CAR_Public/010914.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, September 14, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 180


                              Headlines

AETHER SYSTEMS: Faces Multiple Securities Suits in S.D. NY
AIR TRANSAT: Lawsuit for Emotional Trauma Will Win Small Payment
AIRLINE LITIGATION: Suit Seeks to Ban Pesticide Spraying in Planes
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Kirby McInerney Initiates Securities Suit in C.D. CA
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Sued by Employees For Unpaid Overtime in CA
CANNON BEACH: Disabled Get Access at Oregon Resort Town in Settlement
CHINADOTCOM INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Starts Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CITIGROUP INC.: Cohen Milstein Initiates Privacy Suit in Arizona
CLARENT CORPORATION: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suits in S.D. NY
E-STAMP CORPORATION: Customer Files Breach of Contract Suit in NY
EQUINIX INC.: Sued by Stockholders for Securities Fraud in S.D. NY
HANDSPRING CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
HARRIS TEETER: Sued by Former Employees for Racial Bias in Atlanta
HORSESHOE GAMING: Intervenes in Tax Suit in Bossier City LA
KEYSPAN CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Initiates Suit in E.D. NY
LENDINGTREE, INC.: Enters Settlement in California Lawsuit
LITTLE SWITZERLAND: Enters Agreement to Settle Suit in Delaware
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: New Jersey Court Approves Class Certification
MARCONI PLC: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in W.D. PA
MCAFEE CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
METLIFE, INC.: Subsidiary Named in Automobile Claims Suits in RI and FL
NETRO CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
NETWORK PLUS: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ONYX SOFTWARE: Rosen Law Firm Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. WA
OPUS360 CORPORATION: Shareholders Sue for Securities Fraud in S.D. NY
OPUS360 CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Drop Securities Suit in S. D. NY
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES: Face Multiple Antitrust Suits in CA
PLAINS PIPELINE: Enters $1.1 Million Settlement in Delaware
RAMBUS INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
REMEC INC.: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suit in S.D. CA
RETEK INC.: To Vigorously Oppose Multiple Securities Suits in S.D. NY
TERAFORCE TECHNOLOGY: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suit in N.D. TX


                              *********


AETHER SYSTEMS: Faces Multiple Securities Suits in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------
Aether Systems, Inc. faces several securities class action suits filed
in the United States District of New York for alleged violations of
securities laws.

These actions were filed on behalf of persons and entities who acquired
the Company's common stock after its initial public offering in October
21, 1999.

The suits claim that prospectuses, dated October 21, 1999 and September
27, 2000 issued by Aether contained untrue statements of material fact
or omissions of material fact in violation of securities laws.

The prospectuses allegedly failed to disclose that the Company's
underwriters had solicited and received excessive fees, commissions and
benefits beyond those listed in the arrangements with certain of their
customers.

These commissions were designed to maintain, distort and/or inflate the
market price of the Company's common stock in the aftermarket.

Aether believes these claims are without merit and plans to vigorously
contest these actions.

The company provides wireless information and transaction services,
wireless systems engineering, and software that serves as a bridge
between companies' applications and mobile devices.

Its software includes the Aether Intelligent Messaging (AIM) and
ScoutWare products, while its network operations center manages data
delivery for wireless companies.


AIR TRANSAT: Lawsuit for Emotional Trauma Will Win Small Payment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Class-action litigation -- arising out of the forced landing made by an
Air Transat flight in the Azores on August 24th -- is not likely to
produce a windfall for the passengers.

Nonetheless, the lawsuit could prove financially painful for the
Canadian airline, according to a report recently appearing in The Globe
and Mail.

Personal-injury specialists say that damages arising from psychological
traumas rarely translate into the sort of "windfall" settlements seen
in cases involving physical injuries.

"They [the passengers] may find themselves very disappointed with any
damages the court may assess for psychological harm," said Howard Kohn,
a lawyer with the Toronto firm of Forbes Chochla.

The damages tend to vary greatly, said Mr. Kohn, depending on whether
individual passengers can show that they suffered long-term trauma,
such as not being able to continue working.

Punitive damages, awarded to punish, could, on the other hand, range
higher and would hit Air Transat directly in the pocketbook, said Mr.
Kohn.

He explained:  Since punitive damages are rooted in negligence or bad
behavior, it is the only category of award for which insurers virtually
never offer coverage.

While damages for personal injuries are not likely to exceed tens of
thousands of dollars, the amount of a punitive award is very much up in
the air; courts have been making efforts to keep punitive awards down,
said Mr. Kohn.

"Litigators are holding their breath right now, awaiting a Supreme
Court of Canada decision [Whiten v. Pilot Insurance] that could either
broaden or shrink punitive awards, said Mr. Kohn.

