CAR_Public/010828.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, August 28, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 168


                              Headlines


21st CENTURY: Plaintiff Given 30 Days To File Amended Complaint
AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Stull Stull Begins Securities Suit In S.D. CA
ASIA PULP: Barry and Glancy Law Firms File Securities Suit In S.D. NY
AUDIBLE INC.: Outcome Of Securities Lawsuits In New York Uncertain
AUTOWEB.COM: Expects New York Securities Suits To Be Consolidated

CALICO COMMERCE: Judge Chooses Lead Plaintiffs, Lawyers In Order
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Poor Cable Service Fueling Interest In Suit
CINCINNATI BENGALS: Season Ticket Holders To Get $1,000 In Refunds
CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES: Regards New York Securities Suits As 'Meritless'
CVS CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Files Massachusetts Securities Suit

DRUGSTORE.COM: Will Vigorously Defend Against Allegations  
FIRESTONE INC.: Settles Potential $1 Billion Suit For $7.5 Million
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Suit Says Paxil Is Addictive, Has Side Effects
GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Stull Stull Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY
IBASIS INC.: Claims It Has Meritorious Defense Against Pending Suits

MATRIXONE INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Securities Suit In S.D. NY
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Sued For Defrauding IL Customers In Promo
METROMEDIA FIBER: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
ONI SYSTEMS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
OPENTV CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY

ORLANDO CITY: Three More Plaintiffs Join Suit Bringing Total To 29
PHILADELPHIA CITY: Prison Guards' Lawsuit For Overtime Pay Dismissed
PITTSBURGH STEELERS: Season Ticket Holders Sue Over Poor Stadium Seats
PRICELINE.COM: Sued Anew In New York Over Securities Laws Violations
RAMBUS INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit In N.D. CA

ROWECOM INC.: Weiss & Yourman Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York
SCHWEGMANN MARKET:Judge Finds Grocery Vouchers Retirement Plan Benefit
TREX COMPANY: Faces Several Securities Lawsuits In W.D. Virginia
UNITED STATES: ACLU Fights Plea Agreement In Landmark "Rave" Drug Case
VIRAGE INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY


                              *********


21st CENTURY: Plaintiff Given 30 Days To File Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nine months after it filed a motion seeking the dismissal of a
shareholder suit in New York, 21st Century Holding Company finally got
its wish, though incomplete.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed
last August 6 the purported class action filed by a shareholder in June
last year.

However, the court also allowed the plaintiff to file an amended
complaint within 30 days.

Be that as it may, the Company is still optimistic about its chances to
be freed from the bind.

"The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend such action," a recent Company disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission says.

The suit alleges Company's amended registration statement dated
November 4, 1998 was inaccurate and misleading concerning the manner in
which the Company recognized ceded insurance commission income.

Accordingly, this is in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The plaintiff class purportedly includes purchasers of the Company's
common stock between November 5, 1998 and August 13, 1999.

21st Century, through its Federated National Insurance subsidiary,
sells nonstandard auto, homeowners, and mobile home property/casualty
coverage, primarily in southern Florida.

The company underwrites policies and handles claims for third-party
insurance outfits via Assurance Managing General Agents and Superior
Adjusting, respectively.


AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Stull Stull Begins Securities Suit In S.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody commenced lately a class action lawsuit in United
States District Court for the Southern District of California, on
behalf of purchasers of 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 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


ASIA PULP: Barry and Glancy Law Firms File Securities Suit In S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian Barry and Lionel Glancy commenced a class
action against Asia Pulp and Paper Co., Ltd. (OTC:APUUY; NYSE:PAP),
certain of Asia Pulp's directors and officers, and Arthur Anderson LLP.

The case seeks to represent all stockholders who purchased Asia Pulp in
the period May 17, 2000-April 4, 2001 for violation of section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that Asia Pulp's financial statements were false
in that they failed to disclose that the Company had entered into two
currency swap contracts involving Indonesian rupiah/ US dollars and
Japanese yen/ US dollars.

