CAR_Public/010924.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, September 24, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 186


                              Headlines

3COM INC.: Settles Securities Suits For $259 Million in California
AMERICAN BANKNOTE: Enters $14.85 Million Securities Suit Settlement
BANKRATE INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal Of Securities Suit in NY
BEHR PROCESS: Appeals Washington Court Decision Re Consumer Suit
BENEFICIAL CORPORATION: Couple Files Suit Over High Interest Loans

BUY.COM: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CLARENT CORPORATION: Gold Bennett Initiates N.D CA Securities Suit  
DIGITAS INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DIGITRAN SYSTEMS: Executes $13 Million Settlement In Securities Suit
EXODUS COMMUNICATIONS: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA

GOTO.COM: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
HANOVER DIRECT: To Appeal Class Certification in OK Consumer Suit
HBO FILM: Third Circuit Court Denies Class Certification In Film Suit
HEALTHEON WEBMD: Harvey Greenfield Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit
INAMED INC.: Faces Multiple Suits Due To Breast Implant Products

LOUISIANA PACIFIC: Faces Suit For Defective Housing Materials in CA
METROMEDIA FIBER: Kirby McInerney Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit
MICROFIELD GRAPHICS: Awaits Final Approval Of $455T Settlement
NORTEL NETWORKS: Sued By Shareholders For Securities Fraud in Canada
ONI SOFTWARE: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY

PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Class Certification Hearing Scheduled
PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Securities Suit Over Merger in CA
PORTAL SOFTWARE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PREVIEW SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
RIGHTCHOICE MANAGED: To Vigorously Oppose MO Policyholder Suits

TIBCO SOFTWARE: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
U-HAUL COMPANY: Employees Sue For Overtime Wages In Los Angeles Court
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: December Trial Date Set For Securities Suit
VERADO HOLDINGS: Colorado Court Rejects Dismissal Of Securities Suit
VIRAGE INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY


                              *********


3COM INC.: Settles Securities Suits For $259 Million in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
3Com Corporation settled two securities class action suits for $259
million. The suits were filed in the California federal and state
courts.

In December 1997, a securities class action lawsuit captioned Reiver v.
3Com Corporation, et al., was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.  

Several similar actions were consolidated into this action, which
alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934.

The consolidated suit was filed on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of 3Com common stock during the period from April 23, 1997
through November 5, 1997.  

The second securities suit was filed in October 1998, captioned Adler
v. 3Com Corporation, et al., against 3Com and certain of its officers
and directors in the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County.

The suit asserted the same class period and factual allegations as
the first.  

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 25400 and 25500 of the
California Corporations Code.

The parties agreed to stay this case to allow the first case to proceed
and the second case was settled along with the first case in October
2000.

As part of the settlement, the plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss this
action with prejudice.  


AMERICAN BANKNOTE: Enters $14.85 Million Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
American Banknote Holographics, Inc. entered into a definitive
agreement to settle claims in the securities class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Under the settlement, the insurance carrier for the Company and former
parent company American Banknote, Inc. paid $12.5 million and the
previous auditors paid $2.35 million.

The Company has issued and will distribute 1,460,000 shares of its
common stock as well as warrants to purchase 863,647 shares of the
Company's common stock, at an exercise price of $6.00 per share.

The suit named the Company, certain of its former officers and
directors, American Banknote Corporation, the four co-lead underwriters
and its previous auditors, as defendants.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws and
seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
Common Stock during the class period (July 15, 1998 through February 1,
1999).

The settlement agreement received the final approval of the Court on
December 15, 2000.

The shares will be distributed in 2001. 365,000 were distributed as of
August 8, 2001.  These shares have been included in shares outstanding
in the company's financial statements.

The warrants are exercisable for a 30-month period, which commenced on
December 11, 2000.


BANKRATE INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal Of Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the securities class action suit against Bankrate, Inc.

The suit was filed in March 2000 against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors and their underwriters on behalf of stockholders
who purchased company stock from May 13, 1999 to March 27, 2000.

The suit alleged that the Company violated federal securities laws
by misrepresenting and omitting material information concerning the
Company's financial results for the quarter ended March 31, 1999.

The suit further alleged that the Company also misrepresented
information in the Company's registration statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Company's
initial public offering.

On April 25, 2001, plaintiffs appealed the decision to dismiss the suit
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit.

They are confident that the litigation will not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.  

Damages, if any, would be substantially covered by insurance.