The previous record for punitive damages was $15,000. The ruling in
Whiten will determine whether an Ontario jury ought to have exploded
previous records for punitive damages by awarding $1 million in a
recent case.

An important component when assessing punitive damages, says Joel
Rochon, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the Air
Transat case, is the defendant's financial health.

He observed that, with sales revenues of $1.9 billion, the corporation
that owns Air Transat "has very deep pockets."

Turning to some general comments about the Air Transat case, University
of Toronto law professor Ed Morgan said that whether the lawsuit ever
gets to trial is a major question mark; usually, the main fight is over
who does or doesn't belong in the class.

"I don't think any class action has been tried all the way to a verdict
in Ontario yet," said Professor Morgan.

Meanwhile, Joel Rochon said that dozens of the passengers aboard the
jetliner when it coasted to an emergency landing have joined the
lawsuit.


AIRLINE LITIGATION: Suit Seeks to Ban Pesticide Spraying in Planes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Airlines face a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago
challenging the practice of spraying pesticides in airliners.

Passenger complaints range from dizziness and skin rashes to more
serious conditions like tremors and breathing problems.

Sharon Dorazio, one of the complainants, allegedly developed severe
nausea and headaches.  A flight attendant asserts she became unable to
work at age 32 after 6 years of flying in planes treated with
pesticides.

The World Health Organization says the pesticides used are safe

Most countries do not require airlines to treat their planes with
pesticide, but Australia, New Zealand, India and a few smaller
countries, such as Jamaica, still do.

United Airlines flies to the three largest countries that mandate
aircraft spraying - Australia, India and New Zealand, and is getting
the most attention.

United Airlines spokeswoman, Chris Nardella states that United sprays
because".we're required to" and would prefer not to do it as a company.

Other airline officials say the pesticides might be bothersome to a few
people but do not cause long-term health damage.


APRIA HEALTHCARE: Kirby McInerney Initiates Securities Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP has commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all purchasers of Apria Healthcare
Group common stock between March 22, 2001 and July 16, 2001.

The complaint charges Apria Healthcare Group as well as Apria's Chief
Executive Officer, with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from defendants' false and
misleading statements regarding the extent of Apria's potential
liability from certain billing practices.

The complaint alleges that Apria's shares traded at prices that were
artificially inflated by defendants' failure to disclose the potential
costs of such liability.

After Apria admitted the degree of its potential liability on July 16,
2001, Apria's stock price fell 16% in one day to close at $24.08 per
share.
For more information, contact Ira M. Press or Orie Braun by Mail: 830
Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York  10022 by Phone:  (212)
317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 (toll-free) by E-mail: obraun@kmslaw.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.kmslaw.com.


BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Sued by Employees For Unpaid Overtime in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Video rental chain giant Blockbuster, Inc. faces a class action law
suit filed in the United States District Court in Orange County,
California.

On May 7, 1999, Lynn Adams, Khristine Schoggins, and Debbie Lenke filed
the suit on behalf of themselves and for certain Blockbuster store
managers who worked in California.

The plaintiffs claim that they should be classified as non-exempt and
are thus owed overtime payments under California law.

The dollar amount that plaintiffs seek as damages to themselves and
those similarly situated was not set forth in the complaint.

In January this year, the trial court judge certified a class.

The Company promptly filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the
California Court of Appeals, which was denied.

The Supreme Court of California denied Blockbuster's petition for
review last August.

Blockbuster believes the plaintiffs' position is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation.

Blockbuster is the world's largest video rental chain, with about 7,800
company-owned or franchised stores in 28 countries.

The company rents more than 1 billion videos, DVDs, and video games at
its Blockbuster Video outlets each year.


CANNON BEACH: Disabled Get Access at Oregon Resort Town in Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel in Portland recently has approved
a settlement in a class-action filed by seven disabled people who rely
on either motorized scooters or wheelchairs but found only limited
access in the popular coastal resort town of Cannon Beach, according to
a recent Associated Press report.

The lawsuit accused the city and businesses of violating the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

The plaintiffs sought no monetary damages but pressed both the city and
businesses to comply with federal law.

The city has agreed to create beach access to the sand for those in
wheelchairs; improve existing sidewalks and build sidewalks where none
exist.

Access to city parks will be improved, as well as access to the city's
main landmark, Haystack Rock.

The settlement does not require the city to to admit it violated the
law, but does require the city to agree to complete most of the
improvements within two to three years.

"The difference at Cannon Beach will be dramatic," said Dennis
Steinman, a Portland attorney who represents the plaintiffs.  City
Manager Helen Westbrook said the new projects would benefit everyone,
not just the disabled.

