CAR_Public/010813.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, August 13, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 157
                             
                              Headlines


AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Files Lawsuit in S.D. CA
AUDI OF AMERICA: Recalls Fuel Gauges for Second Time
CHRONIMED INC: Berman DeValerio Files MN Securities Suit
DIGITAL RIVER: Schiffrin & Barroway File Lawsuit in S.D. NY
DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Finkelstein Thompson Files Suit in S.D. NY

EQUINIX INC: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
EQUINIX INC: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
INNER CITY: McCallion & Associates File Shareholder Suit in NY
MATRIXONE INC: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MATRIXONE INC: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY

NETSILICON INC: Charles Priven Files Securities Lawsuit
SCHERING-PLOUGH: PAL Suit Disputes Efficacy, Deceptive Ads
SCIQUEST.COM INC: Milberg Weiss Sues Investment Banks
TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Berman deValerio Files CA Fraud Suit
US WIRELESS: Berman DeValerio Files CA Securities Suit
VICINITY CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files NY Securities Suit


                               *****


AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Files Lawsuit in S.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss (http://www.milberg.com/amylin/)filed a class  
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Amylin
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMLN - news) stock during the
period between February 8, 2000 and July 25, 2001.

Persons who wish to serve as lead plaintiff must move the Court
no later than 60 days from today.

The complaint charges Amylin and its Chief Executive Officer with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Amylin is
engaged in the discovery, development and commercialization of
potential drug candidates for the treatment of metabolic
disorders. On July 25, 2001, the Food and Drug Administration
released medical and statistical reviews regarding Amylin's
diabetes drug pramlintide acetate (SYMLIN) prior to an FDA
Advisory Committee Meeting scheduled for July 26, 2001. This
review cited major concerns regarding the safety and lack of
efficacy of SYMLIN.

The review stated there were major adverse events upon treatment
with SYMLIN and an alarming number of patients that had life
altering events relating to hypoglycemia (low blood glucose
level), including major trauma, accidents and death, many of
which apparently were concealed from the safety database, making
this database unreliable to the FDA. The complaint alleges this
hypoglycemic side effect was particularly surprising to the FDA
and investors, as the Company all along had claimed that one
advantage of SYMLIN over insulin was that it did not increase the
risk of hypoglycemia.

>From an efficacy standpoint, the medical review stated that the
clinical trials deviated from good medical practice because
during the studies a constant insulin dose was maintained in the
patient, and therefore, the data provided little insight to which
patients, if any, would benefit from SYMLIN or how it should be
used. The public announcements and statements made during the
Class Period were materially false and misleading when issued in
that they falsely portrayed Amylin as a growing, successful,
well-managed, law-abiding, well-controlled company, and a leader
of its industry, and that it had a highly effective drug, SYMLIN.

These public announcements and statements did not make full,
complete and timely disclosure of Amylin's fraudulent illegal
practices and failed to correct false and misleading statements
made prior to July 25, 2001, in that they failed to disclose the
following material adverse information:

     (a) Amylin had been concealing materially negative
information from the FDA which would render FDA approval of
SYMLIN impossible;

     (b) the actual study showed that SYMLIN was causing a four-
fold increase in hypoglycemia-related events in patients as
compared to a placebo;

     (c) in Type 1 diabetics, SYMLIN was reducing the patients'
ability to recognize hypoglycemia;

     (d) contrary to the Company's repeated statements that
SYMLIN had no additional risk for hypoglycemia, SYMLIN was
showing that it did create additional risk;

     (e) the treatment and control arms of the SYMLIN study were
manipulated in order to create the appearance of SYMLIN's
efficacy, and SYMLIN's purported efficacy was not based on a full
battery of applicable statistical analyses/tests, including
factoring in the variances in doses; and

     (f) the results of the SYMLIN study actually favored
treatment with insulin alone.

For more information on this action, contact William Lerach of
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, 800/449-4900,
wsl@milberg.com.


