CAR_Public/010907.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, September 7, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 175


                              Headlines

AMTRAN INC.: Signs Memorandum Of Understanding To Settle IN Suits
ASIA PULP: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
AT HOME: District Court Denies Motion To Certify Lawsuit in C.D. CA
AT HOME: Stockholders Allege Breach Of Fiduciary Duties In CA Court
BUY.COM: Settles Suits For Violation Of Federal Laws in California

COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Multi-million Dollar Suit Re Illegal Fees Certified
CREIGHTON INC.: Ex-Factory Workers File "Lack Of Notification" Suit
CRITICAL PATH: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CYNET INC.: Faces Suit Due to Unsolicited Advertising in Washington
CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Begins S.D. NY Securities Suit

EL SITIO: Faces Seven Securities Suits in S.D. New York
FIRST UNION: Judge Disbands Class In Pending Age Discrimination Suit
GLAXO SMITHKLINE: Faces Huge Lawsuit Because Of Antidepressant Drug
HARRAH'S ATLANTIC: Court Certifies 'Reverse-Discrimination' Suit
INTERTRUST TECHNOLOGIES: Sued For Securities Fraud in S.D. NY

LOUDCLOUD INC.: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS: Judge Rules In Favor Of Former Employees
MIDWAY ENTERTAINMENT: "Doom" Distributor Asks Court To Dismiss Suit
ONYX SOFTWARE:  Defends Self Against Securities Suit Filed in W.D WA
OPENTV CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY

PEGASUS SATELLITE: Initiates Suit Against Directv in Los Angeles CA
PETMED EXPRESS: District Court Approves Settlement Agreement
PHYCOR INC: Securities Fraud Trial Set For Early Next Year
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Merger Sets Off Chain Of Securities Suits
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Agrees To Settle Lawsuits In Seven States

SAN DIEGO: Judge Says 'Red Light Camera' Citations Are Unreliable
ULTRALIFE BATTERIES: Securities Suit Dismissed by NJ District Court
WEBVAN GROUP: Reinhardt Anderson Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
WEYERHAUSER CORPORATION: Charged With Antritrust Suits in E.D. PA


                              *********


AMTRAN INC.: Signs Memorandum Of Understanding To Settle IN Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amtran, Inc. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding providing for
the settlement of three putative class action suits pending in the two
courts of the State of Indiana.

Last May 17,2001, the Company and its directors were named as
defendants in two putative class actions filed in the Superior Court of
the State of Indiana in and for the County of Marion.

The plaintiffs allege that J. George Mikelsons, and the individual
defendants have breached and are breaching their fiduciary duties to
the public shareholders of Amtran common stock.

Another suit filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District
of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, makes the same allegations.

Mikelsons is the owner of Indus Corporation, an Indiana corporation
that merged with Amtran June this year.

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company
reiterated that despite the memorandum, they vigorously deny any
liability whatsoever.

The Company entered into the Memorandum because it will halt the
substantial expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued
litigation of the plaintiffs' claims, and put to rest any and all the
plaintiffs' claims relating to the merger.

Amtran has agreed to pay an aggregate of $285,000 in attorneys' fees, a
portion of which has been requested by Amtran to be paid under its
directors' and officers' liability insurance policy.

The settlement is subject to confirmatory discovery.

Amtran and its subsidiary, American Trans Air, offers scheduled flights
to more than 30 destinations (mostly US) and chartered passenger
services to tour operators and the military.


ASIA PULP: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP announced today that a class action
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Asia Pulp & Paper
Company, Ltd. (formerly NYSE: PAP) publicly traded securities during
the period between September 8, 1998 and April 4, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Asia Pulp & Paper and certain of its
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
between September 8, 1998 and April 4, 2001, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Asia Pulp & Paper securities.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Asia Pulp &
Paper issued press releases and filed financial statements which failed
to disclose, among other things, that the Company had entered into two
swap contracts involving Indonesian rupiah/US dollar and Japanese
yen/US dollar swaps.

On April 4, 2001, Asia Pulp & Paper finally disclosed that it was in
default of $220 million in swap contracts that had not been disclosed
on its financial statements for fiscal years 1997 to 2000.

The stunning announcement followed a steady stream of news reports that
Asia Pulp & Paper was facing a strong decline in its business and, as a
result, was unable to service its debt.

