CAR_Public/010529.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, May 29 2001, Vol. 3, No. 104

                              Headlines

ADAM.COM: Five Year-Old Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Mounts Defense Against Suits in Fed And State Court
AREMISSOFT CORPORATION: Berger & Montague Files Securities Suit In NJ
ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In Pennsylvania
BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS: Denies Allegations in Texas Securities Lawsuit

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Motion to Dismiss Mass. Securities Suit Undecided
CALLAWAY GOLF: Sued For Violating Kansas/Tennessee Antitrust Laws
CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Plaintiff Voluntarily Drops Lawsuit in Delaware
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Still Denies Allegations in Florida Securities Suit
ESCALON MEDICAL: Opts to Settle Securities Suit in NY For $500,000

FINOVA GROUP: Lead Plaintiff to File Second Amended Complaint
GLIATECH INC.: Asks Court To Consolidate 10 Sec's Suits In ND Ohio
IMPERIAL CREDIT: Hearing On Motions For Summary Judgment Not Yet Set
IMPERIAL CREDIT: Court Orders Plaintiffs Further Notify Class Members
INTERMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Is Final As Appeal Deadline Ends

KANEB PIPE: Court Orders Consolidation Of All Pipeline Rupture Suits
MARINER POST: Requests Rehearing Of Lawsuit Filed In Colorado
MBNA CORPORATION: Expects Court to Accept $8 Million Settlement Offer
MBNA CORPORATION: Summary Judgment In New York Lawsuit Still Pending
MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Files Opposition To Class Certification In Mass.

NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Court Approves $4 Million Settlement Deal
NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Separate Securities Suit Undergoing Discovery
NCI BUILDING: Lockridge Grindal Commences Securities Suit in S.D.Texas
NETWORK COMMERCE: Settles Suit Filed by Mall.com For $49 Million
ORTHOLOGIC CORPORATION: $3.9 M Cash & Stock Settlement Awaits Court Nod

OWENS CORNING: Jefferson County Asbestos-Tobacco Link Suit Dismissed
PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Case Closed as Deadline For Appeal Expires
PHYCOR INC.: Consolidated Securities Suit Goes to Trial on November 6
PLC SYSTEMS: Settles Securities Suit in Mass. For Unspecified Amount
PRIMEBUY NETWORK: Keller Rohrback Commences Securities Suit in Idaho

PROVELL INC.: Suit Alleging Consumer Law Violations in Discovery Stage
PROVELL INC.: Ex-workers' Suit Won't Affect Finance, Operations
PTEK HOLDINGS: Answers Amended Complaint Lodged in N.D. Georgia
RALLY'S HAMBURGERS: Motions For Summary Judgment Remains Undecided
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Too Early to Assess Impact of Suit Filed by Crew

SKYMALL INC.: Continues Defense Against Securities Suit in Arizona
THQ INC.: CA Court Modifies Dismissal, Allows Third Amended Complaint
TRANS-WORLD AIRLINES: Settles Sexual Harassment Suit For $2.6 Million
VERSANT CORP.: Files Another Dismissal Motion For Yet Another Plaint
WABASH NATIONAL: Settles Shareholders Suit in Indiana For $500,000


                              *********


ADAM.COM: Five Year-Old Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On April 25, 1996, a class action lawsuit in Fulton County Superior
Court in Atlanta, Georgia was filed against Adam.com, Inc. and certain
of its then officers and directors. The complaint alleges violations of
sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, violations of
the Georgia Securities Act and negligent misrepresentation arising out
of alleged disclosure deficiencies in connection with the Company's
initial public offering, which was completed on November 10, 1995. The
complaint seeks compensatory damages and reimbursements for plaintiff's
fees and expenses. A motion to dismiss is pending and the Company and
its officers and directors are vigorously defending against the
allegations.


APRIA HEALTHCARE: Mounts Defense Against Suits in Fed And State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apria Healthcare Group Inc. and certain of its present and former
officers and/or directors are defendants in a class action lawsuit, In
Re Apria Healthcare Group Securities Litigation, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Southern   
Division (Case No. SACV98-217 GLT).

This case is a consolidation of three similar class actions filed in
March and April 1998. Pursuant to a court order dated May 27, 1998,
the plaintiffs in the original three class actions filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint on August 6, 1998.  

The amended complaint purports to establish a class of plaintiff
shareholders who purchased Apria's common stock between May 22, 1995
and January 20, 1998.  No class has been certified at this time.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
made false and/or misleading public statements regarding Apria and its
financial condition in violation of federal securities laws. The
amended complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages as well as
other relief.

Two similar class actions were filed during July 1998 in Superior Court
of California for the County of Orange:  

     (i) Schall v. Apria Healthcare Group Inc., et al. (Case No.
         797060), and

    (ii) Thompson v. Apria Healthcare Group Inc., et al. (Case No.  
         797580).  

These two actions were consolidated by a court order dated October 22,
1998 (Master Case No. 797060). On June 14, 1999, the plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint asserting claims founded
on state law and on Sections 11 and 12(2) of the 1933 Securities Act.

Apria believes that it has meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs'
claims and it intends to vigorously defend itself in both the federal
and state cases.


AREMISSOFT CORPORATION: Berger & Montague Files Securities Suit In NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. filed an action on behalf of an
investor against AremisSoft Corporation (Nasdaq: AREM), Lycourgos K.
Kyprianou, Roys Poyiadjis, and Michael Tymvios, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, in Camden and is captioned Keystone Trading
Partners v. AremisSoft Corporation, et al.

Plaintiff asserts its claims as class action on behalf of a class,
consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased
AremisSoft securities from December 17, 1999 through May 14, 2001,
inclusive. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused to the Class
resulting from defendants' violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

During the Class Period, plaintiff alleges, defendants materially
misrepresented the Company's business and operations, particularly with
respect to a 1999 contract entered into with Bulgarian authorities.

Specifically, plaintiff further alleges, the Bulgarian contract was
worth approximately $4 million, not the $37 million defendants caused
the Company to claim. As a result of these false and misleading
statements, the price of AremisSoft common stock price was inflated
during the Class Period, directly affecting the price of AremisSoft
options as well.

Plaintiff also alleges that Individual Defendants Poyiadjis and
Kyprianou sold 4.8 million shares of AremisSoft stock at artificially
inflated prices and exercised nearly all of 5.8 million options for
AremisSoft shares which they subsequently sold, also at artificially
inflated prices.

When, on May 14, 2001, a report by a short-seller alerted investors to
the fact that AremisSoft's representations about the Bulgarian
Healthcare contract were false and misleading and that other accounting
irregularities and misrepresentations during the Class Period had
distorted the truth about AremisSoft's business and operations, the
market reacted dramatically.

