CAR_Public/010618.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, June 18 2001, Vol. 3, No. 118

                              Headlines


AVICI SYSTEMS: Savett Frutkin Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
BORDERS GROUP: Asst. Managers Denied Overtime Pay Sue In California
BROADCOM CORPORATION: Consolidation Of California Suits Expected
CURTIS INTERNATIONAL: Tender Offer Sparks Shareholder Suit In S.D. NY
DOLLAR GENERAL: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York

DOUBLECLICK INC.: CA Court Upholds Internet Privacy Complaint Ruling
GASOLINE LITIGATION: CA Supreme Court Drops Oil Firm Conspiracy Case
INTUIT INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Invasion Of Privacy Complaint
IVILLAGE INC.: Milberg Weiss Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York
LIFE PARTNERS: Hearing Set To Clarify 'Viatical Settlement' Status

LUXOTTICA GROUP: Finkelstein Thompson Files Lawsuit In E.D. New York
MARIMBA INC.: Savett Frutkin Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
MICRON ELECTRONICS:`Defective Computer' Consumer Suit Impact Unclear  
NAVISITE INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
NPC INTERNATIONAL: Inks MOA With Plaintiffs To Settle Suits In Kansas

ORGANIC INC.: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York
ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: Cauley Geller Begins Louisiana Securities Suit
PURCHASEPRO.COM: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit In Nevada
ROBOTIC VISION: Wechsler Harwood Files Massachusetts Securities Suit
SEAVIEW VIDEO: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit In M.D. Florida

SERVICE CORPORATION: Motion To Dismiss Consolidated Case Undecided
SUNGLASS HUT: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In E.D. New York

* DVD Rental Giant Attempts To Turn Blockbuster's Misfortune To Boon

                              *********


AVICI SYSTEMS: Savett Frutkin Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. filed a class action complaint on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased the securities of Avici
Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:AVCI) during the period between July 29, 2000 and
March 29, 2001.

The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York,
NY 10007 (Case No. 01 CV 3983).

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: Barbara A. Podell, Adam T. Savett or
Renee C. Nixon, of Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan. P.C. by Phone:
800/993-3233 by Email: mail@savettlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.savettlaw.com


BORDERS GROUP: Asst. Managers Denied Overtime Pay Sue In California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Two former employees, individually and on behalf of a purported class,
consisting of all current and former employees who worked as assistant
managers in Borders stores in the state of California at any time
between April 10, 1996, and the present, have filed an action against
BORDERS GROUP, INC. in the Superior Court of California for the County
of San Francisco.

The action alleges that the individual plaintiffs and the purported
class members worked hours for which they were entitled to receive, but
did not receive, overtime compensation under California law, and that
they were classified as "exempt" store management employees but were
forced to work more than 50% of their time in non-exempt tasks.

The Amended Complaint alleges violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code. The relief sought
includes compensatory and punitive damages, penalties, preliminary and
permanent injunctions requiring Borders to pay overtime compensation as
required under California and Federal law, prejudgment interest, costs
and attorneys fees and such other relief as the court deems proper.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the action, including
contesting the certification of the action as a class action.

   
BROADCOM CORPORATION: Consolidation Of California Suits Expected
----------------------------------------------------------------
In March and April 2001, Broadcom Corporation and its Chief Executive
Officer, Chief Technical Officer and Chief Financial Officer were
served with a number of complaints filed primarily in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

These complaints were brought as purported shareholder class actions
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and in general alleges that the defendants
improperly accounted for performance-based warrants assumed by the
Company in connection with its acquisitions of Altima, Silicon Spice,
Allayer, SiByte and Visiontech.

While there is some variation in their specific allegations and their
purported class periods (the earliest date identified for the onset of
a class period is July 30, 2000 and the last date identified for the
close of the class period is March 6, 2001), the essence of the
allegations in each of these complaints is that the defendants
intentionally failed to properly account for the financial impact of
performance-based warrants assumed in connection with the acquisitions,
which plaintiffs allege had the effect of materially overstating the
Company's reported financial results.

Motions to consolidate and for appointment of Lead Plaintiff(s)
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 were
filed by at least six groups of plaintiffs on or before May 15, 2001.

The Company anticipates that all of these actions will ultimately
be consolidated into one action and that a consolidated amended
complaint will be filed after the appointment of Lead Plaintiff(s).

