CAR_Public/010516.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 16, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 96

                              Headlines

ANDRIX GROUP: Says New Lawsuits are a Mere Rehash of Pending Litigation
APPLICA, INC.: Continues to Battle Suit Over Black & Decker Acquisition
BAUSCH & LOMB: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Complaint in New York
BRISTOL-MYER: NOW, Gray Panthers & SPAN's Latest Target Defendant
BROADVISION, INC.: Levy and Levy Files Securities Suit in California

CONSOLIDATED NATURAL: Dominion Reports Class Action Suit Dismissed
DIGIMARC CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in New York
DOLLAR GENERAL: Abbey Gardy Files Securities Complain in M.D. Tennessee
DOUBLECLICK, INC.: Stull Stull Files Shareholder Suit in S.D. New York
DOUBLECLICK, INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. New York

FIRST AMERICAN: One Suit Versus Title Insurer Dismissed & Another Pends
GENERAL MOTORS: Privacy Laws Block Access to Pennsylvania Claimants
GREAT LAKES: Outcome of Royalty Owner Lawsuit Remains Uncertain
JDN REALTY: CEO Says Company Will Support Sensible Mediation Resolution
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Continues to Decry Merit of Race Discrimination Suit

METALDYNE CORP.: Awaiting Approval of Settlement from Del. Chancery Ct.
NCI BUILDING: Henzel Firm Files Securities Complaint in Houston
NETWORK COMMERCE: Wechsler Harwod Files Securities Complaint in Seattle
RANGE RESOURCES: Unfair Merger Terms Suit Dismissed without Prejudice
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Free Copy of the Engle Stipulation is Available

                              *********
  
ANDRX GROUP: Says New Lawsuits are a Mere Rehash of Pending Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrx Group (Nasdaq:ADRX) commented on news reports that it has been
sued by the state attorneys general of New York and other states for
antitrust violations in connection with its 1997 Stipulation and
Agreement with Aventis (formerly Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. ("HMR"))
concerning Andrx' generic version of the brand name product Cardizem(R)
CD.  Based on press releases about the new lawsuit, which is the only
information available to Andrx at this time, it appears that the case
is simply a reiteration of the claims first asserted against Andrx in
1998 that are currently being litigated in federal court in the Eastern
District of Michigan, including on behalf of some of the same citizens
of the very same states who are reported to be plaintiffs in today's
lawsuit. As Andrx has previously reported, the ruling by the Michigan
court in June 2000, which found the Stipulation unlawful, is currently
on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit,
and, as Andrx has also previously reported, the court that rendered
that ruling itself believes that there are substantial grounds to
disagree with its conclusions, which Andrx disagrees with and believes
are contrary to the conclusions of another federal court.

Andrx President, Elliot F. Hahn, Ph.D., stated: "The matters apparently
being sued on were also investigated twice by the Federal Trade
Commission over the course of more than three years. Andrx cooperated
fully in those investigations, during which FTC deposed every
conceivable witness and reviewed voluminous documentary evidence from
the parties and numerous third parties. After that extensive
investigation, the FTC agreed to settle that proceeding and stated
publicly that it did not appear to the FTC `that there was any delay'
at all caused by the Stipulation, either of Andrx' entry into the
market or of anyone else." (available at
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2001/04/hoechstanalysis.pdf)

Dr. Hahn continued: "It is disappointing that given the clear abuses
that are occurring in the industry that are actually delaying generic
products from reaching consumers, these state attorneys' general would
after all this time, and evidently for political reasons, join in an
action attacking an agreement that demonstrably benefited consumers by
getting a lower-priced product to them faster. Andrx intends to defend
itself vigorously."

Andrx is engaged in the formulation and commercialization of oral
controlled-release pharmaceuticals utilizing its proprietary drug
delivery technologies. In its ANDA program, Andrx is developing generic
versions of selected high sales volume controlled-release brand name
pharmaceuticals. In its NDA program, Andrx is developing its own brand
name formulations of certain existing drugs that it believes may be
improved by the application of Andrx' drug delivery technologies. Andrx
also markets and distributes pharmaceutical products manufactured by
third parties. Andrx Corporation's Cybear Group intends to use the
Internet to improve the efficiency of clinical, administrative and
communications tasks in the healthcare industry -- while addressing the
healthcare industry's critical need for secure and reliable
transmission of information.


