CAR_Public/010817.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, August 17, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 161


                              Headlines


ARAMARK CORPORATION: Sued For Managers' Alleged Racial Discrimination
BAYER CORPORATION: Federman and Woska Firms File W.D. Oklahoma Suits
BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Dismissal Moves Plaintiffs To File Amended Suit
DETROIT EDISON: Says Discrimination Suit Certification Inappropriate

ELOQUENT INC.: Cauley Geller Raises Securities Suit In S.D. New York
FREEMARKETS INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
GENERAL NUTRITION: Settlement Deal Provides $4.2M In Product Credits
GLOBAL CROSSING: Lovell & Stewart Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
HARMONIC INC.:Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Securities Violation Suit

ITXC CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York
LEGATO SYSTEMS: Suit Dismissed, But Plaintiffs Allowed To Amend It
LUPRON LITIGATION: Manufacturers Sued Anew In N.D. Illinois
MANPOWER INC.: 1999 Damage Suit In Louisiana Set For Trial On Sept. 4
MARINE DRILLING: Inks Agreement With "Offshore Workers" In Wage Suit

NETSILICON INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York
ON-POINT TECHNOLOGY: Final Approval Of Settlement Deal Still Pending
OPEN MARKET: Shareholders File Opposition To Dismissal Request
OPENTV CORPORATION: Stull Stull Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
PEOPLESOFT INC.: Court Holds Final $15M Settlement Approval Hearing

PEOPLESOFT INC.: Counter Suit Against Ex-worker Planned
PEOPLESOFT INC.: Declines To Speculate On Ruling In `99 Suit
PORTAL SOFTWARE: Marc Henzel Initiates S.D. New York Securities Suit
PSS WORLD: Berger & Montague Files Securities Suit In M.D. Florida
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CO Securities Suit

RAMBUS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Initiates N.D. CA Securities Suit
ROWECOM INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
TREX COMPANY: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit In W.D. Virginia



                              *********


ARAMARK CORPORATION: Sued For Managers' Alleged Racial Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action race discrimination lawsuit was filed Wednesday against
the nation's largest provider of outsourcing services, ARAMARK
Corporation, which posted revenues in excess of $7 billion in 2000.

The suit is being handled by a team of lawyers at two Philadelphia
firms:

     (1) Joel I. Fishbein at Abrahams, Loewenstein & Bushman, P.C. and

     (2) Stephen A.Whinston, Jonathan Auerbach and Shanon J. Carson at
         Berger & Montague, P.C.

The suit alleges that ARAMARK Corporation managers are guilty of
ongoing, pervasive racial discrimination against African-Americans
employed by ARAMARK at Philadelphia's Presbyterian Medical Center.

Ten African-American workers filed the suit for themselves and on
behalf of all African-American workers in the Patient Services,
Environmental Services and Distribution Departments.

Workers in these departments, who are predominately African-American,
transport patients throughout the Presbyterian Medical Center complex,
clean the rooms and floors, and distribute the linens.

The complaint alleges that white managers harass African-American
workers through an oppressive pattern of unfair and unjustified
discipline.

In response to repeated complaints by the African-American workers,
according to the complaint, white managers retaliate by raising the
level of discipline.

The suit alleges that four of the named plaintiffs were fired based
upon fabricated disciplinary charges.

The workers contend they were really fired because they objected to the
discriminatory pattern of discipline.

The plaintiffs claim ARAMARK employees in other departments, who are
mostly white, are not subjected to unfair discipline.

One white manager is alleged to have referred to one African-American
worker under his supervision as a "nigger."

Another African-American worker was called a "black punk" to his face,
according to the suit.

ARAMARK's corporate motto is "Managed Services - Managed Better." In
its employee handbook, distributed to all employees in all ARAMARK
facilities, ARAMARK claims that it will not tolerate racial harassment.

Yet, according to the complaint, when employees complained about racial
harassment in this case, their complaints were ignored.

According to Fortune Magazine, ARAMARK Corporation is the nation's
largest outsourcing company. ARAMARK is ranked 258 in the Fortune 500
and is the 23rd largest employer on that list.

ARAMARK's business is to provide catering, meeting planning, childcare,
education, janitorial services, recreational activities and uniform
services to its clients.


