CAR_Public/010829.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, August 29, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 169


                              Headlines

AMEDISYS INC.: Berman DeValerio Launches Securities Suit In M.D. LA
BHP BILLITON: Supreme Court Allows Suit To Proceed As Class Action
BURLINGTON CITY: Sued For Improper Water Test, Contamination
DELANO TECHNOLOGY: Wolf Haldenstein Raises Securities Suit In S.D. NY
DIGITAL RIVER: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit In S.D New York

ELOQUENT INC.: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. New York
FIRESTONE INC.: Appellate Court Rejects Court-ordered Recall Motion
GLOBAL CROSSING: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE: Milberg Weiss Begins Securities Suit In SD NY
JOHNS HOPKINS: Faces Multimillion-Dollar Lead Poisoning Tests Suit

LIQUID AUDIO: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit In S.D. New York
LOUDCLOUD INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY
MARK NUTRITIONALS: Faces Two Suits In MI For Deceptive Weight Loss Ads
MCDATA CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
MICROFIELD GRAPHICS: Rabin & Peckel Says Fairness Hearing On Sept. 24

MODEM MEDIA: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. NY
MONEY STORE: Faces Three Suits In Sacramento For Alleged Overcharges
MUSICMAKER.COM: Asks CA Court To Overturn Denial Of Dismissal Motion
NETRO CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Sues Over SD NY Securities Fraud
NETSILICON INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Brings S.D. NY Securities Suit

NIKU CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit In S.D. NY
NPC INTERNATIONAL: Gets Final Nod On Settlement Pact Inked In May
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Cauley Geller Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY
OPENTV CORPORATION: Wolf Popper Raises Securities Suit In S.D. NY
PSS WORLD: Berman DeValerio Launches Securities Suit In M.D. Florida

RAMBUS INC.: Johnson & Perkinson Launches Securities Suit In N.D. CA
SIPEX CORPORATION: Brian Felgoise Begins Massachusetts Securities Suit  
VIANT CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Begins SD NY Securities Suit
VICINITY CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files SD NY Securities Suit


                              *********


AMEDISYS INC.: Berman DeValerio Launches Securities Suit In M.D. LA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed a lawsuit recently
on behalf of shareholders of Amedisys, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: AMED),
accusing the company of defrauding investors.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana and is pending before Judge James Brady.

It seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of
all investors who bought Amedisys, Inc. stock between March 1, 2001 and
June 13, 2001.

The class action charges Baton Rouge-based Amedisys and some of its top
executives with knowingly or recklessly disseminating false and
misleading financial statements and press releases about the company's
fourth quarter 2000 and first quarter 2001 earnings.

On March 1, 2001, Amedisys issued a press release touting positive
financial results in connection with its home health nursing services.

The statement announced, among other things, that the company had
reduced its net loss from continuing operations by more than 70% for
the year ended December 31, 2000.

However, on June 13, 2001, Amedisys issued a press release announcing a
restatement of its previously claimed earnings.

The company revealed a negative adjustment to net service revenue of
between $4 million and $7 million. This meant Amedisys was actually
unprofitable, even though it had previously reported strong earnings.

As a result of the revelation, Amedisys stock plummeted almost 60% to
close at $4.10 per share on June 13, far below its closing price of
$9.92 per share on June 12.

For more information, contact: N. Nancy Ghabai, Esq. or Jeffrey C.
Block, Esq. by Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone:
(800) 516-9926 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's
Website: www.bermanesq.com


BHP BILLITON: Supreme Court Allows Suit To Proceed As Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court in Victoria, Australia recently ruled that the
pending lawsuit against mining giant BHP Billiton Ltd. can be pursued
as a class action, The Canberra Times reports.

The high court also ordered the publication of notices in Papua New
Guinea and the delivery of the same on a village-by-village basis.

About 30,000 landowners brought the suit in April last year over the
continued disposal of waste materials in the river system by the
Company's Ok Tedi Mining Ltd.

Five years ago, an agreement was reached between the landowners and the
mining Company that involved $100 million in payments and measures to
deal with the disposal of more than 80,000 tonnes of waste materials
from the copper mine.

