CAR_Public/010808.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, August 8 2001, Vol. 3, No. 154

                           Headlines


AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit v. Underwriters
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Antitrust Suit Against American Airlines Dismissed
AVANEX CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
CEM CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Shareholders Suit In W.D. NC
CRITICAL PATH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York

DELANO TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
DUPONT PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Coumadin Lawsuits For $44.5 Million
FIREPOND INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
GREENMOUNTAIN.COM: Lawsuit Over Misleading Rates Gets Certification
LIQUID AUDIO: Cauley Geller Starts Securities Suit In S.D. New York

MEDIAPLEX INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Suit Against Three Underwriters
MEDICALOGIC INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
MODEM MEDIA: Schiffrin & Barroway Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Starts Paying $13.5M Settlement In Second Quarter
ONVIA.COM: Announces Plan To Mount Defense v. Securities Suits In NY

PRUCO LIFE: Sales Practices Actions Down From December's 109
THEGLOBE.COM: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. New York
STORAGENETWORKS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files NY Securities Suit
UNDERWRITERS LITIGATION: Lovell, Others Sue Several IPO Underwriters
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Cohen Milstein Files Consumer Law Violation Suit


                           *********


AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit v. Underwriters
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP lodged Monday a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Airspan Networks
Inc. (NASDAQ: AIRN) between July 19, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, against defendants Credit Suisse First
Boston Corporation and Lehman Brothers 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 July 19, 2000, Airspan commenced an initial public offering
of 5,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $15
per share.

In connection therewith, Airspan 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:

     (1) 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 Airspan shares issued in
         connection with the Airspan IPO; and

     (2) Defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby
         Defendants agreed to allocate Airspan shares to those
         customers in the Airspan IPO in exchange for which the
         customers agreed to purchase additional Airspan 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: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Phone: 800/320-5081 by E-mail: airspancase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: www.milberg.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Antitrust Suit Against American Airlines Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge recently dismissed a class action lawsuit brought
against American Airlines by travel agents in Latin America and the
Caribbean, who alleged that the company conspired with three other
airlines based in the United States and an industry trade association
to reduce their commissions to a 7-percent flat rate.

Contending that U.S. antitrust laws were not intended to regulate
competition in foreign economies, Dechert attorneys representing
American Airlines argued in a motion to dismiss that the federal courts
lack subject matter jurisdiction.

Partners Robert C. Heim, Jennifer R. Clarke and George Gordon
represented American Airlines in the suit, Turicentro S.A. v. American
Airlines et al.

In a 12-page memorandum, U.S. District Judge J. Curtis Joyner agreed
with Dechert's argument, saying that -- even if the allegations in the
suit were true -- there was no violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act
because "generally speaking, American antitrust laws do not regulate
the competitive conditions of other nations' economies."

The Sherman Act, Joyner wrote, "does reach conduct outside our borders,
but only when the conduct has an effect on American commerce."

Furthermore, Joyner said, the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act
(FTAIA) of 1982 placed clear limits on the geographic scope of U.S.
antitrust law.

Even if the alleged illegal conduct had taken place in the U.S., Joyner
wrote that, "nowhere in their complaint do they aver that these effects
have been felt on American soil."

The suit's named plaintiffs -- travel agents located in San Jose,
Calif., Costa Rica and Managua, Nicaragua -- "must look to the laws of
the Caribbean and Latin America for redress in this case and we
therefore find that this court lacks the requisite subject matter
jurisdiction to hear this matter," Joyner concluded.

Attorneys Joseph C. Kohn, Robert J. LaRocca and William E. Hoese of
Kohn Swift & Graf filed the suit against the International Air
Transport Association and four U.S. airlines -- Delta, American, United
and Continental.

Other defendants in the suit were: Delta, represented by attorney
Francis P. Newell of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads; United,
represented by attorney Richard J. Favretto of Mayer Brown & Platt; and
IATA, represented by Sherry A. Swirsky of Schnader Harrison Segal &
Lewis.


