CAR_Public/011001.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, October 1, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 191

                           Headlines


ANN TAYLOR: Discovery Commences In Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CHRONIMED INC.: Mark McNair Commences Securities Suit In MN Court
COMPAQ COMPUTERS: October Hearing Set For Final Settlement Approval   
CONTINENTAL CARBON: Denies Alabama Plant Carbon-Black Powder Source
DRKOOP.COM: Bernstein Liebhard Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit       

ECI TELECOM: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA
ELOQUENT INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates S.D. NY Securities Suit
EXODUS COMMUNICATIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit In NY
FAIRMARKET INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY

HEALTHEON/ WEBMD: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges S.D. NY Securities Suit
MARYLAND: Court Rules State Did Not Violate Constitutional Rights, ADA
MEDIAPLEX INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit
METROMEDIA FIBER: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
METROMEDIA FIBER: Kirby McInerney Initiates Securities Suit in S.D.NY

NEULEVEL INC.: LA Court Declines To Stop ".Biz" Domain Names Roll-Out
ONYX SOFTWARE: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in W.D. WA
OTG SOFTWARE: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PALM INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PRIMEDIA INC.: Rosenfeld Meyer Commences RICO Suit in Los Angeles CA

PSI TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. NY
STRATOS LIGHTWAVE: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in NY
TERRORIST ATTACK: Peterson Consulting to Handle WTC-Related Claims


                            *********


ANN TAYLOR: Discovery Commences In Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is finally proceeding in the securities class action suit
filed against clothing retailer Ann Taylor Stores Corporation, after
parties in the suit swapped motions regarding its dismissal.

The suit was originally filed on August 26,1996 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit named as
defendants, the Company, its wholly owned subsidiary AnnTaylor, Inc.,
certain former officers and directors of the Company and AnnTaylor,
Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co. and certain affiliates of Merril Lynch & Co.

The complaint alleged causes of action under Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, asserting
that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the
Company and Ann Taylor during the period commencing February 3, 1994
through May 4, 1995.

The District Court dismissed the suit and a subsequently filed amended
complaint. The Plaintiffs then appealed the decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In June 2000, the Appellate Court vacated the dismissal of the amended
complaint, and remanded the case to the District Court with
instructions to allow plaintiffs to replead their complaint.
The Appellate Court also ordered the District Court to reconsider
whether plaintiffs' allegations are pled with sufficient particularity
to satisfy the pleading standards of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995.

In response, the Company, AnnTaylor, Inc. and their former directors
and officers filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court seeking review and reversal of the decision of the
Court of Appeals. However, the United States Supreme Court denied the
petition in November 2000.

Meanwhile, defendants Merrill Lynch & Co. and its affiliates entered
into a $3 million partial settlement with the plaintiffs, which was
subsequently approved by the District Court. This resulted to the
dismissal of the claims against Merrill Lynch and its affiliates and
the plaintiffs elected not to replead their complaint with regard to
the settling defendants.

Accordingly, the Company, Ann Taylor and their former directors and
officers again moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that it
fails to plead fraud with sufficient particularity under the standard
set forth by the Court of Appeals in its June 21, 2000 decision.
On July 18, 2001, the District Court denied the above motion.  
The Company believes the amended complaint is without merit.


CHRONIMED INC.: Mark McNair Commences Securities Suit In MN Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Mark McNair filed a complaint alleging violations of
federal securities laws by Chronimed, Inc. (Nasdaq: CHMD) on behalf of
purchasers of CHMD between October 27, 1999 and June 13, 2001.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota against the Company and:

     (1) former Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
         Maurice R. Taylor,

     (2) current Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
         Henry F. Blissenbach,

     (3) current Vice President Gregory H. Keane

The suit alleges violations of Sections 20(a) and 10b(5) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company made false and
misleading financial statements during the Class Period, consistently
disclosing favorable quarterly results, including several quarters of
record revenues.

