CAR_Public/010906.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, September 6, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 174


                            Headlines


AGENCY.COM: Moves Toward Settlement of Securities Suit in Delaware
AMEDISYS INC: Keller Rohrback Files Securities Suit In M.D. Louisiana
ASIA PULP: Rabin Peckel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York
BAYER AG: $100 Million Baycol Cholesterol Drug Suit Filed
BIG 5: Los Angeles, CA Labor Suit Could Have Materially Adverse Effect  

CARNEGIE INTERNATIONAL: Agrees to Settle Multiple Suits in Maryland
CHEAP TICKETS: Sued for Securities Fraud in Circuit Court of Hawaii
CVS CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in MA
DELANO TECHNOLOGY: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DONNA KARAN:  Enters Settlement in Suits in Delaware and New York

ESC MEDICAL: To Vigorously Oppose Breach Of Contract Suit in S.D. TX
EXPEDIA INC:  Moves To Vigorously Oppose Suits in S.D. NY
FINITY HOLDINGS: Federal Court Dismisses Securities Suit in S.D. CA
FORD MOTOR: Lawyers Believe 'Latest Offer' Meant To Silence Plaintiffs
HEALTHEON/ WEBMD: Finkelstein Thompson Files S.D. NY Securities Suit

IBEAM CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
KANA SOFTWARE: Lovell Stewart, Sirota Sirota Initiates Suit in S.D. NY
METROMEDIA NETWORKS: Abbey Gardy Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
NEW CENTURY: Initiates Settlement Negotiations For Suit in S.D. OH
NEW CENTURY: Sued for Lending Act Violations in N.D. California

ORACLE CORPORATION: Executives Sued After Cashing In Stock Options
OTG SOFTWARE: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UNITED ONLINE: Subsidiary NetZero Faces Securities Suits in S.D. NY
UNIGRAPHICS SOLUTIONS: Settles Multiple Securities Suits in Delaware
VALERO ENERGY: Contaminated Groundwater Suit Could Cost $22M


                           *********


AGENCY.COM: Moves Toward Settlement of Securities Suit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency.com is closer to the settlement of two stockholder class actions
filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, with the establishment of a
memorandum of understanding June 26,2001.

The memorandum set forth an agreement in principle to settle the
actions brought about by the proposed merger of AGENCY.COM and
E-Services Investments Agency Sub LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Seneca Investments LLC.

The two actions allege breach of fiduciary duty with respect to
Seneca's proposal on May 14, 2001 to acquire the remaining public
shares of the Company's common stock for a price of $3.00 per share.

The proposed settlement class will consist of all stockholders (other
than affiliates of defendants) who were security holders during the
period from May 14, 2001, to and including the effective date of the
merger, and successors-in-interest.

In the memorandum of understanding, defendants acknowledged that the
pendency and prosecution of the actions were a material factor in
Seneca's determination to increase the consideration to be paid in the
merger.

In exchange for the increase in merger consideration, among other
things, plaintiffs have agreed to seek a court order approving the
settlement.

All parties agreed that neither the memorandum of understanding
nor the stipulation of settlement constitute an admission of the
validity or infirmity of any claim against the defendants or of the
liability of any defendant.

The proposed settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
adoption of the merger agreement by the requisite stockholder vote at
the special meeting, consummation of the merger and final approval by
the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Agency.Com is one of the leading online consulting firms offering such
services as Web site design and implementation, technology integration,
and online marketing and brand management


AMEDISYS INC: Keller Rohrback Files Securities Suit In M.D. Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Seattle's Keller Rohrback L.L.P. is currently investigating securities
fraud claims on behalf of shareholders of Amedisys, Inc. (OTCBB:AMED)
who purchased the Company's common stock between March 1, 2001 and June
13, 2001, inclusive.

The suit, filed in the the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana, alleges that Amedisys and certain of its executive
officers violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
publicly reported revenues and earnings.

Amedisys touted positive financial results and profitable net service
revenue in connection with its home health nursing services.

