CAR_Public/011004.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, October 4, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 194


                           Headlines

ABERCROMBIE FITCH: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in OH
ADVANCED LIGHTING: Federal Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Suit in OH
AMAZON.COM: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. WA
ASIA PULP: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in New York
ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates E.D. PA Securities Suit

BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Sued For Securities Violations in S.D. NY
CASHBACK CATALOG: Judge Likely To Approve $3.5 Million GA Settlement
CELLSTAR CORPORATION: District Court Dismisses FL Securities Suit
CRITICAL PATH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
ELOQUENT INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York

ENGAGE TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in NY
EQUINIX INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in New York
EXPEDIA INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
F5 NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
FIREPOND INC.: Marc S. Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY

LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges NY Securities Suit
LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D.NY
NETRO CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit
NETSILICON INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates S.D. NY Securities Suit
NEULEVEL INC: Los Angeles Court Halts ".Biz" Domain Names Roll-out

NISSAN MOTOR: Interest Mark-ups To Continue Despite Pending Suit
OXYCONTIN LITIGATION: Federal Judge Remands Case To County Court
PSI TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PURCHASEPRO.COM: Pomerantz Haudek Initiates Securities Suit in Nevada
RAMBUS INC.: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA

STORAGENETWORKS INC.: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in NY
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Witnesses' Testimony To Support Tests' Validity
UNDERWRITERS LITIGATION: Defendants Ask Judge Be Removed From Cases
VARI-L CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in CO
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY


                           *********


ABERCROMBIE FITCH: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in OH
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo initiated a securities
class action suit against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. charging them with
misleading investors with respect to declining sales affecting the
financial condition of the Company.

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of A&F
during the period October 8, 1999 through and including October 13,
1999.

The action charges that the Company and certain of its officers
violated the securities laws and regulations of the United States by
issuing a series of false and misleading statements concerning
declining sales trends during the Class Period.

In particular, the Complaint charges that the Company selectively
disclosed to one analyst that same-store sales were declining and below
Wall Street expectations. When other analysts spoke with senior
management at the Company, they denied the rumors of declining sales,
stating they were unsubstantiated and unfounded.

Nevertheless, on October 13, 1999, the Company disclosed to the general
investing public that sales trends were sluggish. As a result of these
revelations, Company stock collapsed, falling over $6 per share to $26
5/16. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company common stock during the
Class Period.

For more information, contact Alice Duff by Mail: One Liberty Square,
Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com
or visit the firm's Website: www.bermanesq.com.


ADVANCED LIGHTING: Federal Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Suit in OH
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio refused to
dismiss the class action suit against Advanced Lighting Technologies,
Inc. charging them with securities acts violations.

The suit arose from three class action suits filed by certain alleged
shareholders of the Company on behalf of themselves and Company
shareholders, other than the defendants and their affiliates, who
purchased stock during the period from December 30, 1997 through
September 30, 1998 or various portions thereof.

A First Amended Class Action Complaint, consolidating the three
lawsuits, was filed on September 30, 1999, and the action is now
pending before a single judge.

The named defendants in the case - styled In Re Advanced Lighting
Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:00CV836 -
are the Company and Wayne R. Hellman, its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer (CEO).

The First Amended Class Action Complaint alleges generally that certain
disclosures attributed to the Company contained misstatements and
omissions alleged to be violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The suit further asserts claims
for "fraud on the market" arising from alleged misrepresentations and
omissions with respect to the Company's financial performance and
prospects and alleged violations of generally accepted accounting
principles by, among other things, improperly recognizing revenue and
improper inventory accounting.

The Company then filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied by the
court.

The Company believes the allegations are without merit.


AMAZON.COM: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. WA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of all purchasers of Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:
AMZN) securities during the period between February 2, 2000 and March
9, 2001.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) the Company,

     (2) Jeffrey P. Bezos, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
         Officer,

     (3) Joseph Galli, Jr., former President and Chief Operating
         Officer, and

     (4) Warren C. Jenson, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice
         President.