Westbrook estimated that the city already has spent $155,000 on
accessibility projects and figures it will cost another $900,000 to
complete the improvements outlined in the settlement.


CHINADOTCOM INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Starts Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action
lawsuit was commenced on behalf all persons who acquired Chinadotcom
Corp. (NASDAQ: CHINA) securities between July 12, 1999 to December 6,
2000.

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

Named as defendants in the complaint are Chinadotcom and certain of its
executive officers.

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

     (1) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

     (2) Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.,

     (3) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., and

     (4) Merrill Lynch, Peirce Fenner & Smith Inc.

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

The Prospectus was issued in connection with Chinadotcom's initial
public offering of 4,200,000 shares of common stock at $20.00 per share
that was completed on or about July 12, 1999.

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

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

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

The SEC is investigating underwriting practices in connection with
several other initial public offerings, including the offerings of VA
Linux Systems, Inc., Ariba Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th Street,
New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-
mail: CHINA@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com


CITIGROUP INC.: Cohen Milstein Initiates Privacy Suit in Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfield and Toll, PLLC commenced a class action
lawsuit in Maricopa County, Arizona, alleging that Citibank (South
Dakota), N.A. and Citigroup, Inc. (NYSE:C) unlawfully disclosed to
telemarketers and vendors private financial information about their
accounts.

The class action complaint alleges that due to Citibank and Citigroup's
wrongful disclosure of their credit cardholders' account information,
telemarketers have received cardholders' private financial account
information and security account access information which allows
telemarketers to charge credit cardholders' accounts without their
authorization.

The complaint charges Citibank and Citigroup with breach of contract,
violations of South Dakota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act and
violations of the common law duty of banking confidentiality.

The complaint seeks an order enjoining Citibank and Citigroup from
disclosing cardholders' account information and awarding compensatory
damages to class members.

For more information, contact Keelyn M. Friesen of Cohen, Milstein,
Hausfeld & Toll's Seattle office by Phone: 888/240-1238 or 206/521-0080
or by E-mail: kfriesen@cmht.com.


CLARENT CORPORATION: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suits in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarent Corporation denied the allegations in a number of securities
class action suits pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
stated its intent to defend the matter vigorously, as they believe they
had meritorious defense to the allegations.

The suits were filed beginning July 12, 2001 against against the
company, several of their officers and directors, and certain
underwriters of their initial public offering.

These essentially identical complaints were filed on behalf of those
who purchased common stock between July 1, 1999, the date of their
initial public offering, and December 6, 2000 or July 2, 2001.

The plaintiffs allege that their prospectus, incorporated in the
Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, was materially false and misleading.

The suit asserts that the prospectus failed to disclose, among other
things, that certain underwriters:

     (1) allegedly required several investors who wanted large
         allocations of public offering securities to pay undisclosed
         and excessive underwriters' compensation in the form of
         increased brokerage commissions and

     (2) allegedly required investors to agree to buy shares of their
         securities after the public offering was completed at
         predetermined prices as a precondition to obtaining public
         offering allocations.

As a result of the alleged omissions in their prospectus, the
plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 11, 15 and 20 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company anticipates that these cases will be consolidated into a
single class action.


E-STAMP CORPORATION: Customer Files Breach of Contract Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E-Stamp Corporation faces a consumer class action suit filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings last March
16,2001.

Joseph Pavel, a prior customer of E-Stamp, filed the suit which alleges
that the Company breached its contracts with the plaintiff and other
customers in connection with the sale of Internet postage products.

By agreement of the parties, the plaintiff dismissed the New York
action and refiled in Santa Clara County late last May.

The Company filed its answer to the complaint on June 18, 2001 and is
currently investigating the claims against it

The Company also stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that it intends to vigorously defend this action.

The Company was the first to receive government approval to offer
online postage.

However, they phased out its Internet postage service to focus on
software for back-end logistics processes such as transportation and
warehouse management.


EQUINIX INC.: Sued by Stockholders for Securities Fraud in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Equinix, Inc. faces putative securities class action suits filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York last
July and August.

The suits named as defendants the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and several investment banks that were underwriters of their
initial public offering.

The cases were filed on behalf of investors who purchased company stock
between August 10, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

The suits allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate
stock in the initial public offering to certain investors in exchange
for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those
investors to make additional purchases in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.

Plaintiffs allege that the Prospectus for our initial public offering
was false and misleading and in violation of the securities laws
because it did not disclose these arrangements.

Equinix believes that additional similar complaints may be filed and
says that it would vigorously defend these actions.


