CAR_Public/010807.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, August 7 2001, Vol. 3, No. 153

                           Headlines


DIGITAL ISLAND: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit In S.D. New York
GRANT THORNTON: Carnegie International Seeks $2.1B Default Judgment
HANDSPRING INC.: Cauley Geller Begins Suit Against IPO Underwriters
INCO LIMITED: Ontario Residents Sue Company, Gov't Over Nickel In Soil
MAGELLAN HEALTH: Faces Two RICO And ERISA Violations Suits In Missouri

MCAFEE.COM: Cauley Geller Commences Suit Against Two IPO Underwriters
MINNESOTA MINING: Reports $304 Million Breast Implant Claims Payment
MPOWER: Stroock Initiates Novel 'Zone of Insolvency' Suit for Fir Tree
NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Remaining '97 Lawsuit For $800,000
NETRO CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Sue Two IPO Underwriters In S.D. NY

NETZERO INC.: To Mount Vigorous Defense Against NY Shareholders Suits
NORTHERN ILLINOIS: Faces Lawsuits Over Mercury-containing Regulators
PEROT SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
PRO-FAC COOPERATIVE: Farmers Unite, File Suit For Recovery Of Losses
STRATOS LIGHTWAVE: Marc Henzel Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York

TERRA NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Commences S.D. New York Securities Suit
THEGLOBE.COM: Cauley Geller Starts Securities Suit In S.D. New York
TICKETS.COM: Marc Henzel Brings Securities Suit In S.D. New York
UNDERWRITERS LITIGATION: Stull Stull Sues Several IPO Underwriters

* Compromise In Patients' Bill Of Rights To Eliminate 'Class Actions'

                           *********


DIGITAL ISLAND: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit In S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Marc S. Henzel lodged a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Digital Island Corporation
(Nasdaq: ISLD) between June 29, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending against defendants Bear Stearns & Co. Inc.,
Lehman Brothers, Inc. and BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.

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

On or about June 29, 1999, Digital Island commenced an initial public
offering of 6,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $10 per share.

In connection therewith, Digital Island 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 Digital Island shares
         issued in connection with the Digital Island IPO; and

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

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

For more information, contact: 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


GRANT THORNTON: Carnegie International Seeks $2.1B Default Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Carnegie International Corporation (OTC BB: CGYC), an Internet support
and computer telephony holding company, said it has filed recently a
motion in Baltimore City Circuit Court asking for a judgment in its
favor in a $2.1 billion suit against Grant Thornton LLP, its former
accounting firm.

The motion alleges that J.W. Mike Starr, a senior partner and former
director of risk management at Grant Thornton, "willfully, knowingly
and intentionally destroyed Carnegie documents with the full
understanding that litigation was imminent."

The motion says that Starr admitted destroying the documents in a
deposition given earlier in July in Chicago.

Carnegie's motion says that, "Starr admitted that he deliberately
destroyed the entire Carnegie file, including, among other things, e-
mails, communications with Carnegie, and his contemporaneous notes of
telephone calls, meetings with Carnegie management and the members of
its Audit Committee."

Carnegie originally filed suit against Grant Thornton in May 2000,
claiming that the accounting firm had "caused omissions and
misstatements" in filing Form 10SB and Form 10KSB for 1997 and 1998
made with the Security & Exchange Commission.

That eight-count complaint accused Grant Thornton of fraudulent
inducement, negligence, malpractice, breach of contract, excessive
fees, breach of trust, intentional interference with business
relations, and defamation, during the period between December of 1997
and October of 1999.

Those filings, Carnegie's suit and motion allege, led to a "near
catastrophic" drop in the trading price of the company's shares, a
suspension in trading lasting more than a year, and, ultimately, de-
listing by the American Stock Exchange.

Trading in Carnegie shares resumed in May of 2000 on the NASDAQ
Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board.


HANDSPRING INC.: Cauley Geller Begins Suit Against IPO Underwriters
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP recently commenced a class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of Handspring, Inc. securities during the
period between June 21, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation
and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated with violations
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On or about June 21, 2000, Handspring commenced an initial public
offering of 10 million of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $20 per share.

