CAR_Public/010517.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Thursday, May 17 2001, Vol. 3, No. 97

                            Headlines

                                                               
ACCELERATED NETWORKS: Expects Five Securities Class Suit Consolidated
AT&T WIRELESS: One Insufficient Network Capacity Suit Seeks $100 Mil
AT&T WIRELESS: Three Objectors Appeal Price Fixing Settlement Pact
BARR LABORATORIES: Insists Bayer Agreement Bars Antitrust Claims
BOEING CO.: Anticipates Women's Motion to Certify Class This Month

CALIFORNIA SOFTWARE: Will Defend Officers and Directors in Two Suits
CITGO PETROLEUM: $5 Million Damage Claim Up for Summary Judgment
COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Court Dismisses All Claims With Prejudice
CORVIS CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in New York
DATASTREAM SYSTEMS: Issues $1.25 MM in Shares for Settlement Pact

DELIAS CORPORATION: New Amended Complaint Filed Against Company
DIMON INC.: Court Holds Discovery of Merits Pending Class Certification
DIRECTV: Files Counter Suit Following Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claims
DOLLAR GENERAL: Scott & Scott Files Shareholder Suit in M.D. Tennessee
ENTRUST TECHNOLOGIES: Nortel Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss

E STAMP: Sued In New York Supreme Court for Its Internet Stamp Products
FINITY HOLDINGS: Sued for Fraud and Conspiracy
FREEMARKETS INC.: Says Fraud Suits Filed Recently Are Without Merits  
LINCOLN LIFE: Preliminary Settlement on Class Suit Reaches $64.7 Mil
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Too Early to Evaluate Effect of Shareholder Suits

MPOWER COMMUNICATIONS: Underwriters Joined to Then Severed from Suit
NEW FOCUS: Expects Consolidation of Eight Class Suits Filed in Court
PHOENIX HOME: To Strongly Contest Suits Against Reorganization Plan
PHOTOWORKS, INC.: Settlement Gives Consumers Free Film & $1 Coupons
PRICELINE COM: Twenty-one Suits Follow Revenue Shortfall Announcement

PROFIT RECOVERY: Company's January 2001 Motion to Dismiss Sub Judice
RENT-A-CENTER, INC.: Court Grants EEOC's Motion to Intervene in Suit
SYKES ENTERPRISES: Suit Claims Fraud Committed For Three Years
UNIVERSAL CORP.: Awaits Ruling of Dismissal Motion on Bid-rigging Suit
WARNACO GROUP: Stull & Stull Files Securities Complaint in New York
XEROX CORP: Awaits Court Decision on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit

                            ********


ACCELERATED NETWORKS: Expects Five Securities Class Suit Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As of May 4, 2001, five securities class action lawsuits have been filed
against the Accelerated Networks, Inc. and certain current and former
officers, in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California. The lawsuits allege that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition
and prospects during the period of June 22, 2000 through April 17, 2001, in
violation of sections 10(b), 10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. The Company expects the cases and any subsequently filed cases
will be consolidated into a single action. The Company believes these
lawsuits are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself.


AT&T WIRELESS: One Insufficient Network Capacity Suit Seeks $100 Mil
--------------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. disclosed in a recent regulatory filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission that it is facing several class
action lawsuits that allege it did not have sufficient network capacity to
support the influx of new subscribers who signed up for AT&T Digital One
Rate service beginning in May 1998 and therefore have failed to provide
service of a quality allegedly promised to subscribers. The plaintiffs in
these cases have not asserted specific claims for damages, with the
exception of one case filed in Texas, in which the named plaintiffs have
asserted claims for compensatory and punitive damages totaling $100
million.


AT&T WIRELESS: Three Objectors Appeal Price Fixing Settlement Pact
------------------------------------------------------------------
The L.A. Division of AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. is currently named as a
defendant in the class actions of Garabedian, et. al. vs. LASMSA Limited
Partnership, et. al. Richard W. Thomas, et. al. v. Los Angeles Cellular
Telephone Company, et. al. and Eurus Cady v. Los Angeles Cellular Corp.,
all of which seek damages for an alleged conspiracy to fix prices of retail
and wholesale service. The Orange County Superior Court approved a
settlement and entered a final judgment on May 20, 1998. As of December 31,
1997, the L.A. Division had recorded a contingent liability of $24.3
million that has been reduced to $8.3 million as of December 31, 1998 based
upon the final judgment referenced above. Three objectors to the
settlements have appealed the judgment.
    

BARR LABORATORIES: Insists Bayer Agreement Bars Antitrust Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 14, 2000, Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Bayer Corporation, the Rugby Group and BARR LABORATORIES,
INC.  The complaint alleges the Company and the Rugby Group agreed with
Bayer Corporation not to compete with a generic version of Ciprofloxacin
pursuant to an anti-competitive agreement between the defendants. The
plaintiff purports to bring claims on behalf of all direct purchasers of
Cipro from 1997 to present.