These contracts had gone into negative positions but the financial
statements did not make the appropriate adjustments to offset the risks
associated with these contracts, despite the representation that such
adjustments were made at year-end when Arthur Anderson conducted its
audit.

Eventually, Asia Pulp agreed to pay $220 million to terminate these
contracts.

In addition, Asia Pulp and Arthur Anderson failed to timely write off
receivables from related parties and others.

At year-end 1996, Asia Pulp had receivables from related parties of
$22.8 million. This increased to $434 million in 1997, $649 million in
1998 and $756 million in 1999.

Receivables from others started at $403 million at year-end 1996, and
increased to $779 million in 1997, 1.054 billion in 1998, and 1.285
billion at year-end 1999.

Asia pulp recently announced that for year-end 2000 it was taking a
charge for doubtful accounts of $765 million, making up the vast
majority of its operating subsidiaries $939 million loss.

For more information, contact: Brian Barry, Esq. (bribarry1@yahoo.com)
or Jill Levine, Esq. (jilllevine1@yahoo.com) by Phone: 310-788-0831 or
contact: Law Offices of Lionel Glancy by Phone: 888-773-9224 or by E-
mail: info@glancylaw.com


AUDIBLE INC.: Outcome Of Securities Lawsuits In New York Uncertain
------------------------------------------------------------------
Audible Inc. says it cannot predict the outcome of the securities class
actions pending in New York due to the early stage in the litigation
process.

In a report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company said
counsels are currently reviewing the complaints.  They believe the
actions will be consolidated.

The Company believes, however, that the claims against it have no merit
and, more specifically, contends that it and the individual defendants
were not aware of the alleged practices, if they occurred.

The suits were filed beginning June this year and name as defendants
the Company and certain of its officers, directors and former
directors, including Donald R. Katz, Andrew P. Kaplan, Richard Brass,
R. Bradford Burnham, W. Bingham Gordon, Thomas P. Hirschfeld, Winthrop
Knowlton and Timothy Mott.

The investment banking firms that were involved in the Company's 1999
initial public offering have also been named as defendants.

The gist of the plaintiffs' claims is that the underwriter defendants
allegedly allocated the opportunity to participate in the IPO by
requiring their customers to pay "kickbacks" in excess of the normal
commissions and to make subsequent purchases in the after market at
prices in excess of the IPO price.

Allegedly, the amounts of the "kickbacks" were sometimes calculated as
a percentage of the customer's paper profits over some specified period
of time after the IPO.

It is alleged that these practices were not disclosed in the
registration statement and prospectus for the IPO and that, as a
result, the defendants violated various provisions of the federal
securities laws.

Certain of the complaints purport to set forth claims on behalf of
persons who acquired the Company's common stock from July 16, 1999 to
June 11, 2001.

One other complaint purports to represent a class of persons who
acquired the Company's common stock between July 16, 1999 and December
6, 2000.

The complaints do not specify the amount of the compensatory damages
the plaintiffs are seeking, but the market loss at issue was in excess
of $50 million.

The suits are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The Company sells downloadable audio versions of books and print
publications, including Frank McCourt's Angela's Ashes and The New York
Times.

With more than 28,000 hours of content, Audible's Web site offers radio
broadcasts, speeches, and performances.


AUTOWEB.COM: Expects New York Securities Suits To Be Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Autoweb.com Inc. expects the securities class actions that are
currently lodged in a New York federal court will eventually be
consolidated.

The Company says the complaints filed beginning April this year contend
the same issues; hence, can be tried as one action.

Discovery has not yet commenced and the Company said it has not filed
an answer to any of the complaints as of July 13, the date it filed its
latest regulatory report.

Autoweb believes that it has meritorious defenses to the complaints and
intends to vigorously defend the actions.

In addition, Autoweb believes that its underwriters may have an
obligation to indemnify Autoweb against these claims under the terms of
the underwriter engagement letter for the initial public offering.

Between April and June 2001, eight purported class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against certain of Autoweb's current and former directors and officers
and underwriters involved in Autoweb's initial public offering.