However, on June 14, 2001, The Company announced that it intended to
adjust its results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2000 and for the
three subsequent quarters because it had overstated its overall
revenue, earnings, and accounts. The Company indicated that its
computer accounting system at its StatScript retail pharmacy chain
allowed certain prescriptions to be recorded as revenue more than once.
Nasdaq quickly halted all trading in Chronimed stock following its
announcement. When trading resumed 8 days later, the value of
Chronimed's stock had dropped by 49% to $4.75 a share.

For more information, contact the Law Office of Mark McNair by Mail:
1819 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W. Suite 550 Washington, DC 2006 by Phone:
(877) 511-4717 by Fax: (202)872-4718 or visit the Website:
www.justice4investors.com


COMPAQ COMPUTERS: October Hearing Set For Final Settlement Approval   
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas District Court has set an October 15, 2001 date for the final
approval hearing on the settlement entered by Compaq Computers with
plaintiffs in the consumer class actions pending in California,
Illinois, North Carolina, Texas and Washington.

The suits commenced in 1999, alleging that certain models of Compaq
Presario computers exhibit various defects, including modems that did
not connect at their maximum speeds, freezes in the "sleep mode,"
Quantum "Big Foot"-type hard drives (in some models) that were
inoperable, and Phone Center software (in some models) that did not
work. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result, class members overpaid for
certain Presarios and/or purchased upgrade or replacement parts they
should not have if the computers functioned as represented.

In April 2000, Compaq entered into a settlement of the class actions
pending in California, Illinois, North Carolina, Texas and Washington.
On July 16, 2000, the Court preliminarily ruled that the litigation may
proceed, for purposes of settlement only, on behalf persons who are
current residents of the States of California, Illinois, North
Carolina, Texas or Washington.

Under the settlement:

     (i) cash of up to $360 or rebates of up to $540 will be given to
purchasers of Presarios who, within the first 24 months after
purchasing the computer, paid to replace the modem or Bigfoot hard disk
drive

    (ii) cash of up to $360 or rebates of up to $540 will be given to
purchasers of Presarios who, within 12 months after purchasing the
computer, purchased replacement telephony software, a telephone
answering machine or stand-alone fax machine, because of perceived
defects in the telephony software, modem or Bigfoot hard disk drive.

   (iii) rebates of up to $110, $70 or $50 will be provided (depending
on the model) to all purchasers of Presarios who, within two years
after the settlement is finally approved, purchase new Compaq computer
products.

    (iv) the Company will provide class members with a disk that will
automatically install software updates relating to the telephony
software, modem and Bigfoot hard drive.

The Company has also agreed to pay approximately $3.9 million as
reimbursement for lawyers' fees and expenses.

For more information, contact lead counsel Hagens Berman, LLP by Phone:  
(206) 623-7292 or (888) 381-2889 (toll-free) or by E-mail: Karl@Hagens-
Berman.com.  Settlement information can also be viewed at the Website:
http://members.aol.com/CClass450/


CONTINENTAL CARBON: Denies Alabama Plant Carbon-Black Powder Source
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Carbon Co. has denied the allegations in an environmental
class action suit filed against them by Phenix City, Alabama business
owners and residents. Phenix City business owner John Tharpe filed the
suit in August after federal environmental investigators concluded that
carbon-black powder had fallen on his Action Marine boat Drive
dealership in May. He contends the substance has damaged his boats and
equipment for decades, forcing him to sell his stock at a discount.

Other south Columbus residents and business owners also have complained
for years about a black powder that has fallen on their roofs and
outdoor furniture and equipment. When moistened, the powder seeps into
porous surfaces and is nearly impossible to remove.

The suit named as defendants:

     (1) Continental Carbon Co., based in Houston;

     (2) Barry Nicks, Phenix City plant manager;

     (3) Todd Miller, company director of safety, health and
         environmental affairs;

     (4) corporate owner China Synthetic Rubber Corp. and

     (5) corporate owner Taiwan Cement Corp.

The suit accuses the defendants of negligence, wanton misconduct,
breach of duty to warn, fraud, misinterpretation and deceit.

Attorneys for Continental Carbon Co. said say the company's Phenix City
plant is not the source of the carbon-black powder.

The attorneys also argue:

     (i) The Phenix City plant doesn't release enough carbon black into
         the atmosphere to cause property damage or health concerns.