BAYER CORPORATION: Federman and Woska Firms File W.D. Oklahoma Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood, Strong, Martin & Associates, and Woska & Hasbrook,
PLLC recently filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma against Bayer Corporation, a
subsidiary of Bayer AG (OTC Bulletin Board: BAYZY) for the manufacture
and distribution of a medication known as "Baycol."

Baycol is prescribed to lower plasma cholesterol levels.

This is the first known class action filed against Bayer Corporation
concerning Baycol.

For more details, contact: William B. Federman by Mail: 120 N.
Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 by Phone: (405) 235-1560
or by Fax: (405) 239-2112


BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel recently 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 Bottomline
Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: EPAY) between February 12, 1999 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

On or about February 12, 1999, Bottomline commenced an initial public
offering of 3,400,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $13 per share.

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

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


COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Dismissal Moves Plaintiffs To File Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs who brought a suit against Commonwealth Edison Company in
relation to a 1999 power interruption recently filed a second amended
complaint, a Company report to the Securities and Exchange Commission
said.

According to the Company, the amended complaint was filed June 1,
almost two months after an April Illinois court dismissal of four of
the five counts alleged in the suit.

The suit was originally filed in August 1999, seeking damages for
personal injuries, property damage and economic losses related to a
series of service interruptions in the summer of 1999.

The combined effect of these interruptions resulted in over 168,000
customers losing service for more than four hours.  

The Court has approved conditional class certification for the sole
purpose of exploring settlement talks.  


DETROIT EDISON: Says Discrimination Suit Certification Inappropriate
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit Edison Company dismissed a discrimination class action suit
recently as without merit and claimed that a certification of the case
is inappropriate.

The suit was filed by a purported class of job applicants who allege
discrimination on the basis of race and national origin with respect to
the Company's pre-employment testing program and testing-related
procedures.

Ercilio Beltran lodged the suit last month in the Circuit Court for the
County of Wayne, Michigan.

Detroit Edison, a subsidiary of DTE Energy Company, distributes
electricity to some 2.1 million customers in southeastern Michigan.

The utility's power plants (mainly fossil-fueled) have a generating
capacity of more than 11,000 MW.


ELOQUENT INC.: Cauley Geller Raises Securities Suit In S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP lodged recently class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Eloquent, Inc. (Nasdaq: ELOQ)
securities during the period between February 17, 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) Eloquent,

     (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens,

     (3) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     (4) Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.,

     (5) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,

     (6) Abraham Kleinfeld and

     (7) R. John Curson

On or about February 17, 2000, Eloquent commenced an initial public
offering of 4.5 million of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $16.00 per share.

In connection therewith, Eloquent 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 (Robertson Stephens, Lehman
         Brothers, Morgan Stanley and Smith Barney) 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 Eloquent shares issued in connection with
         the Eloquent IPO; and

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


FREEMARKETS INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed Wednesday a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of FreeMarkets, Inc. (NASDAQ:FMKT) common stock
between December 9, 1999 and July 30, 2001, inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that, in exchange for the excessive commissions,
members of the underwriting group allocated FreeMarkets shares to
customers at the IPO price of $48 per share.

To receive the allocations (i.e. the ability to purchase shares) at
$48, the underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher prices.

The requirement that customers make additional purchases at
progressively higher prices as the price of FreeMarkets stock rocketed
upward (a practice known as "laddering") was intended to (and did)
drive FreeMarket'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 $48 IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at
inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $293.00 during its
first day of trading.

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 FreeMarkets 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


GENERAL NUTRITION: Settlement Deal Provides $4.2M In Product Credits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
General Nutrition Companies, Inc. announced Wednesday that it has
reached settlement of three lawsuits that sought class action status
for all of the Company's U.S. franchisees.

The agreement provides franchisees, as a group, with credits of
approximately $4.2 million for use over 24 months for GNC products
purchased through the company's wholesale distribution affiliate along
with system enhancements, including the continuation of some that were
already in place.

Mike Meyers, President and COO of GNC, said "Our franchisees are
critical to the growth of the GNC brand, and we are committed to
meeting their needs as members of one of the best franchising systems
in the world.

"We entered into this agreement to provide a business solution for our
franchisees that resolves lengthy legal actions that benefit nobody.

