CAR_Public/010801.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, August 1 2001, Vol. 3, No. 149

                              Headlines


21ST CENTURY: Faces 'Overtime Pay' Suit Filed By CA Claims Adjuster
ASHFORD.COM: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York
AUTOBYTEL.COM: Bernstein Liebhard Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
BLUE MARTINI: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
BREAKAWAY SOLUTIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY

CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
DAKOTA PORK: Judge Gives Part Of Settlement Money To Salvation Army
EQUINIX INC.: Stull Stull Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York
FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Notices Sent To 31,000 Potential Class Members
GLOBAL CROSSING: Schiffrin & Barroway Files S.D. NY Securities Suit

JDN REALTY: Inks Multi-million Cash and Stocks Settlement Pact
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: To Award Cash, Credit To Settle "Contact Lens" Suit
MONSANTO COMPANY: Sustains Novel "Property Monitoring" Lawsuit
MP3.COM: Securities And Shareholders Settlement Receives Nod In July
MP3.COM: Expects Oral Arguments On Plaintiffs' Appeal This October

NET2PHONE INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
NEW CENTURY: Subsidiary Scheduled To Answer MA Complaint This Month
NEW CENTURY: Parties In Ohio Lawsuit Deep In Settlement Negotiations
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Dyer & Shuman Files Securities Suit In Colorado
SANTA FE: Consultant Tells City To Up Water Rates Or Go To Court

SOLUTIA INC.: Amended Lawsuit In Alabama Adds 915 More Plaintiffs
SPACELABS MEDICAL: Lawyer Seeks Certification on Discrimination Suit
TERRA NETWORKS: Wolf Haldenstein Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY
TICKETS.COM: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
WEBVAN GROUP: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. New York


                              *********


21ST CENTURY: Faces 'Overtime Pay' Suit Filed By CA Claims Adjuster
-------------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Insurance Group promised to mount a vigorous defense
against a class action suit served on the Company just last month.

In its regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
the Company revealed that a number of its claim adjusters filed the
suit July 19.

They accused the Company of improperly classifying them as salaried
workers not eligible for overtime pay.

Similar suits have been filed against other California insurance
companies, the SEC report noted.

"The Company believes it was in compliance with applicable law and will
vigorously defend itself in the litigation," said the Company in the
SEC report.

Hoovers.com describes 21st Century Insurance Group as "prepared for the
present."

Subsidiaries of the company sell automobile, homeowners, and personal
liability insurance, primarily in California.

Under the aegis of American International Group, which owns more than
60 percent of the company and has become more active in management,
21st Century has also expanded into Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and
Washington.


ASHFORD.COM: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of purchasers of Ashford.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: ASFD)
securities between September 22, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The defendants in the suit are Ashford, certain of its officers and
directors, and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Ashford common stock pursuant to the
September 22, 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.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated Ashford shares to customers at the
IPO price.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
the IPO price, 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 Ashford stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as ``laddering'') was intended
to (and did) drive Ashford's share price up to artificially high
levels.

This artificial price inflation enabled both the underwriters and their
customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the IPO price and
then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices.

For more details, contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by
Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-
0735 (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory Nespole, Esq., Thomas Burt,
Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq., Michael Miske, or George Peters) by E-
mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com


AUTOBYTEL.COM: Bernstein Liebhard Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP filed a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of all persons who acquired Autobytel.com, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ABTL) securities between March 25, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Named as defendants in the complaint are the following underwriters of
Autobytel's initial public offering:

     (i) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

    (ii) Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.,

   (iii) Goldman Sachs & Co., and

    (iv) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated

The complaint charges defendants with violations of 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 Autobytel's initial public
offering of 4.5 million shares of common stock at $23.00 per share that
was completed on or about March 25, 1999.

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

     (i) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors
         to provide them with significant amounts of restricted
         Autobytel shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and
         undisclosed commissions; and

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

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Attorneys' Office
are investigating underwriting practices in connection with several
initial public offerings completed in 1999 and 2000.

