CAR_Public/010523.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 23 2001, Vol. 3, No. 101

                              Headlines

1-800 CONTACTS: Settles For Unspecified Amount
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Royalty Lawsuit in Kansas Goes to Trial in October
BANKERS TRUST: Facing Suits For Fraud, Negligence & Breach Issues
BANK PLUS: Asserts Lawsuit Filed in Los Angeles is Abusive
BAUSCH & LOMB: Shareholders Sue For Alleged Securities Act Violations

CAMBREX CORP.: Mylan Laboratories Agrees to Pay $140 MM in Settlements  
CAPITAL SENIOR: Motion To Dismiss Putative Plaint Pending
CNET NETWORKS: Discovery Nears Completion in Ziff-Davis Inc. Suit
CNET NETWORKS: SOFTBANK And Hippeau Dismissal Being Finalized in NY SC  
COLLEGELINK.COM: Shareholder Suit Fosters Management Counterclaims
      
CYTEC INDUSTRIES: Unwittingly Becomes Part of Suit After Aiding Inquiry
FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Claims F-150 Trucks Have"Upgraded" Radiators
JOHNSON&JOHNSON: Five Year-Old ACUVUE Contact Lens Case Far From Over
MASCO CORPORATION: Appeal Will Cite Error in Trial Court's Decision
MEMBERWORKS INC.: Sued in Minnesota For Violation of Privacy Policies

MEMBERWORKS INC.: Faces Suit For Breach of Ohio Consumer Protection Law
METRIS COMPANIES: Court Has Yet to Certify a Class in Minnesota Suit
NAVIGANT CONSULTING: $23 M Settlement Subject to Appeal By Objectors
NEWPORT NEWS: Party In Four Separate Shareholders Suits in Delaware
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Filing Deadline For Claims in "Snow Event" Extended

OLYMPIC CASCADE: Subsidiary's Answer to Complaint in NY Due This Month
OMTOOL LTD.: $6 Million Settlement Awaits Final Approval From Court
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Settlement of Credit Card Lawsuit to Reach $105 MM
SECURE COMPUTING: No Discovery or Trial Dates Set For Five Lawsuits
TACO BELL: Settlement With Ex-Managers in California Awaits Court Nod

TAKEDA CHEMICAL: Faces Lawsuit in Boston Along With US Partner Abbott
TALK AMERICA: Insists Shareholder Suit in Pennsylvania is Without Merit
TORCHMARK CORP.: Wants Hinton Case Consolidated With Moore in Alabama
TRAVELERS PROPERTY: California Case, Parts of 10 Others Dismissed
UAL CORPORATION: Discrimination Suits Returned to District Court

US LIQUIDS: Court Grants Partial Dismissal of Securities Suit in Texas
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Moves For Stay in California Lawsuit
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Motion to Dismiss Fraud Suit in Texas Still Pending
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Delaware F.C. Rulings on Transfer and Remand Pending
WORLDCOM INC.: Settlement Pact is Final as Deadline For Appeal Expires



                              *********


1-800 CONTACTS: Settles For Unspecified Amount
----------------------------------------------
On July 14, 1998, Craig S. Steinberg, O.D., a professional corporation
d.b.a. City Eyes Optometry Center, filed a purported class action on
behalf of all California optometrists against 1-800 CONTACTS, INC. and
its directors in Los Angeles County Superior Court.  In April 2001, the
Company settled this claim for an unspecified amount.  The settlement
did not materially impact the Company's results of operations.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Royalty Lawsuit in Kansas Goes to Trial in October
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit entitled Gilbert H. Coulter, et al. v. Anadarko
Petroleum Corporation has been certified in the 26th Judicial District
Court, Stevens County, Kansas.

In this action, the royalty owners contend that royalty was underpaid
as a result of the deduction for certain post-production costs in the
calculation of royalty.

The Company believes that its method of calculating royalty was proper
and that its gas was marketable in the condition produced, and thus
plaintiffs' claims are without merit. This case was certified as a
class action in August 2000. This matter is now set for trial on
October 29, 2001


BANKERS TRUST: Facing Suits For Fraud, Negligence & Breach Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Since January 2001, Bankers Trust Company, the principal subsidiary of
BANKERS TRUST CORPORATION, has been named as one of numerous
defendants in more than a dozen actions (four of which are brought as
class actions) filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, all of which have been or are in the process of
being assigned to a single judge.

Pursuant to the Court's orders, plaintiffs have served two amended
model complaints, one denominated as a class action (Stuber, et al. v.
Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., et al) and the other
designated as an individual action (Gomes, et al. v. Merrill Lynch
Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., et al).

The actions allege claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
tortuous interference with contract, negligence, fraudulent
conveyance, constructive fraud, reformation, unfair business practices,
and unjust enrichment as well as specific performance and declaratory   
relief in connection with certain individual and master structured
settlement trusts established for the most part in the early 1980s in
connection with the settlement of personal injury litigation.  Bankers
Trust Company served as trustee of certain of these trusts during a
portion of the period 1994-1998.  

The complaints seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and
certain other relief.  The Corporation believes that it has meritorious
defenses and intends to defend these matters vigorously.


BANK PLUS: Asserts Lawsuit Filed in Los Angeles is Abusive
----------------------------------------------------------
On October 19, 1998, a purported class action was filed against Bank
Plus Corporation and its current and immediately preceding chief
executive officers.

The case was originally entitled Howard Gunty Profit Sharing Plan, both
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Richard M. Greenwood, Mark K. Mason, Bank Plus Corporation, and Does
I through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Los Angeles Superior Court,
Central Judicial District, Case No. BC199336 (Gunty I).

This action originally alleged Bank Plus failed to make adequate public
disclosure concerning losses in the Bank's credit card operations
during the period from August 14, 1998 (when the Company filed its
quarterly report on Form l0-Q for the second quarter of 1998) through
September 22, 1998 (when the Company issued a press release concerning
its credit card losses).

In February 1999, an amended complaint was filed in the Los Angeles
Superior Court, Central Judicial District, Case No. BC199336, entitled
Howard Gunty Profit Sharing Plan and Robert E. Yelin, both individually
and on behalf of the Yelin Family Trust U/A, both individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Richard M.
Greenwood, Mark K. Mason, Bank Plus Corporation, and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive (Gunty II).  

