CAR_Public/010920.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, September 20, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 184


                              Headlines



AVANT CORPORATION: Settles N.D. CA Securities Suit For $47.5 Million
COMMONWEALTH LAND: Faces Suit For Unfair Business Practices in CA
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Sued By Consumer Advocates in Los Angeles CA
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Sued By Retailers In Colorado and Texas
ETOYS INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY

FREEMARKETS INC.: To Vigorously Oppose PA Securities Fraud Suits
FREEMARKETS INC.:Sued By Stockholders For Securities Fraud In S.D. NY
GAYLORD CHEMICAL: Louisiana Residents Sue After Factory Explosion
GLAXO SMITHKLINE: Faces Antidepressant Drug Suit in Los Angeles, CA
IXYS CORPORATION: Santa Clara Court Approves $900,000 Settlement

JAPAN: Los Angeles Court Upholds Suit Filed For WWII Forced Labor
LASER TECHNOLOGY: Settles CO Securities Suit For $1.325 Million
LEOWEN GROUP: Sued by Stockholders In Related Suits In PA And NY
MINIMED INC.: Court Denies Motion To Stay Trial Proceedings In C.D.LA
MINNESOTA: State Lawyers Deny Allegations In Supermax Prison Suit

MODEM MEDIA: Denies Allegations in Securities Suits Filed in S.D. NY
NEXT LEVEL: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suit in E.D. LA
PLM EQUIPMENT: Settles Two Suits in Alabama and California Courts
PMI GROUP: Enters $20 Million San Francisco Suit Settlement

PROLONG INTERNATIONAL: Talks Aimed At Settlement Of CA Securities Suit
PROLONG INTERNATIONAL: Faces Multiple Suits Due To Unproven Ad Claims
RACING CHAMPIONS:Sued By Stockholders For Securities Violations in IL
T NETIX: Faces Multiple Suits Over Collect Calls Made By Inmates
TALK AMERICA: Settles Securities Suit in Pennsylvania District Court

TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES: Consumer Suit For Fraud Filed in LA
TENNESSEE: Budget Cuts In Elderly Care Program Could Spawn Lawsuit
TEXT MESSAGING: Subscribers Ask Telecoms Commission To Stop Text Cuts
TIVO INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in CA



                              *********


AVANT CORPORATION: Settles N.D. CA Securities Suit For $47.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Software provider Avant Corporation paid $47.5 million this year to
settle a securities class action suit filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The District Court entered an order on June 22, 2001, that gave final
approval to the settlement and dismissed the litigation with prejudice

The first suit was filed on December 15, 1995 and alleged securities
laws violations, including omissions and misrepresentations of material
facts related to the claims in a civil lawsuit against the Company.

On May 30, 1997, a similar case was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's stock between March 29, 1996 and April 11, 1997.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Company and its officers misled the
market as to the likelihood of the criminal indictment and as to the
validity of the Cadence allegations.

The District Court subsequently certified these two securities class
actions, consolidated them for pretrial purposes, and stayed most
discovery and other proceedings pending resolution of the criminal
proceeding described above.

In March 2001, the Company reached agreement with counsel for the
plaintiff classes in both securities actions for a voluntary resolution
of the cases.

However, the Company still faces a shareholder derivative lawsuit on
behalf and for the benefit of the Company against the Company's board
of directors in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California.

The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement,
abuse of control, and waste of corporate assets by the current
directors of the Company in matters related to the civil lawsuit.

The Company has not yet responded to the complaint.


COMMONWEALTH LAND: Faces Suit For Unfair Business Practices in CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Commonwealth Land Title Company faces a class action suit filed on May
21, 2001 in the Superior Court of Los Angeles, California, Central
District.

The complaint, which names the Company and numerous other title
companies and lenders as defendants, purports to allege causes of
action for unfair competition and unfair business practices.

Although the complaint contains no specific allegations against
"Commonwealth Title", it generally alleges that the named defendants
improperly charged recordation and other fees.

Discovery been yet to be made and no trial date been set.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Sued By Consumer Advocates in Los Angeles CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cable TV operator Echostar Communications Corporation vehemently denied
any liability in a class action filed by David Pritikin and by Consumer
Advocates, a nonprofit unincorporated association.

The suit, filed in the California State Superior Court for Los Angeles
County, relates to the use of terms such as "crystal clear digital
video," "CD-quality audio," and "on-screen program guide".

The suit also makes claims with respect to the number of channels
available in various programming packages.

The complaint alleges breach of express warranty and violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Sections 1750, et.
seq., and the California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500,
17200.

EchoStar has filed an answer and the case is currently in discovery. No
motion for class certification has been filed to date.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Sued By Retailers In Colorado and Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Retailers named EchoStar Communications Corporation as defendants in
three separate purported class actions filed in Colorado and Texas,
with respect to retailing agreements with the Company.

