CAR_Public/010613.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, June 13 2001, Vol. 3, No. 115

                              Headlines

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Agree To Consolidate Complaint
AVATEX CORPORATION: Parties Await Ruling On Certification Motion
CALIPER TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit In NY
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: NY Shareholders Suit Currently In Discovery
CORVIS CORPORATION: Lovell And Sirota File Securities Suit In S.D. NY

CROWN MEDIA: Purchase Proposal With Hallmark Sparks Shareholder Suit   
ENVIRO INDUSTRIAL: Optimistic About Settlement Of $55.8M In Claims
GADZOOX NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
GE FINANCIAL: Eight Out Of Nine Suits Dismissed By Court Last Year
HAMILTON BANCORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit In S.D. Florida

HEDMAN RESOURCES: Resolution Of Pending Cases Won't Affect Company
INTERVOICE-BRITE: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In N.D. Texas
LONG BEACH: City Officials Sued For Hiding Gas Hike Information
PEERLESS SYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Artificial Stock Value
PLUG POWER: Files Motion To Dismiss Shareholders Suit In E.D. NY

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Settles Two Lawsuits For Unspecified Amount
PURCHASEPRO.COM: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit In Nevada
RETEK INC.: Lovell And Sirota Law Firms Commence Suit In S.D. NY
RITE AID: Inks Agreement To Settle Overtime Pay Suit For $25 Million
RITE AID: Class Members Choose Individual Pursuit Over Settlement

ROBOTIC VISION:Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In Massachusetts
SILICONIX INC.: Hearing On Preliminary Injunction Set For June 15
STAGE STORES: Fifth Circuit Appellate Court Dismisses Weld Lawsuit
THOROUGHBRED TECHNOLOGY: Settles Fiber-optic Cable Installation Suit
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY


                              *********


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Agree To Consolidate Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Four purported class action lawsuits have been filed by alleged
shareholders against American General Corporation and certain of its
officers and directors in connection with the March 11, 2001 merger
agreement with Prudential plc and the subsequent offer by American
International Group, Inc.:

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

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

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

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

Each action was filed on behalf of a purported class of shareholders
and alleges that certain officers and directors of American General
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the pricing and
terms of the proposed Prudential transaction and the subsequent offer
by AIG.

American General signed a merger agreement with Prudential in March.  
On April 3, AIG offered to acquire American General after the market
price of Prudential ordinary shares decreased by 17 percent in the
London Stock Exchange.

In each of these actions, the plaintiffs generally are seeking
injunctive relief and other unspecified damages, fees, and expenses.
The parties to all of these state cases have filed an agreed motion to
consolidate these cases. Additional suits making similar allegations
are possible.


AVATEX CORPORATION: Parties Await Ruling On Certification Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avatex Corporation and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have been named in a series of purported class action
lawsuits that were filed and subsequently consolidated under ZUCKERMAN,
et al. v. FOXMEYER HEALTH CORPORATION, et al., in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division,
Case No. 396-CV-2258-T.

The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the
common and former Series A and convertible preferred stock of the
Company during the period July 19, 1995 through August 27, 1996.

In May 1997, plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint, which alleges that the Company and the
defendant officers and directors made misrepresentations of material
facts in public statements or omitted material facts from public
statements, including the failure to disclose purportedly negative
information concerning FoxMeyer's National Distribution Center and
Delta computer systems and the resulting impact on existing and future
business and financial condition of the Company.

In March 1998, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in the lawsuit.

Discovery is proceeding in the lawsuit, and the parties are awaiting a
ruling on the plaintiffs' class certification motion.


CALIPER TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit In NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit was commenced on behalf all
persons who acquired Caliper Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: CALP)
securities between December 15, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10007.

Named as defendants in the complaint are Caliper and the following
executive officers of Caliper: Daniel L. Kisner and James L. Knighton.
The complaint also names as a defendant Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation, one of the lead underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering of 4,500,000 shares of common stock at $16.00 per share
on December 15, 1999.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a
Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false
and misleading information and failed to disclose material information.
The Prospectus was issued in connection with Caliper' IPO.

For further details, contact: Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations, at Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th Street,
New York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or
by e-mail at CALP@bernlieb.com.


COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: NY Shareholders' Suit Currently In Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Associates International, Inc., Charles B. Wang, Sanjay Kumar
and Russell M. Artzt are defendants in a number of shareholder class
action lawsuits, the first of which was filed July 23, 1998, alleging
that a class consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's
stock during the period January 20, 1998 until July 22, 1998 were
harmed by misleading statements, representations, and omissions
regarding the Company's future financial performance.

These cases, which seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount, have
been consolidated into a single action in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The Federal Court has denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the
Shareholder Action, and the parties currently are engaged in discovery.

Management believes that the facts in the Shareholder Action do not
support the plaintiffs' claims and that the Company and its officers
and directors have meritorious defenses.


CORVIS CORPORATION: Lovell And Sirota File Securities Suit In S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Lovell & Stewart, LLP and Sirota & Sirota, LLP filed a
class action lawsuit last Monday on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Corvis Corporation (NasdaqNM:CORV) between July 27, 2000 and
June 8, 2001 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, Chocron v. Corvis Corp., et al., which 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-5224, alleges that Corvis
Corp. and certain of its current and former officers and directors
violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Corvis
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.

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 Corvis offering contained material misstatements
regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the
IPO.

For further details, contact: Lovell & Stewart, LLP through 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.  For Sirota & Sirota, LLP contact Howard B. Sirota or
Saul Roffe by Mail: 110 Wall Street New York, New York 10005 by Phone:
(212) 425-9055 or by Email: info@sirotalaw.com  


CROWN MEDIA: Purchase Proposal With Hallmark Sparks Shareholder Suit   
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Media Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: CRWN) announced Friday last week
that it has received a complaint filed by a person claiming to be a
stockholder regarding Crown Media Holdings' proposed purchase of
approximately 700 film titles and related property and rights from
Hallmark Entertainment Distribution, LLC.

The complaint apparently was filed on June 6th before the 2001 Annual
Meeting of stockholders, which was held on June 7th. A vote on the
acquisition of the films has been postponed until later in June
2001, so that stockholders may be informed of this development.

The complaint, purportedly filed as a class action on behalf of holders
of the Company's Class A common stock, was brought against Crown Media
Holdings, its directors, Hallmark Cards, Inc., Hallmark Entertainment
Distribution, LLC and Hallmark Entertainment, Inc. for damages,
rescission or other relief.

The complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition of the films is the
product of an unfair process designed to advantage Hallmark Cards, Inc.
as the controlling stockholder, that the price being paid to Hallmark
Cards is not entirely fair and that the proxy statement failed to make
certain disclosures.

The transaction was approved by an independent committee of Crown Media
Holdings' Board of Directors consisting of directors independent of
Hallmark Entertainment. The independent committee believes that the
films transaction is fair to and in the best interests of Crown Media
Holdings and its stockholders, other than Hallmark Entertainment and
its affiliates.

Salomon Smith Barney Inc. acted as the financial advisor to the special
committee and delivered its opinion to the effect that, as of the date
of its opinion, the consideration to be paid by Crown Media Holdings is
fair, from a financial point of view, to the Company.

The independent committee believes that the films transaction is
important to the Company for a number of reasons, including increasing
the scale and diversification of Crown Media Holdings, reducing the
time needed to reach its goal of a breakeven point in its EBITDA, and
facilitating the Company's ability to execute both equity and debt
offerings in the future.


ENVIRO INDUSTRIAL: Optimistic About Settlement Of $55.8M In Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro Industrial Technologies, Inc. recently said in a report to the
Securities and Exchange Commission that it has 2,232 outstanding claims
against it arising out of class action suits.

According to the Company, these claims have created a liability
exposure amounting to $55.8 million. The Company is confident, though,
that it will be able to settle these claims.

"Historically, since 1979, the Company has settled 10,599
cases with average payouts of $1,226 per claim, exclusive of legal
costs," the Company said in a recent regulatory filing with SEC.


GADZOOX NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of Gadzoox Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq: ZOOX) securities
during the period between July 19, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants Gadzoox, Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation, BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Bill Sickler, Christine E.
Munson and AlistarBlack with 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: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP,
Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau by Mail: P.O. Box 25438 Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
1-888-551-9944 (toll free) or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com


GE FINANCIAL: Eight Out Of Nine Suits Dismissed By Court Last Year
------------------------------------------------------------------
GE Financial Assurance Holdings, Inc. disclosed in a recent regulatory
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that only one class
action lawsuit remains pending against the company.