The amended complaint purports to expand the class period to extend
from March 30, 1998 through September 22, 1998. The complaint and
amended complaint each include claims for negligent misrepresentation,
common law fraud, statutory fraud and violations of the California
Corporations Code.

The originally proposed representative plaintiff has been determined by
the trial court to be unsuitable to serve as class representative. A
second proposed representative plaintiff has been refused permission to
intervene in this case on statute of limitations grounds, a ruling
which is on appeal.

Plaintiffs' counsel has proposed pursuing other potential class action
representatives through a letter solicitation process. The Company has
opposed the solicitation process on several grounds, including the
ground that the lawsuit is an abusive class action.

The trial court authorized the solicitation process, but with
conditions that the plaintiffs' lawyers found objectionable. The
plaintiffs' lawyers and the Bank both sought relief from the California
Court of Appeal, through writs of mandamus, to modify the trial court's
order regarding the solicitation process.

On April 18, 2001, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion stating that
the trial court's previous findings that the original plaintiff was a
"professional plaintiff" and that the case was being driven by
attorneys signaled a potential for abuse in this action.

Therefore, the Court of Appeal directed the trial court to vacate its
prior orders and to reassess its decision to continue the class
certification hearing and to permit any solicitation.

To this end, the Court of Appeal suggested the trial court schedule a
hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and directed the
trial court to weigh the prior findings that the original plaintiff was
a "professional plaintiff" and not an appropriate representative, any
further evidence of abuse, the rights of the parties, and the policies
underlying class action procedures.

The Court of Appeal concluded that if after balancing these factors the
trial court determines that plaintiffs established a prima facie proper
class action, the trial court could then determine whether to allow any
solicitation, weighing any abuses or potential abuses against the
rights of the parties and the integrity of the litigation process.

Alternately, if the trial court concludes that the action is an abusive
class action, it need not permit any solicitation at all or it may
refuse to certify the class.

The Company intends to continue to assert that this is an abusive class
action. In the event the trial court permits any solicitation to occur,
the Company intends to continue to assert all defenses to class
certification even if plaintiffs' counsel are able to propose new class
representatives, and further intends to continue to assert that any
claims made on behalf of the expanded class asserted in Gunty II are
barred and preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act
of 1998, and that such preemption may extend to the entire case
depending on the nature of the rulings of the trial court.

In addition, should any purported class of any scope be certified, the
Company intends to vigorously defend itself on the merits. In this
respect, the Company believes, among other things, that its
communications to the public were timely and accurate and that it did
not engage in any market activity, which would generate liability under
the California Corporations Code.


BAUSCH & LOMB: Shareholders Sue For Alleged Securities Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 13, 2001, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District for the Western District of New York, against Bausch &
Lomb Inc. and its Chairman and CEO, William M. Carpenter.

The complaint alleges that the value of the company's stock was
inflated artificially by alleged false and misleading statements about
expected financial results.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
company common stock between April 13, 2000 and August 24, 2000. No
substantive action has taken place in this matter. The company intends
to defend itself vigorously against these claims


CAMBREX CORP.: Mylan Laboratories Agrees To Pay $140 MM in Settlements  
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cambrex Corporation and its subsidiary Profarmaco S.r.l. were named as
defendants in a proceeding instituted by the Federal Trade Commission
on December 21, 1998, in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia.

The complaint alleges exclusive license agreements which Profarmaco
entered into with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. covering
the drug master files for (and therefore the right to buy and use) two
active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), lorazepam and clorazepate,
were part of an effort on Mylan's part to restrict competition in the
supply of lorazepam and clorazepate and to increase the price charges
for these products when Mylan sold them as generic pharmaceuticals.

The complaint further alleges these agreements violate the Federal
Trade Commission Act, and that Mylan, Cambrex, Profarmaco, and Gyma
Laboratories of America, Inc., Profarmaco's distributor in the United
States, engaged in an unlawful restraint of trade and conspired to
monopolize and attempted to monopolize the markets for the generic
pharmaceuticals incorporating the APIs.

A lawsuit making similar allegations against the Company and
Profarmaco, and seeking injunctive relief and treble damages, has been
filed by the Attorneys General of 31 states in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of those states
and persons in those states who were purchasers of the generic
pharmaceuticals.

The Company and Profarmaco have also been named in purported class
action complaints brought by private plaintiffs in various state courts
on behalf of purchasers of lorazepam and clorazepate in generic form,
making allegations essentially similar to those raised in the FTC's
complaint and seeking various forms of relief including treble damages.

On February 9, 2001, a federal court in Washington, DC entered an Order
and Stipulated Permanent Injunction as part of a settlement of the FTC
and Attorneys General's suits.

Under these settlement documents Mylan has agreed to pay over $140
million on its own behalf and on behalf of most of the other defendant
companies including Cambrex and Profarmaco.

Recently, the federal court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement of the attorney general's suits and a hearing date has been
set for November 29, 2001. In the Order and Injunction, the settling
defendants also agreed to monitor certain future conduct.

The Company strongly believes its licensing arrangements with Mylan are
in accordance with regulatory requirements and will vigorously defend
the various other lawsuits and class actions.


CAPITAL SENIOR: Motion to Dismiss Putative Plaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
On or about October 23, 1998, Robert Lewis filed a class action
complaint on behalf of certain holders of assignee interests in NHP
Retirement Housing Partners I Limited Partnership in the Delaware Court
of Chancery against NHP, CAPITAL SENIOR LIVING CORPORATION, Capital
Senior Living Properties 2-NHPCT, Inc. and Capital Realty Group Senior
Housing, Inc.

Lewis purchased ninety Assignee Interests in NHP in February 1993 for
$180. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendants
breached, or aided and abetted a breach of, the express and implied
terms of the NHP Partnership Agreement in connection with the sale of
four properties by NHP to Capital Senior Living Properties
2-NHPCT, Inc.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the sale of
those properties and unspecified damages. The Company believes the
complaint is without merit and is vigorously defending itself in this
action. The Company has filed a Motion to Dismiss in this case, which
is currently pending. The Company is unable to estimate any liability
related to this claim, if any.


CNET NETWORKS: Discovery Nears Completion in Ziff-Davis Inc. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Following a decline in the price per share of Ziff-Davis Inc. (a
company acquired by Cnet Networks Inc. in October 2000) common stock
leading up to October 1998, eight securities class action suits were
filed against Ziff-Davis and certain of its directors and officers in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaints alleged that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the
registration statement filed by Ziff-Davis with the Securities and
Exchange Commission relating to the initial public offering of Ziff-
Davis' stock on April 28, 1998.

