CAR_Public/010710.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, July 10, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 133

                             Headlines


3D SYSTEMS: Settlement Negotiations with Justice Dept Ongoing
ADVISOR'S CAPITAL: Head & Associates File CO Securities Suit
AETHER SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
AETHER SYSTEMS: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
AETHER SYSTEMS: Schiffrin & Barroway File S.D. NY Securities Suit

CHRONIMED INC: Levy & Levy File Shareholder Suit in Minnesota
COCA-COLA: Gary Williams Plans 17 Individual Discrimination Cases   
COMMERCE ONE: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Stull Stull Files S.D. NY Shareholder Suit
DRUGSTORE.COM INC: NY Securities Suit Filed By Cauley Geller

DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Milberg Weiss Files Securities S.D. NY Suit  
ECI TELECOM: Levy and Levy File Shareholder Suit in E.D. VA
EMEX CORPORATION: Levy and Levy File Shareholder Suit in S.D.NY
EXTREME NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Files Shareholder Suit in S.D. NY    

EXTREME NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
INTERNAP NETWORK: Schiffrin & Barroway File Suit in S.D. NY
MCI WORLDCOM: Claims $8 Million In Monthly Losses from Injunction
NET2000 COMMUNICATIONS: Stull Stull File S-Holder Suit in S.D. NY
NEW FOCUS: Cauley Geller File Securities Suit in S.D. NY

NORTH CAROLINA: Judge Uses Prior Class-Action To Block Executions
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Cauley Geller Begins Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Schiffrin & Barroway File Plaint in S.D. NY
ONVIA.COM INC: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ONVIA.COM INC: Schiffrin & Barroway File Complaint in S.D. NY

PALM INC: Stull Stull File Shareholder Suit in S.D. NY
REDBACK NETWORKS: Schiffrin & Barroway File Suit in S.D. NY
RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: Stull Stull Files Complaint in S.D. NY
ROBOTIC VISION: Levy and Levy Files Security Suit in MA
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY

TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein File Securities Suit in CA
WAL-MART STORES: Five Women File Sex Discrimination Suit
Z-TEL TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY


                               *****


3D SYSTEMS: Settlement Negotiations with Justice Dept Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
3D Systems Corp. (Nasdaq:TDSC), a solid imaging products and
servicing company and DTM Corp. (Nasdaq:DTMC), a rapid prototyping
and manufacturing company, announced a deadline extension of the
tender offer for all the outstanding shares of common stock of DTM
until midnight Eastern Daylight Time on Tuesday, July 24, 2001, in
order to continue negotiations for purposes of completing a
settlement agreement with the Department of Justice.

The tender offer had been scheduled to expire at midnight Eastern
Daylight Time, on Tuesday, July 10, 2001.

"We are optimistic that a settlement with the Justice Department
can be reached in the following weeks that will permit the tender
offer for DTM to proceed to completion," said Brian K. Service, 3D
Systems' president and chief executive officer.

"We are encouraged by the settlement discussions that are taking
place and remain committed to working with 3D Systems to complete
the transaction," said John S. Murchison, III, DTM's president and
CEO.

On June 18, 3D Systems and DTM agreed to extend the tender offer in
part to pursue a settlement of the civil action filed by the
Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice on June 6,
2001.


ADVISOR'S CAPITAL: Head & Associates File CO Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Denver-based law firm of Head & Associates, P.C. filed a class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of those individuals and entities who invested
funds in 1998 and 1999 through Connecticut-based Advisor's Capital
Investments, Inc. and its principal, Robert K. Mann and whose funds
were misappropriated by one or more individuals associated with
Netherlands Antilles-based Credit Bancorp Ltd. or one of its
subsidiaries.

The complaint charges that ACI and Mr. Mann violated the federal
securities laws and otherwise breached their fiduciary duties to
the Plaintiffs and other members of the Class when they recommended
CBL as the depository for the invested funds of the Plaintiffs and
other members of the Class and when they failed to make appropriate
disclosures concerning the investments. The complaint further
charges that ACI and Mr. Mann breached an investment advisory
agreement with the Plaintiffs and other members of the Class and
were otherwise negligent in managing the investments of the
Plaintiffs and other members of the Class.

The complaint also charges that PacVest Associates, Inc., a
registered broker-dealer controlled by Mann, was negligent in
failing to properly execute the trades of the Plaintiffs and other
members of the Class. Additionally, the complaint changes Sterling
Trust Company, a Waco, Texas trust company, with breach of its
trust agreement with those Plaintiffs and other members of the
Class who invested IRA funds. Finally, the complaint charges
Cumberland Casualty & Surety Company with breach of an insurance
contract pursuant to which it insured the Plaintiffs and other
members of the Class against loss of principal.

The case has been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado as Cause No. 01-Wy-1117 and has been assigned
to the Honorable Clarence Brimmer, United States District Judge. A
copy of the complaint can be obtained by calling Head & Associates,
P.C. at 1-800-515-9252.

