CAR_Public/010809.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, August 9 2001, Vol. 3, No. 155

                              Headlines


AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files S.D. NY Securities Suit  
DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Sued For Illegally Reselling 'Buyback' Cars In Ohio
DELANO TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
FREEMARKETS INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
GPU ENERGY: Judge Refuses To Decertify 1999 Power Outage Lawsuit

IMANAGE INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
ITXC CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY
KANA SOFTWARE: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
KANSAS STATE: Law Enforcement Officers Sue to Join Better Pension Plan
MICROTUNE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Starts Securities Suit In S.D. NY

MORGAN STANLEY: Faces New 'Improper Conduct' Charge Over Stocks Advice
NETSILICON INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
NIKU CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
PREVIEW SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit In S.D. NY
SATX INC.: Agrees To Settle California Suit For 4 Million Warrants

SPECIAL T: Settles 'Unsolicited Fax Advertisements' Suit For $550,000
STORAGENETWORKS: Cauley Geller Brings Securities Suit In S.D. New York
TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Says Securities Suits in NY, CA Are Meritless
TUT SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Begins Securities Suit In N.D. California
WASHINGTON STATE: $500M In Damages Requested In Discrimination Suit


                              *********


AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files S.D. NY Securities Suit  
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of Airspan Networks Inc. (Nasdaq:
AIRN) from July 19, 2000 through December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The defendants in the suit include Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation and Lehman Brothers Inc.

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 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 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 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


DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Sued For Illegally Reselling 'Buyback' Cars In Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Automaker DaimlerChrysler is facing a class action suit in Ohio for
disposing "buyback" cars in the State without making the necessary
disclosure to its customers, The Beacon Journal reported.

The law firm of Young & McDowall, in filing the suit, accused the car
maker of reselling 970 buyback cars in Ohio from 1997 to 1999 without
telling its customers about the true condition of the cars.

"Ohio law requires all manufacturers to disclose in writing that a
vehicle is a repurchased lemon prior to the resale of the vehicle and
to provide to the consumer a supplemental warranty," the report said.

"With this lawsuit we hope to get Chrysler to live up to its duty to
disclose...There is law out there to protect consumers if only Chrysler
would abide by that law," the newspaper quoted plaintiff lawyer Dean
Young as saying.

Young said the Company has been engaged in this type of business
venture since 1996 and has raked in $650 million in revenues, reselling
used cars nationwide.

The suit is pending in Stark County Common Pleas Court.


DELANO TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP filed recently a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Delano Technology
Corporation (NASDAQ: DTEC) securities between February 8, 2000 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 Delano and the following
executive officers of Delano: John Foresi and Thomas Hearne.

The complaint also names as defendants the following underwriters of
Delano's initial public offering: FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.
and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, 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 Delano's initial public
offering of 5,000,000 shares of common stock at $18.00 per share that
was completed on or about February 10, 2000.

The complaint alleges that 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 Delano
         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 Delano 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 additional 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:
DTEC@bernlieb.com


FREEMARKETS INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Commenced recently a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of FreeMarkets, Inc. (Nasdaq: FMKT)
securities between December 9, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

FreeMarkets, certain of its officers and directors, and its
underwriters were named as defendants of the suit.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling FreeMarkets common stock pursuant to the
December 9, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated FreeMarkets 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 FreeMarkets stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive FreeMarkets' share price up to artificially high
levels.

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

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


GPU ENERGY: Judge Refuses To Decertify 1999 Power Outage Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Superior Court judge in Monmouth County turned down a bid by GPU
Energy to decertify a class action filed by some 480,000 customers, The
Express-Times reported.

Plaintiffs' lawyer Frank Gaudio found the decision sound since allowing
the case to go further through individual suits would be impractical
and costly for the Company.

Company counsel Walter Frankowski, however, believes the suit does not
qualify as class action.

"Our whole reason for the motion to decertify the class is that GPU did
not believe this is applicable in this type of case...there were so
many outages spread across our New Jersey territory," Frankowski said.
"Class-action suits normally involve one event."

But Gaudio says the reason for the many brownouts was the failure of
the Company to properly maintain its infrastructure -- a valid cause of
action for a class suit.