BEHR PROCESS: Appeals Washington Court Decision Re Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Behr Process Corporation appealed a Washington court decision to award
approximately $263,000 in damages to plaintiffs in a consumer class
action suit filed last May 1998.

The Company was charged with a civil suit filed in the Grays Harbor
County, Washington Superior Court involving four exterior wood coating
products, which represent a small part of Behr's total sales.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that after applying these
products, the wood surfaces suffered excessive mildewing in the very
humid climate of western Washington.

The trial court certified the case as a class action, including all
purchasers of the products who reside in nineteen counties in western
Washington.

In May 2000, the court entered a default against Behr as a discovery
sanction and the jury returned a verdict awarding damages to the named
plaintiffs, thereafter.

The damages awarded for the eight homeowner claims (excluding one award
to the owners of a vacation resort) ranged individually from $14,500 to
$38,000.

The awards were calculated using a formula based on the product used,
the nature and square footage of wood surface and certain other
allowances.

Under the verdict, the same formula will be used for calculating awards
on claims that may be submitted by the subject purchasers of these
products.

In July 2000, the court awarded additional damages of $10,000 per claim
to the eight homeowner claims under the Washington Consumer Protection
Act.

The court denied the plaintiffs' request for an award of additional
damages on claims that may be submitted by other class members but
granted the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees.

The Company denies the allegations.
       
Although the Company believes that the subject products have been
purchased by thousands of consumers in western Washington, consumer
complaints in the past have been relatively small compared to the total
volume of products sold.

Behr is appealing the judgment.

At this time, the Company is not in a position to estimate reliably the
number of class members, the number of claims that may be filed or the
awards that class members may seek.


BENEFICIAL CORPORATION: Couple Files Suit Over High Interest Loans
------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois-based Beneficial Corporation faces a class action suit filed
in Rochester federal court by a couple in danger of losing their house
of 24 years.

Clifton Butler and Fannie Norman filed the suit against the mortgage
lender alleging the Company encourages older, low-income and minority
people into loans they have no hope of paying back.

Butler and Norman took out three home loans in six months between
November 2000 and March 2001 on the house at 270 Clairmont St., where
they have lived since 1978.

Two of the loans had interest rates higher than 20 percent, and the
third charged more than $10,000 in insurance premiums and loans fees,
which lawyers said was exorbitant.

The lawsuit further alleges that the couple was not given the notices
required under state and federal law about the terms of the loans.

If successful, the suit filed this week in federal court in Rochester
could undo the mortgages of hundreds of homeowners across the state who
have loans with Illinois-based Beneficial Corp., the couple's lawyers
said.

"Nobody in their right mind would agree to these loans if they had the
proper disclosures," said Wade Eaton, a Rochester lawyer working with
the AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons, to represent the
couple.

A company spokeswoman said she could not respond to the lawsuit since
officials had not seen it but said the firm does not make loans that
customers obviously cannot repay.

Household specializes in sub-prime lending, a niche of the loan market
that has come under increasing scrutiny by New York lawmakers and
regulators.

Sub-prime lenders make loans to people with poor credit, usually at
above-average interest rates.

The company spokeswoman said the firm has a lower-than-average rate of
loans not being repaid.

Only 2.3 percent of its customers are more than three months behind in
payments, compared with a 6.4 percent rate for all sub-prime lenders,
Hayden said.

And less than a half-percent of its New York loans are in foreclosure,
she said.


BUY.COM: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP filed a securities class action
lawsuit was commenced on behalf all persons who acquired Buy.com, Inc.
(NASDAQ: BUYX) securities between February 7, 2000 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 Buy.com and the following:

     (1) Gregory J. Hawkins,

     (2) Mitch C. Will,

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

     (4) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,

     (5) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (6) Goldman, Sach & Co., and

     (7) 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 Buy.com's initial public
offering of 14,000,000 shares of common stock at $13.00 per share that
was completed on or about February 7, 2000.

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 Buy.com
         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 Buy.com shares in the
         aftermarket 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: BUYX@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bernlieb.com


CLARENT CORPORATION: Gold Bennett Initiates N.D. CA Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Clarent Corporation (NASDAQ:CLRN) common stock during
the period April 19, 2001 through and including September 4, 2001.

The complaint alleges that defendant Clarent and certain of its
officers and directors violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading representations regarding the Company's revenues and
earnings for the first and second quarters of fiscal year 2001, which
artificially inflated the price of Clarent stock.

Before the start of trading on September 4, 2001, Clarent issued a
press release announcing that it had commenced an investigation into
the potential overstatement of previously announced revenues.