For more information, contact: Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: ABTL@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com


BLUE MARTINI: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of Blue Martini Software, Inc. (Nasdaq: BLUE)
securities between July 24, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The defendants in the suit are Blue Martini, certain of its officers
and directors, and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Blue Martini common stock pursuant to the
July 24, 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.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated Blue Martini shares to customers at
the IPO price.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
the IPO price, 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 Blue Martini stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as ``laddering'') was intended
to (and did) drive Blue Martini's share price up to artificially high
levels.

This artificial price inflation enabled both the underwriters and their
customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the IPO price and
then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices.

For additional information, contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: 800-575-0735 (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory Nespole, Esq.,
Thomas Burt, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq., Michael Miske, or George
Peters) by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.whafh.com


BREAKAWAY SOLUTIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of purchasers of Breakaway Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq:
BWAY) securities between October 5, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The defendants in the suit are Breakaway, certain of its officers and
directors, and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Breakaway common stock pursuant to the
October 5, 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.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated Breakaway shares to customers at the
IPO price.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
the IPO price, 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 Breakaway stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as ``laddering'') was intended
to (and did) drive Breakaway's share price up to artificially high
levels.

This artificial price inflation enabled both the underwriters and their
customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the IPO price and
then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices.

For more information, contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone:
800-575-0735 (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory Nespole, Esq., Thomas
Burt, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq., Michael Miske, or George Peters) by
E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.whafh.com


CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed Monday a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Cybersource
Corporation  (NASDAQ:CYBS) between June 23, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against the following defendants:

     (i) Cybersource,

    (ii) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,

   (iii) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

    (iv) BancBoston Robertson Stephens,

     (v) William S. McKiernan and

    (vi) Charles E. Noreen

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

On or about June 23, 1999 Cybersource commenced an initial public
offering of 4,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $11 per share.

In connection therewith, Cybersource 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) Merrill Lynch, Robertson Stephens and Goldman Sachs had
         solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
         from certain investors in exchange for which Merrill Lynch,
         Robertson Stephens and Goldman Sachs allocated to those
         investors material portions of the restricted number of
         Cybersource shares issued in connection with the Cybersource
         IPO; and

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

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


DAKOTA PORK: Judge Gives Part Of Settlement Money To Salvation Army
-------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol ruled recently that the $5,400 of
the settlement money awarded to the former workers of Dakota Pork
Industries be given to the Salvation Army in Huron, South Dakota, the
Associated Press reported.

This ruling comes nearly four years after Dakota Pork closed its doors
in Huron, putting about 800 employees out of work.

It also brings the class action lawsuit to a close.

The lawsuit was filed soon after Dakota Pork closed on August 1, 1997,
leaving 450 families without income until federal and state help
arrived.

Since Dakota Pork closed without notice, said Ron Volesky, an attorney
who helped the former workers in the suit, it may have violated a
federal law requiring that a company of more than 50 employees give 60
days notice prior to closing.

The Salvation Army came to the rescue of the former workers and their
families, providing food for approximately six weeks until unemployment
compensation and other services became available.

The Salvation Army is receiving the remains of the $2 million which was
not distributed to the former workers for lost wages and benefits, and
which could not be returned for various reasons, according to the same
Associated Press report.


EQUINIX INC.: Stull Stull Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed Monday a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of purchasers of Equinix, Inc. (NASDAQ:EQIX) common stock between
August 10, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Equinix common stock pursuant to the August
10, 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 allocated Equinix shares to customers
at the IPO price of $12 per share.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
$12, 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 Equinix stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Equinix'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 $12 IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at
inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $14 its first day of
trading and which subsequently rose to a Class Period high of $16.50 on
August 31, 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
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 Equinix 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.

For more details, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. by Phone: 1-800-337-4983
(toll free) by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com by Fax: 212/490-2022 or by Mail: 6
East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017


FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Notices Sent To 31,000 Potential Class Members
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Employees of Fleetwood's housing and recreational vehicle plants may be
eligible for compensation for work they performed "off-the-clock,"
according to a lawsuit filed in federal court in Idaho.

Notices recently went out to over 31,000 current and former Fleetwood
employees informing them of their rights and giving them the chance to
join the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that Fleetwood employees performed production work
before the regular starting time, during lunch breaks, and after the
regular shift, but were not paid for working during those times.

Additionally, the lawsuit claims that Fleetwood changed time records,
did not keep other necessary records and improperly rounded down
employee time.

