CAR_Public/010608.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                Friday, June 8 2001, Vol. 3, No. 112

                               Headlines

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE: Awaits Final Court Approval Of Settlement Deal
AMPLIDYNE INC.: Settles New Jersey Suit For $750,000 Cash, 300T Shares
APPLIED MICRO: Yet To Answer Securities And Derivative Suits In CA
AT HOME: To Put Up Strong Defense Vs. Securities Suit Naming Officers
AUTODESK INC.: Hearing Date On Motion To Dismiss CA Suit Not Yet Set

CALIFORNIA AMPLIFIER: Expects 20 Securities Suits To Be Consolidated
CB RICHARD: Forges MOU With Plaintiffs To Settle Five Suits In DE
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Convertible Note Suit Won't Be Decided Until 2002
ECONNECT INC.: Negotiates Settlement Pact For 31 Shareholders Suits
ESC MEDICAL: Parties In New York Securities Suit Commence Discovery

FORD MOTOR:Ford, Firestone Ask Court Not To Supervise Voluntary Recall
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: No Fraudulent Transfer Occurred In Creation of Co.
GADZOOX NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit In New York
GREAT ATLANTIC: Plaintiffs In Federal Suit Accepts $3M Settlement
IVILLAGE INC.: Lovel and Sirota Law Firms Commence Suit In S.D. NY

LITTLE SWITZERLAND: Negotiating Settlement Of Securities Suit In DE
NPC INTERNATIONAL: Inks MOU With Plaintiffs To Settle Kansas Suits
PENN TREATY:Sued In E.D. Pennsylvania Over Abrupt Dive Of Stock Value
PHOENIX COMPANIES:Subsidiary Sued Over Conversion From Mutual To Stock
SAFETY-KLEEN: Court Upholds Plaint In Rollins Shareholder Litigation

SCHOLASTIC CORPORATION: Second Circuit Sustains Securities Fraud Suit
SIMON TRANSPORTATION: Plaintiffs Ask Court To Reconsider Ruling
TEAM COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Several Securities Suits in C.D. CA
T-NETIX INC.: Service Provider And AT&T Only Companies Left In Suit
T-NETIX INC.: Parties File Pleadings In RICO, Wiretapping Suit In VA

VISION TWENTY-ONE: Class Certification Discovery Starts In FL Suit
WCI COMMUNITIES: Too Early To Gauge Effect Of RICO-RESPA Lawsuit

* Canadian Suit Seeks to Reshape Physician Regulatory System

                               *********


AMERICAN ENTERPRISE: Awaits Final Court Approval Of Settlement Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In August, 2000 an action entitled Lesa Benacquisto, Daniel
Benacquisto, Richard Thoresen, Elizabeth Thoresen, Arnold Mork,
Isabella Mork, Ronald Melchert and Susan Melchert v. American Express
Financial Corporation, American Express Financial Advisors, American
Centurion Life Assurance Company, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, American Partners Life Insurance Company, IDS Life Insurance
Company and IDS Life Insurance Company of New York was commenced in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On October 2, 2000 the District Court, Fourth Judicial District for the
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin and the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota entered an order conditionally
certifying a class for settlement purposes, preliminarily approving the
class settlement, directing the issuance of a class notice to the class
and scheduling a hearing to determine the fairness of settlement for
March, 2001.

On March 6, 2001 the District Court, Fourth Judicial District for the
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin and the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota heard oral arguments on
plaintiffs' motions for final approval of the class action settlement.

Six motions to intervene were filed together with objections to the
proposed settlement.  The Company is awaiting a final order from the
court.


AMPLIDYNE INC.: Settles New Jersey Suit For $750,000 Cash, 300T Shares
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amplidyne, Inc. informed the Securities and Exchange Commission
recently that it has reached an agreement with plaintiffs to settle the
consolidated securities suit pending in New Jersey.

The settlement consists payment of $750,000 in cash and issuance of
324,486 shares of the Company's common stock that has a value of
$500,000.  The agreement is subject to court approval.

The consolidated suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  That complaint alleges that the Company and
other individuals violated the federal securities laws by, among other
things, the issuance of a press release on September 9, 1999.


APPLIED MICRO: Yet To Answer Securities And Derivative Suits In CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting in April 2001, a series of similar federal complaints were
filed against Applied Micro Circuits Corporation and its chief
executive officer, chief financial officer and certain other executive
officers and directors of the Company.

These complaints allege essentially identical violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaints have been brought as
purported shareholder class actions under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks monetary
damages on behalf of the shareholder class.

In general, the Complaints allege that the Company and the individual
defendants misrepresented the Company's financial prospects for the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2001 to inflate the value of the Company's
stock.