The Company had "discovered information suggesting that the Company's
previously reported revenues for the first and second quarters of
fiscal 2001 may have been materially overstated."

Accordingly, the Company believes it will have to reduce reported
revenue for those quarters.

Clarent has placed three of its executives on "administrative leave" in
connection with the apparent accounting improprieties.

Since this news, trading in Clarent common stock has been halted.

For more information, contact Gwendolyn R. Giblin by Mail: 595 Market
Street, Suite 2300, San Francisco, California 94105 by Phone: 800-778-
1822 or 415-777-2230 by Fax: 415-777-5189 or by E-mail:
clarent@gbcsf.com.


DIGITAS INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP filed a securities class action
lawsuit was commenced on behalf all persons who acquired Digitas, Inc.
(NASDAQ: DTAS) securities between March 13, 2000 and June 26, 2001.

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

Named as defendants in the complaint are Digitas and the following:

     (1) David W. Kenny,

     (2) Kathleen L. Biro,

     (3) Michael Goss,

     (4) Michael Ward,

     (5) Michael E. Bonner,

     (6) John L. Bunce, Jr.,

     (7) Orit Gadiesh,

     (8) Philip U. Hammarskjold,

     (9) Patrick J. Healy,

    (10) Arthur Kern.

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

     (i) Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated,

    (ii) Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.,

   (iii) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,

    (iv) Banc America Securities LLC and

     (v) Bear, Stearns & Co., 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 Digitas' initial public
offering of 9,300,000 shares of common stock at $24.00 per share that
was completed on or about March 13, 2000.

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

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

     (b) 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 Digitas shares in the
         aftermarket 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: DTAS@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bernlieb.com


DIGITRAN SYSTEMS: Executes $13 Million Settlement In Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Digitran Systems, Inc. has settled a securities class action filed in  
the United States District Court for the District of Utah for $13
million.

The suit named as defendants, the Company, its subsidiary Digitran,
Inc. and former president Donald G. Gallent.

Stockholders of the company filed the suit alleging that the company
published false or misleading information about the recognition of
revenue on certain contracts and improperly capitalizing certain
simulator development costs.  

Following a trial, the Company was found to be twenty-five (25%)
percent liable to the Class Members in the lawsuit.  

In addition, Digitran, Inc., was also found liable for twenty-five
(25%) percent of the damages, and Donald G. Gallent, fifty (50%)
percent liable.  

A Judgment was rendered at that time in the amount of $13,000,000 in
total against all three defendants, without attribution of pro rata
fault.
      
The Company reached a court approved Settlement Agreement with Class
Counsel, which called for the Company to pay the sum of $600,000 within
forty-five days of the date of the preliminary district court approval
and two additional payments of $200,000 each.  

The Company has paid the payments within the due date called for in the
settlement agreement.

All other parties to the action have dismissed their claims and     
there will be no appeal by any party to the Company's knowledge at        
this time.


EXODUS COMMUNICATIONS: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C commenced a class action
lawsuit in the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of Exodus Communications, Inc (NASDAQ: EXDS), between
March 30, 2001 through June 20, 2001 inclusive.

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

The complaint further alleges that the defendants were alarmed by the
dramatic decline in Exodus' share price, which had declined from over
$28 per share in late January to $10 per share by mid-March, 2001.

The complaint alleges that defendants then formulated a plan to not
only halt the erosion of Exodus' share price, but re-inflate it as
well.

Exodus' high stock price was dependent upon the appearance of its
phenomenal growth rate.

However, by March 2001, the complaint claims that defendants were aware
that Exodus' business was falling victim both to the general economic
slowdown and the bursting of the Internet bubble.

Realizing that the public disclosure of Exodus' slowing growth rate
would cause Exodus' stock price to decline, it is alleged that
defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements designed
to keep Exodus' stock price high, while certain defendants sold over
441,667 shares of Exodus common stock for proceeds of over $4.1
million.

On June 20, 2001, the complaint alleges that Exodus revealed that,
contrary to defendants' prior statements regarding the Company's
results for the second quarter 2001 and for the 2001 fiscal year, its
revenue would be significantly below expectations due to:

     (1) a decrease in the rate of new customer installations,

     (2) an increase in the rate of cancellations,

     (3) reduction of orders from existing customers and

     (4) an increase in reserves related to Internet company failures.

This revelation shocked the market, causing Exodus' stock to plummet
over 30% to $1.59 per share the following trading day on record volume
of more than 185 million shares.