APPLICA, INC.: Continues to Battle Suit Over Black & Decker Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"A class action lawsuit has been brought against us in connection with
our acquisition of the Black & Decker Household Products Group; we  
cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit," Applica, Inc., tells its
investors in its latest quarterly report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  
    

BAUSCH & LOMB: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Complaint in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP launched a
class action lawsuit, filed May 11, 2001, on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (NYSE:BOL) between January 27,
2000 and August 24, 2000, inclusive.

A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the
Court, or can be viewed on Milberg Weiss' website at:
http://www.milberg.com/bausch/

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York,
NY 10007, against defendants Bausch & Lomb, William M. Carpenter,
Steven C. McCluski and Carl E. Sassano.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the Company
claimed its vision care business was "well positioned to continue to
deliver solid growth in the future, with even stronger profitability,"
that Bausch & Lomb was "uniquely positioned in the ophthalmic surgery
market to benefit from the continued strong growth in worlwide demand
for refractive surgery procedures," that "sales of new products had
enough critical mass to offset the continued decline" of the Company's
older products, and that with regard to its lenses, "we continue to get
nothing but extremely positive feedback from practitioners and patients
about their performance." Unbeknownst to investors, as alleged in the
complaint, the Company suffered from undisclosed problems that were
having a materially adverse effect on its financial performance: the
Company lacked the management capability necessary to implement its
purported strategy for integrating its acquisitions and increasing the
Company's emphasis on its higher margin pharmaceutical and surgical
segments and many doctors were skeptical that patients could, as Bausch
& Lomb claimed, safely wear Bausch & Lomb Pure Vision lenses for two
weeks straight. Additionally, the complaint alleges that, despite its
claims to have streamlined its manufacturing operations, the Company
was woefully unprepared to meet the surging demand for silicone lenses
implanted in cataract surgery and that, as a result, the Company was
being forced to yield its position in this market to its competitors.

The truth began to emerge on July 19, 2000 when the Company announced
disappointing revenues for the second quarter ended June 24, 2000.
Defendants, however, continued to conceal the full extent of the
Company's problems, claiming instead the poor quarter showing was the
result of "short term market issues." Then, on August 24, 2000, the
Company shocked the market, admitting for the first time that business
issues would impact financial results, that year 2000 revenues would be
essentially flat with 1999, and that earnings would be $2.69 to $2.72
per share, compared to the consensus estimate of $3.15 per share. The
Company further announced that year 2001 earnings would be $2.87 to
$2.92 per share, as much as 25% below the $3.84 per share forecast by
the Company. The Company also announced that Sassano was being fired.
In response to the Company's announcement, the price of Bausch & Lomb
common stock tumbled 36%, or $19.88, to close at $35.88, nearly a 10-
year low, on very heavy volume.

For further details, contact: Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,
New York, Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman, 800/320-5081,  
bauschcase@milbergNY.com, http://www.milberg.com


BRISTOL-MYER: NOW, Gray Panthers & SPAN's Latest Target Defendant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Stop Patient Abuse Now coalition today announced that it will
organize consumer and patient groups across the country to initiate a
series of class action lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies that
prevent competition and endanger public health. The strategy is
intended to raise the financial stakes for drug manufacturers that
engage in anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior in order to avoid
competition.

The National Organization for Women (NOW) announced that it will lead
the latest class action suit against Bristol-Myers Squibb for tactics
it used to prevent patient access to lower-priced versions of Taxol, a
treatment for breast and ovarian cancer. A federal court ruled in March
of last year that the tactics included "an intent to deceive" the
government.

"Congress is letting pharmaceutical companies get away with abuse,"
stated NOW President Patricia Ireland. "Until congressional leaders
take action, we will hold corporations like Bristol-Myers Squibb
accountable for their unfair business practices."

SPAN members filed a similar suit against Bristol-Myers Squibb in April
to recover damages suffered when the company unlawfully prevented
competition for BuSpar (buspirone), an anti-anxiety drug. Bristol
registered a new patent for the drug with the FDA in order to trigger
provisions of a federal law that results in 30-month approval delays
for competing generic products. A federal court ordered Bristol to
remove the patent this year.