The foregoing actions purport to allege violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Two motions seeking lead counsel status were filed on June 19, 2001.

Autoweb anticipates that all actions, except for possibly one separate
lawsuit, will ultimately be consolidated into one action and that a
consolidated complaint will be filed after appointment of lead
plaintiff(s).

Autoweb.com frees car buyers from the web of salespeople. Its Website
lets new or used car buyers describe their dream cars, and registered
car dealers respond within 24 hours with their best offers.

About 4,700 car dealers have registered with the service. The Website
also features services such as financing, insurance, maintenance, and
auto-related content.


CALICO COMMERCE: Judge Chooses Lead Plaintiffs, Lawyers In Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Judge Shira A. Scheindlin recently consolidated the class
action complaints against Calico Commerce, Inc. and appointed lead
plaintiffs, says a recent Company disclosure.

In an order June 12, Scheindin appointed Cynthia Yuen, Lai Hui,
Marshall Hui and Paul Statham to serve as lead plaintiffs in the case.

The law firms of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP and Schiffrin &
Barroway were also appointed as lead counsels for the plaintiffs.

The same order required Calico and the other defendants to respond to a
consolidated amended complaint at the end of this month.

Beginning March this year, the Company has been served with a number of
complaints lodged in the Southern District of New York, seeking an
unspecified amount of damages on behalf of an alleged class of persons
who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between the date of
its IPO and the end of June 2000.

The complaints name as defendants Calico and certain of its current and
former directors and officers, and several of its IPO underwriters.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company's prospectus,
incorporated in the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission was materially false and misleading.

The Plaintiffs also claim the prospectus failed to disclose the
investment banks that underwrote Calico's initial public offering of
securities, and others received undisclosed and excessive brokerage
commissions.

It also required investors to agree to buy shares of the Company's
securities after the initial public offering was completed at
predetermined prices as a precondition to obtaining initial public
offering allocations.

The plaintiffs further allege that these actions artificially inflated
the price of the Company's common stock after the public offering.

The plaintiffs state allegations of the violation of Sections 11, 12
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and under Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by
the Securities Exchange Commission.

The Company creates software that is used by high-tech manufacturers,
telecom service providers, retailers, and financial service companies
to help customers make online purchases of typically complex products.

Based on customer input, the software assesses requirements and
purchasing constraints, then customizes information and quotes on a
variety of products and services.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Poor Cable Service Fueling Interest In Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Hammond City, Louisiana-based attorney is planning to file a class
action lawsuit against Charter Communications, Inc. and is asking the
community to join him, the Daily Star reports.

The suit is arising after several complaints were raised recently by
many customers in a city council hearing.

Lawyer A.J. Levith says his lawsuit will revolve around poor cable
television reception, slow or no service response, constantly busy
phone signals, unknown charges on bills and unskilled repair personnel.

He is currently inviting customers to join a class action and has even
placed an advertisement in a local paper.

The city, for its part, is planning to examine its franchise agreement
with the Company in a scheduled meeting on September 4.


CINCINNATI BENGALS: Season Ticket Holders To Get $1,000 In Refunds
------------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit brought by some
fans of the Cincinnati Bengals, who claim they purchased licenses for
seats in a specific zone at the Paul Brown Stadium, but were given
seats in less desirable areas, the Associated Press reports.

The settlement, which will cost Hamilton County taxpayers more than
$2.5 million, will be going to 1,750 season ticket holders.

The average refund check is about $1,000.  

Hundreds more fans may be eligible for a partial refund this year.


CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES: Regards New York Securities Suits As 'Meritless'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Software developer Concur Technologies, Inc. dismissed recently the
securities class actions pending against it in New York as meritless.

According to the Company, the damages sought by the plaintiffs have no
bases and therefore it will exert all effort to contest their claims.

The Company said in a disclosure filed recently with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that the complaints began pouring in last month.