HANDSPRING CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Handspring, Inc.
(NASDAQ:HAND) between June 21, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending against defendants Handspring, Credit Suisse
First Boston Corporation and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated.

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

On or about June 21, 2000, Handspring commenced an initial public
offering of 10,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $20 per share.

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

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

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

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

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

For further details, 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.


HARRIS TEETER: Sued by Former Employees for Racial Bias in Atlanta
------------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Teeter Inc. faces a racial discrimination suit filed by nine
African-Americans who are current or former employees of Harris Teeter
Inc. in an Atlanta federal court.

They are seeking class-action status for the suit, which also names
Harris Teeter parent corporation, Ruddick Corp, as defendant.

Seven plaintiffs contend that Harris Teeter discriminated against them,
blocking promotions and fostering a hostile work environment.

The suit further alleges that Harris Teeter is responsible for:

     (1) Preventing African-Americans from learning about or competing
         for jobs traditionally held by white employees,

     (2) Discouraging African-Americans from applying for jobs, seeking
         promotions and seeking transfers into jobs traditionally held
         by white employees,

     (3) Subjecting African-Americans to disparate disciplinary  \
         policies, practices and procedures.

The suit includes examples of alleged discrimination against each
plaintiff.

In one instance, plaintiff Levern Dicker, a meat department worker at a
Harris Teeter in Florence, S.C., from 1988 to 2000, contends his
manager wrongfully accused him of stealing and used a racial slur.

In another, plaintiff Michael Kane, employed as a co-manager at a
Harris Teeter in Atlanta, alleges that a white male manager persists in
calling African-American males "homeboys."

In Charlotte, plaintiff Robin McKinney, who was employed at Harris
Teeter from 1997 to 2000, contends the store paid African-Americans
less than whites and that whites were promoted in jobs over African-
Americans. She was fired last September, the suit states.

U.S. District Court Judge Julie Carnes has yet to approve the motion
for class certification

Timothy Fleming, an attorney with Gordon, Silberman, Wiggins & Childs,
counsel for the plaintiffs says he's concerned about gaining class-
action status.

This was because a rule in the Atlanta federal court doesn't allow a
plaintiff's attorney to communicate with potential class members unless
they call first.

In a July 30 order, the judge set a four-month discovery track for the
case and said the class status (should she deny the motion) may be
revisited at the end of discovery.

Haynesworth Baldwin Johnson & Greaves is representing Harris Teeter.
Attorneys there couldn't be reached.

Jessica Graham, spokeswoman for Harris Teeter, said they would
vociferously defend their polices.

"We're disappointed that a lawsuit has been filed against Harris Teeter
because our internal policies absolutely prohibit discrimination of any
kind against any associate," says Jessica Graham, Harris Teeter
spokeswoman.

Last month, Mecklenburg County jurors rejected a racial bias claim
lodged against Harris Teeter by a Charlotte women who contended that
grocery store managers illegally detained her for shoplifting because
she was black.

Harris Teeter operates about 155 supermarkets in six southeastern
states, mostly in North Carolina.

Most of the markets feature niceties such as sushi bars, gourmet delis,
and cafes.


HORSESHOE GAMING: Intervenes in Tax Suit in Bossier City LA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Horseshoe Gaming Holdings, Inc. seeks to intervene in a suit filed in
a Louisiana State Court against the Municipality of Bossier City,
Louisiana.

In the suit, plaintiffs James Wellborn and Charles J. Nickel filed a
asked the Court to:

     (1) order the City to collect a $3.00 per person boarding fee from
         Horseshoe Entertainment;

     (2) invalidate a contract fixing the amount paid by Horseshoe
         Entertainment to Bossier City as opposed to a per person
         boarding fee; and

     (3) certify the suit as a class action on behalf of all citizens
         and tax payers of Bossier Parish.

The Company was not named in the suit but sought to intervene to
protect its own interest.

The company owns a Horseshoe Casino and Hotel in Bossier City,
Louisiana, as well as one in Tunica, Mississippi.

The Company believes the suit is without merit and will vigorously
defend the validity of the contract with Bossier City.


KEYSPAN CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Initiates Suit in E.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP has commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of KeySpan Corp.
(NYSE: KSE) stock during the period from April 26, 2001 through July
17, 2001.

The action charges KeySpan, as well as certain of its senior officers
and directors, with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

As the complaint alleges, the violations stem from defendants' failure
to disclose what they in fact knew, namely:

     (1) that serious and material "accounting inaccuracies" had been
         discovered at a KeySpan subsidiary; and

     (2) that as a result of the need to correct the inaccuracies,
         KeySpan would need to incur a substantial charge against
         earnings.