Shareholders purport, however, that Amedisys improperly recognized net
services revenue in the fourth quarter of 2000 and the first quarter of
2001 in violation of GAAP.

On June 13, 2001, Amedisys issued a press release stating that its
previously announced financial results were incorrect.

Specifically, the Company announced that discrepancies in the Medicare
Prospective Payment System resulted in a negative adjustment to net
services revenue of between $4 and $7 million.

As a result, the Company's stock price plummeted almost 60% to close at
$4.10 per share on June 13, 2001.

Amedisys, a health care company, also offers services such as infusion
therapy for administration of intravenous medications and nutrition;
home health care nursing; physical, occupational, and speech therapy;
social services; and home health aides

For further details, contact Jennifer Tuato'o, Lynn Sarko, Juli Farris
and Elizabeth Leland by Phone: 800/776-6044 (toll-free) or by E-mail:
investor@kellerrohrback.com.


ASIA PULP: Rabin Peckel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin and Peckel, LLP has filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased Asia Pulp & Paper Co. Ltd.
(NYSE:PAP) common stock during the period from December 17, 1998
through and including April 4, 2001, both dates inclusive.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of sections 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued
to the investing public false and misleading financial statements and
press releases concerning the Company's publicly reported earnings, net
income, and receivables.

The Company failed to disclose its exposure and loss on a derivative
swap contract and failed to disclose related party and uncollectible
receivables.

Asia Pulp is one of the world's largest vertically integrated pulp and
paper companies.

The financially troubled company was delisted from the NYSE on July 5,
2001.

For more information, contact Rekha M. Carozza or Maurice Pesso by
Mail: 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 497-8076
or (212) 682-18180 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail:
email@rabinlaw.com


BAYER AG: $100 Million Baycol Cholesterol Drug Suit Filed
---------------------------------------------------------
Germany based drug manufacturer Bayer A.G. faces a $100 million class
action lawsuit from the family of a woman who died after taking the
cholesterol-lowering drug Baycol.

The lawsuit claims the Germany based maker and Canadian distributor of
the drug - Bayer A.G., and Bayer Inc., respectively - owed a "duty of
care" to ensure the drug was "fit for its intended purpose."

The case further alleges that Bayer was negligent because it "failed to
adequately test Baycol in a manner that would fully disclose the
various side effects and the magnitude of the risks associated with its
use."

The drug was approved for use in Canada in February 1998, and 1.3
million prescriptions have been filled for users since then.

The drug was voluntarily pulled from store shelves around the world
last month after it was linked to 52 deaths.

Baycol has been linked to rhabdomyolysis, a potentially fatal condition
in which a patient experiences muscle breakdown.

However, these claims have not been proven in court.

Bayer could not be immediately reached for comment.


BIG 5: Los Angeles, CA Labor Suit Could Have Materially Adverse Effect  
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Holdings, Inc. has stated its intention to vigorously oppose a
purported class action filed in the California Superior Court in Los
Angeles entitled Mosely, et al., v. Big 5 Corporation early August
2001.

The Company revealed that the litigation could have a material adverse
effect on their financial condition, and could have a negative impact
on operations.

The case, filed by their California store managers and first assistant
managers, charges the company with violations of the California Labor
Code and the Business and Professions Code.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company improperly classified our store
managers and first assistant store managers as exempt employees not
entitled to overtime pay for work in excess of forty hours per week.

Big 5 Holdings started as five army surplus shops in 1955 and now
operates about 250 sporting goods stores in California, Washington,
Oregon, and six other western states.

It sells brand-name equipment and clothing for everything from working
out indoors to camping in the great outdoors.


CARNEGIE INTERNATIONAL: Agrees to Settle Multiple Suits in Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Telecommunications holdings company Carnegie International has agreed
to settle five class action lawsuits filed the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland.

These Maryland actions purport to allege violations of federal
securities laws in connection with the Corporation's filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission of a Form 10-SB, on or about October
28, 1998.

Each of the five original complaints filed in Maryland alleged that the
Defendants improperly recorded certain transactions in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles.