The Company anticipates that the Complaints pending in federal court
will be consolidated into a single proceeding.

In addition, in May 2001, certain individuals filed derivative actions
against the directors and certain executive officers in the California
State Courts.

These state court derivative complaints allege overstatement of the
financial prospects of the Company, mismanagement, inflation of stock
value, and sale of stock at inflated prices for personal gain, during
the time period from November 2000 through February 2001.

The Company has not yet responded to any of these lawsuits, and no
discovery has been conducted. The Company believes that the allegations
in each of these actions are without merit and intends to defend the
actions vigorously.


AT HOME: To Put Up Strong Defense Vs. Securities Suit Naming Officers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 29, 1999 Allen Ozdemir filed a purported class action against
two of the former officers and directors of iMall for failing to halt
or delay a block sale of restricted iMall stock prior to the
acquisition of iMall by At Home Corporation. The Company acquired iMall
on October 27, 1999.

On August 28, 2000, the plaintiff amended his complaint to state two
claims for breach of fiduciary duty, claiming that Messrs. Rosenblatt
and Mazzarella owed the purported plaintiff class duties to halt or
delay the stock sale both in their capacity as officers and directors
of iMall and in their capacity as attorneys in fact of the stockholders
participating in the stock transaction.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, restitution, and
punitive damages. The amended complaint has been answered on behalf of
Messrs. Rosenblatt and Mazzarella, denying the plaintiff's claims. The
class certification hearing was set for May 19, 2001.

"We believe this action is without merit and the defendants intend to
defend against this action vigorously," the Company said in a
regulatory filing with SEC.


AUTODESK INC.: Hearing Date On Motion To Dismiss CA Suit Not Yet Set
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On March and April 2000, three class action complaints were filed
against Autodesk, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors,
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California consolidated these complaints into one lawsuit in August
2000.

The plaintiffs seek to act on behalf of purchasers of Autodesk common
stock during the period between September 14, 1998 and May 4, 1999 and
are seeking unspecified damages.

On November 14, 2000 the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the lawsuit, allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and the Company has filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The motion is not yet
scheduled for a hearing.


CALIFORNIA AMPLIFIER: Expects 20 Securities Suits To Be Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the announcement by California Amplifier, Inc. on March 29,
2001 of the resignation of its Controller and the possible
overstatement of net income for the fiscal year ended February 26,
2000, the Company and certain of its officers and directors were named
defendants in twenty putative class actions in federal court.

Sixteen of the class actions seek to represent a class of purchasers of
the Company's common stock for the period between April 6 or 7, 2000
and March 28, 2001. Four of the class actions seek to represent a class
of purchasers of the Company's common stock for the period between June
10 or 11, 1999 to March 28 or 29, 2001.

All of the complaints cite to the Company's March 29, 2001 announcement
regarding the resignation of the Company's corporate controller and
statement that net income for the fiscal year ended February 26, 2000
may have been overstated by as much as $2.2 million.

The twenty actions are expected to be consolidated into a single action
pursuant to stipulation of the parties. The Company expects to move to
dismiss the complaints after they are consolidated and a lead
plaintiffs' counsel appointed, and intends to defend the actions
vigorously.


CB RICHARD: Forges MOU With Plaintiffs To Settle Five Suits In DE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Between November 12 and December 6, 2000, five putative class actions
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for
New Castle County by various stockholders of CB Richard Ellis Services,
Inc. against it, the directors of the Company and the continuing
stockholders and heir affiliates.

A similar action was also filed on November 17, 2000 in the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles.
These actions all alleged that BLUM CB Corp.'s offering price was
unfair and inadequate and sought injunctive relief or rescission of the
transaction and, in the alternative, money damages.

The five Delaware actions were subsequently consolidated and a lead
counsel appointed. As of February 23, 2001, the parties to the Delaware
litigation entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they
agreed in principle to a settlement.


COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Convertible Note Suit Won't Be Decided Until 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Several of the stockholders of Covad Communications Group, Inc. have
filed class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its
current or former officers. These lawsuits were filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaints in these matters allege violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's securities,
including those who purchased common stock and those who purchased
Convertible Notes, during the periods from September 7, 2000 to October
17, 2000 or September 7, 2000 to November 14, 2000.  The relief sought
includes monetary damages and equitable relief.

In addition, six purchasers of the Convertible Notes have filed
complaints in the California Superior Court for the County of Santa
Clara.

These complaints allege fraud and deceit, negligence and violations of
state securities laws in connection with the Company's Convertible
Notes offering. The relief sought includes rescission of their
purchases of approximately $142 million in aggregate principal amount
of Convertible Notes and unspecified damages, including punitive
damages.

