CAR_Public/010815.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, August 15, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 159
                             
                            Headlines


AKORN INC.: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges N.D. Illinois Securities Suit
AMERICAN ACCESS:Federal Judge Dismisses Suit For Failure to Show Cause
CONAGRA FOODS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit In Nebraska
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Agreement Reached In Securities Suit
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Settlement Approval Hearing Set For Sept. 24

CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Connecticut Suit Certification Appeal Pending
E-LOAN INC.: Lovell & Stewart Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York
EL PASO CORP: Faces Suits For Manipulating CA Natural Gas Market
E-STAMP CORPORATION: Files Answer To 'Breach Of Contract' Suit In NY
FLORIDA PROGRESS: Appellate Court Decertifies Age Discrimination Suit

GLOBAL CROSSING: Stull Stull Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York
GRAND TOYS: New York Federal Court Approves Settlement Pact
HANDSPRING INC.: Stull Stull Commences S.D. New York Securities Suit
HEALTH NET: Court Holds Oral Arguments On 'Certification' Issues
ITXC CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: California 'Nature Guard' Roofing Suit Filed
MCAFEE CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
OMNISKY CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Sues Four IPO Underwriters In NY
PHOENIX LEASING: Settles 4-Year-Old CA Suit For Undisclosed Amount

RAMBUS INC.: Beatie and Osborn Files N.D. California Securities Suit
RELIANT ENERGY: Suffers Blow In Bid To Avoid California Jury Trial
SILVERSTREAM SOFTWARE: Wolf Haldenstein Files Lawsuit In S.D. NY
STARMEDIA NETWORK: Marc Henzel Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY
TALARIAN CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Lawsuit In S.D. NY
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Added To 'Royalties Underpayment' Suit June 8

                            ********          

AKORN INC.: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges N.D. Illinois Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP filed recently a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of all purchasers of Akorn, Inc. (NASDAQ: AKRN) securities
between February 20, 2001 and May 22, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities
laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and
misleading press releases concerning Akorn's financial results and
business prospects.

Specifically, the complaint alleges Akorn's financial statements for
the year ended December 31, 2000 were materially false and misleading
because they were not presented in conformity with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles as well as the rules and regulations of the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

As a result, the price of the Company's common stock was artificially
inflated throughout the Class Period.

For further details, contact: Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP through Anthony
Vozzolo, Esq., by Phone: 877/247-4292 or 212/983-9330 by E-mail:
Avozz@faruqilaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.faruqilaw.com


AMERICAN ACCESS:Federal Judge Dismisses Suit For Failure to Show Cause
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge dismissed a shareholders' lawsuit against American
Access Technologies, Inc., which was filed after a decline in the
market price of the Company's stock in 1999, and denied the plaintiffs'
motion to reopen the case, the Company announced Monday.

"Our position all along had been to vigorously defend ourselves against
the accusations because they were factually untrue, so we are very
gratified by the judge's ruling to dismiss this case, and to deny the
motion to reopen it, saving us all the time and money to fight a
protracted legal battle," said American Access President John Presley.

United States District Judge Patricia Fawsett dismissed the case June
4, 2001 for failure to comply with Orders of the Court to show cause.

Plaintiffs failed to file certain documents required by the court, and
then failed to respond to the court's order to show cause why the
action should not be dismissed after the initial documents were not
filed.

Plaintiffs had until June 21, 2001 to file a motion for the judge to
reconsider or grant relief from her ruling and until July 5, 2001 to
appeal the order.
The plaintiffs filed a July 3 motion to reopen the case. On August 2,
2001 Judge Fawsett denied the motion, writing in her opinion that the
"Plaintiffs have failed to show that they are entitled to relief from
judgment under Rule 60(b); therefore, their motion is denied, and this
case will remain closed."

Under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may
be relieved from a final judgment, order, or proceeding if the moving
party can show mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,
or any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the
judgment.

Originally filed in September 1999 in the Eastern District of New York,
the case was amended in 2000, and never attained the class status
plaintiffs sought.

American Access subsequently filed a motion to dismiss for improper
venue or alternately to transfer the venue to the federal court's
Middle District in Orlando, Fla.

The New York judge granted the transfer earlier this year, which
necessitated that both parties file certain documents to continue the
proceedings.

Plaintiffs' failure to file resulted in the dismissal and subsequent
denial of their motion to reopen the case.


CONAGRA FOODS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit In Nebraska
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed recently a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Nebraska on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock of ConAgra Foods, Inc. (NYSE: CAG)
from August 28, 1998 through May 23, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges ConAgra and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial business.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that 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.