By yearend 2000, eight of the nine pending suits were dismissed, the
Company reported. The Company provided no other details.

"Management believes that the Company's defenses against this suit are
strong and that the ultimate outcome will not have a material effect on
the Company's financial position or results of operations," the Company
said.

     
HAMILTON BANCORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit In S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Six class action lawsuits were filed against Hamilton BanCorp, Inc. and
certain officers in the Federal District Court for the Southern
District of Florida between January 12 and March 9, 2001.

The class actions have been brought purportedly on behalf of (i) all
purchasers of common stock of the Company between April 21, 1998 and
December 22, 2000, or (ii) all purchasers of Hamilton Capital Trust I,
series A shares between December 23, 1998 and December 22, 2000.

These cases seek to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 or the Securities Act of 1933. The cases have been consolidated
as In re Hamilton Bancorp, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-156
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, and the lead plaintiffs appointed by the Court are in the
process of preparing a consolidated amended complaint. The discovery
process has not yet begun.

The allegations of the six actions are similar in all material
respects. Generally, the complaints allege that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and omissions between April 21, 1998
and December 22, 2000.


HEDMAN RESOURCES: Resolution Of Pending Cases Won't Affect Company
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hedman Resources Limited, a Canadian publicly traded company, is co-
defendant in four pending class action lawsuits in the United States
seeking claims for asbestos/silica-related illnesses.

The following cases are being tried in various courts in Pennsylvania
and West Virginia:

     (i) Ida S. Gill, et al. v. A-Best Products Company, et al.; filed   
         in 1999 with the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
         Pennsylvania.

    (ii) Susan Kay Geppert, et al. v. A-Best Products Company, et al.;
         filed on May 1999 with the Court of Common pleas of Beaver
         County, Pennsylvania.

   (iii) Leslie Adams, et al. v. A-Best Products Company, et al.; filed
         on October 2000 with the Circuit Court of Book County, West
         Virginia.

    (iv) John F. Rozsas, et al. v. A-Best Products Company, et al.;
         filed on November 2000 with the Court of Common Pleas of
         Washington County, Pennsylvania.

All four suits allege that the defendants, including Hedman, engaged in
activities involving asbestos/or silica and other toxic ingredients in
manufacturing their products.

The Plaintiffs allege this caused them to develop lung cancer,
Asbestosis, Mesotheliomas, colon cancer, and Esophageal cancer, among
others disorders. The largest amount sought in any one cause of action
is $1,000,000.

Hedman, however, does not believe that the resolution of the aggregate
outstanding claims will have a materially adverse impact on its short-
term or long-term liquidity.


INTERVOICE-BRITE: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of InterVoice-Brite, Inc. (Nasdaq: INTV) common stock during
the period between October 12, 1999 and June 6, 2000, inclusive

The complaint charges InterVoice and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company was created through he acquisition of Brite Voice systems,
Inc. for $164.4 million in cash and stock in the 2ndQ F00. The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
materially false statements about InterVoice's business, its financial
results, the success of its integration with Brite and its prospects.

As a result, InterVoice's stock was inflated to as high as $38.75 per
share. The Individual Defendants took advantage of this inflation,
selling 525,916 shares of their InterVoice stock for $13.4 million in
proceeds.

Then, on 6/6/00, InterVoice shocked the market, revealing that it would
report a loss of $0.03 to $0.05 and revenues of only $67-68 million for
the 1stQ F01 rather than the EPS of $0.22 and revenues of $89 million
defendants had led the market to expect.

Defendants blamed the shortfall on sales people who had begun leaving
the Company in the months prior to this disclosure, some of which were
unhappy with the integrated Company.

For further information, contact: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP,
Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau by Mail: P.O. Box 25438 Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
1-888-551-9944 (toll free) or by Email: info@classlawyer.com


LONG BEACH: City Officials Sued For Hiding Gas Hike Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
City Council members of Long Beach, California, among others, filed a
$38 million class action lawsuit recently, alleging that City Manager
Henry Taboada and other city officials knew about the impending 500
percent rise in natural gas bills a month before they shared such
information with the City Council.

According to an Associated Press report, the plaintiffs argue that city
officials chose to make key policy decisions in relation to this
gigantic price hike before publicly telling council members that
natural gas bills had suffered an acute rise.  