More particularly, the complaints alleged that the registration
statement contained false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose facts that could have indicated an impending decline in Ziff-
Davis' revenue.

The complaints sought, on behalf of a class of purchasers of Ziff-
Davis common stock from the date of the IPO through October 8, 1998,
unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs, rescission and
injunctive relief, such as the imposition of a constructive trust upon
the proceeds of the IPO.

On January 28, 1999, the court entered an order consolidating the
actions, appointing lead plaintiff's counsel and requiring the filing
of a consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint was filed on March 15, 1999 and only
alleges claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. On May
20, 1999, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. That motion was denied on June 27, 2000.  

Discovery is nearing completion. Although the outcome of this case
cannot be predicted, CNET believes that there are substantial defenses
to the claims. CNET currently cannot estimate its ultimate liability,
if any, with respect to this case.


CNET NETWORKS: SOFTBANK And Hippeau Dismissal Being Finalized in NY SC  
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 6, 2000, two former employees of Ziff-Davis Inc., a company
acquired by CNET Networks Inc. in October 2000, filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, against
Ziff-Davis, ZDNet, Inc., SOFTBANK, Inc. and Eric Hippeau.  

The complaint alleges breach of contract, detrimental reliance and
unjust enrichment resulting from (i) the allegedly wrongful shortening
of exercise periods of certain Ziff-Davis, ZDNet and SOFTBANK options
and (ii) the allegedly wrongful revocation of other Ziff-Davis and
ZDNet options.  

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, fees and costs on behalf of
all persons who were holders of employee stock options in Ziff-Davis,
ZDNet, or SOFTBANK as of April 13, 2000 (excluding Hippeau).  

On November 20, 2000, defendants Ziff-Davis, ZDNet and Eric Hippeau,
the only defendants that have been served, moved to dismiss the
action.  

Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action with regard to SOFTBANK and
Hippeau on January 26, 2001, and, on March 12, 2001, indicated an
intention to seek voluntary dismissal of the entire action.  Papers
concerning the dismissal are being finalized


COLLEGELINK.COM: Shareholder Suit Fosters Management Counterclaims      
------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 12, 2001, a group Collegelink.com Inc. shareholders commenced
a purported class action litigation against the Company for claims
relating to the Company's failure to register for resale the shares
issued to these shareholders in connection with the August 10, 1999
acquisition of ECI, Inc. The shareholders allege that such registration
was required by a registration agreement between them and the Company.

Management intends to vigorously defend the Company against the claims
raised in the shareholders' complaint and has asserted counterclaims.
Because this case commenced so recently, neither management nor the
Company's general counsel are able to predict the outcome of the case
or its possible effect on the financial position of the Company.


CYTEC INDUSTRIES: Unwittingly Becomes Part of Suit After Aiding Inquiry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 1999 Cytec Industries Inc. received a subpoena to testify
before, and provide documents to, a federal grand jury in California
investigating the carbon fiber and prepreg industry. The Company
manufactures prepregs as part of its advanced composites product line.
The Company had no reason to believe that it was a target of the grand
jury investigation.

After the grand jury investigation was commenced, the Company and the
other companies subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury were named
as defendants in two civil antitrust class actions in state and federal
courts in California on behalf of purchasers of carbon fiber, which the
complaints defined to include prepregs manufactured from carbon fiber.

In each case the complaint alleges that the defendants, manufacturers
of carbon fiber and/or prepregs manufactured therefrom, conspired to
fix the prices of their products. The Company believes it has
meritorious defense to the claims asserted in these actions.


FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Claims F-150 Trucks Have"Upgraded" Radiators
------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2001, two purported class actions were filed alleging Ford
Motor Company defrauded purchasers of 1999-2001 model year Ford F-
150 trucks by falsely representing that certain option packages
included "upgraded" radiators.  

Plaintiffs allege that approximately 400,000 trucks that were intended
to have larger radiators were actually built with standard radiators.
One of the cases, filed in state court in New York, purports to
represent a nationwide class, and seeks an order requiring installation
of larger radiators and other damages.  

The second case, filed in state court in Texas, purports to represent
purchasers in Texas, and seeks unspecified damages. Both cases allege
breach of warranty and violation of state consumer protection laws.


JOHNSON&JOHNSON: Five Year-Old ACUVUE Contact Lens Case Far From Over
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson Vision Care revealed in a regulatory document
recently filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it is a
defendant in a nationwide consumer class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of its ACUVUE brand contact lenses.

The plaintiffs in this action, which was filed in 1996 in New Jersey
State Court, allege that Vision Care sold its 1-DAY ACUVUE lens at a
substantially cheaper price than ACUVUE and misled consumers into
believing these were different lenses when, in fact, they were
allegedly "the same lenses."

Plaintiffs are seeking substantial damages and an injunction against
supposed improper conduct. The Company believes these claims are
without merit and is defending the action vigorously.


MASCO CORPORATION: Appeal Will Cite Error in Trial Court's Decision
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 1998, a civil suit was filed in the Grays Harbor County,
Washington Superior Court against Behr Process Corporation, a
subsidiary of MASCO CORPORATION.  The case involves four exterior wood
coating products, which represent a relatively small part of Behr's
total sales.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that after applying these
products, the wood surfaces suffered excessive mildewing in the very
humid climate of western Washington. The trial court certified the case
as a class action, including all purchasers of the products who reside
in nineteen counties in western Washington.

Behr denies the allegations. Although Behr believes the subject
products have been purchased by thousands of consumers in western
Washington, consumer complaints in the past have been relatively small
compared to the total volume of products sold.

In May 2000, the court entered a default against Behr as a discovery
sanction. Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict awarding damages to
the named plaintiffs. The damages awarded for the eight homeowner
claims (excluding one award to the owners of a vacation resort) ranged
individually from $14,500 to $38,000.

The awards were calculated using a formula based on the product used,
the nature and square footage of wood surface and certain other
allowances. Under the verdict, the same formula will be used for
calculating awards on claims that may be submitted by the subject
purchasers of these products.

