CAR_Public/010814.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 14, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 158

                           Headlines


BSQUARE CORPORATION: To Defend Against NY Suits, But Unsure Of Outcome
CHUBU ELECTRIC: Air Pollution Lawsuit Settled For 1.52 Billion Yen
CONAGRA FOODS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit In Nebraska
DIGITAL ISLAND: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York
DILLARD'S INC.: Race Discrimination Lawsuit Settled for $5.6 Million

F5 NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit In S.D. New York
HERCULES INC.: Antitrust Suit In California In Early Discovery Stage
IPRINT TECHNOLOGIES: Sued In S.D. New York Over IPO Prospectus
KANA SOFTWARE: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. New York
LANDIA CHEMICAL: Chemical Firms Settle Neighborhood Pollution Suit

MEDIAPLEX INC.: Marc Henzel Commences S.D. New York Securities Suit
METLIFE INC.: Motion To Dismiss Securities Violations Suits Dismissed
METLIFE INC.: Suit Based On 'Constitutional' Grounds Dismissed
METLIFE INC.: Racial Discrimination Suits To Go On Trial By Jan. 2002
MODEM MEDIA: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. NY

NET2PHONE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit In S.D. NY
NIKE INC.: No.1 Shoemaker Sued Over False Business Prospects Claims
PROFIT RECOVERY: Motion To Dismiss Denied, Compelled To Answer Suit
RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: Johnson & Perkinson Files Lawsuit In S.D. NY
SCIQUEST.COM: Bernstein Liebhard Files S.D. New York Securities Suit

SOUTH KOREA: Economic Study Warns Of 'Class Action' Side Effects
SOUTHWALL TECHNOLOGIES: $3.75M Deal Final, Processing Until Aug. 22
TALARIAN CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
VIANT CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Transfer Motion On Delaware, Michigan Suits Pending

                ********

BSQUARE CORPORATION: To Defend Against NY Suits, But Unsure Of Outcome
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BSQUARE Corporation recently said it will mount a vigorous defense
against pending suits in New York, but it is unsure whether or not the
outcome will seriously affect its operations.

In a Securities and Exchange Commission report, the Company said the
notices of the lawsuits were served last month.

The suits name the following as defendants:

     (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (2) William T. Baxter, chairman of the board and chief executive
         officer,

     (3) Brian V. Turner, president, chief operating officer and a
         member of the board of directors,

     (4) Albert T. Dosser, a former officer and director,

     (5) Peter R. Gregory, a former officer and director,

     (6) Jeffrey T. Chambers, a member of the board of directors,

     (7) Scot E. Land, a member of the board of directors, and

     (8) William Larson, a member of the board of directors.

"We anticipate that the actions...and any additional related complaints
that may be filed, will be consolidated into a single action. We intend
to defend these actions vigorously," the report said.

"However, due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot
accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation. Any
unfavorable outcome of litigation could have an adverse impact on our
business, financial condition and results of operations," the Company
said.

The suits are awaiting resolution in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from October
19, 1999 to December 6, 2000 brought the suits, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.

BSQUARE's consumer software enables hand-held PCs to perform such tasks
as faxing and printing. BSQUARE's engineering and development services
and software enable ICD (intelligent computing devices) makers to
integrate Microsoft's Windows CE operating system into their products
such as, Internet appliances, hand-held computers, TV set-top boxes,
and gaming consoles



CHUBU ELECTRIC: Air Pollution Lawsuit Settled For 1.52 Billion Yen
------------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs and defendants in a 12-year court battle over air
pollution from factory and vehicle exhaust fumes in Nagoya ended when
10 companies announced at a recent press conference that they had
reached an out-of-court settlement with the plaintiffs, The Yomiuri
Shimbun said recently.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the companies agreed to
pay about 1.52 billion yen in compensation, and the central government
pledged to introduce antipollution measures.

The case was the last outstanding class action lawsuit on air pollution
to be settled.

The 328 plaintiffs include southern Nagoya residents recognized as
suffering respiratory and air pollution-related diseases, and families
of those who died from the diseases.