The plaintiffs claim such decision-making violates the City Charter.
However, Taboada and other department heads asserted they had acted
appropriately.

Taboada countered plaintiffs' arguments by saying that in early
November of last year city officials believed gas rates would rise as
much as 40 percent from the previous year. Instead, gas rates rose more
than 500 percent from the previous year.  

At the time, it appeared there was no reason to inform the City
Council, because there was no basis for knowing that gas prices would
remain at such "historic highs," he said.


PEERLESS SYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Artificial Stock Value
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Peerless Systems Corporation reported to the Securities and Exchange
Commission recently that it is facing a consolidated shareholder class
action lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleged that the Company engaged in a scheme to
artificially inflate its stock price through the dissemination of false
and misleading information.  It seeks compensatory damages and
reimbursement of expenses for bringing the suit.

The suit was originally filed between August and September 2000 in two
separate actions but has since been consolidated.  It names the Company
and two former officers as defendants.  


PLUG POWER: Files Motion To Dismiss Shareholders Suit In E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2000, a shareholder class action complaint was filed in
the federal district court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging that Plug Power, Inc. and various of its officers and
directors violated certain federal securities laws by failing to
disclose certain information concerning our products and future
prospects.

The action was brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's stock who purchased it between February 14, 2000 and August
2, 2000.

Subsequently, fourteen additional complaints with similar allegations
and class periods were filed. By order dated October 30, 2000, the
court consolidated the complaints into one action, entitled Plug Power
Inc. Securities Litigation, CV-00-5553 (ERK)(RML).

By order dated January 25, 2001, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs
and lead plaintiffs' counsel. Subsequently, the plaintiffs served a
consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint
extends the class period to begin on October 29, 1999 and alleges
claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants made misleading statements and
omissions regarding the state of development of the Company's
technology in a registration statement issued in connection with the
initial public offering of the Company and in subsequent press
releases.

The Company served its motion to dismiss the claims in May 2001. The
Company believes that the allegations in the consolidated amended
complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the
claims.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Settles Two Lawsuits For Unspecified Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of Principal Life Insurance Company, a
subsidiary of Principal Financial Group, Inc., received final court
approval on April.

This was the latest report furnished by the Company to the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the two class action lawsuits alleging
improper sales practices.

The Company did not disclose the cost of the settlement. In agreeing to
the settlement, the Company specifically denied any wrongdoing.


PURCHASEPRO.COM: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit In Nevada
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed a class action Monday
in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, on
behalf of purchasers of PurchasePro.com, Inc. (Nasdaq:PPRO) during the
period between July 20, 2000 and April 26, 2001, inclusive.

PurchasePro provides Internet business-to-business electronic commerce
services. The Company's e-commerce solution is comprised of public and
private e-marketplaces where businesses can buy and sell a wide range
of products and services.

The complaint charges PurchasePro and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
positive but false statements about PurchasePro's results and business,
which essentially involved PurchasePro buying its own revenues and
engaging in barter transactions.

As a result, PurchasePro's stock traded at artificially inflated
levels, permitting two individual defendants to sell $16.9 million
worth of their PurchasePro stock.

On April 26, 2001, PurchasePro reported extremely disappointing first
quarter 2001 results, including a decline in revenue and a loss from
operations. These disclosures caused the stock price of PurchasePro to
plummet on the day, closing at $4.05 on volume of over 11 million
shares.

For more information, contact: Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
P.L.L.C., Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Robert Smits  by Phone: 888/240-0775
or 202/408-4600  or by Email: stoll@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com


RETEK INC.: Lovell 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 last Monday on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Retek, Inc. (NasdaqNM:RETK) between November 17, 1999 and May
24, 2000, inclusive.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Section 12 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, Nguyen v. Retek, Inc., 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-5225 (RO) and has been assigned to
the Hon. Richard Owen, U.S. District Judge.

The complaint alleges that Retek, Inc., John Buchanan, its Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, and Gregory A. Effertz, its Chief Financial
Officer, violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling
Retek common stock pursuant to the initial public offering without
disclosing to investors that at least two of the lead underwriters of
the IPO had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
commissions from certain investors.

