CAR_Public/010601.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, June 1 2001, Vol. 3, No. 107

                              Headlines

ALPHARMA INC.: Freed From All But Four Personal Injury Lawsuits
AMERCO: Overtime Compensation Lawsuit in California Resolved
AMERICAN GENERAL: Faces Four Lawsuits Over Merger With Prudential
ANIKA THERAPEUTICS: Settles Mass. Securities Suit For $1.25 Million
COMDISCO INC: Court Dismisses All But One Securities Suit in Illinois

CONCORD EFS: Plaintiffs Claim Class Consists of 60,000 Merchants
CONCORD EFS: Subsidiary Sued in Texas Over Unsolicited Advertisements
CONSECO INC.: Forty-five Securities Suits Consolidated in Indiana
CONSECO FINANCE: Appeal Continues Re $26.8M Award in SC Supreme Court
GOODYEAR TIRE: Faces Five Lawsuits Over Types D, E Light Truck Tires

GREAT LAKES: Expects Certification on Bromine Suits Late This Year
HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Mounting Strong Defense Against Suit in Maryland
HAWKINS CHEMICAL: Less Than Five Yet to Settle Claim From Company
HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: German Companies Declare Legal Security in U.S.
IDS LIFE: Awaits Final Court Approval of Settlement in Minnesota

INTERCONTINENTAL LIFE: Discovery Commenced by Plaintiffs in Two Suits
KANSAS CITY: Motion to Dismiss Still Undecided by NY Supreme Court
KEITHLEY INSTRUMENTS: Faces Several Securities Suits Filed in N.D. OH
KENNAMETAL INC.: Awaits Approval of Settlement Deal Inked Last Year
LAFARGE CORPORATION: Canadian Subsidiary to Incur $9.9M Liability

LORAL SPACE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MATTEL INC.: Intends to File Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Plaint
MATTEL INC.: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Broderbund Lawsuit
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs in Louisiana Lawsuit Drop Appeal
METROMEDIA INTERNATIONAL: Appellate Court Hears Plaintiffs Appeal

MOSLER INC.: Waite Schneider Commences Shareholders Suit in Ohio
MP3.COM: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MULTEX.COM: Milberg Weiss Commences Suit Against IPO Underwriters
NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP: Defense Against CA Securities Suit Continues
NORTEL NETWORKS: Faces Securities Suits in U.S. And Canada

NORTEL NETWORKS: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit in Texas
OAKWOOD HOMES: Case Dismissal Final as Plaintiffs Fail to Appeal
OVERSEAS PARTNERS: Asks Ohio Court to Drop All Pending Cases
QWEST CORPORATION: Six State Courts Currently Approve Settlement Deal
THE KROGER: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. OH

THOROUGHBRED TECHNOLOGY: Sixteen-State Fiber Optic Cable Suit Settled
UNITED DOMINION: Settles Water Billing Suit in Texas For $2.7 Million
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: To Defend Against Challenges to its Care Policies
WESTERN RESOURCES: Court Consolidates All Pending Suits in California
WORLDCOM INC.: Court Consolidates All Securities Suits Filed in Miss.


                              *********


ALPHARMA INC.: Freed From All But Four Personal Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alpharma, Inc. has been dismissed from all but four of the 90 lawsuits
alleging personal injuries and six class actions for medical monitoring
resulting from the use of Phentermine distributed by the Company and
subsequently prescribed for use in combination with fenflurameine or
dexfenfluramine manufactured and sold by other defendants.


AMERCO: Overtime Compensation Lawsuit in California Resolved
------------------------------------------------------------
AMERCO (Nasdaq: UHAL) announced the resolution of a class action
overtime compensation lawsuit (Crandall) in the state of California.

"The law in California is wrong and needs overhauling," stated
Chairman, Joe Shoen. "We chose to fight this case and lost at the trial
court level. At this time it appears this matter will effect our
earnings in excess of $10.3 million dollars for fiscal year 2001."
This non-recurring extraordinary expense creates a negative impact on
the Company's profitability.

"This case is part of a feeding frenzy by California plaintiff
attorneys," said Shoen. "Track Auto, Rite Aide, Robinsons May, Wendys,
Dennys, Taco Bell, Edwards Theatres, Kits Camera, Payless Shoes, Pizza
Hut, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, and many more employers in the state of
California are being victimized by predatory litigators. AMERCO
continues to take every prophylactic measure possible in this area
consistent with respecting its entry level management personnel."

"AMERCO will fall short of its earnings estimates for fiscal year
2001," stated Shoen. "I am disappointed with the 2001 results but the
underlying business is strong and also resilient. Our primary focus is
to serve our customers and to do so profitably."