The lawsuit also claims that certain supervisors in Fleetwood's housing
plants were improperly classified and should have received time and a
half for any hours worked in excess of forty in a week.

Fleetwood denies the allegations against it.

The federal court has conditionally certified the lawsuit as a class
action, but has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case.

Headquartered in Riverside, California, Fleetwood is the leading
manufacturer of recreational vehicles and one of the largest
manufacturers of manufactured housing with plants in 18 states within
the United States.

Those currently eligible to join in the lawsuit are those employees who
worked at a Fleetwood housing plant between February 11, 1997, and
February 20, 2001.

Also eligible are those Fleetwood employees who worked at a travel
trailer or motor home plant as of February 20, 2001.

To join in the lawsuit, employees must sign and mail a "Consent to
Join" form so that it is received by September 7, 2001.

Employees are not required to know exactly how many hours they worked
"off-the-clock" in order to join the lawsuit and make a claim.

Fleetwood is prohibited by law from firing, disciplining or retaliating
against any employee who chooses to join the lawsuit.

Those joining the lawsuit will be bound by any judgment, whether
favorable or unfavorable.

Only those who join the lawsuit will be eligible to participate in any
recovery.

To obtain detailed information about this lawsuit or to request a
"Consent to Join" form, employees may call 1-800-483-7455.

Spanish language versions of all documents may also be requested.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Schiffrin & Barroway Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of Global Crossing, Ltd. (NYSE:
GX) from August 13, 1998 through December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The defendants in the suit are Global Crossing and the following
underwriters:

     (i) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,

    (ii) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,

   (iii) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

    (iv) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,

     (v) Bear, Stearns & Co.,

    (vi) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, and

   (vii) Lehman Brothers Inc.

On or about August 13, 1998, Global Crossing commenced an initial
public offering of 21,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $19 per share.

In connection therewith, Global Crossing 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 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
         Global Crossing shares issued in connection with the Global
         Crossing IPO; and

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

For more information, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP through Marc
A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by Mail: Three Bala Plaza
East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll
free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


JDN REALTY: Inks Multi-million Cash and Stocks Settlement Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
JDN Realty Corporation announced recently that it has reached a multi-
million deal effectively settling a pending securities class action
litigation.

The Atlanta Business Chronicle reported that the deal involved cash
payments and issuance of a substantial number of common stocks.

If approved, class members will be paid an aggregate of $16.8 million
in cash and 1.68 million shares of common stock, the newspaper said.

In addition, the Company is also required to provide a $4 million
guarantee assuring that the class members will receive a minimum of
$7.5 million from recoveries or settlements of suits filed by the
Company against its insurance carrier and other parties.

The company and the class members will share in any recovery from these
outside parties above $8 million, the Chronicle said.

As a result of this settlement deal, the company is anticipating
relatively reduced future earnings per share due to an increased
expense associated with debt used to pay the cash portion of the
settlement.

The Company is also reviewing its dividend policy as a result of the
deal, the report added.

JDN Realty is a real estate investment trust that develops, acquires,
leases, and manages shopping centers in about 20 states, primarily in
the Southeast.

Wal-Mart and Lowe's are two of the Company's largest customers.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: To Award Cash, Credit To Settle "Contact Lens" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said recently it will award consumers cash and
credits to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged misleading
marketing of Acuvue contact lenses, according to a report in the
Atlanta Journal Constitution.

The suit, filed in 1996, claimed that the company's eye-products unit,
Vistakon, misleadingly said a less expensive one-day Acuvue lens should
not be worn as long as a standard Acuvue lens when, in fact, both
lenses can be used for the same length of time.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Sustains Novel "Property Monitoring" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A judge handling a suit against Monsanto Company has refused to dismiss
the class action, even if one of the issues involved may bring the
matter further to the West Virginia Supreme Court.

Judge O.C. Spaulding sustained the suit last week against the
biotechnology company despite a novel prayer of the plaintiff seeking a
court-supervised inspection and monitoring of properties allegedly
contaminated with dioxin.

"Medical monitoring has been recognized. I know of no property
monitoring," the Charleston Daily Mail quoted Spaulding.

The magistrate suggested seeking an opinion on the issue from the state
Supreme Court.