On August 1, 2000, Maria Locurto filed a similar class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Eastern Division of New York. On
August 4, 2000, Ann Stuart, et al filed a class action complaint in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County. This complaint
alleges violations of New Jersey statutes relating to the Cipro agreement.

The Company believes its agreement with Bayer Corporation is a valid
settlement to a patent suit and cannot form the basis of an antitrust
claim.

Although it is not possible to forecast the outcome of these matters, the
Company intends to vigorously defend itself. It is anticipated these
matters may take several years to be resolved but an adverse judgment could
have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial statements.


BOEING CO.: Anticipates Women's Motion to Certify Class This Month
------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 25, 2000, a purported class action lawsuit alleging gender
discrimination and harassment was filed against The Boeing Company, Boeing
North American, Inc., and McDonnell Douglas Corporation. The complaint,
filed with the United States District Court in Seattle, alleges the Company
has engaged in a pattern and practice of unlawful discrimination,
harassment and retaliation against females over the course of many years.

The complaint, Beck v. Boeing, names 28 women who have worked for Boeing in
the Puget Sound area; Wichita, Kansas; St. Louis, Missouri; and Tulsa,
Oklahoma. On March 15, an amended complaint was filed naming an additional
10 plaintiffs, including the first from California. The lawsuit attempts to
represent all women who currently work for the Company, or who have worked
for the Company in the past several years.

The Company has denied the allegation that it has engaged in any unlawful
"pattern and practice" and believes the plaintiffs cannot satisfy the
rigorous requirements necessary to achieve the class action status they
seek. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be filed by early May
2001. The Company intends to vigorously contest this lawsuit.


CALIFORNIA SOFTWARE: Will Defend Officers and Directors in Two Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 17, 2000, a shareholder class action was commenced in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California against the California Software Corporation and two of its
officers and directors, Bruce Acacio and Carol Conway DeWees.  The class
action was brought on behalf of purchasers of the stock of the
Company during the period February 9, 2000 through August 6, 2000.

In October 2000, the shareholder class action was consolidated with three
other nearly identical lawsuits filed in the same court against the
Company, Acacio, and DeWees. The plaintiffs in the consolidated class
action allege the defendants made false and misleading statements about the
Company's actual and expected financial performance to inflate the value of
the Company's stock to defraud investors, in violation of federal
securities laws.  The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs and such
other equitable or injunctive relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On December 4, 2000, an action was commenced in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada against the Company and two of
its officers and directors, Bruce Acacio and Carol Conway DeWees by three
shareholders of the Company who acquired their stock through a Private
Placement conducted by the Company.  The plaintiffs in the action contend
that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the
Company's actual and expected financial performance to defraud investors,
in violation of federal securities laws.  The plaintiffs seek damages,
interest, costs and other equitable and injunctive relief.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to above actions and
intends to vigorously defend them.  The actions are in the early stages.  


CITGO PETROLEUM: $5 Million Damage Claim Up for Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit is pending in Corpus Christi, Texas state court
against CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, which claims damages for reduced value
of residential properties as a result of alleged air, soil and groundwater
contamination.

CITGO has purchased 275 adjacent properties included in the lawsuit and
settled those related property damage claims. CITGO has contested an
agreement that purported to provide for settlement of the remaining
property damage claims for $5 million payable by it.

Motions by CITGO and the plaintiffs for summary judgment related to the
enforcement of this agreement are currently under consideration by the
court.

    
COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Court Dismisses All Claims With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Laboratories announced last Tuesday the dismissal with prejudice
of a class action filed in 2000, which alleged the Company and certain of
its officers and directors made materially misleading statements and
omissions about the likely prospects for two of the Company's products in
violation of federal securities laws. The Company, represented by Weil,
Gotshal & Manges LLP and Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., filed a motion
to dismiss in December 2000. On May 9, 2001 the Court granted defendants'
motion, dismissing all claims with prejudice.


CORVIS CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP announces a class
action lawsuit was filed on May 15, 2001, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Corvis Corporation (NASDAQ: CORV) between July 27, 2000 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/corvis/

The action, numbered 01 CIV 4106, is pending in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY 10007, against defendants Corvis, Credit Suisse First Boston
Corp., FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., Lehman Brothers, Inc.,
Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., David R. Huber, Anne H.
Stuart and Timothy C. Dec. The Honorable John S. Martin is the Judge
presiding over the case.

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 July 27, 2000, Corvis commenced an initial public offering of
31,625,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $36 per
share. In connection therewith, Corvis filed a registration statement,
which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC.