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

For more information, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP through Marc
A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by Mail: Three Bala Plaza
East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll
free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Agreement Reached In Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Covad Communications Group, Inc. (OTCBB:COVD), the leading national
broadband services provider utilizing DSL (Digital Subscriber Line)
technology, announced Monday that the company and the other defendants
in securities class action litigation pending in federal court in
California have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with lead
plaintiffs that tentatively resolves the litigation.

Under the terms of this agreement, Covad will contribute to the
settlement fund shares equal to 3 1/2 percent of its fully diluted
common stock as of Aug. 10, 2001.

Covad's insurance carriers will fund the cash portion of the
settlement. Covad and the other defendants continue to deny plaintiffs'
allegations.

Plaintiffs filed the litigation, D.C. Capital Partners, L.P. et al. v.
Covad Communications Group, Inc. et al., Master File No. C-00-3891-PJH,
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that
allegedly purchased or otherwise acquired Covad common stock between
April 19, 2000, and May 24, 2001; received stock in connection with
Covad's acquisition of BlueStar Communications Group; or purchased or
otherwise acquired Covad`s convertible notes issued in September 2000.

Final settlement is contingent on negotiation and execution of a formal
settlement stipulation and court approval.


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Settlement Approval Hearing Set For Sept. 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Acceptance Corporation hopes the federal court in Michigan will
finally approve a settlement deal reached by parties in a class action
suit that has dragged on for more than three years now.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has set
the hearing for final approval of the agreement for September 24, a
Company report to the Securities and Exchange Commission said.

Terms of the proposed settlement pact were not disclosed by the Company
in the report, although it maintained that the deal will not have a
material impact on its financial position, liquidity and results of
operations.

The suit was originally filed by Company shareholders in separate class
actions in 1998.  They have since been consolidated.

The memorandum of agreement to settle the suit was reached only in
October last year, more than two years after it was lodged in court.

Working with used-car dealers in the US, Canada, Ireland, and the UK,
Credit Acceptance Corporation provides capital for used-car loans at
top interest rates to people with substandard credit.


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Connecticut Suit Certification Appeal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Acceptance Corporation disclosed that it is currently a
defendant in a class action proceeding, which is pending in the
Superior Court for the Judicial District of Waterbury Connecticut.

Though the case commenced on July 16, 1999, a class was not certified
until May 15, 2001.

The class is composed of all Connecticut residents whose vehicles were
repossessed by the Company between August 5th, 1993 and October 31,
1998.

The plaintiffs allege the Company failed to provide these consumers
with adequate notice of their rights to redeem the vehicle after
repossession and are seeking money damages for such failure.

"The Company has appealed the certification order and will continue to
vigorously defend the litigation," the Company said in a SEC report.

"However, an adverse ultimate disposition of this litigation could have
a material negative impact on the Company's financial position,
liquidity and results of operations," the report added.


E-LOAN INC.: Lovell & Stewart Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart, LLP filed last week a class action lawsuit on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of E-Loan, Inc. (NasdaqNM:EELN)
between June 28, 1999 and August 10, 2001, inclusive.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Section 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder
and seeks to recover damages.

The action, Kassin v. E-Loan, Inc., et al., is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Docket No. 01-CV-
7467 (SAS) and has been assigned to the Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S.
District Judge.

The complaint alleges that E-Loan, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling
E-Loan common stock pursuant to the initial public offering without
disclosing to investors that at least one of the lead underwriters and
two of the other underwriters of the IPO had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, lead
underwriter The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and underwriters FleetBoston
Robertson Stephens, Inc. and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Inc. allocated E-Loan shares to customers at the IPO price of $14.00
per share.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
$14.00, the defendant 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 E-Loan stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive E-Loan's share price up to artificially high levels.

This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both
the defendant underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits
by buying E-Loan stock at the $14.00 IPO price and then selling it
later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high
as $51.00 during its first day of trading.

Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the
IPO, the complaint alleges, the defendant 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 E-Loan offering contained material misstatements
regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the
IPO and failed to disclose the additional commissions and "laddering"
scheme discussed above.

For additional information, contact: Christopher Lovell, Victor E.
Stewart or Christopher J. Gray by Phone: 212/608-1900 or by E-mail:
sklovell@aol.com


EL PASO CORP: Faces Suits For Manipulating CA Natural Gas Market
----------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corporation disclosed recently that its subsidiary El Paso
Natural Gas Company is now facing at least eight lawsuits counting from
last year, a Company report to the Securities and Exchange Commission
said.