The suits allege identical claims under federal securities laws and
name the Company and several of its current and former officers as
defendants

In particular, the plaintiffs pursue claims under Section 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of
1934, as amended, based on disclosures of underwriting terms in the
prospectus for our initial public offering.

They also allege claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended.

The suits are lodged in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

"Although no estimate of any outcome of this lawsuit can currently be
made, an unfavorable resolution of such suit could significantly harm
our business, operating results, and financial condition," says the
Company disclosure.

The Company developed Concur Expense software that features Web-based
modules for tracking, submitting, and processing reports for travel and
entertainment expenses.

The company licenses its software directly to companies and by
subscription through application service providers.


CVS CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Files Massachusetts Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
all purchasers of CVS Corporation (NYSE:CVS) common stock between
February 6, 2001 and June 27, 2001.

The Complaint charges that CVS and members of its senior management
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b 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 did not
inform the investing public that the national shortage of pharmacists
was harming CVS's business and was causing the Company's expansion
plans to be scaled back.

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 millions
of dollars worth of their personally-held stock, and CVS was able to
raise $300 million through the issuance of notes.

For more details, contact: Ira Press, Esq. or Melissa Fleming,
Paralegal by Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York
10022 by Phone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 (toll free) or by E-
Mail: mfleming@kmslaw.com


DRUGSTORE.COM: Will Vigorously Defend Against Allegations  
---------------------------------------------------------
Without admitting any wrongdoing or liability, Drugstore.com Inc.
recently said it has enough insurance to cover any claim in the event
an adverse ruling is handed down on the pending class actions in New
York.

But the Company clarified that it will still vigorously contest the
allegations of the plaintiffs who purport to represent a class of
shareholders.

"We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing in these complaints and
intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these matters," the Company
said in a recent SEC report.

The suits are currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, naming the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and its IPO underwriters as defendants.

The allegations in the complaints vary, but in general they allege that
the prospectus through which the Company conducted its public offering
in July 1999 was materially false and misleading because it failed to
disclose, among other things, that:

     (1) the IPO underwriters allegedly solicited and received
         excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors
         in exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those
         investors material portions of the restricted number of shares
         issued in connection with the initial public offering and

     (2) the underwriters allegedly entered into agreements with
         customers whereby they agreed to allocate drugstore.com shares
         to customers in the initial public offering in exchange for
         which customers agreed to purchase additional drugstore.com
         shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.

The complaints assert violations of various sections of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and seek unspecified damages and other relief.

The Company is an online retailer selling name-brand and private-label
health and beauty products and prescription drugs.


FIRESTONE INC.: Settles Potential $1 Billion Suit For $7.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. cut short the jury deliberation last week on
the $1 billion federal lawsuit against the Company when it successfully
forged a $7.5 million settlement with the plaintiff, the Associated
Press reports.

The deliberations, which were well into their fourth day, abruptly
ended after the deal was announced.

The Company did not admit liability, maintaining its position that the
accident involving Marisa Rodriguez was more likely due on the Ford
Explorer, which has figured in several roll-over accidents due to
alleged design flaws.

"Our mission here, for our family, was to make sure no other person
suffered like our family did," said Joel Rodriguez, whose 39-year-old
wife, Marisa, was paralyzed and brain-damaged when the Explorer crashed
on a Mexican road last year.

"We feel that our objective has been met," he said.

The case was the first Firestone lawsuit to go to trial since the
recall last summer of 6.5 million of the tires, according to the
report.

Federal officials have linked more than 200 deaths to accidents
involving Firestones on Explorers.

The Company has now settled about 200 cases, but some 300 others remain
pending.

In addition, there is a major class action suit in Indianapolis, which
is still far from going to trial.

Ford settled with the Rodriguezes for $6 million before trial, the
report says.

"We are glad we were able to reach a resolution with the Rodriguez
family," the tire company said in a statement.

"Since the outset, when we provided financial assistance to help with
the family's medical bills, we have been hopeful that we could reach a
fair settlement that would also bring closure to them following this
accident," the statement read.

