CAR_Public/010614.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, June 14 2001, Vol. 3, No. 116

                              Headlines

AMERICAN DENTAL: Sued For Deceiving Patients About Mercury Fillings
ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit In E.D. PA
AUDIBLE INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
BARTELL DRUG: Exclusion Of Women In Contraception Coverage Illegal
CUMULUS MEDIA: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Suit For $13M

DANKA BUSINESS: Expects Florida Court To Approve $2.3M Settlement
DOE RUN: Suits Over Smelter In Herculaneum, Missouri In Discovery
DYNAMEX INC.: Final Hearing On Cash-Shares Settlement Deal On June 28
ECI TELECOM: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit In E.D. VA
GADZOOX NETWORKS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit In S.D. New York

HEALTHCARE LITIGATION: Small Win For Health Insurers In Latest Ruling
IMPERIAL CREDIT: Answers Allegations In Third Amended Complaint
INTERSIL HOLDING: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York
NET2000 COMMUNICATIONS: Weiss & Yourman Commences Suit In S.D. New York
NETLOJIX COMMUNICATIONS: Federal Securities Suit Settlement Approved

ORGANIC INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
PACIFIC GULF: Parties In California Shareholder Suit Conduct Discovery
PARTSBASE.COM:Mark McNair Files Suit As Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
ROBOTIC VISION: Kaplan Kilsheimer Commences Securities Suit In MA
SEARS ROEBUCK: Reaches Settlement Agreement Which Could Cost $1.9B

SKYEPHARMA PLC: Plaintiffs Appeal Case Dismissal; Claim Court Erred
SLAVE REPARATION: Litigation, Legislation, Or Apology? Experts Baffled
SONY PICTURES: Sued For Deceptive Advertising To Promote Movies
STONE CONTAINER: Class Has Yet To Be Certified In PA Antitrust Suit
VERTICALNET INC: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York
WAGE LITIGATION: Federal Judge Certifies Classes In Four States
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit In S.D. New York

*Shareholder Lawsuits Rising, Becoming Norm In Europe

                              *********


AMERICAN DENTAL: Sued For Deceiving Patients About Mercury Fillings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dental Association and its California affiliate were sued,
Tuesday, in California Superior Court for their allegedly unlawful
practice of deceiving patients about the presence of mercury in the
most widely used type of dental fillings.

The case charges the ADA and its largest state affiliate with lying to
consumers about amalgam fillings and letting consumers think they are
made of silver when, in fact, the major component (about 50%) is
mercury. Only about 25% of a mercury amalgam filling is composed of
silver.

The lawsuits were filed by public interest attorneys Shawn Khorrami of
Los Angeles and Charles G. Brown of Washington, D.C. on behalf of
organizations and individuals active in the effort to end the use of
mercury in dental amalgam fillings.

Plaintiffs in one of the lawsuits include Kids Against Pollution, a
national organization of active youth dedicated to solving and
preventing pollution problems; the American Academy of Biological
Dentistry, a national dental society opposed to amalgam use; and Dental
Amalgam Mercury Syndrome Inc., a national organization of victims of
mercury toxicity from mercury amalgam fillings.

The second lawsuit includes individuals seeking class action status.

In addition to filing the lawsuits, the attorneys served 60 days notice
(as required by law) that they intend to sue the ADA under the
provisions of Proposition 65, the anti-toxins measure passed by
California voters in 1986.

The full text of the lawsuits and the Proposition 65 intent-to-sue
notice, along with additional information on the issue of mercury
amalgam dental fillings, can be found on the Internet at
www.toxicteeth.net

For more details, contact: Stephen Rivers of Stephen M. Rivers &
Associates, 310-395-2993, for Shawn Khorrami and Charles G. Brown  


ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit In E.D. PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Marc S. Henzel filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of ATI Technologies Inc.
(Nasdaq: ATYT) between January 13, 2000 and May 24, 2000, inclusive.