The suits, which are pending in California, contend generally that the
Company and its entities "acted alone or in combination with other
unrelated companies to manipulate the market and create artificially
high prices for natural gas in California.

"We removed each of these cases to federal court and have requested
that they be consolidated for all pretrial activities," the Company
said.

In June 2001, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
granted the Company's consolidation motion relating to four of the
lawsuits, sending them to the U.S. District Court in Nevada.

In July 2001, the remaining five cases were conditionally consolidated
to the Nevada District Court.

The Nevada court has scheduled oral arguments in September 2001 on the
issue of whether some or all of these cases should be remanded to the
California state court system for all further proceedings, the report
said.

The Company, formerly known as El Paso Energy, is engaged in the
production, gathering, transporting, processing, and marketing of
natural gas.

Operator of the largest gas pipeline system in the US, El Paso owns or
has interests in 58,000 miles of pipeline in the US and Mexico.


E-STAMP CORPORATION: Files Answer To 'Breach Of Contract' Suit In NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Stamp Corporation announced recently that it has answered the suit
brought by a customer in New York for breach of contract.

In a report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company said
its answer was filed June 18.

"E-Stamp is currently investigating the claims against it and intends
to vigorously defend this action," a SEC regulatory document said.

"Pendency of these legal proceedings can be expected to result in
expenses to E-Stamp and the diversion of management time and other
resources," the Company said in the report.

Joseph Pavel raised the suit last March 16 to the Supreme Court of New
York, claiming he was representing a purported class of E-Stamp
consumers.

By agreement of the parties, the plaintiff dismissed the New York
action and re-filed it in Santa Clara County in May.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and disgorgement of monies
received in connection with the sale of Internet postage products.

Though first to receive government approval to offer online postage, E-
Stamp has phased out its Internet postage service with plans to focus
on software for back-end logistics processes such as transportation and
warehouse management.

This year, however, the company exited the supply chain management
software business and put its cash behind online learning services
company Learn2.com.

E-stamp is buying the company and plans to change its name to Learn2
Corp.


FLORIDA PROGRESS: Appellate Court Decertifies Age Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Progress Corporation received a recent court ruling that, in
effect, decertified an age discrimination suit pending for years now in
federal court.

On July 5, 2001, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that as a
matter of law, disparate claims cannot be brought under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, a Company report to the Securities
and Exchange Commission said.

"This ruling has the effect of decertifying this case as a class
action," the report said.

According to the same report, the certification was granted in October
1996, with the suit consisting of 116 plaintiffs.

The suit seeks back pay, reinstatement or front pay based on projected
dates of normal retirement, among others.

In October 1999, the judge certified the question of whether the case
should be tried as a class action to the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals for immediate appellate review.

In December 1999, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to
review the judge's order decertifying the class and oral arguments were
held in January 2001.

"The plaintiffs may appeal this (recent) ruling. The Company cannot
predict the outcome of this matter," the Company said in the SEC
report.

Florida Progress and subsidiary Florida Power Corporation are the
principal defendants named in this lawsuit.  


GLOBAL CROSSING: Stull Stull Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody commenced Monday a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of Global Crossing Ltd. (NYSE:GX) common stock
between August 13, 1998 and July 27, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Global Crossing common stock pursuant to
the August 13, 1998 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 Global Crossing shares to
customers at the IPO price of $19 per share.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
$19, 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 Global Crossing stock
rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was
intended to (and did) drive Global Crossing'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 $19 IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at
inflated aftermarket prices.

On August 14, 1998, the day shares of Global Crossing opened for public
trading on the NYSE, the stock opened at $23.50 and surged to a high of
$26.8125 on heavy volume of 19,229,100 shares traded that day, to close
at $25.50 per share.

Subsequently, on March 5, 1999, the stock reached a peak high of
$79.0625 to close that day at $77.

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 Global Crossing 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 further details, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. by Phone: 1-800-337-
4983 (toll free) by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com by Fax: 212/490-2022 or by
Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017


GRAND TOYS: New York Federal Court Approves Settlement Pact
-----------------------------------------------------------
Grand Toys International, Inc. (Nasdaq: GRIN) announced Monday a
federal judge for the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York had preliminarily approved the settlement of a
purported class action lawsuit filed against Grand for $1,975,000.