The Company has not yet answered any of the complaints, and discovery
has not commenced.


CURTIS INTERNATIONAL: Tender Offer Sparks Shareholder Suit In S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed late last week in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York on behalf of all
shareholders of Curtis International Ltd. (Nasdaq: CURT) who have been
damaged in connection with a tender offer commenced by the Company's
management on or about May 4, 2001.

The named plaintiff alleges that the tender offer documents were
materially false and misleading in that they failed to disclose
defendants' scheme to defraud shareholders of Curtis by artificially
depressing the Company's stock price in order to eventually repurchase
the Company from the public at a steep discount.

The tender offer materials failed to disclose that defendants used
their controlling stake to depress Curtis' stock price by selectively
disclosing negative information regarding the Company, improperly
reporting bad debt expense and otherwise failing to disclose material
information about the Company.

Also concealed from the public was the fact that a third party had
expressed interest in making a tender offer for the common stock of
Curtis on terms more favorable than offered by the defendants.

For additional information, contact: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. or Ben
Coleman, Legal Assistant of Beatie And Osborn LLP by Mail: 521 Fifth
Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, New York 10175 by Phone: 800-891-6305
(toll free), 212-888-9000 by Fax: 212-888-9664 or by E-mail:
clientrelations@bandolaw.com

                    
DOLLAR GENERAL: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
Dollar General Corporation (NYSE: DG) securities during the period
between May 12, 1998 and April 27, 2001, inclusive, against Dollar
General, Cal Turner, Jr. (Chairman and Chief Executive Officer), Brian
M. Burr (Chief Financial Officer), and Deloitte & Touche, LLP (Dollar
General's auditor and principal accounting firm during the Class
Period).

The judge presiding over the case is the Honorable Alvin K.
Hellerstein, and the case is numbered 01-CV-3732. Investors should be
aware that additional complaints have been filed against Dollar General
which are pending in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, Nashville Division.

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 and seeks to recover damages.

For further details, contact: Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law Offices
of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 210 West Washington Square, Third Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106, by Phone: (888) 643-6735 or (215) 625-9999, by
Fax: (215) 440-9475, by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


DOUBLECLICK INC.: CA Court Upholds Internet Privacy Complaint Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in four California class action lawsuits against
DoubleClick, Inc. announce the final ruling by California Superior
Court Judge Lynn O'Malley Taylor denying DoubleClick's second challenge
to Plaintiffs' Internet privacy case.

Plaintiffs allege that DoubleClick has secretly and in an unauthorized
manner used "cookies", "Web bugs" and other means to secretly intercept
and access computer users' personal data and Web browsing habits for
its own commercial benefit.

The complaint upheld by the Court last week alleges that DoubleClick's
actions have violated California consumers' rights to privacy under the
California Constitution; violated provisions of California's Penal Code
concerning illegal eavesdropping on communications; and unjustly
enriched DoubleClick at Internet users' expense.

The complaint also alleges that DoubleClick's practices are unlawful,
fraudulent and unfair under California's state consumer protection act.

"What DoubleClick has been doing - and continues to do - violates state
statutory and common law and Internet users' fundamental right to
privacy," said Alan Mansfield of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach
LLP, one of the four co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

"What's worse," added Seth R. Lesser, of Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, another of the co-lead counsel, "is that DoubleClick has
been promoting itself as concerned about consumer privacy when, in
fact, the very nature of its business is to secretly monitor and
profile Internet users' habits by tagging it with a unique identifier
as they surf the Internet. Most Internet users have no idea this is
occurring since DoubleClick's presence on thousands of websites is
rarely disclosed."

Despite the fanfare with which DoubleClick has pointed to the recent
dismissal of a federal class action lawsuit against it in New York,
Bryan Clobes of Miller Faucher & Cafferty, another of the plaintiffs'
co-lead counsel in both the California and New York cases, said, "the
New York decision, which did not address the merits of any state law
claims and only addressed claims under three federal statutes, has now
been appealed. Other federal judges have more recently disagreed with
its reasoning.

"We look forward to having this appeal heard by the federal court of
appeals. Further, California is not the only state in which DoubleClick
has been sued and we are also looking forward to similar claims being
sustained against DoubleClick in these states as well," he said.