"While GNC does not admit to any wrongdoing or taking any actions
against the interests of our franchisees, our franchising system
continues to evolve and we believe that the changes spelled out in this
agreement will benefit both GNC and our franchisees. We are pleased to
bring this matter to a successful conclusion," he said.

"At the same time," he added, "this is the latest, most significant
step in the 'New Deal' that GNC's new management team announced at our
11th annual franchise convention in June.

"Our commitment to a long-term partnership with our franchisees is
demonstrated by the cutting-edge programs that were put into place in
the first seven months of this year, including the elimination of the
co-op ad structure, the expansion of GNC's national ad campaign,
enhancements to the GENESIS franchisee intranet, extended payment terms
on products purchased from GNC, free shipping of special orders placed
electronically between the standard two-week shipments, free product
samples when we launch new GNC brands, new science-based products, the
re-launch of GNC's popular Preventive Nutrition line, and the launch of
the ProPerformance Elite Series," Meyers said.

Notice of the proposed settlement will be sent to all U.S. franchisees.
The settlement is available to any U.S. GNC franchisee that does not
opt out of the settlement.

In the settlement, the company committed to improving its franchisees'
business through the following:

     (1) Providing each franchisee wholesale credits on purchases of
         GNC's private label products in the amount of $125 per store a
         month for 24 months, or approximately $4.2 million for the
         franchise system as a whole.

         The company and its franchisees continue to recognize the
         importance of GNC brands in the success of GNC stores.

     (2) Protecting franchisees from any increases in franchise renewal
         fees by placing a cap on what franchisees will pay for one
         five-year renewal term.

         The company expects all franchisees will take advantage of
         this offer by renewing the initial term of their franchise
         agreements.

     (3) Foregoing franchisee royalties on products, if any, promoted
         by GNC in Let's Live Magazine, a third-party publication sent
         to active GNC Gold Card members, at a retail price below their
         GNC wholesale cost.

     (4) Providing through the company's new Intranet communications
         system immediate electronic notice of discontinued products,
         and a minimum 20-day notice concerning system-wide price
         reductions for a majority of all discontinued products.

     (5) Crediting franchisees for any discontinued products
         inadvertently shipped as part of a store opening order and
         limiting less-popular products in opening-store inventories.

The company also reaffirmed its commitment to helping franchisees
improve their businesses by:

     (i) Extending through 2003, franchisees' current wholesale cost
         for GNC Gold Cards.

    (ii) Continuing for at least three years from the date of
         implementation a new franchisee wholesale loyalty reward
         program that provides rebates to franchisees.

   (iii) Restating in writing GNC's longstanding policy that
         franchisees may buy direct from third-party vendors.

Russ Cooper, Senior Vice President and General Manager of GNC
Franchising, Inc., said, "These are changes that will benefit both GNC
and our franchisees while strengthening the franchising system itself."

"GNC remains committed to the letter and the spirit of our franchising
mission statement: To be a worldwide leader in franchising by
developing the world's highest quality support services, and awarding
license agreements to qualified candidates who share our growth and
customer service objectives," Cooper said.

Cooper added, ``This settlement goes a long way toward resolving the
business disputes and litigation involving franchisees, about 1 percent
of our more than 1,400 U.S. franchise locations.

"We firmly believe that going to court is always the least desirable
way to resolve business differences between a franchisor and its
franchisees. Signing this agreement is not in any way an admission of
wrongdoing by GNC.

"We appreciate the efforts made by legal counsel on both sides in
bringing this to a successful conclusion. Our goal now is to continue
building on the system enhancements that have been put into place this
year that contribute directly to sales and profitability for all of our
franchisees," Copper said.

General Nutrition Companies, Inc. (GNC), based in Pittsburgh, PA, is
the largest nationwide specialty retailer of vitamin, mineral and
herbal supplements, sports nutrition as well as many personal care and
related products.

GNC operates more than 4,500 retail outlets throughout the United
States and 26 foreign markets including Puerto Rico, Canada and Mexico.

GNC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Numico N.V., a worldwide
market leader in specialized nutrition that includes infant and
clinical nutrition and nutritional supplements.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Lovell & Stewart Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart, LLP filed a class action lawsuit Wednesday on behalf
of all persons and entities who acquired the common stock of Global
Crossing Ltd. (NYSE:GX) between August 13, 1998 and December 6, 2000,
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, Jacob v. Global Crossing Ltd., et al., is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and has been
assigned to the Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S. District Judge.

