CAR_Public/010706.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, July 6, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 131

                             Headlines

AID ASSOCIATION: Lawsuits Won't Deter Merger, Lawyers Say
ETOYS INC: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. New York
ETOYS INC: Milberg Weiss Begins Shareholder Suit In S.D. NY
FMC CORPORATION: Appeals Court Orders Third Chemical Suit Trial
INTERNAP NETWORK: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY

IRWIN MORTGAGE: 11th Circuit Court Certifies Case
JC PENNEY: Alleged Card Charges, Denied Claims Bring Suit
MOVIE REVIEWS LITIGATION: Nonprofit Group Files Fraud Suits
PONDIMIN LITIGATION: Judge Okays $11 Million Settlement
PROTON ENERGY: Cauley Geller Files Securitie Suit in S.D. NY

REDBACK NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Files S.D. NY Shareholder Suit
SODOMY LAW LITIGATION: Judge Extends Ruling to Minnesota Adults
SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
VANDERBURG COUNTY: Settlement Offered in Jail Crowding Suit


                               *****


AID ASSOCIATION: Lawsuits Won't Deter Merger, Lawyers Say
---------------------------------------------------------
Corporate attorneys say lawsuits pending against Aid Association
for Lutherans and Lutheran Brotherhood won't affect the  
companies' merger plans, the Post-Crescent reports.

A class action lawsuit was filed by four members of AAL in Kansas
City, Mo. in 1999.  The suit alleged fraudulent or misleading
sales practice.  At least two other lawsuits have been filed.  
AAL has a Member Dispute Resolution Program, adopted in March
1999, which is designed to stop costly litigation by members who
believe they are treated unfairly.  The program involves three
steps which include appeal, mediation and binding arbitration.  

Minneapolis-based Lutheran Brotherhood is facing similar lawsuits
concerning the creation of universal life policies in the 1980s,
but does not have a rule in its bylaws forbidding members from
suing it.  Minneapolis attorney Katheryn Andresen, representing
plaintiffs suing both companies, told the Post-Crescent the
lawsuits are based on a marketing practice involving "vanishing
premiums."

AAL members were reportedly persuaded by their agents to exchange
the cash value in their traditional whole life insurance policies
for the riskier universal life policies.

"One sales tactic used throughout the industry and by these two
companies was to say that at some point the (universal life)
policy would be earning sufficient interest and dividends to pay
for the cost of insurance, and the member would have no more out-
of-pocket premiums," Andresen said.  She told the Post-Crescent
that when interest rates fell and the clients aged, the premiums
rose.  Clients who couldn't keep up with the payments faced
default and the loss of their investment.

AAL members are also challenging the arbitration rule, and claim
it is an attempt to strip them of their constitutional rights.  
The plaintiffs' attorney in the Missouri lawsuit Diane Nygaard
said, "We are confident that no judge will require people to
individually take problems they have with an insurance company
through a three-step, insurance-company-run procedure."

AAL requested to transfer the Missouri case to a federal court in
Wisconsin, but federal District Court Judge Gary Fenner remanded
the case to Missouri state court in May 2000 by.  The Missouri
judge has not ruled yet on whether the case will be certified as
a class action.

The case filed by Andresen against Lutheran Brotherhood began
with a suit in a Wisconsin state court but was joined with cases
from Minnesota and elsewhere in a federal court in Minnesota, and
was  certified as a class action by federal District Court Judge
Paul Magnuson earlier last month.


ETOYS INC: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of eToys, Inc.
(Nasdaq: ETYS) securities during the period between May 19, 1999
and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges the following defendants:

     * Goldman Sachs & Co.
     * BancBoston Robertson Stephens
     * Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
     * Edward C. Lenk, and
     * Steven J. Schoch

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 May 19, 1999 , eToys commenced an initial public
offering of 8,320,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $20.00 per share. In connection therewith,
eToys 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 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 eToys shares issued
in connection with the eToys IPO; and

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

Purchasers of the securities of eToys between May 19, 1999 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive, may, no later than August 27, 2001
request the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff.   For more
information on this action, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or
Charlie Gastineau of the Client Relations Department, Cauley
Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR
72221-5438, Toll Free: 1-888-551-9944, E-mail:
info@classlawyer.com, Web site www.classlawyer.com.


ETOYS INC: Milberg Weiss Begins Shareholder 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 eToys, Inc. (NASDAQ: ETYS) between May 19, 1999
and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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:

     * Goldman Sachs & Co.
     * BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.
     * Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
     * Edward C. Lenk, and
     * Steven J. Schoch.