Robert Carter filed the suit against Monsanto and several other
companies that include the novel issue of "property monitoring."

Aside from that, he is also asking payments for medical monitoring
costs and punitive damages for decreased property value and loss of
enjoyment of land he and others own along Heizer and Manila Creek.

Monsanto and the other defendants maintain dioxin dumpsites in those
areas, the newspaper reported.

According to the news account, dioxin is a byproduct of the chemicals
manufactured by Monsanto that include the controversial 'Agent Orange'
used in the Vietnam War.

Dioxin does not break down and has been linked to cancer.

The other defendants in the suit are Solutia, Inc., which took over the
chemical operations of Monsanto; Amherst Coal Co., Arch of West
Virginia Inc., Arch of Illinois Inc. and Apogee Coal Co.

They allegedly own or control the Manila Creek landfill.


MP3.COM: Securities And Shareholders Settlement Receives Nod In July
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement agreement reached in March by all parties in the
California securities and shareholders derivative suits has received
final approval recently.

This was the announcement made by MP3.com, Inc. in its latest SEC
regulatory filing.

According to the Company, the California Superior Court approved the
settlement of the derivative suit June 29.  The securities suit
settlement was given the nod by the federal court July 11.

The following are the terms of the settlement:

     (i) the defendants do not accept liability,

    (ii) payment of $35 million into an escrow account, and

   (iii) issuance of 2.5 million shares of MP3.com common stock which
         MP3.com valued at $5,391,000, in exchange for complete
         dismissal and release of all claims with prejudice.

The escrow amount and the 2.5 million shares of common stock will be
governed by the Stipulations.

The distribution of the escrow amount and the 2.5 million shares will
not occur prior to March 31, 2002, except under certain circumstances.

These circumstances include the sale or other acquisition of MP3.com
prior to the distribution of the 2.5 million shares of common stock, in
which case the stock will be treated equally with all other outstanding
shares of MP3.com common stock.

The securities suit traces its roots to several lawsuits filed between
September and November last year against the Company and certain of its
employees, officers, and directors.

Meanwhile, the shareholders derivative suits were filed between
September and October last year by stockholders on common law claims,
fraud, and various other charges.


MP3.COM: Expects Oral Arguments On Plaintiffs' Appeal This October
------------------------------------------------------------------
MP3.com, Inc. informed the SEC recently it will possibly appear in
court once more this October to face an appeal by plaintiffs whose
suits alleging copyright violations were dismissed late last year.

According to the Company, briefing on the appeal filed last January was
completed recently; hence the likelihood of a hearing later in October.

Several artists filed the class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and several major recording companies that claimed to own
copyrights in sound recordings featuring the artists.

In particular, the complaint alleged that the recording company
defendants did not possess any copyright protections with respect to
plaintiffs' pre-1972 published and pre-1978 unpublished recordings, did
not possess the right to digitally transmit plaintiffs' pre-1996
recordings over the Internet, and did not possess the right to control
the conversion of plaintiffs' recordings into mp3 files.

The complaint further alleged that MP3.com has used the names and
likenesses of plaintiffs without their consent or authorization and in
a deceptive manner, in violation of the federal Lanham Act, the New
York Civil Rights Law, and unspecified unfair competition and
misappropriation laws.

In their prayer for relief, plaintiffs asked to have their class action
certified, to be awarded unspecified damages and attorneys' fees, to
have the defendants enjoined from using plaintiffs' names and
likenesses to promote downloading music over the Internet, and to
receive declaratory relief regarding plaintiffs' rights in their pre-
and post-1972 recordings.

On August 28, 2000, the Court issued an oral ruling dismissing all
claims against MP3.com.

On December 7, 2000, judgment was entered dismissing, with prejudice,
the federal claims against the defendants.

MP3.com offers 1 million songs from some 150,000 artists (mostly
lesser-known acts looking for exposure) that can be downloaded free of
charge.

It also offers some premium subscription services and sells albums and
compilation CDs.


NET2PHONE INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP commenced a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Net2Phone, Inc.
(Nasdaq: NTOP) from July 29, 1999 through December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The defendants in the suit are Net2Phone, Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,
BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Goldman Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley &
Co. Incorporated, Howard S. Balter and Ilan S. Slasky.

