com's share price up to artificially high levels.

This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both the
underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock
at the 14.00 dlrs IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at
inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as 41.00 dlrs during its
first day of trading.

Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the IPO,
the complaint alleges, the underwriters required their customers to "kick
back" some of their profits in the form of secret commissions. These
secret commission payments were sometimes calculated after the fact based
on how much profit each investor had made from his or her IPO stock
allocation.

The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act
of 1933 because the Prospectus distributed to investors and the
Registration Statement filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory
approval for the Autoweb.com offering contained material misstatements
regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the IPO
transaction and failed to disclose the additional commissions and
"laddering" scheme discussed above.

Contact: Christopher Lovell, Victor E. Stewart or Christopher J. Gray,
all of Lovell & Stewart, LLP, +1 212-608-1900, sklovell@aol.com; or
Howard B. Sirota or Saul Roffe, both of Sirota & Sirota, LLP, +1
212-425-9055, info@sirotalaw.com


CISCO SYSTEMS: Former VP Charged with Embezzlement of More Than $10 Mil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
An executive at Cisco Systems Inc., the world's leading maker of Internet
equipment, has been arrested and accused of embezzling more than $10
million, the company confirmed Monday. Robert S. Gordon, a vice president
of business development at Cisco (CSCO), is alleged in an FBI affidavit
of having fraudulently acquired more than 30,000 shares of stock in
Internet Security Services Group Inc (ISSX). The affidavit alleges Gordon
sold those shares after transferring them into a company he started in
the Bahamas.

"We brought this situation to the attention of law enforcement
authorities. We are assisting their investigation and support their
prosecution efforts," Cisco said in a statement released Monday.

A Cisco spokesman said Gordon no longer works there and the company would
not provide phone numbers for the former employee.

Gordon allegedly took the proceeds from the shares he sold and invested
much of it into Spanlink Communication Inc., a communications company
partnered with Cisco. The affidavit alleges Gordon doubled his investment
in Spanlink, receiving $10 million on his $5 million investment. He faces
a $250,000 and five years in prison for fraud in interstate commerce.
(The Associated Press, April 24, 2001)


CISCO SYSTEMS: Scott & Scott Files Shareholders Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott & Scott, LLC ( scottlaw@scott-scott.com ), a Connecticut-based law
firm, filed a class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Cisco Systems,
Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO) common stock during the period between August 10,
1999 and February 6, 2001 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Cisco and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Cisco and its
subsidiaries are engaged in selling products for networking in the
Internet. The complaint alleges that by the beginning of the Class Period
in August 1999, Internet Service Providers and competitive local
telephone companies had technology to deploy, but they had little
capital, and Cisco used this as an opportunity to increase its sales by
providing capital financing to such companies. Cisco, however, made such
financing conditional upon the purchase of large amounts of Cisco
product. Through this alleged manipulation and the shipment of defective
or incomplete product, as well as Cisco's failure to adequately accrue
for excess and overvalued inventory and uncollectible finance
receivables, Cisco was able to report "record" earnings each quarter
during the Class Period. Defendants thus made positive but false
statements about Cisco's products, financial results and business during
the Class Period. As a result, Cisco's stock traded as high as $82.

The inflation in Cisco's stock price was essential to its main corporate
strategy, that of growth through acquisition, which Cisco accomplished
through the exchange of inflated Cisco shares. In addition, each of the
defendants had the motive and the opportunity to perpetrate the
fraudulent scheme and course of business described herein in order to
sell $595 million worth of their own Cisco shares at prices as high as
$80.24 per share, or 84% higher than the price to which Cisco shares
dropped after the end of the Class Period, as the true state of Cisco's
business and prospects began to reach the market.