The suit claims the mining giant has breached the agreement by
continuing to dump tailings that find its way to the river system.


BURLINGTON CITY: Sued For Improper Water Test, Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee lawyer Jonathan Safran of the firm Gendlin & Safran recently
filed two lawsuits against the City of Burlington on behalf of people
who contend they became ill because the city improperly tested its
drinking water, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

Both lawsuits contend that on or between August 16 and September 1,
1998, some of the plaintiffs drank the city water, which contained
excess levels of coliform bacteria, disease-causing organisms, and
became ill.  

Other plaintiffs contracted the illness from family members who were
already sickened by drinking the water.

The lawsuits claim the city was negligent in its actions and liable for
damages because city officials knew the water was contaminated but
failed to notify the state Department of Natural Resources.  

In March 2000, the state sued Burlington, asserting that the city had
failed for five years to properly test its drinking water and to notify
residents when tests showed impurities.  

A settlement was reached in which the city was given three years to pay
$56,189.

The city began chlorinating its water supply two days after the testing
violations were made public in October 1998, according to the report.  

Burlington Mayor Claude Lois said the water problem was unfortunate.  

"It is not known where the problem came from or what it was," said
Lois, adding that he was not mayor at the time.

Safran's law firm is asking for class action status in one of the two
lawsuits.  

Now the complaint seeks compensation and damages for plaintiffs Chad S.
and Pauline Baumeister, and their daughter Shaina, all of Elkhorn;
their health insurance provider, Wisconsin Pipes Trades Health Fund of
Milwaukee; Christine and Jack Olson of Burlington and their health
insurance provider, Aetna Health & Life Insurance Co., Hartford, Conn.;
and Patricia A. Moore of Racine and her insurance provider, WEA
Insurance Corp. of Madison.

The second lawsuit seeks compensation and damages for plaintiffs Jackie
and Randy Grisham, and sons Joshua Grisham and Michael Lidholm, all of
Burlington and the family's health insurance provider, Managed Health
Services Insurance Corp. of St. Louis. Norman Lidholm, the biological
father of Michael Lidholm, is also a plaintiff.

Mayor Lois said he had not seen the lawsuits but had confidence in the
city's water supply.


DELANO TECHNOLOGY: Wolf Haldenstein Raises 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 Delano Technology Corp.
(NASDAQ:DTEC) securities between February 9, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Delano common stock pursuant to the
February 9, 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 Delano 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 Delano stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Delano'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 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., Gustavo Bruckner,
Esq., Michael Miske, or George Peters) by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com


DIGITAL RIVER: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit In S.D New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Digital River, Inc. (NASDAQ:
DRIV) securities between August 11, 1998 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Digital River common stock pursuant to the
August 11, 1998 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 Digital River 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 Digital River stock
rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was
intended to (and did) drive Digital River'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


ELOQUENT INC.: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed recently a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Eloquent, Inc. (NASDAQ:ELOQ) between
February 17, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against defendants Eloquent, U.S. Bancorp Piper
Jaffray, Inc., Bank of America Securities LLC, Thomas Weisel Partners
LLC, Abraham Kleinfield and R. John Curson.

The complaint alleges that on or about February 17, 2000, Eloquent
commenced an initial public offering of 4,500,000 of its shares of
common stock at an offering price of $16.00 per share.

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

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

     (1) Piper Jaffray, Bank of America and Thomas Weisel had solicited
         and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
         certain investors in exchange for which Piper Jaffray, Bank of
         America and Thomas Weisel allocated to those investors
         material portions of the restricted number of Eloquent shares
         issued in connection with the Eloquent Corp. IPO; and

     (2) Piper Jaffray, Bank of America and Thomas Weisel had entered
         into agreements with customers whereby Piper Jaffray, Bank of
         America and Thomas Weisel agreed to allocate Eloquent shares
         to those customers in the Eloquent Corp. IPO in exchange for
         which the customers agreed to purchase additional Eloquent
         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


FIRESTONE INC.: Appellate Court Rejects Court-ordered Recall Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected recently an appeal filed
earlier this month seeking a court-ordered recall of Ford Explorers or
Firestone tires, the Reuters News Agency reports.