"Consumers have no regulatory avenue for relief from market abuses by
pharmaceutical companies," stated Tim Fuller, SPAN founder and
Executive Director of the Gray Panthers. "It is time to take matters
into our own hands."

SPAN also announced that it is working with specific consumer groups
across the nation to prepare similar suits, including against:

     * AstraZeneca if it attempts to delay competition for the ulcer
medicine Prilosec. Patent protection for Prilosec expires in October,
though the company has indicated it may file new patents to prevent
competition beyond the original expiration date.

     * Abbott Laboratories if it refuses to remove its Thyroid disease
drug Synthroid from the market. The FDA issued a letter on April 26 in
which it stated that Synthroid "cannot be generally recognized as safe
and effective."

SPAN intends to work with state Attorneys General and the Federal Trade
Commission to identify marketplace abuses by pharmaceutical
manufacturers. It will then help aggrieved parties seek treble damages
where anti-competitive behavior by manufacturers can be demonstrated.

"Consumers have no political influence in the pharmaceutical
marketplace," according to Fuller. "This strategy will shift the
balance of power from drug industry executives and their friends in
Congress to the consumers who need relief."

SPAN will establish a national registration process to enable consumers
to identify market abuses and sign up to be included in the lawsuits.
It also will begin regional meetings and seminars to educate consumer
and patient advocacy groups about pharmaceutical industry abuses, and
to provide outreach to potential plaintiffs. SPAN will host a national
meeting this summer to discuss the progress of the initiative and to
inform members of Congress and industry officials of recommendations
for reform.

Further information can be obtained by contacting Tim Fuller (202-737-
6637), Patricia Ireland (202-628-8669), or from www.SPANcoalition.org.

SPAN was founded by the Gray Panthers to improve consumer access to
safe, more affordable medicine.


BROADVISION, INC.: Levy and Levy Files Securities Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of
BroadVision, Inc. (Nasdaq: BVSN) securities during the period between
January 16, 2001 and April 2, 2001, inclusive against BroadVision and
certain of its officers and directors.

The complaint alleges the defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing false and misleading statements. The complaint specifically
alleges that by late 2000, BroadVision's stock price had declined
significantly due to reduced demand for its products and slowing sales.
By the time BroadVision reported its results for the 4thQ 00,
defendants were aware that the Company was suffering from a combination
of declining demand and increasing expenses, and knew that
BroadVision's new version of its One- to-One Enterprise product
(Version 6.0), due to be released in the 1stQ 01, did not meet J2EE
standards. The defendants continued to make positive but false
statements about BroadVision's business and future revenues when
reporting the Company's 4thQ 00 results in order not to impair their
ability to make future stock sales and extract future bonuses, which
were tied to the Company's performance.

On April 2, 2001, after the close of market, BroadVision announced its
preliminary 1stQ 01 results, the revision of its previously reported
4thQ 00 results and a one-time charge in the 2ndQ 01. This disclosure
shocked the market, causing BroadVision's stock to decline and
inflicting hundreds of millions of dollars of damage on the Class. In
addition, BroadVision's CFO sold 30,000 shares of his BroadVision stock
before the bad news was revealed to the market.

    CONTACT:  
    Levy and Levy, P.C.
    Stephen G. Levy, Esq.
    245 Park Avenue, 39th Floor, New York, NY 10167 and
    Two Sound View Drive, Greenwich, CT 06830
    866-338-3674 (toll free), 212-792-4343, or 203-622-7664
    or by e-mail at LLNYCT@aol.com.


CONSOLIDATED NATURAL: Dominion Reports Class Action Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 20, 1999, Consolidated Natural Gas Company and certain of its
directors were served with a purported Class Action Complaint, Civil
Action No. 17114-NC, styled Gerold Garfinkel v. Raymond E. Galvin, Paul
E. Lego, Margaret A. McKenna, William S. Barrack, Jr., Steven A.
Minter, J. W. Connolly, George A. Davidson, Jr., Richard P. Simmons,
and Consolidated Natural Gas Company.  Dominion Resources, Inc.,
discloses in its latest filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission that this Complaint has been dismissed.  On January 28,
2000, Dominion acquired CNG's shares of outstanding common stock for
$6.4 billion, consisting of approximately 87 million shares valued at
$3.5 billion and approximately $2.9 billion in cash.  