AUDI OF AMERICA: Recalls Fuel Gauges for Second Time
----------------------------------------------------
One year after a failed recall and a class action suit filed by
two Pennsylvania law firms, Audi of America, Inc. has issued a
second recall campaign to fix fuel gauge malfunctions in certain
1998, 1999, and 2000 Audi A-6 Quattro models. More than 68,000
vehicles are affected.

The Ambler-based law firm of Kimmel & Silverman, P.C., which
specializes in automobile lemon law, and the Philadelphia-based
firm of Berger and Montague filed papers last year in the Court
of Common Pleas, Montgomery County. According to court papers,
Audi Quattro owners found their cars running out of gas despite
the fact that their fuel gauge read at least half full. Last
year, an Audi corporate representative and certified mechanic
admitted tank sensors are the culprit and revealed in deposition
testimony that a repair has yet been devised to effectively
repair the problem.

Less than two weeks after the case was filed, Audi issued an
initial recall and replaced fuel gauge components in 32,000
vehicles. In a letter written to Kenneth Weinstein of the
National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Audi's Director of Technical Service, Kip Kriigel, admitted that
in some states, the recall proved to be unsuccessful. "Audi has
found the rate of malfunction of the Recall parts in the United
States has varied from region to region. In some states, the rate
was found to be higher than in other states."

Kriigel attributed the problem to elemental sulfur, "a highly
reactive substance which was not detected by tests currently
employed in the petroleum industry." Kriigel wrote that "tests
conducted by Audi have confirmed that the operation of the
vehicle with fuel containing even as little as one part elemental
sulfur could cause recall Parts to malfunction."

Kriigel said Audi will correct the problem with a second recall
by installing fuel sensors composed of gold, silver and a small
amount of nickel. Audi is planning to install this alloy in the
32,000 cars originally recalled; plus 11,000 vehicles which never
received the recalled part; and 25,084 vehicles manufactured with
the recalled part.

"It appears that Audi has finally resolved the problem after
recognizing last year's unsuccessful first attempt," says
Consumer advocate and attorney Craig Thor Kimmel, managing
partner of Kimmel & Silverman.

The letter indicated that Audi owners will be notified of the
second recall this summer. As of the date of this release, there
is no recall information on Audi or NHTSA's websites.

Prior to their most recent announcement, Audi had suggested
drivers measure the distance driven in their Quattros between
fill-ups, rather than rely on their gas gauge.

For more information on the Audi A-6 Quattro recall, consumers
can call Audi customer service at 1-800-822-2834. Owners and
lessees of 1998, 1999, and 2000 Quattro models who have
experienced similar problems can also log onto www.lemonlaw.com
or call Kimmel & Silverman at 1-800-Lemon-Law (800-536-6652) for
more information.


CHRONIMED INC: Berman DeValerio Files MN Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action accuses Chronimed Inc. (Nasdaq: CHMD)
with issuing false and misleading information to shareholders,
according to the law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt
& Pucillo.

The lawsuit was filed June 28 in the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota and is filed as 01-CV-1175 dsd/jmm.
The case is pending before the Hon. David S. Doty. It seeks
damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of
all investors who bought Chronimed stock between October 27, 1999
and June 13, 2001.

Berman DeValerio has represented investors in class actions for
nearly two decades. To review the complaint and learn more about
becoming a lead plaintiff, visit our Website at
www.bermanesq.com.

The complaint accuses Chronimed, a Minnetonka-based
pharmaceutical and patient management services company, of
issuing false and misleading financial statements to the
investing public during the Class Period. Throughout that period,
the company said it had consistently favorable quarterly results,
including several quarters of record revenues.

But on June 14, 2001, the company announced that it intended to
restate its results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2000 and
for the three subsequent quarters because it had overstated its
overall revenue, earnings and accounts receivable during those
periods. Chronimed said that the computer accounting system at
its StatScript retail pharmacy chain allowed certain
prescriptions to be recorded as revenue more than once. The
company said it believed the adjustments would be material and
suspended its previous guidance on financial performance.