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

For more information, contact: Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law Offices
of Marc S. Henzel, 210 West Washington Square, Third Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106, by telephone at 888-643-6735 or 215-625-9999,
by facsimile at 215-440-9475, by e-mail at Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit
the firm's website at http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


AUDIBLE INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit, Tuesday, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of purchasers of Audible, Inc. (NASDAQ:ADBL) common stock
between July 16, 1999 and June 11, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants Audible, Inc., Andrew J. Huffman,
Donald R. Katz, Andrew P. Kaplan, Richard Brass, R. Bradford Burnham,
W. Bingham Gordon, Thomas P. Hirschfeld, Winthrop Knowlton and Timothy
Mott violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling
Audible common stock pursuant to the July 16, 1999 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 Audible offering contained material misstatements
regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the
IPO transaction and failed to disclose the additional commissions.

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.


BARTELL DRUG: Exclusion Of Women In Contraception Coverage Illegal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In a groundbreaking decision, United States District Judge Robert S.
Lasnik ruled, Tuesday, that it is illegal discrimination for an
employer to exclude coverage of prescription contraception if it
provides coverage for other prescription medications and devices.

Jennifer Erickson, a Seattle-area pharmacist and non-union employee,
sued her employer -- Bartell Drug Co. -- seeking prescription
contraception coverage as a benefit of employment under Title VII of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex discrimination in all
aspects of employment.

Erickson's case was certified as a class action, which means that
Tuesday's ruling benefits both Erickson and all other Bartell non-union
employees.

According to Seattle attorney David Copley, "This decision demonstrates
how class actions can help vindicate important legal interests. While
it may seem almost impossible for a single employee to stand up for her
rights, a class action allows lots of individuals to band together in
seeking justice."

Judge Lasnik called today's ruling "an issue of first impression,"
which means that it is the first time this issue has been decided by a
federal court.

As Judge Lasnik held: "Bartell's prescription drug plan discriminates
against Bartell's female employees by providing less complete coverage
than that offered to male employees.

"Although the plan covers almost all drugs and devices used by men, the
exclusion of prescription contraceptives creates a gaping hole in the
coverage offered to female employees, leaving a fundamental and
immediate healthcare need uncovered. . . . Title VII requires employers
to recognize the differences between the sexes and provide equally
comprehensive coverage, even if that means providing additional
benefits to cover women-only expenses," Judge Lasnik said.

This opinion follows last year's similar decision by the United States
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which held that the
exclusion of prescription contraception from an otherwise-comprehensive
health plan violates Title VII.

Plaintiffs in this case were represented by Seattle lawyers Roberta
Riley (Planned Parenthood of Western Washington), Lynn Lincoln Sarko,
T. David Copley and Gretchen Freeman Cappio (Keller Rohrback LLP).

Other members of the legal team include Eve. C. Gartner and Donna Lee
(Planned Parenthood Federation of America), Marcia D. Greenberger,
Judith C. Applebaum, Barbara A. Burr and Dina R. Lassow (National
Women's Law Center).

Attorney Gretchen Freeman Cappio stated, "This decision is a landmark
in American law. It is a privilege to represent Jennifer Erickson and
to work with the talented lawyers of Planned Parenthood of Western
Washington, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the National
Women's Law Center."

For additional information, contact: Keller Rohrback LLP, T. David
Copley or Gretchen Freeman Cappio by Phone: 206/623-1900  


CUMULUS MEDIA: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Suit For $13M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media Inc. (NASDAQ: CMLS) announced Tuesday that it has reached
an agreement in principle to settle a series of shareholder class
action lawsuits arising out of the company's announcement on March 16,
2000 of the restatement of certain revenues and expenses for the first,
second, and third quarters of 1999.

Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, which is subject to negotiation
of a final Stipulation of Settlement and court approval, the lawsuits
will be dismissed in exchange for $13 million in cash and 240,000
shares of common stock. Of the cash portion, $7,250,000 will be
provided by preexisting insurance.

