CAR_Public/010705.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Thursday, July 5, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 130

                             Headlines

AADVANTAGE PROGRAM: Illinois Judge Approves Settlement
AUDIBLE INC: Marc Henzel Files Shareholder Suit in S.D. NY
CHRONIMED INC: Schriffin & Barroway Files MN Shareholder Suit
DYNAMEX INC: N.D. Texas Court Gives Nod to $750,000 Settlement
ETOYS INC: Dennin Files Shareholder Suit Against Officers, Banks

GADZOOX NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
INFOSPACE INC: Zwerling Schachter Files Suit in W.D. Washington
INTERNAP NETWORK: Milberg Weiss Files S.D. NY Securities Suit  
INTERTRUST CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Files NY Shareholders Suit
IVILLAGE INC: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY

JEWISH ASSETS LIGITATION: Suits Readied Against European Banks
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein, Grossman Chosen For Suit
NAVISITE INC: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
NETWORK PLUS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ORGANIC INC: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY

PENN CENTRAL: Landowners to get Notices of Settlement
PROTON ENERGY: Milberg Weiss Brings Securities Suit in S.D. NY
REDBACK NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
STAMPS.COM INC: Levy & Levy File Shareholder Suit in S.D. NY
TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Files Suit in N.D. California
Z-TEL TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway File Plaint in S.D. NY


                               *****

AADVANTAGE PROGRAM: Illinois Judge Approves Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Ending 13 years of litigation in two separate class action
lawsuits, Judge Lee Preston has approved a settlement affecting
four million American Airlines AAdvantage frequent flyers. The
lawsuits involved changes to the AAdvantage program implemented
in 1988 and 1995. The suit had traveled twice to the United
States Supreme Court and the Illinois Supreme Court and resulted
in a precedent-setting decision that preserved the right of
airline passengers and others to bring breach of contract claims
against airlines.

Michael B. Hyman, of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament &
Rubenstein, P.C., Chicago, one of the lead attorneys, said "These
hard-fought, far-reaching lawsuits show that airline passengers
can fight back, and that consumers have a collective commanding
voice when diligent and dedicated counsel lead the charge."

Judge Preston, in his order, stated that, "(W)hen analyzed
against the actual claims of the plaintiffs in Wolens and
Gutterman, the settlement terms confer upon the class members a
substantial degree of the value they claim they lost as a result
of American's changes to the program. Settlement affords both the
Wolens and the Gutterman class members opportunity to claim the
type of awards they allege they were denied as a result of
American's changes to the AAdvantage Program, and while the
miles-off certificates and dollars-off discounts do not
correspond in every instance to what the plaintiffs allege they
lost, the benefits provide plaintiffs a significant portion of
their claimed damages."

Judge Lee Preston, of the Circuit Court of Cook County, also
noted that "plaintiffs' counsel performed high quality legal
services which significantly benefited the class from which
important national issues of law were resolved."

The relief in these cases has been estimated to exceed $100
million. The settlement was approved only after a thorough and
lengthy hearing by the court, which overruled objections raised
by class members in approving the settlement.

American introduced the AAdvantage program in 1981 to encourage
customer loyalty and attract customers. In May 1981, the program
instituted capacity controls on miles already earned by members
of the program. Plaintiffs claimed that the miles vested when
they were accrued and American diminished the value of the miles
by limiting the availability of seats for frequent flyer tickets.
Then in 1995, American raised the number of mileage credits
needed to claim a domestic Plan AAhead coach awards from 20,000
to 25,000 mileage credits. Plaintiffs alleged the change breached
the program contract because American was obligated to keep the
rules the same as to each of those members for as long as the
members held miles in their accounts. This claim affected only
miles accumulated in 1992 and 1993.

Class members have already been notified of the lawsuit and the
deadline for making claims has long passed. The Court's Order
becomes final in 30 days, if there is no appeal.

The attorneys for the plaintiffs were Michael B. Hyman, Much
Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein P.C., Gilbert Gordon,
Marks Marks and Kaplan, Chicago, and Steven Schwartz, Chimicles &
Tikelis, Haverford, PA.

For further information contact Michael B. Hyman, a principal of
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, whose practice
concentrates in contingent matters and consumer, antitrust and
securities litigation, at 312-621-1444.


AUDIBLE INC: Marc Henzel Files Shareholder Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed 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 the 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 alleges that, in exchange for the excessive
commissions, joint lead underwriters Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Volpe Brown Whelen &
Company, LLC and Wit Capital Corporation allocated Audible shares
to customers at the IPO price of $9.00 per share. To receive the
allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at $9.00, the
underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher
prices. The requirement that customers make additional purchases
at progressively higher prices as the price of Audible stock
rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering")
was intended to (and did) drive Audible's share price up to
artificially high levels. This artificial price inflation, the
complaint alleges, enabled both the underwriters and their
customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the $9.00
IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated
aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $23.50 during its first
day of trading.

Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from
the IPO, the complaint alleges, the underwriters required their
customers to "kick back" some of their profits in the form of
secret commissions. These secret commission payments were
sometimes calculated after the fact based on how much profit each
investor had made from his or her IPO stock allocation.

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 and "laddering" scheme
discussed above.

Plaintiff is represented by The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel.
Members of the class described above have until August 11, 2001
to request the court to be appointed as lead plaintiff for the
Class.   For more information about this case, 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.


CHRONIMED INC: Schriffin & Barroway Files MN Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Chronimed, Inc. (Nasdaq: CHMDE) from October 27, 1999 through
June 13, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges Chronimed and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning
its business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that Chronimed issued press releases announcing quarterly
and yearly financial results which were repeated in quarterly and
yearly SEC filings. The publicly disseminated financial results
were favorable, and included several quarters of supposedly
record revenues. On June 14, 2001, Chronimed issued a press
release announcing that it would be restating its financial
results for fiscal 2000, and the first three quarters of fiscal
2001, due to accounting irregularities.

According to the press release, StarScript, a subsidiary of
Chronimed, had been overstating revenues, earnings and accounts
receivables throughout the Class Period. Immediately following
this announcement, the Nasdaq halted trading in Chronimed stock,
which was then trading at $9.35 per share. When trading resumed
on June 22, 2001, Chronimed's stock price plummeted by 49% to
close at $4.75.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, who
has significant experience and expertise prosecuting class
actions on behalf of investors and shareholders. For more
information on Schiffrin & Barroway, or to sign-up to participate
in this action online, please visit www.sbclasslaw.com.

Members of the class who wish to be appointed as lead plaintiff
by the court have no later than August 14, 2001.  For more
information, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman,
Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite
400, Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004, 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-
667-7706, or by e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com


DYNAMEX INC: N.D. Texas Court Gives Nod to $750,000 Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamex Inc. (AMEX:DDN), a provider of same-day delivery and
logistics services in the United States and Canada, has received
final approval from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas of the Stipulation of Settlement in its class
action lawsuit, as well as agreements to settle claims with
Reliance Insurance Company, Deloitte & Touche LLP and Deloitte &
Touche.

In accordance with the terms of the settlement, Dynamex will
receive a net recovery of approximately $750,000 in connection
with its claims against Reliance Insurance Company, Deloitte &
Touche LLP and Deloitte & Touche. Additional amounts received
from these entities, as well as Dynamex's primary carrier of
directors and officers liability insurance will be paid to class
members. The Company has previously funded its $1 million cash
obligation under the terms of the settlement. The net recovery
will be used to offset the cash payment made by Dynamex.
Consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement, Dynamex
will also issue one million shares of common stock to members of
the class, and counsel for the class.

Rick McClelland, Chairman and CEO, commented, "The final approval
and subsequent issuance of common stock brings closure to the
most significant outstanding facet of the accounting-related
events of the last few years. The Company will continue to
concentrate its resources towards internal growth, business
development and creating value."

Dynamex provides of Additional press releases and investor
relations information as well as the Company's internet e-
commerce services package, dxNow(TM), are available at
www.dynamex.com and www.dxnow.com.


ETOYS INC: Dennin Files Shareholder Suit Against Officers, Banks
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Timothy J. Dennin, P.C. filed a class action
lawsuit on June 28, 2001 on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the
common stock of eToys, Inc. (formerly listed as NasdaqNM:ETYS)
between May 19, 1999 and May 26, 2000, inclusive. The lawsuit
asserts claims under Section 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.

Any member of the class may request to be named lead plaintiff by
the Court no later than August 27, 2001.

The action, Mehta v. eToys 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-5911 (SAS) and has been
assigned to the Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S. District Judge.
The complaint alleges that eToys Inc, Edward C. Lenk, its
President and Chief Executive Officer at the time of its IPO, and
Steven J. Schoch, its CFO at the time of its IPO, violated the
federal securities laws by issuing and selling eToys common stock
pursuant to the initial public offering without disclosing to
investors that three of the lead 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 eToys offering
contained material misstatements regarding the commissions that
the underwriters would derive from the IPO and failed to disclose
the additional commissions and "laddering" scheme discussed
above.

For more information, contact Timothy J. Dennin, P.C. at 415
Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10017-1111, Phone (212) 826-
1500, Fax (212) 688-6457, E-mail timden@ix.netcom.com


GADZOOX NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Gadzoox Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq: ZOOX) between
July 19, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action, is against the following defendants:

     * Gadzoox
     * Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.
     * BancBoston Robertson Stephens
     * Bill Sickler
     * Christine E. Munson, and
     * Alistair Black.