The Nasdaq National Stock Market quickly halted all trading in
Chronimed stock following the announcement, which contradicted
much of the information the company had provided to the market
during the period covered by the complaint. When trading resumed
on June 22, 2001, the value of Chronimed's stock fell to a close
of $4.75 a share, 49 percent less than the $9.35 a share it had
traded for at the time of the halt.

Persons who purchased Chronimed common stock during the period of
October 27, 1999 through June 13, 2001 may wish to apply to be
lead plaintiff in this action and file a motion with the court no
later than August 14, 2001.

For more information, contact Chauncey D. Steele IV, Esq. or
Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt &
Pucillo at One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109,
law@bermanesq.com, (800) 516-9926.


DIGITAL RIVER: Schiffrin & Barroway File Lawsuit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10007 on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Digital
River, Inc. (Nasdaq: DRIV) from August 11, 1998 through December
6, 2000, inclusive against the following defendants:

     * Digital River
     * FleetBoston Robertson Stephens
     * Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., and
     * Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation.

Robertson Stephens, Bear Stearns and Credit Suisse are referred
to herein as the "Underwriter Defendants".

On or about August 11, 1998, Digital River commenced an initial
public offering of 3,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $8.50 per share. In connection therewith,
Digital River filed a registration statement, which incorporated
a prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint alleges that the
Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed
to disclose, among other things, that:

     (i) The Underwriter Defendants had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those
investors material portions of the restricted number of Digital
River shares issued in connection with the Digital River IPO; and

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

Members of the class described above may, not later than October
8, 2001, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.  
For more information, contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Marc A.
Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq.) at Three Bala Plaza East,
Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or
1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com.


DRUGSTORE.COM INC: Finkelstein Thompson Files Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
On July 23, 2001, Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran filed 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 drugstore.com, Inc., (Nasdaq: DSCM) certain of its
officers, and its underwriters who are accused of illegally
misleading investors.

The class action, captioned Exelbert v. drugstore.com, Inc. and
Morgan Stanley, seeks damages under federal securities laws for
anyone who bought drugstore.com stock between July 27, 1999 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and
misleading because it contained material misrepresentations and
omissions about:

     (i) Morgan Stanley's agreements with customers whereby
Morgan Stanley had solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions in exchange for an allocation of
drugstore.com shares issued in connection with the initial public
offering; and

     (ii) Morgan Stanley had entered into agreements with
customers whereby Morgan Stanley would allocate drugstore.com
shares issued in connection with the initial public offering in
exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
drugstore.com shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

Investors who purchased drugstore.com securities during the class
period may apply to be lead plaintiff in this action. For more
information, contact Andrew J. Morganti with Finkelstein,
Thompson & Loughran, toll-free at 888-333-4409, or at 202-337-
8000. You may learn more about Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran
at http://www.ftllaw.com.


EQUINIX INC: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP
announces that a class action lawsuit was filed on August 8,
2001, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Equinix, Inc.
(NASDAQ: EQIX) between August 10, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from
the Court, or can be viewed on Milberg Weiss' website at:
http://www.milberg.com/equinix/

The action is pending in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY 10007, against the following defendants:

     * Equinix
     * Goldman Sachs & Co.
     * Salomon Smith Barney
     * Lehman Brothers, Inc.
     * Peter F. Van Camp
     * Albert M. Avery, IV and
     * Philip J. Koen.

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 August 10, 2000, Equinix commenced an initial public
offering of 20,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $12 per share. In connection therewith, Equinix
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) Goldman Sachs, Smith Barney and Lehman had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors in exchange for which Goldman Sachs, Smith Barney and
Lehman allocated to those investors material portions of the
restricted number of Equinix shares issued in connection with the
Equinix IPO; and

     (ii) Goldman Sachs, Smith Barney and Lehman had entered into
agreements with customers whereby Goldman Sachs, Smith Barney and
Lehman agreed to allocate Equinix shares to those customers in
the Equinix IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to
purchase additional Equinix 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.

