CAR_Public/010910.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 10, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 176


                         Headlines


AIR TRANSAT: Traumatized Passengers Sue Airline For $30 Million
AK STEEL: Two Environmental Groups Join Suit in S.D. Ohio
AKORN INC.: Stockholders File Securities Suit in E.D. Illinois
AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Suit in S.D. CA
ANTHEM INC: To Vigorously Fight Suits in Connecticut District Court

ASIA PULP: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BAYER CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Suit in W.D. PA
CITIGROUP INC.: Charged With Violating Bank Confidentiality in AZ
CLARENT CORPORATION: Berman DeValerio Commences Suit in N.D. CA
COBALT GROUP: Faces Three Securities Suit Following Merger

EXCHANGE APPLICATIONS: Subsidiary Faces Securities Suit in MA
GADZOOX NETWORKS: Pending Securities Suits Might Harm Business
GENTIVA HEALTH: Faces Antitrust Suit In Tennessee District Court
GLOBAL CROSSING: Denies Allegations in Suits Filed in S.D. NY
GOLF TRUST: Plaintiffs Name Additional Defendants in Amended Suit

HANDSPRING INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
HAYES LAMMERZ: Beatie Osborn Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MI
ITC DELTACOM: Settles Securities Suit in Delaware Chancery Court
JERRY'S CHEVROLET: Judge Certifies Suit, Could Involve 6,000 People
KASH N' KARRY: Four Women Employees File Gender Discrimination Suit

LAKES GAMING: Pays $18 Million To Settle Securities Suit in Nevada
LOUDCLOUD INC: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MASTERCARD INC: Awaits Trial in Antitrust Suit Filed in E.D. NY
MASTERCARD INC.: Denies Antitrust Violations in Multiple Suits
NEW FOCUS: Faces Multiple Securities Suits Filed in S.D. NY

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Rabin Peckel Initiates Securities Suit in CO
RAILWORKS CORPORATION: Federman Sherwood Commences Suit in B.D. MD
RAYTHEON CORPORATION: To Vigorously Oppose Multiple Securities Suits
THEGLOBE.COM: Faces Multiple Securities Suit in S.D. NY
THIMEROSAL LITIGATION: 16 Parents Sue Pharmaceutical Companies in LA


                         *********

AIR TRANSAT: Traumatized Passengers Sue Airline For $30 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claiming that they were traumatized after a plane owned by Air Transat
made a recent emergency landing without fuel, passengers sued the
Canadian airline Thursday for $30 million, the Toronto Star reports.

The suit filed by three individuals seeks to represent all 291
passengers who endured the terrifying emergency landing in the Azores
last August 24.

The suit was filed in Ontario Superior Court.

"The plaintiffs...were severely traumatized by their experience to the
point of being physically ill and will likely continue to suffer the
results of this physical and psychological injury for the rest of their
lives," the suit's statement of claim says.

Lawyer Tony Azevedo said statements from passengers indicate that the
flight crew also went into shock, adding to the distress of the
passengers.

"Instead of attempting to calm passengers, members of the flight crew
panicked and contributed to the terror suffered by the plaintiffs," he
said.

"We want to make a contribution to ensure this never happens again," he
said.

Meanwhile, Transport Canada, the federal regulatory body task to ensure
safety of air transportation, imposed a $250,000 fine against the
Company.

The fine -- five times larger than any previously imposed -- was for
the improper maintenance of the ill-fated Airbus and for allowing it to
fly after a new engine was installed using incompatible parts.

Apparently, Air Transat had been warned in the past about the potential
problems associated with mixing parts, nevertheless it allowed the
plane to fly 14 times before the incident two weeks ago.

Air Transat completed the engine replacement five days before the
aircraft carrying 304 crew and passengers to Lisbon from Toronto ran
out of fuel.

It managed to glide safely to an airstrip in the Azores Islands, but 11
people were sent to hospital after a terrifying landing.

The company has said the engine was replaced using a component from a
newer engine. The engine's manufacturer, Rolls-Royce, had recommended
the parts not be swapped, the report says.


AK STEEL: Two Environmental Groups Join Suit in S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
Leading environmental groups, The Sierra Club and Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRD) today sought to become plaintiffs in the Federal
EPA and State of Ohio's lawsuit against AK Steel.

The two groups filed a motion to intervene with Judge Herman J. Weber
in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division.

In doing so, the two groups joined one of the most important
environmental battles in Ohio's history, charging AK Steel with
numerous violations of the Clear Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, a statute that governs waste
removal.

The U.S. Justice Department, on behalf of the Environmental Protection
Agency, filed its complaint against AK Steel on June 29, 2000. Charges
include 204 specific violations of air, water, and hazardous waste
laws.