AMERICAN GENERAL: Faces Four Lawsuits Over Merger With Prudential
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Four purported class action lawsuits have been filed by alleged
shareholders against American General Corporation and certain of its
officers and directors in connection with the Agreement and Plan of
Merger entered into on March 11, 2001, between the company and
Prudential pursuant to which the company would become a wholly owned
subsidiary of Prudential:

     (i) Samuel Bamdas Revocable Trust v. American General Corp., et
         al., Civil Action No. 2001-14869 (filed March 20, 2001, in
         the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 11th Judicial
         District),

    (ii) Harold Goldberg v. American General Corp., et al., Civil
         Action No. 2001-18388 (filed April 4, 2001, in the District
         Court of Harris County, Texas, 133rd Judicial District),

   (iii) Kenneth Steiner v. Robert M. Devlin, et al., Civil Action No.
         2001-18389 (filed April 4, 2001, in the District Court of
         Harris County, Texas, 164th Judicial District), and

    (iv) Richard Britten v. Robert M. Devlin, et al., Civil Action No.
         2001-19670 (filed April 12, 2001,in the District Court of
         Harris County, Texas, 189th Judicial District).

These actions were each filed by a purported class of shareholders
alleging that certain officers and directors of the company breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the pricing and terms of
the proposed Prudential transaction.  


ANIKA THERAPEUTICS: Settles Mass. Securities Suit For $1.25 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anika Therapeutics Inc. (Nasdaq:ANIK) announced on Wednesday it has
reached an agreement to settle the consolidated putative securities
class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts against Anika and certain of its
directors and officers, which relates to the company's restatement of
financial results for 1998 and the first three quarters of 1999.

The settlement agreement expressly provides that it does not constitute
an admission that the defendants have any liability to or acted
wrongfully in any way with respect to the plaintiffs, the members of
the class, or any other person.

As part of the proposed settlement, Anika will pay a total of $1.25
million into a settlement fund that will, among other things, be used
to pay authorized members of the class, which consists of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Anika common stock between April 15,
1998 and May 30, 2000.

The proposed settlement is contingent upon certain events, including
certification by the court of the class for purposes of the settlement,
final court approval of the settlement after court-approved notice and
a settlement hearing, and dismissal of the action with prejudice.

In conjunction with the settlement, Anika expects to record a pre-tax
charge in the quarter ending June 30, 2001.

"We are satisfied with the settlement of this matter," said J. Melville
Engle, chairman, president and CEO. "We believe that the settlement is
in the best interest of Anika. Now that this litigation is behind us,
we can focus on our business objectives without the expense and
significant distraction of this suit."

The litigation is described in more detail in Anika's filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, including its Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2001.


COMDISCO INC: Court Dismisses All But One Securities Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In a hearing held on April 6, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois dismissed all but the first of the
actions filed against Comdisco, Inc. in early February this year.

The Court, however, has yet to determine who will serve as the Lead
Plaintiff and lead counsel for the plaintiffs, according to a recent
regulatory filing of the Company with SEC.

"Once the Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel are selected, the
plaintiffs will file an Amended and Consolidated Complaint. Comdisco
will then respond to the Consolidated Complaint," the document said.

On February 7, 2001, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company, Nicholas K. Pontikes, a director and its former
chief executive officer, and John J. Vosicky, a director and its
current executive vice president and chief financial officer, alleging
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  

The purported class action was filed on behalf of all those who
purchased Comdisco stock between January 25, 2000, and October 3, 2000.


CONCORD EFS: Plaintiffs Claim Class Consists of 60,000 Merchants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case involving EFS National Bank filed recently an
amended complaint alleging that the class involved in the suit consists
of at least 60,000 merchants who were subjected to allegedly improper
rate and fee charges.

The amended complaint seeks damages in excess of $15 million as well as
injunctive relief and unspecified punitive damages, treble damages,
attorney fees and costs.

EFS National Bank is a wholly owned financial arm of Concord EFS, Inc.  
In September 2000, it was named a defendant in the above purported
class action filed in the Circuit Court of Tennessee for the Thirtieth
Judicial District at Memphis.

The plaintiffs alleged that certain of EFS National Bank's rate and fee
changes were improper under Tennessee law due to allegedly deficient
notice.

A similar complaint has also been filed in St. Charles County,
Missouri.


CONCORD EFS: Subsidiary Sued in Texas Over Unsolicited Advertisements
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Card Payment Services, a subsidiary of Concord EFS, Inc. has been named
as a defendant in a class action suit filed in the District Court,
Harrison County, Texas.

Plaintiffs allege that the subsidiary has violated Section 227(b)(1)(C)
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et
seq., and Section 35.47(g) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code by
sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile.  

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and statutory damages in the amount
of $500 per facsimile and treble damages in the amount of $1500 per
facsimile for willful or knowing violations of the statutes.  The full
amount of damages sought by plaintiffs is not known at this time.


CONSECO INC.: Forty-five Securities Suits Consolidated in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
All of the Conseco, Inc. securities cases have now been consolidated
into one case in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, captioned: "In Re Conseco, Inc. Securities
Litigation", cause number IP00-585-C-Y/S.

This information is based on a regulatory document filed by the Company
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The same document also
disclosed that the Company filed on April 27 a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

An amended complaint was filed on January 12, 2001, which
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, with respect to common stock and various other
securities issued by the Company and Conseco Financing Trust VII.

A total of forty-five suits were filed against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
Nineteen of these cases were putative class actions on behalf of
persons or entities that purchased the Company's common stock during
alleged class periods that generally run from April 1999 through April
2000.