Investors who bought the securities of Equinix between August 10,
2000 and December 6, 2000 may, no later than September 28, 2001,
request court appointment as lead plaintiff. For more
information, contact attorneys Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H.
Rudman of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165, Phone
number: (800) 320-5081, Email: Equinixcase@milbergNY.com,
Website: http://www.milberg.com.


EQUINIX INC: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of 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 Equinix, Inc.
(Nasdaq: EQIX) securities during the period between August 10,
2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. A copy of the complaint
filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be
viewed on the firm's website at
http://www.classlawyer.com/pr/equinix.pdf.

The complaint charges defendants

     * Equinix
     * Goldman Sachs & Co.
     * Salomon Smith Barney Inc.
     * Lehman Brothers, Inc.
     * Peter F. Van Camp
     * Albert M. Avery, IV and
     * Philip J. Koen

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 August 10, 2000, Equinix commenced an initial public
offering of 20 million of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $12.00 per share. In connection therewith,
Equinix 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 (Goldman Sachs, Smith Barney
and Lehman) 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 Equinix shares issued in
connection with the Equinix IPO; and

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

Persons who bought the securities of Equinix between August 10,
2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, may, no later than
September 28, 2001 request court appointment as lead plaintiff.
For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau of the Client Relations Department of Cauley Geller
Bowman & Coates, LLP, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438,
Toll Free: 1-888-551-9944, E-mail: info@classlawyer.com.


INNER CITY: McCallion & Associates File Shareholder Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for a group of minority shareholders in Inner City
Broadcasting filed a suit today in New York State Supreme Court
against Inner City Broadcasting and Percy E. Sutton, the majority
shareholder. Sutton's son, Pierre, who is the President of the
Company, is also named as a defendant.

The complaint alleges minority shareholders, including named
Plaintiffs John Edmonds and David Lampell, have been denied their
corporate shareholder rights, including their right to vote, the
holding of annual meetings, the conduct of a corporate
accounting, as well as their right to their fair share of the
Company's profits.

According to the shareholders' attorney, Kenneth F. McCallion,
the complaint also alleges that Percy E. Sutton and his son
Pierre Sutton have breached their fiduciary responsibility by
engaging in numerous transactions in their role as majority
shareholders that were not in the best interest of the
shareholders. The Complaint also alleges failure to abide by a
1999 Agreement with the New York State Attorney General to
provide independently audited financial statements to the
shareholders.

For more information on this case, contact Susan W. Hynes of
McCallion & Associates LLP, New York, 646/366-0883.


MATRIXONE INC: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a
class action lawsuit August 8, 2001, on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of MatrixOne, Inc., (NASDAQ: MONE - news) between
February 29, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from
the Court, or can be viewed on Milberg Weiss' website at:
http://www.milberg.com/matrixone/

The action is pending against defendants MatrixOne, Goldman Sachs
& Co, Mark F. O'Connell and Maurice L. Castonguay, and is pending
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007.

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

On or about February 29, 2000 MatrixOne commenced an initial
public offering of 5,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $25.00 per share. In connection therewith,
MatrixOne 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) Goldman Sachs had solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
which Goldman Sachs allocated to those investors material
portions of the restricted number of MatrixOne shares issued in
connection with the MatrixOne IPO; and

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

Purchasers of the securities of MatrixOne between February 29,
2000 and December 6, 2000 may, no later than September 24, 2001
request court appointment as lead plaintiff. For more
information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman of
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165, Phone number: (800) 320-5081,
Email: matrixonecase@milbergNY.com, Website:
http://www.milberg.com.


MATRIXONE INC: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP announced a
class action has been filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
MatrixOne, Inc. (Nasdaq: MONE) securities during the period
between February 29, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. A copy
of the complaint filed in this action is available from the
Court, or can be viewed on the firm's website at
http://www.classlawyer.com/pr/matrixone.pdf.