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

According to the complaint, defendants issued a series of materially
false and misleading statements to the market which artificially
inflated the price of Company securities during the Class Period.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants touted the
Company's investments in various joint ventures called Amazon Commerce
Network partners (ACNs) and the purported high margin revenue stream
created by such ventures. Because of the Company's ongoing operating
losses, it was critical for the Company to demonstrate significant cash
flow to the market to offset such losses until the Company became
profitable.

However, Defendants failed to disclose that:

     (i) the ACN investments were losing millions of dollars;

    (ii) much of the purported revenue recorded appeared to investors
         as cash, but was actually in the form of highly speculative
         equity investments;

   (iii) the revenues recognized under the ACN agreements made
         the Company's losses appear less than they were and distorted
         the Company's reported cash flow and

    (iv) based on its true financial condition, the Company would face
         significant credit and operational issues.

Defendants' misrepresentations caused the price of Company securities
to be artificially inflated. The defendants took advantage of this run
up in Amazon's stock price to sell over $31.5 million of their own
shares on unsuspecting investors.

Additionally, the defendants were able to complete an offering of
Amazon convertible debt priced at more than $680 million in February
2000.

Additional cases have been filed on behalf of investors. On May 21,
2001, motions were made to consolidate the various actions and appoint
lead plaintiff and counsel. The Court has yet to rule on these motions.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M. Nespole,
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. All
e-mail correspondence should make reference to Amazon.


ASIA PULP: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo commenced a securities
class action suit against Asia Pulp & Paper Company, Ltd. (NYSE:PAP)
today, accusing the company of misleading investors about its business
and financial situation.

The lawsuit was filed October 2, 2001 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all investors who
bought Asia Pulp & Paper's American Depository Receipts (ADRs) between
September 8, 1998 and April 4, 2001.

The lawsuit accuses the Singapore-based company of failing to disclose
the existence of two currency-swap contracts it had signed in 1997 - or
a $220 million obligation it incurred in connection to those contracts.

The company said the contracts involved exchanges of Indonesian rupiahs
for U.S. dollars and Japanese yens for U.S. dollars.

The obligation formed part of a November 2000 settlement in which Asia
Pulp & Paper promised to pay $220 million to terminate the swap
contracts, which the company had been unable to fulfill.

Asia Pulp & Paper later defaulted on the settlement agreement. The
investing public didn't learn about the 1997 currency-swap contracts,
the related obligation or the company's default until an April 4, 2001
announcement.

Immediately following the announcement, the company's ADR price dropped
to $0.13 per ADR, down from a Class Period high of over $11 per ADR. On
July 5, 2001, the New York Stock Exchange delisted Asia Pulp & Paper.
The company's shares currently trades on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin
Board under the symbol APUUY.

For more details, contact Michael G. Lange, Steven Morris by Mail: One
Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 by E-mail:
law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bermanesq.com.


ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates E.D. PA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers of ATI Technologies, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ATYT--news) securities between January 13, 2000 and May 24,
2000.

The suit names these defendants:

     (1) ATI Technologies, Inc.,

     (2) Kwok Yuen Ho, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (3) James Chwartacky, Vice President-Finance and Administration
         and Chief Financial Officer, until his resignation on August
         1, 2000, and

     (4) James Fleck, a member of the Board of Directors.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between January 13, 2000 and May 24, 2000, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants repeatedly issued press releases highlighting
the Company's strong revenue growth and industry-high gross margins.

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

     (i) the Company was experiencing declining demand for its graphics
         chipset products and was decreasing its prices in order to
         stimulate demand;

    (ii) two of the Company's primary competitors, S3 Inc. and
         Neomagic, were flooding the market with cheaper and better
         products, which was rendering the Company's product offerings
         increasingly unattractive;

   (iii) the Company was failing to writedown a material portion of its
         inventory, which was impaired given the current conditions in
         the graphics chipset market. Accordingly, the Company's
         reported operating results were materially overstated; and

    (iv) that defendants' opinions, estimates and projections
         concerning the Company, its business and earnings were
         knowingly lacking in a reasonable basis at all times.