The decision sustained the opinion of U.S. Judge Sarah Evans Barker
that only the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and not
the court has the power to order a recall.

Plaintiff attorneys had wanted a court-supervised recall but the
Indianapolis judge rejected the motion last July 27.

More than 300 class actions and personal injury suits against Ford and
Firestone have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes before the
judge's chamber.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel recently lodged a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Global Crossing Ltd.
(NYSE: GX) between August 13, 1998 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending against defendant Global Crossing. The following
underwriters are also named as defendants:

     (1) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,

     (2) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,

     (3) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (4) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,

     (5) Bear, Stearns & Co.,

     (6) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (7) Lehman Brothers Inc.

The following Global Crossing current and former officers and directors
also are named as defendants: John M. Scanlon, David Lee, Barry Porter,
Abbott Brown and Dan J. Cohrs.

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 August 13, 1998, Global Crossing commenced an initial
public offering of 21,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $19 per share.

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

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

For more information, contact: The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 210 West Washington Square, Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106 by
Phone: (888) 643-6735 or (215) 625-9999 by Fax: (215) 440-9475 by E-
mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE: Milberg Weiss Begins Securities Suit In SD NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP filed a class action lawsuit
on behalf of purchasers of the Internet Infrastructure Holdrs
Depositary Receipts (AMEX:IIH) between, February 24, 2000 to December
6, 2000 inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the following defendants:

     (1) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated,

     (2) Merrill Lynch & Co.,

     (3) Ahmass L. Fakahany and

     (4) John L. Steffens.

The lawsuit alleges claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and seeks to recover damages.

The complaint alleges that the Internet Infrastructure Depositary
Receipts were "basket securities" whose price was directly related to,
and moved with, the price of 20 underlying securities held in the
Internet Infrastructure Holdrs trust.

The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing and selling Internet Infrastructure Holdrs
Depositary Receipts in an IPO on February 24, 2000, pursuant to a
registration statement and prospectus that were materially false and
misleading.

Accordingly, it is alleged the documents failed to disclose that a
substantial proportion of the Internet Infrastructure Holdrs trust's
initial portfolio consisted of stocks whose prices had been
artificially inflated through the use of improper practices relating to
their initial public offering, and that they therefore traded at
artificially inflated prices.

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


JOHNS HOPKINS: Faces Multimillion-Dollar Lead Poisoning Tests Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johns Hopkins University faces a multimillion-dollar class action suit
in Baltimore based on claims by parents that its research arm risked
the health of their kids, says Reuters.

Lawyer Saul Kerpelman says the school's Kennedy Krieger Institute
failed to inform parents that its test on lead levels in homes placed
their children at risk.

It is not clear from the report when the tests were conducted, save
that it involved seventy-five homes with lead contamination that were
subjected to three methods of lead abatement -- minimal, mid-level and
extensive.

The study looked at more than 100 families from a section of Baltimore
with large numbers of poor people and minorities, the report says.

"In the ideal situation, all of these homes would be torn down and
rebuilt," Kennedy Krieger said in a statement, noting that funds have
never been available to replace the homes.

The institute added that "the risk of lead poisoning was reduced for
each and every child" in the study.

Children who ingest lead can suffer brain damage and impaired hearing.

A Maryland court recently likened the study to the infamous Tuskegee
study that withheld treatment from back men infected with syphilis.


LIQUID AUDIO: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit In S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 purchasers of Liquid Audio,
Inc. (NASDAQ: LQID) securities between July 8, 1999 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.

Defendants in the suit are Liquid Audio, certain of its officers and
directors, and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Liquid Audio common stock pursuant to the
July 8, 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 Liquid Audio 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 Liquid Audio stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Liquid Audio's share price up to artificially high
levels.

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

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


LOUDCLOUD INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP filed a securities class action
lawsuit recently on behalf all persons who acquired Loudcloud, Inc.
(NASDAQ: LDCL) securities between March 8, 2001 and May 1, 2001.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Named as defendants in the complaint are Loudcloud and the following
executive officers of Loudcloud:

     (1) Marc L. Andreessen,

     (2) Benjamin A. Horowitz,

     (3) Roderick M. Sherwood III,

     (4) William V. Campbell,

     (5) Michael S. Ovitz,

     (6) Andrew S. Rechleff.