The complaint alleges that Global Crossing and certain of its officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing and
selling Global Crossing common stock pursuant to the initial public
offering without disclosing to investors that at least seven of the
underwriters of the Global Crossing IPO had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, co-
lead underwriters Salomon Smith Barney Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co., and Morgan Stanley & Co. and
underwriters Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston
Corp. and Lehman Brothers, Inc. allocated Global Crossing shares to
customers at the IPO price of $19.00 per share.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
$19.00, 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 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 defendant underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits
by buying Global Crossing stock at the $19.00 IPO price and then
selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which
rose as high as $26.81 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 Global Crossing 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: Lovell & Stewart, LLP through
Christopher Lovell, Victor E. Stewart, or Christopher J. Gray by Phone:
212/608-1900 or by E-mail: sklovell@aol.com


HARMONIC INC.:Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Securities Violation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Harmonic, Inc. informed the Securities and Exchange Commission recently
that the federal court handling a securities class action against it
has granted its motion to dismiss said case.

The court sustained the motion in February, although it also afforded
the plaintiffs until August 13 to amend their consolidated complaint.

It is not clear whether or not the plaintiffs were able to file their
amended complaint in time for the deadline that expired last Monday.

The consolidated suit was originally filed in several separate class
actions between June and August 2000, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws by the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The complaint alleges that, by making false or misleading statements
regarding the Company's prospects and customers and its acquisition of
C-Cube, certain defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint also alleged that certain defendants violated section
14(a) of the Exchange Act and sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by filing a false or misleading registration
statement, prospectus, and joint proxy in connection with the C-Cube
acquisition.

The consolidated suit awaits resolution in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

"Based on its review of the previous complaints in the securities class
action and consultations with legal counsel, the Company believes that
it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously.
There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will prevail," the
Company told SEC.

Harmonic, Inc. develops and sells digital and fiber optic systems for
Internet access and video-on-demand services.

Its broadband network access products include multiplexers, optical
nodes, transmitters, and optical amplifiers.

Harmonic also offers converged data network equipment such as digital
headend systems, digital signal encoders, and complete provider-to-
subscriber data delivery systems.


ITXC CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel lodged recently a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of ITXC Corp. (Nasdaq:
ITXC) between September 27, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action alleges the following as defendants: ITXC, Lehman Brothers
Inc., FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc., Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner
& Smith Incorporated Tom I. Evslin, and Edward B. Jordan.

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 27, 1999, ITXC commenced an initial public
offering of 6,250,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $12 per share.

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

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

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

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

For 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


LEGATO SYSTEMS: Suit Dismissed, But Plaintiffs Allowed To Amend It
------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California recently granted a
motion filed by Legato Systems, Inc. and other defendants seeking the
dismissal of a shareholder suit filed last year.

However, along with the dismissal July 10, the court also allowed the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.

The Company is just a nominal defendant in the suit that claims that
defendants breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in improper
insider trading.

Legato's management software backs up and protects data on computer
networks, and recovers data after catastrophes.

Its customers include the Southern Company, British Airways, and Credit
Suisse Group.


LUPRON LITIGATION: Manufacturers Sued Anew In N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories, TAP Pharmaceuticals Products, Inc. and Takeda
Chemical Industries, Ltd. were sued anew in relation to its Lupron drug
recently.

In a SEC regulatory document filed by Abbott Laboratories, the Company
revealed that the suit was brought last June 12 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The suit alleges civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act in connection with the marketing of Lupron,
purports to be a class action on behalf of all entities and individuals
who paid the twenty percent co-payment cost of Lupron, and seeks treble
damages and other relief.

Abbott intends to file a response denying all substantive allegations.

Lupron is commonly used in the treatment of prostate cancer and
manufactured only by the above defendants.


MANPOWER INC.: 1999 Damage Suit In Louisiana Set For Trial On Sept. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A 1999 class action suit asserting personal injuries and property
damages is scheduled to go on trial on September 4, bares a report
filed by Manpower, Inc. to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

"Although several recent court rulings have been adverse to the
Company, it intends to continue to vigorously contest these lawsuits,"
the report said.