On or about July 19, 1999, Gadzoox commenced an initial public
offering of 3,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $21.00 per share. In connection therewith,
Gadzoox filed a registration statement, which incorporated a
prospectus, with the SEC.

The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

     (i) Credit Suisse and Robertson Stephens had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors in exchange for which Credit Suisse and Robertson
Stephens allocated to those investors material portions of the
restricted number of Gadzoox shares issued in connection with the
Gadzoox IPO; and

     (ii) Credit Suisse and Robertson Stephens had entered into
agreements with customers whereby Credit Suisse and Robertson
Stephens agreed to allocate Gadzoox shares to those customers in
the Gadzoox IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to
purchase additional Gadzoox shares in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.

Plaintiff is represented by The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel.
Member of the class described above may ask the court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff on or before August 6, 2001.  For
more information on this action, 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.


INFOSPACE INC: Zwerling Schachter Files Suit in W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP announced today that a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington, on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired InfoSpace, Inc. (Nasdaq: INSP)  
securities between January 26, 2000 and January 30, 2001,
inclusive.

The complaint charges InfoSpace and its founder and Chairman,
Naveen Jain, with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges that between January 26, 2000 and
January 30, 2001, defendants disseminated false and misleading
information concerning InfoSpace's actual 1999 and 2000 financial
performance and defendants' expectations concerning InfoSpace's
2001 revenue and earnings. Neither InfoSpace's reported 1999 and
2000 results nor its projected 2001 performance were accurate.
Defendants' public representations were the result of defendants'
efforts to manipulate InfoSpace's reported earnings and expected
2001 performance and were designed to (and did) allow:

     (i) Mr. Jain to sell millions of dollars of his own
InfoSpace shares at artificially inflated prices; and

     (ii) defendants to complete a series of acquisitions using
shares of InfoSpace's artificially inflated stock as
consideration.

On January 30, 2001, after defendants had completed several
acquisitions using inflated InfoSpace shares as consideration,
defendants disclosed that, contrary to the representations made
by them during 2000 that InfoSpace was experiencing strong
revenue growth during the fourth quarter of 1999, and the year
2000 and that InfoSpace would continue to post strong revenue
growth through 2001, InfoSpace would report no revenue growth or
EPS for 2001, but rather would report declining revenue and a
significant loss for the year. As defendants began to reveal some
of their improper conduct, including the fact that defendants'
projected revenues and earnings estimates were false, InfoSpace's
shares fell to less than $6 per share, a 95% decline from their
Class Period high of $138-1/2 per share.

Persons who wish the court to appoint them as lead plaintiff have
sixty (60) days from June 19, 2001, to apply.

For more information on this action, contact Don Lanier, Senior
Paralegal (New York office) at 800-721-3900 or eemail:
dlanier@zsz.com, or Dan Drachler, Esq.  at 206-223-2053 or by e-
mail at ddrachler@zsz.com.  Or visit Zwerling, Schachter's
website on the Internet at http://www.zsz.com).


INTERNAP NETWORK: Milberg Weiss Files S.D. NY Securities Suit  
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a
class action lawsuit on July 3, 2001, on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of InterNAP Network Services Corporation (NASDAQ:
INAP) between September 29,1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.
The case is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10007.


The action alleges the following defendants:

     * InterNAP
     * Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.
     * Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.
     * BancBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.
     * Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc.
     * Anthony C. Naughtin
     * Paul E. McBride, and
? Eugene Eidenberg,
?  
on or about September 29,1999 InterNAP commenced an initial
public offering of 9,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $20 per share. In connection therewith,
InterNAP filed a registration statement, which incorporated a
prospectus, with the SEC.

The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

     (i) the Underwriter Defendants (Morgan Stanley, Credit
Suisse, Robertson Stephens, and Merrill Lynch) had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors in exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants
allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted
number of InterNAP shares issued in connection with the InterNAP
IPO; and

     (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements
with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to
allocate InterNAP shares to those customers in the InterNAP IPO
in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
InterNAP shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

For more information on this action, contact: Steven G. Schulman
or Samuel H. Rudman of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165, (800)
320-5081, Email: internapcase@milbergNY.com, Website:
http://www.milberg.com.


INTERTRUST CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Files NY Shareholders Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the common stock of InterTrust Technologies Corporation
(Nasdaq: ITRU) between October 26, 1999 and May 16, 2001
inclusive.

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

In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges,
lead underwriters Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. and Salomon
Smith Barney, Inc. and underwriters BancBoston Robertson
Stephens, Inc. and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. allocated
InterTrust shares to customers at the IPO price of $18.00 per
share. To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase
shares) at $18.00, the aforementioned defendant underwriters'
brokerage customers had to agree to purchase additional shares in
the aftermarket at progressively higher prices.