CONSECO FINANCE: Appeal Continues Re $26.8M Award in SC Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of Conseco Finance Corporation over a $26.8 million award in
two arbitrated class suits in South Carolina is still pending in the
state's Supreme Court. This was the information submitted by the
Company to the SEC in a recent regulatory filing.

Conseco Finance Corporation is a defendant in Lackey v. Green Tree
Financial Corporation, n/k/a Conseco Finance Corp. and Bazzle v. Green
Tree Financial Corporation, n/k/a Conseco Finance Corp.

The two purported arbitration classes consist of South Carolina
residents who obtained real estate secured credit from Conseco
Finance's Manufactured Housing Division (Lackey) and Home Improvement
Division (Bazzle) in the early and mid 1990s, and did not receive a
South Carolina specific disclosure form relating to selection
of attorneys in connection with the credit transactions.

The arbitrator, in separate awards issued on July 24, 2000, awarded a
total of $26.8 million in penalties and attorneys' fees. The awards
were confirmed as judgments in both Lackey and Bazzle.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Faces Five Lawsuits Over Types D, E Light Truck Tires
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company disclosed in a recent regulatory filing
with SEC that it is presently facing five class actions alleging
defects, among others, on the Company's types D and E light truck and
recreational vehicle tires.  

In addition, the plaintiffs also alleged that the Company engaged in a
"silent recall" thereby committing an unfair and deceptive trade
practice.

The lawsuits seek the following relief from the court:
   
     (i) punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, prejudgment
         interest,

    (ii) court supervised recall and repair or replacement program, and
  
   (iii) a public awareness campaign to alert the class and the general
         public to the defects in, and dangers associated with, the
         specified tires.


GREAT LAKES: Expects Certification on Bromine Suits Late This Year
------------------------------------------------------------------
To date, 10 federal purported class action lawsuits and five California
purported class actions have been filed against Great Lakes Chemical
Corporation, each claiming treble damages, says a regulatory document
recently filed by the Company with SEC.

These suits claim, among other things, that the Company conspired with
others in violation of the antitrust laws regarding the pricing of
bromine and brominated products. The federal lawsuits have been
consolidated in the District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify a class of purchasers of
three particular brominated products, and the Company has opposed the
motion. A ruling on the class certification is expected later this
year. The California cases have been stayed pending resolution of the
federal cases.


HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Mounting Strong Defense Against Suit in Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 28, 2000, a class action complaint (Norman Ottmann v.
Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., Ivan R. Sabel and Richard A. Stein;
Civil Action No. 00CV3508) was filed against Hanger Orthopedic, Inc. in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf
of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from November 8, 1999
through and including January 6, 2000.

The complaint alleges that during the above period of time, the
defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Company believes that the allegations have absolutely no merit and
plan to vigorously defend the lawsuit.


HAWKINS CHEMICAL: Less Than Five Yet to Settle Claim From Company
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Less than five claimants remain who have not yet resolved their claims
under the settlement agreement offered by Hawkins Chemical Inc. in the
DONNA M. COOKSEY, ET AL. V. HAWKINS CHEMICAL, INC. AND THE LYNDE
COMPANY case.

The court approved this settlement agreement more than two years ago.
The case was brought in March 1995 against the Company and its former
subsidiary, for damages alleged to be caused by a fire at an
office/warehouse facility used by the former subsidiary.

The court approved the settlement agreement on January 30, 1998.
Pursuant to the agreement, the Company agreed to pay certain of the
plaintiffs' costs and expenses as well as certain compensation to the
class.


HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: German Companies Declare Legal Security in U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
German industry representatives declare that sufficient legal security
now exists for German companies in the United States, German Economy
Foundation Initiative Steering Group spokesman Wolfgang G. Gibowski
said in a statement.

The member companies who originally started the German Industry
Foundation Initiative declared that in light of the latest developments
in the United States they feel that a sufficient level of legal
security has been achieved.

Following the amendment order issued by the 2nd US Circuit Court of
Appeals in New York on May 17, the dismissal of the Gutmann case (the
last class action suit against German banks), and the referral of the
Gartska case to Judge Bassler, the German companies who constitute the
membership of the Foundation Initiative take the view that the
prerequisites are now given for the German Bundestag to be able to
confirm the existence of a sufficient level of legal security for
German companies in the United States.

The companies in question have made this declaration based on the
assumption that the appeals cases that have not yet been dismissed in
Philadelphia (3rd Circuit) and the contentious appeals case in
California (9th Circuit) will be dismissed shortly.

The Foundation Initiative is also working on the assumption that
administrative and legislative interference in various US states will
be ended. Significant progress has been made in recent weeks and months
towards achieving a situation of legal security.

Of the 68 cases that had been pending against German companies in the
United States, the most important have now been dismissed. They include
the consolidated class action suits against industrial companies,
against insurance companies, and against banks.

In last week's reversal of the decision handed down by Judge Kram in
the bank cases the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals made clear reference to
the application of the political question doctrine which prevents
courts from interfering with the foreign policy interests of the United
States. The statement of interest made by the US government and which
is now being applied is based on the declared foreign policy interest
of the United States in ending all proceedings of this kind against
German companies.

Since the German Industry Foundation Initiative began on February 16,
1999 more than 6,300 companies have joined, declaring their willingness
to support its objective of creating the Foundation for Remembrance,
Responsibility and the Future and providing financial contributions, in
some cases quite considerable ones, for this purpose.


IDS LIFE: Awaits Final Court Approval of Settlement in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDS Life Insurance Company is just waiting for final approval of a
settlement pact for a class action pending in the Fourth Judicial
District for the State of Minnesota.

According to a recent SEC filing by the Company, oral arguments for the
final approval of the settlement was held on March 6, 2001, where six
motions to intervene were filed.

In August 2000, Lesa Benacquisto, Daniel Benacquisto, Richard Thoresen,
Elizabeth Thoresen, Arnold Mork, Isabella Mork, Ronald Melchert and
Susan Melchert filed the case versus the following companies:

     (i) American Express Financial Corporation,  

    (ii) American Express Financial Advisors,  

   (iii) American Centurion Life Assurance Company,

    (iv) American Enterprise Life Insurance Company,

     (v) American Partners Life Insurance Company,

    (vi) IDS Life Insurance Company and

   (vii) IDS Life Insurance Company of New York

The complaint put at issue various alleged sales practices and
misrepresentations and allegations of violations of federal laws.


INTERCONTINENTAL LIFE: Discovery Commenced by Plaintiffs in Two Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Life Corporation informed the Securities and Exchange
Commission that discovery on the two pending shareholders suit was
recently initiated.

These two class action lawsuits were filed on the day Financial
Industries Corporation and the Company each publicly announced the
formation of a special committee to evaluate a potential merger.

The actions allege that a cash consideration in the proposed merger is
unfair to the shareholders of ILCO, that it would prevent the ILCO
shareholders from realizing the true value of ILCO, and that FIC and
the named officers and directors had material conflicts of interest in
approving the transaction.

In their initial pleadings, the plaintiffs sought certification of the
cases as class actions and the named plaintiffs as class
representatives, and among other relief, requested that the merger be
enjoined (or, if consummated, rescinded and set aside) and that the
defendants account to the class members for their damages.


KANSAS CITY: Motion to Dismiss Still Undecided by NY Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
The New York State Supreme Court has yet to render a decision on the
motion to dismiss and opposition thereto in a purported class action on
behalf of the preferred shareholders of Kansas City Southern
Industries, Inc.

This lawsuit seeks a declaration that the Company's Spin-off was a de
facto liquidation of the Company, alleges violation of Directors'
fiduciary duties to the preferred shareholders and also seeks a
declaration that the preferred shareholders are entitled to receive the
par value of their shares and other relief.

The lawsuit was filed in the New York State Supreme Court on October 3,
2000, naming the Company, its Board of Directors and Stilwell as
defendants.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice in the New York
Supreme Court on December 22, 2000; the plaintiff filed its brief in
opposition to the motion to dismiss on February 1, 2001, and the
Company served reply papers on March 7, 2001.  The motion to dismiss is
now fully briefed and awaiting a ruling to be rendered.  


KEITHLEY INSTRUMENTS: Faces Several Securities Suits Filed in N.D. OH
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Keithley Instruments, Inc. said in a latest regulatory filing with SEC
that it intends to answer all securities suit filed against the company
at the appropriate time.

On March 26, 2001, a purported class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
the Company and Joseph P. Keithley, the Company's chairman, president
and CEO, alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The purported class action was filed on behalf of all those who
purchased Keithley stock between January 18, 2001 and March 9, 2001.

The Company and Keithley have been served with six additional
complaints that are identical to the Complaint described above.
These complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on March 28, 2001, March 29, 2001, March 30,
2001, April 5, 2001, April 12, 2001 and May 4, 2001.


KENNAMETAL INC.: Awaits Approval of Settlement Deal Inked Last Year
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kennametal Inc. informed SEC in a recent regulatory filing that it is  
waiting for court approval of the settlement it reached in November
last year with the plaintiffs in several putative class action
lawsuits.

The proposed settlement would provide for complete releases of the
defendants, as well as among other persons their affiliates and
representatives, and would extinguish and enjoin all claims that have
been, could have been or could be asserted by or on behalf of any
member of the class against the defendants which in any manner relate
to the allegations, facts, or other matters raised in the lawsuits or
which otherwise relate in any manner to the agreement, the offer and
the merger.

The MOU also provides, among other matters, for the payment by JLK
of up to approximately $0.3 million in attorneys' fees and expenses to
plaintiffs' counsel. No payment is to be made for liability or damages.

In July 2000, the Company and its subsidiary JLK Direct Distribution
Inc., including the JLK directors and one former director, were named
as defendants in the putative class action.

The lawsuits seek an injunction, rescission, damages, costs and
attorney fees in connection with the company's proposal to acquire the
outstanding stock of JLK not owned by the company.


LAFARGE CORPORATION: Canadian Subsidiary to Incur $9.9M Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In April and December 2000, the Ontario (Canada) Court rendered two
decisions against Lafarge Canada, Inc., a subsidiary of Lafarge
Corporation, and other defendants in a lawsuit originating in 1992
arising from claims of building owners, the Ontario New Home Warranty
Program and other plaintiffs regarding allegedly defective concrete,
fly ash and cement used in defective foundations.

The Company estimates that the total amount of liability attributed to
LCI in capital, interest and third-party costs represents approximately
Canadian $9.9 million, net of insured amounts.  LCI has appealed both
decisions.

In 1999, LCI became involved as a defendant in a class action related
to the 1992 lawsuit. The action was certified as a class action in
2000, but will not proceed until after the Court of Appeals renders its
decision in the 1992 lawsuit.


LORAL SPACE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of Loral Space & Communications
Ltd. (NYSE: LOR) from November 4, 1999 through February 1, 2001,
inclusive.

The complaint charges Loral and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
financial condition and prospects. The complaint alleges that Loral
misrepresented that Globalstar, which was controlled by Loral, was on
schedule to roll out its satellite phone network and that demand for
the system was strong.

However, demand for the Globalstar system was much less than predicted,
due in part to the fact that Globalstar did not offer roaming service,
rendering it uncompetitive in developed nations. Defendants' false
statements artificially inflated the price of Loral's stock.

For more details, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Marc A. Topaz,
Esq., Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400,
Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004, by phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-
667-7706 or by e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com


MATTEL INC.: Intends to File Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Plaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel Inc. revealed in a recent regulatory document filed with SEC
that it intends to file a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaints filed last March.

In January, the court had dismissed this consolidated complaint against
the Company.  It, however, granted plaintiffs leave to amend.

Following Mattel's announcement in October 1999 of the expected results
of its Learning Company division for the third quarter of 1999, several
of Mattel's stockholders filed purported class action complaints naming
Mattel and certain of its present and former officers and directors as
defendants.  

In March 2000, these shareholder complaints were consolidated into two
lead cases: Thurber v. Mattel, Inc. et al. (containing claims under (S)
10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act) and Dusek v. Mattel, Inc. et
al (containing claims under (S) 14(a) of the Act).  


MATTEL INC.: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Broderbund Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Other purported class action litigation has been brought against
Mattel, Inc. as successor to Learning Company and the former directors
of Learning Company on behalf of former stockholders of Broderbund
Software, Inc. who acquired shares of Learning Company in exchange for
their Broderbund common stock in connection with the Learning Company-
Broderbund merger on August 31, 1998.  

The consolidated complaint in In re Broderbund generally alleges that
Learning Company misstated its financial results prior to the time it
was acquired by Mattel.  

Mattel and the other defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in In re Broderbund, and are awaiting a ruling.  The case is
pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.


MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs in Louisiana Lawsuit Drop Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the securities lawsuit in Louisiana have voluntarily
dropped their appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court on April 25, 2001.  
The court dismissed the case the following day.

This was the latest information McDermott International, Inc. furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission, in a recent regulatory
filing.

In December 1999 and early 2000, several persons who allegedly
purchased shares of our common stock during the period from May 21,
1999 through November 11, 1999 filed four purported class action
complaints against the Company and two of its executive officers, Roger
E. Tetrault and Daniel R. Gaubert, in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Each of the complaints alleged that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading
information and/or concealing material adverse information relating to
the Company's estimated liability for asbestos-related claims.


METROMEDIA INTERNATIONAL: Appellate Court Hears Plaintiffs Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit heard oral
arguments on the appeal by plaintiffs in relation to the dismissal of a
consolidated shareholders lawsuit.

In an opinion on March 10, 2000, the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia had dismissed the lawsuit in its
entirety. On April 7, 2000, plaintiffs filed notices of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The consolidated lawsuit alleged that certain officers, directors and
shareholders of RDM Sports Group, Inc., including Metromedia
International Group, Inc. and current and former officers of the
Company who served as directors of RDM, were liable under federal
securities laws for misrepresenting and failing to disclose information
regarding RDM's alleged financial condition during the period between
November 7, 1995 and August 22, 1997, the date on which RDM disclosed
that its management had discussed the possibility of filing for
bankruptcy.


MOSLER INC.: Waite Schneider Commences Shareholders Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Stanley M. Chesley of Cincinnati, Ohio announced that the law
firms of Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. and Strauss &
Troy filed a class action and derivative shareholder lawsuit against
Mosler, Inc., its former Chief Executive Officer, Michael Rapoport, and
three directors; Thomas R. Wall, IV, William A. Marquard and Robert A.
Young, III.

The Complaint alleges that these Directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the Mosler shareholders by misrepresenting Mosler's financial
condition, by allowing Mosler to become burdened with crippling debt
that it had no ability to repay; by failing to address its lack of
internal financial controls, and by improperly funding its Employee
Stock Option Plan with its common and preferred stock.

The Complaint also alleges that as a result of the Directors' conduct,
the Mosler stock, which is owned by shareholders, individually and in
their retirement accounts, declined in value by approximately eighty
percent (80%).

For more information, contact: Stanley M. Chesley or Robert A.
Steinberg (Waite Schneider Bayless & Chesley) (bobsteinberg@wsbclaw.cc)
(513/621-0267); or Richard S. Wayne (Strauss & Troy) (513/621-2120)
(classactions@strauss-troy.com).


MP3.COM: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of MP3.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: MPPP)
from July 21, 1999 through May 16, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges MP3 and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with
MP3's initial public offering that contained materially false and
misleading formation and failed to disclose material information.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is also presently investigating
underwriting practices in connection with several other initial public
offerings of the Company, including the offerings of VA Linux Systems,
Inc., Ariba Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc.