Two separate lawsuits were filed in the District Court, Arapahoe
County, State of Colorado and the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado October last year.

The suit was filed on behalf of persons, primarily retail dealers, who
were alleged signatories to certain retailer agreements with EchoStar
Satellite Corporation.

The plaintiffs are requesting the Court:

     (1) declare certain provisions of the alleged agreements
         invalid and unenforceable,

     (2) declare that certain changes to the agreements are invalid
         and unenforceable, and

     (3) award damages for lost commissions and payments, charge
         backs, and other compensation.

The plaintiffs further charged the Company with breach of contract and
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Another lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas on September 25, 2000, on behalf of sellers,
installers, and servicers of satellite equipment who contract with
EchoStar.

The suit alleges that the class has been "subject to improper
chargebacks."

Specifically, the suit alleges that EchoStar:

     (i) charged back certain fees paid by members of the class to
         professional installers in violation of contractual terms;

    (ii) manipulated the accounts of subscribers to deny payments to
         class members; and

   (iii) misrepresented to class members who own certain equipment
         related to the provision of satellite television service.

Echostar Communications has asserted in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission that it will defend against these actions
vigorously.


ETOYS INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired eToys, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ETYSQ) securities between May 19, 1999 to May 26, 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 eToys and the following:

     (1) Edward C. Lenk,

     (2) Steven J. Schoch,

     (3) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

     (4) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and

     (5) Merrill Lynch, Peirce Fenner & Smith Incorporated

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 eToys's initial public
offering of 8,320,000 shares of common stock at $20.00 per share that
was completed on or about May 19, 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 eToys
         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 eToys shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices.

For more 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: ETYSQ@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bernlieb.com


FREEMARKETS INC.: To Vigorously Oppose PA Securities Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Online auctioneer Freemarkets, Inc. faces eleven securities class
action suits filed in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania federal court since
April 27, 2001.

The suits were filed against the Company and two executive officers.

The suits assert claims arising from the Company's April 2001
announcement that the Company was considering amending its 2000
financial statements for the purpose of reclassifying fees earned by
the Company under a service contract with Visteon Corporation.

The Company and the individual defendants believe that the plaintiffs'
allegations are completely without merit and they intend to defend
these claims vigorously.


FREEMARKETS INC.:Sued By Stockholders For Securities Fraud In S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Freemarkets, Inc. faces several securities fraud class action
complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York since July 30, 2001.

The complaints allege violations of the securities laws in connection
with the Company's December 1999 initial public offering.

The complaints allege that underwriters in the IPO received excessive
commissions and entered into unlawful agreements with certain of their
clients for the purpose of artificially inflating the price of the
Company's shares.

In three of the complaints, the Company and certain of its officers are
named as defendants, together with the underwriters that are the
subject of the plaintiffs' allegations.

The Company and the individual defendants have labeled the allegations
"without merit", and they intend to defend these claims vigorously.


GAYLORD CHEMICAL: Louisiana Residents Sue After Factory Explosion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gaylord Chemical Corporation faces numerous lawsuits relating to a rail
tank car explosion in their Louisiana plant.

On October 23, 1995, a rail tank car exploded on the premises of the
Bogalusa, Louisiana plant of Gaylord Chemical Corporation.

The accident resulted in the venting of certain chemicals, including
by-products of nitrogen tetroxide, a raw material used by the plant to
produce dimethyl sulfoxide, a solvent used in the manufacture of
pharmaceutical and agricultural chemicals.

More than 160 lawsuits have been filed in both federal and state courts
naming as defendants Gaylord Chemical Corporation and parent company
Gaylord Container Corporation, certain respective officers and other
unrelated corporations and individuals.

On April 1, 1996, the federal judge dismissed all but one of the
federal actions for failing to state claims under federal law.

He also remanded the remaining state law claims to the district court
in Washington Parish, Louisiana, where they have been consolidated.

Discovery in the remaining federal action, a suit to recover
alleged clean-up costs, was ordered coordinated with the Louisiana
State action.

Under an agreed Case Management Order, all actions in Louisiana arising
out of the October 23, 1995, accident were consolidated in the Twenty-
Third Judicial district in Washington Parish, Louisiana.

Plaintiffs then filed a single Consolidated Master Petition (CMP)
against Gaylord Chemical Corporation, the Company and twenty-one other
defendants.

The CMP, as amended, asserts substantially all of the claims and
theories made in prior lawsuits, including negligence, strict liability
and other statutory liability.

No officers or directors of Gaylord Chemical Corporation or the Company
are named defendants in the CMP, as amended.

The status of all lawsuits pending before the filing of the CMP, some
of which name officers of Gaylord Chemical Corporation and the
Company, will be determined by the trial court after class
certification issues are finally resolved.

In November 1997, a class, consisting of allegedly injured parties in
the City of Bogalusa and portions of Washington Parish, Louisiana, and
parts of Marion, Walthall and Pike counties in Mississippi, was
certified.

