CAR_Public/010522.MBX              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, May 22 2001, Vol. 3, No. 100

                              Headlines


21st CENTURY: Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
ADAMS GOLF: Decision on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Forthcoming
ANSWERTHINK INC.: Discovery on 2nd Amended Plaint Drags On Indefinitely
AURORA FOODS: Court Confirms Settlement Of All Class & Derivative Suits
AUTONATION INC.: New Suits Filed After First Case Settled for $2.1 M

AUTOWEB.COM: Marc Henzel Files Lawsuit In New York for Securities Fraud
BERGEN BRUNSWIG: Court Dismisses Securities Suit Against PharMerica
BICO INC.: Final $1.3 Million Of Settlement Pact To Be Paid In July
BRUSH ENGINEERED: Three Chronic Beryllium Disease Cases Filed
CELLPHONE LITIGATION: Mobile Phone Makers Face Liability Suits

COOPER TIRE: Federal Judicial Panel Sends 17 Suits To S.D. Ohio Court  
COVENTRY HEALTH: Sued For RICO Violations And Breaches Of Contract
DIGIMARC CORPORATION: Says Securities Suit In New York Is Without Merit
EXXON MOBIL: Appeals On 1989 Oil Spill Incident Ongoing
FORD MOTOR: Court Sets May 31 Hearing For All Disparate Impact Claims
  
FOUNDRY NETWORKS: California Court Consolidates Shareholder Suits
HASTINGS MANUFACTURING: Attempts to Settle Suit Continue in Uncertainty
HUMPHREY HOSPITALITY: Securities Suit Filed in E.D. Virginia
INTERTRUST TECHNOLOGIES: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Suit in NY
JOHNSON&JOHNSON: Court To Announce Decision On Antitrust Suit

LUPRON LITIGATION: Three Drug Companies Charged For Overpricing Drug
MARKETWATCH.COM: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York
MOTOROLA INC.: Expects Lawsuit From Committee of Unsecured Creditors
MP3.COM: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Lawsuit in S.D. New York
MULTEX.COM: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit In New York

NETWORK COMMERCE: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in Washington
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismisses Lawsuit Due to Vague Claims
ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Suit in E.D. Louisiana
RELIANT ENERGY: Reliant Resources Offers Indemnity and Possible Defense
RR DONNELLEY: Court Certifies Three Classes in Jones and Adams Cases

STAMPS.COM: Lovell Stewart Files Suit in New York For Securities Fraud
SULZER ORTHOPEDICS: Liability Suit Filed On Behalf of Canadian Patients
TORCHMARK CORPORATION: Trial on Securities Fraud Suit Set For November
UBS AG: Says Finances Won't Be Affected By Resolution Of Ongoing Appeal
WJ COMMUNICATIONS: Pays Full Settlement Amount in 1st Quarter 2001



                              *********


21st CENTURY: Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2000, a lawsuit was filed against 21st Century Holding Company
and its directors and executive officers seeking compensatory damages
on the basis of allegations that the Company's amended registration
statement dated November 4, 1998 was inaccurate and misleading
concerning the manner in which the Company recognized ceded insurance
commission income, in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and seeks class action status. The
plaintiff class purportedly includes purchasers of the Company's common
stock between November 5, 1998 and August 13, 1999.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend such action. On November 1, 2000, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss this lawsuit and is awaiting a decision from the
district court.


ADAMS GOLF: Decision on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Forthcoming
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in June 1999, the first of seven class action lawsuits was
filed against Adams Golf Inc., certain of its current and former
officers and directors and the three underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering in the Untied States District Court of the
District of Delaware.

The complaints allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the Company's
IPO. In particular, the complaints allege that the Company's
prospectus, which became effective July 9, 1998, was materially false
and misleading in at least two areas.

Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus failed to disclose that
unauthorized distribution of the Company's products (gray market sales)
allegedly threatened the Company's long-term profits. Plaintiffs also
allege that the prospectus failed to disclose that the golf equipment
industry suffered from an oversupply of inventory at the retail level,
which had an adverse impact on the Company's sales.

On May 17, 2000, these cases were consolidated into one amended
complaint, and a lead plaintiff was appointed. The plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified amounts of compensatory damages, interests and
costs, including legal fees.

On July 5, 2000, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated, amended complaint. The motion is now fully briefed and
under submission with the court. The Company denies the allegations in
the complaint and intends to defend it vigorously


ANSWERTHINK INC.: Discovery on 2nd Amended Plaint Drags On Indefinitely
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
THINK New Ideas, Inc., a subsidiary of ANSWERTHINK INC., and three of
its former officers are defendants in a consolidated class action filed
in federal court in New York.

In February 1999, a Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint was
filed seeking to assert claims on behalf of all individuals who
purchased THINK New Ideas' common stock from November 5, 1997 through
September 21, 1998.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint and
the plaintiffs opposed the motion. On March 15, 2000, the court granted
the defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

The plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated and Amended Class Action
Complaint on April 14, 2000. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint on May 1, 2000. On September 14, 2000, the
Court denied the motion. The defendants filed an answer to the Second
Amended Complaint on November 10, 2000.

The parties are engaged in discovery. No schedule has been set for the
completion of discovery or for further proceedings. The Company
believes there are meritorious defenses to the claims made in the
Second Amended Complaint and intends to contest those claims
vigorously.


AURORA FOODS: Court Confirms Settlement Of All Class & Derivative Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aurora Foods Inc. (NYSE:AOR) disclosed in a recent regulatory filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California has confirmed
the settlement of all class action and derivative suits brought
against the Company relating to the earnings restatements announced in
February 2000.