In July 1999, widespread power interruptions and outages affected
Monmouth, Warren and Hunterdon counties in New Jersey for four days
when GPU transformers in Monmouth substation failed.

The suit seeks monetary damages for losses such as spoiled food and
lost labor, the report said.


IMANAGE INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced recently a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of iManage, Inc. (NASDAQ:
IMAN) securities between November 17, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The defendants in the suit include iManage, certain of its officers and
directors, and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling iManage common stock pursuant to the
November 17, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated iManage 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 iManage stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive iManage's share price up to artificially high levels.

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

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


ITXC CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 ITXC Corp. (Nasdaq: ITXC) securities during the
period between September 27, 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) ITXC,

     (2) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     (3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, and

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

On or about September 27, 1999, ITXC commenced an initial public
offering of 6.25 million of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $12.00 per share.

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

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

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


KANA SOFTWARE: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of purchasers of Kana Software, Inc. (Nasdaq: KANA)
securities between September 21, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit names as defendants: Kana, certain of its officers and
directors, and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Kana common stock pursuant to the September
21, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated Kana 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 Kana stock rocketed upward
(a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and
did) drive Kana's share price up to artificially high levels.

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

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


KANSAS STATE: Law Enforcement Officers Sue to Join Better Pension Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for 54 law enforcement officers from five different state
agencies recently filed a lawsuit in Shawnee County District Court,
asking the judge to rule that all law enforcement officers employed by
the state must be permitted to join the Kansas Police and Firemen's
Pension Fund (KPF), the Associated Press reported.  

No date has been set for hearing the lawsuit.

As more law enforcement officers continue signing on to join the
lawsuit, the Kansas Association of Public Employees (KAPE) expects the
case will soon become a class action, covering the 290 officers it
believes should be able to join KPF.

KAPE, the largest union for state government employees and the sponsor
of the lawsuit, wants to pressure the state legislators to enact
legislation permitting all state law enforcement officers to join the
special pension plan for police and firefighters.

In fact, KAPE spokeswoman Lisa Worley said the lawsuit also was
designed to put pressure on the legislators, who will convene in
January.   

Most state employees participate in the Kansas Public Employees
Retirement System (KPERS), as do many local government employees and
public school teachers.  

These number about 150,000 active workers, with another 51,000 retirees
receiving benefits.  

This is the pension plan to which the law enforcement officers not
eligible for joining KPF belong.

KPF is a separate pension plan created in 1968 for certified police
officers and firemen.  

The Kansas state legislature, from time to time, has authorized the
enrollment of certain other law enforcement officers:  Bureau of
Investigation agents; Highway Patrol Troopers; and police officers at
state universities.   

KPF has about 6,600 active participants and provides benefits to
another 3,100 retirees.

KAPE argues that the state is a single employer, and once it elected to
allow any of its other certified law enforcement officers to join --
Kansas Bureau of Investigation agents, for example -- to join KPF, it
has to allow all certified law enforcement officials to join.   

Bruce Bertwell of Olathe, a certified law enforcement conservation
officer with the state Department of Wildlife and Parks, argued that
it's unfair to exclude officers like himself from the police and fire
plan.

There are many good reasons why officers would prefer to be in KFI.  
First, the benefits are greater, because the formula used to calculate
pensions is more generous to the employee than the KPERS formula.  

Second, KPF members can retire with full pension at age 55. KPERS
members retire with full pension at age 65, or when a person's age and
years of service add to 85.

In addition, Jack Hawn, KPERS' assistant executive director, commented
that disabled officers in KPF can receive benefits if their injuries
prevent them from working in law enforcement.  

For KPERS participants, the disability has to prevent them from working
at all.


MICROTUNE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Starts Securities Suit In S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP lodged recently a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Microtune, Inc.
(NASDAQ: TUNE) securities between August 4, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

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

Named as defendants in the complaint are the following underwriters of
Microtune's initial public offering: Goldman, Sachs & Co., Bear Stearns
& Co, Inc. and Salomon Smith Barney, 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 Microtune's initial public
offering of four million shares of common stock at $16.00 per share
that was commenced on or about August 4, 2000.