The complaint charges defendants MatrixOne, Goldman Sachs & Co.,
Mark F. O'Connell and Maurice L. Castonguay 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 February 29, 2000,
MatrixOne commenced an initial public offering of 5 million of
its shares of common stock at an offering price of $25.00 per
share. In connection therewith, MatrixOne 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) Goldman Sachs had solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
which Goldman Sachs allocated to those investors material
portions of the restricted number of MatrixOne shares issued in
connection with the MatrixOne IPO; and

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

Persons who bought the securities of MatrixOne between February
29, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, may, no later than
September 24, 2001 request court appointment as lead plaintiff.

For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau of the Client Relations Department of Cauley Geller
Bowman & Coates, LLP, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438,
Toll Free: 1-888-551-9944, E-mail: info@classlawyer.com.


NETSILICON INC: Charles Priven Files Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. filed private securities
actions requesting class action status on behalf of purchasers of
the following securities during the following periods:

                                             Class Period
    NETsilicon, INC.
    (NASDAQ: NSIL - news)                  09/15/99-12/06/00
            
    PREVIEW SYSTEMS, INC.
    (NASDAQ: PRVW - news)                  12/07/99-12/06/00
            
    NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
    (NASDAQ: NUAN - news)                  04/12/00-12/06/00
            
    DIGITAL RIVER, INC.
    (NASDAQ: DRIV - news)                  08/11/98-12/06/00

No class has yet been certified in the above actions. For more
information, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. at
The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite
2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by email at pivenlaw1@erols.com
or by calling 410/986-0036.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: PAL Suit Disputes Efficacy, Deceptive Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
The Boston-based Prescription Access Litigation project (PAL)
announced today the filing of a class action lawsuit in New
Jersey against Schering-Plough Corp. (NYSE: SGP) for deceptive
advertising and overpricing of Claritin, America's most widely
prescribed allergy drug. Plaintiffs allege that Schering-Plough
has engaged in a campaign of misrepresentation that has
artificially increased the demand and price for the drug - a drug
that Schering-Plough's own studies have shown to be effective for
only 50% of its users.

The lawsuit was announced at a National Press Club Newsmaker news
conference. The complaint, filed in state Superior Court in New
Jersey, alleges that Schering-Plough's direct-to-consumer ads
falsely depict the benefits of its drug, Claritin, and fail to
disclose the limited efficacy of Claritin products, which also
include Claritin-D, Claritin-D 24 Hour, Claritin Syrup, and
Claritin Reditabs. The lawsuit alleges that Schering-Plough's
campaign of deceptive, unfair advertising has turned it into the
top-selling antihistamine in the U.S., with annual sales of over
$2 billion.

Last year, Schering-Plough spent $111 million on direct-to-
consumer ads promoting the allergy drug, according to PAL's
lawsuit, which says the ads consistently make a false promise:
that Claritin works for everyone. In fact, medical research
indicates that Claritin fails to provide allergy relief roughly
half the time, and performs only slightly better than a placebo,
i.e., a sugar pill.

"This is not a mere oversight," said attorney Stephen Rosenfeld,
consumer advocate and PAL spokesman. "We believe Schering-Plough
has deliberately left out any information about the drug's
efficacy, instead serving up glowing ads to push this product in
America's living rooms. This suit alleges that the ads are
misleading, incomplete, and designed to fool the public into
paying top-dollar for a drug that often as not, just doesn't
work. We see this as one of the most egregious examples of
inflating the price of a drug beyond its worth."

PAL (www.prescriptionaccesslitigation.org) was formed earlier
this year on behalf of consumer groups to combat the tactics drug
companies use to maintain artificially high prices for
prescription drugs. The Claritin litigation is the fourth filed
by PAL since April against pharmaceutical companies.

The newest PAL lawsuit notes that during the class period, about
$10 billion was spent in the US for Claritin products; a
substantial portion of which, the complaint alleges, is directly
attributable to Schering-Plough's unlawful conduct.