Persons who invested funds through ACI and whose funds were
misappropriated by one or more individuals associated with CBL or
one of its subsidiaries may, no later than September 5, 2001,
request court appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more information, contact Head & Associates, P.C. at 1-800-515-
9252 or e-mail at jfhead@headlawyers.com.


AETHER SYSTEMS: 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, against Aether Systems, Inc.
(Nasdaq: AETH) its senior executives, and underwriters, on behalf
of investors who purchased Aether securities between October 21,
1999 and June 15, 2001.

The action is pending against the following defendants:

     * Aether Systems, Inc.
     * David S. Oros
     * David C. Reymann
     * Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
     * BancBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.
     * Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation
     * U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc.
     * Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., and
     * Friedman, Billing, Ramsey & Co., Inc.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It alleges that the October
21, 1999 and September 27, 2000 Prospectuses of shares of Aether
common stock contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions. The complaint also alleges that defendants were
responsible for the materially false and misleading statements and
that the underwriters of Aether's Offerings engaged in a pattern of
conduct to surreptitiously extract inflated commissions greater
than those disclosed in the Offerings materials.

Members of the class described above have until August 19, 2001, to
participate in the case and ask for court appointment as one of the
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, 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.


AETHER SYSTEMS: Cauley Geller Files Securities 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 Aether Systems,
Inc. (Nasdaq: AETH) securities during the period between October
20, 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/aether.pdf.

The complaint charges defendants

     * Aether Systems
     * Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc.
     * BancBoston Robertson Stephens
     * Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.
     * David S. Oros, and
     * David C. Reymann

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 20, 1999, Aether Systems commenced an initial
public offering of 6 million of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $16 per share. In connection therewith, Aether
Systems 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 (Merrill Lynch, Robertson
Stephens and Morgan Stanley) 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 Aether Systems shares
issued in connection with the Aether Systems IPO; and

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

Purchasers of the securities of Aether Systems between October 20,
1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, may request court appointment
as lead plaintiff no later than August 20, 2001. For more
information about this action, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or
Charlie Gastineau of the Client Relations Department of 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, or
visit the Firm's website at www.classlawyer.com.


AETHER SYSTEMS: Schiffrin & Barroway File S.D. NY Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action
lawsuit was filed 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
Aether Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: AETH) from October 20, 1999 through
December 6, 2000, inclusive.

On or about October 20, 1999, Aether Systems commenced an initial
public offering of 6,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $16 per share. In connection therewith, Aether
Systems 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) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated,
BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co.
Incorporated had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Merrill
Lynch, Robertson Stephens and Morgan Stanley allocated to those
investors material portions of the restricted number of Aether
Systems shares issued in connection with the Aether Systems IPO;
and

     (ii) Merrill Lynch, Robertson Stephens and Morgan Stanley had
entered into agreements with customers whereby Merrill Lynch,
Robertson Stephens and Morgan Stanley agreed to allocate Aether
Systems shares to those customers in the Aether Systems IPO in
exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
Aether Systems 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.

Members of the class described above may, not later than August 20,
2001, request court appointment to serve as lead plaintiff of the
class.  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, toll free at 1-888-299-7706
or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com.


CHRONIMED INC: Levy & Levy File Shareholder Suit in Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levy and Levy, P.C. 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.

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., One Stamford
Plaza, 263 Tresser Blvd., 9th Floor,  Stamford, CT 06901 and 245
Park Avenue, 39th Floor, New York, NY 10167, 866-338-3674 (toll
free), 203-564-1920, or 212-792-4343, or by e-mail at
LLNYCT@aol.com.


COCA-COLA: Gary Williams Plans 17 Individual Discrimination Cases   
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The firm of Gary, Williams, Parenti, Finney, Lewis, McManus, Watson
& Sperando says it plans to continue with individual proceedings on
behalf of 17 present and former Coca-Cola Company employees who
opted out of the class action suit against the beverage giant.
Gary's firm will not appeal the order approving the class action
settlement handed down on June 7th by order of Judge Richard Story,
U.S. District Court, Atlanta, Ga.

According to F. Shields McManus, a partner in the Gary firm, "The
law and facts of the class action settlement does not favor a
successful appeal. It is in the best interest of our clients who
chose to remain in the class action and object to the terms of the
settlement that an appeal not be filed."

There has been an increase in resources and efforts by the Florida-
based law firm in its continuation of the individual lawsuits on
behalf of the 17 present and former Coke employees who have opted
not to participate in the settlement. The employees represented
include Marietta Goodman, Dana Allen and Angela Graham who filed a
separate lawsuit last year. The Goodman, Allen and Graham suit is
pending in U.S. District Court before Judge Richard Story. The
discovery deadlines have been extended while the parties exchange
documents and examine witnesses under oath. Discovery is to be
concluded by November 2001 and the trial to follow later. The other
four plaintiffs named in the class action suit who opted out of the
settlement are Motisola Malikha Abdallah, Gregory Allen Clark,
Ajibola Laosebikan and Wanda Williams. These plaintiffs have been
removed from the class action and assigned a new case number by
Judge Story. However, the attorneys for all the parties are
conferring on a discovery schedule at this time.