The plaintiffs, organized into three groups, sued 10 companies and the
central government. The companies sued are:

     (1) Chubu Electric Power Co.

     (2) Mitsui Chemicals Inc.

     (3) Nippon Steel Corp

     (4) Toho Gas Co.

     (5) Toray Industries Inc.                                   .

     (6) Toagosei Co.

     (7) Aichi Steel Corp.

     (8) Nichiha Corp.

     (9) Daido Steel Co.

    (10) Chubu Steel Plate Co.

Under the settlement, the companies will pay a total of 1.52 billion
yen to the plaintiffs, who will abandon their claim against the central
government.

The settlement also obliged the companies to make public the data
detailing air pollutants emitted from their factories through their
local governments.

Some of the compensation will be used to revitalize the community's
environment, which has long suffered the effects of pollution.

Typical of the initiatives that the central government will undertake
in this area, among other things, are:

     (i) The central government acknowledges that air pollution in the
         area exceeds the government environmental standard and will
         promptly implement measures to reduce carbon dioxide and
         suspended particulate matter below the acceptable level,
         according to the settlement; and

    (ii) The central government will implement, in cooperation with
         local governments, measures including a survey of traffic
         volume on National Highway 23.

The liaison panel -- composed of plaintiffs, the Construction and
Transport, and the Environment Ministries -- which will be formed to
follow implementation of antipollution measures along Highway 23, will
submit a report to the central government based on its discussions.


CONAGRA FOODS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit In Nebraska
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Nebraska on behalf of
purchasers of ConAgra Foods Inc. (NYSE: CAG) publicly traded securities
during the period between August 28, 1998 and May 23, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges ConAgra and certain of its officers and directors
with violating the federal securities laws by issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period
concerning its financial performance for the Company's fiscal years
1998, 1999 and 2000.

Throughout the Class Period, defendants issued press releases reporting
ConAgra's quarterly and year-end financial performance, and filed
reports confirming such performance with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

These statements, as alleged in the complaint, were materially false
and misleading because United Agri Products, a ConAgra subsidiary,
engaged in improper accounting throughout the Class Period, including
improperly recognizing revenue and insufficiently reserving for bad
debt.

On May 23, 2001 ConAgra issued a press release announcing that the
Company will restate its financial results for the fiscal years 1998,
1999 and 2000.

The press release revealed that ConAgra will restate revenues for the
Company's fiscal years 1998-2000, inclusive, which will be reduced by
an estimated total of $349 million.

The press release further revealed that the Company estimated that,
upon restatement, earnings per share will be reduced from $1.35 to
$1.32 for 1998, from $1.46 to $1.41 for 1999, and from $1.67 to $1.60
for 2000.

In addition, according to the press release, the Company is cooperating
with an ongoing investigation by the SEC into the matter.

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


DIGITAL ISLAND: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed late last week a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of Digital Island Corporation (NASDAQ:ISLD) common
stock between June 29, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Digital Island common stock pursuant to the
June 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 Digital Island shares to
customers at the IPO price of $10 per share.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
$10, 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 Digital Island stock
rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was
intended to (and did) drive Digital Island'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 $10 IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at
inflated aftermarket prices.

On July 2, 1999, within four days of opening for trading, Digital
Island shares more than doubled from their initial public offering
price, surging $11.25, or approximately 113%, to $21.25 on trading of
more than 25 million shares over the four-day period.

By July 16, 1999, the stock had more than tripled from the Offering
price to close at $34.00 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 Digital Island 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: 1-212-490-
2022 or by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017


DILLARD'S INC.: Race Discrimination Lawsuit Settled for $5.6 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Ortrie Smith recently gave preliminary
approval to a $5.6 million settlement of the class action lawsuit for
race discrimination, brought against Dillard's Inc. by former black
employees who had worked at several of the Dillard's stores in Kansas
and Missouri.

A final hearing on the settlement is scheduled for November 30,
according to a recent Associated Press report.

Under the terms of the settlement, affected employees of the Little
Rock, Arkansas-based company will receive $4.2 million.