For more information, contact Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. by
Mail: 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone:  
866-561-3600 or 800-849-3120 (toll free) or 215-561-3600 or visit the
firm's Website: www.bernardmgross.com


GOTO.COM: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP filed a securities class action
lawsuit was commenced on behalf all persons who acquired GoTo.com, Inc.
(NASDAQ: GOTO) securities between June 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 GoTo.com and the following:

     (1) Jeffrey S. Brewer,

     (2) Todd Tappin,

     (3) Robert Kavner,

     (4) Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation,

     (5) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,

     (6) Thomas Weisel Partners, LLC, and

     (7) DLJ Direct, 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 GoTo.com's initial public
offering of 6,000,000 shares of common stock at $15.00 per share that
was completed on or about June 18, 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
         GoTo.com 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 GoTo.com shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

For further 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: GOTO@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bernlieb.com


HANOVER DIRECT: To Appeal Class Certification in OK Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Direct mail marketer Hanover Direct, Inc. intends to appeal the
Oklahoma State Court decision granting class certification to a
consumer suit commenced on March 3,2000.

The suit was filed in the State Court of Oklahoma (District Court in
and for Sequoyah County) and names the Company and "John Does 1 through
10" as defendants.

Edwin L. Martin filed the suit on behalf of himself and a class of
individuals who have at any time purchased a product from the Company
and paid for an "insurance charge."

The complaint sets forth claims for:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) unjust enrichment,

     (3) recovery of money paid absent consideration,

     (4) fraud,

     (5) violations of  the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

The complaint alleges that the Company charges its customers for
delivery insurance even though the Company's common carriers already
provide insurance and the insurance charge provides no benefit to the
Company's customers.

The Company's motion to dismiss is pending and discovery has commenced.

The court approved the class certification on June 23, 2001.

The Company believes it has defenses against the allegations in the
suit, but concedes it ".is too early to determine the outcome or range
of potential settlement which could have a material impact on the
Company's results of operations.


HBO FILM: Third Circuit Court Denies Class Certification In Film Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Third Circuit Judge Morton I. Greenberg refused to certify a class
action suit filed by investors in HBO Film Management, Inc., saying
that individual issues would overwhelm the case.

HBO investors filed the suit because they were allegedly misled by
false promises that that actor Michael Douglas would be producing
several movies.

"Trial of this case would involve essentially countless mini-trials to
determine what alleged misrepresentation was made to each individual
plaintiff, whether that person relied upon the statement, and the
applicability of any defenses," Third Circuit Judge Morton I. Greenberg
wrote.

Legally, the decision is significant because it departs from a line of
3rd Circuit cases that have allowed investors to proceed as a class by
arguing that their reliance on misrepresentations should be presumed.

Greenberg said the decision was not ignoring those precedents, but
instead was insisting as it always has that investors must prove that
misrepresentations were made uniformly to all investors when asking the
courts to presume reliance.

The investors in HBO's Cinema Plus couldn't meet that test, Greenberg
found, since the testimony showed that brokers sometimes didn't mention
the involvement of Michael Douglas.

Instead, Greenberg said, several brokers who sold units of Cinema Plus
said they did not use a standardized script or a uniform presentation
in selling shares of Cinema Plus and their discussions varied from
customer-to-customer depending on the questions and comments of the
investor.

The suit alleged that the brokers distributed uniform marketing
materials to their sales representatives that emphasized Michael
Douglas's participation in the production of films, but failed to
disclose that he was not under contract.

However, Michael Douglas did not produce any films for Cinema Plus,
although the limited partnership did finance and market four films.

The films were largely unsuccessful financially, however, resulting in
a loss for the partnership.

The lower court initially dismissed the suit, but the Third Circuit
revived it in 1997, finding that the facts alleged in the complaint
stated a valid claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act or RICO.

But on remand, U.S. District Judge William L. Standish refused to
certify the suit as a class action after finding that individual issues
predominated.

Now the 3rd Circuit has upheld Standish's ruling.


HEALTHEON WEBMD: Harvey Greenfield Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvey Greenfield initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who acquired common stock of Healtheon Corporation or WebMD
Corporation (NASDAQ: HLTH) between February 10, 1999 and December 6,
2000 (the "Class").

On November 15, 1999, Healtheon changed its name to Healtheon/WebMD
Corporation, and effective September 15, 2000, the Company changed its
name to WebMD Corporation.

The lawsuit names as defendants Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated and
Goldman Sachs & Co., the two lead underwriters of the initial public
offering of Healtheon common stock.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making materially false and misleading
misrepresentations and/or omissions, thereby deceiving the investing
public in order to artificially inflate and maintain the market price
of the Company's common stock.