In July 2000, the court awarded additional damages of $10,000 per claim
to the eight homeowner claims under the Washington Consumer Protection
Act. This increased the total damages awarded on the homeowner claims
to approximately $263,000. The court denied the plaintiffs' request for
an award of additional damages on claims that may be submitted by other
class members. In addition, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for attorneys' fees.

Behr is appealing the judgment. At this time, the Company is not in a
position to estimate reliably the number of class members, the number
of claims that may be filed or the awards that class members may seek.
Although Behr is not able to estimate the amount of any potential
liability, Behr believes there have been numerous rulings by the
trial court that constitute reversible error and that there are valid
defenses to the lawsuit.


MEMBERWORKS INC.: Sued in Minnesota For Violation of Privacy Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In July 1999, a purported class action was instituted by plaintiffs
Kathryn Rosebear and Anne Bergman against Memberworks Inc. and other
defendants in the United States District Court, District of Minnesota.

The suit, which seeks unspecified monetary damages, alleges the Company
and the other defendants violated their privacy policies and Minnesota
consumer law. The Company believes the allegations made in this lawsuit
are unfounded and the Company will vigorously defend its interests
against this suit.


MEMBERWORKS INC.: Faces Suit For Breach of Ohio Consumer Protection Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2001, a purported class action was instituted by plaintiff
Brandy L. Ritt against Memberworks Inc. and other defendants in the
Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

The suit, which seeks unspecified monetary damages, alleges that the
Company and the other defendants violated various provisions of
Ohio's consumer protection laws in connection with the marketing of
certain membership programs offered by the Company.

The Company believes the claims asserted against it are unfounded and
the Company will vigorously defend its interest against this suit.


METRIS COMPANIES: Court Has Yet to Certify a Class in Minnesota Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2000 an Amended Complaint was filed in Hennepin County Court in
Minneapolis, Minnesota against Metris Companies Inc. and its
subsidiaries Metris Direct, Inc. and Direct Merchants Bank.

The complaint seeks damages in unascertained amounts and purports to be
a class action complaint on behalf of all cardholders who were issued a
credit card by Direct Merchants Bank and were allegedly assessed fees
or charges that the cardholder did not authorize.

Specifically, the complaint alleges violations of the Minnesota
Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, the Minnesota Deceptive Trade
Practices Act and breach of contract.

The Company filed an answer to the complaint in August 2000. To date,
the complaint has not been certified as a class action claim. The
Company believes it has numerous substantive legal defenses to these
claims and is continuing to vigorously defend the case.


NAVIGANT CONSULTING: $23 Mil Settlement Subject to Appeal by Objectors
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2000 Navigant Consulting Inc. agreed with the appointed lead
plaintiff, the Policemen and Firemen Retirement System of the
City of Detroit, to settle for $23 million the consolidated securities
law class actions then pending in the federal district court in the
Northern District of Illinois, subject to court approval and certain
other conditions.

The settlement calls for the dismissal, with prejudice, of the
Consolidated Class Actions and a release of the Company and the
Company's former and current officers and directors, among others.

Under the final settlement agreement, the Company contributed $16.5
million into escrow pending such approval, and Genesis Insurance
Company, one of its insurers, contributed $6.5 million under an
agreement reached with the Company.

The Company is seeking to recover from Genesis an additional $0.5
million as reimbursement for certain attorneys' fees. The Company is
also seeking to recover additional funds under a policy issued by a
second insurer, and it has agreed to share any such recovery with the
class on a 50/50 basis, net of costs.

As previously disclosed, four objections to the proposed settlement
were received. On March 22, 2001, the court granted its final approval
for the settlement. Such final approval is subject to appeal by one or
more of the objectors.


NEWPORT NEWS: Party in Four Separate Shareholders Suits in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Newport News Shipbuilding Inc. disclosed in a latest regulatory
document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the
following complaints have been filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, against the
Company and members of the Company Board:

     Date Filed          Case Name and Civil Action No.

     May 9, 2001         Patricia Heinmuller, Trustee v. the Company    
                         and Members of the Company Board, C.A. No.
                         18871

     May 10, 2001        Ellis Investments, Ltd. v. Members of the
                         Company Board and the Company, C.A No. 18873

     May 10, 2001        David Bovie v. Members of the Company Board
                         and the Company, C.A. No. 18874

     May 11, 2001        Efrem Weitschner v. Members of the Company
                         Board and the Company, C.A. No. 18875

Each of the four complaints purports to be filed by a stockholder of
the Company and includes a request for a declaration that the action be
maintained as a class action. Each seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief, unspecified damages and fees of attorneys and
experts.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Filing Deadline For Claims in "Snow Event" Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence S. Charfoos, co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the "Northwest
Winter Snow Event" class action lawsuit, announced Monday that the
court has re-opened the claim filing deadline for a period of 60 days,
beginning May 18, 2001, so that passengers who missed the filing
deadline, or passengers who claim not to have been aware that such a
lawsuit had been filed, can file "late claims."

Ruling on the motion filed by counsel to re-open the time period for
filing claims, Judge Daphne Means Curtis has ordered the claim filing
period be re-opened for a 60-day period, expiring on July 17, 2001. The
judge also ordered that a residual fund of $50,000 be carved out of the
original settlement. This fund will be maintained for one year from the
end of the 60-day deadline to allow for any claims filed after the
60-day deadline has expired. These changes to accommodate late filers
will cause a slight reduction in the amount available to the timely
filers.

"Although we believe everyone in America was aware that a class action
lawsuit was filed against Northwest Airlines for stranding thousands of
people at Detroit Metropolitan Airport during the 'winter snow event of
January, 1999,' since the settlement Order was signed on April 24,
2001, we have received approximately 100 phone calls and late claims
from passengers who believe they should be allowed to file late
claims," said Charfoos.

He notes that even though notice was published in the Wall Street
Journal, The Detroit News, The Detroit Free Press, and posted on Yahoo
and Excite message boards, and letters of notification were mailed to
every passenger for whom counsel had manifest addresses, "in the
interest of absolute fairness, we felt it was prudent to ask the court
to extend the time for filing late claims."

Charfoos also points out that many of the people who have called
asserting "late claims" were stranded in cities other than the City of
Detroit or were on airplanes that had flight numbers that were not
included in the class action claims.

"Because we do not know exactly how many of the late claimers may have
valid claims had they been timely filed, we are attempting to 'bend
over backwards' to make sure that every member of the class, our
clients, are fairly served," Charfoos added.