As a result of the settlement, the Company anticipates it will record a
net, after-tax, non-cash gain in the range of $2 million to $3 million
in the second quarter of 2001 related to its receipt of shares from
former management.


AUTONATION INC.: New Suits Filed After First Case Settled for $2.1 M
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2000, the California Department of Motor Vehicles
brought action against one of the Company's California
dealerships for alleged customer fraud as well as several other claims.

In April 2001, the California DMV action and a related action by the
State of California were settled. As part of the settlement, the
dealership closed its sales operations for six days, agreed to provide
restitution to certain customers in the estimated amount of
approximately $1.0 million and paid $1.1 million in fines, penalties
and costs.

Three purported civil class actions and other related lawsuits have
been filed against the dealership based on the allegations underlying
the California DMV case. The Company intends to vigorously defend
itself in these matters.

        
AUTOWEB.COM: Marc Henzel Files Lawsuit In New York for Securities Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York,  
on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Autoweb.com, Inc.
(Nasdaq: AWEB) between March 22, 1999 and April 18, 2001, inclusive.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder
and seeks to recover damages.

The complaint alleges that Autoweb.com, Inc., Dean A. DeBiase, its
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Farhang Zamani and Payam Zamani,
its founders, and Directors Mark N. Diker, Jay C. Hoag, Mark R. Ross
and Peter S. Sealey violated the federal securities laws by issuing and
selling Autoweb.com common stock pursuant to the March 22, 1999 IPO
without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in the
offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, lead
underwriters Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation and BancBoston
Robertson Stephens, Inc., together with underwriters Morgan Stanley
Dean Witter & Co., Incorporated and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.
allocated Autoweb.com shares to customers at the IPO price of $14.00
per share.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
$14.00, the underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher prices.
The requirement that customers make additional purchases at
progressively higher prices as the price of Autoweb.com stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Autoweb.com's share price up to artificially high
levels.

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

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

For more 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.


BERGEN BRUNSWIG: Court Dismisses Securities Suit Against PharMerica
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 1998 and February 1999, two putative securities class
actions were filed against PharMerica, Inc., a subsidiary of BERGEN
BRUNSWIG CORPORATION, and certain individuals in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  

The Court consolidated the actions into one putative class action and
appointed two groups as co-lead Plaintiffs for the proposed class, who
filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The proposed classes consist
of all persons who purchased or acquired stock of PharMerica between
January 7, 1998 and July 24, 1998.  

The Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks monetary damages but does not
specify any amount. In general, the Consolidated Amended Complaint
alleges that the Defendants made material misrepresentations with
respect to an alleged violation of generally accepted accounting
principles, and omissions by withholding from the market information
related to the costs associated with certain acquisitions.  

The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges claims under Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss was assigned to a Magistrate for a Report and Recommendation
(R&R).

On April 18, 2001, the Magistrate issued an R&R recommending that
Defendants' Motion be granted and the plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended
Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to satisfy the
elements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The R&R also
recommends that the plaintiffs be allowed to attempt to cure their
pleading deficiencies. The R&R will be submitted to the District Court
for its consideration.


BICO INC.: Final $1.3 Million Of Settlement Pact To Be Paid In July
-------------------------------------------------------------------
During April 1998, Bico Inc. and its affiliates were served with
subpoenas by the U.S. Attorneys' office for the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania. The subpoenas requested certain
corporate, financial and scientific documents and the Company continues
to provide documents in response to such requests.

On April 30, 1996, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, Diasense, Inc., and individual officers and directors. The
suit, captioned Walsingham v. Biocontrol Technology, et al., was
certified as a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania. The suit alleged misleading disclosures in
connection with the Noninvasive Glucose Sensor and other related
activities, which the company denies.  

Without agreeing to the alleged charges or acknowledging any liability
or wrongdoing, the company agreed to settle the lawsuit for a total
amount of $3,450,000.  As of March 31, 2001, $2,150,000 has been paid
toward the settlement.  An additional $1,300,000 is included in accrued
liabilities and will be paid in July 2001.  

Although it is not known whether the class action plaintiffs have been
formally notified of the settlement, or if they have accepted its
terms, the company believes that the existing settlement will end this
matter.


BRUSH ENGINEERED: Three Chronic Beryllium Disease Cases Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
During the first quarter of 2001, the number of Chronic Beryllium
Disease (CBD) cases grew from 71 cases, involving 192 plaintiffs, as of
December 31, 2000, to 76 cases involving 203 plaintiffs, as of March
31, 2001.

The 76 pending CBD cases fall into three categories:

     (i) 42 "employee cases" involving an aggregate of 42 Brush Wellman
         employees, former employees or surviving spouses. In 24 of
         these cases, a spouse has also filed claims as part of his or
         her spouse's case, and in one case, one child has filed a
         claim as part of his parent's case;

    (ii) 31 cases involving third party individual plaintiffs, with 66
         individuals, and 44 spouses who have filed claims as part of
         their spouse's case, and ten children who have filed claims as
         part of their parent's case; and

   (iii) three purported class actions involving 14 individuals and
         two spouses who have filed claims as part of their spouse's
         case.

In the three purported class actions pending against Brush
Wellman Inc., a subsidiary of BRUSH ENGINEERED MATERIALS, INC., the
named plaintiffs allege that past exposure to beryllium has increased
their risk of contracting CBD, though most of them do not claim to have
actually contracted it.

They seek medical monitoring funds to be used to detect medical
problems that they believe may develop as a result of their exposure
and, in some cases, also seek compensatory and punitive damages.