Cumulus Chairman and CEO Lew Dickey commented, "These lawsuits were the
remaining vestige of an old problem, and it was time to put them behind
us. Their resolution constitutes still another step forward in our plan
to make the new Cumulus the premier company in our industry."

For more information, contact: Lew Dickey, 404/949-0700 or Marty
Gausvik, 404/949-0700 Website: www.cumulusmedia.com


DANKA BUSINESS: Expects Florida Court To Approve $2.3M Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Danka Business Systems, PLC disclosed in a recent report to the
Securities and Exchange Commission that federal court in Florida is set
to rule on its settlement offer on August 17.

The Company agreed to pay $2.7 million to the plaintiffs of a
securities suit filed in March 2000. The full payment will be covered
by insurance.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division.

The complaint alleged, principally, that the Company and the other
defendants had issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding its progress integrating Kodak's office imaging and
outsourcing businesses, had engaged in improper accounting practices
and that certain former officers had used insider information, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
1934, as amended, and Rule lOb-5 promulgated thereunder.

"The Directors anticipate, based on the advice of counsel, that Court
approval will be granted and, if approved, the Directors do not expect
the settlement to have a material effect on the Ongoing Group's
financial position," the Company said.

    
DOE RUN: Suits Over Smelter In Herculaneum, Missouri In Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Doe Run Resources Corporation is a defendant in six lawsuits alleging
certain damages stemming from the operations at the Herculaneum
smelter.  Two of these cases are class action lawsuits. In one case,
the plaintiffs seek to have certified two separate classes.

The first class would consist of property owners in a certain section
of Herculaneum, alleging that property values have been damaged due to
the operations of the smelter.

The second class would be composed of children who lived in Herculaneum
during a period of time when they were nine months to six years old,
and the remedy sought is medical monitoring for the class.

On December 5, 2000 the court denied class certification for both
classes.

The second case is similarly seeking certification of a class of
property owners allegedly damaged by operations from the smelter, but
the potential size of the class is every home in Herculaneum, Missouri.

Investigation and research by the Company indicates property values in
Herculaneum are consistent with those of surrounding communities and
have not been affected by the smelter.

Finally, based on rules for class certification, and the reasoning in
the December 5, 2000 court ruling in the first case, the Company
believes class certification in the second case is unlikely.

The other four cases are personal injury actions by seventeen
individuals who allege damages from the effects of lead poisoning due
to operations at the smelter.

The cases are now in discovery.


DYNAMEX INC.: Final Hearing On Cash-Shares Settlement Deal On June 28
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamex, Inc. recently disclosed that a final hearing is scheduled for
June 28 to approve the settlement deal it reached with plaintiffs of a
consolidated securities suit pending since 1998.

The settlement provides that the Company's primary directors and
officers' liability insurer, American Home Insurance Company, will pay
$2 million towards the settlement.

In addition, the Company will pay $1 million and contribute one million
shares of common stock, or the cash equivalent towards the proposed
settlement.

The Company has also agreed to pay to the class 75% of any recoveries,
after legal expenses and costs, from the Company's excess insurer,
Reliance Insurance Company, and former auditors, Deloitte & Touche LLP
and Deloitte & Touche.

A separate agreement has also been reached to settle all claims by the
Company and by plaintiffs in the class action against Deloitte & Touche
LLP and Deloitte & Touche for the total amount of $2.25 million.

These settlements are conditioned upon, among other things, approval of
the settlement by the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.

This case was filed in November and December 1998 in two separate class
action lawsuits, naming the Company, Richard K. McClelland, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Robert P. Capps, the Company's
former Chief Financial Officer, as defendants.

The consolidated lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


ECI TELECOM: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit In E.D. VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed a class action,
Tuesday, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia, Alexandria Division, on behalf of purchasers of ECI
Telecom Ltd. (Nasdaq:ECIL) during the period between May 2, 2000 and
Feb. 14, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants ECI Telecom Ltd. and certain of
its officers and directors violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing
a series of material misrepresentations to the market concerning, inter
alia, ECI's reported revenue for the first, second and third quarters
of 2000.