Ira Rothken, another of the co-lead counsel in the California case,
stated, "We are pleased that the Court rejected Doubleclick's Motion to
Dismiss. If the California Constitutional Right to Privacy stands for
anything, it stands for the notion that companies like Doubleclick have
to ask permission first before tracking, storing, and analyzing what
families click on and read on the Internet. We look forward to getting
a remedy for the General Public of California."

Plaintiffs in the California case seek injunctive relief to prevent
DoubleClick from continuing to violate their legal rights and state
law, as well as monetary damages. The California Penal Code claim
carries statutory penalties of $2,500 per violation.

For more information contact Seth R. Lesser at Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP, (800) 380-8496; William Doyle at Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, (800) 449-4900; Bryan Clobes at Miller
Faucher and Cafferty, (215) 864-2800, or Ira Rothken at The Rothken Law
Firm, (415) 924-4250.


GASOLINE LITIGATION: CA Supreme Court Drops Oil Firm Conspiracy Case
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action charging nine major oil companies of conspiracy to gouge
consumers for clean-burning gasoline was axed last week in California,
the Reuters News Agency reported.


The State Supreme Court upheld, in a unanimous decision, an appellate
court's 1996 ruling dismissing the lawsuit on grounds of insufficient
evidence that the firms conspired to limit supply and fix prices in
California.

The firms named in the original lawsuit included Atlantic Richfield Co,
now owned by BP Ltd., Chevron Corp., Exxon Corp., now Exxon Mobil
Corp., Mobil Oil Corp., now part of Exxon Mobil, 76 Products Co.,
Shell, Texaco Inc.'s, Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc., Tosco Corp.,
and Ultramar Inc.

Craig de Recat, an attorney who represented the oil firms, hailed the
ruling, saying the lawsuit could have chilled competition by
eliminating things such as trade associations and consultants, which
businesses rely on.


INTUIT INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Invasion Of Privacy Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 3, 2000, a class action lawsuit, Bruce v. Intuit Inc., was
filed in the United States District Court, Central District of
California, Eastern Division.

Two virtually identical lawsuits were later filed:

     (i) Rubin v. Intuit Inc., filed on March 8, 2000 in the United
         States District Court, Southern District of New York, and

    (ii) Newby v. Intuit Inc. was filed on April 27, 2000, in the
         United States District Court, Central District of California,
         Eastern Division.

The Bruce and Newby lawsuits were consolidated into one lawsuit, In re
Intuit Privacy Litigation, filed on July 28, 2000 in the United States
District Court of California, Eastern Division.

Following Intuit's successful motion to dismiss several of the claims,
an amended complaint was filed on May 2, 2001.

These purported class actions allege violations of various federal and
California statutes and common law claims for invasion of privacy based
upon the alleged intentional disclosure to third parties of personal
and private customer information entered at Intuit's Quicken.com
website.


IVILLAGE INC.: Milberg Weiss Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class
action lawsuit last week on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
iVillage, Inc. (NASDAQ:IVIL) between March 18, 1999 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.

The action, captioned Israel Spitzer v. iVillage, Inc. et al., is
pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York against defendants iVillage, Goldman Sachs & Co., Credit Suisse
First Boston Corp., BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Lehman Brothers,
Candice Carpenter, Nancy Evans, Craig T. Monaghan and Sanjay
Muralidhar.

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: Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP
through Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by Phone: 800/320-5081
by Email: ivillagecase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


LIFE PARTNERS: Hearing Set To Clarify 'Viatical Settlement' Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 28, 2000, Bobbie J. Griffitts filed suit in the District
Court of McLennan County, Texas, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, against Life Partners, Inc.

Plaintiff is a purchaser of two viatical settlements. She alleges that
LPI has violated the registration requirements of the Texas Securities
Act by selling viatical settlements that are "securities" under the
Texas Securities Act and are unregistered.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all purchasers of viatical settlements within
the three years preceding the filing of the suit. The complaint seeks a
judgment compelling LPI to rescind all viatical settlement sales during
the three-year period, costs and attorney's fees.

The registration claim is the sole claim alleged in the complaint. The
Court has not certified the action as a class action and the Company
has pending a summary judgment motion to dismiss the suit.

"We believe that our viatical settlements are not securities under the
Texas Securities Act and thus the plaintiff's complaint is without
merit as a matter of law. For the suit to proceed, the plaintiff must
establish that our viatical settlements are "securities," the Company
said in a recent report to SEC.