On July 17, 2001, defendants revealed to the public that "accounting
inaccuracies" existed and that they were of such a magnitude that, in
order to correct them, KeySpan would incur a $30 million charge,
turning what would have been a second quarter profit into a second
quarter loss.

KeySpan's stock fell in response to this news to close at $32 per
share.

Shortly prior to making this public revelation, however, numerous
KeySpan officers and directors - named as defendants in the complaint -
received millions of dollars from the insider selling of their KeySpan
shares at prices artificially inflated by their failure to disclose
material information.

The lawsuit seeks to recover losses suffered by individual and
institutional investors who purchased Keyspan's shares during the class
period, excluding defendants and their affiliates.

For more information, contact Ira M. Press by Mail: 830 Third Avenue -
10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 212-317-2300 or 888-529-
4787 (toll-free) or visit the firm's Website: www.kmslaw.com


LENDINGTREE, INC.: Enters Settlement in California Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Lendingtree, Inc. settled a class action suit filed on September 7,
2000 in California Superior Court in Contra Costa, California.

The Company revealed in a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the case was settled for a nominal amount that will not
materially affect their financial condition.

The other defendants named in the action are:

     (1) Ohio Savings Bank,

     (2) Costco Wholesale Corp.,

     (3) Costco Financial Services Inc.,

     (4) First American Title Insurance Company, and

     (5) First American Lenders Advantage.

This case challenges the legality of the payment of premium spreads to
HomeSpace Services, Inc. through an affinity lending program with co-
defendants Costco Wholesale and Ohio Savings Bank.

The Company acquired certain assets of HomeSpace through an asset
purchase early August 2000.

Plaintiffs also asserted that the Company was paid yield spread
premiums as part of the Costco relationship, and sought to enjoin their
receipt of such payments and to require certain additional disclosures
and consents from borrowers.

The company vehemently denied these allegations.

LendingTree also vigorously defended against the lawsuit on the grounds
that it is not liable for the actions of HomeSpace by virtue of their
purchase of certain of its assets.

The Company said they settled the case because of the costs and
uncertainties of protracted litigation and that they have not admitted
any wrong-doing or liability of any kind.

Plaintiffs have filed a Request for Dismissal as to LendingTree that
the Company expects will be entered by the court shortly.

LendingTree, Inc. is an online loan market which provides mortgages,
credit cards, or home equity, auto, or personal loans.


LITTLE SWITZERLAND: Enters Agreement to Settle Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Little Switzerland, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding
with the plaintiffs in a class action suit filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware

The memorandum of understanding sets forth an agreement in principle of
the terms of settlement, under which:

     (1) none of the defendants have admitted any wrongdoing,

     (2) if the terms of settlement described in the memorandum are
         approved by the court and holders of a certain agreed upon
         number of shares held by the class do not opt out of the
         proposed settlement, the case will be dismissed.

The settlement amount is estimated at $1.0 million and will be paid
from the proceeds of existing insurance coverage.

However, there can be no assurance that the case will be settled as
contemplated by the memorandum

The original complaint was filed against the Company, certain of its
former officers and directors, Destination Retail Holdings Corporation
(DRHC) and Stephen G.E. Crane.

The original complaint alleged that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by failing to disclose that DRHC's financing commitment
to purchase the Company's shares expired on April 30, 1998, before the
Company's stockholders were scheduled to vote to approve the proposed
merger between the Company and DRHC at the May 8, 1998 special meeting
of stockholders.

The plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 10, 1999 and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint on
December 7, 1999.

On January 28, 2000, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
motion to dismiss.

In March 2001, the District Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with respect to certain allegations in the amended complaint
that the defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to
disclose the status of the Company's relationship with DRHC.

However, the District Court denied the motion to dismiss with
respect to the Financing Disclosure Allegations.

In addition, the District Court dismissed the claims against defendants
DRHC and Stephen G.E. Crane.


Little Switzerland, Inc. is a specialty retailer of luxury items
operating 18 distinctively-designed retail stores on five Caribbean
islands and Alaska.

The Company markets a wide selection of high-quality products including
jewelry, watches, crystal, china, gifts and accessories.

The Company is also the exclusive retailer of certain brand-name
products on some islands and in some areas of Alaska.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: New Jersey Court Approves Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey State Court certified a class in the April 1998 suit filed
against Lucent Technologies

The suit alleges that Lucent improperly administered a coupon program
resulting from the settlement of a prior class action.

It further alleges that Lucent improperly limited the redemption of the
coupons from dealers by not allowing them to be combined with other
volume discount offers, thus limiting the market for the coupons.

The complaint alleges breach of contract, fraud and other claims.

The Company is vigorously defending this action.