"While the settlement terms were adequate for the class as a whole,
our 17 clients suffered indignities and injustices by reduced
compensation and lack of advancement that would not be fairly and
adequately compensated by the class settlement," stated McManus.


COMMERCE ONE: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf all persons who acquired Commerce One, Inc. (Nasdaq: CMRC)
securities between July 1, 1999 and June 15, 2001.

Named as defendants in the complaint are:

     * Commerce One
     * Mark B. Hoffman
     * Peter F. Pervere
     * Thomas J. Gonzales, II
     * Asim Abdullah
     * Jay M. Tenebaum
     * John V. Balen
     * William B. Elmore
     * Kenneth C. Gardner
     * William J. Harding
     * John P. Swingewood
     * Jeffrey T. Webber
     * Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation
     * Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation, and
     * U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.

Credit Suisse, Donaldson Lufkin, and U.S. Bancorp are co-lead
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of 3,300,000
shares of common stock at $21.00 per share on July 1, 1999.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus
that contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions. The
Prospectus was issued in connection with the Commerce One IPO.

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

     (i) the Underwriter Defendants 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 Commerce
One shares issued in connection with the Commerce One IPO; and

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

Members of the class described above have until August 18, 2001 to
participate in the case and ask for court appointment as one of the
lead plaintiffs for the Class.   For more information on 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.


COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Stull Stull Files S.D. NY Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit on July 6, 2001,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of purchasers of Covad Communications Group,
Inc. (NASDAQ:COVD) common stock between January 21, 1999 and June
25, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants

     * Covad Communications Group, Inc.
     * Robert E. Knowling, Jr.
     * Charles McMinn
     * Timothy Leahy, and
     * Frank Marshall

violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Covad
common stock pursuant to the January 21, 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, members of the underwriting group The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation and Morgan
Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Incorporated allocated Covad 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
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 Covad stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was
intended to (and did) drive Covad'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 $18.00 IPO price and then
selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which
rose as high as $46 on January 22, 1999, 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 Covad 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.

Buyers of the common stock of Covad between January 21, 1999 and
June 25, 2001 may, no later than August 27, 2001, request court
appointment as lead plaintiff.   For more information on this
action, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody by
calling toll-free 1-800-337-4983, or by e-mail at SSBNY@aol.com, or
by fax at 212/490-2022, or by writing to Stull, Stull & Brody, 6
East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017.


DRUGSTORE.COM INC: NY Securities Suit Filed By Cauley Geller
------------------------------------------------------------
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 Drugstore.com, Inc.
(Nasdaq: DSCM) securities during the period between July 27, 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/drugstore.com.pdf.

The complaint charges defendants

     * Drugstore.com
     * Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.
     * Peter M. Neupert, and
     * David E. Rostov

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 July 27, 1999, Drugstore.com commenced an initial
public offering of 5 million of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $18 per share. In connection therewith,
Drugstore.com 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) Morgan Stanley had solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
which Morgan Stanley allocated to those investors material portions
of the restricted number of Drugstore.com shares issued in
connection with the Drugstore.com IPO; and

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

Buyers of the securities of Drugstore.com between July 27, 1999 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive may, no later than August 27, 2001
request court appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more information on this action, contact Jackie Addison, Sue
Null or Charlie Gastineau, Client Relations Department of 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.


DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Milberg Weiss Files Securities S.D. NY Suit  
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a
class action lawsuit on July 6, 2001, on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of drugstore.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: DSCM) between July
27, 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/drugstore/

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:

     * Drugstore.com,
     * Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated
     * Peter M. Neupert and
     * David E. Rostov.

On or about July 27, 1999, Drugstore.com commenced an initial
public offering of 5,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $18 per share. In connection therewith,
Drugstore.com 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) Morgan Stanley had solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
which Morgan Stanley allocated to those investors material portions
of the restricted number of Drugstore.com shares issued in
connection with the Drugstore.com IPO; and

     (ii) Morgan Stanley had entered into agreements with customers
whereby Morgan Stanley agreed to allocate Drugstore.com shares to
those customers in the Drugstore.com IPO in exchange for which the
customers agreed to purchase additional Drugstore.com 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 Drugstore.com between July 27,
1999 and December 6, 2000 may, no later than August 27, 2001,
request court appointment as lead plaintiff.   For more
information, 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: drugstorecase@milbergNY.com,
Website: http://www.milberg.com


ECI TELECOM: Levy and Levy File Shareholder Suit in E.D. VA
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Levy and Levy, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Alexandria Division, on behalf of purchasers of ECI
Telecom Ltd. (Nasdaq: ECIL) during the period between May 2, 2000
and February 14, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants ECI Telecom Ltd. and certain
of its officers and directors violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to
the market concerning, inter alia, ECI's reported revenue for the
first, second and third quarters of 2000. On February 14, 2001, the
Company announced that it expected to move $38 million in revenue
from 1999's financial statement to 2000, and $61 million from 2000
to 2001.