DIGIMARC CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class
action lawsuit May 14, 2001, on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Digimarc Corporation (NASDAQ: DMRC) between December 2, 1999 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive. A copy of the complaint filed in this
action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on Milberg Weiss'
website at: http://www.milberg.com/digimarc/

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007,
against defendants:

     * Digimarc,
     * BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,
     * Bruce Davis,
     * E.K. Ranjit and
     * Geoffrey Rhoads.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about December 2,
1999, Digimarc commenced an initial public offering of 4,000,000 of its
shares of common stock at an offering price of $20 per share (the
"Digimarc IPO"). In connection therewith, Digimarc filed a registration
statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint
further alleges the Prospectus was materially false and misleading
because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (i) BancBoston Robertson Stephens had solicited and received
         excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors   
         in exchange for which BancBoston Robertson Stephens allocated
         to those investors material portions of the restricted number  
         of Digimarc shares issued in connection with the Digimarc IPO;
         and

    (ii) BancBoston Robertson Stephens had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby BancBoston Robertson Stephens agreed to  
         allocate Digimarc shares to those customers in the Digimarc
         IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
         additional Digimarc shares in the aftermarket at pre-
         determined prices.

As alleged in the complaint, the SEC is investigating underwriting
practices in connection with several other initial public offerings.

For additional information, contact: Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach LLP, Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman, 800/320-5081  
digimarccase@milbergNY.com and http://www.milberg.com


DOLLAR GENERAL: Abbey Gardy Files Securities Complain in M.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit was commenced on behalf of all
persons who acquired Dollar General Corporation securities between May
12, 1998 and April 27, 2001.  A copy of the complaint is available from
the Court or from Abbey Gardy, LLP.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee. The complaint names Dollar General, Cal Turner,
Jr., Philip Richards and Brian Burr as defendants.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the Class
Period, defendants issued false and misleading financial statements and
press releases concerning the Company's publicly reported earnings and
net income to the investing public. Moreover, the Company failed to
disclose material information necessary to make its prior statements
not misleading. The complaint charges defendants with violations of
sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5.

Prior to the opening of the market on April 30, 2001, Dollar General
stunned the investment community by announcing that it was delaying the
filing of its annual report on Form 10-K for fiscal year 2000 in
anticipation of restating its audited financial statements for fiscal
years 1998 and 1999, and restating its previously released unaudited
financial information for fiscal year 2000, due to accounting
irregularities.

In response to the Company's announcement, Dollar General's stock price
sank approximately 34% to $16.50 per share, on extremely heavy volume.

For more information, visit the Firm's website at
http://www.abbeygardy.comor contact EILEEN SIMONE  
(esimone@abbeygardy.com) or JILL S. ABRAMS (jabrams@abbeygardy.com)
Abbey Gardy, LLP, 212 E. 39th Street, New York, New York 10016,
800-889-3701.


DOUBLECLICK, INC.: Stull Stull Files Shareholder Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of
DoubleClick, Inc. (NASDAQ:DCLK) common stock pursuant to or traceable
to the Registration Statement and Prospectus between February 23, 1998
and May 2, 2001.

The complaint asserts claims against defendants DoubleClick, Inc.,
Goldman Sachs & Co., Kevin J. O'Connor, Kevin P. Ryan, Dwight A.
Merriman, Stephen R. Collins, David N. Strohm, Mark E. Nunnelly, W.
Grant Gregory and Donald Peppers for violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges
that the Registration Statement filed with the SEC on or about February
19, 1998 and the Prospectus filed on or about February 20, 1998 for the
issuance and initial public offering of 3.5 million shares of
DoubleClick common stock contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions.

For more information, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull &
Brody by calling toll-free 1-800-337-4983, or by e-mail at
SSBNY@aol.com, or by fax at 212/490-2022, or by writing to Stull, Stull
& Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017.