On or about May 19, 1999, eToys commenced an initial public
offering of 8,320,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $20.00 per share. In connection therewith,
eToys 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, Robertson Stephens and Merrill had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors in exchange for which Goldman Sachs, Robertson
Stephens and Merrill allocated to those investors material
portions of the restricted number of eToys shares issued in
connection with the eToys IPO; and

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

Purchasers of the securities of eToys between May 19,1999 and
December 6, 2000, may, no later than August 27, 2001, request to
be appointed by the Court as lead plaintiff.  For more
information on this action, contact the following attorneys:
Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman, Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York,
NY, 10119-0165, Phone number: (800) 320-5081, Email:
etoyscase@milbergny.com,  Website: http://www.milberg.com


FMC CORPORATION: Appeals Court Orders Third Chemical Suit Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned part of a 1999
jury verdict in FMC's favor, and a three-judge panel sent the
case back to Chief U.S. District Judge Charles H. Haden II for a
third  trial in a lawsuit over a December 1995 chemical leak at
FMC Corp.'s Nitro plant.  More than 6,000 pounds of toxic
phosphorus trichloride was released from Chicago-based FMC's
chemical manufacturing plant.  The chemical then combined with
rainwater to produce a hydrochloric acid cloud.

U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson of Virginia was appointed
to hear the appeal with Fourth Circuit Judges Karen J. Williams
and William B. Traxler Jr.  The panel said in a 19-page unsigned
decision that jurors in the second trial never indicated whether
the entire class of more than 400 plaintiffs was harmed by leak
exposure.  

Both trials were broken into two phases.  In the first phase,
jurors were to decide the class-wide issues of negligence and
strict liability, as well as compensatory damages for the 12
"trial plaintiffs." Trial plaintiffs were chosen to represent
various categories of the larger class, with the first phase
determining whether FMC's conduct warranted punitive damages.  
The second phase involves a series of mini-trials to resolve
individual claims by the rest of the class.  Claims Resolution  
could be performed by a special master or mediator.


IRWIN MORTGAGE: 11th Circuit Court Certifies Case
---------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against Irwin Mortgage Corp. has been certified as a
class action lawsuit by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit, according to a July 3, 2001 report by
LendingIntelligence.com. Irwin Mortgage was formerly Inland
Mortgage Corp.  The case Culpepper v. Irwin will now see trial in
an Alabama Federal District court.

Industry lawyers have reportedly voiced their concern that this
ruling will trigger potential class-action cases which were
pending.  George Eshaghian, general counsel for WMC Mortgage
Corp., told LendingIntelligence.com, "In the mortgage industry,
this is viewed as a big deal.  Culpepper is not the only pending
case out there."

"We're going to see a lot more litigation like this.  This has a
huge potential impact on the mortgage business and the way
lenders and brokers interact and the services provided to
borrowers. The business will be very fundamentally changed."

John and Patricia Culpepper are suing the mortgage company for
misuse of yield-spread premiums, which brokers receive from
lenders as compensation.  The suit charges that Irwin violated
the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act anti-kickback
provision by paying yield-spread premiums.  Irwin can appeal the
class certification decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

No trial date has yet been scheduled.


INTERNAP NETWORK: 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 InterNAP Network
Services Corporation (Nasdaq: INAP) securities during the period
between September 29, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. A
copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the
Court, or can be viewed on the firm's website at
http://www.classlawyer.com/pr/internap.pdf.  

The complaint charges the following defendants:

     * InterNAP
     * Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.
     * Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.
     * BancBoston Robertson Stephens
     * 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 9.5 million 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.

Purchasers of the securities of InterNAP between September 29,
1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, may, no later than
September 4, 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,
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock,
AR 72221-5438, Toll Free: 1-888-551-9944, E-mail:
info@classlawyer.com, Web site www.classlawyer.com


JC PENNEY: Alleged Card Charges, Denied Claims Bring Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit filed June 28, 2001 charges JCPenney and
Dutch insurance firm Aegon with charging consumer credit cards
without permission.  The suit also alleges the companies denied
rightful claims made by consumers on insurance policies.  

Scott Hovanyetz, writing for DMNews.com, reports that JCPenney
has marketed an accidental-death-and-dismemberment insurance
policy to consumers via telemarketing since 1987.

Attorneys at Berg & Androphy, which represents the plaintiffs,
reportedly said JCPenney promised to send information in the mail
to interested consumers without obligation.  Consumers were
reportedly told in some cases that the first three months of
premiums on the insurance policies would be paid for them.  
Consumers were automatically enrolled, with no signatures
required to activate the policies.  The suit charges that
JCPenney made withdrawing from the program "nearly impossible,"  
Hovanyetz reports.  All refunds were reportedly capped at two to
three months.