AVANEX CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files 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 Avanex Corporation (Nasdaq: AVNX)
securities between February 3, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

Named as defendants are Avanex, certain of its officers and directors,
and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Avanex common stock pursuant to the
February 3, 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 Avanex 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 Avanex stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Avanex'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: at 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


CEM CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Shareholders Suit In W.D. NC
------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, PC lodged recently a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
against CEM Corporation, Michael J. Collins, Ronald A. Norelli, John L.
Chanon and George F. Krall, on behalf of all CEM shareholders who
received $11.15 per share as consideration for a going private merger
that was consummated on May 30, 2000.

The class action lawsuit alleges, among other things, that CEM and
certain of its officers and directors violated Section 14 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and their fiduciary duties under North
Carolina law.

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made material
misrepresentations to CEM shareholders concerning CEM's business and
about the fairness of the $11.15 per share price offered as
consideration to CEM shareholders.

Plaintiff contends that as a result of defendants' wrongful acts,
shareholders were induced to approve the going private merger at a
price that was substantially below fair market value.

For more details, contact: Andrew M. Schatz, Robert A. Izard or Jeffrey
S. Nobel by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by E-mail: SN06106@aol.com or visit
the firm's Website: www.snlaw.net


CRITICAL PATH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody commenced Monday a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of Critical Path, Inc. (NASDAQ:CPTH) common stock
between March 29, 1999 and July 18, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Critical Path common stock pursuant to the
March 29, 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 Critical Path shares to
customers at the IPO price of $24 per share.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
$24, 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 Critical Path stock
rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was
intended to (and did) drive Critical Path'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 $24 IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at
inflated aftermarket prices.

On March 29, 1999, the day of the initial public offering, Critical
Path shares, which began trading at $24.00 per share, closed at $65.875
per share.

By April 13, 1999, Critical Path shares had skyrocketed to a Class
Period high of $134.875 per share.

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 Critical Path 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


DELANO TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP lodged recently 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 Delano Technology
Corporation (Nasdaq: DTEC) from February 8, 2000 through December 6,
2000, inclusive.

The suit names as defendants the following: Delano Technology and
FleetBoston Robertson Stephens.

On or about February 8, 2000 Delano Technology commenced an initial
public offering of 5,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $18 per share.

In connection therewith, Delano Technology 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:

     (1) Robertson Stephens had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which Robertson Stephens allocated to those investors material
         portions of the restricted number of Delano Technology shares
         issued in connection with the Delano Technology IPO; and

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

For further 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


DUPONT PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Coumadin Lawsuits For $44.5 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DuPont Pharmaceuticals Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of DuPont
(NYSE: DD), and Co-Chair of the Executive Committee of Counsel for
Plaintiffs, Miller Faucher and Cafferty LLP, and Goodkind Labaton
Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, announced Monday that a judge in the US District
Court for the District of Delaware has preliminarily approved a
nationwide settlement that would end all class action lawsuits in the
U.S. concerning the marketing, sale and promotion of the Company's
prescription drug Coumadinr (warfarin sodium tablets, USP) Crystalline.

None of the lawsuits involved personal injuries or claims that
Coumadinr is not a safe or effective medication.

The settlement will be supervised by the federal court in Delaware in a
consolidated legal proceeding referred to as In Re Warfarin Sodium
Antitrust Litigation.

Under the settlement, DuPont Pharmaceuticals has agreed to pay $44.5
million to U.S. consumers and third party payors to resolve their
claims that DuPont engaged in misleading marketing and promotional
practices.

DuPont Pharmaceuticals stated that it had settled without admitting any
wrongdoing in order to avoid the burden and expense of further
litigation with these plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs' counsel stated that the settlement provides substantial
benefits to, and is in the best interests of, the class members.

Plaintiffs' counsel stated that they agreed to its terms after
balancing the benefits of the settlement against the risks of continued
protracted litigation against DuPont Pharmaceuticals Company and the
likelihood of success.

Finalization of the settlement, subject to final court approval and
dismissal of all the pending class actions in the United States, is
expected in the first quarter of 2002.