However, in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
company said there can be no assurance that this case will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business operations.

The Company provides communication systems and software for
enterprises, including businesses, government agencies and other
organizations.

The Company offers a broad range of voice, converged voice and data,
customer relationship management, messaging, multi-service networking
and structured cabling products and services.


MARCONI PLC: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in W.D. PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a private
securities action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania requesting class action status.

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
Marconi, PLC American Deposit Receipts during the period from April 11,
2001 through and including July 4, 2001.

No class has yet been certified in the above action

For more information, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven by
Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite
2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by E-mail: pivenlaw1@erols.com or by
Phone: 410/986-0036.


MCAFEE CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of McAfee.com, Corp.
(NASDAQ:MCAF) between December 1, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending against defendants Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. and
FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.

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

On or about December 1, 1999, McAfee commenced an initial public
offering of 6,250,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $12 per share.

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

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

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

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

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

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


METLIFE, INC.: Subsidiary Named in Automobile Claims Suits in RI and FL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Metlife, Inc. subsidiary faces multiple class action suits involving
automobile claims in Rhode Island and Florida.

Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company was named in the
Rhode Island class action suit which asserts claims by policyholders
for the alleged diminished value of automobiles after accident-related
repairs.

The trial court recently denied a motion by Metropolitan Property and
Casualty Insurance Company for summary judgment.

However, in a more significant ruling, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class.

No appeal is expected.

A similar class action suit was against Metropolitan Property and
Casualty Insurance Company's subsidiary, Metropolitan Casualty
Insurance Company, in Florida.

The suit was filed by a policyholder alleging breach of contract and
unfair trade practices with respect to allowing the use of parts not
made by the original manufacturer to repair damaged automobiles.

Discovery is ongoing and a motion for class certification is pending.

The Company intends to defend themselves vigorously against these
suits.

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
said that many similar suits have been filed against many other
personal lines property and casualty insurers.

Metlife, Inc. and its subsidiaries are leading providers of insurance
and financial services to a broad section of individual and
institutional customers.

The Company offers life insurance, annuities and mutual funds to
individuals and group insurance, reinsurance and retirement and savings
products and services to corporations and other institutions.


NETRO CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Netro Corporation (NASDAQ:
NTRO) securities between August 18, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

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

Named as defendants in the complaint are the following underwriters of
Netro's initial public offering of common stock: Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated and FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.

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

The Prospectus was issued in connection with Netro's initial public
offering of 5,000,000 shares of common stock at $8.00 per share that
was commenced on or about August 18, 1999.

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

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

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

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Attorneys' Office
are investigating underwriting practices in connection with numerous
initial public offerings commenced in 1999 and 2000.

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


NETWORK PLUS: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Network Plus Corp. (NASDAQ:
NPLS) securities between June 30, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

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

Named as defendants in the complaint are Network Plus and the following
executive officers and directors of Network Plus: Robert T. Hale, Jr.,
James J. Crowley, and George Alex.

The complaint also names as defendants the following underwriters of
Network Plus' initial public offering:

     (1) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (2) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,

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

     (4) Lehman Brothers, Inc., and

     (5) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

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

The Prospectus was issued in connection with Network Plus' initial
public offering of 8,000,000 shares of common stock at $16.00 per share
that was completed on or about June 30, 1999.

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

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

The SEC is investigating underwriting practices in connection with
several other initial public offerings, including the offerings of VA
Linux Systems, Inc., Ariba Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc.

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


ONYX SOFTWARE: Rosen Law Firm Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. WA
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm announced today that it commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of purchasers of Onyx Software Corporation
(Nasdaq:ONXS)publicly traded securities during the period between
January 10, 2001 and July 24, 2001, inclusive, including those who
purchased stock pursuant to Onyx's secondary stock offering in February
2001.

The complaint charges Onyx and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Federal securities laws.

Onyx is a supplier of customer relationship management enterprise
applications that are designed to connect a company's sales, marketing
and service organizations with customers, prospects and partners.

On January 19, 2001, Onyx announced the acquisition of Revenue Lab and,
after the close of the market, hosted a conference call to discuss the
acquisition and the Company's business and prospects.

Later, Onyx reported favorable, but false, financial results.

The complaint alleges that Onyx made misleading statements about its
business and issued false and misleading financial results, causing its
stock to be artificially inflated.

As a result of this inflation, Onyx was able to complete a secondary
offering of 2.5 million shares at $13.50 per share, raising net
proceeds of $31.5 million on February 7, 2001.

Then, on April 3, 2001, just weeks after this offering was completed,
Onyx revealed that its 1stQ01 results would be sharply lower than the
market had been led to expect with revenues of only $26-27 million and
a large loss.

