CAR_Public/010823.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Thursday, August 23, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 165


                              Headlines



AETNA INC.: ADA Brings Suit Over Breach, Libel and Interference
AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Wolf Haldenstein Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
ALLIANCE PHARMACEUTICALS: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Suit In S.D. CA
AMERICAN PREMIER: Eight-year-old 'Road Right Of Way' Lawsuit Settled
ASHFORD.COM: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY

ASIA PULP: Investors Initiate Securities Suit Over Disclosure
BAYER CORPORATION: Two Firms Petition JPML To Consolidate Baycol Suits
BAYER CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Joins Fray, Files Action In W.D. PA
BUY.COM: Emerson Initiates Securities Lawsuit In S.D. New York
COCA-COLA: New Georgia Racial Discrimination Suit Raised By Workers

DIAL CORPORATION: Federal Judge Certifies Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
E-LOAN INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY
FORD MOTOR: Judge Halts Ignition Switch Suit Hearing To Mull $1B Offer
GENERIC DRUGS LITIGATION: NY Police Union Files Suits v. 8 Drug Makers
HEALTHCARE LITIGATION: NY Medical Society Sues For Alleged Abuses

HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Deadline Lapse Seals Bank Austria Settlement
KANA SOFTWARE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
LOS ANGELES: Settles "Illegal Detention" Lawsuits For $27 Million
LOUDEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Lawsuit In S.D. NY
MARY MEEKER: Judge Takes Offense At 'Derogatory' Complaint, Junks Suit

MERCHANTS BANCSHARES: Settles Lawsuit In Vermont For $2.1 Million
METROMEDIA FIBER: Milberg Weiss Begins S.D. New York Securities Suit
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Drop Ritalin Suit In Puerto Rico
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Lawsuit In S.D. NY
OKLAHOMA STATE: Judge Allows Suit To Proceed v. Health Care Authority

POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiffs To Expand Suit Class Members
RAMBUS INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In N.D. California
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Lovell and Sirota Firms File Securities Suit In SD NY
UNDERWRITERS LITIGATION: Beatie Osborn Sues Six Banks In S.D. New York

* PricewaterhouseCoopers Notes Rise In 2001 Securities Litigation Cases


                              *********


AETNA INC.: ADA Brings Suit Over Breach, Libel and Interference
---------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dental Association (ADA) and two of its member dentists
sued Aetna Inc. late last week charging the giant insurer with breach
of contract, libel and unlawful interference with the dentist-patient
relationship.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
the class action complaint seeks relief under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) for breach of contract, and under
supporting state laws for the trade libel and tortious interference
charges.

The plaintiffs charge Aetna, the nation's third largest provider of
dental coverage, with regularly breaching its contract with subscribers
by failing to pay non-plan providers' actual charges for professional
services rendered.

According to the complaint, Aetna's contract with its subscribers
states that the insurer is required to pay out-of-network providers'
actual charges unless it has appropriate data to substantiate a lower
payment.

The lawsuit claims Aetna did not substantiate the lower payments and
misrepresented how it arrived at determining usual, customary and
reasonable (UCR) amounts it paid to out-of-network providers.

The complaint says the company knew or had reason to know the lower
amounts it paid were below proper UCR amounts.

The lawsuit also charges Aetna with using language on its Explanation
of Benefits (EOB) form, which is sent to patients, to tell patients of
the out-of-network dental provider that it would not pay the dentists'
actual charges because the "provider has engaged in misconduct by
attempting to charge excessive and unreasonable fees."

Aetna subscribers would not have known that the insurer had not
appropriately determined that the out-of-network provider's actual
charges were unusual or more than proper UCR amounts, the complaint
charges.

"By deliberately disseminating misinformation about individual dentists
and their fees, we believe Aetna has seriously undermined the trust
between dentists and their patients by casting doubt on their integrity
and professionalism," said Dr. Robert M. Anderton, ADA president.

"This also constitutes trade libel, and dentists have lost long-
standing patients through such misleading information. Some patients,
believing their dentist attempted to charge an excessive fee, chose to
go elsewhere or have even elected to forego treatment altogether," he
said.

The plaintiffs seek an injunction to prohibit Aetna from continuing to
engage in the allegedly unlawful business practices, and awarding of
compensatory and punitive damages.

The not-for-profit ADA is the nation's oldest national dental
association, representing more than 141,000 members.

It advocates for public health and promotes the art and science of
dentistry.


AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Wolf Haldenstein Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of purchasers of Airspan Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq: AIRN)
securities between July 19, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit is pending against defendants Airspan, certain of its officers
and directors, and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Airspan common stock pursuant to the July
19, 2000 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated Airspan shares to customers at the
IPO price.

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

The requirement that customers make additional purchases at
progressively higher prices as the price of Airspan stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Airspan's share price up to artificially high levels.

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

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


ALLIANCE PHARMACEUTICALS: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Suit In S.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk, the San Diego law firm specializing in
stockholder recoveries for abusive management practices, filed a class
action lawsuit against Alliance Pharmaceutical Corporation for
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

The filing took place in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of all holders of Molecular
Biosystems, Inc. common stock who exchanged their MBI shares for shares
of Alliance in accordance with the January 3, 2001, merger between MBI
and Alliance.