One of the three purported class actions pending against Brush Wellman
was brought by named plaintiffs on behalf of tradesmen who worked in
one of Brush Wellman's facilities as employees of independent
contractors. The two others were brought on behalf of current and
former employees of Brush Wellman's present and former customers and
vendors.

    
CELLPHONE LITIGATION: Mobile Phone Makers Face Liability Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola Inc. and several mobile phone manufacturers are defendants in
a number of cases arising out of its manufacture and sale of portable
cellular telephones.

On April 19, 2001, Brower v. Motorola, Inc., et al. was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego against
Motorola and other cellular phone manufacturers and carriers. The
plaintiff alleges that his brain tumor was caused by the use of a
cellular phone.

Also on April 19, 2001, a purported state class action suit, Pinney and
Colonell v. Nokia, Inc., et al., was commenced against cellular phone
manufacturers and carriers in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
claiming that defendants exposed users to radio frequency radiation
that allegedly caused adverse cellular reaction and dysfunction.
Plaintiffs also contend that the defendants did not disclose to the
consuming public the alleged fact that cellular phones cause injury and
create a risk to the users' health. Monetary damages, declaratory
and/or equitable relief are sought.

Similar purported state class action suits were filed in the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Farina v.
Nokia, Inc., et al., on April 19, 2001 and in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Bronx, Gillian et al., v. Nokia, Inc., et
al., on April 20, 2001.


COOPER TIRE: Federal Judicial Panel Sends 17 Suits To S.D. Ohio Court  
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Tire and Rubber Company has been named in 30 separate class
action lawsuits filed against it in 28 separate state courts, plus the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. One lawsuit purports to represent a
national class, while in two others, the proposed class character has
been voluntarily withdrawn by amendment.

The lawsuits, all of which have been filed under the auspices of the
same group of plaintiffs, attorneys, assert claims under the respective
states consumer protection and deceptive trade practices statutes, and
comparable commercial law and other theories.

They allege that the Company used certain materials and procedures in
its process of manufacturing steel-belted radial tires, which rendered
a portion of the tires unsafe, and failed to disclose those practices
to purchasers of its tires.

The suits are brought on behalf of all persons (excluding those who
have sustained personal injury and/or property damage as a
result of the alleged unlawful practices) in the respective states who
purchased steel-belted radial tires manufactured by the Company from
1985 to the present, and still retain those tires.

The lawsuits generally seek, on behalf of each class member, relief
sufficient to secure replacement of their tires, statutory,
compensatory and punitive damages, costs and attorneys fees.

The Company has removed each of the actions to Federal court.
Plaintiffs have filed motions to have each of the actions remanded to
state court, and five of the actions have been remanded.

On motion filed by the Company, the Federal Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has transferred 17 of the actions remaining in
Federal court to the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, for consolidated pre-trial handling.

The Company is seeking similar transfer of the rest of the actions and
plaintiffs are opposing transfer. Rulings by the Panel are expected in
due course.

The Company believes that substantial defenses, both factual and legal,
to the allegations contained in the lawsuits exist, and it intends to
contest vigorously the claims made in these lawsuits.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Sued For RICO Violations And Breaches Of Contract
------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 16, 2001, Coventry Health Care Inc. was served with an Amended
Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, Miami Division, MDL No. 1334, styled In Re:
Humana, Inc., Managed Care Litigation, Charles B. Shane, M.D., et al.
vs. Humana, Inc., et al.  

This matter is a purported class action lawsuit filed by a group of
health care providers against the Company and 11 other defendants in
the managed care field.  The lawsuit alleges multiple violations of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, violations of
the "prompt pay" statutes in certain states, and breaches of contract
for failure to pay claims.  


DIGIMARC CORPORATION: Says Securities Suit In New York Is Without Merit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 3, 2001, a class action complaint was filed in the Southern
District of New York against Digimarc Corporation and the underwriters
of its initial public offering. The complaint alleges violations of the
securities laws in connection with certain alleged compensation
arrangements entered into by the underwriters subsequent to the
offering.

The Company is reviewing the action and believes that the allegations
are without merit. Although no assurance can be given that this matter
will be resolved in the Company's favor, the Company believes that the
resolution of these lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.


EXXON MOBIL: Appeals On 1989 Oil Spill Incident Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
A number of lawsuits, including class actions, were brought in various
courts against Exxon Mobil Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries
relating to the accidental release of crude oil from the tanker Exxon
Valdez in 1989. Essentially all of these lawsuits have now been
resolved or are subject to appeal.


FORD MOTOR: Court Sets May 31 Hearing For All Disparate Impact Claims  
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Credit Company disclosed in a recent regulatory filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission that the plaintiffs in the
Reverse Discrimination Class Action withdrew the initial case that was
filed in the federal district court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.  

On March 6, 2001, four plaintiffs filed a new purported class action in
state court of Michigan against Ford. This suit alleges reverse race,
reverse gender and age discrimination.

Specifically, the purported class claims that the Company's diversity
initiatives discriminate against older white males. The suit alleges
that the Company's Performance Management Process was intended to
support the diversity initiatives by driving out the older white males.

The suit alleges both intentional discrimination as well as disparate
impact. Ford has filed a motion to dismiss all of the disparate impact
claims. This motion is scheduled to be heard simultaneously with a
similar motion filed in the Performance Management Process Class Action
on May 30, 2001.

    
FOUNDRY NETWORKS: California Court Consolidates Shareholder Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2000, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against
Foundry Networks Inc. and certain of its officers in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, following
Foundry's announcement in December 2000 of its anticipated financial
results for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2000.

The lawsuit alleges violation of federal securities laws and purports
to seek damages on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased
Foundry common stock during the period from October 18, 2000 to
December 19, 2000.  Following the filing of the lawsuit, several
virtually identical lawsuits were filed making essentially the same
allegations.