The State of Ohio became an intervening plaintiff, the status the
Sierra Club and NRDC are now seeking, on July 9, 2001.

Complaints included houses, pools, and outdoor furniture covered daily
by black dust, noxious fumes, and the loss of Dicks Creek, a local
tributary of the Ohio River, as a recreational spot. Many reported
increased allergies, respiratory problems, and headaches.

However, AK Steel has avoided meeting with the Sierra Club and local
citizens to discuss the effects of the pollution on people living and
working around the Middletown, Ohio plant.

Since May, the 17,500 member strong Sierra Club and Ohio Citizen Action
and ECO have gone door to door in Middletown to hear the citizens'
views on the pollution from AK Steel's operations.

Marilyn Wall, Conservation Chair of the Ohio Chapter of The Sierra Club  
said they have heard story after story of people waking up to find
their cars covered in soot, and houses needing to be sprayed down
frequently to get rid of the black dust.


Specific allegations include:


     (1) the illegal discharge of PCBs into Dicks Creek

     (2) Numerous chemical spills, at least two of which caused fish
         kills

     (3) Failing to control emissions of particulate matter

     (4) The illegal release of hazardous waste into the environment,
         including cyanide, waster water, zinc, lead, benzene, waste
         acid, among other toxic materials

"We want to do everything we can to make sure that AK Steel is held
accountable in what is one of the most serious cases of pollution and
environmental damage in Ohio's history, and that a just and fair
settlement can reached," said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., staff attorney at
NRDC, a national environmental group with 12,000 members in Ohio.

Next Monday, September 10, Judge Herman Weber will preside over a
hearing on AK Steel's motion to dismiss portions of the cases brought
against them by the federal and state governments.


AKORN INC.: Stockholders File Securities Suit in E.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. faces a complaint filed against them last August 9, 2001,
in the United States District Court for The Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division on August 8, 2001.

The suit names the Company as well as Floyd Benjamin, the former
president and chief executive officer of the Company, and Dr. John N.
Kapoor, the Company's current chairman and interim chief executive
officer.

The suit was filed on behalf of Michelle Golumbuski, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

The suit alleges various violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the Company's public statements and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the period from February 20,
2001 through May 22, 2001.

The plaintiffs are seeking class certification.

The Company has not filed its response, but it believes the complaint
is without merit and plans to defend this suit vigorously.


AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Suit in S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of California on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Amylin Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (NASDAQ:AMLN) from March 31, 1998 through July 25, 2001,
inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

>From an efficacy standpoint, the medical review stated that the
clinical trials deviated from good medical practice because during the
studies a constant insulin dose was maintained in the patient, and
therefore, the data provided little insight to which patients, if any,
would benefit from SYMLIN or how it should be used.

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

These public announcements and statements did not make full, complete
and timely disclosure of Amylin's fraudulent illegal practices and
failed to correct false and misleading statements made prior to July
25, 2001 in that they failed to disclose the following material adverse
information:

     (a) Amylin had been concealing materially negative information
         from the FDA which would render FDA approval of SYMLIN
         impossible;

     (b) the actual study showed that SYMLIN was causing a four-fold
         increase in hypoglycemia-related events in patients as
         compared to a placebo;

     (c) in Type 1 diabetics, SYMLIN was reducing the patients' ability
         to recognize hypoglycemia;

     (d) contrary to the Company's repeated statements that SYMLIN had
         no additional risk for hypoglycemia, SYMLIN was showing that
         it did create additional risk;

     (e) the treatment and control arms of the SYMLIN study were
         manipulated in order to create the appearance of SYMLIN's
         efficacy, and SYMLIN's purported efficacy was not based on a
         full battery of applicable statistical analyses/tests,
         including factoring in the variances in doses; and

     (f) the results of the SYMLIN study actually favored treatment
         with insulin alone.

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


ANTHEM INC: To Vigorously Fight Suits in Connecticut District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. vowed to vigorously oppose three pending class action
lawsuits against their Connecticut affiliate in the Superior Court
Judicial District of New Haven, Connecticut.

The suits, brought on behalf of professional providers in Connecticut,
allege that the Connecticut affiliate has breached its contracts by
failing to pay for services in accordance with the terms of the
contracts.

The suits also allege:

     (1) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act,

     (2) breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing,

     (3) negligent misrepresentation and

     (4) unjust enrichment.

Last July 19, 2001, the court a class as to three of the plaintiff's
fifteen allegations.