The complaint also names as defendants the following underwriters of
Loudcloud's initial public offering:

     (i) Goldman, Sachs & Co.,

    (ii) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,

   (iii) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC,

    (iv) Epoch Securities, Inc.,

     (v) Allen & Company Incorporated,

    (vi) CIBC World Markets Corp.,

   (vii) Dain Rauscher Incorporated,

  (viii) Raymond James & Associates, Inc.,

    (ix) Robertson Stephens, Inc., and

     (x) Wit SoundView Corporation

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 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 Loudcloud's initial public
offering of 25,000,000 shares of common stock at $6.00 per share that
was commenced on or about March 8, 2001.

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact: Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations, by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or by E-mail: LDCL@bernlieb.com


MARK NUTRITIONALS: Faces Two Suits In MI For Deceptive Weight Loss Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Nutritionals, Inc., maker of weight-loss product Body Solutions,
faces two separate class action suits in Michigan for deceptive
advertising and violation of the State's Consumer Protection Act.

The Detroit Free Press says the Company has been claiming in radio
spots that its product can lead consumers to lose weight while
sleeping, by taking a tablespoon solution before bed.

But after three months, Bob Miller, who brought one of the suits, said
he lost no weight.

"I trusted them, and I followed the program to a T, and it didn't do
anything," Miller said.

Miller twice sought a refund, but Body Solutions has a no-refund
policy.

A 30-day supply of Body Solutions costs consumers $60, says the report.

The Company has already moved for the dismissal of the case for being
vague and frivolous.

The two lawsuits are pending in Wayne County Circuit Court.


MCDATA CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files 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 McData Corporation
(Nasdaq:MCDT) securities between August 9, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling McData common stock pursuant to the August
9, 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 McData 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 McData stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive McData's share price up to artificially high levels.

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

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


MICROFIELD GRAPHICS: Rabin & Peckel Says Fairness Hearing On Sept. 24
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawfirm of Rabin & Peckel gives notice to all persons who during
the period July 23, 1998 through April 2, 1999 (both dates inclusive)
purchased shares of the common stock of Microfield Graphics, Inc.
(Nasdaq: MICG)

A hearing has been scheduled for September 24, 2001 before the United
States District Court for District of Oregon, United States Courthouse,
1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Courtroom 14A, Portland, Oregon.

The purpose of the hearing is to consider approval of a proposed
settlement, certification of a plaintiff class, Plaintiffs' Counsel's
application for attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses, and
related matters in the action captioned Sally Adair v. Microfield
Graphics, Inc., et al., CV 01-201-BR, brought on behalf of the Class
defined above.

If you are a member of the Class and did not receive the Notice of
Pendency, Proposed Settlement, Conditional Class Certification, and
Fairness Hearing; and the Proof of Claim and Release, please request
copies by writing to:

FRG Information Systems, Inc.
Microfield Graphics, Inc. Securities Litigation
P.O. Box 4069
New York, New York 10163

The Notice and Proof of Claim contain important information about the
litigation, including the steps you must now take to share in a
settlement if it is approved.

Proofs of Claim must be filed by November 6, 2001. You may be heard
personally or through an attorney at the hearing if you file by
September 14, 2001, with the Court and counsel, papers requesting to do
so and setting forth your views.

Please do not contact the Court for information.


MODEM MEDIA: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates 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 Modem Media, Inc. (NASDAQ:
MMPT) securities between February 4, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Modem Media common stock pursuant to the
February 4, 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 Modem Media 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 Modem Media stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Modem Media'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


MONEY STORE: Faces Three Suits In Sacramento For Alleged Overcharges
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lending firm The Money Store faces three separate class action suits in
Sacramento over alleged inappropriate fees charged on customer
mortgages, says the Sacramento Business Journal.

The suits claim the firm, now owned by First Union Bank, inflated fees,
charged unlawful administrative fees, and added an extra day's interest
to customer statements, the report says.

The disputed charges range from $14 to $25, according to the
complaints.

One suit alleged the lending company "enhances its profits by
systematically and unlawfully allocating less money paid to it by its
customers to principal reductions than is called for under contracts,
and allocating the payments instead to profit items such as unlawful
fees."