Directly as a result of these revelations, the price of AremisSoft
common stock plummeted from a closing price of $18.47 on May 14, 2001
to $14.55 on May 15, 2001. Daily volume on May 15, 2001 was enormous,
as 12.64 million shares traded hands -- 12 times its 200-day moving
average of 1.038 million shares traded per day.

For further information, contact: Todd S. Collins, Esq., Joy Clairmont,
Esq., Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations Manager: Berger &
Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000  Fax: 215-875-5715
Website: http://www.investorprotect.com E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net


ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of ATI
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATYT) between January 13, 2000 and May 24,
2000, inclusive.

The action, numbered 01-CV-2541, is pending in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania against defendants
ATI, Kwok Yuen Ho, James Chwartacky and James Fleck. The Honorable
Stewart Dalzell is the Judge presiding over the case.

The Complaint alleges defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between January 13, 2000 and May 24, 2000, thereby artificially
inflating the price of ATI securities.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
repeatedly issued press releases highlighting the Company's strong
revenue growth and industry-high gross margins. These statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose that:

     (i) the Company was experiencing declining demand for its graphics
         chipset products and was decreasing its prices in order to
         stimulate demand;

    (ii) two of the Company's primary competitors, S3 Inc. and
         Neomagic, were flooding the market with cheaper and better
         products, which was rendering ATI's product offerings
         increasingly unattractive;

   (iii) the Company was failing to writedown a material portion of its
         inventory, which was impaired given the current conditions in
         the graphics chipset market. Accordingly, the Company's
         reported operating results were materially overstated; and

    (iv) that defendants' opinions, estimates and projections
         concerning the Company, its business and earnings were
         knowingly lacking in a reasonable basis at all times.

Finally, on May 24, 2000, defendants issued a press release that
shocked investors by announcing that ATI would be reporting lower than
expected revenues. Defendants also disclosed that ATI's gross margins
had declined to 21% and that the Company would be writing down $56
million worth of inventory. In response to this announcement, the price
of ATI common stock declined precipitously - falling from $16.75 per
share, on May 23, 2000, to $8.4375 per share on May 25, 2000.

For more information, contact: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman,
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165. Phone
number: (800) 320-5081 Email: ATIcase@milbergNY.com
Website: http://www.milberg.com


BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS: Denies Allegations in Texas Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 18, 1999, Benchmark Electronics Inc. revealed its third
quarter 1999 earnings announcement would be delayed and subsequently,
on October 22, the Company announced its earnings for the third quarter
1999 were below the level of the same periods during 1998 and were
below expectations.

Several class action lawsuits were filed in federal district court in
Houston, Texas against Benchmark and two of its officers and directors
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. These lawsuits were
consolidated in February 2000.

The Company denies the allegations in the lawsuits, however, and
further denies that such allegations provide a basis for recovery of
damages, as the Company believes that it has made all required
disclosures on a timely basis.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Motion to Dismiss Mass. Securities Suit Undecided
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Boston Scientific Corporation disclosed that beginning
November 4, 1998, a number of shareholders of the Company, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed purported
stockholders' class action suits in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, alleging that the Company and certain of its
officers violated certain sections of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The complaints principally alleged that as a result of certain
accounting irregularities involving the improper recognition of revenue
by the Company's subsidiary in Japan, the Company's previously issued
financial statements were materially false and misleading.

In August 1999, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel filed a purported
consolidated class action complaint adding allegations that the Company
issued false and misleading statements with respect to the launch of
its NIR ON(R) Ranger(TM) with Sox(TM) coronary stent delivery system
and the system's subsequent recall.

The Company and its officers have filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. The Plaintiffs have opposed the Company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.


CALLAWAY GOLF: Sued For Violating Kansas/Tennessee Antitrust Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On April 6, 2001, a complaint was filed against Callaway Golf Company
and Callaway Golf Sales Company in The Circuit Court
of Sevier County, Tennessee, case no. 2001-241-IV. The complaint seeks
to assert a class action by plaintiff on behalf of himself and on
behalf of consumers in Tennessee and Kansas who purchased selected
Callaway Golf products on or after March 30, 2000. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that the Company adopted a New Product Introduction
Policy governing the introduction of certain of the Company's new
products and agreed with retailers to sell those products at particular
prices in violation of Tennessee and Kansas antitrust and consumer
protection laws. The plaintiff is seeking damages, restitution and
punitive damages. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously.


CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Plaintiff Voluntarily Drops Lawsuit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 29, 1998, a putative class action was filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court in and for New Castle County, Delaware by First
Albany Corp., as custodian for the benefit of Nathan Suckman, an
alleged stockholder of 500 shares of Checkers Drive-In Restaurants,
Inc.'s common stock.

The complaint named the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors as defendants, including William P. Foley, II,
James J. Gillespie, Harvey Fattig, Joseph N. Stein, Richard A.
Peabody, James T. Holder, Terry N. Christensen, Frederick E. Fisher,
Clarence V. McKee, Burt Sugarman, C. Thomas Thompson and Peter C.
O'Hara.

The complaint arose out of the proposed merger announced on September
28, 1998 between Checkers, Rally's Hamburgers, Inc. and Giant Group
Ltd. and alleged generally, that certain of the defendants engaged in
an unlawful scheme and plan to permit Rally's to acquire the public
shares of Checkers stock in a "going-private" transaction for grossly
inadequate consideration and in breach of the defendants' fiduciary
duties.

The plaintiff allegedly initiated the complaint on behalf of all
stockholders of Checkers as of September 28, 1998, and sought, among
other relief, certain declaratory and injunctive relief against the
consummation of the proposed merger, or in the event the proposed
merger was consummated, rescission of the proposed merger and costs and
disbursements incurred in connection with bringing the action.

The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claim on February 23, 2001.

        
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Still Denies Allegations in Florida Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2000, Citrix Systems Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in several securities class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the Company's Common
Stock during the period October 20, 1999 to June 9, 2000. These actions
have been consolidated as In Re Citrix Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation. These lawsuits generally allege that, during the class
period, the defendants made misstatements to the investing public about
the Company's financial condition and prospects. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and other relief. While the Company is unable to
determine the ultimate outcome of these matters, the Company believes
the plaintiffs' claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend the
lawsuits.


ESCALON MEDICAL: Opts to Settle Securities Suit in NY For $500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------
On or about June 8, 1995, a purported class action complaint captioned
George Kozloski v. Intelligent Surgical Lasers, Inc., et al., 95 Civ.
4299, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York as a "related action" to In Re Blech Securities Litigation (a
lawsuit to which the Company is no longer a party).

The plaintiff purports to represent a class of all purchasers of
Escalon Medical Corporation stock from November 17, 1983, to and
including September 21, 1994. The complaint alleges that the Company,
together with certain of its officers and directors, David Blech and D.
Blech & Co., Inc., issued a false and misleading prospectus in November
1993 in violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.