In the same report, the Company also said that should the ultimate
judgments or settlements exceed its insurance coverage, they could have
a material effect on the Company's results of operations, financial
position and cash flows.

This case stems from a 1999 explosion at a customer's industrial
facility.

Allegedly, the injuries and damages were caused in part by the actions
of one of the Company's temporary employees.

The case is pending in a Louisiana court.

Manpower, Inc. is the world's second-largest temporary-employment
company.

With about 3,700 owned or franchised offices in some 60 countries
(mainly France, the UK, and the US), it places more than 2.7 million
people in office, industrial, and professional positions.


MARINE DRILLING: Inks Agreement With "Offshore Workers" In Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Drilling Companies Inc. has reached recently a settlement
agreement in a class action suit filed by an offshore worker over
depressed wages and benefits paid to offshore employees.

According to a SEC regulatory document, the Company recorded a $5.1
million provision in its June financial statements to cover for the
preliminary settlement agreement with the plaintiff.

The agreement needs court approval, the SEC report said.  

Verdin vs. R&B Falcon Drilling USA Inc., et al. is currently pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  The case
was filed in August last year.

The plaintiff, previously employed by another defendant in the action,
purports to be an "offshore worker" and alleges that a number of
offshore drilling contractors have acted in concert to depress wages
and benefits paid to their offshore employees.

The plaintiff contends this is a violation of federal and state
antitrust laws and seeks an unspecified amount of treble damages,
attorney's fees and costs on behalf of himself and an alleged class of
offshore contract workers.

Marine Drilling is an oil and gas-drilling contractor, operating five
independent leg jack-ups, 10 mat-supported jack-ups, and two semi-
submersibles.

The Company is active primarily in the Gulf of Mexico but also drills
in the North Sea and offshore Australia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle
East.


NETSILICON INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP filed Wednesday a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of NETsilicon,
Inc. (NASDAQ: NSIL) between September 15, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The action is pending against defendants NETsilicon, CIBC World Markets
Corp., U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc., Cornelius Peterson and Daniel
J. Sullivan and is pending in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York.

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

On or about September 15, 1999 NETsilicon commenced an initial public
offering of 5,250,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $7.00 per share.

In connection therewith, NETsilicon 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) CIBC World Markets Corp. and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.
         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 NETsilicon shares issued
         in connection with the NETsilicon IPO; and

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

For more information, contact: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman
by Phone: 800/320-5081 by E-mail: netsiliconcase@milbergNY.com or visit
the firm's Website: www.milberg.com


ON-POINT TECHNOLOGY: Final Approval Of Settlement Deal Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------------
There is still no word from the court considering a settlement
agreement that would free On-Point Technology Systems, Inc. from any
liability in a securities class action filed last year.

In a report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company said
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has yet
to issue its final nod on the settlement deal.

Under the settlement agreement, On-Point would issue shares equal to
$950 thousand in value on the date the shares are required to be issued
to the class.

On-Point and the other defendants have also denied the liability claims
as part of the amended settlements.

Shareholders of the Company filed the suit, claiming that On-Point
violated federal securities laws by the dissemination of materially
false and misleading financial statements.

On-Point is a player in the Internet lottery market.


OPEN MARKET: Shareholders File Opposition To Dismissal Request
--------------------------------------------------------------
The federal court in Massachusetts granted Open Market Inc.'s request
for dismissal of a shareholders suit, but plaintiffs quickly replied
with a motion opposing the dismissal.

Open Market earnestly awaited the resolution of the motion, which it
filed in May.

Recently, though, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts acted on the motion, but allowed plaintiffs a chance to
file a motion stating its opposition.

The plaintiffs' motion was filed last August 3, according to a SEC
report filed by the Company recently.

The shareholders suit is a consolidation of six putative class action
suits filed between June 2000 and August 2000, against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors.

This action represents an alleged class of shareholders who purchased
the Company's common stock between November 18, 1999 and April 18,
2000.

It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities
Exchange Act.


OPENTV CORPORATION: Stull Stull Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody commenced recently a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of OpenTV Corp. (NASDAQ:OPTV)
from between November 22, 1999 and July 31, 2001, inclusive.

The suit is pending against OpenTV Corp., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner
& Smith Incorporation, Jan Steenkamp and Randall S. Livingston.

