CAR_Public/010824.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, August 24, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 166


                              Headlines


ACE CASH: Latest Suit Charges Violations Of Maryland Anti-Usury Law
AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Weiss & Yourman Files SD CA Securities Suit
AVISTA CORPORATION: Dismissal Motion Ok'd, But Court Allows Re-filing
BORON LEPORE: Federal Court In New Jersey Certifies Securities Suit
BROADCOM CORPORATION: Court Orders 31 Securities Suits Consolidated

BROADCOM CORPORATION: Derivative Suits Similarly Consolidated
CVS CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In Massachusetts
INSPIRE INSURANCE: Plaintiffs Re-file Previously Dismissed Lawsuit
LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Suits Just Part Of Trend v. Public Companies
LOUDEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY

MATAV: Settlement Agreement Could Cost Cable Company $71 Million
METROMEDIA FIBER: Faruqi & Faruqi Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
MPOWER COMMUNICATIONS: Hearing On Motion To Dismiss Set For October
NIKU CORPORATION: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
PHILIPS INTERNATIONAL: NY Court Amends Suit, Negates Motion To Dismiss

PRUCO LIFE: Eleven Down, 50 To Go -- Latest Pending Suits Count
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Served Several Suits Over 'Fiber Optic' Project
RAMBUS INC.: Weiss & Yourman Launches Securities Suit In ND California
ROWECOM INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Brings Securities Suit In S.D. New York
STAFF LEASING: Reaches Preliminary Settlement Of 1999 Shareholder Suit
TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Hearing On Motion To Dismiss Set For Sept. 10
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Motion To Dismiss DE Securities Suits Pending

                              *********


ACE CASH: Latest Suit Charges Violations Of Maryland Anti-Usury Law
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Cash Express, Inc. has been named in another case alleging illegal
payday loans, this time in Maryland.

Monday R. Patricia Brown filed a class action suit in Baltimore City
Circuit Court, accusing the Company of violating State anti-usury law
by charging exorbitant interest rates on loans.

According to the Daily Record newspaper, Brown also cited in her
complaint that the Company is also liable under other State laws for
providing unlicensed financial services.

Prosecuting attorneys also contend that the Company broke the State's
Unsecured Closed End Credit Regulation Act by requiring borrowers to
make dubious pledges of collateral.

This practice, allegedly, in an attempt to circumvent state laws that
apply to unsecured loans, lawyers say.

Brown filed the suit after receiving payday loans whose annual
percentage rate eventually rose to 390 percent after she refinanced.

Meanwhile, State commissioner of financial regulation Mary Louis Preis
said the suit could have national repercussions if the court decides
that the National Bank Act does not allow companies like ACE to pre-
empt certain state laws by affiliating themselves with a nationally
chartered bank.

According to the suit, the Company has disguised its payday loan
product as a check-cashing service by claiming that the Company charged
"fees" for check cashing, not illegal interest.

The suit further alleges that the Company has pretended as a conduit
for Goleta National Bank in California when in fact it bought the loans
from the Bank.

Lawyers say they will prove that ACE actually was the lender with the
payday loans, and not Goleta.

Lawyers are asking that ACE's loans be voided, and that any money ACE
obtained from the borrowers be held in a collective trust and returned.

They have also sought the dissolution of ACE as an enterprise and to
return all profits from payday loans to borrowers.

The latest suit is just another issue ACE has faced during the past
several years, including other class action lawsuits, according to the
report.

Last month, the state of Colorado also filed a suit against the Company
for violating state law and allegedly charging illegally high interest
rates to mostly poor clients.

The Company is one of the largest check-cashing companies in the United
States, with 1,163 stores in 34 states and the District of Columbia.


AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Weiss & Yourman Files SD CA Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman filed a class action complaint on behalf of all persons
who acquired Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: AMLN) securities
between February 8, 2000 and July 25, 2001, inclusive.

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

Amylin is engaged in the discovery, development and commercialization
of potential drug candidates for the treatment of metabolic disorders.

The complaint alleges that on July 25, 2001, the Food and Drug
Administration released medical and statistical reviews regarding
Amylin's diabetes drug pramlintide acetate (SYMLIN) prior to an FDA
Advisory Committee Meeting scheduled for July 26, 2001.

This review cited major concerns regarding the safety and lack of
efficacy of SYMLIN.