"This is a case about a pharmaceutical company's direct-to-
consumer advertising, and how that advertising distorted the
market. We allege that Schering-Plough induced Americans to spend
billions of dollars on Claritin in the belief that it would bring
complete allergy relief for each user. And our complaint further
alleges that that belief sprang from the false claims in Claritin
ads and the absence in the ads of information about Claritin's
true level of efficacy and that inflated sales and prices
throughout the market," noted a PAL lead attorney, Thomas M.
Sobol. "Deliberate concealment and false promises are at the
heart of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act."

Plaintiffs in the actions, members of the PAL coalition, include
Citizen Action New York, Citizen Action New Jersey, and Health
Action New Mexico, as well as individual users of the drug. The
plaintiffs are represented by: New York-based Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (www.milberg.com); Carey & Danis, LLC
of St. Louis (www.careydanis.com); and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP of San Francisco (www.lchb.com).

In April, PAL filed six lawsuits alleging that Bristol-Myers
Squibb illegally kept a generic version of BuSpar, an anti-
anxiety drug, off the market. In May, PAL filed lawsuits against
AstraZeneca and Barr Laboratories alleging price collusion over
tamoxifen, a breast cancer drug that is the most widely
prescribed anti-cancer drug in the world. In June, PAL filed
suits alleging that Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith Labs & American
Home Products entered into illegal agreements to maintain
artificially high prices of K- Dur20, potassium supplement that
is the fourth most prescribed drug among the elderly.

The Prescription Access Litigation Project was organized by
Community Catalyst (www.communitycatalyst.org), a Boston-based
nonprofit organization. PAL, comprised of more than 50 consumer
advocacy and senior citizen groups in 25 states, was formed
earlier this year to target pharmaceutical companies whose unfair
market conduct has pushed the cost of prescription drugs beyond
the reach of many U.S. consumers.


SCIQUEST.COM INC: Milberg Weiss Sues Investment Banks
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a
class action lawsuit on August 9, 2001 on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of SciQuest.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:SQST) between
November 19, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from
the Court, or can be viewed on Milberg Weiss' website at:
http://www.milberg.com/sciquest/

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY 10007, against the following defendants:

     * BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.
     * Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.
     * Goldman Sachs & Co., 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 SciQuest.com commenced an initial
public offering of 7,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $16 per share. In connection therewith,
SciQuest.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:

     (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 SciQuest.com shares issued in
connection with the SciQuest.com IPO; and

     (ii) defendants had entered into agreements with customers
whereby defendants agreed to allocate SciQuest.com shares to
those customers in the SciQuest.com IPO in exchange for which the
customers agreed to purchase additional SciQuest.com 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.

Persons who bought the securities of SciQuest.com between
November 19, 1999 and December 6, 2000 may, no later than October
8, 2001, request court appointment as lead plaintiff in this
action. For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman or
Samuel H. Rudman of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,
800/320-5081, sciquestcase@milbergNY.com, http://www.milberg.com.


TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Berman deValerio Files CA Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders are pursuing a federal class action against
Transmeta Corporation (Nasdaq: TMTA) claiming the company misled
investors about its main product, according to the law firm of
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California as c0120690 (pvt) and is pending
before Chief Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull. It seeks
damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of
all investors who bought Transmeta stock between November 7, 2000
and June 20, 2001.

Berman DeValerio has represented investors in class actions for
nearly two decades. To review the complaint and learn more about
becoming a lead plaintiff, visit the Website at
www.bermanesq.com.

The complaint accuses Transmeta and several of its top officers
with issuing false and misleading statements about its principal
product, the Crusoe line of microprocessors. According to the
lawsuit, the defendants made juiced-up claims about a
breakthrough technology that enabled the Crusoe chips to consume
less energy while delivering high performance to mobile Internet
computers. The company made these claims in documents related to
its November 7, 2000 initial public offering and throughout the
Class Period.

The false statements powered Transmeta stock to a high of $50.875
per share and enabled five of the defendants to sell 829,500
shares of their Transmeta stock for more than $10.5 million in
May 2001.