The class is defined as those physicians who practice in Connecticut or
group practices which are located in Connecticut that were parties to
either a Participating Physician Agreement or a Participating
Physicians Group Agreement with Anthem and/or its Connecticut
affiliate during the period from 1993 to the present.

The claims which were certified as class claims are:

     (1) Anthem's alleged failure to provide with consistent medical
         utilization/quality management and administration of covered
         services by paying financial incentive and performance bonuses
         to providers and Anthem staff members involved in making
         utilization management decisions;

     (2) an alleged failure to maintain accurate books and records
         whereby improper payments to the plaintiffs were made based on
         claim codes submitted; and

     (3) an alleged failure to provide senior personnel to work with
         plaintiffs and other similarly situated physicians.

The Company has denied the allegations set forth in the complaints and
has asserted defenses.

Its' defenses include including improper standing to sue, failure to
state a claim and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.


ASIA PULP: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway filed 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 Asia Pulp & Paper Company, Ltd. (OTC
Bulletin Board: APUUY), formerly (NYSE:PAP), from September 8, 1998
through April 4, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges Asia Pulp & Paper and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that 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 of 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.

During the Class Period, 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 Marc A. Topaz by Mail: Three Bala Plaza
East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll
free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


BAYER CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Suit in W.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of all persons who were prescribed the drug Cerivastatin, also
known as Baycol (Lipobay outside the United States).

As alleged in the Complaint, Bayer Corporation, a unit of Bayer AG (OTC
Bulletin Board: BAYZY), is named as the defendant in this action due to
its responsibility in manufacturing, promoting, marketing,
distributing, and selling Baycol and/or Lipobay.

On August 8, 2001 the Food and Drug Administration announced that Bayer
withdrew Baycol from all markets in which it distributed Baycol and/or
Lipobay, other than Japan.

According to the FDA, the recall was announced for a number of reasons,
including the fact that over 480 Baycol users developed rhabdomyolysis
after being prescribed Baycol.

Rhabdomyolysis is a condition that results in muscle cell breakdown and
release of the contents of muscle cells into the bloodstream.

Symptoms of rhabdomyolysis include muscle pain, weakness, tenderness,
malaise, fever, dark urine, nausea and vomiting. The pain may involve
specific groups of muscles or may be generalized throughout the body.
Most frequently the involved muscle groups are the calves and lower
back.

In some cases the muscle injury is so severe that patients develop
renal failure and other organ failure, which can be fatal.

Cases of fatal rhabdomyolysis in association with the use of Baycol
have been reported significantly more frequently than for other
approved statins.

The FDA has received reports of 31 deaths in the United States due to
severe rhabdomyolysis associated with the use of Baycol.

Recent news reports have suggested that over several hundred people
have died from their alleged use of Baycol and/or Lipobay worldwide.
According to Bayer, patients who are currently taking Baycol should
have their Baycol discontinued and be switched to an alternative
therapy.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 888/299-7706 (toll-free) or 610/667-7706 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit their Website: www.sbclasslaw.com.


CITIGROUP INC.: Charged With Violating Bank Confidentiality in AZ
------------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. faces charges that it unlawfully provided private
account information to telemarketers and vendors in a class action suit
filed in Maricopa County, Arizona.

According to a Reuters report, the No. 1 U.S. financial services
company and leading credit card issuer allegedly provided telemarketers
with information that enabled them to charge cardholders' accounts
without their authorization.

Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, co-lead counsel for the cardholders,
charged Citigroup and Citibank South Dakota, which issues its credit
cards, with allegedly violating South Dakota's Deceptive Trade
Practices Act and banking confidentiality.

Citigroup declined to comment because it has not seen the suit yet.


CLARENT CORPORATION: Berman DeValerio Commences Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo lawsuit
was filed against in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Cailfornia as and is pending before the Hon. James Larson.

It seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of
all investors who bought Clarent Corporation stock between April 19,
2001 and September 4, 2001.

The lawsuit charges Redwood City-based Clarent and some of its top
executives with defrauding investors.

According to the complaint, the company improperly recognized revenue,
substantially underreported its losses and issued materially overstated
financial results for its first and second quarters of fiscal 2001.

On September 4, 2001, prior to the opening of trading, Clarent issued a
news release saying it had begun investigating a "potential
overstatement of historical revenues" and had placed three executives
on administrative leave.

In the press release, Clarent said it had "discovered information
suggesting that the company's previously reported revenues for the
first and second quarters of fiscal 2001 may have been materially
overstated."

The company also said it expected the investigation to result in
reduced revenues and increased net losses for those quarters.

In addition, Clarent disclosed that company executives Jerry Chang,
Matthew Chaing and Kevin Chang were being placed on administrative
leave.