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


    (ii) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby
         defendants agreed to allocate Handspring shares to those
         customers in the Handspring IPO in exchange for which the
         customers agreed to purchase additional Handspring 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 additional information, contact: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP
through its Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Sue Null or
Charlie Gastineau by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438
by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll free) or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com


INCO LIMITED: Ontario Residents Sue Company, Gov't Over Nickel In Soil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Port Colborne, Ontario have filed a class action lawsuit
against the former Inco Limited refinery in Southern Ontario and the
Ontario government over elevated levels of nickel found in the soil
near the plant, according to a recent report by The Globe and Mail.

The report said the nickel content in the soil is likely nickel oxide,
a July study found.

Health Canada, in 1994, declared nickel oxide to be a human carcinogen.

Test results recently released indicate additional contamination in the
Port Colborne community.

Samples taken from a community center on the grounds of an old Inco
recreation center and from a private residence a few blocks away from
the site show levels higher than what the Ontario government considers
safe for humans.

Excessive lead exposure has been conclusively linked to serious health
problems, affecting the body's nervous system and causing learning
disabilities.

Tests in the contaminated Port Colborne house, owned by Angie
Desmarais, showed dust in the walls contained 5,410 parts per million
of lead.

According to the Ontario government, anything above 200 parts per
million is hazardous to humans.

Officials at Inco and Ontario's Environment Ministry could not be
reached for comment.

Inco Limited is the world's No.1 producer of nickel, supplying about a
quarter of the world's nickel, the uses of which include the
manufacture of steel.

The Company also mines and processes copper (8% of sales), cobalt, and
precious metals such as gold, silver, and platinum.

Inco maintains principal mining operations in Canada and Indonesia. The
company's processing operations include refineries in Canada and the
United Kingdom; interests in refineries in Japan, Taiwan, and South
Korea; and a joint venture in China.


MAGELLAN HEALTH: Faces Two RICO And ERISA Violations Suits In Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Behavioral health industry leader Magellan Health Services, Inc.
disclosed in a recent regulatory report to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that it is facing two class action complaints in Missouri.

The Company said the suits have been pending since October last year,
and include as defendant, Magellan Behavioral Health, Inc., a
subsidiary.

According to the report, plaintiffs charge the company with violating
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The suits are currently lodged in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri.

The class representatives purport to bring the actions on behalf of a
nationwide class of individuals whose behavioral health benefits have
been provided, underwritten and/or arranged by the Company and its
subsidiary since 1994.

The complaints allege violations of RICO and ERISA arising out of the
Defendants' alleged misrepresentations with respect to and failure to
disclose its claims practices, the extent of the benefits coverage and
other matters that cause the value of benefits to be less than the
amount of premiums paid.

"While the claim is in the initial stages and an outcome cannot be
determined, the Company believes that the claims are without merit and
intends to defend them vigorously," the SEC report said.

Magellan Health Services serves more than 70 million people.


MCAFEE.COM: Cauley Geller Commences Suit Against Two IPO Underwriters
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP recently filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of McAfee.com, Corp. (MCAF) securities during the
period between December 1, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated and
FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. with violations of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On or about December 1, 1999, McAfee commenced an initial public
offering of 6.25 million of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $12 per share.

In connection therewith, McAfee filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC.

The complaint further alleges 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 McAfee shares issued in
         connection with the McAfee IPO; and

    (ii) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby
         defendants agreed to allocate McAfee shares to those customers
         in the McAfee IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed
         to purchase additional McAfee 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 additional information, contact: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP
through its Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Sue Null or
Charlie Gastineau by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438
by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll free) or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com


MINNESOTA MINING: Reports $304 Million Breast Implant Claims Payment
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, better known as 3M,
revealed in a latest SEC report that it has already paid $304 million
in claims related to the "breast implant" Revised Settlement Program
approved in 1995.

The Company also said 90 percent of those who registered as claimants
in the class action suits have already participated in the settlement
program as of June 30, 2001.

The company entered the business of manufacturing breast implants in
1977 by purchasing McGhan Medical Corporation.

In recent years, several lawsuits were instituted against 3M and
certain other companies alleging damages for personal injuries of
various types resulting from defective breast implants.