The complaint alleges that on or about November 22, 1999 Open TV
commenced an initial public offering of 7,500,000 of its shares of
common stock at an offering price of $20 per share.

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

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

For further 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


PEOPLESOFT INC.: Court Holds Final $15M Settlement Approval Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PeopleSoft, Inc. expects a ruling anytime on a settlement agreement
since the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
held a final approval hearing August 9.

The settlement involves a $15 million offer by the Company in exchange
for the dropping of the securities class actions filed beginning
January 29, 1999.

The suits, which have since been consolidated into one action,
represent all purchasers of PeopleSoft common stock during the period
April 22, 1997 to January 28, 1999.

It alleges that PeopleSoft misrepresented the degree of market
acceptance of its products, the technical capabilities of its products,
the success of certain acquisitions it had made, and the anticipated
financial performance of the Company in fiscal 1999.

The Company is the No.3 seller of applications that tie together
customers' global back-office operations.

Its enterprise resource planning (ERP) software addresses such tasks as
accounting, manufacturing, and supply chain management.


PEOPLESOFT INC.: Counter Suit Against Ex-worker Planned
-------------------------------------------------------
PeopleSoft, Inc. said recently in a SEC report it will pursue a cross
complaint against a former employee who has a pending case against the
Company for wrongful discharge and harassment, among other allegations.

The former employee, however, received a jury-returned favorable
verdict on the count of liability and allowed the trial to proceed on
the issue of damages.

The ex-employee filed the suit in November 1996 in the California
Superior Court for the County of Alameda, alleging wrongful discharge,
retaliation, age discrimination and harassment.

The plaintiff is seeking damages for lost wages, lost stock options,
emotional distress, and punitive damages.

The Company, however, has filed a counter suit based upon plaintiff's
violation of Penal Code section 632 and the plaintiff taking of
proprietary information from the Company.

The trial on the plaintiff's action was trifurcated on the issues of
liability, damages and the Company's cross complaint.

The cross complaint filed by the Company has not yet been heard.

"The Company will continue to vigorously defend the action, which may
include an appeal," the SEC report said.


PEOPLESOFT INC.: Declines To Speculate On Ruling In `99 Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The 9th Appellate Circuit Court recently held a hearing on the appeal
by plaintiffs seeking to reverse the dismissal of a case filed against
PeopleSoft, Inc. two years ago.

A decision is still pending, but the Company expects it to be handed
down at any time.

Although the suit was dismissed in March last year, the Company
declined to speculate on the ruling, claiming only that the suit has no
merits.

The appeal hearing was held July 11, 2001.

The suit consolidates several complaints filed beginning July 1999
alleging Vantive Corporation, then a newly-acquired Company, violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.


PORTAL SOFTWARE: Marc Henzel Initiates S.D. New York Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel recently began a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Portal Software, Inc.
(Nasdaq: PRSF) between May 5, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

Named as defendants are Portal Software, Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co.,
Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, BancBoston Robertson Stephens,
Inc., John E. Little and Jack L. Acosta.

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 May 5, 1999, Portal Software commenced an initial public
offering of 4,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $14 per share.

In connection therewith, Portal Software 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) Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse and Robertson Stephens had
         solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
         from certain investors in exchange for which Goldman Sachs,
         Credit Suisse and Robertson Stephens allocated to those
         investors material portions of the restricted number of Portal
         Software shares issued in connection with the Portal Software
         IPO; and

     (2) Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse and Robertson Stephens had
         entered into agreements with customers whereby Goldman Sachs,
         Credit Suisse and Robertson Stephens agreed to allocate Portal
         Software shares to those customers in the Portal Software IPO
         in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
         additional Portal Software 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/mhenzel18


PSS WORLD: Berger & Montague Files Securities Suit In M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. recently filed a class action suit on behalf of
an investor against PSS World Medical, Inc. (Nasdaq: PSSI) and its two
principal officers in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
PSS World Medical common stock during the period from October 26, 1999
through September 1, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between October 26, 1999 and September 1, 2000, thereby
artificially inflating the price of PSS World Medical securities.

Throughout the Class Period, the defendants issued multiple press
releases and filed quarterly reports and an annual report with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, which materially overstated the
Company's net income in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles.