The requirement that customers make additional purchases at
progressively higher prices as the price of InterTrust stock
rocketed upward, a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering",
was intended to drive InterTrust's share price up to artificially
high levels. This artificial price inflation, the complaint
alleges, enabled both the underwriters and their customers to
reap enormous profits by buying InterTrust stock at the $18.00
IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated
aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $55.00 during its first
day of trading. The complaint further alleges that InterTrust was
able to price the secondary offering of InterTrust stock at an
artificially high $35.00 per share (or $70.00 per pre-two-for-
one-split share) due to the continued effects of the foregoing
violations.

Members of the class described above have until July 17, 2001 to
ask the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiffs for the Class.

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, 888-643-6735 or 215-625-9999, fax
215-440-9475, by e-mail at Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
website at http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


IVILLAGE INC: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of iVillage, Inc.
(Nasdaq: IVIL) securities during the period between March 18,
1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges the following 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

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. On or
about March 18, 1999, iVillage commenced an initial public
offering of 3,650,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $24.00 per share. In connection therewith,
iVillage filed a registration statement, which incorporated a
prospectus, with the SEC.

The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other
things, that

     (i) the Underwriter Defendants (Goldman Sachs, Morgan
Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Robertson Stephens and Smith Barney) had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors in exchange for which the Underwriter
Defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the
restricted number of iVillage shares issued in connection with
the iVillage IPO; and

     (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements
with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to
allocate iVillage shares to those customers in the iVillage IPO
in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
iVillage shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

Buyers of the securities of iVillage between March 18, 1999 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive may, no later than August 6, 2001
request to be appointed by the court as lead plaintiff.  For more
information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau of the Client Relations Department at Cauley Geller
Bowman & Coates, LLP, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438,
Toll Free: 1-888-551-9944, or E-mail: info@classlawyer.com, Web
site www.classlawyer.com.


JEWISH ASSETS LIGITATION: Suits Readied Against European Banks
--------------------------------------------------------------
A search is under way for people who can show or strongly believe
that they or a relative are both (a) of Jewish lineage and (b)
owned assets that were held in France during World War II by: (i)
Barclays Bank (France) Ltd., Credit Algerien, Bank Heine et Cie,
Societe Parisienne de Banque, Rothschild Freres, the stockbroker
Guy de Reimpre or certain branches of Lloyds Bank; or (ii) Morgan
et Cie or Guaranty Trust Co. of New York. A separate and
different settlement (identified below) would apply to people
whose assets were held by other banks in France or who are unsure
what bank held their assets.

Individuals of Jewish lineage who owned assets in the above-
mentioned banks may be Class Members of pending class action
settlements in which Barclays Bank and J.P. Morgan & Co. have
agreed to pay $3,612,500 and $2,750,000, respectively, to settle
legal claims relating to World War II era conduct of their and
their predecessors' operations in France. Under the pending
settlement, a Plan of Allocation has been proposed that would
award the full present value, if possible, of all assets blocked
and never returned.

People whose assets were held by other banks in France, or who
are unsure what bank held their assets, should seek information
about the separate and different French Banks Settlement, which
will pay claims against all other banks operating in France
during World War II, even for successful claimants who do not
know which banks held their assets. Information about the French
Banks Settlement can be obtained from the following sources:

    C.I.V.S.        -or-       The Simon Wiesenthal Center
    75116 PARIS                64 Avenue Marceau
    FRANCE                     75008 Paris
                               FRANCE
    http://www.civs.gouv.fr   http://www.wiesenthal.com

Class Members who do not wish to participate in or be bound by
the Barclays and J.P. Morgan Settlements must exclude themselves
by sending a letter to the Settlement Fund Administrator by
September 17, 2001. If they do not, they will be barred from
bringing any legal action against either bank relating to the
settled disputes. Those Class Members who exclude themselves will
not be able to claim a portion of the funds.

Class Members can request the Mailed Notice, Proof of Claim, and
further information on how to participate by writing to:

    Settlement Fund Administrator
    Barclays and J.P. Morgan Settlement
    P.O. Box 9260
    Garden City, NY  11530

Written information on the Settlement is available for Class
Members in English, French, Spanish, and Hebrew.