DOUBLECLICK, INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP announces that
a class action lawsuit was filed on May 14, 2001, on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of DoubleClick, Inc. (Nasdaq:DCLK) between
February 20, 1998 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the
Court, or can be viewed on Milberg Weiss' website at:
http://www.milberg.com/doubleclick/

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York,
NY 10007, against defendants:

     * DoubleClick,
     * Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
     * Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated,
     * Kevin J. O'Connor,
     * Kevin P. Ryan,
     * Dwight A. Merriman, and
     * Stephen R. Collins.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about February 20,
1998, DoubleClick commenced an initial public offering of 3,500,000 of
its shares of common stock at an offering price of $17 per share (the
"DoubleClick IPO"). In connection therewith, DoubleClick filed a
registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus (the
"Prospectus"), with the SEC. The complaint further alleges the
Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to
disclose, among other things, that: (i) Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch
had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors in exchange for which Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch
allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number
of DoubleClick shares issued in connection with the DoubleClick IPO;
and (ii) Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch had entered into agreements
with customers whereby Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch agreed to
allocate DoubleClick shares to those customers in the DoubleClick IPO
in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
DoubleClick shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. As
alleged in the complaint, the SEC is investigating underwriting
practices in connection with several other initial public offerings.

For additional information, contact Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach LLP, Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman, 800/320-5081  
doubleclickcase@milbergNY.com and http://www.milberg.com.


FIRST AMERICAN: One Suit Versus Title Insurer Dismissed & Another Pends
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 19,  1999,  the  State  of  California  and the  controller  and
insurance  commissioner of the State of California  filed a class
action suit in the state  court in  Sacramento.  Initially,  the
action  sought to certify as a class of defendants all title and
escrow  companies doing business in California from 1970 to the
present, including certain of our subsidiaries.  The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants:

    -- failed to give  unclaimed  property to the State of California
       on a timely basis;

    -- charged  California home buyers and other escrow customers fees
       for services  that were  never  performed  or which  cost less
       than the amount charged; and
   
    -- devised and carried out schemes,  known as earnings  credits,  
       with financial   institutions  to  receive   interest  on  
       escrow  funds deposited  by  defendants  with  financial   
       institutions  in demand deposits.

Since the initial filing of the suit, the California Attorney General's
Office,  on behalf of the State, the controller and the insurance  
commissioner, indicated it would not seek to  certify a class of  
defendants,  but would instead amend its suit to name an unspecified  
number of title  underwriters and underwritten title companies.  To
date, the attorney general has neither amended the suit,  nor to our
knowledge  taken steps to progress with it,  including the service of
process on any party. The attorney general, however, has entered into
settlement  discussions  with various title  insurance  underwriters,  
including certain of our subsidiaries.  Additionally,  the attorney
general indicated that it will address issues pertaining to escheat  
obligations through routine audits conducted by the controller's
office, rather than through litigation.

Subsequent  to the filing of this  lawsuit,  the First  American  Title
Insurance  Company was named and served as a defendant in two private
class actions in California courts. The allegations in those actions
include some, but not all, of the allegations contained in the lawsuit
discussed above.  The  private  class  actions   independently   seek  
injunctive  relief, attorneys'  fees,  damages and  penalties  in  
unspecified  amounts.  One of the private class actions has been
dismissed. The remaining private class action has not progressed beyond
limited document production.


GENERAL MOTORS: Privacy Laws Block Access to Pennsylvania Claimants
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In an ironic twist, nearly 200,000 Pennsylvania owners of General
Motors pickup trucks may lose the opportunity to get cash as a result
of a class action settlement involving their fire-prone pickups because
the state's tough privacy laws are making it difficult to mail notices
to class members.

Don Barrett, lead class attorney, said a mailing to 5.8 million owners
of GM pickup trucks was sent out by GM on April 18. That mailing
offered owners of 1973-91 GM full-size pickups with sidesaddle fuel
tanks a certificate for $1,000 off the purchase price of a new GM car
or truck. The fuel tank location allegedly makes these vehicles more
likely to explode and burn in a side-impact collision.