The lawsuit stemmed from the death of 81-year-old Marguerite York
of Corpus Christi, TX.  York died of injuries from a car accident
in June of 1999.  Her son William York, an attorney based in
Houston, reportedly found out she had unknowingly paid premiums
through her credit card on a $100,000 life insurance policy since
1993.  York had protection under the policy if she was "struck
by a vehicle," but law firm Berg & Androphy said JCPenney denied
the claim, Hovanyetz reports.

The law firm is seeking up to $4.4 billion in damages from the
class-action lawsuit, which was filed in state district court in
Corpus Christi.

    
MOVIE REVIEWS LITIGATION: Nonprofit Group Files Fraud Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nonprofit group Citizens for Truth in Movie Advertising and four
other people filed 10 separate class action lawsuits late Friday
in Los Angeles Superior Court against virtually all the major
studios and their subsidiaries, the Post-Crescent reports.

Anthony Sonnett, the attorney representing the plaintiffs,
described his clients as people who were "just sick and tired of
looking at movie ads that say Battlefield Earth was the greatest
movie since `Star Wars,' then go and find it is absolutely
atrocious."  The lawsuits allege the studios engage in fraud and
unfair and deceptive business practices when they use glowing
reviews about films in advertisements without informing the
public that reviewers may have gotten perks in connection with
attending the film screening, the Post-Crescent said.   

The studio defendants and their subsidiaries include:

     * Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios
     * Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
     * Lions Gate Entertainment
     * DreamWorks
     * Vivendi Universal
     * AOL Time Warner
     * Artisan Entertainment
     * Viacom, and
     * Sony.

The lawsuit alleges movie reviewers receive perks and benefits
which include travel and meal accommodations, hats, mouse pads,
meetings with celebrities, and celebrity autographs.  Studios are
required by California Civil Code and Federal Trade Commission
laws to either not give anything to reviewers and/or make
disclosures in the advertisements about items received from the
studio in order to avoid a conflict of interest.



PONDIMIN LITIGATION: Judge Okays $11 Million Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Court of Justice Judge Peter Cumming approved a national
class-action settlement of more that $11 million for users of the
diet drug Pondimin.  Some 9,500 Canadians who have medical
effects caused by the drug may claim compensation.  

The drug is also known as fenfluramine and is believed to
increase risk of heart valve damage.  It is believed to cause
heart abnormalities which allow a back flow of blood through
heart valves.  This decreases circulation and can lead to
infection or primary pulmonary hypertension, which is a fatal
disease.  Symptoms of heart damage include shortness of breath,
leg swelling, and heart murmurs.

Health Canada and other agencies had reported that 30% of users
had abnormal heart echocardiograms, triggering a pullout from
store shelves in both Canada and the U.S. in September 1997.  The
lawsuit was filed by Lindy and Michael Knowles of Ajax against
drug companies Wyeth-Ayerst Canada, Inc. and parent company
American Home Products Corp.


PROTON ENERGY: Cauley Geller Files Securitie Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Proton Energy
Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: PRTN) securities during the period between
September 28, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. A copy of the
complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or
can be viewed on the firm's website at
http://www.classlawyer.com/pr/protonenergy.pdf.  

The complaint charges the following defendants:

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

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 September 28, 2000, Proton Energy commenced an
initial public offering of 7 million 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 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.

Buyers of the securities of Proton Energy between September 28,
2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, have no later than
September 4, 2001 to request appointment by the Court as lead
plaintiff.  For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue
Null or Charlie Gastineau, Client Relations Department, Cauley
Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR
72221-5438, Toll Free: 1-888-551-9944, E-mail:
info@classlawyer.com, Web site www.classlawyer.com


REDBACK NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Files S.D. NY Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP announced
today that a class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Redback Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: RBAK) securities
during the period between May 17, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive. A copy of the complaint filed in this action is
available from the Court, or can be viewed on the firm's website
at http://www.classlawyer.com/pr/redback.pdf.  

The complaint charges the following defendants:

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

On or about May 17, 1999, Redback commenced an initial public
offering of 2.5 million 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.

Buyers of the securities of Redback between May 17, 1999 and
December 6, 2000 have no later than September 4, 2001 to request
appointment by the Court as lead plaintiff.   For more
information on this action, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or
Charlie Gastineau, Client Relations Department, Cauley Geller
Bowman & Coates, LLP, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438,
Toll Free: 1-888-551-9944, E-mail: info@classlawyer.com, web site
at www.classlawyer.com.


