CAR_Public/010822.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, August 22, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 164


                              Headlines


BAYER CORPORATION: Alfred Yates Brings W.D. PA Baycol/Lipobay Suit
CALIPER TECHNOLOGIES: Labels Securities Suits In New York 'Meritless'
CNET NETWORKS: Parties Considering Dropping Case At Sept.11 Hearing
E-LOAN INC.: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. New York
ENTRUST INC.: Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Texas Securities Suits

EXODUS COMMUNICATIONS: To Mount Defense v. Securities Suits In CA
FAIRMARKET INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Brings S.D. NY Securities Suit
GLOBALNET FINANCIAL.COM: Milberg Weiss Files Amended Derivative Suit
GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Cauley Geller Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
I2 TECHNOLOGIES: To Ask Texas Court To Nix Securities Suits Next Month

LIQUID AUDIO: Has Yet To Receive Copies Of Complaints Filed In NY
LOUDCLOUD INC.: Rabin & Peckel Launches Securities Suit In S.D. NY
LOUDEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Stockholders Suit

RAMBUS INC.: Farrow Bramson Brings Securities Suit In N.D. California
STORAGENETWORKS INC.: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
SUSA PARTNERSHIP: Settles Nationwide Lawsuit For Unspecified Amount
TUMBLEWEED COMMUNICATIONS: Securities Suits v. Subsidiary Moved To MI
UGLY DUCKLING: Delaware Court Consolidates Shareholders Lawsuits
US WIRELESS: Savett Frutkin Launches Securities Suit In. ND California
ZIFF-DAVIS: Schiffrin & Barroway Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY

                              *********


BAYER CORPORATION: Alfred Yates Brings W.D. PA Baycol/Lipobay Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr. has filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who were prescribed the drug
Cerivastatin, also known as Baycol (Lipobay outside the United States).

As alleged in the Complaint, Bayer Corporation, a unit of Bayer AG (OTC
Bulletin Board: BAYZY), is named as the defendant in this action due to
its responsibility in manufacturing, promoting, marketing,
distributing, and selling Baycol and/or Lipobay.

For more details, contact: Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esq. by Phone: 1-800-
391-5164 (toll free) or 1-412-391-5164 or by E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


CALIPER TECHNOLOGIES: Labels Securities Suits In New York 'Meritless'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Caliper Technologies Corporation labels the securities class actions
pending in New York as meritless.

The Company, in a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, said it will strongly refute the claims alleged in
the suit.

The suits were brought beginning June this year against Caliper and
three of its officers and directors, alleging several violations of
federal securities laws.

In particular, the suits list violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 of said Act.

The suits also name as a defendant one or more of the underwriters of
Caliper's December 1999 initial public offering of common stock.

Plaintiffs claim one or more of these underwriters charged excessive,
undisclosed commissions to investors and entered into improper
agreements with investors relating to aftermarket transactions.

Caliper believes that the cases will be consolidated and that a single
consolidated complaint will be filed after the court appoints a lead
plaintiff.

The Company's chips incorporate short glass tubes (Caliper's patented
"sipper" technology) for extracting samples and internal channels that
hold fluids and chemicals for analysis and experimentation.

The company primarily targets the pharmaceutical industry. Its
customers include Amgen, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and
Hoffman-La Roche.


CNET NETWORKS: Parties Considering Dropping Case At Sept.11 Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement hearing to explore possibilities of dissolving the
consolidated shareholders suits against CNET Networks, Inc. is
scheduled for September 11, a regulatory document says.

The document filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange
Commission disclosed the parties have been in serious negotiations
since May, following the consolidation of the two suits filed last
year.

Stockholders of Ziff-Davis brought the consolidated suits in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County,
against Ziff-Davis and all of the members of its Board of Directors, as
it was constituted in September 1998.  

The complaints, which were brought as purported direct class actions,
allege that Ziff-Davis' non-employee stockholders were harmed by an
allegedly improper re-pricing of employee stock options in September
1998.  