For further information, Class Members can also call the
following numbers:

     1-800-714-3304 (in the United States)
     0-800-914-842 (in France)
     1-800-93-00-011 (in Israel for Hebrew or English)
     1-800-93-00-012 (in Israel for Russian)
     1-800-93-00-014 (in Israel for Yiddish)
     0-800-169-8318 (in the United Kingdom)
     800-496-1974 (in Canada for English)
     800-498-2091 (in Canada for French)
     1-212-462-7850 (in Argentina)
     800-201858 (in Chile)
     001-800-559-1989 (in Mexico)
     800-1-2692 (in Venezuela)

Class Members also can obtain information on the following
websites:

    http://www.barclaysfrenchclaims.org
    http://www.jpmorganfrenchclaims.org

A hearing on settlement approval will be held on October 1, 2001,
by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York. If the Court gives final approval of the Settlement, a
Plan of Allocation will be adopted and the Funds will be paid.
Not all applicants are eligible for payments.

Class Members may comment on the terms of the Settlement by
September 17, 2001. The Mailed Notice, which must be requested,
describes how to submit comments or objections. Class Members
have the right to appear at the October 1, 2001, hearing in
person or through legal counsel, although they do not have to.

The Court appointed attorneys as Settlement Class Counsel. Class
Members do not have to pay the Court appointed attorneys. The
Court will authorize payment of the attorney's costs and fees
from a separate fund.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein, Grossman Chosen For Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In an Order dated June 12, 2001, the Honorable Alfred J. Lechner,
Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey selected Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP to
serve as Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel in In Re Lucent
Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, a securities fraud
class action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
Lucent Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: LU) from October 26, 1999
through December 21, 2000.

The Plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding
Lucent's optical networking business and reported financial
results that were false and inflated. Indeed, Lucent press
releases in November and December 2000 acknowledge that Lucent
had improperly recognized approximately $700 million in revenues
for fiscal year 2000 and that it had notified the SEC of these
revenue recognition violations.

The appointments of Co-Lead Plaintiff and Co-Lead Counsel are
especially noteworthy as they mark the first time since the 1995
passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act that a
court has reopened the lead plaintiff and lead counsel selection
process to account for changed circumstances, new issues and
possible conflicts between new and old allegations. In point of
fact, the initial Class Period, as originally plead, was
approximately 11 weeks while subsequent evidence and evaluation
of the case have extended it to 14 months.

In the first quarter of 2000, 18 class actions complaints were
filed against Lucent and its officers and the actions were
consolidated as "Lucent I". Under an April 27, 2000 Order, the
Employer-Teamsters Locals 175 & 505 Pension Trust Fund was
appointed provisional Lead Plaintiff. Thereafter, a sealed bid
auction was held to select Lead Counsel and a law firm was
appointed Lead Counsel by the court. On November 3, 2000, based
on the evidence developed to that point, Lead Plaintiff filed an
amended consolidated complaint alleging a class period from
October 26, 1999 through January 6, 2000.

Lucent then issued two press releases on November 21, 2000 and
December 21, 2000, announcing that it had improperly recognized
revenues. In the wake of these press releases, a number of other
class action complaints were filed against Lucent. Lead Plaintiff
also filed second, third and fourth amended consolidated
complaints in response to these announcements which ultimately
extended the class period from October 26, 1999 through December
21, 2000. On December 26, 2000, the court entered an Order
consolidating the "Lucent II" complaints with the "Lucent I"
action.

In January 4, 2001 letters to the Court, Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP , counsel for Plaintiffs the Anchorage
Police and Fire Retirement System and the Louisiana School
Employees' Retirement System, and Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
Toll, PLLC, counsel for Plaintiffs Parnassus Income Trust and
Equity Fund, requested that the December 26, 2000 Consolidation
Order be vacated. The Court ultimately determined that an
additional lead plaintiff and an additional lead counsel would
benefit the class.

On April 17, 2001, the Court appointed the Parnassus Funds as Co-
Lead Plaintiff in the action and ordered that there be a
competitive bid to determine Co-Lead Counsel for the action. In
response to the Court's Order, 17 law firms from across the
country submitted proposals to serve as Co-Lead Counsel. In its
June 12, 2001 Order, the Court held that Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann, LLP's proposal was the strongest bid and
specifically noted the firm's expertise in securities class
actions and the time and effort that the firm spent evaluating
the case.

The Co-Lead Plaintiff and Co-Lead Counsel appointments in this
litigation will clearly impact the prosecution of future
securities actions. Max Berger, senior partner of Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, stated that "we are delighted at
the court's decision to appoint additional lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel as, in the spirit of the PSLRA, it will enable the
appropriate institutional investors to better prosecute the
allegations in this complex case."

For more information, contact Alexander Coxe of Bernstein
Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP, New York, telephone number
212/554-1400.


NAVISITE INC: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of NaviSite, Inc. (Nasdaq: NAVI) between October
22, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

On or about October 22, 1999, NaviSite commenced an initial
public offering of 5,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $14.00 per share. In connection therewith,
NaviSite filed a registration statement, which incorporated a
prospectus, with the SEC.