For additional information, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Marc A.
Topaz, Esq., Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by mail: Three Bala Plaza East,
Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004, by telephone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll
free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com


MULTEX.COM: Milberg Weiss Commences Suit Against IPO Underwriters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class
action lawsuit on May 30, 2001 on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Multex.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: MLTX) between March 17, 1999
and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York,
NY 10007, against defendants BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Goldman
Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

For additional details, contact: Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach
LLP, New York, Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by phone:
800/320-5081 by email: multexcase@milbergNY.com or check the firm's
Website: http://www.milberg.


NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP: Defense Against CA Securities Suit Continues
------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 27, 1998, two investors holding an aggregate of eight units
of limited partnership interests in Real Estate Associates Limited III,
an affiliated partnership in which National Partnership Investments
Corporation is the managing general partner, and two investors holding
an aggregate of five units of limited partnership interest in Real
Estate Associates Limited VI, another affiliated partnership in which
NAPICO is also the managing general partner, commenced an action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
against NAPICO and certain other affiliated entities.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty
to the limited partners of certain NAPICO managed partnerships and made
materially false and misleading statements in the consent solicitation
statements sent to the limited partners of such partnerships relating
to approval of the transfer of partnership interests in limited
partnerships, owning certain of the properties, to affiliates of Casden
Properties Inc., organized by an affiliate of NAPICO.

On August 4, 1999, one investor holding one unit of limited partnership
interest in the Partnership commenced a virtually identical action.
This second action has been subsumed in the first action, which has
been certified as a class action.

The managing general partner of such NAPICO managed partnerships and
the other defendants continue to contest the actions vigorously



NORTEL NETWORKS: Faces Securities Suits in U.S. And Canada
----------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation disclosed in a recent SEC filing that
subsequent to its February 15, 2001 announcement in which the Company
provided revised guidance for financial performance for the fiscal year
and first quarter 2001, the Company and certain of its then current
officers and directors have been named as defendants in a number of
purported class action lawsuits.

These lawsuits, which have been filed through April 13, 2001 in the
United States, and in Ontario and Quebec, Canada on behalf of
shareholders who acquired the Company's securities as early as November
1, 2000 and as late as February 15, 2001, allege violations of United
States federal and Canadian provincial securities laws.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On February 12, 2001, Nortel Networks Inc., an indirect subsidiary of
Nortel Networks Corporation, was served with a consolidated amended
class action complaint that purported to add the Company as a defendant
to a lawsuit commenced in July 2000 against Entrust Technologies, Inc.
and three of its then current officers in the United States District
Court of Texas, Marshall Division.

The complaint alleges that Entrust Technologies, certain then current
officers of Entrust Technologies, and the Company violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to certain statements made
by Entrust Technologies. The Company is alleged to be a controlling
person of Entrust Technologies. On April 6, 2001, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint against the Company.

                                      
OAKWOOD HOMES: Case Dismissal Final as Plaintiffs Fail to Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A recent regulatory document filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission by Oakwood Homes Corporation reveals that the Company is now
free of the securities lawsuit filed in November 1998.

According to the Company, the Federal District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina dismissed the consolidated amended
shareholders lawsuit in January this year.  The order became final
after the Plaintiffs failed to file an appeal before the time for
filing such an action expired.

In November 1998 the Company and certain of its present and former
officers and directors were named as defendants in lawsuits filed on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock for various periods
between April 11, 1997 and July 21, 1998.

An amended complaint sought class action certification and alleged
violations of federal securities law based on alleged fraudulent acts,
false and misleading financial statements, among others.


OVERSEAS PARTNERS: Asks Ohio Court to Drop All Pending Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Overseas Partners Ltd. disclosed in a recent SEC filing that it has
filed a motion to dismiss all actions filed against the Company,
including an antitrust suit for failing to state a claim.  

In addition, the Company also pointed out that federal laws preempted
the other cases, arising from violations of state Unfair Trade Practice
and Consumer Protection Laws.


On November 19, 1999 and January 27, 2000 OPL was named as a defendant
in two class action lawsuits, filed on behalf of customers of United
Parcel Service of America, Inc., in Montgomery County, Ohio Court and
Butler County, Ohio Court, respectively.  

The lawsuits allege that UPS told its customers that they were
purchasing insurance for coverage of loss or damage to goods shipped by
UPS. The lawsuits further allege that UPS wrongfully enriched itself
with the monies paid by its customers to purchase such insurance.  

The allegations in the lawsuits are drawn from a recent opinion by the
United States Tax Court, currently on appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, that found that the insurance
program, as offered through UPS, several domestic insurance companies,
and their related reinsurance agreement with OPL, was not adequate for
UPS to avoid liability for federal income tax.  


QWEST CORPORATION: Six State Courts Currently Approve Settlement Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Corporation reported to the SEC recently that six state courts
have already approved the settlement the Company offered in November
last year in relation to class actions arising from its local telephone
service.

As of April 23, 2001, the following state's courts approved the
settlement agreements: Colorado, Utah, Minnesota, New Mexico, Arizona
and Washington.

Through March 2001, seven purported class action complaints have been
filed in various state courts against Qwest and U S WEST on behalf of
customers in the states of Colorado, Arizona, Oregon, Utah, Minnesota,
Washington and New Mexico.

The complaints allege, among other things, that from 1993 to the
present, U S WEST, in violation of alleged statutory and common law
obligations, willfully delayed the provision of local telephone service
to the purported class members.

The complaints also allege that U S WEST misrepresented the date on
which such local telephone service was to be provided to the purported
class members.


THE KROGER: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. OH
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division, Case Number C-1-01-343, on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of The Kroger Co. (NYSE: KR) from December 5, 2000 through
March 2, 2001, inclusive.

The plaintiff is Margaret L. Feldman Knopper, suing on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated. The defendants include
Kroger and Joseph A. Pichler, Kroger's Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board of Directors.

The complaint charges Kroger and one of its officers and directors with
issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and
financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that on March
5, 2001, Kroger announced that it would have to restate earnings back
to its fiscal 1998 year as a result of improper accounting practices at
its "Ralphs" subsidiary. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants had
knowledge of the improper accounting practices since September 2000.

For additional details, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Marc A.
Topaz, Esq., Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by mail: Three Bala Plaza East,
Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004, by telephone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll
free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com


THOROUGHBRED TECHNOLOGY: Sixteen-State Fiber Optic Cable Suit Settled
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Notices of a class action settlement are being sent this week to more
than 50,000 landowners in 16 states. The settlement was reached between
attorneys representing the landowners and Thoroughbred Technology and
Telecommunications, Inc. (T-Cubed), the telecom subsidiary of Norfolk
Southern Corporation, owner of one of the nation's four largest
railroads.

The settlement is the largest ever involving installation of fiber
optic cable on right-of-way land, and it is the first ever on active
railroad rights-of-way, according to attorneys for the landowners. The
settlement has received preliminary approval from the federal court
that is presiding over the case, and the judge has approved the notice
to class members. A list of the states and counties involved in the
settlement appears below.

The settlement permits T-Cubed to install bundles of conduits on
railroad corridors that have been identified between major metropolitan
areas in the East, Northeast, South and Midwest. In return, T-Cubed
will pay landowners along the routes where conduits are installed.
Class members are all owners of land adjacent to or underlying the
specified railroad corridors as of June 5, 2001.

Class members whose land is used for the fiber optic conduits will
receive compensation in three forms. First, they will receive a
guaranteed payment of $6,000 per mile, which will compensate the
landowners for the first three conduits that T-Cubed plans to install.

Second, they will receive 7.5% or more of the revenue obtained by T-
Cubed from selling additional conduits, beyond the first three. If all
of the planned conduits are leased, the cash compensation to landowners
may exceed $30,000 per mile.

Third, all class members will have an opportunity to own equity in a
company that has been formed for their benefit as a part of the
settlement. The company, named Class Corridor, LLC, is a limited
liability company that has been formed under the laws of Delaware.

This company will own telecom easements over class members' land on the
side of the railroad corridor that is not being occupied by T-Cubed's
conduits. The company will also have the right to receive strands of
dark fibers from T-Cubed and an option to purchase a conduit from T-
Cubed, or in the alternative to receive a cash payment from T-Cubed.
Class Corridor, LLC will develop its assets for the benefit of the
class members.

The class action lawsuit claims that the landowners own much of the
land on which the fiber optic cables are being installed, and that T-
Cubed's railroad affiliates own only an easement for railroad purposes.
The landowners claim the rights to permit telecom uses on their land.
T-Cubed denies liability, but has agreed to the terms of the
settlement. Final determination on approval of the settlement will be
made by the federal court following a fairness hearing to be held in
Indianapolis on August 21, 2001.

Nels Ackerson, Co-lead Class Counsel for the plaintiffs, said, "This
settlement will put real value into the hands of the people whose
property is being used to construct the country's fiber optic backbone.
Landowners will get cash and they will also participate for the first
time in future profits from use of their land for fiber optic systems."

He continued, "I compliment T-Cubed for its sense of fairness and its
good business sense in reaching this settlement. It is a win-win
solution. Landowners will get fair compensation, and T-Cubed will have
prime corridors to develop for fiber optic uses free from title
challenges. T-Cubed's land rights will be unique. We know of no other
telecom company that can claim legal rights on all of the land for an
entire fiber optic system."

Timothy Elzinga, an Indiana farmer and the settlement class
representative, owns land along a railroad line leading into Chicago.
"This is a wonderful settlement," he said. "I'm glad T-Cubed is doing
the right thing. I was aware of other litigation on railroad right-of-
way land, and when I learned that somebody was about to put fiber optic
cables on my land without my permission, I called my attorney. This is
the kind of result that I had hoped for. We could not have done it
without a class action."

The notice to class members provides information concerning the
settlement. Members of the class who receive a notice and who choose to
remain in the class do not need to take any action in order to get the
results of the settlement. If any landowners wish to opt out of the
class action, the notice gives instructions on how that may be done. A
website also has been set up to answer questions concerning this
lawsuit and the settlement (http://www.FiberOpticFundI.com).  