On April 6, 2001, the court consolidated all actions and directed
plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint. The court also selected
lead plaintiffs and approved lead plaintiffs' choice of counsel.

Foundry has reviewed the lawsuits, believes them to be without merit
and intends to seek dismissal of the lawsuits at its first opportunity.


HASTINGS MANUFACTURING: Attempts to Settle Suit Continue in Uncertainty
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the amendment by Hastings Manufacturing Company of its
postretirement benefit plans, the Company's retirees filed a class
action lawsuit in the Western District of Michigan on January 24, 2000,
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and
the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA).  

The suit alleges that the Company denied class retirees and their
dependents certain health insurance benefits to which the retirees
have vested rights pursuant to the terms of the Company's collective
bargaining agreements (1964 to the present).  

Specifically, the retiree class disputes the increase in their health
insurance deductibles, the elimination of their prescription drug card
and the requirement that they pay a portion of their health insurance
premiums.  

The Company has denied any wrongdoing in this suit and intends to
defend it and any related class certification vigorously.  Minimal
discovery has taken place to date in the lawsuit because the parties
have been attempting to reach a settlement.  

At this stage, the prospect of settlement is uncertain.  Furthermore,
because the lawsuit is in its early stages, the Company's ultimate
chances of success are uncertain. If the retirees prevail, the Company
anticipates that a requirement to provide postretirement benefits at
the pre-amendment level would have a material adverse effect on the
Company's future financial position, results of operations and
cash flows.


HUMPHREY HOSPITALITY: Securities Suit Filed in E.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Humphrey
Hospitality Trust, Inc. (Nasdaq: HUMP) from November 14, 2000 through
March 29, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges Humphrey Hospitality and certain of its officers
and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning
its business and financial condition. As of December 31, 2000, Humphrey
Hospitality owned 92 existing limited service hotels and one office
building. The Hotels (containing approximately 6,400 rooms in 19
states) and office building are leased to Humphrey Hospitality
Management, Inc. and its subsidiary Supertel Hospitality Management,
Inc.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants conditioned the
market to believe in the strength of Humphrey's financial condition,
and that Humphrey's conservative fiscal policies meant that its
dividend was secure.

The complaint further alleges that on March 29, 2001, the Company
shocked the market by announcing that its Lessee advised that, without
a substantial reduction in the rent, it would be unable to lease and
operate the hotels; and that the Board of Directors had established "a
committee of independent directors" to "explore alternatives available
to the (Company)."

Humphrey also announced that its dividend would be reduced for monthly
payments subsequent to those payable to shareholders of record on March
30, 2001. Humphrey common stock opened at $7.0938 per share on March
29, 2001 and closed that day at $4.7812 that day on volume of 217,200
shares, approximately seven times its average volume.

For additional details, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Marc A.
Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or
1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com.

       
INTERTRUST TECHNOLOGIES: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Lovell & Stewart, LLP and Sirota & Sirota, LLP filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock
of Intertrust Corporation (NasdaqNM:ITRU) between October 26, 1999 and
May 16, 2001 inclusive.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder
and seeks to recover damages. Any member of the class may move the
Court to be named lead plaintiff.

The action, Morris Kassin v. Intertrust Technologies Corp., et al., is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Docket No. 01-CV-4187 (BSJ) and has been assigned to the Hon.
Barbara S. Jones, U.S. District Judge.

The complaint alleges that Intertrust Technologies Corporation and
certain of its current and former officers and directors violated the
federal securities laws by issuing and selling Intertrust common stock
pursuant to the IPO and secondary offering without disclosing to
investors that at least two of the lead underwriters and two of the
other underwriters in the IPO had solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, lead
underwriters Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. and Salomon Smith Barney,
Inc. and underwriters BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and Morgan
Stanley Dean Witter & Co. allocated Intertrust shares to customers at
the IPO price of $18.00 per share.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
$18.00, the aforementioned defendant underwriters' brokerage customers
had to agree to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
progressively higher prices.

The requirement that customers make additional purchases at
progressively higher prices as the price of Intertrust stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Intertrust's share price up to artificially high
levels.

This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both
the underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying
Intertrust stock at the $18.00 IPO price and then selling it later for
a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $55.00
during its first day of trading. The complaint further alleges that
Intertrust was able to price the secondary offering of Intertrust stock
at an artificially high $35.00 per share (or $70.00 per pre-two-for-
one-split share) due to the continued effects of the foregoing
violations.

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

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

For additional information, contact: Lovell & Stewart, LLP, New York;  
Christopher Lovell, Victor E. Stewart, Christopher J. Gray at
Tel. Nos: 212/608-1900  Email: sklovell@aol.com  or Sirota & Sirota,
LLP, New York; Howard B. Sirota, Saul Roffe at Tel. Nos: 212/425-9055  
Email: info@sirotalaw.com  


JOHNSON&JOHNSON: Court To Announce Decision On Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson,
together with a trade association and various individual defendants, is
a defendant in several consumer class actions and an action brought by
multiple State Attorneys General on behalf of consumers alleging
violations of federal and state antitrust laws.

These cases, which were filed between July 1994 and December 1996 and
are consolidated before the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, assert that enforcement of Vision Care's long-
standing policy of selling contact lenses only to licensed eye care
professionals is a result of an unlawful conspiracy to eliminate
alternative distribution channels from the disposable contact lens
market.

In April 2001, after five weeks of trial, these cases were concluded on
terms, which will be announced by the Court in late May 2001.