"Ironically," explained Charfoos, "this short delay will result in the
faster payment of claims as the protesting late-filers have agreed to
dismiss their appeals (two-year delay) in exchange for our implementing
this late filing procedure."

Individuals who believe they have a claim and have not yet filed should
call the Claims Administrator, Rust Consulting, at 877-576-9745 and
request a claim form.


OLYMPIC CASCADE: Subsidiary's Answer to Complaint in NY Due This Month
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Olympic Cascade Financial Corporation disclosed in a recent regulatory
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it has been
named together with others as a defendant in a consolidated class
action lawsuit filed against Complete Management, Inc.

No specific amount of damages has been sought against National
Securities Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, in
the complaint.  

In June 2000, National filed to dismiss this action. In March 2001, the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied National's motion to dismiss.

National's answer to the complaint is due in May 2001, in which it will
set forth its defenses.  National believes that its defenses are valid
and will vigorously defend this action.


OMTOOL LTD.: $6 Million Settlement Awaits Final Approval From Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 5, 1999, a purported securities class action complaint was
filed against Omtool Ltd. and certain of its officers and directors.

As of March 31, 2001, the Company reached an agreement-in-principle to
settle the lawsuit. The terms of the proposed $6 million settlement
include a contribution by the Company's directors' and officers'
liability insurance carriers of $4.3 million, and a contribution by the
Company of $1.7 million.

The settlement is subject to negotiation and execution of a definitive
settlement agreement, and final approval by the federal district court
in New Hampshire. There can be no assurances, however, that the
settlement will be consummated or approved by the Court.

The Company continues to believe that the lawsuit is without merit,
and, in the event the settlement is not consummated or approved,
the Company intends to continue defending the lawsuit vigorously.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Settlement of Credit Card Lawsuit to Reach $105 MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning May 1999, a number of lawsuits were filed against Providian
Financial Corporation, and in some cases against certain of the
Company's subsidiaries, by current and former customers of the
Company's banking subsidiaries.

A consolidated putative class action lawsuit (In re Providian Credit
Card Litigation) was filed in August 1999 in California state court in
San Francisco against the Company, Providian National Bank, and certain
other subsidiaries of the Company, and sought unspecified damages,
including actual and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.

The complaint alleged unfair and deceptive business practices,
including failure to credit payments in a timely fashion, adding
products and charging fees without customer authorization, changing
rates and terms without proper notice or authorization, and misleading
or deceptive sales practices.

Similar actions filed in other California counties were transferred to
San Francisco County and coordinated with the Consolidated Action.
Several putative class actions, containing substantially the same
allegations as those alleged in the Consolidated Action, were also
filed in federal court. The Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred these actions to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

In December 2000, the Company reached an agreement to settle the
Consolidated Action and the Multidistrict Action. The Court
preliminarily approved the classwide settlement on April 20, 2001.

The Company estimates the total value of the settlement at
approximately $105 million, including attorneys' fees and restitution
in the form of cash and in-kind payments. The Company recorded a net
pre-tax charge of $36.7 million to non-interest expense during the
fourth quarter of 2000 in connection with such settlement.


SECURE COMPUTING: No Discovery or Trial Dates Set For Five Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 2, 9, 12, 14 and 20, 1999, purported class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California by Myron Goldstein, Herbert Silverberg, William
Preiner, Charles McInnis, and George H. Rosenquist and Melvin
Freedenberg, respectively, against SECURE COMPUTING CORPORATION, and
its present or former officers Jeffrey Waxman, Timothy McGurran,
Patrick Regester, Gary Taggart, Howard Smith and Christine Hughes.

Each complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business condition and prospects during
a purported class period of November 10, 1998 to March 31, 1999, and
asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. Each complaint
seeks damages of an unspecified amount.

By stipulated Order dated August 19, 1999, the Court consolidated these
actions, appointed lead plaintiffs, and approved the retention of lead
counsel. On January 7, 2000, plaintiffs served a consolidated corrected
compliant. On August 18, 2000, Plaintiff's served a First Amended
Complaint. Defendants' motion to dismiss that Complaint is now pending.

There has been no discovery to date and no trial is scheduled in any of
these actions. We believe that we have meritorious defenses to these
actions and intend to defend them vigorously.


TACO BELL: Settlement With Ex-Managers in California Awaits Court Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 2, 1996, a class action lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp.,
entitled Mynaf, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp., was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California of the County of Santa Clara. The
lawsuit was filed by two former restaurant general managers and two
former assistant restaurant general managers purporting to represent
all current and former Taco Bell restaurant general managers and
assistant restaurant general managers in California.

The lawsuit alleged violations of California wage and hour laws,
involving unpaid overtime wages, and violations of the State Labor
Code's record-keeping requirements. The complaint also included an
unfair business practices claim. Plaintiffs claimed individual damages
ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 each.

On September 17, 1998, the court certified a class of approximately
3,000 current and former assistant restaurant general managers and
restaurant general managers. Taco Bell petitioned the appellate court
to review the trial court's certification order. The petition was
denied on December 31, 1998. Taco Bell then filed a petition for review
with the California Supreme Court, and the petition was subsequently
denied.

Class notices were mailed on August 31, 1999 to over 3,400 class
members. Trial began on January 29, 2001. Before conclusion of the
trial, the parties reached an agreement to settle this matter, and
entered into a stipulation of discontinuance of the case.

This settlement agreement is subject to approval by the court of the
terms and conditions of the agreement and notice to the class with an
opportunity to object and be heard.


TAKEDA CHEMICAL: Faces Lawsuit in Boston Along With US Partner Abbott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd., Japan's largest drug maker, is facing
a class action lawsuit filed in a federal court in Boston, the Reuters
News Agency reported Monday.

The lawsuit named as defendants Takeda, Abbot Laboratories Inc. and the
two drug makers' 50-50 joint venture TAP Pharmaceuticals Products Inc.

The suit alleges that the two drug makers have illegally inflated the
price of a drug used to treat prostate cancer.

News of the lawsuit brought Takeda's shares down by 2.18 percent at
5,840 yen, underperforming a 1.93 percent increase in the benchmark
Nikkei stock average, the news agency said.

A Takeda spokesman said Monday the company could not comment on the
latest lawsuit because it has not received the document.