The complaint alleges the Prospectus was materially false and misleading
because it failed to disclose, among other things:

     (i) Credit Suisse, FleetBoston, Lehman and Merrill Lynch had    
         solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
                  
         from certain investors in exchange for which Credit Suisse,
         FleetBoston, Lehman and Merrill Lynch allocated to those
         investors material portions of the restricted number of Corvis
         shares issued in connection with the Corvis IPO; and

    (ii) Credit Suisse, FleetBoston, Lehman and Merrill Lynch had   
         entered into agreements with customers whereby Credit Suisse,
         FleetBoston, Lehman and Merrill Lynch agreed to allocate    
         Corvis shares to those customers in the Corvis IPO in exchange
         for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Corvis
         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 further details, contact the following attorneys: Steven G. Schulman or
Samuel H. Rudman, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-
0165. Phone number: (800) 320-5081 Email: corviscase@milbergNY.com  
Website: http://www.milberg.com


DATASTREAM SYSTEMS: Issues $1.25 MM in Shares for Settlement Pact
-----------------------------------------------------------------
During 2000, the Company reached an agreement to settle the consolidated
securities class action litigation filed against the Company in January
1999. Under the agreement all claims against the Company and all of
the individually named defendants have been dismissed.

In agreeing to the settlement, the Company and the individual defendants
specifically denied any wrongdoing or liability relating to the claims made
in the litigation.  

The principal financial terms of the agreement called for payment to
the plaintiffs, for the benefit of the class, of a total of $5.00 million
in a combination of $3.75 million in cash and $1.25 million in shares of
the Company's common stock (which was determined to be 132,571 shares).  

The Company's insurance carrier funded $2.40 million of the settlement.  
The Company paid the cash portion of the settlement in the fourth quarter
of 2000 and issued the common stock portion of the settlement in the first
quarter of 2001.


DELIAS CORPORATION: New Amended Complaint Filed Against Company
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 1999, two separate purported securities class action lawsuits were filed
against dELiA*s Inc. and certain of its officers and directors, and one
former officer of a subsidiary. The original complaints were filed in
Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York by Allain Roy
on June 1, 1999 and by Lorraine Padgett on June 3, 1999. The suits were
consolidated into a single class action and an amended and consolidated
complaint was filed on March 22, 2000.

The complaint in this lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of
the purchasers of the company's securities during the period January 20,
1998 through September 10, 1998. The complaint generally alleges the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making material misstatements and by failing
to disclose certain allegedly material information regarding business
trends. The complaint also alleges the individual defendants are liable for
those violations under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' and experts' fees and
costs, and such other relief as the court deems proper.

On April 14, 2000, dELiA*s Inc. and the other named defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The motion to dismiss was denied on March
26, 2001. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.

Between August 17 and August 25, 2000, three purported class action
complaints on behalf of a subsidiary's stockholders were filed in Delaware
Chancery Court against the subsidiary, dELiA*s Inc. and each of the
subsidiary's directors. These actions include: Pack v. Kahn, et al., Del.
Ch., C.A. No. 18242NC, Semeraro v. Kahn, et al., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 18258,
and Engel v. Kahn, et al., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 18260NC.

All three complaints made virtually identical claims, alleging dELiA*s Inc.
and the members of the subsidiary's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the subsidiary's public stockholders and that the
merger exchange ratio was unfair to the subsidiary's public stockholders.
The actions were consolidated and an amended complaint was filed on January
19, 2001.


DIMON INC.: Court Holds Discovery of Merits Pending Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 20, 2000, the plaintiffs in Deloach, et al. v. Philip Morris
Companies Inc., et al., following the transfer of the suit from the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina,
Greensboro Division (Case No. 00-CV-1235) filed a motion for leave to file
a third amended complaint adding DIMON and other leaf tobacco merchants as
defendants.

On February 20, 2001, the court granted the motion for leave to amend and
added DIMON and other leaf tobacco merchants as defendants. DIMON has
joined in a motion to dismiss the complaint filed by all defendants and
that motion is pending.

The Deloach Suit is a purported class action brought on behalf of U.S.
tobacco growers and quota holders that alleges the defendants violated
antitrust laws by bid-rigging at tobacco auctions and by conspiring to
undermine the tobacco quota and price support program administered by the
federal government.

The court has stayed discovery on the merits of the case, pending
disposition of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. DIMON and
the other defendants are opposing class certification and will otherwise
vigorously defend the suit.
     

DIRECTV: Files Counter Suit Following Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
DIRECTV disclosed it filed on March 9, 2001 counterclaims against the
participating members of the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative.
The filing of these counterclaims comes after the dismissal by the Class of
its equipment-related claims without prejudice to the Company.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Scott & Scott Files Shareholder Suit in M.D. Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott & Scott, LLC filed a shareholder lawsuit against Dollar General on
behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of Dollar General
Corp. (NYSE: DG) during the period between May 12, 1998 and April 27, 2001.
The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee.

The complaint charges Dollar General and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
Company offers a focused assortment of consumable basic merchandise,
including health and beauty aids, packaged food products, cleaning
supplies, housewares, stationery, seasonal goods, basic apparel and
domestics.