The review stated there were major adverse events upon treatment with
SYMLIN and an alarming number of patients that had life altering events
relating to hypoglycemia (low blood glucose level), including major
trauma, accidents and death, many of which apparently were concealed
from the safety database, making this database unreliable to the FDA.

This hypoglycemic side effect was particularly surprising to the FDA
and investors, as the Company all along had claimed that one advantage
of SYMLIN over insulin was that it did not increase the risk of
hypoglycemia.

The public announcements and statements made during the Class Period
were materially false and misleading when issued in that they falsely
portrayed Amylin as a growing, successful, well-managed, law-abiding,
well-controlled company, and a leader of its industry, and that it had
a highly effective drug, SYMLIN.

For more details, contact: Weiss & Yourman by Phone: (800) 437-7918 by
E-mail: info@wyca.com or visit the firm's Website: www.wyca.com


AVISTA CORPORATION: Dismissal Motion Ok'd, But Court Allows Re-filing
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
sustained recently the motion to dismiss filed by Avista Corporation in
relation to a consolidated securities class action pending before it.

However, along with the dismissal, the Court also gave the plaintiffs a
chance to re-file the suit once the deficiencies in it are cured.

Plaintiffs filed the suit last year in three separate class actions,
seeking compensatory damages over violations of federal securities
laws.

They allege that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, arising
out of various alleged misstatements and omissions in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year 1999, its Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2000, and in other
information made publicly available by the Company.

Such alleged misstatements and omissions were claimed to relate to the
Company's trading activities in wholesale energy markets, the Company's
risk management policies and procedures with respect thereto, and the
Company's trading losses in the second quarter of 2000.

The suit names as defendants the Company and Thomas M. Matthews, the
former Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, and Jon E. Eliassen, a Senior Vice President and the Chief
Financial Officer of the Company.

The Company engages in electricity and natural gas trading and
marketing in the western US, which makes up more than 80% of sales.

Avista's regulated utility unit generates up to 1,600 MW of
electricity, which is distributed to more than 300,000 customers in
Idaho and Washington.


BORON LEPORE: Federal Court In New Jersey Certifies Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Boron Lepore & Associates, Inc. disclosed recently in a report to the
Securities and Exchange Commission that the purported class action
filed against it by a shareholder was recently granted certification.

The Company revealed the certification motion was sustained by the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey in a hearing last
February 14.

According to the Company report, discovery is now ongoing.

The suit was filed in May 1999, alleging that the Company, certain of
its officers and directors, and certain institutional stockholders
violated federal securities laws.

This, the defendants allegedly did by making material
misrepresentations and omissions in certain public disclosures related
to, among other things:

     (1) the secondary offering made by the Company in May 1998,

     (2) the Company's acquisition of Decision Point, Inc. in January    
         1998,

     (3) the termination of the Company's relationship with Glaxo-
         Wellcome, and

     (4) the impact of various events on the Company's earnings.

The Company offers marketing services to promote awareness of
pharmaceutical products, especially to health-care practitioners.

It conducts peer-to-peer meetings across the US, in which
pharmaceutical representatives meet with a handful of doctors and other
health-care practitioners to discuss new drugs.

Its clients include Bayer, Dupont, Merck, and Roche.


BROADCOM CORPORATION: Court Orders 31 Securities Suits Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The 31 lawsuits filed against Broadcom Corporation over its acquisition
of Altima, Silicon Spice, Allayer, SiByte and Visiontech have been
consolidated into one action, says a Company report to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The consolidation order was handed down last June 21 in a hearing at
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the
report said.

Discovery has not yet commenced in the consolidated action, the Company
said.

The Company and its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Technical Officer
and Chief Financial Officer were served with the lawsuits from March
through May this year.

These complaints were brought as purported shareholder class actions
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and in general allege that the defendants
improperly accounted for performance-based warrants assumed by the
Company in connection with its acquisitions of Altima, Silicon Spice,
Allayer, SiByte and Visiontech.

Each complaint basically alleges the defendants intentionally failed to
properly account for the financial impact of performance-based warrants
assumed in connection with the acquisitions.

Plaintiffs say the failure had the effect of materially overstating the
Company's reported financial results.

They also allege that the defendants intentionally engaged in this
alleged improper accounting practice in order to inflate the value of
the Company's stock and obtain alleged illegal insider trading
proceeds, as well as to facilitate the use of the Company's stock as
consideration in acquisitions.