The lawsuit alleges that Alliance and certain officer and director
insiders participated in a scheme to circulate false and misleading
statements regarding the status of Alliance's development of its blood
substitute product Oxygent.

Alliance is a San Diego based biotechnology company which researches
and develops therapeutic and diagnostic agents.

The complaint alleges that Alliance issued a series of false statements
including, as contained in its November 2000 Registration Statement,
statements influencing the merger with MBI.

The false statements concerned the progress of the U.S. Phase III
clinical trial of its Oxygent blood substitute product.

As alleged in the complaint, Alliance failed to disclose that the U.S.
Phase III trial was fatally flawed by imbalances in the control group
that would cause abandonment of the trial and crippling delays in the
commercial release of Oxygent.

To the contrary, defendants' aligned European results with those in the
U.S. Because of these misstatements and omissions, Alliance was able to
consummate a merger with MBI involving a share exchange favorable to
management.

Just five days after the merger was completed (January 3, 2001),
defendants announced the suspension of patient enrollment in its Phase
III U.S. clinical trial.

The news shocked the market and Alliance stock plummeted.

For more information, contact: Gregory A. Hartlett by Mail: 501 West
Broadway, Suite 1250, San Diego, CA 92101 by Phone: 877-493-5366 (toll
free) by E-mail: fk@class-action-law.com or by Fax: 619-238-5425


AMERICAN PREMIER: Eight-year-old 'Road Right Of Way' Lawsuit Settled
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The eight-year-old lawsuit over the ownership of adjacent properties to
an abandoned railroad by Penn Central Corporation is now resolved.

The Associated Press reported recently that a circuit judge approved
last week a settlement offer, awarding 12,000 individuals the land for
free.

It is estimated that the settlement value could reach $40 million, the
report said.

Lawyers for the U.S. Railroad Vest Corp. and American Premier, formerly
Penn Central Corp., regarded the settlement as fair.

The suit traces its roots from the railroad's practice of selling or
attempting to sell abandoned right of way land to adjoining property
owners.

Plaintiffs contend the railroad's control of most rail beds ended when
it abandoned the railway.

The settlement concludes the suit, which has taken more than eight
years to resolve, involving 53 counties and 733 miles of abandoned
railroad right of way, the report said.  


ASHFORD.COM: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Ashford.com, Inc.
(Nasdaq: ASFD) from September 22, 1999 through December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The suit is pending against defendants Ashford.com and Goldman Sachs &
Co., BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown,
and E*Offering Corp.

On or about September 22, 1999, Ashford.com commenced an initial public
offering of 6,250,000 shares of common stock at $13.00 per share.

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

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

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

     (2) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain
         of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would
         allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for
         the customers' agreement to purchase Ashford.com 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


ASIA PULP: Investors Initiate Securities Suit Over Disclosure
-------------------------------------------------------------
A suit alleging violations of federal securities laws has been filed
against Asia Pulp & Paper Co. Ltd (NYSE:PAP), the Reuters News Agency
said recently.

The suit was brought by a group of investors, charging the company
issued misleading financial information to inflate its stock price.

Accordingly, the company allegedly overstated its asset and net worth,
underestimated its financial liabilities and overstated its ability to
pay down debt.

The suit is docketed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The suit seeks class action status on behalf of investors who bought
securities in the company between Jan. 1, 1997 and April 4.

It names as defendants the company's top officials, including the chief
executive and chief financial officer.

In July this year, the New York Stock Exchange considered de-listing
the Company following a 30-day suspension as a result of trading below
the minimum $1 average.

The Company is one of the world's largest vertically integrated pulp
and paper companies.

It also has businesses in property, finance, plantation and food
making. But the major cash generator is the pulp and paper operations,
the largest in Asia outside Japan.


BAYER CORPORATION: Two Firms Petition JPML To Consolidate Baycol Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At least two law firms that have filed lawsuits against Bayer
Corporation over allegations that its Baycol anti-cholesterol drug
causes death have filed a petition to consolidate the suits into one
action.

The law firm of Kenneth B. Moll Associates, Ltd. and Schiffrin &
Barroway, LLP asked Tuesday the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation in Washington to merged the suits.

However, the former wants the suit consolidated in Chicago, while the
latter requested the Panel to bring the suit in Pittsburgh, PA where
the Company is headquartered.

Both petitions stated that as of Tuesday, individual suits and those
seeking class action status have been filed in at least six different
federal districts and many more are expected, Reuters said.

The purpose of consolidation is to provide centralized management,
under a single court's supervision, of pretrial litigation proceedings
arising in different districts.

Aside from the federal cases, dozens of suits have been filed in state
courts and plaintiffs lawyers estimate that figure will grow into the
hundreds.

Reports say an estimated 700,000 people in the United States have taken
the drug.

Bayer AG removed Baycol, also known by the generic name cerivastatin,
from the market on Aug. 8 after 31 patients on the drug had died.

Bayer has said there have been no causal links established between the
deaths and the drug.

The deaths were caused by a muscle-weakening disorder called
rhabdomyolysis that can cause kidney failure.

According to Reuters, Baycol is a member of a class of drugs called
statins, which work by limiting the liver's production of cholesterol.