On April 30, 2001, the Company issued a press release entitled, "Dollar
General Expects to Restate Earnings; Maintains Current Year Guidance." The
press release stated in part, "Dollar General Corporation expects to delay
the filing of its annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year 2000 in
anticipation of restating its audited financial statements for fiscal years
1998 and 1999 as well as restating the unaudited financial information for
the fiscal year 2000 as previously released. The Company has become aware
of certain accounting irregularities, and the audit committee of the
Company's board of directors is conducting an investigation of these
irregularities."  This news triggered the slide in Dollar General shares to
$16.50, or more than 37% lower than the Class Period high of $26.

For further details, contact: David R. Scott or Neil Rothstein at
800-404-7770 or e-mail at scottlaw@scott-scott.com.


ENTRUST TECHNOLOGIES: Nortel Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation disclosed in a regulatory document filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission that it has filed a motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit against the company by shareholders of its
spin-off Entrust Technologies Inc. (ENTU.O), Reuters News Agency reported
Tuesday.

Brampton, Ontario-based Nortel, a major shareholder of Entrust, was
included in an amended lawsuit served in February.

In the complaint filed by Cauley & Geller, LLP, plaintiffs allege Entrust
and three executives deliberately misrepresented revenues it would post in
the second quarter to artificially boost its share price. A subsequent gain
in Entrust stock allowed the company to complete its $703-million stock
purchase of enCommerce, Reuters reported.

But two days after that deal closed, Entrust warned it suffered a major
sales decline and earnings would fall far short of expectations. Shares in
Nortel shed 3.5 percent on the Toronto Stock Exchange to close at C$20.70
and slid 2.5 percent to end at $13.40 on New York, the news agency said.


E STAMP: Sued In New York Supreme Court for Its Internet Stamp Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
E Stamp Corporation disclosed in its latest regulatory filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that a plaintiff filed a purported
consumer class action suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Kings.  The complaint was filed on March 16, 2001.

The suit alleges the company breached its contracts with Plaintiff and
other customers. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and disgorgement
of monies received in connection with the sale of Internet postage
products.
   

FINITY HOLDINGS: Sued for Fraud and Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------
On July 28, 2000, a class action complaint was filed against Finity
Holdings, Inc., (formerly known as Columbia Capital Corp.) and Finity
Corporation (formerly known as First Independent Computers, Corp.)
under the caption Eric Grant v. Douglas R. Baetz, Glenn M. Gallant,
Columbia Capital Corp., First Independent Computers Corp., in the United
States District Court, Southern District of California. The complaint was
not served on the Company and Finity Corporation until January 30, 2001.

The complaint purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of the Company from January 1, 1998 through and including
March 13, 2001. The complaint outlines the following allegations:

     (i) violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934,

    (ii) violations of California securities laws,

   (iii) violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations
         Act,

    (iv) fraud, and

     (v) conspiracy.

The Company and Finity Corporation believe the complaint is without merit
and have instructed their counsel to represent their respective   
interests vigorously.


FREEMARKETS INC.: Says Fraud Suits Filed Recently Are Without Merits  
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Since April 27, 2001, five securities fraud class action complaints have
been filed against the Company and two executive officers in federal court
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The complaints, all of which assert the same claims, stem from the
Company's announcement on April 23, 2001 that, as a result of ongoing
discussions with the staff of the SEC, the Company was considering
amending its 2000 financial statements for the purpose of reclassifying
fees earned by the Company under a service contract with Visteon.

The Company and the individual defendants believe the plaintiffs'
allegations are completely without merit and they intend to defend these
claims vigorously.


LINCOLN LIFE: Preliminary Settlement on Class Suit Reaches $64.7 Mil
--------------------------------------------------------------------
During the fourth quarter of 2000, LINCOLN LIFE FLEXIBLE PREMIUM VARIABLE
LIFE ACCOUNT M reached an agreement in principle to settle all class action
lawsuits alleging fraud in the sale of non-variable universal life and
participating whole life insurance policies. The agreement is subject to
court approval and is expected to become final in 2001. It requires that
the Company provide benefits and a claim process to policyholders who
purchased non-variable universal life and participating whole life policies
between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 1998. The settlement covers
approximately 431,000 policies. Total charges recorded during 2000 for this
preliminary settlement were $64,700,000.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Too Early to Evaluate Effect of Shareholder Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucent Technologies, Inc., and certain of its former officers, are
defendants in several purported shareholder class action lawsuits for
alleged violations of federal securities laws, which have been consolidated
into a single action.

Specifically, the complaints allege, among other things, that
beginning in late October 1999, Lucent and certain of its officers
misrepresented Lucent's financial condition and failed to disclose material
facts that would have an adverse impact on Lucent's future earnings and
prospects for growth. These actions seek compensatory and other damages,
and costs and expenses associated with the litigation.

"These actions are in the early stages and the Company is unable to
determine their potential impact on the Consolidated Financial Statements,"
the Company tells investors in its latest quarterly report filed with the
SEC.  "Lucent intends to defend these actions vigorously."

Also, Lucent has been served with several derivative complaints filed by
individual Lucent shareholders against the current members of Lucent's
Board of Directors, two former directors and an officer, which have been
consolidated in a single action.