After completing more than 20 major acquisitions between 9/99 and 2/01,
by issuing more than 400 million shares of Cisco stock, and selling more
than 10 million shares of their personal Cisco holdings, on 2/6/01, Cisco
announced extremely disappointing 2nd Quarter Fiscal 2001 results,
including EPS of only $ 0.18. This disclosure shocked the market, causing
Cisco's stock to decline to less than $30 per share before closing at
$31-1/16 per share on 2/7/01, on record volume of more than 279 million
shares, inflicting billions of dollars of damage on plaintiff and the
Class. Cisco later admitted that 3rd Quarter Fiscal sales would be less
than $4.8 billion, or lower than any quarter since the 2nd Quarter Fiscal
2000. Defendants' misconduct has wiped out over $400 billion in market
capitalization as Cisco stock has fallen 84% from its Class Period high
of $82 per share as the truth about Cisco, its operations and prospects
began to reach the market. On 4/16/01, Cisco announced a $2.5 billion
write-down of inventory (or 90% of its inventory as of 1/31/01) of
components in its service business. This was one of the largest inventory
write-downs in U.S. history. Cisco stock has dropped to as low as
$13-3/16.

Contact: David R. Scott or Neil Rothstein, 800-404-7770, or
scottlaw@scott-scott.com, both of Scott & Scott, LLC


CISCO SYSTEMS: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman announced that it has filed a class action complaint on
behalf of all persons who acquired Cisco Systems, Inc., (Nasdaq: CSCO)
securities between August 10, 1999 and April 16, 2001, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The complaint charges Cisco Systems, Inc., and its top
officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Cisco and its subsidiaries are engaged in selling products for networking
for the Internet.

The complaint alleges that at the beginning of the Class Period, Internet
Service Providers and competitive local telephone companies had
technology to deploy but little capital, and Cisco used this an as
opportunity to increase its sales by providing capital financing to such
companies but making such financing conditional upon the purchase of
large amounts of Cisco product. Through this manipulation and the
shipment of defective products, as well as Cisco's failure to adequately
accrue for excess and overvalued inventory and uncollectible finance
receivables, Cisco was able to report "record" earnings each quarter
during the Class Period. Defendants made false statements about Cisco's
products, financial results and business during the Class Period. As a
result, Cisco's stock traded as high as $82. After completing more than
20 major acquisitions between September 1999 and February 2001, Cisco
announced disappointing 2ndQ F01 results. This disclosure caused Cisco's
stock to decline to less than $30 per share before closing at $31-1/16
per share on 2/27/01. Cisco further announced a 2.5 billion write-down of
its inventory on April 16, This was one of the largest write-downs in the
history of the world.

The complaint alleges that as a result of the defendants' conduct,
plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered damages.

Contact: Mark A. Gordon, Esq. of Weiss & Yourman - Los Angeles,
800-437-7918, wyinfo@wyca.com


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Faces SC Suit over Parking Brake Interlock System
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler AG is being sued by four Anderson County residents who
allege defects in its vans and trucks. Anderson attorney Cordell Maddox
wants to make the lawsuit a class action on behalf of all South Carolina
owners of the vehicles.

The lawsuit says the company made vehicles ''unreasonably dangerous'' by
failing to include a parking brake interlock system and then misled the
public. The models in the lawsuit include the Dodge Caravan, Plymouth
Voyager, Chrysler Town and Country minivan, Dodge Ram, Dodge Dakota and
Dodge Durango.

The lawsuit, while not alleging any injuries, is similar to a wrongful
death suit filed by the family of a pregnant Williamston woman who died
in 1997 when she tried to stop her minivan, which started moving after
she parked it in the driveway with a child inside.

That lawsuit was settled for an undisclosed amount. The Highway Patrol
determined the van had a problem with its transmission locking system.

The park-brake interlock system keeps the system from being moved out of
park until the brake pedal is pressed, the lawsuit states. Maddox said it
is an industry standard used in all vehicles.

DaimlerChrysler spokeswoman Elaine Lutz said the device, now standard on
2001 minivans, is not required by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. The absence of the device does not pose a danger, she
said. ''I think it's important to understand brake interlock systems were
not added to vehicles to address unattended children in vehicles,'' Lutz
said.