At the same time, the class attorneys sent out a letter from
Certificate Redemption Group with an offer to buy those certificates
for $100 each from GM truck owners who didn't plan to buy a new vehicle
and had no use for them. To take the cash offer the two letters had to
be returned by mail in one envelope, or recipients could close the deal
by using the group's consumer hotline or Web site.

Pennsylvania truck owners did not get the letter from class counsel
with the cash offer because the state's department of motor vehicles
was required to comply with tough consumer privacy laws and could not
grant permission to use the data.

However, truck owners in Pennsylvania who received the GM letter can
still take advantage of the cash offer, says Barrett, by completing the
necessary steps in the GM mailing and then by calling 800-317-4997, or
by logging on to www.CertificateRebates.com .

"I feel badly for the 190,000 Pennsylvanians who own these pickup
trucks," said Barrett. "Pennsylvania is a pro-consumer state, but
here's a situation where their tough state laws are actually working
against consumers by complicating the transaction."

As a result, said Barrett, the response to the $100 cash offer in
Pennsylvania has been minimal while nationally, more than 800,000 truck
owners have opted for the cash offer and the number continues to grow.

"This automotive class action settlement was unique because it provided
a way for class members to get a certificate or to sell it if they had
no use for it," said James R. Dawley, chairman and CEO of Certificate
Redemption Group, the company selected by class attorneys to handle the
program.

The idea behind the cash offer is to create a secondary market for the
certificates so fleets and others could use them to buy new vehicles.
In this way, money could be raised to return to class members.

"By creating the secondary market, we're able to return cash to a much
larger percentage of class members than GM had planned on. GM certainly
isn't happy about our success and continues to fight it, but without
our offer to buy these certificates, only a few consumers would get
anything at all from the lawsuit after waiting nine years," said
Dawley.

Dawley said that if one million requests for cash are received, up to
$100 million could be returned to the class, a first in class-action
lawsuits.

Houston-based Certificate Redemption Group LLC was formed in 1996 for
the sole purpose of creating a secondary market for GM certificates in
the GM pickup truck class settlement. CRG is the exclusive secondary
market maker endorsed and supported by class counsel for the GM Program
01-50, GM Full-Size Pickup Settlement.


GREAT LAKES: Outcome of Royalty Owner Lawsuit Remains Uncertain
---------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2000, a royalty owner filed suit asking for a class action
certification against Great Lakes Energy Partners L.L.C. (now part of
Range Resources Corp.), alleging that gas was sold to affiliates and
gas marketers at low prices, inappropriate post production expenses
reduced proceeds to the royalty owners, and that the royalty owners'
share of gas was improperly accounted for. The action sought a proper
accounting for all gas sold, an amount equal to the difference in
prices paid and the highest obtainable prices, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.  "While the outcome is uncertain, Great Lakes believes
the suit will be resolved without material adverse effect on its
financial position or result of operations," the Company relates in a
recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


JDN REALTY: CEO Says Company Will Support Sensible Mediation Resolution
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
JDN Realty Corporation (NYSE: JDN) announced its financial results for
the quarter ended March 31, 2001.  For the first quarter, the Company
posted net income attributable to common shareholders of $13.1 million,
or $0.40 per share on a diluted basis, roughly on par with results from
a year ago.  

Commenting on the quarterly results, Craig Macnab, CEO of JDN Realty
Corporation, stated, "The future growth of JDN is dependent upon our
ability to deliver profitable shopping centers that achieve the
Company's objectives for returns on capital commitments. We have
reorganized JDN Development Company, augmenting its controls and
procedures in an effort to better control costs and maximize returns on
all of our projects. In addition, we have tightened the underwriting
standards our investment committee utilizes to approve new development
projects. From a financial perspective, these standards in most
instances include a pro forma cash-on- cash return of at least 10.5%
leading to mid-teen internal rates of returns. Additional criteria the
investment committee may evaluate before approving a project are the
Company's cost of capital, the current and projected future economic
environment, demographic analysis, and the project's investment horizon
-- whether the Company is looking at the project for long-term or
short-term ownership. We are currently reviewing several opportunities,
and we expect to selectively add new projects to the pipeline in
addition to the project we added this quarter."