However, the Company believes the Convertible Notes were legally and
validly issued. Two of these purchasers holding $48 million in
aggregate principal amount of the Convertible Notes have dismissed
their complaints without prejudice.

Although the Company believes it has strong defenses in these pending
and threatened lawsuits, the ultimate outcome of this litigation cannot
presently be determined.

However, management, based on the advice of legal counsel, believes the
likelihood that the pending securities litigation involving the
Convertible Notes will result in judgment before January 1, 2002 is
remote.


ECONNECT INC.: Negotiates Settlement Pact For 31 Shareholders Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent regulatory filing, eConnect, Inc. informed the Securities
and Exchange Commission that it is negotiating a settlement with the
plaintiffs of the 31 shareholders suits pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

The following thirty-one actions were filed on various dates between
March 14, 2000 and early May 2000:

      (i) Einhorn, et al. v. eConnect, Thomas S. Hughes, Jack M. Hall,
          Dianne Hewitt, Anthony L. Hall, and Kevin J. Lewis, Case No.
          00-02674 MMM (JWJx);

     (ii) Eckstein, et al. v. eConnect, Inc., Thomas S. Hughes, Jack M.
          Hall, Dianne Hewitt, Anthony L. Hall, and Kevin J. Lewis, Case
          No. 00-02700 DDP (CWx);

    (iii) Bernstein, et al. v. eConnect, Inc., et al., Case No. 00-02703
          FMC (BQRx);

     (iv) Colangelo, et al. v. eConnect, Inc., et al., Case No. 00-02743
          SVW (SHx);

      (v) Baron, et al. v. eConnect, Inc., Thomas S. Hughes, Jack M.
          Hall, Dianne Hewitt, Anthony L. Hall, and Kevin J. Lewis, Case
          No. 00-02757 WJR (CTx);

     (vi) Warstler, et al. v. eConnect, Inc., Thomas S. Hughes, Jack M.
          Hall, Dianne Hewitt, Anthony L. Hall, and Kevin J. Lewis, Case
          No. 00-02758 R (SHx);

    (vii) Prager, et al. v. eConnect, Inc., Thomas S. Hughes, Jack M.
          Hall, Dianne Hewitt, Anthony L. Hall, and Kevin J. Lewis, Case
          No. 00-02759 GHK (RCx);

   (viii) Weisblum, et al. v. eConnect and Thomas S. Hughes, Case No.
          00-02770 MRP CTx);

     (ix) Mazda, et al. v. eConnect, et al., Case No. 00-02776 LGB
          (Mcx);

      (x) Pirraglia, et al. v. eConnect, et al., Case No. 00-02875 SVW
          (CWx);

     (xi) Hershkop and Hershkop, et al. v. eConnect and Thomas S.
          Hughes, Case No. 00-03095 MRP (RNRx);

    (xii) Bacun, et al. v. eConnect, Inc., Thomas S. Hughes, Jack M.
          Hall, Dianne Hewitt, Anthony L. Hall, and Kevin J. Lewis, Case
          No. 00-03161 FMC (JWJx);

   (xiii) Fine, et al. v. eConnect, Inc. and Thomas Hughes, Case No. 00-
          03290 SVW (BQRx);

    (xiv) Smith, et al. v. eConnect, Thomas Hughes, Case No. 00-03301 DT
          (Mcx);

     (xv) Reimer, et al. v. eConnect, Thomas Hughes, Case No. 00-03405
          JSL;

    (xvi) Tepper, et al. v. eConnect and Thomas S. Hughes, Case No. 00-
          03444 WJR (CTx);

   (xvii) Bury, et al. v. eConnect, Thomas Hughes, Case No. 00-03446
          ABC;

  (xviii) Villari, et al. v. eConnect, Thomas Hughes, Case No. 00-03447
          LGB (SHx);

    (xix) Ringel, et al. v.  eConnect, Inc. , Thomas S. Hughes, Jack M.
          Hall, Dianne Hewitt, Anthony L. Hall, and Kevin J. Lewis, Case
          No. 00-03591 RSWL (RNBx);

     (xx) Massaro, et al. v. eConnect, Inc., Thomas S. Hughes, Jack M.
          Hall, Dianne Hewitt, Anthony L. Hall, and Kevin J. Lewis, Case
          No. 00-03671 DDP (MANx);

    (xxi) Gardner, et al. v. eConnect, Inc., Thomas S. Hughes, Jack M.
          Hall, Dianne Hewitt, Anthony L. Hall, and Kevin J. Lewis, Case
          No. 00-03897 MMM (RZx);

   (xxii) Schneyer, et al. v. eConnect, Case No. CV-00-03783 MMM (JWJx);

  (xxiii) Ginocchi, et al. v. eConnect, Case No. 00-04003 MMM (JWJx);