The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

     (i) Robertson Stephens had solicited and received excessive
and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange
for which Robertson Stephens, allocated to those investors
material portions of the restricted number of NaviSite shares
issued in connection with the NaviSite IPO; and

     (ii) Robertson Stephens had entered into agreements with
customers whereby Robertson Stephens agreed to allocate NaviSite
shares to those customers in the NaviSite IPO in exchange for
which the customers agreed to purchase additional NaviSite shares
in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

Members of the class described above who wish to request the
court to appoint them as lead plaintiff have until August 13,
2001.  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, (888) 643-6735 or (215) 625-9999,
fax (215) 440-9475, by e-mail at Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the
firm's website at http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


NETWORK PLUS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a
class action lawsuit on July 3, 2001, on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Network Plus Corp. (NASDAQ: NPLS) between June
30, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

The action is pending in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY 10007, against the following defendants:

     * Network Plus
     * Goldman Sachs & Co.
     * Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.
     * Merrill Lynch
     * Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
     * Lehman Brothers, Inc.
     * Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.
     * Robert T. Hale, Jr.
     * James J. Crowley, and
     * George Alex.

On or about June 30, 1999, Network Plus commenced an initial
public offering of 8,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $16 per share. In connection therewith, Network
Plus filed a registration statement, which incorporated a
prospectus, with the SEC.

The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things,
that:

     (i) Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Merrill, Lehman and Smith
Barney had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Goldman
Sachs, Bear Stearns, Merrill, Lehman and Smith Barney allocated
to those investors material portions of the restricted number of
Network Plus shares issued in connection with the Network Plus
IPO; and

     (ii) Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Merrill, Lehman and Smith
Barney had entered into agreements with customers whereby Goldman
Sachs, Bear Stearns, Merrill, Lehman and Smith Barney agreed to
allocate Network Plus shares to those customers in the Network
Plus IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
additional Network Plus shares in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.

As alleged in the complaint, the SEC is investigating
underwriting practices in connection with several other initial
public offerings.

For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H.
Rudman at Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, 800/320-5081,
E-mail networkpluscase@milbergNY.com, Web site
http://www.milberg.com.


ORGANIC INC: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Organic, Inc. (Nasdaq: OGNC) between February
9, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

On or about February 9, 2000, Organic commenced an initial public
offering of 5,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $20 per share. In connection therewith, Organic
filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus,
with the SEC.

The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

     (i) Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and Salomon had solicited
and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors in exchange for which Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and
Salomon allocated to those investors material portions of the
restricted number of Organic shares issued in connection with the
Organic IPO; and

     (ii) Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and Salomon had entered
into agreements with customers whereby Goldman Sachs, Merrill
Lynch, and Salomon agreed to allocate Organic shares to those
customers in the Organic IPO in exchange for which the customers
agreed to purchase additional Organic shares in the aftermarket
at pre-determined prices.

Plaintiff is represented by The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel.
Members of the class described above have until July 31, 2001 to
ask the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff.  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, 888-643-6735 or 215-625-9999, fax 215-
440-9475, by e-mail at Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's
website at http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


PENN CENTRAL: Landowners to get Notices of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
Notices of settlement are being mailed today to thousands of
Indiana landowners whose properties adjoin the corridors of the
former Penn Central Railroad, according to attorneys for the
landowners. The Notice explains the benefits of the settlement to
affected landowners who were identified by county property tax
records. The Notice also contains other important information
including the date of the Fairness Hearing (August 15) at which
time final approval of the settlement by the court is expected. A
Notice will also be published in various newspapers around the
state and county offices will receive a Notice for posting. As
previously reported, the settlement will resolve ownership
disputes on more than 700 miles of abandoned railroad right-of-
way land in Indiana. The settlement was reached late last year in
a statewide class action lawsuit in the Boone Circuit Court in
Lebanon.

Nels Ackerson and Henry Price, Class Counsel, explained that this
Notice is the first of two expected mailings to landowners. After
final approval of the settlement, sometime in early fall,
landowners in some 52 Indiana counties will be mailed forms to
claim the following benefits:

     * Landowners who own the land will obtain a quiet title
judgment in their favor. Experts estimate the value of that
judgment at $2,500 per parcel in quiet title costs.

     * Qualifying landowners will get back money they paid to
Penn Central for their own land.

     * Qualifying landowners will be paid $1.00 per linear foot
of right-of- way frontage or $300, whichever is greater, if they
did not pay for their own land but lost use of the land for
farming or commercial purposes because of the defendants' claims
of ownership.

     * Landowners with valid claims will be reimbursed up to a
total of $1,200 for expenses they incurred to protect their title
from the defendants' claims and for interest on money they paid
Penn Central for their own land.