"The Company believes that the allegations in these purported
securities class actions are without merit and intends to defend the
actions vigorously," the SEC report says.

Broadcom has a broad commercial focus on broadband communications
chips. Most of its sales are of integrated circuits (ICs) used in
digital set-top boxes and in more than 90% of cable modems.

Broadcom also makes ICs for digital subscriber line (DSL), satellite
and terrestrial broadcasting, home networking, and wireless devices.

Top customers include Motorola, 3Com, and Cisco Systems.


BROADCOM CORPORATION: 4 of 5 Derivative Suits Similarly Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, four of five purported shareholder derivative actions were
also consolidated June 21 by the Orange County Superior Court,
according to the same Company report.

These lawsuits, filed from March through June this year, allege that
certain of the individual defendants sold shares while in possession of
material inside information (and that other individual defendants aided
and abetted this activity) in purported breach of their fiduciary
duties to the Company.

The complaints also allege "gross mismanagement, waste of corporate
assets and abuse of control" based upon the same general set of facts
and circumstances.

The derivative actions bring claims under California law and against
the same defendants in the securities class action suits above.

The parties have agreed that the fifth suit filed in federal court will
be stayed, while the consolidated derivative lawsuit proceeds in the
California state court.

The Company has not yet answered any of the complaints, and discovery
has not commenced, the SEC report says.

The Company believes the allegations in these purported derivative
actions are also without merit and intends to defend the actions
vigorously.


CVS CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP filed Wednesday a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of CVS
Corporation (NYSE: CVS) between February 6, 2001 and June 27, 2001,
inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts against defendants CVS and Tom Ryan. The Hon. Joseph L.
Tauro is the Judge presiding over the case.

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 February 6, 2001 and June 27, 2001, thereby artificially
inflating the price of CVS securities.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, CVS issued
positive statements concerning its business and operations which failed
to disclose, among other things, that the Company was unable to
successfully address the national shortage of pharmacists and that this
shortage was negatively impacting CVS's business and that the Company's
expansion plans would have to be scaled back in light of the
difficulties facing the Company.

When this information became publicly known on June 27, 2001, the price
of CVS common stock dropped sharply, falling from $44.10 per share to
$36.51 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

During the Class Period, CVS insiders were able to dispose of shares of
their personally-held stock for gross proceeds in excess of $8 million
and CVS was able to raise $300 million through the issuance of notes on
highly favorable terms.

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


INSPIRE INSURANCE: Plaintiffs Re-file Previously Dismissed Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated shareholders suit dismissed last March has been re-filed
by plaintiffs against INSpire Insurance Solutions, Inc., a Company
regulatory filing with the SEC says.

The Company said the suit was re-filed last June, three months after
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the
Company's motion to dismiss.

The suit consolidates three shareholders suits filed between December
1999 and January 2000.

Plaintiffs purport to represent all purchasers of the Company's Common
Stock during the period between January 28, 1998 and October 14, 1999.

Defendants include the Company, certain of its officers and directors,
and Millers Insurance.  

The complaint alleged violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

These violations were allegedly committed when the Company made false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts
necessary in order to make the statements made not misleading.  

The Company, together with the other defendants, has already filed a
motion to dismiss the suit filed lately.

INSpire Insurance Solutions provides policy and claims administration
outsourcing and software services to the property/casualty insurance
industry.

Outsourcing services include billing and collections, policy issuance,
applying underwriting and rating standards, and customer service, as
well as claims administration and IT services.

The company also provides software and services that automate
underwriting rules and guidelines, ratings algorithms, and document
production.


LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Suits Just Part Of Trend v. Public Companies
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. believes it is just a victim of the
present wave of securities class actions filed against publicly traded
companies.

In its latest report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Company dismissed the lawsuits filed against it in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York as meritless.

The Company vows to mount a vigorous defense.

The Class Action Reporter has so far known of at least two such suits
filed by the law firms of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP and Cauley
Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP.

The suits name as defendants the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and certain underwriters involved in the Company's initial
public offering.

The suits claim to represent purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from August 20, 1999 to December 6, 2000.

They assert that the Company's IPO prospectus and registration
statement violated federal securities laws because they contained
material misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the conduct of
the Company's IPO underwriters in allocating shares in the Company's
IPO to the underwriters' customers.

The Company offers globalization services to the financial services,
information technology, life sciences, and telecommunications
industries.

It prepares products and documentation for international use for such
clients as IBM, Microsoft, and SAP.


LOUDEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP brought recently a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Loudeye Technologies,
Inc. (Nasdaq: LOUD) securities between March 15, 2000 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Loudeye common stock pursuant to the March
15, 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 Loudeye 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 Loudeye stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Loudeye'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., 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


MATAV: Settlement Agreement Could Cost Cable Company $71 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Haifa District Court in Israel has approved a class action settlement
that will afford individuals buying their first digital converter from
the cable television company Matav discounts between September and
December this year.

According to the Ha'Aretz Daily newspaper, each household's first
digital converter, if purchased before the end of this year, will cost
only NIS 299 ($70.77), NIS 1,275 ($301.78) less than Matav had
previously charged.

The old payment plan had called for an initial payment of NIS 299 plus
85 monthly payments of NIS 15 apiece.

The cable company currently has 298,289 subscribers, of whom about
70,000 have already purchased a digital converter under the old terms,
the newspaper reports.

The report estimates that if all of its remaining subscribers did the
same within the next four months, agreement would mean a loss of income
for Company of about NIS 300 million ($71.05 million).

The court required Matav to publish the new arrangement in two
newspapers, Ha'aretz and Globes, after which potential plaintiffs will
have 45 days to inform the company that they do not want to be included
in the deal.

Once that date has passed, the agreement will automatically cover all
subscribers, unless more than 1,500 subscribers have announced that
they do not want to be included.

In that case, Matav will have the right to cancel the agreement within
one week, the newspaper reported.


METROMEDIA FIBER: Faruqi & Faruqi Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP commenced recently a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of all purchasers of Metromedia Fiber Networks, Inc.
(Nasdaq:MFNX) common stock between January 8, 2001 and July 2, 2001,
inclusive.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants engaged in a
fraudulent scheme to mislead the investing public that it had a fully
underwritten credit facility for $350 million from Citicorp, USA, which
defendants represented, would fully fund its business plan.

As a result, the price of the Company's common stock was artificially
inflated throughout the Class Period, reaching as high as $19.06 on
January 19, 2001.

On July 2, 2001, however, the truth was revealed when the Company
announced Citicorp had only committed to $65.5 million, and that the
other $287.5 million was subject to the receipt of commitments from
other lenders, which defendants did not have.

In response to this announcement, the price of Metromedia's stock
closed at $1.93 on July 3, 2001, representing an approximate 90%
decline from its Class Period high.

For more information, contact: ANTHONY VOZZOLO, ESQ. by Mail: 320 East
39th Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-
9330 by E-mail: Avozz@faruqilaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.faruqilaw.com  


MPOWER COMMUNICATIONS: Hearing On Motion To Dismiss Set For October
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mpower Communication Corporation filed a motion recently seeking the
dismissal of a securities class action brought last year, a regulatory
document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission says.

The Company report says the motion is scheduled to be argued by the
opposing parties before the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York this October.

The suit was launched in September last year against the Company and
its chief executive officer, Rolla P. Huff.

An amended consolidated complaint served March 6 sought the recovery of
damages for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and rule 10(b)-5 thereunder and section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933.

The amended complaint also added as defendants several of the Company's
officers and members of its board of directors, including various
underwriters.

The Company provides local and long-distance phone service and Internet
access to small and medium-size business customers through its
facilities-based CLEC (competitive local-exchange carrier).

It specializes in providing DSL (digital subscriber line) service and
was an early adopter of voice-over-DSL as an alternative to T1 lines.


NIKU CORPORATION: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed Wednesday a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Niku Corporation (NASDAQ:NIKU)
from between February 28, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit is pending against defendants Niku Corporation, Goldman Sachs
& Co., Inc., Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., FleetBoston Robertson Stephens
Inc., Farzad Dibachi and Mark Nelson.

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 February 28, 2000, Niku commenced an initial public
offering of 8,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $24 per share.

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

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

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


PHILIPS INTERNATIONAL: NY Court Amends Suit, Negates Motion To Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Philips International Realty Corporation vows to continue defending its
position against a lawsuit alleging improprieties concerning its
pending liquidation plan.

The Company said plaintiffs have recently moved for the certification
of their suit as a proper class action.

Meanwhile, the Company said the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York recently amended the pleading of the plaintiffs to
allow its breach of fiduciary claim to stand.

This, accordingly, while the Court agreed with the legal analysis set
forth in the Company's motion to dismiss the claim.