Following the announcement, the Nasdaq Stock Market suspended trading
of Clarent's stock pending the release of further news by the company.

For more details, contact Steven Morris, Jeffrey C. Block, Jennifer
Abrams by Mail: One Liberty Square 425 California Street, Suite 2025
Boston, MA 02109 San Francisco, CA 94104 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 or
(415) 433-3200 or by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com


COBALT GROUP: Faces Three Securities Suit Following Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Cobalt Group, Inc. faces three class action lawsuits following the
execution of a merger with Cobalt Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Warburg, Pincus Equity Partners, L.P. last June
4,2001

The plaintiffs' unconsolidated complaints generally allege that:

     (1) the members of Cobalt's board of directors breached their
         fiduciary duties,

     (2) the per share merger consideration was inadequate,

     (3) Warburg Pincus, John W.P. Holt and the other continuing
         shareholders timed the proposed transaction at a time when
         Cobalt's stock price was depressed in order to capture for
         themselves Cobalt's future potential without paying an
         adequate or fair price and

     (4) that, given the potential or actual conflicts of interest,
         Warburg Pincus, John W.P. Holt and other members of management
         were acting solely out of self interest and without regard for
         what is best for Cobalt's unaffiliated shareholders.

Last July 12, 2001, the defendants filed a Joint Motion to Consolidate
the three purported class action shareholder lawsuits and, on July 24,
2001, that motion was granted.

The plaintiffs have not yet filed an amended consolidated complaint.


EXCHANGE APPLICATIONS: Subsidiary Faces Securities Suit in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Exchange Applications subsidiary Xchange Inc. faces a consolidated
class action lawsuit originally filed August 3,2001 in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The suit also names Arthur Andersen, LLP, the Company's certified
public accountant.

The suit, filed on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the our
common stock during the period from December 9, 1998 through September
29, 2000, alleges false or misleading statements that inflated common
stock price during the class period.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends
to defend the litigation vigorously.


GADZOOX NETWORKS: Pending Securities Suits Might Harm Business
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gadzoox Networks, Inc. believes that putative securities class actions
filed against them in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York might be harmful to business.

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
said that defending such litigation will result in a diversion of
management's attention from business operations.

While they believe that they have meritorious defenses to the
allegations, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties could
materially adversely affect the company's financial condition, results
of operation and cash flows.

The suit filed last June 6, 2001,alleges that the Company, their former
officers and their underwriters violated Section 11, Section 15, and
Sections 12(a)(2) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Act,
respectively.

On June 25, 2001, a similar complaint was filed against Gadzoox, the
former executive officers and several of the underwriters participating
in our initial public offering in the Southern District of New York.

The complaint is substantially identical to the first complaint, except
in that it alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act against all defendants, including Gadzoox and the individual
defendants.

The Company anticipates that all such lawsuits will eventually be
coordinated or consolidated with one another and intends to vigorously
oppose the actions.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Faces Antitrust Suit In Tennessee District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc. faces a purported class action lawsuit
filed by Ultimate Home Health Care Inc. in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee

Plaintiff later amended the suit to name the following defendants:

     (1) Columbia/HCA,

     (2) Columbia Homecare Group,

     (3) Olsten Health Management a/k/a Hospital Contract Management
         Services (one of the Company's subsidiaries) and

     (4) Olsten Corporation.

The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants' business practices
in connection with home health care patient referrals between 1994 and
1996 violated provisions of the:

     (i) Federal antitrust laws,

    (ii) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),

   (iii) the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and

    (iv) state common law.

The Court dismissed the plaintiff's RICO and state common law tort in
January 21, 2001.

The Court also held that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded the
antitrust, TCPA and civil conspiracy claims and allowed those claims to
proceed to discovery.

Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due to be filed with the
court by August 24, 2001.

Because the Tennessee Lawsuit is in a relatively preliminary
discovery stage, the Company is unable at this time to assess the
probable outcome of or potential liability arising from such lawsuit


GLOBAL CROSSING: Denies Allegations in Suits Filed in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Global Crossing Ltd vehemently denied allegations in the series of
class actions filed against them in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York commencing in late July 2001.

The suit charges GCL, certain of its present and former directors and
executive officers, and certain of the investment banks that underwrote
GCL's initial public offering in August 1998 with violations of federal
securities laws.

The complaints allege that the Underwriters improperly:

     (1) solicited and received additional, excessive and undisclosed
         commissions in exchange for allocations of shares of GCL
         common stock in the IPO and

     (2) tied allocations of IPO stock to purchases of additional GCL
         shares in the after-market.