LUPRON LITIGATION: Three Drug Companies Charged For Overpricing Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug companies' improper pricing activities are costing senior citizens
millions of dollars, alleges a class action suit filed in Boston by
Jeffrey L. Kodroff, a partner with the Philadelphia-based firm of
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.

This suit is focusing on the drug Lupron, commonly used in the
treatment of prostate cancer and manufactured by the defendants, Tap
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Abbott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT) and Takeda
Chemical Industries. The federal government is also investigating the
marketing of this cancer drug though a grand jury in Boston.

Filed on behalf of senior citizens who subscribe to Medicare Part B,
the class action suit alleges that the defendants targeted Medicare
patients by illegally inflating the "average wholesale price" of Lupron
for Medicare.

The "average wholesale price" is the amount upon which Medicare
reimbursement, and Medicare beneficiaries' co-payments are set. The
complaint also alleges that the defendants provided free samples of
Lupron to medical providers and instructed them that they could, and
should, bill Medicare and Medicare patients for the free samples.

Under Medicare Part B, the government picks up the cost for 80 percent
of Lupron, with the patient paying the additional 20 percent through a
co-payment. "The U.S. government has been actively investigating the
alleged overcharging to recover portions of its 80 percent payments for
some time," said Kodroff. "But the individual senior citizens who have
also been cheated haven't had a voice -- until now."

"According to the Health Care Finance Administration's Office of
Inspector General, if Medicare reimbursed for the drugs at the same
prices as the Veteran's Administration, the government and patients
would save 42 percent," said Kodroff.

"In 1997, the 20 percent portion paid for by patients and/or insurers
for Lupron was approximately $129 million; in 1998, $117 million; and
in 1999, $124 million. If costs were inflated even just 10 percent over
those three years, that's close to $35 million in extra charges -- and
we believe it is much higher.

"We are talking about millions of dollars and millions of people
affected by this scam. This class suit will serve to put the drug
companies on notice that they are accountable for their actions when
dealing with the senior citizens of this country," Kodroff said.

This suit is timely, in light of the ongoing questions as to the
financial viability of both Social Security and Medicare. "With the
Federal Government contemplating a prescription drug plan for Medicare,
if this type of fraud is left unchecked, the plan is sure to have
problems," said Kodroff.

For more information, contact Kodroff at 215-496-0300.


MARKETWATCH.COM: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock
of MarketWatch.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: MKTW) between January 15, 1999 and
April 16, 2001, inclusive.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder
and seeks to recover damages.

The complaint alleges that MarketWatch.com, Inc., Larry S. Kramer, its
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Directors James A. DePalma,
Alan R. Hirschfield, Allan R. Tessler, Mark F. Imperiale, Andrew
Heyward and Michael H. Jordan violated the federal securities laws by
issuing and selling MarketWatch.com common stock pursuant to the
January 15, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.

In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, lead
underwriter Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. and underwriters BancBoston
Robertson Stephens, Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Incorporated and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. allocated
MarketWatch.com shares to customers at the IPO price of $17.00 per
share.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
$17.00, the underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher prices.

The requirement that customers make additional purchases at
progressively higher prices as the price of MarketWatch.com stock
rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was
intended to (and did) drive MarketWatch.com's share price up to
artificially high levels. This artificial price inflation, the
complaint alleges, enabled both the underwriters and their customers to
reap enormous profits by buying stock at the $17.00 IPO price and then
selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which
rose as high as $130.00 during its first day of trading.

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

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

For more details, 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.


MOTOROLA INC.: Expects Lawsuit From Committee of Unsecured Creditors
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of purported class action and other lawsuits alleging
securities law violations have been filed naming Old Iridium, certain
current and former officers of Old Iridium, other entities and MOTOROLA
INC. as defendants.

In addition, a committee of unsecured creditors of Old Iridium has,
over objections by Motorola and Old Iridium, been granted leave by the
Bankruptcy Court to file a complaint on Old Iridium's behalf against
Motorola.

Although, to date no complaint has been filed by this committee, in
March 2001, the Bankruptcy Court approved a settlement between this
committee and Old Iridium's secured creditors that provides for the
creation of a litigation fund to be used in pursuit of such proposed
claims against Motorola. Motorola anticipates that a complaint will be
filed by this committee.

On November 20, 2000, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an Order that approved the bid of
Iridium Satellite LLC for the assets of Iridium LLC and its operating
subsidiaries (Old Iridium).

The Bankruptcy Order provided, among other things, that all obligations
of Motorola and its subsidiaries and affiliates under all executory
contracts and leases with Old Iridium relating to the Iridium system
would, upon completion of the asset sale, be deemed terminated
and, to the extent executory, be deemed rejected. Claims against
Motorola by Old Iridium and others with respect to certain credit
agreements and related matters were not discharged.


MP3.COM: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Lawsuit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Lovell & Stewart, LLP and Sirota & Sirota, LLP and
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock
of MP3.com, Inc. (NasdaqNM:MPPP) between July 21, 1999 and May 16, 2001
inclusive.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder
and seeks to recover damages.

The action, Saul Kassin v. MP3.com, Inc., et al., is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Docket No.
01-CV-4183 (RLC) and has been assigned to the Hon. Robert L. Carter,
U.S. District Judge.

The complaint alleges that MP3.com, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
issuing and selling MP3.com common stock pursuant to the IPO without
disclosing to investors that at least two of the lead underwriters in
the offering had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
commissions from certain investors.

In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, lead
underwriters Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. and BancBoston Robertson
Stephens, Inc. allocated MP3.com shares to customers at the IPO price
of $28.00 per share.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
$28.00, the defendant underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher
prices.