On June 22, 2000, the defendants issued a press release announcing its
yearend results and that the Company had entered into a definitive
stock-for-stock merger agreement with Fisher Scientific International,
Inc.

The market reacted favorably to this announcement because of the value
of the exchange ratio of Fisher's shares.

One of the key terms of the merger, which was belatedly disclosed by
the Company, was that the Company had to report EBITDA of not less than
$23 million for the quarter in order for the merger to be consummated.

In an August 8, 2000 press release, the defendants announced that they
were in compliance with this provision of the merger agreement and that
the merger was expected to proceed.

On September 1, 2000, the Company issued a press release reporting that
the merger agreement had been terminated.

In response to this announcement, the market reevaluated the true value
of PSS World Medical's shares, which had been buoyed by the potential
exchange value of Fisher's stock during the Class Period, and,
accordingly, shares of PSS World Medical's common stock, which had
closed at $6 3/8 prior to announcement of the merger termination,
closed at $4 13/16 on an inordinate volume of 5,730,200 shares upon
dissemination of the news.

As the sell-off continued, the price of the Company's stock settled
into the range of approximately $2 3/4 - $3 3/4.

While Fisher had abandoned the merger because of the results of its own
due diligence review of the Company's books and records, the public
only became aware of the truth on June 27, 2001.

On that date, PSS World Medical filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2001 with the SEC and disclosed, for the first time,
that the Company's internal controls over inventory, accounts payable,
sales, and accounts receivable were, at all relevant times, materially
deficient and that the Company had previously issued financial
statements for the quarter ended June 30, 2000 which were materially
misleading.

As a result of these problems, the Company would be forced to restate
its previous financial data, and would also cause the Company's EBITDA
to be reduced, below the threshold that would have allowed the merger
to be completed.

For more information, contact: Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Stuart J.
Guber, Esq. or Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations Manager by Mail:
1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289 or
215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or
visit the firm's Website: www.investorprotect.com


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CO Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP commenced recently a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Qwest Communications
International, Inc. (NYSE: Q) from March 22, 2001 through July 23,
2001, inclusive.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that on March 22, 2001, defendants
Joseph Nacchio and Robin Szeliga appeared at a UBS Warburg hosted
senior management meeting where they falsely claimed that they would
legitimately achieve 1Q01 and FY01 EPS of $0.11 and $0.59,
respectively.

On April 24, 2001, Qwest reported its financial results for 1Q01,
including revenue growth of 12% and EBITDA growth of 16%.

Subsequent to these statements, Qwest's stock price increased, trading
as high as $41.83 on April 30, 2001.

In fact, Qwest's 1Q01 results and its statements regarding those
results as well as the statements regarding the success of the
integration with U.S. West Inc. and the Company's strong expense
controls were materially false and misleading due to the Company's
improper valuation of KPNQwest in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.

The complaint further alleges that defendants failed to disclose the
following facts:

     (1) Qwest's 1Q01 earnings were better than expectations primarily
         due to its change in the discount rate to calculate its
         pension obligations, increasing Qwest's 1Q01 results by at
         least $0.03;

     (2) Qwest's 1Q01 earnings were better than expectations due to
         defendants' failure to properly ``write- down'' the value of
         Qwest's holdings in KPNQwest, which was materially overstated
         as a result;

     (3) Qwest's 1Q01 earnings were increased by $0.01- $0.02 due to
         its aggressive use of capitalization to classify tens of
         millions of dollars of interest and software development costs
         as assets rather than expenses, which would contribute to
         decreased earnings in future quarters;

     (4) there was no way Qwest's future earnings would be nearly as
         strong as represented due in part to the accounting
         manipulations defendants engaged in which would adversely
         affect future results, as expenses were being deferred to
         future quarters and years; and

     (5) Qwest's selling, general and administrative expenses were only
         22% of sales, not due to tight expense controls as
         represented, but due to improper classification of SG&A
         expenses as cost of sales.

Subsequently, on July 20, 2001, Qwest admitted that its classification
of costs had been incorrect such that cost of sales had been overstated
and SG&A expenses had been understated.

As a result of defendants issuance of alleged material and misleading
statements (including a false 1Q01 financial statement), Qwest's stock
traded as high as $41.83 per share.

The individual defendants took advantage of this inflation, selling
1,255,000 shares of their Qwest stock for proceeds of $49.5 million.