These actions make claims for breach of fiduciary duties allegedly owed to
the Company, and seek damages against the defendants and in favor of
Lucent, as well as costs and expenses associated with litigation for the
individual plaintiffs.  

These derivative actions are in the early stages and the Company is unable
to determine their potential impact on the Consolidated Financial
Statements.


MPOWER COMMUNICATIONS: Underwriters Joined to then Severed from Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 20, 2000, a class action lawsuit was commenced against Mpower
Communications Corporation and its CEO, Rolla P. Huff, in federal court for
the Western District of New York.

On March 6, 2001, an amended consolidated class action complaint was served
in that action, seeking to recover damages for alleged violations by us of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10(b)-5 thereunder and section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The amended consolidated complaint seeks to recover damages against several
of the Company's officers and members of its board of directors in addition
to Huff.

The amended consolidated complaint also named various underwriters as
defendants in the action. However, by agreement of the parties and order of
the court, the action against the underwriters has been discontinued,
subject to the plaintiff's right to rename the underwriters as defendants
prior to the completion of discovery.

The Company and the individual defendant officers and board members have
denied any wrongdoing and will vigorously contest the class action suit.


NEW FOCUS: Expects Consolidation of Eight Class Suits Filed in Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 12, 2001, a putative securities class action, captioned Mandel
v. New Focus, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. C-01-1020, was filed against
New Focus and several of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class
that purchased New Focus common stock between January 31, 2001 and March 5,
2001.

Substantially similar actions captioned Rosen v. New Focus, Inc., et. al.,
Civil Action No. C-01-1065; Solomon v. New Focus, Inc., et. al., Civil
Action No. C-01-2023; Deutch v. New Focus, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No.
C-01-1123; Connors v. New Focus, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. C-01-1148;
Spanos v. New Focus, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. C-01-1328; Patton v.
New Focus, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. C-01-1413, and Naiditch v. New
Focus, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. C-01-1689 have also been filed
against New Focus and several of its officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Naiditch
action asserts a class period from October 25, 2000 to March 5, 20001.

The cases are in the process of being consolidated. The Company believes it
has meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to contest the lawsuits
vigorously.


PHOENIX HOME: To Strongly Contest Suits Against Reorganization Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 19, 2001, the New York Superintendent held a public hearing on the
reorganization plan of Phoenix Home Life. At the public hearing, some
policyholders and others raised objections to certain aspects of the plan.
These objections alleged, among other things, that the plan was not fair
and equitable to policyholders of Phoenix Life. Two lawsuits have been
filed challenging the fairness of the reorganization plan and the adequacy
and accuracy of Phoenix Life's disclosures to its policyholders regarding
the plan.

The first of these lawsuits, Burns v. Phoenix Home Life Mutual Ins. Co., et
al., was filed on April 4, 2001 in the Circuit Court of Cook County for the
Illinois County Department in the Chancery Division. Plaintiff seeks to
maintain a class action on behalf of a putative class consisting of all
current policyholders of Phoenix Life who purchased their policies prior to
Phoenix Life's announcement of its intention to demutualize. The complaint
seeks damages for losses allegedly sustained by the class as a result of
the demutualization, as well as other relief. The defendants named in the
complaint are Phoenix Life and some of its directors and officers.

The second lawsuit, Kertesz v. Phoenix Home Life Mutual Ins. Co., et al.,
was filed on April 16, 2001 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York
for New York County. Plaintiff seeks to maintain a class action on behalf
of a putative class consisting of the eligible policyholders of Phoenix
Life as of December 18, 2000, the date the plan of reorganization was
adopted. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the demutualization, damages and other
relief. The defendants named in this complaint include Phoenix Life, The
Phoenix Companies, Inc. and all its directors, as well as Morgan Stanley &
Co. Incorporated.  The company, however, believes it has meritorious
defenses and intend to contest vigorously all plaintiffs' claims.


PHOTOWORKS, INC.: Settlement Gives Consumers Free Film & $1 Coupons
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The core parties involved in Drinkard, et al. v. PhotoWorks, Inc., King
County WA Superior Court No. 00-2-09552-0SEA, propose to settle all claims
on behalf of all persons or entities in the United States who processed
film with Seattle FilmWorks or PhotoWorks, or received film distributed by
Seattle FilmWorks or PhotoWorks, at any time after March 28, 1996.

In the Class Suit the plaintiffs (who are 6 individuals) claim Seattle
FilmWorks (now PhotoWorks) made false or misleading representations to
customers, as well as to other photoprocessers that:

     (1) Seattle FilmWorks brand film can be processed only by Seattle
         FilmWorks or by only a few other labs, when in fact most of
         such film is of a C-41 type that can be processed by most
         other photofinishers; and

     (2) that replacement film distributed by Seattle FilmWorks to
         photo-processing customers is "free," when in fact customers  
         are charged for the replacement film as part of their
         processing order.

On behalf of the Class, plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief,
as well as damages. PhotoWorks disputes and denies these allegations and
denies any wrongdoing or liability on the claims asserted in the Class
Suit.