The complaint also asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and common law. Actual and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount are sought, as well as a constructive trust over the
proceeds from the sale of stock pursuant to the offering.

On June 6, 1996, the court denied a motion by the Company and the named
officers and directors to dismiss the Kozloski complaint and, on July
22, 1996, the Company defendants filed an answer to the complaint
denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserting various affirmative
defenses.

In an effort to curtail its legal expenses related to this litigation,
while continuing to deny any wrongdoing, the Company has reached an
agreement, subject to final court approval, to settle this action on
its behalf and on behalf of its former officers and directors, for
$500,000. The Company's directors and officers insurance carrier has
agreed to fund a significant portion of the settlement amount.


FINOVA GROUP: Lead Plaintiff to File Second Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Between March 29, 2000 and May 23, 2000, five shareowner lawsuits were
filed against FINOVA GROUP INC. and Samuel Eichenfield, FINOVA's former
chairman, president, and chief executive officer; two of the lawsuits
also named FINOVA Capital as a defendant, and one named three other
executive officers.

All of the lawsuits purport to be on behalf of the named plaintiffs
(William K. Steiner, Uri Borenstein, Jerry Krim, Mark Kassis, and the
Louisiana School Employees Retirement System), and others who purchased
FINOVA common stock during the class period of July 15, 1999, through
either March 26, 2000, or May 7, 2000.

The suit brought by the Louisiana School Employees Retirement System
also purports to be on behalf of all those who purchased FINOVA
Capital's 7.25% Notes which are due November 8, 2004, pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus supplement dated November 1,
1999.

In an order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
dated August 30, 2000, these five lawsuits were consolidated and
captioned In re: FINOVA Group Inc. Securities Litigation. The court
also selected the Louisiana School Employees Retirement System as the
lead plaintiff in the consolidated cases.

LSERS filed its Amended Consolidated Complaint on September 29, 2000,
naming FINOVA, FINOVA Capital, Samuel Eichenfield, Matthew Breyne, and
Bruno Marszowski as defendants.

The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that the
defendants made materially misleading statements regarding
FINOVA's loss reserves, and otherwise violated the federal securities
laws in an effort to bolster FINOVA's stock price, among other reasons.

Since consolidation of the original five shareowner lawsuits, other
related lawsuits have been initiated against the Company and current
and former officers and directors.

Three shareowner lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, in which the named
plaintiffs (John Cartwright, Sirrom Partners and Sirrom G-1, and
Caldwell Travel) assert claims relating to the Company's acquisition in
1999 of Sirrom Capital Corporation, and the exchange of shares of
Sirrom stock for shares of FINOVA stock.

The Cartwright complaint purports to be a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all Sirrom shareowners that exchanged their Sirrom stock for
FINOVA stock as a result of the acquisition. The defendants named are
Sirrom Capital Corporation, Samuel Eichenfield, John W. Teets,
Constance Curran, G. Robert Durham, James L. Johnson, Kenneth Smith,
Shoshana Tancer, Bruno Marszowski, and FINOVA Group.

The complaints allege that the defendants made materially misleading
statements regarding FINOVA's loss reserves, and otherwise violated
the federal securities laws in an effort to reduce the total
consideration provided to Sirrom shareowners at the time of the
acquisition.

On January 4, 2001, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee granted a motion brought by FINOVA and the other
defendants to transfer the Cartwright and Sirrom Partners cases to the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The plaintiff
in Caldwell Travel agreed to dismiss that case without prejudice.

Pursuant to a Stipulation and Order entered in March 2001, the
Cartwright case has been consolidated for all purposes with the
previous five cases in the FINOVA Group Securities Litigation, and the
Sirrom Partners case has been consolidated for all pre-trial purposes.
The lead plaintiffs are scheduled to file a Second Amended Consolidated
Complaint in May 2001, though the deadline may be extended.


GLIATECH INC.: Asks Court To Consolidate 10 Sec's Suits In ND Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gliatech Inc. disclosed in a recent regulatory filing that to date it
is facing ten class action lawsuits filed against certain of its
officers and certain former officers in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging violation of
the federal securities laws.

These complaints allege that the Company, certain officers and certain
former officers failed to disclose material facts in connection with
the termination of the merger agreement that had been entered into with
Guilford and from certain inspectional observations by the FDA
contained in a Form 483.

For each of these class actions, the date each complaint
was filed and the name of the plaintiff is as follows:

        Date                      Plaintiff
        ----                      ---------

        September 5, 2000         Avrom Gart
        September 7, 2000         Jason Raker
        September 12, 2000        Jon Burgermeister
        September 13, 2000        Carl L. Evans
        September 27, 2000        WPG Merger Arbitrage Fund, L.P. and    
                                  WPG Merger Arbitrage Overseas Fund,
                                  Ltd.
        October 4, 2000           Eric Ford
        October 5, 2000           Steven R. Graupner
        October 19, 2000          James Berman
        October 20, 2000          Atul Verma
        November 1, 2000          Daniel Triefler


The Company, certain officers and certain former officers filed a
motion to consolidate these actions and certain plaintiffs have moved
for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. These motions
are currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.

The Company has been granted leave to respond to the complaints until
after appointment of lead plaintiff and the filing of a consolidated
amended complaint. As of November 2000, each of these actions was
pending before a single judge.


IMPERIAL CREDIT: Hearing On Motions For Summary Judgment Not Yet Set
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In a latest regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Imperial Credit Industries Inc. revealed it is a defendant
in Steadfast Insurance Company v. Auto Marketing Network Inc. and
Imperial Credit Industries, Inc. filed on August 12, 1997 in the
Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 97-C-5696.

The plaintiff is seeking damages in the amount of $27 million allegedly
resulting from the fraudulent inducement to enter into, and the
subsequent breach of, a motor vehicle collateral enhancement insurance
policy.

In May 1998, the Company filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff for
$54 million in damages based on the allegation that the underlying
claim was filed in bad faith.

In January 1999, the Court entered a preliminary injunction that
enjoined the Company from transferring assets of Auto Marketing
Network, Inc., in amounts that would cause the total assets of Auto
Marketing Network to be less than $20 million in value. The
injunction has since been removed.

The Company moved to dismiss ICII from the lawsuit and, on April 17,
2000, the Court granted ICII's motion in part and found that ICII is
not liable for any of Steadfast's losses arising from payments for
defaulted loans.

The Court has pending a motion for partial summary judgment, filed by
the plaintiff, and a motion for summary judgment filed by ICII on its
counterclaim against Steadfast. Steadfast also has counter-moved for
summary judgment on ICII's counterclaim, and the parties have filed
motions seeking the exclusion of each other's expert witnesses.

The Court cancelled a March 12, 2001 hearing on all pending motions and
has not rescheduled or indicated when a written order could be
expected.