The suits claim a lot have been duped by this overcharges due to its
"air of correctness which few, if any, individual borrowers will
question or challenge."

A lawyer estimates that there are about 50,000 mortgages that may have
been affected by said unlawful practice.


MUSICMAKER.COM: Asks CA Court To Overturn Denial Of Dismissal Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Musicmaker.com Inc. disclosed in a recent regulatory filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that it has appealed an order
denying its motion for the dismissal of a securities class action in
California.

The Company said its motion for reconsideration is pending before the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California -- the court
that denied the dismissal motion last June.

But regardless of the outcome, the Company said it is prepared to mount
a vigorous defense against the consolidated suit filed last year.
The suit alleges violations of the following statutory provisions:
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


NETRO CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Sues Over SD NY Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Netro Corp. (NASDAQ: NTRO)
securities between August 18, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

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


NETSILICON INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Brings S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP recently brought a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of NetSilicon, Inc.
(Nasdaq: NSIL) from September 15, 1999 through December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The suit is pending against defendants NetSilicon, CIBC World Markets
Corp., and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.

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

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

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

     (1) CIBC World Markets Corp. and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.
         had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
         commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the
         Underwriter Defendants allocated to those investors material
         portions of the restricted number of NetSilicon shares issued
         in connection with the NetSilicon IPO; and

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

For further information, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP through
Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by Mail: Three Bala Plaza
East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll
free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


NIKU CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP filed lately a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Niku Corporation
(NASDAQ:NIKU - news) between February 28, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, against defendants Niku, Goldman Sachs & Co.,
Inc., Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, 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) Goldman, Bear Stearns and Robertson Stephens had solicited and
         received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for which Goldman, Bear Stearns and
         Robertson Stephens allocated to those investors material
         portions of the restricted number of Niku shares issued in
         connection with the Niku Corp. IPO; and

     (2) Goldman, Bear Stearns and Robertson Stephens had entered into
         agreements with customers whereby Goldman, Bear Stearns and
         Robertson Stephens 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: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman
by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: (800) 320-5081 by Email: nikucase@milbergny.com or visit the
firm's Website: www.milberg.com


NPC INTERNATIONAL: Gets Final Nod On Settlement Pact Inked In May
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NPC International, Inc. (Nasdaq:NPCI), announced Monday that the
District Court of Crawford County, Kansas had given its approval to a
settlement among all of the parties to litigation filed in connection
with a proposed merger involving the Company.

The Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Mergeco,
Inc., under which all of the outstanding common stock of the Company
will be acquired, other than the shares owned by Mergeco's
stockholders, for $11.55 per share in cash.

Mergeco, Inc. was formed to consummate the Merger and is controlled by
O. Gene Bicknell, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
NPC.

The minority interest, representing approximately 35% of NPC's
outstanding stock, will be purchased if the Merger is consummated for a
total purchase price of approximately $90 million.

District Judge Nelson E. Toburen announced the Court's approval of the
settlement today in a court hearing in Pittsburg, Kansas.

Attorneys for the parties to that litigation had signed a Memorandum of
Understanding in May, the Court had preliminarily approved the
settlement in July, and a notice describing the terms of the agreement
in principle was sent to the Company's stockholders in July.

No stockholders filed objections to the proposed settlement or appeared
at Monday's hearing to object it.

The hearing approved by the Court dismissed all claims that were made
against the Company and its directors arising out of the Merger.

The terms of the proposed settlement would take effect only if the
Merger is approved by the stockholders and consummated by the parties
to the agreement.

The Merger is conditioned upon the following:

     (1) Mergeco obtaining financing sufficient to consummate the
         Merger,

     (2) approval by the holders of a majority of the outstanding
         shares of NPC,

     (3) approval by the holders of a majority of the shares owned by
         the Minority Stockholders that are present, in person or by
         proxy, at the special meeting of stockholders scheduled for
         August 31, 2001,

     (4) there being no legal or judicial restraints or prohibitions
         preventing completion of the Merger, increasing the Merger
         consideration or imposing material damages,

     (5) the holders of not more than 5% of the outstanding shares
         having properly demanded dissenters' rights of appraisal, and

     (6) the holders of a majority of the NPC stock options approving
         certain amendments to NPC's stock option plan.