   (xxiv) Matrisciani, et al. v. eConnect, Case No. 00-04181 MMM (JWJx);

    (xxv) Dutton, et al. v. eConnect, Case No. 00-04505 LGB (Ex);

   (xxvi) Shaw, et al. v. eConnect, Case No. 00-04637 LGB (Ex);

  (xxvii) Gowrie, et al. v. eConnect, Case No. 00-04686 LGB (Ex);

(xxviii) Belcher, et al. v. eConnect, Case No.00-04792 LGB (Ex);

   (xxix) Lively, et al. v. eConnect, Case No. 00-03112 MMM (JWJx);

    (xxx) Levine, et al. v. eConnect, Case No. 00-03649 MMM (JWJx); and

   (xxxi) Berkowitz, et al. v. eConnect, Case No. 00-04152 MMM (JWJx).


Plaintiffs in the various actions assert that the Company and Thomas S.
Hughes, as well as (in certain of the actions) Jack M. Hall, Diane
Hewitt, Anthony L. Hall, and Kevin J. Lewis, have violated Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and also Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The principal allegations concern various alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions which supposedly made the Company's
public statements on and after November 18, 1999 (and/or on and after
November 23, 1999) false and misleading, thereby artificially inflating
the market in and for the Registrant's common stock.


ESC MEDICAL: Parties In New York Securities Suit Commence Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In late 1998 ESC Medical Systems, Inc. was named in a number of
purported class action securities lawsuits that have been
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

In July 1999, a consolidated amended complaint was filed naming, among
others, the Company and several additional current and former
directors and officers of the Company and Laser Industries Limited, a
subsidiary of the company, as defendants.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks damages and attorneys' fees
under the United States securities laws for alleged "tipping" of non-
public information to an investment banker in September 1998 and for
alleged irregularities in the way in which the Company reported its
financial results and disclosed certain facts throughout 1997 and 1998.

On December 23, 1999, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.  On August 31, 2000, the Court entered an order
dismissing the claim against the Laser director and officer defendants
and denying the remaining dismissal counts.

The parties have entered into a scheduling order and have commenced
discovery.


FORD MOTOR:Ford, Firestone Ask Court Not To Supervise Voluntary Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Both Ford Motor Co. and Firestone urged a federal judge earlier this
week not to dip her hands into Ford's recall of 13 million Wilderness
AT tires, the Reuters News Agency reported.

According to Firestone spokeswoman Jill Bratina, there is no legal
basis for the court to contact tire owners because a court-supervised
recall is unnecessary since its tires are safe.

Lawyers representing those killed and injured in accidents involving
Ford Explorers and Firestone tires had asked U.S. District Court Judge
Sarah Evans Barker of Indianapolis last week to supervise the recall,
Reuters said.

``Court supervision and approval will make the program more effective
for all class members,'' Reuters quoted papers filed in support of the
plaintiffs' motion.


FRESENIUS MEDICAL: No Fraudulent Transfer Occurred In Creation of Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 28, 2000, Mesquita, et al. v. W. R. Grace & Company, et
al. (Sup. Court of Calif., S.F. County, #315465) was filed as a class
action by plaintiffs claiming to be creditors of W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn
against Grace Chemicals, Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. and
other defendants, principally alleging that the Merger which resulted
in the original formation of FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE CORPORATION was a
fraudulent transfer, violated the uniform fraudulent transfer act, and
constituted a conspiracy.

An amended complaint (Abner et al. v. W. R. Grace & Company, et al.)
and an additional class action were filed subsequently with
substantially similar allegations. These cases have been stayed in
connection with Grace's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

The Company has requested indemnification from Grace Chemicals pursuant
to the Merger agreements. It is confident, though, that no fraudulent
transfer or conspiracy occurred and intends to defend the cases
vigorously.


GADZOOX NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit In New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class
action lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Gadzoox Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ:ZOOX) between July 19, 1999 and December
6, 2000, inclusive.

The action, captioned Eric Cooper v. Gadzoox Networks, Inc. et al., No.
01 CV 5309 (RO), is pending in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York against defendants Gadzoox, Credit Suisse
First Boston Corp., BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Bill Sickler,
Christine E. Munson and Alistair Black.

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
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 Phone number:
(800) 320-5081 Email: gadzooxcase@milbergNY.com  Website:
http://www.milberg.com


GREAT ATLANTIC: Plaintiffs In Federal Suit Accepts $3M Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On January 13, 2000, the Attorney General of the State of New York
filed an action in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, alleging
that Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. and its subsidiary
Shopwell, Inc., together with the Company's outside delivery service
Chelsea Trucking, Inc., violated New York law by failing to pay minimum
and overtime wages to individuals who deliver groceries at a Food
Emporium store in New York City.