Statins are one of the fast-growing segments of the drug industry with
sales expected to hit $20 billion to $25 billion by 2005 from $14
billion last year.


BAYER CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Joins Fray, Files Action In W.D. PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed recently a class action 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.

On August 8, 2001 the Food and Drug Administration announced that Bayer
withdrew Baycol from all markets in which it distributed Baycol and/or
Lipobay, other than Japan.

According to the FDA, the recall was announced for a number of reasons,
including the fact that over 480 Baycol users developed rhabdomyolysis
after being prescribed Baycol.

Rhabdomyolysis is a condition that results in muscle cell breakdown and
release of the contents of muscle cells into the bloodstream.

Symptoms of rhabdomyolysis include muscle pain, weakness, tenderness,
malaise, fever, dark urine, nausea and vomiting.

The pain may involve specific groups of muscles or may be generalized
throughout the body.

Most frequently the involved muscle groups are the calves and lower
back.

In some cases the muscle injury is so severe that patients develop
renal failure and other organ failure, which can be fatal.

Cases of fatal rhabdomyolysis in association with the use of Baycol
have been reported significantly more frequently than for other
approved statins.

The FDA has received reports of 31 U.S. deaths due to severe
rhabdomyolysis associated with the use of Baycol.

Recent news reports have suggested that over several hundred people
have died from their alleged use of Baycol and/or Lipobay worldwide.

According to Bayer, patients who are currently taking Baycol should
have their Baycol discontinued and be switched to an alternative
therapy.

For more information, contact: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP
through its Tort Department: Liza McPhail or Kandie Gibson by Mail:
P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944
(toll free) or by E-mail: mcphail@classlawyer.com


BUY.COM: Emerson Initiates Securities Lawsuit In S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm, a law firm in Houston, Texas, filed a class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of purchasers of Buy.com Inc. (Nasdaq:BUYX) securities during
the period between February 7, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that on or about February 7, 2000, Buy.com
commenced an initial public offering (IPO) of 14,000,000 of its shares
of common stock at an offering price of $13 per share.

In connection therewith, Buy.com 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) Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Robertson Stephens, Goldman Sachs
         and Smith Barney had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Robertson Stephens, Goldman
         Sachs and Smith Barney allocated to those investors material
         portions of the restricted number of Buy.com shares issued in
         connection with the Buy.com IPO; and

     (2) Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Robertson Stephens, Goldman Sachs
         and Smith Barney had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Robertson Stephens,
         Goldman Sachs and Smith Barney agreed to allocated Buy.com
         shares to those customers in the Buy.com IPO in exchange for
         which the customers agreed to purchase additional Buy.com
         shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

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

For more information, contact: The Emerson Firm through John G.
Emerson, Jr. by Mail: 2600 S. Gessner, Suite 600, Houston, Texas 77063
by Phone: 832/723-8850 or by E-mail: jge@emersonfirm.com


COCA-COLA: New Georgia Racial Discrimination Suit Raised By Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A discrimination class action suit was filed anew against Coca-Cola Co.
by six African-American plaintiffs who opted out of a multimillion-
dollar class action settlement late last year, the Reuters News Agency
reports.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs disclosed Tuesday that the suit is
currently docketed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia.

The suit charges the company of discrimination in hiring, promotions,
evaluations and compensation and seeks "general and compensatory
damages in amounts to be proven at trial," Reuters says.

According to lawyer F. Shields McManus, this suit is the third to be
filed after a $192.5 million settlement was reached late last year.

McManus said the six plaintiffs are among 20 employees who opted out of
the settlement.  They belong to the quality assurance division of the
Company's product-integrity department.

Coca-Cola spokesman Ben Deutsch, in a statement, believes the suit will
not prosper, noting that charges in the suit were similar to those
addressed in the class action settlement.

In the ruling approving that settlement, "the Court stated that 'the
result is consistent with and in some respects exceeds the relief that
the class could expect to obtain at trial," Deutsch's statement said.

"With such a strong endorsement of the settlement, we view this issue
as now behind us," the statement added.


DIAL CORPORATION: Federal Judge Certifies Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A sexual harassment lawsuit brought against soap maker Dial Corporation
has been granted class action status by a federal court, the Associated
Press reported recently.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Warren K. Urbom said he is convinced
dozens of women in the Company's Aurora, Illinois plant were targets of
repeated comments and conducts of a sexual nature.

According to the report, the ruling enables the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission to use one trial to seek damages for 90 female
employees who alleged their male co-workers had touched their breasts
and buttocks.

The suit also charges the men had exposed themselves to the female
employees.

The Company, however, believes the Commission has a weak case.

"There is no finding in this decision that Dial violated the law in any
manner. It simply holds that some of the claims may go to trial," said
spokesman Tom Herrmann.

"Dial remains confident that it will prevail," he added.

But the Commission is unfazed, predicting that the award of damages in
the suit could top $25 million.


E-LOAN INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP lodged 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 E-LOAN, Inc. (Nasdaq:
EELN) from June 28, 1999 through December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit is pending against defendants E-LOAN, Goldman Sachs & Co.,
Inc., FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Incorporated.

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 alleges that 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: 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


FORD MOTOR: Judge Halts Ignition Switch Suit Hearing To Mull $1B Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A $1 billion settlement offer by Ford Motor Co. prompted a superior
court judge to halt a scheduled hearing on a 'defective ignition
switch' suit last Monday to allow parties time to consider the matter.