    (ii) The case should not be given class-action status.

   (iii) The U.S. District Court lacks jurisdiction over one or more of
         the suit's claims.

     (iv) The plaintiffs have not established legal or constitutional
         grounds to claim punitive damages.

The Phenix City Continental Carbon plant produces 200 million pounds of
carbon black annually as filler for tires and other rubber products.
The plant suffered a spill in 1981 and paid south Columbus residents
and business owners to have the black powder removed. Company officials
have said no such spill has occurred since then and have said that
autos and other factories could be responsible for the latest
complaints.

The Alabama Department of Environmental Management says the Phenix City
plant has never violated federal air standards and recently removed
itself from a joint agency investigation after finding the plant within
its operating standards.


DRKOOP.COM: Bernstein Liebhard Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit       
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired DrKoop.com, Inc.
(NASDAQ: KOOP) securities between June 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 DrKoop.com and:

     (1) Everett Koop, M.D.,

     (2) John F. Zaccaro,

     (3) Donald W. Hackett,

     (4) Susan M. Georgen-Saad,

     (5) Jeffrey C. Ballowe,

     (6) Mardian I. Blair,

     (7) G. Carl Everett, Jr.,

     (8) Richard D. Helppie, Jr.,

     (9) Nancy L. Snyderman,

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

    (11) Hambrecht & Quist 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 DrKoop.com's initial
public offering of 9,375,000 shares of common stock at $9.00 per share
that was completed on or about June 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
         DrKoop.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 DrKoop.com shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices.

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


ECI TELECOM: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP initiated a Class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia on behalf of shareholders who purchased the securities of ECI
Telecom Ltd. (Nasdaq:ECIL) during the period between May 2, 2000
through February 14, 2001, inclusive.

The Complaint charges ECI and three of its top officials with issuing
materially false and misleading information about the Company's
financial condition and prospects. In particular, it is alleged that
defendants reported materially inflated financial results for the
Company's three quarters of fiscal 2000 and provided materially
misleading guidance concerning its results for the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2000. Thereafter, defendants belatedly admitted that the Company
had to restate its financial results for the first three quarters of
fiscal 2000.

Indeed, on February 14, 2001, the Company acknowledged that the
restatement of its financials would require the moving of $38 million
from 1999 to 2000, and $61 million from 2000 to 2001. Furthermore, on
February 14, 2001 the Company also disclosed that losses for the fourth
quarter would be significantly higher than its recent disclosure.
Thereafter on February 15, 2001, ECI common stock closed at $11.38, a
71% decline from its Class Period high of $39.73 on July 17, 2000.

For more information, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 888-476-6529
(or (888) 4-POMLAW), toll free by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com by e-mail
or visit the firm's Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com.  Those who inquire
by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone
number.


ELOQUENT INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates S.D. NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Eloquent, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ELOQ) securities between February 17, 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 Eloquent and:

     (1) Abraham Kleinfeld,

     (2) R. John Curson,

     (3) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc.,

     (4) Banc of America Securities LLC, and

     (5) 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 Eloquent's initial public
offering of 4.5 million shares of common stock at $16.00 per share that
was completed on or about February 17, 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
         Eloquent 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 Eloquent shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices.

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


EXODUS COMMUNICATIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit In NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Exodus Corporation
(NASDAQ: EXDS) securities between March 30, 2001 and June 20, 2001.
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

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

     (1) Ellen M. Hancock,

     (2) R. Marshall Case,

     (3) Dick Stoltz,

     (4) Herbert A. Dollahite and

     (5) Adam W. Wegner.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of sections 10(b) and
20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading
statements and press releases concerning the Company's financial
condition and prospects. Moreover, the Company failed to disclose
material information necessary to make its prior statements not
misleading. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made a series of positive statements about the Company's
prospects and failed to disclose that Exodus' growth rate was rapidly
declining. As a result, the price of Exodus stock was artificially
inflated throughout the Class Period.