Finally, on May 24, 2000, defendants issued a press release, which
shocked investors by announcing the Company would report lower than
expected revenues. Defendants also disclosed that the Company's gross
margins had declined to 21% and that the Company would be writing down
$56 million worth of inventory. In response to this announcement, the
price of Company common stock declined precipitously - falling from
$16.75 per share, on May 23, 2000, to $8.4375 per share on May 25,
2000.

Additional cases were filed on behalf of investors. On September 14,
2001, Judge Dalzell ordered the various cases consolidated and approved
the selection of co-lead counsel. A consolidated amended complaint is
being currently being drafted.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M. Nespole,
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. All
e-mail correspondence should make reference to ATI Technologies.


BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Sued For Securities Violations in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottomline Technologies, Inc. faces a securities class action suit
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York for alleged federal securities act violations.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Bottomline Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: EPAY) between February 12, 1999
and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Bottomline Technologies, Inc.,

     (2) Daniel M. McGurl,

     (3) Robert A. Eberle,

     (4) Fleetboston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (5) Deutsche Banc Alex Brown, Inc.,

     (6) CIBC World Markets, and

     (7) J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

The suit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The complaint further alleges that the Company issued a prospectus that
was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose that:

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

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

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
expressed confidence that the litigation will not materially affect
their business operations and vowed to defend the action vigorously.


CASHBACK CATALOG: Judge Likely To Approve $3.5 Million GA Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge indicated Monday he will approve a $3.5 million
settlement in the class action suit against Cashback Catalog Sales, a
company that provides fast-cash loans that targeted servicemen and
women.

The class action involves 16,651 individuals who obtained short-term,
high-interest loans, also known as "pay-day loans," from Cashback
Catalog Sales, later Cash 'N Advance, between 1996 and April 13, 2000.

The suit contended the businesses, with offices in Savannah, Hinesville
and Columbus, violated usury, federal racketeering and truth-in-lending
laws through their business operations.

Savannah attorney Dana Braun, the lead lawyer in the case, told Nangle
a typical customer needing to borrow $100 would write a check for $130,  
interest included, and receive $100 in cash and gift certificates for
the additional $30. The business would then hold the check until the
next payday, then cash it. The result, was an annual interest rate of
1,000 percent. The plaintiffs contend the certificates were essentially
worthless. Braun said an estimated $9.1 million in gift certificates
were sold as part of the scheme.

U.S. District Senior Judge John Nangle said Monday he would take the
settlement offer under advisement, but likely would approve the
settlement as reasonable. "I'm quite convinced that it's fair," Nangle
said after a morning hearing.

The total settlement value is $3,539,000.  Under the settlement, the
Company will:

     (1) Pay $2.35 million in cash for division among the plaintiffs,

     (2) Forgive $1.18 million in checks returned for insufficient
         funds,

     (3) Cease offering gift certificates in Georgia in return for
         loans.

As a result of the proposed settlement, each of the 4,136 people who
have returned claims through Friday will receive an average of $369.75,
or about 42 percent of money lost in excessive interest on loans in the
scheme. Additional claims from the total of 16,651 individuals in the
class will be accepted until Oct. 10.


CELLSTAR CORPORATION: District Court Dismisses FL Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
dismissed, with prejudice, the consolidated securities class action
suit against Cellstar Corporation.

The suit arose from seven class action suits commenced in 1999 against
the Company and these Company executives:

     (1) Alan H. Goldfield,

     (2) Richard M. Gozia, and

     (3) Mark Q. Huggins.