In addition to the $7.5 million agreed upon Friday, the Company offered
the family $350,000 up front to help pay medical expenses.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Suit Says Paxil Is Addictive, Has Side Effects
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thirty-five individuals allege in a class action suit filed recently
that popular anti-depressant Paxil is an addictive drug, the
StardardNET reports.

The suit lodged Friday last week claim that the plaintiffs suffered
symptoms ranging from electric-like shocks to suicidal thoughts after
discontinuing use of the drug.

It is seeking class action status and unspecified damages from drug
maker GlaxoSmithkline for allegedly concealing the possibility of
physical and psychological withdrawal symptoms.

It alleges fraud, deceit, negligence, liability, and breach of
warranty, the report says.

The lawsuit was filed by Karen Barth in association with Mary Schiavo
of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, Guilford & Schiavo

The suit is pending in the California Superior Court.


GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Stull Stull Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed lately a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of GRIC Communications, Inc.
(NASDAQ:GRIC) from between December 14, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The suit is pending against the following defendants:
  
     (1) GRIC Communications, Inc.,

     (2) CIBC World Markets Corp.,

     (3) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.,

     (4) Prudential Securities Inc.,

     (5) Dr. Hong Chen and

     (6) Joseph M. Zaelit

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 December 14, 1999, GRIC commenced an initial public
offering of 4,600,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $14 per share.

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

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

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

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

For additional 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


IBASIS INC.: Claims It Has Meritorious Defense Against Pending Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
iBasis, Inc. says it has meritorious defense against pending securities
suits in New York, although it admits that there can be no assurance it
will be successful in such a defense.


The Company revealed in a recent SEC disclosure that beginning August
1, several class action complaints were filed against it in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suits lodged against several of its officers, directors, and former
officers and directors, as well as against the investment banking firms
that underwrote the Company's November 11, 1999 initial public offering
of common stock.

The complaints were filed on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock during different time periods, all beginning on
or after November 10, 1999 and ending on or before December 6, 2000.

The complaints are similar to each other and to hundreds of other
complaints filed recently against other issuers and their underwriters,
and allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 primarily based on the assertion that there was
undisclosed compensation received by the underwriters in connection
with initial public offering.

Neither iBasis nor the individual defendants have so far filed answers
in any of these matters, the SEC report said.

"An adverse resolution of one or more of these lawsuits could have a
material adverse affect on our financial position and results of
operation in the period in which the lawsuits are resolved," the
Company said.

Phone calls via the Internet form the basis of this company's business.
iBasis serves telecommunications carriers by providing wholesale
Internet protocol (IP) telephony for international voice and fax calls.

The company, which has more than 100 carrier clients, also offers
unified communications and turnkey IP telephony hosting services.


MATRIXONE INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Securities Suit In S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP recently commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of MatrixOne, Inc.
(NASDAQ: MONE) securities between February 29, 2000 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling MatrixOne common stock pursuant to the
February 29, 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 MatrixOne 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 MatrixOne stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive MatrixOne'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 further 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., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.,
Michael Miske, or George Peters) by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com


MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Sued For Defrauding IL Customers In Promo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fast-food giant McDonald's Corp. faces suit in Cook County Circuit
Court in Chicago over alleged fraud in its "Monopoly" and "Who Wants to
Be a Millionaire" games, the Reuters News Agency reports.

The suit follows an FBI operation last week that netted eight
individuals, including an employee of Simon Marketing.

The eight were allegedly responsible for rigging the game promotions
and defrauding the fast-food chain out of more than $13 million, the
report says.

Lawyer Aron Robinson filed the suit against McDonald's and Simon
Worldwide, Inc. the parent of the company that ran the games.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the consumer fraud acts of Illinois
and other states and unjust enrichment, Robinson said.

The suit seeks class action status and the return of any extra sales
McDonald's received from the promotions.


METROMEDIA FIBER: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated 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 Network,Inc.
(NASDAQ: MFNX) common stock between January 8, 2001 and July 2, 2001.

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.

During the Class Period, defendants announced Metromedia's receipt of a
$350 million credit facility from Citicorp USA, Inc.  

However, defendants failed to disclose that the Citicorp credit
facility was contingent on the receipt of additional commitments from
other lenders, which Metromedia was experiencing difficulty in
obtaining.

As a result the further development of the Company's fiber optic
network would be significantly delayed.

On July 2, 2001, Metromedia revealed for the first time that the
commitment letter from Citicorp was subject to the receipt of
commitments from other lenders.

For more information, contact: Ira Press, Esq. or Melissa Fleming,
Paralegal by Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York
10022 by Phone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 (toll free) or by E-
Mail: mfleming@kmslaw.com


ONI SYSTEMS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed recently a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of ONI Systems Corp. (Nasdaq: ONIS) securities
during the period between May 31, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges the following defendants with violations of
Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder:
   
     (1) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (3) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     (4) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,

     (5) ONI,

     (6) Hugh C. Martin, and

     (7) Chris A. Davis

On or about May 31, 2000, ONI commenced an initial public offering of 8
million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $25.00
per share.

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

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

     (i) the Underwriter Defendants 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
         ONI shares issued in connection with the ONI IPO; and

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

For more information, contact: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP
through its Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Sue Null or
Charlie Gastineau by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438
by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll free) or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com


OPENTV CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP commenced recently a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of OpenTV Corp. (NASDAQ:
OPTV) securities between November 23, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling OpenTV common stock pursuant to the
November 23, 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 OpenTV 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 OpenTV stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive OpenTV'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., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.,
Michael Miske, or George Peters) by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com


ORLANDO CITY: Three More Plaintiffs Join Suit Bringing Total To 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
A widow of a firefighter who died of heart attack and two city police
officers have recently joined the case against Orlando City, bringing
the total of plaintiffs to 29.

According to NewsChannel2000.com, Deborah Lasseter is suing the city
for wrongful death after an autopsy of her husband showed that he died
of clogged arteries.

She claims her husband was never told about his real health condition
even though records at the city's occupational medical clinic show that
doctors had detected abnormal EKGs, high blood pressure, and high
cholesterol many years earlier.

He had his yearly physical three months before he died, Lasseter said.

Meanwhile, two Orlando police officers have also joined the lawsuit,
according to the report.

The two also claim that the city knew they were sick for years, but
intentionally never told them to save the city money on costly
treatments.


PHILADELPHIA CITY: Prison Guards' Lawsuit For Overtime Pay Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court's
dismissal of a lawsuit in which the union representing the prison
guards sought $1.4 million in back overtime pay for time spent changing
into and out of uniforms, the Associated Press reports.

The appeals court agreed with U.S. District Judge Jay C. Waldman's
ruling that the guards had acquiesced for 30 years with the city's
practice of not paying overtime for uniform-changing time.  

The appeals court also agreed that the guards' union, Local 159B of
District Council 33 of the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees, had not pressed the issue during collective
bargaining sessions with the city.

More than 200 current and former corrections officers had been seeking
class action status for the lawsuit filed against the city and prisons
commissioner Thomas Costello.


PITTSBURGH STEELERS: Season Ticket Holders Sue Over Poor Stadium Seats
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed recently against the Pittsburgh Steelers in
Common Pleas Court, alleging that a number of season ticket holders
believed they had purchased better seat assignments than the ones they
actually received, the Associated Press reports.

Dravosburg, Ohio lawyer W.J. Helzsouer has signed up as his co-counsel,
in this case, Janet Abaray, an attorney who participated with him in
the settlement involving seats at the Cincinnati Bengals' new stadium.   

Helzsouer said there are four plaintiffs at present, and he expects to
add more to the lawsuit, which he wants to be certified as a class
action.

In the lawsuit against the Steelers, the plaintiffs claim that they
believed they would be getting better seat assignments in Heinz Field,
the new stadium that replaced Three Rivers Stadium this season.  

The fans argue in their complaint that they relied on color-coded
seating charts included in a brochure the Steelers had sent to
prospective season ticket owners, in making their seat selections.

A spokesman for the Steelers said he would not comment on the case
because it is in litigation.  


PRICELINE.COM: Sued Anew In New York Over Securities Laws Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Priceline.com Inc. disclosed a recent regulatory filing with SEC that a
fourth securities class action suit has been filed against it in New
York over the same claims as those alleged in earlier complaints.

The new suit was brought last June 5 and, just like the three others,
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, the Company said.

The suit names the following as defendants:

     (1) priceline.com, Inc.,

     (2) Richard S. Braddock,

     (3) Jay Walker,

     (4) Paul Francis,

     (5) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,

     (6) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

     (7) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and

     (8) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

The complaints allege, among other things, that priceline.com and the
individual defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing
and selling priceline.com common stock in priceline.com's March 1999
public offering without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
allegedly solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
from certain investors.

The first three suits were filed last March 16, March 26, April 27,
respectively.

"The Company intends to defend vigorously against these actions," the
SEC report says.

The Company aspires to become the king of e-commerce.

At its website, buyers can "name their own price" for airline tickets,
home financing, hotel rooms, new cars (in selected states), rental
cars, and telephone long distance.


RAMBUS INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit In N.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP filed lately a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, on behalf of purchasers of Rambus, Inc. (Nasdaq: RMBS)
securities between January 18, 2000 and May 9, 2001, inclusive.

The suit is pending against defendants Rambus and certain of its
officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Rambus and certain of its
officers and directors disseminated materially false and misleading
statements concerning, among other things:

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

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

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

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

For additional Information, contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: (800) 575-0735 (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., 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


ROWECOM INC.: Weiss & Yourman Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman Announces launched a class action lawsuit against
RoweCom, Inc. (NASDAQ:ROWE), certain of its officers and directors and
the lead underwriters of its public offering in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York recently, on
behalf of investors who purchased RoweCom securities between March 9,
1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a
Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false
and misleading information and failed to disclose material information.

The Prospectus was issued in connection with RoweCom's initial public
offering of 3.1 million shares of common stock at $16.00 per share that
was completed on or about March 9, 1999.

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

     (1) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors
         to provide them with significant amounts of restricted RoweCom
         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 RoweCom shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices.

For more information, contact: Jack I. Zwick, James E. Tullman, or Mark
D. Smilow by Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 by E-mail:
info@wynyc.com or by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite
1600, New York, New York 10176


SCHWEGMANN MARKET:Judge Finds Grocery Vouchers Retirement Plan Benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Judge Carl Barbier, in New Orleans, recently ruled that a group
of Schwegmann Giant Super Market retirees are entitled to the grocery
vouchers they were receiving before the business was sold; that the
program giving $216 in monthly food vouchers to retired Schwegmann
supervisors constituted a retirement plan protected under federal
employment law, the Associated Press reports.

Under the program started in 1985, every Schwegmann retiree, 60 years
or older, who had worked for the company 20 years and had spent at
least one year as a supervisor, received  $216 in food vouchers every
month until death.  

The voucher program ended when John Schwegmann sold the grocery
business to investment firm Kohlberg & Co. in February 1997.  

Kohlberg filed for bankruptcy protection in 1999 and shut down the
chain.

John Schwegmann contended that the vouchers were simply a gratuity like
the watches and steak knives he handed out over the years at retirement
dinners. The program, also, never had been put into writing.   

But Judge Barbier, according to the report, saw things differently
based on the "reams of paper submitted" and the two-day trial.   

He found that the voucher program constituted a retirement plan
governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, which was
designed to protect workers by broadly interpreting pension benefits.

"Benefits triggered by attainment of a specific age, conditioned upon
length of service and paid until death are the hallmarks of a pension
benefit plan, not a welfare benefit plan," Judge Barbier wrote in his
75-page decision.

The Judge also ruled that an insurance policy written for Schwegmann by
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Co., also named in the
lawsuit, does cover the claims brought by the retirees.  