More specifically, the complaint alleges were it not for the improper
re-pricing, employees would not have exercised their options, resulting
in fewer outstanding shares and therefore the proportional share of
proceeds received by non-employee stockholders from the Ziff-Davis/CNET
Networks, Inc. merger would have been larger.  

CNET Networks owns ZDNet, a leading provider of Websites about
technology, which has purchased Ziff Davis' 65% stake in joint venture
with ZDNet Media (China), a magazine publisher.


E-LOAN INC.: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP filed a class action lawsuit
Monday on behalf of purchasers of the securities of E-LOAN, Inc.
(NASDAQ:EELN) between June 28, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against defendants E-LOAN, Goldman Sachs & Co.,
Inc., FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Incorporated, Chris Larsen, Janina Pawlowski and Frank Siskowski.

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 June 28, 1999 E-LOAN commenced an initial public offering
of 3,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $14
per share.

In connection therewith, E-LOAN filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC.

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

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

     (2) Goldman Sachs, Robertson Stephens and Merrill Lynch had
         entered into agreements with customers whereby Goldman Sachs,
         Robertson Stephens and Merrill Lynch agreed to allocate E-LOAN
         shares to those customers in the E-LOAN IPO in exchange for
         which the customers agreed to purchase additional E-LOAN
         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: eloancase@milbergny.com or visit the
firm's Website: www.milberg.com


ENTRUST INC.: Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Texas Securities Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has recently
granted the motion filed by Entrust Inc., seeking the dismissal of a
consolidated shareholders suit.

The Court also gave plaintiffs 30 days leave to file an amended
complaint, according to a Company regulatory filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

"We believe this class action is without merit and intend to deny all
material allegations and to defend ourselves vigorously," the Company
told the SEC.

Beginning July 2000, several shareholders who purchased Company common
stocks during the period from October 19, 1999 through July 3, 2000
brought class action lawsuits against the Company.

The consolidated suit alleges that the Company misrepresented and
failed to disclose certain information about its business and
prospects.

The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

There has been no discovery to date, and no trial date has been
established.

Entrust's security software ensures the privacy of electronic
communications and transactions across corporate intranets and the
Internet.

Its Entrust suite of tools automates the management of digital
certificates (electronic passports that identify users) and monitors
applications such as remote access and e-mail.

The company sells to customers such as Citibank, FedEx, and NASA.


EXODUS COMMUNICATIONS: To Mount Defense v. Securities Suits In CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
World No.1 web-hosting firm Exodus Communications, Inc. promises to
mount a vigorous defense against pending securities class actions
lodged in California recently.

In a report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
dismissed the suits as meritless.

The Company, though, cannot give any assurance that the suits will not
have a material adverse effect on its finances and operations.

"We anticipate that the complaints pending in federal court will be
consolidated into a single proceeding," says the SEC report.

"We have not yet responded to any of these lawsuits, and no discovery
has been conducted," the Company disclosed.

Last July 12, the Company and five of its current and former executive
officers were named as defendants in the first of nine identical
purported class action lawsuits.

These complaints are all brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between March 30, 2001 and June 20, 2001 and
allege essentially identical violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

The complaints have been brought as purported stockholder class actions
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act.

In general, the complaints allege that the Company and the individual
defendants misrepresented the Company's financial prospects for the
second quarter of 2001 to inflate the value of the Company's common
stock.

The suits await resolution in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Exodus operates more than 40 Internet data centers in the Asia/Pacific
region, Europe, and North America.

Targeting clients whose businesses are dependent on the Internet, these
centers offer managed services, allowing clients to store their servers
in secure vaults and outsource the management of their Internet sites.


FAIRMARKET INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Brings S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed recently 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 FairMarket, Inc.
(Nasdaq: FAIM) from March 13, 2000 through December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit is pending against defendants FairMarket, FleetBoston
Robertson Stephens, Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

On or about March 13, 2000, FairMarket commenced an initial public
offering of 5,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $17 per share.