The suits were filed on behalf of persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of the Company during the period from March 19, 1998,
to September 21, 1998. Each of these lawsuits alleged that the Company
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's results of operations and investment in Topp
Telecom, Inc. The actions allegedly constitute violations of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Court ordered the suits consolidated and pursuant to the order, the
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in late 1999.  The Court
dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. The plaintiffs then
filed a second amended and consolidated complaint making essentially
the same allegations, but the Court dismissed the second amended
complaint, this time with prejudice to refilling.

Cellstar distributes cellular phones and accessories made by Ericsson,
NEC, Nokia, QUALCOMM, and Motorola to retailers, carriers, exporters,
and dealers. Its distribution services include inventory, logistics,
and e-commerce management plans.


CRITICAL PATH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against Critical Path, Inc. (Nasdaq: CPTH) on behalf of all
those persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Critical
Path during the period between April 20, 2000 through February 1, 2001.

The suit names as defendants, the Company and:

     (1) Douglas Hickey, Chief Executive Officer and Director,

     (2) David Thatcher, President,

     (3) William Rinehart, Vice President of Worldwide Sales, and

     (4) Mark Rubash, Chief Financial Officer/Executive Vice President.

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. The Complaint alleges that the Company violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing materially false and misleading statements with regard to
Critical Path's revenue and net earnings.

The suit also alleges that the Company failed to follow Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles when preparing its financial statements,
which caused the Company's stock price to be artificially inflated
during the Class Period.

On February 2, 2001, the Company shocked the market when it announced
that its Board of Directors had formed a "Special Committee of the
Board" to conduct an investigation into the Company's revenue
recognition, since the Company had allegedly discovered a number of
transactions that put into question the Company's financial results.
The Company also announced that it had placed its President David
Thatcher and Vice President William Rinehart on administrative leave.

As a result of these announcements, the price of Critical Path's common
stock dropped to $3.50 per share in precmarket activity. Nasdaq halted
trading at a last price of $10.06.

For more information, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Mail: 100 Park Avenue,
New York, NY by Phone: 888-4-POMLAW (888-476-6529) (toll-free) by E-
mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.pomerantzlaw.com.


ELOQUENT INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf all persons who acquired Eloquent, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ELOQ) securities between February 17, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

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


ENGAGE 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 Engage Technologies,
Inc. (NASDAQ: ENGA) securities between July 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 Engage and:

     (1) Paul L. Schaut,

     (2) Stephen P. Royal,

     (3) Goldman, Sachs & Co.,

     (4) Hambrecht & Quist LLC, and

     (5) Bear Stearns & Co.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 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 Engage's initial public offering of 6,000,000 shares of common
stock at $15.00 per share that was commenced on or about July 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 Engage
         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 Engage shares in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices.

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


EQUINIX INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP lodged a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Equinix, Inc. (NASDAQ:EQIX)
securities during the period between August 10, 2000 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.

The complaint names as defendants:

     (1) Equinix, Inc.,

     (2) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (3) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,

     (4) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

     (5) Peter F. Van Camp,

     (6) Albert M. Avery, IV, and

     (7) Philip J. Koen

The suit 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 August 10,
2000, Equinix commenced an initial public offering of 20 million of its
shares of common stock at an offering price of $12.00 per share.  In
connection therewith, Equinix filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus with the SEC.

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

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

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

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau
by Mail: Client Relations Department, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR
72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll-free) by E-mail:
info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Website: www.classlawyer.com


EXPEDIA INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Expedia,
Inc. (NASDAQ: EXPE) between November 9, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendants:
  
     (1) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (2) Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated,

     (3) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., and

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

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On or about November 9, 1999, Expedia commenced an initial public
offering of 5,200,000 shares of common stock, at an offering price of
$14 per share. In connection therewith, Expedia filed a registration
statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC.

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

     (i) 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 Expedia shares issued in
         connection with the Expedia IPO; and

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

For more information, 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: expediacase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


F5 NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP commenced a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of F5 Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ:FFIV)
securities during the period between June 4, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants FleetBoston Robertson Stephens and
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. with violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On or about June 4, 1999, F5 commenced an initial public offering of 3
million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $10 per
share. In connection therewith, F5 filed a registration statement,
which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC.