The suit against the Company and certain of its current directors and a
former director alleges that the Company's August 4, 1999 press release
announcing an exclusive license to manufacture and distribute products
in Canada based upon the "Pokemon" video game and television series was
misleading because the license had not yet been executed and, when
ultimately executed three weeks later, was non-exclusive.

The complaint further alleges that this affected the market price of
the Company's stock during the three-week period.

The suit was previously dismissed against two of the Company's
directors who were not employed by the Company during the period in
question.

The settlement was effected without any admission of liability on the
part of the Grand defendants, and each of them expressly deny any
wrongdoing or liability whatsoever.

In order to finalize the settlement, notice of the settlement must be
sent to all of the members of the purported class.

To date, two-thirds of the members of the class have been notified of
the settlement and none have objected or sought to opt out of the
class.

A hearing has been scheduled for September 24, 2001 to approve the
settlement.

The settlement will result in minimal cost to the Company as a result
of coverage under the Company's directors and officers liability
insurance policy.

Founded in 1960, Grand Toys International, Inc. is a premier licensee
and distributor of a wide variety of toys and ancillary items in Canada
and since January 1999, a supplier of proprietary products in the
United States.


HANDSPRING INC.: Stull Stull Commences S.D. New York Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit Monday in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of purchasers of Handspring, Inc. (NASDAQ:HAND) common stock between
June 21, 2000 and July 30, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing and selling Handspring common stock pursuant to the June 21,
2000 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters
in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

The complaint alleges that, in exchange for the excessive commissions,
members of the underwriting group allocated Handspring shares to
customers at the IPO price of $20 per share.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
$20, 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 Handspring stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Handspring'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 $20 IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at
inflated aftermarket prices.

On June 21, 2000, the day shares of Handspring opened for public
trading on the NASDAQ, the share price surged $28.25 to close at
$26.938 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 Handspring 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 more information, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. by Phone: 1-800-337-
4983 (toll free) by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com by Fax: 212/490-2022 or by
Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017


HEALTH NET: Court Holds Oral Arguments On 'Certification' Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net, Inc. disclosed in a recent Securities and Exchange
Commission report that a federal court in Mississippi recently held
class certification hearings in relation to a suit claiming violations
of the federal anti-racketeer and retirement benefits acts.

This suit is the third amended complaint, closely following the second
amended complaint, which was dismissed by the court June 12.

According to the report, oral arguments on class certification issues
were held July 24.  The report did not mention anything about the
resolution of the complaint.

The latest suit re-alleges causes of action under the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, common law civil conspiracy,
and common law unjust enrichment.

"We intend to vigorously defend the action," the Company said in its
report.

The suit is currently lodged in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Mississippi.

The company (formerly Foundation Health Systems) provides managed
health care and other medical coverage to more than 5 million members
in Arizona, California, Oregon, and selected states in the Northeast.


ITXC CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP commenced recently a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of ITXC Corporation
(Nasdaq: ITXC) securities between September 27, 1999 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing and selling ITXC common stock pursuant to the September 27,
1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters
in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

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

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

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


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: California 'Nature Guard' Roofing Suit Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Another suit has been filed against Louisiana-Pacific Corporation in
relation to its "Nature Guard" cement shakes installed as roofing, the
Company said in a recent SEC regulatory filing.

The new suit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
San Francisco last July 30.

Earlier, the Class Action Reporter also reported of a similar suit
lodged in the Superior Court of Washington last June 13.

"These actions were filed on behalf of purported classes of persons
nationwide owning structures on which our Nature Guard cement shakes
were installed as roofing," the Company said.

The plaintiffs generally allege negligence, unfair business practices,
false advertising, breach of warranties, fraud and other theories
related to alleged defects associated with the cement shakes, as well
as consequential damages to the structures on which the cement shakes
were installed.

The plaintiffs seek general, compensatory, special and punitive damages
as well as disgorgement of profits and the establishment of a fund to
provide restitution to the purported class members.

"We no longer manufacture or sell cement shakes, but established and
maintain a claims program for the Nature Guard shakes previously sold
by us," the Company clarified.

"We believe that we have substantial defenses and intend to defend
these actions vigorously," the Company said.

Louisiana-Pacific makes building and lumber products and controls about
950,000 acres of timberland in North America, primarily in Texas and
Louisiana.

Structural products such as oriented strand board (OSB), plywood, and
I-joists account for more than 60% of the company's sales.

The Company operates manufacturing plants in Canada, Chile, Ireland,
and the US.


MCAFEE CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP initiated last week a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of McAfee Corporation
(Nasdaq: MCAF) securities between December 1, 1999 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling McAfee common stock pursuant to the
December 1, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.