The trial court did not certify a single, mandatory class for punitive
damages.

The trial court required all persons who claim exposure within the
class boundaries to complete and file proofs by June 21, 2000.

By that deadline, 16,592 persons filed proof of claim forms while 3,978
persons "opted out" of the Louisiana class proceeding.

On July 21, 2000, 18 initial trial plaintiffs were selected at random
from the class claimants based on their claimed locations of exposure.

The claims of these 18 are scheduled for trial in June 2002.

The Company and Gaylord Chemical are vigorously contesting all claims
arising from the October 23, 1995, explosion.


GLAXO SMITHKLINE: Faces Antidepressant Drug Suit in Los Angeles, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glaxo Smithkline faced another lawsuit seeking class action status
regarding the anti-depressant Paxil.

Two women filed the suit in the United States District Court of Los
Angeles alleging that the drug is addictive and GlaxoSmithKline failed
to warn users of serious side effects suffered after discontinuing its
use.

The suit further alleges the Company used false and misleading
techniques to hide the possibility of addiction.

Court documents also allege the company has "known for years" that the
drug is prone to causing withdrawal reactions, but because it
suppressed that information many physicians mistakenly believe the
symptoms are due to a relapse and sometimes increase the drug's dosage.

The suit also asks the court to create a court-supervised fund to
provide medical services to assure that class members receive prompt
and proper diagnosis and treatment.

The federal suit comes three weeks after a similar lawsuit was filed in
Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of 35 people seeking unspecified
damages.

Representatives at the British-based company's U.S. headquarters in
Philadelphia could not immediately be reached for comment late Monday.


IXYS CORPORATION: Santa Clara Court Approves $900,000 Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Clara County Superior Court approved the $900,000 settlement
agreement between IXYS Corporation and plaintiffs resulting from a
1996 securities class action suit.

The suit was filed against Paradigm Technology, a Delaware corporation
that designed computer SRAM products, with whom the Company merged in
September 1998 in a transaction accounted for as a reverse merger.

The suit also named as defendants Robert McClelland, Richard A.
Veldhouse and Chiang Lam, former officers of Paradigm.

The suit was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased IXYS' common
stock between November 20, 1995 and March 22, 1996, prior to the
Paradigm merger.

The complaint asserted violations of California Corporations Code
sections 25400 and 25500.

On February 9, 1998 the Santa Clara County Court certified a class
consisting only of California purchasers of IXYS' stock during November
20, 1998 and March 22,1996.

Plaintiffs then moved to modify the prior class certification ruling to
include also non-California purchasers and the court granted this
motion on April 28, 1999.

On September 20, 2000, IXYS' counsel and counsel for the plaintiffs
reached a tentative agreement to settle the class action lawsuit.

The court preliminarily approved the settlement on February 20, 2001
and directed Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action and
Settlement Hearing Date for Final Approval of Settlement.

There were no objections to the settlement and only one individual
opted out of the settlement.

The court gave its final approval on July 2, 2001 and the individual
defendants were dismissed with prejudice.

IXYS Corporation makes power semiconductors (including transistors and
rectifiers) and power modules, which convert and control electric power
in electronic devices. IXYS also sells static random-access memories
for use in commercial, industrial, and military applications.


JAPAN: Los Angeles Court Upholds Suit Filed For WWII Forced Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Lichtman refused to dismiss a
class action filed by a 79-year-old man who was allegedly forced to
work for a Japanese company during the Second World War

Lawyers for the plaintiff Jae Won Jeong called the decision a
"historic" victory, saying that the case could become the first of its
kind to go to trial.

Jeong, who is now a U.S. citizen, was a Korean student attending Hosei
University in Tokyo during World War Two when he was imprisoned for
refusing to join the military.

``The wall of defenses put up by the Japanese companies has led to a
situation where litigation has been stymied until today,'' plaintiffs
lawyer Barry Fisher said at a press conference. ``This decision cracks
that wall.''

An attorney for the Taiheyo Cement Corp however said that the decision
was not a very exacting measure and that its significance was just
being exaggerated by the plaintiffs.

Jeong, who sued Taiheiyo and its U.S. units for unjust enrichment and
unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices, seeks to have the
lawsuit certified a class action to represent others who were subjected
to slave labor.

Taiheiyo urged Lichtman to dismiss the lawsuit on grounds that earlier
governmental accords dealt with slave labor claims and that the case
properly belonged in federal court.

But Lichtman disagreed, writing in his 18-page ruling that ''no prior
decision of any political branch has approved of the defendants'
actions nor has any treaty negotiated and ratified by the United States
addressed the claims of the plaintiff.''


LASER TECHNOLOGY: Settles CO Securities Suit For $1.325 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laser Technology, Inc. settled a securities class action suit filed
last February 1999 in the United States District Court, District of
Colorado for $1.325 million in cash and in shares of stock.