Asia Pulp & Paper was able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in
much needed capital through the issuance of bonds and a secondary
offering of its American Depositary Shares.

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 visit their Website:
http://www.classlawyer.com/pr/asia_pulp.pdf


AT HOME: District Court Denies Motion To Certify Lawsuit in C.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of California
has issued an order denying plaintiffs' motion to certify a class
action suit filed against internet company At Home Corporation.

The lawsuit charged the Company as well as majority stockholder AT&T,
SERVICE CORPORATION LLC and entities affiliated with eight other cable
companies with violations of federal antitrust laws.

The Company filed an answer to the complaint in January 2000, denying
the allegations of unlawful conduct in the complaint.

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
labeled the actions "without merit" and stated its' intent to defend
against this action vigorously.

Plaintiffs have appealed the court order.

At Home Corporation, or Excite@Home is a global provider of broadband
network services.


AT HOME: Stockholders Allege Breach Of Fiduciary Duties In CA Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
At Home Corporation, or Excite@Home faces a a purported class action
suit initiated in the San Mateo County Superior Court by an alleged
Excite@Home stockholder.

The case also named as defendants, majority stockholder AT&T Corp.,
Comcast Corporation and Cox Communications, Inc.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to
Excite@Home stockholders by:

     (1) approving or entering into, as applicable, the letter
         agreement among Excite@Home, AT&T, Comcast and Cox on March
         28, 2000, and

     (2) agreeing to consummate the transactions contemplated by this   
         agreement.

This action has now been stayed in favor of the action filed by
Pittleman and Zonies in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The company has instructed their legal counsels to vigorously oppose
the suit, as the action is without merit.


BUY.COM: Settles Suits For Violation Of Federal Laws in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Buy.Com settled three class action suits filed in various courts in
California last June 26,2001.

On March 13, 2000 a class action suit was filed against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging
that the Company violated several federal statutes.

The suit further alleged that the Company collected, used and disclosed
personally identifiable customer information to their third party
advertising server and other advertisers without first informing
customers or seeking their permission.

On April 7, 2000 a companion lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Orange alleging violations of state
statutory and common law based upon the same facts and federal causes
of action as alleged in the federal class action.

Last April 25, 2000 a third class action suit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California alleging
violation of the same federal statutes as those in the federal class
action filed on March 13, 2000.

The global settlement for the cases involves certain changes to the
Company's privacy practices and the payment of $400,000 in attorney
fees which was paid for by the Company's insurance carrier.  

The lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice in July 2001.

Buy.com is an internet retailer specializing in computers, electronics,
music, books and games.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Multi-million Dollar Suit Re Illegal Fees Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A multi-million dollar suit in Texas against Countrywide Home Loans was
recently certified as a class action, the Houston Chronicle reports.

In certifying the suit, U.S. District Judge David Hittner opened the
floodgates for some 50,000 Texans who were charged by the Company
mysterious "document preparation fees" at closing.

Lawyers say the lawsuit represents all those who recently bought their
homes with a Countrywide mortgage, and those dating back to January 10,
1996.

The suit accuses the Company of illegally charging customers fees for
legal documents lawyers did not prepare and that it received kickbacks
from a Houston law firm listed as doing the legal work.

It is estimated that the maximum a homeowner who paid $175 for the
legal documents could recover would be about $1,750, though most would
be eligible for about $700, says the report.


CREIGHTON INC.: Ex-Factory Workers File "Lack Of Notification" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Former workers of Creighton, Inc.'s factory in Reidsville, North
Carolina sued the Company recently for allegedly violating the Worker
Adjustment and Restraining Notification Act when it closed down its
factory last year.

According to The Business Journal, about a hundred workers could be
involved in the class action suit against the manufacturer of postal
and military uniforms.

The law requires, among others, for employers of 100 or more workers in
any industry to give adequate notice to the state and to their
employees when they plan to close a plant with 50 or more employees.

The suit claims that the Company had more than 100 employees in August
2000, when the company ordered the closing of its plant in Reidsville.

The class action suit, filed on behalf of all the affected employees,
seeks 60 days of wages and benefits for each worker, plus interest and
attorneys' fees, according to the report.

The exact value of the damages would depend on the wage level of each
worker, the report adds.