For more 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.  For Sirota & Sirota, LLP, Howard B. Sirota or Saul
Roffe can be contacted by Mail: 110 Wall Street New York, New York
10005 by Phone: (212) 425-9055 or by Email: info@sirotalaw.com  


RITE AID: Inks Agreement To Settle Overtime Pay Suit For $25 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation is a defendant in a class action pending in the
California Superior Court in San Diego with three subclasses, comprised
of the Company's California store managers, assistant managers and
managers-in-training.

The plaintiffs seek back pay for overtime not paid to them and
injunctive relief to require the Company to treat its store management
as non-exempt. They allege that the Company decided to minimize labor
costs by causing managers, assistant managers and managers-in-
training to perform the duties and functions of associates for in
excess of forty hours per week without paying them overtime.

The Company believe that in-store management were and are properly
classified as exempt from the overtime provisions of California law.  

On May 21, 2001, the Company entered into a Memorandum of Agreement
with the plaintiffs under which, subject to approval of the court, the
Company will settle this lawsuit for a maximum of $25.0 million, a
charge for which was taken in fiscal 2000.

The settlement amount is payable in four equal installments of 25%, the
first of which is payable upon final court approval of the settlement
and the balance is payable six, 12 and 18 months thereafter.


RITE AID: Class Members Choose Individual Pursuit Over Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation, its former chief executive officer Martin Grass,
its former president Timothy Noonan, its former chief financial officer
Frank Bergonzi, and its former auditor KPMG LLP, have been sued in a
number of actions, most of which purport to be class actions, brought
on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's securities on the
open market between May 2, 1997 and November 10, 1999. All of these
cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

On November 9, 2000, the Company announced that it had reached an
agreement to settle the consolidated securities class action lawsuits
pending against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania and the derivative lawsuits pending there and
in the U.S. District Court of Delaware.

Under the agreement, which has been submitted to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for approval, the
Company will pay $45 million in cash, which will be fully funded by the
Company's officers' and directors' liability insurance, and issue
shares of common stock in 2002.

The shares will be valued over a 10-day trading period in January 2002.
If the value determined is at least $7.75 per share, the Company will
issue 20 million shares. If the value determined is less than $7.75 per
share, the Company has the option to deliver any combination of common
stock, cash and short-term notes, with a total value of $155 million.

As additional consideration for the settlement, the Company has
assigned to the plaintiffs all of the Company's claims against the
above named executives and KPMG LLP.

Several members of the class have elected to "opt-out" of the class
and, as a result, if the court approves the settlement, they will be
free to individually pursue their claims. Management believes that
their claims, individually and in the aggregate, are not material.


ROBOTIC VISION:Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed Monday a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of
purchasers of Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:ROBV) common stock
between January 27, 2000 and May 15, 2001.

The complaint alleges that defendants Robotic Vision and certain of its
officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Robotic Vision
reported materially false and misleading financial results for fiscal
year 2000 in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

On May 15, 2001, before the market opened, Robotic Vision announced
that it would be restating its financial results for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2000 and for the three month period ended December
31, 2000 to correct certain accounting errors involving the recognition
of revenue at its Acuity CiMatrix division.

As a result of defendants' alleged fraud, Robotic Vision's common stock
traded at artificially inflated levels throughout the Class Period. In
response to the shocking news that Robotic Vision's financial
statements required restatement, the Company's stock price lost almost
15% of its value in one day.

For additional 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.


SILICONIX INC.: Hearing On Preliminary Injunction Set For June 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 8, 2001, a complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery in
Delaware (New Castle County) naming as defendants Vishay, Siliconix
Inc. and six members of the Siliconix board of directors.

The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class of public
stockholders of Siliconix and alleged, generally, that the
consideration proposed in Vishay's February 22, 2001 letter to
Siliconix was unfair and inadequate.

The complaint also asserted derivative claims against Vishay and the
six Siliconix directors on behalf of Siliconix, alleging that those
defendants engaged in self-dealing and committed waste in connection
with certain transactions between Vishay and Siliconix.

The complaint sought, among other things, an injunction against
completion of the $28.82 transaction and damages in an unspecified
amount. The case is titled Raymond Fitzgerald v. Vishay
Intertechnology, Inc., Everett Arndt, et al., Case No. 18720 (Del Ch.
Ct., Newcastle City.).

Fitzgerald filed a motion on May 11, 2001 to consolidate the Delaware
actions and have himself appointed the lead plaintiff. The court
ordered all the Delaware lawsuits consolidated and set a hearing on who
should serve as lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in that
consolidated action.