Macnab continued, "As a result of these improved standards, we expect
to have an announced development pipeline going forward that reduces
our current pipeline in terms of number of projects and dollar volume
of activity, but we anticipate that it will be more profitable."

"During the quarter, we were pleased with the progress we made on a
number of issues. Notably, with the assistance of Fleet National Bank
as well as a number of other quality financial institutions, we were
successful in closing a $300 million secured credit facility consisting
of a $150 million term loan and a $150 million line of credit. The
terms of this facility, particularly the reduction in cost that may be
achieved as the Company's credit quality improves, better reflects the
financial condition of JDN," stated Macnab.

Macnab added, "In addition, during the quarter, we acquired 100% of the
ownership interests in JDN Development Company, Inc. Because we now
control JDN Development's operations and consolidate it for financial
reporting purposes, we believe the financial statements better reflect
the financial results of JDN."

In a footnote to the upbeat quarterly earnings-related news, Macnab
stated, "We continue to be involved in non-binding mediation with the
class action plaintiffs.  We feel encouraged with the process, but we
will only settle on a basis that makes sense to our shareholders.
Accordingly, there can be no assurances that a settlement will be
achieved through this process."


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Continues to Decry Merit of Race Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas on March 7, 1997 by a LUFKIN
INDUSTRIES, INC., employee and a former employee which alleged race
discrimination in employment. Certification hearings were conducted in
Beaumont, Texas in February of 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August of
1998. The District Court in April of 1999 issued a decision that
certified a class for this case which includes all persons of a certain
minority employed by the Company from March 6, 1994 to the present. The
Company appealed this class certification decision by the District
Court to the 5th Circuit United States Courts of Appeals in New
Orleans, Louisiana. This appeal was denied on June 23, 1999.

The Company is defending this action vigorously. Furthermore, the
Company believes the facts and the law in this action support its
position and is confident it will prevail if this case is tried on the
merits.

  
METALDYNE CORP.: Awaiting Approval of Settlement from Del. Chancery Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Five purported stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed
against us, each of our directors and Masco Corporation, in the
Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of our unaffiliated stockholders,
in connection with the recapitalization. The lawsuits, although not
identical, allege, among other things, that (1) the directors breached
their fiduciary duties to our stockholders through an unfair process of
negotiating the recapitalization agreement and unfair and inadequate
consideration and (2) Heartland and the continuing stockholders
unfairly possessed nonpublic information when negotiating the
recapitalization agreement. The lawsuits further allege that
these actions by us prevented or could prevent our stockholders from
realizing the full and fair value of their stock.

On November 3, 2000, the parties to these lawsuits entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding concerning the terms of a proposed
settlement of these lawsuits. In connection with a proposed settlement,
(a) we and Riverside Company L.L.C. agreed to amend the
recapitalization agreement to provide, among other things, for a
possible increase in the amount payable to our stockholders
from the proceeds of the disposition of Saturn stock, (b) the special
committee of the Board of Directors agreed that, as the members of the
adjustment committee (charged with the responsibility to dispose of the
Saturn stock) after the recapitalization merger, they will continue to
have fiduciary duties, as directors of the Delaware corporation, to our
stockholders entitled to receive any proceeds of the sale of the Saturn
stock, (c) the special committee agreed that the plaintiffs' counsel
will from time to time receive reports from the advisors to the
adjustment committee regarding such sale, and (d) Metaldyne
provided plaintiffs' counsel with an opportunity to review and comment
upon the disclosure provided to Metaldyne stockholders in the proxy
statement that was mailed to our stockholders on or about October 26,
2000. The proposed settlement is subject to approval by the Delaware
Court of Chancery.


NCI BUILDING: Henzel Firm Files Securities Complaint in Houston
---------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, by
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel on behalf all persons who acquired
NCI Building Systems, Inc. (NYSE: NCS) securities between February 23,
2000 and April 12, 2001.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of sections 10(b) and
20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading
financial statements and press releases concerning the Company's
publicly reported earnings, net income, and liabilities. Moreover, the
Company failed to disclose material information necessary to make its
prior statements not misleading. On April 12, 2001, after the market
had closed for the day, NCI shocked the investing community by
announcing the Company was restating its previously reported financial
results for fiscal year ended October 31, 2000 and the first quarter of
fiscal year 2001, ended January 31, 2001, due to accounting errors and
improper accounting entries that understated certain liabilities
related to the Company's inventories. In addition, NCI stated it might
have to restate its financial statements for the third and fourth
quarters of fiscal 1999.