     * Penn Central will pay all delinquent real estate taxes on
the property, which the landowners' attorneys say exceed
$500,000. Even class members whose property adjoins right-of-way
land that Penn Central actually owned will get a benefit, if the
land is still owned by Penn Central. Those adjoining landowners
will be offered the opportunity to purchase the land from Penn
Central, if they wish, for $3,000 per acre.

     * Penn Central will pay all expenses of settlement
administration as well as the fees and expenses of the
landowners' class counsel.

As previously reported, the case was filed in 1992 by Fern
Firestone and other landowners in the Westfield area, and on
behalf of a statewide class of owners of abandoned Indiana
railroad right-of-way land. The case was mired in procedural
disputes for more than eight years, including several appeals to
the Indiana Supreme Court. In that process, this case has led to
a substantial body of new law dealing with class actions and
ownership rights of landowners adjoining railroad, utility and
fiber optic cable corridors. Attorneys for the class now
represent landowners in similar class actions across the country.

Lead counsel for the class of landowners are Nels Ackerson and
Henry J. Price. Ackerson is a former Indianapolis and Hamilton
County attorney, whose law firm, The Ackerson Group, Chartered,
is based in Washington, D.C. Henry J. Price is an Indianapolis
attorney in the firm of Price, Potter, Jackson & Mellowitz, PC.
Also representing the class are John D. Proffitt of Campbell Kyle
Proffitt in Noblesville, Indiana, Peter L. Obremskey of Parr,
Richey, Obremskey & Morton in Lebanon, Indiana, Roger C. Johnson
of Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lightfoot, P.C. in
Washington, D.C., and John B. Massopust of Zelle, Hofmann,
Voelbel, Gette & Mason in Minneapolis, Minnesota, with offices
located in Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Dallas.

Landowners who do not receive a Notice of settlement may request
a copy by contacting the Settlement Administration Center toll-
free at 1-866-860-1389 or via email at FirestoneROW@pcit.com.
Further information is also available by viewing the website at
http://www.firestonerow.comor by calling Class Counsel at 317-
470-0782.


PROTON ENERGY: Milberg Weiss Brings Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a
class action lawsuit on July 3, 2001, on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Proton Energy Systems Inc. (NASDAQ: PRTN)
between September 28, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action alleges the following as defendants:

     * Proton Energy
     * Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.
     * Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.
     * Salomon Smith Barney Inc.
     * Walter W. Schroeder
     * John A. Glidden
     * Trent M. Molter, and
     * Robert W. Shaw, Jr.

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

On or about September 28, 2000, Proton Energy commenced an
initial public offering of 7,000,000 of its shares of common
stock at an offering price of $17 per share. In connection
therewith, Proton Energy filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC.

The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

     (i) the Underwriter Defendants (Morgan Stanley, Credit
Suisse, and Salomon Smith Barney) had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those
investors material portions of the restricted number of Proton
Energy shares issued in connection with the Proton Energy IPO;
and

     (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements
with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to
allocate Proton Energy shares to those customers in the Proton
Energy IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
additional Proton Energy shares in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.

Persons who bought the securities of Proton Energy between
September 28, 2000 and December 6, 2000 may request to be
appointed by the court as lead plaintiff no later than September
3, 2001.  For more information about this action, contact the
following attorneys: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman of
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165, (800) 320-5081, Email:
protonenergycase@milbergNY.com, Website: http://www.milberg.com


REDBACK NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a
class action lawsuit was filed on July 3, 2001, on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Redback Networks Inc. (NASDAQ:
RBAK) between May 17, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action alleges the following as defendants:

     * Redback, Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.
     * BancBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.
     * Lehman Brothers Inc.
     * Dennis L. Barsema, and
     * Geoffrey C. Darby,

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

On or about May 17,1999 Redback commenced an initial public
offering of 2,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $23 per share. In connection therewith, Redback
filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus,
with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus
was materially false and misleading because it failed to
disclose, among other things, that:

     (i) the Underwriter Defendants (Morgan Stanley, Robertson
Stephens, and Lehman Brothers) had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those
investors material portions of the restricted number of Redback
shares issued in connection with the Redback IPO; and
     
     (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements
with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to
allocate Redback shares to those customers in the Redback IPO in
exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
Redback shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

Purchasers of the securities of Redback between May 17, 1999 and
December 6, 2000 may request the court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff no later than September 3, 2001.  For more information
about this action, contact the following attorneys: Steven G.
Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-
0165, Phone number: (800) 320-5081, Email:
redbackcase@milbergNY.com, Website: http://www.milberg.com


STAMPS.COM INC: Levy & Levy File Shareholder Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of Stamps.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: STMP)
common stock between June 24, 1999 and May 16, 2001.