The remainder of the $5.6 million will cover lawyers' fees and
litigation expenses.

About 1,000 people who worked at Dillard's stores from October 1994
through January of this year are believed to be covered by the
agreement, which Judge Smith has characterized as "sufficiently fair,
reasonable and adequate" to warrant notifying members of the class by
the end of August.

The settlement will end a lawsuit filed in 1999 by Danielle Wooten and
later consolidated with seven other claims in a class action complaint.

Former and current employees covered by the settlement class include
individuals in Columbia, Jefferson City, St. Joseph, Springfield,
Topeka, Kan., and Manhattan, Kan., and on both sides of the state line
in the Kansas City area.


F5 NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit In S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of F5 Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq:
FFIV) between June 4, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending against defendants F5 Networks, FleetBoston
Robertson Stephens and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

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

On or about June 4, 1999, F5 Networks commenced an initial public
offering of 3,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $10 per share.

In connection therewith, F5 Networks 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 F5 Networks shares issued
         in connection with the F5 Networks IPO; and

     (2) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby
         defendants agreed to allocate F5 Networks shares to those
         customers in the F5 Networks IPO in exchange for which the
         customers agreed to purchase additional F5 Networks 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 further 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


HERCULES INC.: Antitrust Suit In California In Early Discovery Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt-ridden Hercules Inc. reported recently that the antitrust suit
pending against it in California is still in discovery and early stages
of motion practice.

In its report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
also said the August 1999 suit is now consolidated with the case
captioned Thomas & Thomas Rodmakers v. Newport Adhesives and
Composites.

Accordingly, the Company is named in the suit in connection with its
former Composites Products Division, which was sold to Hexcel
Corporation in 1996.

The antitrust suit was brought by buyers of the Company's carbon fiber
and carbon prepreg, alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act for price fixing.

It is currently awaiting resolution in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The Company supplies water-treatment products and services to the pulp
and paper industry, and, through its BetzDearborn subsidiary, supplies
chemical-treatment programs for water-treatment systems installed in
industrial plants.

It also produces staple fibers used in disposable diapers and
automotive textiles.

Heavily in debt, the Company is looking for a buyer.


IPRINT TECHNOLOGIES: Sued In S.D. New York Over IPO Prospectus
--------------------------------------------------------------
iPrint Technologies, Inc. informed the Securities and Exchange
Commission recently that several of its stockholders have lodged class
action complaints in New York between June 15 and July 7 this year.

The purported class actions are all brought on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock since March 7, 2000, the date of its initial
public offering.

They allege that the Company's prospectus, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, was materially false and misleading because it
failed to disclose, among other things, that the IPO underwriters
required several investors who wanted large allocations of initial
public offering securities to pay undisclosed and excessive
underwriters' compensation in the form of increased brokerage
commissions.

In addition, the underwriters also required investors to agree to buy
shares of the Company's securities after the initial public offering
was completed at predetermined prices as a precondition to obtaining
initial public offering allocations.

The plaintiffs further allege that because of these purchases, the
Company's post-initial public offering stock price was artificially
inflated.

The plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act.

The lawsuits are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The Company anticipates that the actions and any additional related
complaints that may be filed will be consolidated into a single action.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
actions and intends to vigorously defend against them.

iPrint Technologies allows customers to design, proof, and order some
3,500 customized print products -- including cards, stationery, label,
mugs, and T-shirts -- through its retail Web site.

The company, which outsources the printing work, also offers
specialized printing and photocopying services; operates co-branded
printing Web sites with 3M, OfficeMax, and other firms; and develops
sites for third parties.


KANA SOFTWARE: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Marc S. Henzel filed class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of KANA Software, Inc. (Nasdaq: KANA)
between September 21, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action alleges the following as defendants:

     (1) KANA,

     (2) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (3) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     (4) Michael J. McCloskey,

     (5) Joseph D. McCarthy and

     (6) Mark S. Gainey

The suit 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 September 21, 1999, KANA (then called KANA Communications
Inc.) commenced an initial public offering of 3,300,000 of its shares
of its common stock at an offering price of $15 per share.