Before that hearing, the plaintiffs reached an agreement under which  
Fitzgerald will serve as the lead plaintiff, and his counsel and
counsel for plaintiff Griffin Portfolio Management Corp. will serve as
co-lead counsel. The actions were consolidated under the caption In re
Siliconix Incorporated Shareholders Litigation.

On May 31, 2001, plaintiff Fitzgerald filed an amended complaint in the
consolidated Delaware action. The amended complaint names as defendants
Vishay, Vishay TEMIC and Siliconix, together with Vishay Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer Felix Zandman, Siliconix President, Chief
Executive Officer and director King Owyang, and Siliconix directors
Everett Arndt, Lori Lipcaman, Glyndwr Smith, Michael Rosenberg, Mark
Segall and Timothy Talbert.

The amended complaint alleges that the Offer is "unfair and grossly
inadequate" and was "deliberately timed to take advantage of
Siliconix's artificially and temporarily depressed stock price."

The amended complaint asserts various causes of action for breach of
fiduciary duty by the individual defendants and seeks to enjoin
completion of the Offer.

With the amended complaint, Fitzgerald also filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction to enjoin Vishay from completing the Offer. On
June 4, 2001, the Delaware Chancery Court set June 15, 2001 for a
hearing on this motion.


STAGE STORES: Fifth Circuit Appellate Court Dismisses Weld Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 30, 1999, a class action lawsuit was filed against Stage
Stores, Inc. and certain of its officers, directors and stockholders in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division by John C. Weld, Jr., a stockholder who purchased 125
shares of the Company's common stock on August 3, 1998, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Company believes that the allegations of the Weld Suit are without
merit, and on July 23, 1999, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.
United States District Judge Kenneth Hoyt entered an order on December
8, 1999 dismissing the Weld Suit.

Weld appealed the order to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit. On May 16, 2001, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District
Court's dismissal of the Weld Suit.

The plaintiffs in the Weld Suit have the option to appeal that decision
to the United States Supreme Court, but the United States Supreme Court
may or may not decide to hear the appeal.


THOROUGHBRED TECHNOLOGY: Settles Fiber-optic Cable Installation Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoroughbred Technology and Telecommunications, Inc., a subsidiary of
Norfolk Southern Corp., which operates a railway system, has settled a
class action lawsuit which probably will result in some landowners in
29 Ohio counties, as well as similarly situated landowners in 15 other
states, receiving compensation for allowing installation of fiber-optic
cable along Norfolk's railway right-of-way on the plaintiffs' property.

The settlement is unique in that the more successful the company
becomes, the more the plaintiffs receive, according to a recent
Associated Press report.

The landowners initially will receive $6,000 per mile when the company
lays the first three conduits filled with fiber-optic wires; if the
company goes beyond that, then the landowners involved in the expansion
could receive up to $31,875 per mile depending on company revenue.

When the suit was filed, the railroad argued that it was entitled to
use its property rights-of-way for shipping digital information by
cable without further payment to landowners.

Kathleen Kaufman, attorney for the plaintiffs, said, "The law is
clear.  The landowner has the legal right for compensation for the use
of a corridor of land" to lay the fiber-optic lines.

The suit was filed in August of 2000 after Tim Elzinga, a farmer from
Dyer, Indiana, refused to sign a waiver allowing the company to dig on
his land for cable installation; instead, he contacted an attorney.  

Two months later both sides were working on a settlement.

In Ohio, the lines included in the settlement cut through areas near
Toledo, Cleveland, Youngstown, Dayton, Cincinnati and Columbus.

Nationwide, 60,000 property owners along 2,500 miles of Norfolk's
active railroad track are potential sharers in the settlement.  

Property owners affected by line installment have until July 13, 2001
to join the settlement, and until July 28 to opt out.  The agreement
will be concluded August 21.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs said they have mailed notices to
landowners who may be eligible in 15 states.


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action has been filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Wireless Facilities, Inc. (Nasdaq:
WFII) securities during the period between November 4, 1999 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants Wireless Facilities, Credit Suisse
First Boston Corporation, Massih Tayebi, Masood K. Tayebi and Thomas A.
Munro with 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: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP
Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau by Mail: P.O. Box 25438 Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
Toll Free: 1-888-551-9944 or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.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.  Enid Sterling, Larri-Nil 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  * * *