The Court approved the settlement, ordering the Company to issue
475,000 shares of its common stock and ordered payment of $850,000 in
the settlement of the action.

The Court also released the defendants from all claims mentioned in the
suit.

The suit alleged that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws, particularly Sections 10(b)
and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the Company's financial
statements were false and misleading during the "class period"
(February 12, 1996 to December 23, 1998) and that the Company made
certain false or misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial statements during this period.

The Company believes the action was premised in part on the resignation
of the Company's independent accountant, BDO Seidman, LLP on December
21, 1998, and the resignation of the members of the Audit Committee of
the Board of Directors on January 7, 1999.

Following the announcement of the resignation of BDO and withdrawal of
five years of audited financial statements, the American Stock Exchange
suspended trading in the Company's shares on December 23, 1998.

Trading was resumed on March 22, 1999.

In its complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the resignation of BDO and
the three directors was due to the Company's alleged unreliable and
misleading financial statements.

Plaintiff's complaint further alleged violations of Section 10(b) of
the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Five additional securities class actions and one stockholder's
derivative suit were filed against the Company and certain of its
former and present officers and directors.

All cases were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado and were consolidated.


LEOWEN GROUP: Sued by Stockholders In Related Suits In PA And NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leowen Group, Inc. faces various related lawsuits filed in the United
States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and for
the Eastern District of New York since December 1998.

Raymond L. Loewen, the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and
certain current and former officers and directors have been named as
defendants in some of the suits.

All but one of these lawsuits were filed as purported class actions on
behalf of persons or entities that purchased Company Common shares
during five different time periods ranging from November 3, 1996
through January 14, 1999.

The complaints generally make allegations concerning the Company's
internal controls, accounting practices, financial disclosures and
acquisition practices.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Loewen
Defendants' motion to consolidate all of the actions for pre-trial
coordination in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

On April 15, 1999, the Pennsylvania District Court consolidated in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, all of the cases then filed, as well
as any related cases thereafter transferred to that District.

The court appointed the City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and
Retirement as lead plaintiff.

The court then entered an order staying all of the cases and placing
them on the suspense docket.

January 18, 2001, plaintiffs filed a motion to remove the case from the
Docket, in which they said that they intend to pursue claims against
current defendants and against other former officers and/or directors
who are not currently defendants.

The Court has denied the motion.


MINIMED INC.: Court Denies Motion To Stay Trial Proceedings In C.D.LA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
California District Court Judge Andrew J. Mohr denied MiniMed, Inc.'s
motion to stay proceedings in a class action suit arising from the
Company's pending merger with surgical device maker Medtronic, Inc.

The case, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles, Central District, is one of two class
actions commenced in connection with the merger, the other case pending
in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The Company's motion for a stay, if granted, would halt case
proceedings in favor of the Delaware proceedings.

The attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case have indicated their
intent to seek preliminary injunctive relief preventing the
consummation of the merger.

Minimed, Inc. specializes in making products for the treatment of
diabetes.


MINNESOTA: State Lawyers Deny Allegations In Supermax Prison Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
State lawyers denied allegations in a class action lawsuit alleging
that seven inmates at the state's Supermax prison are not receiving
adequate psychiatric care.

In documents presented Monday, state lawyers said that inmates are
carefully screened to make sure their transfer to prison does not
affect their health.

The suit alleges inmates in the prison were treated cruelly and asked
U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb to transfer the seven inmates to
mental hospitals .

Psychiatrist Terry Kupers concluded mentally ill prisoners at Supermax
were prone to suicide and irreparable emotional damage after touring
the prison and conducting in-depth interviews.

State lawyers assert that mentally ill inmates receive adequate
psychiatric care and are continually monitored for mental health
changes.

"In a lot of ways, Supermax is better for some of these inmates because
of the broad nature of their needs,'' department spokesman Bill
Clausius said.

Supermax is a $43 million high-security prison that currently houses
about 300 of the state's most violent inmates.


MODEM MEDIA: Denies Allegations in Securities Suits Filed in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Modem Media, Inc. vehemently denied the allegations in several
securities class actions filed in August, 2001 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that it will vigorously defend against the suits.

The suits were filed against the Company and:

     (1) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.,

     (2) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,

     (3) G.M. O'Connell, the Company's Chairman, and

     (4) Steven C. Roberts, the Company's former Chief Financial
         Officer.

The complaints similarly allege that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws in the Company's February 1999 initial public
offering.

The suits further allege the company failed to disclose that the
underwriters in the offering solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from investors.

These agreements allowed investors to purchase an additional number of
the Company's common shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices.


NEXT LEVEL: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Next Level
Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: NXTV) securities between November 9, 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 Next Level and:

     (1) Peter W. Keeler,

     (2) James T. Wandrey,

     (3) Richard C. Smith,

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, and

     (5) Merrill Lynch & Co.