DuPont Pharmaceuticals Company is a worldwide business focused on
research, development and delivery of pharmaceuticals and imaging
agents to treat unmet medical needs in the fights against HIV/AIDS,
cardiovascular disease, inflammatory diseases, cancer and neurological
diseases.

Founded in 1802, the company operates in 70 countries and has 93,000
employees.


FIREPOND INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP lodged recently 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 Firepond, Inc. (Nasdaq:
FIRE) from February 3, 2000 through December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit names as defendants: Firepond and FleetBoston Robertson
Stephens.

On or about February 3, 2000, Firepond commenced an initial public
offering of 5,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $22 per share.

In connection therewith, Firepond 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:

     (1) Robertson Stephens had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which Robertson Stephens allocated to those investors material
         portions of the restricted number of Firepond shares issued in
         connection with the Firepond IPO; and

     (2) Robertson Stephens had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby Robertson Stephens agreed to allocate Firepond shares
         to those customers in the Firepond IPO in exchange for which
         the customers agreed to purchase additional Firepond 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


GREENMOUNTAIN.COM: Lawsuit Over Misleading Rates Gets Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny County Judge Robert Horgos recently approved a class action
lawsuit brought by Mark B. Aronson of Churchill, a suburb of
Pittsburgh, against Greenmountain.com, a Texas electric company, over
its misleading advertised rates, the Associated Press reported.

Judge Horgos's ruling allows Aronson to sue Greenmountain for
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for himself and thousands
of other electricity customers in Pennsylvania.

The plaintiff was among thousands of Pennsylvania residents who
participated in the state's Electric Choice Program.

Under this program, Aronson switched to Austin, Texas-based
Greenmountain.com, a company that markets electricity generated from
the wind and other renewable sources.

At first, says Aronson in the lawsuit, he relied on Greenmountain's
advertised rates.

However, Aronson states that Greenmountain misled customers by
advertising a rate comparison chart that omitted state taxes from its
rates.

Since the taxes were added to the rates listed for the other competing
utilities, Greenmountain's rates were misleadingly attractive, asserts
the lawsuit.

The lawsuit further alleges that the overstatement of Greenmountain's
savings was an unfair or deceptive business practice, which violated
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

The law allows recovery of actual damages resulting from violation of
the statute.  The court also can award up to three times the actual
damages, plus additional relief.

Greenmountain has agreed to pay the state $100,000 to settle misleading
advertising claims.  And, Greenmountain has agreed to clarify its rates
and tell consumers how to switch to other suppliers.


LIQUID AUDIO: Cauley Geller Starts Securities Suit In S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Liquid Audio, Inc. (Nasdaq: LQID) securities
during the period between July 8, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

     (1) Liquid Audio,

     (2) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     (3) BancBoston Robertson Stephens,

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

     (5) Gerald W. Kearby,

     (6) Gary J. Iwatani,

     (7) Philip R. Wiser,

     (8) Ann Winblad,

     (9) Silvia Kessel,

    (10) Sanford R. Climan and

    (11) Eric Robison

On or about July 8, 1999, Liquid Audio commenced an initial public
offering of 4.2 million of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $15.00 per share.

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

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

     (i) the Underwriter Defendants (Lehman Brothers, Robertson
         Stephens and Piper Jaffray) 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
         Liquid Audio shares issued in connection with the Liquid Audio
         IPO; and

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

For more 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


MEDIAPLEX INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Suit Against Three Underwriters
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed late last week a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Mediaplex,
Inc. (NASDAQ:MPLX) between November 19, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendants Lehman Brothers, Inc.,
BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Incorporated.

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

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

     (1) 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

     (2) 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 information, 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: mediaplexcase@milbergNY.com or visit
the firm's Website: www.milberg.com


MEDICALOGIC INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP recently lodged a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired MedicaLogic, Inc.
(NASDAQ: MDLI) securities between December 13, 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 MedicaLogic and the following
executive officers of MedicaLogic: Mark K. Leavitt and Frank J. Spina.