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

Later, on August 10, 2001, after the market closed, defendants revealed
that Onyx's 4thQ00 results had been materially misstated and would have
to be restated.

After this announcement, Onyx's stock price dropped to as low as $3.70
on August 13, 2001 compared to the Class Period high of $17.25.

For more information, contact Laurence Rosen by Phone: 866-767-3653
(toll-free) by E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or visit the firm's
Website: www.rosenlegal.com


OPUS360 CORPORATION: Shareholders Sue for Securities Fraud in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Opus360 Corporation faces multiple securities suits filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, commencing
April 6, 2001.

The first suit were brought on behalf of a proposed class of all
persons who acquired securities of the Company between April 7, 2000
and December 6, 2000.

The suit named as defendants, the Company, eleven current and former
officers and directors of the Company, the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering and two shareholders who sold stock
in a secondary offering concurrent with the initial public offering.

The suit alleges that the plaintiff and members of the proposed class
were damaged when they acquired securities of the Company.

It further asserts that false and misleading information and material
omissions in the registration statement relating to the offering caused
the prices of the Company's securities to be inflated artificially.

The suit also alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.

Ten similar putative class actions following the first complaint have
also have been filed.

As in the first action, the complaints in the Additional Actions allege
false and misleading information and material omissions in the
registration statement relating to the Offering in purported violation
of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act.

The Company intends to vigorously oppose the action.


OPUS360 CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Drop Securities Suit in S. D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss without prejudice their claims in a
securities class action suit filed against Opus360 Corporation last
July 20,2001.

The suit was filed early June in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The complaint asserts claims against the Company, certain of its
present or former officers and directors, the Selling Shareholders and
the underwriters that managed the Company's April 2000 offering.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint is based on allegations that the various underwriter
defendants engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate and maintain the
market price of the Company's common stock and to cause the plaintiffs
to purchase the stock of those companies at artificially inflated
prices.

On or about July 20, 2001, both parties executed stipulations in which
the plaintiffs agreed to drop the defendants in suit and to dismiss
without prejudice the claims asserted in that action against each of
those defendants.

Those stipulations were so ordered by the Court on or about July 24,
2001.


PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES: Face Multiple Antitrust Suits in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical companies face two antitrust class action suits in
California, charging them with unfair business practices and violations
of the antitrust law.

Between August 3, 1993 and February 14, pharmaceutical industry-related
companies were named as defendants in eight separate state antitrust
actions in three courts in California.

In April 1994, these California state actions were coordinated and
assigned to a single judge in San Francisco Superior Court.

On August 22, 1994, a Consolidated Amended Complaint, which supersedes
and amends the eight prior complaints, was filed in these actions.

The California Complaint alleges that 36 pharmaceutical industry-
related companies violated California's Cartwright Act, Unfair
Practices Act, and the Business and Professions Code unfair competition
statute.

The California Complaint alleges the defendants jointly and separately
engaged in secret rebating, price fixing and price discrimination
between alleged competitors who sell pharmaceuticals to patients or
retail customers.

The judge struck the class allegations from the Unfair Practices Act
claims, and on June 26, 1995, granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of the consolidated actions.

On September 8, 1995, the court entered an order staying all
proceedings in the consolidated actions pending resolution of the
federal action.

On May 21, 2001, the Court granted the parties' request to decertify
the class and dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to a
settlement of all claims.

In addition, on November 13, 2000, 25 pharmaceutical manufacturers and
2 wholesalers were sued in Santa Clara Superior Court in the State of
California in an antitrust suit under California state law.

The complaint alleges essentially the same claims as those raised in
the first complaint on behalf of a group of retail pharmacies that
opted out of both the federal and state class actions.

The matter is currently stayed pending the first status conference to
be held on August 31, 2001.

No responsive pleading has been filed.


PLAINS PIPELINE: Enters $1.1 Million Settlement in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, Inc. reached a $1.1 million settlement
agreement in the securities class action suit filed against them in the
Delaware Chancery Court, New Castle County.

The suit was derived from an earlier class action suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which the
Company settled for $30 million early this year.

The suit alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties that
they owed to Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. and its unitholders by
failing to monitor properly the activities of its employees.

The plaintiffs sought the following:

     (1) account for all losses and damages allegedly sustained by
         Plains All American from the unauthorized trading losses;

     (2) establish and maintain effective internal controls ensuring
         that our affiliates and persons responsible for our affairs do
         not engage in wrongful practices detrimental to Plains All
         American;

     (3) pay for the plaintiffs' costs and expenses in the litigation,
         including reasonable attorneys' fees, accountants' fees and
         experts' fees; and

     (4) provide the plaintiffs any additional relief as may be just
         and proper under the circumstances.