The transactions in question are the sale of ECAC, and the purchase of
its subsidiaries, PTT and Talidan.

On March 20, 2000, a consolidated complaint was filed in the United
States district court in Maryland.

However, Grant Thornton, the Company's former auditor, has objected.

A hearing on Grant Thornton's objection is scheduled in October
2001.

The Company expects court approval of the settlement, but can give no
assurances of court approval.


CHEAP TICKETS: Sued for Securities Fraud in Circuit Court of Hawaii
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheap Tickets faces a purported class action filed in the Circuit Court
of the First Circuit of the State of Hawaii last August 13, 2001.

The complaint, entitled Franks vs. Cheap Tickets, Inc., also named the
following as individual defendants:

     (1) George M. Mrkonic,

     (2) Sam E. Galeotos,

     (3) Michael J. Hartley,

     (4) Cece Smith and

     (5) Giles H. Bateman

The suit alleges that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by:

     (i) failing to properly determine Cheap Tickets' value as an
         acquisition candidate,

    (ii) failing to obtain adequate consideration for Cheap Tickets'  
         common stock, and

   (iii) obtaining additional unspecified benefits for themselves in
         the transaction.

Cheap Tickets and the individual defendants believe that these
complaints are meritless and they will be defended vigorously.

Cheap Tickets provides various travel services, including airline
tickets, cruise tickets, auto rentals and hotel reservations, available
through call centers and the Company's Web site.


CVS CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP announced today that a class action
has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of CVS Corporation (NYSE:CVS)
common stock during the period between February 6, 2001 through June
27, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges CVS and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements regarding its business and
financial condition.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that CVS issued positive statements
concerning its business and operations which failed to disclose, among
other things:

     (1) that the Company was unable to successfully address the         
         national shortage of pharmacists and that this shortage was
         negatively impacting CVS' business and

     (2) that the Company's expansion plans would have to be scaled
         back in light of the difficulties facing the Company.

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

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

For more information, contact 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


DELANO TECHNOLOGY: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc S. Henzel commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of Delano Technology Corporation (NASDAQ:DTEC)
between February 8, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending against defendants Delano Technology, FleetBoston
Robertson Stephens, John Foresi and Thomas Hearne.

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 8, 2000 Delano Technology commenced an initial
public offering of 5,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $18 per share.

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact 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 their Website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


DONNA KARAN:  Enters Settlement in Suits in Delaware and New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clothing retailer Donna Karan International entered a memorandum of
agreement with complainants to settle several class actions filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery and in the New York Supreme Court last
May.

Litigation arose in connection with the Company's merger with DKI
Acquisition, a subsidiary of Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton, Inc. (LVMH)
and LVMH's initial proposal to acquire company stock for a price of
$8.50 per share.

The Delaware court later ordered that these actions be consolidated
under the caption IN RE DONNA KARAN INTERNATIONAL INC. SHAREHOLDERS
LITIGATION, C.A. No. 18559.

These actions generally allege that:

     (1) the $8.50 price initially offered by LVMH to purchase common
         stock is inadequate,

     (2) the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to    
         stockholders in connection with LVMH's proposal and
     
     (3) Donna Karan and Stephan Weiss furthered their own interests,
         at the expense of stockholder interests, in allegedly   
         negotiating with LVMH concerning the proposed sale of DKI to
         LVMH.

Under the memorandum of understanding:

     (i) LVMH acknowledged that the existence and prosecution of the
         actions and the positions advocated by plaintiffs' counsel and
         financial advisor were among the factors taken into
         consideration in increasing the per share consideration
         offered to our stockholders from $8.50 per share to $10.75
         per share;

    (ii) the members of the special committee of our board of directors
         acknowledged that the special committee was aware of the
         actions and of the views of plaintiffs' counsel and financial
         advisor concerning the adequacy of the $10.75 per share price
         offered by LVMH in reaching the special committee's final
         determination to recommend that our board of directors enter
         into the merger agreement; and

   (iii) DKI and LVMH agreed to provide, and did in fact provide, a
         draft of this proxy statement to plaintiffs' counsel for its
         review and to consider any comments provided by plaintiffs'
         counsel concerning the adequacy of the disclosures contained
         in this proxy statement.