TALK AMERICA: Insists Shareholder Suit in Pennsylvania is Without Merit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 16, 1998, a purported shareholder class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against Talk America Holdings Inc. and certain of its officers alleging
violation of the securities laws in connection with certain disclosures
made by the Company in its public filings and seeking unspecified
damages.

Thereafter, additional lawsuits making substantially the same
allegations were filed by other plaintiffs in the same court. A motion
to dismiss was granted as to certain officers of the Company and
denied as to the Company. There are currently no officers of the
Company who are a party to these actions.

On July 19, 2000, a class was certified. The Company believes the
allegations in the complaints are without merit and intends to
defend the litigations vigorously.

        
TORCHMARK CORP.: Wants Hinton Case Consolidated With Moore in Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 15, 2001, a purported class action litigation was filed
against Liberty National Insurance Holding Company (the former
conformed name of TORCHMARK CORPORATION) in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina (Hinton v. Liberty National
Life Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 3-01-68078), containing
allegations largely similar to the Moore case filed in the Federal
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Liberty was described in the suit as successor in interest of New South
Life Insurance Company, an insurer acquired out of receivership by an
entity, which was subsequently acquired by Peninsular Life Insurance
Company. In 1985, Liberty reinsured a block of insurance business from
Peninsular, including business formerly written by New South.

Liberty has requested indemnification in the Hinton litigation from
Peninsular and its successors in interest and is also seeking a change
of venue to consolidate the Hinton case with the Moore case currently
pending in Federal District Court in Alabama.


TRAVELERS PROPERTY: California Case, Parts of 10 Others Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in January 1997, sixteen purported class actions and one
multi-party action were commenced in various courts against certain
subsidiaries of Travelers Property Casualty Corporation, dozens of
other insurers and the National Council on Compensation
Insurance.

The allegations in the actions are substantially similar. The
plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants conspired to collect
excessive or improper premiums on certain loss-sensitive workers'
compensation insurance policies in violation of state insurance laws,
antitrust laws, and state unfair trade practices laws. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages.

Actions have been commenced in the following jurisdictions:

     (i) Georgia (El Chico Restaurants, Inc. v. The Aetna Casualty and
         Surety Company, et al. and FFE Transportation Services, Inc.
         et al. v. NCCI, et al.);

    (ii) Tennessee (El Chico Restaurants, Inc. v. The Aetna Casualty
         and Surety Company, et al.);

   (iii) Florida (Bristol Hotel Management Corp., et al. v. The Aetna
         Casualty and Surety Company, et al.);

    (iv) New Jersey (Foodarama Supermarkets, Inc., et al. v. The Aetna   
         Casualty and Surety Company, et al.);

     (v) Illinois (Hill-Behan Lumber Co v. Hartford Insurance Co. et
         al. and CR/PL Management Co., et al. v. Allianz Insurance   
         Company Group, et al.);

    (vi) Pennsylvania (Foodarama Supermarkets, Inc. v. The Aetna  
         Casualty and Surety Company, et al.);

   (vii) Missouri (Hill-Behan Lumber Corp., et al. v. Hartford  
         Insurance Co., et al.);

  (viii) California (Dal-Tile Corp., et al. v. NCCI, et al.);

    (ix) Texas (Sandwich Chef of Texas, Inc., et al. v. Reliance
         National Insurance Company, et al.);

     (x) Alabama (Alumax Inc., et al. v. Allianz Insurance Company, et
         al.);

    (xi) Michigan (American Association of Retired Persons, et al. v.  
         National Surety Corp., et al.);

   (xii) Kentucky (Payless Cashways, Inc. et al. v. National Surety
         Corp. et al.);
  (xiii) New York (Burnham Service Corp. v. NCCI, et al.); and

   (xiv) Arizona (Albany International Corp. v. American National Fire
         Insurance Company, et al.).

The Company has vigorously defended all of these cases, and intends to
continue doing so.  The trial courts have ordered dismissal of the
entire California case, and partial dismissals of ten others: those
pending in Tennessee, Florida, New Jersey, Illinois (both cases),
Pennsylvania, Missouri, Alabama, New York and Arizona.

The trial courts in Georgia, Kentucky, Texas, and Michigan have denied
defendants' motions to dismiss. The Pennsylvania and New Jersey courts
have denied class certification. Appeals are currently pending from the
dismissal orders in California and New York, and from the class
certification ruling in New Jersey.


UAL CORPORATION: Discrimination Suits Returned to District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against United Air Lines, Inc., a principal
subsidiary of UAL Corporation, was filed February 7, 1992 in federal
district court in California, alleging that United' s former flight
attendant weight program, in effect from 1989 to 1994, unlawfully
discriminated against flight attendants on the grounds of sex, age and
other factors, and seeking monetary relief.

On April 29, 1994, the class was certified as to the sex and age
claims. Following extensive motion practice, on March 10, 1998, the
district court dismissed all the claims against United. Following an
appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a three-judge
panel of the Ninth Circuit, on June 21, 2000, overturned the ruling and
held that United's former weight program violated the law.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a
matter of law on their claims for discrimination based on sex and that
a trial was required for determination on their claims for age
discrimination.

In addition, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of all
individual class representative claims of discrimination and the
case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

United's petition for en banc review by an 11-judge panel was denied on
August 11, 2000. On December 8, 2000, United petitioned for a review of
the Ninth Circuit decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, but that petition
was denied on March 5, 2001.

In accordance with the appellate court ruling, the case will go back to
the district court for further proceedings with respect to the age
discrimination claims and for a determination of damages with respect
to the sex discrimination claims.


US LIQUIDS: Court Grants Partial Dismissal of Securities Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------------
During the third quarter of 1999, six purported securities class action
lawsuits were filed against US Liquids Inc. and certain of its officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division.

These lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action styled IN
RE: U S LIQUIDS SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. H-99-2785, and the
plaintiffs have filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated
complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock in the March 1999 public offering and violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock during the period beginning on May 12, 1998 and ending on August
25, 1999.

The plaintiffs generally allege the defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose allegedly material
information regarding the operations of the Company's Detroit facility
and the Company's financial condition in the prospectus relating to the
March 1999 stock offering and in certain other public filings and
announcements made by the Company.

The remedies sought by the plaintiffs include designation of the action
as a class action, unspecified damages, attorneys' and experts' fees
and costs, rescission to the extent any members of the class still hold
common stock, and such other relief as the court deems proper.