On July 11, 2000, another derivative lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court of the Southern District of Texas naming Plains
All American Inc., its directors and certain of its officers as
defendants.

This lawsuit contains the same claims and seeks the same relief as the
Delaware derivative litigation.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on August 14, 2000.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims made in the Texas
derivative litigation.

They also believe that Delaware court approval of the settlement of the
Delaware derivative litigation will effectively preclude prosecution of
the Texas derivative litigation.


RAMBUS INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Rambus, Inc. (Nasdaq: RMBS)
securities between January 18, 2000 and May 19, 2001.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

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

     (1) Geoffrey R. Tate,

     (2) David Mooring,

     (3) Gary G. Harmon,

     (4) Michael G. Horowitz,

     (5) Paul Michael Farmwald,

     (6) Bruce S. Dunlevie,

     (7) Edward H. Larson,

     (8) William Davidow.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of sections 10(b) and
20(a) 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 information that
materially misstated the Company's condition and prospects.

The complaint alleges that Rambus falsely promoted its patents and
technologies relating to SDRAM chips which enabled Rambus to collect
millions of dollars in royalties from the licensing of the SDRAM
technology to other companies.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading information and/or
failed to disclose material information with regard to the following:

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

    (ii) the validity and enforceability of Rambus' SDRAM patents; and

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

As a result of these misrepresentations, the price of Rambus common
stock was artificially inflated.

The individual defendants took advantage of the artificially inflated
price of the Company's stock to sell hundreds of thousands of their own
shares of Rambus stock for proceeds of over $125 million.

The truth was revealed to investors as a result of a lawsuit Rambus had
instituted against Infineon Technologies AG.

Rambus had sued Infineon for patent violations, claiming that Infineon
used SDRAM technology without paying a licensing fee to Rambus.

Infineon counterclaimed, alleging that the patents were invalid and
fraud based on Rambus' improper conduct in obtaining the patents.

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

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

For further information, contact Ms. Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-
1414 by E-mail: RMBS@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bernlieb.com


REMEC INC.: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suit in S.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Semiconductor device maker Remec, Inc. intends to vigorously defend
against the class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California last April 1999.

The suit was filed against REMEC, some of its officers and directors
and the investment banking firms that served as the representatives of
the underwriters of our public offering completed in February 1998.

The lawsuit was filed by the law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and
Lerach and others in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California as counsel for Charles Vezzetti and all others
similarly situated.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by us and the other defendants between December 1, 1997, and June 12,
1998.

Specifically, the complaint alleges:

     (1) that the Company made falsely positive statements which
         artificially inflated the price of their stock prior to a
         secondary offering completed in February 1998, in which the
         Company and some of its officers and directors sold stock, and

     (2) that Company's stock price fell on a series of adverse
         disclosures in late May and early June 1998.

Since the lawsuit was filed, the underwriters have been dismissed
without prejudice.

The Company believes the ultimate resolution will not have a material
adverse impact on our business or financial condition.

However, if the plaintiffs are successful in pursuing their claims
against the Company and its officers and directors, such a result could
have a significant negative impact on the Company's business and
financial condition.


RETEK INC.: To Vigorously Oppose Multiple Securities Suits in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Retek, Inc. said that it will vigorously oppose multiple securities
suits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, commencing July this year.

The complaints charge the Company with violations of Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with regard to their initial public
offering.

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

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

     (2) that certain of the underwriters' customers allegedly agreed
         to purchase additional shares of the our common stock in the
         aftermarket in return for an allocation of shares in the
         initial public offering.

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

These actions have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes into a
single action.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against these
actions.

Retek Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries develop application
software that provides complete information infrastructure solutions to
the global retail industry.

Our offerings include traditional merchandising capabilities such as
inventory management and purchasing; logistics capabilities including
warehouse and distribution management; enhanced supply chain solutions
such as forecasting, planning, and supply chain visibility; and
customer relationship and order management applications.


TERAFORCE TECHNOLOGY: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suit in N.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Teraforce Technology vowed to vigorously oppose a shareholders class
action lawsuit was filed on November 16, 1999 in the U. S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas

The suit, filed on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period between February 24, 1998 and
November 17, 1998, names as defendants the Company and certain former
and present officers and directors of the Company.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The suit alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's reported financial results during the period,
primarily relating to revenue recognition, asset impairment and
capitalization issues.

In March 2001, the Company's motion to dismiss the suit was denied and
preliminary discovery has begun in the case.

The court has set a preliminary date for trial of April 7, 2003.

                                  ********

    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  * * *