The proposed settlement contemplated in the memorandum of understanding
is subject to a number of conditions, including consummation of the
merger, completion of confirmatory discovery by plaintiffs' counsel and
final approval by the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Counsel for the parties in the class actions filed in New York have
stipulated to stay all proceedings in those actions and to be bound by
the outcome of the class actions filed in Delaware.

Accordingly, an order of the Delaware Court of Chancery approving the
settlement will be binding on all of the class actions in New York and
Delaware.

The company said that it would mount a vigorous defense if the Court
does not grant final settlement approval.


ESC MEDICAL: To Vigorously Oppose Breach Of Contract Suit in S.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ESC Medical Systems Ltd. will vigorously oppose class action lawsuit
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas.

The suit was originally filed on September 20, 1999 in Harris County,
Texas, alleging a variety of causes of action.  

In December 2000, plaintiff Dr. Richard Urso amended his complaint to
eliminate the class action claim and on April 13,2001, the lawsuit was
dismissed.  

Last May 3, 2001, Dr. Urso and approximately forty-seven physicians and
medical clinics re-filed what purports to be a class action lawsuit in
Harris County, Texas.

The case was then transferred to the Southern District of Texas

The complaint charged the Company with:
     
     (1) breach of  contract,  

     (2) breach of express  and  implied warranties,

     (3) fraud,  

     (4) misrepresentation,  

     (5) conversion,

     (6) product liability,

     (7) violation  of the  Texas  Deceptive  Trade  Practices  Act  
         and  Texas Securities Act,

     (8) lender liability and

     (9) unconscionable conduct.

ESC Medical makes medical devices that use intense pulsed light (IPL)
and laser technology for use primarily in the cosmetic surgery market.


EXPEDIA INC:  Moves To Vigorously Oppose Suits in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------

Expedia, Inc. stated its intention to vigorously oppose the multiple
class action suits filed against them in the Southern District of New
York.

The class action complaints charged the Company, certain of its
officers and directors and certain underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering with 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.

The complaint alleges that the prospectus pursuant to which shares were
sold in the IPO was false or misleading in that it failed to disclose:

     (1) that the underwriters allegedly were paid commissions by
         certain customers in return for receiving shares in the IPO   
         and

     (2) that certain of the underwriters' customers allegedly agreed
         to purchase additional shares of the Company in the
         aftermarket in return for an allocation of shares in the IPO.

Plaintiffs contend that, as a result of those omissions from the
prospectus, the price of the Company stock was artificially inflated
between November 9, 1999 and October 12, 2000.

Expedia is a company that offers travel-planning tools that allow its
users to book airline tickets, make hotel reservations, and secure car
rentals.


FINITY HOLDINGS: Federal Court Dismisses Securities Suit in S.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal District Court for the Southern District of California
dismissed the class action lawsuit filed against Finity Holdings, Inc.
last July 13,2001.

Last July 28, 2000, Purchasers of the common stock of the company from
January 1, 1998 through and including March 13, 2001 accused Finity
Holdings of fraud, conspiracy and violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934

The court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice based
upon the failure to prosecute and plaintiff's inaction and failure to
comply with the Court's Order to serve an amended complaint by March
23, 2001.

The Plaintiffs submitted a motion for reconsideration on the motion to
dismiss.

A ruling on the Motion for Reconsideration is expected in mid September
2001.


FORD MOTOR: Lawyers Believe 'Latest Offer' Meant To Silence Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The middle managers who sued Ford Motor Co. early this year over
alleged age discrimination asked the Court recently to administer the
Company's plan to cut its workforce by 10 percent.

According to a report by ClickonDetroit.com, lawyers for the managers
contend the plan announced last month is a ploy, which is in reality an
indirect way of settling the pending class action.

