CAR_Public/010806.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, August 6 2001, Vol. 3, No. 152

                              Headlines


AMERICAN HOME: Buys Peace with Norplant User Suit Claimants
ASHFORD.COM: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
BLUE MARTINI: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. New York
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Cable Customers' Suit for Illegal Fee
ENSCO INTERNATIONAL: Pending Settlements Drawn in Answer to Suit

IMMUNE RESPONSE: Keller Rohrback Files Suit in S.D. California
INTEGRATED INFORMATION: Marc Henzel Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
LANTE CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York
MARTIN MARIETTA: Homeowners Say Quarry Blasting Damaged Houses
MEDIAPLEX INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Sues IPO Underwriters In S.D. NY

METLIFE: Accused Of Discrimination in Hiring and Promotions
MODEM MEDIA: Milberg Weiss Raises Securities Suit in S.D. New York
NEW YORK CITY: Judge Certifies "Needle-exchange" Lawsuit
PEROT SYSTEMS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Suit In S.D. New York
SCHWEGMANN GIANT: Case Hinges On Whether Vouchers Were Pension Benefit

THEGLOBE.COM: Schiffrin & Barroway Starts Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TRUSERVE CORP.: Parries Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty Allegations
TUT SYSTEMS: Unyielding to Allegations of Securities Fraud
TUT SYSTEMS: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in N.D. California



                              *********









AMERICAN HOME: Buys Peace with Norplant User Suit Claimants
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Home Products (AHP) finally reached a settlement with the
36,000 women who claimed they were not properly warned about the
dangers of the Norplant birth control device.

"It was in their interest to buy peace," said H. Thomas Wells, chair
of the American Bar Association's litigation section.

Each woman is expected to receive $1,500, which could cost AHP over $50
million.

"It was better for them to settle than to spend a tremendous amount of
money subjecting themselves to hundreds, if not thousands of juries
deciding damages against them," Wells said.

The judge presiding over the Norplant case had denied their request for
class-action status, leading legal experts to say it was advantageous
for both sides to settle.

ASHFORD.COM: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Marc S. Henzel filed a securities class action lawsuit in
the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
all
persons who acquired Ashford.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: ASFD) securities between
September 22, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

Named as defendants in the complaint are Ashford.com and the following
executive
officers of Ashford.com:

     (i) Robert Shaw,

    (ii) Kenneth E. Kurtzman,

   (iii) David F. Gow,

    (iv) James H. Whitcomb, Jr., and

     (v) Kevin R. Harvey.

The complaint also names as defendants the following underwriters of
Ashford.com's initial public offering: Goldman, Sachs Co., BankBoston
Robertson
Stephens, Inc., Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, and E*Offering Corp.

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 Ashford.com's initial public
offering of 6,250,000 shares of common stock at $13.00 per share that was
completed on or about September 22, 1999.

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

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

     (b) 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 Ashford.com shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices.

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


BLUE MARTINI: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Marc S. Henzel filed 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) common stock between July 24,
2000
and July 9, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the following 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:

     (i) Blue Martini,

    (ii) Monte Zweben,

   (iii) John E. Calonico, Jr.,

    (iv) James C. Gaither,

     (v) A. Michael Spence,

    (vi) Andrew W. Verhalen,

   (vii) Edward H. Vick and

  (viii) William F. Zuendt

The complaint alleges that, in exchange for the excessive commissions,
members
of the underwriting group Goldman Sachs & Co., Dain Rauscher Incorporated,
Thomas Weisel Partners LLC and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc. allocated
Blue
Martini 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 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, 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 $57 3/8 on its first day of trading, and which
subsequently, on August 9, 2000, rose to a peak of $77 5/8.

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


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Cable Customers' Suit for Illegal Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits have been filed against Charter Communications Holdings
Capital Corporation. The company is being sued for charging a
processing fee to customers who make delinquent cable bill payments.

Customers in Alabama, Indiana, Maryland, Texas and Wisconsin filed the
putative class action lawsuits on behalf of the cable company's
customers residing in those states who are or were customers.

The plaintiffs are challenging the legality of the processing fee and
are seeking declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and unspecified
damages.

Charter is still in the process of finalizing a global settlement of
these cases, which must be approved by a court.

However, Charter says unless a global settlement is consummated and
approved, it intends to vigorously defend the actions.


ENSCO INTERNATIONAL: Pending Settlements Drawn in Answer to Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several companies embroiled in a purported class action, anti-trust
lawsuit September last year recently announced pending settlements.

ENSCO International Inc., and more than 15 other defendant companies,
were sued for alleged conspiracy to avoid competition for drilling
labor by illegally fixing or suppressing the wages and benefits paid
their drilling employees in violation of certain provisions of the
Sherman and Clayton Acts.