On or about July 29, 1999, Net2Phone commenced an initial public
offering of 5,400,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $15 per share.

In connection therewith, Net2Phone 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 Bear Stearns, Robertson Stephens, Goldman Sachs, and
         Morgan Stanley had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which the Bear Stearns, Robertson Stephens, Goldman Sachs, and
         Morgan Stanley allocated to those investors material portions
         of the restricted number of Net2Phone shares issued in
         connection with the Net2Phone IPO; and

    (ii) the Bear Stearns, Robertson Stephens, Goldman Sachs, and
         Morgan Stanley had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby the Bear Stearns, Robertson Stephens, Goldman Sachs,
         and Morgan Stanley agreed to allocate Net2Phone shares to
         those customers in the Net2Phone IPO in exchange for which the
         customers agreed to purchase additional Net2Phone shares in
         the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

For more information, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP through Marc
A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by Mail: Three Bala Plaza
East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll
free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


NEW CENTURY: Subsidiary Scheduled To Answer MA Complaint This Month
-------------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Financial Corporation admitted in a recent SEC regulatory
document that its subsidiary New Century Mortgage Corporation is facing
a class action complaint in Massachusetts.

According to the document, the subsidiary is scheduled this August to
file its answer to the complaint currently pending in the Massachusetts
federal court.

Charles Perry Jr., purporting to represent a class, initiated the suit,
which alleges that certain payments made by the subsidiary to mortgage
brokers, sometimes referred to as yield spread premiums, violate the
federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The complaint filed last month also alleges that the subsidiary induced
mortgage brokers to breach their fiduciary duties to borrowers.

"We have retained legal representation and are evaluating the
complaint," the Company said in its SEC report.

New Century Financial Corporation provides sub-prime mortgage loans
primarily for single-family residences.


NEW CENTURY: Parties In Ohio Lawsuit Deep In Settlement Negotiations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in an Ohio class action suit against several financial
institutions have agreed to settle the case, this according to a SEC
regulatory document filed by New Century Mortgage Corporation recently.

According to the Company, this new development has extended the
deadline for the Company and other defendants to answer the second
amended complaint filed in May.

The Company added that the parties in the suit are currently deep in
negotiations to come up with a mutually acceptable settlement
agreement.

The suit was originally filed in October last year against the Company,
Central Mortgage, Equibanc Mortgage Corporation, Century 21 Home
Improvements, and Incredible Exteriors.

The class purportedly consists of consumers located in the State of
Ohio whose credit transaction was brokered by Equibanc and Central
Mortgage.

The suit is now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.

The complaint alleges breaches of the Federal Fair Housing Act, Equal
Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, gender discrimination,
fraud, unconscionability, civil conspiracy, RICO, as well as other
claims against the other defendants.

New Century Mortgage Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of New
Century Financial Corporation.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Dyer & Shuman Files Securities Suit In Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Shuman, LLP filed a class action in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Qwest
Communications International Inc. (NYSE:Q) publicly traded securities
during the period between March 22, 2001 and July 23, 2001.

The complaint charges Qwest and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that on March 22, 2001, defendants Joseph Nacchio
and Robin Szeliga appeared at a UBS Warburg hosted senior management
meeting where they falsely claimed that they would legitimately achieve
1Q01 and FY01 EPS of $0.11 and $0.59, respectively.

On April 24, 2001, Qwest reported its financial results for 1Q01,
including revenue growth of 12% and EBITA growth of 16%.

Subsequent to these statements, Qwest's stock price increased, trading
as high as $41.83 on 4/30/01.

In fact, Qwest's 1Q01 results and its statements regarding those
results as well as the statements regarding the success of the
integration with U.S. West Inc. and the company's strong expense
controls were materially false and misleading due to the company's
improper valuation of KPNQwest in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (as the value of its investment in KPNQwest had
already declined months earlier), and due to the following undisclosed
facts:

     (a) Qwest's 1Q01 earnings were better than expectations primarily
         due to its change in the discount rate to calculate its
         pension obligations, increasing Qwest's 1Q01 results by at
         least $0.03;

     (b) Qwest's 1Q01 earnings were better than expectations due to
         defendants' failure to properly "write-down" the value of
         Qwest's holdings in KPNQwest, which was materially overstated
         as a result;