In 1996, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia determined in SEC v. Life Partners, Inc. (87 F.2d 536,
rehearing denied, 102 F.3d 587 D.C.Cir.1996) that the viatical
settlements sold by the Company were not securities under the Federal
Securities Act.

While this decision is not binding on the Texas court, Texas courts
have held the definitions of "securities" under the Federal Securities
Act and the Texas Securities Act to be virtually the same.  The Company
believe the Court of Appeals' decision will be highly persuasive.

A motion hearing is set for June 22, 2001, at which the issue of
whether the Company's viatical settlements are securities will be
presented.

"We intend to vigorously defend this suit and our counsel has advised
us that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is remote," the
Company said.


LUXOTTICA GROUP: Finkelstein Thompson Files Lawsuit In E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
behalf of all persons who tendered their shares of Sunglass Hut
International, Inc. (Nasdaq: RAYS) to Shade Acquisition Corp., pursuant
to the Tender Offer dated March 5, 2001 by Luxottica Group S.p.A. and
Shade to Sunglass shareholders, in exchange for $11.50 net cash per
share.

Excluded from the Class are the named Defendants and James N. Hauslein,
who is the Chairman of the Board of Sunglass. The Complaint names
Luxottica and Shade as Defendants. Shade is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Luxottica.  

The Complaint charges Defendants with violations of Section 14(d) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 14d-10 promulgated thereunder.

For more information, contact: Donald J. Enright, Esq. (E-mail:
dje@ftllaw.com), Conor R. Crowley, Esq. (E-mail: crc@ftllaw.com),
FINKELSTEIN, THOMPSON & LOUGHRAN, 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20007, 202-337-8000.

James W. Johnson, Esq. (E-mail: johnsoj@glrs.com), David J. Goldsmith,
Esq. (E-mail: goldsmd@glrs.com), GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF & SUCHAROW
LLP, 100 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017-5563, 212-907-0700.


MARIMBA INC.: Savett Frutkin Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. filed a class action complaint on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased the common stock of Marimba,
Inc. (NASDAQ:MRBA) during the period between April 30, 1999 and March
27, 2000. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY 10007 (Case No. 01 CV 4104).

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 additional information, contact: Barbara A. Podell, Adam T. Savett
or Renee C. Nixon, of Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan. P.C. by Phone:
800/993-3233 by E-mail: mail@savettlaw.com. or visit the firm's
Website: www.savettlaw.com


MICRON ELECTRONICS:`Defective Computer' Consumer Suit Impact Unclear  
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Electronics, Inc. is defending a consumer class action lawsuit
filed in the Federal District Court of Minnesota based on the alleged
sale of defective computers. No class has been certified in the case.

The case involves a claim that the Company sold computer products with
a defect that may cause errors when information is written on a floppy
disk. Substantially similar lawsuits have been filed against other
major computer manufacturers.

"The case is currently in the early stages of discovery, and we are
therefore unable to estimate total expenses, possible loss or range of
loss that may ultimately be connected with the matter," the Company
said in a recent report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


NAVISITE INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class
action lawsuit last week on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
NaviSite, Inc. (NASDAQ:NAVI) between October 22, 1999 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.

The action, captioned Stuart Werman and Lynn McFarlane v. NaviSite,
Inc. et al., is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against defendants NaviSite, BancBoston Robertson
Stephens, Joel B. Rosen and Kenneth W. Hale.

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

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


NPC INTERNATIONAL: Inks MOA With Plaintiffs To Settle Suits In Kansas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NPC International, Inc. disclosed in its latest regulatory filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission that it has recently reached an
agreement to settle the following cases:

     (i) Barry Feldman v. Bicknell, et al., Civil Action No. 00C2628,
         filed on December 14, 2000 in the District Court of Crawford
         County, Kansas;

    (ii) James Miller v. Bicknell, et al., Civil Action 00C2637, filed  
         on December 15, 2000, in the District Court of Crawford
         County, Kansas; and

   (iii) Harbor Finance Partners et al. v. Bicknell et al., Civil   
         Action No. 00-CV-07833, filed on December 19, 2000 in the
         District Court of Johnson County, Kansas;

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 the Company common stock for $11.40 in cash
without interest was grossly unfair to the Company's public
stockholders, (2) the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company stockholders, and (3) the offer was advanced
through unfair procedures.