    
IMPERIAL CREDIT: Court Orders Plaintiffs Further Notify Class Members
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Credit Commercial Mortgage Investment Corporation, a
subsidiary of Imperial Credit Industries Inc., and three of its
directors, one of whom is a director and one a former director of ICII,
are defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed on March 17,
2000, by John Huston in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Case No. CV00-02751 ABC.

The complaint alleges that ICCMIC's prospectus issued in connection
with its initial public offering in October 1997 contained material
omissions and misrepresentations concerning (1) the expenses to be
incurred by ICCMIC, (2) ICCMIC's ability to reduce the base management
fee paid to ICCMIC's management company, (3) the management agreement
termination fee payable to ICCMIC's management company in the event
that ICCMIC terminated the management agreement, and (4) certain
conflicts of interest.

The complaint alleges a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and seeks the certification of a class of shareholders of
ICCMIC who purchased shares of ICCMIC at any time between October 22,
1997 and October 21, 1999.

On April 4, 2000, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On June 9, 2000,
the Court issued an order denying defendants' motion to dismiss. On
June 23, 2000, defendants answered the complaint and asserted a number
of affirmative defenses.

On July 31, 2000, plaintiff moved for class certification. On October
17, 2000, the Court stayed all proceedings and certified for
interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals its order
denying defendants' motion to dismiss.

On January 12, 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal denied
defendants' petition for permission to appeal. On March 26, 2001, the
District Court struck plaintiff's motion for class certification and
ordered plaintiff to take further action to give proper notice to
potential class members.


INTERMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Is Final As Appeal Deadline Ends
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 5, 2000, and thereafter, Intermedia Communications Inc.,
Digex, the directors of Digex, and in some cases, WorldCom, were named
as defendants in a total of thirteen lawsuits in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County.

Of those thirteen lawsuits, eight were brought as class actions on
behalf of Digex public shareholders, three were brought as derivative
actions, purportedly on behalf of Digex, and two advanced both class
action and derivative claims. On October 17, 2000, the Court ordered
that all thirteen lawsuits to be consolidated into a single combined
derivative and class action.

In general, the complaints advanced substantially similar allegations
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the class
members by acting to further their own interests at the expense of
Digex public stockholders, by engaging in self-dealing and by failing
to act in good faith towards the Digex public stockholders.

The complaints claimed that such alleged wrongdoing caused irreparable
harm to such stockholders. In addition, four of the complaints alleged
that the Digex board members who are also directors or executive
officers of Intermedia conferred a substantial benefit on Intermedia
at the expense of the Digex public stockholders by voting to waive
application of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law to
future transactions between WorldCom and Digex. These complaints also
alleged that WorldCom aided and abetted the wrongdoing of Intermedia's
and the Intermedia-affiliated directors of Digex.

On February 15, 2001, a memorandum of understanding was executed on
behalf of all interested parties in the consolidated actions, setting
forth an agreement in principle providing for the settlement of all
actions in their entirety.

WorldCom will make a settlement payment of WorldCom common stock
having a total value of $165.0 million for distribution to Digex common
stockholders. One half of the settlement fund net of plaintiffs'
attorneys fees will be distributed to record holders of Digex common
stock on September 1, 2000.

The balance of the settlement fund net of attorneys' fees will be paid
to record holders of Digex stock at the time of the consummation of the
merger. Neither Intermedia nor its affiliates will be entitled to any
distribution from the settlement fund.

The merger agreement between Intermedia and WorldCom will be amended to
change the consideration to be paid to Intermedia shareholders in
connection with the merger. All fees and expenses of all plaintiffs and
all counsel representing all plaintiffs in the action will also be paid
out of that settlement fund.

In connection with the proposed settlement, WorldCom will reimburse
Digex for certain fees and expenses incurred by Digex associated with
the merger and the consolidated lawsuit in an amount not to exceed
$15.0 million. WorldCom has also agreed to enter into certain
commercial agreements with Digex.

A further provision of the settlement will make Section 203 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law inapplicable to future transactions
between WorldCom and Digex.

On March 2, 2001, Digex, WorldCom, and Intermedia entered into a
definitive Stipulation of Settlement with all relevant parties to
settle all claims related to the consolidated class action and
derivative action in accordance with the terms agreed to in the
February 15, 2001 memorandum of understanding.

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 as final in
accordance with Court of Chancery Rule 54(b).

At the April 6, 2001 hearing, the Court also entered a separate award
of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, relating to the
Delaware Digex stockholders litigation.

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 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.


KANEB PIPE: Court Orders Consolidation Of All Pipeline Rupture Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 7, 2000, a fuel oil pipeline in Maryland owned by Potomac
Electric Power Company ruptured. The pipeline was operated by a
partnership of which ST Services, a wholly owned subsidiary of Kaneb
Pipe Line Partners, L.P., is general partner.

As a result of the rupture, purported class actions have been filed in
federal and state court in Maryland by property and/or business owners
alleging damages in unspecified amounts against PEPCO and ST Services
under various theories, including the federal Oil Pollution Act.

The court has ordered a consolidated complaint to be filed in this
action. ST Services' insurance carriers have assumed the defense of
these actions.


MARINER POST: Requests Rehearing Of Lawsuit Filed In Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------
On August 26, 1996, a class action complaint was asserted against
GranCare, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Mariner Post Acute Network
Inc., in the Denver, Colorado District Court, Salas, et al v. GranCare,
Inc. and AMS Properties, Inc. d/b/a Cedars Healthcare Center, Inc.,
case no. 96-CV-4449.

On March 15, 1998, the Court entered an Order in which it certified a
class action in the matter. On June 10, 1998, the Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss all claims and Motion for Summary Judgment Precluding
Recovery of Medicaid Funds and these motions were partially granted by
the Court on October 30, 1998.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Court on
November 19, 1998, the Court's decision was certified as a final
judgment on December 10, 1998, and plaintiffs then filed a writ with
the Colorado Supreme Court, which was denied, and an appeal with the
Colorado Court of Appeal.

In accordance with the Company's voluntary filing under chapter 11 of
the Bankruptcy Code and more particularly, ss. 362 of that Code, this
matter was stayed on January 18, 2000. However, the Company did agree
to limited relief from the stay in order to allow for certain parts of
the appeal to continue.

On January 4, 2001, the Court of Appeal reversed the District Court's
decision. On February 1, 2001, the Company filed a request for
rehearing. The Company intends to vigorously contest all remaining
allegations.


MBNA CORPORATION: Expects Court to Accept $8 Million Settlement Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 1996, Andrew B. Spark filed a lawsuit against MBNA Corporation,
MBNA America Bank, N.A. and certain of its officers and its subsidiary
MBNA Marketing Systems, Inc.  The case is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware. This suit is a purported
class action.