In a recent announcement, the Company said it is offering some 5,000
employees voluntary separation packages that include payouts and other
benefits, the report says.

The Company plans to trim its white-collar jobs by yearend.  

In petitioning the court, lawyers said only a court administration of
the Company's plan can ensure that it won't end up as a scheme to
silence hundreds of potential plaintiffs.

The lawsuit is currently lodged in the Wayne County Circuit Court in
Detroit.

It alleges discrimination against older white-collar employees by using
a 2-year-old employee grading system to rid itself of older management-
level staff.

The system grades mid-level managers A, B, or C for their annual job
performance.

Managers who get a grade of C for a year would mean no bonus, while 2
years may lead to dismissal or demotion.


HEALTHEON/ WEBMD: Finkelstein Thompson Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Last August 29, 2001, Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Healtheon/WebMD, (NASDAQ:HLTH) against underwriters who are accused of
illegally misleading investors.

The class action, captioned Abdelnour v. Morgan Stanley, et al., seeks
damages under federal securities laws for anyone who bought
Healtheon/WebMD stock between February 11, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and
misleading because it contained material misrepresentations and
omissions about:

     (1) the agreements with customers whereby Morgan Stanley and
         Goldman Sachs had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions in exchange for an allocation of the
         Company's shares issued in connection with the initial public
         offering; and

     (2) Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs had entered into agreements
         with customers whereby Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs would
         allocate Company shares issued in connection with the initial
         public offering in exchange for which the customers agreed to
         purchase additional Company shares in the aftermarket at pre-
         determined prices.

For more information, Andrew J. Morganti by Phone: 888-333-4409 or by
E-mail: ajm@ftllaw.com.


IBEAM CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc S. Henzel filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of iBEAM Broadcasting Corporation
(NASDAQ:IBEM) between May 17, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending against defendants iBEAM Broadcasting
Corporation, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Bear, Stearns & Co.
Inc., and FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On or about May 17, 2000, iBEAM commenced an initial public offering of
11,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $10
per share.

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

The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:   
     
     (1) defendants had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which defendants allocated to those investors material
         portions of the restricted number of iBEAM shares issued in
         connection with the iBEAM IPO; and

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

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

For more information, contact 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 their Website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


KANA SOFTWARE: Lovell Stewart, Sirota Sirota Initiates Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Lovell & Stewart, LLP and Sirota & Sirota, LLP filed a
class action lawsuit on September 4, 2001 on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Kana Software, Inc. (NASDAQ:KANA) between September 21,
1999 and August 31, 2001, inclusive.

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

The action, Kassin v. Kana Software, Inc., 01 Civ. 8278, is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (500
Pearl Street, New York, New York) and has been assigned to the Hon.
Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S. District Judge.

The complaint alleges that Kana Software, Inc. and Michael J.
McCloskey, Mark S. Gainey, and Joseph D. McCarthy, its Chief Executive
Officer, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Vice President of
Finance and Operations, respectively, violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Kana Software common stock pursuant to the
initial public offering without disclosing to investors that at least
two of the underwriters of the IPO had solicited and received excessive
and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., the lead underwriter of the IPO, and Lehman
Brothers, Inc., an underwriter of the IPO, allocated Kana Software
shares to customers at the IPO price of $15.00 per share.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
$15.00, the defendant underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher
prices.

The requirement that customers make additional purchases at
progressively higher prices as the price of Kana Software stock
rocketed upward was intended to drive Kana Software's share price up to
artificially high levels.

This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both
the defendant underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits
by buying Kana Software stock at the $15.00 IPO price and then selling
it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as
high as $58.50 during Kana Software's first day of trading.

Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the
IPO, the complaint alleges, the defendant underwriters required their
customers to "kick back" some of their profits in the form of secret
commissions. These secret commission payments were sometimes calculated
after the fact based on how much profit each investor had made from his
or her IPO stock allocation.

The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Act of 1933 because the Prospectuses distributed to investors and the
Registration Statements filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory
approval for the Kana Software offering contained material
misstatements regarding the commissions that the underwriters derived
from the IPO and failed to disclose the additional commissions and
"laddering" scheme discussed above.

For more information, contact Lovell & Stewart, LLP by Phone: (212)
608-1900 or by Email: www.lovellstewart.com and Sirota & Sirota, LLP by
Phone: (212) 425-9055 or by E-mail: www.sirotalaw.com


METROMEDIA NETWORKS: Abbey Gardy Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit was commenced on August 8, 2001 on
behalf of all persons who acquired Metromedia Fiber Networks, Inc.
(NASDAQ:MFNX) common stock between January 8, 2001 and July 2, 2001.

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

Named as defendants in the complaint are Metromedia, Stephen A.
Garofalo, the Company's Chairman and CEO, and Nicholas M. Tanzi, the
Company's President and COO.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements starting on
January 8, 2001, when defendants announced that Metromedia had obtained
a commitment for a fully underwritten credit facility for $350 million
from Citicorp USA, Inc.

Defendants also stated that the Citicorp credit facility would fully
fund the Company's current business plan.

Thereafter, defendants highlighted the $350 million credit facility in
the Company's Form 10-K for its year ended December 31, 2000; in a
press release issued on April 30, 2001 and in the Company's Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2001.

However, on July 2, 2001, defendants revealed that the commitment
letter from Citicorp was subject to the receipt of commitments from
other lenders in the amount of $287.5 million.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that throughout the Class
Period defendants knew that Metromedia did not have the full credit
facility.

The Complaint further alleges that defendants' misrepresentations
caused the price of Metromedia common stock securities to be
artificially inflated throughout the Class Period.

For further details contact Maria Ciccia by Phone: (800) 889-3701 or by
E-mail: mciccia@abbeygardy.com.


NEW CENTURY: Initiates Settlement Negotiations For Suit in S.D. OH
------------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Financial Corporation is pursuing settlement negotiations
for a pending class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.

The suit was filed by Hazel Jean Matthews, Ruth D. Morgan and
Marie I. Summerall in behalf of themselves and other consumers located
in the State of Ohio whose credit transaction was brokered by Equibanc
and Central Mortgage.  

The complaint alleges the following:

     (1) breach of the Federal Fair Housing Act,

     (2) breach of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act,

     (3) breach of the Truth in Lending Act,

     (4) gender discrimination,

     (5) fraud,

     (6) unconscionability, and

     (7) civil conspiracy.


The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case in December 2000 and the
plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint in May 2001.  

Plaintiffs thereafter expressed an interest in settling the case on an
individual basis with each of the named plaintiffs.  

The parties have agreed to postpone the deadline for the Company to
respond to the Second Amended Complaint so that they can pursue
settlement negotiations.


NEW CENTURY: Sued for Lending Act Violations in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Mortgage Corporation was served with a class action
complaint filed in June 2001 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.

Plaintiffs Rosa and Richard Grimes, who filed the case on behalf of
themselves, others similarly situated and the general public, charged
the Company with violating of the Federal Truth in Lending Act and
Business & Professions Code (S) 17200.  

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company gave the borrowers
the required three-day notice of their right to rescind before the loan
transaction had technically been consummated.

The Company labeled the allegations lacking in merit in a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission


ORACLE CORPORATION: Executives Sued After Cashing In Stock Options
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oracle chief executive Larry Ellison gained $706 million while chief
financial officer Jeff Henley and executive vice president Jay Nussbaum
made $85.6 million and $ 22.2 million respectively by cashing in their
stock options.

However, a series of class action and derivative suits assert that
Oracle officials gained by cashing in their options when Oracle's
presently swooning stock was still soaring.

The suits also charge Oracle with breaking securities laws by making
misleading statements about its prospects while company insiders sold
their shares.

Until a March warning about the slump, Redwood Shores-based Oracle had
forecast it would avoid the financial malaise affecting high-tech
companies.

Oracle's shares fell 13 cents to close at $12.08 Tuesday on the Nasdaq
Stock Market. The stock reached its split-adjusted high of $46.32 last
summer.