According to the complaint, the investment banks secretly allocated IPO
shares to their preferred investors who agreed to buy more shares later
on at higher prices, creating an artificial demand for the stock, and
some investors who received IPO shares also agreed to pay inflated
commissions on the transactions with the investment banks.

Plaintiff claims that the companies and banks did not disclose these
facts to investors.

For further information, contact Harvey Greenfield by Mail: 60 East
42nd Street, Suite 2001, New York, NY 10165 by Phone: 212-949-5500, or
877-949-5500 (toll-free) by Fax: 212-949-0049 or by E-mail:
harvey.greenfield@verizon.net.


INAMED INC.: Faces Multiple Suits Due To Breast Implant Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Orthopedic and prosthetic device maker Inamed, Inc. and its
subsidiaries face three consumer class action suits filed by
unsatisfied users of their breast implant products.

The first suit, filed last June 15, 2001 on behalf of some 9,000 women
who received the Trilucent breast implant worldwide, also named Inamed
subsidiary Collagen Aesthetics, Inc., as defendant.

The case is currently on appeal after the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California dismissed it on the grounds of
forum non conveniens.

Another suit was filed in the same court, where the plaintiff has
stipulated that her claims will be governed by the outcome of the forum
non conveniens ruling in the first suit.

The Company and certain affiliates are also parties to a putative class
action brought on behalf of the approximately 165 U.S. and Canadian
women who received Trilucent breast implants.

The plaintiff, Deborah D. Vaernes, alleges that she suffered personel
injuries as a result of these implants.

Another class action was filed against the Company and its McGhan
Medical subsidiary in the Superior Court of the State of California for
Santa Barbara County.

The suit was filed on behalf of women who received the McGhan Style 468
shaped implant from approximately 1994 to the summer of 2000.

The suit alleges that McGhan Medical engaged in unfair and fraudulent
business practices by representing that the Style 468 provides a more
natural and superior appearance after implantation than round implants.

According to the plaintiffs, this was not case.

The Company has vehemently denied the accusations in the above lawsuits
and vowed to vigorously oppose them.


LOUISIANA PACIFIC: Faces Suit For Defective Housing Materials in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Pacific Corporation has been named as defendant in a putative
class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco on July 30, 2001.

Plaintiffs Mahleon R. Oyster and George Sousa filed the suit on behalf
of a purported class of individuals nationwide owning structures on
which the Company's Nature Guard Cement Shakes were installed as
roofing.  

The suit generally alleges:

     (1) product liability,

     (2) negligence,

     (3) unfair business practices,

     (4) false advertising,

     (5) breach of warranties,

     (6) fraud, and

     (7) other theories related to alleged defects, and failure of such
         cement shakes, as well as consequential damages to other
         components of the structures on which the cement shakes were
         installed.  

The Company no longer manufactures or sells cement shakes, but
established and maintains a claims program for the Nature Guard Cement
Shakes previously sold by it.  

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously as they believe
they have meritorious defense to the allegations.


METROMEDIA FIBER: Kirby McInerney Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of Metromedia Fiber Network, Incorporated
(NYSE: MFNX) common stock between January 8, 2001 and July 2, 2001.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between January 8, 2001 and July 2, 2001, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Metromedia securities.

During the Class Period, defendants announced Metromedia's receipt of a
$350 million credit facility from Citicorp USA, Inc.

However, defendants failed to disclose that the Citicorp credit
facility was contingent on the receipt of additional commitments from
other lenders, which Metromedia was experiencing difficulty in
obtaining; as a result the further development of the Company's fiber
optic network would be significantly delayed.

On July 2, 2001, Metromedia revealed for the first time that the
commitment letter from Citicorp was subject to the receipt of
commitments from other lenders.

For more information, contact Ira Press or Melissa Fleming by Mail: 830
Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York  10022, by Phone:  (212)
317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 (toll-free) or by E-Mail:
mfleming@kmslaw.com


MICROFIELD GRAPHICS: Awaits Final Approval Of $455T Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microfield Graphics, Inc. proposed a $455,000 settlement to a
securities class action filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York in January 2000.

The suit was transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon, which has preliminarily approved the settlement and
has set a fairness hearing for next week

The complaint alleged that the Company and its Chief Executive Officer
issued false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
purchase agreement with 3M.

The complaint alleges that, as a result of these allegedly material
misstatements and omissions, the Company's stock price was artificially
inflated during the period from July 23, 1998 through April 2, 1999.