"On August 3, 2001, the Court, while agreeing with the legal analysis
set forth in the Company's motion to dismiss the claim for breach of
fiduciary duty against the directors of the Company, amended the
pleading in order to recognize that, in situations such as the one at
hand, a demand by the plaintiff on the board of directors to commence
an action would have been futile," the SEC report disclosed.

"Therefore, the Court mooted the Motion through its amendment of the
complaint, which was deemed amended in accordance with the Court's
order," the report added.

The suit was launched in October 2000 against the Company and its
directors.

On November 9, 2000, the Court, ruling from the bench, denied the
plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent the
liquidation based essentially on the same allegations as in the
complaint.

This bench ruling was followed by a written order dated November 30,
2000 wherein the Court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to
demonstrate either that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its
case or that there were sufficiently serious questions going to the
merits of its case to make it fair ground for litigation.

The plaintiffs in the action continue to prosecute the suit as a damage
claim against the Company and its directors.

Although the plaintiff sought to prevent further discovery relating to
class certification, the Court has ordered that discovery go forward.

Once discovery is completed, the Company will submit its opposition to
plaintiff's motion.

Philips International is a real estate investment trust formed to take
over the shopping center operations of the Philips Group, a group of
companies associated with chairman and CEO Philip Pilevsky.

Philips International Realty's real estate portfolio includes seven
neighborhood and community shopping center properties located primarily
in California.


PRUCO LIFE: Eleven Down, 50 To Go -- Latest Pending Suits Count
---------------------------------------------------------------
A month after it reported significant decline in suits filed by
plaintiffs who opted out of a class action settlement, Pruco Life
Insurance Of New Jersey said recently the number is down to 50.

As of March 31 this year, the number stood at 61, down from 109 as of
December last year.

According to the Company, the marked decrease is attributable to the
increase in the number of plaintiffs who opted to settle with the
Company.

The Company, however, is not discounting possibilities of additional
suits to be filed by other class members who opted out of the
settlement pact.

These suits were filed by policyholders who "opted out" of the class
action settlement relating to permanent life insurance policies issued
in the United States between 1982 and 1995.
  

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Served Several Suits Over 'Fiber Optic' Project
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Through June 2001, several purported class actions have been filed in
various courts against Qwest Communications International, Inc.,
reveals a recent Company report to the SEC.

These suits were allegedly brought on behalf of landowners in
California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

The complaints challenge the Company's right to install its fiber optic
cable network in railroad rights-of-way, while in California, Colorado,
Illinois, South Carolina and Texas, it also challenge its right to
install fiber optic cable in utility and pipeline rights of way.

The complaints allege that the railroads, utilities and pipeline
companies own a limited property right-of-way that did not include the
right to permit the Company to install its fiber optic cable network on
the plaintiffs' property.

The Indiana action purports to be on behalf of a national class of
landowners adjacent to railroad rights-of-way over which the Company's
network passes.

The California, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Oregon, Tennessee and Texas actions purport to be on behalf
of a class of landowners in those states.

The Illinois action purports to be on behalf of landowners adjacent to
railroad rights-of-way over which the Company's network passes in
Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and
Wisconsin.

The South Carolina action purports to be on behalf of landowners
adjacent to railroad rights-of-way over which the Company's network
passes in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia.

The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust
enrichment, as well as punitive damages.

The complaints have yet to be certified by a court as an appropriate
statewide or national class action.

In Tennessee, the court certified a class of a small number of
counties, and that ruling is on appeal.

"We have received, and may in the future receive, additional claims and
demands that may be based on similar or different legal theories," the
Company admitted.

Qwest Communications provides Internet, data, multimedia, and voice
services over its broadband fiber-optic network.

Covering 150 US metro areas and reaching into Mexico, the network uses
IP (Internet protocol) and traditional technologies.

Qwest more than doubled in size and gained 25 million local phone
service customers in 14 states in the US with the acquisition of Baby
Bell U S WEST; it serves more than 30 million customers overall.

Through its joint venture with Dutch telecom provider KPN (KPNQwest),
the company is building a pan-European fiber-optic IP network.