On Feb. 14, 2001, the Company announced that it expected to move $38
million in revenue from 1999's financial statement to 2000, and $61
million from 2000 to 2001.

For more details, contact: Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Robert M. Smits by
Mail: Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue,
N.W. Suite 500 - West Tower Washington, D.C. 20005 by Telephone:
888/240-0775 or 202/408-4600 or by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com,
rsmits@cmht.com


GADZOOX NETWORKS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit In S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of Gadzoox Networks, Inc.
(Nasdaq: ZOOX) from July 19, 1999 through December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges Gadzoox and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.

For further information, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Marc A.
Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or
1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com.
     

HEALTHCARE LITIGATION: Small Win For Health Insurers In Latest Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge handed anew the health insurers a modest victory
Tuesday by partially dismissing claims in a set of lawsuits accusing
HMOs of fraudulently using financial incentives to limit medical care,
the Reuters News Agency reported.

U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno in Miami axed claims by health plan
members that insurance companies violated federal civil racketeering
laws and violated a law regulating employee retirement benefits known
as ERISA.

The judge, however, allowed the plaintiffs to re-plead portions of the
lawsuits and file amended complaints by June 29. He also said the
defendants have until July 27 to respond to the amended complaints, the
report said.

According to Reuters, Moreno's ruling was similar to a decision he
handed down in March involving lawsuits against the managed care
industry by physicians. The judge also handed a partial victory to the
managed care industry in that ruling.

Lawsuits against the industry have generally been split into two groups
- one for litigation brought by physicians and the other for litigation
brought by members of an HMO, Reuters said.

In their lawsuits, physicians alleged that the HMO industry relied on
faulty data to reduce reimbursements for medical services.  The
industry had filed motions to dismiss both sets of lawsuits while the
plaintiffs sought class action status.


IMPERIAL CREDIT: Answers Allegations In Third Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Credit Industries, Inc. and three of its directors are
defendants in a consolidated federal securities class action, In re
Imperial Credit Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 98-
8842 SVW, in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California.

This information was contained in a recent regulatory filing of the
Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and misleading statements
and omitted to reveal the truth concerning the value of Imperial
Credit Industries, Inc.'s investments in Southern Pacific Funding
Corporation, resulting in an artificial inflation of the price of its
securities.

On August 7, 2000, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

On February 9, 2001, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file a third
amended complaint, in which plaintiffs added a new defendant KPMG LLP,
our company's independent auditor.

On March 6, 2001, defendants answered the third amended complaint and
asserted a number of affirmative defenses.


INTERSIL HOLDING: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit, Tuesday, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,   
on behalf of purchasers of Intersil Holding Corporation (NASDAQ:ISIL)
common stock between February 25, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants Intersil, Gregory L. Williams,
Daniel J. Heneghan and Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that
contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions. The Prospectus
was issued in connection with the Intersil IPO.

The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading
because it failed to disclose (i) Credit Suisse's agreement with
certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of
restricted Intersil shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and
undisclosed commissions; and (ii) the agreement between Credit Suisse
and certain of its customers whereby Credit Suisse would allocate
shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers'
agreement to purchase Intersil shares in the after-market at pre-
determined prices.

For additional 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.


NET2000 COMMUNICATIONS: Weiss & Yourman Commences Suit In S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman filed a class action lawsuit against Net2000
Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ:NTKK), its senior executives, and
underwriters was commenced in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, on behalf of investors who purchased
Net2000 securities between March 6, 2000 and June 6, 2001.

The action, number 01 CV 5227, is pending against defendants Net2000,
Clayton A. Thomas, Jr., Clyde Heintzelman, Eric Geis, Reid Miles,
Mitchell Reese, Goldman Sachs & Co., Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette
Securities Corp., J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. and Legg Mason Wood,
Walker, Inc.