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., One Stamford
Plaza, 263 Tresser Blvd., 9th Floor,  Stamford, CT 06901 and 245
Park Avenue, 39th Floor, New York, NY 10167, 866-338-3674 (toll
free), 203-564-1920, or 212-792-4343, or by e-mail at
LLNYCT@aol.com.


EMEX CORPORATION: Levy and 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 Emex Corporation from April 9,
2001 through May 23, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges Emex and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning
its business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that on April 9, 2001, Emex announced that it had obtained
$100 million in project financing to build the first of a series of
its highly touted commercial plants. Defendants credited the
success of the deal to "the efforts of Credit Suisse First Boston,"
a prestigious Wall Street investment firm. In reaction to the news,
the price of Emex common stock soared 13% on April 10, 2001. On May
23, 2001, Dow Jones Newswires broke the news that, in fact, Credit
Suisse First Boston was not involved in securing Emex's financing.
Furthermore, according to the May 23rd article, a spokesperson for
CSFB stated that CSFB turned down Emex's financing proposal. On May
30, 2001, Emex issued another press release in which it revealed
that Fieldstone, Inc., not CSFB, was the financial institution
behind the $100 million financing.

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, 866-338-3674 (toll free), 212-792-4343, or 203-564-1920, or
by e-mail at LLNYCT@aol.com.


EXTREME NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Files Shareholder 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 Extreme Networks
Inc. (Nasdaq: EXTR) securities during the period between April 8,
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/extreme_networks.pdf.

The complaint charges defendants

     * Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated
     * BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., and
     * Lehman Brothers Inc.

with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On or about April 8, 1999, Extreme Networks 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, Extreme
Networks 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) defendants had solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
which defendants allocated to those investors material portions of
the restricted number of Extreme Networks shares issued in
connection with the Extreme Networks IPO; and

     (ii) defendants had entered into agreements with customers
whereby defendants agreed to allocate Extreme Networks shares to
those customers in the Extreme Networks IPO in exchange for which
the customers agreed to purchase additional Extreme Networks 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.

Buyers of the securities of Extreme Networks between April 8, 1999
and December 6, 2000, inclusive, may, no later than September 4,
2001 request court appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP's Client Relations
Department, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438, Toll Free:
1-888-551-9944, E-mail: info@classlawyer.com, website at
www.classlawyer.com.


EXTREME NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP announces
that a class action lawsuit was filed on July 6, 2001, on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Extreme Networks Inc. (NASDAQ:
EXTR) between April 8, 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/extremenetworks/

The action alleges the following underwriting firms -- which were
co-lead underwriters of Extreme Networks' initial public offering -
- as defendants:

     * Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.
     * BancBoston Robertson Stephens Inc., and
     * Lehman Brothers Inc.

This action 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 April 8, 1999, Extreme Networks 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, Extreme
Networks 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 defendants had solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
which the defendants allocated to those investors material portions
of the restricted number of Extreme Networks shares issued in
connection with the Extreme Networks IPO; and

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

Buyers of the securities of Extreme Networks between April 8, 1999
and December 6, 2000 may, no later than September 4, 2001 request
court appointment as lead plaintiff.   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: extremenetworkscase@milbergNY.com,
Website: http://www.milberg.com


INTERNAP NETWORK: Schiffrin & Barroway File Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed 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 InterNAP Network Services Corporation (Nasdaq:
INAP) from September 29, 1999 through December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

     (i) the Underwriter Defendants (Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.,
Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., BancBoston Robertson Stephens and
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 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 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.

Members of the class described above may, not later than September
4, 2001, request court appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.  
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, 1-888-299-7706 (toll
free) or 1-610-667-7706, or by e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com.


MCI WORLDCOM: Claims $8 Million In Monthly Losses from Injunction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A court restraining order that prevents MCI WorldCom from
completing a fiber optic cable installation remains in effect and
has been extended until July 16, 2001, according to attorneys for
landowners in a class action against the company. Papers filed in
both state and federal courts by MCI WorldCom placed the cost of
the injunction to the telecom company at $30,000 to $60,000 per
fiber per month on the 288-fiber installation -- a total of at
least $8 million per month.

Federal jurisdiction requires that the amount in dispute must be at
least $75,000 per landowner in this class action, an amount that
MCI WorldCom's losses, if proven, clearly satisfy, according to the
telecom company's papers. The telecom company's procedural move
will not affect the protection that has already been ordered for
landowners. The plaintiffs announced that they will request a
prompt hearing before the federal judge to make the injunction
permanent and to seek financial recovery for the landowners.