The complaint seeks a determination of violation of law, an
unspecified amount of restitution, an injunction and costs.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on January 13, 2000 in the
federal district court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company, Shopwell, Inc. and others by Faty Ansoumana and others.

The federal court action makes similar minimum wage and overtime pay
allegations under both federal and state law and extends the
allegations to various stores operated by the Company.

In December 2000, the plaintiffs in the federal court action accepted a
$3 million offer of judgment made by the Company, such offer being
conditional upon the federal court entering an order certifying a class
consisting of the individuals who are the subject of a pending motion
by the plaintiffs for class certification.


IVILLAGE INC.: Lovel and Sirota Law Firms Commence Suit In S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Lovell & Stewart, LLP and Sirota & Sirota, LLP filed a
class action lawsuit Tuesday on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock
of iVillage Inc. (NasdaqNM:IVIL) between March 18, 1999 and October 28,
1999 inclusive.

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

The action, Saul Kassin v. iVillage Inc., et al., is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (500 Pearl
Street, New York, New York), Docket No. 01-CV-4974 (SWK) and has been
assigned to the Hon. Shirley Wohl Kram, U.S. District Judge.

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

For further details, contact: Lovell & Stewart, LLP, Christopher
Lovell, Victor E. Stewart, or Christopher J. Gray by mail: 500 Fifth
Avenue New York, New York 10110 by Phone: (212) 608-1900 or by email:
sklovell@aol.com or Sirota & Sirota, LLP, Howard B. Sirota, Saul Roffe
by mail: 110 Wall Street New York, New York 10005 by phone: (212) 425-
9055 or by email: info@sirotalaw.com


LITTLE SWITZERLAND: Negotiating Settlement Of Securities Suit In DE
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 22, 1999, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware (Civil Action No.
99-176) against Little Switzerland, Inc. certain of its former officers
and directors, DRHC and Stephen G.E. Crane.

The complaint alleges that such defendants violated federal securities
laws by failing to disclose that DRHC's financing commitment to
purchase Little Switzerland's shares expired on April 30, 1998 before
Little Switzerland's stockholders were scheduled to vote to approve the
proposed merger between Little Switzerland and DRHC at the May 8, 1998
special meeting of stockholders.

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, including, without
limitation, reasonable expenses in connection with this action. The
plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 10, 1999 and Little
Switzerland filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint
on December 7, 1999. On January 28, 2000, the plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the motion to dismiss.

In March 2001, the District Court, among other things, granted Little
Switzerland's motion to dismiss with respect to certain allegations in
the amended complaint that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by failing to disclose the status of Little Switzerland's
relationship with a particular watch vendor; however, the District
Court denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the Financing
Disclosure Allegations. In addition, the District Court dismissed the
claims against defendants DRHC and Stephen G.E. Crane.

Little Switzerland has entered into discussions to settle this action.


MOTIENT CORPORATION: Will Build Strong Defense Against Suits In DE
------------------------------------------------------------------
Motient Corporation is disclosed a recent SEC regulatory filing that a
number of purported class action lawsuits have been filed in Delaware
Chancery Court challenging the proposed merger between the Company
and Rare Medium Group, Inc.

All of the complaints name Rare Medium Group, along with members of its
board of directors, as defendants.  Most of the complaints name Apollo
Advisors, L.P. and certain of its affiliated entities as co-defendants
and some of the complaints name Motient as a co-defendant.

The complaints principally allege that the defendants purportedly
breached duties owed to Rare Medium's stockholders in connection with
entering into the merger agreement. Motient plans to contest the
lawsuits vigorously.


NPC INTERNATIONAL: Inks MOU With Plaintiffs To Settle Kansas Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 14, 2000, a purported stockholder of NPC International,
Inc. filed a purported stockholder class action lawsuit against the
Company and each of its directors in the District Court of Crawford
County, Kansas under the caption Barry Feldman v. Bicknell, et al.,
Civil Action No. 00C2628.

On December 15, 2000, a purported stockholder of NPC filed a purported
stockholder class action lawsuit against NPC and each of its directors
in the District Court of Crawford County, Kansas under the caption
James Miller v. Bicknell, et al., Civil Action 00C2637.

On December 19, 2000, a purported stockholder of NPC filed a purported
stockholder class action lawsuit in the District Court of Johnson
County, Kansas under the caption Harbor Finance Partners et al. v.
Bicknell et al., Civil Action No. 00-CV-07833.

In these cases, the plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that (1)
the offer by Mr. O. Gene Bicknell, by and through Mergeco, to purchase
each outstanding share of NPC common stock for $11.40 in cash without
interest was grossly unfair to NPC's public stockholders, (2) the
directors of NPC breached their fiduciary duties to the NPC
stockholders, and (3) the offer was advanced through unfair procedures.