These disclosures contradicted much of the information provided by
defendants to the market during the Class Period concerning its
financial results and caused the Company's common stock on April 16,
2001, the first trading day after the announcement, to plummet
approximately 31% on extremely heavy volume. Also during the Class
Period, when the price of NCI was artificially inflated due to
defendants' false and misleading financial statements, defendants
Albert R. Ginn, Johnie Schulte, Jr., Robert J. Medlock, Kenneth W.
Maddox, and Donnie Humphries, collectively sold over 381,000 shares of
NCI stock, reaping proceeds of more than $8 million.

For additional information, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 210 West Washington Square, Third Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106, by telephone at (888) 643-6735 or (215) 625-
9999, by facsimile at (215) 440-9475, by e-mail at Mhenzel182@aol.com
or visit the firm's website at http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


NETWORK COMMERCE: Wechsler Harwod Files Securities Complaint in Seattle
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP commenced a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington at Seattle on behalf of all investors who purchased the
common stock of Network Commerce Inc. (Nasdaq: NWKC) between September
28, 1999 and April 16, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Network Commerce and its Chairman and CEO
Dwayne M. Walker violated Sections 11, 12(2), 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 thereunder. It is alleged that
during the Class Period, defendants disseminated to the investing
public false and misleading registration statements and prospectuses
related to Network Commerce's Initial and Secondary Public Offerings,
as well as its merger with Ubarter.com. Defendants distributed to the
investing public false and misleading financial statements and press
releases concerning the Company's growth of revenue, earnings, and
ability to achieve profitability. In addition, each document, as well
as quarterly and annual financial reports filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, failed to disclose, among other things, the terms
upon which Walker executed several promissory notes with the Company
that led to a $4.5 million loss to the Company.

Once the truth was revealed, the Company's stock plummeted.

For additional information, contact:

    Ramon Pinon IV
    Shareholder Relations Department
    Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor
    New York, New York 10022
    Fax: (212) 753-3630
    E-mail: nwkc@whhf.com


RANGE RESOURCES: Unfair Merger Terms Suit Dismissed without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1998, a stockholder of Domain Energy Corporation filed an action
against Range Resources Corp., alleging the terms of the Merger
(Range's acquisition of Domain) were unfair. Range was alleged to have
aided and abetted certain breaches of fiduciary duty by the other
defendants. On March 14, 2001, Range discloses in a regulatory filing,
the suit was dismissed without prejudice.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Free Copy of the Engle Stipulation is Available
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 7, 2001, Engle defendants Philip Morris Incorporated, Lorillard
Tobacco Co., Lorillard, Inc., Brooke Group Holding Inc. and Liggett
Group, Inc., obtained trial court approval of a Stipulation and Agreed
Order Regarding Stay of Execution Pending Review and Related Matters
with the Engle plaintiffs and the plaintiff class in the Engle smoking
and health class action in Florida.  The Stipulation provides that
execution or enforcement of the punitive damages component of the
judgment in the Engle class action will remain stayed against the
Participating Defendants through the completion of all judicial review.

A free full-text copy of the Stipulation is available at:

   http://ResearchArchives.com/files/2001/03/litigation/R/RJRey1038.txt

Philip Morris notes in a regulatory filing with the SEC that as a
result of the Stipulation and in addition to the $100 million bond it
has already posted, Philip Morris USA will put $1.2 billion into an
interest bearing escrow account.  Should Philip Morris USA prevail in
its appeal of the case, both amounts would return to Philip Morris
USA.  Philip Morris USA will also place an additional $500 million into
a separate interest bearing escrow account.  If Philip Morris USA
prevails in its appeal, this amount would be paid to the court and the
court will determine how to allocate or distribute it consistent with
the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

                              *********

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., Trenton, New Jersey, and Beard Group, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.  Larri-Nil G. Veloso and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2001.  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  * * *