Collectively, the companies' operations represent a majority of the
U.S. offshore contract drilling industry.

Specific terms and conditions of these settlements, however, have not
been disclosed. Most of the announced settlements are attributable to
defendant companies with insurance coverage who elected to settle for
amounts within their policy limits.

IMMUNE RESPONSE: Keller Rohrback Files Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback, LLP filed a class action lawsuit, on behalf of shareholders
of
Immune Response Corporation (NASDAQ:IMNR) who purchased the Company's common
stock between May 17, 1999 and July 6, 2001, inclusive.

The suit is lodged in the United States District Court for the Southern
District
of California.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Immune Response,
certain of
its officers and directors, and Agouron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. violated
federal
securities laws by materially misrepresenting the efficacy of its
AIDS-treatment
drug Remune.

Specifically, it is alleged that defendants withheld the results of Remune's
major clinical trial, and instead misrepresented the status and prospects of
Remune, even though defendants knew during the
Class Period that Remune had no effect upon people with HIV and AIDS.

Defendants' allegedly false misrepresentations that Remune was effective in
the
fight against AIDS operated to artificially inflate the price of Immune
Response
stock and enabled Immune Response to complete a public offering during
August of
2000.

Immune Response and Agouron continued the purported charade until July 6,
2001,
when Agouron finally dropped out of the project and Immune Response's stock
crashed to $1.80 per share.

For further details, contact: Keller Rohrback L.L.P. through Jennifer
Tuato'o by
Phone: 800/776-6044 by E-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com or visit the
firm's
website: www.SeattleClassAction.com


INTEGRATED INFORMATION: Marc Henzel Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Marc S. Henzel filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States
District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of investors who
purchased the securities of Integrated Information Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:
IISX)
between March 17, 2000 and June 27, 2001.

The action is pending against the following defendants:

     (i) Integrated Information Systems, Inc.,

    (ii) James G. Garvey, Jr.,

   (iii) David Wirthlin,

    (iv) Alan Hald,

     (v) Daniel Foreman,

    (vi) Stephen Lindstrom,

   (vii) Daniel Roche,

  (viii) Keith Walz,

    (ix) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.,

     (x) U.S. Bankcorp Piper Jaffray Inc.,

    (xi) Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated and

   (xii) Legg Mason Wood Walker, Incorporated.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

It alleges that the March 17, 2000 Prospectus for shares of IIS 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 IIS' Offering
engaged in a pattern of conduct to surreptitiously extract inflated
commissions
greater than those disclosed in the Offering materials.

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


LANTE CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Marc S. Henzel filed a securities class action lawsuit in
the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of
purchasers of Lante Corporation (Nasdaq: LNTE) securities between February
10,
2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit names the following as defendants: Lante, certain of its officers
and
directors, and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by
issuing and selling Lante common stock pursuant to the February 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.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated Lante 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 Lante stock rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall
Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did) drive Lante'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 further details, contact: The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 210
West Washington Square, Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106 by Phone: (888)
643-
6735 or (215) 625-9999 by Fax: (215) 440-9475 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com
or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


MARTIN MARIETTA: Homeowners Say Quarry Blasting Damaged Houses
--------------------------------------------------------------
About 600 area residents in Berkeley County, South Carolina, are suing
Martin
Marietta Materials in federal court, alleging that its blasting activities
to
mine limestone has caused sink holes, cracked the walls in their homes and
contaminated the well water, The Associated Press said.

The residents have filed a request with the court to make the lawsuit a
class
action, seeking damages for everyone living within five miles of the
1,128-acre
quarry.

The company, which is represented by Columbia attorney Karen Crawford, is
fighting this request.

Chris Gruenloh of Ness Motley Loadholt Richardson & Poole, a law firm
representing the residents, said that if the lawsuit does not continue as a
class action, as many as 600 individual claims will.

Commenting on the merits of the case, Gruenloh said that geology experts
think
there is a link between quarry blasting and damage to homes.

Chris Holmes, attorney for some of the residents, said the case could go to
trial this fall.


MEDIAPLEX INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Sues IPO Underwriters In S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Mediaplex, Inc. (Nasdaq: MPLX) from
November
19, 1999 through December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit names the following as defendants: Lehman Brothers, Inc.,
BancBoston
Robertson Stephens, Inc. and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated.

On or about November 19, 1999 Mediaplex commenced an initial public offering
of
6,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $12 per
share.