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

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

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


LANDIA CHEMICAL: Chemical Firms Settle Neighborhood Pollution Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dick Prince recently approved a $6 million settlement in a class
action lawsuit that residents had filed against chemical companies that
operated in their west Lakeland neighborhood at various times for more
than 50 years, The Tampa Tribune reports.

Defendants in the lawsuit were Landia Chemical Co.; PCS Joint Venture,
which operates the Florida Favorite Fertilizer plant; Agrico Chemical,
Micro-fl0 Corp., Standard Spray and Chemical, and several other defunct
companies.

Judge Prince appointed Lakeland lawyer Thomas Clark, Jr. to serve as a
special master to determine how much money each resident will receive.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs will receive $2.4 million, with the rest
of the money split among 1,373 current and former Westgate residents.

The lawsuit was filed in 1999, after residents learned of possible
groundwater contamination and possible health problems from chemicals
found in a ditch leading from the plants, which was found to contain
lead, arsenic and the pesticide toxaphene.

The cash will be awarded based on the value of the residents' homes,
how close residents lived to the contaminated site and how long they
resided there.

The 12-acre site was placed on the federal government's Superfund list
in 1999, and a cleanup began last year.

The Superfund is a list of the most polluted sites in the country and
qualifies a site for federal money for cleanup.

Florida Favorite Fertilizer occupies seven acres of the site and the
Landia Chemical Company formerly occupied the other five acres.

Even with the Superfund background, however, the health department and
environmental agencies diminished their assessments of the health
impact of the site on the plaintiffs.

Therefore, said Jacksonville lawyer William Moore, an attorney for the
plaintiffs, "At the end of the day, our strongest claims were the
property value rights."

Orlando lawyer Bryan McMinn, another attorney for the plaintiffs, said
there never would have been a lawsuit if not for the tireless work of
resident Sybil Conner.

"I hope everybody will be happy with it," Conner, age 60, said of the
settlement.  "It wasn't about the money to start with; it was to get
somebody to take care of a serious problem that has been let go too
many years."


MEDIAPLEX INC.: Marc Henzel Commences S.D. New York Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel lodged a securities class action
lawsuit recently in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf all persons who acquired Mediaplex,
Inc. (Nasdaq: MPLX) securities between November 19, 1999 and December
6, 2000.

Named as defendants in the complaint are Mediaplex and the following
executive officers and directors of Mediaplex:

     (1) Gregory R. Raifman,

     (2) Sandra L. Abbott,

     (3) Jon L. Edwards,

     (4) Lawrence D. Lenihan,

     (5) Peter S. Sealey,

     (6) James Desorrento, and

     (7) A. Brooke Seawell

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

     (i) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

    (ii) SG Cowen Securities Corporation,

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

    (iv) Fidelity Capital Markets, a division of National Financial
         Services Corporation

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a
Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false
and misleading information and failed to disclose material information.

The Prospectus was issued in connection with Mediaplex's initial public
offering of 6,000,000 shares of common stock at $12.00 per share that
was completed on or about November 19, 1999.

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

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

     (b) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain
         of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would
         allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for
         the customers' agreement to purchase Mediaplex shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices.

For further 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


METLIFE INC.: Motion To Dismiss Securities Violations Suits Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York recently
dismissed a motion to dismiss filed by MetLife, Inc. over suits
challenging its reorganization plan, a SEC report bared.

According to the report filed by the Company, the motion was denied
July 23.

The lawsuits were brought last year, questioning the fairness of the
plan and the adequacy and accuracy of Company's disclosure to
policyholders regarding the plan.

The suits were anchored on allegations of federal securities laws
violations.


METLIFE INC.: Suit Based On 'Constitutional' Grounds Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, plaintiffs challenging the same reorganization plan on
constitutional grounds were not as successful as those citing
violations of federal securities laws.

The purported class action lodged in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District Court was dismissed last July 9.

Plaintiffs, however, have since appealed the decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Metropolitan Life, MetLife, Inc. and the individual defendants believe
they have meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs' claims and are
contesting vigorously all of the plaintiffs' claims in this action.