The proposed settlement provides that all claims asserted in the
action be dismissed and settled, subject to final Court approval.

Under the proposed settlement, the Company and its Chief Executive
Officer deny liability and any and all wrongdoing.

The proposed settlement provides for the payment of $455,000 in full,
complete, and final settlement of any and all claims.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Sued By Shareholders For Securities Fraud in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Canadian shareholders in Nortel Networks Corp. have filed a class
action suit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia for securities
fraud, according to a National Post report.

Lead plaintiffs Janie Jeffery and Ronald Mensing also named Chief
Executive Officer John Roth in the suit, which arose over the timing of
an earnings warning that led to a collapse in the value of their Nortel
holdings.

Defendants named in the potential suit include senior executives
William Conner, then president of Nortel's eBusiness Solutions
division, and Chahram Bolouri, president of Nortel's global operations.

The claim alleges Roth disclosed Nortel's deteriorating sales position
to RBC Dominion Securities analysts during an internet conference on
February 12, and that the information was not made public until just
after the close of trading on February 15.

The allegations have not been proved in court.


ONI SOFTWARE: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull and Brody commenced a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of ONI Systems Corp. (NASDAQ:ONIS)
from between May 31, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit names the following as defendants:

     (1) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (3) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

     (4) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,

     (5) ONI Systems Corp.,

     (6) Hugh C. Martin, and

     (7) Chris A. Davis.

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

On or about May 31, 2000, ONI commenced an initial public offering of
8,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $25 per
share.

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

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

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

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

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


PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Class Certification Hearing Scheduled
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing for class certification in a suit filed against Pinnacle
Entertainment subsidiary Casino Magic, Inc. will commence early in
November this year.

The consolidated suit arose from four class action suits, the first of
which was filed in the United State District Court, Middle District of
Florida in April 26,1994.

The suit named as defendants, 41 manufacturers, distributors and casino
operators of video poker and electronic slot machines, including Casino
Magic.

The lawsuit alleged that the defendants have engaged in a course of
fraudulent and misleading conduct intended to induce people to play
such games based on false beliefs concerning the operation of the
gaming machines and the extent to which there is an opportunity to win.

The suit alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act (RICO) and claims of common law fraud, unjust
enrichment and negligent misrepresentation.

In May 1994, a second class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, Middle District of Florida naming the same
defendants in the first suit and adding as defendants the owners of
certain casino operations in Puerto Rico and the Bahamas.

The two cases were later consolidated in the United States District
Court, Middle District of Florida.

On December 9, 1994 a motion by the defendants for change of venue was
granted, transferring the case to the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada, in Las Vegas.

The Las Vegas court later dismissed the consolidated suit without
prejudice in April 17, 1996.

The plaintiffs then filed an amended Complaint on May 31, 1996.

The amended complaint was consolidated in December 1996 with two other
class action suits - one on behalf of a smaller, more defined class of
plaintiffs and one against additional defendants.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 14,
1997, which the defendants moved to dismiss.

On December 19, 1997, the court:

     (1) granted the defendants' motion to dismiss certain allegations
         in the RICO claim, but denied the motion as to the remainder
         of such claim;

     (2) granted the defendants' motion to strike certain parts of the
         consolidated amended complaint;

     (3) denied the defendants' remaining motions to dismiss and to
         stay or abstain; and

     (4) permitted the plaintiffs to substitute one of the class
         representatives.

On January 9, 1998, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended complaint containing claims nearly identical to those in the
previously dismissed complaints.

The defendants answered, denying the substantive allegations of the
second consolidated amended complaint.

On March 19, 1998, the magistrate judge granted the defendants' motion
to bifurcate discovery into "class" and "merits" phases.

"Class" discovery was completed on July 17, 1998.

"Merits" discovery is stayed until the court decides the motion for
class certification filed by the plaintiffs on March 18, 1998, which
motion the defendants opposed.

The hearing on plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification has been set
for November 9, 2001.


PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Securities Suit Over Merger in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. settled the class action suit filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, asserting claims for breach
of fiduciary duty.

The Superior Court of the State of California approved the settlement
last May 18, 2001 and consequently, dismissed the suit with prejudice.

Leta Hilliard filed the suit in March last year, alleging that the
Company and its directors breached their fiduciary duty to the
stockholders of the Company owing to their merger with Harveys, an
affiliate of Colony Capital, LLC.

The lawsuit claimed that the Company and its directors failed to
undertake an appropriate process for evaluating the Company's worth and
eliciting bids from third parties, and that the price for the stock is
inadequate.