An April 2001 agreement with the City of Carmel, Indiana, set out
terms for MCI WorldCom to repair the cables, but specifically
states that Carmel does not own much of the land and that
permission must be obtained by the telecom company from individual
owners of the land underlying the former railroad right of way. MCI
WorldCom did not ask the landowners for consent but instead
attempted to get the fiber optic cable in place and operating
before anyone could stop them.

Court papers filed today also disclosed a private agreement between
MCI WorldCom and CSX Railroad where the railroad admitted it could
not give WorldCom the right to install fiber optic cable on land
owned by adjacent homeowners. State Court Judge William Hughes of
Noblesville, Indiana last week called MCI WorldCom's actions a
"wilful trespass." MCI WorldCom's removal papers did not deny the
facts but merely removed the case to federal court and prevented
Judge Hughes from having a hearing on plaintiffs' request for
preliminary injunction.

Nels Ackerson, one of the landowners' attorneys, said, "MCI
WorldCom's defense is remarkable. It has not claimed that it has a
right to use Ms. Peelers' land for its cable, and it cannot make
such a claim. There is a court decision establishing Ms. Peeler's
rights to the land behind her home. Courts both here and across the
nation have resolved ownership issues like this, and the telecom
companies know it. MCI WorldCom even signed two agreements
acknowledging that it had to get permission from landowners like
Ms. Peeler," he continued, "They chose to ignore the landowners'
rights and try to install the cable and start making money on it
before anyone could stop them. Now WorldCom is complaining about
losing money because it got caught. It takes brass for WorldCom to
ask a court to let it keep using land it has taken illegally for
its own wrongful profits."

Sallie Peeler, the homeowner who brought the lawsuit said: "MCI
WorldCom's behavior continues to be outrageous. They got caught
red-handed. They were restrained by a court for taking what they
didn't have a right to take, and now they are complaining instead
of trying to make it right." She observed, "I use the Internet, and
I am happy that companies want to build fiber optic cable in our
community, but there is an honest and fair way to do that. Are they
so greedy that they do not want to pay for what they take, or are
they so arrogant that they think they don't even have to speak to
individuals who have legal control of the property?"

Henry Price, an Indianapolis lawyer who also represents the
landowners, said: "The tactic was first tried by the railroads in
the 19th century. They were stopped when the Indiana Constitution
was amended to specifically require that the railroads pay for the
right of way before the railroad takes it. Certainly, MCI WorldCom
is not free to disregard the Indiana law prohibiting trespass or
violate the rights of landowners protected by the Indiana
Constitution. Fortunately, our legal system is available to all
citizens to protect their rights from even the richest and most
powerful adversary."

The landowners' attorneys have filed class actions in jurisdictions
across the nation against telecom companies, railroads, utilities,
and the federal government arising from unauthorized taking and use
of corridor land.

Ackerson said, "Other telecom companies including AT&T and Sprint
have the same attitude of 'take it now, build it, don't tell the
landowners, and deal with the consequences later.' Thousands of
miles of fiber optic cables have been installed illegally on right
of way land. "Unlawful land use must be paid for or forfeited. It
may be painful for the industry, but it is the only cure." He
concluded, "We have filed 50 class actions seeking damages for tens
of thousands of landowners, and more are coming. I also believe we
will be seeing more injunction cases like this."

The four law firms representing landowners in this and other right
of way class action lawsuits are:

     * The Ackerson Group, Chartered, in Washington, DC;
     * Price, Potter, Jackson & Mellowitz, P.C. in Indianapolis,
       IN;
     * Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis, Lightfoot, P.C. in
       Washington, DC; and
     * Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette, LLP in Minneapolis,
       MN, Boston, MA, San Francisco, CA, Los Angeles, CA, and
       Dallas, TX.

For more information, contact:

    Nels Ackerson                     Henry J. Price
    The Ackerson Group, Chartered     Price, Potter, Jackson &
    1666 K Street, NW, Ste 1010           Mellowitz, P.C.
    Washington, D.C. 20006-1217       301 Massachusetts Avenue
    202-833-8833                      Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
    nackerson@ackersonlaw.com         317-633-8787
    http://www.ackersonlaw.com       hprice@price-law.com
                                      http://www.price-law.com


NET2000 COMMUNICATIONS: Stull Stull File S-Holder Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit on July 6, 2001,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of purchasers of Net2000 Communications, Inc.  
(NASDAQ:NTKK) common stock between March 6, 2000 and June 6, 2001,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants

     * Net2000 Communications, Inc.
     * Clayton A. Thomas, Jr.
     * Clyde Heintzelman
     * Donald E. Clarke
     * Peter B. Callowhill
     * Eric Geis
     * Reid Miles, and
     * Mitchell Reese

violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Net2000
common stock pursuant to the March 6, 2000 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, members of the underwriting group

     * Goldman, Sachs & Co.
     * Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp.
     * J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., and
     * Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc.

allocated Net2000 shares to customers at the IPO price of $20.00
per share. To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to
purchase shares) at $20.00, 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
Net2000 stock rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as
"laddering") was intended to (and did) drive Net2000'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 $20.00
IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated
aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $38.50 on April 13, 1999.