NPC International, Inc. is the world's largest Pizza Hut franchisee and
currently operates 834 Pizza Hut restaurants and delivery kitchens in
27 states.


NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Cauley Geller Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action recently in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of Nuance Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq: NUAN)
securities during the period between April 12, 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) Nuance,

     (2) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

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

     (4) Ronald Croen,

     (5) Graham Smith and

     (6) Dr. Yogen Dalal

On or about April 12, 2000, Nuance commenced an initial public offering
of 4.5 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of
$17.00 per share.

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

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

     (i) the Underwriter Defendants (Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch)
         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 Nuance shares issued in
         connection with the Nuance IPO; and

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

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 Popper Raises Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper, LLP filed a class action lawsuit charging OpenTV,
Corporation (NASDAQ: OPTV), Merrill Lynch, and certain of OpenTV's
senior officers with violations of the United States securities laws.

The action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased
OpenTV common stock on the open market during the period November 22,
1999 through December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint alleges violations 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 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On or about November 22, 1999, OpenTV commenced an initial public
offering of 8,625,000 Class A Ordinary shares (including the
underwriters' over-allotment) at an offering price of $20.00 per share.

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

     (1) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         allocations of OpenTV shares in the offering; and

    (ii) these underwriters had entered into agreements to allocate
         OpenTV shares to customers in exchange for which the customers
         agreed to purchase additional OpenTV shares in the aftermarket
         at pre-determined prices.

By virtue of this manipulation, Merrill Lynch was able to inflate the
trading price of OpenTV's shares after the initial offering.

For more details, contact: James A. Harrod, Esq. by Phone: (212) 451-
9642 or Michael D'Amato (Investor Relations Representative) by Phone:
(877) 370-7703 (toll free) by Mail: 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY
10022-6689 by Fax: 877.370.7704 (toll free) or 212.486.2093 by E-Mail:
irrep@wolfpopper.com or jharrod@wolfpopper.com or visit the firm's
Website: www.wolfpopper.com


PSS WORLD: Berman DeValerio Launches Securities Suit In M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo recently filed a lawsuit
accusing PSS World Medical, Inc. (Nasdaq: PSSI) of stock fraud.

The lawsuit was filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida as and is pending before the Honorable Ralph
W. Nimmons, Jr.

It seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of
all investors who bought PSS World Medical stock between October 26,
1999 and September 1, 2000.

The class action charges Jacksonville-based PSS World Medical and two
of its top executives with making false and misleading statements about
its net income and business operations that resulted in an artificially
inflated stock price during the Class Period.

The complaint focuses on an aborted merger with another medical
products company, Fisher Scientific International, Inc.

The company announced the proposed merger agreement with fanfare on
June 22, 2000, when it released its financial results for the quarter
and year ended March 21, 2000.

Though the results fell short of analysts' expectations, news of the
anticipated merger announcement cushioned the blow to the company's
stock -- especially since it was contingent on PSS World Medical
meeting an earnings threshold for the quarter ended June 30, 2000.

In early August, PSS announced that it had exceeded the threshold. But
a few weeks later, on September 1, 2000, the company said the merger
was off.

Unbeknownst to investors, Fisher's due-diligence investigation had
revealed material deficiencies in PSS World Medical's accounting
practices -- deficiencies that, if corrected, would have reduced
quarterly earnings below the minimum required by the merger agreement.

The public didn't learn about the problems until June 27, 2001, when
the company said that it would restate its results for the quarter in
question and two others.

For more information, contact: Patrick T. Egan, Esq. or Jeffrey C.
Block, Esq. by Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone:
(800) 516-9926 or by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or contact: Michael J.
Pucillo, Esq. by Mail: 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 1701, West Palm
Beach, FL 33401 or by Phone: (800) 349-4612


RAMBUS INC.: Johnson & Perkinson Launches Securities Suit In N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson filed recently a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of
all persons who purchased Rambus, Inc. (NasdaqNM:RMBS) stock between
February 11, 2000 and May 9, 2001.

The complaint alleges that Rambus, a chip technology designer, and
certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities
laws by disseminating false and misleading information about the
Company.

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.

As a result of the income generated from these licensing arrangements
and the enormous amount of royalties Rambus was telling investors it
would collect in the future from licensing its SDRAM patents, the
common stock of Rambus surged to as high as $450 per share before
splitting 4 for 1 during the class period.

In the course of its self-promotion, however, Rambus failed to disclose
to investors that its SDRAM patents were illegally obtained during
meetings at the Joint Electronic Devices Engineering Council, an
association of semiconductor manufacturers and designers that jointly
develop industry-wide, open technical standards for semiconductor
products, including SDRAM technology.

The complaint alleges that Rambus attended at least fifteen JEDEC
committee meetings in which the development of an industry standard for
SDRAM technology was discussed.

During these meetings various committee members made technical
presentations on a variety of aspects of SDRAM technology for inclusion
in the proposed standard.

Unbeknownst to the JEDEC committee members or the public, Rambus was
secretly using the information learned at the JEDEC meetings to patent
the SDRAM technology.

After it obtained its SDRAM patents, Rambus began demanding royalties
from microprocessor companies employing the SDRAM technology.

Companies that refused to pay Rambus were sued.

Unaware that Rambus had obtained its patented technology improperly,
microprocessor- makers representing nearly half the market, including
Hitachi, Toshiba, NEC, Oki Electric Industry, Elpida Memory and Samsung
Electronics, agreed to pay license fees to Rambus.

On August 8, 2000, Rambus sued Infineon Technologies AG for patent
violations, claiming that Infineon used SDRAM technology without paying
a licensing fee to Rambus.

Infineon counterclaimed, alleging

     (1) that the patents were invalid and

     (2) fraud based on Rambus' improper conduct during the JEDEC
         committee meetings.

On May 9, 2001, a jury found that the SDRAM patents had in fact been
fraudulently obtained.

On August 9, 2001, the Court in the Infineon case confirmed the jury's
finding with regard to the SDRAM patents, ordered that Rambus pay
Infineon $7.1 million in legal fees, and prohibited Rambus from
pursuing patent-infringement litigation against Infineon for its SDRAM
products.

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.

The class action seeks to recover the damages caused by the improper
conduct described above.

For more information, contact: Dennis J. Johnson, Esq. or Jacob B.
Perkinson, Esq. by Mail: 1690 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont
05403, by Phone: 1-888-459-7855 or by E-mail: JPLAW@adelphia.net


SIPEX CORPORATION: Brian Felgoise Begins Massachusetts Securities Suit  
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a class action suit
recently on behalf of an investor against Sipex Corp. (Nasdaq:SIPX) and
two of its principal officers in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.

The suit purports to represent all persons or entities that purchased
Sipex Corp. securities during the period from July 20, 2000 through
January 11, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for falsely reassuring
investors during the class period that its revenues would rise this
year, claiming that its geographic and business mix left it relatively
immune from the economic downturn, and that is saw no need to change
its guidance.

For example, on April 11, 2001, in reaction to analyst concerns about
the impact the economic downturn was having on the Company's industry,
Defendants falsely assured the investing community that Sipex did not
need to change its earning guidance because "the end demand is still
there."

For more information, contact: Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 230
South Broad Street - Suite 404, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone:
215/735-6810 by Fax: 215/735-5185 or by E-mail: Goise@prodigy.net


VIANT CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Begins SD NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, 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 the common stock of Viant Corporation
(Nasdaq: VIAN) from June 17, 1999 through December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit is pending against defendants Viant, and Goldman Sachs & Co.,
Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, Lehman Brothers Inc., Salomon
Smith Barney Inc.

On or about June 17, 1999, Viant commenced an initial public offering
of 3,000,000 of its shares of its common stock at an offering price of
$16 per share.

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP through Marc
A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by Mail: Three Bala Plaza
East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll
free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


VICINITY CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files SD NY Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Vicinity Corp. (Nasdaq:VCNT)
securities between February 8, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Vicinity common stock pursuant to the
February 8, 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 Vicinity 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 Vicinity stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Vicinity'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 telephone
at 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  * * *