On May 10, 2001, the Company, the defendant directors and the named
plaintiffs entered into a memorandum of agreement in which both parties
agreed to:

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

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

     (c) 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.


ORGANIC INC.: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman filed a class action lawsuit against Organic, Inc.
(NASDAQ:OGNC), its senior executives, and underwriters in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of
investors who purchased Organic securities between February 9, 2000 and
December 6, 2000.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It alleges that the
Registration Statement and the Prospectus dated February 9, 2000
contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions.

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

For inquiries, contact: David C. Katz, Mark D. Smilow, and/or James E.
Tullman by Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 by Email:
wynyc@aol.com or by Mail: Weiss & Yourman, The French Building, 551
Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, New York 10176.


ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: Cauley Geller Begins Louisiana Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of Orthodontic Centers of America,
Inc. (NYSE: OCA) common stock during the period between April 27, 2000
through March 15, 2001, inclusive.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants "front-loaded"
OCA's revenue by improperly recognizing service fee revenue in the
first month of patient services on contracts that typically spanned at
least 26 months.

Furthermore, defendants improperly inflated OCA's fee revenue by
recording amounts equal to a portion of operating losses incurred by
start-up affiliated companies.

The combined effect of these practices caused the Company to recognize
as much as 33% of total contract revenue in the first month of patient
services while actually recording a negative revenue figure in the last
month of service.

For additional information, contact: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP
through its 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


PURCHASEPRO.COM: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit In Nevada
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, P.C. filed a lawsuit seeking class action status in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of
all persons who purchased common stock and/or publicly traded call
options in PurchasePro.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: PPRO) between July 19, 2000
and April 25, 2001, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that PurchasePro and four members of its senior
management misled the investing public during the Class Period by
touting the Company's "record financial results," which had actually
been obtained as the result of improper revenue recognition and
accounting practices.

Just days prior to the Company's October 27, 2000 announcement that it
was "reclassifying" almost 25% of its total profit for the second
quarter of 2000, two PurchasePro insiders sold stock for proceeds of
more than $10 million.

Ultimately, on April 25, 2001, a little over a month after representing
that it would exceed profit estimates for the first quarter of 2001,
PurchasePro revealed that its revenues would be below expectations "due
to the deferred recognition of certain license revenue."

On this news, the share price of PurchasePro dropped 35%, trading as
low as $3.87 per share, well below its Class Period high of $44.95 in
September 2000.

For additional details, contact: Andrew M. Schatz, Jeffrey S. Nobel or
Patrick A. Klingman by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by Email: sn06106@aol.com
or visit the firm's Website: www.snlaw.net


ROBOTIC VISION: Wechsler Harwood Files Massachusetts Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP filed a class action lawsuit
against Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. and its top two executives. The
action is pending 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 commons stock of Robotic Vision Systems,
Inc. (NASDAQ: ROBV - news) 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. It
also alleges that during the Class Period, Robotic Vision 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 Vision Systems
announced that it would be restating its financial results for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2000 and for the three-month period
ending 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 further details, contact: Shareholder Relations Department of
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP by Mail: located at 488 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10022, by Phone: (877) 935-7400 (toll free)
or by Email: pguiteau@whhf.com.


SEAVIEW VIDEO: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit In M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action
on behalf of all individuals and institutional investors that purchased
the common stock of SeaView Video Technology, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board:
SEVU) between March 30, 2000 and March 19, 2001, inclusive.

The lawsuit, captioned Howlin v. SeaView Video Technology, Inc., et
al., Case No. 8:01 CV 1133-T-27 TGW, is pending in the United States
District Court, Middle District of Florida, located at 801 N. Florida
Avenue, Tampa, FL 33602, and has been assigned to the Honorable James
D. Whittemore.

The Complaint charges SeaView and its President and Chief Executive
Officer, Richard L. McBride with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, SeaView, a provider
of marine, medical and security-related video equipment, and McBride
made numerous materially false and misleading statements, concerning,
among other things, SeaView's reported revenues for the second and
third quarter of 2000 as well as expected revenue for the Year 2000,
the demand for SeaView's products, and SeaView's ability to manufacture
sufficient product to meet the purported demand.

In addition, the Complaint charges that SeaView and McBride failed to
disclose that the Company recognized revenue for non-existent sales. As
alleged in the Complaint, on March 19, 2001, SeaView revealed, in a
Form 8-K filed with the SEC, that its financial results for the second
and third quarters of 2000 were materially false.