METLIFE INC.: Racial Discrimination Suits To Go On Trial By Jan. 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits originally filed in various federal courts but are now
consolidated and pending in New York will go on trial January next
year.

This information was contained in a recent regulatory report filed by
MetLife, Inc. with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This consolidated suit consists of three lawsuits filed separately in
federal courts for the Eastern District of Louisiana, District of
Kansas and Southern Districts of Illinois and New York.

The suits allege racial discrimination perpetrated by the Company in
the marketing, sale, and administration of life insurance policies,
including "industrial" life insurance policies sold decades ago.

The plaintiffs in these actions seek unspecified monetary damages,
punitive damages, reformation, imposition of a constructive trust, a
declaration that the alleged practices are discriminatory and illegal,
injunctive relief requiring the Company to discontinue the alleged
discriminatory practices and adjust policy values, and other relief.

A summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds was denied last
June 27, the Company said.

Plaintiffs have moved for certification of a class consisting of all
non-Caucasian policyholders who were purportedly harmed by the
practices alleged in the complaint.

Metropolitan Life has opposed the class certification motion, but no
hearing date has yet been set.

"Metropolitan Life believes it has meritorious defenses and is
contesting vigorously plaintiffs' claims," the Company said.

MetLife is one of the largest insurers in the US, offering life and
property/casualty insurance (including home and auto coverage), as well
as savings, retirement, and other financial services for groups and
individuals.


MODEM MEDIA: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated recently a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Modem Media,
Inc. (NASDAQ: MMPT) securities between February 5, 1999 and December 6,
2000.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York the following defendants:

     (1) Gerald M. O'Connell

     (2) Steven C. Roberts

     (3) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (4) NationsBanc Montgomery Securities, LLC, and

     (5) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a
Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false
and misleading information and failed to disclose material information.

The Prospectus was issued in connection with Modem Media's initial
public offering of 2,600,000 shares of common stock at $16.00 per share
that was completed on or about February 5, 1999.

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

     (i) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors
         to provide them with significant amounts of restricted Modem
         Media 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 Modem Media shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices.

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: MMPT@bernlieb.com


NET2PHONE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit In S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP lodged recently a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Net2Phone, Inc.
(NASDAQ: NTOP) securities between July 29, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the following defendants:
Hambrecht & Quist, LLC, BT Alex. Brown Incorporated, and Bear Stearns &
Co., Inc.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a
Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false
and misleading information and failed to disclose material information.

The Prospectus was issued in connection with Net2Phone's initial public
offering of 5,400,000 shares of common stock at $15.00 per share that
was completed on or about July 29, 1999.

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

     (1) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors
         to provide them with significant amounts of restricted
         Net2Phone 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 Net2Phone shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices.

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: NTOP@bernlieb.com


NIKE INC.: No.1 Shoemaker Sued Over False Business Prospects Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
World No.1 shoemaker Nike, Inc., along with its officers and directors,
is facing a consolidated securities class action filed in Oregon early
this year.

In a report to the SEC recently, the Company revealed that the suit is
grounded on alleged false and misleading statements issued by the
Company related to its actual and expected business prospects.

This, accordingly, violated federal securities laws, the Company said.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf
of a purported class consisting of purchasers of the Company's stock
during the period December 20, 2000 through February 26, 2001.

The suit is currently awaiting resolution in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon.

"While the litigation is in a very preliminary stage, based on the
available information we do not currently anticipate that the action
will have a material financial impact.

"We believe the claims are without merit, and we intend to vigorously
defend them," the Company said.

NIKE is the world's #1 shoe company and controls more than 40% of the
US athletic shoe market.

The company designs and sells shoes for a variety of sports, including
baseball, volleyball, cheerleading, and wrestling.

NIKE operates NIKETOWN shoe and sportswear stores and is opening JORDAN
in-store outlets in urban markets (featuring the Michael Jordan brand).

NIKE sells its products throughout the US and in about 140 other
countries.