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 Next Level's initial
public offering of 7.8 million shares of common stock at $20.00 per
share that was completed on or about November 9, 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 Next
         Level 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 Next Level shares in the
         after- market at pre-determined prices.

For more 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: NXTV@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bernlieb.com


ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suit in E.D. LA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc. vowed to vigorously oppose a
consolidated securities class action suit charging them with violations
of federal securities laws.

The first of these actions was filed on April 9, 2001 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Three similar actions were also filed in the same venue May and June of
this year.

The suits named as defendants:

     (1) Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc.

     (2) Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Sr., the Company's Chairman of the
         Board, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (3) Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Jr., the Company's Chief Financial
         Officer, and

     (4) Dr. Gasper Lazzara, Jr., the Company's former Chairman of the
         Board.

Each of these actions purports to be filed as a class action on behalf
of the plaintiff and other purchasers of shares of the Company's common
stock from April 27, 2000 through March 15, 2001.

In each of these complaints, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.

The defendants allegedly recognized revenue in violation of generally
accepted accounting principles and SEC disclosure requirements and made
false and misleading statements about the Company's financial
condition.

On June 27, 2001, the court entered an order consolidating these
actions and established a preliminary pretrial schedule for appointment
of lead plaintiffs and counsel, filing of a consolidated amended
complaint and filing and briefing of a motion to dismiss.

A motion to appoint lead plaintiffs is currently under submission.

The Company believes that these actions lack merit, and denies the
plaintiffs' allegations.

Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc. provides practice management
services for orthodontic centers around the country.


PLM EQUIPMENT: Settles Two Suits in Alabama and California Courts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PLM International settled two class action suits pending in Alabama
Federal Court and California State Court.

The first suit was filed in January 1997 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division against
the Company and various of its wholly owned subsidiaries.

The named plaintiffs are six individuals who invested in the PLM
Equipment Growth Fund IV, PLM Equipment Growth Fund V, PLM Equipment
Growth Fund VI, and PLM Equipment Growth & Income Fund VII.

Each of the above funds is a California limited partnership for which
the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, PLM Financial Services, Inc.
(FSI), acts as the General Partner.

The complaint asserts causes of action against all defendants for:

     (1) fraud and deceit,

     (2) suppression,

     (3) negligent misrepresentation,

     (4) negligent and intentional breaches of fiduciary duty,

     (5) unjust enrichment,

     (6) conversion, and

     (7) conspiracy.

Plaintiffs allege that each defendant owed plaintiffs and the class
certain duties due to their status as fiduciaries, financial advisors,
agents, and control persons.

Based on these duties, plaintiffs assert liability against defendants
for improper sales and marketing practices, mismanagement of the Funds,
and concealing such mismanagement from investors in the Funds.

In June 1997, the defendants in the first action were named as
defendants in another purported class action filed in the San Francisco
Superior Court, San Francisco, California.

The complaint alleges the same causes of action as in the first suit,
plus additional causes of action including alleged unfair and deceptive
practices and violations of state securities law.

In February 1999 the parties to both actions agreed to settle the
lawsuits, with no admission of liability by any defendant, and filed a
Stipulation of Settlement with the court.

The settlement is composed of two parts - monetary and equitable.

The monetary settlement provides for a settlement and release of all
claims against defendants in exchange for payment for the benefit of
the class of up to $6.6  million.

The Company will pay up to $0.3 million of the monetary settlement,
with the remainder being funded by an insurance policy.

For settlement purposes, the monetary settlement class consists of all
investors, limited partners, assignees, or unit holders who purchased
or received by way of transfer or assignment any units in the Funds
between May 23, 1989 and August 30, 2000.

The equitable settlement provides, among other things, for:

     (a) the extension (until January 1, 2007) of the date by which FSI
         must complete liquidation of the Funds' equipment,

     (b) the extension (until December 31, 2004) of the period during
         which FSI can reinvest the Funds' funds in additional
         equipment,

     (c) an increase of up to 20% in the amount of front-end fees
         (including  acquisition and lease negotiation fees) that FSI
         is entitled to earn in excess of the compensatory  limitations
         set forth in the North American Securities Administrator's
         Association's Statement of Policy;

     (d) a one-time repurchase by each of Fund V, Fund VI and Fund VII
         of up to 10% of that partnership's outstanding units for 80%
         of net asset value per unit;  and

     (e) the deferral of a portion of the management fees paid to an
         affiliate of FSI until, if ever, certain performance
         thresholds have been met by the Funds.

These proposed changes will be made as amendments to each Fund's
limited partnership agreement if less than 50% of the limited partners
of each Fund vote against such amendments.

The equitable settlement also provides for payment of additional
attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs' attorneys from Fund funds in the
event that certain performance thresholds have been met by the Funds.

The equitable settlement class consists of all investors, limited
partners, assignees or unit holders who on August 30, 2000 held any
units in Fund V, Fund VI, and Fund VII, and their assigns and
successors in interest.