CRITICAL PATH: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP has commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Critical Path, Inc.
(NASDAQ:CPTH) securities between March 29, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive, against defendants Critical Path, certain of its officers
and directors, and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Critical Path common stock pursuant to the
March 29, 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 Critical Path shares to customers at
the IPO price.

To receive the allocations 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 Critical Path stock
rocketed upward was intended to drive Critical Path'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 Fred Taylor Isquith, Gustavo Bruckner,  
Michael Miske, or George Peters by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York,
New York 10016 by Phone:(800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
or visit their Website: www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer to Critical
Path.


CYNET INC.: Faces Suit Due to Unsolicited Advertising in Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Portuguese-American Leadership Council of U.S., Inc. filed a class
action suit in the Superior Court of Washington, D.C. against Cynet,
Inc. and its subsidiary, Worldwide Marketing Services, Inc.,

The suit, filed last May 8,2001, alleges that the company sent
unsolicited advertising to it and the class of plaintiffs in violation
of the Telephone Communications Act of 1991

The Company's in-house counsel is defending this matter vigorously
until such time as outside counsel is retained.

CyNet is an application service provider that offers Internet, voice
and fax messaging software and services, along with e-commerce support,
Web site hosting and development, and marketing and graphic design
services for medium and large-sized businesses.


CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Begins S.D. NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc S. Henzel filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of CyberSource Corporation (NASDAQ:CYBS) between June
23, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action also named the following as defendants:

     (1) Merrill Lynch,

     (2) Pierce, Fenner & Smith

     (3) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (4) BancBoston Robertson Stephens,

     (5) William S. McKiernan and

     (6) Charles E. Noreen.

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 June 23, 1999 CyberSource commenced an initial public
offering of 4,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $11 per share (the "CyberSource IPO"). In connection
therewith, CyberSource filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus (the "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) Merrill Lynch, Robertson Stephens and Goldman Sachs had    
         solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
         from certain investors in exchange for which Merrill Lynch,
         Robertson Stephens and Goldman Sachs allocated to those
         investors material portions of the restricted number of
         CyberSource shares issued in connection with the CyberSource
         IPO; and

    (ii) Merrill Lynch, Robertson Stephens and Goldman Sachs had
         entered into agreements with customers whereby Merrill Lynch,
         Robertson Stephens and Goldman Sachs agreed to allocate
         CyberSource shares to those customers in the CyberSource IPO
         in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
         additional CyberSource 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 the firm's Website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


EL SITIO: Faces Seven Securities Suits in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Internet media company El Sitio, Inc. faces seven civil complaints
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaints await certification as class actions.

The suits also mention as defendants certain of the Company's directors
and principal executive officers and underwriters who lead El Sitio's
initial public offering in December 1999.

The complaints allege that the prospectus and registration statement
for the initial public offering were materially misleading because they
did not disclose the following alleged actions on the part of the
underwriters:
     (1) the underwriters solicited and received additional and
         excessive commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         special allocations of common shares in the initial public
         offering; and

     (2) the underwriters entered into agreements with these investors
         whereby such investors agreed to purchase additional common
         shares of El Sitio in the aftermarket at pre-determined
         prices, thereby artificially supporting or inflating the
         market price of El Sitio's common shares.

The claims charge the Company with violations of the U.S. Securities
Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

El Sitio believes that the allegations in the complaints are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in these cases.

El Sitio is an Internet media company that provides localized and
interactive content through a network of websites for Spanish- and
Portuguese-speaking audiences in Latin America and the United States.

El Sitio currently has, in addition to a global website, country
websites for Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, the United
States, Uruguay and Venezuela.



FIRST UNION: Judge Disbands Class In Pending Age Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal Judge, who three years ago certified a suit against real
estate company First Union Corporation as a class action, recently
disbanded the 160 plaintiffs in a move he said is in keeping with the
"general trend" to limit such suits.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Alan Gold effectively doused
any hope of having the Company answer for alleged age discrimination
when it took over Wachovia from 1992 to 1994.

Gold said the plaintiffs failed to show any evidence of a
discriminatory pattern and their jobs were too different to justify
keeping everyone together under one lawsuit, the Associated Press
reports.

Plaintiffs, with different job titles at different banks and location,
had claimed earlier that they were victims of age discrimination in
layoffs and demotion.

The judge, though, noted that indeed the number and percentage of older
First Union employees actually rose during the time period covered by
the lawsuit.

The lawsuit covered workers over age 39.