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

     (i) 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 F5 shares issued in
         connection with the F5 IPO; and

    (ii) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby
         defendants agreed to allocate F5 shares to those customers in
         the F5 IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to
         purchase additional F5 shares in the aftermarket at pre-
         determined prices.

For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau by Mail: Client Relations Department, P.O. Box 25438,
Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll-free) by
E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.classlawyer.com


FIREPOND INC.: Marc S. Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Firepond, Inc. (NASDAQ: FIRE)
between February 3, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

The action is pending against defendants:

     (1) Firepond,

     (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens,

     (3) Klaus P. Besier, and

     (4) Paul K. McDermott.

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 February 3, 2000, Firepond commenced an initial public
offering of 5,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $22 per share.  In connection therewith, Firepond filed a
registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC.

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

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

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

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


LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Liberate
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: LBRT) securities between July 28, 1999
through 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 Liberate and:

     (1) Mitchell E. Kertzman,

     (2) Nancy J. Hilker,

     (3) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (4) BancBoston Robertson Stevens, Inc., and

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

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 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 Liberate's IPO of 6.25 million shares of
common stock at $16.00 per share that was completed on or about July
28, 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
         Liberate 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 Liberate shares in the
         aftermarket 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: LBRT@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com


LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D.NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf all
persons who acquired Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: LIOX)
securities between August 20, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

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
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

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


NETRO CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Netro Corporation
(NASDAQ: NTRO) between August 18, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.
The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendants Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated and FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about
August 18, 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering of
5,000,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $8 per
share. In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration
statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC.

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

     (i) 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 Company shares issued in
         connection with the IPO; and

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

For further 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: netrocase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


NETSILICON INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates S.D. NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 NETsilicon, Inc. (NASDAQ: NSIL)
securities between September 15, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.
The suit was filed against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and its underwriters.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling the Company's common stock, pursuant to the
September 15, 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 the Company's
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 alleged
requirement that customers make additional purchases at progressively
higher prices as the price of NETsilicon stock rocketed upward was
intended to drive NETsilicon'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, 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. All
e-mail correspondence should make reference to NETsilicon.


NEULEVEL INC: Los Angeles Court Halts ".Biz" Domain Names Roll-out
------------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge Anthony J. Mohr ordered NeuLevel, Inc. not to
proceed with its lottery system to assign ".biz" domain names in
instances where NeuLevel has received more than one application for a
name. The ruling results from two joined class action complaints filed
against the Company in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County - one
led by ePrize, LLC. (ePrize v. NeuLevel); and the other by Smiley
Productions and Skyscraper Productions (Smiley v. NeuLevel et al.).

The court earlier allowed the Company to proceed with the scheduled
roll-out of ".biz" domain names on October 1,2001 and allowed Neulevel
to continue the lottery assignment of ".biz" domain names in cases
where NeuLevel received only one application for a name. The roll-out
has been postponed pending the hearing on plaintiff's motions on
October 12, 2001.

NeuLevel is the accredited registrar for the ".biz" top-level generic
domain (gTLD) by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN). The dot-biz domain is restricted to commercial or
business purposes.

Robb Lippitt, COO and General Counsel for ePrize, LLC expressed
satisfaction with the ruling, saying, "I am confident that the court
will ultimately throw out the system and have the .biz names
distributed fairly and legally."

"Having helped businesses run hundreds of legal sweepstakes and
promotions, we felt we had a responsibility to the promotions community
specifically and the public in general to bring this issue to light,"  
Lippitt said.

EPrize, LLC specializes in online promotions and develops online
sweepstakes, direct-marketing programs and promotions to help corporate
clients with customer acquisition and retention.


NISSAN MOTOR: Interest Mark-ups To Continue Despite Pending Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee federal court will allow Nissan dealers to continue marking
up the interest they charge car buyers to finance cars while the class
action suit against Nissan Motor Corporation, Ltd. is still pending.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, challenges the interest mark-up practice alleging that black
borrowers pay disproportionately higher rates.

U.S. District Judge Todd Campbell rejected a call to end the practice
as it might affect future borrowers from now until the case goes to
trial. In an order issued last week, Campbell wrote that potential harm
to future borrowers wasn't enough to justify ending the markups.

Nissan, like other car companies, allows buyers to get car loans
through its own financing company. The financing company rates a
buyer's creditworthiness and calculates an interest rate, called the
buy rate. But the financing company also allows the dealer to mark up
that interest rate. The dealer and financing company then split the
markup. Four other car-makers' financing units have been sued over the
practice.

Nissan's lending unit, Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., hasn't been
accused of racial bias, but the plaintiffs argue that the mark-up
policies have a statistically disparate effect on African-American
customers. NMAC spokesmen say the company doesn't tolerate unfair
treatment of any customers, let alone racial discrimination.

The plaintiffs in this case, Betty and Robert Cason, bought a Nissan
Pathfinder in 1995. Unknown to them, their interest rate was marked up
from 16.49% to 19.49%. The increase meant they had to pay an additional
$48.90 per month, or $3,520.08 over the five-year life of the loan,
according to court documents. In court papers, Betty Cason said she
didn't know the dealer had marked up the rate or that it was
negotiable. The lawsuit is set to go to trial in April 16,2002.


OXYCONTIN LITIGATION: Federal Judge Remands Case To County Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A West Virginia District Court judge ruled that the class action suit
over pain drug Oxycontin should first be heard in the state court.
Defendants attempted to have it heard in the federal court.

U.S. District Judge Charles H. Haden remanded the case to the Putnam
County Circuit Court, saying the suit alleges no violation of federal
law that would require his court to maintain jurisdiction. The suit was
first filed in Putnam Circuit Court last May, seeking damages relating
to Oxycontin, which it calls "an addictive and unreasonably dangerous.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Purdue Pharma LP,

     (2) Abbott Laboratories,

     (3) Dr. Jimmy Adams, and

     (4) Donald L. Hoffman.

The suit alleged that the defendants encouraged widespread use of
OxyContin for off-label uses and doses by misleading plaintiffs and
withholding information about its dangers, "particularly its
addictiveness." The drug, intended for use by terminal cancer patients
and chronic pain sufferers, has been linked to at least 120 overdose
deaths nationwide.


PSI TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP commenced 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, the Company 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, the Company filed a registration
statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC.

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

     (i) 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 the Company shares issued
         in connection with the Company IPO; and

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

For more information, 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


PURCHASEPRO.COM: Pomerantz Haudek Initiates Securities Suit in Nevada
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against PurchasePro.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: PPRO) on behalf of all
those persons or entities who purchased the common stock of PurchasePro
during the period between July 19, 2000 through April 25, 2001,
inclusive. The case was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada.

The Complaint alleges that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making numerous
positive representations concerning the Company's financial and
business prospects, while knowing that they were improperly recognizing
revenue to artificially inflate the trading value of its securities.
As a result of PurchasePro's allegedly false and misleading statements,
the prices of the Company's securities were artificially inflated.

PurchasePro common stock reached a high of $44.95 per share on
September 22, 2000, and continued to trade at inflated prices
throughout the Class Period. On April 25, 2001, PurchasePro made a
surprise announcement that the Company expected first quarter results
to be below analyst consensus estimates "primarily due to the deferred
recognition of certain license revenue." Thereafter, on April 26, 2001,
PurchasePro shocked the market by reporting disappointing first quarter
2001 results, including a decline in revenue and a loss from
operations.

As a result of these disclosures, the price of PurchasePro common stock
declined over 35% on a volume in excess of 11.5 million shares traded
to close at $4.05 per share.

For more information, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Mail: 100 Park Avenue,
New York, NY by Mail: 888-476-6529 (or (888) 4-POMLAW) (toll free) by
E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.pomerantzlaw.com


RAMBUS INC.: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo is pursuing a securities
class action against Rambus, Inc. (Nasdaq: RMBS), accusing the chip
designer of deceiving investors about important patents. The lawsuit
was filed September 7, 2001 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California and is pending before Judge Maria Elena James.
It seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of
all investors who bought Rambus stock between January 18, 2000 and May
9, 2001.

The class action accuses Los Altos-based Rambus and three top
executives with making false and misleading statements about the
company's ownership of valuable patents for SDRAM computer memory
technology. The company derives the majority of its revenues by
charging royalty and license fees to chipmakers on patents it holds.

The truth about Rambus emerged after the company sued Infineon AG for
patent infringement. On March 15, 2001, the U.S. District Court judge
trying the case ruled that Rambus had too broadly construed the
parameters of its patents on SDRAM technology. In a subsequent trial, a
jury found that Rambus had secured its SDRAM patents through fraud.

Throughout the Class Period, during which Rambus' stock reached a high
of over $117 per share, Rambus falsely held itself out as the rightful
owner of valuable patents on SDRAM technology that it would vigorously
protect through litigation. It repeatedly touted its growing stream of
revenues from SDRAM patent royalties, without disclosing that such
revenues were unlikely to recur once its fraud in obtaining the patents
had been exposed. It also failed to disclose that it would be unlikely
to adequately enforce those patents given Infineon's courtroom
defenses.

For more information, contact Steven Morris, Sara Davis, Jeffrey C.
Block by Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 516-
9926 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.bermanesq.com


STORAGENETWORKS INC.: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP commenced a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of StorageNetworks, Inc. (NASDAQ:STOR)
securities during the period between June 30, 2000 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants Goldman Sachs & Co., Credit Suisse
First Boston Corporation and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. with violations
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. On or about June 30, 2000, StorageNetworks
commenced an initial public offering of 9 million of its shares of
common stock at an offering price of $15 per share.  In connection
therewith, StorageNetworks filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus with the SEC.

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

     (i) 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 StorageNetworks shares
         issued in connection with the StorageNetworks IPO; and

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

For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie
Gastineau by Mail: Client Relations Department, P.O. Box 25438, Little
Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by E-mail:
info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Website: www.classlawyer.com


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Witnesses' Testimony To Support Tests' Validity
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Witnesses in the medical monitoring class action against four tobacco
companies are expected to speak out on the validity of using a lung-
imaging test to diagnose cancer and other diseases.

The suit was filed by 250,000 healthy West Virginia smokers who want
tobacco companies to provide a medical monitoring program to detect
lung diseases.

Named in the suit are four tobacco giants, Philip Morris Cos. Inc.,
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc. and Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp., a unit of British American Tobacco Plc.

The smokers want the companies to provide spiral computerized
tomography, a three-dimensional lung-imaging test, and spirometry, a
decades-old measurement of lung function that involves breathing into a
tube.

Dr. David Burns, a California lung specialist, and Dr. Naresh Gupta, a
radiology professor at West Virginia University will take the stand
next to speak on the validity of the tests.

Lawyers for the cigarette makers say the tests are expensive and
uproven to diagnose lung cancer. Attorneys for the smokers refute this,
saying that the tests are the latest technology that can help find
tumors and prolong lives. Creating the program could cost the tobacco
industry hundreds of millions of dollars.


The case became the first class-action lawsuit to reach the trial phase
last January until Ohio County Judge Arthur Recht declared a mistrial
because plaintiff witnesses made banned references to nicotine and
addiction. Under West Virginia law, class-action cases cannot depend on
testimony that refers to issues relevant to individual smokers, such as
addiction. Trial in this lawsuit is expected to continue until the end
of November.



UNDERWRITERS LITIGATION: Defendants Ask Judge Be Removed From Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for underwriters accused of manipulating initial public
offerings in numerous securities suits have asked that the judge in
charge of the cases step down because she and members of her family own
stock in some of the IPOs named in the suits.

Jeffrey Barist, a lawyer representing Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, one of
the underwriters facing litigation, asked United States District Judge
Shira Scheindlin recuse herself from the case. He asserts that the
judge and her husband bought the shares of two technology companies
that are named in the cases and their adult son owns another company's
shares.

The Wall Street underwriters claim the judge may be partial to the
plaintiffs in the case because she is "one of the people who allegedly
was damaged by the scheme," Barist said last week, according to a court
transcript. The lawyers for the investment banks -- in court and later
during a telephone conference call -- disclosed the name of only of the
IPOs involved: Breakaway Solutions Inc., a company that went bankrupt
on Sept. 6. Breakaway's stock has been delisted from Nasdaq. They did
not mention the company whose stock is owned by the judge's adult son.

Barist, commenting on the issue of the son's stock ownership, said:
"Doug Scheindlin's financial records with Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown
indicate that he would be a member of the class with at least one issue
that is presently before the court." Among the defendants, all the
underwriters except two, Morgan Stanley and Dain Rauscher, joined the
request for the judge to step down from the case.

Judge Scheindlin said she had, on Aug. 3, "in writing renounced any
interest in participating in the class," according to a transcript of
the telephone conference call. She also pointed out she's not informed
of her son's financial ownership, as he is independent from her.
"That means he doesn't live at home, and Lord knows he doesn't," Judge
Scheindlin said. "He lives in London." The judge asked the lawyers to
submit a legal brief on the matter by Oct. 15.

Melvyn Weiss, a partner in the New York law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes and Lerach, said in a statement that the underwriters were
"simply wrong."  His firm likely will act as co-lead counsel for the
plaintiffs in the IPO litigation. The discussion of the request for the
judge's recusal may further delay the timetable of the civil lawsuits,
which has already been disrupted by the Sept. 11 attacks on the World
Trade Center, a few blocks away from where the federal courthouse and
many law firms are located.


VARI-L CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action suit
against Vari-L Company, Inc. (Nasdaq: VARLE), formerly listed as
(Nasdaq: VARL) and three of the Company's senior executives. The case
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of all those who purchased the common stock of the
Company during the period between December 17, 1997 and May 17, 2000,
inclusive.

The Complaint charges that the Company and its executives violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
allegedly issuing a series of false and misleading statements during
the Class Period concerning the Company's business, earnings growth and
financial statements. These misrepresentations allegedly resulted in
artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock. It is
further alleged that during the Class Period, Company insiders sold
significant numbers of their shares, reaping substantial profits.

On May 17, 2000, the Company revealed to the market that it would be
restating its previously reported financial results for the period
ended December 31, 1997, and potentially other periods as well.
The market reaction to the news was disastrous; the price of the
Company's common stock fell 35%.

For more information, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Mail: 100 Park Avenue,
New York, New York by Phone: 888-4-POMLAW (888-476-6529) (toll-free) by
E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
www.pomerantzlaw.com


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Wireless Facilities,
Inc. (NASDAQ: WFII) securities between November 4, 1999 and December 6,
2000. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Wireless Facilities, Inc.

     (2) Massih Tayebi,

     (3) Masood K. Tayebi,

     (4) Thomas Munro,

     (5) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, one of the lead
         underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.

The Company issued their initial offering of 4,000,000 shares of common
stock at $15.00 per share on November 4, 1999. 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 complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading
because it failed to disclose:

     (i) Credit Suisse's agreement with certain investors to provide
         them with significant amounts of restricted Wireless
         Facilities shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and
         undisclosed commissions; and

    (ii) the agreement between Credit Suisse and certain of its
         customers whereby Credit Suisse would allocate shares in the
         IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers'
         agreement to purchase Wireless Facilities 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: WFII@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com

                              *********


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

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

Copyright 2001.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-
mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written
permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.  
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *