CAR_Public/010604.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                Monday, June 4 2001, Vol. 3, No. 108

                               Headlines

ACCELERATED NETWORKS:Stull Stull Commences Lawsuit in C.D. California
ACCELERATED NETWORKS: Expects Consolidation of Securities Suits in CA
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Motion to Dismiss Hearing Set For This Month
ANDRX CORPORATION: Court Certifies Class in Michigan Cardizem(R) Suit
AOL TIME: Court Dismisses All But One AOL Version 5.0 Software Suit

AUTOWEB.COM: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
AVAYA INC.: May Be Named Party in Cases Against Lucent Technologies
AVAYA INC.: New Jersey Court Certifies Case Against Lucent Technologies
CREDIT SUISSE: Four More Shareholders Suits Filed in Delaware Court
CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Several Suits Over Misstatements in Registration

CREDIT SUISSE: Sued For Antitrust Violations in New York, New Jersey
DUKE ENERGY: CA Cases Won't Affect Company Finances or Operations
ECHOSTAR BROADBAND: Too Early to Predict Outcome of Cases in Colorado
FLORIDA POWER: Hearing on Decertification Argued in Appellate Court
FORD MOTOR: California Appellate Court Upholds $26 Million Verdict

GRUBB & ELLIS: Appeal on Summary Judgment Reaches 3rd Circuit Court
HANOVER DIRECT: Expects Ruling On Certification Motion By 3rd Quarter
HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: State Dept. Lauds Decision on Nazi-era Lawsuits
HOMEGOLD FINANCIAL: No Class Has Been Certified in Three N.C. Suits
INSIGHT MIDWEST: Kentucky Subsidiary Sued For Passing Tax to Consumer

INTERNATIONAL GAME: Class Certification Still Pending After Two Years
INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Enters Milestone Redux Liability Deal
IOMEGA CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing of Rinaldi Suit Set For June 8
L.F. ROTHSCHILD: Proposes $75,000 Settlement of New York Lawsuit
MARKETWATCH.COM: Responds to Five Securities Suits in S.D. New York

MICROSTRATEGY: PricewaterhouseCoopers Offers $55M to Settle Option Suit
MITEK SYSTEMS: Reaches Tentative $2M Settlement of Securities Suit
NORTEL NETWORKS: Dismissal Requested Re Case Linking N.N. to Entrust
ORGANIC INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PARTSBASE.COM: Sued Over Public Offering in March - April Last Year

PATHNET TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Indemnification From Co-developer
PLAINS RESOURCES: $30 M Settlement of Texas Suit Awaits Court Nod
SATX INC.: Says Allegations in LA Suit Incorrect, Recovery Unlikely
SONIC INNOVATIONS: Faces Securities Suit Filed in Utah District Court
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Faces Multiple Lawsuits in Alabama

VANTAGEMED CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss Scheduled For August
VENCOR INC.: Appellate Court Upholds Securities Suit Against Company
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Milberg Weiss Commences Lawsuit in S.D. New York

* PwC Says Shareholder Suits Against High Tech Will Increase in 2001


                               *********


ACCELERATED NETWORKS:Stull Stull Commences Lawsuit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, on behalf of
purchasers of Accelerated Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ:ACCLE) common stock
between June 22, 2000 and April 17, 2001.

The complaint alleges that defendants Accelerated Networks, Inc. and
its top officers issued false and misleading statements concerning
Accelerated's business and financial condition. On April 17, 2001,
Accelerated announced it will likely restate its Fiscal Year 2000
financial statements as a result of accounting misstatements. On this
news, trading in Accelerated shares was halted at $1.18 per share, or
more than 98% below its Class Period high of $67.50.

For more information, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull &
Brody by calling toll-free 1-800-337-4983, or by e-mail at
SSBNY@aol.com, or by fax at 212/490-2022, or by writing to Stull, Stull
& Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017.


ACCELERATED NETWORKS: Expects Consolidation of Securities Suits in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As of May 11, 2001, eight securities class action lawsuits had been
filed against the Company and certain current and former officers, in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

The lawsuits allege that defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition and
prospects during the period of June 22, 2000 through April 17, 2001, in
violation of sections 10(b), 10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Company expects that the cases and any subsequently filed cases
will be consolidated into a single action. The Company believes that
these lawsuits are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend
itself.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Motion to Dismiss Hearing Set For This Month
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on the motion to dismiss filed by Allscripts Healthcare
Solutions, Inc. has been scheduled for this month.  The Company
furnished this information to SEC in a recent regulatory filing.

In January 2001, Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel were appointed in the
consolidated securities case originally filed in four separate cases
between October and December last year.  These cases were consolidated
and reassigned in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois presided by Judge Charles Kocoras.

On March 12, 2001, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated and Amended Class
Action Complaint. The Amended Complaint continues to name Allscripts
and David B. Mullen as defendants and alleges violations of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

Three additional defendants are named in the Amended Complaint: Glen E.
Tullman, Allscripts' Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer,
J. Peter Geerlofs, Allscripts' Chief Medical Officer, and Philip J.
Langley, formerly Allscripts' Senior Vice President of Business
Development/Field Services.

The Amended Complaint purports to expand the Class Period in the
consolidated case to include all individuals who purchased the common
stock of Allscripts during the period from March 6, 2000 through and
including February 27, 2001.

The Amended Complaint is based on the previous allegations regarding
Allscripts' restatement of its financial results for the second quarter
of 2000 and new allegations relating to, inter alia, the prospects for
the TouchScript product.


ANDRX CORPORATION: Court Certifies Class in Michigan Cardizem(R) Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrx Corporation disclosed in a recent regulatory filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that the Eastern District Court of
Michigan has certified as a class the indirect purchasers of Cardizem
(R) CD residents in Michigan.  The court issued the classification
order last April 3. The report offered no further information on the
matter.

The Company is engaged in the marketing and distribution of generic
pharmaceuticals manufactured by third parties though its in-house
telemarketing staff primarily to independent pharmacies, non-
warehousing chains and physician offices.

It also researches and develops bioequivalent versions of selected
controlled-release brand name pharmaceuticals utilizing its proprietary
drug delivery technologies and manufactures and sells such products.


AOL TIME: Court Dismisses All But One AOL Version 5.0 Software Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AOL Time Warner, Inc. disclosed in a recent regulatory filing with SEC
that the consolidated putative class action litigation concerning the
Company's AOL version 5.0 software has been dismissed with prejudice.

The court handed down this decision on April 19, 2001. The court ruled
on the motion to dismiss of the Company and dismissed all but one of
the consumer claims brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act with
prejudice and dismissed the remaining consumer CFAA claim without
prejudice.

Regarding the claims brought by competing Internet service providers,
the court dismissed one CFAA claim with prejudice, allowed one CFAA
claim to remain and dismissed all remaining claims without prejudice,
including claims alleging unfair business practices and tortious
interference.


AUTOWEB.COM: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit last week, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of Autoweb.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:AWEB) common stock
between March 23, 1999 and April 18, 2001.

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

The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Act of 1933 because the Prospectus distributed to investors and the
Registration Statement filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory
approval for the Autoweb.com offering.

For further details, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull &
Brody by calling toll-free 1-800-337-4983, or by e-mail at
SSBNY@aol.com, or by fax at 212/490-2022, or by writing to Stull, Stull
& Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017.


AVAYA INC.: May Be Named Party in Cases Against Lucent Technologies
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Avaya Inc. says it may be named a party three separate purported class
action lawsuits pending against Lucent Technologies Inc. in the state
court of New York and West Virginia and in a federal court in
California.

Avaya Inc. was spun off from Lucent in September last year pursuant to
a distribution of all outstanding shares of the Company's common stock
to Lucent shareowners.

The case in New York was filed in January 1999, and after being
dismissed, was re-filed in September 2000. The case in West Virginia
was filed in April 1999 and the case in California was filed in June
1999.

All three actions are based upon claims that Lucent sold products that
were not Year 2000 compliant, meaning that the products were designed
and developed without considering the possible impact of the change in
the calendar from December 31, 1999 to January 1, 2000.

The complaints allege that the sale of these products violated
statutory consumer protection laws and constituted breaches of implied
warranties. A class has not been certified in any of the three cases.


AVAYA INC.: New Jersey Court Certifies Case Against Lucent Technologies
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 1998, a class action was filed against Lucent in state court
in New Jersey, alleging that Lucent improperly administered a coupon
program resulting from the settlement of a prior class action.

The plaintiffs allege that Lucent improperly limited the redemption of
the coupons from dealers by not allowing them to be combined with other
volume discount offers, thus limiting the market for the coupons.
Avaya Inc. has assumed the obligations of Lucent for these cases under
the Contribution and Distribution Agreement.

The complaint alleges breach of contract, fraud and other claims and
the plaintiffs seek compensatory and consequential damages, interest
and attorneys' fees.  The state court has recently certified a class in
this action.


CREDIT SUISSE: Four More Shareholders Suits Filed in Delaware Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Since six putative class actions were filed on March 26, 2001 in the
Delaware Chancery court alleging that the Company's proposed offer to
acquire all of the publicly owned CSFB direct common stock for $4 per
share is unfair, four additional putative class actions asserting
virtually identical claims have been filed in that court.

This is the latest information furnished by Credit Suisse First Boston
USA, Inc. to SEC in a recent regulatory filing.

On or about March 30, 2001, the putative class actions initially filed
in September 2000 in the Delaware Court of Chancery by the public
shareholders of CSFB direct common stock were consolidated and
captioned In re CSFBdirect Tracking Stock Shareholders Litigation.

Plaintiffs simultaneously filed a second consolidated amended complaint
asserting their original claims and adding claims that allege that the
proposed offer by the Company, announced on March 26, 2001, to purchase
all the publicly owned common stock of CSFB at a price of $4 per share
is unfair.


CREDIT SUISSE: Faces Several Suits Over Misstatements in Registration
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in January 2001, Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. was named
as a defendant in a large number of putative class action complaints
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging various violations of the federal securities laws resulting
from alleged material omissions and misstatements in registration
statements and prospectuses for the initial public offerings and with
respect to transactions in the aftermarket.

These lawsuits contain allegations that the registration statement and
prospectus either omitted or misrepresented material information
about commissions paid to CSFB Corp. and aftermarket transaction by
certain customers that received allocations of shares in the initial
public offerings.


CREDIT SUISSE: Sued For Antitrust Violations in New York, New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Since March 2001, Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. and six other
investment banks were named as defendants in several putative class
actions filed with the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District
of New York and the District of New Jersey, alleging violation of the
federal antitrust laws in connection with alleged practices in the
allocation of shares in initial public offerings in which such
investment banks were a lead or co-managing underwriter.

The lawsuits allege that the underwriter defendants have engaged in an
illegal antitrust conspiracy to require customers, in exchange for
initial public offering allocations, to pay undisclosed and excessive
commissions, in amounts equaling approximately 33% of the customers'
profits from a given initial public offering allocation.

The complaint also alleges that the underwriter defendants conspired to
require customers, in exchange for initial public offering allocations,
to agree to make after market purchases of the initial public offering
securities at a price higher than the offering price, as a precondition
to receiving an allocation. These alleged "tie-in" arrangements are
further alleged to have artificially inflated the market price for the
securities.


DUKE ENERGY: CA Cases Won't Affect Company Finances or Operations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation believes the disposition of all cases filed in
California will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated results of operations, cash flows or financial position.
The Company made this claim in a regulatory filing with SEC recently.

The company, certain of its subsidiaries, and three current or former
executives are presently named as defendants, among numerous other
corporate and individual defendants, in one or more of a total of six
lawsuits brought by or on behalf of electricity consumers in the State
of California who seek damages as a result of the defendants' alleged
unlawful manipulation of the California wholesale electricity markets.

Duke Energy North America (DENA) and Duke Energy Trading and Marketing
(DETM) have been named among 16 defendants in a class action lawsuit
(the Gordon lawsuit) filed against companies identified as "generators
and traders" of electricity in California markets.

DETM also was named as one of numerous defendants in four additional
lawsuits, including two class actions (the Hendricks and Pier 23
Restaurant lawsuits), filed against generators, marketers and traders
and other unnamed providers of electricity in California markets.

A sixth lawsuit (the Bustamante lawsuit), was brought by the
Lieutenant Governor of the State of California and a State
Assemblywoman, and includes Duke Energy, DENA, DETM, Duke Energy Morro
Bay, Duke Energy Moss Landing, Duke Energy South Bay, Duke Energy
Oakland, and three current or former executives of Duke Energy among
the numerous other corporate and individual defendants.

The Gordon and Hendricks class action lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego County, in
November 2000. Three other lawsuits were filed in January 2001, one in
Superior Court, San Diego County, and the other two in Superior Court,
County of San Francisco.  The Bustamante lawsuit was filed in May 2001
in Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

These lawsuits generally allege that the defendants manipulated the
wholesale electricity markets in violation of state laws against unfair
and unlawful business practices and state antitrust laws. Plaintiffs in
these lawsuits seek aggregate damages of billions of dollars.


ECHOSTAR BROADBAND: Too Early to Predict Outcome of Cases in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EchoStar Broadband Corporation says it is too early to predict the
outcome of two separate lawsuits filed in Colorado.  However, it is
presently preparing a variety of counterclaims against the plaintiffs,
the Company disclosed in a recent regulatory filing with SEC.

In two separate lawsuits filed in the District Court, Arapahoe County,
State of Colorado and the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado, respectively, Air Communication & Satellite, Inc. and John
DeJong, et. al. filed lawsuits on October 6, 2000 on behalf of
themselves and a class of persons similarly situated.

The plaintiffs are attempting to certify nationwide classes allegedly
brought on behalf of persons, primarily retail dealers, who were
alleged signatories to certain retailer agreements with EchoStar
Satellite Corporation.

The plaintiffs are requesting the Court to declare certain
provisions of the alleged agreements invalid and unenforceable, to
declare that certain changes to the agreements are invalid and
unenforceable, and to award damages for lost commissions and payments,
charge backs, and other compensation.

The plaintiffs are alleging breach of contract and breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing and are seeking declaratory
relief, compensatory damages, injunctive relief, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.


FLORIDA POWER: Hearing on Decertification Argued in Appellate Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments last January
on the appeal by plaintiffs on a federal court decision decertifying
the class in the Florida age discrimination suit.

This information was furnished by Florida Power Corporation to the SEC
recently in a regulatory filing.  The Company and Florida Progress have
been named defendants in an age discrimination lawsuit. The number of
plaintiffs remains at 116, but four of those plaintiffs have had their
federal claims dismissed and 74 others have had their state age claims
dismissed.

The Company also noted in the regulatory document that there's no
assurance that settlement of these cases will not exceed $5 million.

"In December 1998, during mediation in this age discrimination suit,
plaintiffs alleged damages of $100 million. Company management, while
not believing plaintiffs' claim to have merit, offered $5 million in an
attempt to settle all claims. Plaintiffs rejected that offer," the
document disclosed."


FORD MOTOR: California Appellate Court Upholds $26 Million Verdict
------------------------------------------------------------------
An appellate court in California upheld last week the $26 million
verdict versus Ford Motor Co. in a case filed by a driver whose Bronco
II sports car flipped in 1996, leaving him a quadriplegic, the Reuter
News Agency reported.

The First District Court rejected the carmaker's arguments that the
rollover could have been caused by the force of the accident instead of
the vehicle's design.

According to Reuters, a jury in Hayward, California ruled last March
that Richard Raimondi and his wife had suffered a total of more than
$51 million in damages. But it concluded that Ford should pay only half
that amount because Raimondi was partially responsible for the
accident, awarding Raimondi $19.4 million and his wife, Dana Raimondi,
$6.5 million.

Raimondi suffered severe injuries when the Ford Bronco II he was
driving rolled over after he swerved to avoid an obstacle.

Raimondi, who was 53, died last year several months after the jury
verdict of complications from the accident, Reuters said.


GRUBB & ELLIS: Appeal on Summary Judgment Reaches 3rd Circuit Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Grubb & Ellis Company disclosed in a recent regulatory filing with SEC
that the plaintiffs in the John W. Matthews, et al. v Kidder, Peabody &
Co., et al. and HSM, Inc. case have appealed a summary judgment to the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals. No further developments have transpired
so far, the regulatory report noted.

On August 18, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania had issued an opinion granting defendants' motions for
summary judgment dismissing the federal RICO claims as time-barred
under the statute of limitations.

Aside from charges of RICO violations, the suit also includes
allegations of securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and negligent
misrepresentation surrounding the defendants' organization, promotion,
sponsorship and management of the Partnerships.

As to the state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent
misrepresentation, the court in August 2000 declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed them without prejudice. The
court declined to rule on defendants' motion to decertify the class
because it was moot.

The case was filed on January 23, 1995 as a class action on behalf of
approximately 6,000 limited partners who invested approximately $85
million in three public real estate limited partnerships during the
period beginning in 1982 and continuing through 1986.

The defendants include HSM Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company, and several subsidiaries of HSM Inc., along with other parties
unrelated to HSM Inc.


HANOVER DIRECT: Expects Ruling on Certification Motion By 3rd Quarter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent SEC filing, Hanover Direct, Inc. disclosed it is expecting
a ruling on the class certification motion by plaintiffs in April
during the Company's third quarter.

The Company faces a securities suit filed in the State Court of
Oklahoma, which was commenced by Edwin L. Martin on behalf of himself
and a class of persons who have at any time purchased a product from
the Company and paid for an "insurance charge."

The complaint sets forth claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, recovery of money paid absent consideration, fraud and a
claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The complaint alleges
that the Company charges its customers for delivery insurance even
though, among other things, the Company's common carriers already
provide insurance and the insurance charge provides no benefit to the
Company's customers.

The damages sought are:

      (i) an order directing the Company to return to the plaintiff and
          class members the "unlawful revenue" derived from the
          insurance charges,

     (ii) declaring the rights of the parties,

    (iii) permanently enjoining the Company from imposing the insurance
          charge,

     (iv) awarding threefold damages of less than $75,000 per plaintiff
          and per class member, and

      (v) attorney's fees and costs.

The Company's motion to dismiss is pending and discovery has commenced.
The plaintiff has deposed a number of individuals.


HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: State Dept. Lauds Decision on Nazi-era Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted
recently a writ of mandamus ordering unconditional dismissal of the
cases against German banks for wrongs committed during the Nazi era.

"We welcome this decision, which will result in the dismissal of the
last of the consolidated Nazi-era class action lawsuits against German
companies. We hope that the decision paves the way for Chancellor
Schroeder to recommend and the German Bundestag to determine that
adequate legal peace has been achieved. As soon as the Bundestag is
able to consider and adopt such a determination, the process of making
payments can commence," U.S. Department of State spokesman Richard
Boucher said in a press statement.

"Since the Schroeder Government came to office in October 1998, the
U.S. Departments of State, Justice, and, for a time, Treasury have
engaged with German government partners to gain a measure of justice
for victims of certain Nazi-era wrongs. Together we worked with
survivor groups, German business, plaintiffs' attorneys, five Central
and Eastern European governments and the State of Israel, and others.

"It is in the interest of the United States that Nazi-era victims
receive this gesture and recognition of the suffering they endured. It
is further in our foreign policy interest that the effort contribute to
greater harmony among member states of the transatlantic community, and
that German businesses active in the United States benefit from
enduring and all-embracing legal peace with respect to claims arising
from the National Socialist era. The Appeals Court decision moves us
forward toward those goals," the statement said.


HOMEGOLD FINANCIAL: No Class Has Been Certified in Three N.C. Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Homegold Financial, Inc. disclosed in a recent regulatory filing with
SEC that there has yet a class to be certified in the three lawsuits
presently pending against in the Company.

On August 20, 1999, Janice Tomlin, Isaiah Tomlin, and Constance Wiggins
filed a purported class action lawsuit in New Hanover County, North
Carolina Superior Court. That suit has been transferred to North
Carolina Business Court.

The suit was filed against a subsidiary of the Company and others
alleging a variety of statutory and common law claims arising out of
mortgage loans they obtained through Chase Mortgage Brokers.

On February 22, 2000, Michael and Kimberly Chasten filed a similar
action in Duplin County, North Carolina Superior Court. That suit has
been removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of North Carolina.

On April 13, 2000 Reginald Troy filed a similar action in New Hanover
County, North Carolina Superior Court. That suit has been removed to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of North
Carolina.


INSIGHT MIDWEST: Kentucky Subsidiary Sued For Passing Tax to Consumer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Insight Kentucky, a cable television systems subsidiary of Insight
Midwest, L.P., and certain prior owners of the Kentucky cable
television systems have been named in class actions regarding the pass-
through of state and local property tax charges to customers by the
prior owners of the Kentucky Systems.

The plaintiffs seek monetary damages and the enjoinment of the
collection of such taxes. The Company believes that the Kentucky
Systems have substantial and meritorious defenses to these claims.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Class Certification Still Pending After Two Years
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for certification of class in Nevada lawsuit remains pending
more than three years into the litigation, this according to a latest
regulatory document filed by International Game Technology with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The last court transaction of this case happened in February 11, 1998
when the Company filed its answer to the Consolidated Amended
Complaint.

In December 1997, the Court had denied the motions that would have
dismissed the Consolidated Amended Complaint or that would have
stayed the action pending Nevada gaming regulatory action.

Along with a number of other public gaming corporations, IGT is a
defendant in three class action lawsuits that have been consolidated
into a single action.

The actions allege that the defendants have engaged in fraudulent and
misleading conduct by inducing people to play video poker machines and
electronic slot machines, based on false beliefs concerning how the
machines operate and the extent to which there is an opportunity to win
on a given play.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants' acts constitute
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
and also give rise to claims for common law fraud and unjust
enrichment, and seeks compensatory, special, consequential, incidental
and punitive damages of several billion dollars.


INTERNEURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Enters Milestone Redux Liability Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Interneuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:IPIC) entered into an
agreement with American Home Products Corporation (NYSE: AHP) that
includes complete indemnification for certain classes of product
liability cases filed against Interneuron related to Redux, a
prescription anti-obesity compound withdrawn from the market in
September 1997.

This indemnification covers existing plaintiffs who have already opted
out of AHP's national class action settlement and all claimants
alleging primary pulmonary hypertension. The agreement also provides
for AHP to fund additional insurance coverage to supplement
Interneuron's existing product liability insurance.

The Company believes this total insurance coverage is sufficient to
address its potential remaining Redux product liability exposure.
In addition, AHP has agreed to fund all future legal costs related
to Interneuron's defense of Redux-related product liability cases.

In exchange, Interneuron has agreed to withdraw its suit against AHP
filed in January 2000, its objection to the judicial approval of a
national class action settlement of Redux product liability claims, and
its cross-claims against AHP related to Redux product liability legal
actions.

"This agreement is a significant milestone in Interneuron's ongoing
resolution of Redux-related legal actions," said Glenn L. Cooper, M.D.,
president and chief executive officer of Interneuron. "It represents
the best interests of our shareholders and employees, and we believe it
will lead to a renewed focus on Interneuron's product pipeline of
multiple advanced clinical stage product candidates.

"No Redux-related judgments have been brought against Interneuron to
date, and with this agreement, we are confident that we have put this
chapter of product liability litigation behind us," noted Dr. Cooper.

"Importantly, the indemnification from AHP includes plaintiffs who have
opted out of AHP's proposed national class action settlement and all
plaintiffs alleging primary pulmonary hypertension. The increased
insurance coverage and funding of defense costs by AHP are structured
to address the relatively small number of remaining cases.

"We believe the result is a strengthened ability to pursue our business
model of licensing and timely product development and to re-direct our
attention on the outcomes of ongoing clinical testing, which include
several Phase III clinical trial milestones expected to take place this
year and next," Dr. Cooper said.

Interneuron's clinical stage products include: pagoclone, in Phase III
clinical testing for panic disorder and in Phase II clinical testing
for generalized anxiety disorder by Pfizer Inc., Interneuron's
licensee; trospium, expected to begin Phase III clinical testing for
overactive bladder in 2001; IP 501, in Phase III testing by the
Department of Veterans Affairs for alcoholic cirrhosis and by the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) for Hepatitis C cirrhosis; and PRO
2000, a topical microbicide that has completed Phase I/II clinical
testing and is expected to enter Phase II/III clinical testing
sponsored by the NIH in late 2001/early 2002.

Interneuron Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in
the development and commercialization of a diversified portfolio of
product candidates, including multiple compounds in late-stage clinical
development.

For more information about this case, contact Michael W. Rogers,
Executive Vice President and CFO, (781) 861-8444 or William B. Boni,
Vice President, Corp. Communications, (781) 402-3410.


IOMEGA CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing of Rinaldi Suit Set For June 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing for the final approval of the settlement offer by Iomega
Corporation has been scheduled for June 8, 2001, according to a
regulatory document recent filed by the Company with SEC.

The settlement offer contains provisions for the Company to pay $4.7
million in plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.  In addition, the
Company will issue rebates ranging between $5 and $40 to class members
who submit proof of claim.  On the other hand, class members who do not
opt out of the settlement will release the Company from all claims that
were or which could have been raised in the litigation.

On September 10, 1998, a purported class action lawsuit, Rinaldi, et
al. v. Iomega Corporation, was filed against the Company in the
Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County.  The suit alleges that a
defect in the Company's Zip drives causes an abnormal clicking noise
that may indicate damage to the Zip drive or disks.

On January 31, 2000, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, re-
asserting their claim under the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act and, on
February 28, 2000, the Company moved to dismiss this amended claim.
With respect to this motion, on April 10, 2000, the Attorney General of
the State of Delaware filed a brief in opposition.  The Court has not
yet decided the motion to dismiss.

A claim filed in Texas demands relief of $150 for each Zip drive
purchased by a class member,  $100 for mental anguish damages to each
class member and attorneys' fees and costs.  Formal litigation in
connection with the Texas Claim has not been commenced.


L.F. ROTHSCHILD: Proposes $75,000 Settlement of New York Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP announced to owners of 7%
convertible subordinated debentures due 2011 issued by L.F. Rothschild,
Unterberg, Tobin Holdings, Inc. (subsequently known as L.F. Rothschild
Holdings, Inc.) that the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, in an order dated May 15, 2001, has preliminarily
approved as a class action, for the purposes of settlement, a suit
filed against L.F. Rothschild and Co. Incorporated, Franklin Savings
Association, Franklin Financial Services, Inc.  A settlement for
$75,000, plus certain interest, has been proposed.