PMI GROUP: Enters $20 Million San Francisco Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
PMI Group, Inc. entered a settlement with plaintiffs in a putative
class action filed in San Francisco District Court last December 1999.

The Company expects the settlement, which was approved in June of this
year, to amount to approximately $20 to $22 million.

Plaintiffs A. Craig Baynham and Linnie Baynham filed the suit in
relation to claimed violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act, or RESPA.

The Company has also agreed to participate in non-binding mediation
with their insurance carriers with respect to the amount of the
payments to be reimbursed to us.

The first session was completed without achieving settlement, and the
Company expects mediation sessions will be scheduled.

However, an appeal has been filed to overturn the District Court's
decision to not allow certain individuals to intervene in the case
prior to the entry of the final order.

The Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that if the appeal is successful, such individuals could
have standing to challenge the terms of the settlement and final order.


PROLONG INTERNATIONAL: Talks Aimed At Settlement Of CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prolong International Corporation is conducting settlement discussions
with plaintiffs in the securities class action arising from a licensing
agreement with oil company Energy Partners, Ltd (EPL).

Stockholders of EPL filed the suit in the United States District Court
in San Diego, California charging the Company with breach of contract,
fraud, civil RICO, breach of fiduciary duty and conversion.

The suit also named as defendants the Company's subsidiary Prolong
Super Lubricants, EPL and certain of their respective former and
current officers and directors.

The named plaintiffs in the action are allegedly current EPL
shareholders who hold less than two per cent (2%) of the outstanding
shares of EPL's common stock, in the aggregate.

The plaintiffs applied for a preliminary injunction to halt the sale of
the assets of EPL to PIC and to prevent the dissolution of EPL.

On November 25, 1998, the Court granted a temporary restraining order
without a hearing and before opposition could be submitted.

On December 30, 1998, the Court entered a preliminary injunction based
on the plaintiffs':

     (1) alleged claim for fraudulent conveyance in connection with
         PSL's license agreement with EPL and

     (2) alleged claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

The preliminary injunction enjoins the further consummation of the
asset purchase transaction and prevents EPL from completing its
liquidation and dissolution until further notice from the Court.

The preliminary injunction will last until the case is tried on its
merits or until the preliminary injunction is otherwise dismissed.

PIC appealed the Court's preliminary injunction ruling, which appeal
was subsequently denied.

The Prolong defendants successfully moved to change venue and the case
was ordered transferred to the federal court in Orange County,
California, where PIC's principal office is located.

The Prolong defendants each filed and served motions to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The motion has been granted in part and denied in part.

There has been no ruling to date on the plaintiffs' request to certify
the class as a class action.

Prolong International Corporation is engaged in the manufacture, sale
and worldwide distribution lubricants and appearance products.


PROLONG INTERNATIONAL: Faces Multiple Suits Due To Unproven Ad Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Prolong International Company is currently holding ".meaningful
settlement discussions" regarding four class action suits filed in
various courts.

The suits arose from a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation
related to inadequate substantiation of certain advertising claims for
Prolong Engine Treatment.

Without admitting to any of the allegations, the Company made a consent
order to the FTC agreed that it would not make advertising claims
without having adequate scientific substantiation for such claims.

The first suit was filed November 19, 1999 in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Illinois.

The suit has been dismissed and plaintiffs have filed an amended
complaint.

The amended complaint alleges violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
Act, and the Magnuson Moss Consumer and Products Warranty Act.

Another case was filed January 5, 2000 in Los Angeles County Superior
Court, alleging false advertising, unfair competition, violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, fraud, deceit, negligent
misrepresentation and for equitable relief.

A third suit, filed in County Court at Law No. 4, Nueces County, Texas,
alleges breach of contract, breach of express warranty and violations
of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The last suit was filed in the Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, 275th
Judicial District, and charged the Company with breach of contract
and breach of express and implied warranty.

The Company filed a special appearance and motion to dismiss in order
to stay this matter based upon the prior filed cases.

The Company has denied the allegations and will vigorously defend the
allegations.


RACING CHAMPIONS:Sued By Stockholders For Securities Violations in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Racing Champions Corporation faces a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
for federal securities laws violations.

The lawsuit was filed by, and on behalf of, purchasers of the common
stock of the Company between February 1, 1999 and June 23, 1999.

The complaint alleges the Company violated certain federal securities
laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
between February 1, 1999 and June 23, 1999, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the Company's common stock.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims on October 16,
2000, which the court denied.

The Company then filed an answer and affirmative defenses on December
18, 2000.

On December 20, 2000, the court entered an order for conditional class
certification.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the action, although
no assurances can be given as to the outcome of this matter.

The company makes die-cast replicas of cars and trucks, William Britain
military figurines, figures based on comic book characters, and model
kits.

Products are sold to mass merchandisers and hobby shops, at trackside,
and through direct mail and the Internet.


T NETIX: Faces Multiple Suits Over Collect Calls Made By Inmates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Telephone service provider T Netix, Inc. and its subsidiary Gateway
faces three class action suits in various states in connection with the
provision of "collect only" inmate telecommunications services.

Two of the cases have been dismissed, while trial proceedings in the
other have been stayed.

Last year, Gateway won a dismissal of a case brought in the First
Judicial District Court of the State of New Mexico.

The case named as defendants, the State of New Mexico, several
political subdivisions of the State of New Mexico, and several
inmate telecommunications service providers, including Gateway.

The complaint was filed on behalf of all persons who had been billed
for and paid for telephone calls initiated by an inmate confined in a
jail, detention center or other New Mexico correctional facility.

The complaint alleged violations of New Mexico Unfair Practices Act,
the New Mexico Antitrust Act and the New Mexico Constitution.

The case further alleged unjust enrichment, constructive trust,
economic compulsion, constructive fraud and illegality of contracts.

The case was never certified as a class action, and was subsequently
dismissed.

The case is currently in the appellate briefing phase.

A similar case was filed in Kentucky Federal Court that named as
defendants several states, political subdivisions of states and inmate
services telecommunications providers.

The case alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Robinson-
Patman Act and the U.S. Constitution.

The district court dismissed the case, saying:

     (1) that Kentucky did not have personal jurisdiction over
         defendants not located in or doing business in the state of
         Kentucky;

     (2) that telephone calls are not goods or commodities and thus are
         not subject to the antitrust provisions of the Robinson-Patman
         Act;

     (3) that Plaintiffs did not state a claim for relief under the
         Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and

     (4) that Plaintiffs had not shown any harm in support of its
         antitrust claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.


The case is currently subject to appeal and cross appeal in the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals.

Another similar case was brought in the Superior Court of Washington
for King County, alleging violations of the Washington Consumer
Protectn Act.

The case named several inmate telecommunications service providers as
defendants, including the Company.

The trial court dismissed all claims with prejudice against all
defendants except T-NETIX and AT&T.

These claims have been referred to the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission while the trial court proceeding is in
abeyance.


TALK AMERICA: Settles Securities Suit in Pennsylvania District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Talk America, Inc. entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs
in the securities class action suit filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The court preliminarily approved the settlement last July 26, 2001.

On June 16, 1998, a purported shareholder class action was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers alleging violation of
the securities laws.

The suit was filed in connection with certain disclosures made by the
Company in its public filings and seeking unspecified damages.

Thereafter, other plaintiffs filed additional lawsuits making
substantially the same allegations in the same court.

A motion to dismiss was granted as to certain officers of the Company
and denied as to the Company and there are currently no officers of the
Company who are a party to these actions.

The Company believes that this matter will be settled according to the
terms of the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, with the
settlement amount paid by the Company's insurance carrier.

Talk America provides local and long distance telephone service across
America through internet marketing.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES: Consumer Suit For Fraud Filed in LA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit was filed in Louisiana District Court against four
cellular phone service providers, accusing them of cheating their
subscribers by rounding up airtime.

The lawsuit alleges Cingular Wireless, Centennial Wireless, Sprint
Communications and SunCom all charge for a full minute, even if a call
lasts for a few seconds.

The lawsuit asserted that the practice of rounding up results in
millions of dollars in overcharges by defendants, all at the expense of
the unwary consumer.

Plaintiff attorney Ted Haik said everyone who has a cell phone will be
included in the case if the judge approves the class-action
designation.

Haik of New Iberia said the plaintiffs have 90 days to demonstrate to
state District Judge Paul deMahy that they should be considered a
class, or a group of similarly situated plaintiffs who want to proceed
as a single group instead of individually pursuing their claims.

Rounding calls to the next highest minute is the industry standard,
said Laura Hughes, Centennial vice president of domestic marketing.

"That's how we bill," she said. "It's clearly stated in the contract."

"That's how we track our billing, by the minute," she said.

An order has been signed by the judge to preserve the companies'
billing records, Haik said.


TENNESSEE: Budget Cuts In Elderly Care Program Could Spawn Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Tennessee may face a class action suit if it decides to
slash an elderly care program serving about 250 infirmed and indigent
people.

The Long Term Care Planning Council appears unwilling to carve out
$862,000 in new state dollars for Chattanooga's Program of All-
Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE), which provides home- and
community-based care for the elderly and infirmed.

Dan Gray, vice president of elderly services with Alexian Brothers,
which runs the Program of All-inclusive Care for the Elderly, said
that the move could affect 100 ".frail, elderly adults who would be
dropped from the program."

This would constitute violations of the federal Olmstead decision,
which requires that enrollees be placed in a least restrictive
environment.

PACE now can serve about 250 infirmed, indigent and elderly people as a
cost-effective alternative to nursing homes.