According to the Associated Press, Judge Michael Ballachey has
confirmed that negotiations are ongoing, but slapped a gag order on
attorneys from both sides.

Four months ago, the judge ordered Ford to recall as many as 2 million
vehicles in California.

Under the settlement deal, Ford would offer not a recall but a warranty
extension that could cover as many as 5 million vehicles nationwide;
owners would be reimbursed for replacing ignition switches.

Lead attorney Jeff Fazio welcomes the offer, saying: "I think this is
basically a win for consumers. It could have been years before the cars
were fixed, but with this it could come soon."

On the other hand, analysts say the settlement would limit the
financial exposure to Ford, which is already involved in a recall of
tires on its Ford Explorers.

The tires and vehicles are being investigated in connection with more
than 100 highway deaths.

Ford is offering to replace ignition devices on all Ford vehicles
nationwide that have stalled and have no more than 100,000 miles --
which is an estimated 500,000 to 650,000 vehicles in California and an
estimated 5 million nationwide.

In addition, the Company will extend all warranties to 100,000 miles
for affected vehicles and pay to replace the ignition if it stalls and
needs replacing before the new 100,000 mile warranty is up.

The judge has scheduled jury selection on August 27.


GENERIC DRUGS LITIGATION: NY Police Union Files Suits v. 8 Drug Makers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Four class action lawsuits have been filed against brand-name and
generic drug makers for allegedly entering into illegal agreements to
artificially inflate prices of their drugs, the Reuters News Agency
reports.

A union of New York policemen brought the suits in West Virginia, New
York, New Jersey, and District of Columbia.

According to an announcement released Tuesday by the New York City
Policemen's Benevolent Association, the suits involve eight brand-name
and generic drug makers.

The union charges the drug makers of illegally conspiring to keep
cheaper generic versions of popular drugs off the US market.

In the West Virginia suit, the union charges that a March 2000
settlement entered into by Pfizer and Mylan Laboratories resulted in
the latter marketing licensed versions of Pfizer's Procardia XL
(nifedipine), rather than its own generic drug.

The drug is prescribed to individuals suffering from hypertension and
angina.

According to the union, the above settlement forced union members to
pay inflated prices for the Procardia XL when a generic alternative
should have been available.

Meanwhile, in the New York suit, the union also charges AstraZeneca and
Barr Laboratories of entering into similar arrangements to keep the
cheaper version of Zeneca's cancer drug Nolvadex (tamoxifen) off the
market.

The union said Barr's Zeneca-manufactured tamoxifen sold at a 5 percent
discount to the brand drug, when generics are typically cheaper by 30
to 80 percent.

In the New Jersey suit, the union accused Schering-Plough of illegally
paying Upsher-Smith and American Home Products ESI Lederle division to
delay the introduction of generic alternatives to K-Dur 20.

The drug is a prescription potassium chloride supplement used by people
who take high blood pressure medicine, says Reuters.
The union, meanwhile, charged Bristol-Myers Squibb in the District of
Columbia of filing false patents on its anti-anxiety drug BuSpar
(buspirone).

The union alleged that the fraud was intended to block generic
competition while US Food and Drug Administration considered the patent
applications.

"These allegedly illegal agreements between brand-name and generic
companies force us, our members and others to pay artificially high
prices for very important, common medications," union President Patrick
Lynch said.


HEALTHCARE LITIGATION: NY Medical Society Sues For Alleged Abuses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of New York doctors filed last week a series of class action
lawsuit against six health management organizations over breach of
contract and patently deceptive practices, the Reuters New Agency
reported.

The Medical Society of the State of New York filed the six separate
class actions to seek monetary damages for abusive practices allegedly
perpetrated by the following HMOs:

     (1) Aetna, Inc.,

     (2) Cigna Corp.,

     (3) Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield,

     (4) Oxford Health Plans, Inc.,

     (5) United HealthGroup, Inc., and

     (6) Excellus, Inc.  


In its suit, the MSSNY accused the firms of systematically engaging in
practices to deny medically necessary care, to bundle and reduce claims
based on CPT (current procedural terminology) codes set by the American
Medical Association, and to revise payments of claims retrospectively.

The suit also charges that the health plans routinely use guidelines
from actuarial firms to determine the medical necessity of care and the
length of time a patient needs to be hospitalized, such as, following a
surgery.

The actuarial guidelines are based on the most optimistic scenarios and
don't take into account complications that may arise with a patient,
according to the MSSNY.

The MMSNY asserts that the doctor, not the insurer, is in the best
position to determine the proper treatment and the necessity of certain
care regimens, the report said.

The society also claimed that the health plans continuously violated
provisions of New York law regarding prompt payment and interest and
used computer programs to deny claims based on arbitrary guidelines.

The managed care firms dismissed the claims as meritless and denied all
charges made in the lawsuits.


HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Deadline Lapse Seals Bank Austria Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bank Austria/Creditanstalt announced Tuesday the settlement of
Holocaust-era claims against Bank Austria and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Creditanstalt, has reached legal closure and is now fully
effective.