During 2000, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint. In January 2001, the court entered an Order of
Partial Dismissal which dismissed the claims asserted by the plaintiffs
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, but
granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

The deadline for filing an amended complaint has passed and the
plaintiffs have advised the court that, while preserving all of their
rights regarding the claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, they will proceed on the current complaint as affected by
the Order of Partial Dismissal. Accordingly, it is the Company's
understanding that the lawsuit is proceeding with respect to the claims
asserted under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act only.


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Moves For Stay in California Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
In February and March 2001, several purported class action complaints
were filed in the Court of Chancery in and for New Castle County,
Delaware and the Superior Court of the State of California against
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., Siliconix, and the directors of Siliconix
in connection with the Company's announced proposal to purchase all
issued and outstanding shares of Siliconix not already owned by the
Company.

The class actions, filed on behalf of all non-Vishay Siliconix
shareholders, allege, among other things, that the Company's proposed
offer is unfair and a breach of fiduciary duty. One of the Delaware
class actions also contains derivative claims against the Company on
behalf of Siliconix alleging self-dealing and waste because the Company
purportedly usurped Siliconix's inventory and patents, appropriated
Siliconix's separate corporate identity, and obtained a below-market
loan from Siliconix.

The Company has not yet responded to the complaints in the Delaware
actions. On April 9, 2001, Vishay and those defendants that have been
served moved for a stay of the California actions. That motion is
returnable on June 22, 2001.

In management's opinion, the ultimate resolution of the above-mentioned
matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Motion to Dismiss Fraud Suit in Texas Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6 and July 29, 1999, Waste Management Inc. announced that it
had lowered its expected earnings per share for the three months ended
June 30, 1999. On August 3, 1999, the Company provided additional
information regarding its expected earnings for that period, including
that its reported operating income for the three months ended March 31,
1999 might have included certain unusual pretax income items.

More than 30 lawsuits based on one or more of these announcements
were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, which have been consolidated into a single
action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.

On May 8, 2000, the court entered an order appointing the Connecticut
Retirement Plan and Trust Funds as lead plaintiff and appointing the
law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Suchrow LLP as lead plaintiff's
counsel.

The lead plaintiff filed its Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on July 14, 2000. The Complaint pleads claims on behalf of a
putative class consisting of all purchasers of Company securities
(including common stock, debentures and call options), and all sellers
of put options, from June 11, 1998 through November 9, 1999.

The Complaint also pleads additional claims on behalf of two putative
subclasses:

     (i) the "Merger Subclass," consisting of all Waste Management
Holdings stockholders, who received Company common stock after it
merged with WM Holdings, and

    (ii) the "Eastern Merger Subclass," consisting of all Eastern
Environmental Services, Inc. stockholders who received Company common
stock pursuant to the merger transaction with Eastern.

Among other things, the plaintiff alleges that the Company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors:

     (i) made misrepresentations in the registration statement and  
         prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the WM
         Holdings Merger,

    (ii) made knowingly false earnings projections for the three
         months ended June 30, 1999,

   (iii) failed to adequately disclose facts relating to its earnings
         projections that the plaintiff claims would have been material
         to purchasers of the Company's common stock, and

    (iv) made separate and distinct misrepresentations about the
         Company's operations and finances on and after July 29, 1999,
         culminating in the Company's pre-tax charge of $1,763 in the
         third quarter of 1999.

The plaintiff also alleges that certain of the Company's current and
former officers and directors sold common stock between May 10, 1999
and June 9, 1999 at prices known to have been inflated by material
misstatements and omissions. The plaintiff in this action seeks damages
with interest, costs and such other relief as the court deems proper.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 3, 2000, which is
pending. The Company believes it has substantial defenses to the
putative class action and continues to assert these defenses in the
court in which the action is pending. At the same time, the Company has
considered, and will continue to consider, potential settlement options
that are appropriate and in the Company's best interest.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Delaware F.C. Rulings on Transfer And Remand Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 29, 2000, a putative class action was filed against Waste
Management Inc. in Delaware state court by a class of former Eastern
stockholders falling within the scope of the Eastern Merger Subclass
described above.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company stock they received in exchange
for their Eastern shares was overvalued for the same reasons alleged in
the consolidated class actions in Texas.

On August 4, 2000, the Company removed the case from the state court to
federal court and asked to have the case transferred to the Texas
federal court where the consolidated Texas class action is pending.

On September 1, 2000, the plaintiffs asked to remand the case to the
Delaware state court, which the Company opposed. The plaintiffs also
asked the Delaware federal court not to consider the Company's motion
to transfer the case to Texas until it rules on the motion to remand.
All motions currently are pending.

The case is at an early stage, and the extent of possible damages, if
any, cannot yet be determined.

    
WORLDCOM INC.: Settlement Pact is Final as Deadline For Appeal Expires
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Between September 5, 2000 and October 4, 2000, thirteen purported class
action and/or derivative suits were filed against Intermedia, Digex,
directors of Digex and, in some cases, WORLCOM INC., in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.  These actions were captioned:

     (i) Yassin v. Intermedia et al., C.A. No. 18290-NC;

    (ii) Hug v. Intermedia et al., C.A. No. 18289-NC;

   (iii) Taam Assocs. v. Intermedia et al., C.A. No. 18291-NC;

    (iv) Reynoldson v. Intermedia et al., C.A. No. 18311-NC;

     (v) Prince v. Intermedia et al., C.A. No. 18304-NC;

    (vi) Turberg v. Intermedia et al., C.A. No. 18322-NC;

   (vii) Reiner v. Digex et al., C.A. No. 18297-NC;

  (viii) Kalabsa v. Digex et al., C.A. No. 18317-NC;

    (ix) TCW Technology L.P. v. Intermedia, et al., C.A. No. 18336-NC;

     (x) Steinberg et al. v. Ruberg, et al., C.A. No. 18293-NC;

    (xi) Crandon Capital Partners v. Ruberg, et al., C.A. No. 18310-NC;

   (xii) Kansas Public Employees Retirement Serv. v. Intermedia, et
         al., C.A. No. 18390-NC; and

  (xiii) Sinha v. Ruberg, et al., C.A. No. 18391-NC.

Each of these complaints alleged that Intermedia and some or all of the
directors of Digex breached their fiduciary duties to the minority
stockholders of Digex in connection with the merger and several
complaints alleged that WorldCom aided and abetted that purported
breach of fiduciary duty.