On June 20, 2001, Exodus revealed that, its revenue would be
significantly below expectations (and actually declined sequentially)
due to a decrease in the rate of new customer installations, an
increase in the rate of cancellations, reduction of orders from
existing customers and an increase in reserves related to Internet
company failures. This disclosure was contrary to defendants' prior
statements regarding the Company's results for the second quarter 2001
and for the 2001 fiscal year.

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. Defendants and certain Company
insiders took advantage of Exodus' inflated stock price to sell more
than $4.1 million of their own stock to unsuspecting investors.

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


FAIRMARKET INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP filed a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired FairMarket , Inc. (NASDAQ:
FAIM) securities between March 14, 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 FairMarket and:

     (1) Scott T. Randall,

     (2) John Belchers,

     (3) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc.,

     (4) Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., and

     (5) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, 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 FairMarket's initial
public offering of 5 million shares of common stock at $17.00 per share
that was completed on or about March 14, 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
         FairMarket 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 FairMarket shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices.

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


GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP lodged a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired GRIC Communications, Inc.
(NASDAQ: GRIC) securities between December 15, 1999 and December 6,
2000. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Named as defendants in the complaint are the Company and:

     (1) Dr. Hong Chen,

     (2) Joseph M. Zaelit,

     (3) Kim S. Silverman,

     (4) Roger L. Pierce,

     (5) CIBC World Markets Corp.,

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

     (7) Prudential Securities Incorporated

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a
Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false
and misleading information and failed to disclose material information.
The Prospectus was issued in connection with the Company's initial
public offering of 4,600,000 shares of common stock at $14.00 per share
that was completed on or about December 15, 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 GRIC
         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 GRIC 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: GRIC@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com


HEALTHEON/ WEBMD: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges S.D. NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP filed a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired the securities of WebMD
Corporation, formerly known as Healtheon Corporation, (NASDAQ: HLTH)
between February 10, 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 WebMD and:

     (1) W. Michael Long,

     (2) John L. Westerman, III,

     (3) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and

     (4) Goldman Sachs & Co.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a
Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false
and misleading information and failed to disclose material information.
The Prospectus was issued in connection with the Company's initial
public offering of 5 million shares of common stock at $8.00 per share
that was completed on or about February 10, 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 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 shares of the Company in
         the after-market at pre-determined prices.

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


MARYLAND: Court Rules State Did Not Violate Constitutional Rights, ADA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Maryland finally handed down a
decision in the seven-year old class action suit filed against the
State of Maryland.

The suit, filed in 1994, primarily alleged that the state unnecessarily
confined developmentally disabled persons in state mental hospitals,
thereby violating their constitutional rights and the Americans With
Disabilities Act.

The 12 named plaintiffs included nine people with brain injuries and
three with developmental problems unrelated to mental retardation. The
suit also represented a class of about five dozen people in state
institutions.

However, U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake ruled in favor of the
state yesterday, saying that neither the Constitution nor the sweeping
ADA required the state to treat such individuals in the community --
even when medical professionals considered that setting more
appropriate.

She said that while the plaintiffs pain and frustration was genuine and
understandable, ".the defendants' efforts to provide a stable, safe,
and caring environment also were genuine and commendable, if not always
successful."

"In the end," she wrote, "the plaintiffs have not shown sufficient
reason for the court to order the State of Maryland to do more."

Maryland officials had maintained that they had met their legal
obligations by providing care in the state psychiatric hospitals while
simultaneously expanding community-based treatment for these and other
groups of disabled residents.

Maureen Dove, chief of litigation in the attorney general's office
called the decision a "complete victory for the state."
Phil Fornaci, executive director of the Maryland Disability Law Center,
could not hide his distress last night over the case's outcome.

He said the judge had misread a fundamental aspect of the Supreme
Court's 1999 Olmstead ruling, a landmark determination that the ADA
prohibits the needless segregation of individuals with mental
disabilities.

Testimony in the suit proceeded on a stop-start schedule for four
years, with closing arguments also delayed.

Since 1999, the case had been in limbo, awaiting the judge's ruling,
making it one of the longest-running cases on the federal docket in
Baltimore.