A June 2000 issue of the Class Action Reporter pegs the number of these
suits at 2,752, with 36 claims, representing 8,751 individual
claimants.

The company's current best estimate of the amount to cover the cost and
expense of the Revised Settlement Program and the cost and expense of
resolving opt-out claims and recovering insurance proceeds (from
inception of the litigation through June 30, 2001) is $1.2 billion.

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M) makes everything from
masking tape to asthma inhalers.

Well-known brands manufactured by the Company include Scotchgard fabric
protectors, Post-it Notes, Scotch-Brite scouring products, and Scotch
tapes.

The company operates in more than 60 countries.


MPOWER: Stroock Initiates Novel 'Zone of Insolvency' Suit for Fir Tree
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mpower Communications, Inc., is "operating in the vicinity of
insolvency," Fir Tree Partners alleges, exposing its investment funds
to "the risks of opportunistic behavior and [creating] conflicting
duties for [Mpower's] directors."

Fir Tree relates that it has made repeated attempts to engage Mpower
and its directors in a dialogue to improve the telecommunication
company's operations and balance sheet.

Unfortunately, Fir Tree says, Mpower and its directors are putting
their duty to out-of-the-money shareholders ahead of bondholders.

To help steer Mpower and its directors in the right direction, Robert
Lewin, Esq., and Michael Perlis, Esq., at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan,
filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on Fir
Tree's behalf seeking a determination and declaration that:

    (a) Mpower is insolvent or in the vicinity of insolvency; and

    (b) Mpower and its directors owe a fiduciary duty to Mpower's
        creditors which stands in preference to any duties owed
        to Mpower's shareholders.

Mpower Holding Corporation is a competitive local exchange carrier.
Mpower offers an integrated bundle of broadband data and voice
communication services to small and medium-size business customers.

In 1999 and 2000, Mpower raised over $310 million in incremental debt.
In that boom-time, Mpower's stock rose to $51 per share.

With a crushing $483 million debt load, and $65 million of negative
cash flow, that stock plummeted to $0.72 per share on July 20, 2001.

Fir Tree Partners is a New York City-based "value oriented investment
firm that specialized in working in a collaborative manner with
management teams to increase shareholder value."

Between September 8, 2000 and February 22, 2001, Fir Tree bought
$69.918 million of the Mpower's 13% Senior Notes due 2010.

Mpower, Fir Tree complains, continues to deplete its cash balances to
fund staggering operating losses.  Mpower's assets are property of
Mpower's creditors.

While the officers, directors and venture capitalists who formed and
ran these companies were able to enrich themselves during the market's
good times, Fir Tree charges, they have failed to recognize that given
the company's poor financial condition their obligations and fiduciary
duties have shifted to the creditors whose cash is currently being
spent in an effort to salvage the business.

Fir Tree points to Mpower's recent filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission to show that Mpower's current financial condition
places it in the vicinity of insolvency and Mpower will likely be
unable to pay its noteholders, like Fir Tree, when its obligations come
due.

Specifically, Fir Tree sees that Mpower requires approximately $70
million per quarter to fund its operating losses and capital expenses.

Given these losses and expenses, Mpower's cash is rapidly diminishing
and, assuming there are no new sources of funding, will likely
disappear over the next 12 months.

While Mpower talks about a business plan that will make it EBITDA
positive by the end of 2002, Fir Tree sees no provision to fund $61-$62
million in interest obligations and a capital expenditure budget of
$50+ million.

Most analysts Fir Tree has talked to project a $70-$150 million funding
gap.

Fir Tree notes that PricewaterhouseCoopers' review of Mpower's
financial statements for the period ending March 31, 2001, does not
show a technical insolvency based on the ratio of current assets to
current liabilities.

In fact, Mpower appears to have net assets of $324 million.

However, on May 10, Mpower announced its intentions to write-off its
$135 million in goodwill along with $65 million of additional charges.

Given the fact that Mpower requires almost $70 million per quarter to
fund its operating expenses, Mpower will be insolvent by September 30
if it is not already, Fir Tree contends.