The plaintiffs are represented by Martin H. Philip and Marie L. Sander,
as trustees under a Deed of Trust dated January 4, 1982 for the benefit
of Thomas Hadesty and Patricia Hadesty, individually, and on behalf of
all other debenture holders similarly situated.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable William H. Pauley, III, in
Courtroom 618 of the United States Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New
York, New York 10007, at 11:00 a.m. on July 27, 2001 to determine
whether the proposed settlement should be approved by the court as
fair, reasonable and adequate, and to consider the application of Class
Counsel for an award of fees and the reimbursement of reasonable
expenses.

For more information, contact: Curtis V. Trinko, Esq. or Neal
A. DeYoung, Esq., Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 16 West 46th
Street, 7th Floor, New York, New York 10036, 212/490-9550.


MARKETWATCH.COM: Responds to Five Securities Suits in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MarketWatch.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: MKTW) responded last week to five
securities class action lawsuits, naming certain underwriters of its
January 15, 1999 initial public offering, the Company and its current
or former officers and directors.

The lawsuits appear to arise out of alleged improper practices by its
underwriters and were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The Company told its shareholders at its Annual Meeting that it
believes the lawsuits against it and certain of its current and former
officers and directors have no merit and while the outcome of any
litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company does not believe that
these lawsuits should have a material adverse effect on its business.
MarketWatch.com intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits.

The Company is currently aware of approximately twenty other companies
that have been sued in nearly identical lawsuits. The complaints focus
on alleged internal practices by certain investment banks in connection
with certain initial public offerings. It appears that the companies,
officers and directors are being sued because these companies had
initial public offerings that were underwritten by these investment
banks.

Although several complaints have been filed, they are virtually
identical except for variations in the alleged class period, defendants
named, and whether or not certain federal securities claims are
included.  The Company expects the complaints to be consolidated into
one case.

Plaintiffs claim that defendants distributed a prospectus to investors
and filed a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission that contained material misstatements and omissions.


MICROSTRATEGY: PricewaterhouseCoopers Offers $55M to Settle Option Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP announced that
an additional cash settlement worth $55,000,000 with the sole remaining
defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in Civil Action No. 00-173-A has
been proposed.  The announcement is directed towards all persons who
purchased the common stock or call options, or sold put options, of
MicroStrategy during the period of June 11, 1998 through March 20,
2000.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable T. S. Ellis, III, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Alexandria Division, 401 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, Virginia 22314,
at 2:00 p.m., on July 16, 2001 to determine whether the proposed
settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and to consider the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

Members of the class who have not yet received the full printed Notice
of Settlement of Class Action with Respect to Remaining Defendant
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Hearing on Proposed Settlement and
Attorneys' Fee Petition and Right to Share in Settlement Fund and a
Proof of Claim form may obtain copies of these documents by identifying
themselves as members of the Class and by calling or writing to:

      MicroStrategy Securities Litigation
      c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
      Claims Administrator
      Post Office Box 990
      Corte Madera, CA  94976-0990
      800-447-7657

Inquiries, other than requests for the forms of Notice and Proof of
Claim, may be made to Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel:

   Daniel W. Krasner, Esq.                Melvyn I. Weiss, Esq.
   Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.              Steven G. Schulman, Esq.
   WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER                 MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
   FREEMAN & HERZ LLP                     HYNES & LERACH LLP
   270 Madison Avenue                     One Pennsylvania Avenue
   New York, New York 10016               New York, New York 10019
   212-545-4600                           212-594-5300


Persons who have not already submitted a Proof of Claim in connection
with the prior settlement but wish to participate in this settlement
are directed to submit a Proof of Claim no later than September 3,
2001.  Class members who will not share in the settlement but will be
bound by the final order and judgment of the court are those who:

      * did not previously exclude themselves;
      * did not previously submit a proper proof of claim; and
      * do not now submit a proper proof of claim.

The pleadings and other records of the Action may be examined and
copied at any time during regular business hours at the office of the
Clerk, United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Alexandria Division, 401 Courthouse Square, Alexandria,
Virginia 22314.   Further information may be obtained by writing to the
Claims Administrator at the address set forth above.


MITEK SYSTEMS: Reaches Tentative $2M Settlement of Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitek Systems Inc. (Nasdaq:MITK) announced last week that it has
reached a tentative settlement of a consolidated class-action
securities litigation lawsuit that has been pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California since
October of 2000.

The lawsuit sought an undetermined amount of damages on behalf of
purchasers of Mitek's securities between Dec. 27, 1999, and Sept. 29,
2000. The suit alleged that Mitek's securities sold during the class
period at inflated values due to allegedly improper reporting of
quarterly earnings.

Under the terms of the tentative settlement, Mitek continues to dispute
the merits of the lawsuit but has approved a compromise payment of $2
million, which will be funded entirely by Mitek's directors and
officers' liability insurance carrier for the benefit of shareholder
class members.

The settlement will remain tentative until executed and after it has
been approved by the court and until after proper notices have been
sent to the various individual and institutional shareholders
comprising the plaintiff class.

Company President and Chief Executive Officer John M. Thornton
commented that he was pleased to see this class litigation end so that
it would not detract from the company's business operations as a
worldwide provider of intelligent character recognition technology,
products and services for the document and check imaging markets.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Dismissal Requested Re Case Linking N.N. to Entrust
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 12, 2001, Nortel Networks Inc., a subsidiary of Nortel
Networks Ltd, was served with a consolidated amended class action
complaint that purported to add Nortel Networks Corporation 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 Nortel Networks Corporation
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to certain
statements made by Entrust Technologies. Nortel Networks Corporation is
alleged to be a controlling person of Entrust Technologies.