Although plaintiffs are free to pursue their case individually, few
lawyers believe they ever will.


GLAXO SMITHKLINE: Faces Huge Lawsuit Because Of Antidepressant Drug
-------------------------------------------------------------------
British pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline is faced with a huge class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of a group of people who say they became
chronically addicted to the antidepressant drug known as Seroxat in
Britain, or Paxil in the United States, which is similar to Prozac.

The case, which has been filed in California, claims damages for
addiction to the drug.

Glaxo SmithKline has made billions from SSRIs or selective serotonin
reuptake inhibitors - the class of drugs hailed as "wonderdrugs" when
they were first released in the market.

The plaintiffs were prescribed Paxil/Seroxat for mild depression or
anxiety and none was told they might become addicted.

When they tried to stop taking it, they suffered violent and disturbing
symptoms, including jolting pains in the head, vertigo, loss of
coordination, abdominal discomfort, flu-like symptoms, agitation and
confusion.

There are presently 35 people in the class action but the number could
grow.

Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, Guildford and Schiavo, the Los Angeles law firm
involved, say that since the news of the suit broke out a week ago,
over 1,500 people have called the offices, relating similar
experiences.

Some have been seriously distressed. For instance, one person had a
pacemaker fitted, others were given electric shock therapy and some
were thought to have brain tumors.

The lawsuit alleges that the manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, has
deliberately failed to warn doctors and patients that Paxil/Seroxat can
cause severe withdrawal reactions.

It says that the company has wrongly claimed the bad reactions are
caused by a relapse into depression while off the drug, yet some people
experience symptoms when they stop taking the drug that they did not
have before they first took it.

The U.S. lawyers allege that all the SSRI class antidepressants have
the potential to cause withdrawal reactions when people stop taking
them, but that Paxil/Seroxat is the worst.

The drug, which has the generic name of paroxetine, is at the top of a
drug list produced by the World Health Organization, which records
complaints regarding bad reactions to medication from 60 countries.

GlaxoSmithKline insists there is no problem with its drug. "There is
absolutely no reliable scientific evidence that Paxil is addictive or
leads to dependence," said a spokesman.

He added: "As far as we're concerned, all of the regulatory bodies are
quite happy with the product."


HARRAH'S ATLANTIC: Court Certifies 'Reverse-Discrimination' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in New Jersey recently certified a "reverse-
discrimination" lawsuit filed against the Atlantic City branch of
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., reports the Rolling Good Times Online.

The certification by U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Orlofsky follows
a 3rd circuit appellate court decision throwing out the affirmative-
action policies of Resorts Atlantic City two years ago.

The third largest gaming Company in the United States was sued by Mary
Osgood, a 20-year Harrah's employee who was demoted from shift manager
to casino host due to the Company's affirmative-action policies.

She said an African-American male was given her former post.


INTERTRUST TECHNOLOGIES: Sued For Securities Fraud in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intertrust Technologies, Inc. was charged with violating federal
securities laws in multiple class action suits filed between May 17,
2001 and July 3, 2001, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The suits also mention certain of its current and former directors and
the members of the underwriting syndicate involved in InterTrust's
initial public offering and/or secondary public offering as defendants.

The lawsuits seek unspecified monetary damages and certification of a
plaintiff class consisting of all persons who acquired shares of
InterTrust between October 26, 1999 and May 16, 2001.

The complaints allege, among other things, that InterTrust and the
individual defendants issued and sold InterTrust common stock in its
initial public offering in October 1999 and its secondary public
offering in April 2000 without disclosing to investors that certain of
the underwriters in the offering allegedly solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and
intends to defend against the complaints vigorously.

Intertrust produces digital rights management software for companies
that publishes movies, books and music on the web.


LOUDCLOUD INC.: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit on September 4, 2001,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of
Loudcloud, Inc. (NASDAQ:LDCL) between March 8, 2001 and May 1, 2001
against Loudcloud

The suit also named as defendants, the following:

     (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,

     (7) Goldman, Sachs & Co.,

     (8) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,

     (9) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC,

    (10) Epoch Securities, Inc.,

    (11) Allen & Company Incorporated,

    (12) CIBC World Markets Corp.,

    (13) Dain Rauscher Incorporated,

    (14) Raymond James & Associates, Inc.,

    (15) Robertson Stephens, Inc. and

    (16) 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
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:

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

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

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


MCDONNELL DOUGLAS: Judge Rules In Favor Of Former Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that McDonnell Douglas closed a plant
in Tulsa to deprive about 1,000 workers of benefits they were due under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The class action, filed in 1994, will likely involve millions of
dollars but plaintiffs' attorney Joseph Farris says that the amount
will center on what U.S. District Judge Sven Erik Holmes.