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

     (2) Robertson Stephens, Goldman, Merrill Lynch and Salomon had
         entered into agreements with customers whereby Robertson
         Stephens, Goldman, Merrill Lynch and Salomon agreed to
         allocate FairMarket shares to those customers in the
         FairMarket IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to
         purchase additional FairMarket 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


GLOBALNET FINANCIAL.COM: Milberg Weiss Files Amended Derivative Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP filed late last week an
amended derivative and class action lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court
against the board of directors of internet company Globalnet
Financial.com (NASDAQ: GLBN) alleging, among other things, breaches of
fiduciary duty and insider self-dealing.

The initial complaint was filed on August 13, 2001.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the actions of the Globalnet
Board "have resulted, and will result, in, inter alia, the waste of
Globalnet's assets, transactions that benefit insiders to the detriment
of the Company, and the improper obstruction of legitimate bids for
Globalnet and/or its assets."

Globalnet has lost $120 million over the last 18 months. Its share
price has fallen by over 99%, from a high of $57 to a current 35 cents.

The suit is being brought by Peter Fuhrman, a Globalnet shareholder.

Fuhrman is a shareholder activist who has led a campaign to oust the
Globalnet board and management.

Named in the lawsuit as defendants, in addition to the current members
of the Company's Board of Directors, are two former Globalnet
directors, Michael Whitaker and Nicholas Backhouse.

Whitaker is Chief Executive Officer of London-based Internet investment
company NewMedia Spark PLC (LSE: NMS.L). Whitaker stepped down from the
Globalnet board on June 14, 2001, the day before NewMedia Spark
launched its offer.

On July 18, 2001, NewMedia Spark launched a cash takeover bid for
Globalnet at $0.36 per share for each share of Common Stock and $0.036
per share for each share of Class A Common Stock of GlobalNet.

The amended complaint alleges that the Tender Offer Documents are
materially misleading and fail to provide GlobalNet's public
shareholders with essential and meaningful information needed by the
shareholders to assess the fairness and reasonableness of the Tender
Offer.

On August 7, 2001, an alternative offer was made by AISoftw@re. Under
the terms of that offer, AISoftw@re would acquire each outstanding
share of the Company in a stock-for-stock exchange pursuant to which
holders of GlobalNet common stock would receive ordinary shares of
AISoftw@re valued at $0.55 per share, and holders of Company Class A
common stock would receive ordinary shares of AISoftw@re valued at
$0.055 per share.

Despite the obviously superior value of this proposal to the amended
NewMedia Spark offer of July 18, 2001, the Board of Directors
nevertheless announced that it continued to support and advocate the
NewMedia Spark deal.

Prior to the expiration of AISoftw@re's offer, it raised and enhanced
its offer to acquire each outstanding share of the Company in a stock-
for-stock exchange pursuant to which holders of GlobalNet common stock
would receive ordinary shares of AISoftw@re valued at $0.60 per share,
and holders of Company Class A common stock would receive ordinary
shares of AISoftw@re valued at $0.06 per share -- representing an
approximately 8% premium over its previous offer.

Despite this enhancement, on August 15, 2001, the Board announced that
it had rejected AISoftw@re's clearly superior offer in favor of the New
Media Spark offer.

Later on August 16, 2001, AISoftw@re wrote to the GlobalNet Board
amending its earlier offer to a cash tender offer.

Under the terms of the amended offer, AISoftw@re would pay $0.45 in
cash in exchange for each share of GlobalNet Common Stock and $0.045 in
cash in exchange for each share of GlobalNet Class A common stock.

This offer represents a 25% premium above the current tender offer by
NewMedia Spark.

Furthermore, AISoftw@re announced that as part of its tender offer,
AISoftw@re "is prepared to provide $2 million in interim financing to
Globalnet Financial so that Globalnet Financial can satisfy its
obligations during the time it will take to complete the proposed cash-
tender offer."