In connection therewith, Mediaplex 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) 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 Mediaplex shares issued
         in connection with the Mediaplex IPO; and

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

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

For more details, 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


METLIFE: Accused Of Discrimination in Hiring and Promotions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Insurance giant MetLife is facing a class action after five of its
women workers filed suit against the company Tuesday. The company is
charged with discriminating against women in hiring, promotions and
compensation and retaliating against those who complain.

Adam Klein, one of the attorneys who filed the suit in federal district
court in Manhattan said the company is "not maintain[ing] a level
playing field for women" from entry-level positions through management.

According to the plaintiffs, out of approximately 6000 account
representatives, only 25% are women, with only 7% running local offices
out of the company's 183 managing directors.

None of the three zone vice presidents or 17 regional vice presidents
is a woman, they said.

The suit claims that MetLife violated federal civil rights laws, as
well as New York state and New York City anti-discrimination statutes.
It seeks unspecified monetary damages and changes in company policy.

The women have also filed discrimination complaints with the federal
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Kevin Foley, MetLife spokesperson, said company officials could not
presently comment since it had not had an opportunity to review the
lawsuit. However, he said MetLife "takes very seriously the issue of
equal opportunity."


MODEM MEDIA: Milberg Weiss Raises Securities Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP recently
commenced a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Modem Media, Inc. ("Modem Media") (NASDAQ:MMPT - news)
between February 5,1999 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/modemmedia/

The action alleges the following as defendants: Modem Media,
FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc., Bear Stearns & Co., Inc. (the
Underwriter Defendants), Gerald M. O'Connell and Steven C. Roberts, and
is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007.

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 February 5,1999, Modem Media commenced an initial public
offering of 2,600,000 of its shares of its common stock at an offering
price of $16 per share (the "Modem Media IPO").

In connection therewith, Modem Media filed a registration statement,
which incorporated a prospectus (the "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 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
         Modem Media shares issued in connection with the Modem Media
         IPO; and
    (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby they agreed to allocate
         Modem Media shares to those customers in the Modem Media IPO
         in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
         additional Modem Media shares in the aftermarket at pre-
         determined prices.

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


NEW YORK CITY: Judge Certifies "Needle-exchange" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The granting of class action status to a lawsuit against the City of
New York is expected to open the floodgates for about 5,000 claims for
individuals arrested over needles acquired through the city's needle-
exchange program.

A judge, who once argued for the legalization of drugs, has been
assigned to the case and is responsible for the recent certification
ruling, the New York Post said.

In an effort to fight the spread of AIDS and other diseases, the city
has been sponsoring a tax-funded program to supply drug dependents with
more than 3 million needles.

Those who register under the program are exempt from arrest for
carrying needles.

Lawyer Corrine Carey claims the New York Police Department has been
ignoring the above exemption, making numerous "improper arrests."

Carey's client, for one, was arrested in 1999 after a detective found a
syringe in his pocket that contained trace elements of heroin.

The paraphernalia originated from a needle-exchange center in
Manhattan.

The New York Post said that about 30,000 individuals participate in
the program every year.

Carey wants to enlist a substantial number of them in the suit.


PEROT SYSTEMS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Suit In S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP has commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Perot
Systems, Inc. ("Perot") (NYSE:PER - news) securities between February
1, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, against defendants Perot,
certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters.

The case name is Chin v. Perot Systems, Inc. et al. A copy of the
complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be
viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at
www.whafh.com.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Perot common stock pursuant to the February
1, 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 Perot 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 Perot stock rocketed upward
(a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering"') was intended to (and
did) drive Perot'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: Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq by Mail: 270
Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016  by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by
E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.whafh.com. Your e-mail should refer to Perot.

SCHWEGMANN GIANT: Case Hinges on Whether Vouchers Were Pension Benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A two-day trial before U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier recently ended with
the
judge taking under advisement the question at the center of this class
action
lawsuit: whether the food vouchers that Schwegmann Giant Super Markets gave
many
of its retired supervisors each month constituted a pension plan.

It was not clear when Judge Barbier would rule on the matter, according to a
recent Associated Press report.

The 199 former Schwegmann supervisors, who filed the lawsuit in September
1997,
the same year the New Orleans-based grocery chain sold the grocery business,
claim that the monthly $216 food vouchers they received were a retirement
benefit covered by the federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act. As
such, the benefit should not have been stopped in 1997 after the market
chain
was sold, and the vouchers should have been financed beyond the 1997 sale of
the
grocery business.

Nancy Picard, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said that
ERISA
rules require that employers set aside money to pay for benefits that
retirees
are promised.

"It [the vouchers] was a pension plan that they set up, and they should've
gone
through the same formality," Picard said.

The retired workers are suing Schwegmann, John F. Schwegmann and the
supermarket
chain's insurer, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Co.