On May 10, 2001, NPC, the defendant directors and the named plaintiffs
reached an agreement in principal with respect to the settlement of
this litigation and counsel to each of the parties to the litigation
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to the following:

      (i) to attempt in good faith to settle all claims;

     (ii) to pay fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel and experts of
          $250,000 in the aggregate following plaintiffs' confirmatory
          discovery, if any;

    (iii) to execute and seek court approval of a definitive settlement
          agreement and certain other terms and conditions without any
          admission of any breach of fiduciary duty or other wrongdoing
          on the part of any of the defendants.

The settlement agreement would become effective only if, among other
things, the merger is consummated.


PENN TREATY:Sued In E.D. Pennsylvania Over Abrupt Dive Of Stock Value
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Penn Treaty American Corporation received notice on April 17, 2001,
that the Company and certain of its key executive officers have been
named as defendants in class action lawsuits filed in United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as a result of
the Company's recent stock performance.

The complaints in each case allege that the Company and its executives
made misleading statements about the Company's statutory surplus,
statutory reserves and financial health.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of these class action lawsuits,
however it contends that the lawsuits are baseless and completely
without merit, and intends to defend itself vigorously.


PHOENIX COMPANIES:Subsidiary Sued Over Conversion From Mutual To Stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At a public hearing conducted by the New York Superintendent on March
19, 2001, some policyholders and others raised objections to
certain aspects of the reorganization plan of Phoenix Home Life Mutual
Insurance Company, which will convert it from a mutual to a stock
company.

These objections alleged, among other things, that the plan was not
fair and equitable to policyholders of Phoenix Home. Two lawsuits have
been filed challenging the fairness of the plan of reorganization
and the adequacy and accuracy of Phoenix Home's disclosures to its
policyholders regarding the plan.

The first of these lawsuits, Burns v. Phoenix Home Life Mutual Ins.
Co., et al., was filed on April 4, 2001 in the Circuit Court of Cook
County for the Illinois County Department in the Chancery Division.

Plaintiff seeks to maintain a class action on behalf of a putative
class consisting of all current policyholders of Phoenix Home who
purchased their policies prior to Phoenix Home's announcement of its
intention to "demutualize."

The complaint seeks damages for losses allegedly sustained by the class
as a result of the "demutualization", as well as other relief. The
defendants named in the complaint are Phoenix Home and some of its
directors and officers.

The second lawsuit, Kertesz v. Phoenix Home Life Mutual Ins. Co., et
al., was filed on April 16, 2001 in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York for New York County. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
"demutualization", damages and other relief.

The defendants named in this complaint include Phoenix Life, The
Phoenix Companies, Inc. and all its directors, as well as Morgan
Stanley & Co. Incorporated.


SAFETY-KLEEN: Court Upholds Plaint In Rollins Shareholder Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. of the United States District Court of
South Carolina has issued an order denying, in part, and granting in
part, defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint filed on behalf of former shareholders of Rollins
Environmental Services, Inc., asserting claims against Safety-Kleen
Corporation, certain former officers and directors of the Company,
certain former officers and directors of Rollins, and Laidlaw, Inc., in
connection with the May 15, 1997 reverse acquisition of Rollins by
Laidlaw, Inc., which was effectuated by a Proxy Statement dated April
30, 1997.

The combined entity was eventually renamed Laidlaw Environmental
Services, Inc. Its name was eventually changed to Safety-Kleen Corp.,
when it acquired that entity in April 1998.

Although the claims against Safety-Kleen Corp. were stayed as a matter
of law pursuant to the Company's pending bankruptcy reorganization, the
claims against the other defendants were allowed to proceed.

The complaint asserted claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 alleging that the Proxy Statement
issued to Rollins shareholders that sought their vote in favor of the
reverse acquisition, contained certain materially false and misleading
financial information.

The Court's order of May 23, 2001 denied certain defendants' motions to
dismiss for failure to adequately plead a section 14(a) claim as
against certain officers and directors of Safety-Kleen (who were also
former officers and directors of the Laidlaw group of companies
involved in the reverse acquisition).

However, the Court's order did grant defendants' motions to dismiss
claims against Laidlaw, Inc. and certain former officers and directors
of Rollins based upon application of the three-year statute of repose.

For more information, contact: Clint Krislov or Michael R. Karnuth of
KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ( http://www.krislovlaw.com), by email at
mail@krislovlaw.com, by fax at (312) 606-0207, by phone at (312) 606-
0500, or by mail at 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1350, Chicago, Illinois,
60606, or contact Jules Brody or Mark Levine of STULL STULL & BRODY (
http://www.secfraud.com), by email at ssbny.com, by fax at (212) 490-
2022, by phone at (212) 687-7230, or by mail at 6 East 45th Street, New
York, New York 10017.