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


GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Cauley Geller Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP recently launched a class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of purchasers of GRIC Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq: GRIC)
securities during the period between December 14, 1999 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants CIBC World Markets Corp., U.S. Bancorp
Piper Jaffray, Inc., Prudential Securities Inc., GRIC, Dr. Hong Chen
and Joseph M. Zaelit with violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On or about December 14, 1999, GRIC commenced an initial public
offering of 4.6 million of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $14.00 per share.

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

    (2) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with
        customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate
        GRIC shares to those customers in the GRIC IPO in exchange for
        which the customers agreed to purchase additional GRIC 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 free0 or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com


I2 TECHNOLOGIES: To Ask Texas Court To Nix Securities Suits Next Month
----------------------------------------------------------------------
i2 Technologies, Inc. will ask the federal court in Texas to dismiss
the consolidated class action complaint filed against it in March this
year.

According to a latest regulatory filing, the Company is planning to
file its motion to dismiss next month.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently
consolidated the complaints.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain
of its officers violated federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

These violations were allegedly incurred when the Company made
purportedly false and misleading statements concerning the
characteristics and implementation of certain of its software products.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock during the
period between May 4, 2000 and February 26, 2001.

"We intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit," the Company
said.

The company creates software that not only helps manufacturers plan and
schedule production and related operations such as raw materials
procurement and product delivery, but also enables companies to create
electronic marketplaces that link employees, customers, suppliers, and
trading partners.

i2 serves customers (including IBM, General Motors, and 3M) in a
variety of industries, including automotive, software, and
semiconductors.


LIQUID AUDIO: Has Yet To Receive Copies Of Complaints Filed In NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid Audio, Inc. says it has yet to be served with any notice of the
announced securities suits filed against it by various law firms.

As of the filing of its SEC regulatory report, the Company said it has
not received any copies of the complaints allegedly docketed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Class Action Reporter carried the announcements of Bernstein
Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP and Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP in its
July 24 and August 8 issues, respectively.

The Company filed its regulatory report August 14.

The complaints name the Company, certain of its former and current
officers and directors, Lehman Brothers Inc., BancBoston Robertson
Stephens, Inc. and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc. as defendants.

Plaintiffs allege violation of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Company's software lets consumers download, listen to, and buy
digital songs off the Web.

Unlike MP3, Liquid Audio has won favor among record companies, which
can sell copyright-protected music through the company's network of
online retailers.


LOUDCLOUD INC.: Rabin & Peckel Launches Securities Suit In S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel, LLP lodged recently a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Loudcloud, Inc.
(NASDAQ: LDCL) common stock in its initial public offering, declared
effective by the SEC on March 8, 2001.

The complaint was brought against defendants Loudcloud, certain of its
officers and directors and its underwriters.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by issuing and selling Loudcloud common stock
pursuant to the March 8, 2001 initial public offering without
disclosing to investors:

     (1) Loudcloud's plans to substantially reduce its workforce and to
         restructure itself shortly after the public offering;

     (2) that the public offering was not raising funds sufficient to
         enable the Company to reach profitability and accomplish the
         planned expansion described in the prospectus;

     (3) the imminent cancellation of a major contract to which one of
         the underwriters was a party; and

     (4) that in order to enable the public offering to go forward,
         undisclosed sales of shares were made to insiders and the
         selling price of the offering was artificially maintained by
         the undisclosed sale of part of the offering to insiders.

For more details, contact: Rekha M. Carozza or Maurice Pesso by Mail:
275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.rabinlaw.com


LOUDEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP lodged a class action lawsuit
Monday on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Loudeye
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:LOUD) between March 15, 2000 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against defendants Loudeye, FleetBoston Robertson
Stephens, Martin G. Tobias and Larry Culver.

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 March 15, 2000, Loudeye commenced an initial public
offering of 4,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $16 per share.

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

     (2) Robertson Stephens had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby Robertson Stephens agreed to allocate Loudeye shares
         to those customers in the Loudeye IPO in exchange for which
         the customers agreed to purchase additional Loudeye 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: loudeyecase@milbergny.com or visit
the firm's Website: www.milberg.com


NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP began a class action lawsuit
Monday on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Nuance
Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: NUAN) between April 12, 2000 and December
6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against defendants Nuance, Goldman Sachs & Co.,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., Ronald Croen, Graham Smith
and Dr. Yogen Dalal.