The plaintiff alleges that the Bank's advertising of its cash
promotional annual percentage rate program was fraudulent and
deceptive. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages including actual,
treble and punitive damages and attorneys' fees for an alleged breach
of contract, violation of the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act
and violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

In February 1998, a class was certified by the District Court. In
September 2000, the Court gave preliminary approval to a settlement
of this suit for approximately $8.7 million.

A hearing on final approval will be held in May 2001.


MBNA CORPORATION: Summary Judgment In New York Lawsuit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In October 1998, Gerald D. Broder filed a lawsuit against the MBNA
Corporation and MBNA America Bank, N.A. in the Supreme Court of New
York, County of New York. This suit is a purported class action. The
plaintiff alleges that the Bank's advertising of its cash promotional
annual percentage rate program was fraudulent and deceptive.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages including actual, treble and
punitive damages and attorneys' fees for an alleged breach of contract,
common law fraud and violation of New York consumer protection
statutes.

In April 2000, summary judgment was granted to the Corporation and the
Bank on the common law fraud claim and the Court certified a class. In
May 2000, the Corporation and the Bank filed an appeal from the order
certifying a class.

In March 2001, the appellate court affirmed the order. In October 2000,
plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. That motion is
pending.

The Corporation and the Bank believe that their advertising practices
were and are proper under applicable federal and state law and intend
to defend this action vigorously.


MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Files Opposition To Class Certification In Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 24, 1999, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
Middlesex Superior Court for The Commonwealth of Massachusetts against
Microfinancial Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Leasecomm
Corporation (as amended The Clark Complaint).

The purported class was limited to individuals and businesses that have
been sued by Leasecomm in a Massachusetts court for allegedly breaching
Leasecomm's Non Cancellable Equipment Lease Agreement or Non
Cancellable Lease Agreement and that, among other things, have been
sued in a Massachusetts court for breach of the Lease Agreements.

The Clark Complaint alleges that enforcement of the forum selection
clause is not fair or reasonable because, among other things,
litigation in Massachusetts is prohibitively costly and time consuming
for purported class members, purported class members have no choice but
to enter into the Lease Agreement's because of Leasecomm's greater
bargaining power, and purported class members allegedly have valid
defenses to the claims asserted against them by Leasecomm.

On August 16, 2000, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss,
resulting in the dismissal of all claims against the Company. The Court
also granted Leasecomm's motion to dismiss as to all of the plaintiffs'
individual claims, and as to all but one of the plaintiffs' purported
class claims. As a result, the only claim that remains is a purported
class claim against Leasecomm by plaintiffs against whom Leasecomm has
a pending Massachusetts action, for alleged violations of Chapter 93A
of the Massachusetts General Laws arising out of the inclusion of a
forum selection clause in Leasecomm leases.

The plaintiffs filed a revised motion for class certification in light
of the Court's prior rulings. The Company has filed an opposition to
the revised motion for class certification, and argument was scheduled
for May 16, 2001.


NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Court Approves $4 Million Settlement Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Five separate complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, each alleging that Nanophase
Technologies Corporation, certain of its officers and directors, and
the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of Common
Stock were liable under the federal Securities Act of 1933 for making
supposedly negligent or reckless material misstatements or omissions of
fact in the Registration Statement and Prospectus relating to the
Offering.  

A consolidated complaint was filed in those cases in October 1998.  The
consolidated complaint alleged that the action should be maintained as
(i) a plaintiff class action on behalf of certain persons who purchased
the Common Stock from November 26, 1997 through January 8, 1998, and
(ii) a defendant class action against the underwriters who participated
in the Offering.  

In October 1999, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  In its
ruling, the Court in part found that plaintiffs who did not purchase
their Common Stock during the Offering could not sue under Section
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.  Each defendant's respective
answer to the remaining claims in the consolidated complaint was filed
in November 1999.

Following certain discovery, the Company agreed to settle all claims
against all defendants in the consolidated complaint for $4,025,000.
The settlement is not an admission of liability by any party. The Court
ordered final approval of the settlement and dismissed the consolidated
complaint with prejudice as to all defendants on March 27, 2001.


NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Separate Securities Suit Undergoing Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The above-described settlement did not resolve a separate complaint
filed in the Northern District of Illinois in November 1998, alleging
that Nanophase Technologies Corporation, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters of the Company's Offering are liable
under the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for making
supposedly fraudulent material misstatements and omissions of fact in
connection with the solicitation of consents to proceed with the
Offering from certain of the Company's preferred stockholders.

The complaint alleges that the action should be maintained as a
plaintiff class action on behalf of certain former preferred
stockholders whose shares of preferred stock were converted
into Common Stock on or about the date of the Offering.

In March 1999, the preferred stockholders' complaint was
reassigned to the judge hearing the consolidated complaint described
above. All defendants subsequently filed a joint motion to dismiss the
preferred stockholders' complaint.

In August 2000, the Court denied the motion, finding that the preferred
stockholders' allegations were pleaded sufficiently to permit
their claims to proceed. Each defendant's respective answer to the
preferred stockholders' complaint was filed in September 2000.
Discovery currently is pending.

    
NCI BUILDING: Lockridge Grindal Commences Securities Suit in S.D.Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NCI Building Systems, Inc. (NYSE:NCS) and certain of its senior
officers have been charged with violations of the United States
securities laws in a class action lawsuit brought in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The lawsuit was
brought on behalf of all persons who purchased NCI common stock on the
open market during the period February 23, 2000 through April 12, 2001
inclusive.

The plaintiff alleges in the action that for a period of five
consecutive quarters, commencing with the first quarter of fiscal 2000,
ending January 31, 2000, through the first quarter of fiscal 2001,
ending January 31, 2001, defendants NCI and its five most senior
officers, issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
that misrepresented NCI's reported operating results.

It was not until April 12, 2001 that defendants acknowledged that those
reported operating results had been materially inflated by improper
accounting entries that resulted in the material understatement of
liabilities and the material overstatement of operating income.

For fiscal 2000, ending October 31, 2000, defendants acknowledged that
net income had been overstated by $8.1 million, or $0.44 per share - an
overstatement of more than 18% of the restated financial results. For
the first quarter of fiscal 2001, net income was overstated by $1.4
million or $0.07 per share - an overstatement of more than 53% of the
restated financial results. Defendants also indicated that NCI may be
required to restate its financial results for the third and fourth
quarters of fiscal 1999.

NCI attributed the reporting of its erroneous operating results to a
computer system installed in May 1999, which routinely processed some
accounting entries incorrectly, and asserted that these errors were
"masked by certain improper accounting entries."

In a separate announcement, one of the defendants admitted that three
senior financial employees left the Company because of the disclosure
of the accounting irregularities.

After the true facts were disclosed, NCI common stock, which had closed
at $18.30 per share on April 12, 2001, plummeted in value by almost
35%. Prior to this disclosure, the individual defendants sold thousands
of shares of NCI stock and received millions of dollars in proceeds.