SODOMY LAW LITIGATION: Judge Extends Ruling to Minnesota Adults
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Delila Pierce, of Hennepin County, gave class-
action status Monday to a case in which eight plaintiffs sued the
state challenging the sodomy law. The judge found a state law,
which prohibited oral and anal sex, unconstitutional in May
because it violated rights to privacy.

The 13-page Monday order gives the May ruling state-wide effect.  
Eight plaintiffs sued the state, the governor and the attorney
general  with the backing of the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union.  
Pam Louwagie and Margaret Zack, writing for The Star Tribune,
said the plaintiff's attorneys noted consenting adults who engage
in the sexual acts in private, noncommercial settings are
protected from prosecution.  

The 19th-century law made oral and anal sex illegal even
between consenting adults in a private setting.


SYCAMORE NETWORKS: 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 Sycamore Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ: SCMR) between
October 22, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from
the Court, or can be viewed on Milberg Weiss' website at:
http://www.milberg.com/sycamore/

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:

     * Sycamore
     * Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated
     * Lehman Brothers, Inc.
     * FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.
     * Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation
     * Goldman Sachs & Co.
     * Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
     * Daniel E. Smith, and
     * Frances M. Jewels.

On or about October 21, 1999, Sycamore commenced an initial
public offering of 7,475,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $38 per share. In connection therewith,
Sycamore filed a registration statement, which incorporated a
prospectus, with the SEC. Additionally, on March 14, 2000,
Sycamore sold shares to the public through a secondary offering
of 10,200,000 of its shares at an offering price of $150-1/4.

As alleged in the complaint, the Prospectus was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things,
that:

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

     (ii) Morgan Stanley, Lehman, Robertson Stephens, Credit
Suisse, Goldman Sachs & Merrill had entered into agreements with
customers whereby Morgan Stanley, Lehman, Robertson Stephens,
Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs & Merrill agreed to allocate
Sycamore shares to those customers in the Sycamore IPO in
exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
Sycamore 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.

Persons who bought the securities of Sycamore between October 22,
1999 and December 6, 2000, may, no later than August 31, 2001,
request the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff.  For more
information about this action, contact the following attorneys:
Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman, Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York,
NY, 10119-0165, Phone number: (800) 320-5081, Email:
sycamorecase@milbergNY.com, Web site: http://www.milberg.com


SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Sycamore
Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCMR) securities during the period
between October 22, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. A copy
of the complaint filed in this action is available from the
Court, or can be viewed on the firm's website at
http://www.classlawyer.com/pr/sycamore.pdf.  

The complaint charges the following defendants:

     * Sycamore
     * Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.
     * Lehman Brothers Inc.
     * FleetBoston Robertson Stephens
     * Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation
     * Goldman Sachs & Co.
     * Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
     * Daniel E. Smith, and
     * Frances M. Jewels

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 October 21, 1999, Sycamore commenced an initial
public offering of 7,475,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $38 per share. In connection therewith,
Sycamore 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, Lehman
Brothers, Robertson Stephens, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs 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 Sycamore shares
issued in connection with the Sycamore IPO; and

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

Persons who bought the securities of Sycamore between October 22,
1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, may no later than August
31, 2001 request to be appointed by the Court as lead plaintiff.  
For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP, Client Relations
Department, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438, Toll
Free: 1-888-551-9944, E-mail: info@classlawyer.com, web site at
www.classlawyer.com
    

VANDERBURG COUNTY: Settlement Offered in Jail Crowding Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Vanderburgh County council voted 6-1 Tuesday to offer an
agreement to the County Commissioners and an attorney for the
Indiana Civil Liberties Union (ICLU).  A report by Susan Taylor
of The Evansville Courier & Press said the agreement is intended
to end the 22-year-old class-action lawsuit brought by former and
current county jail inmates complaining about overcrowding.

County Commissioners and ICLU attorney Kenneth Falk, representing
jail inmates, have to sign the agreement before it can be filed
in federal court.  U.S. District Court Judge Richard Young has
set July 13 for the court filing.

The agreement basically says the county is committed to "take
steps necessary to have a jail facility with a capacity of at
least 400 beds which is designed to resolve conditions of
overcrowding which the plaintiffs allege have occurred in the
past," Taylor reports.  Under the agreement, commissioners are
not allowed to issue bonds and levy new or increase existing
taxes without the approval of the council, which has set a $35-
million budget to build a new jail and possibly a new community
correction complex and a juvenile holding facility.  The three
facilities will reportedly cost $50 million.  


    


                             *********

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  * * *