Ultimately, on July 24, 2001, Qwest conceded that it recorded a write-
down of over $3.1 billion, primarily related to its ownership in
KPNQwest.

Upon this admission/revelation, Qwest's shares dropped once again,
trading below $27.

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


RAMBUS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Initiates N.D. CA Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP commenced recently a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Rambus,
Inc. (Nasdaq: RMBS) from January 18, 2000 through May 9, 2001,
inclusive.

The complaint charges Rambus and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning, among other
things:

     (1) the undisclosed fact that Rambus had engaged in fraudulent
         activity in order to obtain purportedly valuable patents on
         SDRAM computer memory and memory related technologies which
         enable semiconductor memory devices to keep pace with faster
         generations of processors and controllers;

     (2) the true enforceability and viability of Rambus' SDRAM patents
         and the true risks involved with investing in Rambus stock
         during the Class Period;

     (3) the effects these adverse undisclosed actions were having and
         would continue to have on the company's growth and earnings
         prospects; and

     (4) that company insiders, certain of which are named as
         defendants in the action, sold or otherwise disposed of over
         $125 million of their privately held Rambus stock while in
         possession of undisclosed material adverse information
         regarding the true validity of the company's SDRAM patents,
         including the undisclosed fact that such patents were obtained
         by defendants' fraud.

It was only after defendants sold or otherwise disposed of their
privately held stock that, on May 9, 2001, investors learned the truth
about Rambus, when a jury in a patent infringement suit filed by Rambus
against one of its competitors, Infineon Technologies, AG, determined
that Rambus' SDRAM patents had been obtained by fraud.

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


ROWECOM INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP recently commenced a class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of purchasers of RoweCom, Inc. (Nasdaq: ROWE) securities
during the period between March 9, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.
and Salomon Smith Barney Inc. with violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On or about March 9, 1999, RoweCom commenced an initial public offering
of 3.1 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of
$16 per share.

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

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


TREX COMPANY: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit In W.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel recently filed a class action
complaint against Trex and its senior officers and directors, Robert G.
Matheny and Roger A. Wittenberg, in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia.

The suit allegedly represent a class of persons who purchased the
securities of Trex Company, Inc. (NYSE: TWP) between April 24, 2001 and
June 18, 2001 and who were damaged thereby.

The Complaint alleges the defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On April 24, 2001, Trex issued a press release and participated in a
conference call with analysts and investors.

During the course of that conference call, defendants made certain
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's revenue,
products and earnings growth.

Additionally, defendants claimed that they were comfortable with a
revenue estimate of $81 million for the first half of fiscal 2001 for
the Company.

As a result, shortly after the April 24, 2001 statements and until the
June 18, 2001 disclosure, Trex common stock traded at prices in excess
of $26.00.

It is alleged that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
fact they had shipped product to their customers in quantities far in
excess of actual demand resulting in its customers having inventory
build-up. The increased inventories at retailers and wholesalers then
reached levels that defendants could not reasonably believe would be
sold off at a sufficient rate to create anywhere near $81 million in
revenue by June 30.

Defendants also knew and recklessly disregarded the fact that Trex was
responsible for "pushing" additional inventory into wholesale and
retail warehouses in order to artificially maintain the appearance of
continued sales growth.

Throughout the first quarter of 2001, Trex had offered various special
pricing, rebates and/or credit to many of its direct wholesalers and
retail outlet customers in an effort to stimulate them to purchase even
more inventory.

By encouraging, promoting and facilitating such stockpiling of
inventory at the wholesale and retail levels, it is alleged the
defendants knew or disregarded that wholesalers and retailers would
make materially fewer purchases in the second fiscal quarter.

The defendants subsequently publicly disclosed on June 18, 2001 that
Trex would achieve materially less than the previously announced $81
million in first half revenues for 2001.

As a result of this disclosure, Trex's stock price fell $7.98 to close
at $18.50 on June 19, 2001.

While the market price for Trex stock was artificially inflated by
defendants' statements and before the facts regarding the financial
impact of the rising retail and warehouse inventory levels were
disclosed to the public, individual defendants Matheny and Wittenberg
sold 190,000 of their Trex shares for proceeds of over $5.18 million.

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


                              *********

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  * * *