MEDIAPLEX INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Mediaplex, Inc.
(NASDAQ: MPLX) securities between November 19, 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 Mediaplex and:

     (1) Gregory R. Raifman,

     (2) Sandra L. Abbott,

     (3) Jon L. Edwards,

     (4) Lawrence D. Lenihan,

     (5) Peter S. Sealey,

     (6) James Desorrento,

     (7) A. Brooke Seawell,

     (8) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     (9) SG Cowen Securities Corporation,

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

    (11) Fidelity Capital Markets, a division of National Financial
         Services 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 Mediaplex's initial public
offering of 6,000,000 shares of common stock at $12.00 per share that
was completed on or about November 19, 1999.

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

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

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


METROMEDIA FIBER: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of a Class of purchasers of shares of common
stock of Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc. (NASDAQ:MFNX) between January
8, 2001 and July 2, 2001, inclusive.

The Complaint names Metromedia, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Stephen A. Garofalo, and President and Chief Operating Officer Nicholas
M. Tanzi, as Defendants. The Complaint charges the Defendants with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Plaintiffs, purchasers of Metromedia stock, allege among other things
that the Defendants issued multiple statements throughout the Class
Period announcing Metromedia's receipt of a $350 million credit
facility from Citicorp USA, Inc. that would enable Metromedia to
complete the construction of an extensive fiber optic network.

These statements were allegedly materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Citicorp credit facility was contingent upon the receipt
         of additional commitments from other lenders and Metromedia
         was having difficulty obtaining such commitments given the
         distressed market for telecom companies;

     (2) the further development of the Company's fiber optic network
         would be significantly delayed without obtaining the credit
         facility which was dependent on obtaining the necessary
         additional loan commitments; and

     (3) based on the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
         Metromedia and its prospects lacked a reasonable basis at all
         times.

For more information, contact Jonathan M. Plasse and David J. Goldsmith
by Mail: 100 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017-5563 by Phone:
212/907-0700 or by E-mail: plassej@glrs.com or goldsmd@glrs.com


METROMEDIA FIBER: Kirby McInerney Initiates Securities Suit in S.D.NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP commenced 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,Inc. (NASDAQ:
MFNX) common stock between January 8, 2001 and July 2, 2001.

The Complaint alleges that defendants (Metromedia and members of its
senior management) violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b?5 promulgated thereunder.

The Company allegedly issued 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 was 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 Toll Free (888) 529-4787 or by E-Mail: mfleming@kmslaw.com


NEULEVEL INC.: LA Court Declines To Stop ".Biz" Domain Names Roll-Out
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles State Court declined to block web page sponsor
NeuLevel, Inc. from rolling out Internet addresses ending in ".biz", in
the first face-off between the Company and plaintiffs in a class action
suit against them.

Disgruntled applicants for the ".biz" domain had asked the Court to
block the first batch of  names set to go live this October 1, alleging
that the Company was running an illegal lottery by collecting money for
the chance to win a desirable name such as www.show.biz.

NeuLevel was chosen last fall by the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) to introduce the ".biz" domain, after good
names ending in ".com," ".net" and ".org" are increasingly hard to come
by. Neulevel's application process encourages hopefuls to submit
multiple applications, at an average cost of $5 each, in order to
increase their odds of winning. ``You may have to spend thousands of
dollars to get a name,'' said Derek Newman, a Seattle lawyer
representing the plaintiffs.

NeuLevel decided last week to roll out the new names in two batches --
one consisting of uncontested names for which only one application was
filed, and one made up of names for which several applications have
been filed.

The Court allowed the first, uncontested batch could go live as
planned, but the second batch would have to wait until Oct. 12, after a
second hearing is held.

Both sides claimed victory Thursday, but the decision will have no
immediate practical effect as NeuLevel did not have plans to roll out
the second batch of names until Oct. 12.

``It's all part of what we had proposed. As far as we're concerned,
we're going to resolve those names on October 1 and we're moving on
schedule to resolve the rest on October 12,'' said Jeff Neuman,
director of policy and intellectual property for NeuLevel.

The company, a Sterling, Virginia-based joint venture between Neustar
Inc. and Melbourne IT (MLB.AX), plans to award the contested names on a
randomized basis.

Aside from .biz and .info, new domains include ``.name'' for
individuals; ``.coop'' for cooperatives; ``.museum'' for museums;
``.aero'' for air transport organizations; and ``.pro'' for
professionals such as doctors, lawyers and accountants. All except .pro
are expected to be functional by the end of the year.

NeuLevel also filed a separate legal motion in a federal court in
August to ward off challenges from state laws and high-tech
heavyweights such as Amazon.com Inc. (Nasdaq:AMZN) and Sun Microsystems
Inc. (Nasdaq:SUNW) which fear trademark dilution if Neulevel gives
addresses such as www.amazon.biz and www.sun.biz to other companies.


ONYX SOFTWARE: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in W.D. WA
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of persons who purchased Onyx Software Corporation
(NASDAQ:ONXS) common stock during the period between January 30, 2001
and July 24, 2001.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges
that defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements, which had the effect of artificially inflating the price of
Onyx stock. In particular, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, Onyx made misleading statements about its business and issued
false and misleading financial results.

Moreover, as a result of the inflated price of Onyx stock, Onyx was
able to complete a secondary offering in February 2001 for 2.5 million
of its shares at $13.50 per share, raising net proceeds of $31.5
million. According to the complaint, however, on July 24, 2001, Onyx
announced that it had discovered an unauthorized side-letter agreement
that related to a licensing transaction completed in its fourth quarter
of 2000. Subsequently, on August 10, 2001, the Company acknowledged
that it needed to restate its previously reported financial results for
the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2000.

In the wake of the restatement announcement, the Company's stock price
dropped as low as $3.42 per share, down from a Class Period high of
$16.50 per share and the secondary offering price of $13.50 per share.

For more information, contact Murray T.S. Lewis or Clarence D. Williams
by Mail: 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower, Washington,
D.C. 20005 by Phone: (202) 408-4600 by Fax: (202) 408-4699 or visit the
firm's Website: www.cmht.com


OTG SOFTWARE: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP filed a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired OTG Software, Inc. (NASDAQ:
OTGS) securities between March 10, 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 OTG and:

     (1) Richard A. Kay,

     (2) F. William Caple,

     (3) Ronald W. Kaiser,

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (5) Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.,

     (6) SG Cowen Securities Corporation and

     (7) Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & 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 OTG's initial public
offering of 5 million shares of common stock at $19.00 per share that
was completed on or about March 10, 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 OTG
         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 OTG shares in the after-
         market at pre- determined prices.

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


PALM INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP filed a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Palm, Inc. (NASDAQ: PALM)
securities between March 1, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and has been assigned docket number 01-
CV-5923.

Named as defendants in the complaint are Palm and Carl Yankowski and
Judy Bruner, who are executive officers of Palm.

The complaint also names as defendants these underwriters of Palm's
initial public offering:

     (1) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,

     (2) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

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

     (4) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., and

     (5) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

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 March 1,
2000 Palm commenced an initial public offering of 23,000,000 of its
shares of common stock at an offering price of $38.00 per share.
In connection therewith, Palm filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus with the SEC.

The complaint further 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 shares
         in the Palm 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 Palm IPO to those customers in exchange
         for the customers' agreement to purchase Palm 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 or by E-mail: PALM@bernlieb.com
or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com


PRIMEDIA INC.: Rosenfeld Meyer Commences RICO Suit in Los Angeles CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosenfeld, Meyer and Susman, LLP filed a class action lawsuit against
Primedia, Inc. and its subsidiaries in the United States Central
District Court for the District of California. The suit was filed on
behalf of on August 10, 2001, charging defendants with unlawfully
depriving hundreds of employees of contractually promised benefits.

The potential class members include past and present employees of the
Company and its subsidiaries who:

     (1) were promised but never received stock options in Primedia
         and/or its subsidiaries;

     (2) and/or who were falsely promised that their subsidiary stock
         options would be converted to Primedia options;

     (3) and/or who did not receive full bonuses as promised.

The suit alleges that the Company and its subsidiaries conducted its
business enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity and
violation of section 1962(c) and 1962(d) of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act.

The suit further alleges that the defendants:

     (i) made false representations to entice employees and prospective
         employees into working for the Company and its subsidiaries
         and remaining under their employ,

    (ii) breached the agreement with employees with regard to their
         stock options and bonuses,

   (iii) recklessly disregarded that they were not going to convert
         employees' subsidiary stock options into Primedia stock
         options,

    (iv) conspired to represent to plaintiffs that they would convert
         employees' subsidiary stock options into Primedia stock
         options,

     (v) breached implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,

    (vi) failed to pay wages due in violation of California Labor Code
          Sections 200 et seq.

Named as defendants in the suit are:

     (a) Primedia, Inc.,

     (b) Gr8ride.com, Inc.,

     (c) Consumerclick Corporation,

     (d) Industryclick Corporation,

     (e) Intertec Publishing Corporation,

     (f) Haas Publishing Companies, Inc.,

     (g) Primedia Enthusiast Publication, Inc.,

     (h) Tom Rogers, Primedia Chief Executive Officer,

     (i) Charles McCurdy, Primedia President

     (j) Lawrence Rutkowski, Primedia Executive Vice President.

For more information, contact Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman, LLP by Mail:
9601 Wilshire Boulevard, Fourth Floor Beverly Hills, California 90210
by Phone: (310) 246-3235 by Fax: (310) 860-2430 by E-mail:
primediaclassaction@rmslaw.com or visit the class action website:
www.prmlitigation.com


PSI TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class
action lawsuit on September 26, 2001 on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of PSI Technologies Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:PSIT) between
March 15, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendants FleetBoston Robertson
Stephens, Inc. and Bear Stearns & Co, Inc. The complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about March 15, 2000, PSIT
commenced an initial public offering of 3,500,000 of its shares of
common stock at an offering price of $16 per share. In connection
therewith, PSIT filed a registration statement, which incorporated a
prospectus, with the SEC.

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

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

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

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail: PSITcase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: www.milberg.com


STRATOS LIGHTWAVE: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Stratos Lightwave,
Inc. (NASDAQ: STLW) securities between June 27, 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 Stratos Lightwave and:

     (1) James W. McGinley,

     (2) David A. Slack,

     (3) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     (4) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc.,

     (5) CIBC World Markets, Inc., and

     (6) Robert W. Baird & 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 Stratos Lightwave's
initial public offering of 8.75 million shares of common stock at
$21.00 per share that was completed on or about June 27, 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 Stratos
         Lightwave 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 Stratos Lightwave shares
         in the after-market at pre-determined prices.

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


TERRORIST ATTACK: Peterson Consulting to Handle WTC-Related Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Oppenheimer Funds, a substantial leaseholder at the World Trade Center,
has retained Peterson Consulting, a unit of Navigant Consulting, Inc.
(NYSE: NCI), to represent and assist in the preparation of all property
damage and business interruption claims that result from the World
Trade Center tragedy.

Peterson Consulting has assisted numerous clients over the last twenty
years in the preparation and validation of claims arising from some of
the nation's previous significant, catastrophic events, including the
1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Doug Reichert, Executive Managing Director of Peterson, said: "Our
purpose in the engagement is to bring to bear our long term
professional claims experience and expertise to enable the insurance
industry to understand, accept and process our clients' complex claims
in as short a time as possible. A key to quick recovery for those
companies directly impacted is a professional, informed and well-
substantiated claims process. Peterson has those attributes."

William M. Goodyear, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Navigant
Consulting, Inc., said: "In our announcement on September 20th, we
indicated that in the aftermath of the World Trade Center tragedy, the
Company expected several practice areas to be impacted favorably,
including its insurance and business interruption service lines. The
Oppenheimer Funds engagement confirms that expectation."

Navigant Consulting, Inc. ( http://www.navigantconsulting.com) is a  
globally-focused management consulting firm providing consulting
services to Fortune 500 companies, government agencies, law firms, and
regulated and network industries.

                              *********


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  * * *