RAMBUS INC.: Weiss & Yourman Launches Securities Suit In ND California
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman filed a class action complaint on behalf of all persons
who acquired Rambus, Inc. (Nasdaq: RMBS) securities between January 18,
2000 and 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 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 further information, contact: Weiss & Yourman by Phone: (800) 437-
7918 by E-mail: info@wyca.com or visit the firm's Website: www.wyca.com


ROWECOM INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Brings Securities Suit In S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP launched recently a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of RoweCom, Inc. (Nasdaq:
ROWE) securities between March 9, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated RoweCom 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 RoweCom stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive RoweCom'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., 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


STAFF LEASING: Reaches Preliminary Settlement Of 1999 Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff Leasing, Inc. disclosed in a recent SEC regulatory filing that it
has successfully reached a preliminary agreement to settle a 1999
shareholder suit.

The report did not disclose any terms of the settlement other than the
information that the pact was reached following mediation.

Lawrence E. Egle v. Staff Leasing, Inc., et al. was brought a
shareholder of the Company alleging breached of fiduciary duty by
failing to pursue a proposal from Paribas Principal Partners to acquire
the Company.

The suit claims that certain directors and senior officers of the
company intentionally disregarded the proposal "to entrench themselves
in the management of the Company."  

The suit awaits resolution in the Twelfth Judicial Division, Manatee
County, Florida.

Management does not expect any settlement to have a material effect on
the Company's financial position.

Staff Leasing, now known as Gevity HR, is the largest professional
employer organization in the US, leasing about 125,000 employees to
some 9,500 clients.

Gevity acts as a co-employer, providing services such as payroll
administration, risk management, and benefits administration for the
client.

The firm targets small to medium-sized businesses with anywhere from 5
to 100 employees, primarily in construction and the service industries
(auto repair, beauty salons, health, lodging).

It operates about 40 branch offices in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado,
Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.


TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Hearing On Motion To Dismiss Set For Sept. 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing has been scheduled for September 10 to hear the arguments of
the opposing parties in the ongoing securities class action suit
against Terayon Communication Systems, Inc.

The Company informed the SEC recently that it was ordered to file its
reply in favor to its motion to dismiss on August 24, which was opposed
recently by the plaintiff.

The suit, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, was originally filed in April last year.

The plaintiff purports to be suing on behalf of a class of stockholders
who purchased or obligated themselves to purchase the Company's
securities during the period from February 2, 2000 to April 11, 2000.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements
and failing to disclose material information regarding the Company's
technology.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages, in addition to
other forms of relief.

"We consider the lawsuits to be without merit and we intend to defend
vigorously against these allegations," the Company maintains.

The company's TeraComm system speeds up and improves the quality of
two-way data transmissions over cable, so cable providers can offer
enhanced Internet access.

The company also is a provider of digital subscriber line systems,
which speed access over copper telephone lines.



VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Motion To Dismiss DE Securities Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Vishay Intertechnology informed the Securities and Exchange Commission
that it has filed a motion last June 25, seeking the dismissal of
several class actions filed early this year.

Meanwhile, the Company also said the Delaware Court of Chancery denied
recently the motion for a preliminary injunction filed by lead
plaintiff Fitzgerald.

According to the Company, on or about May 31, 2001, lead plaintiff
Fitzgerald served an amended complaint, an application for a
preliminary injunction against proceeding with or taking steps to give
effect to Vishay's proposed tender offer or the contemplated short-form
merger, and a motion to expedite proceedings and additional discovery
requests.

In addition to his prior allegations, plaintiff claimed, among other
things, that in connection with the proposed offer and short-form
merger, defendants allegedly violated

     (1) their duty to deal fairly from a timing and process
         perspective with the minority shareholders of Siliconix,

     (2) their duties of loyalty and candor, and

     (3) Vishay's obligation to pay a fair price to the Siliconix
         minority shareholders.

Following expedited discovery and briefing, on June 19, 2001, the
Delaware Court issued its order denying Fitzgerald's motion for a
preliminary injunction.

The Court found that Fitzgerald had not succeeded in demonstrating that
he has a reasonable probability of success on the merits of his claims.

The Company and Siliconix filed motions to dismiss the verified amended
complaint on June 6, 2001.

Vishay Intertechnology is a top maker of passive electronic components
(two-thirds of sales) such as capacitors and resistors.

It also makes other discrete components such as diodes and transistors,
as well as power integrated circuits and optoelectronics.

The Company's products are important components in electronic systems
for everything from cars to satellites -- the company touts its
discrete component portfolio as being the widest in the industry.

Its customers include Cisco, IBM, Nokia, and Sony.


                              *********

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  * * *