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 Net2000 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.

Buyers of the common stock of Net2000 between March 6, 2000 and
June 6, 2001 may, no later than August 13, 2001, request court
appointment as lead plaintiff.  For more information, contact
Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody by calling toll-free 1-
800-337-4983, or by e-mail at SSBNY@aol.com, or by fax at 212/490-
2022, or by writing to Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY 10017.


NEW FOCUS: Cauley Geller File Securities 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 New Focus, Inc.
(Nasdaq: NUFO) securities during the period between May 18, 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/new_focus.pdf.

The complaint charges defendants

     * New Focus
     * Credit Suisse First Boston
     * FleetBoston Robertson Stephens
     * Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc.
     * Kenneth E. Westrick, and
     * William L. Potts, 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 May 18, 2000, New Focus commenced an initial public
offering of 5 million of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $20 per share. In connection therewith, New Focus 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 (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 New Focus shares
issued in connection with the New Focus IPO; and

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

Persons who bought the securities of New Focus between May 18, 2000
and December 6, 2000, inclusive may, no later than August 27, 2001
request court appointment as lead plaintiff.   For more
information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau
of the Client Relations Department of 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.


NORTH CAROLINA: Judge Uses Prior Class-Action To Block Executions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge Wade Barber, in Raleigh, North Carolina,
recently issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the state
from setting execution dates for two death row prisoners, Ronald
Frye and Clifton White, whose appeals were denied last week by the
U.S. Supreme Court, according to an Associated Press report.  Judge
Barber will hold a hearing on July 16 on whether his temporary
order should be made permanent.

Judge Barber based his order on the arguments of the two prisoners'
attorneys, that the circumstances in their cases were similar to
those raised in a class-action lawsuit.  In that lawsuit it was
pointed out that Governor Mike Easley, who decides all clemency
requests from death row prisoners, as the former state attorney
general and the state's top prosecutor had a conflict of interest.  
The state's Supreme Court stayed the execution of Robert Bacon
based on that lawsuit.


ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Cauley Geller Begins Securities 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 ON Semiconductor
Corporation (Nasdaq: ONNN) securities during the period between
April 27, 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/onsemiconductor.pdf.

The complaint charges defendants

     * ON Semiconductor
     * Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.
     * Lehman Brothers, Inc.
     * FleetBoston Robertson Stephens
     * Salomon Smith Barney Inc.
     * Steve Hanson
     * Dario Sacomani, and
     * Curtis J. Crawford

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 April 27, 2000, ON Semiconductor commenced an initial
public offering of 30 million of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $16.00 per share. In connection therewith, ON
Semiconductor 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,
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 ON
Semiconductor shares issued in connection with the ON Semiconductor
IPO; and

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

Buyers of the securities of ON Semiconductor between April 27, 2000
and December 6, 2000, inclusive, may request for court appointment
as lead plaintiff no later than September 4, 2001.   For more
information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau
of the Client Relations Department of 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, or visit the Firm's
website at www.classlawyer.com.


ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Schiffrin & Barroway File Plaint in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action
lawsuit ed 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 ON
Semiconductor Corporation (F/K/A SCG Holding Corporation) (Nasdaq:
ONNN) from April 27, 2000 through December 6, 2000, inclusive.

On or about April 27, 2000, ON Semiconductor commenced an initial
public offering of 30,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $16 per share. In connection therewith, ON
Semiconductor 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) Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated, Lehman Brothers, Inc.,
FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.
had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
from certain investors in exchange for which Morgan Stanley, Lehman
Brothers, Robertson Stephens and Smith Barney allocated to those
investors material portions of the restricted number of ON
Semiconductor shares issued in connection with the ON Semiconductor
IPO; and

     (ii) Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Robertson Stephens and
Smith Barney had entered into agreements with customers whereby
Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Robertson Stephens and Smith
Barney agreed to allocate ON Semiconductor shares to those
customers in the ON Semiconductor IPO in exchange for which the
customers agreed to purchase additional ON Semiconductor 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.

Members of the class described above may, not later than September
3, 2001, request court appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.  
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, toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-
610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com.


ONVIA.COM INC: Cauley Geller Files Securities 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 Onvia.com, Inc.
(Nasdaq: ONVI) securities during the period between February 29,
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/onvia.pdf.

The complaint charges defendants

     * Onvia.com
     * Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation
     * FleetBoston Robertson Stephens
     * Glenn S. Ballman, and
     * Mark T. Calvert

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 February 29, 2000, Onvia.com commenced an initial
public offering of 8 million of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $21 per share. In connection therewith, Onvia.com
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 (Credit Suisse and Robertson
Stephens) 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 Onvia.com shares issued in
connection with the Onvia.com IPO; and

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

Purchasers of the securities of Onvia.com between February 29, 2000
and December 6, 2000, inclusive may, no later than August 12, 2001
request court appointment as lead plaintiff. For more information
on this action, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau of the Client Relations Department of 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.