The complaint alleges that 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
         Microtune 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 Microtune shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices.

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

For more details, 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: TUNE@bernlieb.com


MORGAN STANLEY: Faces New 'Improper Conduct' Charge Over Stocks Advice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barely two weeks after being named in two class action suits,
investment bank Morgan Stanley and web analyst Mary Meeker are once
more embroiled in a suit for like charges, news agency Reuters reported
Tuesday.

Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP sued the bank for not disclosing its real
ties with Meeker.

Meeker stands accused of breaking the "Chinese Wall" -- the solid
separation that is supposed to exist and be maintained between analysts
and investment bankers, the report said.

The same law firm also filed similar suits a few weeks earlier on
behalf of individuals who purchased the stocks of Amazon.com and eBay,
Inc.

This new suit involves investors who acquired AOL shares.  

Meeker has admitted to making stock recommendations based not on
objective analysis, but on her desire to retain AOL as a Morgan Stanley
banking client.

The firm assailed the practice as improper.  Morgan Stanley called the
new suit a "stunt".

"While we have not seen the complaint, based upon media reports, we
believe the claims against Morgan Stanley and Mary Meeker are totally
meritless," the firm said in a statement.

"Morgan Stanley's research is thorough and objective. Ms. Meeker, whose
integrity is beyond reproach, is one of the most respected analysts on
Wall Street. Naming her in this suit is nothing more than a publicity
stunt to mask a flawed complaint," the firm said.


NETSILICON INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced recently a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired NETsilicon,
Inc. (NASDAQ: NSIL) securities between September 15, 1999 and December
6, 2000.

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

Named as defendants in the complaint are NETsilicon, and NETsilicon
executive officers, Cornelius Peterson VIII and Daniel J. Sullivan.

The complaint also names as defendants Osicom Technologies, Inc., the
Company's sole shareholder prior to its initial public offering and the
following underwriters of NETsilicon's initial public offering: CIBC
World Markets Corp. and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray 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 NETsilicon's initial
public offering of 5.25 million shares of common stock at $7.00 per
share that was commenced on or about September 15, 1999.

The complaint alleges that 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 NETsilicon 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 NETsilicon 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 further 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: NSIL@bernlieb.com


NIKU CORPORATION: 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 Niku Corp. (NASDAQ:
NIKU) securities between February 25, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

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

Defendants in the complaint are Niku, and Niku executive officers,
Farzad Dibachi and Mark Nelson.

The complaint also names as defendants the following underwriters of
Niku's initial public offering: Goldman Sachs & Co., Dain Rauscher
Incorporated, Thomas Weisel Partners, LLC, and U.S. Bancorp Piper
Jaffray.

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 Niku's initial public
offering of 8,000,000 shares of common stock at $24.00 per share that
was completed on or about February 25, 2000.

The complaint alleges that 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 Niku
         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 Niku 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 details, 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: NIKU@bernlieb.com


PREVIEW SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit In S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP recently lodged a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who acquired Preview Systems,
Inc. (NASDAQ: PRVW) securities between December 7, 1999 and December 6,
2000.

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

Defendants in the complaint are Preview Systems and Preview Systems
executive officers, Vincent Pluvinage and G. Bradford Solso.

The complaint also names as defendants the following underwriters of
Preview Systems' initial public offering: BancBoston Robertson
Stephens, Inc., Dain Rauscher Incorporated, and Soundview Technology
Group, 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 Preview Systems's initial
public offering of 3,800,000 shares of common stock at $21.00 per share
that was completed on or about December 7, 1999.

The complaint alleges that 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 Preview
         Systems 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 Preview Systems shares in
         the after-market at pre-determined prices.

The SEC is investigating underwriting practices in connection with
several other initial public offerings, including the offerings of VA
Linux Systems, Inc., Ariba Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc.

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: PRVW@bernlieb.com


SATX INC.: Agrees To Settle California Suit For 4 Million Warrants
------------------------------------------------------------------
SATX, Inc. has agreed to settle a 1997 class action suit currently
pending in California, the Atlanta Business Chronicle reported.

According to the report, the settlement agreement reached by the
parties involves the issuance by the Company of 4 million warrants to
be distributed to members of the class.