But only weeks after those sales took place, Transmeta said its
results for the second quarter of 2001 would be worse than
projected and that it would be forced to take a multimillion-
dollar inventory charge because of defective and outdated
products. The technological revolution was in fact an illusion -
Crusoe chips had significantly sacrificed performance to extend
battery life.

After the company's announcement, Transmeta stock plummeted to
$5.12 a share before closing at $5.36 a share, 89% off its Class
Period high.

Persons who purchased Transmeta common stock during the period of
November 7, 2000 through June 20, 2001 may wish to apply to be
lead plaintiff in this action and file a motion with the court no
later than August 24, 2001.

For more information, contact Leslie R. Stern, Esq., Qadir Wahid
or Jeffrey C. Block, Esq., at One Liberty Square, Boston, MA
02109, (800) 516-9926 or Jennifer S. Abrams, Esq. at 425
California Street, Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA 94104, (415)
433-3200, law@bermanesq.com.


US WIRELESS: Berman DeValerio Files CA Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action pending before a federal court in
California charges U.S. Wireless Corporation (Nasdaq: USWC) with
defrauding investors, the law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease
Tabacco Burt & Pucillo said.

The class action was filed July 17 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California as c01-2715-jcs. It
seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf
of all investors who bought U.S. Wireless stock between July 14,
1998 and May 25, 2001.

Berman DeValerio has represented investors in class actions for
nearly two decades. To review the complaint and learn more about
becoming a lead plaintiff, visit our Website at
www.bermanesq.com.

The class action charges San Ramon-based U.S. Wireless and its
former chief executive officer, Oliver Hilsenrath, with issuing
false and misleading financial statements and news releases about
the company's earnings, and covering up certain party-related
transactions. According to the complaint, the company failed to
disclose transactions that should have been made public under
both Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations. The transactions at
issue were payments of cash, stock and stock options to outside
vendors affiliated with Hilsenrath.

In a news release issued July 10, 2001, U.S. Wireless said it
would be forced to restate its fiscal 2000 filings. The company
said the restatement, among other things, would increase the net
loss for that year to $17.7 million from $11.5 million. In its
announcement, U.S. Wireless said the decision to restate was made
as a result of an investigation that found "improper
transactions.

The company also said it had "terminated Mr. Hilsenrath's
employment for cause," and had asked him to resign his board
seat.

U.S. Wireless said in another statement that an audit committee
investigation had uncovered "irregularities" related to the
payments and that the company believed the transactions "were not
disclosed as required" in SEC filings.

The Nasdaq Stock Market suspended trading of U.S. Wireless stock
on May 29. During the Class Period, the company's stock traded as
high as $46.625 per share. When Nasdaq halted trading, shares
were trading at $2.91.

Persons who purchased U.S. Wireless common stock during the
period of July 14, 1998 through May 25, 2001 may wish to apply to
be lead plaintiff in this action and file a motion with the court
no later than September 10, 2001.  For more information, contact
Leslie R. Stern, Esq. or Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. at Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, One Liberty Square,
Boston, MA 02109, (800) 516-9926 or Jennifer S. Abrams, Esq. at
425 California Street, Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA 94104, (415)
433-3200, law@bermanesq.com.


VICINITY CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files NY Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a
class action lawsuit August 9, 2001 on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Vicinity Corporation (NASDAQ:VCNT) between
February 8, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. A copy of the
complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or
can be viewed on Milberg Weiss' website at:
http://www.milberg.com/vicinity/

The action is pending in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY against defendants Vicinity, Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,
Emerick M. Woods and David Seltzer.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or
about February 8, 2000, Vicinity commenced an initial public
offering of 7,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $17.00 per share. In connection therewith,
Vicinity 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) 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 Vicinity shares issued in connection
with the Vicinity IPO; and

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

Persons who bought the securities of Vicinity between February 8,
2000 and December 6, 2000, may, no later than October 8, 2001,
request court appointment as lead plaintiff. For more
information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman of
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP at One Pennsylvania
Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165.




                             *********

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  * * *