On April 6, 2001, Nortel Networks Corporation filed a motion to dismiss
the Complaint.


ORGANIC INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class
action lawsuit last week on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Organic, Inc. (NASDAQ:OGNC) between February 9, 2000 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.

The action, captioned Daniel L. Soper v. Organic, Inc. et al., 01 CV
4778 (HB), is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against defendants Organic, Goldman Sachs & Co.,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Salomon Smith
Barney, Inc., Jonathan Nelson, Michael Hudes and Susan L. Field.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

For further details, contact: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
phone: (800) 320-5081 by Email: wirelessfacilitiescase@milbergNY.com or
through the firm's website: http://www.milberg.com


PARTSBASE.COM: Sued Over Public Offering in March - April Last Year
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In April and May 2001, PartsBase.com Inc. received notice of or has
been served with three purported class action lawsuits (Foderaro vs.
Partsbase.com, Inc. et al, Case No.: 01-8319 CIV- FERGUSON;
IKCYBERINVESTMENTS vs. PartsBase.com, Inc. et al, Case No.: 01-8368
CIV-SEITZ; and Webb vs. Partsbase, et al. Case No. 01-8376 CIV-
GRAHAM).

The lawsuits name as defendants the Company, certain of its current and
former officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial
public offering of securities.  The lawsuits allege violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and allege
the Company's March 2000 registration statement misrepresented and
failed to disclose matters related to the Company's business operations
and membership sales.

The lawsuits seek damages and certification of a class consisting of
purchasers of the Company's common stock in the offering during the
period from March 22, 2000 through April 25, 2000.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the lawsuits are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action.
Nevertheless, an unfavorable resolution of these lawsuits could have a
material adverse effect on the Company in one or more future periods.


PATHNET TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Indemnification From Co-developer
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 19, 2000, Pathnet Telecommunications, Inc. and its subsidiary,
Pathnet, Inc., were sued in Superior Court of the District of Columbia
by several plaintiffs purporting to represent a class of landowners
damaged by the Company in connection with its development of fiber
optic network.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company installed or will
install fiber optic facilities on the property of the landowners in the
class without obtaining the necessary legal consents from the
landowners.

They are seeking to file as a class action lawsuit for trespass and
other damages from the construction of fiber optic telecommunications
system across the class members' land. On July 18, 2000, plaintiffs
significantly narrowed the purported class to include only landowners
on a particular segment of our network.

Meanwhile, the Company is seeking indemnification for these claims from
360 networks (USA) Inc., the Company's co-development partner for the
project in these four states.

"We believe that, under our development agreement with 360, 360 is
required to indemnify us for these types of claims. We are presently in
mediation with 360 regarding indemnification, but we have not been able
to resolve this matter," says a SEC regulatory document filed recently
by the Company.


PLAINS RESOURCES: $30 M Settlement of Texas Suit Awaits Court Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., a subsidiary of Plains Resources,
Inc. deposited about $30 million in a bank account last January as part
of an agreement recently reached by the Company and the plaintiffs in
the Di Giacomo v. Plains All American Pipeline, et al.

This settlement, however, is subject to a number of conditions,
including final approval by the court, noted a regulatory document
recently filed by the Company with SEC.

On November 29, 1999, the class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The suit
alleged that Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. and certain of the
general partner's officers and directors violated federal securities
laws, primarily in connection with unauthorized trading by a former
employee.

An additional nineteen cases have been filed in the Southern District
of Texas, some of which name the general partner and the Company as
additional defendants. All of the federal securities claims were
consolidated into two actions.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were liable for securities fraud
violations under Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and for making false registration statements under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.


SATX INC.: Says Allegations in LA Suit Incorrect, Recovery Unlikely
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SATX, INC. is a defendant in a lawsuit styled Nigro V. Satellite
Control Technologies, Inc.,Et Al., which is now pending in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court.

This is a class action lawsuit filed by Nigro on behalf of himself and
others who owned SATX stock between September 26, 1996 and October 7,
1997. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for depreciation of their
stock due to alleged intentional and negligent misrepresentation of
certain former officers and directors of the Company.

The alleged misrepresentations are that (i) the Company had substantial
purchase orders for its AlphaTrak product line and (ii) the AlphaTrak
product line was viable and would be available on the market in the
first or second quarter of 1997.

Based on the documentary evidence currently in the possession of the
Company and interviews with former officers, directors, employees, and
outside engineers, it appears that the allegations are incorrect. Based
on the facts presently available to counsel, substantial recovery by
plaintiffs appears unlikely.


SONIC INNOVATIONS: Faces Securities Suit Filed in Utah District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Innovations is currently a defendant in a lawsuit filed in
October 2000 claiming that the Company and certain of its officers
violated the federal securities laws by providing materially false and
misleading information or concealing information about the Company's
relationship with Starkey Laboratories, Inc.

This lawsuit, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Utah, purports to be brought as a class action on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from May 2, 2000
to October 24, 2000 and seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The complaint alleges that as a result of false statements or
omissions, the Company was able to complete its IPO, artificially
inflate its projections and results and have its stock trade at
inflated levels.