The complaints further allege that the registration statement and
prospectus for the IPO should have disclosed the allegedly improper
actions taken by the Underwriters and that the named defendants are
responsible for those omissions.

Global Crossing has stated its intent to vigorously defend itself
against the lawsuits and to seek indemnification from the Underwriters.


GOLF TRUST: Plaintiffs Name Additional Defendants in Amended Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit filed against Golf Trust of
America filed their amended complaint last July 30,2001, naming
additional defendants.

The amended complaint added Banc of America Securities LLC and Bank of
America, N.A. and charged the above entities with:

     (1) negligent misrepresentation,

     (2) unjust enrichment,

     (3) equitable estoppel and

     (4) aiding and abetting proxy misrepresentation.

The suit was initially filed last April 5, 2001 in the Circuit Court
for Baltimore City, Maryland against Golf Trust of America, Inc., its
directors and Mr. Larry D. Young, a former director of the Company.

The suit alleges that payments to officers under their employment
contracts and the Company's agreement to sell golf courses to Legends
resulted from a breach of the defendants' fiduciary duties to
Stockholders.

The suit further alleged that these transactions constitute non-pro
rata liquidating distributions allegedly in violation of the company  
charter and Maryland law.

Additionally, the plaintiff alleges that the preliminary proxy
statement contained materially misleading statements and omissions.


HANDSPRING INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files 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 Handspring, Inc. (NASDAQ:HAND)
securities between June 20, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive,
against defendants Handspring, certain of its officers and directors,
and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Handspring common stock pursuant to the
June 20, 2000 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated Handspring 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 Handspring stock rocketed
upward was intended to drive Handspring'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, Thomas Burt, 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 Handspring.


HAYES LAMMERZ: Beatie Osborn Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beatie and Osborn, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of all
shareholders who purchased the common stock of Hayes Lammerz
International, Inc. (NYSE:HAZ) between June 8, 2000 and September 5,
2001.

The complaint alleges that the company violated the federal securities
laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
concerning its financial results for fiscal 2000 and the first quarter
of fiscal 2001.

Specifically, the reported net loss of $41.8 million for fiscal 2000
was understated by at least 31% and was actually $56.4 million for that
fiscal year period.

Net loss for the first quarter of fiscal 2001, which was previously
reported as $7.6 million, was understated by a staggering 350% and was
actually $34.7 million for the quarter.

The Company stated that its investigation relating to these financial
misrepresentations would continue and that additional
restatements/adjustments may be necessary.

Also, as a result of these restatements, the Company revealed that it
was in breach of certain financial covenants under its senior credit
facility.

On September 5, 2001, when this adverse information was disclosed, the
stock was halted from trading and opened the following day at $2.10 per
share. This represented a 50% decline from the prior day's trading
price of $4.15 per share and more than a 90% decline from the $20 per
share Hayes stock had been trading at during the class period.

For more information, contact Daniel A. Osborn by Mail: 521 Fifth
Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, New York 10175 by Phone: 800-891-6305
(toll-free) or 212-888-9000 by Fax: 212-888-9664 or by E-mail:  
clientrelations@bandolaw.com


ITC DELTACOM: Settles Securities Suit in Delaware Chancery Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITC DeltaCom, Inc. settled a class action suit filed against them in
the Delaware Court of Chancery on the terms and stipulations set forth
in a stipulation of settlement dated June 18,2001.

On August 6, 2001, the Delaware Court of Chancery approved the
settlement of the litigation and awarded plaintiff's counsel an
aggregate of $239,376 for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses
incurred in connection with the lawsuit.

The suit, originally filed on April 20,2001 was filed in connection
with the entry by ITC DeltaCom and ITC Holding Company into a
previously announced investment agreement on February 27, 2001.

The complaint also alleged that Company directors violated fiduciary
duties owed to stockholders connection with proposals relating to the
Company's 1997 Stock Option Plan.

Stockholders approved the settlement, which contained investment
transaction and stock option plan proposals, at the 2001 annual meeting
last June 15, 2001.

The settlement provides for dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice.

The Company has denied any liability with respect to the suit.

They entered the settlement to minimize the expense, inconvenience
and distraction of litigation and to avoid delays that could affect the
Company's ability to complete the investment transaction.


JERRY'S CHEVROLET: Judge Certifies Suit, Could Involve 6,000 People
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore County Circuit Judge Robert N. Dugan certified recently a
class action suit against Jerry's Chevrolet for charging $595 to
customers without actually giving the pertinent service assessed for.

According to The Baltimore Sun, about 5,000 to 6,000 customers, who
purchased Chevrolets from the car dealership after August 1997 and
before the $595 charge was dropped in July 2000, can join the suit.