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 April 12, 2000, Nuance commenced an initial public offering
of 4,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $17
per share.  

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

     (2) Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch had entered into agreements
         with customers whereby Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch agreed
         to allocate Nuance shares to those customers in the Nuance IPO
         in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
         additional Nuance 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: 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: Nuancecase@milbergNY.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Stockholders Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Leading U.S. credit card outfit Providian Financial Corporation
disclosed in a latest SEC report that its motion to dismiss a
consolidated stockholder suit was denied recently.

The Company said the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the motion in a ruling last June.

According to the Company, discovery has since begun following the
denial of the motion.

The suit filed in 1999 consolidates several putative class actions
purporting to represent individuals or entities that acquired the
Company's stock between January 15, 1999 and May 26, 1999.

The suit alleges unfair business practices and seeks damages in an
unspecified amount, in addition to pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company is one of the top 10 credit card outfits in the United
States and issues mainly secured credit cards to more than 16 million
customers, many of whom have spotty credit histories.


RAMBUS INC.: Farrow Bramson Brings Securities Suit In N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Farrow, Bramson, Baskin & Plutzik, LLP filed recently a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California charging Rambus, Inc. (NASDAQ: RMBS)
with securities fraud.

The suit seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on
behalf of all investors who bought Rambus, Inc. common stock between
February 11, 2000 through and including May 9, 2001.

The complaint alleges that Rambus and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false
and misleading information about the Company, and that Rambus falsely
promoted its patents and technologies relating to SDRAM technology
during the class period.

After the first Complaint was filed, various law firms filed a series
of identical class action complaints.

All of these cases will likely be consolidated by the Court, which will
appoint a lead plaintiff and counsel to prosecute the lawsuits.

The filed class actions seek to recover the damages caused by the
securities law violations described above.

For more information, contact: Alan R. Plutzik or Kathryn A. Schofield
by Mail: 2125 Oak Grove Road, Ste. 120, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 or by
Phone: 925-945-0200  


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

The complaint charges defendants Goldman Sachs & Co., Credit Suisse
First Boston Corporation 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 June 30, 2000, StorageNetworks commenced an initial public
offering of 9 million of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $15 per share.

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

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

     (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 StorageNetworks shares
         issued in connection with the StorageNetworks IPO; and

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

For further 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


SUSA PARTNERSHIP: Settles Nationwide Lawsuit For Unspecified Amount
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A nationwide class action filed against Susa Partnership L.P. is now
history as both sides recently executed a stipulation discontinuing the
action with prejudice.

In a recent SEC regulatory filing, the Company admitted it offered a
settlement package, but declined to disclose the terms, which it
labeled "confidential."

The suit was filed in November 1999, seeking the recovery of certain
late and administrative fees paid by tenants and an injunction against
similar fees.

The suit was lodged in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Ulster County.


TUMBLEWEED COMMUNICATIONS: Securities Suits v. Subsidiary Moved To MI
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The securities suits lodged against Interface Systems, Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Tumbleweed Communications Corporation, have been
transferred to the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan.

The suits were originally docketed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The pending motions filed by Interface in September last year,
consequently, will now be decided by the new court, a SEC report says.

These motions include:

     (1) a motion to strike or dismiss for failure to meet the
         certification requirements of the Private Securities
         Litigation Reform Act, and

     (2) a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,

The suits were brought in July last year by David H. Zimmer,
Congressional Securities, Inc. and other plaintiffs against Interface
and various additional defendants, including Interface's President and
Chief Executive Officer, Robert A. Nero and Fiserv Correspondent
Services, Inc.

The complaints seek relief under the federal securities laws on behalf
of purported classes of persons who purchased, held, or sold shares of
Interface stock, and under various other causes of action.