"We are informed by our attorneys that the time for any appeal of the
order of settlement entered in the United States courts has passed, and
that the settlement, therefore, now is final and effective," said
Gerhard Randa, Chief Executive Officer of Bank Austria.

"We are gratified that this day, which Bank Austria has sought for so
long, has arrived. While no amount of money can redress the pain and
suffering and death that was visited upon the victims of National
Socialism by the Nazis and their collaborators, it always has been the
position of Bank Austria/Creditanstalt that a meaningful
acknowledgement of those tragic events must be made. While Bank
Austria/Creditanstalt are privileged in doing this, we do so with a
sense of great humility," Randa said.

Bank Austria's settlement is the first Holocaust-related claim in the
United States courts to reach legal closure, and only one of two cases
to receive from the federal courts a legally binding general release
from all claims arising out of the Holocaust.

The agreement provides for a $40 million settlement fund, including a
Humanitarian Fund of $30 million for claims by those who were injured
by the predecessor institutions of Bank Austria and Creditanstalt
during the period 1938-1945, when the Nazis controlled those
institutions.

In addition to the settlement fund, Bank Austria is making a $5 million
payment to the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for the benefit of
Austrian Holocaust victims.

Bank Austria in 1998 announced its intention to settle any claims
against it by Holocaust victims and other persons who were targets of
Nazi persecution, and invited claimants to file a class action lawsuit
in the United States courts to achieve that end.

The first lawsuit was filed soon after, and Bank Austria immediately
commenced negotiations on a settlement, under the supervision of United
States District Court Judge Shirley Wohl Kram and former United States
Senator Alfonse D'Amato, whom Judge Kram appointed a special master in
the case.

Judge Kram approved the settlement January 2000, after conducting a
fairness hearing at which objectors to the settlement were permitted to
be heard.

One claimant appealed the order of settlement.

The United States Court of Appeals rejected the appeal and affirmed the
settlement last January 4. The deadline for seeking a further appeal
with the United States Supreme Court has passed with no action being
taken.


KANA SOFTWARE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP brought 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 Kana Software, Inc.
(Nasdaq: KANA) from September 21, 1999 through December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The suit is pending against defendants Kana, and Goldman Sachs & Co.,
and Lehman Brothers Inc.

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

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

The complaint 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
         Kana shares issued in connection with the Kana IPO; and

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

For more details, 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


LOS ANGELES: Settles "Illegal Detention" Lawsuits For $27 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For illegally detaining some 400,000 individuals even after courts have
ordered them released, the Los Angeles County will now have to part
ways with $27 million to settle five class actions assailing the
practice.

The Los Angeles Times said the settlement is the largest sum ever paid
by the county to resolve a litigation.

According to the report, about 200,000 inmates filter through the
county's jail system every year, where about 80,000 of them are held
past their release dates.

County attorneys estimate that up to half of these inmates are strip-
searched during their illegal stay, similar to what Valerie Ann Streit
experienced.

Streit was arrested on a domestic violence charge that was later
dropped.

She was held an extra 24 hours and strip-searched in a hallway where
men may have watched the procedure.

"It was horrible," she told the Times.


LOUDEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Lawsuit In S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP launched 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 Loudeye
Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: LOUD) from March 15, 2000 through December
6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit is pending against defendants Loudeye and FleetBoston
Robertson Stephens.

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 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 details, 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


MARY MEEKER: Judge Takes Offense At 'Derogatory' Complaint, Junks Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"The complaint is hopelessly redundant, argumentative and has much
irrelevancy and inflammatory material."

So said U.S. District Judge Milton Pollack in dismissing Tuesday the
suit against Mary Meeker filed a few weeks ago by Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP.

Pollack called the suit as a "collection of market gossip."

"The pleading improprieties in the complaint are gross and
unrestrained. The individual defendant is derogatorily dubbed as "the
Internet Queen," the judge said.

"The repetitive character of the improprieties is unmitigated," the
judge noted.

He further said the complaint demonstrated "an abuse of the tenets of
federal pleading and to say the least is in grossly bad taste."

The law firm, however, disagrees with the judge.

"We wouldn't have filed it if we didn't think it was anything but
sustainable and we wouldn't have filed it unless we thought it was the
proper way of pleading as the law requires," said Fred Isquith, an
attorney with the law firm.

Although the dismissal concerns the suit filed by Wolf Haldenstein,
lawyers believe the ruling applied to the five suits filed by other
firms, the Reuters News Agency says.

Pollack, however, ruled that the plaintiffs could re-file the complaint
refined with "proper allegations" within 30 days.

Wolf Haldenstein brought this complaint, seeking class-action status,
on behalf of investors who bought securities of Amazon.com Inc.
(NasdaqNM:AMZN) between July 30, 1998 and May 14, 2001.

Similar suits were lodged on behalf of shareholders who bought
securities in eBay Inc. (NasdaqNM:EBAY) and AOL Time Warner Inc.
(NYSE:AOL).


MERCHANTS BANCSHARES: Settles Lawsuit In Vermont For $2.1 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merchants Bancshares, Inc. and Johnson & Perkinson announced early this
week the settlement, subject to Court approval, of a class action
lawsuit pending in Chittenden (Vermont) Superior Court captioned
Ferris, et al. v. Merchants, et al., CIV. N. S0372-00CnC.