Moreover, on July 20, Mpower announced its intention to defer declaring
the quarterly dividend on its Series D convertible preferred shares for
the second straight quarter.

Although permissible, Fir Tree sees this event as a further indication
of Mpower's grim prospects.

Over the past nine months, Messrs. Lewin and Perlis relate, Fir Tree's
made repeated attempts to talk to Mpower and its directors in a
dialogue about improving operations and the Company's balance sheet.

Fir Tree has suggested several strategic alternatives available to the
Company including:

   (1) a prepackaged bankruptcy in which Mpower could offer all
       bondholders (like Fir Tree) cash and the majority of
       Mpower's equity;

   (2) a liquidation or sale of Mpower in which Fir Tree and the
       other bondholders have legal priority over the preferred
       and equity holders;

   (3) a bondholder swap where Fir Tree and the other bondholders
       receive a package of cash, new bonds and equity, or

   (4) repurchasing bonds at a price reflecting a compromise of
       the value of the business and the bondholders' (including
       Fir Tree's) claim priority.

"Mpower and its directors have refused in good faith to engage in this
dialogue. Instead, Mpower and its directors are continuing to breach
their fiduciary duties to its creditors by wasting Mpower's assets and
further jeopardizing Fir Tree and other creditors' recovery of their
investments.

"The creditor's recovery goes down by more than $5 million per week as
the company continues to incur staggering losses on a failed business
plan endorsed by Mpower management and its directors," Fir Tree
complains.

Fir Tree tells the Court that an actual and justifiable controversy has
arisen and now exists between the parties and within the jurisdiction
of the Court relating to the parties' respective rights in connection
with Mpower.

A substantial dispute exists between Fir Tree, Mpower and its directors
as to the duties, obligations and responsibilities owed by Mpower and
its directors to Fir Tree, and if any obligation exists, in what amount
or amounts and to which persons.

Accordingly, Lewin and Perlis argue, "declaratory relief is
appropriate...in light of the conflicting positions of the parties."

Fir Tree desires a judicial determination of the parties' respective
rights and obligations in connection with Fir Tree's interests in
Mpower.

The need for a judicial declaration is "necessary in light of Mpower's
deteriorating financial condition and the repeated failure of Mpower's
management and officers to cooperate with Fir Tree in favor of Mpower's
shareholders," the Strook lawyers continue.


NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Remaining '97 Lawsuit For $800,000
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nanophase Technologies Corporation (NANX) recently announced it has
reached an oral agreement to settle the remaining securities class
action lawsuit filed against it, its officers and directors, and the
underwriters of the company's initial public offering of common stock
for $800,000. The case is pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.

Under the terms orally agreed upon, the tentative settlement will
successfully resolve all claims against all defendants, alleging
certain claims under the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
behalf of certain former preferred shareholders whose shares of
preferred stock were converted into common stock on or about the date
of the initial public offering, as more fully described in the
company's Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The settlement is not an admission of liability by any party.

The company anticipates that this settlement, including up to an
additional $50,000 for the cost of settlement administration, will be
funded by the company's directors and officers liability insurance, and
that neither the settlement nor administration payments will have a
material adverse effect on Nanophase's financial position or results of
operations.

The tentative settlement is subject to the parties preparing and
signing a definitive Stipulation of Settlement, subsequent submission
of that formal Stipulation to the court for preliminary approval,
notice to settlement class members, and subsequent final judicial
approval.

The settlement will successfully resolve the last suit that arose from
the company's initial public offering in 1997, as more fully described
in the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K.

"We believe that the decision to settle the remaining class action for
amounts within insurance policy limits promotes our stockholders' best
interests," said Joseph Cross, Nanophase's president and CEO.

"The settlement will avoid any future distraction and enable us to
concentrate exclusively on the company's business development and
technology initiatives and planned progress toward increasing product
revenues during the fourth quarter of 2001 and during 2002," he said.

Nanophase Technologies Corporation provides engineered solutions
utilizing nanocrystalline materials for a variety of industrial product
applications.

Using proprietary technology to produce nanocrystalline materials, the
company creates products with unique performance attributes.

The company's global customer base includes Fortune 500 companies.