For further details, contact: Client Relations Department of CAULEY
GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP: 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


SERVICE CORPORATION: Motion To Dismiss Consolidated Case Undecided
------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International was served in January 1999, 23
putative class action lawsuits filed in the United States District
Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of Texas, on behalf of
persons and entities who:

     (i) acquired shares of the Company's common stock in the merger
         with Equity Corporation International;

    (ii) purchased shares of the Company's common stock in the open
         market during the period from July 17, 1998 through January
         26, 1999 (referred to herein as the class period);

   (iii) purchased call options of the Company in the open market
         during the class period;

    (iv) sold put options of the Company in the open market during the
         class period;

     (v) held employee stock options in ECI that became options to
         acquire the Company's stock pursuant to the ECI merger; and

    (vi) held employee stock options to purchase the Company's common    
         stock under a plan during the class period.

These actions have been consolidated into one lawsuit in the federal
court in Houston, Texas.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company and three of its
current or former executive officers and directors violated sections of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, allegedly by issuing false and misleading statements and
failing to disclose material information concerning the Company's pre-
arranged funeral business and other financial matters, including in
connection with the ECI merger.

The consolidated complaint also alleges that the Company violated
Section 11 and Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection
with the ECI merger related claims.

Plaintiffs allege damages based on the market loss, during the class
period, of the outstanding shares, including those exchanged in the ECI
merger.

The case is subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 (PSLRA). Under the PSLRA, all discovery is currently stayed
pending the court's resolution of a motion to dismiss.

In October 1999, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint that has not been ruled on by the court.

Four similar cases were also brought in the state courts of Texas by
former officers, directors and shareholders of ECI alleging violations
of Texas securities laws and statutory and common law fraud in
connection with the ECI merger.


SUNGLASS HUT: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf
all persons who tendered their shares of common stock of Sunglass Hut
International, Inc. (Nasdaq: RAYS) to Shade Acquisition Corp. pursuant
to the Tender Offer dated March 5, 2001 by Luxottica Group S.p.A. and
Shade to Sunglass shareholders, in exchange for $11.50 net cash per
share.

The complaint charges Sunglass and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Section 14(d) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14d-10 promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that pursuant to the Tender Offer
and as an integral part thereof, Defendants offered and paid greater
consideration to James N. Hauslein, the Chairman of the Board of
Sunglass, than to other tendering Sunglass shareholders, as an
inducement to Hauslein to support the Tender Offer and to tender his
approximately 1.7 million Sunglass shares to Shade.

Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the additional consideration to
Hauslein, which was never offered nor paid to other Sunglass
shareholders, was in the form of a lucrative Consulting Agreement
entered into between Hauslein and Luxottica, under which Luxottica
allegedly agreed to pay Hauslein $15 million over a five-year period.

For further details, contact: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP
through its 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


* DVD Rental Giant Attempts To Turn Blockbuster's Misfortune To Boon
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix (www.netflix.com), the world's largest online DVD rental source
with no due dates or late fees, is offering consumers who qualify to
participate in one of the 23 class-action suits against Blockbuster
over late fees, an opportunity to eliminate these fees altogether by
trying a free, two-week Netflix trial membership of its rental service.

Blockbuster has agreed to settle the 23 class-action suits filed on
behalf of disgruntled consumers in several states, who feel they have
been unfairly charged as a result of the video chain's policy of
assessing late fees equal to or exceeding the fee of the original
rental period.

The video chain's settlement offer provides customers with free rental
coupons and payment of some attorney fees associated with filing the
action. Late fees, however, will continue to be charged for extended
viewing. In contrast, Netflix doesn't have due dates or late fees,
offering customers a movie experience that is free from these worries.

To take part in the free DVD rental offer, simply visit the Netflix Web
site at: http://www.netflix.comand enter the code 601 370 69. The free  
two-week trial is available to any Blockbuster customer who feels they
have paid unwarranted late fees. The free trial offer expires July 31,
2001.

"People rent movies to relax and enjoy themselves and Netflix
understands this," said Reed Hastings, Netflix CEO. "Movie renters
don't want the stress associated with due dates and paying late fees.
Since Netflix doesn't have late fees or due dates, movie lovers can
simply watch the movies they want, when they want, and return them when
they are ready for another movie."                   


                              *********

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  * * *