For additional details, contact: Karen M. Hanson, Esq. Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 339-6900 kmhanson@locklaw.com


NETWORK COMMERCE: Settles Suit Filed by Mall.com For $49 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Network Commerce Inc. (Nasdaq:NWKC), the technology infrastructure and
services company, announced last week the settlement of the $49 million
lawsuit filed by Mall.com, Inc. against the company on Oct. 6, 2000.

The suit was based on a contract between Mall.com, and IveBeenGood.com,
Inc., which Network Commerce acquired on Aug. 24, 2000. On May 7, 2001,
Network Commerce, Mall.com and Mall Acquisition Corp. entered into a
Compromise and Settlement Agreement and Mutual General Release.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Network Commerce Inc. paid Mall
Acquisition Corp. the sum of $67,500, and Mall.com and Mall Acquisition
Corp. assigned to Network Commerce any claims they may have against
Trilogy, Inc., a former shareholder of IveBeenGood.com.

Network Commerce Inc. also announced that it denies the allegations
made in a putative class action lawsuit filed on May 10, 2001 titled
Jan Sherman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. Dwayne M. Walker and Network Commerce Inc. The lawsuit alleges
claims under federal securities laws. Network Commerce intends to
vigorously defend and seek dismissal of the lawsuit.


ORTHOLOGIC CORPORATION: $3.9 M Cash & Stock Settlement Awaits Court Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On or about June 20, 1996, a lawsuit entitled Norman Cooper, et. al. v.
OrthoLogic, Corp., et. al, and Case No. CV 96-10799 was filed in the
Superior Court, Maricopa County, and Arizona.  

The plaintiffs allege violations of Arizona Revised Statutes Sections
44-1991 (state securities fraud) and 44-1522 (consumer fraud) and
common law fraud based upon factual allegations.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in the Arizona
State Court in May 1999.  The Court denied the motion in July 1999,  
and granted the plaintiffs' motion for the class certification on
November 24, 1999.

In October 2000, the Company announced that it had entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding regarding settlement of the remaining class
action claims and the Norman Cooper lawsuits. The settlement consists
of $1 million in cash and one million shares of newly issued OrthoLogic
Common Stock valued at $2,969,000.

The settlement is subject to approval by the lead plaintiffs and
defendants; the preparation, execution and filing of the formal
Stipulation of Settlement; notice to the settlement members; and final
approval of the settlement by the courts at a hearing.


OWENS CORNING: Jefferson County Asbestos-Tobacco Link Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuing a series of recent legal victories for the tobacco industry,
a Jefferson County, Miss., circuit court judge dismissed all claims by
Owens Corning (NYSE: OWC) seeking reimbursement of funds the asbestos
manufacturer has paid to former asbestos workers.

In dismissing Owens Corning's claims, Judge Lamar Pickard affirmed the
recommendation of Special Master Robert W. Sneed. In his report, Sneed
recommended that the court find, "that under Mississippi law, and the
prevailing law in virtually all jurisdictions, Owens Corning is
prohibited by the remoteness doctrine from recovering from the Tobacco
Defendants for an 'indirect injury' sustained by Owens Corning."

Owens Corning, an asbestos manufacturer, had asserted various claims
based largely on the theory that they had "overpaid" injury claims
brought against them by asbestos workers. Owens Corning claimed that
tobacco use, not asbestos exposure, was the cause of the alleged
personal injuries.

The company further claimed that failure to warn asbestos workers who
smoked of the substantially increased risk of developing lung cancer
caused Owens Corning both to pay for more lung cancer claims, and to
pay more on individual claims.

"We believe the recommendation by the special master and the decision
by the judge are correct and consistent with the overwhelming weight of
authority from virtually every jurisdiction that has considered third-
party claims against the tobacco industry, including eight U.S. courts
of appeals," said Daniel W. Donahue, senior vice president and deputy
general counsel for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.

Donahue noted that earlier this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a similar suit by a union
health-and-welfare fund because these types of claims against the
tobacco industry are: "too remote, contingent, derivative and indirect
to survive."

"This ruling in Mississippi is a serious blow to attempts by several
other asbestos manufacturers who have filed similar suits in Jefferson
County," said Jeff Raborn, attorney for Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corporation, one of the defendants in the case.  "This particular venue
has been targeted by plaintiffs' attorneys to sue the tobacco industry,
which makes this victory all the more meaningful."

"Coupled with a favorable outcome in the Falise case in Brooklyn, New
York, earlier this year, in which asbestos manufacturer Johns Manville
brought similar claims, these rulings should give pause to third
parties before bringing these types of suits," he said.

A similar action brought by Owens Corning against tobacco companies is
pending in the California courts.

"We of course disagree with that decision," Gregg Bronk, an Owens
Corning spokesman, tells Reuters.  "We are planning to appeal to the
Mississippi Supreme Court."


PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Case Closed as Deadline For Appeal Expires
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain class action lawsuits were filed by shareholders in the fourth
quarter of 1998 against Parametric Technology Corporation and certain
of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court in Massachusetts claiming violations of the federal securities
laws based on alleged misrepresentations regarding the Company's
anticipated revenue and earnings for the third quarter of 1998.

An amended complaint, consolidating these lawsuits into one action, was
filed in the second quarter of 1999, seeking unspecified damages. In
the third quarter of 1999, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated action.

On March 29, 2001, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted the Company's motion to dismiss and entered an
order dismissing the consolidated action with prejudice. The applicable
appeal period has expired and the plaintiffs have not appealed, which
should conclude the litigation.


PHYCOR INC.: Consolidated Securities Suit Goes to Trial on November 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Phycor Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, Joseph C. Hutts, Derril W. Reeves, Thompson S. Dent, Richard
D. Wright and John K. Crawford (only Mr. Dent remains employed by the
Company while he and Mr. Hutts serve as directors) have been named
defendants in 10 securities fraud class actions filed in state and
federal courts in Tennessee between September 8, 1998 and June 24,
1999.

The factual allegations of the complaints in all 10 actions are
substantially identical and assert that during various periods between
April 22, 1997 and September 22, 1998, the defendants issued false and
misleading statements which materially misrepresented the earnings and
financial condition of the Company and its clinic operations and
misrepresented and failed to disclose various other matters concerning
the Company's operations in order to conceal the alleged failure of the
Company's business model.

Plaintiffs further assert that the alleged misrepresentations caused
the Company's securities to trade at inflated levels while the
individual defendants sold shares of the Company's stock at such
levels.

In each of the actions, the plaintiff seeks to be certified as the
representative of a class of all persons similarly situated who were
allegedly damaged by the defendants' alleged violations during the
"class period."

The federal court actions have been consolidated in the U. S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. Defendants' motion to
dismiss was denied. The state court actions were consolidated in
Davidson County, Tennessee.  The Plaintiffs' original consolidated
class action compliant in state court was dismissed for failure to
state a claim.  Plaintiffs, however, were granted leave to file an
amended complaint.