NETRO CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Sue Two IPO Underwriters In S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP commenced a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Netro Corporation securities during the period
between August 18, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated and FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. with violations
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On or about August 18, 1999, Netro commenced an initial public offering
of 5 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $8
per share.

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

    (ii) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby
         defendants agreed to allocate Netro shares to those customers
         in the Netro IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to
         purchase additional Netro 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 additional information, contact: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP
through its Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Sue Null or
Charlie Gastineau by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438
by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll free) or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com


NETZERO INC.: To Mount Vigorous Defense Against NY Shareholders Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Internet service provider Netzero, Inc. recently announced it will
mount a vigorous defense against pending shareholders suits in New
York.

In the latest report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Company revealed eight suits currently lodged in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Company has not answered any of the complaints and no discovery has
started, the report said.

According to the report, the suits name as defendants Netzero and
certain of its officers and directors alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.

The following complaints were brought as purported shareholder class
actions under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933:

     (i) Bernstein v. NetZero, Inc. et al., United States District
         Court for the Southern District of New York Case No. 01 CV
         3358 (filed April 20, 2001);

    (ii) Greenbaum v. NetZero, Inc. et al., United States District
         Court for the Southern District of New York Case No 01 CV 3528
         (filed April 26, 2001);

   (iii) Doner v. NetZero, Inc. et al., United States District Court
         for the Southern District of New York Case No 01 CV 3534
         (filed April 26, 2001);

    (iv) Sanders v. NetZero. Inc. et al., United States District Court
         for the Southern District of New York Case No. 01 CV 3844
         (filed May 7, 2001);

     (v) Peterson v. NetZero, Inc. et al., United States District Court
         for the Southern District of New York Case No. 01 CV 3948
         (filed May 9, 2001);

    (vi) Williams v. NetZero, Inc. et al., United States District Court
         for the Southern District of New York Case No 01 CV 4309
         (filed May 21, 2001);

   (vii) Grubin v. NetZero, Inc. et al., United States District Court
         for the Southern District of New York Case No 01 CV 4405
         (filed May 22, 2001);

  (viii) Bernstein v. NetZero, Inc. et al., United States District
         Court for the Southern District of New York Case No 01 CV 4434
         (filed May 23, 2001).

The complaints generally allege the prospectus through which NetZero
conducted its initial public offering in September 1999 was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things,
that:

     (a) the underwriters of NetZero's initial public offering had
         solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
         from certain investors in exchange for which the underwriters
         allocated to those investors material portions of the
         restricted number of NetZero shares issued in connection with
         initial public offering; and

     (b) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby they agreed to allocate NetZero shares to those
         customers in the initial public offering in exchange for which
         the customers agreed to purchase additional NetZero shares in
         the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The defendant underwriters include Goldman, Sachs and Co., as the lead
underwriter in the offering, as well as Banc Boston Robertson Stephens,
Inc. and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

The Company expects more complaints containing similar allegations to
be filed against it in the future.

NetZero, which has agreed to merge with rival Juno Online Services,
offers free Internet services in exchange for personal information,
which is sold to advertisers that place targeted promotions on users'
screens.

The company has about 4 million active users.


NORTHERN ILLINOIS: Faces Lawsuits Over Mercury-containing Regulators
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Utility giant Northern Illinois Gas Company faces several private
lawsuits and one class action complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook
County.

A recent Securities and Exchange Commission document reveals the suits
are claiming a variety of "unquantified damages" allegedly cause by
mercury-containing regulators.

"At this stage in the litigation, it is not possible to estimate what
liability, if any, may result to the company from these lawsuits," the
report said.

The gas utility has some 30,000 miles of mains and serves nearly 2
million residential, commercial, and industrial customers in Northern
Illinois (except for Chicago).

Taking advantage of deregulating markets, it has joined energy player
Dynegy to market natural gas and electricity in the Midwest.


PEROT SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Marc S. Henzel brought a securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf all persons who acquired Perot Systems, Inc.
(NYSE: PER) securities between February 2, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

Named as defendants in the complaint are Perot Systems and the
following executive officers of Perot Systems: Ross Perot and Terry
Ashwill.

The complaint also names as defendants the following underwriters of
Perot Systems' initial public offering:

     (1) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Inc.,

     (2) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.,

     (3) Warburg Dillon Read, LLC, and

     (4) Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.

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 Perot Systems' initial
public offering of 6.5 million shares of common stock at $16.00 per
share that was completed on or about February 1, 2000.

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 Perot
         Systems 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 Perot Systems 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


PRO-FAC COOPERATIVE: Farmers Unite, File Suit For Recovery Of Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Willamette Valley vegetable growers, who say they were
victimized by a New York food conglomerate's systematic fraud and
deception, have turned to the legal system for help.

The farmers, who lost millions of dollars, have filed a class action
suit against New York-based Pro-Fac Cooperative, Inc. (Nasdaq: PFACP)
and others for their misdeeds and calculated mismanagement of the
Salem-based subsidiary, AgriFrozen.

"I lost sleep, trust and most of my retirement fund," said Bob
Dettwyler of Blue Line Farms, lead plaintiff in the case. "Many of my
neighbors and fellow farmers lost a lot more and some could lose their
farms."

According to the farmers, Pro-Fac came into the Willamette Valley via
its subsidiary AgriFrozen under false pretense by offering a fair and
full price for the vegetable growers' crops.

Instead, through a series of material omissions, they fraudulently
induced the local growers into entering crop contracts and stock
security agreements, and then took the farmers' crops, and refused to
pay them the fair value of the crops and the stock.

The suit further alleges that Pro-Fac then fled back to New York and
slammed the door behind by closing down their Oregon frozen food
processing operations.

"At this point the farmers only recourse to proving what they allege,
is to have a court pry open the New York conglomerate's records and to
allow us to conduct a thorough investigation," explained Mike Williams,
co-counsel for the farmers.

"That is exactly what we are asking an Oregon judge to do," he said.

In a move to protect itself from being held accountable, AgriFrozen
recently filed for bankruptcy in a New York court.

The farmer's class action asks for a recovery of all crop and stock
losses, including economic damages of $50 million.


STRATOS LIGHTWAVE: Marc Henzel Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Marc S. Henzel lodged a securities class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf all persons who acquired Stratos Lightwave, Inc.
(Nasdaq: STLW) securities between June 27, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

Named as defendants in the complaint are Stratos Lightwave and the
following executive officers of Stratos Lightwave: James W. McGinley
and David A. Slack.

The complaint also names as defendants the following underwriters of
Stratos Lightwave's initial public offering:

     (1) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     (2) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc.,

     (3) CIBC World Markets, Inc., and

     (4) Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.

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 Stratos Lightwave's
initial public offering of 8.75 million shares of common stock at
$21.00 per share that was completed on or about June 27, 2000.

The complaint alleges 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 Stratos
         Lightwave 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 Stratos Lightwave 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


TERRA NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Commences S.D. New York Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf all persons who acquired Terra Networks, S.A.
(Nasdaq: TRLY) securities between November 19, 1999 and December 6,
2000.

Named as defendants in the complaint are Terra Networks and the
following officers and directors of Terra Networks:

     (1) Juan Villalonga Navarro,

     (2) Juan Perea Saenz de Buruaga,

     (3) Cesareo Alierta Izuel,

     (4) Juan Rovira de Ossa,

     (5) Alberto Cortina de Alcocer,

     (6) Alejandro Junco de la Vega,

     (7) Francisco Moreno de Alboran,

     (8) Nelson P. Sirotsky,

     (9) Jose Maria Mas Millet and

    (10) Antonio de Esteban Quintana.

The complaint also names as defendants the following underwriters of
Terra Networks' initial public offering:

     (i) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

    (ii) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

   (iii) J.P. Morgan & Co., and

    (iv) Lehman Brothers, Inc.

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 Terra Networks' initial
public offering of 24,929,918 Ordinary Shares in the form of Ordinary
Shares or American Depositary Shares at $13.41 per share that was
completed on or about November 19, 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 Terra
         Networks 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 Terra Networks shares in
         the after-market at pre-determined prices.