     (c) Qwest's 1Q01 earnings were increased by $0.01-$0.02 due to its
         aggressive use of capitalization to classify tens of millions
         of dollars of interest and software development costs as
         assets rather than expenses, which would contribute to
         decreased earnings in future quarters;

     (d) there was no way Qwest's future earnings would be nearly as
         strong as represented due in part to the accounting
         manipulations defendants engaged in which would adversely
         affect future results, as expenses were being deferred to
         future quarters and years; and

     (e) Qwest's selling, general and administrative expenses were only
         22% of sales, not due to tight expense controls as
         represented, but to improper classification of SG&A expenses
         as cost of sales.

Subsequently, on July 20, 2001, Qwest admitted that its classification
of costs had been incorrect such that cost of sales had been overstated
and SG&A expenses had been understated.

As a result of defendants' issuance of alleged material and misleading
statements (including a false 1Q01 financial statement), Qwest's stock
traded as high as $41.83 per share.

The individual defendants took advantage of this inflation, selling
1,255,000 shares of their Qwest stock for proceeds of $49.5 million.

Ultimately, on July 24, 2001, Qwest conceded that it recorded a write-
down of over $3.1 billion, primarily related to its ownership in
KPNQwest.

Upon this admission/revelation, Qwest's shares dropped once again,
trading below $27.

For more information, contact: John M. Martin by Phone: 800-711-6483 or
by E-mail: jmartin@dyershuman.com


SANTA FE: Consultant Tells City To Up Water Rates Or Go To Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Increase water rates or face a costly class action suit.

So said a rate consultancy firm recently, warning city officials of
Santa Fe, New Mexico of the possibility of a huge suit from its
bondholders if current water rates are maintained.

Santa Fe News Mexican reported last week that Integrated Utilities
Group had told the city that there are no other options left but to
increase rates by 79 percent.

Unless, of course, the city is willing to face a class action from the
holders of its $72 million bonds issued in 1995 to purchase the water
utility.

Already, the city has received a letter from its bond insurer informing
of its technical default due to its inability to generate enough
revenues to pay debt service on the bonds.

So far, the city has used gross-receipts tax money to subsidize the
operation of the water utility rather than make rates reflect the cost
of running the water company, the report said.

According to the report, a rate increase would up the monthly water bill of
city residents between $6 and $23 a month, based on the size of the water
pipe
serving their home.

A residence served by a 1-inch pipe would see the monthly fee rise from
$8.61
to $15.41, according to the proposal prepared by the consultancy firm.


SOLUTIA INC.: Amended Lawsuit In Alabama Adds 915 More Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc. informed SEC recently that an amended complaint filed
last June has increased the plaintiffs in a class action suit currently
pending in an Alabama federal court.

According to a Company report to the SEC, the amended complaint added
915 more plaintiffs consisting of "minor children or persons under the
age of twenty-one years" who allegedly reside in "poor areas" near the
Company's Anniston plant.

This is the same plant that the plaintiffs, in its complaint filed last
May, blamed for their exposure to "polychlorinated biphenyls" that has
resulted in unspecified physical injuries and emotional distress.

According to AskJeeves.com, the production of "polychlorinated
biphenyls" (PCBs) is related to the formation of dioxins, which have
been shown to cause cancer.

Due to this, the production or use of PCBs has since been banned.

Plaintiffs allege that PCBs and other substances were released from the
Anniston plant into local waterways and/or onto plaintiffs' properties,
causing injury and damage to those properties.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified
amounts and request medical testing, monitoring and treatment and
unspecified injunctive relief.

Solutia, Inc. operates through three segments: integrated nylon (more
than 50% of sales), performance films, and specialty products.

Its chemical-based products can be found in pet-stain-resistant
carpets, safety glass, and packaging.

The company's integrated nylon segment makes fibers for carpets, space
shuttle tires, upholstery, and dental floss.

Its performance films unit makes plastic interlayer for automotive
glass, anti-glare films for electronic displays, adhesives, and other
products.

The specialty products unit makes resins and additives used in paints,
soft drinks, detergents, and water-treatment chemicals.