These warrants are exercisable at $1 over a four-year period.

The Company has also agreed to deposit $100,000 in an escrow account to
cover the "printing cost" of the lawsuit, the report said.

"SATX admits no guilt in making this settlement, but feels that this is
an equitable, no cash settlement that allows members of the class to
participate in the growth and future success of the company," said the
report.

The agreement needs final approval from the Los Angeles Superior Court.

SATX specializes in technology acquisition, market development and
licensing.


SPECIAL T: Settles 'Unsolicited Fax Advertisements' Suit For $550,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida-based Special T Travel Services, Inc. has agreed to pay
$550,000 in settlement fees and promised to never again send
unsolicited fax advertisements, reports the Fort Madison Daily Democrat
recently.

About 2,000 potential victims in Florida are in line to share $450,000
of the fee, while the remaining $100,000 will be awarded as attorney's
fees.

Unsolicited fax offers are banned by the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, which also regulates telemarketing calls, the report
said.

The settlement agreement still needs court approval.


STORAGENETWORKS: Cauley Geller Brings Securities Suit In S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of purchasers of StorageNetworks, Inc. (Nasdaq: STOR) securities during
the period between June 30, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges the following defendants with violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder:

     (1) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (2) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation and

     (3) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

On or about June 30, 2000, StorageNetworks commenced an initial public
offering of 9 million 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 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 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 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


TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Says Securities Suits in NY, CA Are Meritless
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Microprocessor maker Transmeta Corporation dismissed recently the
securities class actions pending against it in New York as meritless.

In a report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company also
said that it "intends to challenge the complaints and defend the
actions vigorously."

The report also revealed that there are at least eight suits lodged
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

These suits were filed between June 25 and August 3 this year, naming
as defendants the Company, its directors, and certain of its officers.

The report also noted a similar securities suit pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

"These complaints purport to be class actions filed on behalf of all
persons, other than the individual defendants and the other officers of
Transmeta, who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock during the period from November 7, 2000 to June 20, 2001," the
report said.

"These complaints allege various violations of federal securities law,
including violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933," the
report added.

All of the complaints allege that the defendants made materially
misleading statements or material omissions in various contexts,
including the prospectus and registration statement for the initial
public offering of the Company's common stock on November 7, 2000.

The complaints also allege that certain individual defendants
intentionally engaged in this conduct in order to inflate the value of
the Company's common stock and thereby obtain alleged illegal insider
trading proceeds.

"Transmeta currently expects that all of these actions will be
consolidated into one action and that a consolidated amended complaint
will be filed after the appointment of lead plaintiff," the Company
said in the report.

The Company has not yet made any responsive filings, and discovery has
not commenced, the report said.


TUT SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Begins Securities Suit In N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Marc S. Henzel commenced recently a class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Tut Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: TUTS) securities
during the period between July 20, 2000 and Jan. 31, 2001.

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

The complaint alleges defendants misrepresented the revenues that Tut
was deriving from its sales to small competitive local exchange
carriers which were not able to pay for the products purchased from
Tut, causing Tut's sales to be inflated and its stock price to be
artificially inflated to a Class Period high of $120.37 on August 29,
2000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact: 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


WASHINGTON STATE: $500M In Damages Requested In Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pacific Northwest chapter of the National Black Chamber of Commerce
filed suit recently in federal court against the State, King County and
the City of Seattle, alleging violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.

The group claims the defendants committed various forms of racial
discrimination in awarding of contracts, loans and grants.

The plaintiffs are seeking class action status and an award of $500
million in damages, the Associated Press reported recently.   

The lawsuit names Governor Gary Locke, King County Executive Ron Sims
and Mayor Paul Schell in addition to the governments they head.

In addition to monetary damages, the lawsuit seeks a court order
requiring the state, county and city to adopt a nondiscrimination
agreement that "sets time tables and establishes a viable pool for
African-American business people's participation in all programs" as
long as the governments involved receive federal financial assistance.

The Black Chamber of Commerce is described as a nonprofit business
trade organization dedicated to the development of African-American
business.  

The lawsuit states the chapter's members have been directly affected by
the actions alleged.


                              *********

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  * * *