The complaint alleges that defendant Stamps.com, Inc. and certain
of its current and former officers and directors violated the
federal securities laws by issuing and selling Stamps.com common
stock pursuant to the IPO and secondary offering without
disclosing to investors that at least one of the lead
underwriters in the IPO had solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

The complaint alleges that, in exchange for the excessive
commissions, lead underwriter BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.
allocated Stamps.com shares to customers at the IPO price of
$11.00 per share. To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability
to purchase shares) at $11.00, the aforementioned defendant
underwriter's brokerage customers had to agree to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher
prices. The requirement that customers make additional purchases
at progressively higher prices as the price of Stamps.com stock
rocketed upward, a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering"
was intended to drive Stamps.com's share price up to artificially
high levels. This artificial price inflation, the complaint
alleges, enabled both the underwriter and its customers to reap
enormous profits by buying Stamps.com stock at the $11.00 IPO
price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated
aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $45.81 during its first
day of trading. The complaint farther alleges that Stamps.com was
able to price the secondary offering of Stamps.com stock at an
artificially high $65.00 per share due to the continued effects
of the foregoing violations.

The complaint alleges that, rather than allowing its customers to
keep their profits from the IPO, the aforementioned defendant
lead underwriter required its customers to "kick back" some of
their profits in the form of secret commissions. These secret
commission payments were sometimes calculated after the fact
based on how much profit each investor had made from his or her
IPO stock allocation.

The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the
Securities Act of 1933 because the Prospectuses distributed to
investors and the Registration Statements filed with the SEC in
order to gain regulatory approval for the Stamps.com offerings
contained material misstatements regarding the commissions that
the underwriters would derive from the IPO and secondary offering
and failed to disclose the additional commissions and "laddering"
scheme discussed above.

No class has yet been certified in this action, and until a class
is certified an investor is not represented.  For more
information, contact Stephen G. Levy, Esq. of Levy and Levy,
P.C., 245 Park Avenue, 39th Floor,  New York, NY 10167, and One
Stamford Plaza, 263 Tresser Blvd., 9th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901,
Phone 866-338-3674 (toll-free), 212-792-4343, or 203-564-1920 or
by e-mail at LLNYCT@aol.com.


TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Files Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP announced to investors in
Transmeta Corporation (Nasdaq: TMTA) that August 24, 2001 is the
deadline for individual and institutional investors who purchased
Transmeta Corporation common stock in the November 7, 2000 IPO or
at any time between November 7, 2000 and June 20, 2001 to elect
to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of a class action
lawsuit seeking money damages against Transmeta and certain of
its officers and directors. The lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California by
a Transmeta shareholder represented by the Abbey Gardy, LLP law
firm.

The complaint filed in the lawsuit alleges that defendants
completed Transmeta's IPO by using a prospectus that contained
false and misleading statements about Transmeta's business and
its principal product, the Crusoe family of microprocessors.
Following the IPO, defendants continued to mislead investors. In
May 2001, as the insider lock-up agreements for the IPO expired,
Transmeta officers and directors sold 829,500 of their Transmeta
shares for proceeds of over $10.5 million. On June 20, 2001,
defendants reported that Transmeta's results for the second
quarter of 2001 would be much worse than defendants had
represented just weeks earlier. In reaction to the news, the
price of Transmeta stock dropped to close at $5.36 per share, an
89% decline from its post-IPO high of $50.875.

Members of the class may, not later than August 24, 2001, move
the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class action lawsuit.  
For more information on this action (filed under case number C-1-
2534 at the Office of the Clerk of the Court for the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California)
contact Mark Gardy or James Notis of the Abbey Gardy, LLP law
firm at (800) 889-3701 or (212) 889-3700, or by e-mail at
jnotis@abbeygardy.com for more information.


Z-TEL TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway File Plaint in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10007, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Z-Tel
Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: ZTEL) from December 15, 1999 through
December 6, 2000, inclusive.

On or about December 15, 1999, Z-Tel commenced an initial public
offering of 6,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $17 per share. In connection therewith, Z-Tel
filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus,
with the SEC.

The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things,
that:

     (i) the Underwriter Defendants (Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation, Bear Stearns & Co. Incorporated, Merrill Lynch and
Solomon Smith Barney, Inc.) had solicited and received excessive
and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange
for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those investors
material portions of the restricted number of Z-Tel shares issued
in connection with the Z-Tel IPO; and

     (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements
with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to
allocate Z-Tel shares to those customers in the Z-Tel IPO in
exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Z-
Tel shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

Persons who wish the court to appoint them as lead plaintiff may
seek court appointment not later than August 6, 2001.  For more
information on this action, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart
L. Berman, Esq., of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three Bala Plaza
East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004, 888-299-7706 (toll free)
or 1-610-667-7706, or by e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.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  * * *