ONVIA.COM INC: Schiffrin & Barroway File Complaint 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
Onvia.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: ONVI) from February 29, 2000 through
December 6, 2000, inclusive.

On or about February 29, 2000, Onvia.com commenced an initial
public offering of 8,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $21 per share. In connection therewith, Onvia.com
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) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation and FleetBoston
Robertson Stephens, Inc. 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 Onvia.com
shares issued in connection with the Onvia.com IPO; and

     (ii) Credit Suisse and Robertson Stephens had entered into
agreements with customers whereby Credit Suisse and Robertson
Stephens agreed to allocate Onvia.com shares to those customers in
the Onvia.com IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to
purchase additional Onvia.com 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.

Members of the class described above may, not later than August 12,
2001, request court appointment to serve as lead plaintiff of the
class.  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, toll free at 1-888-299-7706
or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com.


PALM INC: Stull Stull File Shareholder Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit on July 6, 2001,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of purchasers of Palm, Inc. (NASDAQ:PALM)
common stock between March 1, 2000 and June 19, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants Palm, Inc., Carl J. Yankowski
and Judy Bruner violated the federal securities laws by issuing and
selling Palm common stock pursuant to the March 1, 2000 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, members of the underwriting group

     * Goldman, Sachs & Co.
     * Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.
     * Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
     * FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc. and
     * Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

allocated Palm shares to customers at the IPO price of $38.00 per
share. To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase
shares) at $38.00, 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
Palm stock rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as
"laddering") was intended to (and did) drive Palm'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 $38.00
IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated
aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $165 on March 2, 2000,
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 Palm 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.

Purchasers of the common stock of Palm between March 1, 2000 and
June 19, 2001 may, no later than August 27, 2001, request for court
appointment as lead plaintiff.   For more information, contact
Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody by calling toll-free 1-
800-337-4983, or by e-mail at SSBNY@aol.com, or by fax at 212/490-
2022, or by writing to Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY 10017.


REDBACK NETWORKS: Schiffrin & Barroway File Suit 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 Redback
Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq: RBAK) from May 17, 1999 through December 6,
2000, inclusive.

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

     (i) the Underwriter Defendants (Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.,
BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., and Lehman Brothers, 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 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.

Members of the class described above may, not later than September
3, 2001, ask for court appointment to serve as lead plaintiff of
the class.  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.


RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: Stull Stull Files Complaint in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on July 6, 2001, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of Rhythms Netconnections, Inc. (NASDAQ:RTHM)
common stock between April 6, 1999 and July 5, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants

     * Rhythms Netconnections, Inc.
     * Catherine M. Hapka
     * Scott C. Chandler
     * Kevin R. Compton
     * Keith B. Geeslin
     * Ken L. Harrison
     * Susan Mayer
     * William R. Stensrud
     * John L. Walecka and
     * Edward J. Zander

violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Rhythms
Netconnections common stock pursuant to the April 6, 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, members of the underwriting group

     * Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
     * Salomon Smith Barney Inc.
     * Hambrecht & Quist LLC, and
     * Thomas Weisel Partners LLC

allocated Rhythms Netconnections shares to customers at the IPO
price of $21.00 per share. To receive the allocations (i.e., the
ability to purchase shares) at $21.00, 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 Rhythms Netconnections stock rocketed upward (a
practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and
did) drive Rhythms Netconnections' 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 $21.00 IPO price and then
selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which
rose as high as $75 on its first day of trading, and subsequently
rose to a peak high of $111.50 on April 13, 1999.

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 Rhythms Netconnections
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.

Buyers of the common stock of Rhythms Netconnections between April
6, 1999 and July 5, 2001 may, no later than 60 days from July 6,
2001, request for court appointment as lead plaintiff.   For more
information, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody by
calling toll-free 1-800-337-4983, or by e-mail at SSBNY@aol.com, or
by fax at 212/490-2022, or by writing to Stull, Stull & Brody, 6
East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017.


ROBOTIC VISION: Levy and Levy Files Security Suit in MA
-------------------------------------------------------
Levy and Levy, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for District of Massachusetts on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock of Robotic Vision Systems, Inc.
(Nasdaq: ROBV) from January 27, 2000 through May 15, 2001,
inclusive.

The complaint charges Robotic Vision and certain of its officers
and directors with issuing false and misleading statements
concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that on or about May 15, 2001, defendants
announced that it would be delaying the filing of its form 10-A
with the SEC for the second-quarter of 2001 because it was
restating its financial results for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2000 and for the three month period ended December 31, 2000, to
correct certain accounting issues related to the recognition of
revenue at its Acuity CiMatrix division. In response to this
shocking announcement, Robotic Vision shares dropped almost 15% in
one day.