The amended complaint filed by Plaintiffs asserted, in addition to the
original Tennessee Securities Act claims, that Defendants had also
violated Section 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged
misleading statements in a prospectus released in connection with the
CareWise acquisition.  The amended complaint also added KPMG LLP
(KPMG), the Company's independent public auditors.

KPMG removed this case to federal court and its motion to dismiss has
been denied. On October 20, 2000, this case was consolidated with the
original federal consolidated action and a new consolidated complaint
has been filed.

The Company, the individual defendants and KPMG have filed an answer
and the discovery process is nearing completion. On March 9, 2001, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and the Company filed
its response in opposition thereto on April 6, 2001.

The motion is pending before the court. The trial of all the
consolidated cases is set for November 6, 2001. The Company believes
that it has meritorious defenses to all of the claims, and is
vigorously defending against these actions.


PLC SYSTEMS: Settles Securities Suit in Mass. For Unspecified Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In July 1997, a United States Food and Drug Administration advisory
panel recommended against approval of the application by PLC SYSTEMS,
INC. to market its first generation carbon dioxide TMR laser in the
United States. Following this recommendation, the Company was named as
defendant in 21 purported class action lawsuits filed between August
1997 and November 1997 in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

The lawsuits sought an unspecified amount of damages in connection with
alleged violations of the federal securities laws based on the
Company's failure to obtain a favorable FDA panel recommendation in
1997.

Nineteen of these complaints were consolidated by the court into a
single action for pretrial purposes.  Two of these suits were
voluntarily dismissed. The Company moved to dismiss all claims
in the federal suit. On March 26, 1999, the court issued an order
dismissing some, but not all, of the claims in the federal suit.

The parties filed cross motions for reconsideration and on October 12,
1999, the court dismissed additional, but not all, remaining claims in
the federal suit.

On February 9, 2001, the Court issued an Order approving the settlement
of the federal suit and entered a judgment of dismissal. The settlement
of the federal suit did not have a material impact on the Company's
financial statements.


PRIMEBUY NETWORK: Keller Rohrback Commences Securities Suit in Idaho
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P.'s Complex Litigation Group and Cosho, Humphrey,
Greener & Welsh, P.A. filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court of Idaho, Case No. CIV-01-0207-N-EJL which was assigned to
Honorable Judge Lodge, on behalf of Matthew and Glen Douglas and all
persons who purchased or acquired unregistered securities in the form
of memberships and/or stock issued by PrimeBuy Network.com, Inc. from
September 24, 1999 to the present, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that, during the class period, defendants
violated multiple sections of the Securities Act of 1933, the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Idaho Securities and Consumer
Protection Acts, by misrepresenting and omitting material facts in
connection with the operation, financial condition and prospects of
PrimeBuy, and in connection with PrimeBuy securities.

PrimeBuy purports to be an Internet "shopping mall," which solicits
investors to purchase memberships. The Company promises investors the
opportunity to participate as "Independent Sales Representatives,"
whereby investors purchase and customize web sites, and are led to
believe that they can make a profit in the form of commissions earned
on each product purchased through their web site.

The complaint alleges that, in reality, defendants were conducting a
classic "pyramid" scheme, in which the PrimeBuy Internet Mall was
simply a multilevel marketing scheme, offering an array of shopping
"opportunities" already available on the Internet.

In addition, it is asserted that defendants misrepresented that the
memberships and/or stock issued by PrimeBuy complied with applicable
state and federal securities laws, and that the Company would be
holding an initial public offering of its stock during September 2000.
As a result of these false and misleading statements and omissions,
investors are left holding worthless shares of unregistered stock in an
allegedly illegal pyramid scheme.

For further details, contact: Keller Rohrback L.L.P.  
Email: investor@kellerrohrback.com  Website: www.SeattleClassAction.com


PROVELL INC.: Suit Alleging Consumer Law Violations in Discovery Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Provell Inc. disclosed in a regulatory document filed lately with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that the Company was served on
August 29, 2000 with a complaint styled as a class action in Minnesota
State Court.

The complaint is similar to complaints previously settled by the
Company with the Minnesota Attorney General on December 3, 1999, but
also contends that certain business practices violate other Minnesota
consumer protection laws.

The Company believes it has strong factual and legal defenses and is
vigorously defending the allegations both on the merits and in regard
to class status. The case is currently in the early stages of
discovery.


PROVELL INC.: Ex-workers' Suit Won't Affect Finance, Operations
---------------------------------------------------------------
On April 17, 2001, a complaint styled as a class action was filed in
Federal District Court in Minnesota against Provell Inc. on behalf
of four former ClickShip Direct, Inc. employees, alleging that the
Company failed to follow legal requirements for notice to employees and
payment of wages and bonuses prior to the shutdown of ClickShip's
business. ClickShip is a subsidiary of Provell Inc.  The Company
believes it has strong factual and legal defenses and intends to
vigorously defend the allegations. Although the matter is at an early
stage, management believes that the resolution of this action will not
have a material adverse effect on the financial condition or results of
operations of the Company.


PTEK HOLDINGS: Answers Amended Complaint Lodged in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
PTEK HOLDINGS, INC. and certain of its officers and directors have been
named as defendants in multiple shareholder class action lawsuits filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of individuals (including a
subclass of former Voice-Tel franchisees and a subclass of former
Xpedite Systems, Inc. shareholders) who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's common stock from as early as February 11, 1997 through
June 10, 1998.

Plaintiffs allege the Company admitted it had experienced difficulty in
achieving its anticipated revenue and earnings from voice messaging
services due to difficulties in consolidating and integrating its sales
function.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, violation of Sections 10(b),
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11,
12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint on April 14, 1999.
On December 14, 1999, the court issued an order that dismissed the
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act without
prejudice, and dismissed the claims under Section 12(a)(1) of the
Securities Act with prejudice. The effect of this order was to
dismiss from this lawsuit all open-market purchases by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 29, 2000. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 14, 2000, which was
granted in part and denied in part on December 8, 2000. The defendants
filed an answer on January 8, 2001.

    
RALLY'S HAMBURGERS: Motions For Summary Judgment Remains Undecided
------------------------------------------------------------------
In January and February 1994, two putative class action lawsuits were
filed, purportedly on behalf of the stockholders of Rally's Hamburgers,
Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky, Louisville division, against Rally's, Burt Sugarman and Giant
Group, Ltd. and certain of Rally's former officers and directors and
its auditors.

The cases were subsequently consolidated under the case name Jonathan
Mittman et. al. vs. Rally's Hamburgers, Inc., et. al. The complaints
allege that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, among other claims, by issuing inaccurate public statements about
Rally's in order to arbitrarily inflate the price of its common stock.