John Schwegmann said management did not put aside money to finance the
vouchers
before or after the company was sold in February 1997.

He maintains that the claims are groundless; that the vouchers were a
gratuity
for the retirees.

"We did it simply because we thought of our company as a family company,"
said
Schwegmann.

For its part, USF&G contends that ERISA claims are not covered by the
supermarket's policy.

According to the insurer, since the sale of the grocery business was neither
a
negligent act nor an omission, the insurance policy would not cover any
claims
resulting from the sale.

However, Judge Barbier ruled that the plaintiffs' allegations constitute a
dispute under the employee benefits section of the insurance policy and
that, if
the plaintiffs win, USF&G may have to cover the claims.

Judge Barbier also ruled that John Schwegmann's sale of the company without
devising a way to maintain the voucher benefit did create the harm alleged
by
the retirees.


THEGLOBE.COM: Schiffrin & Barroway Starts Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
purchasers
of the common stock of theglobe.com, Inc. (OTC: TGLO.OB) from November 12,
1998
through December 6, 2000.

theglobe.com and Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. are named as defendants.

On or about November 12, 1998, theglobe.com commenced an initial public
offering
of 3,100,000 of its shares of its common stock at an offering price of $9
per
share.

In connection therewith, theglobe.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) Bear Stearns had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which Bear Stearns allocated to those investors material
         portions of the restricted number of theglobe.com shares
         issued in connection with the theglobe.com IPO; and

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

For more information, contact: 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 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or
visit
the firm's Website: www.sbclasslaw.com


TRUSERVE CORP.: Parries Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty Allegations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TruServ Corp. is facing suit filed by nineteen former members alleging
they voted for a Merger based upon representations made to them by the
company and its predecessors that the Coast to Coast name brand would
be maintained.

The suit was filed in June.

The plaintiffs allege, however, that, following the Merger, the Coast
to Coast name brand was eliminated and that each plaintiff thereafter
terminated or had its membership in TruServ terminated.

The plaintiffs have asserted claims for fraud, misrepresentation,
breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

In addition, the plaintiffs allege the company breached its obligations
by failing to redeem those members' stock.

The company intends to vigorously contest this claim and believes that,
in the event of an unfavorable outcome, it carries adequate insurance
coverage; accordingly, no related reserve has been recorded.


TUT SYSTEMS: Unyielding to Allegations of Securities Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
Broadband service provider Tut Systems Inc. will not bow to lawsuits
alleging the company released false and misleading statements.

The allegations are for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the company and certain of its
officers.

"The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
defend the actions vigorously," the company stated.

The suit was filed on behalf of those who purchased Tut Systems'
publicly traded securities between July 20, 2000 and January 31, 2001.

The plaintiffs, who have similar complaints, have raised the lawsuits
in the United States District Court, Northern District of California
starting July 12.

"There can be no assurance that any of the complaints will be resolved
without costly litigation, or in a manner that is not materially
adverse to our financial position, results of operations or cash
flows," the Company expressed.


TUT SYSTEMS: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of the stock Tut
Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: TUTS - news; "Tut") securities during the period
from July 20, 2000 through January 31, 2001.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented the revenues that
Tut was deriving from its sales to small competitive local exchange
carriers which were not able to pay for the products purchased from
Tut, causing Tut's sales to be inflated and its stock price to be
artificially inflated to a Class Period high of $120.37 on 8/29/00.

This upsurge in Tut's stock caused by defendants' false and misleading
statements enabled the individual defendants to sell 87,100 shares of
their Tut stock for proceeds of $8.1 million.

By late November 2000, analysts learned that Tut's 4thQ 00 sales would
be well below previously forecasted levels, causing the stock to
decline.

On November 30, 2000, Tut revealed to the public that it was in fact
suffering a huge decline in revenues, was not posting smaller negative
earnings per share growth, and contrary to defendants' repeated
assurances, Tut was forced to reveal the problems it had been
experiencing during the Class Period in attempting to grow its
business.

This announcement caused the stock to drop to below $10 per share but
the stock continued to trade at artificially inflated levels as
defendants concealed the large amount of uncollectible receivables on
Tut's books.

On January 31, 2001, Tut announced huge write-offs of uncollectible
accounts receivable and inventory, that its 4thQ 00 revenues had
dropped to less than $6 million compared to more than $10 million in
the 4thQ 99, and that it was laying off 10% of its workforce.

This announcement caused its stock price to drop to as low as $5.84,
causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to members of the
Class.

For more information, contact: Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862
by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com. or visit the firm's Website:
www.spectorandroseman.com.


                              *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and Beard Group, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, Larri-Nil Veloso and Lyndsey Resnick,
Editors.

Copyright 2001.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 301/951-6400.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *