CAR_Public/010927.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, September 27, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 189


                            Headlines

ALLIANCE PHARMACEUTICAL: MBI Acquisition Spurs Securities Suits in NY
BORDERS GROUP: Class Certification Hearing Set For March 2002
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Will Vigorously Oppose S.D. NY Securities Suit
CISCO SYSTEMS: Sued For Securities Act Violations in Various CA Courts
CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in NY

DT INDUSTRIES: Securities Suits Drag On, Discovery Not Yet Conducted
E-LOAN INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Suit in S.D. NY
LIQUID AUDIO: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
LOS ANGELES: School District Denied Control Over Special Education

MATRIXONE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit
MORGAN COUNTY: Department Of Corrections Settles Jail Overcrowding Suit
NETSILICON INC.: Company Says NY Securities Suits "Part Of Trend"
ONYX SOFTWARE: Berman De Valerio Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. WA
PALM INC.: Faces Consumer Suit Over Handheld Products in California

PEROT SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in S.D.NY
PRODIGY COMMUNICATIONS: Stockholders File Suit To Block SBC Merger
RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Files NY Securities Suit
SCIQUEST.COM: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SIMON WORLDWIDE: Consumer Suits Could Materially Affect Business
TALARIAN CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY

                             *********


ALLIANCE PHARMACEUTICAL: MBI Acquisition Spurs Securities Suits in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Pharmaceutical Corporation faces a securities class action
suit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The suit, which was filed in February 2001, related to its acquisition
of Molecular Bio-Systems, Inc (MBI).

Two former shareholders of MBI filed the suit on behalf of themselves
and others against Alliance and certain of its officers.

On March 1, 2001 and March 19, 2001, two additional similar lawsuits
were filed by other former shareholders of MBI.

The lawsuits allege that the Company's registration statement filed in
connection with the acquisition of MBI contains misrepresentations and
omissions of material facts in violation of certain Federal securities
laws.

In May 2001, the actions were consolidated.

In July 2001, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
and, in August 2001, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.

In August 2001 another purported class action alleging substantially
identical allegations was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

However, the Company understands that plaintiffs intend to dismiss this
lawsuit in light of the consolidated action in the New York court.

The Company has denied the allegations in the suits and will vigorously
oppose them.

However, the Company cannot give any assurances that it will ultimately
prevail or that the outcome will not have a material adverse effect on  
it's future operations.


BORDERS GROUP: Class Certification Hearing Set For March 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco set a
hearing for class certification on March 15,2002 for the lawsuit filed
against retailer Borders Group, Inc.

Two former Borders employees filed the suit, individually and on behalf
of all current and former employees who worked as assistant managers in
Borders stores in the state of California between April 10, 1996, and
the present.

The action alleges that the individual plaintiffs and the purported
class members worked hours for which they were entitled to receive, but
did not receive, overtime compensation under California law.

The suit further asserts that they were classified as "exempt" store
management employees but were forced to work more than 50% of their
time in non-exempt tasks.

The Amended Complaint, which names two additional plaintiffs, alleges
violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the action, including
contesting the certification of the action as a class action.

Borders Group, Inc. sells books, videos and compact discs through their
retail stores and website.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Will Vigorously Oppose S.D. NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brocade Communications intends to vigorously defend itself against the
securities class action suit filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

Several stockholders filed the suit on behalf of purchasers of common
stock between May 24, 1999 and July 17, 2001, relating to the Company's
May 24,1999 initial public offering.

The suit names as defendants, the Company, three of its officers and
directors and the following underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering:

     (1) Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.,

     (2) BT Alex Brown, Inc., and

     (3) Dain Rauscher, Inc.

The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of
1934 (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) against all defendants and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934 against the
Company and its officers.  

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants violated the
federal securities laws by issuing and selling Brocade common stock in
the May 24, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering had solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit
and will defend itself vigorously.

Brocade Communications Systems makes Fibre Channel switches and related
software for connecting corporate storage systems and servers, turning
them into storage area networks hat enable network users to share the
same storage devices.


CISCO SYSTEMS: Sued For Securities Act Violations in Various CA Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cisco Systems, Inc. faces multiple securities class action suits filed
in California state and federal courts.

The suits commenced April 20, 2001 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.

The suits were filed against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors on behalf of purchasers of the Company's publicly traded
securities between August 10, 1999 and April 16, 2001.

The suits assert causes of action under Section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The suit specifically alleges that the Company issued false and
misleading statements in relation to their securities in the stated
period.

Several shareholder derivative suits were also filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Clara starting in April 23, 2001.

At least two purported derivative suits have also been filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
and another has been filed in the Superior Court of California, County
of San Mateo.

The complaints in the various derivative actions include claims for:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) waste of corporate assets,

     (3) mismanagement,

     (4) unjust enrichment and

     (5) violations of the California Corporations Code.

The Company vehemently denies the allegations and has stated its intent
to vigorously defend against these actions.


CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Concur Technologies,
Inc. (NASDAQ: CNQR) securities between December 16, 1998 and December
6, 2000.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York located at 500 Pearl Street, New York,
New York 10004.

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

     (1) S. Steven Singh,

     (2) Sterling R. Wilson,

     (3) Michael W. Hilton,

     (4) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (5) Hambrecht & Quist LLC, and

     (6) Piper Jaffray 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 Concur's initial public
offering of 3,100,000 shares of common stock at $12.50 per share that
was completed on or about December 16, 1998.

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 Concur
         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 Concur shares in the

         after-market at pre-determined prices.

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


DT INDUSTRIES: Securities Suits Drag On, Discovery Not Yet Conducted
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DT Industries asked the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action against them and subsidiary Kalish, Inc.

Five suits were filed last year, alleging federal securities
violations.

These suits were later consolidated and an amended complaint was
filed adding another subsidiary, Sencorp Systems, Inc. and
additional officers and directors as defendants.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint asserts causes of action under
Section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit specifically alleges, among other things, that accounting
irregularities caused the Company's previously issued financial
statements to be materially false and misleading.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint also seeks damages in an unspecified
amount and purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during various periods, all of which fall
between September 29, 1997 and August 23, 2000.

Discovery has not yet commenced in the action.

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
denied all allegations of wrongdoing and stated its intent to
vigorously defend itself against the suit.


E-LOAN INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates 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 E-LOAN, Inc. (NASDAQ: EELN)
securities between June 28, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit names as defendants, E-LOAN, certain of its officers and
directors, and its underwriters.


The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling E-LOAN common stock pursuant to the June
28, 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 E-LOAN shares to customers at the IPO
price.

To receive the allocations at the IPO price, the underwriters'
brokerage customers allegedly 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 E-LOAN stock rocketed
upward was intended to drive E-LOAN's share price up to artificially
high levels.

This artificial price inflation enabled both the underwriters and their
customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the IPO price and
then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices.

For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Thomas Burt, Gustavo
Bruckner, Michael Miske or George Peters by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue,
New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com. E-
mail should refer to E-LOAN.


LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Lionbridge
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: LIOX) securities between August 20, 1999
and December 6, 2000.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York located at 500 Pearl Street, New York,
New York 10004.

Named as defendants in the complaint are Lionbridge and:

     (1) Rory J. Cowan,

     (2) Stephen J. Lifshatz,

     (3) Guy L. de Chazal,

     (4) Marcia J. Hopper,

     (5) Stephen M. Jenks,

     (6) Paul Kavanagh,

     (7) Claude P. Sheer,

     (8) Prudential Securities Incorporated,

     (9) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc., and

    (10) Adams, Harkness & Hill, 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 Lionbridge's initial
public offering of 3,500,000 shares of common stock at $10.00 per share
that was completed on or about August 20, 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
         Lionbridge 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 Lionbridge shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices.

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


LIQUID AUDIO: 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 Liquid Audio, Inc.
(NASDAQ: LQID) securities between July 8, 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 Liquid Audio and:

     (1) Gerald W. Kearby,

     (2) Gary J. Iwatani,

     (3) Philip R. Wiser,

     (4) Ann Winbald,

     (5) Silvia Kessel,

     (6) Sanford R. Climan,

     (7) Eric Robison,

     (8) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     (9) BancBoston Robertson Stephens Inc., and

    (10) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray 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 Liquid Audio's initial
public offering of 4,200,000 shares of common stock at $15.00 per share
that was completed on or about July 8, 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 Liquid
         Audio 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 Liquid Audio shares in
         the after-market 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: LQID@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bernlieb.com


LOS ANGELES: School District Denied Control Over Special Education
------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Ronald S.W. Lew recently ruled against the Los
Angeles Unified School District, denying its motions that would have
given the nation's second-largest school district greater control over
its special education programs, according to a recent Associated Press
report.

The district had requested a modification of a 1996 consent decree
intended to improve conditions for roughly 83,000 special education
students, who represent about 12% of its total student population.  

The consent decree is an outgrowth from a class-action lawsuit, managed
by American Civil Liberties Union attorneys, in which the district
admitted to violating the rights of disabled students.

The district then agreed to overhaul the special education system to
better integrate special education students into classrooms and provide
them better access to learning tools.

The district filed its motions in response to a complaint to court-
appointed administrators, filed by the ACLU on behalf of special
education students.

The complaint accused the school district of reneging on the consent
decree by failing to provide required speech and language services to
students and for using staff who were not fully trained.

The district responded with motions seeking modifications to the
consent decree:  elimination of the two court-appointed administrators
and return of power from parents' committees to district officials.  

District officials also wanted the state Department of Education to
join the lawsuit and was seeking a stay of further implementation of
the consent decree.

Speaking about Judge Lew's ruling against all these motions, Ben
Wizner, a spokesman for the ACLU of Southern California, said, "What
the judge made clear is that this consent decree is binding and the
district has to live up to its obligations."

The district said in a statement, "We believe we made it clear in our
filing that the current management structure does not work and fails to
lead us to compliance with our legal obligations."

"We hope the plaintiffs will work with us to improve the structure and
enhance the quality of special and general education for the students
in the district."

The judge's ruling means that both parties will have to work out their
differences within the framework of the consent decree, said Mark
Rosenbaum, legal director for the civil rights group.


MATRIXONE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP filed a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired MatrixOne, Inc. (NASDAQ:
MONE) securities between February 29, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York located at 500 Pearl Street, New York,
New York 10004.

Named as defendants in the complaint are MatrixOne and:

     (1) Mark F. O'Connell,

     (2) Maurice L. Castonguay,

     (3) Goldman, Sachs & Co.,

     (4) Dain Rauscher Incorporated,

     (5) Soundview Technology Group, Inc., and

     (6) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray 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 MatrixOne's initial public
offering of 5,000,000 shares of common stock at $25.00 per share that
was completed on or about February 29, 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
         MatrixOne 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 MatrixOne shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices.

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


MORGAN COUNTY: Department Of Corrections Settles Jail Overcrowding Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge U.W. Clemon approved a settlement between
lawyers for the county and representatives of Morgan County inmates who
filed a class action suit against the State Department of Corrections
(DOC) over deplorable jail conditions.

The consent decree signed by both parties compelled the county:

     (1) to improve the existing jail and build a new one by 2005,

     (2) to provide proper uniforms, sleeping areas and personal
         hygiene items for the inmates.

     (3) to provide professional health and dental care,

     (4) to allow inmates to have visitation privileges three times a
         month and outdoors recreation three times each week,

     (5) to keep the jail clean daily and thoroughly clean it once a
         month,

     (2) to establish a task force to develop alternatives such as a
         community corrections program to control the jail population.

The task force will include the sheriff, district attorney, county
attorney, a criminal defense attorney, a representative from the
probation department and two citizens.

The commission appointed Hartselle City Administrator Ferrell Vest,
Richard Borie and Brent Burney on Monday to serve on the task force.

Lawyers for the inmates will visit the jail quarterly initially and
after about a year, they will have unannounced visits twice a year.

Clemon also issued a permanent injunction against the State Department
of Corrections to keep inmates moving out of the jail to prevent
overcrowding.

The DOC is supposed to take inmates to a prison after a judge gives him
a sentence but in Morgan County and across Alabama, DOC has left its
inmates in county jails and forced counties to pay to house and guard
them.

Montgomery attorney Al Butler, who represents DOC, asked Clemon to
dismiss the state from the lawsuit because it moved its prisoners from
the jail here as well as from others across the state.

Butler said a class-action suit for all counties pending in Montgomery
will compel the state to keep state prisoners from piling up in county
jails.

Attorney George Royer, who represents Morgan County, asked Clemon not
to dismiss the state from the litigation because there's a chance
overcrowding could resurface, considering the state's reputation for
not moving its prisoners.

If the jail became overcrowded again, Royer said, it could adversely
affect the county's portion of the settlement.

Tamara Serwer, an attorney with the Southern Center for Human Rights,
who represents the inmates, echoed Royer's statement.

After hearing from all sides, Clemon rendered the favorable ruling for
the Morgan County Inmates.


NETSILICON INC.: Company Says NY Securities Suits "Part Of Trend"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Netsilicon, Inc. will vigorously oppose several securities suits filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, relating to the Company's initial public offering (IPO).

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
stated its intention, saying that unfavorable resolution in the case
could materially affect the Company's business operations.

One suit was filed by Ellis Investments, Ltd. and a second, nearly
identical complaint was filed by Michael Rasner in the same Court in
August 2001.

The suits name as defendants:

     (1) NETsilicon, Inc.,

     (2) Cornelius Peterson VIII, NETsilicon executive officer,

     (3) Daniel J. Sullivan, NETsilicon executive officer,

     (4) Osicom Technologies, Inc., the Company's sole shareholder
         prior to its initial public offering,

     (5) CIBC World Markets Corp., and

     (6) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc

The complaints in these actions are allegedly brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
September 15, 1999 to December 6, 2000.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

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

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

The Company believes that the suits are part of the current trend to
sue companies relating to the underwriting of their initial public
offerings.

Furthermore, the Company expressed confidence that it will prevail in
the suits as they believe that they have meritorious defenses to the
allegations.

NETsilicon, Inc. is a developer of microprocessors and software that
connect electronic devices through local area networks and the
Internet.


ONYX SOFTWARE: Berman De Valerio Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. WA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman De Valerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo commenced a securities
class action against Onyx Software Corporation (NASDAQ:ONXS) in federal
court, saying the company misled investors about its financial results.

The lawsuit was filed September 24, 2001 in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington.

It seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of
all investors who bought Onyx shares between January 30, 2001 and July
24, 2001, including those who participated in the company's February
2001 stock offering.

According to the complaint, Onyx filed false and misleading financial
results for the fourth quarter and year-end 2000 and used those false
numbers in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
in relation to its February 2001 stock offering.

The lawsuit maintains that the deception allowed Onyx to issue
2,500,000 shares of stock at an inflated price of $13.50 per share.

Investors learned about the misstatements and omissions on July 24,
2001, when Onyx announced that it had discovered an unauthorized side-
letter to a $500,000 licensing deal that jeopardized associated
revenues recorded in the fourth quarter of 2000.

On August 10, the company revealed more bad news, admitting to two
unauthorized side agreements and three other suspect transactions that
would wipe out a total of $2.2 million in previously recorded fourth
quarter revenue.

As a result, Onyx said it would issue a restatement for fiscal 2000 in
which its net loss for the year would double, from $2.5 million to $4.7
million.

After the news came to light, Onyx stock fell as low as $3.42 a share,
down from a Class Period high of $16.50 a share.

For more information, contact Steven Morris or Mike Lange by Mail: One
Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 or by E-mail:
law@bermanesq.com


PALM INC.: Faces Consumer Suit Over Handheld Products in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Palm, Inc. faces a consumer class action suit filed in California
Superior Court, San Francisco County relating to their popular handheld
products.   

The suit was filed on August 7, 2001 on behalf of purchasers of Palm
III, Palm IIIc, Palm V and Palm VX handhelds against Palm and 3Com
Corporation.

The suit was later amended and was served on the Company in August
2001.

The Amended Complaint alleges that certain Palm handhelds may cause
damage to PC motherboards by permitting an electrical charge, or
"floating voltage," from either the handheld or the cradle to be
introduced into the PC via the serial and/or the USB port on the PC.

Allegedly this damage is the result of a design defect in one or more
of the following: HoySync software, handheld, cradle and/or the
connection cable.

No answer has yet been filed and no trial date has been set.

In connection with the Company's separation from 3Com, the Company will
indemnify and hold 3Com harmless for any damages or losses that may
arise out of this lawsuit.


PEROT SYSTEMS: 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 Perot Systems, Inc.
(NYSE: PER) securities between February 2, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York located at 500 Pearl Street, New York,
New York 10004.

Named as defendants in the complaint are Perot Systems and:

     (1) Ross Perot,

     (2) Terry Ashwill,

     (3) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Inc.,

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

     (5) Warburg Dillon Read, LLC, and

     (6) Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.

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

The Prospectus was issued in connection with Perot Systems's initial
public offering of 6.5 million shares of common stock at $16.00 per
share that was completed on or about February 1, 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 Perot
         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 Perot Systems shares in
         the after- market at pre-determined prices.

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


PRODIGY COMMUNICATIONS: Stockholders File Suit To Block SBC Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stockholders of Prodigy Communications Corporation (NasdaqNM:PRGY) sued
the Internet service provider to block a proposed merger with SBC
Communications Inc. (NYSE:SBC)

Plaintiffs called the deal "self dealing" and filed ten class action
suits last Monday in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Shareholders alleged that SBC, through its 42 percent stake in Prodigy,
had ``clear and material conflicts of interest and is acting to better
its own interests at the expense of Prodigy's public shareholders.''

They further assert that SBC timed the proposal to ".capture for itself
Prodigy's future potential without paying an adequate or fair price to
the company's public shareholders.''

Named as defendants in the suit are Prodigy, its directors, and SBC.

SBC said on Friday, after the market closed, that in early October it
would make a tender offer of $384 million, or $5.45 for each of the
outstanding 70.5 million Prodigy shares.

SBC, which through its subsidiaries provides wireline and wireless
telecommunications, said its offer was a 54 percent premium over
Prodigy's $3.54 closing price on Friday.

On Tuesday, the stock closed at $5.49 a share.

SBC has reiterated that the offer price ".is very fair" and expects
that shareholders will recognize the value of the offer and sell their
shares to them.

SBC spokesman Selim Bingol said that the company had not yet seen the
lawsuits and therefore could not comment on them.

In addition to opposing the merger, Prodigy holders have asked the
court to rescind it if it is consummated or award the plaintiffs
unspecified damages.


RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Files NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Rhythms
NetConnections, Inc. (NASDAQ: RTHM) securities between April 6,, 1999
and July 5, 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 Rhythms NetConnections and:

     (1) Catherine M. Hapka,

     (2) Scott C. Chandler,

     (3) Kevin R. Compton,

     (4) Keith B. Geeslin,

     (5) Ken L. Harrison,

     (6) Susan Mayer,

     (7) William R. Stensrud,

     (8) John L. Walecka,

     (9) Edward J. Zander,

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

    (11) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,

    (12) Hambrecht & Quist LLC and

    (13) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC.

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 Rhythms NetConnections's
initial public offering of 9,375,000 shares of common stock at $21.00
per share that was completed on or about April 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 Rhythms
         NetConnections 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 Rhythms NetConnections
         shares in the after-market 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: RTHM@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bernlieb.com


SCIQUEST.COM: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 10, 2001, 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
SciQuest.com, Inc. [NASDAQ: SQST] securities between November 19, 1999
and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit was filed against defendants SciQuest.com, certain of its
officers and directors, and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling SciQuest.com common stock pursuant to the
November 19, 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 SciQuest.com 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 SciQuest.com stock rocketed
upward was intended to drive SciQuest.com'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 information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Thomas Burt,
Gustavo Bruckner, Michael Miske or George Peters by Mail: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com. E-
mail should refer to SciQuest.com.


SIMON WORLDWIDE: Consumer Suits Could Materially Affect Business
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marketing and promotions firm Simon Worldwide, Inc. revealed that
adverse resolution in multiple consumer class action suits against them
could greatly affect their business operations.

The Company and subsidiary Simon Marketing, Inc. faces numerous
consumer suits filed in the following courts:

     (1) the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,

     (2) the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade
         County, Florida,

     (3) the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

     (4) the Superior Court of San Diego County,

     (5) the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania,

     (6) the Circuit Court of Tennessee for the 30th Judicial District
         at Memphis,

     (7) the United States District Courts for the Northern District of
         Illinois, and

     (8) the United States District Court for the District of New
         Jersey.

The suits arose from the alleged fraudulent actions of Jerome Jacobson,
a Simon security employee, relating to games administered by the
Company for fast food giant McDonald's.

Federal agents arrested Jacobson in August for allegedly obtaining
high-value prizes in the fast food chain's promotional contests and
developed a system for cashing them in.

The complaints allege that the Company engaged in:

     (i) unfair competition,

    (ii) consumer fraud,

   (iii) false advertising,

    (iv) unfair and deceptive business practices, and

     (v) unjust enrichment.

The actions are in their earliest states and the Company expects that
they will be named as a defendant or co-defendant in additional actions
which may be filed alleging similar claims.

The Company said it will vigorously defend against the allegations of
the complaints in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Simon Worldwide, Inc. provided promotional materials for McDonald's and
cigarette company Philip Morris.

Both companies have since terminated their relationships with the Simon
Worldwide.


TALARIAN CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files 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 Talarian Corp. (NASDAQ: TALR)
securities between July 20, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit was filed against defendants Talarian, certain of its officers
and directors, and its underwriters.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated Talarian 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 Talarian stock rocketed
upward was intended to drive Talarian'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 Fred Taylor Isquith, Thomas Burt, Gustavo
Bruckner, Michael Miske or George Peters by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue,
New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com. E-
mail should refer to Talarian.





                              *********


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  * * *