SCHOLASTIC CORPORATION: Second Circuit Sustains Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP Announces Unanimous Second
Circuit Decision to Sustain Securities Fraud Class Action Complaint
Against Scholastic Corporation

In a unanimous decision issued on June 1, 2001, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a federal district court's
dismissal of a securities class action complaint brought on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Scholastic Corporation, a book
publishing company during the period December 10, 1996 through February
20, 1997.

In an opinion authored by Circuit Court Judge Cardamone, the Court held
that "plaintiffs in our view have survived the pleading stage of this
securities fraud litigation."

Plaintiffs filed this securities fraud class action shortly after
Scholastic's shocking revelation on February 20, 1997 of reduced sales
of children's books sold through its retail channels (principally
Goosebump books), that it would be taking a special pre-tax charge to
reserve for the return of unsold retail children's books, and
anticipated reporting a significant loss for its third quarter ending
February 28, 1997. The next day, Scholastic common stock lost
approximately 40 percent of its value.

Plaintiffs allege that commencing on December 10, 1996, when Scholastic
issued a press release announcing its financial results for its second
quarter ended November 30, 1996, Scholastic and its Vice President for
Finance and Investor Relations concealed a material decline in
Goosebump book sales and a material increase in returns of Goosebump
books. Plaintiffs further allege that during this period, this Vice
President sold 80 percent of his holdings of Scholastic stock and
Scholastic sold $125 million of notes.

In reversing the District Court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint,
the Circuit Court concluded that the Complaint pleaded, with sufficient
particularity, facts showing the existence of a downward trend in
Goosebump's profitability of which defendants were aware or recklessly
disregarded.

As stated in the opinion, "plaintiffs sufficiently allege an unusual
business model which, if proven, ignored alarmingly high returns that
function as an obvious straw to show which way the wind was blowing in
this book business."

The case (In re Scholastic Corporation Securities Litigation, Appeal
No. 00-7517) was argued for the Plaintiffs by Jeffrey A. Klafter, a
partner in the New York office of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP.

Klafter stated that he was "very pleased with the decision, not only
because Plaintiffs now have the opportunity to prove their claims at
trial, but also because the decision represents another of several
recent Second Circuit opinions in which the Court has refused to impose
an unduly high burden for pleading securities fraud."

The full text of the opinion is available on the Second Circuit's
website and on PACER.

For more information, contact: Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, New York, Jeffrey A. Klafter  Phone: 212/554-1400  Fax: 212/554-
1444


SIMON TRANSPORTATION: Plaintiffs Ask Court To Reconsider Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Transportation Services, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors have been named as defendants in a securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah,
Caprin v. Simon Transportation Services, Inc., et al., No. 2:98CV 863K
(filed December 3, 1998).

Plaintiffs in this action allege that defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions during the period February 13, 1997
through April 2, 1998 in violation of Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On September 27, 2000, the District Court dismissed the case with
prejudice. Plaintiffs have asked the Court for reconsideration and
alteration or amendment of the decision.


TEAM COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Several Securities Suits in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
On or after March 9, 2001, a number of securities class action
complaints were filed against Team Communications Group, Inc., its
former chief executive officer and a former chief financial officer in
the United States District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities
during the period between November 23, 1999 and February 12, 2001.

These class action complaints were brought pursuant to the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and allege violation of Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of that Act.

These actions were a result of the February 13, 2001 public
announcement by the Company concerning the substantial losses and
financial adjustments it expected to incur in fiscal 2000.

"We are currently evaluating the merits of such claims. The Company
maintains director and officer liability insurance coverage for such
claims," the Company said in a recent regulatory filing with SEC.


T-NETIX INC.: Service Provider And AT&T Only Companies Left In Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
T-NETIX, Inc. is a defendant in a state case brought in the Superior
Court of Washington for King County, styled Sandy Judd, et al. v.
American Telephone and Telegraph Company, et al. The complaint joined
several inmate telecommunications service providers as defendants,
including T-NETIX.

The complaint includes a request for certification by the court of a
plaintiffs' class action consisting of all persons who have been billed
for and paid for telephone calls initiated by an inmate confined in a
jail, prison, detention center or other Washington correctional
facility.

The complaint alleges violations of the Washington Consumer Protection
Act (WCPA) and requests an injunction under the Washington Consumer
Protection Act and common law to enjoin further violations.

The trial court has dismissed all claims with prejudice against all
defendants except T-NETIX and AT&T. These claims have been referred
to the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission while the
trial court proceeding is in abeyance.