PROFIT RECOVERY: Motion To Dismiss Denied, Compelled To Answer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Profit Recovery Group International, Inc. revealed recently that it has
already answered the consolidated class action suit filed last year and
currently pending in Georgia.

According to a SEC report, the Company was compelled to answer the suit
lodged June last year after the federal court in Georgia denied its
motion to dismiss earlier this year.

The report also revealed that discovery is ongoing.

"The Company believes the alleged claims in this lawsuit are without
merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously," the report said.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company, John M. Cook, Scott L. Colabuono,
and Michael A. Lustig violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
by allegedly disseminating materially false and misleading information
about a change in the Company's method of recognizing revenue and in
connection with revenue reported for a division.

Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of a putative class of
persons who purchased the Company's stock between July 19, 1999 and
July 26, 2000.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, payment
of litigation fees and expenses, and equitable and/or injunctive
relief.

"Due to the inherent uncertainties of the litigation process and the
judicial system, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
litigation," the report said.

"If the outcome of this litigation is adverse to the Company, it could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
condition, and results of operations," the report added.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.

The Company provides recovery audit services to large retailers and
other companies that make numerous transactions.

Using proprietary software and auditing methods, the company checks
clients' books (particularly accounts payable) and identifies mistakes
(including tax overpayments).

Profit Recovery Group has clients in more than 30 countries, with more
than 30% of its sales coming from outside the US.


RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: Johnson & Perkinson Files Lawsuit In S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
purchasers of Rhythms NetConnections Inc. (NASDAQ: RTHM.OB) between
April 6, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against the following defendants:

     (1) Rhythms,

     (2) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated

     (3) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

     (4) Catherine M. Hapka and

     (5) Scott C. Chandler

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.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Rhythms common stock pursuant to the April
6, 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 excessive
commissions, Rhythm's underwriters allocated Rhythms 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 Rhythms stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Rhythms' 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: Dennis J. Johnson, Esq. or Jacob B.
Perkinson, Esq. by Mail: 1690 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont
05403 by Phone: 1-888-459-7855 (toll free) or by E-mail:
JPLAW@adelphia.net


SCIQUEST.COM: Bernstein Liebhard Files S.D. New York Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired SciQuest.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:
SQST) securities between November 19, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York the following defendants:

     (1) Donaldson,

     (2) Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation,

     (3) Deutsche Banc Securities Inc.,

     (4) Hambrecht & Quist LLC,

     (5) DLJdirect, Inc., and

     (6) E*OFFERING

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
that incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC.

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

     (i) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors
         to provide them with significant amounts of restricted
         SciQuest.com 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 SciQuest.com shares in
         the after-market at pre-determined prices.

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: SQST@bernlieb.com


SOUTH KOREA: Economic Study Warns Of 'Class Action' Side Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Korea Economic Research Institute (KERI) warned in a report issued
recently, that the government-backed class action suit system, if
implemented, will slow the privatization of public firms and undercut
the Chaebol's competitiveness, creating even greater problems in the
Korean economy, The Korea Herald reports.

The report stated that following the introduction of class action
suits, shareholders' lawsuits will unexpectedly concentrate on initial
public offering (IPO) markets, dealing a blow to the government's
privatization drive.

KERI decried what it perceived as the mis-direction of the class action
drive.

"Class action suits are targeted at large corporations with more than
two trillion won ($1.54 billion) in assets.  But the distortion of
corporate information is a far more serious problem at venture
businesses or the technology-heavy Kosdaq-listed firms than at the
large firms," said the KERI report, emphasizing that "[t]hus, class-
action suits may fail to promote investor protection [expected] and
will rather damage the Chaebol's competitiveness."

Additionally, KERI viewed the scope of corporate irregularities subject
to the class action suit as very ambiguous, even though the government
has stipulated specific violations such as false stock market
disclosures, window dressing and stock price manipulation.

The lack of manpower at local courts experienced in class actions will
also pose problems, the report cautioned.

Lee Ki-ho, a top aide to President Kim Dae-jung, told expatriate
business leaders in early June that the government is determined to
introduce class action suits March next year, in order to improve
corporate transparency.