For the sole purpose of compromising disputed claims and avoiding costs
and risks of further litigation, PhotoWorks and the plaintiffs who
represent the Class have agreed to a proposed settlement.

Here is a summary of its terms:

     * FUTURE CONDUCT/DISCLOSURES. Although PhotoWorks reaffirms its
       denials of any past wrongdoing, under the settlement PhotoWorks    
       will agree that in the future:  

           (a) it will not represent to customers that its film can be
               processed only by PhotoWorks or by a few or small  
               number of other labs if such is not the  fact;

           (b) it will not represent that replacement film is free
               unless it is provided at no charge over and above the
               regular price PhotoWorks charges for  processing without
               replacement film;

           (c) so long as it generally offers  customers the option not
               to purchase replacement film when purchasing  processing
               services, it will conspicuously disclose that option and
               the  method of exercising it on order forms and on
               signage in its retail stores;  

           (d) until March 31, 2006, it will maintain a "C-41"
               designation on the rolls of  all standard C-41 film it
               distributes that is of a type that is able to be  
               properly developed using the industry standard C-41
               process. PhotoWorks also affirms that most of the  
               Seattle FilmWorks film it has distributed since 1996 is
               standard C-41 film.

     * OTHER BENEFITS. PhotoWorks will also provide these benefits to
       Class Members:
         
          (1) Within one year PhotoWorks will make the following
              distributions of free rolls of 24-exposure standard C-41
              film:  

              (a) It will distribute an aggregate of 900,000 rolls to         
                  persons who are active PhotoWorks customers, with the   
                  identity of recipients and number of rolls per
                  recipient (not to exceed Three) determined by
                  PhotoWorks in a way that reasonably takes into
                  account past and/or anticipated quantity or frequency
                  of their transactions;

              (b) It will also distribute one roll to each of the first    
                  300,000 Class members who do not receive any of the
                  900,000 rolls mentioned above and who, within 6
                  months after the date of this notice, request a free
                  roll:

                 -- by entering their name and mailing address into the  
                    web form at:   
                    http://www.photoworks.com/filmsettlementrequest.asp

                 -- by a telephone call to Photoworks at 1-800-922-2391
               
                 -- by a letter mailed to Photoworks, 3213 W. Wheeler  
                    St., #300, Seattle WA 98199.  Each written request
   
                    must contain the Class member's address, signed or
                    subscribed name, and statement that he or she is a
                    member of the Class.

              Materials accompanying these distributions will inform   
              recipients that the C-41 process identified on the film     
              is an industry standard chemical process  that most    
              photo-processing labs use to develop film.  

          (2) Each member of the Class who does not receive free film   
              under (1) above may submit to PhotoWorks the Coupon
              appended or attached to this Notice (prior to    
              the Coupon's expiration) to receive a $1 discount on a
              film processing order.

     * OTHER PROVISIONS. (a) PhotoWorks will pay (subject to Court
       approval) $2,500 to each of the named plaintiffs/class   
       representatives as compensation for their time and involvement
       in the Class Suit, and $320,000  to the attorneys for the Class
       for their services and costs in the Class  Suit. (b) The      
       settlement will release and bar all claims of Class members
       against Photoworks which arise out of any of the allegations in
       the Class suit, except for certain claims by Class members who
       exercise the option to request exclusion.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on June 7, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in the
Courtroom of Hon. Bruce Hilyer, Courtroom W-842, King County Courthouse,
516 Third Ave., Seattle, WA 98104, to determine whether the proposed
settlement should be finally approved.

Adam Berger, at Schroeter, Goldmark & Bender, serves as Class Counsel.  
Peter A. Danelo, at Heller, Ehrman,  White & McAuliffe LLP, represents
PhotoWorks.


PRICELINE COM: Twenty-one Suits Follow Revenue Shortfall Announcement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Following an announcement on September 27, 2000 that revenues for the third
quarter of 2000 would not meet expectations, Priceline Com, Inc. received
21 purported class action complaints.  Below is the list of the complaints:

     * Mathis Weingarten, et al v priceline.com Incorporated and Jay S.  
       Walker, 300 CV 1901 (District of Connecticut).

     * Randall Twardy, et al v priceline.com Incorporated, Jay Walker,
       R. Braddock, and D. Schulman 300 CV 1884 (District of  
       Connecticut).

     * Natalie Berdakina, et al v priceline.com Incorporated, Jay
       Walker, R. Braddock, and D. Schulman 300 CV 1902 (District of
       Connecticut).

     * Samuel Mayer et al v priceline.com Incorporated, Jay Walker, R.
       Braddock, and D. Schulman 300 CV 1923 (District of Connecticut).

     * Anthony Mazzo, et al v priceline.com Incorporated, Jay Walker,
       R. Braddock, and D. Schulman 300 CV 1924 (District of
       Connecticut).

     * Mark Fialkov, et al v priceline.com Incorporated, Jay Walker, R.
       Braddock, and D. Schulman300 CV 1954 (District of Connecticut).

     * Jeremy Licht, et al v priceline.com Incorporated andJay Walker
       300 CV 2049 (District of Connecticut). Jim M. Ayach & Sarah
       Sontag, et al v priceline.com Incorporated, Jay Walker, R.
       Braddock, and D. Schulman 300 CV 2062 (District of Connecticut).

     * Michael Cerelli, et al v priceline.com Incorporated, Jay Walker,   
       R. Braddock, and D. Schulman 300 CV 1918 (District of   
       Connecticut).

     * Howard Gunty Profit Sharing Plan, et al v. priceline.com
       Incorporated, R. Braddock, D. Schulman, and Jay S. Walker 300 CV
       1917 (District of Connecticut).

     * Thomas Atkin, et al v. priceline.com Incorporated, R. Braddock,
       D. Schulman, and Jay S. Walker 300 CV 1994 (District of
       Connecticut).

     * Hyacinth S. Anish, et al v. priceline.com Incorporated, R.
       Braddock, D. Schulman, and Jay S. Walker 300 CV 1048 (District
       of Connecticut).

     * Jerry Krim, et al v. priceline.com Incorporated, R. Braddock, D.  
       Schulman, and Jay S. Walker 300 CV 2083 (District of
       Connecticut).

     * Scott Lyon, et al v. priceline.com Incorporated, R. Braddock, D.
       Schulman, and Jay S. Walker 300 CV 2066 (District of
       Connecticut).

     * Johnny Kwan, et al v. priceline.com IncorporatedR. Braddock, D.   
       Schulman, and Jay S. Walker 300 CV 2069 (District of
       Connecticut).

     * Muhammed Zia, v. priceline.com Incorporated, R. Braddock, D.
       Schulman, and Jay S. Walker 300 CV 1994 (District of
       Connecticut).

     * Monica R. Mazzo v. priceline.com Incorporated, R. Braddock, D.
       Schulman, and Jay S. Walker 300 CV 1968 (District of
       Connecticut).

     * Rajiv Bazag v. priceline.com Incorporated, R. Braddock, D.
       Schulman, and Jay S. Walker 300 CV 2122 (District of
       Connecticut).

     * Sherman Breier v. priceline.com IncorporatedR. Braddock, D.
       Schulman, and Jay S. Walker 300 CV 2146 (District of
       Connecticut).

     * Dr. Ramin Farzam, Jay Jaskolski, Todd Haskell, Peter Makhlouf
       and Bryan Koster, v. priceline.com Incorporated, R. Braddock, D.     
       Schulman, and Jay S. Walker 300 CV 2176 (District of
       Connecticut).

     * Jack A. Caswell v. priceline.com Incorporated, R. Braddock, D.
       Schulman, and Jay S. Walker 300 CV 2169 (District of
       Connecticut).

All of these cases have been consolidated before Judge Dominick J.
Squatrito, and two groups have filed motions requesting appointment as lead
plaintiff and lead counsel. By agreement of counsel, once the lead
plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed, such lead plaintiff and
counsel shall have forty-five days to file an amended and consolidated
complaint, and the Company will thereafter have forty-five days to respond
to the amended and consolidated complaint.  The Company intends to defend
itself vigorously against these actions.


PROFIT RECOVERY: Company's January 2001 Motion to Dismiss Sub Judice
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning on June 6, 2000, three putative class action lawsuits were filed
against PROFIT RECOVERY GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC., and certain of its
present and former officers in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.   These cases were
subsequently consolidated into one proceeding styled: In re Profit Recovery
Group International, Inc. Sec. Litig., Civil Action File No. 1:00-CV-1416-
CC.  

On November 13, 2000, the Plaintiffs in these cases filed a Consolidated
and Amended Complaint.  In the Complaint Plaintiffs allege, in general
terms, that the Company, John M. Cook, Scott L. Colabuono, and Michael A.
Lustig violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by allegedly disseminating
materially false and misleading information about a change in the Company's
method of recognizing revenue and in connection with revenue reported for a
division.

Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased the Company's stock between July 19, 1999
and July 26, 2000. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, payment of litigation fees and expenses, and equitable and/or
injunctive relief.

On January 24, 2001, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for
failure to state a claim under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act, 15 U.S.C. sec. 78u-4 et seq., which is currently pending before the
Court.

The Company believes the alleged claims in this lawsuit are without merit
and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. Due to the inherent
uncertainties of the litigation process and the judicial system, the
Company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation.


RENT-A-CENTER, INC.: Court Grants EEOC's Motion to Intervene in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Southern District of Illinois granted the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Motion to Intervene in support of
a proposed nationwide class action against Rent-A-Center.

The EEOC is now an active party in a lawsuit filed by 21 women, current and
former employees of Rent-A-Center, Inc., a rent to own business. The women
are part of a suit which seeks to establish a nationwide class of all
former and current employees of Rent-A-Center and which alleges widespread
discrimination against women by Rent-A-Center, including sexual harassment,
failure to hire, failure to promote women, and wrongful discharge.