T-NETIX INC.: Parties File Pleadings In RICO, Wiretapping Suit In VA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In another case styled Robert E. Lee Jones, Jr. vs. MCI Communications,
et al., plaintiffs, 43 inmates of the Bland Correctional Center in
Virginia, filed a pro se action alleging constitutional violations,
RICO Act violations and violations of Federal wiretapping laws.

Plaintiff's motion for certification for a class action was denied and
T-NETIX and MCI have filed Motions to Dismiss. Pleadings are still
being submitted in this case.


VISION TWENTY-ONE: Class Certification Discovery Starts In FL Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vision Twenty-One, Inc. disclosed in a recent SEC regulatory filing
that the consolidated securities suit pending in Florida is now in
class certification discovery.  This after plaintiffs filed a motion
for certification last January 26.

The Company, one of its former executive officers who was also a
director and two former officers are named as defendants in several
purported class action lawsuits filed in the United States District
Court for the middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.

The complaints allege, principally, that the Company and other
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements related to
the Company's integration of its acquisitions, in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.


WCI COMMUNITIES: Too Early To Gauge Effect Of RICO-RESPA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 2000, Richard Ahlborg, Carol Ahlborg, and other individuals who
purchased lots in Pelican Landing filed a lawsuit against WCI
Communities, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Ft. Myers Division.  The lawsuit seeks class
action status and was instituted the Company and a subsidiary, WCI
Realty, Inc.

It arose out of a preferred builder program under which plaintiffs
purchased vacant lots and then contracted with a builder of their
choice to construct a residence on their lots.

In consideration of the extensive costs incurred the Company and WCI
Realty associated with the marketing, sales and advertising of the
community for the benefit of the builders who participated in the
program, these builders were required to pay a marketing fee to WCI
Realty based on a percentage of the construction cost of the home.

The plaintiffs asserted that the Company had an obligation to disclose
to them that the preferred builder would pay a marketing fee to the
Company.

The plaintiffs have demanded unspecified money damages and have
alleged, among other things, violation of the federal Racketeering,
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act.

"Since the Court has not yet ruled on whether to certify this lawsuit
as a class, this litigation is still in its early stages. Therefore, we
are not yet able to determine whether the resolution of this matter
will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or
results of operations," the Company said in recent report to SEC.


* Canadian Suit Seeks to Reshape Physician Regulatory System
------------------------------------------------------------
A group of women suing a gynecologist/obstetrician in Whitby, Ontario,
has declared as their goal the reshaping of the way doctors are
regulated.

The lawsuit, reported in the "Toronto Star" of May 31 and June 1,
alleges that Ontario's College of Physicians and Surgeons, the self-
regulatory watchdog of that province's 26,000 doctors, acted
negligently and in bad faith when it failed "to properly investigate
and act on almost a dozen patient complaints" filed against Dr. Errol
Wai-Ping beginning in 1992.  Dr. Ping was trained in Jamaica and did
his residency at the University of Saskatchewan.

The action also alleges that the Ajax-Pickering Hospital of the Rouge
Valley Health System negligently failed to protect patients "when it
knew or ought to have known that Dr. Wai-Ping had a reputation for
substandard care."

The class action lawsuit alleges more particularly that, among other
things, Dr. Wai-Ping performed unnecessary hysterectomies, failed to
remove surgical instruments from patients and failed to diagnose
cancer.

Plaintiffs claimed that although they had complained to the hospital,
beginning in 1995, apparently no action was taken.

Six of the women claimants held a press conference at a downtown hotel,
and expressed their frustration at the failure of the College's to
communicate to them any results of their complaints filed against the
doctor.

Paul Harte, a medical-malpractice lawyer from Richmond Hill, who also
attended the press conference, said that what his clients most desire
is a change in the system.

"Regardless of the outcome of this class action, it's clear that
significant changes in the regulatory system are necessary and that
those changes need to be undertaken urgently," he said.

Illustrative of some of the reforms desired was one expressed by one of
the plaintiffs, Lyn Logan, who wants the college to operate a web site
where people can look up information about doctors, including their
qualifications and the complaints against them.

"The Canadian Medical Protective Association, the organization which
defends most doctors in the province, is funded largely by tax dollars.
The government has an obligation to account for public funds," she read
from a statement.

Peter Neumann, the lawyer representing Dr. Wai-Ping, said his client
didn't have any comment but that he would be filing a defense. Dr. Ping
is presently on a voluntary leave from the hospital.

The college said in a news release that its assessment of Dr. Wai- Ping
would be released by June 11 and that all of the complaints had been
sent to an investigator. The Rouge Valley Health System issued a
release May 25 stating that it has launched a full investigation.



                               *********

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  * * *