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

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

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


NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Nuance Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq: NUAN)
securities between April 12, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Nuance common stock pursuant to the April
12, 2000 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.

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

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

For more information, contact: 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


OMNISKY CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Sues Four IPO Underwriters In NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP lodged a class action lawsuit
Monday on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Omnisky Corp.
(NASDAQ: OMNY) between September 20, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendants Credit Suisse First
Boston Corporation, Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce
Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Robertson Stephens, Inc.

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

On or about September 20, 2000, Omnisky commenced an initial public
offering of 9,100,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $12 per share.

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

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

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

For more information, contact: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman
by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail: Omniskycase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: www.milberg.com


PHOENIX LEASING: Settles 4-Year-Old CA Suit For Undisclosed Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix Leasing American Business Fund, L.P., along with its partners,
announced recently it has settled a consolidated class action suit
pending in California.

The Company did not disclose the terms of the settlement in a recent
report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, claiming that they
are confidential.

According to the Company, the memorandum of understanding to settle the
suit was signed by the contending parties last July 11.

The parties are currently drafting a settlement agreement, which will
be submitted to the Court for approval, the Company said.  

"The settlement will not materially effect the financial position or
results of operations of the Partnership," the SEC report said.

The suit stems from a class action complaint filed in October 1997
against Phoenix Leasing Inc., Phoenix Leasing Associates, II and III
L.P., Phoenix Securities Inc. and Phoenix American Inc. in California
Superior Court for the County of Sacramento.

Eleven individuals on behalf of investors in Phoenix Leasing Cash
Distribution Funds I through V (the Partnership) lodged the suit.  

The consolidated complaint sought declaratory and other relief
including the following:

     (1) accounting,

     (2) receivership,

     (3) imposition of constructive trust

     (4) judicial dissolution and winding up of the Partnerships,

     (5) damages based on fraud,

     (6) breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract by the
         Companies as general partners of the Partnerships.

     (7) constructive fraud,

     (8) judicial dissolution of Cash Distribution Fund IV, and

     (9) judicial dissolution of Cash Distribution Fund V

The settlement awaits final approval from the Marin County Superior
Court in California.


RAMBUS INC.: Beatie and Osborn Files N.D. California Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Beatie and Osborn, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all
shareholders who purchased the common stock of Rambus, Inc. (Nasdaq:
RMBS) between February 11, 2000 and May 9, 2001.

The complaint alleges that Rambus, a chip technology designer, and
certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities
laws by disseminating false and misleading information about the
Company.

Specifically, Rambus falsely promoted its patents and technologies
relating to SDRAM chips and collected millions of dollars in royalties
from the licensing of the SDRAM technology to other companies.

As a result of the income generated from these licensing arrangements
and the enormous amount of royalties Rambus was telling investors it
would collect in the future from licensing its SDRAM patents, the
common stock of Rambus surged to as high as $450 per share prior before
splitting 4 for 1 during the class period.

In the course of its self-promotion, however, Rambus failed to disclose
to investors that its SDRAM patents were illegally obtained during
meetings at the Joint Electronic Devices Engineering Council, an
association of semiconductor manufacturers and designers that jointly
develop industry-wide, open technical standards for semiconductor
products, including SDRAM technology.

The complaint alleges that Rambus attended at least fifteen council
committee meetings in which the development of an industry standard for
SDRAM technology was discussed.

During these meetings various committee members made technical
presentations on a variety of aspects of SDRAM technology for inclusion
in the proposed standard.

Unbeknownst to the council committee members or the public, Rambus was
secretly using the information learned at the JEDEC meetings to patent
the SDRAM technology.

After it obtained its SDRAM patents, Rambus began demanding royalties
from microprocessor companies employing the SDRAM technology.

Companies that refused to pay Rambus were sued.

Unaware that Rambus had obtained its patented technology improperly,
microprocessor-makers representing nearly half the market, including
Hitachi, Toshiba, NEC, Oki Electric Industry, Elpida Memory and Samsung
Electronics, agreed to pay license fees to Rambus.

On August 8, 2000, Rambus sued Infineon Technologies AG for patent
violations, claiming that Infineon used SDRAM technology without paying
a licensing fee to Rambus.

Infineon counterclaimed, alleging (1) that the patents were invalid and
(2) fraud based on Rambus' improper conduct during the council
committee meetings.

On May 9, 2001, a jury found that the SDRAM patents had in fact been
fraudulently obtained.