The suit brought by Catherine M. Duffy alleged that she was charged for
"Karcraft Finish Protection" when she bought a Chevrolet Blazer in 1997
from the dealership.

She claims she did not receive that service from Jerry's.

"Jerry's systematically and deceptively inflates the cost of its new
vehicles.  Jerry's practices are misleading, deceptive and
unconscionable," the suit says.

The suit alleges breach of contract, breach of implied warranty,
violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act and unjust
enrichment.

In his ruling, Nugan noted the deposition of Jerry's president Gerald
Stautberg, who admitted that Jerry's customers received nothing in
exchange for the $595 fee.


KASH N' KARRY: Four Women Employees File Gender Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Four women employees of Kash n' Karry, who claim they were paid less
than their male counterparts, filed recently a gender discrimination
suit against the Company, the Associated Press reports.

They claim that women employees in the grocery chain were being paid
$1,000 to $4,000 a year less than the men in the same jobs.

In addition, according to lawyer David Linesch, women have also been
passed over for job promotions in the Company.

Linesch claims more than a thousand women would eventually join the
suit.

The suit is currently pending before a Tampa federal court, the news
service says.

Kash n' Karry is owned by Delhaize America, which also owns the Food
Lion grocery chain.

The parent company is also named in the lawsuit, says the report.


LAKES GAMING: Pays $18 Million To Settle Securities Suit in Nevada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lakes Gaming, Inc. paid out a total of $18 million to stockholders of
its subsidiaries to settle a class action suit filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada.

The District Court approved the settlement, which required Lakes to pay
$9 million to the Company subsidiary, Grand Casinos, Inc. shareholders
and $9 million to the Stratosphere shareholders last August 14,2001.

Lyle Berman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lakes stated, "We
feel it is in the best interest of Lakes and its shareholders to
resolve these lawsuits. Settlement of these two complaints removes one
of the major uncertainties that has been associated with our company."

The complaints by the shareholder groups were originally filed in 1996
against various defendants including Grand Casinos, Inc.

The complaints included allegations of misrepresentations, federal and
state securities law violations and various other claims in connection
with the Stratosphere project.

Last October 1999, the court partly dismissed the allegations.

The Court dismissed all allegations in reference to:

     (1) Phase II funding levels;

     (2) "over-allotments uses", as stated in the December 19, 1995
         Prospectus;

     (3) the purpose and use of the Grand Casino Completion Guaranty,
         as stated in the June 6, 1996 Press Statement;

     (4) the vague expressions of general optimism (issued within the
         December 19, 1995 Prospectus, the 10-Q and 10-K Filings, press
         releases and other public statements) referred to in this
         Order;

     (5) the adoption of statements in securities analysts reports;

     (6) the alleged utterance of misleading statements before the
         Nevada Gaming Commission; and

     (7) the temporary diversion of Phase II proceeds to fund Phase I.

The remaining claims relate to the accuracy of defendants' budgetary
estimates issued in Stratosphere's December 1995 Prospectus and SEC 10-
Q and 10-K Reports.

The parties reached a settlement on December 4, 2000 and on August 14,
2001, the Court issued an order granting final approval to the
settlement agreement.

As part of the transaction establishing Lakes as a separate public
company on December 31, 1998, Lakes agreed to indemnify Grand
for all obligations arising out of these lawsuits.

Lakes has placed the $18 Million settlement in escrow in behalf of the
recipients.

Lakes Gaming, Inc. is a publicly held casino management company that
was formed through a distribution to shareholders of Grand Casinos,
Inc. effected in December 1998. The company currently manages the
largest casino resort in Louisiana and has entered into development and
management agreement with three separate tribes for three new casino
operations.


LOUDCLOUD INC: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman filed a class action lawsuit against Loudcloud, Inc.
(NASDAQ:LDCL), certain officers and directors of Loudcloud and the lead
underwriters of Loudcloud's public offering in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
investors who purchased Loudcloud securities between March 8, 2001 and
May 1, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933.

The Prospectus, declared effective by the SEC on March 8, 2001, was
false and misleading because, among other things, it failed to
disclose:

     (1) Loudcloud's plans to substantially reduce its work force and
         to restructure itself shortly after the public offering;

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

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

     (4) 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 further details, contact David C. Katz, James E. Tullman, and/or
Mark D. Smilow by Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 by E-mail:
info@wynyc.com or by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite
1600, New York, New York 10176.


MASTERCARD INC: Awaits Trial in Antitrust Suit Filed in E.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard International and VISA U.S.A, Inc. await trial in a class
action lawsuit filed by several retailers challenging certain aspects
of the payment card industry under the federal anti-trust law.