Holmes said that the reasons the company provided for the December 1993
closure was incomplete and misleading.

Holmes also censured the company for embarking ".upon a remarkable
course of obstruction, inconsistent representations and outright
falsehoods."

Holmes said that the company was deceptive and acted in bad faith
during the case even when the company was informed by the court that it
would prevail in the case if it would merely disclose the financial
basis behind its decision to close its operations at Air Force Plant
No. 3.

Boeing, which merged with McDonnell Douglas in 1997, disagreed with
Holmes' conclusion.

In a prepared statement, Boeing said that McDonnell Douglas closed the
Tulsa facility because the company was left with excess capacity and
assets after the military equipment market shrank at the end of the
Cold War.

Boeing is evaluating their legal options.

Holmes has given the parties three weeks to file papers regarding his
decision.


MIDWAY ENTERTAINMENT: "Doom" Distributor Asks Court To Dismiss Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Midway Home Entertainment, distributors of the video game "Doom", have
asked a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit that claims the product
influenced the Columbine High School gunmen.

The lawsuit was filed last August on behalf of the family of slain
teacher Dave Sanders and other Columbine victims and seeks $5 billion
in punitive damages from 25 entertainment companies.

Companies named in the lawsuit include Nintendo of America, Sega of
America, Sony Computer Entertainment and Time Warner Inc., which is now
AOL Time Warner, and the creators and publishers of "Doom" - ID
Software Inc. and Infogames, formerly known as GT Interactive Software
Corp.

The Sanders' lawyer, John DeCamp, argued there is evidence that violent
media lead to violent behavior and asked for a jury to hear the case.

Counsels for Midway Home Entertainment, however, said that the case was
similar to the one thrown out in a Kentucky court.

A federal judge in April 2000 dismissed a lawsuit filed against video-
game makers after Michael Carneal killed three Heath High School
students in Paducah, Ky., in 1997.

The judge there said video games are not subject to product liability
laws.

In the 1999 Columbine shootings, police found a videotape that shows
one of the killers with a sawed-off shotgun he calls "Arlene" after a
character in "Doom."

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold fatally shot Sanders and 12 students and
wounded 23 others before killing themselves in the April 20, 1999,
attack at Columbine High School.


ONYX SOFTWARE:  Defends Self Against Securities Suit Filed in W.D WA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ONYX Software Corp.(NasdaqNM:ONXS) on Friday labeled a recent lawsuit
filed against the Company and two of its executives as ".without
merit".

In a statement, the customer management software maker reiterated their
intent to vigorously defend themselves and believes that they will
ultimately prevail.

On Thursday, the law firm of Milberg Weiss filed a lawsuit in U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington, accusing Onyx
and certain of its officers and directors of violating the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit seeks class-action status and was filed on behalf of
shareholders who purchased stock between Jan. 10, 2001 and April 3.

The suit alleges that sometime after Jan. 19 when the company said it
would buy Revenue Lab, Onyx made misleading statements about its
business and issued false and misleading financial results, causing its
stock to be artificially inflated.

The high share price allowed Onyx to complete a secondary offering of
2.5 million shares at $13.50 per share, raising net proceeds of $31.5
million on Feb. 7, 2001.

On April 3, 2001, following the acquisition, Onyx said its first-
quarter results would be sharply lower than expected, with revenues of
$26-$27 million and would post a large loss.

The stock dropped below $3 per share on this news.

A week later, the company said it would restate fourth-quarter results
because the initial results had been materially misstated.


OPENTV CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc S. Henzel filed a class action suit in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of OpenTV Corp. (NASDAQ:OPTV) between November 22, 1999 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action names as co-defendants:

     (1) Merrill Lynch,

     (2) Pierce, Fenner & Smith,

     (3) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (4) Jan Steenkamp and

     (5) Randall S. Livingston.

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 November 22, 1999 OpenTV commenced an initial public
offering of 7,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $20 per share.