Therefore, Schwegmann would pay a $250,000 deductible, and the
insurance company would pay the rest of the damages.

If all 199 plaintiffs were found to qualify for the vouchers, the value
of the claim as of August 1st would be slightly more than  $4.15
million, or $20,850 per person, not including interest earned on the
past-due benefits.

Attorneys for Schwegmann and its insurance company are expected to
appeal the decision.
  
  
TREX COMPANY: Faces Several Securities Lawsuits In W.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
A number of lawsuits have been filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Virginia naming as defendants the
Trex Company, Inc. and other Company officials, an SEC document says.

The suits name, among others, Robert G. Matheny, the President and a
director of the Company, Roger A. Wittenberg, the Executive Vice
President of Technical Operations and Materials Sourcing and a director
of the Company, and Anthony J. Cavanna, the Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and a Director of the Company.

The complaints, which seek certification as class actions, principally
allege that the Company and certain directors and officers of the
Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of and Rule 10b-5 under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Accordingly, these violations were committed by making false and
misleading public statements concerning the Company's operating and
financial results and expectations and by filing misleading and
inaccurate financial statements with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The complaints also allege that certain directors and officers of the
Company sold shares of the Company's common stock at artificially
inflated prices.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend these lawsuits and any other similar lawsuits that
may be served on the Company.

The company makes wood/plastic alternative for building residential and
commercial decks.

The Trex Wood-Polymer composite is made of waste-wood fibers and
reclaimed polyethylene.

Trex Wood-Polymer comes in traditional lumber sizes and offers the
appearance and workability of wood but requires less long-term
maintenance.


UNITED STATES: ACLU Fights Plea Agreement In Landmark "Rave" Drug Case
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana's ACLU chapter filed a class action complaint on behalf of
the internationally known electronic band Rabbit in the Moon, seeking
to overturn a plea bargain agreement between federal prosecutors and
organizers of a "rave" in downtown New Orleans, Associated Press
reports.

The plea bargain agreement bans the use of glow sticks, pacifiers,
masks and vapor rubs at "rave" dance parties.  

These items are used to enhance the effects of the popular, illegal
club drug Ecstasy, said federal prosecutors.

Joe Cook, director of ACLU's Louisiana chapter, who filed the lawsuit
along with lawyer Vince Booth, characterized the ban as a form of
behavior control:  "[T]hey feel these people might do something illegal
if they possess these items.  Maybe next they'll ban dancing, since
people often dance while on drugs.  That's the absurdity we're dealing
with."  

The stage costumes of the Rabbit in the Moon band incorporate glowing
necklaces; their future performances in New Orleans will be canceled if
it violates the plea agreement.  

In addition to Rabbit in the Moon founder Steve McClure, other
plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Clayton Smith and Michael Behan.

"The government refuses to distinguish rave culture and electronic
music from the ecstasy use of some (but certainly not all) members of
the audience," said the ACLU complaint.  

"The result is a government strategy to shut down the "rave scene" by
prosecuting the producers and promoters of raves...and condemning all
items associated with raves as illegal drug paraphernalia," the
complaint said.

Acting U.S. attorney Jim Letten said he had yet to review the lawsuit.  
However, he said he found the idea of a third party intervening in a
criminal plea agreement highly unusual.

"We were cognizant of the legitimate Constitutional rights of
individuals but also had to consider the welfare, health and safety of
the citizens and had to strike a balance of various factors in reaching
that decision," Letten said.

Investigators have linked the raves, held since 1995 at the State
Palace Theater in downtown New Orleans, to numerous overdose patients
at emergency rooms and the 1998 death of a 17-year-old girl.


VIRAGE INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Virage, Inc. [NASDAQ: VRGE]
securities between June 28, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Virage common stock pursuant to the June
28, 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 Virage 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 Virage stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Virage'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., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.,
Michael Miske, or George Peters) by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com


                              *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, Larri-Nil
Veloso and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2001.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-
mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written
permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.  
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 301/951-6400.

* * *  End of Transmission  * * *