On April 15, 1994, Rally's filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to
strike. On April 5, 1995, the Court struck certain provisions of
the complaint but otherwise denied Rally's motion to dismiss. In
addition, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
the plaintiffs renewed this motion, and despite opposition by the
defendants, the Court granted such motion for class certification on
April 16, 1996, certifying a class from July 20, 1992 to September 29,
1993.

The parties filed motions for Summary Judgment in September 2000, and
rulings by the Court are pending. The defendants deny all wrongdoing
and intend to defend themselves vigorously in this matter.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Too Early to Assess Impact of Suit Filed by Crew
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. disclosed in a recent regulatory filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it is party to a
lawsuit filed in April 1999 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The class suit was filed on behalf of current and former crewmembers
alleging that the Company failed to pay the plaintiffs their full
wages. The suit seeks payment of the following:

     (i) the wages alleged to be owed,

    (ii) penalty wages under U.S. law, and

   (iii) punitive damages.

In November 1999, a purported class action suit was filed in the same
court alleging a similar cause of action. The Company is not able
at this time to estimate the impact of these proceedings.


SKYMALL INC.: Continues Defense Against Securities Suit in Arizona
------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 29, 1999, a securities class action complaint was filed
against SkyMall Inc. and Robert Worsley, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, Chairman and largest shareholder, in connection with certain
disclosures made by the Company in December 1998 relating to its
Internet sales.  

The complaint was filed in the United States District Court, District
of Arizona, Case No. CIV-99-0166-PHX-ROS. The complaint alleges
unlawful manipulation of the price of the Company's stock and insider
selling during the period from December 28, 1998 through
December 30, 1998.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages for
alleged violations of federal securities laws.  

SkyMall and Worsley filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the
basis that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.  In September 2000, the motion was granted in part and
denied in part. SkyMall continues to believe that the allegations
against it and Worsley are substantially without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuit.


THQ INC.: CA Court Modifies Dismissal, Allows Third Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 23, 2001, the United States District Court for the Central
District of California modified its December 20, 2000 order that
dismissed with prejudice two essentially identical class action
lawsuits filed against THQ INC. on February 18, 2000 and on March 2,
2000, respectively.

In its April 23, 2001 order, the court granted plaintiffs leave to file
a third amended complaint and the plaintiffs have so filed. The
lawsuits allege that the Company, and certain of its directors and
senior officers, violated Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.


TRANS-WORLD AIRLINES: Settles Sexual Harassment Suit For $2.6 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A sexual harassment class-action suit against Trans-World Airlines
brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and three
women represented by Lipman & Plesur, LLP settled for $2.6 million, the
largest settlement obtained by the New York District Office of the
EEOC.

"The 'stick your head in the sand' approach to dealing with sexual
harassment in the workplace proved very costly in this case," said
Robert D. Lipman, a member of Lipman & Plesur, LLP and President of
Interactive Employment Training, Inc.

Sick and disgusting acts have been rampant at TWA for years and the
company has not taken action to stop it, according to the Complaints
filed by Lipman & Plesur, LLP and the EEOC.

Lipman said that it is unbelievable that a company would choose to let
sexual harassment fester in the workplace, inviting huge morale and
other work-related problems as well as a class-action lawsuit, when
such conduct can be easily prevented through appropriate discriminatory
harassment prevention training.

"A relatively small investment in a discriminatory harassment
prevention training course could have prevented this whole case,"
Lipman said.


VERSANT CORP.: Files Another Dismissal Motion For Yet Another Plaint
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Versant Corporation and certain of the Company's present and former
officers and directors were named as defendants in four class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, on January 26, 1998, February 5, 1998, March
11, 1998 and March 18, 1998.

On June 19, 1998, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed by the
court-appointed lead Plaintiff. On May 22, 2000, the court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint,
permitting plaintiff leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 7, 2000. The court
granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on April 2, 2001, permitting plaintiff leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on May 10, 2001. Like its
predecessors, the Third Amended Complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Securities
and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities
Exchange Act, in connection with public statements about the Company
and the Company's financial performance.

The Third Amended Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages. The
Company vigorously denies the plaintiffs' claims and intends to file a
motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.


WABASH NATIONAL: Settles Shareholders Suit in Indiana For $500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------
>From January 22, 1999 through February 24, 1999, five purported class
action complaints were filed against Wabash National Corporation and
certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana.

The complaints purported to be brought on behalf of a class of
investors who purchased the Company's common stock between April 20,
1998 and January 15, 1999. The complaints alleged that the Company
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated under the Act by disseminating false and misleading
financial statements and reports respecting the first three quarters of
the Company's fiscal year 1998.

In addition, on March 23, 1999, another purported class action lawsuit
was also filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana, naming the Company, its directors and the
underwriters of the Company's April 1998 public offering.

That complaint alleged that the Company and the individual defendants
violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and that the
Company, the individual defendants as "controlling persons" of the
Company, and the underwriters are liable under Section 12 of that Act,
by making untrue statements of material fact in and omitting material
facts from the prospectus used in that offering.

Both the Securities Exchange Act complaints and the Securities Act
complaint arise out of the restatement of the Company's financial
statements for the first three quarters of 1998.

At a hearing on May 10, 1999 and in an order entered on June 22, 1999,
Judge Allen Sharp consolidated the six pending cases under the caption
In re Wabash National Corporation Securities Litigation, No.
4:99CV0003AS and established a schedule for further proceedings.

Pursuant to the order, selected lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint on July 6, 1999. The consolidated complaint
repeated the claims made in the original complaints respecting the
restatement and also alleges that the loss contingency for certain
excise taxes, which Wabash disclosed on January 19, 1999, should have
been recorded earlier. The Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint was denied by the Court in February 2000.

The Court subsequently denied plaintiff's motion to certify the case as
a class action and fixed April 30, 2001 as the deadline for submission
of summary judgment motions and March 31, 2001 as the end of discovery
proceedings.

On March 29, 2001, all plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their claims
arising under Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934, when a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice was filed
with the Court.

On April 2, 2001, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal giving effect
to the Stipulation of Dismissal. As a result of that dismissal, the
only claims remaining in the case were those brought by purchasers of
shares in the Company's public offering on April 23, 1998 (i.e., claims
arising under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933).

On April 17, 2001, the Company announced that it had reached an
agreement that terminates the remaining elements of the shareholder
litigation brought against the Company.

Under the agreement, which is subject to court approval, the Company
will pay $500,000 into a fund from which purchasers of stock in the
Company's 1998 public offering and who satisfy certain criteria will be
entitled to recover $0.33 per share.  Unclaimed monies remaining in the
fund, after attorney's fees and expenses are paid, will be returned to
the Company.

Also on April 17, 2001, the Court entered an order dismissing the
action without prejudice to the right of any party upon good cause
shown within ninety days to vacate the order and reopen the action if
the settlement is not consummated.


                              *********

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  * * *