The settlement resolves claims brought against Merchants and its
insurance carrier on behalf of trust clients who had invested in the
Piper Funds, Inc. Institutional Government Income Portfolio Fund in
1993 and 1994.

The total settlement amounts to $2.1 million.

Defendants in the suit denied all liability and wrongdoing, or any
determination of the Defendants' liability made by the Court.

Defendants agreed to settle the action in order to bring an end to the
litigation.

"The parties are pleased that the case has been resolved," Bank
President Joseph L. Boutin said.

He reported that the settlement of the case is not expected to have a
material effect on the consolidated financial position of Merchants
Bancshares, Inc. and its subsidiaries.

Jake Perkinson, a partner with Johnson & Perkinson which represents the
Class, stated "This settlement brings to conclusion an extensive effort
expended by the firm, which spanned over seven years and involved
multiple lawsuits in state and federal court, to recover losses
suffered by our clients as a result of investments in the Piper Fund."

"Coupled with payments of $9.2 million made in 1994, the total
recoveries made in connection with the investments in the Piper Fund
and the disbursement of certain receipts from the Piper Jaffray
litigation amounts to $11.3 million," he said.

"We are very pleased to bring this litigation to a close with such a
favorable result to the Class," Perkinson said.


METROMEDIA FIBER: Milberg Weiss Begins S.D. New York Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP filed a class action lawsuit
Tuesday on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Metromedia Fiber
Network, Inc. (Nasdaq: MFNX) between January 8, 2001 and July 2, 2001,
inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against defendants Metromedia, Stephen A. Garofalo
and Nicholas M. Tanzi.

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 January 8, 2001 and July 2, 2001, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Metromedia securities.

Specifically, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued multiple
press releases announcing and highlighting Metromedia's receipt of a
$350 million credit facility from Citicorp USA, Inc. that would enable
Metromedia to complete the construction of an extensive fiber optic
network.

These statements were materially false and misleading because
defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Citicorp credit facility was contingent on the receipt of
         additional commitments from other lenders and that Metromedia
         was experiencing difficulty obtaining such commitments given
         the distressed market for telecom companies;

     (2) the further development of the Company's fiber optic network
         would be significantly delayed without obtaining the credit
         facility which was dependent on obtaining the necessary
         additional loan commitments; and

     (3) based on the foregoing, defendants' statements about the
         Company and its prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis
         at all times.

Finally, on July 2, 2001, Metromedia issued a press release announcing
that it received an extension of the commitment letter for its $350
million credit facility from Citicorp and revealed for the first time
that the commitment letter from Citicorp was subject to the receipt of
commitments from other lenders in the amount of $287.5 million.

In response to this announcement, shares of Metromedia's stock closed
at $1.95 per share on July 2, 2001, a far cry from the class period
high of $19.06 reached on January 19, 2001.

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


NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Drop Ritalin Suit In Puerto Rico
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for plaintiffs in a Puerto Rico class action against Novartis
Pharmaceuticals Corporation, manufacturer of Ritalin (R)
(methylphenidate HCl), the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and
Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
(CHADD) have notified the court that they are dismissing their case
against the defendants.

The lawsuit, served in February 2001, claimed the defendants conspired
to promote the diagnosis of Attention- Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADHD).

The plaintiffs alerted the court of their intent to dismiss on August
13, following a recent decision by plaintiffs to walk away from a
similar suit in Florida and dismissals by the courts in similar
lawsuits filed in California and Texas.

"We are pleased that for the second time in two months, plaintiffs are
making this decision," said Novartis General Counsel, Dorothy Watson.

"This action sends a strong message that this lawsuit and others like
it lack merit and, instead, are attempts to promote an agenda that
contradicts scientific and medical consensus," she said.

Ritalin has been shown to be an effective and safe medication for more
than 45 years and has been scientifically evaluated in more than 200
studies involving over 6,000 school-aged children.

"Ritalin and similar treatments are among the most widely studied
therapies available," said Watson.

"We're heartened that an overwhelming body of scientific evidence
cannot just be litigated away by lawyers and anti- psychiatry
advocates," she added.

Ritalin is a mild central nervous system stimulant that helps to
address the neurochemical problems underlying Attention-
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).


NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Lawsuit In S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP lodged 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 Nuance Communications,
Inc. (Nasdaq: NUAN) from April 12, 2000 through December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The suit is pending against defendants Nuance, Goldman Sachs & Co.,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.

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 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 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


OKLAHOMA STATE: Judge Allows Suit To Proceed v. Health Care Authority
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lee R. West of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma has cleared the way for a nonprofit mental health care
provider in southeast Oklahoma to seek monetary and punitive damages
against four officials of the Oklahoma Health Care Authority.

On February 6, Southeast Oklahoma Family Services and A.M. Evans, a
consultant and owner of the organization's predecessor, filed a class
action lawsuit to restore clinical services to 740 mentally and
behaviorally ill Medicaid recipients served by SOFS and to force the
authority to reinstate Medicaid payments that it was withholding.

Named in the suit were the authority and four state officials charged
with its operation: Mike Fogarty, Terri Fritz, Dr. Lynn Mitchell and
Dana Brown.

Evans and SOFS, through their attorneys at Holden & McKenna, alleged
that the authority and the four officials acted unlawfully when they
withheld Medicaid payments and attempted to terminate SOFS' Medicaid
provider contract.