Persons who believe they are entitled to be members of the class but do
not receive a personally addressed notice must return a registration
form no later than July 13, 2001. Forms for persons who have not
received notice may be obtained from the website or by calling the
claims center at a toll free number: 866-653-5344.

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit
include the following: Nels Ackerson and Kathleen C. Kauffman of the
Ackerson Group, Chartered, in Washington, D.C.; Roger C. Johnson of
Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis, Lightfoot, P.C. in Washington,
D.C.; John B. Massopust of Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette, LLP
in Minneapolis, MN; and Henry J. Price of Price, Potter, Jackson &
Mellowitz, P.C. in Indianapolis, IN.

NOTE: Additional information about the settlement, including court
orders and maps that may be downloaded, can be found at
http://www.FiberOpticFundI.com. Following is a list of the states and  
counties involved in the settlement:

                        FIBER OPTIC FUND I SETTLEMENT
                             States and Counties


    AL                   MD                  PA
    Colbert              Washington          Allegheny
    Jackson                                  Armstrong
    Lawrence             MI                  Beaver
    Limestone            Monroe              Blair
    Madison              Wayne               Cambria
    Morgan                                   Cumberland
                         MS                  Erie
    FL                   Alcorn              Franklin
    Baker                Tishimongo          Huntington
    Duval                                    Indiana
    Nassau               NC                  Juniata
                         Cleveland           Lawrence
    GA                   Gaston              Mifflin
    Banks                Mecklenburg         Perry
    Bibb                                     Westmoreland
    Carroll              OH                  York
    Charlton             Ashtabula
    Chattooga            Butler              SC
    Clayton              Clark               Cherokee
    Clinch               Crawford            Greenville
    Cobb                 Cuyahoga            Oconee
    Cook                 Delaware            Pickens
    Crisp                Erie                Spartanburg
    Dade                 Franklin
    DeKalb               Fulton              TN
    Dooly                Greene              Anderson
    Douglas              Hamilton            Bradley
    Echols               Huron               Fayette
    Floyd                Lake                Hamilton
    Fulton               Lorain              Hardeman
    Gwinnett             Lucas               Knox
    Habersham            Madison             Loudon
    Hall                 Mahoning            McMinn
    Haralson             Marion              McNairy
    Henry                Montgomery          Monroe
    Houston              Ottawa              Roane
    Lamar                Portage             Shelby
    Lowndes              Sandusky
    Monroe               Seneca              VA
    Polk                 Stark               Alexandria
    Spalding             Summit              Clarke
    Stephens             Trumbull            Fairfax
    Tift                 Warren              Fauquier
    Turner               Williams            Manassas
    Walker               Wood                Manassas Park
                                             Prince William
    IL                                       Warren
    Cook
                                             WV
    IN                                       Jefferson
    De Kalb
    Elkhart
    La Porte
    Lake
    Noble
    Porter
    St. Joseph



UNITED DOMINION: Settles Water Billing Suit in Texas For $2.7 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------------
United Dominion Realty Trust, Inc. revealed in its latest filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission that it has settled, in the
first quarter of 2001, the water usage billing class action in Texas.  
The case was settled for $2.7 million.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: To Defend Against Challenges to its Care Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In September 1999, a group of plaintiffs' trial lawyers publicly
announced that they were targeting the managed care industry by way of
class action litigation. Since that time, like other managed care
companies, Unitedhealth Group, Inc. have received several purported
class action matters that generally challenge managed care practices
including cost containment mechanisms, disclosure obligations and
payment methodologies. The Company intends to defend vigorously all of
these cases.


WESTERN RESOURCES: Court Consolidates All Pending Suits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of California
has consolidated all the pending purported class action against Western
Resources, Inc., its subsidiary Westar Industries, Protection One,
Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc. and certain present and former
officers and directors of Protection One.

According to a regulatory document filed with SEC by the Company, the
plaintiffs filed a third consolidated amended class action complaint on
February 27, 2001.

Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of a class consisting
of all purchasers of publicly traded securities of Protection One,
including common stock and notes, during the period of February 10,
1998, through February 2, 2001.  

The Amended Complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
allegations that various statements concerning Protection One's
financial results and operations for 1997, 1998, 1999 and the first
three quarters of 2000 were false and misleading and not in compliance
with generally accepted accounting principles.  

The Amended Complaint further asserts claims against the company and
Westar Industries as controlling persons under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  


WORLDCOM INC.: Court Consolidates All Securities Suits Filed in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Worldcom, Inc. revealed in a recent SEC filing that the United District
for the Southern District of Mississippi has consolidated all
securities suit filed in November 2000, along with the purported class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of individuals who purchased stock in
Intermedia Communications, Inc.  The consolidation of the above cases
was made in a hearing on March 27, 2001.

These case stem from allegations that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about some aspects of the Company's performance
by failing to disclose, among other things, that the merger with MCI
did not yield the anticipated cost savings and revenue increases, that
the Company's growth rate was declining, and that its financial
statements were inflated due to the failure to write down, on a timely
basis, $405 million in receivables.

Based on these allegations, the complaints assert claims for violation
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the 1934
Securities Act.



                              *********

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  * * *