On August 9, 2001, the Court in the Infineon case confirmed the jury's
finding with regard to the SDRAM patents, ordered that Rambus pay
Infineon $7.1 million in legal fees, and prohibited Rambus from
pursuing patent-infringement litigation against Infineon for its SDRAM
products.

By the end of the class period, when the full extent of Rambus'
fraudulent activity was discovered, Rambus' shares had declined to
about $10 per share, causing investors millions of dollars in damages.

For more information, contact: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. or Ben Coleman,
Legal Assistant by Mail: 521 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, New
York 10175 by Phone: 800-891-6305 (toll free), 212-888-9000 by Fax:
212-888-9664 or by E-mail: clientrelations@bandolaw.com


RELIANT ENERGY: Suffers Blow In Bid To Avoid California Jury Trial
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Energy Inc. and other players in the California power
generation market suffered a setback in the bid to avoid jury trial in
State courts.

The Company sought to have the cases heard in federal court, but a
ruling last July 30 remanded five of six cases back to California State
courts.

On August 1, the Company and the rest of the defendants moved to
consolidate the remanded cases.

"The ultimate outcome of the lawsuits cannot be predicted with any
degree of certainty at this time.

"However, the Company believes, based on its analysis to date of the
claims asserted in these lawsuits and the underlying facts, that
resolution of these lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows," a report to the SEC by the Company said.

While the plaintiffs allege various violations by the defendants of
state antitrust laws and state laws against unfair and unlawful
business practices, each of the lawsuits is grounded on the central
allegation that defendants conspired to drive up the wholesale price of
electricity.

In addition to injunctive relief, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek
treble the amount of damages alleged, restitution of alleged
overpayments, disgorgement of alleged unlawful profits for sales of
electricity, costs of suit and attorneys' fees.

In one of the cases the plaintiffs allege aggregate damages of over $4
billion.

The Company has grown from a local electric utility to a power provider
across the US and in Europe.

Its utility distributes electricity and natural gas to nearly 4 million
customers in the southern US and Minnesota, and generates 14,000 MW of
electricity.


SILVERSTREAM SOFTWARE: Wolf Haldenstein Files Lawsuit In S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP commenced last week a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Silverstream Software,
Inc. (Nasdaq: SSSW) securities between August 16, 1999 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Silverstream common stock pursuant to the
August 16, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.

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

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

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


STARMEDIA NETWORK: Marc Henzel Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 StarMedia Network, Inc.
(Nasdaq: STRM) between May 25, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending against defendants StarMedia Network, Goldman
Sachs & Co., BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., Salomon Smith Barney,
Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co., 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 May 25, 1999, StarMedia commenced an initial public
offering of 7,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $15.00 per share.

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

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

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

For additional information, contact: 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


TALARIAN CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Lawsuit In S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP recently commenced a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Talarian Corporation
(Nasdaq: TALR) from July 20, 2000 through December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit names as defendants: Talarian, Lehman Brothers, Inc.,
FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith
Incorporated.

On or about July 20, 2000, Talarian Corp. commenced an initial public
offering of 4,200,000 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 alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and
misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

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

     (2) Lehman, Robertson Stephens and Merrill Lynch had entered into
         agreements with customers whereby Lehman, Robertson Stephens
         and Merrill Lynch agreed to allocate Talarian shares to those
         customers in the Talarian Corp. IPO in exchange for which the
         customers agreed to purchase additional Talarian shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

For additional information, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP through
Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by Mail: Three Bala Plaza
East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll
free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Added To 'Royalties Underpayment' Suit June 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Power industry leader The Williams Companies, Inc. disclosed recently
in a SEC regulatory filing that it has been named as a defendant in a
nationwide class action suit against pipeline and gathering companies.

According to the report, the Company, along with subsidiary Northwest
Pipeline Corporation and other players in the industry, has been
accused of engaging in mismeasurement techniques that distort the
heating content of natural gas.

This practice, accordingly, results in alleged underpayment of
royalties to the class of producer plaintiffs, the report said.

Williams was added last June 8 to the suit, which has been pending
against other industry players for more than a year now.

"The Williams entities will join other defendants in filing at least
two dispositive motions, along with contesting class certification in
the next several months," the SEC report bared.

The company's Williams Energy Group is engaged in exploration and
production; gas and liquids gathering, storage, and processing;
gasoline retail, and energy trading and marketing.

Williams Gas Pipeline operates 27,300 miles of coast-to-coast pipeline,
including the Transco system, which runs from Texas to New York.


                             *********

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  * * *