The lawsuit also says DaimlerChrysler claims it produced the ''safest
minivan in the world.'' The lawsuit said the advertising was misleading.

Lutz said the current slogan is the ''best minivan ever.'' She would not
talk about past slogan

Maddox estimates there could be 25,000 owners of the vehicles in the
state. (AP Worldstream, April 24, 2001)


eBT INTERNATIONAL: Announces Voluntary Dismissal of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
eBT International, Inc. (Nasdaq: EBTI), a leading provider of
enterprise-wide Web content management solutions, announced on April 23
that the consolidated securities class action originally filed in
February 2000 (covering a class period of October 28, 1999 through
February 1, 2000) has been dismissed upon motion by the plaintiffs. The
litigation was related to eBT's preliminary disclosure of revenues for
the fiscal year 2000 fourth quarter on February 1, 2000. Plaintiffs
received no consideration for the dismissal.

About eBT International, Inc. eBT International, Inc. (Nasdaq: EBTI),
doing business as eBT, develops and markets enterprise-wide Web content
management solutions and services that power a growing list of global
customers, including 3Com Corporation, AT&T, Fidelity Investments UK,
GTE, NASA and Public Broadcasting Service. eBT's products are designed to
satisfy three business objectives - time-to-market, integration and ease
of use - to help organizations automate the creation, management and
publication of Web content. Leveraging more than 5 years of XML expertise
and support for other industry standards, eBT's products are well suited
to work in concert with other software solutions to enable the
integration customers require to build a cohesive, complete e-business
solution that maximizes the viability of an organization's Web
infrastructure. Headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island, eBT has
offices located throughout the United States and Europe. For more
information, visit www.ebt.com.

eBT is a trademark of eBT International, Inc. in the United States and
other countries. All other company, product or service names are
trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders.


GENERAL MOTORS: Group Funded By Attys. Designs Gas Tank For Pickup Truck
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A coalition of consumer advocates announced Monday that they have
designed an alternative gas tank for General Motors Corp. pickup trucks
that they describe as "rolling firebombs."

Public Citizen, the Center for Auto Safety and attorneys in a
class-action lawsuit against GM on Monday urged owners of C- and K-class
pickup trucks made between 1973-87, to replace their "side-saddle" gas
tanks.

The groups contend the vehicles are unsafe because their gas tanks are
easily ruptured and prone to explosions in an accident. "If God designed
the human body like General Motors designed the C-K pickup, the heart
would be outside the rib cage and just underneath the skin," said Don
Barrett, a Mississippi attorney who sued GM over the pickup design.

The retrofitted gas tank was designed by the Automotive Safety Research
Institute, a group funded by the class action attorneys.

The redesigned gas tank would be located within the vehicle's structural
frame. The retrofit would cost about $475, but that cost could fall if
enough pickup owners sign up.

But General Motors spokesman Jay Cooney described the consumer groups'
action as "engineering malpractice" and urged GM truck owners to keep
their original fuel tanks. GM has denied that the trucks are unsafe and
will not allow its dealers to perform the fix. (The Detroit News, April
24, 2001)


K-DUR 20: Spector, Roseman Sues Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and AHP
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., announces that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey against Schering-Plough Corporation
(NYSE:SGP), Upsher-Smith Laboratories, and American Home Products Corp.
(NYSE:AHP), on behalf of a nationwide class of end-users who, since June
17, 1997, have purchased K-Dur 20, a brand-name drug prescribed by
doctors for patients with certain heart troubles.

The complaint charges that Schering-Plough entered into unlawful
agreements with Upsher-Smith and American Home Products under which
Upsher-Smith and American Home Products agreed not to introduce cheaper
generic versions of K-Dur 20 in exchange for payments totaling$90
million. According to the complaint, the purpose and effect of these
agreements was to protect Schering-Plough's control over the market for
potassium chloride, in violation of federal antitrust laws and as well as
the unfair trade practices acts of many states.

Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for consumers who, without this
lower-priced generic competition, have been forced to purchase
Schering-Plough's more expensive product at artificially inflated prices.
On March 30, 2001, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") filed a complaint
against the defendants alleging that their conduct violates Section 5 of
the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 45. The FTC estimates
the harm to consumers caused by this illegal action at over $100 million.

The plaintiff is the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 56 Health &
Welfare Fund, which provides quality medical coverage to over 15,000
participants and beneficiaries in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware.

Contact: Spector Roseman & Kodroff Eugene Spector, 888/844-5862


MISSISSIPPI: $500M for Program May Bring Long College Bias Suit to End
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the nation's longest-running civil rights cases neared a
settlement when the State of Mississippi agreed on April 24 to spend $500
million to improve its historically black colleges and speed their
integration.

The case began in 1975 when Jake Ayers, a black sharecropper, sued the
state on behalf of his son, contending that Mississippi's three black
universities -- Jackson State, Alcorn State and Mississippi Valley State
-- were vastly inferior to the colleges that whites attended. A series of
federal courts agreed, noting that the black colleges received far less
money per student, and in 1992 the United States Supreme Court said the
state would have to do more than simply adopt race-neutral admissions
policies. The court ruled that Mississippi would also have to reform its
discriminatory spending and education policies.

The state agreed to spend $246 million over 17 years on academic programs
and $75 million over five years for capital improvements and buildings.
It would also establish a $70 million endowment to provide a regular
income to the colleges and would raise an additional $35 million for the
endowment from donors. The balance of the $500 million would pay for
other programs, including summer school for high school students. As an
incentive to promote diversity, the state would allow the colleges to
control the interest from the endowment if they achieved 10 percent
nonblack enrollment for three consecutive years. (The colleges are almost
entirely black.)

The deal was approved by the state, the United States Department of
Justice, the black colleges and the lead plaintiff, Representative Bennie
Thompson. It will not be final until it is approved by Judge Neal Biggers
Jr. of United States District, after a comment period of up to two
months.

Not everyone who will be commenting on the settlement will support it.
Lillie Ayers, Mr. Ayers's widow, was removed as lead plaintiff several
years ago by the court, but her lawyer, Alvin O. Chambliss Jr., said that
the settlement had not gone far enough. Although the settlement will
create an engineering school at Jackson and a business school at Alcorn,
Mr. Chambliss said they would not have nearly the same number of
departments as the University of Mississippi and were likely to remain
inferior. (The New York Times, April 24, 2001)


MONSANTO CO: To Pay Anniston Residents $40M in Toxicity Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A company accused of poisoning the community with toxic chemicals for
decades and then covering it up has agreed to pay $40 million to settle a
lawsuit brought by nearly 1,600 residents.

The chemical contamination allegedly was spread by the Monsanto Co.,
which manufactured PCBs in Anniston until 1972. Monsanto changed its name
to Solutia Inc. in 1997.

The average payment to plaintiffs will be about $12,000, Ralph Knowles,
an attorney for the Anniston residents, said. Each plaintiff, including
about 500 minors, will receive at least $5,000, he said.

As part of the settlement, the company also agreed to pay $2.5 million to
move plaintiffs who live close to the chemical plant; $3.5 million to a
charitable foundation to assist residents exposed to PCBs and $1 million
for part of the court costs.

The company said it did not admit guilt. ''It demonstrates that we're
committed to the community and it permits us to focus our attention on
... concerns closer to home,'' said company lawyer Tom Bistline.

A judge must approve the settlement. A hearing was set for Wednesday.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs claimed that company documents showed Monsanto
knew the chemical was hazardous by the 1960s but continued to manufacture
it without proper safeguards.

The company didn't deny the chemical escaped from the plant to the water
supply. But it said there was no proof any residents were harmed.

PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, were manufactured in Anniston from
1927 through 1972 for use as insulation in electrical equipment. The
government banned production in the late '70s amid questions about
possible health risks. PCBs-laden wastewater and storm water from the
plant emptied into a drainage ditch and creek in a poor section of
Anniston. From there, the water ran to Choccolocco Creek and Lake Logan
Martin.