In response to a motion by TCW Technology, the Chancery Court granted
expedited discovery and scheduled a hearing for November 29, 2000, to
consider TCW Technology's motion for a preliminary injunction of the
merger.

On October 17, 2000, the Chancery Court ordered all 13 purported
derivative and class action lawsuits listed above to be consolidated
into a single action and appointed TCW Technology and Kansas Public
Employment Retirement Systems as the lead plaintiffs and their lawyers
as lead counsel. The Chancery Court also directed the lead counsel to
file a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of all plaintiffs.

Pursuant to the Chancery Court's instructions, on October 19, 2000, the
lead counsel filed a "Consolidated Class Action and Derivative
Complaint" captioned In re Digex, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Consol.
C.A. No. 18336-NC. The consolidated complaint named as defendants
Intermedia, six of Digex's eight directors, and WorldCom. Digex was
named as a "nominal defendant" in the consolidated action.

The consolidated complaint alleged that the director defendants and
Intermedia breached their fiduciary duties by causing Digex to provide
confidential information to Intermedia's financial advisor, by
allegedly planning and structuring the merger to benefit Intermedia at
the expense of Digex's minority stockholders, and by allegedly usurping
a corporate opportunity of Digex.

The consolidated complaint further alleged that certain directors of
Digex breached their fiduciary duties when they voted to waive the
potential application of Section 203 as to WorldCom. The consolidated
complaint also asserted that WorldCom and, with respect to claims
against the directors, Intermedia, aided and abetted certain of these
breaches of fiduciary duty.

The consolidated complaint sought to enjoin, preliminarily and
permanently, the waiver of the applicability of Section 203
and the consummation of the merger, and also requested damages on
behalf of the class and Digex.

Following expedited discovery, the parties filed briefs with the
Chancery Court on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The
Chancery Court heard arguments at a hearing held on November 29, 2000.

Following the hearing, the Chancery Court directed the parties to file
supplemental briefs regarding whether Section 203 would apply to
WorldCom as a result of the merger.

On December 13, 2000, the Chancery Court denied plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunctive relief, concluding that the plaintiffs were
unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the defendants
usurped a Digex corporate opportunity.

The Chancery Court further noted that it had determined, at least
preliminarily, that after a full trial on the merits, the plaintiff
minority stockholders would be likely to succeed in showing that the
defendant Digex directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with their decision to vote in favor of the Section 203 waiver and that
the plaintiffs could be entitled to a range of potential remedies,
including monetary damages.

On January 10, 2001, the Chancery Court set a trial date of May 14,
2001, for a trial on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims. On January
22, 2001, plaintiffs filed a "Corrected Amended Consolidated Class
Action and Derivative Complaint" that dropped two Digex directors as
defendants (Messrs. Knapp and Shull).

The amended consolidated complaint also added a claim alleging the
defendant directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
conduct an auction for the sale of Digex as purportedly required by
Delaware law.

The amended consolidated complaint further added claims against
Intermedia for promissory estoppel and equitable estoppel based on
Intermedia's alleged representation that any transaction resulting from
Intermedia's review of strategic alternatives would include a sale of
Digex's minority shares.

Although these new claims had not been previously included in the
pleadings, the plaintiffs had raised each of these claims in their oral
and written arguments before the Chancery Court on the motion for a
preliminary injunction.

In the December 13, 2000, opinion denying the motion for a preliminary
injunction, the Chancery Court found that plaintiffs had not shown
a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the estoppel claims
or the duty to auction claim.

Between December 19, 2000, and February 14, 2001, the parties engaged
in expedited discovery in preparation for the May 14 trial. During that
time, the parties and the Digex special committee also engaged in
discussions regarding a possible settlement of the lawsuit.

On February 15, 2001, the parties, through their counsel, entered into
a memorandum of understanding setting forth the preliminary terms of a
settlement of the action. The settlement, which is conditioned on
consummation of the merger, will resolve all claims asserted or which
could have been raised in the Delaware Digex stockholders litigation.

The principal terms of the settlement include, among other things,
that:

     (i) the exchange ratio in the amended merger agreement has been
         reduced to a fixed exchange ratio of 1.0 shares of WorldCom
         common stock for each share of Intermedia common stock;

    (ii) concurrent with the reduction in the exchange ratio, WorldCom    
         agreed to contribute $165 million in freely tradeable WorldCom
         common stock to a settlement fund upon the closing of the
         merger;

   (iii) the settlement fund, less any award of fees and expenses to
         plaintiffs' counsel, will be distributed to certain members of
         the class of plaintiffs in the Delaware Digex stockholders
         litigation;

    (iv) WorldCom will reimburse Digex for up to $15 million in fees
         and expenses incurred by Digex in connection with the lawsuit,
         the evaluation of various potential transactions involving
         Digex, and the costs of notice and administration in
         connection with the settlement;

     (v) WorldCom will enter into certain commercial arrangements with
         Digex;

    (vi) Intermedia and WorldCom will take steps to amend the Digex
         certificate of incorporation to establish certain corporate
         governance procedures to be followed by the Digex board in
         future transactions with WorldCom and Intermedia; and

   (vii) the approval of the merger by the Digex board pursuant to
         Section 203 will no longer be subject to challenge and
         WorldCom will not be subject to any restrictions under Section
         203 relating to future business combinations with Digex.

On March 5, 2001, the parties presented the settlement to the Chancery
Court and on that date, the Chancery Court ordered, among other things,
that the terms of the settlement be presented to record holders of
shares of Digex common stock (other than the defendants in the Delaware
Digex stockholders litigation and their affiliates) at any time during
the period from and including August 31, 2000, through and including
March 2, 2001, through published and mailed notice.

At a hearing on April 6, 2001, the Court approved the settlement as
presented. The Court entered the order and final judgment. At the
April 6, 2001 hearing, the Court also entered a separate award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

Under the amended merger agreement, it is a condition to the parties'
obligations to complete the merger that, among other things, the order
and final judgment become final and unappealable.

Under Delaware law, the deadline for filing an appeal of the Chancery
Court's order and final judgment approving the settlement expired on
May 7, 2001, and no such appeals of that order were filed before that
deadline. As a result, the order and final judgment is now final and
unappealable. Similarly, no timely appeals were filed with respect to
the Chancery Court's separate fee award.

  
                              *********

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  * * *