In connection therewith, OpenTV 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) Merrill Lynch had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which Merrill Lynch allocated to those investors material
         portions of the restricted number of OpenTV shares issued in
         connection with the OpenTV IPO; and

    (ii) Merrill Lynch had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby Merrill Lynch agreed to allocate OpenTV shares to
         those customers in the OpenTV IPO in exchange for which the
         customers agreed to purchase additional OpenTV 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 the firm's Website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


PEGASUS SATELLITE: Initiates Suit Against Directv in Los Angeles CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pegasus Satellite Television and subsidiary Golden Sky Systems filed a
class action suit against Directv, Inc. in the United States Federal
Court in Los Angeles early last year.

Trial has been set for August 13,2002.

The suit, filed on behalf of all members and affiliates of the National
Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (NRTC) that are distributors of
DIRECTV, contains causes of action for various torts, common law counts
and declaratory relief.

These charges are based on DIRECTV's failure to provide the NRTC with
certain premium programming, and on DIRECTV's position with respect to
launch fees and other benefits, term and right of first refusal.

On February 10, 2000, PST and GSS filed an amended complaint which
added new tort claims against DIRECTV for interference with PST's and
GSS' relationships with manufacturers, distributors and dealers of
direct broadcast satellite equipment.

The class action allegations PST and GSS previously filed were later
withdrawn to allow a new class action to be filed on behalf of the
members and affiliates of the NRTC.

The new class action was filed on February 27, 2000.

On March 9, 2001, DIRECTV filed a counterclaim against PST and GSS, as
well as the class members, that seeks two claims for relief:

     (1) a declaratory judgement that PST and GSS have no right of
         first refusal in their agreements with the NRTC to have
         DIRECTV provide any services after the expiration of the term
         of these agreements, and

     (2) an order that DBS-1 is the satellite (and the only satellite)
         that measures the term of PST's and GSS' agreements with the
         NRTC.

PST's and GSS' motion to dismiss the counterclaims were denied on May
8, 2001.

On May 21, 2001, PST, GSS and the class members moved to amend their
complaints to add certain additional claims against DIRECTV relating
to, among other things, DIRECTV's provision of advanced services.

The court granted this motion on June 19, 2001.

DIRECTV filed its answer to the second amended complaint on July 20,
2001.


PETMED EXPRESS:  District Court Approves Settlement Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in and for Wagoner County, Oklahoma approved the
Settlement Agreement between PetMed Express.com and Steven Wayne Turner
last July 30,2001.

Under the Settlement Agreement, each Class member who does not opt out
of the settlement shall have the option of one of the following
benefits:

     (1) a ten percent (10%) discount on one order of pet medications
         (the total discount being capped at $4.00);

     (2) free shipping and handling on one order of pet medication if
         the Class Member provides an original or copy of the
         applicable written prescription for that medication; or

     (3) a twenty-five percent (25%) discount on one order of in-stock
         pet supplies other than medications (the total discount being
         capped at $4.00).  

Also, the Company will, for a period of at least two (2) years, donate
prescription medications or other supplies worth not less than $10,000
per annum to the Humane Society (or another similar agency) for use on
stray or homeless pets.  

The Company will, for a period of five (5) years, agree not to describe
or state in its catalogs, website or invoices that it is providing
insurance in connection with delivery of ordered items.  

Class Counsel will petition the Court for attorney's fees, costs and
expenses in an amount not to exceed and payable in the form of:

     (i) $37,500 cash;

    (ii) 25,000 shares of registered common stock in the Company; and

   (iii) an option to purchase 25,000 shares of common stock in the
         Company exercisable at the market price as of the close of
         business on February 22, 2001 and exercisable within three (3)
         years of the Effective Date.  

The Company agreed that it would not oppose such consideration as it
was reasonable and fair.

The case of Steven Wayne Turner v. PetMed Express.com, Inc. was filed
last January 10, 2000.  

The case charged the company with alleged breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, recovery of money paid absent consideration, fraud, and
deceptive and unfair trade practices under the Florida Consumer
Protection Act.  

The lawsuit arose from a purported overcharge of $1.95 on a purchase of
pet supplies from the Company.

The Company shipped the products, via United Parcel Service, from the
Company's domicile in Florida to Turner in Tulsa, Oklahoma, along with
an invoice showing a subtotal of $39.97 plus $7.99 for "Shipping,
Handling and Insurance".  