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

     (1) Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation,

     (2) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (3) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc., and

     (4) DLJDIRECT 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 MedicaLogic's initial
public offering of 5.9 million shares of common stock at $17.00 per
share that was commenced on or about December 13, 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 MedicaLogic 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 MedicaLogic 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 numerous
initial public offerings that were 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 or by E-mail: MDLI@bernlieb.com


MODEM MEDIA: Schiffrin & Barroway Begins 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 Modem Media, Inc.
(Nasdaq: MMPT) from February 5, 1999 through December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The suit names as defendants: Modem Media, FleetBoston Robertson
Stephens Inc., and Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.

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.

In connection therewith, Modem Media 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:

     (1) 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

     (2) 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: 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


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Starts Paying $13.5M Settlement In Second Quarter
--------------------------------------------------------------------
World's largest carpet maker Mohawk Industries started paying $13.5
million beginning second quarter this year as part of a deal settling
two antitrust suits pending in Georgia.

A recent SEC regulatory document revealed that the payment was part of
an agreement that received final court approval last February.

The final nod covers only the settlement of a 1995 price-fixing suit
lodged by purchasers of polypropylene carpet.

The 1998 suit filed by a class of purchaser of nylon carpet is under
negotiation, the report said.

Both suits are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

"The Company denies all liability and wrongdoing and has agreed to
settle these claims in order to avoid the costs of further litigation,"
the SEC report said.

Mohawk is the second-largest maker of commercial and residential
carpets and rugs in the US and one of the largest carpet makers in the
world.

The company produces a broad line of carpets in a range of prices under
such names as Mohawk, Aladdin, American Weavers, Karastan, and Bigelow.


ONVIA.COM: Announces Plan To Mount Defense v. Securities Suits In NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Onvia.com Inc. bared recently plans to vigorously defend itself against
pending securities class action in New York.

The Company claims in its recent report to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the suits have no merits.

Several persons who acquired securities of the Company between March 1,
2000 and December 6, 2000 filed the lawsuits in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

They charge the Company and its officers with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.

The complaints allege that the Registration Statement and Prospectus
were false and misleading because they failed to disclose that:

     (1) the agreements between CSFB and certain investors to provide
         them with significant amounts of restricted Onvia shares in
         the IPO in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions;
         and

     (2) the agreements between CSFB and certain customers under which
         the underwriters would allocate shares in the IPO to those
         customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase
         Onvia shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.

"No lead plaintiff has been appointed and a consolidated complaint has
not yet been filed," the Company said.

Onvia is an online marketplace for such business supplies and services
as Internet access and credit cards.

The company offers 37,000 products, including computer hardware and
software and telephone systems from providers such as AT&T and
Earthlink.

Its DemandStar.com gives business sellers access to bidding on
government contracts while its Request for Quote division connects
buyers and sellers to some 54,000 suppliers in more than 100 service
categories.


PRUCO LIFE: Sales Practices Actions Down From December's 109
------------------------------------------------------------
The current number of sales practices class actions the Company is left
facing is down to 61 from 109 as of March 31, Pruco Life of New Jersey
reported recently.

According to the Company, the marked decrease is attributable to the
increase in the number of plaintiffs who opted to settle with the
Company.

The Company, however, is not discounting possibilities of additional
suits to be filed by other class members who opted out of the
settlement pact.

A June 11 issue of the Class Action Reporter noted 109 sales practices
actions against the Company as of December 31, 2000.

These suits were filed by policyholders who "opted out" of the class
action settlement relating to permanent life insurance policies issued
in the United States between 1982 and 1995.


THEGLOBE.COM: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed late last week a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
TheGlobe.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: TGLO.OB) between November 12, 1998 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action alleges the following as defendants: TheGlobe.com, Bear
Stearns & Co. Inc., Michael Egan, Todd Krizelman, Stephen Paternot and
Frank Joyce, and is pending in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York.

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 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 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 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 additional information, 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: theglobecase@milbergNY.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com


STORAGENETWORKS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP commenced recently 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 StorageNetworks,
Inc. (Nasdaq: STOR) from June 30, 2000 through December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The suit names as defendants: Goldman Sachs & Co., Credit Suisse First
Boston Corporation and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

On or about June 30, 2000 StorageNetworks commenced an initial public
offering of 9,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $15 per share.