The EEOC performed a nationwide investigation of the treatment of women by
Rent-A-Center, examined the employment numbers of Rent-A-Center and
conducted interviews with its managers.

In a finding dated September 19, 2000, the EEOC found reasonable cause to
believe that Rent-A-Center discriminated against women in promotions,
hiring, terms and conditions of employment, discharge, constructive
discharge, and other aspects of store operations, and that managers
destroyed employment records in violation of federal regulations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by Mary Ann Sedey of Sedey & Ray and Jerome
Schlichter of Schlichter, Bogard & Denton in St. Louis. The suit seeks $410
million in damages including back pay and interest, as well as punitive
damages for the class.

Donna Harper, senior attorney for the EEOC in St. Louis said "We're pleased
to join with the Plaintiffs in attacking systemic discrimination."

When asked about the impact of the court's ruling, Schlichter stated "Rent-
A-Center has vigorously opposed the intervention by EEOC on behalf of this
group of women and has claimed that such intervention was improper. The
Court rejected that position completely. Since the EEOC has the authority
to obtain class wide relief even where there is no class certified, this
ruling has serious implications for Rent-A-Center."

For more information, contact Jerome Schlichter of the law firm of
Schlichter, Bogard & Denton at 314-621-6115, 100 S. 4th Street, Suite 900,
St. Louis, Missouri, 63102, or jschlichter@uselaws.com .


SYKES ENTERPRISES: Suit Claims Fraud Committed For Three Years
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sykes Enterprises Inc. disclosed in a recent SEC filing that it is facing
sixteen purported class action lawsuits that have been filed against
certain of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws.
All of the actions have been consolidated into one case which is pending in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The plaintiffs purport to assert claims on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Sykes' common stock during the period from July 27, 1998
through September 18, 2000. The consolidated action claims violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Among other things, the consolidated action alleges during the years 1998
through 2000, the Company and certain of its officers made materially false
statements concerning the Company's financial condition and its future
prospects. The consolidated complaint also claims that certain of the
Company's quarterly financial statements during 1999 and 1998 were not
prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

The consolidated action seeks compensatory and other damages, and costs and
expenses associated with the litigation. The Company believes these claims
are without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously.


UNIVERSAL CORP.: Awaits Ruling of Dismissal Motion on Bid-rigging Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 26, 2001, Universal Leaf Tobacco Company, Incorporated, J.P.
Taylor Company, Incorporated and Southwestern Tobacco Company,
Incorporated, subsidiaries of UNIVERSAL CORPORATION were served with the
Third Amended Complaint, naming them and other leaf tobacco merchants as
defendants in DeLoach, et al. v. Philip Morris Inc., et al., a suit
originally filed against U.S. cigarette manufacturers in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia and now pending in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Greensboro
Division (Case No. 00-CV-1235).

The DeLoach Suit is a purported class action brought on behalf of U.S.
tobacco growers and quota holders that alleges defendants violated
antitrust laws by bid-rigging at tobacco auctions and by conspiring to
undermine the tobacco quota and price support program administered
by the federal government.  

On March 14, 2001, the Company Subsidiaries and other leaf tobacco merchant
defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.


WARNACO GROUP: Stull & Stull Files Securities Complaint in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit on May 15, 2001, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of Warnaco Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:WAC) common stock
between September 29, 2000 and April 18, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants Warnaco Group, Inc., Linda Wachner,
William S. Finkelstein, and Stanley P. Silverstein 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, Warnaco recently revealed there is 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.

For additional 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.


XEROX CORP: Awaits Court Decision on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities law action entitled "In re Xerox Corporation
Securities Litigation" is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut.  

Defendants are Registrant, Barry Romeril, Paul Allaire and G. Richard
Thoman, former CEO, and purports to be a class action on behalf of the
named plaintiffs and all other purchasers of Common Stock of Registrant
during the period between October 22, 1998 through October 7, 1999 (Class
Period).  

The amended consolidated complaint in the action alleges that, in violation
of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (34 Act), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5
thereunder, each of the defendants is liable as a participant in a
fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit
on purchasers of Registrant's Common Stock during the Class Period by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing
material facts.  

The amended complaint further alleges the alleged scheme:  

     (i) deceived the investing public regarding the economic   
         capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth, operations and the    
         intrinsic value of Registrant's Common Stock;

    (ii) allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named    
         individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held Common    
         Stock of Registrant while in possession of materially adverse,    
         non-public information; and

   (iii) caused the individual plaintiffs and the other members of the    
         purported class to purchase Common Stock of Registrant at   
         inflated prices.  

The amended consolidated complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages
in favor of the plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class
against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as
a result of defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including interest thereon,
together with reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action,
including counsel fees and expert fees.  

The defendants' motion for dismissal of the complaint is pending.  The
named individual defendants and Registrant deny any wrongdoing
and intend to vigorously defend the action.


                              *********

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  * * *