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


THEGLOBE.COM: Cauley Geller Starts Securities Suit In S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed recently a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of TheGlobe.com, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: TGLO)
securities during the period between November 12, 1998 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants TheGlobe.com, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc.,
Michael Egan, Todd Krizelman, Stephen Paternot and Frank Joyce 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 November 12, 1998, TheGlobe.com commenced an initial public
offering of 3.1 million of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $9.00 per share.

In connection therewith, TheGlobe.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:

     (1) 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 Bear Stearns 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 details, contact: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP through
its Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
1-888-551-9944 (toll free) or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com


TICKETS.COM: Marc Henzel Brings 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 Tickets.com, Inc. (Nasdaq:
TIXX) securities between November 3, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

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

     (i) Ian Sym-Smith,

    (ii) W. Thomas Gimple,

   (iii) John M. Markovich,

    (iv) Michael R. Rodriquez,

     (v) James A. Caccavo,

    (vi) Christos M. Cotsakos,

   (vii) William E. Ford,

  (viii) Howard L. Morgan,

    (ix) Irvin E. Richter, and

     (x) Nicholas E. Sinacori.

The complaint also names as defendants the following underwriters of
Tickets.com's initial public offering:

     (a) Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated,

     (b) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (c) SG Cowen Securities Corporation,

     (d) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Online Inc.,

     (e) E*Offering Corp., and

     (f) Wit Capital Corporation

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 Tickets.com's initial
public offering of 6,700,000 shares of common stock at $12.50 per share
that was completed on or about November 3, 1999.

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

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

     (2) 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 Tickets.com shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined 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


UNDERWRITERS LITIGATION: Stull Stull Sues Several IPO Underwriters
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed recently class action lawsuits against
several IPO underwriters, using as supporting documents recent articles
that have appeared in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal
about investigations by the United States Justice Department and the
Securities and Exchange Commission into the manipulation of IPOs.

Among the underwriters named as defendants are:

     (i) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,

    (ii) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

   (iii) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

    (iv) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

     (v) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,

    (vi) BancBoston Robertson, Stephens, Inc., and

   (vii) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

The lawsuits allege that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing and selling common stock pursuant to the IPOs 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 complaints allege that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated 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 IPO stock rocketed upward
(a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and
did) drive the 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.

Among the stocks alleged to have been manipulated were the shares of
the following:

     (i) Aether Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: AETH) for the class period
         between October 21, 1999 and June 15, 2001, inclusive;

    (ii) Digitas, Inc. (NASDAQ: DTAS) for the class period between
         March 13, 2000 and June 26, 2001, inclusive;

   (iii) Drkoop.com, Inc. (OTC BB: KOOP) for the class period between
         June 8, 1999 and December 6, 2000; and

    (iv) Drugstore.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: DSCM) for the class period
         between July 28, 1999 and June 15, 2001, inclusive.

For more information, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. by calling 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


* Compromise In Patients' Bill Of Rights To Eliminate 'Class Actions'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A close study of the compromise proposal to the Patients' Bill of
Rights, which the House of Representatives endorsed recently, would
seem to indicate that the concern fueling the White House's objections
to earlier versions was based on the prospect of insurers' facing
costly lawsuits, The Wall Street Journal said recently.

According to the report, the "compromise" addressed the White House's
concerns because rather than expanding the right to sue for all
patients, the compromise would now override the efforts of some states
to enact their own patient protections and also would eliminate future
class action suits.

This kind of suits have become a powerful vehicle in recent years
enabling people of meager funds to participate in the legal system and
claim rights for which, otherwise, they might only window-shop.

The newspaper said the compromise could derail more than two-dozen
pending suits seeking national class action status in U.S. District
Court in Miami.

One batch of those suits, filed on behalf of physicians nationwide,
accuses health-maintenance organizations of civil racketeering and
conspiracy to cut industry costs by reducing and delaying payments to
doctors.

Separately, another dozen class actions on behalf of HMO subscribers
nationwide could be similarly derailed, possibly working the
deprivation of participation in the legal system already described
above.

These class action lawsuits accuse the industry of fraud by using
hidden financial incentives and penalties to providers to drive down
the amount of care patients receive.



                          *********

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  * * *