The requirement that customers make additional purchases at
progressively higher prices as the price of MP3.com stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive MP3.com's share price up to artificially high levels.

This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both
the lead underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by
buying MP3.com stock at the $28.00 IPO price and then selling it later
for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as
$105.00 during its first day of trading.

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

The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Act of 1933 because the Prospectus distributed to investors and the
Registration Statement filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory
approval for the MP3.com offering contained material misstatements
regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the
IPO transaction and failed to disclose the additional commissions and
"laddering" scheme discussed above.

For additional details, contact: Lovell & Stewart, LLP, New York;
Christopher Lovell, Victor E. Stewart, Christopher J. Gray at Tel.
Nos.: 212/608-1900  Email: sklovell@aol.com or Sirota & Sirota, LLP,
New York; Howard B. Sirota, Saul Roffe at Tel. Nos.: 212/425-9055  
Email: info@sirotalaw.com


MULTEX.COM: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit In New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of Multex.com Inc., (Nasdaq: MLTX) securities during
the period between March 17, 1999 and December 4, 2000, inclusive
against Multex.com Inc., certain of its officers and directors, and
certain of its underwriters.

The case name and index number are Schwartz v. Multex.com Inc., [01-CV-
4266]. A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from
the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP website at http://www.whafh.com.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Multex common stock pursuant to the IPO
without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in the
offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated shares to customers at the IPO price.
To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
the IPO price, the underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher
prices.

The requirement that customers make additional purchases at
progressively higher prices as the price of Multex rocketed upward (a
practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did)
drive the share price up to artificially high levels. This artificial
price inflation enabled both the underwriters and their customers to
reap enormous profits by buying Multex stock at the IPO price and then
selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices.

For additional information, contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP at 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone
at (800) 575-0735 (Gregory M. Nespole, Esq., Michael Miske, Gustavo
Bruckner, Esq., George Peters, Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.), via e-mail
at classmember@whafh.com or visit its website at http://www.whafh.com.

                    
NETWORK COMMERCE: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP files 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, and who suffered damages thereby.

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 more information, contact: Ramon Pinon IV, Paralegal Shareholder
Relations Department; Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP, 488
Madison Avenue 8th Floor New York, New York 10022; Telephone: (877)
935-7400 (toll free) Facsimile: (212) 753-3630


NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismisses Lawsuit Due to Vague Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------------
U. S. District Judge Hilda G. Tagle dismissed the class action lawsuit
against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, manufacturers of
Ritalin(R)(methylphenidate), which claimed the company conspired with
the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and Children and Adults with
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD) to promote the
diagnosis of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

Judge Tagle found that the plaintiffs failed to state their claims of
fraud and conspiracy with sufficient particularity. Additionally, she
found that the plaintiffs' vague mentions of side effects in their
complaint failed to state a legal claim.

This was the plaintiffs' third attempt to state a sufficient cause of
action. The first complaint was dismissed on October 17, 2000 because
Judge Tagle ruled charges were too vague and unclear and did not state
a legal claim.

"We applaud Judge Tagle's dismissal of the Texas class action," said
Novartis General Counsel, Dorothy Watson. "This ruling supports
Novartis' position that this lawsuit and others like it are an
unmerited attempt to promote an agenda that contradicts scientific and
medical consensus."

In addition to dismissing the suit, the court also ordered that the
plaintiffs pay the legal fees for Novartis, APA and CHADD. Similar
suits have been filed in Florida, New Jersey and Puerto Rico. The
defendants also filed motions to dismiss those cases and rulings in
those cases are pending.

Contrary to the position advanced in the lawsuits, ADHD is a real and
serious disorder. It is a well-established and valid diagnosis
recognized by the leading medical authorities in the U.S., including
the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association,
American Academy of Pediatrics, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
and the U.S. Surgeon General.

Ritalin has been shown to be an effective and safe medication for more
than 45 years and has been scientifically evaluated in more than 200
studies involving over 6,000 school-aged children.

"Ritalin and similar treatments are among the most widely studied
therapies available," said Watson. "We're heartened that an
overwhelming body of scientific evidence cannot just be litigated away
by lawyers and anti- psychiatry advocates."

Ritalin is a mild central nervous system stimulant that helps to
address the neurochemical problems underlying attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).


ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Suit in E.D. Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf
of all purchasers of Orthodontic Centers of America (NYSE: OCA)
securities during the period between April 27, 2000 and March 15, 2001,
inclusive against OCA, and certain of its officers and directors.

The case name and index number are Ma v. Orthodontic Centers of America
[01-CV-1510], and it is before Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon. A copy of
the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can
be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at
http://www.whafh.com.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing a series of false and misleading press releases
concerning OCA's financial condition, and improperly recognizing
revenues in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. As a
result, the price of the Company's common stock was artificially
inflated throughout the Class Period, allowing defendants to
collectively sell or propose to sell millions of dollars worth of
shares in personally held OCA Stock.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that when the Company disclosed
that as a result of an SEC inquiry, it must change its revenue
recognition policy to conform with GAAP, thus finally revealing an
accurate description of its true financial condition, the stock price
dropped precipitously, thereby resulting in substantial damages to
shareholders.

For further details, contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
at 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800)
575-0735 (Gregory M. Nespole, Esq., Michael Miske, Gustavo Bruckner,
Esq., George Peters, Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.), via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com or visit our website at http://www.whafh.com.


RELIANT ENERGY: Reliant Resources Offers Indemnity and Possible Defense
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Energy Inc. and Reliant Energy Services, Inc. have been named
as defendants in class action lawsuits and other lawsuits filed against
a number of companies that own generation plants in California and
other sellers of electricity in California markets.

Reliant Energy Resources Corp., a Delaware Corporation all of the stock
of which is owned by REI, has also been named as a defendant on one of
the lawsuits.

Pursuant to the terms of the master separation agreement between
Reliant Energy Inc. and Reliant Resources, Reliant Resources will agree
to indemnify RERC Corp. for any damages arising under this lawsuit, and
will agree to indemnify Reliant Energy Inc. for damages arising under
any of these lawsuits, and may elect to defend these lawsuits at
Reliant Resources' own expense.

Three of these lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, San Diego County; two were filed in the Superior Court
in San Francisco County.

While the plaintiffs allege various violations by the defendants of
state antitrust laws and state laws against unfair and unlawful
business practices, each of the lawsuits is grounded on the central
allegation that defendants conspired to drive up the wholesale
price of electricity.

In addition to injunctive relief, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek
treble the amount of damages alleged, restitution of alleged
overpayments, disgorgement of alleged unlawful profits for sales of
electricity during all or portions of 2000, costs of suit and
attorneys' fees.

In one of the cases the plaintiffs allege aggregate damages of over $4
billion. Defendants have filed petitions to remove the cases to federal
court. Furthermore, defendants have filed a motion with the Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation seeking transfer and consolidation of all the
cases. These lawsuits have only recently been filed.


RR DONNELLEY: Court Certifies Three Classes in Jones and Adams Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 25, 1996, a class action was brought against R.R. DONNELLEY
& SONS CO. in federal district court in Chicago, Illinois, on behalf of
current and former African-American employees, alleging that the
company racially discriminated against them in violation of the Civil
Rights Act of 1871, as amended, and the U.S. Constitution (Jones, et
al. v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co.).

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and asks for
actual, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages in an amount
not less than $500 million. Although plaintiffs sought nationwide class
certification, most of the specific factual assertions of the complaint
relate to the closing by the company of its Chicago catalog operations
in 1993. Other general claims relate to other company locations.

On June 30, 1998, a class action was filed against the company in
federal district court in Chicago on behalf of current and former
African-American employees, alleging that the company racially
discriminated against them in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (Adams, et al. v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co.).

While making many of the same general discrimination claims contained
in the Jones complaint, the Adams plaintiffs are also claiming
retaliation by the company for the filing of discrimination charges or
otherwise complaining of race discrimination. The complaint
seeks the same relief and damages as sought in the Jones case.

On April 6, 2001, in an amended opinion, the district court judge in
the Jones and Adams cases certified three plaintiff classes in the
actions:

     (i) a class consisting of African-American employees discharged in
         connection with the shutdown of the Chicago catalog
         operations;

    (ii) a class consisting of African-American employees of the
         Chicago catalog operations after November 1992 who were other
         than permanent employees; and

   (iii) a class consisting of African-Americans subjected to an
         allegedly hostile working environment at the Chicago catalog
         operations, the Chicago Financial, Pontiac or Dwight,
         Illinois, manufacturing operations.

The judge also consolidated the Jones and Adams cases for pretrial
purposes. On May 1, 2001, the federal court of appeals denied
plantiffs' application for leave to appeal the certification of
classes.


STAMPS.COM: Lovell Stewart Files Suit in New York For Securities Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Lovell & Stewart, LLP and Sirota & Sirota, LLP filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock
of Stamps.com, Inc. (NasdaqNM:STMP) between June 24, 1999 and May 16,
2001 inclusive.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder
and seeks to recover damages.

The action, Collegeware USA, Inc. v. Stamps.com, Inc., et al., is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Docket No. 01-CV-4186 (JSM) and has been assigned to the Hon.
John S. Martin, Jr., U.S. District Judge.

The complaint alleges that Stamps.com, Inc. and certain of its current
and former officers and directors violated the federal securities laws
by issuing and selling Stamps.com common stock pursuant to the IPO and
secondary offering without disclosing to investors that at least one of
the lead underwriters in the IPO had solicited and received excessive
and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, lead
underwriter BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. allocated Stamps.com
shares to customers at the IPO price of $11.00 per share.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
$11.00, the aforementioned defendant underwriter's brokerage customers
had to agree to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
progressively higher prices. The requirement that customers make
additional purchases at progressively higher prices as the price of
Stamps.com stock rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as
"laddering") was intended to (and did) drive Stamps.com's share price
up to artificially high levels.

This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both
the underwriter and its customers to reap enormous profits by buying
Stamps.com stock at the $11.00 IPO price and then selling it later for
a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $45.81
during its first day of trading.

The complaint further alleges that Stamps.com was able to price the
secondary offering of Stamps.com stock at an artificially high $65.00
per share due to the continued effects of the foregoing violations.

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

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

For more details, contact: Lovell & Stewart, LLP, New York; Christopher
Lovell, Victor E. Stewart, Christopher J. Gray at
Tel. Nos.: 212/608-1900  Email: sklovell@aol.com  or Sirota & Sirota,
LLP, New York; Howard B. Sirota, Saul Roffe at Tel. Nos.: 212/425-9055  
Email: info@sirotalaw.com


SULZER ORTHOPEDICS: Liability Suit Filed On Behalf of Canadian Patients
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of Canadian patients, a group of United States law firms has
filed a nationwide class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court in Texas against Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc. and related companies
which develop, manufacture, and market orthopedic products worldwide.

In pursuing this litigation, the U.S. law firms are being assisted in
Canada by the Canadian law firm of Perley-Robertson, Hill & McDougall
LLP. This nationwide class action lawsuit seeks damages for all
Canadian patients who had the defective products implanted.