Although the invoice did not identify any portion of the $7.99 charge
as specifically allocable to shipping, handling, or insurance
individually, the plaintiff alleged that $1.95 of the $7.99 was an
overcharge attributable to insurance.  

Plaintiff claimed the inclusion of the word "insurance" with "shipping
and handling" warranted a nationwide class action against the Company.

Plaintiff represented all of the Company's customers throughout the
United States who ever received a similar statement

He claimed that plaintiff and members of the class would have refused
to pay for insurance had they known the alleged omitted facts.


PHYCOR INC: Securities Fraud Trial Set For Early Next Year
-----------------------------------------------------------
Health care company Phycor, Inc. faces a consolidated class action
lawsuit filed in the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee.

The trial of all the consolidated cases is set for March 12, 2002.

The following, along with certain officers and directors of the
Company, have been named as defendants:

     (1) Joseph C. Hutts,

     (2) Derril W. Reeves,

     (3) Thompson S. Dent,

     (4) Richard D. Wright and

     (5) John K. Crawford

Litigation started when ten class actions were filed in state and          
federal courts in Tennessee between September 8, 1998 and June 24,
1999.

The substantially identical actions assert that during various periods
between April 22, 1997 and September 22, 1998, the defendants issued
false and misleading statements that materially misrepresented the
earnings and financial condition of the Company and its clinic
operations.

The suits further alleged that the defendants misrepresented and failed
to disclose various other matters concerning the Company's operations
in order to conceal the alleged failure of the Company's business
model.

Plaintiffs further assert that the alleged misrepresentations caused
the Company's securities to trade at inflated levels while the
individual defendants sold shares of the Company's stock at such
levels.

The federal court actions were later consolidated and the defendants'
motion to dismiss was denied.

The state court actions were consolidated in Davidson County,
Tennessee.

The plaintiffs' original consolidated class action complaint in state
court was dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which asserted, in addition to
the original Tennessee Securities Act claims, that Defendants had also
violated Section 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged
misleading statements in a prospectus released in connection with the
CareWise acquisition.

The amended complaint also added KPMG LLP, the Company's independent
public auditors.

On October 20, 2000, this case was consolidated with the original
federal consolidated action and a new consolidated complaint has been
filed.

The Company, the individual defendants and KPMG have filed an answer.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to all of the
claims, and is vigorously defending against these actions.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Merger Sets Off Chain Of Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The merger between telecom companies Qwest Communications and U.S. West
has set off a chain of class actions charging them with breach of
fiduciary duties.

In 1999, twelve purported class action complaints were filed against
U.S. WEST and its directors on behalf of U.S. WEST stockholders.

The complaints allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the class members by refusing to seek all bona fide offers
for U.S. WEST and refusing to consider the Qwest proposal.

>From March 2, 2000 to March 9, 2000, five purported class action
complaints were filed against Qwest in state court in Delaware on
behalf of Qwest stockholders.

The suit charges Qwest and its directors for breaching fiduciary duty
by entering into the Merger and by agreeing not to solicit alternative
transactions.

On March 17, 2000, and March 20, 2000, two class action complaints were
filed in federal district court in Delaware against Qwest and Joseph
Nacchio on behalf of U S WEST stockholders.

The complaints allege, among other things, that Qwest and Nacchio made
materially false statements regarding Qwest's intent to solicit an
alternative transaction to the Merger.

However, there has been no discovery or activity since the filing of
the above cases.

In January 2001, an amended purported class action complaint was filed
against Qwest and certain current and former officers and directors on
behalf of stockholders of U S WEST.

The complaint alleges that Qwest has a duty to pay a quarterly dividend
to U S WEST stockholders of record as of June 30, 2000.

Plaintiffs further claim that the defendants' efforts to close the
Merger in advance of the record date and the defendants' failure to pay
the dividend breaches fiduciary duties owed to stockholders of U S
WEST.

Qwest has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which is pending.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Agrees To Settle Lawsuits In Seven States
---------------------------------------------------------------
Telecom companies Qwest Communications and U.S. WEST signed an
agreement to settle seven purported class action complaints filed in
various state courts against telecom companies Qwest Communications and
U.S. WEST.

Customers in the states of Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico,
Oregon, Utah and Washington alleged that from 1993 to the present, U.S.
WEST violated statutory and common law obligations.

U.S. WEST allegedly delayed the provision of local telephone service to
the purported class members.