In connection therewith, StorageNetworks 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:

     (1) 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 StorageNetworks shares
         issued in connection with the StorageNetworks IPO; and

     (2) Defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby
         Defendants agreed to allocate StorageNetworks shares to those
         customers in the StorageNetworks IPO in exchange for which the
         customers agreed to purchase additional StorageNetworks 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: 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


UNDERWRITERS LITIGATION: Lovell, Others Sue Several IPO Underwriters
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart, LLP and other firms filed a class action lawsuit last
week on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased between August
1, 1998 and August 1, 2001 Internet Infrastructure HOLDRs, Exodus
Communications, Inc (Nasdaq:EXDS), Inktomi Corp. (Nasdaq:INKT), Vitria
Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq:VITR), Software.com, and E.piphany, Inc.
(Nasdaq:EPNY); as well as other internet and technology companies whose
prices were inflated) by research reports issued by the following
defendants:

     (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,

     (2) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

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

     (4) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,

     (5) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. or

     (6) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

The action, Theresa T. Fadem Trust v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,
et al., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, Docket No. 01-CV-7161 (KMW), and has been assigned to the
Hon. Kimba M. Wood, U.S. District Judge.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11 and 12(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder and the common
law of the State of New York and seeks to recover damages.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by artificially inflating the prices of Class Securities, to
defendants' benefit, by systematically issuing research reports
(including favorable "buy" recommendations) which contained the same
uniform omissions of material facts, including:

     (i) the alleged material fact that the internal operations of
         defendants effectively mandated that defendants' analysts
         issue a favorable recommendation as an adjunct to defendants'
         obtaining (and their analysts' directly or indirectly sharing
         in) investment banking fees and other fees and business from
         the issuer of a Class Security; and

    (ii) the alleged material fact that defendants and their employees,
         including analysts, frequently acquired shares of class
         securities at a fraction of the price that public investors
         later paid therefor and would profit from research reports
         that enabled the analyst, his or her employer, and his or her
         co-workers to sell their holdings at generally higher prices.

The complaint also alleges that defendant Merrill Lynch 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 Internet Infrastructure HOLDRs offering
failed to disclose that the prices of the HOLDRs constituent securities
had been artificially inflated by defendants' misleading research
reports and recommendations as set forth above.

For more information, contact: Lovell & Stewart, LLP by Mail: 500 Fifth
Avenue New York, New York 10110


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Cohen Milstein Files Consumer Law Violation Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC filed a class action lawsuit in
the Pierce County Superior Court, Washington, on behalf of borrowers
for whom Bank United performed mortgage loan servicing.

The complaint alleges defendants engaged in deceptive, unfair and
oppressive business practices directed at mortgage loan borrowers, and
breached the mortgage loan contracts that govern their mortgage loan
servicing transactions.

These practices include failing to post payments received from
borrowers in a timely fashion and then charging the borrower a "late
charge" and additional interest; imposing improper "property
inspection" charges; and failing to respond to borrower complaints or
remove improper charges assessed on borrowers.

The complaint seeks an order that defendants pay back profits
improperly derived from deceptive and unfair business practices, and
that those amounts be distributed to those who have been harmed.

The complaint charges Washington Mutual, Inc. (NYSE:WM), Bank United
Corporation and Bank United of Texas, FSB with violations of the
Washington Consumer Protection Act, breach of contract, and breach of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Washington Mutual, Inc. acquired Bank United Corporation and its wholly
owned subsidiary, Bank United of Texas, FSB, on February 8, 2001.

Bank United operates one of the 25 largest residential mortgage loan
servicing business in the United States.

As of September 30, 1999, Bank United's single-family mortgage
servicing portfolio totaled $30.9 billion.

For more details, contact: Tamara Driscoll by Phone: 888/240-1238 or
206/521-0080 or Lisa M. Mezzetti of the firm's Washington D.C. office
at 888/240-0775 or 202/408-4600 or by E-mail: tdriscoll@cmht.com or
lmezzetti@cmht.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  * * *