The company previously agreed to pay $43.7 million to property owners
along creek and lake, where PCBs were found. (AP Online, April 24, 2001)


NETZERO: SIROTA & SIROTA AND LOVELL & STEWART File SECURITIES Suit in NY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Sirota & Sirota, LLP (+1 212 425-9055 or
http://www.sirotalaw.com)and Lovell & Stewart, LLP (+1 212 608-1900 or
http://www.lovellstewart.com)filed a class action lawsuit on April 20,
2001 on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of NetZero, Inc.
(Nasdaq: NZRO) between September 23, 1999 and April 18, 2001, inclusive.
The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder and seeks to
recover damages. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than June 22, 2001.

The action, Jodi Bernstein v. NetZero, Inc., et al., is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (500 Pearl
Street, New York, New York), Docket No. 01-CV-3358 (WHP) and has been
assigned to the Hon. William H. Pauley III, U.S. District Judge. The
complaint alleges that NetZero.com, Inc., Mark R. Goldston, its Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer, Ronald T. Burr, its President and Director,
Directors James A. Armstrong, Jennifer S. Fonstad and Bill Gross and
former Directors David C. Bohnett and Paul G. Koontz violated the federal
securities laws by issuing and selling NetZero common stock pursuant to
the September 23, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of
the underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors.

In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, lead
underwriter The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and underwriters Salomon Smith
Barney, Inc. and BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. allocated NetZero
shares to customers at the IPO price of 16.00 US dollars per share. To
receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at 16.00
dlrs, the underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher prices. The
requirement that customers make additional purchases at progressively
higher prices as the price of NetZero stock rocketed upward (a practice
known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did) drive
NetZero's share price up to artificially high levels. This artificial
price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both the underwriters and
their customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the 16.00
dlrs IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated
aftermarket prices, which rose as high as 30.63 dlrs during its first day
of trading.

Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the IPO,
the complaint alleges, the underwriters required their customers to "kick
back" some of their profits in the form of secret commissions. These
secret commission payments were sometimes calculated after the fact based
on how much profit each investor had made from his or her IPO stock
allocation.

The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act
of 1933 because the Prospectus distributed to investors and the
Registration Statement filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory
approval for the NetZero offering contained material misstatements
regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the IPO
transaction and failed to disclose the additional commissions and
"laddering" scheme discussed above.

Contact: Christopher Lovell, Victor E. Stewart, or Christopher J. Gray of
Lovell & Stewart, LLP, +1 212-608-1900, sklovell@aol.com; or Howard B.
Sirota or Saul Roffe of Sirota & Sirota, LLP, +1 212-425-9055,
info@sirotalaw.com


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: To Pay Passengers Stranded In Jan. 1999 In Detroit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At least 3,700 Northwest passengers who endured lengthy delays during the
January 1999 blizzard will get checks averaging $1,300.

A judge was expected to give final approval on April 24 to a
$7.15-million settlement ending a class-action passenger lawsuit over
Northwest Airlines stranding of thousands of people during the Jan. 2-4
snowstorm. Checks are to be issued by early June.

Thousands of passengers were trapped aboard 30 Northwest airplanes at
Detroit Metropolitan Airport for several hours when airplanes couldn't
take off and couldn't return to the gates. Toilets overflowed, and planes
ran out of food and water.

Following the backlash, the airline industry adopted a voluntary code of
conduct. Now Northwest mandates compensation if passengers are delayed
more than four hours.

By the end of last week, 3,300 passengers claims had been verified, with
passengers divided into three categories, The Detroit News reported.

The 1,400 delayed two to five hours will get $1,000; the 1,300 delayed
five to eight hours will get $1,400; and the 600 delayed more than eight
hours will get $2,000, said Mary Jane Tytran, of Charfoos & Christensen,
a law firm that represented the passengers.

About 400 claims are awaiting minor corrections and should be approved.
(The Associated Press State & Local Wire, April 24, 2001)


NSTAR CORP: Suit Alleges of Improperly Billing for Default Service
------------------------------------------------------------------
NStar Corp. has improperly placed "many thousands" of its electric
customers on more expensive default service and refuses to correct the
problem unless an individual customer complains, according to a
class-action lawsuit filed Monday April 23.

Michael Monahan, an NStar spokesman, called the lawsuit "ridiculous." He
said customers are occasionally placed on default service when they
should be on standard service, but he said such mistakes were rare and
can usually be traced to some changes in billing.

Monahan also denied an allegation in a press release accompanying the
lawsuit that NStar "has had an unpublished and unpublicized policy of
fixing the problem, but only for customers who complain." He said the
only way the utility can hear about a billing problem is if the customer
brings it to the company's attention.

John Roddy, an attorney with Grant & Roddy, the law firm that filed the
suit in Suffolk Superior Court, said he conservatively estimates about
5,000 NStar customers have been incorrectly placed on default service.

The state's electric deregulation law created two sets of customers:
those on default service, who have opened a new account with their
utility since deregulation began in March 1998, and those on standard
service, who have remained with the same utility since before March 1998.

Default customers began paying sharply higher rates for power in January.
In NStar's Boston Edison territory, the difference between standard and
default service is 0.82 cents per kilowatt hour, or nearly $4.09 a month
for a typical customer using 500 kilowatt hours.

Roddy's suit alleges customers who moved within NStar service territories
have incorrectly been labeled as new customers and placed on default
service. NStar serves the former Boston Edison, Commonwealth Electric,
and Cambridge Electric territories.

The suit identifies three individuals - Sharon Dwyer of Newton, Julie
Edwards of Medfield, and George Graziano of Kingston - who moved within
an NStar service territory but were still shifted to default service.
Roddy said the only change in billing that occurred in all three cases
was the address. Graziano, in fact, moved within Kingston.

"The company has known about this problem for a while," Roddy said. "We
hope that this lawsuit will prod them to fix it."

James Connelly, chairman of the Department of Telecommunications and
Energy, contacted NStar and other utilities in mid-December upbraiding
them for their "rigid insistence that any change places the customer on
default service."

Connelly cited three instances when his department had to intervene on
behalf of the customer, but said there were many more. The cases involved
customers who had moved within the service territory but not sold their
old house yet. Another case involved a parent who moved into a nursing
home, leaving behind a daughter who had lived in the house for years but
was still placed on default service when she put her name on the bill.

While Connelly urged utilities to "err on the side of customer care," a
DTE spokesman said there was no indication that utilities were
deliberately misclassifying customers. (The Boston Globe, April 24, 2001)



ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Suit in LA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was commenced in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on
behalf of all purchasers of Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc. (NYSE:
OCA) securities between April 27, 2000 and March 15, 2001, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Besides issuing a series of false and misleading press
releases concerning OCA's financial condition, the complaint alleges that
the Company improperly recognized revenues in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). As a result, the price of the
Company's common stock was artificially inflated throughout the Class
Period, reaching as high as $35.313 per share, allowing defendant to
collectively sell millions of shares in personally held OCA Stock.
However, on March 16, 2001 the true state of the Company's finances were
revealed when the Company disclosed that as a result of an SEC inquiry,
OCA must change its revenue recognition policy to conform to with GAAP.
In response, the stock price of OCA plummeted approximately 20% in
inter-day trading on heavy trading volume.

Contact: Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Anthony Vozzolo, Esq., 877/247-4292 or
212/983-9330 FaruqiLawAV@aol.com


PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Contests Securities Suit in FL re Billing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In February 1999, several federal securities law class actions were
commenced against the company and three of its principal officers in
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The
plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all open market purchasers of
the company’s common stock between March 31, 1997, and various dates
through and including April 2, 1999.

They claim that during that period, Pediatrix violated the antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements concerning the company’s billing practices and results of
operations.

The plaintiffs seek damages in an undetermined amount based on the
alleged decline in the value of the common stock after the company, in
early April 1999, disclosed the initiation of inquiries by state
investigators into our billing practices. The plaintiff class has been
certified, and the case is now in the discovery stage. No trial date has
been set, but on September 11, 2000, the court set a pre-trial conference
for May 25, 2001. Under the local rules, all pre-trial activities,
including discovery and motions for summary judgment, must be completed
before that date, and trial may be set for any time thereafter. Also
pursuant to the local rules, the parties have agreed to engage in a
mediation, but to date those efforts have been unsuccessful.


TAINTED WATER: Walkerton Pays Former Water Manager to Avoid Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Councillors in this rural town voted unanimously last night to pay their
disgraced former water manager $48,000 in severance rather than face him
in court. The amount, however, is $14,000 less than Stan Koebel had
negotiated last fall under a controversial resignation agreement.

Still, council's decision angered some residents, who don't believe
Koebel should be paid anything. "It really hurts," said Phil Englishman,
who noted Koebel will get paid even before residents can claim
compensation for their pain and suffering under a recently settled
class-action suit.

Coun. Chris Peabody disagreed, saying taking on Koebel in court would
have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars that would inevitably have led
to higher property taxes. "Given the choice of raising taxes or paying
the $48,000, I chose to pay," said Peabody.

Under terms of the original deal, Koebel, 47, was to receive $98,000. Of
that, almost $34,000 was for the 99.5 days he had in unused vacation time
when he went on sick leave at the height of the E. coli crisis that
ravaged the town last May.

Seven people died and 2,300 others fell ill from contaminated water.

Meanwhile, a judicial inquiry into the tragedy heard that demands by the
rookie government of Ontario Premier Mike Harris to save money left the
province's Environment Ministry scrambling. A series of documents
presented to the inquiry provided a dramatic account of the waves of
downsizing that began shortly after the Tories took office in June 1995.

"The changes we are suggesting are not without environmental risk and
legal exposure," wrote Sheila Willis, the assistant deputy minister in
charge of the ministry's operations division. In the document to the
deputy minister, Willis suggests ways to achieve the millions of dollars
in savings demanded by the cost-cutting Tories. The measures included
shutting down regional laboratories, reducing the monitoring of air and
water quality and closing several area offices. "The government is
prepared to accept increased risk (legal/environmental/public health) in
the short term to achieve the desired levels of reduction," Willis noted.
(The Edmonton Sun, April 24, 2001)


TOBACCO LITIGATION: MN Medicaid Recipients Lose Supreme Court Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicaid recipients in Minnesota lost a Supreme Court bid for a share of
the state's $6 billion settlement with the tobacco industry. The court,
without comment, on Monday turned down the Medicaid recipients' argument
that state law and the federal Constitution entitled them to a large
share of the settlement.

The tobacco industry agreed in 1998 to pay the states $246 billion over
25 years to cover the cost of treating sick smokers in the Medicaid
program, which serves the poor and disabled. Minnesota is to be paid
$6.17 billion over a number of years.

In July 1998, a group of Medicaid recipients filed a class-action lawsuit
in Minnesota state court, saying they represented about 70,000 people in
the state who suffered smoking-related illnesses and received benefits
through Medicaid.

The lawsuit said that under state law the people were owed one-third or
more of the settlement.

A state judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying the Medicaid recipients could
not recover money "for medical expenses that they, for the most part,
never incurred."

A Minnesota appeals court agreed last September. "The legal right to
recover the medical expenses paid by the state ... belonged solely to the
state," the court said, adding that people still can file their own
lawsuits seeking damages for pain and suffering and lost wages.

In the appeal acted on Monday, lawyers for those who sued said the $6.17
billion settlement was much more than the state's $1.3 billion cost for
treating smoking-related illnesses from 1978 through 1996. "The state ...
has now trampled on the rights of the Medicaid recipients" by taking
money to settle claims for future medical costs and not sharing the money
with them, the appeal said. The appeal said the state violated the
Medicaid recipients' due-process rights and unconstitutionally took their
property without payment.