In addition, the complaints alleged that U.S. WEST misrepresented the
date on which such local telephone service was to be provided to the
purported class members.

The settlement is now awaiting court approval.


SAN DIEGO: Judge Says 'Red Light Camera' Citations Are Unreliable
-----------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald Styn ruled Tuesday that the
contingency fee paid to Lockheed Martin for the city's red light camera
system made it an unreliable form of evidence for issuing traffic
tickets to motorists, Reuters reported recently.

The ruling effectively threw out 290 traffic citations generated from
the system, which a group of motorists has challenged before Styn's
chamber.

In his ruling, Styn cited the fact that the fees for Lockheed were
based on the amount of tickets it issued, making the system tainted.

For instance, since they were installed at 19 of the city's
intersection, the cameras have been issuing citations carrying a $271
fine for each conviction.  Lockheed gets $70 of each paid fine.

Plaintiff attorney Christopher Plourd said the contingency payment
scheme makes it possible for Lockheed "to grab as many as people as
they can."

In addition to the contingency fee issue, Styn also questioned the
operation of the system by a private company when the California
legislature intended that it should be under government control.

Meanwhile, plaintiffs' lawyers also brought last week a suit in federal
court citing violations of the Anti-racketeering statute.

According to the suit, the city engaged in a scheme to defraud the
public.

The suit seeks reimbursement for 100,000 motorists who were fined as a
result of the system.


ULTRALIFE BATTERIES: Securities Suit Dismissed by NJ District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has
dismissed with prejudice the class action suit filed against Ultralife
Batteries, Inc. in August 1998.

The Company, its Directors, and certain underwriters were named as
defendants in the complaint filed by certain shareholders, purportedly
on behalf of a class of shareholders.

The case alleged that the defendants, during the period April 30, 1998
through June 12, 1998, violated various provisions of the federal
securities laws in connection with an offering of 2,500,000 shares of
the Company's Common Stock.

The complaint alleged that the Company's offering documents were
materially incomplete, and as a result misleading, and that the
purported class members purchased the Company's Common Stock at
artificially inflated prices

The Plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Appeal to the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals.

Both parties submitted their briefs, and oral argument, originally
scheduled for the week of May 21, 2001, has been suspended pending
further discussions with the Court.

The Company believes that the litigation is without merit and will
continue to defend it vigorously, though management qualifies that the
outcome cannot yet be predicted.


WEBVAN GROUP: Reinhardt Anderson Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhardt & Anderson filed a securities class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of investors who acquired shares of Webvan Group, Inc. (WBVN)
between November 4, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

The complaint names certain officers and directors of Webvan, as well
as the following underwriting firms-which were co-lead underwriters of
Webvan's initial public offering-as defendants:

     (1) Goldman, Sachs & Co.,

     (2) Merrill Lynch,

     (3) Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated,

     (4) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (5) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., and

     (6) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a Registration
Statement Prospectus that contained materially false and misleading
information and failed to disclose material information.

The Prospectus was issued in connection with Webvan's initial public
offering of 25,000,000 shares of common stock at $15.00 per share that
was completed on or about November 4, 1999.

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

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

    (ii) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain
         of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would
         allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for
         the customers' agreement to purchase Webvan shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices.

For more information, contact Garrett D. Blanchfield by Phone: 888-253-
5139 or 651-227-9990 by Fax: 651-297-6543 or by E-mail:
g.blanchfield@ralawfirm.com.


WEYERHAUSER CORPORATION: Charged With Antritrust Suits in E.D. PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhauser Corporation faces two civil antitrust lawsuits filed in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  

Both suits name as defendants several other major containerboard and
packaging producers.  

The first case alleges the defendants conspired to fix the price of
linerboard and that the alleged conspiracy had the effect of increasing
the price of corrugated containers.  

The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of
corrugated containers during the period October 1993 through November
1995.  

The complaint in the second case alleges that the company conspired to
manipulate the price of linerboard and thereby the price of corrugated
sheets.  

The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of
corrugated sheets during the period October 1993 through November 1995.  

In October 2000, the court denied motions to dismiss the suits
that had been filed by the company and the other defendants.  

Discovery has commenced in both suits and the plaintiffs have filed
motions to certify a class in both cases.

Weyerhauser is one of America's largest forest products manufacturer.

                             *********


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  * * *