Ellison sold most of the options in January, a few weeks before
Oracle's stock sank amid slowing sales and weakening profit growth.

Ellison, one of the world's richest men despite $46 billion in paper
losses during the past year, previously had acknowledged that he
realized a huge gain in an earlier filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Ellison realized an average gain of $30.64 on the more than 23 million
stock options he redeemed during the fiscal year that ended May 31,
according to the filing.

Oracle has denied the allegations made in the shareholder complaints,
filed in federal and state courts in California and Delaware.


OTG SOFTWARE: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed recently a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of OTG Software, Inc.
(NASDAQ:OTGS) from March 10, 2000 through December 6, 2000, inclusive
against defendants OTG and Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., SG Cowen Securities Corporation and
Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co., Inc.

On or about March 10, 2000, OTG commenced an initial public offering of
5 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $19.00
per share.

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

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

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

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

For further details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll-free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com.


UNITED ONLINE: Subsidiary NetZero Faces Securities Suits in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
United Online subsidiary NetZero faces several class action suits, all
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York starting last April.

These suits, which also named certain officers and directors of the
Company, allege that the Company violated the Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The complaints generally allege that the prospectus through which
NetZero conducted its initial public offering in September 1999 was
false and misleading because it failed to disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters of NetZero's initial public offering had
         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 NetZero shares issued in connection with
         initial public offering; and

     (2) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers
         where they agreed to allocate NetZero shares to those
         customers in the initial public offering in exchange for which  
         the customers agreed to purchase additional NetZero shares in
         the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The defendant underwriters include Goldman, Sachs and Co., as the lead
underwriter in the offering, as well as Banc Boston Robertson Stephens,
Inc. and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, NetZero
denied these allegations and stated their intent to defend the actions
vigorously.


UNIGRAPHICS SOLUTIONS: Settles Multiple Securities Suits in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Unigraphics Solutions reached an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs in eight class action lawsuits August 15,2001.

The suits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
on or about May 24,2001.

The Chancery Court later consolidated these suits into an action styled
In re Unigraphics Solutions Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Case No.
18916-NC.

Litigation arose from the proposed merger of Unigraphics Solutions with  
Electronic Data Systems.

The plaintiffs allege that EDS' announced intent to purchase the
outstanding common shares of the Company that it does not presently own
for a price of $27.00 per share, is not fair to the minority
shareholders of the Company

They also allege that certain defendants have breached their fiduciary
duties to the members of the class.

The settlement is subject to the execution of a definitive stipulation
of settlement, consummation of the Offer and the Merger and approval by
the trial court after notice to members of the proposed settlement
class.


VALERO ENERGY: Contaminated Groundwater Suit Could Cost $22M
------------------------------------------------------------
A pending class action suit filed in the Southern District of New York
against Valero Energy Corporation and other gasoline suppliers alleges
that numerous gasoline suppliers, including Valero, contaminated
groundwater in the State of New York with methyl tertiary-butyl ether
(MTBE), a gasoline additive.

Environmental litigation could cost Valero Energy Corporation $22
million.

MTBE was introduced into the nation's gasoline supply two decades ago
and MTBE has, since then, contaminated many thousands of drinking water
supplies around the country.

However, much uncertainty remains surrounding the extent of the health
risk posed by chronic, low-level exposure to MTBE via drinking water.

Plaintiff well owners brought claims of strict liability, negligence,
fraud and public nuisance under a market share theory of liability
seeking well tests, clean-ups and damages.

Valero officials said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that if MTBE were to be restricted or banned throughout the
U.S., it would cost them $22 million to modify Valero's existing
MTBE-producing facilities to produce other gasoline blendstocks or
other petrochemicals

Because the volume of alternative products that could be produced would
be less than the current production of MTBE and the price of such
alternative products is currently lower than the price of MTBE,
Valero's results of operations could potentially be adversely affected.

                             *********


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, Aurora Fatima
Antonio 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  * * *