Tumbleweed created the Integrated Messaging Exchange software, which
enables secure electronic messaging (including electronic bill
statements and customer service inquiries) primarily for telecom
service providers, financial institutions, and government agencies.

Its Messaging Management System lets businesses filter, monitor, and
archive e-mail sent and received by both employees and trading
partners, distributors, and suppliers.


UGLY DUCKLING: Delaware Court Consolidates Shareholders Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court in New Castle recently consolidated the
shareholders suits against top used-car seller Ugly Duckling
Corporation, a SEC report filed by the Company says.

The report said the court ordered the consolidation in June.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the plaintiff's allegations and
believe that the actions are without merit," the Company said in the
report.

The consolidated suit stems from an offer made by Company chairman and
primary shareholder Ernest Garcia II to buy all outstanding shares of
the Company's common stock.

The plaintiffs allege that Ugly Duckling, and its directors, breached
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition.

The complaints seek to enjoin the proposed acquisition by Garcia and to
recover compensatory damages caused by the proposed acquisition and the
alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

Ugly Duckling is a leading used-car dealership chain, primarily
targeting low-income customers and those with credit problems.

To cater to these sub-prime customers, the company is a "buy here-pay
here" dealer, meaning it finances and services car loans rather than
using outside lenders. Interest rates ranges from 20%-30%.

Ugly Duckling operates about 80 dealerships in metropolitan areas in
eight states.

Cars average about $8,600 and usually are between four and seven years
old.


US WIRELESS: Savett Frutkin Launches Securities Suit In. ND California
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. filed a class action complaint
recently on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the securities
of U.S. Wireless Corporation (NASDAQ: USWC, USWCE) between June 29,
1999 and May 25, 2001 and who were damaged thereby.

The complaint was filed against U.S. Wireless and its former chairman
and CEO, Oliver Hilsenrath, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants caused the Company to falsely report its results for fiscal
2000 through improper characterization of the benefit and the
beneficiaries of the issuance of shares of the Company's stock.

As a result of this mischaracterization, the company's net loss
attributable to common shareholders was understated by $6.2 million, or
35%.

Ultimately, U.S. Wireless revealed that its results for fiscal 2000
were in error and would be restated to record the share issuances at
fair market value and record a loss of $5.3 million for the shares and
$0.9 million for certain tax effects.

Absent defendants' improper accounting, the Company would have reported
much less favorable fiscal 2000 earnings.

On May 29, 2001 Nasdaq suspended trading of U.S. Wireless Corporation.
As a result, U.S. Wireless was halted from trading at $2.91, 88% lower
than the Class Period high of $24.50.

For more information, contact: Savett Frutkin Podell & RYAN, P.C.
through Robert P. Frutkin, Esq., Barbara A. Podell, Esq. or Renee C.
Nixon, Paralegal by Phone: 215/923-5400 or 800/993-3233 by E-mail:
mail@savettlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.savettlaw.com


ZIFF-DAVIS: Schiffrin & Barroway Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP commenced a class action lawsuit recently in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Ziff-Davis, Inc.
(NYSE: ZDZ) from March 30, 1999 through December 12, 2000, inclusive.

The suit is pending against defendants Ziff-Davis, CNET Networks, Inc.,
which acquired Ziff-Davis in a stock swap on October 17, 2000, and the
following executive officers of Ziff-Davis: Hippeau and Timothy C.
O'Brien.

The complaint also names Goldman, Sachs & Co. as a defendant, who was
one of the lead underwriters of Ziff-Davis' initial public offering.

On or about March 30, 1999, Ziff-Davis commenced an initial public
offering of 8,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $19.00 per share.

In connection therewith, Ziff-Davis 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) Goldman Sachs' agreement with certain investors to provide
         them with significant amounts of restricted Ziff-Davis shares
         in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed
         commissions; and

     (2) the agreement between Goldman Sachs and certain of its
         customers whereby Goldman Sachs would allocate shares in the
         IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers'
         agreement to purchase Ziff-Davis shares in the after-market at
         pre-determined prices.

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


                              *********

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  * * *