The $862,000 in new state dollars would have brought in $2.5 million in
matching federal funds to serve another 91 people.

However, Finance Commissioner Warren Neel, a member of the council,
said the council's actions were consistent with what most advocates for
home- and community-based care want.

"The majority of the advocates for long-term care want to hold the $10
million for the waiver and allocate that across the state to various
programs," he said. "PACE wants to carve theirs out, and say, 'Go with
the waiver, but we want ours now.'

This summer, Tennessee lawmakers cut $490 million in new state
spending, including $11 million for a statewide home- and community-
based services Medicaid waiver and $920,000 to expand PACE. The waiver
request was replaced with an appropriation of $10 million to the Bureau
of TennCare to be used for home- and community-based services.

PACE receives about $2 million in state dollars, which brings down
about $3.5 million in matching federal dollars, according to the Bureau
of TennCare.


TEXT MESSAGING: Subscribers Ask Telecoms Commission To Stop Text Cuts
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellular phone users slapped major Philippine cellular phone companies
with another class action suit to stop the companies from reducing
monthly text message allocations in their cellular services.

The suit was filed on behalf of over ten million Filipinos who churn
out more than one hundred twenty million text messages on their
cellphones each day, making the country "the world's text messaging
capital."

The top players in the industry - Globe Telecom and Smart
Communications, Inc. - made over P4 billion (US$86 M) in profits for
the first half of the year.

Globe's partners include Singapore Telecom Int'l and Deutsche Telekoms
of Germany, while Smart is a subsidiary of the Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company (PLDT).

Indonesian corporate giant First Pacific has a majority stake in PLDT
through its local subsidiary, Metro Pacific Corporation.

The suit was lodged with the National Telecommunications Commission
(NTC) and names as defendants Globe Telecom, its subsidiary, Isla
Communications Company, Inc., Smart Communications, Inc. and its
subsidiary, Pilipino Telephone Corporation.

The suit charged the defendants with breach of warranty, manifest
conspiracy or collusion to form a cartel and unfair trade practices.

Specifically, the defendants committed "breach of warranty" because
they continuously induced consumers to buy their products under the
guise of granting free messages, which they now plan to drastically
cut.

Last August 30, a consumer watchdog group filed a class action suit
with the Quezon City Regional Trial Court seeking to stop the message
allocation cuts, and won a 20-day temporary restraining order.

However, the Court lifted the TRO 15 days later, saying that it had no
jurisdiction over the matter and that complaints should be filed with
the NTC.

To see a copy of the petition, access the Website:
http://researcharchives.com/bin/search?query=globe+telecom


TIVO INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Tivo, Inc. [NASDAQ: TIVO]
between September 29, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit named as defendants Tivo, certain of its officers and
directors, and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Tivo common stock pursuant to the September
29, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated Tivo 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 Tivo stock rocketed upward
was intended to drive Tivo'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, Gregory M. Nespole,
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 our Website: www.whafh.com


TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Transmeta Corporation
(NASDAQ: TMTA) securities between November 7, 2000 and June 20, 2001,
including those who acquired their shares in connection with
Transmeta's initial public offering on November 7, 2000.

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

Named as defendants in the complaint are Transmeta and these executive
officers of Transmeta:

     (1) Mark K. Allen,

     (2) Douglas A. Laird,

     (3) James N. Chapman,

     (4) Murray A. Goldman,

     (5) Merle A. McClendon,

     (6) R. Hugh Barnes,

     (7) Larry R. Carter,

     (8) Paul M. McNulty,

     (9) William P. Tai and

    (10) T. Peter Thomas.

The complaint charges defendants 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 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Transmeta sold 14,950,000 shares of common stock at $21.00 per share in
the IPO for net proceeds of $289 million.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business and its principal product, the
Crusoe line of microprocessors in the prospectus issued in connection
with the IPO and throughout the mentioned period.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants falsely touted the
Crusoe microprocessors as revolutionary processors that delivered
longer battery life for mobile Internet computers, thereby
misrepresenting Transmeta's prospects and earnings potential.

As a result of the dissemination of these false and misleading
statements, Transmeta's stock price was artificially inflated to as
high as $50-7/8 per share.

In May 2001, after the lock up period expired, certain Transmeta
insiders took advantage of this run-up in the Company's stock price to
dump more than $10.5 million worth of Transmeta stock on unsuspecting
investors.

On June 20, 2001, Transmeta announced that its second quarter 2000
results would be approximately 45% lower than what defendants had
previously represented.

Moreover, defendants disclosed that Transmeta would take a multi-
million dollar charge for defective and/or outdated inventory. In
response to these disclosure, the Company's stock price collapsed to as
low as $5.12 per share before closing at $5.39 per share, well below
its Class Period high of $50-7/8.

For more 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: TMTA@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bernlieb.com


                              *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, 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  * * *