"This lawsuit now seeks to protect those thousands of patients in
Canada who have been injured by Sulzer's corporate decision to
distribute this defective U.S. product in Canada," says Robert Foote,
one of the lead attorneys.

Sulzer Orthopedics issued a recall in the United States on December 5,
2000, alerting surgeons that patients have been implanted with a hip
prosthesis with a defective shell that requires replacement. According
to the company and evidence discovered in the U.S. litigation, an oily
residue was improperly left on the surface of the shell because of a
manufacturing error. In many cases, the residue caused inflammation and
pain and prevented the patients' bones from fusing normally with the
hip implant.

Symptoms caused by a loose connection between the implant and the bone
include severe groin pain and an inability for the joint to bear
weight. The largest number of defective hips was distributed in the
United States. However, it is expected that over a thousand of these
defective hips were distributed in Quebec and Ontario.

The lawsuit in the U.S. is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars on
behalf of the individual patients who have the defective hip products
implants. While the company recalled the products in the United States
and reported the recall to the U.S. equivalent of Health Canada, the
suit seeks to determine if the company ever notified Health Canada.

Michael Ryan, another attorney suing Sulzer, explained, "Every patient
has a right to demand that Sulzer be held accountable and responsible
for their negligence. Each and every patient who has had one of these
defective hips may be at risk of injury."

For additional information, contact the following attorneys:

David Hill QC, Perley-Robertson, Hill & McDougall LLP in Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada, and can be reached at 1-800-268-8292.

Robert Foote, Esquire, Foote, Meyers, Mielke & Flowers in Chicago,
Illinois and can be reached at 630-232-8333.

Peter McNulty, Esquire, The Law offices of Peter McNulty, in Bel Air,
California and can be reached at 310-471-2707.

Archie Lamb, Esquire, The Law offices of Archie Lamb, in Birmingham,
Alabama and can be reached at 205-324-4644.

Michael Ryan, Esquire, Krupnick Campbell Malone Roselli in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida and can be reached at 954-763-8181

Jay Waller, Esquire, Campbell, Waller and Loper, in Birmingham, Alabama
and can be reached at 205-803-0051

Mark Gray, Esquire, Gray and Weiss, in Louisville, Kentucky and can be
reached at 502-585-2060.


TORCHMARK CORPORATION: Trial on Securities Fraud Suit Set For November
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 15, 1999, Torchmark Corporation was named as a defendant in
consolidated derivative securities class action litigation involving
Vesta Insurance Group, Inc. filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama (In re Vesta Insurance Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation. Master File No. 98-AR-1407-S).

The amended consolidated complaint in this litigation alleges
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
the defendants Vesta, certain present and former Vesta officers
and directors, Vesta's former independent public accountants and
Torchmark and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain former
Vesta officers and directors and Torchmark acting as "controlling
persons" of Vesta in connection with certain accounting irregularities
in Vesta's reported financial results and filed financial statements.

Unspecified damages and equitable relief are sought on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of Vesta equity securities between
June 2, 1995 and June 29, 1998. A class was certified in this
litigation on October 25, 1999.

On October 23, 2000, the District Court denied the defendants'
motions to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint in
this litigation and ordered the defendants to answer the amended class
action complaint. Discovery is proceeding and the case has been set for
trial in November 2001.


UBS AG: Says Finances Won't Be Affected By Resolution Of Ongoing Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Several class actions, in relation to the business activities of Swiss
Companies during World War II, have been brought against UBS AG (as
legal successor to Swiss Bank Corporation and Union Bank of
Switzerland) in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Brooklyn).

These lawsuits were initially filed in October 1996. Another Swiss bank
was designated as a defendant alongside the Bank. On August 12, 1998,
however, a settlement was reached between the parties. This settlement
provides for a payment by the defendant banks to the plaintiffs, under
certain terms and conditions, of an aggregate amount of USD 1.25
billion.

UBS agreed to contribute up to two-thirds of this amount. As a result
of contributions by Swiss industrial companies to the settlement, UBS'
share was reduced by CHF 50 million.

A number of persons have elected to opt out of the settlement and not
to participate in the class action. Based on the Bank's estimates of
forthcoming contributions, the Bank provided USD 610 million in 1998,
an additional USD 95 million in 1999 and USD 123 million in 2000.
Several payments have been made approximating the reserved amount.

The settlement agreement was approved by the competent judge on July
26, 2000, and on November 22, 2000 the distribution plan was approved.
Appeals against these decisions are still pending, but the Bank do not
believe they should have a financial impact on the Group.


WJ COMMUNICATIONS: Pays Full Settlement Amount in 1st Quarter 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1999, four shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against WJ
Communications Inc. and its former directors in the California Superior
Court for the County of Santa Clara:

     (i) Rosenzweig v. Watkins-Johnson Company, et al., Case No.    
         CV885528;

    (ii) Soshtain v. Watkins-Johnson Co., et al., Case No. CV785560;

   (iii) Leong v. Watkins-Johnson Co., et al., Case No. CV785683;

    (iv) Fong v. Watkins-Johnson Co., et al., Case No. CV785683.

These lawsuits alleged essentially the same grounds for relief, namely
that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duty to its
shareowners in connection with the recapitalization merger, which was
completed on January 31, 2000.

On January 14, 2000, all parties to the class action executed a
memorandum of understanding to settle the lawsuits. An estimated
settlement payment and related legal fees, of approximately $500,000
has been accrued and included in the December 31, 1999 results of
operations.

Final settlement was reached with no admission of liability and
approved by the court during the fourth quarter of 2000. The Company
paid the previously accrued settlement in the first quarter of 2001 as
full and final payment of the court approved settlement agreement.
                                   

                              *********

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  * * *