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., One Stamford
Plaza, 263 Tresser Blvd., 9th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901 and 245
Park Avenue, 39th Floor, New York, NY 10167, 866-338-3674 (toll
free), 203-564-1920, or 212-792-4343, or by e-mail at
LLNYCT@aol.com.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on July 6, 2001, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of all persons who purchased the securities and/or sold the
put options of Tibco Software, Inc. (NASDAQ:TIBX) between July 13,
1999 and July 3, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants

     * Tibco Software, Inc.
     * Vivek Y. Ranadive
     * Paul G. Hansen
     * Douglas M. Atkin
     * Yogen K. Dalal
     * Edward R. Kozel
     * Donald J. Listwin
     * Larry W. Sonsini
     * John G. Gaysom, and
     * Philip Wood

violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Tibco
Software common stock pursuant to the July 13, 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, members of the underwriting group Goldman, Sachs &
Co., Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. and Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown
allocated Tibco Software shares to customers at the IPO price of
$15.00 per share. To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to
purchase shares) at $15.00, 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
Tibco Software stock rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall
Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did) drive Tibco
Software'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 $15.00 IPO price and then selling it later for a
profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $147
on March 9, 2000.

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 laws because the Prospectus distributed to investors and
the Registration Statement filed with the SEC in order to gain
regulatory approval for the Tibco Software 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.

Persons who purchased the securities and/or sold the put options of
Tibco Software between July 13, 1999 and July 3, 2001 may, no later
than 60 days from July 6, 2001, request for court appointment as
lead plaintiff.  For more information, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq.
at Stull, Stull & Brody by calling toll-free 1-800-337-4983, or by
e-mail at SSBNY@aol.com, or by fax at 212/490-2022, or by writing
to Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017.


TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein File Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed a
lawsuit on July 5, 2001 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
securities of Transmeta Corporation (Nasdaq:TMTA) during the period
of November 7, 2000 through and including June 20, 2001.

The complaint charges Transmeta and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On November 7, 2000, Transmeta
completed its Initial Public Offering pursuant to a Registration
Statement and Prospectus, selling 14,950,000 shares (including
over-allotments) at $21.00 per share for net proceeds of $289
million. The complaint alleges that in connection with Transmeta's
IPO and continuing throughout the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements about Transmeta's business and its
principal product, the Crusoe family of microprocessors, stating
that this technology represented a revolutionary process that
delivered longer battery life in Mobile Internet Computers while
delivering high performance. As a result, Transmeta's stock traded
as high as $50-7/8 per share. In May of 2001, as the Transmeta
insiders' lock-up agreements expired, five of the Individual
Defendants sold 829,500 of their Transmeta shares for proceeds of
over $10.5 million.

Just weeks later, Transmeta was forced to admit that its results
for the Second Quarter 2001 would be much worse than defendants had
previously represented and that Transmeta would, in order to
properly account for its impaired inventory, be forced to record a
multi-million dollar inventory charge in connection with
Transmeta's inventory for defective and/or outdated products.
Following Transmeta's announcement, Transmeta stock collapsed to
$5.12 per share before closing at $5.36 per share, an 89% decline
from its Class Period high of $50.875.

Buyers of shares of Transmeta securities during the Class Period
may request court appointment no later than 60 days from June 25,
2001 to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class.  For more
information about this action, contact Andrew N. Friedman, Esq. or
Robert Smits of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
888/240-0775 or 202/408-4600, afriedman@cmht.com or
rsmits@cmht.com.


WAL-MART STORES: Five Women File Sex Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
When Kim Miller got a job at Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., she was excited
to join the late Sam Walton's team.

But over the next nine years, Miller says, her job as a sales
associate turned into a frat-house nightmare. Miller, 36, says she
complained more than a dozen times to bosses at all levels but was
retaliated against for doing so. Wal-Mart isn't commenting on the
allegations lodged by Miller and the other five women who filed a
sexual discrimination class action in U.S. District Court for
Northern California on June 19.

For more information about this case, contact Christine Fountaine
at BusinessWeek, Phone 212/512-3121.


Z-TEL TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf all persons who acquired Z-TEL Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:
ZTEL) securities between December 16, 1999 and December 6, 2000.  
Named as defendants in the complaint are Z-TEL and the following
executive officers of Z-TEL: D. Gregory Smith and John M. Hutchens.
The complaint also names as defendant Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation, one of the lead underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering of 6,000,000 shares of common stock at $17.00 per
share on December 16, 1999.

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

The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading
because it failed to disclose

     (i) Credit Suisse's agreement with certain investors to
provide them with significant amounts of restricted Z-TEL shares in
the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and

     (ii) the agreement between Credit Suisse and certain of its
customers whereby Credit Suisse would allocate shares in the IPO to
those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to
purchase Z-TEL shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.

Members of the class described above have until August 6, 2001 to
participate in the case and ask for court appointment as lead
plaintiffs for the Class.  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.






                             *********

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  * * *