They contend the action, which they called "a death sentence for a
health care provider," was taken in an attempt to silence Evans' vocal
criticism of Oklahoma's Medicaid funding system.

On Feb. 12, Judge West said evidence in the case showed an "uncanny
correlation" between Evans' exercise of free speech rights and
administrative actions taken by the health care authority.

He granted an injunction prohibiting the defendants from imposing the
"death sentence" upon the organization and restoring its pre-death
sentence operations.

In response, the defendants requested that the court dismiss the claims
against them or grant them immunity as state officials.

On August 14, West denied this relief, opening the door for the
plaintiffs to seek monetary damages, including punitive damages.

"As much as I hate to say it, it appears that we are witnessing a
vendetta against Milton Evans by the Health Care Authority with a lot
of innocent people caught in the middle," said Steve Holden of Holden &
McKenna.

"The judge's latest ruling allows us to move forward in our attempt to
get help for hundreds of mentally ill individuals who have been denied
reasonable access to Medicaid services," he said.

Michael S. Ashworth, an attorney with Holden & McKenna and long-time
advocate of the rights of the mentally ill, noted that, "this is one of
the very rare times when state officials have been denied immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment."

Ashworth said the discovery phase of the proceedings has begun with the
plaintiffs requesting full access to records that the authority
previously refused to provide.

Stephen J. Capron, of Holden & McKenna, predicted these documents will
deliver the "final blow" to the defendants.

Capron compared the case to the Brent Van Meter scandal noting
similarities in the offices of the defendants and the personal
relationship between Fogarty and Van Meter.

Capron also pointed out that the FBI served a subpoena on Fogarty's
office during the Van Meter investigation.

"We have a unique opportunity to serve the public at large and to
eliminate the waste which accompanies corruption in government," Capron
said. "This action is good for everyone."

     
POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiffs To Expand Suit Class Members
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP and Schatz & Nobel, P.C., who
have been appointed lead counsel by the United States District Court,
will expand the allegations in the pending securities fraud class
action case presently pending against PolyMedica Corp. (Nasdaq: PLMD).

In November and December 2000, two securities fraud class action
complaints were filed against PolyMedica and its Chief Executive
Officer Steven Lee, alleging securities fraud on account of improper
billing by PolyMedica's Liberty Medical Supply unit, and reports of an
FBI investigation of Liberty.

By order of the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, those two class actions have been consolidated, lead
plaintiffs have been appointed and the law firms of Shapiro Haber &
Urmy LLP and Schatz & Nobel, P.C. have been appointed lead counsel to
represent the class.

It was reported on August 21, 2001 that FBI agents have raided the
offices of PolyMedica's subsidiary Liberty Medical Supply.

An article in the August 4, 2001 edition of Barron's contained new
details about the FBI investigation and Liberty's alleged improper
billing practices.

The court appointed lead counsel announced that they will file an
amended complaint to expand the pending securities fraud class action
allegations against PolyMedica.

The amended complaint will allege claims on behalf of a class of
purchasers of PolyMedica stock during the period from September 3, 1999
through August 21, 2001.

For more details, contact: Theodore Hess-Mahan, Esq. or Elizabeth
Hutton, Paralegal by Mail: 75 State Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109
by Phone: (800) 287-8119 by Fax: (617) 439-0134 by E-mail:
cases@shulaw.com or visit the firms Website: www.shulaw.com

You can also reach Robert A. Izard, Esq. of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. by
Mail: 330 Main Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06106 by Phone: (800) 797-
5499 by Fax: (860) 493-6290 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the
firm's Website: www.snlaw.net


RAMBUS INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody commenced recently a class action lawsuit in
United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
on behalf of purchasers of Rambus, Inc. (NASDAQ:RMBS), common stock
between January 18, 2000 to May 9, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Rambus and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The complaint alleges that the Company had fraudulently obtained its
SDRAM patents and therefore the SDRAM patents were unenforceable and
not a legitimate source of revenue.

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.

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

For more information, contact: Marc L. Godino by Phone: 888-388-4605 by
E-mail: mgodino@secfraud.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.secfraud.com


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Lovell and Sirota Firms File Securities Suit In SD NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Lovell & Stewart, LLP and Sirota & Sirota, LLP filed  
a class action lawsuit Tuesday on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Tibco Software Inc. (NasdaqNM:TIBX) between July 13, 1999 and
August 15, 2001, inclusive.

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

The action, Pfeiffer v. Tibco Software, Inc., 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 Tibco Software Inc. and Vivek Y. Ranadive
and Paul G. Hansen, its CEO and Chief Financial Officer, respectively,
violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Tibco
common stock pursuant to the initial public offering without disclosing
to investors that at least three of the underwriters of the IPO and at
least one of the underwriters of Tibco's secondary offering had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.

In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., the co-lead underwriter of both the IPO and
secondary offering, and Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. and
FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., two of the underwriters of the
IPO, allocated Tibco shares to customers at the IPO price of $15.00 per
share.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
$15.00, 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 Tibco stock rocketed upward
(a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and
did) drive Tibco'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 Tibco stock at the $15.00 IPO price and then selling it later
for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as
$40.00 during Tibco's first day of trading.