As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay attorney's fees
and costs to the plaintiff's counsel.

As of June 30, 2001, the Company had incurred estimated costs of
approximately $2,000,000 in connection with the negotiation and
settlement of this lawsuit, including monies paid to plaintiff's
counsel for fees and costs.

The Merger Agreement has also been terminated and in view of such, the
parties to the litigation filed a stipulated dismissal of the case with
prejudice.

The dismissal also incorporated the Company's agreement to pay
attorney's fees and costs to the plaintiff's counsel as provided in the
settlement agreement at a reduced level.


PORTAL SOFTWARE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Portal Software, Inc.
(NASDAQ: PRSF) securities between May 6, 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:

     (1) Portal Software,

     (2) John E. Little,

     (3) Jack L. Acosta,

     (4) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (5) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (6) Hambrecht & Quist LLC, and

     (7) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation

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 Portal Software's initial
public offering of 4 million shares of common stock at $14.00 per share
that was completed on or about May 6, 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 Portal
         Software 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 Portal Software shares in
         the aftermarket 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: PRSF@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bernlieb.com


PREVIEW SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz lodged a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Preview Systems, Inc.
(NASDAQ: PRVW) securities between December 7, 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 Preview Systems and the
following executive officers of Preview Systems: Vincent Pluvinage and
G. Bradford Solso.

The complaint also names as defendants the following underwriters of
Preview Systems' initial public offering:

     (1) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (2) Dain Rauscher Incorporated, and

     (3) Soundview Technology Group, 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 Preview Systems's initial
public offering of 3,800,000 shares of common stock at $21.00 per share
that was completed on or about December 7, 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 Preview
         Systems 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 Preview Systems shares in
         the aftermarket 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: PRVW@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bernlieb.com


RIGHTCHOICE MANAGED: To Vigorously Oppose MO Policyholder Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
RightChoice Managed Care, Inc. is vigorously defending a suit against
its predecessors now pending in the Missouri Supreme Court.

The suit was originally filed on August of 1995 in St. Louis City
Circuit Court against Company predecessors Blue Cross and Blue Shield
of Missouri and Old RightCHOICE.

The suit was filed by two plaintiffs on behalf of two classes of
subscribers of Medicare supplement policies issued by Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Missouri.  

When filed, the plaintiffs sought to represent subscribers that fell
into two groups:

     (1) those holding standardized Medicare supplement policies and

     (2) those holding pre-standardized Medicare supplement policies.  

Both plaintiffs claimed that from July 1, 1992 through August 10, 1994
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Missouri collected premiums on
Medicare supplement policies that were in excess of the premiums
approved by the Missouri Department of Insurance.

This allegedly is in violation of the contracts between Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Missouri and its members.  

The plaintiffs also claimed that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Missouri
made fraudulent representations about these premium increases.  

The plaintiffs claimed that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Missouri
collected allegedly unauthorized premiums totaling more that $29
million.  

While Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Missouri won summary judgment in
the trial court and appellate court, the Missouri Supreme Court
reversed in part and remanded in part the case to the circuit court.

The plaintiff seeking to represent subscribers holding pre-
standardized policies was disqualified by the circuit court from
serving as a class representative due to ill health.  

She subsequently voluntarily dismissed without prejudice her claim and
the claim she had sought to make on behalf of other pre-standardized
plan subscribers.  

The pre-standardized policies represent approximately $27 million of
the approximately $29 million in allegedly unauthorized premiums.  

As a result of the dismissal by the class representative, there are now
no claims pending on behalf of holders of the pre-standardized policies
although there can be no assurance that a new claim will not be
asserted on their behalf.

On July 2, 2001, the circuit court certified the class of the
holders of standardized plans, and denied Blue Cross and Blue Shields
of Missouri's motion to dismiss.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Tibco Software, Inc.
(NASDAQ: TIBX) securities between July 13, 1999 and July 3, 2001.

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

Named as defendants in the complaint are Tibco and:

     (1) Vivek Y. Ranadive,

     (2) Paul G. Hansen,

     (3) Douglas M. Atkin,

     (4) Yogen K. Dalal,

     (5) Edward R. Kozel,

     (6) Donald J. Listwin,

     (7) Larry W. Sonsini,

     (8) John G. Gaysom,

     (9) Philip Wood,

    (10) Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc.,

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

    (12) Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown

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 Tibco's initial public
offering of 7,300,000 shares of common stock at $15.00 per share that
was completed on or about July 13, 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 Tibco
         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 Tibco shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

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: TIBX@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com.


U-HAUL COMPANY: Employees Sue For Overtime Wages In Los Angeles Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
U-Haul Company of California, Inc. faces several class action suits
filed by former employees seeking overtime compensaton.
  
Five current and/or former Moving Center General Managers (GMs) and one
(1) Area Field Manager (AFM) filed suit in Marin County Superior Court,
claiming that they were entitled to be compensated for all overtime
hours worked.  

The suit asks for class action status purporting to represent all
persons employed in California as either a salaried GM or AFM since
September 1993.  

On September 30, 1997, a virtually identical lawsuit was filed in Los
Angeles County Superior Court but this action did not include AFMs, but
did purport to be brought on behalf of GMs and GM trainees.

The Court in Los Angeles consolidated the suits in late 1998.

On June 10, 1999, plaintiff's motion to certify the AFMs as a class was
denied and the motion to certify the GMs as a class was granted.  

The case was bifurcated and the liability portion of the case was tried
to the Court beginning in November 2000, ending in a decision for the
plaintiffs on January 8, 2001.  

The damage portion of the case is currently pending.  

The Company is confident that it will prevail, but conceded that a
negative outcome could adversely affect the Company's business
operations.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: December Trial Date Set For Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in two consolidated securities class action suits against
Unumprovident Corporation will commence December 2001.

Five suits were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Maine against the Company and several of its officers in  
September and October 1999.

On January 3, 2000, the Maine district court appointed a lead class
action plaintiff and ordered plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended
complaint.

On February 23, 2000, two consolidated amended class action complaints
were filed against the same defendants.

The first amended suit asserts a variety of claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired stock in the Company or Unum
Corporation (Unum) between February 4, 1998 and February 9, 2000.

The second amended complaint asserts a variety of claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The second complaint was filed on behalf of shareholders who exchanged
the common stock of Unum or Provident Companies, Inc. for the Company's
stock pursuant to the joint proxy/registration statement issued in
connection with the merger between Unum and Provident.

The complaints allege that the defendants made false and misleading
public statements concerning:

     (1) Unum's and the Company's reserves for disability insurance and
         pricing policies,

     (2) the Company's merger costs, and

     (3) the adequacy of the due diligence reviews performed in
         connection with the merger.


On April 10, 2000, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaints, which was granted in part and denied in part by the court.

The district court granted the motion to dismiss plaintiff's
Claims:

     (i) under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,

    (ii) under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
         behalf of the former shareholders of Unum, and

   (iii) under Section 12(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of
         purchasers of the Company stock after the merger.

    (iv) claims relating to disclosures regarding the costs associated
         with Unum's exit from its reinsurance business.

However, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's
claims under Sections 11 and 12(a) (2) of the Securities Act of 1933
and the claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Company disputes the claims alleged in the complaints and plans to
vigorously contest them.


VERADO HOLDINGS: Colorado Court Rejects Dismissal Of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Colorado Federal District Court denied Verado Holdings, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss a securities class action last June 20,2001.

The Court also referred the case to a federal magistrate judge in order
to facilitate settlement discussions.

The consolidated suit arose from a shareholder class action filed last
July 7, 2000, alleging that the Company and various of its officers and
directors and underwriters violated certain federal securities laws.

The suit alleged that the defendants misstated and failed to disclose
certain financial and business information.

Ten additional complaints with similar allegations and class periods
were later filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock
allegedly traceable to its March 8, 2000 initial public offering.

The court has consolidated the individual complaints.

On November 22, 2000, the lead plaintiff group filed its Consolidated
Complaint, which emphasized that at the time of the IPO, the Company
knew that it would exit various lines of business and had certain
operational and financial issues related to certain lines of business.

They allegedly failed to disclose these alleged facts in the prospectus
relating to the initial public offering.

The defendants, and the underwriters by separate motion, each filed a
Motion to Dismiss the complaint on January 22, 2001.

The Company and the underwriter defendants filed answers to the
Consolidated Complaint in July.


VIRAGE INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull and Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Virage, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRGE) from
between June 28, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,

     (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (3) Soundview Technology Group, Inc.,

     (4) Virage, Inc.,

     (5) Paul G. Lego and

     (6) Alfred J. Castino.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Virage common stock pursuant to the June
28, 2000 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated Virage 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 Virage stock rocketed
upward was intended to drive Virage'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 further details, contact Tzivia Brody by Phone: 1-800-337-4983
(toll-free) by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com by Fax: 212/490-2022 by Mail: 6
East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017.

                              *********


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  * * *