The complaint charges defendants 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.

It alleges that the March 6, 2000 Registration Statement and the
Prospectus for the initial public offering of 10,000,000 shares of
Net2000 common stock, contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions.

The complaint also alleges that defendants were responsible for the
materially false and misleading statements and that the underwriters of
Net2000's Offering engaged in a pattern of conduct to surreptitiously
extract inflated commissions greater than those disclosed in the
Offering materials.

For more information, contact: James E. Tullman, David C. Katz, and/or
Mark D. Smilow, (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025, via Internet
electronic mail at wynyc@aol.com or by writing Weiss & Yourman, The
French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, New York
10176.


NETLOJIX COMMUNICATIONS: Federal Securities Suit Settlement Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Netlojix Communications, Inc. informed the Securities and Exchange
Commission recently that the settlement agreement with plaintiffs of a
federal securities suit has received final court approval.

The U.S. District Court in Los Angeles entered its final judgment and
order of dismissal on May 29, 2001, according to a regulatory document
filed recently by the Company with SEC.  The appeal period for this
final approval will end on June 28, 2001.

"Unless the final settlement is properly appealed, which NetLojix does
not expect, NetLojix will then issue for distribution to the claimant
class members, and payment of the plaintiffs attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses as awarded by the court, a total of 232,000 shares
of common stock together with warrants to purchase 200,000 shares of
NetLojix's common stock at an exercise price of $8.00 per share with a
term of 2 years," the Company said.


ORGANIC INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit, Monday, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of Organic, Inc. (NASDAQ:OGNC) common stock
between February 9, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants Organic, Inc., Jonathan Nelson,
Michael Hudes, Susan L. Field, Goldman Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1993 and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

For more 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.


PACIFIC GULF: Parties In California Shareholder Suit Conduct Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action suit has been commenced against Pacific Gulf
Properties, Inc., its directors and a number of officers in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the plaintiff by Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach, alleges that the Company's directors and officers
breached their fiduciary duties by purportedly acting in concert to
sell the assets of Pacific Gulf for inadequate consideration.

The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the merger agreement entered into by the
Company on March 1, 2001 with FountainGlen Properties, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company.

The parties to the lawsuit are currently conducting discovery.

"Our board continues to believe that the proposed merger with
FountainGlen is in the best interests of Pacific Gulf and our
shareholders," the Company said in a latest report to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

    
PARTSBASE.COM:Mark McNair Files Suit As Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Mark McNair filed a securities class action lawsuit
against PartsBase.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: PRTS) and its underwriters as the
Lead Plaintiff deadline approaches.

The lawsuit represents purchasers of PRTS purchased shares in or
traceable to the offering, which was declared effective by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on March 22, 2000, up to and
including April 25, 2000.

The deadline for filing a Lead Plaintiff Motion is June 18, 2001.

The complaint alleges that PartsBase.com, Inc. its underwriters made
misrepresentations and material omissions in documents related to the
Company's initial public offering.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus filed with the SEC said the company
represented that it had 13,000 members, when it only had about 3,000
paying subscribers.

As a result of the misrepresentations and material omissions, investors
suffered millions of dollars in damages, the complaint says.
PartsBase's initial offering price was $13 per share and PRTS currently
trades for under $1.50.

For more information, contact: Mark McNair with any questions at 1819
Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Suite 550, Washington, DC, 20006 by telephone at
877-511-4717, via e-mail at wmmcnair@justice4investors.com or visit
http://www.justice4investors.com


ROBOTIC VISION: Kaplan Kilsheimer Commences Securities Suit In MA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP filed a class action lawsuit against
Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. and its top two executives.

The action, number 01-CV-10876, is pending before Judge Richard G.
Stearns in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The suit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
the common stock of Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: ROBV) between
January 27, 2000 and May 15, 2001 inclusive.