In October 1996, a number of U.S. merchants, including Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., Sears Roebuck & Co., Inc., The Limited Inc. and Safeway, Inc.,
filed several class action suits against MasterCard International and
Visa U.S.A., Inc.

These suits were later consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.

The plaintiffs challenge MasterCard's "Honor All Cards" rule (and a
similar Visa rule), which ensures universal acceptance for consumers by
requiring merchants who accept MasterCard cards to accept for payment
every validly presented MasterCard card.

The merchants desire the ability to reject off-line, signature-based
debit transactions (for example, MasterCard card transactions) in favor
of other payment forms, including on-line, PIN-based debit transactions
(for example, Maestro or regional ATM network transactions) which
generally impose lower transaction costs for merchants.

The plaintiffs also claim that MasterCard and Visa have conspired to
monopolize the point-of-sale debit card market, thereby suppressing the
growth of regional networks such as ATM payment systems.

Plaintiffs allege that the plaintiff class has been forced to pay
unlawfully high prices for debit and credit card transactions as a
result of the alleged tying arrangement and monopolization practices.

On February 22, 2000, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and MasterCard and Visa promptly petitioned for
an appeal.

Parties are waiting for the Court's decision on the appeal and no trial
date has been set.


MASTERCARD INC.:  Denies Antitrust Violations in Multiple Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard, Inc. has vowed to oppose charges of antitrust violations in
several class actions filed against them.

Six of the actions, were brought in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania while five other actions were
brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California in early this year.

Five suits were recently brought in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The following are also mentioned as defendants:

     (1) Visa U.S.A., Inc.,

     (2) Visa International Corp.,

     (3) Citibank,

     (4) Chase Manhattan Bank and Bank of America, and

     (5) Diners Club

The suits assert that violations of federal antitrust laws are based on
the asserted one percent currency conversion "fee."  

The complaints also allege violations of the Truth-In-Lending Act
against the member banks.

The complaints further allege that MasterCard's and Visa's system of
dual governance inhibits competition between the associations and
allows them to collude and fix the asserted currency conversion
"fee" in violation of antitrust laws.


NEW FOCUS: Faces Multiple Securities Suits Filed in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------
New Focus faces a putative securities class action filed on June
26,2001 in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The suit was filed in behalf of a class that purchased New Focus common
stock between May 18, 2000 and June 11, 2001.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company.

On June 28, 2001 a similar complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint is substantially identical to the first suit, and the
cases are in the process of being consolidated.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these actions
and intends to defend them vigorously.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Rabin Peckel Initiates Securities Suit in CO
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin and Peckel,LLP filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado, on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased Qwest Communications International,
Inc. (NYSE:Q) common stock during the period from March 22, 2001
through and July 23, 2001, both dates inclusive.

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 that during the Class Period, defendants issued
to the investing public false and misleading financial statements and
press releases concerning the Company's financial results, the success
of the integration with U.S. West, and the Company's supposedly strong
expense controls.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that on March 22, 2001, defendants
appeared at a UBS Warburg hosted senior management meeting where they
falsely claimed that they would legitimately achieve first quarter of
fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2001 EPS of $0.11 and $0.59,
respectively.

On April 24, 2001, Qwest reported its financial results for the first
quarter of fiscal year 2001, including revenue growth of 12% and EBITA
growth of 16%.

The Complaint alleges Qwest's first quarter of fiscal year 2001 results
and its statements regarding the success of the integration with U.S.
West Inc. and the company's strong expense controls were materially
false and misleading due to the company's improper valuation of
KPNQwest in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles due
to the following undisclosed facts:

     (a) Qwest's first quarter fiscal year 2001 earnings were better
         than expectations primarily due to its change in the discount
         rate to calculate its pension obligations, increasing Qwest's
         first quarter fiscal year 2001 results by at least $0.03;

     (b) Qwest's first quarter fiscal year 2001 earnings were better
         than expectations due to defendants' failure to properly
         "write-down" the value of Qwest's holdings in KPNQwest, which
         overstated as a result;

     (c) Qwest's first quarter fiscal year 2001 earnings were increased
         by $0.01-$0.02 due to its aggressive use of capitalization to
         classify tens of millions of dollars of interest and software
         development costs as assets rather than expenses, which would
         contribute to decreased earnings in future quarters;

     (d) there was no way Qwest's future earnings would be nearly as
         strong as represented due in part to the accounting
         manipulations defendants engaged in which would adversely
         affect future results, as expenses were being deferred to
         future quarters and years; and

     (e) Qwest's SG&A expenses were only 22% of sales, not due to tight
         expense controls as represented, but to improper
         classification of SG&A expenses as cost of sales.