The state's lawyers said it is not required to share the settlement with
people who received Medicaid-funded health care.

The case is Brown v. Minnesota, 00-1339. (The Associated Press State &
Local Wire, April 24, 2001)


UTAH CENTER: 12-Yesr-Old Suit Re Disability Ends With Improvements
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit filed 12 years ago that challenged conditions at
Utah's only center for the developmentally disabled is finally over.

Third District Judge Timothy Hanson in February quietly ended the
obligations of the Utah State Developmental Center in American Fork and
the state stemming from the case known as "Lisa P.," officials said.

"It's very rewarding from our perspective," said Fraser Nelson, executive
director of the Disability Law Center, which filed the class-action suit
in 1989.

Karma Dixon, assistant attorney general, said the dismissal was granted
with prejudice, meaning the suit cannot be filed again.

The suit alleged conditions at the center did not meet minimum standards
as set in state or federal law. Also, it claimed many of the center's
then-500 residents had the right to be placed in less restrictive,
community-based residential settings.

Nelson described the center, at the time of the suit, as a "warehouse."
Federal reviewers later said staff relied too much on restraint,
seclusion and medication to care for residents.

A 1993 settlement agreement mandated a more people-centered approach and
to make sure residents receive placement based on their needs. Within
months, more than 80 people had been moved out of the center and into the
community.

Today, the center is a far different place than it was in 1989, Nelson
said. Ward-style living quarters have been converted into private
apartments, housing four residents each. The center's 235 residents now
are now able to help choose their goals, their schedules and their
activities in annual planning meetings. The center also receives yearly
visits from an accreditation council, as required by the settlement.

In addition, residents' circumstances are regularly reviewed, Dixon said.

The case "really furthered the rights of a large group of people living
in institutions that had a lot of problems," Nelson said. "People who
were able to move from this institution to the community ... you can't
really measure the change that makes in someone's life." (The Associated
Press State & Local Wire, April 24, 2001)


WARNACO GROUP: Lovell & Stewart Files Securities Lawsuit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lovell & Stewart, LLP ((212) 608-1900 or
www.lovellstewart.com) filed a class action lawsuit on April 20, 2001 on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Warnaco Group Inc. (NYSE: WAC) between
September 29, 2000 and April 18, 2001, inclusive. The lawsuit asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder and seeks to
recover damages. Any member of the class may move the Court to be named
lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than June 20, 2001.

The action, Herbert Black v. Warnaco Group Inc., et al., is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (500 Pearl
Street, New York, New York), Docket No. 01-CV-3346 (MGC) and has been
assigned to the Hon. Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, U.S. District Judge. The
complaint alleges that Warnaco Group Inc., Linda Wachner (Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer), William S. Finkelstein (Director,
Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer of the Calvin Klein
Jeanswear/Underwear units and former Chief Financial Officer), and
Stanley P. Silverstein (Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary)
have a duty of full, corrective and timely disclosure. The complaint
alleges that defendants' disseminated materially false and misleading
statements concerning Warnaco's operations and financial performance.

The complaint alleges, among other things, a failure to divulge promptly
certain necessary charges relating to reserves, operating shortfalls,
restructuring, changing inventory accounting, and a restatement for prior
years. Additionally, it was not until this week that Warnaco revealed an
SEC inquiry into "whether there have been any violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the preparation and
publication of various financial statements and reports." During the
Class Period, Warnaco stock lost more than 88% of its value with share
price dropping to a low of $0.65 after reaching a Class Period high of
$5.93. As a result of this decline in the value of Warnaco shares,
investors have lost, in the aggregate, hundreds of millions of dollars.

Contact: Lovell & Stewart, LLP Christopher Lovell Robert Rodriguez
212/608-1900 sklovell@aol.com


                             *********


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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., Princeton, NJ, and Beard Group, Inc.,
Washington, DC. Theresa Cheuk, Managing Editor.

Copyright 1999.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 301/951-6400.


                    * * *  End of Transmission  * * *