The complaint charges Robotic Systems and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Robotic Systems
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 Systems 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 Systems' common stock
traded at artificially inflated levels through out the class period. In
response to the shocking news that Robotic Systems' financial
statements required restatement, the Company's stock price lost almost
15% of its value in one day.

For more information, contact: Frederic S. Fox, Esq., Hae Sung Nam,
Esq. of Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP by Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd
Floor New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (800) 290-1952, (212) 687-1980 by
Fax: (212) 687-7714 or by E-mail: mail@kkf-law.com


SEARS ROEBUCK: Reaches Settlement Agreement Which Could Cost $1.9B
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Roebuck and Co. has reportedly reached a tentative settlement in
a federal lawsuit filed by retirees who claimed the retail giant cut
the value of their life insurance policies, the Reuters News Agency
reported Tuesday.

Accordingly, Sears could potentially pay millions of dollars in life
insurance benefits if a federal judge in Chicago approves the
settlement.  


More than 84,000 former Sears employees sued the company after learning
in 1997 that the value of their life insurance would be cut in half, to
about $5,000, the report said.

The retail giant often used the life insurance benefit in recruiting
employees.

According to the report, Sears would partially refund hundreds of
million of dollars in life insurance payments to workers who can show
they are entitled.

Sears has not released exact numbers, but said if the company paid the
benefits in full, it would be handing over close to $1.9 billion,
Reuters said.


SKYEPHARMA PLC: Plaintiffs Appeal Case Dismissal; Claim Court Erred
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 1998, a class action lawsuit was filed against DepoTech
(renamed SkyePharma Inc.) and two of its former officers. The lawsuit
alleges violations of federal securities laws and seeks unspecified
money damages on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased
DepoTech common stock during the period April 1, 1996 through December
18, 1997.

On May 11, 1999, the Judge granted SkyePharma Inc.'s motion to dismiss
and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint with leave to amend by June 8,
1999. The plaintiffs timely filed an amended complaint and the
defendants responded with a motion to dismiss.

After completion of several rounds of briefing and supplemental
briefing on the motion, the Court denied the motion without prejudice
to the defendants and without addressing its merits, and instructed the
parties to repeat the process from the beginning.

Pursuant to a Court-ordered schedule, the plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Complaint by April 14, 2000. The District Court dismissed the
action on January 26, 2001.

However, following the dismissal the plaintiffs filed, on February 9,
2001 an appeal to the US Court of Appeal, claiming that the District
Court had erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and also that
the District Court had erred in permitting certain motions to strike.

The Company believes that this Appeal is without merit and intends to
defend such appeals.


SLAVE REPARATION: Litigation, Legislation, Or Apology? Experts Baffled
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The matter of reparations for Afro-Americans for the slavery imposed
on their forebears is now an issue under consideration.

When the call was first made, in 1969, for reparations, to some it
seemed like a "rhetorical extravagance."  Today, the form recompense
will take is being vigorously discussed, according to a report in the
Los Angeles Times.

Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree and a coalition of civil rights
lawyers are planning legal action on behalf of the descendants of
America's slaves.  

Additionally, bills to establish a national commission on slave
reparations and to formulate an apology for slavery have been presented
in congressional committees.  

The background for a moral recompense paid to those who have lost
property or cultural identity is still vivid in the American Mind - in
1988, Congress authorized restitution to 80,000 Japanese Americans who
had been interned during World War II.

Professor Ogletree's Reparations Assessment Group prefers using the
vehicle of a class action lawsuit to achieve reparations.  This group
is composed of such lawyers as Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. and high-powered
class action attorneys like Richard Scruggs.  

Choosing the litigation route, however, poses its own problems:  who
will be the defendant - the federal government?  In addition to having
to surrender its sovereign immunity from civil suit, there is the fact
that the federal government never adopted a national slave code but
left such legislation to the states. But what states should be sued?  
Many northern states had slaves until it was abolished voluntarily
before 1820.

In addition, both Professor Ogletree's group and the National Coalition
of Blacks for Reparations in America are considering the possibility of
suing individuals; that is, the descendants of slave owners.

Who would these be?  Most slave owners were small-scale farmers; any
Financial abundance acquired through slave labor probably would have
disappeared since abolition of slavery.  Identifying who has standing
to sue is another problem.

Perhaps none of these problems are insurmountable, but they present
Large obstacles.

Legislation is viewed by some as a better alternative.  Two reparations
bills have been introduced in Congress:  one by Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
(D-Mich.) in 1989 and 1993; another by Tony Hall (D-Ohio) in 2000.  

The two bills follow the two-stage legislative strategy used in the
Japanese reparations legislation:  creation of a nonpartisan
commission, and then action by Congress based on the commission's
recommendations.  In the end, Congress might simply issue an apology
without compensation.

When, finally, the slavery reparations issue comes before the public,
philosophical and historical obstacles will be raised, as will the
issue of moral justice.  


SONY PICTURES: Sued For Deceptive Advertising To Promote Movies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two California moviegoers have filed a class action lawsuit against
Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., claiming that Sony's deceptive
advertising "duped" them into seeing "A Knight's Tale," according to a
report in a recent issue of the "National Post."  

In their complaint, plaintiffs Omar Rezec and Ann Belknap said they
were "taken in" by Sony's advertising campaign, described as
"intentional and systematic deception."  

The class action's court papers include as plaintiffs U.S. moviegoers
who saw "Hollow Man," "Vertical Limit," "A Knights Tale" or "The
Animal" -- all movies promoted with admiring quotes from a fictional
reviewer, identified by Sony employees as David Manning of the
"Ridgefield Press."  

Sony has acknowledged that the quotes were from a fictional reviewer
and two employees from the creative advertising division have been
suspended without pay.

The class action suit seeks "complete disgorgement of [Sony's] ill-
gotten gains" -- for Sony to make restitution to everyone who bought a
ticket to the falsely advertised movies.  

The suit could cost Sony millions of dollars. Opening weekend alone for
the four movies grossed almost $100 million.


STONE CONTAINER: Class Has Yet To Be Certified In PA Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stone Container Corporation disclosed in a recent regulatory filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission that no class has been
certified yet in the class action lawsuit filed way back 1998.

The consolidated complaint alleging the Company violated antitrust laws
by restraining trade of corrugated products is still pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages arising out of the sale
of corrugated products for the period from October 1, 1993 through
March 31, 1995.  

   
VERTICALNET INC: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit, Tuesday, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of VerticalNet, Inc. (NASDAQ:VERT) common stock
between February 11, 1999 and June 8, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants VerticalNet, Inc., Gene S.
Godick, Mark L. Walsh, Michael J. Hagan, Douglas A. Alexander, Jeffrey
C. Ballowe, Walter W. Buckley, III and Matthew J. Warta violated the
federal securities laws by issuing and selling VerticalNet common stock
pursuant to the February 11, 1999 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 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 VerticalNet offering contained material misstatements
regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the
IPO transaction and failed to disclose the additional commissions.

For more 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.


WAGE LITIGATION: Federal Judge Certifies Classes In Four States
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dwyer & Collora, LLP announced that Federal Judge Robert E. Keeton of
the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts has certified state classes
for four states, including Massachusetts and Connecticut, in a suit
filed against Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., Citigroup, Inc. and Travelers
Group, Inc.

The lawsuits allege that the defendant companies have illegally
required employees to forfeit wages when they leave their employment,
under the terms of a compensation program termed the "Capital
Accumulation Plan" or "CAP Plan."

Employees are "encouraged" to participate in the CAP Plan with various
incentives, but if they are terminated or leave the company voluntarily
prior to the end of a two or three-year period, they lose their
contribution for those years.

Because the forfeiture requirement of the CAP Plan is imposed on a
rolling basis, participants are subject to wage forfeiture no matter
how long they work for the defendants. The forfeiture requirement is
lifted only upon the employee's death or permanent retirement.

The Massachusetts and Connecticut lawsuits seek to enforce state wage
statutes that give employees a non-waivable right to be paid their full
wages upon departure. These statutes impose treble damages (in
Massachusetts) or double damages (in Connecticut) and attorneys' fees
against employers who violate the law.

Based on information provided by the defendants, more than 100
employees can currently claim approximately $12 million dollars in
damages under the Massachusetts wage statute. Approximately 100
Connecticut employees can currently claim an estimated $6 million
dollars under their state statute.

The number of employees in each class and the total amount of damages
due will increase over time, as other employees are forced to lose
their CAP Plan contributions upon leaving Smith Barney, Inc.,
Citigroup, Inc. or Travelers Group, Inc.

Dwyer & Collora attorneys Michael Collora, David Bunis and Jill
Gaulding, who represent the classes in Massachusetts and Connecticut,
feel the ruling takes them a major step forward in their effort to
recover the employees' illegally forfeited wages.

Similar suits have been filed in New Jersey and California, and
representatives in other states have yet to step forward.

For more details, contact: Dwyer & Collora, LLP Boston, Christine
Montilio - 617/371-1008


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit In S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of Wireless Facilities, Inc.
(Nasdaq: WFII) from November 4, 1999 through December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The complaint charges Wireless Facilities and certain of its officers
and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning
its business and financial condition.

For further details, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Marc A. Topaz,
Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-
667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com.


*Shareholder Lawsuits Rising, Becoming Norm In Europe
-----------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Lawsuits are the latest trend in Europe, growing out of the
worldwide downturn that has hit Europe's growth markets.

According to a recent report appearing in the Wall Street Journal,
investors are now choosing to sue the companies they have invested in.  
For example, the German law firm of Tilp & Kaelberer has almost 3,000
lawsuits from shareholders - numbers unheard of a year ago in any
European law firm.

Nonetheless, shareholders' class action suits are not yet setting legal
precedents, according to lawyers and shareholder activists.  This is
because Europe's legal and regulatory frameworks still prevent many
cases from getting off the ground.  

U.S.-style corporate governance standards have been slow to develop in
Europe, partly because block shareholdings in companies were the norm
in countries like France and Germany until recently.

But times are slowly changing.  Tilp & Kaelberer, which has only nine
attorneys, is trying to establish a name for itself as a defender of
shareholders' rights on the Neuer Markt.  

Across the continent, a number of lawsuits and damage claims have been
filed in the courts against a wide range of companies:  for example,
software publisher Intershop AG, Flemish speech-recognition specialist
Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products NV, Dutch Internet service World
Online International NV and the German giant Deutsche Telekom AG.

David Morrison, a partner in the European practice of Sullivan &
Cromwell, commented on the development of European shareholder suits by
observing that in boom times shareholders have no reason to look about
for another entity to share the risks.  

"It's obviously no one's fault," he said, "if there's a general market
decline, and the normal risk of equity investments should be on the
shoulders of investors.  But companies do have obligations to provide
information to shareholders."  

Shareholder activists say that the recent rash of shareholder class
actions reflects the companies' failure to meet those obligations.

While lawyers and shareholder groups agree that the new activism is a
sign that investors are becoming aware of their rights and trying to
protect them, still these lawsuits face many obstacles.  

Harald Petersen, head of legal affairs for SdK, a small German
shareholders group, said that shareholders in their lawsuit against
EM.TV, for example, have as high a risk of losing money as they did
with their original investment.  

"It will be five or six years before the case makes it to Germany's
highest courts too, which means a precedent is far from being reached."

Morrison of Sullivan & Cromwell points out that the current trend "is a
wake-up call for bankers and companies as well as practitioners, that
in accessing the capital markets there are liability risks attached."



                              *********

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  * * *