Subsequently, on July 20, 2001, Qwest admitted that its classification
of costs had been incorrect such that cost of sales had been overstated
and SG&A expenses had been understated.

As a result of defendants' issuance of alleged material and misleading
statements, Qwest's stock traded as high as $41.83 per share.

The individual defendants took advantage of this inflation, selling
1,255,000 shares of their Qwest stock for proceeds of $49.5 million.

Ultimately on July 24, 2001, Qwest conceded that it recorded a write-
down of over $3.1 billion, primarily related to its ownership in
KPNQwest.

Upon this admission/revelation, Qwest's shares dropped once again,
trading below $27.

For more details, contact Rekha M. Carozza or Maurice Pesso by Mail:
Rabin & Peckel LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: at (212) 682-1892, or by E-
mail: email@rabinlaw.com.


RAILWORKS CORPORATION:  Federman Sherwood Commences Suit in B.D. MD
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman and Sherwood filed a class action suit on
behalf of investors against RailWorks Corporation (NASDAQ:RWKS) and its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, Baltimore Division on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased RailWorks securities during the period between
February 10, 1999 and August 20, 2001, inclusive.

The Complaint charges RailWorks and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

For further information, contact William B. Federman by Mail: 120
N.Robinson,Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 by Phone: (405)235-1560
by Fax: (405) 239-2112 or by E-mail: wFederman@aol.com


RAYTHEON CORPORATION: To Vigorously Oppose Multiple Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Raytheon Corporation stated its intention to vigorously oppose four
class action suits charging it with violating federal securities laws.

The first suit was filed on June 2001, in federal court in Boise,
Idaho.

Three identical purported derivative suits followed - two filed in the
Chancery Court in New Castle County, Delaware in June 2001 and another
filed last July 2001 in U. S. District Court in Massachusetts

The suits were filed allegedly on behalf of all purchasers of common
stock or senior notes of WGI during the period April 17, 2000 through
March 1.

The suits assert that the Company and certain of its officers
misrepresented the true financial condition of Raytheon Engineers &
Constructors (RE&C) in order to sell RE&C to WGI at an artificially

Plaintiffs further allege that the individual defendants breached
fiduciary duties to the Company and failed to maintain systems
necessary to prudent management and control of the Company's
operations.


THEGLOBE.COM: Faces Multiple Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------
TheGlobe.Com Inc. faces three identical class action complaints
alleging violations of the federal securities laws filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York

The suits were filed last August 2001 and named theglobe.com, inc.,
certain of its officers and directors, and Bear Stearns & Co., the
underwriter of the company's initial public offering, as defendants.

The complaints allege that the underwriters of the company's initial
public offering violated the securities laws by failing to disclose
certain compensation arrangements (such as undisclosed commissions or
stock stabilization practices) in the offering's registration
statement.

These complaints also allege that the Company violated Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933.

The company anticipates that the actions described above, and any
additional related complaints that may be filed, will be consolidated
into a single action.

The Company intend to defend these actions vigorously.

However, they are uncertain of the outcome of the litigation and
believe that any unfavorable outcome might adversely affect business.


THIMEROSAL LITIGATION: 16 Parents Sue Pharmaceutical Companies in LA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ten pharmaceutical companies, including Abbott Laboratories, have been
charged with concealing the dangers of Thimerosal, a mercury-based
preservative used in childhood vaccines.

A Bloomberg report said that about 16 parents filed a 41-page
negligence, fraud and unfair business practices complaint in the Los
Angeles Superior Court.

The suit alleges that the vaccines, used for immunization for ailments
such as diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus and measles, can impair
mental development or damage the nervous system.

Parents allege that these companies ". have placed these vaccines in
the stream of commerce without adequate testing, without any adequate
warnings and despite the ready availability of a substitute
preservative.

In 1999, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration determined that infants
who receive multiple injections of Thimerosal-containing vaccines may
be exposed to mercury at levels exceeding federal guidelines,
potentially putting them at risk for brain damage or autism.

However, an Institute of Medicine report in April said there is no
evidence connecting vaccines and autism.

Other defendants include:

     (1) Bergen Brunswig Corp., which is now AmeriSource-Bergen Corp.;

     (2) American Home Products Corp.,

     (3) Aventis SA's Aventis Pasteur Inc.,

     (4) GlaxoSmithkline PLC, King Pharmaceuticals Inc.,

     (5) Medeva Pharmaceuticals Inc,

     (6) Merck & Co.,

     (7) Sigma Aldrich Corp. and

     (8) Spectrum Manufacturing Corp.


                               *********


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  * * *