SPACELABS MEDICAL: Lawyer Seeks Certification on Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Ricardo A. Guarnero, Seattle attorney, filed Monday a
motion to certify a class of:

"All current and former Hispanic employees who have been employed at
Spacelabs Medical Incorporated manufacturing facilities in the states
of Washington and California as salaried employees below the first
level manager at any time from June 26, 1992 through the present."

The suit charges Spacelabs of systematically discriminating against
Hispanic/Latino workers through the following:

     (i) paying them less than other workers,

    (ii) failing to promote them,

   (iii) denying training opportunities

    (iv) paying them less than similarly situated or less qualified
         Caucasians,

     (v) retaliating against anyone for challenging unauthorized
         practices,

    (vi) judging Hispanics by a different set of standards then applied
         to similarly situated or less qualified Caucasians,

   (vii) demoting or assigning to less favorable shifts, work areas, or
         facilities.

Additionally, Spacelabs Medical instituted an "English-only" policy
that plaintiffs claim was discriminatorily applied to Hispanics.

The English-only policy had the effect of denigrating Hispanics and
denying them an opportunity for advancement.

Although denominated as a "language policy" by the defendant, the
actual pattern and practice is a prohibition on Spanish.

Declarations submitted with the motion state that the "English-only"
policy was instituted after white employees complained that they did
not like to hear Hispanics speaking Spanish.

Plaintiffs allege that the English-only policy had various deleterious
and discriminatory effects.

First, the policy compromised the safety and well being of Hispanics
who could not be warned of hazards or other impediments due to the fact
that they did not understand or poorly understood English.

Second, the English-only policy precluded training of skilled and eager
workers because the training would not be conducted in the language
that they understood.

Spacelabs hired the Hispanic workers knowing that they spoke little or
no English.

Third, the policy was used subjectively to preclude advancement to
those who were subjectively deemed to have poor English proficiency.

Fourth, the English-only policy allowed whites to denigrate and harass
Hispanic workers.

Fifth, and most critically, Spanish is an integral element of Hispanic
identity.

Thus, the policy forbidding the speaking of Spanish had the effect of
making Hispanics feel inferior in the same manner as separate "colored"
fountains denigrated blacks in the Jim Crow South.

For more information, contact: Law Offices of Ricardo A. Guarnero by
Phone: 206/381-1292 or by E-mail: rguarnero@aol.com


TERRA NETWORKS: Wolf Haldenstein Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of purchasers of Terra Networks, S.A. (Nasdaq: TRLY)
securities between November 15, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The defendants in the suit are Terra, certain of its officers and
directors, and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Terra common stock pursuant to the November
15, 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.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated Terra shares to customers at the IPO
price.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
the IPO price, 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 Terra stock rocketed upward
(a practice known on Wall Street as ``laddering'') was intended to (and
did) drive Terra's share price up to artificially high levels.

This artificial price inflation enabled both the underwriters and their
customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the IPO price and
then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices.

For more details, contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by
Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-
0735 (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory Nespole, Esq., Thomas Burt,
Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq., Michael Miske, or George Peters) by E-
mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com


TICKETS.COM: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of purchasers of Tickets.com, Inc. [Nasdaq: TIXX]
securities between November 3, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

The defendants in the suit are TIXX, certain of its officers and
directors, and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling TIXX common stock pursuant to the November
3, 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.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated TIXX shares to customers at the IPO
price.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
the IPO price, 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 TIXX stock rocketed upward
(a practice known on Wall Street as ``laddering'') was intended to (and
did) drive TIXX's share price up to artificially high levels.

This artificial price inflation enabled both the underwriters and their
customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the IPO price and
then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices.

For more information, contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone:
(800) 575-0735 (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory Nespole, Esq.,
Thomas Burt, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq., Michael Miske, or George
Peters) by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.whafh.com


WEBVAN GROUP: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed Monday a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of purchasers of Webvan Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:WBVN) common stock between
November 4, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Webvan common stock pursuant to the
November 4, 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 allocated Webvan shares to customers
at the IPO price of $15 per share.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
$15, 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 Webvan stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Webvan'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 IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at
inflated aftermarket prices, which rose about 73% in 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 Webvan 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.

For additional information, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. by Phone: 1-
800-337-4983 (toll free) by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com by Fax: 212/490-2022
or by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017


                              *********

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  * * *