The Company strongly denies these allegations and will defend itself
vigorously; however, litigation is inherently uncertain and there
can be no assurance that the Company will not be materially affected.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Faces Multiple Lawsuits in Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial Corporation recently reported to the SEC in a
regulatory filing that currently, multiple lawsuits seeking class
action treatment are pending against one of the Company's banking
subsidiaries in Alabama that involve:

      (1) payment of service fees or interest rebates to automobile
          dealers in connection with the assignment of automobile credit
          sales contracts to that subsidiary;

      (2) the forced placement of insurance to protect that subsidiary's
          interest in collateral for which consumer credit customers
          have failed to obtain or maintain insurance; and

      (3) the receipt of commissions by that subsidiary in connection
          with the sale of credit life insurance to its consumer credit
          customers and the charging of an interest surcharge and a
          processing fee in connection with consumer loans made by that
          subsidiary.

Synovus intends to vigorously contest these lawsuits and all other
litigation to which Synovus and its subsidiaries are parties.


VANTAGEMED CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss Scheduled For August
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vantagemed Corporation disclosed in a latest SEC regulatory filing that
the Company's motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
is scheduled for hearing in August 2001.

Beginning on March 13, 2000 a series of similar securities class action
lawsuits were filed alleging that the Company and certain directors and
officers violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  These actions were consolidated into a single
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California entitled Zinno v. VantageMed Corporation, et al., No. CIV.S-
00-0523 MLS DAD.

On or about March 19, 2001, plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933,
and dismissing all claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all persons who purchased
the Company's common stock pursuant to its February 15, 2000 IPO.


VENCOR INC.: Appellate Court Upholds Securities Suit Against Company
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in an en banc
decision, reversed last week a federal district court's dismissal of
plaintiffs' securities class action complaint brought on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Vencor, Inc., a Louisville, Kentucky
hospital-management company.  The case is now remanded back to the
district court for further proceedings.

In the majority opinion written by Chief Judge Merritt, the Court held
that "plaintiffs here have stated a claim for securities fraud by
creating ... a 'strong inference' that defendants projected financial
well-being at a time when they had actual knowledge that their
statements were false and misleading ...."

The securities-fraud action was filed in December 1997 against Vencor
and several of its high-level officers. Plaintiffs alleged that during
1997, Vencor continued to issue statements that it was "comfortable"
with financial analysts' estimates that it would earn between $2.20 and
$2.60 per share for 1997.

The complaint was dismissed by the district court for failure to state
a claim under the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws.
On appeal, a three-judge panel upheld the district court's dismissal,
with one judge dissenting. Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en
banc, a request that the appeal be heard by all of the active judges on
the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit granted the petition, and the case
was argued before 13 active judges of the Court of Appeals in December
2000.

For further details, contact: Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,
Boca Raton, Kenneth J. Vianale by phone: 561/361-5000 or by fax:
561/367-8400


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Milberg Weiss Commences Lawsuit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class
action lawsuit last week on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Wireless Facilities, Inc. (NASDAQ:WFII) between November 4, 1999 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action, captioned Aman Kermaninejad v. Wireless Facilities, Inc. et
al., No. 01 CV 4779 (MBM), is pending in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York against defendants Wireless
Facilities, Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, Massih Tayebi,
Masood K. Tayebi and Thomas A. Munro.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

For more information, contact: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman
by mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
phone: (800) 320-5081 by email: wirelessfacilitiescase@milbergNY.com or
through the firm's website: http://www.milberg.com


* PwC Says Shareholder Suits Against High Tech Will Increase in 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------
According to PricewaterhouseCoopers 2000 Securities Litigation Study,
more than half of the 201 shareholder class action lawsuits filed in
federal courts last year contained allegations of financial fraud.

Fifty-three percent of all cases filed in 2000 contained financial
fraud allegations, and PricewaterhouseCoopers expects the number of
cases containing this type of allegation to continue at this pace in
2001.

Among the factors driving the surge in financial fraud cases include
increased Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) scrutiny of
accounting and financial disclosure issues; the attention on revenue
recognition policies of the software and technology sectors and the
number of companies announcing earnings restatements.

The SEC's heightened efforts to reduce financial fraud are expected to
continue. Last year, the SEC issued more new litigation releases than
in any year since 1996. Future SEC activities may include actions
relating to Regulation FD and to the new and heightened audit committee
guidelines.

In 2000, the computer services and the telecommunications fields
accounted for over 40 percent of all companies sued. Software companies
have been subject to significant scrutiny from the plaintiff's bar,
with 26 software companies sued in 2000 alone.

PricewaterhouseCoopers' research indicates that approximately 35
percent of all financial fraud cases are filed after a company
announces it has, or will, restate its financial statements.

Additionally, nearly half of all companies named in these cases
eventually restate earnings. To date, fifty of the 107 companies sued
in accounting allegation cases last year have already restated their
financial filings.

"Looking ahead to 2001, the seemingly high percentage of companies
delaying the filing of their annual reports, coupled with the market
downturn in late 2000, will likely lead to more shareholder class
actions suits in coming months," said Kerry Francis, Dispute
Analysis & Investigations partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers.

"Particularly in the technology sector, there may be an increase in
shareholder suits alleging a company artificially inflated share prices
by issuing false and misleading information about the company's growth
based on "new economy" metrics," Francis added. (BusinessWire, May 31,
2001)

The full details of PricewaterhouseCoopers 2000 Securities Litigation
Study can be found on the website: www.10b5.com


                               *********

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  * * *