The complaint further alleges that Tibco was able to price its
secondary offering at the artificially high price of $106.00 per share
due to the continuing effects of the foregoing violations.

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 Prospectuses distributed to investors and the
Registration Statements filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory
approval for the Tibco offerings contained material misstatements
regarding the commissions that the underwriters derived from the IPO
and failed to disclose the additional commissions and "laddering"
scheme discussed above.

For more 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 or contact Sirota & Sirota,
LLP through Howard B. Sirota or Saul Roffe by Phone: 212/425-9055 or by
E-mail: info@sirotalaw.com


UNDERWRITERS LITIGATION: Beatie Osborn Sues Six Banks In S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all shareholders who
purchased the common stock of Internet Infrastructure HOLDRs (AMEX:IIH)
and other securities described below between August 1, 1998 and August
1, 2001.

The Complaint alleges that defendants, all major investment banks,
violated federal securities laws and state law by systematically
issuing glowing "buy" recommendations for securities of technology
companies that defendants knew or should have known had dubious
financial histories, negative cash flows, insufficient revenues to
cover operating expenses, and overall deteriorating fundamentals.

These "buy" recommendations, issued repeatedly by defendants, caused
the shares of the Class Securities to trade at artificially inflated
prices, sometimes as high as hundreds of dollars per share, during the
Class Period.

Today, many of these stocks trade at pennies per share or no longer
trade at all. The named defendants all participated as underwriters of
the Class Securities' IPOs and/or had other investment banking
relationships with these companies, which generated hundreds of
millions of dollars in investment banking fees.

The defendants are:

     (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.;

     (2) Goldman, Sachs Group, Inc.;

     (3) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.;

     (4) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.;

     (5) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.; and

     (6) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

The Complaint also alleges that defendants failed to disclose that:

     (i) each one of them had internal policies that required analysts
         to issue "buy" recommendations for Class Securities in order
         to obtain investment banking business from the companies
         issuing the Class Securities;

    (ii) defendants and their employees, including the analysts,
         frequently acquired shares of the Class Securities prior to
         the IPO at a fraction of the price paid by the public and sold
         these shares at the higher prices caused by defendants'
         conduct; and

   (iii) defendants failed to have or enforce compliance procedures to
         prevent their analysts from issuing misleading reports to
         serve the interests of their investment banking clients.

The Class Securities are:

     (a) Akamai Tech., Inc.
     (b) BEA Systems, Inc.
     (c) BroadVision, Inc.
     (d) Digital Island, Inc.
     (e) E.Piphany, Inc.
     (f) Exodus Comm., Inc.
     (g) InfoSpace, Inc.
     (h) Inktomi Corp.
     (i) InterNAP Network
     (j) Kana Software
     (l) NaviSite, Inc.
     (m) Openwave Systems Inc.
     (n) Portal Software, Inc.                     
     (o) RealNetworks, Inc.                        
     (p) USinternetworking, Inc.
     (q) VeriSign, Inc.                            
     (r) Vitria Technology, Inc.                   

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


* PricewaterhouseCoopers Notes Rise In 2001 Securities Litigation Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A record number of 263 federal class action lawsuits have been filed so
far in 2001, alleging securities fraud, says a study conducted by
PricewaterhouseCoopers recently.

This compares with 201 class action lawsuits filed in all of 2000, and
207 cases in 1999, as reported in the PricewaterhouseCoopers 2000
Securities Litigation Study.

Contributing to the dramatic rise in lawsuits this year are the 143
lawsuits related to Initial Public Offerings that name IPO underwriters
and recently public companies as defendants.

These lawsuits -- termed "laddering cases" -- generally allege
companies and their underwriters allocated shares in "hot" IPOs in
exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions, and for investor
guarantees to purchase additional shares in the after-market.

Every major investment bank has been named in the "laddering cases" and
many are named in numerous lawsuits.

The majority of companies named in these lawsuits involve computer
services, telecom companies and others in the high-tech sector that
were taken public in the last three years.

Until a few weeks ago, only NASDAQ companies were named in these suits.
However on July 27, a New York Stock Exchange company was named.

"Many of the complaints may be without merit. A review of many of the
case filings indicates complaints contain only generic allegations
without detailing any wrongdoing specific to the individual matter,"
said Steve Skalak, managing partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers Securities
Litigation and Corporate Investigations Practice.

"However, plaintiffs will need to present specific wrongdoing in order
to prove fraud and damages. And in preparation for their defense,
investment banks will need to conduct internal investigations into
underwriters' activities."

Aside from the "laddering cases," shareholder class action lawsuits
alleging accounting fraud also continue at high levels.

Through June 30, nearly 48 percent of non-IPO related cases filed
allege financial fraud. Last year, fifty-three percent of all cases
filed in 2000 contained financial fraud allegations.

At least 58 percent of the 2001 financial fraud cases involve companies
that have restated earnings or plan to restate earnings. Last year 47
percent of the accounting cases involved a restatement of earnings.

"There continues to be increased scrutiny by the SEC. The downturn in
the economy has also increased scrutiny from shareholders," said Harvey
Kelly, partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers.

"The number of cases alleging securities fraud will remain high as a
result," he said.


                              *********

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  * * *