The aide explained that a class action suit against a company permits
all investors equal compensation whenever one of them wins a legal
battle against a company or managers for irregular actions causing them
financial losses.

The Ministry of Finance and Economy also said recently that the
government is ready to weaken other regulations on Chaebol, so long as
they cooperate in the implementation of class action suits.

An estimated 82 domestic conglomerates with assets of two trillion won
as of the end of June are likely to be affected by the new system.

The 82 companies, or 11.6 percent of the nation's listed companies,
include Samsung Electronics, Hyundai Motor, SK Telecom, POSCO and all
major conglomerates.


SOUTHWALL TECHNOLOGIES: $3.75M Deal Final, Processing Until Aug. 22
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwall Technologies, Inc. has reached a final settlement on a 1998
class action suit and processing of claims ends this month, a SEC
regulatory document reveals.

The document revealed the $3.75 million settlement was inked in
February and since the time to appeal has lapsed, the settlement has,
by operation of law, become final.

Accordingly, claims under the settlement will be processed up to August
22, 2001.

The company makes thin-film coatings for energy conservation and for
electromagnetic screens. Its Heat Mirror films provide insulation and
shading for car and building windows.

The company's electronics films include transparent conductive films
used in touch-screen displays and LCDs.

Southwall distributes in Japan through Mitsui and Marubeni; it conducts
sales in China and South Korea through Samsung.  Europe and Asia
account for almost two-thirds of sales.


TALARIAN CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP recently filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of Talarian Corporation (Nasdaq: TALR) securities
during the period between July 20, 2000 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) Talarian,

     (2) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

     (3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens,

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

     (5) Paul A. Larson,

     (6) Michael A. Morgan and

     (7) Thomas J. Laffey

On or about July 20, 2000, Talarian commenced an initial public
offering of 4.2 million of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $16.00 per share.

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

    (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to
         allocate Talarian shares to those customers in the Talarian
         IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
         additional Talarian 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


VIANT CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf all persons who acquired Viant Corporation
(Nasdaq: VIAN) securities between June 17, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

Named as defendants in the complaint are Viant and the following
executive officers of Viant: Robert L. Gett and M. Dwayne Nesmith.

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

     (1) Goldman, Sachs & Co.,

     (2) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (3) BancBoston Robertson Stephens Inc., and

     (4) Lehman Brothers, Inc.

The complaint alleges that defendants disseminated materially false and
misleading information in connection with Viant's initial public
offering on or about June 17, 1999 and Viant's secondary offering on or
about December 7, 1999 in violation 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.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the prospectuses filed in
connection with the Viant IPO and Secondary Offering were materially
false and misleading because they 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
         Viant shares issued in connection with the Viant IPO; and

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

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


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Transfer Motion On Delaware, Michigan Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Solid waste industry leader Waste Management, Inc. informed the
Securities and Exchange Commission that it has asked the Judicial Panel
on Multi-district Litigation to transfer cases pending against it to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The Company said the motion covers cases currently lodged in Delaware
and Michigan.

The motion was filed June 14 so that pre-trial proceedings can be
coordinated or consolidated.

The Delaware and Michigan plaintiffs have opposed the Company's
transfer motion and the stay motions.

All motions are currently pending.

This particular lawsuit is a splinter case that stems from the
Company's restatement of financial reports and disclosures in 1999.

The Delaware putative class action was filed against the Company in
Delaware state court by a class of former stockholders in Eastern
Environmental Services, Inc., who received Company common stock
pursuant to the merger transaction with the latter.

The plaintiffs allege that the stock they received in exchange for
their Eastern shares was overvalued.

"The case is at an early stage, and the extent of possible damages, if
any, cannot yet be determined," a SEC report of the Company said.

Waste Management, Inc., formerly USA Waste Services, is at the top of
the heap in the US solid-waste industry.

The company serves about 27 million municipal, business, and
residential customers in the US, Canada, and Mexico.

It has a network of landfills and collection operations, as well as
waste transfer, disposal, and recycling services.


                             *********

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  * * *